Re: Windows xp home
From: Frank (fb_at_nospam.com)
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:34:25 -0800
> So with 98SE all beefed up in security with third party products, then you
> still think XP (NT code based) is more secure, Ron?
> "Ron Martell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> : "Dan" <email@example.com> wrote:
> : >I know that 98SE is more secure since it is based on 9x source code and is
> : >now mostly ignored by hackers since they are mainly targetting XP PRO. and
> : >have the NT source code in their sites. 98, 98SE and even ME (I do not
> : >Millenium) all are based on 9x which has its roots in MS-DOS and NT does
> : >have a true maintenance operating system and Microsoft needs to have a
> : >seperate NT underlying maintenance operating system and not rely on an
> : >emulator of MS-DOS since MS-DOS's true successor was the 9x source code
> : >reached the height of its glory with 98 Second Edition and unfortunately
> : >Microsoft rushed out Millenium and so it was flawed and I am really glad
> : >Microsoft is taking their time with Longhorn and I hope it is awesome.
> : >
> : Windows 98 is in no way *more* secure than Windows XP. It may give
> : you a false sense of security because not so many scumbags are
> : targetting it these days but it is still highly vulnerable and just as
> : soon as Windows XP gets a bit tougher to penetrate you could see
> : renewed assaults aimed at the 9x products.
> : Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> : --
> : Microsoft MVP
> : On-Line Help Computer Service
> : http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
> : "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
For one simple reason Dan:
NTFS is way more secure than FAT.