SpyBot S&D 1.3 Final

  • Thread starter Thread starter siljaline
  • Start date Start date
Steven said:
Roflmao..... not in this lifetime ;o)

The *only* good thing about XP is IIS, it's security is laughable,
it's UI is positively vile (regardless of themes etc), and as for
it's stability, I'm not able to describe what I think of that without
using several profanities.

IMHo, XP is simply a completely screwed up version of 2000 ;o)
Click to expand...

XP security sucks. The UI can easily be changed to classic/W98 style. For
me, XP's stability is superb. It's rock solid. I can't remember the last
time it crashed on any of my machines. W98 stability can't compare (it is
better than 95 or ME but shaky compared to XP).

YMMV.
 
: Steven Burn wrote:
: > : >>> You are joking of course?.......
: >> No joke - WinXP Pro smokes Win98!
: >
: > Roflmao..... not in this lifetime ;o)
: >
: > The *only* good thing about XP is IIS, it's security is laughable,
: > it's UI is positively vile (regardless of themes etc), and as for
: > it's stability, I'm not able to describe what I think of that
without
: > using several profanities.
: >
: > IMHo, XP is simply a completely screwed up version of 2000 ;o)
:
: XP security sucks. The UI can easily be changed to classic/W98 style.
For
: me, XP's stability is superb. It's rock solid. I can't remember the
last
: time it crashed on any of my machines. W98 stability can't compare (it
is
: better than 95 or ME but shaky compared to XP).
:
: YMMV.
:
: --
: Jordan
:
XP has crashed a few times on me, and I had to use Restore 3 times. My
dad, who also uses XPHome, prefers 95, and he gripes once in a while
that he never should have abandoned 3.1. I like XP; I do not like all
of the security leaks and Critical updates; this should have been
checked BEFORE release, using 95 and 98 as a lesson, but in general, I
am happy. I do not look forward to Longhorn, but DAD does. I'd rather
have Linux. I downloaded Lindows, but am afraid of wiping out my
computer if I try to install and run. NFTS, 80 Gig, not partitioned,
not yet brnt to a CD, except for the copy I mailed to Son of Spy.
 
I got it from the home page last night.
--
Thou shalt not admit adultry.

:
: > : >> When I went to http://www.safer-networking.org/index.php?
: page=download,
: >> the site for spybot, I only see 1.2. Is there truly a 1.3?
: >
: > Yes.......
: >
: > --
: >
: > Regards
: >
: > Steven Burn
: So which site has it, MGeeks or the homepage?
:
:
 
Jordan said:
XP security sucks. The UI can easily be changed to classic/W98 style. For
me, XP's stability is superb. It's rock solid. I can't remember the last
time it crashed on any of my machines. W98 stability can't compare (it is
better than 95 or ME but shaky compared to XP).

YMMV.
Click to expand...

The only good point in favor of Windows XP is compatibility.
As far as stability goes its not even on par with Windows 2000. Crash,
hangs, etc. The most responsable for this is Windows Explorer. It's the
worst File System Explorer/Browser/Navigator/Whatever You call It ever
created.

To make the system usable it's necessary to make some adjustemnts
commencing with security and privacy. Then disabling most of the eye
candy. Disabling some features that more annoying than useful: system
restore, Zip as Folders, autoplay, Folders that convert themselves Pics
Folders, Music Folders as we travel through the file system and slow
down things like bad, pretencious european film.

First things after you install WindowsXP: Install PowerToys for
WindowsXP (disable most things); go to My Computer -> Properties ->
Advanced -> Perfomance settings -> Disable Everything; Next install
AntiSpy (Again disable everything); next Install a Firewall (a good
firewall not th piece of garbage that comes with Windows) and Next
install a anti virus.

And you should also install some third part tweaking utilities and
disable some more things.

Then, finally it's a almost capable OS.

dM
 
The only good point in favor of Windows XP is compatibility.
As far as stability goes its not even on par with Windows 2000. Crash,
hangs, etc. The most responsable for this is Windows Explorer. It's the
worst File System Explorer/Browser/Navigator/Whatever You call It ever
created.
Click to expand...

Are we using the same Windows XP? :)

The XP I know is *way more stable than any other version of Windows, and
just as stable as Linux.

I have no choice but to believe anyone that complains about the stability of
XP is using raunchy software, defective hardware, or has never even used it.

Bob

Remove "kins" to reply by e-mail.
 
Bob said:
Are we using the same Windows XP? :)

The XP I know is *way more stable than any other version of Windows, and
just as stable as Linux.

I have no choice but to believe anyone that complains about the stability of
XP is using raunchy software, defective hardware, or has never even used it.

Bob
Click to expand...

Whatever is your experience don't question mine as a mere rambling
without supporting facts or experience.

We have two different views about the stability of WindowsXP
I've very little software installed on my windows XP partition. I've on
the same computer a windows 2000 installation. This, the windows 2000
partition is my test ground.
I can avaliate the two almost side by side.
One crash randomly (windows xp). The other (windows 2000) is solid even
with "tons" of software, some raunchy as you call it.
It wasn't nor hardware, drivers or software.
You choose to believe what you wan't to believe. Its up to you.
The advice I gave was based on my experience.

Its not only the crashes but the hangs. Processes that cannot be killed.
Forcing me to reboot. Explorer consuming resources like crazy. Searches
that take years. A search system that is amateur at best. A Explorer
that after years of development became worse.

I bet that have more experience with Microsoft OS than you.
I'm a heavy user. I install software like crazy. If I was to install all
the software that I install on Windows 2000 on Windows XP I would have
to reinstall it every week.

And the install process for Windows XP is 1 hour only for the base
system, then dozen of reboots for drivers, configurations,
reconfigurations. Its not worth the trouble.

When people complain about the install process of Linux Distros I ask to
myself if they ever install Windows XP.

Windows XP strong is compatibility. DOS, 16bit, 32bit. Things that
windows 2000 doesn't even touch. All install and run well. But this
comes with a price: stability.

Most people like Windows XP because they from Windows 98 and Windows ME,
two very unstable OS. They didn't even see Windows 2000 because it was
market as Pro system for Enterprises not for individual consumers.

And is "prettier". People like cute things.

Windows Longhorn will be other "pretty OS". Microsoft will sell it as
the best thing since Coca-Cola with Coca. By then it will not matter.
For office work -> Linux, for entertainment: Games -> Consoles;
Audio-Video -> Some personal digital player, an ALL IN ONE.

dM
 
Whatever is your experience don't question mine as a mere rambling
without supporting facts or experience.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Here's my story: I've used Win98se on my home computer since
1999. I've used WinXP at work for the past 2 1/2 years and Mandrake
Linux beginning with version 7.1 and up to 10.0 currently. As far as XP
being as stable as Linux...well, that's just laughable. It is, however,
more stable than 98se...but not by much.

I've never used 2000 or ME and I've heard conflicting reports about both
from several sources.
 
Its not only the crashes but the hangs. Processes that cannot be killed.
Forcing me to reboot. Explorer consuming resources like crazy. Searches
that take years. A search system that is amateur at best. A Explorer
that after years of development became worse.
Click to expand...

Higher quality and more mainstream hardware is most likely the solution. Out
of hundreds of systems I build and maintain, I have never seen any
instability caused by XP.

I've been running XP since early beta, and have seen only a handful of
crashes.

I must admit 2000 is pretty stable, but it feels like Flintstones software
compared to XP.

As always, all the above (and the previous post) is my experience and
opinion, of course.

Bob

Remove "kins" to reply by e-mail.
 
And the install process for Windows XP is 1 hour only for the base
system, then dozen of reboots for drivers, configurations,
reconfigurations. Its not worth the trouble.
Click to expand...

I've installed XP on several computers. None of them have taken an
hour for a base install. And none have ever required dozens of
reboots. The slowest I had was on an AMD 400, and that took 50
minutes. Every other machine was much faster than that.
 
I've installed XP on several computers. None of them have taken an
hour for a base install. And none have ever required dozens of
reboots. The slowest I had was on an AMD 400, and that took 50
minutes. Every other machine was much faster than that.
Click to expand...

I don't remember ever having to install a driver in Windows XP. Oh yes, I
always install the latest nVidia driver, but certainly don't have to.

Bob

Remove "kins" to reply by e-mail.
 
Hmmm. Here's my story: I've used Win98se on my home computer since
1999. I've used WinXP at work for the past 2 1/2 years and Mandrake
Linux beginning with version 7.1 and up to 10.0 currently. As far as XP
being as stable as Linux...well, that's just laughable. It is, however,
more stable than 98se...but not by much.
Click to expand...

The differing experiences with XP are curious. It's tough to debate
when someone has XP and 2000 on the same machine. All that I can think
of is the possibility that XP doesn't like the dual boot position it
resides in for some reason.
I've never used 2000 or ME and I've heard conflicting reports about both
from several sources.
Click to expand...

I have used 3.1 - XP and my mind was made up that XP sucks before I
tried it. However, on a new machine with plenty of ram and good
hardware my XP experience is similar to Bob's. It's rock solid. It
doesn't hang; ever. It's fast to start or to shutdown. Aside of the
security holes, it is exactly what I would expect to get if I bought
it. Coming from MS, it's actually more than I expected.

The differences must be from the motherboard up, and possibly software
related as well. I suppose this is true for most OS systems. 98SE and
ME run fine on my other machine.
 
Back
Top