What is worse about Windows IYO: The lack of security, or lack of speed?

[daddyslittlegrl]

I would like a good discussion here, hence the absense of a poll.

Love,
Daddyslittlegrl:KS

[karellen]

lack of security. with some tweaking Windows can be decently fast (even Vista) but there isn't much to to about security, except for the common mantra - antivirus + firewall + antispyware

[L815]

Lack of speed I'd have to pick because I have had no issues with security with Vista since I had it.

Vista is pretty speedy for certain tasks, but I think the file browser has too much gunk on it that you notice the sluggishness when you browse with it.

It just doesn't feel responsive enough, but then again I'm running a laptop :P (pretty strong though)

[OutOfReach]

Hard choice, but I would say security, thats what really matters for me. Windows has speeds that I can live with but its default security, ehh.

[fiddledd]

If vista comes pre installed, and the Hardware is upto the task, and you remove all the OEM trialware, and you disable unnecessary services, speed isn't an issue (not for me at least).
Security, well, when you consider every script kiddie, hacker, criminal etc, is trying to breach Vista security, I think it does pretty well. I use Windows Defender (much better than people say it is), Zonealarm Free, Avast Antivirus, and I don't disable UAC as I don't install stuff every day so don't notice it at all.

However, (before the fanboys post the usual anti MS stuff) this is all my opinion, based on my experience. I'm sure if you try a clean install the experience will be quite different.
I use Vista for all my important stuff and Linux as a hobby (tweaking, seeing how stuff works etc). I believe you should use what works for you, without bashing other OSs.

[karellen]

If vista comes pre installed, and the Hardware is upto the task, and you remove all the OEM trialware, and you disable unnecessary services, speed isn't an issue (not for me at least).
Security, well, when you consider every script kiddie, hacker, criminal etc, is trying to breach Vista security, I think it does pretty well. I use Windows Defender (much better than people say it is), Zonealarm Free, Avast Antivirus, and I don't disable UAC as I don't install stuff every day so don't notice it at all.

However, (before the fanboys post the usual anti MS stuff) this is all my opinion, based on my experience. I'm sure if you try a clean install the experience will be quite different.
I use Vista for all my important stuff and Linux as a hobby (tweaking, seeing how stuff works etc). I believe you should use what works for you, without bashing other OSs.

I use Vista too without any hicups (the only problem I had was about an obscure Myson Network Card no being recognized by Vista, even after checking online for drivers. as always, the solution was to manually download and install the driver). I have 2 gb of ram and after disabling some unnecessary services + some tweaking it runs as fast as XP on my current rig

[insane_alien]

lack of security.

it doesn't matter how fast your system is, if it is unsecure malware will cripple it anyway.

although, i'm not arguing that poor performance isn't also an issue. just not as serious as security(unless of course the machine is isolated from the network like one of my machines(runs XP strictly for gaming.)

[rockface]

I would like a good discussion here, hence the absense of a poll.

Love,
Daddyslittlegrl:KS

Nice you give us a choice, should both be mutually exclusive?

Both are bad on the Windows platform. Vista has better security than XP, but XP blows Vista out of the water speedwise.

Linux is in no way perfect, but at least I have a better chance of having my cake and eating it too.

[Sand & Mercury]

A nicely cleaned-out XP installation can be extremely fast... though the security naturally, is terrible; that's a much bigger problem in my experience than lack of speed.

[AnLGP]

I haven't had a BSOD since I've started running linux. I know there are viruses over on this side of the fence but it's pretty nice not having that BSOD because of one thing or another.

[jeremyswalker]

I believe you should use what works for you, without bashing other OSs.

I agree, fiddledd. Personally, I prefer Linux. However, I can't say a whole lot of bad things about Windows. It's not Windows that I dislike, it is the practices of the company behind Windows. Also, a lot of the security issues with Windows, not all, are simply due to how huge it is. It is a very large and popular target.

[aysiu]

I haven't used Vista, but at least for XP I'd say it's the lack of easy security. Yes, you can secure Windows, but the way XP is set up, and the way most programs are designed for it, it is not convenient at all to operate as a limited user, especially if you want to install Windows updates and programs, delete desktop icons, or change keyboard shortcuts for launching applications.

The Run as... command isn't nearly as convenient or as powerful as gksudo and sudo are.

[cardinals_fan]

Lack of speed. Windows isn't that insecure if you run with a limited user account, use a secure browser with NoScript, and don't do stupid things.

[fiddledd]

I haven't used Vista, but at least for XP I'd say it's the lack of easy security. Yes, you can secure Windows, but the way XP is set up, and the way most programs are designed for it, it is not convenient at all to operate as a limited user, especially if you want to install Windows updates and programs, delete desktop icons, or change keyboard shortcuts for launching applications.

The Run as... command isn't nearly as convenient or as powerful as gksudo and sudo are.

If you still use XP You might be interested in this: http://sudown.sourceforge.net/

I'm going to try it after I've imaged my HDD at the weekend, maybe:)

[rune0077]

Security, definitely. I had Vista running faster than Ubuntu in the end, so speed is great in Windows, if your machine can handle it. Security is, however, horrible, and thus the biggest problem.

[aysiu]

If you still use XP You might be interested in this: http://sudown.sourceforge.net/

I'm going to try it after I've imaged my HDD at the weekend, maybe:)
That looks intriguing. I may give that a spin. Thanks for letting me know of its existence!

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

The computer I run Vista on is Dual Core with greater that 1GB of RAM; therefore, the speed issues some people have don't apply for me. From my experience, Vista doesn't load any faster or slower than XP. It brings up the desktop faster; but, there is a wait time before the firewall, antivirus, and any Widgets load. The actual time before the computer is usable is about the same.

As far as security goes, Vista was touted as being more secure. Well, the UAC does force users to not run a Admins all the time, unless the user turns it off. That is an improvement. Vista's firewall was supposed to be more secure; however, the outbound firewall that was advertised isn't enabled by default. Microsoft said that the firewall has the ability to control outbound traffic; however, what they didn't say is that you cannot enable the outbound firewall from the Windows Security Center. Unless you know how to manually reconfigure the Vista Firewall, you are not receiving any protection that was not provided by the XP firewall. [Speculation on my part is that it works too well and blocks Microsoft's phone home abilities.]

I monitor Security forums. So for me, the security aspects of Vista are still to be determined.

[Can+~]

I used XP a long time, never had problems with security, I'm a careful user, I don't fall for dumb scams, avoided crack pages, etc. The big source of hate against XP is that it is fast, but it crumbles quickly. When formatting and installing the SP1 and SP2 it is fast, but it slowly becomes hoggy, boot time grows as you start using it.

The only way to get a usable OS after a long time, is installing flashy 3rd party software with dumb GUIs to clear the huge mess it is, specially that damned registry. Or reformatting, which is, common.

I think I can summarize it as "Windows lacks a proper software manager", something that you can tell "Remove the thing, and wipe everything that it created in the hard disk, and specially clear that registry." (like apt-get purge).

Funny thing, is that after years of not using the OS, I booted to check, and it welcomed me with updates which prompted me to "Reboot Now! | Later" every 5 minutes or so. Awesome, even windows was pushing me out.

Oh and another thing.

I once read an article/news/speed comparison about windows and linux boot time. I remember seeing that Windows cheated by moving part of the workload after the login, therefore, booting to the login was fast, but after logging you have to wait again for the interface to be responsive. Unlike linux that finishes boot at login manager and just loads your profile.

[kerry_s]

security, i spent the most time there. i'm using win2k so it's pretty fast, faster with some tweaking,
didn't even bother with av or anti-spy, just use a firewall that can control what runs and lets me decide to let it or not let it run.

using:
win2k pro sp4, fully updated
vaio pcg-f430
450mhz cpu
256mb ram

[L815]

Being honest, I do have to say contrary to my previous post that Vista feels a bit faster than Ubuntu on my laptop. Vista also runs cooler, but that's because of the 10+ drivers I manually installed after a fresh install because I didn't want the gunk from OEM.

Then again, I haven't really looked on how to optimize ubuntu. I'm never bored with Ubuntu :P

[CrazyArcher]

Umm when I was running Win2K, I had my comp practically ruined by adware and other crap. Since then, I'm acting smart. My XP is pretty fast (as much as my hardware permits), but it needed some tweaking. As for security - well, I had a few infections, but they were eliminated without causing any damage.

[hellion0]

I'd have to say the security. Even with an antivirus, an antispyware, etc, you still have to be on your toes while running Windows. Speed isn't really a problem on either machine I use that regularly runs Windows.