[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37883959]Brrrr.
I repaired two laptops yesterday, both had no Antivirus, Win7.
You know how many viruses each had?
600.
Now do you think I'm ever going to get that on Linux? Sure, maybe it's because of windows' huge marketshare, but 600 without an antivirus is pretty dangerous.
Generally illiterate users can be led to believe that they are downloading legitimate software by those huge 'Download now!!' adverts on sites, which you aren't led to by package managers like on Ubuntu.[/QUOTE]
I run as user, except for tasks that require escelated privledges. Installing anything requires me to type in credentials. If you configure this, AV is not worth the time it takes to install. Average moron with viruses is running as administrator. You get viruses in linux too if you run everything as sudo, and run shady shit constantly.
I've also run stuff in virtual machines before, but generally don't bother with it. Then again if I needed java for something I would pull out the VM again. Fuck java.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37884070]I run as user, except for tasks that require escelated privledges. Installing anything requires me to type in credentials. If you configure this, AV is not worth the time it takes to install. Average moron with viruses is running as administrator. You get viruses in linux too if you run everything as sudo.[/QUOTE]
You don't run everything as sudo in linux, though.
Who the hell uses root as an actual user account?
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37884086]You don't run everything as sudo in linux, though.
Who the hell uses root as an actual user account?[/QUOTE]
Who the hell runs everything as admin in windows?
Morons. The point is that basic security configuration completely superscedes the neccessity of an AV. As I said, I rigourously scanned for several years, and then I just flat out gave up on it. I haven't been infected on any system I run for years, and all of my familys systems have been perfectly clean because I went over things with them and configured stuff correctly. I run an AV on their systems as an additional layer of security, but it's never been necessary beyond active protection telling a few family members that an attachment they already suspected, was in fact a virus.
Windows needs to correctly create accounts when you install it, but if you go through and do it yourself, it is extremely secure. This has been one of my main gripes with it for years now.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37884111]Who the hell runs everything as admin in windows?
Morons.[/QUOTE]
Those 'average morons' were not running as admin though.
My point is in the most popular Linux distributions using the software center is advised for most users, which [I]very rarely[/I] has any malicious software.
Also, blatantly calling them morons is a little harsh, don't you think?
-snip-
[QUOTE=Panda X;37883969]How the hell is DWM using 2GB of RAM for you? Mine's only at 53MB.[/QUOTE]
Here on Windows 8 "Desktop Window Manager" is using only 11 MB
I've heard terrible things about Win 8. Never used it though.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37883440]Optimization includes efficiently using RAM ... Not to say that windows or linux do this perfectly, because neither of them does, but unused ram is wasted ram.[/QUOTE]
Unused RAM is free RAM, it's not wasted. You just said that neither Linux nor Windows can unload crap from memory efficiently to make room for something else, which makes more sense to have RAM free so things load faster.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37883440]As long as the system efficiently releases the memory when another application requires it, and only preloads content when you are not accessing your drives, it costs literally nothing to utilize your memory.[/QUOTE]
And the problem is that neither Windows Vista or Windows 7 can do this efficiently. I still run Vista on my gaming rig, and I've had to turn SuperFetch off because it caused so much slowdown. I also installed a memory manager to keep Windows from sucking up RAM for no reason, and my machine runs noticeably faster with a much lower memory footprint.
Instead of Windows sucking up ~6 GB of RAM and causing applications to take minutes to start due to unloading things from memory, Windows only uses ~1.2 GB and applications start instantly. I run a pretty lean machine too, there aren't excessive things running in the background that use lots of RAM. A memory manager like Cleanmem also helps on machines with limited amounts of RAM that run Vista or 7 by keeping Windows from getting confused about what to unload to make room for something that the user wants to run.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;37885853]Take those "terrible things" with a pinch of salt, it a decent OS. Nothing special though.[/QUOTE]
Windows 8 is basically Windows 7 tweaked to run better with a horrible GUI that is Metro and the removal of the start button. I see no reason to upgrade to something with less functionality, even if the base system is tweaked a bit better.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;37889148]What exactly is less functional. It may be ugly as sin but it works well.[/QUOTE]
Lots of wasted space on the Metro UI, things are hidden by default, the start menu is removed and you have to perform more mouse clicks in order to access things that normally would take less time to do on a classic desktop.
Metro is doing many of the same things GNOME 3 did to remove configuration and looks so you have less control over what your machine looks like. It would make sense for a tablet PC, but reducing configurability on a desktop PC is not desirable.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37884111]Morons. The point is that basic security configuration completely superscedes the neccessity of an AV. [/QUOTE]
No, it does not. It complements it. Probably shouldn't be talking about "basic" security at all if you don't understand this.
[QUOTE=bohb;37889086]Unused RAM is free RAM, it's not wasted. You just said that neither Linux nor Windows can unload crap from memory efficiently to make room for something else, which makes more sense to have RAM free so things load faster.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Turn off the file system cache on Linux and your OS will slow down compared to it on. You don't save -anything- at all by having unused RAM. The program will be fetched from disk rather than memory which will be a magnitude slower than the time "unloading" the RAM would take.
[QUOTE=bohb;37889505]Lots of wasted space on the Metro UI, things are hidden by default, the start menu is removed and you have to perform more mouse clicks in order to access things that normally would take less time to do on a classic desktop.
Metro is doing many of the same things GNOME 3 did to remove configuration and looks so you have less control over what your machine looks like. It would make sense for a tablet PC, but reducing configurability on a desktop PC is not desirable.[/QUOTE]
Once I put start8 on my w8 build, I've never needed to use metro again, and windows 8 becomes the best OS I've used
I don't remember having to use any more or less mouse clicks on Windows 8. I could just hit the start key on my keyboard and type away and hit enter like always, or just use my desktop icons like always.
osx unix master race
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37892023]Once I put start8 on my w8 build, I've never needed to use metro again, and windows 8 becomes the best OS I've used[/QUOTE]
That's what annoys me, Windows 8 might be the first edition of Windows I want to tweak like that. Haven't installed it yet on my main machine due to that.
[QUOTE=gparent;37889900]No, it does not. It complements it. Probably shouldn't be talking about "basic" security at all if you don't understand this.
Wrong. Turn off the file system cache on Linux and your OS will slow down compared to it on. You don't save -anything- at all by having unused RAM. [B]The program will be fetched from disk rather than memory which will be a magnitude slower than the time "unloading" the RAM would take.[/B][/QUOTE]
Programs fetched from disk are slower, but since the program was never prefetched into memory in the first place, it's still going to be slow. My computer usage habits are random enough to where Windows can't decide what to prefetch that I might use later. Windows then has to deallocate RAM that was used for superfetch before it loads the programs that I want to use.
I've experimented with superfetch enough to know that having it off makes my machine perform better.
In Linux where you have a machine with smaller amounts of memory, turning off FS caching can improve performance in some instances. If you have a decent or large amount of RAM, it can cause problems though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.