In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> In all fairness here this is not a M$ problem but sheer laziness on the
>> part of the companies concerned. Vista was available as a free time
>> expired beta version for over a year.

<Clip>

>> Oh yes, and maybe they
>> want to sell you a new  Web Cam, Video Card, Sound Card, USB coffee
>> heater which does have Vista drivers. Cynical, me?
>
>I teach cynicism (I'm just not very good at spelling it !) so I suepct 
>I might be better at it than you :o)

What ? A cynic ... you ... ?  Never noticed ... :-)

>Vista is just a glorified Windows 95 - it's vastly expensive, it under 
>performns, it requires a huge investment in hardware and provides 
>nothing much in return. Stick with XP if you have to run Windows - or 
>come over from the 'dark side' and try Linux.

Actually I believe that all of the M$ output since WIN95 is just a 
better, extended version of that way of designing and operating a 
computer interface ... that is if you not an out and out M$ hater ... 
:-)

I have just this week received an automatic update for XP Pro, which now 
tests to see if it is an authentic version of the OS.

>And another thing, which may not be related, has anyone noticed a huge 
>increase in spam and phishing emails recently (especially 'Dear Paypal 
>customer') I've had over 400 this week so far and it's only Wednesday. 
>The usual reason is a new Windows version leading to lots of new 
>unprotected connections to the internet and withing 15 seconds (I have 
>read) an unprotected Windows box will be detected and zombified into 
>sending out spam, trojans, etc. I suspect that Vista is not quite as 
>well protected as we are being told.

Generally I think that "spam" ... etc, has gone beyond a joke ... there 
is so much time, bandwidth, and general annoyance from it all.

One simple way that I stopped receiving the majority of the rubbish was 
to set the envelope with the Demon software to reject anything that is 
not for an authentic address.

>I know for a fact that the default administrator password on XP is not 
>to actually have one, and that that information is buried 'deep' in the 
>tiny handbook thatcomes with XP - and whihc I presume nobody reads due 
>to its total lack of usefulness !

I guess it only makes sense to people that passwords have a useful place 
when they use networks ...

>Enough ranting :o)

Or fun ... ?

-- 
Malcolm Cadman
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm

Reply via email to