For one, the whole 'locking down half of your security measures to protect idiot users from themselves' thing in Vista is killing me.actually it's locking down the computer to protect users from malware.
I'm the Administrator and sole user of my laptopyou shouldn't be running as administrator.
Don't even start with the User Access thing either' date=' that seems to be a damned if you do damned if you don't deal.[/quote']
as mentioned, you can turn this off (although i'd personally keep it on.)Quote from: 'Perpetual MoogleMy other beef is that Vista chews up resources and memory like a motherfucker. I understand it allocates more memory to programs you use often' date=' but the overall memory that it takes just to RUN Vista is immense. [/quote']
i'm not sure what you meant by "allocates more memory to programs you use often" because it uses a simple (on the outside) paging model. less accessed areas memory are paged out in favour of memory you're using right now.
with regards to memory usage, vista has no problems running on a machine with a decent amount of memory and you shouldn't be running into any.Quote from: Perpetual MoogleI have various other issues with Vista, but it all boils down to this; should I keep it, or should I go back to XP? Is there some features on Vista worth having that I wouldn't get with XP?you're the one using it. we can't tell you if you should switch because we don't know what you want/don't want in your operating system.
if you like using vista and feel it's better than XP for you, then keep it. if you preferred using XP and feel it's better for you, switch to XP (although you'll be passing up MANY improvements in security, usability etc)
by the way, a vista service pack is coming out soon, which among other things increases performance so you might want to try that out before switching if you do decide to.
Wait, one thing that stuck out; why shouldn't I be running my own computer as Administrator? And about malware, I've never, EVER had any kind of problem with malware, or any other problems with security either, ever. A lot of Vista's security measures are to prevent things I've never had a problem with.because user privileges are there for a reason. you use the administrator account when you're doing administrative tasks. you use a normal user account when you're doing normal user tasks. running as administrator reduces the effective security of the system because anything that manages to compromise instantly has full administrative privileges, meaning it can ruin your system. if you run as a normal user, the damage possible becomes very limited.
I think MWD was intentionally exaggerating about the security issues...uh. no, i wasn't. i expect that coming from the guy who thinks running an unpatched system is a good idea though, you probably have the same mindset.
But putting that aside' date=' Honestly I strongly recommend any windows system except vista at this point. Even ME has better program support than vista. I had the liberty of using vista for 30 days on my laptop and numerous programs just wouldn't run.[/quote']
what programs were they?
because user privileges are there for a reason. you use the administrator account when you're doing administrative tasks. you use a normal user account when you're doing normal user tasks. running as administrator reduces the effective security of the system because anything that manages to compromise instantly has full administrative privileges, meaning it can ruin your system. if you run as a normal user, the damage possible becomes very limited.
and just because you haven't had any problems YET doesn't mean you WON'T in the future. just because you think you're a power user doesn't mean you're immune to security vulnerabilities. in fact if you think "i don't need it i'm fine" is a reasonable response to security then you're just as bad as the users who barely know how to operate a computer.
i once installed a fresh copy of windows XP unpatched. minutes after i connected it to the internet it was infected with a whole host of malware without me even visiting any sites other than microsoft.com, and i had to format and reinstall a copy of SP2. that's why security is important even if you think you're fine without it. you're not fine without it, you're a sitting duck.
Please say you were specifically talking about Vista and not actually preaching to people about how they should useCastratedLimited User accounts in XP.
Since it works with ALL my programs flawlessly, I use it. If I can add security WITHOUT compromising compatibility, then cool, otherwise; GTFO.For fucks sake dude all of those programs have newer versions which run happily on Vista. No one is stopping you from pirating newer versions.
I would list ALL programs... But then you would complain that they are old/outdated and newer versions are out disregarding the fact they cost money and lots of it. So, I will only post a few;
Skulltag 0.97d beta 4.3
Program manager 5.2
Real Producer 7
Photoshop 6.0
DMP poweramp RC3
I paid good money for last 3 and I am not just gonna abandon them and pay for what I don't need.
For fucks sake dude all of those programs have newer versions which run happily on Vista.Wrong!
Please say you were specifically talking about Vista and not actually preaching to people about how they should useIn this case yes because user privileges are absolutely atrocious in XP - you HAVE to run an administrator account to actually use it because so many applications for Windows were programmed terrible. But that's just another reason to use Vista.CastratedLimited User accounts in XP.
*Sigh* I think compatibility comes first and security comes last. That is all otherwise why would I use SP2 for server 2003 on my system?
and just because you haven't had any problems YET doesn't mean you WON'T in the future. just because you think you're a power user doesn't mean you're immune to security vulnerabilities. in fact if you think "i don't need it i'm fine" is a reasonable response to security then you're just as bad as the users who barely know how to operate a computer.
This seems to be logical, but in reality, it seems that this approach is using the same logic as someone wearing a Kevlar Vest in a safety bubble, escorted by armed guards and having covering fire by snipers just to get their mail. Sure, there's the off chance that you can get hit by a bus or get a mail bomb or have a piano fall on you or get caught in a suburbian drive by, but if nothing like that has ever happened to you before and there's a very, very small chance that it ever will, why take all of these insane crazy security measures to prevent it?
That's the impression I get with Vista's security features.
here's a better analogy: crossing the street without looking. deliberately putting yourself at risk from something that has a high chance of happening just because it's easier.
This seems to be logical, but in reality, it seems that this approach is using the same logic as someone wearing a Kevlar Vest in a safety bubble, escorted by armed guards and having covering fire by snipers just to get their mail. Sure, there's the off chance that you can get hit by a bus or get a mail bomb or have a piano fall on you or get caught in a suburbian drive by, but if nothing like that has ever happened to you before and there's a very, very small chance that it ever will, why take all of these insane crazy security measures to prevent it?
That's the impression I get with Vista's security features.
This seems to be logical, but in reality, it seems that this approach is using the same logic as someone wearing a Kevlar Vest in a safety bubble, escorted by armed guards and having covering fire by snipers just to get their mail. Sure, there's the off chance that you can get hit by a bus or get a mail bomb or have a piano fall on you or get caught in a suburbian drive by, but if nothing like that has ever happened to you before and there's a very, very small chance that it ever will, why take all of these insane crazy security measures to prevent it?
Straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
I'm really getting sick of these pro-Vista/anti-Vista threads. All these threads ever turn into is just one or two people that know what they are talking about, who then get attacked by everyone else. These attacks usually just involve anecdotal evidence (I had this problem, so everyone has it, get rid of Vista!). If this thread doesn't turn around, I'm locking it.
As for all of these people crying about compatibility issues: Have you tried disabling AeroGlass, and turning on Windows XP SP2 compatibilty? If you haven't, then go do that before you claim that no program can ever run on Vista.
Go back to XP. Use it for a month - no, a week as you normally would. Run a spyware check. Tell me your results.
Studies show that over 80% of XP systems (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009-6028946.html) have some form of spyware or adware installed. This study was done before Vista came out.
So either you are lying, you only visit secure websites (so everyday you use the internet for CNN and that's it), you didn't know that you had spyware when in fact you had all sorts of shit, or you just have impressively good luck. Personally I think the third one - especially if you've never even scanned.
Or 4) You really know what you are doing, use a good browser and software that can delete and protect you from spyware.yeah why use preventative measures when you can just deal with malware when it actually infects you
Vista's way of handling this is probably shit (I don't know personally because I have never used Vista)it's basically the same as any other operating system: things that require privileges prompt you to perform the action. normal usage will not trigger many prompts at all. vista even includes a feature to make programs that weren't designed to run with limited access work without prompting (file writes to restricted directories are redirected)
that wasn't a straw man at all, he was saying windows vista has more security than is necessary and it makes it a pain to use
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
yeah why use preventative measures when you can just deal with malware when it actually infects you
by the way, if your system is compromised you can never have any guarantee that it can ever be clean again unless you formatit's basically the same as any other operating system: things that require privileges prompt you to perform the action. normal usage will not trigger many prompts at all. vista even includes a feature to make programs that weren't designed to run with limited access work without prompting (file writes to restricted directories are redirected)
if you turn them off i bet you'll be angry when some malware decides to fuck up your installation when all it took to stop it was a UAC prompt
I do use preventive measures. I've got software that immunizes me against a shitload of spyware.
Additionally, Vista sucks, really. At the moment atleast. Maybe it will be a better option for me in the future. But now? Certainly not.
Also, as I said before, I really, REALLY want a Mac.
Yes OSX it is our perfect immaculate operating system savior thank Jesus Almighty
anyways, if you don't like how Vista handles things, then really if you have the time and the ability to go back to another operating system, go for it. we aren't stopping you, and as long as you have the hardware to support it, your computer isn't stopping you.
Come on, we all know Steve Jobs is the second coming of christ.
Really now, ever since my bro bought a Macbook a few months ago, I am in love with OSX... Sure, there's a lot of things that aren't available for OSX, but nothing Bootcamp (or even Parallels) can't solve, really...
Additionally, Vista sucks, really. At the moment atleast. Maybe it will be a better option for me in the future. But now? Certainly not.
Also, as I said before, I really, REALLY want a Mac.
Oh, I forgot to add: I don't know if this would be reason to downgrade to XP, but I haven't "upgraded" to Vista in the first place. And I don't think I will for a long time yet.
These are exactly the arguments I am tired of seeing. What sucks about it? If you haven't even upgraded to it, what qualifies you to say that it sucks? I'm not saying Vista is a great OS, but people need to get the hell over this M$ attitude.
It uses a crapload more resourcesIf you have a NORMAL PC (1gb ram/1gb vid mem) it is fine. Even if you don't you can just disable ALL THOSE FANCY effects anyways.
is compatible with less thingsFalse, it comes built in with Windows XP SP2 Compatibility. Anything that works in that will work with Vista. (EDIT: although if you have the user privalages and shit up you might need to do some work arounds for some things <.< )
and has all these annoyances I have to turn offomg i have to spend time tweaking my PC, who knew?
Plus the graphic interface is fugly.And this is silly cause you can change it.
It's not a M$ attitude. I don't really have anything towards Microsoft, but what little I have seen of it I don't like.Oh, come on now.
I think it's not a serious improvement over XP. It uses a crapload more resources, is compatible with less things and has all these annoyances I have to turn off. Plus the graphic interface is fugly.
I feel like at the moment that Vista is a downgrade from XP, but thats because of bugs etc. That and XP is going onto SP3 soon.Wow, what bugs. The only bugs I've seen are minor graphical glitches but only on Home Basic (the ass version of Vista) which our upstairs computer runs.
But Vista has SP1 coming out soon, and that'll fix a lot of the things that make Vista a tad worse than XP atm, and thats mostly just bugs, it is superior to XP in every way besides that, imho.
Please man, actually try it FUCKING OUT before you whine about it!
If you have a NORMAL PC (1gb ram/1gb vid mem) it is fine. Even if you don't you can just disable ALL THOSE FANCY effects anyways.
False, it comes built in with Windows XP SP2 Compatibility. Anything that works in that will work with Vista. (EDIT: although if you have the user privalages and shit up you might need to do some work arounds for some things <.< )
omg i have to spend time tweaking my PC, who knew?
And this is silly cause you can change it.
Wow, what bugs. The only bugs I've seen are minor graphical glitches but only on Home Basic (the ass version of Vista) which our upstairs computer runs.
That is the exact reason I want a Mac. I am SICK AND TIRED of having to constantly tweak, mod and renew my pc...
Does Vista Home Edition come with XP SP2 compatibility? Because if it does what makes it worth shelling out the extra $100 or so for Business Edition?
Try the couple hundred crashes and hangs, data loss, drivers going to sleep, performance issues etc that SP1 is fixing.
You're still going to have to tweak, mod, and renew your Mac if you want to do anything besides business related stuff on it.
It comes stock with all Vista OS's, its like Windows XP compatibility, only Windows XP SP2 is on the list.
You're still going to have to tweak, mod, and renew your Mac if you want to do anything besides business related stuff on it.
I have NEVER, EVER run into any problems with malware or viruses orOr rather, you don't think you do. Ain't fun to find out you've been keylogged for about a year. Security's an issue even if you're a lucky fuck. Consider this: Do you make any sort of money transactions on the internet? Like buy stuff with paypal? If the answer is yes:
Windows Vista is EXACTLY how Windows XP was when it first came out. Standard computers back when XP came out only had about 64MB of Ram, and XP's recommended is 128MB. All of the bugs, driver issues, etc were all present on XP in its early days.
Vista will be good, it's just not that good right now. Once all the bugs are cleared out, and all the drivers issues are fixed, it's going to be just as good as XP.
But for those on XP(me), you won't absolutely need to upgrade for another 2-3 years.
And I want a Mac. :fogetsad:
Or rather, you don't think you do. Ain't fun to find out you've been keylogged for about a year. Security's an issue even if you're a lucky fuck. Consider this: Do you make any sort of money transactions on the internet? Like buy stuff with paypal? If the answer is yes:
Keyloggers.
Have fun with Windows Firewall and co.! Meanwhile, i'll run a real firewall.
Windows Firewall, UAC and normal account is actually very safe. Not to mention the performance boost it gives over full security suite.This. I've talked to many a person who has had headaches with McAffe and the like. :fogetnah:
I do use preventive measures. I've got software that immunizes me against a shitload of spyware.
Really, a moron and only a moron uses the Windows firewall and nothing else as protection.
Face it, Windows XP can be alright with the right protection software. No, I am not saying Linux or Vista or Mac don't have better security. I am saying it IS possible to have a virus/spyware/malware free installation of XP if you have a remote idea of what you're doing...
Kaspersky Internet Security + Router Firewall + Spybot Search & Destroy = Win.Apparently you didn't read the nice link GoldenRatio gave: blacklists don't work. Read it again and try and understand why. Your software that protects you against spyware and viruses doesn't work.
I think it's not a serious improvement over XP.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista oops!!!
You're still going to have to tweak, mod, and renew your Mac if you want to do anything besides business related stuff on it.You're wrong, and I wish you'd stop making up bizarre things to make another operating system or computer vendor look bad. Both Windows and Mac OS X are perfectly capable of running non-business programs, granted that you have somewhat decent hardware. It's an exaggeration to suggest that you need to constantly tweak your hardware for that purpose. If you're a tweaker, then by all means, get a non-Apple PC and do so. Apple hardware is meant for those who don't want to constantly do that.
No I don't think you understand... mac is so pretty.... he just wants to look at the pretty... :gay:You're an idiot. I have nothing else to say.
omg i have to spend time tweaking my PC, who knew?This is a really bad argument against the criticism that the system has inappropriate standards. The average user should not have to tweak his system at all, because the defaults were made for him. For that reason, it shouldn't be so glaringly obvious that you need to put in effort in order to get the system to have sane behavior. And I don't mean for this last bit to be criticism towards Vista (it applies to every system), but just that it sounds to me like you're trying too hard to "be right" here. Be a little reasonable.
Apparently you didn't read the nice link GoldenRatio gave: blacklists don't work. Read it again and try and understand why. Your software that protects you against spyware and viruses doesn't work.
You're wrong, and I wish you'd stop making up bizarre things to make another operating system or computer vendor look bad. Both Windows and Mac OS X are perfectly capable of running non-business programs, granted that you have somewhat decent hardware. It's an exaggeration to suggest that you need to constantly tweak your hardware for that purpose. If you're a tweaker, then by all means, get a non-Apple PC and do so. Apple hardware is meant for those who don't want to constantly do that.
Try to keep doing new non-business things with the same system forever.I...don't think that's what he meant.
i dont think my stock windows 98 is gonna be playing crysis any time soon
Try to keep doing new non-business things with the same system forever.GETTING A NEW COMPUTER is not the same as "constantly tweaking, modding, and renewing" your current computer. Or what, are you trying to imply you're still using the same "computer" you were using more than 10 years ago, and have simply replaced 100% of its hardware several times over since then?
GETTING A NEW COMPUTER is not the same as "constantly tweaking, modding, and renewing" your current computer. Or what, are you trying to imply you're still using the same "computer" you were using more than 10 years ago, and have simply replaced 100% of its hardware several times over since then?
Like I said, you're just trying too hard to be right here.EDIT: and why don't you tell me what "non business-related stuff" is. Like, what is that supposed to even mean? Are you implying that you can run current business software on a 10-year-old computer, though you can't play recent games on it? Does this somehow relate to the stereotype that Macs are "meant for business things and not games"? I honestly don't understand what you're implying here, that's why I'm asking you to specify.
EDIT 2: you know what, nevermind, I'm not asking you anything anymore!
I...don't think that's what he meant.
But anyway, I do think the constant arguing could continue forever, since we all use our PC's for different things. The average PC user doesn't modify or tweak his settings to make things run faster, so we're talking about a very small percentage of the population who actually do some modifications. Most people are simply amazed on how Mac's run right out of the box, or how upgrading to 2GB of ram can really make your system fly.
So yeah, just thought I would point that out.
Try to keep doing new non-business things with the same system forever.
i dont think my stock windows 98 is gonna be playing crysis any time soon
(and macs are probably seen as being business oriented and not videogame oriented because big business's use them over Windows, and there's like 5 professionally made games specifically out for Mac.)Although there has been a large shift in recent years, the majority of businesses use some form of Windows over Macs. The biggest reason is that Apple is marketed primarily to individuals, not businesses.
Can you please explain how editting videos, images and listening to music and watching movies/anime/series is "business-related"
Although there has been a large shift in recent years, the majority of businesses use some form of Windows over Macs. The biggest reason is that Apple is marketed primarily to individuals, not businesses.
Really? All the business guys I know use Mac, and all I ever read about is business people with Mac's. Exception being game industry! @A@Really? All the business guys I know use PCs, and all I ever read about it business people with PCs. Exception being graphics industry! @A@
Uh, I just downloaded some sort of upgrade or some shit, and I really read through all of everyone's points, and Vista wins the debate for me. There's a few things that irk me about it, but I figure that they'll be fixed as timee goes on. I'll be patient and simmer down with Vista for a bit, I'll grow to like it as more updates and more compatibility and functionality upgrades are improved.
Thanks to everyone, though! I really appreciate it.
Well, What ever floats your boat Perpetual Moogle. No shame in what ever you choose. Just take what works for ya!I imagine you'll think it's bloated, slow, annoying, has no new features and you'll "stick with Vista, thanks."
I personally am interested in how the next windows (codename; blackcomb) will unfold. Until then, I will just stick with server 2003. Oh and remember to tell us how vista turns out for you!
Paint has new features such as a crop function and the undo limit has been raised from 3 to 10.Vista is the OS for me!
But in all seriousness, wasn't Vista supposed to use a new filesystem philosophy based on relational database design? Did that make the cut?It was originally planned for Vista, then planned for release some time after Vista, and its status is now "under development". It's unknown when it will ship (or if it will ship). Technology from the WinFS project has been implemented in other applications, though, so it's currently not a huge loss.
And why did they release 6 different versions of the OS? And why can't the "lower end" versions log onto a domain?Because why does your average home user with a low end computer need to log onto a domain?
I'd expect a pretty big discount for that loss alone on those versions (is there one? idk)yes
I imagine you'll think it's bloated, slow, annoying, has no new features and you'll "stick with Vista, thanks."
The basis is on what everyone like you says for every new release. You all said it for the release of XP, you're saying it for the release of Vista and you'll say it for the release of 7.
Thanks for the sleezy assumption of my future opinion with no basis.
Minwin 7 info;Yes. A highly stripped down kernel with basically no services running doesn't use much RAM at all. What's your point? MinWin has no bearing on the final requirements of Windows Seven. (The requirements will be greater than Vista, by the way)
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/win7_minwin_inside.asp
MinWin 7 currently only needs 25MB and 40MB of RAM. Yea thats real bloated.
The basis is on what everyone like you says for every new release. You all said it for the release of XP, you're saying it for the release of Vista
I would agree that looks pretty cool if it wasn't for the fact that it's SLIGHTLY ON THE SLANT and something tells me there's not a Jaunty Angle box to untick anywheretabs are a godsend (Click to reveal)(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8388/functionality2jb0.jpg)
If switcher is what I think it is then it looks much more useful in that configuration than what I guess must have been the default configuration I used at work once (totally fucking useless)switcher is nice, but non-essential (Click to reveal)(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6608/functionalitynb3.jpg)
I would agree that looks pretty cool if it wasn't for the fact that it's SLIGHTLY ON THE SLANT and something tells me there's not a Jaunty Angle box to untick anywhereXD! Actually it's not slanted at all! I gave it a slight nudge in Photoshop, sorry for the confusion.
If switcher is what I think it is then it looks much more useful in that configuration than what I guess must have been the default configuration I used at work once (totally fucking useless)
As much as I love Vista, I really do hope in the next version of Windows they make some logical time-saving and organization advancements. Although, as it is, you can customize Windows into oblivion. Right now I'm running objectdock with tabs. Honestly, I couldn't go back to just desktop shortcuts for my programs after this solution.I was waiting to see how long it would take for docks to be made for vista, and this new version with the tabs looks really amazing!tabs are a godsend (Click to reveal)(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/982/mydesktopwj3.jpg)
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8388/functionality2jb0.jpg)