Vista

[peteweaver]

Is it any good, has anyone bought it ?

If so is it worth the cost ?

[MetalPig]

If so is it worth the cost ?
I got it for free, so the answer to that one is 'yes', in my case.

Would I pay money for it? Not on my current PC. Vista turned out to be a bit slower than XP, and I kinda regret the upgrade. But I'm to lazy to roll back.

So my advice would be:
Upgrade from XP? No.
Buying a new PC and need to buy a Windows OS? Get Vista.

[ob986s]

bought my wife a new HP laptop with Vista and i would have to agree with MetalPig. Buy a new PC get Vista, I would not bother upgrading.

I must admit that I like Vista. the Live search and MS Aero, Flip 3d are pretty cool features. I also like the full preview, on the task bar. But the knock is limited Applications for Vista. Trillian still is not fully supported which is annoying, so she has to use the crappy AIM client for IM's for now. I see no reason to upgrade as XP is actually a pretty solid OS and Vista doesn't really offer enough to upgrade.

Jon

[Wowbagger]

Windows Vista might not necessarily be worth the upgrade for existing machines running XP. Drivers are still problematic for some hardware (I got a story to tell below), and some software applications as well.

There are some good, new features and improvements, of course. But, none of them scream "must have!", except in the case of Tablet PCs.

If you have a Tablet PC, you'll find vast improvements to how the pen and handwriting recognition are handled in Vista.

If you have an OS earlier than Windows XP, you might find much more benefit to upgrading, as well. (if your machine can handle it!)

If you are getting a new PC machine, of course, Vista is the way to go. (Unless you are a Linux person.)

I just got a new Tablet PC that shipped with Vista Business, and it all worked quite well. Then, I upgraded it to Vista Ultimate, using the "Upgrade Anytime" system. And, believe it or not, many of the hardware drivers failed to work, right after that! Took a few hours to set them up again, (and I still think there is something, somewhere left to do).
But, if I am having this sort of difficulty from one Vista to another, imagine the potential issues moving from XP to Vista!

If you feel compelled to upgrade, I would recommend a clean install. (Back up all your data, first, of course!)
You can also try dual-booting between XP and Vista for a while, if you feel up to it, and have two or more partitions and/or hard drives. (but, it pays to back up your data, before doing this, as well! You never know.)

You can also try using Vista in a Virtual Machine (except for the Vista Home Basic edition, apparently), if all you want to do is examine its pretty features.

Hope this helps.

[MetalPig]

You can also try using Vista in a Virtual Machine (except for the Vista Home Basic edition, apparently), if all you want to do is examine its pretty features.
I tried that with MS Virtual PC, but I couldn't get the Aero stuff working. Apparently Virtual PC emulates a crappy non-3D graphics card.

Then I did the dual boot, decided that pretty = good, undid the dual boot and upgraded, found out too much stuff didn't work right, and did the clean install.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

Plus it is a RAM hog.

[Grimoire]

Plus it is a RAM hog.
And a CPU hog.
And a hard drive hog.

Basically, it is a resource hog. Everything is slower in Vista.

But damn there are some cool features. The best is that the start menu is text searchable! Very cool feature, and it works extremely well. It makes navigating an ugly Start Menu a breeze.

[Dark Jaguar]

Okay so the very best feature of an ENTIRE OS is that you can text search a menu? Um, that's a quirk, not an OS defining aspect. That's mere usability. I don't rank that very high compaired to ACTUAL OS features. I mean, usability is important, but as far as I'm concerned all I need to be able to do is double click on things to open other things. If an OS can do that, things like some sort of streamlined search or cute little "gadget bars" sitting around on the side of the screen are just diversions. I need an OS to act fast and be compatible with lots of hardware, and support the majority of stuff OSes are doing, like basically abstract away stuff so that programmers don't need to worry about what hardware is in a machine that much.

Anyway, there is only one feature of this new OS that gets me interested in it at all. It's not the 3D prettied up menues, or faster searching, or this or that little toy they tossed in here and there. It's not the support for really cool stuff they have systematically removed since announcing this OS, it's the only one they actually kept. DirectX 10. Any particular reason that feature can't be ported over to XP? If there's something amazing deep in the code of Vista that makes it support DX10 and XP completely incapable of ever supporting it, then that's something I care about.

Other than that, I have no motivation to get it. XP was an actual upgrade. Vista seems like makeup. Makeup that isn't fully compatible with all my old games and hardware. Makeup that is very needy of resources, and makeup that doesn't like me doing whatever I want with my own computer (I refer to far too controlling "digital rights management", for while I consider piracy a form of theft, I certainly don't condone an OS being so controlling as to prevent independant developers from basically having their way with an OS).

No Vista for me, is what I'm saying. Maybe I'll change my mind, but it'll take a lot.

[Wowbagger]

I tried that with MS Virtual PC, but I couldn't get the Aero stuff working. Apparently Virtual PC emulates a crappy non-3D graphics card. Ah, good point, but mostly applies to the older versions of Virtual PC.
Try using the 2007 edition. Or the latest VMWare.

[Wowbagger]

XP was an actual upgrade. Vista seems like makeup. Makeup that isn't fully compatible with all my old games and hardware. Makeup that is very needy of resources, and makeup that doesn't like me doing whatever I want with my own computer Funny how many people said that exact same thing about Windows XP when it was released. And Windows 98. And Windows 95. And Windows 1.00.

Then they realized how stable the system is, and how much those "little" improvements matter, in everyday usage of the OS, etc.

The road of human judgement is paved with shifting standards.

[Stupendous Man]

I bought it, after trying it for a month in a dual-boot system with XP.
I don't notice anything particularly slower about it. It has a lot of little features that make everyday use a little nicer, particularly with Windows Explorer. The only driver issue I've had is that a printer I had that was 5 years old didn't work with it, but it wasn't a big deal.
I like it a lot, and so far have no regrets.

[Soapy Sam]

Funny how many people said that exact same thing about Windows XP when it was released. And Windows 98. And Windows 95. And Windows 1.00.

Then they realized how stable the system is, and how much those "little" improvements matter, in everyday usage of the OS, etc.

The road of human judgement is paved with shifting standards.

In truth, I suspect many people upgraded these systems because they bought new computers which had the new system preinstalled.
I expect the same will happen with Vista.

I first used Win 98 in 2000. I first used XP in late 2004. This delayed takeup seems pretty common. I get the impression from computer magazines , that Vista uptake has not met expectations.

[aerosolben]

Plus it is a RAM hog.
Keep in mind that some of this is intentional. Vista will preload programs into unused memory, but will surrender it when needed.

[Dark Jaguar]

Funny how many people said that exact same thing about Windows XP when it was released. And Windows 98. And Windows 95. And Windows 1.00.

Then they realized how stable the system is, and how much those "little" improvements matter, in everyday usage of the OS, etc.

The road of human judgement is paved with shifting standards.

Except that those previous systems really did have important upgrades. 95 was an actual OS (based on DOS) as opposed to the previous Windows which were more like GUI frontloaders for DOS. This meant it could do certain things, like for example have certain driver support. That said, it was still based on an old system purely for backwards compatibility and so it was pretty unstable. 98 was a lot more stable, on top of having certain important support for things like USB. ME did not really add anything at all, and in general is frowned upon because of that. In fact it was LESS stable and lost a lot of compatibility. XP was a complete rebuild of the entire code, well really it was replacing the home version of Windows with an NT based OS. It added a LOT, and being based on NT while adding as much support as it could for 9x stuff (though I still need DosBox). Usability? Really, it's still pretty similar in a lot of ways to Windows 95.

So no, it's not just the changing times. ME was rejected because it didn't add enough and it actually made things worse. Vista could share that fate.

[Rob Lister]

As I've implied in another thread on Vista, I think the previous bashing of MS will sound like accolads once people realize just what it is Vista is going to force us all to do, myself included probably; like many, I'm professionally locked in to MS and the upgrade pressure is already upon me.

[ob986s]

Ah, good point, but mostly applies to the older versions of Virtual PC.
Try using the 2007 edition. Or the latest VMWare.

Experimental support only in VMware workstation 5.5 which is the current release and only as a guest OS, not a host


WS 6 (now in Beta) will probably support Vista in a host and guest

Jon

disclaimer: I work for VMware

[Wowbagger]

Except that those previous systems really did have important upgrades.

(snip)

So no, it's not just the changing times. ME was rejected because it didn't add enough and it actually made things worse. Vista could share that fate. You'll notice Windows Me is conspicuously absent from my list.

You are right about Me making things worse. But, I don't think Vista will quite share that fate. These driver and incompatability problems will, with time, smooth out, like they did with XP.

Vista does offer important security improvements; support for interesting ways to use hardware devices (such as ReadyBoost, SideShow, and better Tablet support); and nice, new APIs for software developers to work with; and the OS interface is, generally, easier to use. (Though, some Windows veterens might be slow to find certain stuff, at first.)

Windows Me had none of that.

Experimental support only in VMware workstation 5.5 which is the current release and only as a guest OS, not a host


WS 6 (now in Beta) will probably support Vista in a host and guest

Jon

disclaimer: I work for VMware
Ah, this does appear to be correct. It has been a while since I've worked with VMWare. I had forgotten that the "latest" edition is still in Beta.

[PogoPedant]

The best is that the start menu is text searchable! Very cool feature, and it works extremely well. It makes navigating an ugly Start Menu a breeze.

http://www.launchy.net/

No need to shell out for a feature, when it's already free and open source! :)

[Grimoire]

http://www.launchy.net/

No need to shell out for a feature, when it's already free and open source! :)
:thumbsup:

Thanks!

[El Greco]

Well, whether people will get Vista depends on the software that will become available exclusively for it. How many games with raving critiques will be Vista-only ? Will Microsoft succeed in luring developers to write just for Vista (perhaps with a Vista-only version of Direct-X) ? And so on.

Personally I'll be getting it for free along with a free new PC in 1.5 year, so I'll probably accept it. :D Unless it's the home edition.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Having had to test Vista exhaustively for work ( I am a Network Administrator) I will say this:

We won't be upgrading to Vista anytime soon. Not because of any Vista shortcomings, but because none of our proprietary accounting or project management software works with it. The Vista compatibility mode does not work with DB applications.

So, in closing, check software compatibility for what you are going to use your computer for, if the software is Vista compatible then by all means get it.

[Jekyll]

http://www.launchy.net/

No need to shell out for a feature, when it's already free and open source! :)

What do you know, it's built into KDE as well, I'd never noticed that before.

[ChristineR]

My own computer is in a state of disrepair, and I'm typing this from what will (hopefully) end up being my sister's new laptop. Both laptops have 1 MEG of memory, mine is a 2.0Ghz single core, this is a 1.6 Ghz dual core. This one has Vista, mine has XP.

Mine is waaaaaay faster. Maybe it's the 2.0 Ghz processor. Maybe not. I guess I'm spoiled, but this is driving me crazy.

[aerosolben]

My own computer is in a state of disrepair, and I'm typing this from what will (hopefully) end up being my sister's new laptop. Both laptops have 1 MEG of memory, mine is a 2.0Ghz single core, this is a 1.6 Ghz dual core. This one has Vista, mine has XP.

Mine is waaaaaay faster. Maybe it's the 2.0 Ghz processor. Maybe not. I guess I'm spoiled, but this is driving me crazy.
I've found your problem. ;)

[ChristineR]

I've found your problem. ;)

Did I mention I've been used ancient computers all week? I've completely forgotten the difference between 128K and 128 Meg. :blush:

[Blight]

As a software developer, I had to upgrade to vista to make sure my software is vista compatible.

VISTA has a lot of quirks, the inability to completely disable ClearType Font Anti-Aliasing (it doesn't look good on CRT monitors). Obvious bugs like the start menu in classic mode forgetting the shortcut order each time you reboot, etc...

With regards to speed, If you disable all the excess services, background-running applications and Aero, VISTA should be as fast as XP, possibly even faster. But it will take more ram, so if you don't have at least 1gb, VISTA will be slower than XP.

Other issues I encountered:
1. My Pentax Camera drivers bug-out under VISTA (no access to the SD flash card).
2. The NVIDIA drivers are really really buggy when it comes to displaying video, outputting an analog TV signal and general driver configuration (can't comment about game issues as I don't play games anymore).

As for trillian... works just great for me, no idea why it wouldn't work for you. One thing I did do when installing trillian is that I didn't install it, I just copied it over from my previous development system.

[kevin]

have you tried your camera without installing any drivers? Typically on the Mac your best bet is to try to connect something without installing the drivers. 8/10 times it'll just work. I think Vista ships with a lot of drivers pre-installed and installing from the CD or web site will actually put old drivers on the machine (this was true on XP for about 3 months, then it was better to use the one from the manufacturer web site.)

NVIDIA seems to be dumping out driver updates pretty frequently, might try those from their web site.

[Blight]

kevin:
Yeah, I did, I have an older-generation Pentax Optio S camera... In recent years the cameras no longer require any drivers, but older cameras still do.

As for NVIDIA, I'm using their latest beta driver (101.41), their latest official driver (100.65) is seriously damaged (it forgets certain settings on reboot and has an even worse video quality than the beta driver).

[Chaos]

A few questions from a semi-computer-illiterate person:

If all I want to do with my computer is run MS Office 2000, go on the internet, and play games, is upgrading to Vista worth it? And should I buy Basic or Premium?
I´m running Windows 98 right now, and almost no game being published lately runs on ´98. I was planning to upgrade to XP, but suddenly Vista came along and now I can´t find XP in the stores any more.

I´ve seen a few people mentioning "dual boot" - I assume this means having two different OS on the same machine. How does that work?

[ob986s]

A few questions from a semi-computer-illiterate person:

If all I want to do with my computer is run MS Office 2000, go on the internet, and play games, is upgrading to Vista worth it? And should I buy Basic or Premium?
I´m running Windows 98 right now, and almost no game being published lately runs on ´98. I was planning to upgrade to XP, but suddenly Vista came along and now I can´t find XP in the stores any more.

I´ve seen a few people mentioning "dual boot" - I assume this means having two different OS on the same machine. How does that work?



I would not upgrade any PC that came with win98 to Vista, I would say it's time to upgrade the PC itself. Vista needs lots of memory, at least a Gig, 2 is better. I seriously doubt you have that much in a 98 box

[El Greco]

I´ve seen a few people mentioning "dual boot" - I assume this means having two different OS on the same machine. How does that work?

There are many ways to do it, but here's one:

How to Multiple Boot Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, and MS-DOS (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/217210)

[Chaos]

I would not upgrade any PC that came with win98 to Vista, I would say it's time to upgrade the PC itself. Vista needs lots of memory, at least a Gig, 2 is better. I seriously doubt you have that much in a 98 box

The PC is all right. It was last upgraded to then-almost-cutting-edge level in ´04. The ´98 is from the PC before that one, or the one before that; I just decided not to upgrade while ´98 was still good enough.
The processor is an Athlon-something-3000, and it has 1 GB memory.

[JerryH]

If you've not done so, I suggest using the Vista Upgrade Advisor to see how your existing PC will run with Vista:

Go here: (Do a search for the Vista Upgrade Advisor as I can't post links yet.)


I installed Vista on my wife's PC after upgrading the AGP Video Card and Ram (2GB). It has a Athlon XP Barton 3200 and A7N8X-Deluxe mobo (Nforce2 Chipset) and while Vista runs ok with this set up it's limited and Nvidia is no longer supporting the NF2 Chipset Drivers. It's certainly acceptable for Office Apps, Internet surfing/Email, but it's no gaming rig.

[JerryH]

If you've not done so, I suggest using the Vista Upgrade Advisor to see how your existing PC will run with Vista:

Go here: (Do a search for the Vista Upgrade Advisor as I can't post links yet.)


I installed Vista on my wife's PC after upgrading the AGP Video Card and Ram (2GB). It has a Athlon XP Barton 3200 and A7N8X-Deluxe mobo (Nforce2 Chipset) and while Vista runs ok with this set up it's limited and Nvidia is no longer supporting the NF2 Chipset Drivers. It's certainly acceptable for Office Apps, Internet surfing/Email, but it's no gaming rig.

[bigred]

OK I give up; I'm not hearing exactly rave reviews for Vista, yet people are going "if you get a new PC get it." Why?

[ChristineR]

OK I give up; I'm not hearing exactly rave reviews for Vista, yet people are going "if you get a new PC get it." Why?

1) It's getting harder to find XP PCs. If it hit the shelves after January 31 it probably has Vista.

2) Microsoft will eventually phase out XP and you will have to buy Vista anyhow.

3) Another excuse to get more memory.

[bigred]

But people are saying "get Vista" - ie not just take whatever the PC comes with.

(Re. no. 2: beyond a general single-finger salute to MS, if I really wanted to I could still be running Win2000...heck Win98....for most things I want/need; sadly, I know many people wouldn't because MS has them brain-washed into keeping up w/the Joneses)

[ChristineR]

I'd still be running Windows 95 if it were an option. It was the first Windows not to wrap DOS, and in my opinion the later systems have added nothing, except for the ability to read files off a network without some absurd maneuvering...which I guess is actually worth something. :p

[Soapy Sam]

Bigred- I asked much the same question in an earlier thread here and learned no reason to "up" grade- (what a weasel word that is). There seems to be no killer app associated. It's prettier and that's about it.
Because of the huge UK price markup it seems to be selling slowly here as a standalone OS, but is - just like XP- establishing a user base because it is bundled with all new PCs after January 31st.

I have no plans to move, but I expect to acquire Vista when I replace one or other computer- which , barring accidents, won't be this year.

[bigred]

Exactly, ie it's all a "get it because it's the new one" mentality.

Pet peeve. :mad: Bite me, MS.

[El Greco]

One thing I'd like from Vista is to not hang at all. The one thing I still hate in XP (but which I must admit has been improved a lot from earlier versions) is when CTRL-ALT-DEL doesn't work, or when the Task Manager fails to terminate the process you have explicitly told it to.

[voidx]

I'd still be running Windows 95 if it were an option. It was the first Windows not to wrap DOS, and in my opinion the later systems have added nothing, except for the ability to read files off a network without some absurd maneuvering...which I guess is actually worth something. :p
Added nothing? The change from FAT to NTFS alone was worth the change to 2000. The list of benefits of XP over 2000 over 9x is long and certainly not equal to nothing.

I know people dislike Microsoft for many reasons, but lets try to keep our critical and logical wits dialed in at least a tad when discussing them.

Same thing with Vista. Try it, use it for a period of time, then comment. Or look into it in depth for yourself. The list of new security features is not insignificant. One can argue how well they might work in practice, but there are certainly reasons to consider Vista, once drivers catch up and it stablilizes a little more with vendor support.

If people are serious about finding out what Vista can do, then they will do the research and make an informed decision. If you're simply looking for some lack of information, or annoying features to feed a preconceived dislike of Microsoft, then you'll find plenty of that too.

[cyborg]

Try it, use it for a period of time, then comment.

By that point you've already parted with a load of cash, so you're pretty screwed if you don't like it.

[bigred]

The list of benefits of XP over 2000 over 9x is long and certainly not equal to nothing.OK I'll bite: what in a nutshell did XP buy me over 2000, and what does Vista buy me over XP, ie from a home PC perspective? I've used all of them except Vista and read up some on that.

I guess I'm just tired of MS/MS sheeples (not saying you) saying "this new version is so much better than the last one because (for ex) it is SOOO secure!!" .....then it's various security flaws are exposed, umpteen patches/"upgrades"/service packs are dished out to address them....

...and after awhile a new version comes out which is SO much more secure.

:rolleyes:

The only reason I even have XP is because it came w/my PC, not that I have anything against it....oh and because it sure as hell beats ME, although so does a sharp stick in the eye.


EDIT: here's a link to a summary of (I believe) the 12 most significant features of Vista:
http://www.computerperformance.co.uk/vista/vista_new_features.htm#AERO_-_Replaces_XPs_Luna_Desktop._


After reading thru it, I remain unimpressed, perhaps even more than I was before. Oh well, to each their own.

[Modified]

VISTA has a lot of quirks, the inability to completely disable ClearType Font Anti-Aliasing (it doesn't look good on CRT monitors).For some reason the ClearType AA looks a lot fuzzier than it did under XP on my laptop. I screencapped some text and blew it up, and it is antialiasing for the correct pixel order and orientation, but apparently it is a more "aggressive" algorithm than was used under XP.

Also, my DVD drive no longer works, at all. So far there are no driver upgrades to fix the problem. Fortunately it is only my backup/travel machine.

[Almo]

Uh... i thought 95 did wrap DOS. Hence the weirdness with filenames...

[ChristineR]

95 used a DOS type file system with 8.3 names, but it did not wrap DOS. Before 95 when you ran Windows it was secretly executing dir and del commands when it actually displayed those files.

As I said above, I have been using Vista. It locks up a lot and is slow. The new security features seem to mainly consist of asking me to click a little confirmation box whenever I do anything. It's quite annoying, but then you are talking to someone who has never gotten viruses or spyware on her own computer, and whose motto about cleaning other people's computers is "Never edit the registry before breakfast."

The other improvements seem to be mainly cosmetic. It also exhibits the standard Microsoft mistakes, narrowing down the functionality in an attempt to make things easier, while actually consuming resources and forcing the user to take extra steps in the event that she might not want to organize things the way MS does.

It is quite pretty.

[Azure]

XP is faster then 2000...case closed. ;)

In my limited experience, I have found no problems with using Vista when you buy a new computer, except the whole process of figuring the damn network out. :(

But, I never buy brand name computers, so I'll be using XP until I HAVE to switch to Vista.

Driver support still sucks.

[bigred]

Don't worry; in time, regardless of justification, logical reasons, or anything else, you will be assimilated.....

:shiver:

[DiskoVilante]

As a software developer, I had to upgrade to vista to make sure my software is vista compatible.

VISTA has a lot of quirks, the inability to completely disable ClearType Font Anti-Aliasing (it doesn't look good on CRT monitors).

What?! You don't have a LCD monitor...:eek:
I'll pray for you buddy. :p

[El Greco]

I'm getting the feeling that Microsoft didn't really need to launch a new OS. Whatever shortcomings XP has, they could have fixed them. It's not like Vista has a revolutionary new architecture or any great new features. They just have to release a new OS every few years.

[bigred]

They just have to release a new OS every few years.Of course. Gotta keep the money rolling in somehow...and the lemmings are sure to do that...

[Kaylee]

I'd still be running Windows 95 if it were an option. It was the first Windows not to wrap DOS, and in my opinion the later systems have added nothing, except for the ability to read files off a network without some absurd maneuvering...which I guess is actually worth something. :p
I feel the same way except for three things:

* I like the Win XP system restore feature -- its a much safer way for most people (esp. non techy types) to restore the Windows registry to an earlier, working point.

* It seems to me that XP is more stable than Win 95 for most people -- less occurences of blue screens of death, etc.

* Haven't used this feature much -- but its nice to have the option to remotely work with someone elses PC and help them fix a problem right away instead of waiting until you have time to go to their house. I think this feature was introduced with XP also.

XP was worth the upgrade. I haven't tried Vista yet and probably won't until I have to replace my PC as I don't want to have to deal with replacing the drivers, nor do I want to be an unpaid beta tester for MS.

[seraosha]

Vista = Windows Me

Not a necessary upgrade from Win XP, unless you are looking to use DirectX 10.
Since this is my first post, my apologies for my inability to post a link to a great blog with screenshots that detail the difference between the versions.

[AudioFreak]

I just helped my dad set up his brand new Dell sporting Vista last night.

My first impressions are as follows -

It's still slow and annoying and assumes I'm a moron
Web browser looks like a futuristic billboard
The whole OS gives me the feeling that MS examined Apple's OS X and said "how can we make this cumbersome?"

[Tanstaafl]

And now I find that much of the ham radio software that I'm interested in won't work with Vista.

Or at least they indicate that it might not.

[AudioFreak]

And now I find that much of the ham radio software that I'm interested in won't work with Vista.

Or at least they indicate that it might not.

They'll get you software that'll work some time soon.

[Tanstaafl]

Vista = Windows Me

Not a necessary upgrade from Win XP, unless you are looking to use DirectX 10.
Since this is my first post, my apologies for my inability to post a link to a great blog with screenshots that detail the difference between the versions.


I have nothing related to Vista here, just wanted to welcome you to the forum.

And to suggest you post on the "Welcome New Posters" thread in community.

[bigred]

Vista = Windows Me
ouch, that's gonna leave a mark

[Soapy Sam]

Unless you need to use Direct X 10, you do not need Vista.

Interestingly, it is outselling XP at the same time after release, but then there are a lot more PCs around now.

[Tief]

XP is faster then 2000...case closed.

Are you being serious? XP is Win2k with additional bloat - I mean, features. How could it be faster? I am guessing you are kidding (hence the 'wink'), but maybe there's something I don't know. . .:)

[bigred]

Are you being serious? XP is Win2k with additional bloat - I mean, features. How could it be faster? I am guessing you are kidding (hence the 'wink'), but maybe there's something I don't know. . .:)
I doubt it. I think it's the classic "newer is better" mentality :rolleyes:

XP aint faster than 2000.

[voidx]

By that point you've already parted with a load of cash, so you're pretty screwed if you don't like it.
I'll admit its maybe not feasible for everyone. But the RC2 Beta of Vista is still widely available. So if one wants a decent preview of the features within Vista, they can certainly do so at no cost.


OK I'll bite: what in a nutshell did XP buy me over 2000, and what does Vista buy me over XP, ie from a home PC perspective? I've used all of them except Vista and read up some on that.

XP over 2000? Driver rollback, functional restore points, Windows Firewall, faster bootup and shutdown. Not to mention many extended features for Active Directory group policy control.

See, if you throw the caveat in that its from the home PC perspective, then sure, the upgrades may seem less significant. And I'm fine with that. But then don't use blanket statements saying there are no significant new features in Vista, because from the enterprise side of things there most definately are.

I agree that anyone, for any platform running around toting its security before its been released to full production is annoying. And the list you gave of the 12 new features of Vista covers it pretty well. I'll agree that Vista is not a revolution of the Windows platform, but there are some decent and significant improvements, despite what one might think about MS implementation.

Remember that Vista is not 100% targeted to home users, not by a long shot. Many of those features are welcome additions to those of us having to control and deploy Windows desktops in mid/large organizations.

As much as people gripe about the UAC it is still nice to have, and the concept exists in many Unix / Linux environments and with Macs, the concept of having to invoke admin rights when needed.

As for performance, people need to consider the requirements. For every person complaining it ran slowly, I can find someone saying it ran fine. My PC meets most of the minimum requirements and Vista RC2 ran fine for me, not major performance or speed issues. The only significant issue I had was actually with Windows Media Player 11 which had a habit of pinning the CPU when buffering videos. Switched to Media Player Classic and it went away.

Overall I think Vista is a nice step forward, and yes will need a little fine tuning over the first 6 months or so. But its certainly better than XP was with its initial release.

And yes, I agree, there maybe a much less solid case for home users to upgrade. That doesn't mean that there are not significant improvements, and that to different scenarios that those features have value.

[voidx]

I doubt it. I think it's the classic "newer is better" mentality :rolleyes:

XP aint faster than 2000.
What does "fast" mean in terms of Windows anyway? XP certainly isn't "slower" than 2000. What metric are we measuring speed with? Boot up and shutdown? How many applications can be opened at once, and any potential lag in switching between windows etc? Games? Memory / CPU Usage?

I'll agree to the fact that I don't think XP is necessarily "faster" than 2000, with the exception of bootup and shutdown times. Overall the PC moreso dictates how fast the OS operates. XP may make more efficient use of memory and CPU times, but not that would be significantly noticeable to a regular home user.

I guess my main issue is that on a site where people are skeptical about a great many things, that when it comes to certain topics, Computer OS's in general, that critical thinking tends to fly out the window as everyone flogs their favorite dead horse (Windows sucks, Linus sucks, Mac sucks) what have you.

I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but lets take a serious look at things before letting our bias run off with us.

[negativ]

A few questions from a semi-computer-illiterate person:

If all I want to do with my computer is run MS Office 2000, go on the internet, and play games, is upgrading to Vista worth it? And should I buy Basic or Premium?
I´m running Windows 98 right now, and almost no game being published lately runs on ´98. I was planning to upgrade to XP, but suddenly Vista came along and now I can´t find XP in the stores any more.

I´ve seen a few people mentioning "dual boot" - I assume this means having two different OS on the same machine. How does that work?

I wouldn't buy Vista right now, period. I' played around with it for a few days and went back to XP. Too many things don't work. I really like the navigation updates, though, and once the first big service pack comes out, I may give it another chance.

You can still get XP (in several flavors) from NewEgg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2060350368+50001149&name=Microsoft), by the way.

[Zygar]

I ended up running Vista on my new laptop against my will. My wireless card doesn't have XP compatible drivers available. They are due out in the next 2 months, but in the meantime I have been forced to stick with Vista.

And, to my surprise, I actually like it. The annoying "Windows needs your permission to continue" can sometimes really piss me off. And periodically I have trouble finding a compatible version of some software, but all in all I am pretty happy with the new features.

That said, I have a free copy of Vista Ultimate Edition. I cannot in good conscience endorse this product for the price they want to charge normal people for it.

[Yalius]

There is one change form XP to Vista that will be dramatic, once programmers learn how to take advantage of it. Screen elements are no longer bitmapped, but vector based, and can be manipulated as objects in ways that are just not possible in the GDI+ scheme of things. I know, it doesn't sound like much, but this can literally mean a revolution in alternative display formats, like near-zero processing cost for realtime graphics calls, or the ability to offload digital-imaging effects to your video board and then reload the results back to the image in memory; this could be done with both still and video images. This could be really, really big.

[ChristineR]

There is one change form XP to Vista that will be dramatic, once programmers learn how to take advantage of it. Screen elements are no longer bitmapped, but vector based, and can be manipulated as objects in ways that are just not possible in the GDI+ scheme of things. I know, it doesn't sound like much, but this can literally mean a revolution in alternative display formats, like near-zero processing cost for realtime graphics calls, or the ability to offload digital-imaging effects to your video board and then reload the results back to the image in memory; this could be done with both still and video images. This could be really, really big.

Actually that is very cool, but right now I'm not exactly dieing to see Windows come to life. I'd rather have the extra memory.

[Yalius]

Actually that is very cool, but right now I'm not exactly dieing to see Windows come to life. I'd rather have the extra memory.

It's not just pretty effects; it's the ability of Windows to handle just about any visual element, in realtime for both still and video images, with drastically reduced processing overhead. Take, say, a 20 or 30 megapixel digital image, that you're blending with another bitmap, like either an alpha blend or a bump map, just about anything. The native Windows functions convert it to vector-based image, then you can offload the bump map or alpha blend to your GPU, and reload the processed image into memory. HUGE savings in processing time. And you can do it constantly in real time with a video stream. Prettification of windows elements is just a freebie. That high-end video card now has a business case justification, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

[ChristineR]

I'm trying, but I'm just not seeing the use of bump-mapping my Windows elements. Sure, piping everything through GDI objects kind of sucks but we've been living with that for a while. I'm visualizing Windows moving around like 3D characters, but it's not exciting me too much.

It ain't easy to create a vector image from a bitmap, by the way. The usual way to do it is to start vector and convert to bitmap if needed.

[MortFurd]

It's not just pretty effects; it's the ability of Windows to handle just about any visual element, in realtime for both still and video images, with drastically reduced processing overhead. Take, say, a 20 or 30 megapixel digital image, that you're blending with another bitmap, like either an alpha blend or a bump map, just about anything. The native Windows functions convert it to vector-based image, then you can offload the bump map or alpha blend to your GPU, and reload the processed image into memory. HUGE savings in processing time. And you can do it constantly in real time with a video stream. Prettification of windows elements is just a freebie. That high-end video card now has a business case justification, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

To quote Prewitt:
Nope.

You do NOT want to convert your bitmaps to vector and back again. You will lose detail that way, and bitmap to vector conversion is a difficult job to do. Much more difficult than just doing the changes in the bitmap to begin with. It would take longer and you would get a much worse result by doing things that way. I'm no fan of MS, but even I don't think they're THAT stupid.

You can make use of the graphic card abilities to manipulate a bitmap (but I don't know if Vista can help you with it.) That's a different thing entirely, and not unreasonable.

Vista uses vector graphics in some parts of the Aero GUI. The advantage to using vector graphics is that they scale well to different screen resolutions and dpi settings. From what I hear, Aero is not completely vector based (some of the graphics are still bitmaps) and comes apart visually if you use extreme dpi settings.

[Wowbagger]

You know what I really love about Vista, (besides the better Tablet support)?

When you have file extensions shown, and you rename a file, the extension is not selected by default, so you can just type in the new name, without reselecting only the name portion, first!!

Sometimes, it's the little things that really make the biggest difference in your day-to-day computer operations.

[MortFurd]

You know what I really love about Vista, (besides the better Tablet support)?

When you have file extensions shown, and you rename a file, the extension is not selected by default, so you can just type in the new name, without reselecting only the name portion, first!!

Sometimes, it's the little things that really make the biggest difference in your day-to-day computer operations.

That has got to be the absolute smallest improvement that has taken the longest to get.

Windows has been tossing the warning about not changing the extension for years. It seems like making it not select the extension when renaming would be a simple and obvious thing, but yet here it is seven years after Windows 2000 came out (I know Win2K does this) and it has just now been changed.

[bigred]

You know what I really love about Vista, (besides the better Tablet support)?

When you have file extensions shown, and you rename a file, the extension is not selected by default, so you can just type in the new name, without reselecting only the name portion, first!!See now this is the kind of actual useful stuff that can attract customers. :)

[Soapy Sam]

The UK magazine PC Advisor is running a post-install Vista poll. Results here-http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/poll/index.cfm?action=showresults&pid=238

The same site has details of the class action suit M$ may be facing over advertising computers as "Vista Capable" when they can actually only handle Vista Home Basic, which lacks the Aero interface, arguably Vista's main selling point to the general home user.

[bigred]

Aren't they amazing? Give em a hand folks!!

[Tief]

I'll agree to the fact that I don't think XP is necessarily "faster" than 2000, with the exception of bootup and shutdown times

I tried XP home edition on one of my computers - it was slower to boot than Win2kPro. And it crashed more, a lot more. I took it off and re-installed Win2k.

One of the things I don't like about XP is that I have to select for all file types every time I do a file search, if I want to include hidden files. With Win2k, I set it once and it automatically does this every time I search. This is the kind of thing I call 'bloat' that MS would call a 'feature'.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

The UK magazine PC Advisor is running a post-install Vista poll. Results here-http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/poll/index.cfm?action=showresults&pid=238

The same site has details of the class action suit M$ may be facing over advertising computers as "Vista Capable" when they can actually only handle Vista Home Basic, which lacks the Aero interface, arguably Vista's main selling point to the general home user.
This is an interesting issue, because PC game manufacturers have been doing this for years.

Many 3D games offer significant graphical features, but only for cutting edge PCs with high end graphics cards, RAM, and processors. On their packaging, they mention 'minimum' requirements (Meaning that yes, the game will run, but maybe not well), and 'recommended' requirements.

It's not even rare nowadays for people to buy a new PC, or do a signficant upgrade just to be able to run a certain game; we certainly saw it when Doom 3 was released.

So basically it's a tough call to say if Microsoft is being blatantly dishonest, or just not being as forthcoming as they could be about what 'Vista Capable' means. My understanding is that PCs that meet minimum requirements can actually run any version of Vista, but that Aero will have to be turned off.

[jimlintott]

That has got to be the absolute smallest improvement that has taken the longest to get.

Windows has been tossing the warning about not changing the extension for years. It seems like making it not select the extension when renaming would be a simple and obvious thing, but yet here it is seven years after Windows 2000 came out (I know Win2K does this) and it has just now been changed.

I'm curious, is Vista still identifying file types by extension? Now that is something that is broken and needs fixing. It has even been a security issue. Ever seen a song.mp3.vbs file?

How about symlinks? Does Vista do proper symlinks now?

[aerosolben]

I'm curious, is Vista still identifying file types by extension? Now that is something that is broken and needs fixing. It has even been a security issue. Ever seen a song.mp3.vbs file?
The potential security vulnerability is in hiding extensions, not having program associations. Is that what you mean?

How about symlinks? Does Vista do proper symlinks now?
Apparently.

http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng/archive/2006/04/15/576568.aspx

[bigred]

It's not even rare nowadays for people to buy a new PC, or do a signficant upgrade just to be able to run a certain game; we certainly saw it when Doom 3 was released. Sad, considering how bad that game sucked.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I personally am loving Vista.

It seems quicker than XP - but this is probably an illusion caused by my upgrading to a beast of a machine to run it on in the first place!

One of the biggest selling points over XP for me, is the way it deals with errors/crashes/instabilities etc; I have not experienced what I would call a 'crash' with Vista. Under XP, if my graphics card stopped responding, 9.9 times out of 10, it would mean a reboot, and lost data - now, I just get a quick screen flicker followed by a pop-up telling me that my Graphics card 'stopped responding', but is working OK now. Also, when XP came across an error running a program, it was fond of spewing out cryptic technobabble messages like, "Error in catflap 9: sysmemhidoskeycheck 80059435789347" - Vista actually tells me in plain English what the problem is related to, then tries to sort it out by itself, without taxing me too much.

I like this! I bought a computer to do my thinking FOR me, not make ME think harder!

[Soapy Sam]

I like this! I bought a computer to do my thinking FOR me, not make ME think harder!

...but then you installed a Micro$oft OS ?

Hey- fair enough, if it does what you want, great. I think what has underwhelmed many folk is that they were expecting a lot more than Vista seems to offer.

Maybe the problem is less that the OS is no good than that M$ marketing department are too good.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I think one of the main problems with Vista is that all the improvements and new features happen in the background and aren't necessarily instantly apparent. Also, MS seem to be promoting it on the strength of its apparent 'shinyness' - ie; Aero - which is more about aesthetics than functionality.

It doesn't appear to be doing anything new, but behind the scenes, it's a whole different kettle of fish. It's the old swan metaphor I think.

It also doesn't help that many of the improvements are things that have been around for a while on Macs, and could really have done with being on XP.

Still loving it though!

[Soapy Sam]

Latest consumer survey report indicates that Vista is selling better than expected http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=8953

I admit I'm a bit surprised, as I have yet to hear a convinving reason for upgrading. It seems we are irresistibly drawn to the new and shiny.

The majority of user in the survey have bought new machines, so it seems many technerds put off purchasing a new pc at Christmas and waited the month for the release of Vista.
Interestingly, of those who upgraded older machines, a surprising number report problems and some have reverted to XP.

[bigred]

It seems we are irresistibly drawn to the new and shiny....and keeping up w/the Jonses. exactly

[ZouPrime]

There's no real reason for upgrading to Vista, unless there's really a new functionality that you absolutely want/need (e.g. disk encryption, DX10) and you don't want to get it from a third party application.

On the other hand, if you are buying a brand new computer (and wants a Windows plateform), there's even less reason to NOT get Vista, as it is superior to XP in many aspects.

[ChristineR]

Well, I have to disagree. The more I use Vista, the more I'm hating it. I really wish I had sought out an older model with XP on it.

Firefox crashes about twice a day. I never had a Firefox crash in XP.
Windows Media Player is apparently not available in Vista. To get Firefox to use WMP you have to manually copy some XP DLL into your program directory.
I have two ISP's both of which provide free virus protection software. Neither package will install on Vista.
At least one game which ran fine on XP will not run on Vista. No surprise really, but Vista offers me no features that I care about more than that game.
It's very slow.
In order to run a program you have to confirm as many as three times, and quite often the program still doesn't run (ref. my anti-virus packages).
Benign start-up programs like Adobe update manager are blocked, and there is apparently no way to unblock them.
The supposed help for all these problems is useless.
I frequently get messages that say "Such and Such a program may not have installed correctly! Would you like to reinstall? When I click on help I get a message that has nothing to do with installation.

I don't recommend it. Period.

[bigred]

Don't worry, it'll be fine.....in a few years. :rolleyes:

[aerosolben]

Firefox crashes about twice a day. I never had a Firefox crash in XP.
I've not had a single Firefox crash in Vista, and I've been running 20 or so extensions for several months. I'd say you've probably got a bad extension installed.

Windows Media Player is apparently not available in Vista. To get Firefox to use WMP you have to manually copy some XP DLL into your program directory.
This is a pain. I've been solving it with IETab in the meantime.

[ChristineR]

Extensions

Talkback 2.0.0.3
Sends information about program crashes to Mozilla.

That's it.

[aerosolben]

Extensions

Talkback 2.0.0.3
Sends information about program crashes to Mozilla.

That's it.
Hmmm. Well, I guess all I can say is that sucks. :(

My intention was merely to note that the problem you've cited isn't generalizable to the OS as a whole.

[ChristineR]

On the plus side, I did manage to get one of the anti-virus packages to install. :)

[mhaze]

Bad vista! Bad! Vista, sit!
Lie down, Vista! Have a chewie ($1k)
Stay, Vista Stay! Another chewie $1k
No! no Vista! No! Bad Vista!
Vista, come ($1k)
....
....
...
..
.

[voidx]

I tried XP home edition on one of my computers - it was slower to boot than Win2kPro. And it crashed more, a lot more. I took it off and re-installed Win2k.

One of the things I don't like about XP is that I have to select for all file types every time I do a file search, if I want to include hidden files. With Win2k, I set it once and it automatically does this every time I search. This is the kind of thing I call 'bloat' that MS would call a 'feature'.
This is precisely the kind of comment I alluded to earlier. You installed XP Home once, on a single machine. Perhaps when it was first released?

I have hundreds of installs of XP to compare with your single install and can overwhelmingly state that XP boots up and shuts down faster than Win2k. I've done rebuilds on many network PC's switching from Win2k to XP and the bootup process is certainly faster all things being equal.

Can XP get bogged down over time so this faster shutdown / bootup is now much slower? Certainly. But that doesn't change the overall fact Win2k takes longer to load the gui and the security and user profiles, than XP does.

So you've taken a single experience with XP, and simply used it to bolster you're preconceived opinion of Microsoft OS "bloat".

Again, I would apply the same comment to ChristineR's experience. I've also ran several testbed installs of Vista RC2 and the full release and can report back very good results with no crashing or large application issues. Certainly I have experienced some.

Again, this is not to deny that ChristineR has obviously had a poor experience with Vista, and that it is in fact running very poorly. But how much of that can be laid directly at Vista's feet?

A PC is made up of many things, OS, hardware, drivers, 3rd party drivers and components and add-ins. All can have unpredictable results in how well an OS may run. Or how any particular app on an OS will run.

And how does it explain that there are lots of examples of it running fine for other people?

To have a single bad experience with an OS, on a single machine, and right it off as crap, without knowing the extent of what might actually be causing each individual issue, is a little illogical.

[Tief]

This is precisely the kind of comment I alluded to earlier. You installed XP Home once, on a single machine. Perhaps when it was first released?

I have hundreds of installs of XP to compare with your single install and can overwhelmingly state that XP boots up and shuts down faster than Win2k. I've done rebuilds on many network PC's switching from Win2k to XP and the bootup process is certainly faster all things being equal.

Can XP get bogged down over time so this faster shutdown / bootup is now much slower? Certainly. But that doesn't change the overall fact Win2k takes longer to load the gui and the security and user profiles, than XP does.

So you've taken a single experience with XP, and simply used it to bolster you're preconceived opinion of Microsoft OS "bloat".

Again, I would apply the same comment to ChristineR's experience. I've also ran several testbed installs of Vista RC2 and the full release and can report back very good results with no crashing or large application issues. Certainly I have experienced some.

Again, this is not to deny that ChristineR has obviously had a poor experience with Vista, and that it is in fact running very poorly. But how much of that can be laid directly at Vista's feet?

A PC is made up of many things, OS, hardware, drivers, 3rd party drivers and components and add-ins. All can have unpredictable results in how well an OS may run. Or how any particular app on an OS will run.

And how does it explain that there are lots of examples of it running fine for other people?

To have a single bad experience with an OS, on a single machine, and right it off as crap, without knowing the extent of what might actually be causing each individual issue, is a little illogical.


Though you seem to be a little peeved at me in your response, I must say I have to agree with you. My 'sample size' is not significant, or scientific. And, I don't know whether or not something went wrong during the install.

I'll take your word for it that boot-up and shut-down is faster in XP than Win2k. However, I do say that unless you actually did timed studies during your comparisons, your info isn't scientific either, and may also be biased.

:)

[Tief]

Does anyone know if Vista is more stable when running multiple tasks (programs) than XP? I only have a problem occasionally when I am running WoW and AVG virus scan at the same time - heh probably something I shouldn't do.

My guess is that it is more stable, and this is one of those things 'under the hood' that someone might not notice in everyday use.

[I less than three logic]

Well, I have to disagree. The more I use Vista, the more I'm hating it. I really wish I had sought out an older model with XP on it.

Firefox crashes about twice a day. I never had a Firefox crash in XP.
Windows Media Player is apparently not available in Vista. To get Firefox to use WMP you have to manually copy some XP DLL into your program directory.
I have two ISP's both of which provide free virus protection software. Neither package will install on Vista.
At least one game which ran fine on XP will not run on Vista. No surprise really, but Vista offers me no features that I care about more than that game.
It's very slow.
In order to run a program you have to confirm as many as three times, and quite often the program still doesn't run (ref. my anti-virus packages).
Benign start-up programs like Adobe update manager are blocked, and there is apparently no way to unblock them.
The supposed help for all these problems is useless.
I frequently get messages that say "Such and Such a program may not have installed correctly! Would you like to reinstall? When I click on help I get a message that has nothing to do with installation.

I don't recommend it. Period.
My experience has been just the opposite. I installed Vista a while ago, and I'm liking it more and more as I become more familiar with it. I've had no unexpected crashes since installing, in fact it seemed to stabilize some games I couldn't get to run in XP, such as Dark Messiah (still runs like crap going down to 30 fps on my 8800 GTX, but it at least runs without crashing now which is better than on XP). My fps seem a bit lower overall on Vista compared to the same game (expect Dark Messiah) while on XP, but I can't really notice the change. Not much of a difference between 140 fps in WoW and 115 to 125, and the slower frame rate is more than made up for in my opinion by the faster load times I seem to have. I have noticed some small glitches, but I was aware of them since the driver notes for my vid card documented them as still needing work. Such as my monitor not being initiated again after Vista goes into sleep mode, and I suspected this will be fixed within the next few driver releases.

As for foxfire, I'm on it right now typing (still don't like IE :) ), and I haven't seen it crash once for me yet. Windows media player works just fine for me, in fact it has features I didn't get in XP. My media player in XP wouldn't do 5.1 surround for me when watching DVDs, I had to use NVDVD instead. In Vista the 5.1 works just fine without me having to change anything in the program, just pick 5.1 from the DVD's audio menu if it isn't the default.

For your problem with startup programs being blocked, you have to open the control panel from the start up menu. I normally change it to classic view over on the left here, then you head down to Windows Defender. Hit the tools button up on top then open software explorer. There is a drop down menu towards the center of the screen, it should default to startup programs, but you can choose to look at running program or services as well. On the bottom left it lists all the programs that are set to start on startup, I normally right click there and group by startup type. This tells you where they're located to start up, either registry entries or in startup folders, etc. It also lists the categories here, such as permitted, not yet classified, or disabled. Permitted and disabled are pretty self explanatory, and not yet classified means that windows defender isn't sure about the program but it is still permitted. At least, that seems to be the way mine is set up, programs like my nvidia control panel, and steam are listed as "not yet classified" but they start up when I boot the computer. If adobe isn't starting for you, check to make sure it isn't disabled here, or it might not be compatible with Vista and unable to start. I have adobe reader 8 and it seems to work fine. Hopefully this will help.

I sure feel like I'm in the minority sometimes, being a person that had a smooth transition over to Vista. There are a few things that get annoying, like many programs for configuring your computer pop up windows asking if you want to proceed... a lot. Also, learning an almost completely new layout for windows took some getting used to. Many of the ways of configuring window components seemed to have changed quite a bit, but for the most part, I'd have to say my experience with Vista has been positive.

ETA - Learned something new... again. Seems that windows defender is put towards the top of your all programs menu in the start menu. Just noticed this, I had been going the long way. :D

[I less than three logic]

I admit I'm a bit surprised, as I have yet to hear a convinving reason for upgrading. It seems we are irresistibly drawn to the new and shiny.
Well, that and DirectX 10 only being available on Vista. Games like Crysis, the Halo 2 PC port, Shadowrun, and other DX10 games are about to be released starting this summer. Microsoft is basically forcing gamers to buy the new OS if they want to keep up with current graphics.

[OMGturt1es]

i recently bought a new laptop running vista. the first laptop i bought came with vista basic. this laptop barely could run vista. i returned that laptop for something with more power, so that i could get a *real* version of vista. the difference was drastic.

thus far, i think vista is quite slick. it comes with a lot of neat eye candy, and a lot of useful eye candy.

the best thing, however, is that vista seems much more secure. unrecognized .exe's require user validation to execute. many basic system operations also require user validation to execute. while this may be annoying, it removes any threat of crazy cross zone scripting exploits that used to ravage non patched XPs, and still plague earlier systems.

[OMGturt1es]

The new security features seem to mainly consist of asking me to click a little confirmation box whenever I do anything. It's quite annoying, but then you are talking to someone who has never gotten viruses or spyware on her own computer, and whose motto about cleaning other people's computers is "Never edit the registry before breakfast."

and i worked for an internet marketing company while cross zone scripting exploits were commonly used to get desktops. trust me, these annoying security features are definantly worthwhile. there were some ugly tricks out there.

------------------------------

one thing i've not seen in my quick glance through this thread is the fact that vista-- apparently-- handles 64 bit and dual core processing much, much better than XP. that, in and of itself, is a pretty big change.

of course, maybe all that i've read is just urban legend, and there's been no improvement. i'm not going to pretend to have studied this all that much.

[Ian Osborne]

The Register said it best. Despite the sexy new party dress, it's the same old tart underneath.

[ZouPrime]

The Register said it best. Despite the sexy new party dress, it's the same old tart underneath.
Thanks for this non-trollish, content-full comment.

[Ian Osborne]

Thanks for this non-trollish, content-full comment.

And thank you for your well thought out reply which really hit the sense-of-humour zeitgeist! :D

[Wowbagger]

The only thing I wish it had was a "Are you sure?" dialog box, after you hit one of the shut down/hibernate/sleep/etc. options from the Windows menu (formerly "Start menu"). I've hit the wrong option, a couple of times, and had no chance to cancel out.

Other than that, I am happy with it. But, I can see why some people would want to stick to XP.

[ChristineR]

and i worked for an internet marketing company while cross zone scripting exploits were commonly used to get desktops. trust me, these annoying security features are definantly worthwhile. there were some ugly tricks out there.

------------------------------

one thing i've not seen in my quick glance through this thread is the fact that vista-- apparently-- handles 64 bit and dual core processing much, much better than XP. that, in and of itself, is a pretty big change.

of course, maybe all that i've read is just urban legend, and there's been no improvement. i'm not going to pretend to have studied this all that much.

The real problem is that there are so many security holes in the basic architecture of Windows and IE. Whose idea was it to let web pages launch programs from inside IE anyhow? I really don't think that the solution is to make everybody click OK a lot. My Dad has XP and he still calls me up to ask if it's all right for him to click OK. He's a brilliant man, but not able to tell spyware from a music player.

[OMGturt1es]

The real problem is that there are so many security holes in the basic architecture of Windows and IE. Whose idea was it to let web pages launch programs from inside IE anyhow? I really don't think that the solution is to make everybody click OK a lot. My Dad has XP and he still calls me up to ask if it's all right for him to click OK. He's a brilliant man, but not able to tell spyware from a music player.

all large programs are going to be inherently buggy. there's just too much code for perfection.

IE wasn't designed to allow remote sites to lauch programs in the "my computer security zone". i don't understand how exactly the cross zone exploit scripts worked, but i think it had something to do with injecting java script code into memory at just the right time.

btw, it wasn't just IE. firefox was vulnerable as well. proof of concepts for firefox existed. firefox just had no real user base, so no one bothered with it. that's why linux boxes aren't filled with adware. they have security flaws as well-- buffer overflows, especially-- but they don't have enough desktops to make the work worthwhile.

by building this annoyane into the system, if any crazy cross zone exploits or buffer overflows are discovered, you'll have a chance to stop the dirty marketers from installing [rule8]ware on your computer.

[aerosolben]

IE wasn't designed to allow remote sites to lauch programs in the "my computer security zone". i don't understand how exactly the cross zone exploit scripts worked, but i think it had something to do with injecting java script code into memory at just the right time.
I believe both Vista and IE7 have improvements to prevent simialr problems in the future.
you'll have a chance to stop the dirty marketers from installing [rule8]ware on your computer.
Malware? Spyware? Those censors sure are getting picky... :D