Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

364 comments

sfskfjk (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17086742)

fuck gnaa forever fp!

Re:sfskfjk (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17086914)

x{

Well then, (5, Funny)

megrims (839585) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086758)

I guess it's time for a new PC. I don't know that I can live without IE 7's new 'anti-phishing' filter.

Re:Well then, (5, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086838)

I guess it's time for a new PC. I don't know that I can live without IE 7's new 'anti-phishing' filter.

While I'm sure you're being facetious, you do realize that IE7 is available for XP and has the anti-phishing feature, right? If you still want to stick with IE6 (or have to, like if you're running Win2k), you can get the same anti-phishing protection from the Windows Live Toolbar [live.com] . It's all the same technology, backed by the same store of anti-phishing data.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (0, Flamebait)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086766)

The author clearly believes that Vista wins across these categories.

So this article was planted by Microsoft then? Or is that what the submittor want us to believe?

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (2, Insightful)

ericdano (113424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086818)

For advertising itself as a "Definitive Guide" is seems rather fluffy. I mean, look at this line:
"Today, however, will still perfectly functional, it is starting to look a little long in the tooth, with Apple's Mac OS X offering Vista like graphics for several years already."

Um, Mac OS X is copying Vista? What? Whoa. Wait. Lets read it slowly. Yep, "offering Vista like graphics for several years now." Wow. So, Apple saw these graphics years ago in Longhorn, and copied them? Really? Bad Apple. Bad.

Yeah. This is a Definitive Guide alright. Not. I've seen a lot better reviews on the net. Even by *gasp* CNET.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (4, Insightful)

Meatloaf Surprise (1017210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086990)

Here's the whole paragraph--to put it in more context:

XP: Ridiculed as being the 'Fischer Price' version of the Windows 2000 interface, Windows XP was still a fresh update upon its release 5 years ago. Today, however, will still perfectly functional, it is starting to look a little long in the tooth, with Apple's Mac OS X offering Vista like graphics for several years already.

It never states that OS X copied Vista, simply that the graphical user interface used in Vista has a likeness to OS X--which has been around for several years.

Anyway, I think any Vista guide is going to have a certain slant one way or the other. Either some Linux/Mac guru is going to come out bashing Vista for everything that it's "stolen" and the minimum system requirements or some Microsoft fanboy is going to claim how wonderful it is and how justified the upgrade is to run such a purdy OS.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (-1, Troll)

ericdano (113424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087030)

No, the way it is worded it implies that Apple has copied Vista. IE: "Apple's Mac OS X offering Vista like graphics for several years." That is the way it is worded. Not Vista offering Mac OS X like graphics, which is clearly what it does, as Apple had a majority of the interface elements in OS X years before Vista.

There are several examples in the comments in the original article's site.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087084)

It doesn't imply that at all. It says quite clearly that OS X was there several years before Vista. No matter how it's worded, if you get that fact from it then parsing the rest of the sentence as "Apple copied Microsoft" is at best wilful stupidity. I also disagree with your interpretation of "Vista-like" as "Copied from Vista" - it's merely a shorthand to avoid a length digression on what user interface elements they're actually talking about.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087136)

Dude, you are an idiot.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (3, Informative)

Meatloaf Surprise (1017210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087164)

Stop taking the statement out of context. This is an article about Vista and the paragraph in which this statement lies discusses Windows XP and the fact the interface looks old compared to OSX and Vista. Since the article is about Vista, of course it's going to define other things in terms of Vista. That in no way suggests that OSX had stolen or copied Vista in any way, simply, he is comparing the two interfaces using the one the article is about as the source for the comparison. Hopefully, this explanation is enough. If you would like further reasons as to why I'm right, please see your sixth grade English teacher.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (-1, Flamebait)

ericdano (113424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087226)

Oh really. Interesting how the "author" of the article switches between calling Vista Vista and Windows. Example: the paragraph that starts "Vista has a similar but improved firewall to Windows XP SP2," and then later on he says "Windows also has a new 'randomization' layer, which slightly changes the memory configuration of every Vista machine to..." Windows? XP? Vista? What? Vista is a machine now? Why not just write it correctly as in "Vista also has a new 'randomization' layer, which slightly changes the memory configuration of every machine to..."


Clearly there is some poor writing in this article. Stop defending it. It sounds like it was written by a sixth grader...maybe that is why you understand it....

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (1)

Viper Daimao (911947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087254)

So you think the author is implying that apple can design interfaces based one what microsoft will do 3-4 years in the future? You go with that retro-causality thing, I'm just going to assume the author didn't mean that apple can break the laws of space-time.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (0, Flamebait)

ericdano (113424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087272)

That is how it is worded and what it sounds like. It sounds like the author is saying that Apple saw, or was inspired by, Vista before Vista came out. I suppose it would be Longhorn that inspired Apple's interface, or so it is implied by the author.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17086994)

Oh wow, this is an insight into your pattern of thinking. The quote clearly states that Apple has already had a GUI of this quality for some years, while Vista is the first Microsoft OS to have one. You seem to have assumed that any comment about Mac OS would be negative, without actually checking to see what it says. But of course, an Apple zealot would never do that now would they? Some of us are capable of accepting cases where other OSes do something better than our particular favourite...

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (1)

sbrown123 (229895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086824)

So this article was planted by Microsoft then? Or is that what the submittor want us to believe?

Come on. This is Slashdot. If there is a conspiracy theory they would just openly say it. Besides that the article does do a fair job at comparing the two operating systems. A big surprise would have been if Vista, being that its suppose to be an upgrade, was actually inferior to XP. Now THAT would be news.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086890)

Not really. Microsoft has made inferior upgrades before.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (1)

kypper (446750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086964)

Windows ME comes to mind...

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know... (1)

dangerpin (1034906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087160)

Well this article reminds me of an *incredibly similar* article posted by Paul Thurrott, News Editor of the Windows IT Pro newsletter about a month to two months ago. I could not find the article in question as I tend to keep my inbox clean, so this isn't authoritative, but I know I've read this before, but without the spelling and grammatical errors. Anyone else have a similar experience?

It better. (5, Interesting)

Somatic (888514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086768)

It better be better. That's what upgrades and new releases are for.

Of course, why the new system requirements are so ridiculously higher than XP is something I'm still waiting on a good answer for. I'm sticking with XP until I'm absolutely forced to upgrade in 5 years or so because nothing has XP support anymore. I mean, give me a break. There is no earthly reason an OS should bloat so massively in versions that are only a few years apart. It's an OS, not Doom 3.

Re:It better. (1, Redundant)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086810)

I'm thinking since they moved from CD to DVD they were like "Oh hey, we can fit 4gb more data on here now!" and thus here we are.

But I totally agree with your main point... it's the SAME PRODUCT, just a newer version, Vista had BETTER be better.

Re:It better. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087062)

I'd like to see the comparisons between Vista and Doom 3.

Or is Vista like previous Windows versions where Doom is bundled?

-Anony

Re:It better. (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087172)

Since when did MS start bundling hugely popular games with the OS? Nobody ever told me about that! The last version of Windows didn't come with any new games from iD Software that I'm aware of. Oh... wait. "Doom". Not "Doom" the game, but "Doom" the word. Heh. Hahaha. Hohohoho. Bwahahahahah. I get it! "Doom!" Phwahhahahahaha!!! Ohh.. "Doom"! The word! Not the game! ROTFLMAO!!! Oh I kill myself!!!

Re:It better. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087224)

Since when did MS start bundling hugely popular games with the OS? Nobody ever told me about that! The last version of Windows didn't come with any new games from iD Software that I'm aware of. Oh... wait. "Doom". Not "Doom" the game, but "Doom" the word. Heh. Hahaha. Hohohoho. Bwahahahahah. I get it! "Doom!" Phwahhahahahaha!!! Ohh.. "Doom"! The word! Not the game! ROTFLMAO!!! Oh I kill myself!!!
...it really took you several minutes to figure that one out, didn't it? Oh, and, you don't kill yourself, Anonymous Coward kills you. You die now.

;-)

......or were you the OP, and got poster's remorse, worrying that nobody would get your joke, so you decided to go all or nothing and make a last-ditch attempt to get the Funny mod after all......"As the Slashdot Turns"

Re:It better. (4, Insightful)

westyvw (653833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087126)

I am really surprised by the requirements too. I have a laptop, about 5 years old, P3 1st gen Nvidia Go, and I have no problem running GLX and Beryl with KDE. So I have all the eye candy of vista (more actually, and more configurable) with more features and functions on the desktop and I am running on 5 year old hardware, why cant vista? Something just isn't right......

Re:It better. (4, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087188)

There is no earthly reason an OS should bloat so massively in versions that are only a few years apart.


It wasn't that many years ago people were saying the same thing about XP as compared to Win98. Every new version of Windows is considered bloated compared to the previous one.

Re:It better. (2, Informative)

11_biznatch_11 (875790) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087194)

"why the new system requirements are so ridiculously higher than XP is something I'm still waiting on a good answer for"

Actually the minimum sytem requirements are pretty low, and I could run it on my over 6 year old laptop. It's just the Aero interface that requires all the extra hardware. Minimum requirements [microsoft.com] 800MHz CPU, 512 MB RAM, SVGA, 20GB HD with 15 GB free, CD-rom drive.

Re:It better. (0)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087208)

Of course, why the new system requirements are so ridiculously higher than XP is something I'm still waiting on a good answer for.

Three letters: XML. It's in every in Vista and it eats resources like hell.

Alternative Comparison: Minimal HW Configuration (5, Insightful)

reporter (666905) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086778)

All the comparisons that I have seen involve installing Windows Vista and XP on a hardware configuration that is recommended for Vista.

I wish to see a comparison for the benefit of millions of users who do not want to (or who cannot afford to) upgrade to new hardware. This comparison would involve installing Vista and XP on a hardware configuration that is the minimum configuration recommended for XP (yes, XP). To enhance the comparison, we should include RedHat Linux.

Re:Alternative Comparison: Minimal HW Configuratio (1)

Asm-Coder (929671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086794)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Just wanted to mention that since I don't currently have any mod points.

Re:Alternative Comparison: Minimal HW Configuratio (4, Insightful)

redi99 (1034888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086830)

keep in mind, at the end of installation, vista runs a performance benchmark against the hardware, and adjusts appearance settings accordingly... one can always turn off the aero interface. it's a brand new o/s, so it's not surprising that it requires fairly current hardware to run well. i mean even your average amd system nowadays runs a 3500+ 64 with a gig of ram and a graphics card more than adequate for vista's directx desktop. back when xp was released everyone was saying the same thing about it's requirements.

Not surprising?! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086960)

it's a brand new o/s, so it's not surprising that it requires fairly current hardware to run well.

Erm... Yes, it is.

An operating system is supposed to provide the low-level core of functionality necessary to run (and if necessary co-ordinate) other programs. Such functionality can be and has been written to run on systems with 1/1000th the processing power of today's multicore monsters.

Of course, today the term "operating system" refers, at least in common usage, to some sort of bundle that includes a kernel, various support libraries for networking, GUI, and other such stuff, some sort of shell, a whole bunch of tools of varying degrees of usefulness, and a whole bunch of mostly half-baked and sub-standard applications. (This description applies, to my knowledge, to pretty much every major desktop "OS" currently available, from Windows to Linux distros via MacOS and various other UNIX platforms.)

My current PC is now about four years old, but was a pretty high spec at that time. On this system, I can happily run full-blown applications for everything from editing high-res photos to playing games that do real-time 3D graphics pretty reasonably. Given this information, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that any operating system should not run very comfortably using a tiny fraction of my system's resources, no matter how many bells and whistles it has.

Now, according to Microsoft, my system just about meets the minimum standards to run the low-end versions of Vista, and isn't qualified to run the high-end versions for several reasons. I can only conclude from this that either Vista's code is poorly written and/or poorly organised, or that those higher-end versions of Vista are trying to do yet more things that are not really part of an operating system, and are probably better done by specialist standalone applications anyway. Either way, Vista is suffering from some serious bloat, and bloat means bugs, security flaws, performance problems and all the rest.

So yes, even if it's a brand new OS, it's still of concern that it requires such impressive hardware specs to run well. In fact, it's a pretty damning indictment of the product, and doesn't so much imply as outright prove that it's going in the wrong direction.

Re:Not surprising?! (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087004)

One could also look at it as the new OS's current hardware requirements are a "base" for future systems, since, if past performance is any guide, it will be another five years before MS releases Vista's successor.

So? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087278)

You know, even though most of what you've said is completely true, it's not in any way going to stop everybody migrating to Vista the first opportunity they get, even if that means buying completely new hardware in order to do so.

Everybody did it with all previous versions of Microsoft's operating systems (with the possible exception of WinME), and I can't think why they won't just as quickly bend over and grease up for the salesmen with regard to Vista.

Give it a rest, ditch the transparent and childish denial. History and precedent have spoken: it simply doesn't matter if Vista completely and utterly sucks, everybody is still going to try and get it ASAP.

All you people claiming that nobody will "bother" with Vista when you know the opposite is true, and that you will probably be near the front of the line one night outside yout local PC store.

Re:Not surprising?! (5, Insightful)

kjart (941720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087284)

Given this information, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that any operating system should not run very comfortably using a tiny fraction of my system's resources, no matter how many bells and whistles it has.

That doesn't make any sense. The more bells and whistles you throw in, the more power you will need to run the OS - by definition. Look at games for example. Modern games look a hell of a lot better than games that were made 5-10 years ago. Do they require the same minimum hardware? Hell no. Should they? Of course not.

Of course, it's another argument entirely if all the bells and whistles are worth it. The graphical improvements made in games have still resulted in some pretty terrible games. So, it's not a question of whether Vista should run with all the bells and whistles on 10 year old hardware (I'm not arguing that Vista is optimized by the way) - it's whether the hardware to run Vista with all the bells and whistles is worth it.

Re:Alternative Comparison: Minimal HW Configuratio (4, Insightful)

netcrusher88 (743318) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087066)

And I personally still say the same thing about XP's requirements. And ESPECIALLY about Vista's. Note that "minimum" requirements mean, in my experience, that sure, you could run it, but could you possibly want to? Sure, any computer less than about four years old probably CAN run Vista (though it may require a memory upgrade - many computers still only came with 256 until maybe a year or two ago). But would you want to? I personally have run Windows 2000 on relatively ancient machines - 400 or so MHz processors, I think 64M of RAM, and so on - and I think they're still running, somehow - but don't wish to repeat the experience. However they could run, was the primary point. Why can't Vista come even close to that? It's not the interface - it can still fall back to classic mode or whatever it is they call it now. There is no excuse for that requiring any more than a simple VGA-capable graphics card, either. Remember "Safe Mode"? Why can't it cut back so that all it's really running is a simple firewall (though without all the frivolous services, that shouldn't be necessary if the few that are system-critical are written properly) and whatever the user has started, let's say Internet Explorer and an old version of Word (again, requirements)? My parents own a computer that has been running Windows 98, with Office 97, for nearly 9 years now. It could use an upgrade to Win2k, certainly, but why not something with some obvious security features that earlier versions of Windows irresponsibly neglected, like the default non-privileged user in Vista?

I don't want to make this thread even more off-topic, but I think that Microsoft should consider how Linux handles this (though it's probably too late to implement it): abstract everything. Got a computer that can't handle the newest version of, say, KDE or Gnome? Fine, try XFCE. Or Fluxbox, or... Same underlying code to draw stuff. With AIGLX and nVidia's AIGLX-type extensions, even Compiz and Beryl (think Aero Glass with more toys) don't need separate code. Can't handle Aero Glass? Fine, try Aero. Can't handle Aero? Try Classic mode. Miracle that your computer still runs at all? Disable some eye candy in Classic. And frankly, if the GUI in its most stripped-down form can't run on the same spec hardware that runs Windows 98 perfectly, maybe the code needs to be cleaned up. I'm not a software engineer, I just yell at bad ones. Look, the OS I run can run a box that acts as a home router on hardware that costs literally $20 US. Vista can't even be bought for that much money. And the hardware it requires (at a minimum) runs probably $80 used. Why bother even including ICS anymore?

Re:Alternative Comparison: Minimal HW Configuratio (1)

mikek3332002 (912228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087110)

An OS shouldn't need a gig to run the os.

XP 1700+, 512MB, FX5200, 200GB 7200RPM - Vista OK (3, Informative)

Marbleless (640965) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087234)

Vista works fine on that config .. about the same as XP. Some things are a bit faster, some a bit slower, overall it's about the same.

This must be the shortest review I've ever written ;)

Re:Alternative Comparison: Minimal HW Configuratio (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087286)

Insightful? If you're going to test Vista on a hardware configuration that doesn't meet its system requirements, why not test it on an iPod? The results would be equally useful. Don't forget the obligatory install of RedHat Linux on the iPod too (you know: "to enhance the comparison").

i agree (4, Informative)

redi99 (1034888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086798)

i've been using vista for about 3 weeks now. under heavy usage (i.e. running a bunch of apps, nntp downloading, unzipping some archives etc..) xp does seem speedier, but other than that, vista rocks. it's stable, great to look at, and easy to use. using ribbons in the address bar so that any folder along your path can be browsed is very handy. they've addressed little nagging issues , for example hitting f2 to rename a file highlights the filename but not the extension. the administrator account is turned off by default, defender runs automatically, defrags are set up on a weekly schedule by default, and the searching is blazing on indexed drives. games seem to run well, and all my devices were installed automatically during installation. the resource monitor is excellent, and running services are listed in the task manager along with processes and apps. i've managed to muck it up a few times installing software, but in all cases i was installing versions meant for xp, not vista, and each time booting the last known good config has gotten me right back. they've done a great job with this o/s.

WTF? Is this an OS or a joke? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17086860)

You screwed up your OS installing software and you consider that acceptable? Kernel extensions/drivers, okay, but applications should never mess up your OS to the point that you need to "boot to the last known good config". This is the whole point of an OS. Of course maybe you wrote ironically and I just missed it.

Re:i agree (5, Insightful)

werewolf1031 (869837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086864)

Wow, that all sounds pretty great. No, really, it does. But just one more thing: Try installing a new motherboard, and see what happens. G'head, humor us... we'll wait.

Re:i agree (3, Interesting)

redi99 (1034888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087054)

i assume you're referring to activation tied to hardware changes? a few days ago i popped a tv tuner in, and sure enough 'your hardware has changed, you need to re-activate vista'.. so i clicked activate and it reactivated just fine. i do agree that this business of tying activation to hardware profile is a bit stupid though.

Re:i agree (2, Insightful)

midkay (984862) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087276)

Honestly, run it through your mind - does it make ANY sense that installing a new motherboard even several times will put Windows out of order? Immediately I think about someone installing Vista on their current PC, upgrading their motherboard only to find it break the next day, replace it with a different model and have *that* one break a week later, and then pick out yet ANOTHER motherboard and install it. So at this point Vista's saying, "You can't re-activate me now, you've installed too many new parts", according to you. So this user who's just had a pretty bad two weeks is suddenly forced to buy a new copy of Vista? That's what you're implying, based on MS' Vista license?

No. Quite simply, no. You expect MS to lock them out for a faulty component that had to be replaced several times? No. Nor will they give you crap about upgrading several times in the next few years. It simply doesn't make sense. Microsoft would lose an insane number of paying customers - I for one would refuse to buy any more operating systems from them. That and it'd be plain abusive to their customers; no company with a bit of brains behind it would consider something so silly. (Yes, yes, let's hear the "haha, MS doesn't have any brains!" jokes...)

Just be logical. They wouldn't do that.

Re:i agree (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17086984)

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to troll, but I see no compelling arguments for upgrading in what you've listed. You've said:

xp does seem speedier, but other than that, vista rocks. it's stable, great to look at, and easy to use
Stable is good; I find XP pretty stable too. But if "great to looks at means" it's slower than XP, I'm not interested. I either use my comptuer for work, in which case I want it fast, or for games, in which case I want an OS that takes as few system resources as possib.e

the administrator account is turned off by default
I'd count this as a non-issue. It's perfectly possible to make a non-admin account for most stuf under Windows XP too.

defrags are set up on a weekly schedule by default
Of course, this totally ignores the argument that defrags should rarely be necessary - certainly not once a week! - on "modern" filesystems (which appears to include just about every filesystem not invented by Microsoft).

searching is blazing on indexed drives
Ditto for Windows XP if you actually turn on the indexing service.

Just about everything else is "spit 'n polish". It's true, this important for end users, and it's something that a lot of open source projects are often criticized for. But to me, this is far from a compelling reason to upgrade. If that were it, I'd say it tips the scales slightly in favour of upgrading. But then you have to balance these few nicities (most of which are possible with XP - the previous generation OS - with a little bit of configuration effort) against the massive increase in hardware requirements and draconian DRM. What it boils down to is that the "message" in every review I've seen of Windows Vista is basically that it does everything that Windows XP does, looks nicer, has higher hardware requirements, and imposes more restrictions on what you can do with your media. Is that it? Honestly, have I missed something? What's with all the hype?

ROFL (2, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087068)

>> highlights the filename but not the extension

Another feature stolen from the Mac. Of course a lot of people have never used Macs (pity on them), so they'll never know that a ton of other things that Microsoft has "innovated" in Vista existed (sometimes for decades!) on the Mac.

>> searching is blazing on indexed drives

Compared to what? I find Vista built in search to be utterly lacking compared to, say, Copernic (PC) or Spotlight (on the Mac). I mean, they can't even rip off Spotlight properly. If you're going to offer "search as you type" thing, you better implement it in a way that makes it responsive. The one in Vista chokes immediately after you start typing. And then you sit there and wait for results.

Re:ROFL (1, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087154)

Which is one of the many reasons I hate Vista. Like MMORPG designers they blindly copy features from their competitors without actually thinking if those ideas are any good, make sense to their current customer base, etc. So we end up with features that make absolutely no sense on Windows because they're just pale imitations of the Mac.

Re:ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087222)

Forgive my ignorance, as it has been some time since I've used a Mac, but when did Mac start using file extensions? I thought the Mac OS just "knew" which files went with what by reading how they were encoded.

And since Mac didn't use extensions in the first place, can I assume they "stole" the use of them from Microsoft?

Enough with this "stealing" garbage. Both companies absorb ideas from other sources like the Borg.

Re:i agree (0, Redundant)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087236)

i've been using vista for about 3 weeks now. under heavy usage (i.e. running a bunch of apps, nntp downloading, unzipping some archives etc..) xp does seem speedier, but other than that, vista rocks.

"heavy usage"???? That sounds more like Joe six-pack consumer usage.

they've addressed little nagging issues , for example hitting f2 to rename a file highlights the filename but not the extension.

Thats been in Nautilus for ages.

the administrator account is turned off by default

linux distros have been doing that for quite a while now.

defender runs automatically

If you install it on XP it runs automatically as well. Sounds more like they have patched vista so that defender is installed by default.

defrags are set up on a weekly schedule by default

defrag??? Obviously they still haven't fixed their file system... or the defrag is there to give techies something to do.

i've managed to muck it up a few times installing software

apt-get or yumex or emerge...

they've done a great job with this o/s.

You mean that the marketing division has done a good job at convincing people to upgrade, and this still remains to be seen in the share price.

Get the picture?

There is nothing to see here... move along...

Re:i agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087324)

So some XP apps won't work? Gee I can't wait.

Randomization? (2, Interesting)

Saxophonist (937341) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086812)

From the article:

Windows also has a new 'randomization' layer, which slightly changes the memory configuration of every Vista machine to make it harder for co-ordinated attacks to affect scores of machines at the same time.

Huh? What is this, and why would it make any difference whatsoever in preventing exploits?

Re:Randomization? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17086862)

I guess it means Vista is still afflicted with memory buffer overflows.

Re:Randomization? (5, Informative)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086886)

I was at a Microsoft Vista technical review where they explained this as being an anti-buffer overflow attack; since the locations of the specific items within an assigned memory space are randomized, the chances of targeting a buffer overflow to a specific chunk of the program's assigned memory is drastically reduced.

Wiki has it here, as Address Space Layout Radomization. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Randomization? (2, Insightful)

newt0311 (973957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087006)

Wouldn't it be a better idea to um... prevent buffer overflows from happening in the first place. Yes I know that C doesn't make this easy but them OS writing was never easy to begin with. Having buffer overflows is itself an bad situation. having so many that you have to start randomizing memory allocation (and incur some overhead from that) is pretty sad...

Re:Randomization? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087036)

You are brilliant

Re:Randomization? (-1, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087140)

Man, even Theo de Raadt recognises now that you can't prevent 100% of security flaws in software. As such, you need to make it difficult for people to exploit the flaw should one be discovered. This makes it more likely that people will just report security flaws than hoard them as it takes a lot more skills to produce a working exploit. For a moment there, I figured I might have found someone who was more pig headed than Theo, but I see now that you're just ignorant. Now that I have told you that you're ignorant, maybe you'll shut the hell up until you learn what you're talking about, but I doubt it. You'll probably argue with me in an attempt to show me your knowledge and prove that you're not ignorant, and in doing so you'll make some more preposterous suggestions and most the people reading this will be ignorant of security programming too, so they'll mod me as flamebait and they'll mod you as insightful, which will result in more people reading your comment than mine and make most people even more ignorant.

Well done.

Re:Randomization? (5, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087190)

*sighs* This is becoming my slashdot pet peeve.

I usually like your posts, and I agree with you even right now -- but my god, why did you have to be such an asshole about it? You used 62 words to make your point (and hell, that's including the 17 words in your semi-insult opening sentence) and 162 words to berate the poster, the moderators and fellow slashdotters. Something is very wrong with that picture.

You're right about one thing: If I had mod points, you would absolutely have gotten a flamebait mod--and it would have had nothing to do with saying that not all security flaws can be prevented. If you're upset about how many flamebait mods you get, perhaps you should try not coming off as a smug prick when you post. If 3/4ths of your post is a flame you deserve a flame mod. It doesn't matter what the hell the other quarter is.

Re:Randomization? (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087214)

Perhaps you should suck on my arse. I felt like flaming the guy, so I did. I don't exist for your edification or your amusement.

Re:Randomization? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087250)

No, you exist for mine. Now dance, monkey!

Re:Randomization? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086992)

Ok, so code cannot be written that honors memory boundaries. But code can be written that randomizes where in memory pointers begins, so that there is no guarantee that This is in fact a clever solution, and does deserve a high five. But it also adds a level of complexity, and, depending on how it is implemented, the complexity may be too complex.

So here are my questions. First, one assumes that this randomizer is turned off during debugging, and there is, therefore, some default locations. So, is this off switch available at run time, that is, can a machine be forced to use the default values. Second, how random is the randomizer. Are there specific locations that are going to recur? Is it possible that even if an attack can't effect 100K machines, it might effect 5K? And even if specific locations do not recur, is the range small enough so that attacks can at least cause a machine to crash, if not execute arbitrary code. And third is a simple matter of complexity. Can the randomizer code itself be used as an exploit? On this later one, only time will tell.

Overall a cleaver solution to a dicey problem. It shows that there is still some actual talent at MS, and not just grunts trying to manage 2^n relationships.

Re:Randomization? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087248)

First, one assumes that this randomizer is turned off during debugging

Why should we assume this?

Second, how random is the randomizer. Are there specific locations that are going to recur?

Yes. It's actually not very random at all. There is a small number of offsets that it chooses from. (Maybe as low as 16. I forget the exact number.)

Is it possible that even if an attack can't effect 100K machines, it might effect 5K?

Yep. But this can have a big effect if you're talking something like an internet worm. Dropping the number of machines that you can infect in any given round by 16 would *greatly* slow the spread of such worms, allowing more time for countermeasures to go up.

is the range small enough so that attacks can at least cause a machine to crash, if not execute arbitrary code

Yep. But you're gonna get that with any OS protection of buffer overflows I fear. The only reasonable thing to do if someone smashes the return address and the OS sees it is to kill the process.

(And actually, in that sense, the answer is no, because it would just kill the process.)

It shows that there is still some actual talent at MS

I'm pretty sure address space randomization has been implemented in other OSs for years; it's not an MS invention.

Re:Randomization? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087312)

DLLs have a default base address that all the code is written relative to (it's not position independent). Since several DLLs may have been given the same default base address, the OS performs a remapping whenever a DLL asks to be loaded at an address that is already taken. The randomizer could always remap the DLL regardless... But moving the code at load time means that it's not identical to the code in the file, so the VMM has to use pagefile space to back it instead of the DLL itself. Not to mention that remapping every DLL will take some time.

More likely, at installation they randomly rebase all the system DLLs so that your machine has a custom selection of default base addresses. You wouldn't get a random location each time a DLL is loaded but an attack would require information only available by running code on your machine. (still a problem, but much less so) I have no idea if it's implemented anything like this.

First, one assumes that this randomizer is turned off during debugging, and there is, therefore, some default locations. So, is this off switch available at run time, that is, can a machine be forced to use the default values.

If it were implemented the way I described above, no. There's no way to force the "default default" base addresses short of reinstalling. If an attacker can rebase your system DLLs, you've already lost.

is the range small enough so that attacks can at least cause a machine to crash, if not execute arbitrary code

The whole point is that the code execution exploit is turned into a crash. If that crash is to take down the whole machine, it has to happen in kernel mode.

Can the randomizer code itself be used as an exploit? On this later one, only time will tell.

Analyzing the technique may tell.

Re:Randomization? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087202)

It goes a long way to eliminating what are called return-to-library (sometimes return-to-glibc) attacks. Wikipedia has an article, but I'm too lazy to link.

Basically there are three things that you can do if there is a buffer overflow exploit waiting (not all are always possible):

1. Overwrite other security-sensitive data, but let the control flow remain unaffected (read the paper "Non-Control-Data Attacks Are Realistic Threats" for a very interesting treatment of stuff along this line)
2. Write a bunch of data that are malicious machine instructions, writing until you overwrite the return address on the stack with the address of your code
3. Write a bunch of data into the buffer, overwriting the return address with existing code

It's #3 here that this is supposed to prevent. Right now, an attacker can sometimes say "if I write this data to the stack, and write the address of (say) exec, I can compromise the system." What address space randomization does is to make it so that the address of exec is changed. Previously, something like glibc would be linked in at the same address each run.

Re:Randomization? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087212)

Write a bunch of data into the buffer, overwriting the return address with existing code

Sorry, this is a bit imprecise. I didn't say quite what I meant. This should say "overwriting the return address with the address of existing code"

So much for least-privledge. (3, Insightful)

caitriona81 (1032126) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086844)

A new 'user account control' system tries to protect you from yourself, so you don't accidentally make changes to important system settings without being warned first. However pressing the 'ok' button lets you do whatever you want anyway, and experienced users will just be annoyed. What did I do? I turned it off completely and am not bothered by it anymore. You'll probably do the same, too.
To me, this in and of itself demonstrates that the credibility of the author is lacking. There's a reason user account control is there, and it's not just to protect the user from themselves, it's also to protect the user from programs making system changes behind their back. Obviously, limited user accounts are much more secure, but user account control at least gives some chance at stopping spyware and other malware before it does serious harm, but only if the user's leave it turned on. To even suggest this in what's supposed to be a serious review is advising the reader to throw security out the window. Of course, that's what most user's will do, but still, its not something to almost recommend user's do.

Yes Friends, Microsoft Fails Again (5, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086856)

Okay, besides the fact this looks like some dude skimming marketing spiel, let's hit the high points:

Marketing Promise: Increased Security
Some Dude's Findings: VISTA: Vista has a similar but improved firewall to Windows XP SP2, but anyone who is serious about their security will still replace it with a third party firewall or Internet security suite.

Marketing Promise: Anti-phishing feature
Some Dude's Findings: Both score 'pretty terrible'

Marketing Promise: File system security
Some Dude's Findings: However pressing the 'ok' button lets you do whatever you want anyway, and experienced users will just be annoyed. What did I do? I turned it off completely and am not bothered by it anymore.
-That's increased security!

Marketing Promise: Easy
Some Dude's Findings: anyone, even without massive computing experience, can easily set up a wired or wireless network. ...?!

Utter security failure. Plenty of work fixing broken windows. Forced upgrade with new hardware sales. It's a win-win all around!

Please, add more crud to my OS! (4, Insightful)

badfrog (45310) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086868)

Thanks Microsoft... When I want to change my IP address, burn a DVD, or open Mozilla, I want a wizard to make sure I'm doing everything correctly.

I don't care if my OS has 3D icons or fancy clear windows... I want it to be out of the way, and just RUN THE PROGRAMS I WANT! That's the whole point of the OS. Not to take up 4 gig of hard drive space because Grandma wants to print pictures of her grandchildren. Stop hogging all my system RAM and let me choose my preferred programs to look at pictures, play MP3s, and watch videos- none of which come with your OS.

Re:Please, add more crud to my OS! (5, Insightful)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086922)

When I want to change my IP address ... I want a wizard to make sure I'm doing everything correctly.
You can change almost every network setting through command line or script if you learn the NETSH command from the shell.

I don't care if my OS has 3D icons or fancy clear windows... I want it to be out of the way, and just RUN THE PROGRAMS I WANT!
You can turn of nearly every feature of the new interface. In fact, when I booted Vista using my Active Directory profile, nearly all the eye candy was already turned off.

Not to take up 4 gig of hard drive space because Grandma wants to print pictures of her grandchildren.
That might be true for you, but for Grandma (and the rest of the world who doesn't read Slashdot) they DO want to print pictures of grandchildren and a wizard to help set them up with a network.

... let me choose my preferred programs to look at pictures, play MP3s, and watch videos- none of which come with your OS.
When has Windows ever stopped you from running a preferred program via filetype? In fact, that feature has become easier to do with every new version of Windows. Not only did XP introduce the "Set Program Access and Defaults" menu, but to change the association of a filetype is as easy as right clicking on the document, choosing "Open With", and checking the box that says "Make this my Default".

You assume that the way YOU want a computer is the way the rest of the world wants a computer. Likewise, you haven't even taken a moment to learn what XP or Vista can do for a power user, as demonstrated by your rant against features that can be turned off, easily changed, or accessed via command line.

Re:Please, add more crud to my OS! (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086930)

You've just confirmed Billy the Gates' new mantra "The PC is no longer a producer of information, but a consumer of information". You've let your PC become the new TV. As such, it is in the interests of any OS maker to tailor the OS to maximize THEIR profits and structure, rather than tailoring it to fit your needs.

Whaa? (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086888)

VISTA: A great deal of concerted effort has gone into making Vista the easiest operating system to network with others, especially other Vista systems, so that anyone, even without massive computing experience, can easily set up a wired or wireless network.

While that sounds positively delightful, does Mr Iemma really know what he is getting himself in for? To start with, the NSW Government has now decided it is going to be an Internet Service Provider to compete with publicly run companies.

I was following that until that very last paragraph... did I stray into another article?

Re:Whaa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17086972)

I can't see what the author's talking about, but NSW is a state here in Australia, and they've (the state) recently announced that they will provide free wireless broadband in some areas. (See http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm/1693 [whirlpool.net.au] )

Slashdotted? (0, Redundant)

toejam316 (1000986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086892)

Because it looks like it... that or else there was no article to begin with. Reguardless, its kind of annoying not being able to read the article. Not to mention I dont know what kind of system these comparisions were made on. How would a Min XP install compare to a Min Vista install? I needs to know now! I have to have windows. Linux isn't a option. Linux hates me. I install Linux, GRUB wont load it without me editing the paths each time, and it decided to try shove itself into my XP NTFS partition last time. IT HAS IT IN FOR ME.

Article Text for impending slashdotting (2, Informative)

Umbrae (866097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087032)

So you've heard all the hype about Windows Vista, but wonder what it means for you. Here's the definitive guide on how Microsoft's Windows Vista stacks up against XP:

SECURITY FEATURES

XP: In the original Windows XP, and with the first service pack or SP1, both versions still in use today, Windows XP has a built-in firewall that gave relatively good protection against hackers breaking into your computer.

The 2nd service pack, or SP2, improved the firewall to protect you from people trying to get it, and bad programs trying to get access out to the Internet, but it is still considered relatively basic compared with commercial offerings. Anyone serious about security should replace it with a good third party firewall or Internet security suite. All versions of Windows XP are also able to be set to download Windows updates automatically.

VISTA: Vista has a similar but improved firewall to Windows XP SP2, but anyone who is serious about their security will still replace it with a third party firewall or Internet security suite. Internet Explorer 7 has an 'anti-phishing' filter, but is known to slow down your surfing experience a little as sites you visit are checked by Microsoft's servers for phishing attack dangers.

However IE7 and Firefox 2.0 have both been rated as only having partial success in detecting phishing sites, and as such have both earned a rating of 'pretty terrible' for anti-phishing prowess by us at Free Access (Tech.Blroge).

A new 'user account control' system tries to protect you from yourself, so you don't accidentally make changes to important system settings without being warned first. However pressing the 'ok' button lets you do whatever you want anyway, and experienced users will just be annoyed. What did I do? I turned it off completely and am not bothered by it anymore. You'll probably do the same, too.

Windows also has a new 'randomization' layer, which slightly changes the memory configuration of every Vista machine to make it harder for co-ordinated attacks to affect scores of machines at the same time.

Vista also has made protections to the 'kernel' or core of the operating system, with a protective measure known as 'PatchGuard', but this only extends to the 64-bit version of Vista, a version which most of us won't be using for at least a couple of years. Most consumers will be using the 32-bit version of Vista which does not have 'PatchGuard' built-in.

HOME ENTERTAINMENT

XP: Windows XP has always been able to play mp3 and video files, CDs, DVDs (with third party software), streaming media files and other forms of digital media with relative ease over the years.

An updated version of Windows XP, known as the Media Center Edition upgraded the digital media experience of Windows, giving it a dedicated interface to watch, record and pause live TV, play photos, videos and music, listen to FM and online radio stations and more.

VISTA: Finally, the Media Center capabilities comes built-into most versions of Windows Vista aside from the basic, entry level version. It has also been enhanced over the previous version, although reviewers claim it has not received as much of an improvement as the rest of Windows has over previous versions.

Vista also plays most other forms of digital media through it's own Windows Media Player software, with a whole host of competing media players available to download, many free of charge, from the Internet.

GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE

XP: Ridiculed as being the 'Fischer Price' version of the Windows 2000 interface, Windows XP was still a fresh update upon its release 5 years ago. Today, however, will still perfectly functional, it is starting to look a little long in the tooth, with Apple's Mac OS X offering Vista like graphics for several years already.

VISTA: Very cool looking 3D icons, transparent 'glass' windows and other lovely eye candy such as the 'Flip 3D' way of flipping through open windows. This new graphics system is called 'Aero'. However this will require a graphics card with enough grunt.

Older laptops may not be able to support the full Aero graphics experience, and will default to a mode which looks similar but lacks most of the eye candy effects, such as the transparent windows and Flip 3D effect.

A system wide desktop search engine is built-into Vista and is fully activated. Interestingly XP has a similar function but it was never explained properly, with most people very familiar with XP's annoyingly slow search capabilities. Vista's built-in search is fast, like Google's Desktop Search, and is great to have already built-in.

There's also the 'Sidebar' which gives you access to downloadable mini programs and widgets to display images, the time, sports scores and other information at a glance, with lots of sidebar gadgets being written and on the way, especially so with the consumer launch on January 30th, 2007.

PARENTAL CONTROLS

XP: Without third party software, the parental controls in Windows XP were rather limited and really didn't prevent children from visiting inappropriate sites on the Internet.

VISTA: Excellent parental controls are built-into Vista, mirroring the powerful features that today's third party software offers to parents today. Parents have control over the sites their children visit, and are able to see every site they visit or tried to visit.

The software lets parents determine what times computer use is allowed, which games they play and software they run, and are able to track email messages and instant messages that their children send.

NETWORKING

XP: Unless you know what you're doing, Microsoft's 'set up Wizard' for wired and wireless networks could seemingly never be counted on to actually work, leading to many frustrations for people simply trying to network two or more computers together.

VISTA: A great deal of concerted effort has gone into making Vista the easiest operating system to network with others, especially other Vista systems, so that anyone, even without massive computing experience, can easily set up a wired or wireless network.

While that sounds positively delightful, does Mr Iemma really know what he is getting himself in for? To start with, the NSW Government has now decided it is going to be an Internet Service Provider to compete with publicly run companies.

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087216)

Try Xandros.It isn't free,But everything just works right out of the box.I've run both Xandros 3 business and Xandros 4 home and no matter what I've thrown at it,even my laptops built-in wireless card (which no other distro has been able to get to work even with ndiswrapper) it all just works.<p>

Hell,Xandros 3 business runs so much better on my laptop than the XP Pro it came with I haven't booted into XP in months.I,like you,never had much luck with Linux (always missing a driver) until Xandros.They have free trial versions on their website.Give it a try and see if it is right for You.

informativ3 tacot4co (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17086910)

being GAY NIIGERS. in a head spinning notorious OpenBSD their 4arting All major surveys minutes. At home,

Article is only partially literate (1)

jpetts (208163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086918)

Numerous mis-spelling and grammatical errors. Why should I trust them to assess an OS correctly?

Re:Article is only partially literate (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086950)

He's giving you the authentic Microsoft feel by producing an article that matches the quality level of the operating system it describes!

Re:Article is only partially literate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087244)

With as many pathetic spelling errors in the KDE MAN files, there is no reason to be a bigot. Geez, can't ANYONE run a spellcheck?

Review written with super-neato Vista feature (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087252)

"Dear Mom... delete that."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Even with a Re-Written TCP/IP Stack?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17086936)

How can an unbiased technical reviewer embrace Vista's
shiny, new networking features, ie, before all the new
bugs start to get exploited.

We don't need more hype here...

Re:Even with a Re-Written TCP/IP Stack?!? (1)

jpardey (569633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087096)

There seems to have been a bit of a sea change regarding Microsoft's TCP stack. First off, people complain because it was just a rehash (to some degree, I am not a coder) of the BSD stack, and now that Microsoft is changing it, people complain about the bugs. I realize that the first one is used to complain about MSFT's intellectual property stance, and the second is to complain about security, but which is the lesser of the evils? Would everyone rather it stayed true to its roots, perpetually, or would they stop complaining about the BSD stack reuse if it was changed?

Re:Even with a Re-Written TCP/IP Stack?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087120)

See a recent podcast by Steve Gibson on Vista's new stack:

    http://securitynow.info/ [securitynow.info]

Re:Even with a Re-Written TCP/IP Stack?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087152)

Why would I want to listen to that moronic and technically ignorant gasbag talk about anything?

I stopped paying attention to him when he started whining about XP's Raw Sockets

Is There An Upgrade Path from (1)

Colin E. McDonald (837162) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086938)

Is there an upgrade path from Windows 3.1 for Workgroups? I'll have to vacuum up the 7 layers
of dust, grime and skin particles to access my floopy drives in order to load it but I'll have one
of my minions swap them out. He is an illegal alien so we don't have to pay him any overtime.
This guy wrote a special program for in DOS that I just can't live without and when
we tried to load Windows 95 it wouldn't run so we have been crossing our fingers ever since.
I'm hoping Vista will bring us new horizons!!!1

Come on... (0, Redundant)

Mets (1034902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17086974)

For goodness sakes it better be. Even Microsoft better be able to make something better if they have 6 YEARS to work on it. Shesh

Re:Come on... (1)

ilovecheese (301274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087048)

Don't be too sure of that. Look at their track record...

ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087018)

What an ugly review. This guy seems all caught up in the "oooh, look its shiny" Vista, but what, no screen shots? Seriously?

long live false comparisons! (1)

toby (759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087026)

Where's Vista versus e.g. OS X 10.4 or 10.5 [apple.com] ?

Re:long live false comparisons! (1)

iKillCellphones (892287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087230)

Seriously, what can you compare then? XP SP1 with XPSP2? Or are the differences between even those so great that you're not comparing apples with apples?

It *is* useful to some users out there to know the key difference between operating systems. I'm sure my mum and dad, or non-techie friends would find it useful to read an article comparing and contrasting XP/Vista, XP/OS10.4, Win2k/Ubuntu (or whatever takes your fancy) to know if/why to upgrade. A well-written comparitive article certainly has its place (unfortunately, I haven't found one yet).

This article, while appearing to favour Vista, actually under-sells it (as far as I'm concerned). Even non-tech readers (who I'm assuming the article was written for) can handle something slightly more technical. Saying that the firewall in Vista is "similar but improved" doesn't really give anyone any indication of the (IMHO) significant improvement in the firewall. Not saying it's the be-all and end-all or anything; just that the article skates over the top so much that I'm not entirely convinced the author's actually used Vista.

Oh well... (2, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087058)

I'll take the karma hit for this I'm sure...but...MS has consistently improved on their operating systems. I'm not saying they are the best available, just that they have consistently improved. From my experience every new OS they have released has been an improvement over the previous (ME excepted). Just because they aren't Apple or a Linux flavor doesn't mean they are worthless. Keep in mind they are the major OS in use both for home and business and that they are TRYING to improve. If for nothing else, they should be applauded for their efforts.

Re:Oh well... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087228)

One big area they need to improve on is in how well they play with others. Microsoft has a history of obscuring protocols and file formats so that only Microsoft can play. For example, will I be able to install Vista onto a spare partition on my hard drive without worrying if my MBR will be trashed, or do I have to do the install-windows-first thing yet again?

If they improved in this one area, if they learned to play nice with other Operating Systems, they would not only be less hated in the IT community, but they would not be under fire so much in the anti-trust arena.

Re:Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087332)

You forget. Everyone on /. would be willing to suck Linus's cock if he whipped it out.

Response to article comment (1)

midkay (984862) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087070)

While I agree with anyone who says the "article" is pretty redundant and more or less a comparison between XP's and Vista's feature listings, I feel the need to respond to someone's comment on the article (shown below the article). I quote:

The only feature that is of any appeal to me in Vista is DX10. I wish it was ported to XP. I do not look forward to "upgrading" to Vista at all. It is the most disappointed Windows release since WinME.

While DX10 is a large (and necessary) step forward, I simply cannot understand anybody calling Vista a worthless upgrade or "disappointing" in the likes of WinMe. Alright, WinFS didn't make it - big deal. Anybody comparing Vista's upgrade over XP to Me's upgrade to 98 is simply an idiot.

Vista features upgrades - although minor in some aspects, upgrades nevertheless - to pretty much every aspect of Windows. From security to GUI to functionality to included applications, so much has been improved, reworked and even overhauled that anybody dismissing it as "disappointing" - hell, anything short of major - is more than likely someone who, in the "real" world, really can't wait for Vista, will buy it within a few days of its release and simply wants to act like he's "better than" anyone who looks forward to tons of improvements over XP.

Give it a rest. You can say it sucks, but you can't say it isn't at the least quite an improvement over what we've got.

Not ready for Prime-Time (1)

ROMRIX (912502) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087086)

I have software that will not run in Vista. The software manufacturer nor Microsoft can give me any information as to if and/or when there will be any resolution or changes to make it compatible. It is not custom software, it is over the counter, out of the box stuff. I've beta tested Vista up to the current RC and the software still doesn't work. Vista didn't recognize my Labtek webcam, had to install XP drivers for it. Had 14 other reported software issues that are/were never resolved. I'll just stick with XP for a few more years and see how it goes. I'm not going to throw away all my stuff that works with XP just to "upgrade" to Vista and have to buy all new stuff. My box is fairly new as it is. It's a 2.6ghz Intel board with '1gig RAM' '128mg NVIDIA' DVD burner, WiFi, lots of other crap. I have three other computers networked in my house all about the same config so a Vista future is not so bright for me right now.

Re:Not ready for Prime-Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17087302)

driver support in the betas were pretty much minimal- from what i understand, most drivers will be ready only in time for the consumer launch in january. i'm curious as to what other issues you've had though? i've been running vista on a laptop with a similar configuration to yours (2 ghz core duo, 1gb ram, 128mb ati x1400, dvd burner, wifi etc) and i've had no issues for the three months that i've been running it.

Gaming? (3, Insightful)

Thakandar2 (260848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087158)

Oh please. No one cares about security, or media conversion. Show me some benchmarks that have frames per second with 16x Anti-Aliasing on Microsoft Flight Simulator X with DirectX 10 on a new Geforce 8800. That's all that really matters.

Forgot something? (1)

Non-CleverNickName (1027234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087280)

HOME ENTERTAINMENT VISTA: Finally, the Media Center capabilities comes built-into most versions of Windows Vista aside from the basic, entry level version. It has also been enhanced over the previous version, although reviewers claim it has not received as much of an improvement as the rest of Windows has over previous versions. Vista also plays most other forms of digital media through its own Windows Media Player software, with a whole host of competing media players available to download, many free of charge, from the Internet.

Is it just me, or did he conveniently forget to mention anything about any form of DRM in there?

Is Vista $751 better than XP? (4, Insightful)

tehanu (682528) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087288)

Even if Vista is better than XP, is it $751 better (Australian dollars, Vista Ultimate edition, US$595)? *That's* the real question. OK, to be generous, Vista Home Premium which is $455 (US$360). Then factor in the costs of upgrading your hardware, time lost reconfiguring things etc. etc.

Prices here: http://www.apcstart.com/node/4035 [apcstart.com]

Why Bother? (0, Offtopic)

Tempest429 (1024249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17087304)

waste of effort (tagging beta)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...