Slashdot Mirror
Mossberg - Vista Is Worthy, Largely Unexciting
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Wall Street Journal tech columnist Walter S. Mossberg says Vista is the best version of Windows yet, but doesn't represent a major step forward: 'Overall, it works pretty much the same way as Windows XP.' More from the review: 'Nearly all of the major, visible new features in Vista are already available in Apple's operating system, called Mac OS X, which came out in 2001 and received its last major upgrade in 2005. ... in my tests, some elements of Vista could be maddeningly slow even on new, well-configured computers. Also, despite Vista's claimed security improvements, you will still have to run, and keep updating, security programs, which can be annoying and burdensome. Microsoft has thrown in one such program free, but you will have to buy at least one more. That means that, while Vista has eased some of the burden on users imposed by the Windows security crisis, it will still force you to spend more time managing the computer than I believe people should have to devote.'"
Has anyone else noticed that Microsoft is going to allow you to purchase and download Vista over the net, instead of having to buy the physical CDs?
I guess many here are not planning to buy it, but anyway, this is something new from Microsoft. I guess they are really happy with their Genuine Advantage to go through with this.
And so, the last horse crosses the finish line...
"Nearly all of the major, visible new features in Vista are already available in Apple's operating system"...
OUCH!
you could hear the sounds of chairs breaking all over Redmond.
Use the operating system Walter Mossberg called 'The best version of Windows yet!'
Vista is fantastic!
www.jmagar.com
-
It is obviously a Microsoft conspiracy to perpetuate their monopoly and keep Linux down.
Vista is indeed a worthy improvement, but not a worthy upgrade. I'd buy it on a new PC, but in no way buy it outright...
UAC is one of the biggest improvements in my opinion; not in that it makes Windows nicer to use (far from it in fact), but that finally, Windows has adopted a more *nix based approach to user-security (in at least, you don't have to be a full admin to do anything useful, and full-admin rights are difficult to obtain) and thank god for that!
But like I say, I'm not rushing out to buy it...and not many people will either if you ask me.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Paraphrase- yeah... its the best ever, but its exactly like XP. and its exactly like osx. There's not much thats cool. Its slow. Its buggy. its the best windows ever.
its like saying that the zune looks like an ipod, and the iphone looks like the zune.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I work for an IT consulting firm, and nearly all of our clients' workstations are Windows. Considering how many installs I have to do for various people on various hardware, I can tell you that one of the things that I'm most interested in seeing is how well Vista's image-based install works and how easily apps, patches, and upgrades can be slipstreamed into the install disk. Now, while I would love for the world to be open source, I am required daily to work with Windows and I will be quite happy if they've managed to make it significantly faster and easier for me to install a business version of Windows on one of those Fry's floor model computers with Media Center installed that clients love to buy every now and then.
Windows Vista is not going to be the godsend to users like microsoft made it out to be. Instead of focusing on user needs and wants, microsoft design with its own profitability in mind, ie DRM, licensing, authenication, certified drivers, and of course protected premium content (HD). A compnay has every right to do this but I think it is going to backfire unless microsoft starts working with users instead of against them.
Vista Help Forum
Windows Vista Help Forum
Have you ever felt that sometimes people go out of their way to put down Microsoft.
Basically the article says:
Vista is the best version of Windows ever...But its not.
Vista is very secure...But only if secure it.
You get a free Antivirus program...Buts its not as good as the ones you have to pay for.
Vista is very easy to use...But I still had to click on stuff, so it sucks
Vista has a cool search feature...But Apple had it first.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
The best thing about this...
Cost for a new copy of XP will probably go down.
Does his mother make his bed for him still?
I use a Mac, I have no need for third-party spyware hunters or virus protection. Windows users have accepted this whole battle-against-spyware thing as an integral part of the computing experience. While I believe that this is unavoidable given Windows' market share, a hassle-free virus-free zero-paranoia computing environment is possible.
Seems to me kind of like saying "Best Pauly Shore movie ever"
I'm glad that you can be welcomed to the world of the-rest-of-us, with Operating System features we've had since 2005 or so.
Now, I can only hope that Microsoft got this security "issue" fixed, so that you PC users will stop spamming me with sexually explicit crap and drug sales, and maybe my shared cable modem speeds will go up, with the worms circulating the internet being fixed in Vista.
Hopefully, in time, I can welcome you all to the world of computing with minimal/no time spent on security and maintenance. Either way, I'm glad the world is catching up.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
It sucks that Microsoft isn't going to allow some of the newer "Games for Windows" to run on anything but Vista. I heard that when Bungie releases Halo 2 on the PC, it's going to be a Vista only title. It kind of pisses me off, because I never really wanted to upgrade to XP to play PC games, but ultimately I had to, and now the same will be true of Vista. I might just quit playing "Games for Windows" if this keeps up.
Explain to me please, why doesn't Microsoft sell their so-called OS in parts? I mean, you need to get the basic platform without GUI - pay x dollars, you want Aero glass - pay y more; compilers and developer tools are free, but with a restrictive license, etc. Even if their software remains [my personal opinion] the bunch of crap that it is now, it would bring them more cash and customer trust than this "I-want-it-all-right-now-I-said" attitude. Besides, they would no longer have to convince the [my personal opinion] unlucky Windows users to upgrade every N years and would stabilize their revenue.
So it's time for Microsoft to prop up their revenue stream. This is no surprise. Several flavours, which means you can decide how much tax you want to pay, based upon your needs. The curve, however continues to flatten and you'll find there are still a lot of Win 95, Win 98, Win ME, Win 2000 and Win XP users who won't budge until they have to. (We just retired a Win 95 machine at work) Microsoft will continue to pull support for many of these legacy users, but many are beyond caring.
I suppose the timing of Vista has something to do with a Superbowl media blitz, more than the code being ready. Though I'll likely switch to a Mac before I go to Vista, It would be interesting to look it over and see if security is any closer to that we enjoyed on Mainframes 20 years ago. Probably only a little bit more. Geez, it's like these people never seem to get it and Windows continues to be the technology equivelent of the Tar Baby. Meanwhile, they've got billions in reserve, which at least some of should have gone into better development.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Does his mother make his bed for him still?
Are you saying you're in favor of an OS being insecure out of the box because it teaches personal responsibility?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Well if your RFA he said major new features. A lot of these are minor or so transparent to the user that it is difficult to comment on. He never said don't use it, he said don't bother upgrading unless you have a new system that has it. Otherwise it is not worth the money. As a Mac User I have enjoyed use many of Vistas new features for years.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So when can we expect games with DirectX10 as a requirement, thus forcing gamers to buy Vista?
WinXP will never progress beyond DX9 so not upgrading is not possible.
..and thus when it (hassle-free virus-free zero-paranoia computing environment) is promised but not delivered, it tends to get people a bit annoyed
Yeah, it should not only be insecure out of the box, it should come with a trojan.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Yawn...another Vista bashing story. They couldn't wait to put "apple's had this since bleh, bleh" in the first two sentences. Man, this place is so predictable.
My work here is dung.
Readyboost. This feature is only going to get better as flash drive technology continues to improve.
Vista must be pretty good for a Mac fanboy like Mossberg to not be able to totally trash it.
Regarding OSX:
Mossberg praises OSX, yet dismisses Vista with "Overall, it works pretty much the same way as Windows XP." Guess what, Mossberg, the same can be said for OSX Tiger. OSX 10.4 "overall works pretty much the same way as" OSX 10.3, 10.2, 10.1, 10.0. Yet Mossberg acted like OSX Tiger was the second coming, that it was a compelling upgrade over Panther. Well, when you compare OSX Tiger with Panther, Tiger adds nothing major except Spotlight and Dashboard. Well Vista gets those same things (and more), so if Tiger is a major improvement over Panther (as Mossberg and other Mac fanboys claim), then Vista must be at least as much a major improvement over XP. That's just logic. Of course, use of logic is foreign to those practiced in fanboyism.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Uhh...
Unix users don't really worry about these things. As an admin, I occasionally poke around to make sure everything is okay (verify checksums once in a while), but invariably, everything is fine.
I ran a virus scan for fun, once. (ClamAV).
Once you setup a Unix-y network, you just leave it, and things tend to keep working until the machines rust. I'm including Apple in this category, but we've got plenty of Linux machines around, too.
It's not so much a mother still makes the bed for me, as it is a I enjoy city-provided water and natural gas supply. I don't like lugging propane cyclinders, I hate chopping wood, and I wouldn't stand for no-running-water.
Why should you spend ANY of your computing time. If you're going to waste your time, at least waste it on Slashdot, not Norton Anti-virus.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
FTA: even a slicker version of Solitaire
What more could you want?
That's sort of like overall this year's flu virus is a lot like last year's. Or President Bush's new Iraq strategy isn't much different from the old strategy. Hardly a recommendation.
I just spent an hour finding and killing some mysterious Browser Helper Object on my wife's XP-SP2 PC that devoted its life to helping out the browser by popping up ads in IE. At least I think I killed it. Every year, the malware gets more clever. Every release, the software gets more bloated and complex. Every year, the Internet becomes more of a mess and it is harder to find information on exorcising malware, or on persuading Windows to do even the most simple and basic things. And every year I get older, dumber, and less interested in dinking with Windows just in order to do stuff I do find interesting.
Screw it. I never upgraded to XP, and I don't believe that I'll be upgrading to Vista. I have finally moved from Windows 95 to Windows 98 despite the fact that W95 boots faster and runs as well. But only because I think eventually I will need USB that works and I don't think that will ever be available in Windows 95.
I don't really hate Microsoft, but they are going to have to do a lot better than NT based Windows desktops to make me a customer again. Let me know when MS releases an OS worth buying. It hasn't happened for quite a few years, and doesn't look likely to happen again any time soon.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
The DRM embedded in Vista has been well hashed here and I believe the implementation will cause many people headaches, especially those wanting to view digital media.
I'm concerned about the new security levels of the OS and that there are two levels higher than Administrator, namely System and Trusted. The sticking point for me is that (as far as I know) no user on the system, not even the admin, can access these higher levels. In other words, we are not and cannot be "trusted".
I don't like the idea that there may be things on *my* computer that I cannot access, but Microsoft, or other entities they trust, can. I'm not sure I trust them that much...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You need not be that sarcastic ... We are very pleased with the abso-f*ing-lutely paranoid level of security implemented in the new and improved Vista. Where we may have failed in scr*ing legitimate users back to front, Vista will surely conquer!
:-D
Greatings from your friendly local RIAA and MPAA officer
send + more == money?
Will people be lining up at midnight to buy it?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
John Carmack said in a recent interview that there is no pressing need for DX10 in the near future. He said DX10 is nice, but it's not a huge leap forward and there is no apparent reason to develop DX10 only games at this time. It sounded like he was hinting that he expects all the next-gen engines to still run fine with DX9; definitely the next engine from id will run with DX9.
You mean the software kind or the latex kind?
(just kidding)
Menzoberranzan Networks
I don't think that's fair to compare the transition from XP to Vista to OS X 10.3 to 10.4. That's basically comparing one year worth of Mac improvements to 5 of Windows'.
Let me understand this.
You are comparing a software companies major NEW OS to a hardware companies revision of their OS.
Are you really that big of a dork, or just too stupid to see the difference?
I don't even own a Mac, and just to be perfectly clear I am picking apart your absurd comparison, not supporting one side ot another.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The requirements for Vista will be the most annoying thing to consumers. Unlike XP, the basic sub $500 computer is not good enough to run most versions. The requirements difference between XP Home and Pro was not as large as it is between Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium. Most of the hardware requirement differences were based on the applications that the user would run. If the consumer was a gamer or edited home movies, he or she would need a better video card and more RAM. But with Vista these requirement differences are on the OS. This applies to businesses too where the modus operandi is to buy the cheapest solution as possible. So a business getting the lowest price computer finds that it is dramatically slower than XP on the same hardware is not likely to upgrade anytime soon.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
CoreImage and CoreVideo came with 10.4, as is CoreData.
The 2 first get's used in some games and some compositing software, the other is still in it's infancy and should get more maturity with 10.5.
So, to the user, it's almost as big a step between 10.3 and 10.4 than between WinXP and WinVista.
Menzoberranzan Networks
This has nothing to do with fanboyism. The difference is, OS X from 10.0 to 10.1 (faster) to 10.2 (smoother looking) to 10.3 (expose) to 10.4 (dashboard, spotlight) has had lots of improvements, and each previous release was only a year or so apart, and 10.4 came out over a year ago, while Vista took the largest software company in the world 5 years to come up, stripping features the whole time, which is is just coming out now. (Where by "now" I mean "soon.") So of course the differences in each version of OS X are smaller, and of course it's more impressive to have had a product with most of the same features out sooner, and of course MS looks like crap for taking so long to deliver so little.
:-)
Add to that the system requirements, the many different versions, and Microsoft's abysmal security record--their response to which is mostly to ask users "Are you sure you want to do this?" before every trivial operation, AND NOT EVEN REQUIRING AN ADMIN PASSWORD TO SAY 'YES'--and you can see why people aren't getting excited about it.
On a related note, I think it would be the funniest thing in the world if Apple announced tomorrow that 10.5 would be released on Monday the 29th.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Because we all know that with insecure women, trojans are a very good investment...
I disagree with your point but only because Apple charges for each revision.
If Apple is such a hardware company, why the emphasis on milking your customers for more money for mere revisions? This is nothing new either; sometimes you get a free point upgrade from Apple, sometimes you don't. Each OSX update has come with new functionality, so that is different, and a point that will be raised by Apple fans; arguably that means that each Apple revision is actually a new product. This point of view is strengthened by two facts. One of them is the aforementioned truth that you have to pay. Another is that Apple is changing the way things are done in their OS which makes it a burden to support older versions. It seems like a majority of software for Apple today does not support 10.2; you even need 10.3.9 in many cases. Whereas in general most software will run on Win2k, WinXP, and Win2k3, much of it also running even on NT4. Most of the software will also run on Vista and presumably much of what is written for Vista will still work on XP and other, older versions of NT. Aside from IBM, Microsoft is still the king of backwards compatibility. On the desktop, that title is undisputed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Pauly Shore actually does have a decent movie. It's Pauly Shore Is Dead.
However, I'm still posting as AC.
I've kept a meticulous track of Novell's Linux security upgrades over the last year. There were 133 of them. ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE. I wonder how many XP had.
Does anyone know if the 2 windows 'features' that annoy me most have been fixed?
1) everything going on hold while the cdrom clatters and clangs around until it has sorted out a newly inserted disk.
2) when dragging and dropping 97,000 files, a read error on just one fricken file causes the whole operation to hold until a popup window is responded to.
I have been waiting for these to be fixed for some time now, so long in fact that my firewall/router, fileserver and laptop are all now linux. If i ever figure out how to get accelleratified 3d graphics working on my desktop box, i will be gaming on linux too.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
It would be wise not to forget the Xerox incident with Microsoft entering the arena with Windows 3.1 stealing technology from Apple. It just appears that they're at it again. I wish our government would get around to making things like this illegal. Many *nix distributions have supported so many features that Windows is now trying to "re-create" ( re-inventing the wheel seems like something Microsoft is fond of doing, even when the wheel is created and packaged with millions of vehicles already ), and Mac OS X has some very nice features to add to its BSD base which are now appearing in Windows.
.NET was made to beat Java, Microsoft forces people to use their "stuff" or else they risk losing their distribution licenses, Microsoft applications use internal Windows API that aren't published for other developers to use giving them an advantage, Microsoft actively entices every game development company to use DirectX with some means to an end.. trying to destroy OpenGL, OpenAL and other OSS initiatives, and the list goes on and on and on. Constantly, every move they make is to break their competition and they do so by undermining them, and what do we have as a result: a dominance by Microsoft with very poor quality software and *MILLIONS* of viruses/trojans leading to serious problems. The government should simply break microsoft up and hopefully all of the developers will join the Linux dev team and other OSS projects to make the computing world what it could be instead of what it shouldn't be.
How does our government allow a company that is so obviously entrenched in maintaining their monopoly over the Operating System market to make moves such as the ones shown with the coming Vista? Not to mention all of the enormous flaws with the system and the obvious security holes that are just waiting to be shown as the world "migrates" to Vista as Microsoft hopes. Forcing users to upgrade by removing support for previous versions of windows and announcing no support for DX10 on XP is the worst move that microsoft has ever made, or one of them. Not to mention nearly everything Microsoft has done in the past few years has been in violation of anti-trust laws even though they've been ruled with oversight by the Supreme Court for just such practices. When is the damn government going to get around to breaking Microsoft like it should have done years ago?
Every day Microsoft comes closer and closer to its demise. You may not believe so but they are constantly and continually enacting in anti-trust schemes to break competition and maintain their cash flow which they do not need.
just wondering. If i were a company and invested into win32 heavily, i would not want to migrate to a system that's not fully win32 compatible. Those poor soles who upgrade will continue to deal with anti-consumer/pro-monopoly issues.
You are comparing dot versions to full versions. If you want to be accurate you should be comparing XP to Vista as the same as Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X.
first, they get beaten up for minimal security, so they put it in, then they get beaten up for too much security....
then some pro-Apple guy comes along and says that security seems to be a chore??? Does that mean he doesn't bother with any Mac updates? I mean c'mon... are we saying that this guy beleives in bug-free code?
What do you expect? Mossberg is the same guy who just wrote an article in Smart Money predicting the internet will become a massive grid and everything will be plugged into it - very original thinking. Thankfully, it appears to be his last article for the magazine.
There are no silver bullets for silver bullets
Can you harden it against electromagnetic pulse? I have heard that Internet will survive a nuclear war...
If it wasn't for the games, I wouldn't even consider vista. I have a mac laptop, and that serves most of my needs just fine. However, the selection of games on a PC is better, so I keep upgrading mine to play them.
However, I'm starting to challenge my gaming habit, as it is getting tiresome to keep that PC going. It's not a technical challenge - I'm a typical slashdotter with experience in PCs, Macs, Unices of various sorts and so on. Nor is it a financial challenge; I have a decent job and could replace my PC now.
The issue is the work involved just to maintain a security hole for gaming, especially when there are a few decent games available on the Mac. They may not all be exactly the games I want, but they're decent and it's only gaming.
Now add a substantial OS upgrade to the mix, and I really am having a hard time justifying upgrading my PC more. Maybe I'll just get a console for choice in my games.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
"Mossberg praises OSX"
Does he? Other than mentioning some features of Vista which also appear in OS X, all he really says about it is:
"Nearly all of the major, visible new features in Vista are already available in Apple's operating system, called Mac OS X, which came out in 2001 and received its last major upgrade in 2005. And Apple is about to leap ahead again with a new version of OS X, called Leopard, due this spring."
How is that praising OS X? Should he not compare Vista to another OS? Or should he do so only in glowing terms to avoid being labeled a "fanboy"?
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
Also, don't now go upgrade someone's computer to Vista for someone who needs to run Windows for one reason or another just because of his idea of "it wasn't so different from XP anyway". The Explorer has been reworked quite a bit, the Control Panel navigation is very different (again!), and there's the whole concept with file tagging and virtual folders for novices to wrap their heads around... and when failing with that, which gets me to my point -- call closest tech support! ;-)
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Here I was, all this time, really loving Vista and appreciating its massive list of new features...
And do you appreciate them by just looking at a nice list and drooling, or do you actually get anything tangible from that list of features?
I've read over the list before, and while I personally think some of them are cool, I don't think the average user cares two bits about improved IPV6, or the fact that you don't have to reboot to install new video drivers. I think they're important features, don't get me wrong. But for the average user it's not really something they should upgrade over.
AccountKiller
Part of this comes down to the general awareness of the users. It sounds like Walt knows just enough to make him worry, but not enough to put him at ease.
I've been just fine surfing my porn and crackz on my windows box for 10 years with and without antivirus, but I've never been infected. Sure, I've gotten the virus mails, but I haven't opened them and I've had automatic updates on (why not, on my simple home system). For only a couple years have I had a simple router which adds another safety stop for incoming, unrequested evil.
My parents run as admin (oooh, evil) but I've scared them into never running anything from email. I'm sure my younger brother surfs for crackz and porn at home. No viruses there in 10 years either.
All this whining about manual work required seems like a bunch of bunk and FUD. Most home users don't need it for their simple system setup.
Meh. Lets see where that smug Apple derived self-satisfication goes when (or if) apple ever delivers an OS that has greater than 10% market penetration. I'm sure there are a few virus writers out there that won't mind a different target besides ol' faithful 80% M$.
Honestly, I hate M$ and apple for very different reasons, but i hate smug self-satisfaction from mac users the most.
(Insightful?? Mods are on crack)
"I have no need for third-party spyware hunters or virus protection"
When the mac ownes more than 35% of the desktop market, that will change. The mac has never been much of a target because there isn't enough of them to do any serious damage.
Only my grandmother would use a mac.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
It's called DRM. Probably it doesn't worth too much, especially for people who want to use their computer, but it is really the best thing from the viewpoint of M$, or RIAA, and other similar entities.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
is it just me, or shouldn't the largest profiting software company in the world have the technology and experience to get their operating system to run on LOWER specifications? All this useless bloat consuming my resources is preventing me from getting my work done! All the resource-hogging prettyness should be an ADDON not a REQUIREMENT. rrrrrr.
Your comment is SO FUCKING LAME that, despite the fact that you're an AC, I'll dissect every single point.
/. ACs are up there in the top five as well.
> and youll rush to buy another point release that is the equivelant of a glorified service pack.
No, SPs are (supposed to be) bug fixes, each version of OS X has many new features.
> Apple posts security updates all the time.
Ah yes, this old gem: "Neither OS is perfect, therefore they're both equally bad." Uh-huh.
> Granted most are much harder to execute than windows flaws
I assume that when you say this you mean "Apple has had ZERO severe, self-replicating, self-spreading viruses in the wild in the last 5 years, compared to literally thousands for Windows." There, fixed that for you.
> but they are still there and because of the macboy fanaticism most dont upgrade their machines if there was actually enough macs to make it worth a hackers time they would probably have even more known vulnerabilities and problems.
Ah yes, Apple's low market share is the only reason that Macs suffer less. Didn't you yourself say that Mac flaws are "much harder to execute than windows flaws"? And didn't we settle this whole size-matters thing OVER FIVE YEARS AGO by comparing the number of exploits found in Apache (market leader) with IIS (distant second)?
> I administer macs and windows and most of our problems are with MACS... say it aint so alex...
Maybe it's the quality of your admins?
> they lock up, they beachball,
Yeah, occasionally. I work with over 400 so I see it happen every so often. And the beachball is just a 'wait' cursor, it doesn't necessarily mean you've got a problem that can't be overcome or won't solve itself in a few more seconds. It's actually quite nice--it prevents you from going click-happy and causing MORE delays.
> our xserve every few months just decides it wont boot and has to be restored.
Remember, kids: the plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data." Again--bad admins? Possibly bad hardware? (Possibly a totally untrue statement from an anonymous user on a web forum?) Our four XServes hum along with uptimes only disrupted by the occasional system software update, and we haven't restored one yet. (Most are G4s, if that gives you a hint of their age.)
> I get so sick of the Mac fanatics acting like their machines never have problems
It's not "never", it's just "a thousand times less than the competition." Or, in my mind, "EFFECTIVELY zero."
> the only group i know more full of crap than our politicians is mac fanboys
I'm pressy sure
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
... what UAC stands for, here's the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Aerospace_Corpo ration
NO COMPLEMENTARY LAPTOP for YOU! Mr. Mossberg!!!
In context, I think you meant "forward compatibility". I.e., earlier versions of Windows can run programs mainly marketed toward later versions. In terms of backward compatibility, a lot of DOS stuff written a couple of decades back will run okay on WinXP, if you fiddle with it a bunch, and probably Apple is similar in that regard (although I don't know that for a fact).
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
Does anyone know why Vista is such a resource hog? I don't mean the fancy UI/eye candy. I mean basic OS functionality: even Vista's most basic mode without the fancy features has a bare minimum RAM requirement of a half gig. At home, I have a Linux/KDE box with Windows 2000 running in a VMWare image -- hardly a minimal environment -- all with 384M of RAM. Apart from the exotic graphics stuff turned off, what is it about Vista that is hogging all that RAM? Can that junk be turned off?
Most of the time, I want an OS to boot up and get out of my way so I can open up my applications where I do my real work. I'm not sure I'm too excited about an OS that wants most of my RAM just to wake up, leaving me with little room to do real work.
Win2k prepresented the first time I ever bothered to go out of my way to upgrade, and liked it.
There was NOT a single reason to go windowsXP for me except some adobe products demanded "XP ONLY", and this was the ONLY reason I upgraded to XP.
I heard things about vista from people like my massage therapist, who like it because it plays music. I've been happy with winamp under windows for... forever. But needless to say she is saving up for a powerful enough PC to run Vista, which to me is nutty, but hey if ease of use is worth dollars, great.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Flamebait much? I completely agree if Macs ever reach majority (or even a significant minority) market share, they'll get their own share of malware issues. I doubt we'll ever see Macs get to that kind of market share, though.
Your other comment seems to have nothing to do with anything. I find dealing with spyware hunters, AV software, etc etc incredibly annoying and a waste of my time. I use an alternative OS to rid myself of these troubles and suddenly I'm being insulted for it? How is this any different than running Ubuntu, which on /. seems to make you unquestionably on the good side?
Bill Gates has allready anounced he is leaving his sinking ship...
What you really want to see is a court order saying that Microsoft has to be split in 2 or 3 separate companies...
A lot of the major features in Vista aren't transparent to the user - they are invisible to the user and work behind the scenes securing the system. Given the absolute monopoly of Windows, added security is not a bad thing and is itself worth the money, without a new system. The eye candy is what most people will care about and is probably the first thing long time users will turn off. IMHO, the exposes and the flip3ds, gadgets and widgets, and spaces and virtual desktops of this world are pretty but essentially worthless. I've had to use both and frankly remain most productive with a command line.
And as for your last line troll - as a longtime windows and linux user, I've enjoyed being able to buy an OS without buying a computer at the same time, as well as the ability to put that OS on whatever computer I damn well please. Seems OSX is lacking that feature. When it doesn't its worth comparing Vista and OSX. Besides, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I'm not really bothered what OSX/Gnome/Beryl had before Vista, only that I have it now on the computer I built.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Just like that darn IIS is never targeted as much as apache.
Your right - Anonymous Coward. Obviously the guy got a job by giving blow jobs, and free crack.
Meanwhile judging by your screen name you are a well versed, thoughtful individual. Which publication do you write for so I can read more of your stuff...
....and high system requirements to the list. Seriously, I want my level editors to be stable (they are bloated themselves as it is), I don't need a bunch of bouncy, flashy shit to distract me and gum up the works.
I don't think the GP thinks its fair either - I believe that is what he was saying ;)
Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
Windows Vista. New and improved! Now with 50% more DRM than our old formula!
And compared to our competitors Linux & OSX, we have not 2x, not3x, but 4X the amount of crashes!
Now how much would you pay?
Don't answer yet, because if you buy and install now, you'll also get the new and improved BSOD with bluer blues at no extra cost!
Call Now!
(and if you act now, the first 25,000 customers will get a free brown Zune, guaranteed not to be a collector's item due to the rarity of people actually purchasing them)
Not to mention that Vista is supposed to be a major platform change. A better comparison would be WinXP:Vista vs. OS 9:OS X. MSFT is half a decade behind when it comes to consumer OS development.
I'm in almost exactly the same place. I have a Powerbook for my primary computer and a Mac mini working as a media hub. I have a once-top-of-the-line Windows machine that I bought to play games on about two and a half years ago, which I finally gave up on upgrading. In the end, it was cheaper (and more fum) to get a Wii and just let the Windows PC collect dust.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Thats unpossible,Toasters can't run Vista.
1) "To get the full benefits of Vista, especially the new look and user interface, which is called Aero, you will need a hefty new computer, or a hefty one that you purchased fairly recently. The vast majority of existing Windows PCs won't be able to use all of Vista's features without major hardware upgrades. They will be able to run only a stripped-down version, and even then may run very slowly"
Yes, it's the revolutionary fact that a more resource-intensive piece of software works better on more powerful hardware.
2) "A third version, called Ultimate, will wrap up everything in Home Premium with some additional features from the business versions of Vista. This is for power users, and it is likely to be preloaded on high-end PCs. But some regular users may need Vista Ultimate if their companies have particular network configurations that make it impossible to connect to the company network from home with Home Basic or Home Premium"
Seemingly MS have dropped an IP stack from the basic versions it would seem. WTF is he blabbering on about, I'm not starting to feel a bit punchy towards this 'Walt' fellah.
3) "Even if you buy the Home Premium or Ultimate editions, Vista will revert to the Basic features if it detects that your machine is too wimpy to run the new user interface."
Shiiiiiiit, I was really hoping Aero would run on my old P2. I mean how dare MS turn off Aero in an attempt to make the experience usable.
4) "For most users who want Vista, I strongly recommend buying a new PC with the new operating system preloaded. I wouldn't even consider trying to upgrade a computer older than 18 months"
He's working for Dell right? So far the pitch seems to be that Vista looks lovely, but don't you dare try to comprehend computers for yourself.
5)"Microsoft says that Home Basic can run on a PC with half a gigabyte of memory and that Premium and Ultimate will work on a PC with one gigabyte of memory. I strongly advise doubling those numbers"
Yes - MS have said 'it will work'. I must bow before your almighty insight that my shoving in some more RAM it'll be 'better'
6)"Microsoft says Vista is much more secure than any other operating system. But this is hard to prove, especially at the beginning of its life, when few hackers and malefactors have access to it."
Fook - seemingly I'm a hacker now. Oh no, MS sent me a link to download the f'in ISO. Poor Walt, he seems so excited at his first l33t glimpse. Please, nobody tell him Vista wasn't a bit secret, he's clearly dreaming of his Pulitzer here.
7) "But unlike the Mac version, the Vista version of this permission feature doesn't necessarily require you to type in a password, so a stranger or a child using your PC could grant permission for something you yourself might not allow"
Yes yes, it doesn't force you to set a password. Nor does it force you not to leave your uber-ninja PC sitting out in the middle of the road overnight. Not setting a password is just an option, extra options are usually considered to be good.
Oh I give up now.... htf did this make it as a story? Nothing new, no insight, no WSJ access..
Until this is fixed i won't be running http://osnews.com/story.php/16937/Built-in-Vista-C omponents-a-Problem
I ran a virus scan for fun, once.
Your Friday nights must just be *wild*.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
The difference is, OS X from 10.0 to 10.1 (faster) to 10.2 (smoother looking) to 10.3 (expose) to 10.4 (dashboard, spotlight) has had lots of improvements, and each previous release was only a year or so apart, and 10.4 came out over a year ago, while Vista took the largest software company in the world 5 years to come up, stripping features the whole time, which is is just coming out now.
To be honest, I'd still rather buy a release every 5 years for substantial changes than every year for minimal changes. We might bitch and moan about the cost of Microsoft products, but it's nothing compared to Apple's continual program of holding back and releasing something every 6 months to a year so slav^H^H^H^Hcustomers can buy yet another just-a-bit-better copy of what they already have (how many iPods are there these days, anyways?).
I thought you were kidding (goatse Amazon link? ;) but this product is actually REAL!
Basic Edition minimum required 15 GB of free hard disk space. What is wrong with this people? Why don't make the optional/unused crap... optional?? I only liked the speech regonization ability (very much by the way), but this, from far, doesn't worth the space required for the OS. It remembered me last month, when I got a new notebook and need/want to download some recent drivers. I got incredibly frustrated when I found (in the manufacturer site) the basic wired Ethernet adapter driver. It has incredibly 46 Mb package size. This oversized junks is getting everywhere, and none like to see or fight again it. Oh wait, this must be a good topic: "Software are getting oversized like we are." when you make something unnecessary big it's means that you don't care about it quality (mostly) and have a highly probability that you can find dozens and dozens of unnecessary poor written code lines that can slowdown even the best, highly priced, processor. And so what? The solution is buying a new one super faster and far away from energy efficient computer? Or fight against crap software? By the way, I do not considering that super sized app/crap can also slow down our lovely little entire network.
In any other venue, hundreds of millions of dollars spent and YEARS late, and functionality stripped out of it left and right would be called a failure. How MS and its minions can spin a great big fat yawn into success is mindboggling. We here seem to be moderately happy that it doesn't suck like cancer. Ok it doesn't suck like cancer. Does that make it good?
Haul out two identical factory-firewire macs.
.x. upgrade.
Run 10.0 on one and 10.4.x on the other.
It's night and day - speed, apps, UI, prefs...
You'll see the significant difference in mere minutes.
OK, if the FW thing bugs you as a needed upgrade,
Haul out two identical iBook clamshells (blue, orange, etc)
Run 10.0 and 10.3.x
OSX has improved overall speed on a given machine with each
I have original Bondi iMacs that run better with 10.3.x than any previous OSX.
I have an iBook G3 that got a new lease on life with 10.4.x
Subsequent Windows versions on the same machine run maddiningly slower, if at all.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Ever notice that when someone complains that $129 is a lot of money for a revision of OS X, Mac fanboys point out that it's a "major new OS"? Yet when someone talks about Vista, which also costs around $129 (OEM, Home Premium), suddenly Mac OS releases are just "revisions"?
Tiger costs as much as a Vista Home Premium upgrade (and as much as a new OEM copy of Vista). It's absolutely fair to compare the two.
>No, SPs are (supposed to be) bug fixes, each version of OS X has many new features
...youll have to do better.
...the only app on it is QLA server for quark.. is it possible its QLA causing it to act up...maybe but funny we had the problem with 10.3 and no QLA.. sorry try again
..again this occurs on multiple models of machines all with different software setups... pathetic mac fantiscism at its best.
So where are all the features that are worth over 100 dollars... if you mean spotlight and dashboard
>Maybe it's the quality of your admins?
weird ran yellow dog on it for almost 6 months until we had an app that had to be on OSX zero problems. But back on 10.4
>Yeah, occasionally. I work with over 400 so I see it happen every so often. And the beachball is just a 'wait' cursor, it doesn't necessarily mean you've got a problem that can't be overcome or won't solve itself in a few more seconds. It's actually quite nice--it prevents you from going click-happy and causing MORE delays.
oh yes its a feature when a machine has to be manually rebooted...retarded comment of the day
>Remember, kids: the plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data." Again--bad admins? Possibly bad hardware? (Possibly a totally untrue statement from an anonymous user on a web forum?) Our four XServes hum along with uptimes only disrupted by the occasional system software update, and we haven't restored one yet. (Most are G4s, if that gives you a hint of their age.)>
Back to yellow dog...ran fine.. no hardware issue. ours is g4 as well.
You just proved my mac fanatic point. thanks we have 4 windows servers never had to reload one only hardware failure has been a stick of ram.. machine continued to run just had an error in logs. We have issues on all our machine most are unavoidable the typycal hardware failures etc im not knocking apple any worse than microsoft... its you fanboys that drive me nuts.
Imagine what realistic quotes on the box might look like:
"Yesterday's technology today!"
"Doesn't slow games down more than 10%!"
"Easier than driving through a tornado!"
"Angers your Mac friends!"
"Sufferin' succotash."
You know, there are plenty of legitimate ways to critisize Vista (UAC being annoying, Integrated WGA), but I am sick and tired of hearing the line that you need "hefty" hardware to run Vista. You don't. It runs fine on anything that's remotely modern. I ran Vista (RTM) - including Aero Glass - on a P4 Willamette (2GHz) system with 512M of memory and a GeForce 6200. Vista (RC1) also ran fine on the cheapshit $150 Celeron system I got in 2005 for Black Friday, albeit with a memory upgrade (to 512M using an old DIMM I had sitting around) and without Aero Glass.
Aero Glass requires DirectX 9 hardware. Any low or midrange standalone card released in the last couple of years will work. Hell, even GeForce FX 5200 cards work. Even most integrated video works, including Intel's GMA950, ATI's Radeon Xpress, and NVIDIA's GeForce 6100. My $50 Athlon 64 motherboard has integrated video that works. HP's $269 desktop has video that works.
Does Vista require more memory? Absolutely - you want 512M at a minimum, preferably 1GB. Does it require more CPU? A bit more.
These are not high requirements. The cheapest system sold at Best Buy can run Vista with Aero Glass. Yes, that's right - the eMachines T3516, with its 3.2GHz Celeron D, Radeon Xpress 200 graphics, and 512M of memory will run Vista just fine.
So much for "hefty" hardware.
As on the Mac, you can now drag favorite folders into a list at the left of open windows, so it's easy to get to them.
A new feature called Flip 3D shows a 3D view of all the programs you're running and lets you scroll through them. It's like the Mac's excellent Exposé feature, though not quite as handy.
Another new feature, called the Sidebar, is a vertical strip at the side of the screen that can contain tiny programs, called Gadgets, displaying things like favorite photos, news headlines, stock prices and the weather. Once again, this is awfully similar to a Macintosh feature called Dashboard, which displays tiny programs called Widgets. It's like they went through OS X with a shopping cart.
Just once, I'd like to see an original feature.
A Win 9x machine running Firefox and Thunderbird is, IMHO, more secure than Win 2K and Win XP machines running IE and Outlook.
The reason is that Win 9x doesn't leave ports open for hacking like Win 2K and Win XP does. What makes Win 9x inscure is the applications. What makes Win 2K and Win XP insecure in the operating system.
Like the GP, I'll stick with Win 9x for home use on old hardware.
I have a Linux box too, but I'd never get my wife to use it becaues she needs Word.
No. Common misconception. Mac OS 9-Mac SO X is more akin to 98/Me - 2k/XP, since 98 was based on an entirely different kernel to XP. Just like OS X is an entire rewrite of OS9. There is no base code remaining in the later at all (not at the core level).
10.1 to 10.2 is similar to 2k to XP. Same core, but new kernel, new features etc.
10.3 to 10.4 probably maybe just equates with XP-XPSP1-XPSP2. There weren't enough features in either Service Pack on their own to equate with a point release of OS X, but from base XP to SP2, it's probably fairly comparable.
Vista is more of the same. Not a new kernel, just an update. Not a new UI, just a new theme, an update. The odd new feature bolted on here and there. Just like 10.5 will be.
Point is, the tech media have a tendency to equate Mac OS X with XP, since they came out about the same time. Difference is, XP has been out for 5 years and has seen the equivalent of one point release (SP1 & SP2 put together), whereas Apple have pushed the ball out and released 4. 5 in a couple of months. Somehow the media seem to equate this with "Oh, so Apple have released OS X, and Microsoft have put out XP, and that's all since 2001. Everything else is just minor updates." No. Not the case. Mac OS X will probably be the Mac OS for Apple for at least the next 5 or 6 years, if not longer. It won't be a 10 year old OS at that point. It'll be a year and a half old OS, just as it is now. 10.4 is coming up on 18 months old, and is due replacement. Ditto XP in 2003. Shame Apple have met their release targets (or bettered them) consistently for the last 5 years and Microsoft have failed.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
They'd sell a lot more papers if Mossberg's assistant Katie took over the column.
I thought that was supposed to be something to the effect of "NO COMPLEMENTARY LAPTOP with WinXP SP2, which is Vista capable - as in you will still have to buy Vista for YOU! Mr. Mossberg!!!"
I don't know about other people, but I find bs that marketing depts use the "Vista Ready" to hook people when it's the same grade PC it was a year ago when the model was actually new or mid-life...
It might be paranoia but we can assume that Microsoft is trying to push hardware sales with the high system specs. So the obligatory lines go as: 1. High system specs force you to buy new hardware. 2. Average people do not care about upgrading, they will just switch to a new PC 3. New PCs come preloaded with Vista 4. Profit! This is me writing, with an nForce 2 Mobo and a Barton 3200+ after nVidia said they will not be making drivers for Vista even though my system is fully capable of running Aero.
I think, therefore you are.
...but in my opinion, if there was a single feature that is a quantifiable improvement on anything other than visuals; it's UAC. Imagine; you can open any executable file at all, even without virus protection; knowing that it can only destroy your local profile at worst. Obviously, if you turn off UAC or keep clicking 'Allow' at every turn then you'll be just as screwed an unprotected WinXP user would be.
Sure, there's a load of kernel improvements, pretty graphics and such, but really; is that all going to turn Vista into a justifiable upgrade? I think not.
All these things are improvements for sure; but they are evolutionary not revolutionary.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Why so many haters about Vista and DRM??? I'm using the release version of Vista, and have to say I haven't had any problems with DRM. Just like in XP, I can rip a dvd and encod it into xvid on Vista. I don't use windows media player to do it, but that's nothing new. This voodoo over DRM troubles is just a bunch of BS.
Regarding your sig, I've never seen a liberal spit or call anyone a Nazi. I've never seen a conservative explain anything. I've seen them rant and rave and call people commies and traitors. Think about conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter, they spew the most vile rhetoric I've ever heard. Liberals are the ones who calmly and rationally try to explain their side of things. Think about Al Franken, everything he says is backed up by research, and he never calls people who disagree with him a traitor.
Your statement illustrates the kind of sickness that pervades conservative thought. You deny your own faults while projecting them onto everyone around you.
...and you didn't tell her that you can make her old PC do anything WV can if she only pays you 30% of what a new PC will cost her ?
Hey, if Mossberg is a fanboy of Apple, great, because he's a crappy journalist.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
According to Mossberg's tests... Vista needs a "hefty machine" to support the "best Windows ever." Now, I have it on good authority the nature of the tests...
1) Mossberg turned on the computer.
2) Mossberg opened a window.
3) Mossberg dragged the window about the desktop until his arm got really tired
4) Mossberg concluded that because the speed of dragging diminshed over time, that Vista has serious resource requirements.
C'mon. "According to my tests" really means "I played with it a bit." Why mince words.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
I would give you mod points if I could stop laughing at you. Thats the joke of the day, beeeaaach!
~= scwizard =~
I didn't make it to the end of the article, but apparently the weather report, stock ticker,
etc is a feature of Vista.
I don't think that really changes the main point though. These are all features that were available on OS X, and Linux years ago. It's not like Microsoft couldn't have whipped up these relatively simple apps in a month or two.
AccountKiller
Microsoft never finished Sync Center--it disabled the installation of ActiveSync, but there is no replacement for installing applications in Vista, to this day. Windows Media Center absolutely will not let you set up your TV interface if you use Satellite or digital cable and don't have an IR blaster (even if you don't want to use one). Bluetooth doesn't work properly, and the WIDCOMM stack doesn't quite install correctly, no matter what you do. It hangs and crashes on the few occasions when you CAN get it to work, and the rest of the time, good luck to you. Also, from 5744 to the final build, my wireless USB adapter (which worked perfectly in RC1 through 5744) will now shut itself down periodically. I have to unplug it and reconnect it to get Internet access back on the Vista PC--and after doing that a few times, even that stops working, requiring a reboot. What's more, Fast.exe crashes immediately at every login (why? even Microsoft doesn't know), and the number of seconds it takes to respond to Ctrl-alt-delete sometimes approaches 60.
Vista just plain doesn't work yet.
From Wiki page quoted in parent:
"Ability to natively set a JPEG file as a wallpaper without using Active Desktop (which is no longer supported). Also, the aspect ratio of images is maintained properly."
Apache is not macos. Apache is completely open source and macs aren't
Firefox Power http://firefoxpower.blogspot.com/
Ever notice that when someone complains that $129 is a lot of money for a revision of OS X, Mac fanboys point out that it's a "major new OS"? Yet when someone talks about Vista, which also costs around $129 (OEM, Home Premium), suddenly Mac OS releases are just "revisions"?
That's a very good point. I thought the same as well. I'm an Apple fan, but I also like to be consistent. My reply, though, is to compare the result of 1-1.5 years of Apple's efforts in revising and upgrading their OS to 1-1.5 years of MS's efforts. By that comparison, MS suffers greatly. In each, point-release of OS-X, Apple has provided great improvements and advances in UI design or OS functionality. MS seems to re-organize the UI, and add minor improvements, certainly nothing along the lines of Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator, Core Image, Core Data or the soon-to-be released Time Machine.
The more the Lunix/Apple/etc community whines about Vista, the more it seems they are shaking in their boots.
For years and years they have been throwing every complaint under the sun at MS... that people are being 'forced' to use MS (at gunpoint, presumably), that Windows isn't secure, that Windows isn't stable.
Well, MS addressed stability once they moved completely to the WinNT codebase back in 2000.
Since there is tons of choice available now (Apple is getting a lot of brand recognition), there is a lot of choice going around. And yet... WinXP still continues to be overwhelmingly prefered by businesses and consumers alike.
And Windows security has never been better. With Vista, there are under-the-hood changes which make it the most flexible and secure OS on the market... by a longshot.
* As the added notoriety of Apple is proving, their security is, was, and likely always will be a creature made of "security through obscurity". A Month of Apple bugs? There's easily enough material for a year. At least.
* If Lunix were ever to gain the same level of recognition, they would encounter the same thing. However, they have had decades to try competing with features provided by Windows 95... like being able to install software, or to have the OS automatically detect and configure hardware. So (fortunately?) Lunix will likely never have to deal with their inherent lack of security, since they can't even compete with an OS which is over a decade old.
So keep trying to spread that FUD about Vista. The only way you guys can 'compete' with Vista is by getting people to... not upgrade from XP.
Talk about your winning strategies...
To be honest, I'd still rather buy a release every 5 years for substantial changes than every year for minimal changes.
Okay, that's a valid preference. I'd rather get most features as soon as possible, and the cost is not important to me. Can you accept that my preference is equally valid? Now, supposing the two of us are given a choice what would be ideal (not regarding the particular OS). Is it better that the vendor release new features once every 5 years, so that you're happy and I'm unhappy. Or is it better that the vendor release an OS every 1.5 years so that you can buy a version every 4.5 years and I can buy a version every 1.5 years making both of us happy? The latter method (Apple's method) lets us both choose what we prefer and I certainly know people that skip one or two or even three versions before upgrading.
I develop for Windows (Currently working on driver to add features to USB keyboard). And Solaris. And Linux. And other platforms.
Most of my home office infrastructure is based on standard technologies. For signon, I use NIS. Automounter for publishing directories (along with NIS maps). NFS for file sharing. NTP for time services.
This works fine with all platforms I work with, with the exception of Windows. I can understand why this stuff isn't in Windows 98, but it is also not supported in XP SP2. XP does support NTP (thank heavens).SMB support provides Windows with access to file systems.
I heard a rumour that VISTA will support NFS "out of the box". Is this true? And my big question: is NIS supported by VISTA? If so, can VISTA use a password map from NIS with standard password hashes (or MD5 hashes)? Can VISTAs user home directory be mounted over NFS?
If I get a "yes" on the NFS and NIS, I would jump on VISTA immediately. It would fit into my development environment perfectly (when working on Microsoft projects, I use WINE to run CL.EXE and the rest of the MSVC7 toolchain integrated with standard "make" and GNU toolchain).
But then I am an extreme edge case. So I expect the answers to be (generally) "no".
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Nearly all SMB port hack affects Win 2K and Win XP, not Win 9x.
n /MS05-027.mspxn /MS05-011.mspx
Non-Affected Software:
Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulleti
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulleti
You are probably thinking of file,print, and Internet connection sharing hacks, which would affect Win 9x. That is if file, print, and Internet connection sharing is used. Which would not be wise. It's just not smart to have open ports available for hacking. Win 9x has far fewer open ports than Win 2K and Win XP.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4914346071 97997836
Can you believe it!!! All these features and how much you ask???! It's Windows from Microsoft Yeeeeahhh!!!
(and BTW, I just bought a 24" iMac. That's what I think of Vista...)
Only my grandmother would use a mac.
1,606,000 Macs sold in the last quarter. Damn your grandmother is rich. Is she single?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
This isn't about open source vs. closed source. It's about market share.
Windows has more exploits than Macs because more people use Windows, the saying goes.
So: why, in the late 90s, when Apache had 2-5x the market share of IIS, were there so many IIS exploits and so few for Apache?
Answer: well, I won't say the answer, but it DAMN sure wasn't because IIS had more users, because it didn't. This directly refutes the "Windows is perfect, it just has so many viruses because there are so many boxes to pwn!!!!!11"
That's the point I was making--that high market share != lots of exploits.
Besides, market share or no market share, there are millions upon millions of Mac users--most of them brimming with confidence, and no AV software or firewall. (It's worth noting that XP SP2 comes with a firewall that's on by default; OS X comes with one but it's off by default. And Safari, the ONLY browser included with OS X 10.4, comes with the option "automatically open downloaded files" enabled by default as well!) Ooh, wouldn't that make a GREAT target for hackers--all those unprotected machines? Sure would! So... where are the exploits for Mac OS X? *sound of crickets chirping*
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
To be honest, I'd still rather buy a release every 5 years for substantial changes than every year for minimal changes. We might bitch and moan about the cost of Microsoft products, but it's nothing compared to Apple's continual program of holding back and releasing something every 6 months to a year so slav^H^H^H^Hcustomers can buy yet another just-a-bit-better copy of what they already have (how many iPods are there these days, anyways?).
To be honest, I'd prefer to have a constant stream of releases so that I could use functionality as it was added, rather than waiting due to Microsoft's continual program of holding back before releasing something so complex that it's repeatedly delayed.
When the mac ownes more than 35% of the desktop market, that will change
Incorrect. OS X is more secure because Unix is more secure. Not 100% secure, granted, but good enough that even a reversal of market share compared with Windows wouldn't bring about a reversal in share of viruses. In any case, Macs will never have 35% of the market so it's purely academic. Windows lusers are welcome to the crap they consider acceptable; those of us who aspire to something better have it, thanks very much.
You sound so smug about not being smug. ;-)
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Great point.
The argument that "windows is a target" because it is so popular, is ridiculous. Why wouldn't a Virus free OS become more popular?
Microsoft had benefits that MADE it popular. A lot of this was business deployment and legacy. Also the way they crushed rivals and ActiveX and a few other technologies that enabled these things also made it a great place to create viruses.
For a few years, most of the viruses were just vbscript hacks inside of Outlook. Script kiddies could write them. That was just a flawed design driven by marketing.
Apple's OS does have some weak spots that could be attacked by hackers, but it is better by design. You have to trick the user in most scenarios to hurt their own system.
While MS has just ADDED these types of measures. It's not like they seperated kernel space from user space BEFORE all the viruses were created. Now with this security bolted on top, they still have legacy and all that ActiveX stuff sitting around, that they will have to patch for years.
If Apple gets more popular -- they will also have to support legacy software and functionality, but they also didn't open the ActiveX, VBScript can of worms. At some point, businesses will find more value in discarding legacy software because maintaining it is a burden. The increasing interoperability of the Web, and things like XML, are allowing for "functional equivalents" to replace "parts" of systems. So it ease easier to manage a careful transition to another platform.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
...and you didn't tell her that you can make her old PC do anything WV can if she only pays you 30% of what a new PC will cost her ?
To be honest, no.
1) She doesn't have an old PC, she has NO pc
2) Even if she did have an old PC, odds are she would want vista anyway
3) Her buying a Vista Premium Ready PC is a good enough plan. Odds are it'll have a fast cpu
if not dual core, enough memory, and a decent vid card.
4) It doesn't matter whether "I" like vista or not, it's her choice.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
ahhh your point is? Apache has been far more targetted for 3 or 4 years now. possibly because no one has managed to find a good exploitable hole in IIS6, but none the less apache sites ARE targetted more than IIS sites and have been for some time.
The new features since OS X 10.2 and the new features coming to Vista are very nice, but most users (even pros) should not be in a big hurry to get them. I think it's pathetic when fanboys brag about when their OS implemented features like fast user switching and desktop search integrated into the OS.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
You win I guess. No one ever told me about Tomato Torrent though...
~= scwizard =~
Sure the interface may be attractive however with the DRM mess that is killing Vista I really struggle to see the appeal. There was a great article titled 'Vista "suicide note" researcher interview on Security Now' , see here: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/13/vista_suicide _note_r.html
OS X is more secure because Unix is more secure.
In what way(s) ?
>Unix users don't really worry about these things.
LOL. The term rootkit didn't originate from Windows, kids.
NFS client and server seem to be supported -- I need client.
NIS authentication does NOT seem to be supported, but setup to allow yypasswd and NIS map push to update Windows password seems to be supported. Also, change password on Windows can be set to push to the master NIS server. So that's ok -- I hope I don't have to install an "Active Directory" server, though.
Using directory maps from NIS; I just don't know (or couldn't find it). I'll dig into Unix Services to see. Since NFS mounting can be done by command line, I can generate the appropriate Windows mount args. Worst comes to worst, I can cook up a script using Unix Services to ypcat the maps, find differences, and generate the appropriate NFSADMIN commands to keep the mounts up to date.
The problem is that I have many mounts that are dynamic (not established on the server until actually used). Specifically, all my data CDs are stored this way. I would like to be able to defer the mount request until use -- My "CD Server" is currently set to only allow 8 concurrent dynamic mounts.
But the good news is that, with Unix Services, it looks like Windows may be able to reasonably play.
Thanks for your help
So, thanks
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Does Grassroots Marketing for Dummies include "Always start your piece with 'I'm not a fan of blah, but..', or 'Not to play the devil's advocate here, but..'"? How transparent can you get and still think you're fooling someone? Either you grossly underestimate general intelligence of your audience or you're just that ignorant or stupid. At least, don't fool yourself and admit that you like to work and play most on MS Windows. The toy OS of choice for people who fear changes and unknowns.
Apparently, the main difference between XP and Vista is the very massive DRM management system.
Somehow, they appear to have written a tightly closed and secured system (against you, the user and owner) to appease the movie market - which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the computer game market alone.
So now we have an OS which gets in your way, slows down your hardware, has horrific functionality to make sure you have trouble with playing movies - and has nothing really new.
Come to think of it, what does XP do so much better than Win2000? Personally, I use my Windows installation to play games - which works very well in W2000. Why would I need to go through the costs and effort to upgrade to XP, let alone Vista?
I do some programming on Windows (Delphi) - works just as well in W2K as in XP or even Vista. I do some writing (LaTeX, PalmOS PDA - no MS-Word needed, thanks), and surf about (Firefox, Windows or Linux).
So, why is everybody yelling about Vista? My system works great for me as it is (and yes, I play the latest games enthusiastically) - why upgrade it? What are the advantages of the upgrade?
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Yet it looks like there are plans for something like that: take a look at this patent. "I, for one, welcome our new apt-getting Microsoft overlords"...
Mac OS X is a sophisticated piece of software with excellent quality control and high security standards. Hackers aren't sophisticated people.
Well there is the difference between Windows and Macs. Expose, Dashboard, and the other Mac tools are actually designed to be more useful then pretty. And I don't bother turning them off, because they add value to my experience. Windows tends to make them cheap and become more eye candy then useful. Invisible features are good and all, but it is a tough sell, even to technical people, Because the Invisible features often have trade offs. For Example say the Paging Algorithm has been changed, so Systems with more memory will run faster, but slower systems will take a hit because the System is paging larger blocks of data, so it makes it hard to sell. Even advertising for Macs tends to breeze threw the hidden features the usual "Speed Improvement" features or "and More..."
To respond to your troll about my troll - I have been using Linux since 1993, I have been Using Windows since 1992, Before that DOS, and GEM Desktop, 2000 I switch to Solaris on a SUN Ultra Sparc, In 2002 I switched to OS X. I understand quite well that OS X will never compete with Windows for market share because because in order to use OS X you need to buy Apple Hardware. But I my experience has taught me that we are better off when using hardware and software that are designed to work with each Other. Unlike Linux and Windows which are designed to work on as many possible systems as possible. Which leads to a lot of extra problems with drivers, security, and stability. As well it tends to hold back a lot of advancements in the OS Design. That is why OS X had many of these features that are just coming out on Vista for 5 years. Apple knows what hardware they have used in the past and what they are using (and somewhat what they are going to use), combined with the fact that Apple tends to use the higher end components (hence why the systems are often a bit more expensive then the bargain bin PC) so If you put an 5 year cap on compatibility of your OS and your Hardware then you have a good set of limits to work with and extend on. Vs. say an 5 year gap on PCs.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Has anyone noticed that all the latest XP updates released by Microsoft are components that make XP compatible with Vista on the same LAN? I've been googling articles about these updates and the majority of them actually kill some backwards compatibility for XP if you perform them. As it is now, I have 7 updates in my microsoft update window that I haven't selected for download because they all have to do with Vista XP interopability that I don't need. I wonder if/when I will have to perform these upgrades and shut the door on some features i use now...
----------------------------
Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
1.) Apple is not a hardware vendor but a system vendor. They sell the "Mac experience" - their product wouldn't work without the special hardware (because not having to care about every mainboard chipset under the sun is what allows the "it just works" magic) and it wouldn't work without the special software, either. They sell the whole package, not some part of it.
2.) The fact why Tiger was cool for having Spotlight and Windows isn't is because Spotlight was new and cool (mainly for being new). Windows has the same feature two years later - no wonder nobody gets excited about it anymore. If you want to impress the crowd you have to innovate, not copy. Copying wins you sympathies because you have reached the bar others have set, but if you want to stand out you have to come upwith new, cool stuff that nobody has had before.
Windows has reached impressive-feature parity with Tiger, but that doesn't impress anyone - and in fact people have expected Windows to be much better, so Microsoft doesn't reach their own bar, thus people are disappointed anyway.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
You mean, it would be harder for them to release their product and make it work. That's not remotely the same thing, oh ye of many apologies. My hardware does the same thing their hardware does, and in fact, my laptop has the same chipset their laptop does (but a far superior graphics system in terms of logistics with other operating systems, since it's not made by ATI.)
Apple and Microsoft have copied back and forth from one another liberally over the years. This is just something a fanboy would say to justify buying into vendor lock-in.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You mean, it would be harder for them to release their product and make it work. That's not remotely the same thing, oh ye of many apologies. My hardware does the same thing their hardware does, and in fact, my laptop has the same chipset their laptop does (but a far superior graphics system in terms of logistics with other operating systems, since it's not made by ATI.)
Yup, it would be harder. Yup, it would be cool if OS X ran on should-be-compatible hardware. I wasn't saying that thewir way is better in any way, just that it's their way. Apple has decided to sell a platform and not the components, which makes them a system vendor. If I wanted to apologize for them I'd list a number of reasons why that's soo much better, but I think the pros and cons pretty much balance each other out, depending on which product line you're looking at.
Apple and Microsoft have copied back and forth from one another liberally over the years. This is just something a fanboy would say to justify buying into vendor lock-in.
Excuse me? I did nothing to say that Windows or OS X is superior to, say, Linux. I merely pointed out that nobody is excited about Vista's remaining features because other OSes had them first. The features aren't new anymore which is why nobody gets excited. It doesn't matter who had them first, but they're old.
If Microsoft comes up with something that grabs people's attentions like Spotlight does and Apple implements it a year later people are going to yawn over Apple's implementation. You can't excite people with stale features.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I'm not a fan of MS - I just happen to use their OS. I'm not entirely sure if there's anybody who's an 'MS fan'. MS is a big and pretty much faceless corporation that doesn't really create zealots. When you're the dominant force, you don't need zealots.
The point I was trying to make was that I'm not some fan-boy wishing to bash anybody for their mere opposition. The article was pro-Apple and anti-MS, I just wanted to state I was neither of those things, but not actively hostile to either.