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?
For a minute there I was looking for the foot icon.
Oh silly me.
1. DRM is good for you. It builds strong bones and healthy muscles.
2. Using half your memory for your windowing tool will impress all your friends.
3. Now you can set the color of your blue screen of death to mauve or taupe.
4. You know the customer support is only going to be better.
5. Collectable virus game built in! Better than Pokemon on crack.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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?
Basically, Vista will be HDCP enabled, so if you want HD and protected content on it, you have to have a DRMed up monitor that can process HDCP.
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!
What he means is that if you want to watch HD-DVD or Blu-Ray media that is protected by HDCP(which practically all retail movies probably will be) at a resolution higher than what's possible with a regular old DVD under Vista, you'll need to buy a monitor that also supports HDCP. But this is also the case for your TV and other equipment and in no way impairs other functionality of Vista.
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.
Looks like a forced upgrade for US gov users; if AES-256 and "SHA-2" hashs are really going to be US gov security requirements, the only way Microsoft will support them is by upgrading EVERY windows desktop and server to Vista. (For some reason Microsoft has refused to put AES-256 support into any non-Vista version of its SSL stack even though the rest of the industry has been doing so for almost five years now.)
I remember my last intentional switch to Windows (Win 95). It, too, was going to have all these wonderful new features (better GUI, better memory management, multitasking). I tried for 2 years to get the same level of stability I had in DOS, and then went to OS/2. And machines which didn't ship with Win 95 were even more of a beast to get working correctly if you had added stuff to your box.
IMHO, "upgrading" to Vista will be the same thankless task, and it will be at least a year before machines shipped with Vista are going to be "right". Microsoft will rush this job because it's already so late that they almost have to.
Using plain ol' text since 1968
I've been beta testing Vista for a while now. After installing Vista, I swear to God - the OS cached every single EXE file on my computer in a folder in the root of Vista's installation drive. Each EXE file is given its own subfolder in this folder, with the same name as the file followed by a unique hash. Each subfolder contains the EXE file and several accompanying files, at least two of which are XML documents.
When all was said and done, this folder took up nearly 5GB on disk. I can't even open this drive in Explorer. I let it sit for about 20 minutes once and my PC slowed to a crawl
Whatever this godawful "feature" is, I hope it is removed for the final version.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
which version out of the 12 should i upgrade to ;) i think windows vista is likely to do more for linux than anything before ;) i mean what would you rather do, pay for a whole new operating system that is very alien to you, and requires you to upgrade your hardware and alot of software, and is likely unstable (and new so doesnt have a proven usability).. or download a FREE operating system that is also somewhat alien (to windows users), but has proven stability and usablity, also you wont have to upgrade your hardware for it either... oh btw did i mention its free?
i for one am tired of microsoft telling me when i have to drop 2000 dollars for a new computer. your choises are:
A) keep using (and patching) the older versions of windows which become more and more unstable patch after patch
B) keep using the older versions of windows but DONT patch, and then your system becomes more and more exploitable as more exploits are discovered
C) upgrade your hardware, and buy new version of windows every couple of years, (spending potentially thousands of dollars), relearn how to use the new windows, relearn how to use the new office all over again..
D) download a free open source alternative, DONT upgrade your hardware, dont let your upgrade schedule be locked into someone elses marketing plans. dont run the most heavily targetted OS for exploits/hackers. Use open office which seems to be more similar to MS Office than the new version will be. DO enjoy the benefits that come with open source
After using linux for a while going back to windows is extremely painful and youll wonder how you ever managed to use it.
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.
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
To all of you who are bitching about DRM in Vista:
How is DRM in Vista any different from DRM in XP? Or Windows 2000? Or Mac OS X?
The answer is simple: It's not any different. The reason is even more simple: Big Media is calling the shots, not Microsoft.
Whether the media in question is downloaded music, downloaded videos, or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, it is Big Media making the demands. If you're a software vendor, your choices are to go along to get along (Microsoft, Apple, Tivo), do without (Linux), or face the wrath of an army of lawyers (DeCSS, 321 Studios).
The tools and techniques keep changing, but the principle remains the same. Big Media will burn down everything in their path to stop people from copying bits.
This sig intentionally left blank.
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
One of the reasons Vista won't suck is because Microsoft is moving a bunch of stuff out of the kernel and into user space. OK, 10 years ago when Microsoft shipped NT 4.0 they put GDI in the kernel to increase performance, which was a terrible idea as the performance increase this gave was more than offset by stability problems. If Microsoft had been smart they would have kept the kernel as small as possible and waited a couple of years for hardware speeds to increase, as they inevitably did. So basically one of the biggest reasons Vista "won't suck" is because Microsoft has finally decided to undo mistakes they made 10 years ago. Color me less than impressed.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
This is patently untrue, and is just one of many examples where people completely misunderstand MS's support of HDCP and a secure digital path to the monitor. There is NOTHING in Vista that requires this. NONE. ZIP. The secure digital display output is there to enable that REQUIREMENT of HD-DVD and blu-ray. If you have a problem with it, complain to both the HD-DVD and blu-ray consortiums, it's their fault. And it'll need to be in consumer set-top players as well as any other OS on any computer that wants to comply with those standards. Don't want to play HD-DVD or blu-ray? Fine, then you don't need a new video card or monitor.
Let me guess. Because it will include a vacuum cleaner, right?
I work in a school, with an obviously limited budget, and cheapo Dells as the main workstations. They work fine with XP, and run everything very fast. No complaints. Will they run Vista? Will they bollocks. You're talking about £10,000 of hardware per ICT suite, and we have 7 suites and about another load of machines knocking around in various places (totals about 300). I'm sorry, but we won't be splashing down £70-90k (and the rest!) to buy a whole new load of PCs just to run Vista on. A lot of these new features sound like the biggest waste of resources ever, and they all seem to be taking the Gnome^W^W route of adding things in that they think people will want, then removing the options to stop it.
What the hell is the deal with this "hibernation" mode they're talking about? The DEFAULT option is to NOT shut the computer off? In this day and age with our up-and-coming energy crisis, and MS are going to make all these new 500W+ PCs NOT shut down? Who was on the crack that day at Redmond when they decided to make that the default option.
In my home life, my next step is a Mac. I've "upgraded" from DOS, to 95, then 98, then straight to XP, then an experiment with Linux ended up removing my XP partition.
Not having the reinstallation disks, I've been a happy Linux user for 4 years now. (Though I did get around to reinstalling XP, I never use it - managing 500 XP desktops at work is more than enough XP for me.)
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?