Reply #25 was a very helpfull evaluation. Totally agree not to set as Admin on an XP install, learnt that mistake the very 1st week I tried it, not through being smart, but by being naive and thought that was the way to go on the 1st istall, then set up as a user afterwards.
The last few years I have lost track of whats happening software/hard ware wise and when Vista came out I thought I would give it time to settle then build a brand new Vista based machine. Seems I may have done myself a 2 fold favour by waiting.
Up till now I have never used or seen Vista or Windows 7 in action. I take onboard what TB said about taking on new software and saying its naff. I was not eadger to move from Dos/Win 3.11 (Loads Dos based games) to windows 95 at 1st, didnt like it at all. Took a different approach to XP but suffered from driver problems, probably the reason I didnt jump straight to Vista.
So now that I am ready it seems Windows 7 is the way to go. Do I go for the Ultimate Version?
Also what is UAC?
TIA. 
It would appear than running as a restricted user is somehow a slur on the lenght of our manhood, hence, those with egos larger than their ability, have to run as an Administrator (and all the insecurity that produces).
UAC is microsofts attempt to ensure that even those running as an Administrator are, in fact, only running as a restricted user most of the time. When a task that needs Admin rights is performed, a little pop-up asks if this is an intended action. Idea being to stop rogue processes making system changes. This will stop many trojans, hopefully a fair few other nasties. Its also a reminder to a user that they are doing something potentially dangerous to the system.
Its not a complete solution by any means. But its a damn site better than the XP way (ie, if a rogue process gets started by a admin (intentionally or not), it has free reign over the system).
Unix and Linux suffer similar to XP - many people insist on running as root (Unix/Linux equiv of Administrator (only more powerful)) or users with UID of 0 (Unix/Linux equiv of a member of local group Administrators (only more powerful)), and is how most Unix/Linux gets compromised. Like (pre Vista) Windows, Unix/Linux entire security model is based around users and services running within a restricted security context. Break these rules, and, like (pre Vista) Windows, Unix/Linux has no real security. Unix/Linux has no common equiv of UAC, so that makes (Vista onwards) Windows architecurally more secure than the supposed best (security wise) midrange systems. Obviously, Windows popularity means its a bigger target though.
Linux/Unix manuals have always been littered with warnings not to login as root generally. The reason I have often had to give Admin rights to Windows users is that too many brick-walls got hit with them going about their legitimate business otherwise.
I would argue that MS are playing catch-up in this respect and may have now got close to where they need to be on user authentication and access rights. What has held them back has been their priority of making everyone else incompatible with themselves. It will continue to hold them back as a manufacturer of useful products as there is no sign of them changing their underlying philosophy.
In case people think I have the 'solution'; I am writing this on an XP machine.
I was amused the other day to read in a trade paper that a number of manufacturers of portable machines were looking to run Linux alongside Windoze so that features like MP3 and web browsing could be accessed by the user before it was time for them to shut the machine down again!
Aside from installing drivers or other kernel mode stuff, Admin shouldn't be required if the programmers follow the rules.
Use decent software, and the requirement for admin goes (mostly) away.
NT based Windows and Unix variants have always been on a par for their security models, only Windows NT having more granular control over security. UAC now means windows security model far surpasses that of even proper Unix, let alone Linux.
Windows kernel is very stable - when was the last time you had a kernel crash that was not hardware or 3rd party driver related. How often does Windows get a kernel patch, compared to Linux
. And whilst we're on stability, how bad can Linux be at resource handling
Author
Topic: windows 7 (Read 4767 times)