Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista and XP Head To Head
thefickler sends in an article comparing Windows Vista and Windows XP in the areas of security, home entertainment, GUI, parental controls, and networking. The author clearly believes that Vista wins across these categories.
I guess it's time for a new PC. I don't know that I can live without IE 7's new 'anti-phishing' filter.
Of course, why the new system requirements are so ridiculously higher than XP is something I'm still waiting on a good answer for. I'm sticking with XP until I'm absolutely forced to upgrade in 5 years or so because nothing has XP support anymore. I mean, give me a break. There is no earthly reason an OS should bloat so massively in versions that are only a few years apart. It's an OS, not Doom 3.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
I wish to see a comparison for the benefit of millions of users who do not want to (or who cannot afford to) upgrade to new hardware. This comparison would involve installing Vista and XP on a hardware configuration that is the minimum configuration recommended for XP (yes, XP). To enhance the comparison, we should include RedHat Linux.
Okay, besides the fact this looks like some dude skimming marketing spiel, let's hit the high points:
...?!
Marketing Promise: Increased Security
Some Dude's Findings: VISTA: Vista has a similar but improved firewall to Windows XP SP2, but anyone who is serious about their security will still replace it with a third party firewall or Internet security suite.
Marketing Promise: Anti-phishing feature
Some Dude's Findings: Both score 'pretty terrible'
Marketing Promise: File system security
Some Dude's Findings: However pressing the 'ok' button lets you do whatever you want anyway, and experienced users will just be annoyed. What did I do? I turned it off completely and am not bothered by it anymore.
-That's increased security!
Marketing Promise: Easy
Some Dude's Findings: anyone, even without massive computing experience, can easily set up a wired or wireless network.
Utter security failure. Plenty of work fixing broken windows. Forced upgrade with new hardware sales. It's a win-win all around!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Wow, that all sounds pretty great. No, really, it does. But just one more thing: Try installing a new motherboard, and see what happens. G'head, humor us... we'll wait.
I was at a Microsoft Vista technical review where they explained this as being an anti-buffer overflow attack; since the locations of the specific items within an assigned memory space are randomized, the chances of targeting a buffer overflow to a specific chunk of the program's assigned memory is drastically reduced.
Wiki has it here, as Address Space Layout Radomization.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
... let me choose my preferred programs to look at pictures, play MP3s, and watch videos- none of which come with your OS. When has Windows ever stopped you from running a preferred program via filetype? In fact, that feature has become easier to do with every new version of Windows. Not only did XP introduce the "Set Program Access and Defaults" menu, but to change the association of a filetype is as easy as right clicking on the document, choosing "Open With", and checking the box that says "Make this my Default".You assume that the way YOU want a computer is the way the rest of the world wants a computer. Likewise, you haven't even taken a moment to learn what XP or Vista can do for a power user, as demonstrated by your rant against features that can be turned off, easily changed, or accessed via command line.
-David
Erm... Yes, it is.
An operating system is supposed to provide the low-level core of functionality necessary to run (and if necessary co-ordinate) other programs. Such functionality can be and has been written to run on systems with 1/1000th the processing power of today's multicore monsters.
Of course, today the term "operating system" refers, at least in common usage, to some sort of bundle that includes a kernel, various support libraries for networking, GUI, and other such stuff, some sort of shell, a whole bunch of tools of varying degrees of usefulness, and a whole bunch of mostly half-baked and sub-standard applications. (This description applies, to my knowledge, to pretty much every major desktop "OS" currently available, from Windows to Linux distros via MacOS and various other UNIX platforms.)
My current PC is now about four years old, but was a pretty high spec at that time. On this system, I can happily run full-blown applications for everything from editing high-res photos to playing games that do real-time 3D graphics pretty reasonably. Given this information, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that any operating system should not run very comfortably using a tiny fraction of my system's resources, no matter how many bells and whistles it has.
Now, according to Microsoft, my system just about meets the minimum standards to run the low-end versions of Vista, and isn't qualified to run the high-end versions for several reasons. I can only conclude from this that either Vista's code is poorly written and/or poorly organised, or that those higher-end versions of Vista are trying to do yet more things that are not really part of an operating system, and are probably better done by specialist standalone applications anyway. Either way, Vista is suffering from some serious bloat, and bloat means bugs, security flaws, performance problems and all the rest.
So yes, even if it's a brand new OS, it's still of concern that it requires such impressive hardware specs to run well. In fact, it's a pretty damning indictment of the product, and doesn't so much imply as outright prove that it's going in the wrong direction.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm sorry. I'm not trying to troll, but I see no compelling arguments for upgrading in what you've listed. You've said:
xp does seem speedier, but other than that, vista rocks. it's stable, great to look at, and easy to use
Stable is good; I find XP pretty stable too. But if "great to looks at means" it's slower than XP, I'm not interested. I either use my comptuer for work, in which case I want it fast, or for games, in which case I want an OS that takes as few system resources as possib.e
the administrator account is turned off by default
I'd count this as a non-issue. It's perfectly possible to make a non-admin account for most stuf under Windows XP too.
defrags are set up on a weekly schedule by default
Of course, this totally ignores the argument that defrags should rarely be necessary - certainly not once a week! - on "modern" filesystems (which appears to include just about every filesystem not invented by Microsoft).
searching is blazing on indexed drives
Ditto for Windows XP if you actually turn on the indexing service.
Just about everything else is "spit 'n polish". It's true, this important for end users, and it's something that a lot of open source projects are often criticized for. But to me, this is far from a compelling reason to upgrade. If that were it, I'd say it tips the scales slightly in favour of upgrading. But then you have to balance these few nicities (most of which are possible with XP - the previous generation OS - with a little bit of configuration effort) against the massive increase in hardware requirements and draconian DRM. What it boils down to is that the "message" in every review I've seen of Windows Vista is basically that it does everything that Windows XP does, looks nicer, has higher hardware requirements, and imposes more restrictions on what you can do with your media. Is that it? Honestly, have I missed something? What's with all the hype?
*sighs* This is becoming my slashdot pet peeve.
I usually like your posts, and I agree with you even right now -- but my god, why did you have to be such an asshole about it? You used 62 words to make your point (and hell, that's including the 17 words in your semi-insult opening sentence) and 162 words to berate the poster, the moderators and fellow slashdotters. Something is very wrong with that picture.
You're right about one thing: If I had mod points, you would absolutely have gotten a flamebait mod--and it would have had nothing to do with saying that not all security flaws can be prevented. If you're upset about how many flamebait mods you get, perhaps you should try not coming off as a smug prick when you post. If 3/4ths of your post is a flame you deserve a flame mod. It doesn't matter what the hell the other quarter is.
In my opinion, the most useful enhancements made to vista are "under the hood".
* Much improved group policy support (Including MUCH better 802.1x and Wireless provisioning)
* Improved networking support (Locations), Firewall settings based on location (XP had Domain/Not Domain, Vista has Domain/Home/Public)
* UAC/Virtual Folders allow even businesses without IT support staff to run as non-admin
* I18N. It sucked in XP. It sucked HARD in XP MUI. It works fine, and they have done a lot of work on it in Vista
* Local Shadow Copies. I love it. Had them on servers since 2003 was out, always missed it locally
* The search interface/new start menu. A good gradual improvement, no revolution
* The new system control, a good gradual improvement
I've been using Vista on my Desktop machine (3Ghz PIV, 2048MB, some DirectX 9 Nvidia Card) at work since early Betas (We're a microsoft partner), and switched i switched my laptop (P-M 1.7Ghz, 1024MB, some DirectX 8 ATI Card) to RTM as soon as it hit MSDN.
It works okay on my laptop, albeit a bit slower. This was expected, and will probably buy a new laptop soon anyway (as the machine is already 2 years old).
I can't say im impressed with vista. There are several, very good enhancements. They would've been impressing 2 years ago. Now? Not so much. Vista is a good step in the right direction, especially for companies and enterprises (I18N!). For home consumers? Not so much. The forced obsolecence with DirectX 10, meh. Most people will switch their OS at home when they buy a new machine. Hardcore gamers will earlier because of DX10.