> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But, regardless, Win2K and WinXP do have restricted-user > modes that tie this stuff down quite well. They tend to > be used in corporate environments.
Indeed, and the one reason being that the last thing the IT staff wants is users installing apps, because even if the user is not installing a worm or Trojan, installing software inevitably generates incompatibilities and demand for more support. > But for home users, it gets to be a pain in the butt, > because it prevents a lot of things users want to do, > like installing games, multimedia apps and spyware. Yep. In XP home, it's easy to have several users on the same machine but by default they all have administrative rights. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Microsoft software is inherently less safe than > Linux/*BSD software. > This is because Microsoft has favored usability > over security. > This is because the market has responded better > to that tradeoff. > This is because your mom doesn't want to have to > hire a technical consultant to manage her IT > infrastructure when all she wants to do is get > email pictures of her grandkids. Exactly. Michel.