Slashdot Mirror
Why Vista Won't Suck
creativity writes "ExtremeTech is running an article on the new features of Windows Vista and why it is a must upgrade for all Windows users. They take apart the marketing hype and tell you what exactly to expect in Windows Vista. They specifically pick out less-hyped features like a kernel which has new Heap Management and details on SuperFetch, which is Vista's application cache."
If it's true, great, bully for them and well done, but I'll believe it when I see it. My hopes aren't too high for all these cool fixes/features to actually function as advertised. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, who knows?
From TFA:
Aside from the fact that modern hard discs are supposedly faster than USB 2.0, isn't paging out part of the VM to a hot swappable device just dope-assed? Shurley shome mishtake!
Many users view Windows XP (and Windows 2000, and previous Windows versions) as unsafe. No matter how many patches and updates Microsoft releases, the foundation of the OS itself the kernel is designed and built in a way that prevents it from being truly secure. The only solution, it is argued, is to redesign and rebuild the kernel with a focus on security and stability.
Isn't this what linux people were saying more or less all these years and were called zealots by MS fanboys?
Why limit yourself to Windows Vista!?
Windows Me
"Windows Me: PC Health Features Keep PCs Stable, Secure and Reliable -- and Take the Frustration Out of Computing for Home Users" (source)
Windows 2000
"Our primary goal is to improve security and safety for all our customers -- consumers and businesses, regardless of size -- through a balance of technology innovation, guidance and industry leadership," Gates said. "We're committed to continued innovation that addresses the threats of today and anticipates those that will undoubtedly emerge in the future." (source)
Windows XP
"Windows XP is the most secure and dependable operating system we have ever produced." (source)
Windows Vista
"In Vista, it should be much more difficult for unauthorized programs (like Viruses and Trojans) to affect the core of the OS and secretly harm your system." (source)
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Why must I upgrade, though? What will I gain that I want in the first place? Better game performance? Not needed, since I don't do games. The ability to run the latest Microsoft Office at speeds approaching what you could do 5 years ago? Sorry, I already jumped ship to other options. Stronger DRM so that I'll be able to play Sony's next CD/DVD/WhateverD? I'll pass...
What I'd like is some tuning on the current operating system, so that it doesn't need more CPU cycles to do simple tasks, like display directories. And how about fewer holes for virii and worms, without introducing a whole new layer of software to protect the last new layer of software, which was to protect me from bugs in the previous new layer...
Oh, wait... that's Linux.
DRM and Windows blackbox security, along with the Ubuntu distro, have pushed me to adopt an OSS only stand. MS will try to cram DRM down everyone's throat. As a Canadian, where copyright laws aren't as rabid as those carrying the American sickness, I don't intend to let MS port American laws into my small piece of Canada. As to security, a thousand eyes are better than a single black box that may, or, may not, have backdoors in place to allow American three lettered organizations to spy on me or pull the plug should their paranoia overwhelm them.
Being a happy later adopter of bleeding edge tech I'm just now building AMD athlon boxes and, on the one I've finished, Ubuntu is doing just fine. Factor in Xen, VMware freeware, *BSD, OpenSolaris and free Solaris 10, and the future of F/OSS is looking very bright indeed.
As are many other /.ers, I'm my family circle goto guy when it comes to PCs and tech generally, so I think it's time to cut the MS cord and go solo with F/OSS as a statement to my small sphere of influence.
WinXP support is set to go on for another 7 years by then I doubt I'll see the need to pay the MS tax just for multimedia, or, maybe, the DRM madness will have been reversed, but I doubt it.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
then don't buy the fucking media? be pissed at the media cartels for trying to make you buy crippled entertainment, not vista. just wait a few days and get an HDDVD rip on BT.
2. Using half your memory for your windowing tool will impress all your friends.
I was thinking how funny it is that our processors and ram keep becoming more and more limitless, however we can't take advantage of it because the os we use is taking more and more resources.
As opposed to authorized programs, like the Sony backdoor, which used Microsoft-supplied methods to create the program to hide from the users.
Great, the new OS is going to be bigger and bloated just from the OS, and now SuperFetch is going to suck up even more free memory with programs that I may or may not load, but that my computer thinks I'd like to be able to access quickly. Like Windows Media Player, and MSN, and Internet Explorer. And Kazaa. Sorry, was that my outside voice?
Oh, so we won't use Outlook any more, that's a plus at least.
Great. Now when your parents get the popup that some application wants to access the network, and are presented with all these options for "finer granularity of which applications can use network resources", they'll just turn them all on and go instead of actually learning the ins and outs of TCP security. That's much more secure.
With the kernel sucking up all my memory by preloading applications, a brand new networking stack, and all these operations going on in the background to maximize my heap, I'll not be holding my breath.
More, more, more, and more performance-sucking and hardware-gobbling "features". I don't know anyone outside of hardcore gamers that currently has a DX9-compliant, 128MB video card - my parents surely don't. I just last month bought one so that I could play Fable on my comp while I'm away from home for a few months. And I guess I better get that double-500G hard drive option in my new computer so that all my SafeDoc backups don't make all my disk space go the way of my free memory used by SuperFetch.
And "noobs" who do know just a little better will give themselves administrator accounts so that they can install software whenever they want without changing roles, completely mooting any "default user level access" security changes being made.
Why do we need virus softwar
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Except if a monitor or video card isn't approved by MS, you have to use the basic setings MS has planned for. How many monitor companies that where here 5 years ago are gone?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, that's exactly what Microsoft is doing with Vista. The whole kernel has been reorganized and rewritten to help prevent software from affecting the system in unsavory ways. In Vista, it should be much more difficult for unauthorized programs (like Viruses and Trojans) to affect the core of the OS and secretly harm your system.
Which will also make it impossible to run freeware programs that need kernel access. No more deamontools, no more vnc mirror drivers.
Reason #1 doesn't apply, it costs 250$ to submit a driver for signing : https://winqual.microsoft.com/download/WHQLPOLICY. doc
Reason #2 doesn't apply for the same reason
Reason #3 Eh, simply play non-DRMed content then, playing it at low-quality is better than not being able to play it on your Linux box or other
Reason #4 I call that jaleousy
No, there's a fair chance he's correct. The issue is that if DRM is being performed at kernel level, all kernel-level code must also be signed or it can bypass the DRM. Someone will probably find a way around it, but it's not as silly as you'd think.
// Dumps core here
A strange omission, though, is that you can't "mount" network paths in the filesystem. I can't make \\someserver\blah appear as c:\blah. This is quite an annoying special case, since it means you can't abstract away the names of servers to allow eg. moving stuff between servers without retraining users. Companies, including mine, instead use mnemonic drive letters as the aliases.
I've often wondered why Windows doesn't treat network shares as it does everything else: why can I mount one as a drive letter but I can't have one as a reparse point in my filesystem?