All i need is your address, and you'll need to wire me 500 CHF to my bank account. After the money has arrived and has been cleared for checking, i'll gladly send you an i7 920.
I also have a story about security on Windows vs. Linux.
A customer had a DMZ, with a Windows and a Linux machine in it. Both machines were installed in 2004.
The Windows machine was running Windows Server 2003. It exported a webshop accessible through HTTP and HTTPS. The webshop was a well-known ASP.NET based shop. The Windows machine was maintained by the Windows server guys. It was updated once a month, and the webshop was updated whenever needed. It was configured using IIS lockdown, using minimal privileges for SQL Server Express and the ASP.NET environment, using recommendations by application vendor.
There was also a Linux machine. It exported a configurator for the devices sold in the web shop. It was accessible through HTTP. All other ports were blocked at the firewall, just like the Windows box. The application was deployed and maintained by the in-house application developers who insisted to use Linux for this task - the Windows server guys saw no reason for that, since PHP and MySQL also run on Windows. Thus, it was decided that the application developer would maintain the machine themselves, since they frequently had to modify the code while in production, and for fear of the Windows guys breaking the server by applying updates.
Now, 5 years later (2008) i was called there because they had issues with their internet connection, and couldn't figure out why. The windows guys had little Juniper experience, and we handled routing and firewall configuration issues. I quickly identified the source of the traffic, coming from the Linux machine.
Now, which OS is more secure?
Well, the above story doesn't tell us anything about that. It just tells us that stupid people shouldn't be allowed near computers - like those application developers.
Yes - and i can tell you that we have an internal Vista deployment of 90%, pending some 3rd party vendor issues to clear the last 10%.
We have several customers with a 100% Vista deployment. None of them are crying about Vista - it works for them.
I've been using Vista for 2.5 years by now. My laptop still runs Vista, but my desktop is running build 7000 of Windows 7. Can't complain about anything.
More functionality means less performance. Doesn't matter much. Vista on my i7 is still faster than XP on my old 4 year old Athlon machine.
For a home user, there are currently few advantages in using Vista, even though there are many under-the-hood optimizations that may help them.
As such, i would not recommend a home user to go through the effort of upgrading his existing machine to Vista. At this time, that machine is likely to be over 2 years old.
However, when deciding to buy a new machine, why use an 8-9 year old operating system? There is no reason for a home user to not use Vista on a new machine.
Windows isn't exactly cheap in a company environment, but it does require very little development resources compared to FOSS for most deployments.
For a company, this means that you have less in-house development which means you can buy personnel on the market which is already proficient with the infrastructure you use, and that there is no need to develop software in-house.
Especially for smaller companies, this pans out mostly okay. For larger companies, Linux may make sense as the cost of in-house development and Microsoft licensing may start to get on even footing.
Apple certainly isn't aiming for corporate users - they do not offer any system management, monitoring tools, software deployment, policy enforcement, etc. Their server offerings are extremely few, and their server software is only designed for department use.
I have no idea how Apple runs it's internal IT, bu then again they have an user base that constists largely of technically proficient people, and my suspection is that they probably just grant local admin rights to all their users - it would be interesting to read on "How Apple does IT".
Getting Windows to work on Laptops is a headache involving hours of hunt and search for laptop drivers, unless you're happy to make do with the inevitably old ones that you *may* be lucky enough to have on CD.
Then you're using the wrong vendor. Go to google - type in "Thinkpad driver matrix" - click on your laptop model. Download and install all drivers, hotfixes, registry changes that are recommended for their hardware.
Well, there are many cases in which X will be faster than Y can be unambigously true.
For example, when Exchange moved from being 32bit to being a 64bit server applications, you could consolidate several mailbox servers onto one machine, because you didn't have problems with resource exhaustion.
64bit XP was based upon Windows Server 2003, which is not a bad thing in itself, but driver support for common consumer hardware was extremely shitty.
Vista changed that - even the cheapest HP printers now ship with 64bit capable drivers. I've been running 64bit Vista since 2006, and have never looked back.
Yeah, without SP1 Vista had it's issues. But so did XP. And Windows 2000.
Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't have the guts to release 7 as 64bit only - most probably because of Netbooks. WS08R2 will be 64bit only, which is a good thing. Then again, all the WS08 i've deployed in the past 12 months were all 64bit, so nothing will change for me.
An "Administrator" in Vista _is_ a normal user, they just have the ability to elevate. Similar to an "admin" in OS X, or a user who can sudo in Linux.
It's not entirely the same, as the permission system of OS X and Linux are wildly different - while Linux and OS X effectively change the effective user the program is run under, Windows does not.
Upon login, the user receives just a restricted token - which can be elevated to a full token.
We run 90% internally, and have several customers that run 100% Vista. And none of those customers hate Vista - in fact, they don't understand what all the fuss is about in the Media, since it's working very well for them. A rather big customer started in June 2007 with 100% Vista.
The reasons behind these things are simple: Their most important application is our ERP software - which works very well on their machines. If they are using other software and hardware, we ensured full vendor support for Windows Vista. We also ensured that all the hardware they use is supported by Vista, and replaced that hardware that wasn't supported (mostly 50$ desktop printers).
Also, Vista was deployed on appropriate hardware - 2.x Ghz Core 2 Duo with 3GB of RAM.
Vista was mostly Microsoft trying to do the right thing, forcing their ecosystem to get current, especially in dropping the requirements for local administrator rights.
I would imagine that for enterprises with lots of applications developed by the lowest indian bidder, the result will be that most of their software won't run on anything except the Windows XP SP1 with Patches KB123 and KB456 installed.
Vista offers a lot of features for businesses that would otherwise require complicated third party solutions. Bitlocker is great for small businesses, as it allows full disk encryption that is extremely easy to use and secure enough.
That would be a disaster. Even with Auto Update being free, what would happen if people would have to pay for security fixes?
The situation would be even worse than it is today. Remember: Conficker happened because of idiots, not because Microsoft fucked up - a patch was released almost a month before conficker hit the net.
We've made very good experiences with the product - Integration into already used products like Microsoft Office (especially Outlook) and Microsoft Exchange makes it a breeze.
Beware though that a external user aware deployment will need two servers (or unsupported hacks).
We're currently in progress of replacing our PBX with OCS 2007 R2. So far, it's looking good.
First of all, the IBM x3650 and HP DL380 G5 spend a lot of time initializing their RAID controllers. This takes seemingly forever (the most recent ServeRAID 8k is the biggest offender, needing almost 2 minutes). LinuxBIOS wouldn't help much here.
Secondly, that's what you have managment tools for. IBM offers a tool called ASU to deploy new BIOS settings:
Valid points, but do you expect ESL speakers who detest that fact to read and reply on Slashdot? All i'm trying to say that this gives a very biased example.
English is extremely important to me - a variety of my coworkers speak no or very little English, making it extremely hard for them to research issues.
There's a lot more English stuff out there. Of course, the I18N of operating systems and applications hasn't made searching easier.
Many of our customers demand to have their operating system installed in their native Language - this means Googling for error messages is now a two step process
* Find out the English error message text * Google for the English error message
Most translations are either bad or a garble of English and German:
Slashdot Mirror
No - a current CPU and a current operating system is faster than an old CPU and an old operating system.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable comparison.
Yes, of course.
All i need is your address, and you'll need to wire me 500 CHF to my bank account. After the money has arrived and has been cleared for checking, i'll gladly send you an i7 920.
If the manufacturer of your hardware hasn't released Vista drivers by now, he either sucks or your hardware has already been EOLd.
No, Windows XP x64 shipped later, and was based on the x64 version WS03.
Vista x64 is the first consumer OS available with a broad driver support from Vendors.
Agreed.
I also have a story about security on Windows vs. Linux.
A customer had a DMZ, with a Windows and a Linux machine in it. Both machines were installed in 2004.
The Windows machine was running Windows Server 2003. It exported a webshop accessible through HTTP and HTTPS. The webshop was a well-known ASP.NET based shop. The Windows machine was maintained by the Windows server guys. It was updated once a month, and the webshop was updated whenever needed. It was configured using IIS lockdown, using minimal privileges for SQL Server Express and the ASP.NET environment, using recommendations by application vendor.
There was also a Linux machine. It exported a configurator for the devices sold in the web shop. It was accessible through HTTP. All other ports were blocked at the firewall, just like the Windows box. The application was deployed and maintained by the in-house application developers who insisted to use Linux for this task - the Windows server guys saw no reason for that, since PHP and MySQL also run on Windows. Thus, it was decided that the application developer would maintain the machine themselves, since they frequently had to modify the code while in production, and for fear of the Windows guys breaking the server by applying updates.
Now, 5 years later (2008) i was called there because they had issues with their internet connection, and couldn't figure out why. The windows guys had little Juniper experience, and we handled routing and firewall configuration issues. I quickly identified the source of the traffic, coming from the Linux machine.
Now, which OS is more secure?
Well, the above story doesn't tell us anything about that. It just tells us that stupid people shouldn't be allowed near computers - like those application developers.
The test is stupid, because there is not much malware out there targeting Linux.
Also, neither Debian nor Vista with either SP1 or SP2 will get taken over, if noone is working at the machine.
Vista defaults to it's Public firewall profile, which will block all incoming traffic.
Debian, as far is remember, doesn't install any services in a minimalistic install.
That only leaves remote exploitable kernel vulnerabilities, which to my current knowledge neither Vista nor Linux have.
Yes - and i can tell you that we have an internal Vista deployment of 90%, pending some 3rd party vendor issues to clear the last 10%.
We have several customers with a 100% Vista deployment. None of them are crying about Vista - it works for them.
I've been using Vista for 2.5 years by now. My laptop still runs Vista, but my desktop is running build 7000 of Windows 7. Can't complain about anything.
A "secure" OS from a group of people who can't even get basic business arrangements straight?
Just add a "consumer oriented operating system" in there and stop the nitpicking.
And XP is slower than 2k.
And 2k is slower than NT4.
More functionality means less performance. Doesn't matter much. Vista on my i7 is still faster than XP on my old 4 year old Athlon machine.
For a home user, there are currently few advantages in using Vista, even though there are many under-the-hood optimizations that may help them.
As such, i would not recommend a home user to go through the effort of upgrading his existing machine to Vista. At this time, that machine is likely to be over 2 years old.
However, when deciding to buy a new machine, why use an 8-9 year old operating system? There is no reason for a home user to not use Vista on a new machine.
Windows isn't exactly cheap in a company environment, but it does require very little development resources compared to FOSS for most deployments.
For a company, this means that you have less in-house development which means you can buy personnel on the market which is already proficient with the infrastructure you use, and that there is no need to develop software in-house.
Especially for smaller companies, this pans out mostly okay. For larger companies, Linux may make sense as the cost of in-house development and Microsoft licensing may start to get on even footing.
Apple certainly isn't aiming for corporate users - they do not offer any system management, monitoring tools, software deployment, policy enforcement, etc. Their server offerings are extremely few, and their server software is only designed for department use.
I have no idea how Apple runs it's internal IT, bu then again they have an user base that constists largely of technically proficient people, and my suspection is that they probably just grant local admin rights to all their users - it would be interesting to read on "How Apple does IT".
Then you're using the wrong vendor. Go to google - type in "Thinkpad driver matrix" - click on your laptop model. Download and install all drivers, hotfixes, registry changes that are recommended for their hardware.
2k was 32bit only. I'm not sure why replied with that to my post, though.
Well, there are many cases in which X will be faster than Y can be unambigously true.
For example, when Exchange moved from being 32bit to being a 64bit server applications, you could consolidate several mailbox servers onto one machine, because you didn't have problems with resource exhaustion.
64bit XP was based upon Windows Server 2003, which is not a bad thing in itself, but driver support for common consumer hardware was extremely shitty.
Vista changed that - even the cheapest HP printers now ship with 64bit capable drivers. I've been running 64bit Vista since 2006, and have never looked back.
Yeah, without SP1 Vista had it's issues. But so did XP. And Windows 2000.
Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't have the guts to release 7 as 64bit only - most probably because of Netbooks. WS08R2 will be 64bit only, which is a good thing. Then again, all the WS08 i've deployed in the past 12 months were all 64bit, so nothing will change for me.
HyperThreading does not have to be supported by the OS, but a SMT aware scheduler leads to better performance.
It's not entirely the same, as the permission system of OS X and Linux are wildly different - while Linux and OS X effectively change the effective user the program is run under, Windows does not.
Upon login, the user receives just a restricted token - which can be elevated to a full token.
Yeah, sorry for the nitpicking.
If you don't trust Microsoft, why are you running Windows?
I don't see this is much as a problem, as long as compatibility of these 32bit apps on 64bit Windows is tested and works as it should.
I don't think the client of an ERP package should be a 64bit application "just because". There's no advantage gained from doing so.
I run 64bit Windows 7 at Home, and 64bit Windows Vista on my work laptop. Both run fine.
I work for a small ERP ISV in Switzerland.
We run 90% internally, and have several customers that run 100% Vista. And none of those customers hate Vista - in fact, they don't understand what all the fuss is about in the Media, since it's working very well for them. A rather big customer started in June 2007 with 100% Vista.
The reasons behind these things are simple: Their most important application is our ERP software - which works very well on their machines. If they are using other software and hardware, we ensured full vendor support for Windows Vista. We also ensured that all the hardware they use is supported by Vista, and replaced that hardware that wasn't supported (mostly 50$ desktop printers).
Also, Vista was deployed on appropriate hardware - 2.x Ghz Core 2 Duo with 3GB of RAM.
Vista was mostly Microsoft trying to do the right thing, forcing their ecosystem to get current, especially in dropping the requirements for local administrator rights.
I would imagine that for enterprises with lots of applications developed by the lowest indian bidder, the result will be that most of their software won't run on anything except the Windows XP SP1 with Patches KB123 and KB456 installed.
Vista offers a lot of features for businesses that would otherwise require complicated third party solutions. Bitlocker is great for small businesses, as it allows full disk encryption that is extremely easy to use and secure enough.
That would be a disaster. Even with Auto Update being free, what would happen if people would have to pay for security fixes?
The situation would be even worse than it is today. Remember: Conficker happened because of idiots, not because Microsoft fucked up - a patch was released almost a month before conficker hit the net.
My LaserJet 4m works just fine with Vista 64bit.
Install Windows XP 32bit on the machine with 12GB RAM. Work with a 10 GB data set.
Now, install Windows Vista 64bit on the machine with 12GB. Work with a 10GB data set.
Compare the speed. You now may argue that Windows XP 64bit exists: But that version has the same compatibility problems that plague Vista.
I can only recommend OCS / Office Communicator.
We've made very good experiences with the product - Integration into already used products like Microsoft Office (especially Outlook) and Microsoft Exchange makes it a breeze.
Beware though that a external user aware deployment will need two servers (or unsupported hacks).
We're currently in progress of replacing our PBX with OCS 2007 R2. So far, it's looking good.
Well, if you talk about large servers..
First of all, the IBM x3650 and HP DL380 G5 spend a lot of time initializing their RAID controllers. This takes seemingly forever (the most recent ServeRAID 8k is the biggest offender, needing almost 2 minutes). LinuxBIOS wouldn't help much here.
Secondly, that's what you have managment tools for. IBM offers a tool called ASU to deploy new BIOS settings:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/toolsctr/v1r0/topic/sgtk_sa_win/pe_asu_config.html?resultof=%22asu%22%20
Valid points, but do you expect ESL speakers who detest that fact to read and reply on Slashdot? All i'm trying to say that this gives a very biased example.
English is extremely important to me - a variety of my coworkers speak no or very little English, making it extremely hard for them to research issues.
There's a lot more English stuff out there. Of course, the I18N of operating systems and applications hasn't made searching easier.
Many of our customers demand to have their operating system installed in their native Language - this means Googling for error messages is now a two step process
* Find out the English error message text
* Google for the English error message
Most translations are either bad or a garble of English and German:
bad: Leitweg-Tabelle
garble: Routing-Tabelle
English: routing table