Windows 8

The problem with Chrome, and Mozilla "book" when it comes out for that matter, is the same problem the Amiga from Commodore had back in the 80's.

I was there when the first PC was released (That is my memory goes back that far) at the time the little Commodore 64 I had was far better than the 8088 based PC, so was teh TI- home computer, and the MAC (Though the price of the mac was kind of high). and the best of the lot was the Amiga.. NOTHING then could come close to the abilities of the Amiga and in fact today.. It would still be a contender in the market. (Took windows quite a while to catch up with the Commodore 64 for that matter.. but we won't bother with that).

PC was from IBM.. and many companies, even though the machine was made by honeywell or Burroughs,, called the computer room the IBM room.

Thus software developers jumped on the Poor Computer right left and center, abandoning the better comptuers to the junk heap.

Enough history

The problem with Chrome or Mozilla OS is this: There is little software out there for it.. So if all you want is a Web and E-mail client.. They are great.

But if you want to control your Ham Radio,,, (Ham Radio Delux) or read the operation of your engine (Assorted OBD II products) or do most anything other than browse the web.

no joy.

burlmart wrote:
Something I do not get here is why so many companies are so eager to give everybody free security protection (I assume that most never upgrade to the pay versions of the AV software)

They all offer paid versions with more features, both at the consumer and enterprise levels. However, their core AV engines and technology is the same for both the free and paid versions. Enough users apparently do upgrade to paid versions to make offering a free edition feasible.

In my experience, I've never had any of my systems compromised using free AV software. Can't say that for a very popular paid AV suite in early 2000, which failed to detect a real time exploit and wiped my hard drive clean on a desktop.

The question to ask is why leave the door open to additional threats that MSE fails to detect, and other free AV software do? Especially important to consider if you're not a techie to deal with exploits to begin with?

I bought a Kindle Fire HD a few years ago for my internet surfing needs and never looked back.

ChopperBill wrote:
I am tired of Windows updates and how slow my lap top is to boot up. My iPad is spoiling me on good soft ware and start up time so I was considering a Mac. Talked to my dad about it as he belong to a compuyor club that is full of gurus. He said Mac was to expensive. I agree. Told me to install a solid state hard drive and install Lenix. He did on his and he said his start up is between 15-25 seconds and is fast. He couldn't be happier. Said one of his guru friends could do it for about $200 Total in about an hour. That sounds like a deal to me.

You need to relearn terminology w/r how Linux does stuff on your hardware and on the web.

If you have Ccleaner loaded on your PC and you clean up registry connections and clear all the temp files and turn off many of the apps that startup when you reboot, I'd bet you'd be a happy camper w/ what you have. Also do regular Disk Cleanup and Disk Defragments from Windows tools.

Are you using a 3rd party AV program. There are options that minimize the CPU usage. MSE is one free one that does not need to run at boot.

I am tired of Windows updates and how slow my lap top is to boot up. My iPad is spoiling me on good soft ware and start up time so I was considering a Mac. Talked to my dad about it as he belong to a compuyor club that is full of gurus. He said Mac was to expensive. I agree. Told me to install a solid state hard drive and install Lenix. He did on his and he said his start up is between 15-25 seconds and is fast. He couldn't be happier. Said one of his guru friends could do it for about $200 Total in about an hour. That sounds like a deal to me.

strollin wrote:

monkey44 wrote:
...
PLUS: We have to BUY new programs that we already bought once, because the new OS will not run them. THAT borders on a "legal scam" to me ... I buy a program, I expect it to work as long as I own it. It's more like "renting" forever ...

We spent a lot more money upgrading from Wdw8 back to Wdw7 than any new programs cost. Worth every penny... It's not always about the money, it's about the learning curve and wasting so much time on it.

I didn't have to buy a single new piece of software as I moved from XP to Win 7 to Win 8. I no longer have any XP machines but run the same set of programs on my Win 8 machines that I run on my Win 7 machines.

My older programs worked fine on Wdw7, but none worked on Wdw8 ... we moved back to Wdw7 on both LTs, and went with SSHD this time. Very nice ... and now we're totally Wdw7 again with all machines and our original programs. I'd expect guys with tech experience and training will have an easier time with all of this advancing tech stuff - but us older, non-tech folks have less training and less ability to make a seamless transition.

The guys here that state it's easy, well that's true,it's easy for those with that background. But it's still annoying when MS provides new 'stuff' and forces the old stuff into obsolete state. Just seems unfair as it would be just as easy (but less profitable) to allow everything to "fit" and make the customers transition less difficult.

And the fact that you can "make it act - sorta - like an older version" ... well, then keep the older version and make is function better in the same set-up, because that very fact means there's a need in users to keep it like it is/was.

Those new methods could/should be offered for those that want it, but it could/should also remain an option to continue in the methods we know already too. No reason not to have those options instead of having the 'new tech' forced down our throats.

monkey44 wrote:
...
PLUS: We have to BUY new programs that we already bought once, because the new OS will not run them. THAT borders on a "legal scam" to me ... I buy a program, I expect it to work as long as I own it. It's more like "renting" forever ...

We spent a lot more money upgrading from Wdw8 back to Wdw7 than any new programs cost. Worth every penny... It's not always about the money, it's about the learning curve and wasting so much time on it.

I didn't have to buy a single new piece of software as I moved from XP to Win 7 to Win 8. I no longer have any XP machines but run the same set of programs on my Win 8 machines that I run on my Win 7 machines.

Something I do not get here is why so many companies are so eager to give everybody free security protection (I assume that most never upgrade to the pay versions of the AV software)

MS took hits in the past over insecure code, and pushing out MSE makes sense as a way for them to keep close tabs on their software performance in the wild. I get it why they would offer it for free - it makes their stuff more valuable.

In past, also, MS would appease and let "partners" like Norton, McAffee, et. al. take on most of the security...maybe MS changed their minds a bit.

I have seen articles that suggest MSE's shortfalls are not necessarily as dangerous as comparison test data reports seem to paint it. Statistics can be reported to say anything.

Why is there so little info on MSRT vs Malwarebytes - it's like nobody speaks about MSRT? Does it get the big bugs and just not bother w/ the more benign little tracker things that free 3rd party AV apps are happy to report?

Full disclosure: I am very unhappy woth how MS is now trashing its popular OS, and find it VERY poor business behavior. To then say "but W7 and W8.x are so secure" - two faced. Who can believe a word they say, and what will they say about W7 and W8 down the road.

I do not want another jackhammer Win OS to do the tacky little computer needs I have, but I might be willing to try W9 if that is how I get high contrast black. I am gonna give them the coming year to maybe impress me a bit.

burlmart wrote:


Comparisons of MSE to stuff like Avast often belittle MSE, but guess what's keeping W7 and W8 secure.

Certainly not MSE on W7, or Windows Defender on W8? Not when key independent security testing organizations uniformly rate MSE and Windows Defender at the bottom for critical AV protection. And not when Microsoft itself admits that MSE is just basic protection, something for other AV companies to build on.

I certainly wouldn't rely on MSE for real-time AV protection. It's "real" strength is as a clean up tool after the fact. Something I assume most users would just want to avoid in the first place?

IMO, Microsoft gave up on keeping MSE at the forefront of security software years ago. Especially, when virtually all other AV packages offered better protection. Why dedicate resources into their own free consumer AV, which doesn't generate ongoing income, when there are more than enough independent AV available for free? Not to mention, from companies that do nothing but specialize in system security?

If Microsoft is belittled for MSE, then it just may be deserved? Or if anything, shows that their staunch users don't take the time to research that they can do better for the same price. Free!

burlmart wrote:
I agree w/ those who say W8 is not so bad, and is actually better code than W7 (from articles).

But most of us these days probablyonly need a lite weight OS that requires little maintenence and that uses the same MS terminology and structure to which we have become accustomed.

If Mozilla came up w/ its version of Chrome OS, I would buy a Mozziebox.

Why the Linux distro manipulators did not think this up a year ago is beyond me. They completely let a golden opportunity to capture a good % of the MS crowd - possibly enough to surpass Apple PCs. And Zorin is not what I described above.

For any XP hold outs like me who read this thread, consider trusting MS to keep you secure for at least another year (W9 should be a good OS, if history repeats). AFAIU, MSE + MSRT are MS's free versions of antivirus and antimalware, cousins w/ Avast and Malwarebytes, respectively.

Comparisons of MSE to stuff like Avast often belittle MSE, but guess what's keeping W7 and W8 secure. Comparisons of MSRT and Malwarebytes are practically non-existent - which tells me something. If MS was doing such a bad job all along, why hasn't malwarebytes ever found anything on my PC?

Don't worry, be XaPpy!

^^Case in point did anyone understand that???^^