Windows 7
- Thread starter Morgan C
- Start date
Not recently, and not a wipe out, but I've had to reformat a few times from Viruses - not since like '04, though...
Gustavo_Loureiro
Member
- May 27, 2006
- 331
- 0
- 16
The last time I had to reformat was when sp3 hung itself on install and killed the windows install
-Gavin-
Gavornator
I agree! Lets all use Tape! But tape isn't secure against dust!
We're gonna have to stop recording music
devouredremains
Matt Van Daele
I agree! Lets all use Tape! But tape isn't secure against dust!
We're gonna have to stop recording music
Well put. It makes me think of the extensive data backups we all do regardless of what OS we use due to horrible hard drive failure rates!
And does everyone that's so concerned about virii, worms, malware etc.. actually have an internet connection on their DAW?!
Also, far too often I read people (not in this forum per se) complaining about how much resources their anti-virus and various other security software is consuming and taking away from the recording experience. The bottom line is that computers can't be configured to do absolutely everything perfectly and efficiently. It really doesn't matter which OS you use for recording if your not using your DAW as your internet surfing computer.
Combining your workstation with the internet, regardless of what type of work you do on it or what OS you use is not a wise choice by any stretch of the imagination if your looking for stability of your machine and safety of your data.
Kazrog
Kazrog, Inc.
I've been doing exactly this since 2001 in Mac OS X without a single problem, ever. Every pro engineer I know who runs OS X on their DAW machine keeps it on high speed internet full time without problems. It's that secure, period.
devouredremains
Matt Van Daele
Because all the professionals you know do it, it's somehow a good idea?
Every pro engineer I know doesn't because they have a seperate computer for their DAW regardless of what platform they use and that's just their home studios.
I've never once in my life seen an engineer at a pro studio, sitting in the control room surfing the web on any of the facilities computers.
And don't fool yourself, no computer is that secure.
Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
+1. As Dennis Hughes said: "The only secure computer is one that's unplugged, locked in a safe, and buried 20 feet under the ground in a secret location... and I'm not even too sure about that one."
Kazrog
Kazrog, Inc.
He was great at pointing out the obvious, and I've heard this quoted by geeks over and over again. Sure, it's true, and I would never debate it, but it's not as though he intended for the world to shut down its networks.
I stand by my post about the level of security in Mac OS X. Everything in the security space is relative, and everyone has their own educated choices. I'm simply explaining mine. I always have multiple backups of everything, as I'm sure you guys do as well, so to me having my computer become part of a fucking botnet is much more offensive than data loss.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
What's the issue with running automatic updates with Windows 7, Shane? It sounds like that wide-spread infection was avoidable if people had simply stayed current on updates. You can just configure your system to update sometime at night when you're surfing or sleeping. I understand such vulnerabilities shouldn't be present in the first place, but it's Windows - it's based on a crap core and EVERY hacker and his dog out there is targeting it. It's unavoidable. You seem awfully quick to jump ship even in spite of your generally very favorable impressions of Windows 7 so far.
There's a good reason automatic updates are so tightly woven within Windows; It needs them!
There's a good reason automatic updates are so tightly woven within Windows; It needs them!
Razzee
Kolja
Kazrog
Kazrog, Inc.
I love Windows 7, really, but the fact is that it's just a nice GUI on top of a very flawed core. Automatic Updates can infamously break drivers, and the alternative is risking becoming part of a botnet or getting your files stolen. That's a lose-lose situation and I don't want to waste my life on silly shit like that. I will continue my testing of Windows 7, with automatic updates ON, and I intend to give Microsoft feedback whenever I think of something.
With Snow Leopard on the way, Steve Jobs leaving Apple until June (perhaps forever), big changes are potentially ahead there as well. I'm going to stick to my current platform of Mac OS X for the foreseeable future, and see what happens. If MS can prove that Windows 7 has great security, I may yet consider switching, but for now Mac OS X has a proven track record of world-class security standards and solid OS plumbing all the way around. It's served me very well for almost 10 years, and I still love Mac OS X in spite of Apple's greed and secrecy.
All it will take for Mac OS X to become the perfect platform for the next 10 years and beyond is for Apple to make the business decision to allow Mac OS X on third party hardware. Conversely, it will take MS a lot more than just a business decision to fix Windows. As great as Windows 7 seems in its early beta, time will be the only measure of its security, and it's my guess that it's no more secure than XP or Vista with current updates.
PS - Razzee - no version of Windows has ever had any kind of Unix core. All current versions of Windows use the Windows NT core, which has absolutely nothing to do with Unix.
If I understand correctly, OS X is pretty much only available on Macs, and can't be used on any other type of computer, or home built ones. So you have to buy from Mac. I think once OS X becomes the 'perfect platform', #1 there will be a lot more bugs as it'll have to cope with MUCH more hardware. Whereas now I'm sure the hardware used is tested fairly vigorously, if it allows any hardware it will be impossible to test on every available piece of hardware, let alone every available combination. And #2 it'll become a much bigger target for viruses, etc. The thing that makes OS X such a good system is that its relatively (although not so much recently) ignored by the general population.
Razzee
Kolja
the nt core is based on an buyed unix core code. at least thats what I've learned in school. DK.
If exploits are found too far before 'Patch Tuesday' they're just sat on.
And, guys... 'crackers' are malicious bastards who harm others' systems for no good reason; 'hackers' are extremely skilled computer users (or, more generally, people proficient in any similarly complicated field) and *not* crackers. 'Hacker' came from even before computing (loosely describing a variety of activities at MIT), 'cracker' is the idiot who sits in his parents' basement spreading scripts he downloaded off some Russian site and pretending that makes him '1337'. Get it right.
Jeff
Notuern
Bloody vaginal belch
- Oct 20, 2007
- 3,625
- 0
- 36
You forgot that some Crackers are "Hackers" with some huge moral issues, and that some of the best Hackers are old Crackers.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
Nothing personal, it's just a huge pet peeve of actual 'hackers' and people who look up to those ideals. It makes skilled computer users look bad by comparison because the terms are mixed by an incompetent media and a wide population that would sadly have no way of knowing better, and if there's one thing we *don't* need it's a reduction in the hacker population.
Notuern, that's right, but... the biggest ones, like Linus, Larry Wall, ESR, Dennis Ritchie, Alan Cox, Guido van Rossum, rms, (insert your personal favorite recognized hacker), who have the recognition and skill to basically be the ideals of that group, had nothing to do with the immoral side of software (although they are often pretty batty) and the *vast* majority of crackers prey on old vulnerabilities exploited by scripts they downloaded - Mitnick is a badass in every sense of the word, but also an exception by any standard. Besides, in that rare case you can get away with calling someone a hacker and a cracker, although you might confuse the grammar Nazis...
Jeff
Notuern, that's right, but... the biggest ones, like Linus, Larry Wall, ESR, Dennis Ritchie, Alan Cox, Guido van Rossum, rms, (insert your personal favorite recognized hacker), who have the recognition and skill to basically be the ideals of that group, had nothing to do with the immoral side of software (although they are often pretty batty) and the *vast* majority of crackers prey on old vulnerabilities exploited by scripts they downloaded - Mitnick is a badass in every sense of the word, but also an exception by any standard. Besides, in that rare case you can get away with calling someone a hacker and a cracker, although you might confuse the grammar Nazis...
Jeff
