Friday OT: Windows Vista

Xander wrote on 6/29/2007, 3:40 PM
I have a dual boot PC with XP Pro SP2 and Vista 64 Home Premium - mostly for evaluation/testing purposes. Had this setup for about 6 months now. For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would need to move from XP Pro SP2 to Vista. At this stage, Vista is a pain in the A$$ - most things barely work on it and doing anything is hard - installations require security overrides, take longer to install, etc. Any drivers to date, are cut down versions of their XP equivalents. I know things will improve over time, but can anybody actually see a need for change when XP works so well?


farss wrote on 6/29/2007, 4:09 PM
It's been evaluated as the most secure OS, ever!

Beats OSX by quite a bit and makes Ubuntu look pathetic.

rmack350 wrote on 6/29/2007, 4:24 PM
No need at all.

Well, the reasons aren't because you're trying to get something better. I think that about half the people using Vista are using it because thay didn't have a preference or couldn't get XP.

As far as the "security overrides", what I've seen is slightly simpler than Ubuntu Linux where you have to enter your password. Vista usually just makes you click a button. But you still have the stupid practice of having to reboot the computer for the slightest thing.

When XP came out I spent a good deal of time on sites that dealt with XP problems and gave tips to streamline things. When I am eventually forced to use Vista I'm pretty sure I'll be paring it down to it's Win2k interface, just for starters.

You're at an extra disadvantage because you're comparing Vista 64 to 32-bit XP. While 64-bit Vista will probably get more driver support than 64-bit XP did, it still probably won't be as well supported as the 32-bit version of Vista. Basically, I think you really only use the 64-bit OS when there's a really clear and compelling reason to do so, like needing support for more than 3GB of RAM, and needing to support a 64-bit version of an application.

Rob Mack
rmack350 wrote on 6/29/2007, 4:42 PM
Well, it makes RedHat look pathetic. Ubuntu (a previous version now) was slightly worse than Mac OS.

I'm not sure how I'd read that, though. Ubuntu makes very frequent updates to the package. It's very painless (no rebooting) but it's frequent. You could argue that they're being forthright and honest about it, or maybe you could say that MS lets a hack sit a little longer and puts more time into the patch. I don't know if any of these are true but it does seem to me like Ubuntu makes the patches pretty frequently. It might be interesting to know how many times they patch the same flaw.

DrLumen wrote on 6/29/2007, 6:18 PM
" It's been evaluated as the most secure OS, ever!"

That's a joke right? That's been the MS mantra for the past 5 years. Why did SP2 still have so many security issues?

Granted I am biased and suspect the referenced "blogger" is too.

intel i-4790k / Asus Z97 Pro / 32GB Crucial RAM / Nvidia GTX 560Ti / 500GB Samsung SSD / 256 GB Samsung SSD / 2-WDC 4TB Black HDD's / 2-WDC 1TB HDD's / 2-HP 23" Monitors / Various MIDI gear, controllers and audio interfaces

blink3times wrote on 6/29/2007, 6:39 PM
I have dual boot xp /vista as well (ultimate version) and while I agree with the comments to this point , I will also agree with rmack350... it will get better. Going back as far as windows 3.1 there has always been a rocky start to these things.

Microsoft even admits that now with their new "downgrade rights" and the easing of licensing restrictions (see link below). But most software manufacturers have made it clear that they are going ahead with vista acceptance and they are not going to look back. I know that Pinnacle for example has now put out a vista 32/64 compatible editor, and they have outright stated that there will be no software written for XP64.... pinnacle is owned by Avid so it also stands to reason that Avid will take the same approach with other editors.

The answer for the moment any way is to start running a dual boot system... that is if you want to start taking advantage of tomorrow's software... Vegas 64 for example. In fact , I bought Vista 64 specifically so that I am ready for Vegas 64!!
farss wrote on 6/29/2007, 7:33 PM
No joke at all and the blogger is a very serious security expert. However you have to read the full story. The graphs relate to number of security holes found 180 days after release and the number that were fixed in the same time. Has no bearing on the current status of any of the compared OSs.
Rather what he's evaluating is how well tested an OS is at release and how well each vendor goes about fixing flaws once they're discovered.

Steve Mann wrote on 6/29/2007, 8:23 PM
There is absolutely not one single feature of Vista that compels someone to "upgrade". Windows XP does everything better, faster and with a lot less overhead.
Jim H wrote on 6/29/2007, 9:00 PM
If MS had real balls they would have skipped Vista32 and forced the 64 bit OS. They're already pissing off a lot of people by forcing Vista's less backward compatible features (Directx10?) and don't forget Halo. So why not just go for it? 64 seems like it will never become the main stream OS it should be.
michaelshive wrote on 6/29/2007, 9:38 PM
Completely ridiculous statements. Vista absolutely sucks at this point. Do not use it, especially if you are a Vegas user.
TLF wrote on 6/29/2007, 11:00 PM
@Jim, I agree. Virtually every computer you buy new is 64 bit, yet every one of them I've seen comes with the 32 bit version.

@Michaelshive, I've had to support Vista users. The first time I used Vista I was more impressed than I expected. I didn't like it, but it was quite pleasant. But now, the more I use it, the more dislike. Constantly having to grant permissions to install, remove, repair programs, endless restarts, taking an age to do the simplest thing... No, it's definitely not worth the upgrade.

blink3times wrote on 6/30/2007, 3:07 AM
"Constantly having to grant permissions to install, remove, repair programs, endless restarts, taking an age to do the simplest thing..."

1/2 the frustrations that are born out of Vista come from a new OS that people still don't FULLY know how to use yet. You can turn this feature off if you go to User Accounts. In fact, I find that I can tone down most of vista's security features to the point that they are almost not there. And as far as speed is concerned,not sure why it's moving slow for you... maybe do a defrag. Mine boots up faster than xp ever could.

The only thing the REALLY has me irritated is that Vista will no longer take unsigned drivers. Freeware programs like CoreTemp will no longer work merely because vista won't allow unsigned drivers to load. You CAN turn this feature off but it leads to a bunch of security errors being logged every time you boot up.

As with XP, win2000, win98....etc, we need to give the hackers and such time to work with Vista and present their shortcuts, tips and tricks.... it will get better.
TLF wrote on 6/30/2007, 11:49 AM
Sure, on my own systems I'll turn these security features off. On my customers' systems I have no right to do that.

An operating system is there to serve me; I do not acquiesce to the demands of the operating system.
blink3times wrote on 7/1/2007, 5:50 AM
"An operating system is there to serve me; I do not acquiesce to the demands of the operating system."


While I agree that microsoft has gotten a little carried away over the years, it did not start with vista.... it started a LONG time ago. I can remember microsoft OS's saying "NO" to one of my simple requests as far back as windows 3.1 and XP is no different.

I used to run XP on a FAT32 so that I could go in behind XP with DOS (the only honest OS) and check what XP was doing. XP lies to you... there are hidden folders in SYSTEM VOLUME INFORMATION when XP says there is nothing there. It creates files that you never asked it to (DAT files that contain info on where you surfed on the net that don't get deleted when you flush the temp internet file folder)... and other things. We accept all these things merely because we are quite used to xp and it's ways. In time we will all say the same about Vista.

I'm set up right now with Vista Ultimate 64 and aside from the annoying unsigned driver rejections, this thing flies pretty good. It boots up MUCH faster than XP ever did, and the error logging is FAR more detailed then XP. And if you have security customized to your movements (which is more or less required for a good Vista experience), then you hardly hear vista complain about security issues. Do I trust it.... absolutely not!!! I trust Vista about as much as I trust XP. When I run XP, I run it with a 3rd party firewall so I can control XP's behavior on the internet. Can't do that with Vista quite yet. The only 3rd party firewall (that I know of anyway) is Norton and I think Norton sucks (my opinion only). So until I can get a third party firewall in, I won't rest too easy.
pjrey wrote on 7/1/2007, 6:45 PM
disable the damn UAC thing, it is annoying... i use vegas pro 7, photoshop cs3 daily on my vista machine, works GREAT, very quick and fast response.... i dont know what all the grumbling is about.. no one is forcing any one to upgrad..
regarding the firewalls:
i use ZONE ALARM (for VISTA) for a firewall, and that is it..
i use spybot search and destroy once a month, and never had a prob.
no stupid anti spyware... a good firewall is all you need (all I need, i should say) ..

oh im sick of hearing all this rant about anti vista, anti microsuck bill is the devil...
go get your iphone and be done with it, please..
blink3times wrote on 7/1/2007, 8:24 PM
"oh im sick of hearing all this rant about anti vista, anti microsuck bill is the devil...
go get your iphone and be done with it, please.."

I'm inclined to agree. I'm slowly getting used to my Vista 64, and it's getting to the point that I actually enjoy it.

I will say however, that I would have liked to see more security on the internet connection and less security on the network. Not only do I have vista ultimate 64 (on this machine) but I am also running vista Home 32 on the family machine. I can see the extra security being a good thing on ultimate or business.... but in Vista home, it doesn't make sense. We don't need to protect our computers from mom dad, sister sahra, and the family dog, any where near as much as we do hackers from the internet connection. I think Vista would have been much better served with a whiz-bang, super-duper, high strung, tricked out fire wall system (The existing one is not much more than what is found in XP.... and it defaults opened)
pjrey wrote on 7/2/2007, 9:27 AM
blink3times.. i agree.. the windows firewall lacks... everything...
try zone alarm! i really like it! you can customize it so you can see EVERYTHING that is happening, both in and out... and block what you wish with ease!