XPost: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
From: waiting@the.exit.invalid
"Mayayana" wrote in
news:ja37i3$gv5$1@dont-email.me:
>| As we all know, it is not a good idea to go on the
>| internet from an administrator account,
>
> Do we all know that?
Hee hee. Well, it seems to be mentioned on every advanced
setup/usage site I've ever been to. "All" people, of course,
don't even know what it means, let alone whether it is true or
not.
> I always install XP to FAT32 to avoid the permissions
complications.
I don't fully understand (nor want to unless it is imperative)
what permissions are, I always use FAT32 because I see no
point whatsoever in using
NTFS. I have NEVER had any trouble with it since I got my 95B
machine in 1997. Nor has anyone I know, in fact I can't even
remember reading about any ACTUAL trouble with it, except all
the innumerable warnings about how "dangerous" it is compared
to
NTFS. Probably just MS PR.
How does using FAT32 prevent NTFS "permissions complications"
though? It's just a different file structure, isn't it? How
can it affect software "as used daily" in such a major
fashion?
> If I had to use NTFS I'd always run as Admin. To my mind the
trouble of NTFS
> is not worth the benefit. The idea of different
> types of accounts originates from corporate PCs, where
> the intranet is trusted but the employee is not. So all
> the hallways are open but every cabinet and door is locked.
Yes, corporate is so much fun.
> With SOHo PCs it's the opposite: the person using the PC
> is generally trusted but the Internet is not. So in that
> case a good front door lock is more appropriate. But
> Microsoft wants to reduce support costs, and most people
> offering advice have a business IT background. As a result
> "we all know" that one should always run with restricted
> rights and should never venture outside of one's Documents
> folder. Each version of Windows is more adamant than the
> last with that guidance.
This isn't even a soho, it's just a bored and useless
thanatoid.
So, are you saying that as the sole user with FAT32 I don't
have to worry about
limited accounts for the internet?
> It certainly doesn't hurt to run in "lackey mode" while
> online, but it does create hassles, as you detailed in your
> post.
It's not that bad, it's just that I like to know what is
happening. I am using something called netstat (not the MS
one, it came with some program whose name I don't recall and
was the only good thing about it, a separate exe, so I kept
it).
> If you're going to lock all of your draws and
> cabinets in order to avoid thieves then you're going to
> have to reach for your keys every time you want something.
> Meanwhile, exploits that bypass such restrictions are
> common. By far a better method is to stop the leak in
> the first place: Don't enable Jave or script.
I don't have Java at all, but I can't use my bank's site
without javascript.
I use OffByOne for 99% of my browsing. It is 100% safe, until
someone proves otherwise.
> Remove flash player and PDF browser plugins.
PDF plugins, of course.
But do you mean flash player plugins or flash player
altogether?
> Unfortunately, most
> people are not willing to do that because their Facebook
> page and favorite online shopping sites simply won't
> function with safe settings.
You will have to KILL ME to have me use facebook. In fact, I
am putting ALL facebook URL's I can establish the existence of
in my HOSTS file. (It should only take about 2 hrs.) Ah, the
good old days when
only Google (and MS) tracked your every move...
>| The FW is the free Agnitum Outpost Firewall 1.0.242
>| from 2002. I tried a few of the current ones, but not
>| only are they 150MBs or more instead of 3MB, they
>| are totally demented
>
> I did a lot of research, too, and never came up with an
> ideal choice. Most of the popular ones have become
> extremely bloated. I've settled on Online Armor 4
> without
> also trying to be 5 other programs that I don't want.
> (Anti-malware, anti-phishing, email filter, running program
> monitor, etc.)
You might want to take a look at the one I use. I can post it
for you somewhere if you can't find it. (Since it's not
ZoneAlarm, the older versions are not easily found.) I don't
see how "block most/stealth" mode can be any less efective now
than it was in 2002.
> It'd be interesting to hear from others about their
> experiences with firewalls. (Other than the Windows
> firewall, that is.)
That goes without saying. An "MS security product" is an
oxymoron.
> The best firewall I ever used was AtGuard, which was way
> ahead of it's time. But it was only written for Win95/98,
> and they sold out to Symantec. Symantec then rebranded it,
> doubled the price, reduced the functionality, and set 800+-
> programs to be able to go through the firewall by default!
Typical.
>| And there is nothing as charming and user-friendly as the
>| XP start menu after you've been using the machine for a
>| while, with its 200 or more main levels, sublevels,
>| sub-sublevels, sub-sub-sublevels, etc.
>
> The XP Start Menu is not really different from the Win9x
> Start Menu. If you use Classic View it's basically the same
> thing.
Win 9x did not have 3 (or 10) different user directories.
> Right-click Start, click Explore, and you can clean
> house, just like in Win9x. The real problem is software
> that installs with a half dozen pointless links, to help
> file, uninstall, website, etc.
Well, that's just part of the problem.
> The dual folders -- user and all users -- are a bit of a
> hassle.
Don't forget the 3rd, default user. The whole thing drives
anal-retentives like me insane.
> That existed in Win9x but the All Users folder was almost
> never used, so it didn't matter.
I didn't even KNOW it existed, and I've been using 9x since
1995 until a week ago.
> Win9x was set up to
> default to an "I'm the only user" setting. WinNT is
> designed with the pretense that there's no such thing as a
> single-user, stand- alone PC.
One of the truly wonderful gifts from MS.
> I just move everything to the All Users Start Menu
> folder, so that it's effectively a single Start Menu. And
> I group things into folders: Office, Utilities, Graphics,
> etc.
So do I.
But I still had VERY annoying probolems. That's why I now
use FL.
> I don't install software on a regular basis, so I don't
> mind too much doing that reorganization. For most things
> I'm just using Quick Launch, anyway. (Unfortunately, that's
> one of the things that Microsoft broke in Vista/7. One can
> put shortcuts on Quick Launch, but software installers
> can't put them there.)
I have no idea what that is, but that's OK.
I appreciate your reply, especially since I was so nasty to
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
