Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 141

Thread: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    south west england
    Beans
    84

    Re: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

    This is written by a programmer,

    http://100777.com/node/1120

    (yeah if the developers can turn linux as near as possible like windows is, and is possible then how blatant can it get,can you hack electric- no!,unless you break the circuit)

    Introduction

    Context, context, context. I was sick hearing that phrase from Egyptologists in regards to my research on the Great Pyramid. They never could grasp that context is irrelevant to the scientific process or methodology, science examines facts, not interpretation. In saying that, they taught me a lot, it is funny how the entire aspect of a thing or situation can change, just by applying a different context to it.

    In this article, I intend to do just that, with Microsoft's Windows Operating System.

    If you have ever wondered, if;

    1. Microsoft, was secretly spying on end-user machines?
    2. Big Brother deployment scenarios were real?
    3. M$ Windows was a type of bugging device?

    Then this, is for you my friend, the 'Top-47 Windows bugging functions', and then some. There is also an appendix on forensic methodology and Magnetic Force Microscopy (MFM).

    All sing...'There may be trouble ahead...'

    If You Could See, What I Can See, Reinstalling Windows...

    In general, to people in the western hemisphere; bugging devices, parabolic microphones, signal tracing, satellite tracking and secret government agencies, performing highly illegal activities, on a covert basis, are the source of inspiration for novels, movies and theater, rather than any real event.

    These devices and activities have been part-and-parcel of my life (and almost anyone else in Northern Ireland), from the moment of birth and conspiracy theories are simply facts of daily life that, could put, any of my friends, or myself, into an early grave. Therefore, it is only natural for me to see things in a military context and this provides a very interesting picture of odd behavior, at Redmond and various other big names, throughout the US.

    Microsoft is of the 'opinion' that its software is an operating system with a wide range of 'features'. As I am about to demonstrate, that is simply a matter of 'how you see things' and the context in which they are highlighted in. This is a very subjective experience and different people tend to see different things, simply because their own personal context is automatically applied, a 'bias', if you will.

    The point to hold, in the front of your mind, throughout reading this article, is the fact that the 'features' and their descriptions, presented here, are accurate representations of Window functions, in their own right, however, any suggestion as to motivation would be speculation.

    More clearly, Microsoft has presented it own 'opinion' on the various features within Windows, other 'opinions' do exist and this article presents one of them, in a hypothetical scenario. For this analysis to hold, the hypothetical scenario must be demonstrated to be consistent throughout the design of the OS, not just its usage.

    The style and tone throughout, is based upon the working hypothesis, that Microsoft has altered the Windows OS, to reflect US military requirements and that its primary role is that of a modern variation of a 'bugging device'. It is simply taken as a given fact throughout.

    This clarification allows for a more direct style of writing and legal protection for publishers. In addition to this, the views expressed in this report are the authors and have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else.

    There are no accusations being made, this is presented only as a 'working hypothesis', at all times, to allow for the fullest exploration of this particular train of thought. If the hypothesis holds, then we will expand it a little, to place it in proper context and draw the conclusion from the entire investigation.

    Report On Analysis of Microsoft Windows XP

    1. Start -> Search

    Each and every time a search is conducted using the search option under the start button on Windows XP, the system automatically checks if your online and transmits information directly to Microsoft.

    This is done, without informing the end-user in any fashion, nor providing a clear method to disable. It has been hidden by design. In technical terms, a form of Trojan.

    A good application level, stateful firewall, will catch this communication attempt.

    Done by design.

    2. Help System, F1

    When accessing Microsoft Help systems, through the F1 key. A communication attempt to Microsoft's ActiveX site is made.

    Done by design.

    3. Microsoft Backup

    Designed to bypass all security, even ownership rights of a drive. Try it.

    Done by design.

    4. Process Viewer (Task Manager)

    No mapping to executable file, nor will it show all running processes. Designed to hide important information required for determining system infections and sources of network data transmission.

    Done by design.

    5. Dr Watson

    This used to loadup with information on dlls that had been hooked. Hooked DLLs are used to intercept keystroke, etc. Microsoft removed end-users capability to see this. It now generates a simple messagebox.

    Done by design.

    6. The Windows Registry

    Now, on the face of it, this may seem like a good idea, however, as any developer will tell you, they only use it because the commands are quick, simple and, when it comes down to it, security is mainly the end-users responsibility.

    It would be much faster, simpler and provide greater system security to use an ini file. Linux uses this approach with config files. An entire database must be examined each time request is made. This is why Windows slows down after you begin installing applications. The registry grows and more cycles must be dedicated to completing each query.

    When you multiply this, by the wide range of systems accessing the registry, it is clear to see, that as a design architecture, it is completely moronic.

    That is, until it is examined from another perspective, try the following perspectives as examples:

    a. HKEY_CURRENT_USER - psychological profile of logged on user, real-time usage focus.

    click on link to read from there, full article is to long to be posted here.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    noVA, USA
    Beans
    49

    Re: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

    Just read that whole thing - wow. I didn't even know there were THAT many intentional ways to track one in XP. Just imagine now many are undocumented.
    The Last.fm | The Testimonial
    Dell Inspiron 6000 | 1.73ghz Pentium M | 2GB DDR2 533Mhz | 100 GB 7200rpm HDD | Intel 2200BG | AIGLX+Beryl on Intel GMA 900 | Audigy 2 ZS |Gentoo/ Windows XP SP2 (in VirtualBox)

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    south west england
    Beans
    84

    Re: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

    Yeah and read this,

    http://100777.com/node/1107

    Linux Opinion: An Open Letter to a Digital World
    "The Windows platform is not just insecure - it's patently, blatantly, and unashamedly insecure by design"

    December 18, 2004, http://www.linuxworld.com/story/47536.htm

    Summary
    As a Linux desktop user himself, system administrator Chris Spencer did not relish having to clean up his wife's infected Windows PC after it had become compromised. By the time he'd solved the immediate problem, Spencer had become so fed up with spyware, trojans, viruses, and spam, that he decided it was time to write a letter to the world. It's a simple message: it's time to switch from Windows to Linux. "The letter serves as a guide," Spencer explains, "taking you through some of the history of Microsoft right up to this present day."


    By Chris Spencer


    To Anyone Who Will Listen,

    Recently I was reading an article from Wired magazine talking about the Windows spyware problem [1]. It was unbelievable to me that people would choose to use programs that they know make all their personal information available to companies. It turns out that 80% of Windows users suffer from spyware [2]. I read many articles like these but always thought that these people have problems just because they aren't careful. Maybe they don't run anti-virus, they don't use a firewall, or they browse seedy sites and download applications for seedy activities. It turns out though that is not the case.

    My wife discovered that her computer had been infected by spyware and trojans despite the anti-virus, regular Windows updates, having the good sense not to open attachments, using a firewall, and avoiding any type of seedy activities online. As best we can tell someone exploited IE transparently while she searched for medical information to help our nephew.

    The clean up from these types of infections is great fun. I spent not less than 5 hours running about every spyware prevention program known to man. Each one searching for those pesky files and registry settings. The worst thing of all was that, once I cleared them off the disk, simply starting Internet Explorer would reinfect the whole system. Seriously, it was great fun and I did, eventually, have the satisfaction of beating the problem. That's right - a system administrator for 10 years with a degree in computer science and a RHCE CAN clean up a single spyware infection in 5 hours.

    I hope you see what I am really saying here. How on this earth are people that aren't trained in Information Technology going to do it? As a Linux desktop user, I had never been exposed to this type of problem. Having now battled with spyware, I am finally motivated to speak up and say something to the world. I want to get a single message across:

    It's time for anyone running a Windows PC to switch to Linux.

    You see, the Windows platform is not just insecure - it's patently, blatantly, and unashamedly insecure by design and for all the lip service to security it's really not going to get better, ever. To make matters worse, it's more expensive and gives you fewer necessary applications right out of the box than Linux. Everyone, even Microsoft, knows this - they are just too afraid to say it. The tide is coming in. Nothing on this planet can stop it.

    Whew. I said it. I am so happy to get that off my chest, however, for me to stop here would be unfair. I haven't really proved it to you. So if you will entertain me a bit longer here is the rest of the story.

    Microsoft started conducting a "Get the Facts" [3] marketing campaign against Linux. This signaled that they have correctly assessed that their competition is Linux and that they need to fight it with all they have. It even made it into their 10K filing. [4] It's really an interesting read to note that Microsoft sees Linux as a major threat It's a big enough threat to their monopoly that they say:

    "The Linux open source operating system, which is also derived from Unix and is available without payment under a General Public License, has gained increasing acceptance as its feature set increasingly resembles the distinct and innovative features of Windows and as competitive pressures on personal computer OEMs to reduce costs continue to increase."

    If Microsoft thinks this then that alone is more than enough reason to give a fair look at Linux. Of course it's just as likely that they are preparing the lawsuits to attack Linux because it is a real competitor. I am not sure which distinct and innovative features they are referencing. Perhaps it was the whole GUI concept that Apple sued them for stealing from them. Perhaps it was the Microsoft Office-like functionality that Open Office has that Microsoft took from Word Perfect. It's hard to tell and it gets me off topic to delve into it.

    Alright, let's talk about the "Get the Facts" marketing campaign. What happened is that Microsoft and vendors that make money on Microsoft products have all come together to tell us that we us why we should use their products. As a consumer and something of a student of history, I always question people that are highly motivated to protect their jobs and money. Did big tobacco say their products were safe long after they knew it wasn't true? Might Microsoft be inclined to say that their products provide better total cost of ownership (TCO) and security than another product despite knowing it wasn't true?

    It turns out they have done something strikingly similar before. [5] When IBM OS/2 had just taken off and become "the best selling retail software product in America" then "sources close to Microsoft" leaked word to a columnist for the UK edition of PC Magazine, who dutifully reported both the rumor and source." - Computerworld, March 20, 1995, page 118. From there it was all downhill for IBM. Despite everything indicating that OS/2 was doing great the press just kept printing the Microsoft party line. In the almost 10 years since that happened, have things changed? Are they kindler, gentler, and friendlier to work with or do they still spin, bully, and use talking heads?

    Carrying on in their history we see that, empowered by their victory over IBM, just 4 years ago Microsoft was ordered to be split in two by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson because they were convicted of abusing their monopoly market position. Then 3 years ago Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reversed the decision to split them and a much lighter penalty was imposed. Unhappy with the results the EU took up the case and just this year Microsoft was convicted in the EU. Since then Microsoft has paid billions of dollars to the companies that were aligned against them. One by one settling the differences. Most of the companies had little choice but to accept the money they were offered. Because they have been so badly beat. Now they stand with billions of dollars in the bank and a patent portfolio that is rapidly expanding.

    I don't know about you but when a convicted monopolist that has been shown to use those monopoly powers against their competitors says that Linux is a competitor but that it's not as secure or cost-effective, well then I take note. Because I know there is a good chance that a half truth was spoken.

    Maybe Linux is shoddy code just hacked together by a college student. However, according to the four-year analysis by five Stanford researchers [6] Linux contains only "0.17 bugs per 1,000 lines of code" and most all of those bugs have been fixed. Given that an earlier study from Reasoning, Inc [7] had already shown that the Linux TCP/IP stack had a 0.013 per 1000 lines of code defect rate back in 2001, it is hardly astonishing that the entire Kernel is also relatively low in defects compared to your average commercial software application To put that in perspective the average code seems to have anywhere from 2 to 30 bugs per 1000 lines of code. That makes the Linux kernel between 11 times and 176 times better than your average product. So it's certainly not shoddy software by any stretch of the imagination.

    Considering that many Linux distributions are free, it is hard to believe that it would be more expensive than Microsoft where a simple upgrade costs $100 and their Office application costs hundreds more. Call me crazy but I am having a hard time finding any truth in the "facts" as reported by Microsoft. However, Microsoft studies the TCO to show that other factors make Linux more expensive. Yet, the studies that I have read seem to make crazy assumptions like saying it takes more money to train users to push a button on Linux than it does to push a button on Windows. They also tend to ignore the costs associated with viruses, spyware, and trojans that prompted me to write this. Perhaps most unfortunately for Microsoft they also ignore that wildly varying labor costs directly affect TCO. [8] That means it wouldn't just be a poor decision it would be a completely moronic decision for a government to use the Windows platform in the third world if it wasn't absolutely necessary. To be honest, for a long time I have wanted to see a case study that took these types of issues into account. I was, for this reason greatly disappointed, when I heard about a study from Cybersource [9] that ignored these things but still found Linux, even Red Hat Enterprise Linux, to be 19% or more expensive. So much for being less expensive, they can't even win when the whole thing is tipped in their favor.

    Maybe I missed something? Maybe Microsoft just happens to be truly better at security than Linux? For this I had to get dirty and dig. On the surface it did seem like Windows had fewer security issues. Looking at Seconia, a security research company, I discovered Windows 2000 Server has had only 76 Advisories in all of 2003 and 2004. [10] Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 on the other hand has 101 Advisories [11] and it wasn't launched until November and looking at Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 I found a whopping 145 vulnerabilities. [12] That looks pretty bad, right?

    I am sure that is what Microsoft would like us to think. If we would just ignore the elephants in the closet then we would come to their happy conclusion. I'm not going to do that though.

    Microsoft Windows is but one component in a much larger Windows platform. What good is the operating system without remembering productivity software, anti-virus software, instant messengers, media players, software to burn CD and DVDs, and the list goes on and on? These are all things that Red Hat and every other Linux distribution includes as part of the package. Usually they go so far as to include multiple applications for each function. It would be, therefore, completely unfair if we didn't compare a comparably equipped Windows platform to a comparable Linux platform. How do you add it up though? Whose products do you pick and whose products do you ignore? It's a horrible can of worms. I tried to do it. To build the comprehensive list so that we could compare a Microsoft Windows that's fully equipped like a Linux distribution and I was able to exceed the number of advisories. I just felt dirty doing it and in the process of doing it. Besides, I came to the realization that the bug count isn't what really mattered.

    What really matters is that the bugs are getting fixed so you aren't online without protection and that the updates were easy to track and install. Both of which Microsoft is in serious trouble with.

    With Linux all of the updates for all of the different types of applications come through a single path and in an automated way. It is a process very much like the Windows Update service. The key here is that one update service covers all of the products. On the Windows platform you can get the Windows updates this way but what about all of the third party applications we needed to have the same functionality as Linux? Each of those need to be searched for or are hidden inside the application themselves.

    In my research I found one particularly nasty Microsoft bug that really emphasizes this point. I am talking about the GDI+ buffer overflow with JPEG processing [13]. They put out a security bulletin and they released a patch for each of their affected products but they never identified who put the SDK library in their products and each of those products linked to it individually. Not only did this mean users had to be experts that researched the update on their own, but they also had to manually install it in each location. You have to admit, that sure isn't as nice as the centralized updating that Linux has. It seems more like a tidal wave to me.

    Then there are the issues related to actually fixing the bugs that are known. Again, Secunia makes it really easy to see. Of the 76 advisories Microsoft 2000 Sever still had a whopping 20% outstanding and one of them was rated "Highly Critical". Red Hat Enterprise Linux had fewer than 1% outstanding and it was rated only "Moderately Critical". So much for fewer security updates meaning you are more secure and let's not even talk about the Internet Explorer Web browser. Because it is so insecure that the United States government, through the Computer Emergency Readiness Team, had to issue a warning to use any browser besides IE. [14] Yet, to use Windows Update you have to use IE. It's just not fair.

    Then there is the issue of design. Linux was designed to be in a hostile Internet centric world. As people were programming it they knew this and it no doubt played a role in the designs of their products. With Linux you will find that firewalls are enabled by default, users rarely login as administrators, server applications run as users that have limited rights, etc. In Windows these obvious things were an afterthought. Finally put into Windows XP with the creation of SP2, well mostly. I think it's because of the mindset that Windows is for end users on either private networks or no network at all that Microsoft has been hit so hard by security issues. It's of course equally possible that the issue is entirely different. Maybe they don't fix the security holes because it's considered a feature. I know they said as much about the Windows Messenger Service [15] even though it was being actively used to send banner advertisements to desktops around the world.

    Perhaps Microsoft is finding that the standard software wisdom about bugs [16] being less expensive to fix before a product ships is true because after several years of having security as the number one focus they are as plagued or more plagued by security issues than ever before. Maybe pouring money on the problem won't fix it? I mean come on Even before Windows XP [17] - we knew these things but it still shipped with the stupid default settings and we STILL have 20% of their advisories unfixed. How can anyone feel safe running on a Microsoft platform?

    Linux provides a better paradigm. It costs less, it is more secure, and perhaps most importantly of all it isn't controlled by a single vendor. While Red Hat is the largest distributer of Linux and does provide a comprehensive support system and legal protections for their customers, they aren't alone. Major companies like IBM, HP, and Novell are all deeply involved with Linux but none of them are in control of it.

    Because of Linux, the future of computing is commodity. By the year 2000, Linux already represented billions of dollars worth of development effort [18] and it's owned collectively by each one of us. The savings will follow and you can count on getting what you pay for or there will be someone else that is there for you on the terms that you want. The tide has turned and Microsoft is going to get wet. From my perspective they already are all washed up.

    It's all an issue of attitude. Linux follows the share and share alike [19] mindset where as Microsoft seems to have the greedy mindset of it's all mine and I want to get paid for it now [20]. Well Bill, Steve, and talking parrots, that's not very nice. As I have shown there are good reasons for using Linux as the better alternative to Windows. Give my friends at Red Hat a call. I am sure they could comp. you a copy. Anyway.....

    Like I said: It's time for anyone running a Windows PC to switch to Linux.

    I really appreciate you taking the time to read my letter and I hope that it gets you motivated to make the switch or, if you already have, that it just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    south west england
    Beans
    84

    Re: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

    Well theres some food for you to digest,i think you can tell for your selfs, that windows is a pile of poo to compared to open source linux, however i am on windows because i just want to use it for games,you can decide for your selfs, which is more blatant, a company with billions makeing a buggy insecure operateing system, and where Linux is free and more secure,you can make your own mind up.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    south west england
    Beans
    84

    Re: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

    Bump,
    Last edited by holylucifer; December 3rd, 2006 at 01:50 PM.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Beans
    16
    Distro
    Ubuntu 6.06 Dapper

    Re: XP as fast than Xubuntu!!?

    I have ubuntu running in my pc and windows xp is pretty slow!! it often crash!!!!

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Beans
    29
    Distro
    Xubuntu 6.10 Edgy

    Re: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

    Xubuntu Edgy boots to using about 90MB of RAM at desktop idle on my machine. (Mainly because of Xorg and nVidia drivers)

    Windows XP (untweaked) Takes up about 120MB.

    That said... if you change the Xserver from XORG to something like TinyX (See what Damn Small Linux Uses)and run VESA drivers, you can get Xubuntu to run around 50MB at desktop idle.

    With XP, if you turn off enough services, you can get it down to running a little under 100MB at desktop idle. If you run the generic VGA driver... you can even get XP down to around 70MB.

    Either one, untweaked, doesn't have much room for applications to launch with only 128MB, and will start using virtual memory (hard disk) which is dog slow.

    You will find that Xubuntu with a smaller Xserver and a Vesa driver is much more pleasant than XP and the generic VGA driver. AND you will have more memory left over of that 128MB, for apps than XP.

    -Taz
    Last edited by Tazix; December 9th, 2006 at 07:50 AM.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nicosia, Cyprus
    Beans
    422

    Re: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

    This thread has to become sticky.
    There are many interesting posts, about linux, windows, boot up speeds etc.
    Not to mention the great points that holylucifer made ...

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    south west england
    Beans
    84

    Re: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

    I did Hardly Hardly heard any max loud hard drive sounds in linux where in windows its GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR,where the hard drive running in linux is quite.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Beans
    100

    Re: XP runs as fast as Xubuntu!!?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazix View Post
    Xubuntu Edgy boots to using about 90MB of RAM at desktop idle on my machine. (Mainly because of Xorg and nVidia drivers)

    Windows XP (untweaked) Takes up about 120MB.

    That said... if you change the Xserver from XORG to something like TinyX (See what Damn Small Linux Uses)and run VESA drivers, you can get Xubuntu to run around 50MB at desktop idle.

    With XP, if you turn off enough services, you can get it down to running a little under 100MB at desktop idle. If you run the generic VGA driver... you can even get XP down to around 70MB.

    Either one, untweaked, doesn't have much room for applications to launch with only 128MB, and will start using virtual memory (hard disk) which is dog slow.

    You will find that Xubuntu with a smaller Xserver and a Vesa driver is much more pleasant than XP and the generic VGA driver. AND you will have more memory left over of that 128MB, for apps than XP.

    -Taz

    Well, thats kinda wrong, i can get xp down to 32mb idle if i disable useless features...and my custom xp runs fine on the spare p3 700 128mb sdr 20gig hard drive....linux on it?..gah...couldnt even load the cd...took nearly 9 minutes...windows won that one.

    i generally find linux to be alot slower than windows even on my current rig.

    AMD64 3200+
    Asus A8N-E Deluxe mobo
    2GB PC3700
    GeForce 7600GT (pci-express)
    sata ii 120gig (main hd)

    startup times kill me, if im in a rush i simply boot into windows because its alot quicker and i can get things done quicker as well.

    dont get me wrong..i love linux..but every rig i try it on its quite slow...even with gfx card drivers on...beryl runs great...but i cant even play HD vidoes on ubuntu very well (jerks, stutters, frame drops) yet they play perfectly fine in XP.
    i really miss nvidia purevideo as well, wish nvidia would get their fingers out of their butthole and port that over to linux.

Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •