The fact that such nonsense we know to be false is taught at a university diminishes all of academia.
Is the alleged most secure operating system safe, or just as vulnerable as every other OS?
The thing is, Windows 7 also runs great on older hardware. I just put it on a Hp ZE2000 from 2005, which isn't at all a powerful machine and it is running smoothly and very stable.
Something like Ubuntu won't run much better (Although Xubuntu or Lubuntu may well), and AV software is not the concern it was back in the day. The free MS Security essentials and a gateway check will be more than enough.
The real issue is software. Can the users rely on LibreOffice and Chrome/Firefox? Or is there windows software they rely on or will need?
Go with what makes sense according to needs and cost restrictions, not because of an ideology....
Yes, it would. I don't run any AV software or a host firewall because it isn't needed ify ou know what you are doing. Check suspicious executables against virustotal or jotzi, dont download suspicious files, check comments in torrents if you do that, check processes, have uac configured properly etc.
Yet, there is nothing that will protect you against the amount of 0 days XP is going to be vulnerable to. Which is worse for the guy in the article because he is years behind on updates.
XP being so old and having so many vulnerabilities means that his system can be completely rooted, running as part of a botnet and he wouldn't know. His security software wouldn't catch it and it wont show in his process list.
The only way to be sure in that situation is to monitor outgoing network packets from a known clean machine. Which he won't do.
Again, he is an idiot.
Illegal activity on an account not performed by the account holder or with their knowledge or consent is not grounds for termination in most contracts.
Which is a shame. Deterrence should not by any means be a priority, as it all too often trumps the punishment fitting the crime.
Just because you thought about it and made what you consider a rational decision, doesn't mean other people with equal or greater thinking skills will not come up with the same conclusions especially on these complex topics.
Yes, they will, or they don't have equal or greater thinking skills.
Which model samsung? I found the 5300 series to be painfully slow, but the 6300 series and above is very faster, faster than roku or any other set top box, and far more nicely integrated.
A lot are, the higher end brands give a beautiful experience. Samsung, LG, Sony etc.
The Samsung Smart TV interface is far nicer than any set top box I've used....including chromecast, roku and xbox.
Investigate it yourself before dismissing them all as the same thing.
So what if it's not true in 10 years? It will still work just fine as a video monitor, and at that point with smart tv's being ubiquitous they will probably be far, far cheaper to replace. It's certainly not an argument against investing in one.
It's pretty dumb to reject it and buy a set top box which doesn't do the job nearly as well for the same price.
It's not an extra $200, and people obviously use it if they are buying a set top box in place.
It's really not comparable to 3D at all, which has clearly died out sometime ago.
Smart TV's are more analogs to smart phones, it's an evolution not a fad.
The thing you don't seem to get is a video monitor with software still works just fine as a video monitor. Having extra software optionally accessible doesn't impact that in any way, it only supplements it for those who realize it's "smart" to take advantage of it.
All tvs will be smart tvs because it's not extra equipment like an optical drive....just software.
Smart TV is not a fad, but an evolution. In a few years it will be hard to buy a TV which isn't a smart TV.
I see that, it just seems like a waste of money.
My samsung 55" f6300 has an amazing smart interface. Supports every codec, streams via DLNA perfectly, or HBO, Netflix or whatever. All very easy to access and control.
It gets updates so if it doesn't support something new, it will. At the end of the day, the smart aspect is only software. If it does become obsolete in lets say 4 or 5 years, then I can still use it as a "dumb TV" and buy one of those devices.
But to purposefully but a dumb tv and one of these devices (most of which don't even support DLNA) for near the same cost, seems foolish.
Smart TV's are not limited in what they support. Besides they get updates frequently so if something new comes out that it doesn't support, it will.
I don't see MKV going out of format anytime soon. Look how long AVI stayed dominant.