You don't see how displaying a list over a full screen is less efficient that displaying it as a... list?
Your response would be taken much better if it wasn't in the form of a condescending question that contributes nothing to the discussion. How about some logic or real world examples why you think I'm wrong? (Something that doesn't involve 0.001% of users.)
As far as user efficiency goes, 99.9% of users take the exact same steps that take all of about 1-3 seconds. They don't lose any efficiency, because the workflow to complete the action is the same for both.
If your question is about actual software/hardware efficiency of displaying a list on desktop vs fullscreen, then that's an entire different ballgame and I won't argue against that. (Lame argument, though, considering how powerful hardware is these days.) I, also, was not arguing on whether the metro start is better than Win7 start. Win7 start is better to me. Being popped to a fullscreen start is an annoyance, but does not hinder normal user efficiency of accessing top programs.
So put them on the Metro page, WTF? That way, I can jump back on forth from the metro page to the pseudo desktop without the start menu everytime I need to open an app. How efficient is that? Why not allow apps that require the pseudo desktop to have a menu entry on the desktop, unless your fear is that nobody will use the metro apps or the metro page?
Using the metro start for your top programs is no different than for the Windows 7 top programs. Hit the windows key and select your program. One just happens to be a fullscreen start menu. I don't really see how that is less efficient. I'd prefer to have a start menu of course, but really I'm on the desktop 99.99% of the time and all the functionality I used in Windows 7 is just as efficient in Windows 8.
I think you are correct that Microsoft wants everyone to use metro apps. (I don't use them myself. I just use the desktop and metro is my start menu.) I believe it is so they can get a foot hold on mobile and get a cut of software sales. Part of it could be a vision of taking your OS everywhere, though.
So sort of another con or pro, depending on how you look at it: Windows 8 has removed the Previous Versions functionality. It has a new functionality called File History, which doesn't use shadow copies and instead only copies some files (libraries, desktop, etc) to a second hard drive. This is a bit of a step backwards in my opinion for these reasons:
1) Previous Versions didn't need an entire copy of the file. So you only used space as it was changed. I think File History copies the entire file every time it backs it up. 2) Previous Versions worked on the entire hard drive, not just a small subset of files.
The pros for File History: 1) On a separate hard drive, so if one being backed up goes down, you are good to go. 2) Interface allows copies to be made more regularly. However, this could've been done just as easily with if Previous Versions had been beefed up.
I've found that you may still be able to use Previous Versions, though. You have to re-enable system protection on the drive first, though. After that, you have to access the drive through the network interface. ie: \\ComputerName\C$. Then Restore Previous Versions should be in the menu again. I haven't seen this work in action, though, as I just recently installed, so I can't confirm for sure it works. Here's a site with more info: http://winhowto.blogspot.com/2012/09/windows-8-how-to-recover-previous.html
The cynical side of me, which is probably correct, says that this is done to promote phone sales and encourage use of the walled garden and is not at all about making things easier for the user.
I definitely agree with this.
Thanks for the suggestion of RetroUI. I hadn't thought of using the metro apps inside of a window on the desktop.
Did they fix the copy mechanism so you can add files to an existing transfer? That was one of the more frustrating things that OSX got right. Copying a file while an existing transfer is going on just slowed them both down to the point that neither transfer would do much of anything.
This is one feature where I think they could've done better. File copies are added to the same window, however, you have to manually pause them if you don't want them running simultaneously. I definitely consider that a con, but not in the context of this discussion of Windows 7 vs 8, since 7 didn't have it either.
As far as the task manager, yeah it's not perfect. It misreports my overclocked CPU and RAM. (Displays the default speed instead of actual.) You can display multiple CPUs in it still, though. Right click on the graph, click "Change graph to" and select logical processors.
As far as running processes without an associated username. Are you sure that windows isn't just hiding the user until they are logged out before actual deletion? (So they still run with same basic permissions until that point.) I would imagine this is something they would check for and handle somehow.
I read about all the Windows 8 hate, but I also read about the many cool new features. From everything I read, Windows 8 sounded better except the metro interface and that was mitigated if you used keyboard shortcuts. I decided to give it a try at the limited time upgrade price of $40.
My take on it is that I like Windows 8 over Windows 7. Would I like a start menu over metro tile UI? Well, yeah. However, the fact of the matter is that I rarely use metro. 99% of my time is spent in desktop mode. I only use it for searching apps, just as I did in Windows Vista/7. Hit Windows key and start typing and hit enter on my app. Metro, also, displays your most used apps, just like 7. So you can just click those if you want too. Any apps I don't have automatically start, I just pin to my taskbar, though, and then I can run them in desktop mode.
Here are my reasons why I like Windows 8: *) Boot/shutdown time reduced. I don't really notice this, though. Windows 7 was fast too. *) Much improved task manager. This thing is a beast. A bunch of performance measurements in one SIMPLE place. Seeing what is using cpu/network/disk/memory in one spot is nice. *) Windows explorer has a bunch of advanced and simple to use toolbar options by default. (I use them rarely, but I appreciate they are there.) *) Master volume is overlayed on the screen as you change it with keyboard buttons. Previously I had to use 3rd party drivers/software for this. *) No more Aero UI. Just a plain interface. I don't need the extra pretty graphics and I assume this gets better performance even if only a sliver. *) File copying is much better. You get a nice graph and the time estimate is actually accurate now. You can, also, pause it. This has made a world of difference for my external drive. *) Win-X: Pops up a menu of many administration tasks. (ie. Control panel, disk management, command prompt, run, etc). You can, also, modify this list with a 3rd party program. *) Notepad is MUCH faster now. I'm not sure what they did, but in 7 and below, notepad would take seconds to load/display a simple 25MB file. Now it is instant. *) Storage Spaces. I'm not using it yet, but being able to put drives in a pool is nice and I foresee use in the future. Built-in unraid. Yes, please. *) Microsoft Security Essentials built in. (Called Windows Defender.) Malware/antivirus for the masses. (Supposedly it isn't quite as good at 0 day exploits as some other antivirus software, but for my purposes it is fine and it doesn't take up much resources.) *) Win-P Shortcut: Easily change monitors in use and/or extend desktop. I use this to activate/deactivate my tv.
Cons: *) I disabled the login/lock screen foreground wallpaper. This required you to click once before you saw your login box. This was simple and works the way I want now. *) Don't like how metro tries to handle windows updates. However, the old Windows update from Vista/7 is still there, so I usually access that through the control panel. *) Metro. I've disabled most tiles. It's pretty much used to search only and isn't a hindrance to me.
Here's what I think: If the start menu was available in Windows 8, it would've been very well received as a better OS than 7. The lack of it for me is not a problem as I search my apps anyway, just as I did in Vista/7. For those that are used to clicking with the mouse and can't change, they can get Classic Shell or Start8. I haven't tried either and probably won't, though, because they aren't needed for me. I definitely do not regret my purchase.
As has been mentioned already, you could get 2TB for that price back then. You are also forgetting that after a year, you would be able to get more TB for the same price. Given that, you would think you could get 2.5TB or more for ~$85 now, but that is certainly not the case.
Storage Spaces sounds interesting to me. Basically, you can create a pool of disks and by using mirroring or parity you can have redundancy. The mirroring allows data to be backed up to 1 or more drives. The parity part is most interesting to me, because it sounds similar to Unraid for those that have heard of that. Could be nice to get extra storage space that is portable to any computer as long as it has Windows 8. (Not held down by certain hardware such as motherboard raid controller.) Here is the article from Microsoft on it.
That along with faster booting, better file copying interface (which still could use work in my opinion), better task manager, and some other things make me interested for sure. However, all the bad information I am hearing about the Metro interface has me hesitant. I will probably wait until service pack 1 to decide whether to pick it up. It sounds like a good OS if you aren't worried about the UI, though. Since UI is so important, I'm not sure why Microsoft didn't give the option to just use the classic interface. I guess they want to try and force people to accept the Metro interface.
As mentioned below, I think we have Enhanced 9-1-1 (E911). This allows emergency services to access GPS information on the phone if the user calls 911. I would imagine a text would allow the same thing or could send location info in the text.
I've always wondered why there isn't some kind of expansion port standard for video cards on laptops. Let me plugin a video card black box onto the side of my laptop! I don't care if I need a power adapter for the video card box. That way I can use the normal onboard graphics as needed, but occasionally, when I want to game, I can just plugin my video card box, turn on my laptop, and the laptop will automatically switch to using it for graphics. Heck, maybe the port could be PCI express (without power if needed), that way it could have other uses as well.
Anybody more familiar with this issue (hardware or market) have any thoughts on the feasibility of this? Anybody know why something like this hasn't been done?
Possible reasons on the top of my head: Laptop makers want a user to buy a whole new laptop when it is "slow". Hardware issue. Most users wouldn't use it and we only cater to the top X% of people.
I'm interested in your setup. I imagine some others that read your post might be as well. Perhaps some links to components you are using and an overall cost would be good. I'm interested in comparing this to some of the other options mentioned in this thread. Does your setup work with HD 1080P movies? That part is required for me.
Also, are you sure the people expressing interest every month don't just want to copy your particular collection and are drooling at the chance?:)
You get 56k out of it because of compression. Actual physical bandwidth is limited to about 34kbps of actual data transfer.
I'm no expert, but I did go to Wikipedia and it appears to indicate that your statement is false and 56k is indeed the base speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56_kbit/s
This sounds easy on the outside, but in reality it is not if you are doing it right. (FYI: I have experience adding a third party sales tax vendor (similar to the API you write about) into ecommerce websites.) It definitely does not take 5 minutes and I wouldn't suggest that any script kiddie do it. (You are dealing with real money here.) In the real world, you have to deal with all sorts of things like: *) Taxes that vary depending on the type of item being bought. (Meaning you have to make sure your items have the various classifications for all the various laws.) *) Need to then deal with crediting taxes on order cancels/returns/changes, which can be even more fun when you are doing it for a split quantity returned. *) Error handling when remote API goes down *) Validating user inputted address matches up with a valid tax address. *) Shipping is taxable for some areas and others not. So again, you get to deal with this headache every time there is an order return or other order changes.
It's definitely doable, just not near 5 minutes doable and is definitely a cost to be considered by smaller sites.
I replied to a similar post above with: I don't think this would work, because the javascript could be modified as well. This means the modified man in the middle javascript could just return the expected hash.
I don't think this would work, because the javascript could be modified as well. This means the modified man in the middle javascript could just return the expected hash.
This solution only works against listeners, not injectors. So it provides a defense for those cases. It is not any less secure, but I admit to it being useless in this case where they probably were doing injection. (Didn't read article, probably should've.)
I think I can help a little here. If you aren't using https for logins, then you can do some password hashing tricks to make things much more secure. I developed a similar solution for this at my last job. I checked some other sites to see if they used it when I developed my solution and found that yahoo email did pretty much exactly the same thing when they were using http (non-secure) logins.
Basically the idea is something like this:
*) Server sends a random long string along with form. This string has a time component (either via additional encrypted serialized string or via server-side session storage) and will expire after an hour or less to prevent it being re-used by someone else for a submission. (Can also be expired once used by user to login.) *) clientside javascript hashes this random long string (possibly more than once) along with password and sends to server. (This protects from rainbow table attack of password using the hash.) *) server verifies that the hashed values match.
This is a basic overview. I did some other tricks and what not to increase security. I think I looked into using the PKCS standard for some stuff, but can't remember. There are probably some other ways to do this. I think I looked into actual encryption (years back), but javascript was too slow at the time. That might not be the case as much anymore.
That was a memorable episode. Loved Picard's and the Cardassian interrogator's roles in it. Also loved the end when Picard says he actually thought there were five lights. Great two-part episode.
I knew someone was going to ask that question and I almost made a preemptive comment, but figured it was irrelevant to my point, since technically a browser attack could happen to any browser and/or plugin with a zero-day exploit.
The browser I was using was the latest Firefox at the time.
Well, I followed my old (your current) philosophy for about 15 years, so I certainly can't refute you might not get malware for a while.;-) However, realizing the abundance of information on my computer, I now feel it is worth it for me to have the virus scanner hogging my resources.:( Not to mention the peace of mind in knowing there isn't a detectable keylogger in the background grabbing my banking passwords. To each his own, though. Different situations have different risks.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't see how displaying a list over a full screen is less efficient that displaying it as a... list?
Your response would be taken much better if it wasn't in the form of a condescending question that contributes nothing to the discussion. How about some logic or real world examples why you think I'm wrong? (Something that doesn't involve 0.001% of users.)
As far as user efficiency goes, 99.9% of users take the exact same steps that take all of about 1-3 seconds. They don't lose any efficiency, because the workflow to complete the action is the same for both.
If your question is about actual software/hardware efficiency of displaying a list on desktop vs fullscreen, then that's an entire different ballgame and I won't argue against that. (Lame argument, though, considering how powerful hardware is these days.) I, also, was not arguing on whether the metro start is better than Win7 start. Win7 start is better to me. Being popped to a fullscreen start is an annoyance, but does not hinder normal user efficiency of accessing top programs.
So put them on the Metro page, WTF? That way, I can jump back on forth from the metro page to the pseudo desktop without the start menu everytime I need to open an app. How efficient is that? Why not allow apps that require the pseudo desktop to have a menu entry on the desktop, unless your fear is that nobody will use the metro apps or the metro page?
Using the metro start for your top programs is no different than for the Windows 7 top programs. Hit the windows key and select your program. One just happens to be a fullscreen start menu. I don't really see how that is less efficient. I'd prefer to have a start menu of course, but really I'm on the desktop 99.99% of the time and all the functionality I used in Windows 7 is just as efficient in Windows 8.
I think you are correct that Microsoft wants everyone to use metro apps. (I don't use them myself. I just use the desktop and metro is my start menu.) I believe it is so they can get a foot hold on mobile and get a cut of software sales. Part of it could be a vision of taking your OS everywhere, though.
So sort of another con or pro, depending on how you look at it:
Windows 8 has removed the Previous Versions functionality. It has a new functionality called File History, which doesn't use shadow copies and instead only copies some files (libraries, desktop, etc) to a second hard drive. This is a bit of a step backwards in my opinion for these reasons:
1) Previous Versions didn't need an entire copy of the file. So you only used space as it was changed. I think File History copies the entire file every time it backs it up.
2) Previous Versions worked on the entire hard drive, not just a small subset of files.
The pros for File History:
1) On a separate hard drive, so if one being backed up goes down, you are good to go.
2) Interface allows copies to be made more regularly. However, this could've been done just as easily with if Previous Versions had been beefed up.
I've found that you may still be able to use Previous Versions, though. You have to re-enable system protection on the drive first, though. After that, you have to access the drive through the network interface. ie: \\ComputerName\C$. Then Restore Previous Versions should be in the menu again. I haven't seen this work in action, though, as I just recently installed, so I can't confirm for sure it works. Here's a site with more info: http://winhowto.blogspot.com/2012/09/windows-8-how-to-recover-previous.html
The cynical side of me, which is probably correct, says that this is done to promote phone sales and encourage use of the walled garden and is not at all about making things easier for the user.
I definitely agree with this.
Thanks for the suggestion of RetroUI. I hadn't thought of using the metro apps inside of a window on the desktop.
Did they fix the copy mechanism so you can add files to an existing transfer? That was one of the more frustrating things that OSX got right. Copying a file while an existing transfer is going on just slowed them both down to the point that neither transfer would do much of anything.
This is one feature where I think they could've done better. File copies are added to the same window, however, you have to manually pause them if you don't want them running simultaneously. I definitely consider that a con, but not in the context of this discussion of Windows 7 vs 8, since 7 didn't have it either.
As far as the task manager, yeah it's not perfect. It misreports my overclocked CPU and RAM. (Displays the default speed instead of actual.) You can display multiple CPUs in it still, though. Right click on the graph, click "Change graph to" and select logical processors.
As far as running processes without an associated username. Are you sure that windows isn't just hiding the user until they are logged out before actual deletion? (So they still run with same basic permissions until that point.) I would imagine this is something they would check for and handle somehow.
I read about all the Windows 8 hate, but I also read about the many cool new features. From everything I read, Windows 8 sounded better except the metro interface and that was mitigated if you used keyboard shortcuts. I decided to give it a try at the limited time upgrade price of $40.
My take on it is that I like Windows 8 over Windows 7. Would I like a start menu over metro tile UI? Well, yeah. However, the fact of the matter is that I rarely use metro. 99% of my time is spent in desktop mode. I only use it for searching apps, just as I did in Windows Vista/7. Hit Windows key and start typing and hit enter on my app. Metro, also, displays your most used apps, just like 7. So you can just click those if you want too. Any apps I don't have automatically start, I just pin to my taskbar, though, and then I can run them in desktop mode.
Here are my reasons why I like Windows 8:
*) Boot/shutdown time reduced. I don't really notice this, though. Windows 7 was fast too.
*) Much improved task manager. This thing is a beast. A bunch of performance measurements in one SIMPLE place. Seeing what is using cpu/network/disk/memory in one spot is nice.
*) Windows explorer has a bunch of advanced and simple to use toolbar options by default. (I use them rarely, but I appreciate they are there.)
*) Master volume is overlayed on the screen as you change it with keyboard buttons. Previously I had to use 3rd party drivers/software for this.
*) No more Aero UI. Just a plain interface. I don't need the extra pretty graphics and I assume this gets better performance even if only a sliver.
*) File copying is much better. You get a nice graph and the time estimate is actually accurate now. You can, also, pause it. This has made a world of difference for my external drive.
*) Win-X: Pops up a menu of many administration tasks. (ie. Control panel, disk management, command prompt, run, etc). You can, also, modify this list with a 3rd party program.
*) Notepad is MUCH faster now. I'm not sure what they did, but in 7 and below, notepad would take seconds to load/display a simple 25MB file. Now it is instant.
*) Storage Spaces. I'm not using it yet, but being able to put drives in a pool is nice and I foresee use in the future. Built-in unraid. Yes, please.
*) Microsoft Security Essentials built in. (Called Windows Defender.) Malware/antivirus for the masses. (Supposedly it isn't quite as good at 0 day exploits as some other antivirus software, but for my purposes it is fine and it doesn't take up much resources.)
*) Win-P Shortcut: Easily change monitors in use and/or extend desktop. I use this to activate/deactivate my tv.
Cons:
*) I disabled the login/lock screen foreground wallpaper. This required you to click once before you saw your login box. This was simple and works the way I want now.
*) Don't like how metro tries to handle windows updates. However, the old Windows update from Vista/7 is still there, so I usually access that through the control panel.
*) Metro. I've disabled most tiles. It's pretty much used to search only and isn't a hindrance to me.
Here's what I think: If the start menu was available in Windows 8, it would've been very well received as a better OS than 7. The lack of it for me is not a problem as I search my apps anyway, just as I did in Vista/7. For those that are used to clicking with the mouse and can't change, they can get Classic Shell or Start8. I haven't tried either and probably won't, though, because they aren't needed for me. I definitely do not regret my purchase.
As has been mentioned already, you could get 2TB for that price back then. You are also forgetting that after a year, you would be able to get more TB for the same price. Given that, you would think you could get 2.5TB or more for ~$85 now, but that is certainly not the case.
Storage Spaces sounds interesting to me. Basically, you can create a pool of disks and by using mirroring or parity you can have redundancy. The mirroring allows data to be backed up to 1 or more drives. The parity part is most interesting to me, because it sounds similar to Unraid for those that have heard of that. Could be nice to get extra storage space that is portable to any computer as long as it has Windows 8. (Not held down by certain hardware such as motherboard raid controller.) Here is the article from Microsoft on it.
That along with faster booting, better file copying interface (which still could use work in my opinion), better task manager, and some other things make me interested for sure. However, all the bad information I am hearing about the Metro interface has me hesitant. I will probably wait until service pack 1 to decide whether to pick it up. It sounds like a good OS if you aren't worried about the UI, though. Since UI is so important, I'm not sure why Microsoft didn't give the option to just use the classic interface. I guess they want to try and force people to accept the Metro interface.
As mentioned below, I think we have Enhanced 9-1-1 (E911). This allows emergency services to access GPS information on the phone if the user calls 911. I would imagine a text would allow the same thing or could send location info in the text.
I've always wondered why there isn't some kind of expansion port standard for video cards on laptops. Let me plugin a video card black box onto the side of my laptop! I don't care if I need a power adapter for the video card box. That way I can use the normal onboard graphics as needed, but occasionally, when I want to game, I can just plugin my video card box, turn on my laptop, and the laptop will automatically switch to using it for graphics. Heck, maybe the port could be PCI express (without power if needed), that way it could have other uses as well.
Anybody more familiar with this issue (hardware or market) have any thoughts on the feasibility of this? Anybody know why something like this hasn't been done?
Possible reasons on the top of my head:
Laptop makers want a user to buy a whole new laptop when it is "slow".
Hardware issue.
Most users wouldn't use it and we only cater to the top X% of people.
Maybe someone will mod this up for others to see, but the thread is probably too old already. Thanks again.
I'm interested in your setup. I imagine some others that read your post might be as well. Perhaps some links to components you are using and an overall cost would be good. I'm interested in comparing this to some of the other options mentioned in this thread. Does your setup work with HD 1080P movies? That part is required for me.
Also, are you sure the people expressing interest every month don't just want to copy your particular collection and are drooling at the chance? :)
You get 56k out of it because of compression. Actual physical bandwidth is limited to about 34kbps of actual data transfer.
I'm no expert, but I did go to Wikipedia and it appears to indicate that your statement is false and 56k is indeed the base speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56_kbit/s
However, with upload speed you appear to be more correct. (33.6 for V.90 and 48 for V.92)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56_kbit/s_modem
Modem compression (v.44 for example) can provide much faster rates than 56k. For highly compressible text, Wikipedia suggests topping out at 3:1 (~150kbit/s) rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.44#Error_control_and_data_compression
If you feel my understanding on these Wikipedia articles is off, I'm definitely interested in hearing more.
This sounds easy on the outside, but in reality it is not if you are doing it right. (FYI: I have experience adding a third party sales tax vendor (similar to the API you write about) into ecommerce websites.) It definitely does not take 5 minutes and I wouldn't suggest that any script kiddie do it. (You are dealing with real money here.) In the real world, you have to deal with all sorts of things like:
*) Taxes that vary depending on the type of item being bought. (Meaning you have to make sure your items have the various classifications for all the various laws.)
*) Need to then deal with crediting taxes on order cancels/returns/changes, which can be even more fun when you are doing it for a split quantity returned.
*) Error handling when remote API goes down
*) Validating user inputted address matches up with a valid tax address.
*) Shipping is taxable for some areas and others not. So again, you get to deal with this headache every time there is an order return or other order changes.
It's definitely doable, just not near 5 minutes doable and is definitely a cost to be considered by smaller sites.
I replied to a similar post above with: I don't think this would work, because the javascript could be modified as well. This means the modified man in the middle javascript could just return the expected hash.
I don't think this would work, because the javascript could be modified as well. This means the modified man in the middle javascript could just return the expected hash.
This solution only works against listeners, not injectors. So it provides a defense for those cases. It is not any less secure, but I admit to it being useless in this case where they probably were doing injection. (Didn't read article, probably should've.)
Good point. The solution I mentioned only works when ISP or middleman isn't injecting things. Sorry about the unnecessary reply.
I think I can help a little here. If you aren't using https for logins, then you can do some password hashing tricks to make things much more secure. I developed a similar solution for this at my last job. I checked some other sites to see if they used it when I developed my solution and found that yahoo email did pretty much exactly the same thing when they were using http (non-secure) logins.
Basically the idea is something like this:
*) Server sends a random long string along with form. This string has a time component (either via additional encrypted serialized string or via server-side session storage) and will expire after an hour or less to prevent it being re-used by someone else for a submission. (Can also be expired once used by user to login.)
*) clientside javascript hashes this random long string (possibly more than once) along with password and sends to server. (This protects from rainbow table attack of password using the hash.)
*) server verifies that the hashed values match.
This is a basic overview. I did some other tricks and what not to increase security. I think I looked into using the PKCS standard for some stuff, but can't remember. There are probably some other ways to do this. I think I looked into actual encryption (years back), but javascript was too slow at the time. That might not be the case as much anymore.
They may just mean that an ISP can modify the HTML delivered to the user so that the form submit action is set to the http address vs https.
That was a memorable episode. Loved Picard's and the Cardassian interrogator's roles in it. Also loved the end when Picard says he actually thought there were five lights. Great two-part episode.
I think you missed the joke. 512K != 512MB
Mine just came OTA (over the air) last night. Or you can do a manual update as shown here: http://www.droid-life.com/2010/08/31/manual-update-droid-incredible-to-android-2-2/
I knew someone was going to ask that question and I almost made a preemptive comment, but figured it was irrelevant to my point, since technically a browser attack could happen to any browser and/or plugin with a zero-day exploit. The browser I was using was the latest Firefox at the time.
Well, I followed my old (your current) philosophy for about 15 years, so I certainly can't refute you might not get malware for a while. ;-) However, realizing the abundance of information on my computer, I now feel it is worth it for me to have the virus scanner hogging my resources. :( Not to mention the peace of mind in knowing there isn't a detectable keylogger in the background grabbing my banking passwords. To each his own, though. Different situations have different risks.