PDA

View Full Version : Another Vista rant



lainlives
10-15-2007, 12:24 AM
I just had to repair a pc with vista ultimate, it was past the point of 'fixing' the OS, but what i noticed was the vista nvidia drivers, they really really suck, currently the linux drivers are better, then i noticed lately the linux drivers have been getting many more updates than the vista drivers, and right now slackware runs gta smoother than a clean xp install with proper drivers, and now that i read that the next windows os is coming out in 2010 and MS is extending xp support until 2010, does this mean that vista is already obselete?

djr33
10-15-2007, 12:30 AM
And this is why I use XP.

It's Windows ME all over again and M$ was too stupid to see it coming.

thetestingsite
10-15-2007, 12:33 AM
It would seem that way; especially since they rushed to get Vista out and the masses hated it (mostly due to lack of support of existing programs/drivers). I recently had to downgrade my wife's aunt's computer from Vista to XP pro. Now it runs 10x smoother, does everything she wanted her computer to do, etc. I'm really not too thrilled about the new release either, until they get at least one service pack on it.

boogyman
10-15-2007, 01:13 PM
this is a PRIME example why you should never buy an OS from Micro$haft until SP1. because if they release a Service Pack, it means they wont be scrapping the software, and it means they have some sort of support backbone.

and microsoft rushed vista out the door because of how long its been since XP was released :)) they wanted something new n great, and just think of how many people bought Vista thinking that it was the *beep* but now are all hating it.

*points n laughs*

lainlives
10-16-2007, 12:14 AM
Since it was OEM i had alot of time to screw with it, since it did all the annoying work for me, but it was a disapointment for how long they put into it, if they didnt put so much time into it i could excuse its suckage, but no.

AmenKa
10-18-2007, 02:04 AM
its more like NT put in ME's place... win 2k was great though so if the os in 2010 gets sp1 i will go for it... in the mean time i am one of those gamers that needs vista to make games like crysis all puuuurdy

Johnnymushio
10-18-2007, 03:10 AM
okay i have used windows 98 se for almost 10 years, until i got this vista basic laptop at the beginning of summer of 07.

you know how many problems i have encountered on both of the os's combined? 1.

the problem is that wen i start up vista, sometimes the startup sound is choppy. thats it.

i always see people saying programs dont run on vista, but i have yet to find one that doesnt, and i have like 30 programs installed. even programs that say they are just for xp, they work fine on my laptop

and doesnt vista have an option to run in compatibility mode for xp, 2000, etc?

although ive used 98 se for almost 10 years, and vista for three months with only that one problem, i have used windows xp in middle and high school a lot. the only thing i notice thats different with the os is that they get flashier and flashier. maybe i am missing something, or i have to be a hardcore computer programmer or something to notice why vista is "bad"

editttt

oh wait i remember another problem

you know how every vista version is on that dvd right, and you can install it and use it for free for 30 days right?

the thing they dont tell you is that after that 30 days is up, you either buy it or they lock your computer up, forcing you to do windows clean install that removes everything.

that was a horrible week for me....

and as for the look of the os, it seems to be the most drastic change from every other version of windows. 1.0, 2.0, 98, xp, etc

Twey
10-18-2007, 08:17 AM
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

This is the biggest problem I've found with Vista so far: DRM, DRM, and more DRM. If it weren't for the DRM it'd be pretty decent (and a lot faster: Aero can be replicated using Compiz on X, and the speed is in a whole different league to Vista's on the same machine). The most annoying thing I've had Vista do to me is ignore my wireless router. I got my shiny new laptop, connected to my access point, used it for a bit, disconnected, and the AP vanished from the list, never to return. At this point I installed Linux.

tech_support
10-18-2007, 08:20 AM
okay i have used windows 98 se for almost 10 years, until i got this vista basic laptop at the beginning of summer of 07.

you know how many problems i have encountered on both of the os's combined? 1.

the problem is that wen i start up vista, sometimes the startup sound is choppy. thats it.

i always see people saying programs dont run on vista, but i have yet to find one that doesnt, and i have like 30 programs installed. even programs that say they are just for xp, they work fine on my laptop

and doesnt vista have an option to run in compatibility mode for xp, 2000, etc?

although ive used 98 se for almost 10 years, and vista for three months with only that one problem, i have used windows xp in middle and high school a lot. the only thing i notice thats different with the os is that they get flashier and flashier. maybe i am missing something, or i have to be a hardcore computer programmer or something to notice why vista is "bad"

editttt

oh wait i remember another problem

you know how every vista version is on that dvd right, and you can install it and use it for free for 30 days right?

the thing they dont tell you is that after that 30 days is up, you either buy it or they lock your computer up, forcing you to do windows clean install that removes everything.

that was a horrible week for me....

and as for the look of the os, it seems to be the most drastic change from every other version of windows. 1.0, 2.0, 98, xp, etc
1??? How many threads have you started complaining about Vista? Far too many.

Johnnymushio
10-18-2007, 08:23 AM
excuse me?? are you talking to me? maybe i got hit in the head and forgot, but i dont recall starting any.

Twey
10-18-2007, 08:44 AM
maybe i am missing something, or i have to be a hardcore computer programmer or something to notice why vista is "bad"
Microsoft are being clever by releasing these protection 'features' now; The average user who goes to a computer store will get Vista but won't have either premium content or get 'premium ready' PC hardware; The ordinary person in the street can't afford a top-of-the-line machine and display. They will have a 'Vista capable' machine; Vista will look nice and not cause too much trouble or suffer from the protection overhead too much; They won't have any choice or know any different and it will be accepted. These people will dismiss any complaints they hear about these problems as a geek thing. They got their computer at the right price and it does everything they ask of it. They will only find out the truth in a few years when they buy their next computer and all machines are 'premium ready' (and fast enough to implement the protection) and every display has an HDMI connector. By that time XP will be well into its decline so there will be no going back. It's impossible to keep off the upgrade treadmill if you have Windows; Eventually you will either have to buy new hardware (with a new copy of Windows) or your out-of-support version of Windows will become such a target for malware that it will no longer be useableI really do recommend reading that article.

Johnnymushio
10-18-2007, 08:57 AM
okay, windows 98 isnt supported for a while now.

it doesnt even have firewall, antivirus, or anything.

and, it doesnt have any adware or viruses, and run fast.

my mom still uses it with no problem.

that paul guy made it seem that only windows os go obsolete, even though eventually all os will go obsolete one day.

i was reading earlier about why people hate it. and every problem they had i did not have. i have no idea why. the articles made it seem like no programs work with it. i even use old programs, like 5 or 10 years old, and they work fine.

the comp never locks up or anything, and unlike xp, when a program says it isnt responding, i just wait 5 seconds and it works again. but in xp, when a program doesnt respond, you have to ctrl alt del and end it.

jscheuer1
10-18-2007, 08:59 AM
It's a Geek thing. I'm sort of a Geek. Generally, to all of the 'normal' people I know, I'm a Geek. To the Geeks, I'm not really with it. My response to Vista so far has been, I read about it when it was coming out, rather than listening to all the hype. I concluded it was a work in progress. I had rather recently gotten a decent PC with XP. I counted myself lucky, and still await developments. MS will sooner or later either get Vista right, or replace it with something that works.

Johnnymushio
10-18-2007, 09:09 AM
i still dont see the problem.... and i still wanna know why tech support thinks i flood this forum with vista rants, and i never had a problem with it in the first place

Twey
10-18-2007, 09:15 AM
okay, windows 98 isnt supported for a while now.

it doesnt even have firewall, antivirus, or anything.

and, it doesnt have any adware or viruses, and run fast.

my mom still uses it with no problem.I'd be willing to put money on the fact that said machine is infected with at least five different pieces of malware. About the only way I can imagine it surviving is if it were so well-suited to malware that they lived, evolved, overpopulated and died on it (or perhaps went to war with one another over content protection...). Run a scan on it and see.
that paul guy made it seem that only windows os go obsolete, even though eventually all os will go obsolete one day.That wasn't the point. He was pointing out that it will eventually become necessary to upgrade beyond XP, probably some time after the effects of all this DRM hit home, so the common Windows user's response of "if you don't like it, just don't use it" won't really work.
i was reading earlier about why people hate it. and every problem they had i did not have. i have no idea why. the articles made it seem like no programs work with it. i even use old programs, like 5 or 10 years old, and they work fine.Which programs in particular, out of curiosity? But this, again, is beside the point: it's a new system, lack of backwards compatibility is only to be expected, and is a sign of development progressing.
the comp never locks up or anything, and unlike xp, when a program says it isnt responding, i just wait 5 seconds and it works again. but in xp, when a program doesnt respond, you have to ctrl alt del and end it.As I've said before, it's a major improvement over XP (in terms of security [actual security, not DRM] as well), and if it weren't for the DRM I'd be all for it.
i still wanna know why tech support thinks i flood this forum with vista rantsI think he just confused you with lainlives.

boxxertrumps
10-18-2007, 06:35 PM
I'd be willing to put money on the fact that said machine is infected with at least five different pieces of malware.
I have a part time job at a computer repair shop.
I've seen computers with over 1000 infected files, with 200 or so different species of virus and mal/adware. (the owners used the internet more religiously than I have.)
I dont think we ever saw a computer that wasn't used for the internet at one point, so i'll agree with twey unless the comp had no access to the tubes.

jscheuer1
10-18-2007, 07:27 PM
I have a part time job at a computer repair shop.
I've seen computers with over 1000 infected files, with 200 or so different species of virus and mal/adware. (the owners used the internet more religiously than I have.)
I dont think we ever saw a computer that wasn't used for the internet at one point, so i'll agree with twey unless the comp had no access to the tubes.

What is that avatar from?

Anyways, a lot of this stuff can be avoided by simple 'clean living' - no **** sites, no attempts to get free stuff (software, music, images) that isn't really free if gotten legally. And by 'common sense' or 'dignity' - not reading mail from strangers, not clicking yes when the computer says that doing so might be bad.

If you couple that with an older machine with a legacy OS that has one way or another emerged from its heyday without any current infections, you are probably in pretty good shape, as long as you don't mind dealing with the older type system that it is. The hackers are no longer 'gunning' for you.

There are additional precautions that could/could have be/been taken both now and along the road to such a relatively enviable situation. These are things like using third party software and utilities to further minimize your exposure to risk. Any such measure should be weighed with its benefits against any performance hit it might bring with it.

Twey
10-18-2007, 07:45 PM
Anyways, a lot of this stuff can be avoided by simple 'clean living' - no **** sites, no attempts to get free stuff (software, music, images) that isn't really free if gotten legally. And by 'common sense' or 'dignity' - not reading mail from strangers, not clicking yes when the computer says that doing so might be bad.Evidently not those critical pre-patch infections.
If you couple that with an older machine with a legacy OS that has one way or another emerged from its heyday without any current infections, you are probably in pretty good shape, as long as you don't mind dealing with the older type system that it is. The hackers are no longer 'gunning' for you.Highly unlikely. A cracker (which is what I think you mean) would see such machines as ideal targets: no patches, no support, lots of known holes; easy zombies. It's practically a textbook exercise: the cracker has all the information necessary to compromise the system and furthermore knows that since said system is no longer supported, he or she will most likely be able to continue compromising systems of that type indefinitely. As people stop buying older systems these become rarer, but when found they would be considered a real gem, practically gift-wrapped. A typical cracker isn't looking for the latest software on which to test his or her mettle, he or she simply wants to increase the size of his or her botnet (and thus its net worth).

jscheuer1
10-18-2007, 08:10 PM
Twey, you commented on the first part of my post out of context to what followed. It in no way was intended to refer to a new installation. I don't mind that you did though, I could have been more clear.

The fact remains. If your practices and OS have stood the test of time, it is unlikely that any new threats will be unleashed that target it. Hacker is an acceptable usage here. There are good and there are evil hackers. In my personal lexicon, I reserve crackers more for those who break software licensing protections. Oh, and for bigoted white people. :cool:

Twey
10-18-2007, 08:38 PM
The fact remains. If your practices and OS have stood the test of time, it is unlikely that any new threats will be unleashed that target it.I disagree, especially if support is withdrawn.
Hacker is an acceptable usage here. There are good and there are evil hackers.Which is why a more specific term is necessary. You could just as well use "person." From the Jargon File:
A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.This obviously extends well beyond the bounds of the meaning you're attempting to convey.
In my personal lexicon, I reserve crackers more for those who break software licensing protections.Doesn't mean you can expect other people to understand you when speaking this other language of yours :)
Oh, and for bigoted white people.That's a definition I hadn't heard before -- must be an American thing.

jscheuer1
10-18-2007, 10:28 PM
"All you white people's crackers!"


- Chris Rock (http://www.chrisrock.com/) (loosely, from a comedy routine)

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Ethical_Hacker

Why would we need an Ethical Hacker if they were all good? The terms 'cracker' and 'hacker' (as applied to the realm of computers) are so relatively new to the language that I am of the opinion that context is required to understand the author's or speaker's meaning. I think I gave sufficient context. Otherwise, you wouldn't have known that it didn't agree with your view of its meaning.

Merriam Webster:


Main Entry:
hack·er
Pronunciation:
\ˈha-kər\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity <a tennis hacker>
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

Main Entry:
crack·er
Pronunciation:
\ˈkra-kər\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
1chiefly dialect : a bragging liar : boaster
2: something that makes a cracking or snapping noise: as a: firecracker b: the snapping end of a whiplash : snapper c: a paper holder for a party favor that pops when the ends are pulled sharply
3plural : nutcracker
4: a dry thin crispy baked bread product that may be leavened or unleavened
5 ausually disparaging : a poor usually Southern white bcapitalized : a native or resident of Florida or Georgia —used as a nickname
6: the equipment in which cracking (as of petroleum) is carried out
7: hacker 4

Which would support cracker as an evil hacker, but through actual usage I have many times seen it used by folks who only crack games. The access and cracking in that case isn't illegal or particularly bad. Distributing the results is, perhaps. But that part is neither hacking nor cracking. Hacker, what I used, is still an adequate description of the individuals I was referring to, given my context. My meaning wouldn't even have been lost if you included both ethical and evil hackers. The old systems are of less interest to both class of hacker.

As for the matter we are actually discussing, I doubt that there are any reliable stats on it. It is my opinion that a prudent user with a legacy OS that he or she is used to, is much better off than a monkey in a room with XP or Vista running and connected to the internet.

Twey
10-18-2007, 10:52 PM
The access and cracking in that case isn't illegalDMCA.
It is my opinion that a prudent user with a legacy OS that he or she is used to, is much better off than a monkey in a room with XP or Vista running and connected to the internet.Well, I suppose so, if "used to" extends to writing or downloading third-party security patches.
Hacker, what I used, is still an adequate description of the individuals I was referring to, given my context.But "person," or in fact "mammal," would also have been so, given this context.

jscheuer1
10-18-2007, 11:07 PM
Hacker, what I used, is still an adequate description of the individuals I was referring to, given my context.But "person," or in fact "mammal," would also have been so, given this context.

That is simply in error. Those words are too broad, even given the context. Their unsuitability there would be due to their not having any particular connection to the context. Most mammals don't hack. In fact, most persons don't either. You are putting too fine of a point on the semantics here. Virtually everyone reading it, including yourself knew what I meant. Those (if any) who did not, would probably not have been helped by my using the word 'cracker'.

For those in doubt, had I used either word, it could have been looked up in the dictionary, and by choosing from the available definitions, taking into account the context, an adequate meaning could have been arrived at.

djr33
10-18-2007, 11:10 PM
Hacker is used commonly for anyone who alters or gains access to a nonstandard element of a program/setup/computer/etc.

Hack is used frequently as slang for "make work cheaply" as well now, in some cases no even in regard to computers.

As much as "Kleenex" is now a word, so is hacker in that sense.

And as with that, "Kleenex brand" would specify the 'official' meaning as opposed to colloquial in all but official documents and hacker would need to be specifically denoted as a limited (albeit 'correct') usage as one can assume that this forum is more toward colloquial (in most cases, at least to the majority of users posting questions).

Johnnymushio
10-19-2007, 03:16 AM
quite a debate going on...

lainlives
10-19-2007, 05:02 AM
Hey i hate vista, what can i say, it dont run diablo, red alert, command and conquer, or even doom2, it dont run many of my compilers for consoles, even the ps2 compiler, but otherwise if the driver issue gets fixed it may be a nice os

jscheuer1
10-19-2007, 06:28 AM
Hey i hate vista, what can i say, it dont run diablo, red alert, command and conquer, or even doom2, it dont run many of my compilers for consoles, even the ps2 compiler, but otherwise if the driver issue gets fixed it may be a nice os

Perhaps a more appropriate title for this thread would have been:






http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif Hand Cranked Vista http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif



:)
.

tech_support
10-19-2007, 07:36 AM
Again, like what I said from my other post (http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showthread.php?p=114209#post114209).


I can't believe everyone's blaming Micro$oft/Windows for basically anything. It's all up to the end user. If he/she decides to visit crack, ****, and other stupid sites, obviously they'll get some sort of a virus.

This same thing applies to Linux. If Linux were more popular, and home users started to use it, virus makers/hackers will just send an e-mail saying "make your linux faster!" and point the link to some bash script.

I would think it'll be easier to hack Linux than Windows, actually. It's just that Windows is so much more popular, that the hackers will go for the biggest target.

Don't believe me?

Where do terrorists go if they want to plant a bomb. Middle of the desert? Or in the middle of a busy shopping center.

Johnnymushio
10-19-2007, 09:16 AM
i have vista basic. i was reading about vista sp1 coming out.

is it free to upgrade or do i have to purchase it?

sorry, im used to win 98, i dont know what service packs are that well.

tech_support
10-19-2007, 10:22 AM
No, you don't need to buy it. (Why do you need to buy security updates anyway? ;))

lainlives
10-19-2007, 03:55 PM
Again, like what I said from my other post (http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showthread.php?p=114209#post114209).

i have to agree with you, although i met people who would disagree with the "linux being easier" part, but its true, you got the source code to work with, but ho cares, everyone uses windows thats what they are going to attack