Printable View
Good morning everyone....how secure is XP??
This is my question....in comparison to Windows Me,98, or 2000.
I have 2 years experience with computers.
I keep my system up-to-date in regards to anti-virus & patches.
I utilize a firewall because I have a cable connection.
Thoughts and/or suggestions ....please!!
tons of fun :confused:
In my experience, it's been (in order of preference and security):
1)Win2K
2)XP
3)98
10)ME
Can you tell I hate ME?
2000 is about as secure as a M$ OS can get. Not that that's saying much, but there you go. XP isn't too bad, but I still recommend 2000.
Thank you...DG.
Now, should I opt to stay with FAT32...or NTFS??
I'm going to reformat my disk...No dual boot!!
tons of fun
If you're aren't dual booting, and you want the most security, then NTFS is the onlly way to go. Period. NTFS gives you the ability to lock down individual files (to a point, it is only Microsoft), where FAT32 does not. The only reason to go FAT32 in this case would be if you were dual booting, which you've stated you are not.
Good morning everyone....how secure is XP??
Not very much M$ gave lip service to security and M$'s latest catch phrase is "trust worthy computing"...............
how about "hack worthy computing?" there you go a new catch phrase lol.
I have 2 years experience with computers.
I keep my system up-to-date in regards to anti-virus & patches.
I utilize a firewall because I have a cable connection.
Thoughts and/or suggestions ....please!!
Suggestions:
1) Use Strong Passwords and change them often (at least 24 charecters mixed case puncutation numbers)
2) Setup dshield www.dshield.org or mynetwatchman www.mynetwatchman.com to report attempted hacks and scanning
that's hostile
3) I'd suggest avoiding ICQ and similar instant messangers like MSN because they can open back doors in your system.
4) Disconnect from the net when your not home or monitoring things.
Use Spybot to spot keyloggers and spyware phoning home.
Thank you!! You all have been MOST helpful! [blur]Time to re-join my friends in CYBERSPACE[/blur] :eek: tons of fun
What does dual booting have to do with your choice of filesystems? You can, in fact, dual boot NTFS. Right now I'm dual booting Gentoo Linux (EXT3) and Windows XP Pro (NTFS.)Quote:
Originally posted here by DarkGuardian
If you're aren't dual booting, and you want the most security, then NTFS is the onlly way to go. Period. NTFS gives you the ability to lock down individual files (to a point, it is only Microsoft), where FAT32 does not. The only reason to go FAT32 in this case would be if you were dual booting, which you've stated you are not.
Yes, but depending on what he would dual boot into, it might make a difference. I've had problems with dual boot 98/NT or 98/2000 it if wasn't FAT32. Yes, you can dual boot with NTFS, but depending on the OS involved, might not be the best choice.Quote:
Originally posted here by Sudo
What does dual booting have to do with your choice of filesystems? You can, in fact, dual boot NTFS. Right now I'm dual booting Gentoo Linux (EXT3) and Windows XP Pro (NTFS.)
Since he's not dual booting, though, the point is moot. Always use NTFS if at all possible in a Windows environment.
agreed......thanks again!!
tons of fun
Windows XP ProfessionalQuote:
Originally posted here by DarkGuardian
In my experience, it's been (in order of preference and security):
1)Win2K
2)XP
3)98
10)ME
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows 2000 Home
Windows XP Home
Windows 98 S.E.
Windows 95
Windows NT
Windows ME
Windows 3.1
If you were going to use Windows, that is how I would rank them.... In my opinion...
Um, to my knowledge, there is no 2000 Home. Proffesional, Server, Adv. Server, but not Home.Quote:
Originally posted here by Fakeboy
Windows XP Professional
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows 2000 Home
Windows XP Home
Windows 98 S.E.
Windows 95
Windows NT
Windows ME
Windows 3.1
If you were going to use Windows, that is how I would rank them.... In my opinion...
I haven't used XP Professional yet, so I can't judge it, but XP Home is definitely less secure than 2000.
I'd put NT over 95, and 98, but just in terms of security (for everyday use, I still prefer 98).
And ME should be at the bottom. Just plain crap.
Hmmm....
Windows 2000 Adv Server
Windows 2000 Pro
Windows 98 SE
Windows NT
Windows XP (Home Or Pro)
Windows ME
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
XP is like having a 5 Million $ security system to your house, buty leaving the doors and windows open every night
How do you figure? And how is 2000 less vulnerable than XP (or vice versa)? And how is XP home more vulneable than XP pro? l'd say an equal amount of exploits have been discovered on all of these versions.Quote:
Originally posted here by ac1dsp3ctrum
XP is like having a 5 Million $ security system to your house, buty leaving the doors and windows open every night
Remember, anything is hackable, being more or less secure is purely related to the number of people searching for those exploits.
Oh, and BTW, Windows 2000 is Windows NT (NT 5.0)Quote:
Originally posted here by ac1dsp3ctrum
Windows 2000 Adv Server
Windows 2000 Pro
Windows 98 SE
Windows NT
--Sudo
Hey
In my experience Xp caused a lot of problems for a lot of people when it first came out :( and its a lot better to use 2k. Okay so i'm probably the only person that thinx this but when Xp first came out i had serious problems with it. Xp might be slightly more secure but it can be a bitch to use for newbies.
I'm not saying your wrong its just my opinion.
2k Home
2k Professional
Me
Xp
9x
Keep rockin'
Gavman
I'd go along with Acidspectrum's for the most part with a few little changes (disregarding any server lines, since, for the average person, even the average "computer guru", they are completely unnecessary)...
Windows 2000 Pro
Windows XP Pro
Windows NT 4
Windows XP Home
Windows 98 SE
Windows NT 3.5
Windows for Workgroups 3.11
Windows ME
Windows 95
I've been working with almost only NT-based and *nix computers for the past few years, so I have a pretty strong bias against 9x operating systems... Though, if you want secure, Windows 3.1 and 3.11 have very few virueses which affect them nowadays... everything now is being written for a 32-bit operating system.
AJ
i agree up to a point but win2k is at sp2 (almost sp3)...which means a lot of holes have been plugged...xp is just too new...i probably won't even look at it for at least a year...imho...for software...especially m$ software...new=bad...and until they fix all the problems that all the new "features" they introduced have/will cause...i'm staying away...Quote:
Originally posted here by Sudo
How do you figure? And how is 2000 less vulnerable than XP (or vice versa)? And how is XP home more vulneable than XP pro? l'd say an equal amount of exploits have been discovered on all of these versions.
NT usually refers to NT 4.0, while NT 5.0 is Windows 2000.Quote:
And for that matter, XP is built on NT, hence NTFS.