Windows Vista Rules.

[bsobel]

Hmm, must've just missed it, which doesn't sound too unlikely considering I was feeling a bit lost And yeah, I'm a terribly inpatient person and I get annoyed VERY easily, let's just say a recording of me driving to work would be EXTREMELY NSFW.

I'm remote and on an XP rig at the moment, but if you can't find it PM me tonight and I'll dig up the path and send it to you (kicking myself because I JUST saw it the other day and it wasn't hidden).

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Hmm, must've just missed it, which doesn't sound too unlikely considering I was feeling a bit lost And yeah, I'm a terribly inpatient person and I get annoyed VERY easily, let's just say a recording of me driving to work would be EXTREMELY NSFW.

I'm remote and on an XP rig at the moment, but if you can't find it PM me tonight and I'll dig up the path and send it to you (kicking myself because I JUST saw it the other day and it wasn't hidden).

Well, I don't have any copies of Vista around anymore, and I don't think I'm gonna buy it soonish(unless I get on one of those sporadic shopping sprees that always leave me in financial ruin ) so I'll probably just start a whine thread whenever I get around to it instead

 

[stash]

I should have probably wrote my response above a little more clear. I didn't mean that Vista is exclusively for the desktop; mainly that if it is a true server (enterprise level), then I'm sure Vista will be overlooked, and Longhorn Server will be the real option.

My reply was mainly directed at the FUD machine on the last page, not you

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: bsobel

And is there an easy way to turn off all those security warnings(UAE is it? Some 3-letter acronym anyway)?

Yea, turn it off (I believe in the security center). Not recommended (its a good feature once you get used to it), but you can.

Hmm, must've just missed it, which doesn't sound too unlikely considering I was feeling a bit lost

And yeah, I'm a terribly inpatient person and I get annoyed VERY easily, let's just say a recording of me driving to work would be EXTREMELY NSFW.

theres a few ways to turn it off

http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vista.htm

 

[Quinton McLeod]

When a person has to resort to person insults, that lets others know that the person has a hard time refuting a point. Let me break it down for ya.

Originally posted by: BD2003


I could care less about what other OSes have. Realistically, I need to run windows. If OSX had it for years, great for them, but its new to me.

That doesn't defeat the fact that it's old technology. Heck, a car is new to an amish kid who decides to live in the city. Doesn't make it new technology!

100% Complete and utter nonsense. I'm running 32bit vista, and I can run HD content just fine. I can run programs that run media without being "trusted" just fine (Media player classic, for example). I can play the most illicit xvid videos, even at HD resolution, without a hitch. Would I have problems running HD-DVD movies over a non-HDCP monitor? Perhaps - but thats no different than the proposed lockdown of requiring HDMI on HDTVs. This show is being run by the studios. If you think OSX will be spared, you're wrong. And linux being open source, will never, ever play HD-DVDs until the encryption is cracked. Got a problem with that? Don't buy HD-DVDs.

I can burn, listen and watch anything I want. You have no idea what you're talking about.

We are not talking about HD encoded files such as xvid or x264. We're talking about HD-DVD and BlueRay! If you are running a 32 bit version of Vista, you cannot run those formats! Nor can you hook up your BlueRay or HD-DVD player through HDCP, HDMI, Component, or even DVI into a Vista 32bit machine and get HD. It will resize the image to 420p.

Linux already has support for HD-DVDs without the encryption being cracked. As a matter of fact, there are Linux based HD-DVD players around:

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/Toshiba-HD-DVD-player-just-a-mini-PC.html

You can burn whatever you want? Burn a HD-DVD or Blueray disk. Burn an encrypted DVD. Have fun doing it!

Again, no idea what you're talking about. Vista has quite a few new security features, both at the user level and the system level. The number one security feature will always be the user. I personally turn off most of that crap anyway, because I know what I'm doing. OSX and Linux are more secure by default - 90% of computers run windows, with most of them clueless, so why bother writing viruses for anything else?

Honestly, if you get a virus in this day and age, it's your fault - don't blame the OS.

90% of desktop computers run Windows. 90% of server computers run Linux/Unix. Who do you think hackers and virus writers want most? Grandma and grandpa's PC or Bank of America's PC?

Hackers and virus writers target Windows because it's EASIER to hack and write viruses for, not because it's the most used desktop computer. Hackers and virus writers would prefer servers over desktops because there's much more to benefit from a server than someone's desktop machine.

If Vista's security is so good, then why were people able to find an old Windows XP exploit on it? Can you explain that one to me?

You still have no idea what you're talking about. The nvidia 6600 is well capable of PS2.0, as is the x600. The geforce 5 had it, many, many years ago. And vista does not *require* this - it's completely optional. You can run it Windows 2000 style if you so desire. Stupid to penalize them for something very cool and entirely optional.

I never said the Geforce 6600 can't do PS 2.0. I said it can't do PS2.0 decently. You cannot expect that graphics card to run such an effect without slow down. Much like how the Diamond 3D Savage 4 graphic cards could do S3TC but not very fast. These graphic cards CANNOT handle the Vista GUI as well as a 7600 or 7900 GT.

Why disable the 3D effects in Vista? XGL/AIGLX and Aqua run just fine on older machines, yet Aero can't? Poor programming if you ask me.

Again, more nonsense. You can upgrade from XP to Vista, the only thing you can't do is upgrade from xp pro to vista home. Win2k upgrades also require a clean install. And if your PC can handle vista, it certainly didnt come preloaded with Win 98, so just about everyone can get the discounted upgrade.

It isn't any more expensive than XP was when it came out, aside from the ultimate version, which I think is fairly useless.

How many PCs do you think can run Vista decently above the Home version? Not very many, as a matter of fact. Vista home doesn't have Aero. Most people are going to migrate to that.

That discounted upgrade only applies to Vista Home, btw.

Also, Microsoft never claimed you could migrate to Vista through the installation. They offer a migration tool to do that. So, you have no idea what YOU'RE talking about.

Win2k upgrade didn't require a clean install. I was able to upgrade from Windows 95/98/ME to Windows 2000 without a problem.

BS. Of course, when you run *anything* other than the game itself, even a tiny utility, it will slow down the game. I haven't noticed a large hit with the 3d aero while running a game, but I didn't bother for very long - why would I waste VRAM on windows when I need it for a game. It is *ridiculously* easy to automatically turn it off when running a game. Want that VRAM back for your game? Click a checkbox in the shortcut properties. It'll also snap right back into 3d aero as soon as you quit the game.

BTW, on my system, running a 7600gt, with dual 19inch LCDs, wanna know how much main memory the 3d gui takes up? 16mb. What a crisis. The 3d aero gui offloads much onto your VRAM.

And no matter how hard you want to believe it, vista does not take up 1gb of ram more than xp. I can absolutely guarantee you this.

Graphics Cards don't use VRAM anymore. They use GDDR3 and GDDR4. It was NOT designed to hold data. The GDDR3/4 was designed as a buffer for data from the GPU to the rest of the card. Aero doesn't "offload" data into GDDR memory. I'm sorry. You were misinformed.

Vista DOES take up 1gig of memory. This is partly due to the GUI. I've installed Vista on more than one machine to know.

More BS. DX9 is also included in Vista. Games won't *require* DX10 for 5 years or so - I doubt you can find a game today that *requires* DX10.

I corrected your quote. You said DX9. I think you meant 10 on your last sentence.

If games don't require DX10, then explain Halo 2 on the PC.

Any game that utilized DX10, you cannot run on Windows XP. So, gamers are forced to upgrade to play these games! I never said Vista couldn't play old games. I said gamers are forced to upgrade so they can play the new games that utilize DX10.

The OS still has everything integrated with the kernel. What makes it even more dangerous is that Microsoft programmed DRM DIRECTLY into the kernel. If a program decided to use the kernel's lock-down features and suddenly makes a boo-boo... BOOM! Your computer crashes! When will Microsoft learn that you cannot have everything integrated with the kernel. IT'S A SECURITY RISK!!

Is there any valid documentation for this, or do you believe everything you read on the internet?

You're kidding, right?
This is common knowlege.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/vista_kernel_fix_controversy/

http://news.com.com/Flaws+detected+in+Vista/2100-1002_3-6145874.html

Look who we are dealing with. Microsoft's products have always had a long history of buginess, exploits and just outright bad programming. Do you honestly think they will change? I doubt they will considering that they've already found critical exploits before the OS was released!! One of them being the old WMF exploit! What?! An old XP exploit found in Vista!

You all can have your Vista.

I doubt even god himself could write an OS with 50 million lines of code, meant to support nearly all the hardware on the planet, and not have a few bugs here or there. XP was a solid product, and Vista was long overdue. And it's good.

And for all those supposed security risks on XP, I never once had a successful attack.

To say that you doubt God himself can't write an OS without bugs is insisting that God is imperfect. God created the OS Human 1.0. It's the OS we all run under. He hasn't ever had to make a security update for it yet

 

[MrChad]

We are not talking about HD encoded files such as xvid or x264. We're talking about HD-DVD and BlueRay! If you are running a 32 bit version of Vista, you cannot run those formats! Nor can you hook up your BlueRay or HD-DVD player through HDCP, HDMI, Component, or even DVI into a Vista 32bit machine and get HD. It will resize the image to 420p.

Linux already has support for HD-DVDs without the encryption being cracked. As a matter of fact, there are Linux based HD-DVD players around:

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/Toshiba-HD-DVD-player-just-a-mini-PC.html

You can burn whatever you want? Burn a HD-DVD or Blueray disk. Burn an encrypted DVD. Have fun doing it!

Just because an HD-DVD set top box runs its middleware on a custom Linux kernel does NOT mean Linux supports HD-DVD. The HD-DVD license requires that the operating system protect the content from the media all the way to the output device. Any operating system will need to incorporate Vista-like DRM changes to support encrypted HD-DVD or BluRay.

 

[MrChad]

Any game that utilized DX10, you cannot run on Windows XP. So, gamers are forced to upgrade to play these games! I never said Vista couldn't play old games. I said gamers are forced to upgrade so they can play the new games that utilize DX10.

They're forced to upgrade video cards, RAM and processors every 2-3 years to play new games anyway, so why not the operating system?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Any game that utilized DX10, you cannot run on Windows XP. So, gamers are forced to upgrade to play these games! I never said Vista couldn't play old games. I said gamers are forced to upgrade so they can play the new games that utilize DX10.

They're forced to upgrade video cards, RAM and processors every 2-3 years to play new games anyway, so why not the operating system?

Well for PC gaming It's more like 1 year rather then 2-3 years.
For video gaming in general? I don't remember the last time I had to upgrade the ram in my PS2.

Probably stuff like that is why high performance PC gaming is dying (or turning into a nitch). Pretty soon, probably with in a year or two (if it hasn't already happenned) the majority of PC games sold will be playable on business-class hardware.

 

[bsobel]

There is a stunning amount of misinformation and outright lies in both your posts.

You guys are getting all excited and horny over OLD prefetch technology? This stuff has been around for YEARS! OS 10, Linux and Unix all had it. Vista is just now getting it and you guys are like, "WOW! OMG!"

Windows 98, ME, and XP also had prefetch technology. This is a much much improved version of that. Please show us where OS10 and Linux have equivalent pre-fetch functionality (and by equivlant I mean to what Vista introduces not what XP has had all along)

We are not talking about HD encoded files such as xvid or x264. We're talking about HD-DVD and BlueRay! If you are running a 32 bit version of Vista, you cannot run those formats! Nor can you hook up your BlueRay or HD-DVD player through HDCP, HDMI, Component, or even DVI into a Vista 32bit machine and get HD. It will resize the image to 420p.

Actually incorrect, this is only true if the content in question is protected and forces the downsizing. Your stating that just installing those components will result in 420p images, that is incorrect.

Linux already has support for HD-DVDs without the encryption being cracked. As a matter of fact, there are Linux based HD-DVD players around:

This is incorrect. As another posted pointed out, what middle ware a box uses is irrelevat. There is no general available HD-DVD player for Linux that allows protected HD playback.

Hackers and virus writers target Windows because it's EASIER to hack and write viruses for, not because it's the most used desktop computer. Hackers and virus writers would prefer servers over desktops because there's much more to benefit from a server than someone's desktop machine.

This is also completely untrue. The machines are attacked more because there is more of them. If you believe otherwise, your simply wrong.

If Vista's security is so good, then why were people able to find an old Windows XP exploit on it? Can you explain that one to me?

Link please. There was a NEW exploit on XP that also affects Vista. New exploits will continue to be found, just as they are in other OS's. The question is really not if one if found, but if the velocity of new discover increases or decreases with vista. Further, the second question is how successful those attacks can become given the new security features.

Why disable the 3D effects in Vista? XGL/AIGLX and Aqua run just fine on older machines, yet Aero can't? Poor programming if you ask me.

I'm not sure where your getting this, I have Aero glass on all of my machines sans one laptop with integrated graphics. And these cards aren't brand new screamers. You are simply wrong (again) on this one or are quoting someone else who is wrong. Vista WILL use pixed shader 2.0 features if they are available, but IT IS NOT REQUIRED for Aero glass.

How many PCs do you think can run Vista decently above the Home version? Not very many, as a matter of fact. Vista home doesn't have Aero. Most people are going to migrate to that.

Your refering to 'Vista Home Basic' which is definately tailored for lower end machines. Most current XP Home users will migrate to Vista Home Premium (which does have Aero).

Graphics Cards don't use VRAM anymore. They use GDDR3 and GDDR4. It was NOT designed to hold data. The GDDR3/4 was designed as a buffer for data from the GPU to the rest of the card. Aero doesn't "offload" data into GDDR memory. I'm sorry. You were misinformed.

They are most certainly designed to hold and manipulate data. I think you should research some of the GPGPU work going on in the community.

Vista DOES take up 1gig of memory. This is partly due to the GUI. I've installed Vista on more than one machine to know.

Vista will happily USE 1 gig of memory, but will install and run fine with less. And, lets give you this one. I never get this argument. Compare the cost per megabyte to Vista's requirement vs XP when it was released and Vista costs less to run than XP did. The goal of the OS is a foundation for the next 5-8 years, not the last.

You're kidding, right?
This is common knowlege.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/vista_kernel_fix_controversy/

You simply don't know what your talking about on this. I know more about this issue than you will ever learn, we are building the new api's to deal with this along with MS. More stuff has continued to be REMOVED from the kernel, not put into it. That is the entire point and that move is a good thing (as long as ISV's still have access to the information they need via sanctioned API's).

You all can have your Vista.

Great, your welcome to not run it. But right now your just repeating a bunch of misinformation to others.

To say that you doubt God himself can't write an OS without bugs is insisting that God is imperfect. God created the OS Human 1.0. It's the OS we all run under. He hasn't ever had to make a security update for it yet

What are condoms then?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
When a person has to resort to person insults, that lets others know that the person has a hard time refuting a point. Let me break it down for ya.

I had one of the easiest times ever in fact, and I'll be glad to do it again.

That doesn't defeat the fact that it's old technology. Heck, a car is new to an amish kid who decides to live in the city. Doesn't make it new technology!

Please do show me another OS that had superfetch and readyboost before vista. That can run the same apps as vista, and supports the same hardware. And even if you could, that still doesnt change the fact that its irrelevant to the 97.46% of computers that run windows.

We are not talking about HD encoded files such as xvid or x264. We're talking about HD-DVD and BlueRay! If you are running a 32 bit version of Vista, you cannot run those formats! Nor can you hook up your BlueRay or HD-DVD player through HDCP, HDMI, Component, or even DVI into a Vista 32bit machine and get HD. It will resize the image to 420p.

As I said, thats not a windows issue, thats an issue you need to take up with the movie studios. They're the ones who aren't going to allow it, and it will be different for no other OS.

Linux already has support for HD-DVDs without the encryption being cracked. As a matter of fact, there are Linux based HD-DVD players around:

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/Toshiba-HD-DVD-player-just-a-mini-PC.html

Thats not a desktop OS, thats a standalone player. Apples to oranges. It's my understanding that the studios are holding back on the DRM downscaling for the time being to satisfy HD owners with component out only, but it's an entirely different story whe you're talking about letting an OS that will directly mediate pirating the movie, play without encryption.

You can burn whatever you want? Burn a HD-DVD or Blueray disk. Burn an encrypted DVD. Have fun doing it!

There's absolutely no reason why DRM would be attached to burning files onto an BD/HD-DVD, and as far as burning encrypted DVDs - thats pointless, but if you mean ripping encrypted DVDs - that's illegal.

90% of desktop computers run Windows. 90% of server computers run Linux/Unix. Who do you think hackers and virus writers want most? Grandma and grandpa's PC or Bank of America's PC?

Hackers and virus writers target Windows because it's EASIER to hack and write viruses for, not because it's the most used desktop computer. Hackers and virus writers would prefer servers over desktops because there's much more to benefit from a server than someone's desktop machine.

If the hacker was out to steal corporate secrets, sure he'd go for the linux servers, but server admins and linux users generally know what theyre doing. It's a lot easier to let a worm run around and take over unsavvy windows PC users to spam the world.

Sure, there are plenty of things that linux does right that vista does wrong, but theres plenty of reasons why desktop users don't use linux. And Vista is a *desktop*, not a server OS. I'm not recommending vista for server use, and I probably wouldn't recommend any brand of windows for server use, but thats COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

So lets compare apples to apples here. Many of those things, such as UAC, are now vista features. Vista is more idiot proof than ever, but there has to come a point where personal responsibility comes into play. Vista is a general consumer OS, and there will always be people that just don't get it. Linux will remain on the fringes for a long time to come. So what exactly is so special about linux's security to a desktop user?

If Vista's security is so good, then why were people able to find an old Windows XP exploit on it? Can you explain that one to me?

See above post.

I never said the Geforce 6600 can't do PS 2.0. I said it can't do PS2.0 decently. You cannot expect that graphics card to run such an effect without slow down. Much like how the Diamond 3D Savage 4 graphic cards could do S3TC but not very fast. These graphic cards CANNOT handle the Vista GUI as well as a 7600 or 7900 GT.

Do you know this, or are you still just making this up as you go along? The 6600gt has excellent PS performance, and is well up to the task. The 7600gt is not twice as fast as a 6600gt, and yet I manage to run TWO 1280x1024 displays at 75hz with zero slowdown.

Why disable the 3D effects in Vista? XGL/AIGLX and Aqua run just fine on older machines, yet Aero can't? Poor programming if you ask me.

Again, where are you getting your facts? Show me a benchmark, show me someone complaining that their desktop frame rate is too low, show me something, just don't blather about things you have no experience with.

I personally ran beta2, dual monitor, on a 6600gt, and the desktop rendering is no faster with the 7600gt in RTM.

How many PCs do you think can run Vista decently above the Home version? Not very many, as a matter of fact. Vista home doesn't have Aero. Most people are going to migrate to that.

I still want to know where you are getting these tiding of doom from. 3D aero performs excellently. You are blowing it entirely out of proportion.

That discounted upgrade only applies to Vista Home, btw.

In this case, you are completely, 100% wrong, and there's no discussion about it. Anyone owning Win2k and up qualifies for upgrade pricing to any version of vista.

Also, Microsoft never claimed you could migrate to Vista through the installation. They offer a migration tool to do that. So, you have no idea what YOU'RE talking about.

Win2k upgrade didn't require a clean install. I was able to upgrade from Windows 95/98/ME to Windows 2000 without a problem.

No, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You can upgrade in place from windows Xp to Vista with a few exceptions - the inability for pro users to upgrade in place to vista home/home premium likely has more to do with business oriented features that XP pro has that vista home premium doesnt, that just wouldnt reliably translate across. A problem that 98 to 2000 didn't have to deal with, so it's another irrelevant comparison.

Not that I would ever recommend doing anything but a clean install, but you're still pretty much entirely wrong.

Graphics Cards don't use VRAM anymore. They use GDDR3 and GDDR4. It was NOT designed to hold data. The GDDR3/4 was designed as a buffer for data from the GPU to the rest of the card. Aero doesn't "offload" data into GDDR memory. I'm sorry. You were misinformed.

Vista DOES take up 1gig of memory. This is partly due to the GUI. I've installed Vista on more than one machine to know.

lol - now youre reaching. VRAM - Video RAM. If you want to argue about whether textures and frame buffers are data, or you want to get into any other argument about semantics, you're on your own.

I don't know what version of vista you're installing, but Vista system files, with 3d aero on, does NOT take up more than 1gb of main memory on boot, and I know this as a fact.

I corrected your quote. You said DX9. I think you meant 10 on your last sentence.

If games don't require DX10, then explain Halo 2 on the PC.

There was no need to correct it - I meant what I said. Halo 2 is not a DX10 game, and considering that the original xbox had a dx8 level GPU, it shouldnt even require DX9/PS3.0 level hardware. It's a marketing trick on MS's part to get people to upgrade is all.

Any game that utilized DX10, you cannot run on Windows XP. So, gamers are forced to upgrade to play these games! I never said Vista couldn't play old games. I said gamers are forced to upgrade so they can play the new games that utilize DX10.

Aside from MS's own marketing trick to get people to upgrade, you will not be able to find a game that *requires* DX10 hardware for a very long time. Even if a game does support a few DX10 features, unless they want to sell it to three people, it will support DX9, and probably DX8 level hardware, in Windows XP, and probably 2000, maybe even 98 as well.

You're kidding, right?
This is common knowlege.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/vista_kernel_fix_controversy/

http://news.com.com/Flaws+detected+in+Vista/2100-1002_3-6145874.html

Am I missing something here? You complain that MS leaves open security holes, but when they plug them up, that's a problem too?

Like it or not, DRM is a *feature*. A feature you have to put up with because you're not going to be watching HD-DVDs otherwise, and yes, even if you have no intention of doing so, the DRM will still be on your system. And what use is a DRM scheme that isn't as hard to get to as possible?

Even if you don't ever plan on pirating, you will have to pay for other people's mistakes. That's life, this is nothing new, nothing unique to microsoft. DRM is here to stay - deal with it. I don't want DRM either. So I don't buy DRM protected files - it's that simple.

If you want to parade against microsoft for being an accessory to it by including it in their OS, then by all means do so. But "security" is a two way street.

To say that you doubt God himself can't write an OS without bugs is insisting that God is imperfect. God created the OS Human 1.0. It's the OS we all run under. He hasn't ever had to make a security update for it yet

Evolution?


So essentially your argument, ignoring those parts that are comlpetely untrue, boils down to this: Microsoft has made mistakes. Vista is not perfect. You can not absolutely guarantee 100000% security. MS also did some "selfish" things like DRM. And you need a modern computer to run it, and because not *everyone* can run it, and it *might* at times be minisculely slower than XP, that is enough to disregard every other good thing they've done. And on top of it all, you continue to believe completely what you want to, even though you've been corrected several times. Would you treat a person that way?

Linux, OSX etc are not realistic alternative to windows for just about every windows user. Windows vista is an improvement in nearly all ways over XP. It's STILL not perfect, and it never will be, but it's better. What else can you expect?

 

[Nothinman]

Please do show me another OS that had superfetch and readyboost before vista. That can run the same apps as vista, and supports the same hardware. And even if you could, that still doesnt change the fact that its irrelevant to the 97.46% of computers that run windows.

I would have to agree that no other OS has SuperFetch or ReadyBoost, but that's probably because they're not needed on any other OS. SuperFetch seems kinda nice if you have some apps that take time to startup, but the only one I have here that takes any noticable amount of time to startup is FF and I don't use that very often.

Vista is more idiot proof than ever,

That's not true, at best it'll just mean people will learn to blindly click Continue on the UAC prompts just like they blindly enter their passwords on OS X and Linux now.

Linux, OSX etc are not realistic alternative to windows for just about every windows user

That's just not true, most people avoid Macs because of the price and Linux isn't offered by most OEMs. All of those peole that want nothing more than a computer for browsing the Internet, email, finances, well essentially anything besides playing Windows games or using some other Windows-only software could get by just fine.

 

[bsobel]

That's not true, at best it'll just mean people will learn to blindly click Continue on the UAC prompts just like they blindly enter their passwords on OS X and Linux now.

Ill disagree with that statement. While there will be some social engineering attacks, a rancom approval prompt popping up for no direct reason will get the attention of some percentage of users. Even if you say its 10% (I'd say it will be alot more) thats a straight line reduction in successful infections for many classes of malware.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: stash

I should have probably wrote my response above a little more clear. I didn't mean that Vista is exclusively for the desktop; mainly that if it is a true server (enterprise level), then I'm sure Vista will be overlooked, and Longhorn Server will be the real option.

My reply was mainly directed at the FUD machine on the last page, not you

My bad Stash!

The FUD machine.. I love it!

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: bsobel

That's not true, at best it'll just mean people will learn to blindly click Continue on the UAC prompts just like they blindly enter their passwords on OS X and Linux now.

Ill disagree with that statement. While there will be some social engineering attacks, a rancom approval prompt popping up for no direct reason will get the attention of some percentage of users. Even if you say its 10% (I'd say it will be alot more) thats a straight line reduction in successful infections for many classes of malware.

well from what I understand pop-ups are one of the things that are proven not to work security-wise.

Say your browsing around on the web and you get to a https site and you get a pop-up talking about the cacert and stuff like that. How many times do you actually take time to read the information on that before clicking 'accept' (or ok or whatever the hell it is)?

I know that sometimes even when I want to read stuff I automaticly click through it before thinking about it.

Unless the UAC prompt is very rare then it probably won't work. It will have to be something that confuses and suprises the end user so they have to make a conscious decision on what to do, which is normally the opposite of what you want to happen on a desktop system (in regards to good UI design.)

 

[bsobel]

Unless the UAC prompt is very rare then it probably won't work. It will have to be something that confuses and suprises the end user so they have to make a conscious decision on what to do, which is normally the opposite of what you want to happen on a desktop system (in regards to good UI design.)

In the UI model the windows shield icon should be present before any operation which will cause a UAC prompt. So if one just comes up randomly, it should stand out.

 

[Nothinman]

In the UI model the windows shield icon should be present before any operation which will cause a UAC prompt. So if one just comes up randomly, it should stand out.

You have more faith in users than I do. =)

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

In the UI model the windows shield icon should be present before any operation which will cause a UAC prompt. So if one just comes up randomly, it should stand out.

You have more faith in users than I do. =)

Actually I have none, but usability tests showed it has some effect. But I suggest we hold this discussion for 6-12 months as we'll have alot more real world data at that time (and I'm already guessing that how do I turn off UAC will be the next how do I turn off SR, and you and I get to then fix those infected machines )

 

[Nothinman]

Actually I have none, but usability tests showed it has some effect. But I suggest we hold this discussion for 6-12 months as we'll have alot more real world data at that time (and I'm already guessing that how do I turn off UAC will be the next how do I turn off SR, and you and I get to then fix those infected machines )

For now it might make a difference because it and Vista are so new so people are paying attention to everything that happens. But once they get comfortable with the system it'll be meaningless to them, the secure desktop dimming thing might be enough to get some of their attention but I imagine most people will just want to click Continue and get on with whatever they were doing. Hell I've caught myself putting my root password into gksu prompts without thinking on Ubuntu and that's not even the password that it wants. =)

 

[Markbnj]

Unless the UAC prompt is very rare then it probably won't work. It will have to be something that confuses and suprises the end user so they have to make a conscious decision on what to do, which is normally the opposite of what you want to happen on a desktop system (in regards to good UI design.)

I agree entirely with this, and from what I have seen it fails this test. Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place. There's really not much you can do to keep people from farking themselves, and every time they do you get slammed for it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
You know, I don't want to turn this into a flamewar but the caching problems seem to be XP-only. No matter what I did XP seemed to hit the hard disk a lot more than Win2K or Linux. For example I have a handful of cache-thrashing cronjobs on this Linux machine and when I got here this morning it was perfectly fine, nothing had to be paged back in when I unlocked it. It's good that MS has re-tuned their VM for Vista but it would be nice if they'd noticed that it's a big problem on XP and fixed it there too, even without things like SuperFetch and ReadyBoot just tuning their VM properly could make a huge difference.

I totally agree. I know that MS "tuned" their VM page-reaving algorithms for XP, and personally, I find that the ones in W2K seemed to be a bit more globally stable. I could leave apps running at night, and come back in the morning and they were immediately ready-to-go, not so with XP, it seems like it needed to page the world back in just to get things running again.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: stash

Microsoft hasn't even offered a beta of the server equivalent to Vista as of yet

Not a public beta, but there has been beta testing going on for a long while. Remember that Longhorn Server and Vista were/are developed side by side. They are the exact same code base, so saying that Vista can't be a server is pretty much the dumbest thing you can say. Vista itself is based off of 2003 SP1, and Vista and Longhorn Server are identical under the covers.

I can just imagine what will happen with a vista server, when the flash drive used for the readyboost cache runs out of writes and starts to fail.
Then they will think twice about the usefulness of that feature.

 

[fyleow]

..

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Nothinman
You know, I don't want to turn this into a flamewar but the caching problems seem to be XP-only. No matter what I did XP seemed to hit the hard disk a lot more than Win2K or Linux. For example I have a handful of cache-thrashing cronjobs on this Linux machine and when I got here this morning it was perfectly fine, nothing had to be paged back in when I unlocked it. It's good that MS has re-tuned their VM for Vista but it would be nice if they'd noticed that it's a big problem on XP and fixed it there too, even without things like SuperFetch and ReadyBoot just tuning their VM properly could make a huge difference.

I totally agree. I know that MS "tuned" their VM page-reaving algorithms for XP, and personally, I find that the ones in W2K seemed to be a bit more globally stable. I could leave apps running at night, and come back in the morning and they were immediately ready-to-go, not so with XP, it seems like it needed to page the world back in just to get things running again.

That was due to a IMHO dumb decision on when to empty the working set (such as when an app minimized for a bit)

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: stash

Microsoft hasn't even offered a beta of the server equivalent to Vista as of yet

Not a public beta, but there has been beta testing going on for a long while. Remember that Longhorn Server and Vista were/are developed side by side. They are the exact same code base, so saying that Vista can't be a server is pretty much the dumbest thing you can say. Vista itself is based off of 2003 SP1, and Vista and Longhorn Server are identical under the covers.

I can just imagine what will happen with a vista server, when the flash drive used for the readyboost cache runs out of writes and starts to fail.
Then they will think twice about the usefulness of that feature.

This is just getting annoying. You dont know how the feature works, yet in multiple threads you knock it and thru out examples where it won't work. Except your examples are expected use cases that WONT cause a problem. This is just like your ranting on hibernation with no data to back it up.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: bsobel
There is a stunning amount of misinformation and outright lies in both your posts.

You guys are getting all excited and horny over OLD prefetch technology? This stuff has been around for YEARS! OS 10, Linux and Unix all had it. Vista is just now getting it and you guys are like, "WOW! OMG!"

Windows 98, ME, and XP also had prefetch technology. This is a much much improved version of that. Please show us where OS10 and Linux have equivalent pre-fetch functionality (and by equivlant I mean to what Vista introduces not what XP has had all along)

The prefect technology, no. The way it works, yes. The general basis of it has been used before. However, my argument is irrelevant, so I'll give you this one.

We are not talking about HD encoded files such as xvid or x264. We're talking about HD-DVD and BlueRay! If you are running a 32 bit version of Vista, you cannot run those formats! Nor can you hook up your BlueRay or HD-DVD player through HDCP, HDMI, Component, or even DVI into a Vista 32bit machine and get HD. It will resize the image to 420p.

Actually incorrect, this is only true if the content in question is protected and forces the downsizing. Your stating that just installing those components will result in 420p images, that is incorrect.

It's incorrect huh? Here:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/vista/wi...version-wont-play-hd-movies-196427.php

http://www.apcstart.com/3112/microsoft_...e_full_hd_playback_in_32bit_vista_goes

http://www.quazen.com/Computers/Software/No-HD-video-in-32-bit-Vista.956

Linux already has support for HD-DVDs without the encryption being cracked. As a matter of fact, there are Linux based HD-DVD players around:

This is incorrect. As another posted pointed out, what middle ware a box uses is irrelevat. There is no general available HD-DVD player for Linux that allows protected HD playback.

Alright. If you say so.

http://geekswithblogs.net/lorint/archive/2006/04/25/76295.aspx

Hackers and virus writers target Windows because it's EASIER to hack and write viruses for, not because it's the most used desktop computer. Hackers and virus writers would prefer servers over desktops because there's much more to benefit from a server than someone's desktop machine.

This is also completely untrue. The machines are attacked more because there is more of them. If you believe otherwise, your simply wrong.
[/quote]
You like proving me wrong huh? So far, you're doing a bad job.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

If Vista's security is so good, then why were people able to find an old Windows XP exploit on it? Can you explain that one to me?

Link please. There was a NEW exploit on XP that also affects Vista. New exploits will continue to be found, just as they are in other OS's. The question is really not if one if found, but if the velocity of new discover increases or decreases with vista. Further, the second question is how successful those attacks can become given the new security features.

They were found fairly quickly if you ask me. These exploits were even found before the OS was released.
Here's the link you're looking for:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39247736,00.htm

http://news.com.com/Windows+Vista+gets+image+flaw+fix/2100-1002_3-6027702.html

Why disable the 3D effects in Vista? XGL/AIGLX and Aqua run just fine on older machines, yet Aero can't? Poor programming if you ask me.

I'm not sure where your getting this, I have Aero glass on all of my machines sans one laptop with integrated graphics. And these cards aren't brand new screamers. You are simply wrong (again) on this one or are quoting someone else who is wrong. Vista WILL use pixed shader 2.0 features if they are available, but IT IS NOT REQUIRED for Aero glass.

Aero requires Pixel Shader 2.0
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=10

You need it to run Aero. Without Aero, Vista is just a glorified Windows XP SP3.

How many PCs do you think can run Vista decently above the Home version? Not very many, as a matter of fact. Vista home doesn't have Aero. Most people are going to migrate to that.

Your refering to 'Vista Home Basic' which is definately tailored for lower end machines. Most current XP Home users will migrate to Vista Home Premium (which does have Aero).

New PCs come with free upgrades to Vista Home Basic. New PCs won't have Home Premium. They will have Home Basic.

Graphics Cards don't use VRAM anymore. They use GDDR3 and GDDR4. It was NOT designed to hold data. The GDDR3/4 was designed as a buffer for data from the GPU to the rest of the card. Aero doesn't "offload" data into GDDR memory. I'm sorry. You were misinformed.

They are most certainly designed to hold and manipulate data. I think you should research some of the GPGPU work going on in the community.

Memory does not manipulate data! The GPU manipulates data. The memory works as a buffer for video cards. Don't get confused with system memory. Here's a link:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/168

Vista DOES take up 1gig of memory. This is partly due to the GUI. I've installed Vista on more than one machine to know.

Vista will happily USE 1 gig of memory, but will install and run fine with less. And, lets give you this one. I never get this argument. Compare the cost per megabyte to Vista's requirement vs XP when it was released and Vista costs less to run than XP did. The goal of the OS is a foundation for the next 5-8 years, not the last.

You're failing to realize that you will also be running programs on Vista which will further bog down memory. Vista Capable PCs are PCs that run Vista Home Basic which doesn't include aero. We are talking about Vista Premium Ready PCs which DO include aero. Those requirements list at least 1 gig of memory. Here's the link:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/168

You're kidding, right?
This is common knowlege.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/vista_kernel_fix_controversy/

You simply don't know what your talking about on this. I know more about this issue than you will ever learn, we are building the new api's to deal with this along with MS. More stuff has continued to be REMOVED from the kernel, not put into it. That is the entire point and that move is a good thing (as long as ISV's still have access to the information they need via sanctioned API's).

Dude. I gave you the link. Read the link. I know what I'm talking about. That link backs up what I just told you.