The Cost of Computer Naivete

wiredog writes "What happens when you put an unprotected Windows 98 box on a broadband connection? Two perspectives from two reporters for the Washington Post (frr,yyy): The User's " an odyssey that has taken $800 and roughly 48 man-hours over nearly three weeks" and Digital Doctor's "Her PC was in such bad shape, it required 10 1/2 hours of surgery to restore it to working condition.""

Comments

To be fair to Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

(Yeah I know, fair to Microsoft... on Slashdot!)

Windows 98 is 6 years old and isn't sold with computers anymore. This test just shows remaining Windows 98 users they should keep up to date or upgrade to XP.

Re:To be fair to Microsoft

[Nick of NSTime]

Consider this for a moment. Jane Boxwine buys a brand-new computer in 1999. It's a Pentium II 400 with 128MB RAM, 8MB HD, and Windows 98. She spends $2000 on it.

Jane Boxwine uses this computer for Quicken, maybe to email her family, Solitaire, and simple things like that. Her computer has not outlived its usefulness, but it is woefully underpowered by today's standards.

So now you're telling her that she has to spend $100 on a Windows XP upgrade *and* install an OS that will be very noticeably slower on her machine? You're telling her that Microsoft made mistakes and now Jane has to pay for it?

So what's the solution for Jane Boxwine?

Re:To be fair to Microsoft

[Obiwan Kenobi]

The question is rhetorical. There is no answer. You must either upgrade to a modern OS or suffer the consequences. This is definitely a Pro Linux (tm) situation, as it basically highlights the Upgrade-Or-Die mentality of the Redwood camp.

But in a nutshell, yes, she does need to upgrade if she wishes to keep using her machine as she's used to doing. This is a new environment and Win98 is an old system that quickly bogs down when you try to band-aid it with differing programs such as Anti-Virus or Firewalls (though some are less bulky than others).

Whenever I see a spyware-riddled PC, I reinstall Windows. There is no question. I've gone past running 3-4 different Ad/Spy-finder programs, and them all find something different, only to remove the invaders and then reboot and see that some hidden hook has returned most of them.

This is the sort of madness that most Win98 users live in, and sooner or later abandon it for a smarter OS, which is usually WinXP but on those fringe cases will actually add another point to the statistics of the most stable and robust Mac OSX or even Linux (for those who don't need games).

The solution is to change to something better, and growing pains will be involved. Is that a better answer?

Re:To be fair to Microsoft

[mike449]

So what's the solution for Jane Boxwine?
Switch!

A router (with built-in firewall) is obviosly a better solution than a switch in this case.

Re:To be fair to Microsoft

[a_nonamiss]

OK, I hate defending Microsoft, but let's put this in proper perspective. Cars in the 1950's weren't required to have seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, etc. These innovations happened well after the 50's. You can still drive around proudly in a 1956 Belaire Convertible, but God help you if you hit a moped or a grounhog going 25MPH, because you will probably die a horrible, painful death. Nobody is asking Chevy to provide free retrofitted seatblets, airbags, etc., to increase public safety. Although these cars are not fit to drive by today's safety standards, they were considered safe when they were manufactured. If I were so motivated, I could probably take that '56 Belaire, weld some seatbelts to the frame, make some body modifications and if I was really good, maybe even retrofit some airbags in that puppy. It would be much safer, but considering the amount of time and skill required for such modifications, it would probably be a fraction of the cost to go out and buy a new car.

As much as I feel for the poor woman stuck with Windows '98, I can't really agree that it's Microsoft's fault. When Windows 98 was invented, it was reasonably secure. Since then, there have been many innovations, and things have changed. It is severely outdated, but as long as you know what you're doing, you can keep it running, but in the hands of a novice, it can be dangerous. No different than an old car.

Surgery?

[kaleco]

'Surgery' is a little misleading since it suggests hardware damage was incurred. If I was determined to use a metaphor, I'd go for 'therapy' :)

It's Interesting

[aynrandfan]

I find it interesting (and a little frightening) how otherwise educated people (reporters, for instance) can be so clueless in critical areas. Is this inevitable for people?

And yes, I do consider basic computer literacy a critical skill; your computer is not just an appliance. Letting your computer get 0wned is much like letting your car run out of oil.

Yes but...

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

Consider a hypothetical Win98 user. For the sake of argument call her 'my mum'. She runs a Pentium II-450 and uses it for email, word processing, web browsing and very occasional other bits of office. The computer runs all these tasks fine, but it really isn't powerful enough to run XP. Windows 2000 would make life better, but it will go out of support soon and if you worry about getting legal copies, it's not available in a home edition so it's very expensive. Windows ME can hardly be called an improvement.

So you're saying people in this position need to spend money to upgrade their hardware despite the fact that the current computer runs all the software they want to run at a speed they find acceptable.

Yes I know; install Linux.

Hosts File

[ejdmoo]

I bet he didn't check the hosts file. I bet that was null routing the liveupdate DNS records.


Once the infections were removed, LiveUpdate still could not retrieve the latest virus-targeting data. So I gave up on that and uninstalled and reinstalled the entire Norton AntiVirus program, hoping that its update system would work afterward -- but it did not. I again tried to access Microsoft's Windows Update Web site, but IE still failed to respond.

Suspecting a problem with Internet Explorer itself, I tried to repair IE using the Add/Remove Programs control panel. That didn't work either, producing an error message that indicated some file or files necessary for IE were damaged or inaccessible. Trying to restore the previous version of IE, 5.5, yielded no benefit, either.

Finally, I abandoned ship, reinstalling the entire Windows 98 operating system to repair the damage to Internet Explorer and allow Kathleen's computer to access the Internet and update the Norton AntiVirus definitions.


I always check that file. It always gets hijacked. I'd be willing to bet that was his problem.

She was right on the cusp of greatness

[jgorkos]

From the article:
"What a revelation: Four programs -- one a firewall and three to combat spyware -- I downloaded FREE worked better than one I paid through the nose for. Why would anyone create these terrific programs for free? Often, as in the case of ZoneAlarm, they hope people will like the product so much they will buy an upgrade or, in the case of the spyware, pay to subscribe for upgrades."

She was right in the middle of the trees, and couldn't see the forest... yes, free software, even WINDOWS free software, works better and does what it says it does.

Talk about leading horses to water...

Re: Slow computer!

[jedidiah]

What I think is shocking is the fact that the PC tech apparently did not feel it necessary to wipe the OS and start from scratch. Both these articles perpetrate the dangerous notion that being r00ted is recoverable. Once a system has been compromised, there's no telling what other nasties reside therein.

This bit of info was sorely lacking from both articles.

Re: Slow computer!

[BlueStraggler]

Honestly, only an idiot would pay that kind of money to have their drive wiped and os reloaded.

Anybody whose data is worth less than their computer is just using it as a toy. Regaining access to your data is of far greater value than making the stupid hardware run. If it was one of my computers, I'd happily pay the $800 (or even $8000) to get my data back, and *then* I'd ditch the "ancient piece of crap machine" and buy a new one.

(Well, actually, I keep distributed backups to avoid this problem, and use almost exclusively ancient piece of crap hardware since the machines themselves are irrelevant. So if it were my computer, I'd probably just spend the $800 on women and beer.)