PDA

View Full Version : Should window vista be given a chance



sunny
01-03-2007, 10:03 PM
Hi there,
Just wanted to discuss certain issues regarding windows vista.Will this windows never crash???
What about the space.it is going to consume 4 G.B of my hard disk space,Will work only on those p.c.'s having 512MB RAM(minimum) And i suppose that it will make p.c's slower than ever.As all the softwares with which we work are getting bigger in size.What about security,it promises to be secured but is it at par with linux???
And the last thing what about the viruses??????

djr33
01-04-2007, 05:54 AM
Viruses will logically be more protected. The thing is, though, that with popularity, comes attacks. Macs are almost totally safe from viruses, not through security, from through no one trying to target like 2% of the net population, so they get ignored. In this sense, there's safety in LOWER numbers. So... viruses will probably have more protection against them, but, still, people will still write viruses for it, increasing with it's increasing popularity, and there's also the fact that it's new, so security won't be good for a while. For this, it's probably good to hold off through the betas and even til SP2 or whatever.

Yeah, it'll consume more HD space and memory. But newer computers can handle it. Hopefully.

Really, it seems silly to me, overall.
It's just windows' way of copying OSX and they're doing it in such a dumb way.
I saw a short clip where bill gates was demonstrating the features, such as a rolodex-style 3-dimensional spinning array of open windows which you could rotate through with animated transitions... just to cycle through windows.

What's the point?

ddadmin
01-04-2007, 11:56 AM
There's an excellent podcast commentary on Windows Vista, especially the new security features. Check it out here: http://www.twit.tv/ww8 I think just based on those it's worth upgrading, or better yet, just get a new PC when Vista comes out. :)

BLiZZaRD
01-04-2007, 01:40 PM
I read a page somewhere (and tried to find it with no luck - sorry) about WV already having 6 security holes found by hackers (and it isn't even released yet!)

I haven't heard anything good about it yet that makes me want to switch/upgrade so I am going to wait a while.. you KNOW they will be releasing service packs.

mburt
01-04-2007, 01:45 PM
Were techies. We know the difference, security, blah blah blah. Some guy probably thinks to himself, "That looks cool I'll give it a shot". They probably would use a PC anyways because most of the population is familiar with them. Our entire schoolboard uses windows, not one mac or linux. It's pretty much the trend now-a-days :)

Twey
01-04-2007, 02:32 PM
Will this windows never crash???No, and as soon as you turn it on, rivers of nectar will pour down from the skies. :rolleyes:
Yes, it'll crash. Possibly more than existing versions, possibly less -- almost certainly more at this point, since it's unfinished.
What about security,it promises to be secured but is it at par with linux???Unlikely. Several of the original design flaws still remain. It will almost certainly be a step up from Windows XP, though.
Viruses will logically be more protected.There's a lot of work being done to allow more applications to run without full administrative privileges, but there's quite a way to go too (Office 12 still doesn't allow it, if I remember correctly). If Microsoft succeed there, it'll go a long way towards eliminating one of the primary security flaws in Windows. The kernel also no longer allows patching by anyone and his dog. However, IE is still integrated into the OS.
Really, it seems silly to me, overall.
It's just windows' way of copying OSX and they're doing it in such a dumb way.Agreed.
I saw a short clip where bill gates was demonstrating the features, such as a rolodex-style 3-dimensional spinning array of open windows which you could rotate through with animated transitions... just to cycle through windows.

What's the point?That's more a demonstration than anything else. With a heavily graphics-enabled desktop, more useful effects are possible, such as window transparency, 3D workspaces, the whole nine yards. See the Metisse and LG3D projects for some practically-oriented examples. Beryl contains some too, although it's more centred around eye-candy.
I read a page somewhere (and tried to find it with no luck - sorry) about WV already having 6 security holes found by hackers (and it isn't even released yet!)Although considering how long it's been available in beta (and the fact that it's Windows) that's not too bad.
I haven't heard anything good about it yet that makes me want to switch/upgrade so I am going to wait a while.. you KNOW they will be releasing service packs.Agreed.

Unmentioned here is Vista's DRM support. Read the story of DRM/TCPA, from one side (https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home) and the other (http://www.againsttcpa.com/).

Vista originally had many exciting features: WinFS, more customisability, the default themes, the Monad shell.... Microsoft seem to have gone through and carefully removed almost everything that attracted me to it, added DRM, and increased the price tag (for the top versions, anyway: you can bet the versions designed for we lower classes will run like treacle). However, there are still a few benefits for the developer -- nicer interfaces for several unpleasant low-level tasks have been introduced.

djr33
01-04-2007, 06:51 PM
Windows transparency is possible with XP (perhaps lower), and I've been using a fun little freeware app that a friend gave me that does it. Fairly worthless, but quite possible in XP.
Anyway, yeah, just seems excessive.

Soon, it'll be required, since apps won't be backwards compatible. Yay for microsoft.

mburt
01-04-2007, 07:05 PM
I have a freeware program called Dm2 which manages your windows apps way better. It lets you have 4 different desk-tops, and lets you minize windows as floating-transparent icons. It also lets you screw with the transparency, hue and saturation of your windows. It's pretty cool. :D

Twey
01-04-2007, 07:18 PM
True transparency is far from worthless. For example, I'm writing this post whilst watching an IRC client for new messages through the window.

It requires careful theming for the text to remain visible, though.

mburt
01-04-2007, 07:29 PM
True transparency is far from worthless
I hate to take sides with the extremely smart guy, but in this case I am :)
With the program I use, I do that all the time with youtube.com, it's just a matter of which page is focused. That will determine which page I am typing on, so youtube.com could more simple be just a background.
BTW, it's not a windows app.

Twey
01-04-2007, 07:35 PM
BTW, it's not a windows appWhat isn't?

mburt
01-04-2007, 08:11 PM
...lol, most good programs aren't. :p

Twey
01-04-2007, 08:13 PM
I'm confused... I found the DM2 site (http://dm2.sourceforge.net/), and that's definitely a Windows application :confused:

mburt
01-04-2007, 11:49 PM
It's for Windows, not by Windows.

BLiZZaRD
01-05-2007, 02:42 AM
True transparency is far from worthless. For example, I'm writing this post whilst watching an IRC client for new messages through the window.


You have thumb drive hanging around your neck, don't you? How many? ROTF.

Sorry, I do similar things on my computer, and my wife calls me an "uber-geek" (it's funny because hearing the word "uber" makes her throw up a little bit) :D

Twey
01-05-2007, 09:07 AM
It's for Windows, not by Windows.Er... Windows can develop its own programs now? Wow, maybe Microsoft have been making progress :rolleyes:
You have thumb drive hanging around your neck, don't you? How many? ROTF.Well, no. But I do have two 1GB ones in my wallet, which I take everywhere with me, tucked behind my cards so thieves will hopefully just take the cards and money and leave the drives alone :p
Sorry, I do similar things on my computer, and my wife calls me an "uber-geek" (it's funny because hearing the word "uber" makes her throw up a little bit) :DHeheh. I used to have a girlfriend like that. I used to respond by calling her a barbarian ;)

mburt
01-05-2007, 11:50 AM
Er... Windows can develop its own programs now? Wow, maybe Microsoft have been making progress

Ahh....
(shhh.... don't tell anyone, but I think, just think, that I'M ON DRUGS!!!)
I am so stupid. I am writing in short, infatic sentences for effect. I meant to say Microsoft :)

BLiZZaRD
01-05-2007, 01:21 PM
Perhaps calling your girlfriend barbarian is the reason you used the key words: used to have :D

I do remember you telling me something about calling her that once in a thread a long while ago... it's still funny... you called her that because she liked hiking or camping or something outdoors, right?

Twey
01-05-2007, 04:03 PM
Perhaps calling your girlfriend barbarian is the reason you used the key words: used to have :DHahaha :)

Yeah, she was an outdoors type and scorned the amount of time I spent in front of a monitor :p

boxxertrumps
01-05-2007, 11:24 PM
so far the only things i have seen for new windows OS's is more bells and whistles, most, if not all the holes that weren't fixed in the previous version are carried onto the new one.

djr33
01-06-2007, 05:02 AM
Exactly.

Twey
01-06-2007, 12:57 PM
Not always. The NT range is one heck of a step up from the 9x range in terms of security.

BLiZZaRD
01-06-2007, 08:25 PM
I am still weary, and will remain so as long as Gates is still being quoted as saying "Windows Vista is the most secure Operating System ever!"

yeah, some how I kind of doubt that.

Twey
01-06-2007, 08:59 PM
I think it's something like the American constition permitting slavery -- the key point is that slaves weren't considered people.

Bill can say that because he doesn't really believe anything else counts as an operating system :p

jscheuer1
01-06-2007, 10:07 PM
Gates just doesn't know about other OS's. Either that, or if you think about it, Windows has always had to be more secure than the competition even to look horribly insecure as, it is the only OS that receives so much attention from the hackers, phishers and crackers.

Look at it from the point of view of the folks writing the code for these OS's. Sure Linux can easily be made more secure than Windows is to Windows vulnerabilities but, how many hackers have gone after Linux? What are its inherent security liabilities? I doubt few people even know. I sure don't but, almost everyone who knows much at all about this issue knows about several current or recent Windows vulnerabilities.

I say give the darn thing a shot (vista) when and if it becomes available for what you are running, hardware-wise, and looks to be better than your current OS. In the end, it will most likely gain at least a significant niche via its preloaded installed base.

Twey
01-06-2007, 10:35 PM
Windows has always had to be more secure than the competition even to look horribly insecure as, it is the only OS that receives so much attention from the hackers, phishers and crackers.

Look at it from the point of view of the folks writing the code for these OS's. Sure Linux can easily be made more secure than Windows is to Windows vulnerabilities but, how many hackers have gone after Linux? What are its inherent security liabilities? I doubt few people even know. I sure don't but, almost everyone who knows much at all about this issue knows about several current or recent Windows vulnerabilities.This is (mostly) a myth. Linux has a far larger slice of the server market than Windows does, and so is, if not as tempting a target for crackers (a server is likely to be harder to break, after all), at least not so small as to be considered insignificant.

Phishing is, of course, OS-independent, although various techniques for making it look more convincing rely on software bugs.
I say give the darn thing a shot (vista) when and if it becomes available for what you are running, hardware-wise, and looks to be better than your current OS. In the end, it will most likely gain at least a significant niche via its preloaded installed base.Agreed. The "when and if" is the key point, however.

jscheuer1
01-06-2007, 10:48 PM
This is (mostly) a myth. Linux has a far larger slice of the server market than Windows does, and so is, if not as tempting a target for crackers (a server is likely to be harder to break, after all), at least not so small as to be considered insignificant.

You got me on that one once before Twey but, here we are talking about PC OS's.

There really is something about Windows that drives people crazy, probably its near monopoly status as the PC OS. Folks had a similar view of Ma Bell when it was the only phone company in the USA. Phreaking (as it was known - the unauthorized use of the phone system) was, as far as I know, at its all time high just before the Bell divestiture. You hardly hear about it at all these days.

djr33
01-07-2007, 02:55 AM
Right. And, either way, Macs are much more safe in terms of security because linux and windows can fight it out for the attention of hackers while OSX happily watches, behind a nice safety net of unpopularity ;)

Twey
01-07-2007, 11:21 AM
You got me on that one once before Twey but, here we are talking about PC OS's.Aye, but the boundary is stretched a little with Linux, since it's both. The big servers nowadays, however (supercomputers excepted) are mostly Intel- or AMD-based.
There really is something about Windows that drives people crazy, probably its near monopoly status as the PC OS.The thing to consider is, are these people going to then go ahead and use Windows anyway? I think not. This means they're confined to <15% of computer users. Of the >85% that are Windows users, some of them view Linux or Mac (or both) with an equal fervor of hatred that users of these operating systems tend to bear for Windows. The density of these folk is likely to be far less, of course, but it can be 5&#215; lower without tipping the balance against Windows.
Phreaking (as it was known - the unauthorized use of the phone system) was, as far as I know, at its all time high just before the Bell divestiture. You hardly hear about it at all these days.That's because digitalisation of the 'phone lines blurred the boundaries between phreaking and cracking.
Right. And, either way, Macs are much more safe in terms of security because linux and windows can fight it out for the attention of hackers while OSX happily watches, behind a nice safety net of unpopularity ;)Heh :) Oh well, maybe your OS will find a bigger niche at some point, then you can join us :p

djr33
01-07-2007, 08:32 PM
That's the funny thing. I love macs, but it's actually in my best interest to discourage others from using them :D

BLiZZaRD
01-08-2007, 08:10 PM
I agree with Twey on the anti-Other OS than Windows. I have been to some of the Windows "only" forums, and those people are ruthless! If you don't run Windows everything, you are a traitor and you WILL burn in Hell.

I would like to find out how many of those ruthless vagabonds actually paid for everything on their PCs themselves... heh

jscheuer1
01-08-2007, 09:35 PM
I would agree that there are Windows snobs out there. But, I would disagree that this sentiment is easily, if at all translatable into an army of folks out to hack and crack Mac and 'nix boxes.

djr33
01-08-2007, 10:10 PM
I'd agree there.

In fact, Windows lovers probably generally hack windows, in order to 'rule' their territory. They're good at windows, so why would they hack macs or linux?
And there's always the popularity thing... if you write a virus, you want to be noticed, and not just by the random few people who use macs (or linux, with the exception of servers, as has been explained before).

Twey
01-09-2007, 08:25 AM
But, I would disagree that this sentiment is easily, if at all translatable into an army of folks out to hack and crack Mac and 'nix boxes.As would I -- see your previous comment applying this logic against Linux/Mac.
In fact, Windows lovers probably generally hack windows, in order to 'rule' their territory. They're good at windows, so why would they hack macs or linux?This is an interesting argument -- I've never seen it used before. I think it may be a good point. By this reasoning, though, the Mac- and Linux-users wouldn't want to bother attacking Windows systems, so we can discard the whole issue of Windows' unpopularity entirely.
And there's always the popularity thing... if you write a virus, you want to be noticed, and not just by the random few people who use macs (or linux, with the exception of servers, as has been explained before).In some cases. Most vira (pick a plural, any plural) nowadays tend to be for profit, though, it's sad to say, rather than recognition. This argument does, however, as you noted, ignore the use of Linux on servers: cracking one server and defacing a website can get the attacker considerably more fame (or infamy) than cracking one desktop.

djr33
01-09-2007, 10:32 AM
Well, fame can be applied to business just as easily. If it's for a profit, the more people it hits, the better, right? So windows would be the target in that sense as well.


As for why Linux and Mac users would attack windows, that could be seen as a minority syndrome type thing... windows is the evil majority, so it must be attacked.

Twey
01-09-2007, 07:06 PM
Well, fame can be applied to business just as easily. If it's for a profit, the more people it hits, the better, right? So windows would be the target in that sense as well.Servers again, I'm afraid. It would be much more profitable (I would suspect) to secretly take control of the server of a single popular company and insert a discrete link to the cracker's site (thus dramatically increasing its search-engine rating), especially when taking into account the strong likelihood of detection by banks or governments of the latter.
As for why Linux and Mac users would attack windows, that could be seen as a minority syndrome type thing... windows is the evil majority, so it must be attacked.But there will be as many Windows users who feel that way about non-Windows operating systems as well, even if they are proportionally fewer.

There's a large and detailed treatise on the subject here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/), although it doesn't include Vista-specific features.

jscheuer1
01-09-2007, 09:53 PM
there will be as many Windows users who feel that way about non-Windows operating systems as well, even if they are proportionally fewer.

This makes little sense and I would wager isn't based upon any hard data. Be it for profit, fame or just 'rage against the machine', if you are going to hack a PC OS, it would be Windows, regardless of what you run on your machine(s).

As for servers, it probably is documented that windows servers suffer a disproportionate number of serious and successful attacks than do their more numerous 'nix counterparts. This is probably partly due to the desire to go after windows spilling over into this market but also a result of the fact that usually only folks unfamiliar with server security go for a windows server to begin with. To them it seems like less of a challenge than setting up a 'nix server. However, if the admin knows his/her stuff, they probably could be made just as secure.

djr33
01-09-2007, 10:08 PM
That's a good point. Another reason that hackers go after IE, not FF. Though FF might be able to be exploited, IE users don't know what they are doing much of the time, so they are easier targets.

Twey
01-09-2007, 10:56 PM
This makes little sense and I would wager isn't based upon any hard data.You're right, it's merely a stab in the dark (how many people are going to put down "obnoxious UNIX-hater" on a survey?) but it seems to be a fair assumption to me. The number of Windows users is so much greater than the number of UNIX users that it's almost certainly the case.
As for servers, it probably is documented that windows servers suffer a disproportionate number of serious and successful attacks than do their more numerous 'nix counterparts. This is probably partly due to the desire to go after windows spilling over into this marketHm. This is just as dubious a claim, if not moreso.
but also a result of the fact that usually only folks unfamiliar with server security go for a windows server to begin with. To them it seems like less of a challenge than setting up a 'nix server.The principles of security are essentially the same on a desktop or a server; the only difference is that a server is more exposed.
However, if the admin knows his/her stuff, they probably could be made just as secure.Not so. The OS is only as good as the admin, but the admin is only as good as the OS. Talking security holes, one must also consider the fact that Linux is open-source: it's expected that more security holes will be found, although hopefully mostly by benevolent researchers.

jscheuer1
01-09-2007, 11:11 PM
Even a good 'nix admin might not be all that familiar with security on a Windows server if required by an employer to set one up.

If the OS is lacking in security features though, someone who knows the problems and is willing to investigate third party solutions will be able to set up a secure server with it.

Conversely, if a server software is selected only for its familiar appearance, the result isn't likely to be very secure.

Twey
01-10-2007, 08:58 AM
Even a good 'nix admin might not be all that familiar with security on a Windows server if required by an employer to set one up.Yes: a desktop or server based on the same operating system, obviously. My apologies.
If the OS is lacking in security features though, someone who knows the problems and is willing to investigate third party solutions will be able to set up a secure server with it.To an extent. This is certainly possible with open-source operating systems where everything is customisable past the limits of sanity, and if there's an insecurity with the kernel it's simple enough to just install another. However, with Windows this isn't so: a problem in the kernel can only be fixed by upgrading to another operating system or another version of Windows, which would cost money.
Conversely, if a server software is selected only for its familiar appearance, the result isn't likely to be very secure.Yes; this very approach is flawed, since flaunting the GUI as a benefit to a server operating system encourages admins to access the server locally, probably logged in as an administrator, which is a fairly nasty breach of security protocols, which encourage headless usage with a non-privileged account wherever possible. See the article to which I linked above for further details.

BLiZZaRD
01-10-2007, 09:27 PM
Isn't it true that Windows is even trying to remove the Admin functions from most user panels and make everything run off of a proprietorship type account, where the users set permissions?

Thought I heard that somewhere.. on their way to the "Most secure OS ever!"

djr33
01-10-2007, 09:31 PM
I'm not quite sure what you mean about that. You mean there's a special account to set stuff and the regular users can't access it?

Seems stupid for a singler user computer, as probably 95&#37; of them are, at least for PCs.

BLiZZaRD
01-10-2007, 09:39 PM
Yes, sort of off the key that *Nix does, with the root account or admin, but I hear that Win's is taking it a step further.

Kind of how XP now has that run as... option, except more dictatorshipness.

djr33
01-10-2007, 09:43 PM
Odd. For so much of this... what's the point. And I don't care. Heh. Not worth the $200 upgrade. :p

BLiZZaRD
01-10-2007, 09:58 PM
My thoughts on that exactly.. WHY?

djr33
01-10-2007, 11:18 PM
I think microsoft is missing the point. They update windows... and windows is icky. Maybe if they just started from scratch...... :p

INTRODUCING!!! Mircosoft Doors (R)

BLiZZaRD
01-11-2007, 12:57 AM
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA... Are you suggesting that they use a heavy dose of Windex? :D

djr33
01-11-2007, 05:47 AM
That's an amazing name for a program, though based on a copyrighted term. If you wrote a program that fixed bugs called windex... that would be awesome.