Windows 7

[Kazuha Vinland]

As I've said, I've had to clean up the crap those "tips" like yours cause. It's not fun and that's why I'm infuriated by people spreading this crap "tip". Honestly, what exactly DOES that save you? A second per day, if that much? And for that you're opening a huge security hole? I see the UAC maybe once a week!

Oh, I think you would be quite aware of the number of times UAC pops up when you setup a computer. And please, elaborate on how exactly UAC is a huge security hole? For malicious files you're protected otherwise. You've already established that you've just once had a demo caught red-handed as it tried to occupy what, 50MB on your HDD. I don't consider that a security threat, in the same way I cannot see myself threatened at all having turned UAC off. Some things you still need admin permission to do after all. I still have to wonder how you connect the issues that you troubleshoot with UAC being shut down.

Honestly, do me a favour: Don't ever begin to use Linux. With your logic, you'll move every daemon to root because you can't be arsed to establish proper user roles - same principle. I mean, what is the justification? "There are security holes which bypass UAC"?

Linux is hardly even susceptible to infection like Windows is. You obviously want to keep it like that thanks to that much more of the OS is modded firsthand than in Windows. It acts as a confirmation warning if anything else. Like Aimless stated, Linux is a pain in the ass for those who just want to use a computer "normally". And for the record, I've used Ubuntu, Mandriva, KDE among other Linux systems, thank you very much. Currently I have a triple boot of KDE, OSX 10.5 and Win 7 running.

And seriously, if you're claiming that using "vLite" is a sign that you know what you're doing: No. That's no feat. At all. In the time of 2 TB harddiscs and DVD-Rs costing maybe 20 cents, it's also a effin' timesink which serves no real purpose.

Well, it doesn't serve any real purpose besides cutting installation time roughly in half, improving the snappiness substantially on older machines with less than 3GB of RAM etc. etc. Practically it's half the route to the optimized OS that is Windows 7, but sure, completely pointless.

[Khendraja'aro]

Oh, I think you would be quite aware of the number of times UAC pops up when you setup a computer. And please, elaborate on how exactly UAC is a huge security hole? For malicious files you're protected otherwise. You've already established that you've just once had a demo caught red-handed as it tried to occupy what, 50MB on your HDD. I don't consider that a security threat, in the same way I cannot see myself threatened at all having turned UAC off. Some things you still need admin permission to do after all. I still have to wonder how you connect the issues that you troubleshoot with UAC being shut down.

Uh, first, that was not me but Wraith. Secondly, Wraith told you it was a demo with Starforce DRM attached to it. In case you don't know Starforce, it's actually a pretty nasty little rootkit.

And how exactly are you protected from "malicious files otherwise"? Please don't tell me "Virus Scanner". You do know that heuristics pretty much suck?

And it's the mindset behind it, that I'm angry at. "Oh, look at me, I'm opening security holes left and right! But I won't be attacked, no!"

Linux is hardly even susceptible to infection like Windows is. You obviously want to keep it like that thanks to that much more of the OS is modded firsthand than in Windows. It acts as a confirmation warning if anything else. Like Aimless stated, Linux is a pain in the ass for those who just want to use a computer "normally". And for the record, I've used Ubuntu, Mandriva, KDE among other Linux systems, thank you very much. Currently I have a triple boot of KDE, OSX 10.5 and Win 7 running.

KDE is not a Linux distribution. It's a desktop environment like Gnome or Enlightenment, independent of the distribution. And Linux is just as susceptible to infection like Windows. Because most exploits, nowadays, try to use applications/services/plugins to get access to the system. Apache, for instance, has as large a number of security holes as the IIS. If you run a publicly accessible webserver, you'll be astounded at the amount of attacks specifically tailored towards a Linux environment.

And 'Linux is a pain in the ass for those who just want to use a computer "normally".'? Geeze, man, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Well, it doesn't serve any real purpose besides cutting installation time roughly in half, improving the snappiness substantially on older machines with less than 3GB of RAM etc. etc. Practically it's half the route to the optimized OS that is Windows 7, but sure, completely pointless.

Yes, of course, the "snappiness" of the OS is directly proportional to the size of the installation volume... right.

That, my dear, is related to the amount of programs you're running at the same time. Which is close to zero directly after a fresh installation. Everything after that does not come from the installation volume.

[Flixy]

Don't really use that program. All I can tell you is to go into "Tasks" => "settings" => "TV" and then "Configure your TV or Monitor"

When I did that, it started to mess around. Apparently it automatically does some over scan thing that you can't drop or something? Pretty annoying either way.

[Khendraja'aro]

When I did that, it started to mess around. Apparently it automatically does some over scan thing that you can't drop or something? Pretty annoying either way.

Overscan and similar stuff should be found in the settings for your graphics card.

[Flixy]

yeah but every time I change something and start windows media center back up it changes everything back to where it was.

[Khendraja'aro]

You did look into the nVidia/ATi control centers?

[Kazuha Vinland]

Uh, first, that was not me but Wraith. Secondly, Wraith told you it was a demo with Starforce DRM attached to it. In case you don't know Starforce, it's actually a pretty nasty little rootkit.

And how exactly are you protected from "malicious files otherwise"? Please don't tell me "Virus Scanner". You do know that heuristics pretty much suck?

And it's the mindset behind it, that I'm angry at. "Oh, look at me, I'm opening security holes left and right! But I won't be attacked, no!"

A known rootkit that would not be detected by anything but UAC? While I doubt that, I'll give UAC the credit of fetching a single incident since the times of XP then.

Starforce would by most be granted access anyway, since hey, majority of people do not Google every UAC warning thanks to the "crying wolf" quality of it.

KDE is not a Linux distribution. It's a desktop environment like Gnome or Enlightenment, independent of the distribution. And Linux is just as susceptible to infection like Windows. Because most exploits, nowadays, try to use applications/services/plugins to get access to the system. Apache, for instance, has as large a number of security holes as the IIS. If you run a publicly accessible webserver, you'll be astounded at the amount of attacks specifically tailored towards a Linux environment.

Because one of the primary uses of Linux is web servers? Yes, it is. For the average Windows user, publicly accessible ones sure as hell isn't.

And 'Linux is a pain in the ass for those who just want to use a computer "normally".'? Geeze, man, you really don't know what you're talking about.

It's a completely foreign world for one that's used to Windows. Everything from using the terminal to getting the hang of the basics will be a struggle. That's essentially why a lot of netbooks which were released with Ubuntu on it, was returned.

Yes, of course, the "snappiness" of the OS is directly proportional to the size of the installation volume... right.

That, my dear, is related to the amount of programs you're running at the same time. Which is close to zero directly after a fresh installation. Everything after that does not come from the installation volume.

What do you think caused the decrease of the installation volume? Windows Vista did run sluggish out of the box for most laptops that were released in it's time and age. With my vLite configuration, it didn't.

[Khendraja'aro]

A known rootkit that would not be detected by anything but UAC? While I doubt that, I'll give UAC the credit of fetching a single incident since the times of XP then.

Starforce would by most be granted access anyway, since hey, most people do not Google every UAC warning thanks to the "crying wolf" quality of it.

Congratulations for not understanding a single word Wraith posted. Maybe you should read his post again.

Because one of the primary uses of Linux is web servers? Yes, it is. For the average Windows user, publicly accessible ones sure as hell isn't.

There are plenty of other uses. Any and all terminals at my university use Linux. Thin clients with Word Processors and web capabilities.

Besides your answer neither makes sense nor is it grammatically correct.

It is. It's a completely foreign world for one that's used to Windows. Everything from using the terminal to getting the hang of the basics will be a struggle. That's essentially why a lot of netbooks which were released with Ubuntu on it, was returned.

That's a problem of being used to something done in a certain way, not an issue with usability per se, my dear. To use another example, you're ridiculing a Ford for not being a Volkswagen.

And "completely foreign"? You tout that you are actually using Linux, but from your tale here I think that you have installed it once to be able to brag about it and never actually looked at it beyond the 2 minutes before booting back to Windows.

What do you think caused the decrease of the installation volume? Windows Vista did run sluggish out of the box for most laptops that were released in it's time and age. With my vLite configuration, it didn't.

Okay, here we have another example of where you are confused: The main decrease in volume space on an installation volume will be due to removal of driver and restore files which Windows provides so that you can plugin almost any older hardware and have it working out of the box.
Reducing that will, however, do absolutely nothing for performance.
A newly installed Windows will have next to no programs running. So, scratch that for your reduced installation volume. No performance to be gained here.
There will be some services running (like indexing) which may have indeed an impact on perceived performance. However, those you can only disable but not completely remove - and there are only two or three services you can safely disable anyway.

In essence: You don't know what you're talking about, you're conflating RAM and pagefile & harddisc space and performance.

Lastly, if I catch someone like you on my network he'll be booted faster off it than you can say 'rootkit'.

[Aimless]

Flixy, nvidia or ATI?

[Kazuha Vinland]

Congratulations for not understanding a single word Wraith posted. Maybe you should read his post again.

I gave it credit for discovering the rootkit before it had happened, didn't I? Yet my point stays true about UAC being more of a bother than anything else. Do you also use software specifically designed to catch a very certain type of viruses that normal AV fail to notice? Hardly. Similarly, that 0.01% margin is UAC's market. There are workarounds for the program, and you can still be infected with it on. My standing does not rely on its ability to alert of such attacks, but rather its frequency of detecting malicious plans to be extremely rare. And alerting is as mentioned not enough, since UAC does IIRC not differentiate between harmful and non-harmful programs, it just asks for permission to launch it, whatever it is. I'd like to meet the average Joe conscious enough to suspiciously Google the name "Starforce" in association with a game demo being installed. Most wouldn't unless there was some kind of further sign beyond the name to make one stall. So yes, the ratio of false alarms compared to actual hits, and it requiring user attentive analysis and interaction is enough to convince me about the risk of having it off is worth it. In practice, it has worked out fine for me and my acquaintances throughout the course of two years...

There are plenty of other uses. Any and all terminals at my university use Linux. Thin clients with Word Processors and web capabilities.

Why are you discussing the uses of Linux? I was arguing that commonly the tasks that a home Windows user commits to get a virus, is not the same as on Linux.

That's a problem of being used to something done in a certain way, not an issue with usability per se, my dear. To use another example, you're ridiculing a Ford for not being a Volkswagen.

And "completely foreign"? You tout that you are actually using Linux, but from your tale here I think that you have installed it once to be able to brag about it and never actually looked at it beyond the 2 minutes before booting back to Windows.

Good gracious. Shall we accept that most of us originally used Windows (or for those other people, OSX) before they dug into Linux? Hence it would be more like comparing a car to a motorbike. You need to relearn the basics. I were of course referring to my initial experience with Linux, which frankly was a mess. I even brought forth the case with netbooks being returned because people did not want to adapt to Linux, which should be a good enough unbiased observation of such.

Okay, here we have another example of where you are confused: The main decrease in volume space on an installation volume will be due to removal of driver and restore files which Windows provides so that you can plugin almost any older hardware and have it working out of the box.
Reducing that will, however, do absolutely nothing for performance.
A newly installed Windows will have next to no programs running. So, scratch that for your reduced installation volume. No performance to be gained here.
There will be some services running (like indexing) which may have indeed an impact on perceived performance. However, those you can only disable but not completely remove - and there are only two or three services you can safely disable anyway.

In essence: You don't know what you're talking about, you're conflating RAM and pagefile & harddisc space and performance.

Or you have no experience with vLite at all. It does remove services, and whereas the effect is no different than disabling them, there were way more than two or three services you could safely disable in Vista. It's funny, because you make the assumption that I somehow was incapable of tweaking Vista, but could ultimately do it in vLite and somehow magically receive a quicker system.

Lastly, if I catch someone like you on my network he'll be booted faster off it than you can say 'rootkit'.

An excellent example of "if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea. If you were my wife, I'd drink it". You act all high and mighty, making wild assumptions that would only be logical if the other person was born yesterday. I'm sure the Mr. Know-it-all attitude has intimidated people before and just made them shut up, but hey, that kind of brute force really is not my cup of tea. You are an authority within your occupation, and hence since you got a nasty moral, you abuse that power by highlighting every bit of it like a flamboyant Christmas light. You try to pick out flaws' in your colleague's work, rather than being cooperative and patient. You might very well be more knowledgeable than me in certain areas (you should be, you're educated to be), yet your ego trip easily blows up small drawbacks of a greater good as if they in their entirety were humongous errors. I know perfectly well that UAC is a bother and that I haven't benefited from it. That you work with security holes and hence have a tendency to make a big deal out of it, is none of my business. I know that there are plenty of services superfluous also in Windows 7, and by following my steps and disabling them, system performance is enhanced. Practical results suggests so, and hence I decide to believe it when things have remained rock stable that way over time. When you barge in and rip the work to pieces, you make it sound like everything results in dire consequences. They do not.

[Aimless]

And that's how it's done

[Khendraja'aro]

Why are you discussing the uses of Linux? I was arguing that commonly the tasks that a home Windows user commits to get a virus, is not the same as on Linux.

Right. You don't know how Linux works, do you? Elevation privilege exploits exist the same, and the point of "Click on UAC" is also the same, only more annoying because you have to enter your password. The methods to contract a virus are exactly the same as on Windows.

Linux uses the same methods as Windows to secure the environment. User access levels, elevation has expressly to be acknowledged/demanded, user has to know what he's doing.

Good gracious. Shall we accept that most of us originally used Windows (or for those other people, OSX) before they dug into Linux? Hence it would be more like comparing a car to a motorbike. You need to relearn the basics. I were of course referring to my initial experience with Linux, which frankly was a mess. I even brought forth the case with netbooks being returned because people did not want to adapt to Linux, which should be a good enough unbiased observation of such.

Uh, no. Take a Gnome desktop and have a look at how much it has in common with Windows. Quite a lot, actually. Since you say you installed Ubuntu, you should know that. If you only use a word processor, browse the web and look at some pictures/movies, you won't ever need the shell.

Or you have no experience with vLite at all. It does remove services, and whereas the effect is no different than disabling them, there were way more than two or three services you could safely disable in Vista. It's funny, because you make the assumption that I somehow was incapable of tweaking Vista, but could ultimately do it in vLite and somehow magically receive a quicker system.

No, there are only three services you can SAFELY disable. The rest has a negligible impact on performace. Honestly, you're compromising system integrity for a 1% increase in speed, total, if at all. Yes, that's very clever.

Again, I'd boot you off my network in an instant.

And exactly what bother? How often do you actually see the UAC? Once a week! Two seconds of your life for that and you're opening massive security holes. Honestly, I can't grasp the kind of idiot who has to reinstall Windows for a perceived 1% gain (which you can't even measure reliably).

Those are the guys us techies swear about the most - the one who think they have a clue when in reality they haven't got the faintest.

Get it into your head: Security is a package - just because you don't see one component doing anything worthwhile, doesn't mean that you can get rid of it.

[RandBlade]

Right. You don't know how Linux works, do you? Elevation privilege exploits exist the same, and the point of "Click on UAC" is also the same, only more annoying because you have to enter your password. The methods to contract a virus are exactly the same as on Windows.

Linux uses the same methods as Windows to secure the environment. User access levels, elevation has expressly to be acknowledged/demanded, user has to know what he's doing.

Which is more hassle than its worth on a home PC and not secure enough for a work PC.

Get it into your head: Security is a package - just because you don't see one component doing anything worthwhile, doesn't mean that you can get rid of it.

Actually, you can. Maybe you meant should, rather than can, but pick your words more sensibly.

[Khendraja'aro]

Hassle? You make it sound as if the UAC pops up every minute or so. As I said, I see that thing maybe once a week. For the work PC, by the way, you'll get the full "sudo"-Variant because then your admin will ask you why exactly you think you get admin privileges you don't deserve.

And there only needs to be one exploit the UAC would have stopped and you just have lost all those precious two minutes you "saved" over the lifetime of the Windows installation. Because now you have to spend hours restoring everything back to what it was.

It's just like the "hassle" of offsite backups - annoying. And then the drive melts and you discover that RAID 1 is not a backup solution.

[Aimless]

Uh, no. Take a Gnome desktop and have a look at how much it has in common with Windows. Quite a lot, actually. Since you say you installed Ubuntu, you should know that. If you only use a word processor, browse the web and look at some pictures/movies, you won't ever need the shell.

Well that's just not entirely true

[Khendraja'aro]

Well that's just not entirely true

Ah. And since you didn't deign to give actual examples, I'll have to call bullshit on your comment.

[RandBlade]

Hassle? You make it sound as if the UAC pops up every minute or so. As I said, I see that thing maybe once a week. For the work PC, by the way, you'll get the full "sudo"-Variant because then your admin will ask you why exactly you think you get admin privileges you don't deserve.

That matches what I was saying. Simply relying upon a pop-up to ask "are you sure" is not secure. A 4 year old could get on a PC and install software and click their way through the UAC without it stopping them. Relying upon UAC falls down the middle.

It's just like the "hassle" of offsite backups - annoying. And then the drive melts and you discover that RAID 1 is not a backup solution.

Again I agree, for work an off-site backup is critical. For home its not that necessary though.

[Aimless]

Ah. And since you didn't deign to give actual examples, I'll have to call bullshit on your comment.

Well okay you got me if you can resign yourself as the main user of a computer to not customising any of the Ubuntu+GNOME experience and also limiting yourself to three preinstalled programs then I suppose it's both a cakewalk and just like windows

[Flixy]

You did look into the nVidia/ATi control centers?

Flixy, nvidia or ATI?

nvidia geforce 6200. I can set the resolution and everything up so it works well on the desktop, no problem. Had that at first. Then I ran Windows Media Center and its setup for audio, libraries (those were fine) and video. There I specified that I used a tv, over s-video, and then it changed my resolution and everything. And if I minimize/close WMC and change everything to how it should be, and then open WMC again, it changes it back. So it appears I should just have skipped the fucking setup.

What I have now is basically, when I run WMC in fullscreen, I see everything on the size it should be, e.g. movies fill the tv screen to the edges, menus and everything are okay. But if you move the mouse around you can go 'outside' the display, there is basically space around the tv so to say that you cannot see but you can move your mouse to. Not a problem whatsoever, I don't mind there being space that I can't see (I suppose it affects the display quality a bit but my tv is old and crappy so you can't see that difference). The problem is that when I close/minimize WMC to do something on the pc I can still onlys ee the center of my desktop and not the edges, which makes things like the taskbar a bit hard to use...

Tried removing WMC from the windows services that I have installed and re installing it but it remembers your settings, apparently. So maybe I should delete the registry settings? But I don't really know anything about registry settings TBH. Can I just remove the lines about WMC video setup before reinstalling WMC?