Replies

Susan, the following statement from your article really troubles me:

“I’m currently testing a free application-whitelisting program — SecureAPlus (site; Figure 1) — that’s specifically designed for home users. I have some initial reservations about this product; I’ve been unable to find much third-party information about the program or its publisher. But it does let me lock down my system so that only applications I’ve approved will run.”

Your second sentence (and the independent clause that follows) says more than you, perhaps, realize. It seems to me that due diligence before recommending SecureAPlus would involve continuing and careful research into both the product and the publisher. In particular, I would think a careful investigation into an unknown publisher is absolutely essential.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you intended.

Like several earlier comments, mine will mention the HUGE difference in the consumer experience in dealing with the upgrades of the two major platforms, Windows and Mac OSX.

Although our installation includes 4 PCs (desktop XP running as a server, HP notebook running Vista, desktop Windows 7, and a still-in-the-box Windows 7 machine awaiting completing of our minor remodel), as well as 2 Macs (2010 Macbook and 2011 Intel iMac, both running OS X v. 10.6.8 Snow Leopard; the iMac just replaced our G5 iMac, also running Snow Leopard, which was sent to our grandchildren, who think they have died and gone to Heaven)–clearly we are a PC house–there is every possible, even slam-dunk reason to just abandon Windows, if only for the simplicity and cost factors involved in upgrading. We even have a file-serving Linux machine that is at least 6 years old and (IIRC) never been rebooted since our HD upgrade, over 2 years ago. The sucker just refuses to die.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why Microsoft seems to be intent on shooting itself in the foot with the ridiculous and largely, meaningless naming/version conventions. To gouge the Ultimate user with a Software Assurance plan is just insane and I cannot believe that small shops like ours will long endure such certifiable madness.

Our cost of upgrading both Macs to Lion will be under $75 and completely seamless via the Mac App Store download/install (and assured for at least the next 2 versions beyond Lion). Our cost of upgrading all four PCs (which is an absolute impossibility, due to system incapacities and disparities) would be roughly 5-6 times that (and VASTLY more time-consuming, frustratingly, maddeningly more time-consuming )! Something is just not right about the disparity in ROI. This is a difference in cost that actually erases the difference between the premium Mac cost against the PC upfront expense, and actually makes the Macs WAY cheaper. Amazing! We have been greatly pleased at the two Windows 7 machines (even though we wish Microsoft would keep its mits OFF of Office: don’t those idiots have anything else to do except screw up a virtually perfect product?!?), but I suspect Windows 8 will be the last jump we make with Windows (and even that on just 2 machines, or perhaps 3, if we retire the XP machine–a chilling thought, indeed!).

With web-based applications and Windows running on the Intel iMac for the two accounting applications we do need, there’s just no reason for PC hardware purchases beyond the next 2-4 years. Unless something blazingly remarkable occurs that changes that reality, I think our direction in the future is clear. As a PC user since MS-DOS 2 and user of every version of Windows from the moment it was born, I cannot believe the ride is coming to an end. Incidentally, we still have our Mac+ c. 1985, all $5000 of it, counting the separate HD and CD units–and it still works!

I stand rightly rebuked, and therefore humbly apologize to the forum, to Ted (for apparently misreading and abusing his words), and to BruceR, my worthy opponent in this sharp debate.

rpb

Read the thread, Bruce. Read the thread.

Your turn. You get the last word.

rpb
San Berdoo

You don’t read so well, do you Bruce? Let’s try on Ted’s words, again, just to see if they can fit a mind that is apparently far, far smaller than Ted’s:

“I did not heed my own advice yesterday and tried an install of Offixe 2010 SP1 without doing this, would not install correctly. As soon as I came back to my proper frame of mind (have not a clue what I was thinking) and shut all apps including security down, installed without a hitch. Naturally when I disabled my security apps I had already disconected (sic) from the internet. My installs of IE9 were similarly uneventful because I did do this as well.”

Now, just to direct your puny little brain to the appropriate point, let’s see it, yet again:

“My installs of IE9 were similarly uneventful because I did do this as well.”

Let’s see if you will be an idiot and reply to Ted’s words, to wit: “…because I did do this as well” (third time, Bruce. Got it, yet?).

rpb
San Bernardino

PS Susan’s recommendation without reservation is ~still~ insane, your vomiting to the contrary, notwithstanding.

I did not heed my own advice yesterday and tried an install of Offixe 2010 SP1 without doing this, would not install correctly. As soon as I came back to my proper frame of mind (have not a clue what I was thinking) and shut all apps including security down, installed without a hitch. Naturally when I disabled my security apps I had already disconected from the internet. My installs of IE9 were similarly uneventful because I did do this as well.

Actually, Ted, does not this prove the very point for which I contended? If even the pros, or the wise, or the initiated, or the savvy often are not functioning in their “proper frame of mind” and having “(…not a clue what I was thinking)”, why on Earth would anybody suggest the “normal” user install a potentially problematic executable like IE9? I just think this whole idea–and Susan’s post–is insane. Besides, having spent decades in the context of IBM and Digital mains and minimains, SGI and Sun workstations, and PCs running every variation of UNIX, this whole matter of shut this off, turn this on, put this down, push this up, shove that aside, wind this thataway and twist this thisaway is just disingenuous.

rpb
San Bernardino

Bruce…

You just don’t get it.

Tell your sycophant-story to the simple folks who will be badly burned because of Susan’s absurd and premature recommendation. The fact is, you and I (and perhaps many in this forum) run IE9 and other problematic applications without issues, but that is because we are running them on high-end systems with extraordinary amounts of CPU power / RAM / Storage / etc., and we are very security conscious and cautious. The “normal” user is not doing what we do.

Incidentally, I’d bet a dollar against your donut hole that I have about 10 times your experience in resolving the issues with client systems, many of which problems were precipitated by premature adoption of new technology.

Believe what you want to believe.

Hello, Bruce…

Actually, databaseben presented a pretty complete list of issues with IE9 (each is well-documented), but several others have posited issues with everything from banking issues (probably related to security compatibilities) to just plain ol’ “it don’t work” (bad grammar intended).

Your question is an interesting question, especially in light of my post. Here’s what I posted:

“It is patently absurd to make such a recommendation to any but the most sophisticated user. For the “normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster at many levels.”

Notice my two statements, to wit, “…to any but the most sophisticated user…” and “For the ‘normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation…” That you or I–as sophisticated, and probably even “technical” (being savvy users)–can shoehorn IE9 and make it work quite well, is not surprising. Again, we are sophisticated; we are technical; we are savvy; we are tinkerers and tweakers, and we can (and here is the key phrase) “make it work.”

To make a general recommendation, as did Susan (her several caveats and disclaimers to the contrary), is in my view absolutely irresponsible and insane. For “any but the most sophisticated user,” it is irresponsible to recommend IE9. Again, I say, “For the ‘normal’ non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster.”

Just one more observation: Your reply asked for “reviews or other expert opinion” (sic) and this states what is (I believe) at the very heart of this issue: Those who are savvy enough to write reviews can make it work and minimize problems. Experts who give opinions know how to make it work and minimize problems. For eggheads (I use the term in an endearing fashion, not to offend) like JoeP517 or me (or you?) to kludge a recalcitrant application or tweak the system is no big deal, but the ~real~ experts are the users, the vulnerable users–and their almost-universal experience is that IE (of every version) just doesn’t cut it, period.

I will reply to Joe’s comments in another post, but I appreciate your questions and fully concur in your search for information.

Joe…your statement, “The two biggest problems with Vista were beyond Microsoft’s control” is flat nonsense.

1. If a machine is/was underpowered, Vista should have refused to be installed (Microsoft has NEVER learned that lesson);
2. Vista should have never been offered with the antiquated approach to drivers, in the first place. We’ve all known this for years.

Your affirmation, “Vista was rock solid and performed more than just adequately” is absolutely amazing, and I challenge you to prove it. I can provide about a thousand highly qualified and professional witnesses to the contrary, and that is a very, very small fraction of those who can put the lie to your astounding recommendation of Vista.

Hogwash…and irresponsible, too. This recommendation is an over-the-top capitulation to insanity. It is patently absurd to make such a recommendation to any but the most sophisticated user. For the “normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster at many levels. I am amazed this article made the editorial cut and can flatly state I do not pay for Windows Secrets to offer such tripe. It is no secret that IE9 is NOT secure and is demonstrably inadequate and incompatible.