Aero runs just fine on my second machine from 2005. The aero-compatible bullshit is more to do with cheap hardware vendors being a little ambitious, than microsoft's product sucking arse.
this is notihng to do with running games on low end hardware. its more to do with enabling DirectX 10.x to be a standard that Microsoft can use for various other bits of software for the UI, office apps, etc.
If they code to DX10, and it can be run in software, then any vista platform will be able to run that app.
If you buy a system to run software directX to play games on, you're a fucking retard - that's NOT what this is about.
Whilst I agree that administering exchange is a pain in the arse, and that it is not a fit for a university.... its not just a mail server. The big benefits you get from exchange are with regards to PABX integration, live communications server (IM/Video conferencing, etc) and the rest of the office suite.
The level of integration in that case is very slick and the product when configured in that way is extremely powerful.
But yes, its a total fucking pain in the arse (I've run sendmail/postfix alongside exchange for years - sendmail/postfix as a public facing relay to protect exchange - mail only? give me sendmail or postfix. but in the business world, there are benefits to be had from exchange or another product that provides similar capabilities).
Oh... a couple more points i forgot to make: turning UAC off and logging in as a non-admin user, vista behaves just like XP/2k logged in as a non-admin user. Turning UAC off and logging in as admin, vista behaves just like 2k/xp as well. Staying logged in as an admin user on 2k/xp is insane if you have any care about security at all. At least UAC gives you some line of defense.
Sure, you get prompted for stuff while logged in as admin, however to have similar security (lets forget possible ways of circumventing UAC for the moment and assume it is bug-free) is to log in as a non-admin user (ala 2k/xp) and then where you would previously see a UAC "click here" box, have to enter your admin username/password details. Its MORE hassle without UAC to get the same benefit?
If you don't like it, turn it off by all means. However bitching about UAC because it exists is like bitching that there are both apples and oranges on the market when you like oranges...
3. Just inform the user "You must log in as Administrator to perform that task." and then disable UAC while logged in as Administrator (hey, that would be just like *nix! No nagging "are you sure" B.S. when root!)
If you are logged in as a non-admin user, you can not perform admin tasks, and are prompted for the admin username/password just like sudo. UAC comes into play by allowing you to be logged in as an admin user and yet not have rogue processes automatically do admin-type-stuff behind your back. Step 3 in your list is a step backwards, and is the way XP/2K could be used by using "run as" whilst not logged in as an administrator.
I see it for installing software, and occasionally if trying to run an admin tool (on my home PC, less than once per week, at work, less than once per day).
Its a non-issue, those bitching about it can turn it off if its really that bad, but its no different in concept to SUDO or the graphical tools for that. In fact, as far as the end user goes, it's less annoying, because you don't actually need to keep typing in your password; you can be logged in with a user that has admin privs, but still have to approve use of those privs.
I love how so many people have bitched about microsoft doing NOTHING for security in the past (I have been one of them), and yet when they do make an effort the first thing they do is bitch that "waah, i have to click something". ffs....
I'm no blind microsoft fanboy, but given the choice between the pile of shit that is Windows XP, or Vista... well, i'm on vista 64.
My theory is that like most other voting populations, the people are uninformed enough that the votes are more or less normally distributed and you have roughly 50% right, 50% left. Modern "democracy" is run by big business anyway, sure you have the illusion of choice, but in reality I doubt it makes much difference which way you vote anyway.
Unless you run linux logged in as root constantly, you're dealing with the exact same shit as UAC anyway. Makes me laugh when linux users are bitching about UAC - because its no different....
I see you drank the cool-aid from that very selective testing of wine vs vista.
fact: in 18 months of actually running vista in both 32 and 64 bit incarnations, i can count the number of compatibility problems i've had that wouldn't have existed on XP on one hand.
counter proposal: vista is a lot more compatible with vista apps than either wine or XP is. I know which market segment is going to be more relevant in coming years.
Been running vista and doing copies fine for over a year. Your hardware (drivers) sucks. Try copying via SMB from vista to vista and vista to XP or XP to XP over a WAN and see how it goes. Vista is quicker.
Also, the TCP/IP stack in vista actually does pretty well with MTU discovery/tuning too.
I love the comments regarding "Wait for windows 7" from the peanut gallery.
All of you realise its probably going to be similar to the difference between Windows 2000 (vista) and Windows XP (Windows 7)? Ie, the previous version is *less* annoying:D
Certified drivers are considered "stable". As in, not dangerous to the stability of your OS. Not necessarily fast, though.
For what it's worth, I've been running vista (32 bit) since march 07, and 64 bit since may 08 - i have had zero problems. My only beef with 64 bit is that Cisco haven't released an updated VPN client yet.
Then again, I do make sure to buy hardware with driver support in mind (ie, i stick with tier 1 hardware manufacturers): Intel motherboard, Nvidia video, Creative audio. Apparently both nvidia and creative had drivers problems - i haven't seen them.
I'd certainly agree with microsoft in placing blame on drivers - same has gone for most versions of windows really. Sure there may be exploits for some windows components, but as far as stability goes when left "unmolested" by someone deliberately trying to break it, its usually due to drivers.
One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned much is that if you have vista and a Windows 2003 R2 or later file server (or another vista box) they can use SMBv2 to communicate/share files with. This has vastly improved performance over WAN links...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong i want to see linux succeed, but if i need Windows to play a game i want to play, i run it on Windows...
Yes, your habits will reduce your exposure, but they aren't fail-safe.
conversely, i doubt the original internal combustion engine was anywhere near as efficient as modern variants either.
No, i'm not kidding - i haven't checked the rates for a few months, but mobile data rates here are in that sort of ballpark...
In other words, no. But it saves microsoft doing 2 versions of the UI - simply write for DX10.x and it will run on whatever hardware is available.
By the time the next version of office comes out, 8 core machines will be commonplace anyhow.
Aero runs just fine on my second machine from 2005. The aero-compatible bullshit is more to do with cheap hardware vendors being a little ambitious, than microsoft's product sucking arse.
If they code to DX10, and it can be run in software, then any vista platform will be able to run that app.
If you buy a system to run software directX to play games on, you're a fucking retard - that's NOT what this is about.
... ea had released a game that was worth more than its weight in shit, in the past 9-10 years...
irony detection: fail
The level of integration in that case is very slick and the product when configured in that way is extremely powerful.
But yes, its a total fucking pain in the arse (I've run sendmail/postfix alongside exchange for years - sendmail/postfix as a public facing relay to protect exchange - mail only? give me sendmail or postfix. but in the business world, there are benefits to be had from exchange or another product that provides similar capabilities).
Vista doesn't do that, it prompts when media is inserted.
Oh... a couple more points i forgot to make: turning UAC off and logging in as a non-admin user, vista behaves just like XP/2k logged in as a non-admin user. Turning UAC off and logging in as admin, vista behaves just like 2k/xp as well. Staying logged in as an admin user on 2k/xp is insane if you have any care about security at all. At least UAC gives you some line of defense.
Sure, you get prompted for stuff while logged in as admin, however to have similar security (lets forget possible ways of circumventing UAC for the moment and assume it is bug-free) is to log in as a non-admin user (ala 2k/xp) and then where you would previously see a UAC "click here" box, have to enter your admin username/password details. Its MORE hassle without UAC to get the same benefit?
If you don't like it, turn it off by all means. However bitching about UAC because it exists is like bitching that there are both apples and oranges on the market when you like oranges...
If you are logged in as a non-admin user, you can not perform admin tasks, and are prompted for the admin username/password just like sudo. UAC comes into play by allowing you to be logged in as an admin user and yet not have rogue processes automatically do admin-type-stuff behind your back. Step 3 in your list is a step backwards, and is the way XP/2K could be used by using "run as" whilst not logged in as an administrator.
I see it for installing software, and occasionally if trying to run an admin tool (on my home PC, less than once per week, at work, less than once per day).
Its a non-issue, those bitching about it can turn it off if its really that bad, but its no different in concept to SUDO or the graphical tools for that. In fact, as far as the end user goes, it's less annoying, because you don't actually need to keep typing in your password; you can be logged in with a user that has admin privs, but still have to approve use of those privs.
I love how so many people have bitched about microsoft doing NOTHING for security in the past (I have been one of them), and yet when they do make an effort the first thing they do is bitch that "waah, i have to click something". ffs....
I'm no blind microsoft fanboy, but given the choice between the pile of shit that is Windows XP, or Vista... well, i'm on vista 64.
My theory is that like most other voting populations, the people are uninformed enough that the votes are more or less normally distributed and you have roughly 50% right, 50% left. Modern "democracy" is run by big business anyway, sure you have the illusion of choice, but in reality I doubt it makes much difference which way you vote anyway.
Just goes to show how different things could be today if those damn dead people would stop voting after they're buried...
Unless you run linux logged in as root constantly, you're dealing with the exact same shit as UAC anyway. Makes me laugh when linux users are bitching about UAC - because its no different....
Winnar!
fact: in 18 months of actually running vista in both 32 and 64 bit incarnations, i can count the number of compatibility problems i've had that wouldn't have existed on XP on one hand.
counter proposal: vista is a lot more compatible with vista apps than either wine or XP is. I know which market segment is going to be more relevant in coming years.
Also, the TCP/IP stack in vista actually does pretty well with MTU discovery/tuning too.
All of you realise its probably going to be similar to the difference between Windows 2000 (vista) and Windows XP (Windows 7)? Ie, the previous version is *less* annoying :D
For what it's worth, I've been running vista (32 bit) since march 07, and 64 bit since may 08 - i have had zero problems. My only beef with 64 bit is that Cisco haven't released an updated VPN client yet.
Then again, I do make sure to buy hardware with driver support in mind (ie, i stick with tier 1 hardware manufacturers): Intel motherboard, Nvidia video, Creative audio. Apparently both nvidia and creative had drivers problems - i haven't seen them.
I'd certainly agree with microsoft in placing blame on drivers - same has gone for most versions of windows really. Sure there may be exploits for some windows components, but as far as stability goes when left "unmolested" by someone deliberately trying to break it, its usually due to drivers.
One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned much is that if you have vista and a Windows 2003 R2 or later file server (or another vista box) they can use SMBv2 to communicate/share files with. This has vastly improved performance over WAN links...
unions suck. EOT.
Yeah right...