The added security is nice, although its also a nuissance sometimes. Most games I have simply won't run without being run as an administrator, and having to click 'Allow' a lot during the day is annoying at best. I've been able to run Vista with no firewall and anti-virus (as an experiment) for 3 months now, and have only gotten some minor spyware that Windows Defender managed to clean out on its own. Thats a huge positive, compared to XP.

Here is a hunt, activate the super admin (route admin), and make your main account a "standard user" (should have been vista's dufault), You can still install, and run any software but UAC will only prompt for things that are administrative in nature. (Installing, editing system files, etc)

The super admin is a well the "Administrator" and can do anything without a prompt. To activate it, you need to use run as admin on cmd, and run command "net user administrator /active:yes" when you logout you will see the super admin. (Give it a password, will be the password UAC uses from now on).

This is the way I run it on my computer, and my father’s business computer, no spyware or virus to date. And no UAC prompts for everything, you will never want to go back to XP's way of limited user junk.

Eternal Desire wrote:

vista sucks. end of story.

Please make some backed up information.

I have used Vista for some time and have found it to not be the worst thing that could come out. It seems to be an upgraded eye-candy version of XP. There have not been many problems for me except when I want to make my computer "less safe", like getting rid of the UAC (the pop-up that asks if you want to do something) and not allowing Windows Defender to run. The resource use does not worry me as much because I had to upgrade for the games that I want to play anyways, though I can see problems for those that cannot upgrade.

It is well all around but can use some improvements, I might put this in a blog.

George Gough

Your uninformed trolling is not appreciated.

KodeNerd wrote:

Eternal Desire wrote:

you forgot that they spy on everything you do

You are right on that but I think on a bias and not fact. The license does state that you do not actually own the copy of Vista but just a usage key and that Microsoft has all the right to sift through your files (at least that is what I saw in my version, I don't know about any others)

barely ANYTHING has vista support because they dont wanna waste their time to implement it for the poor souls that actually use it for anything other then a toilet.

Microsoft does not write all of the software, therefore it is not their fault. It is not anyones fault as the software was (probably) never designed with an unknown future OS in mind.

George Gough

lol yeah if i wanted someone to spy on what i'd do i'd move into a hotel.

Alathon wrote:

... What the heck are you talking about? I can run absolutely everything that my XP runs.

I have the occasional problem with software running but they usually don't fully work in XP either.

Vista is not worth an upgrade but is worth it on a new PC in my honest opinion.

George Gough

Xzar wrote:

That’s a intersting allegation... but what proof do you have? the vast majority of stuff you read on the web is FUD...

FUD = ****ed up something?

Eternal Desire wrote:

lol yeah if i wanted someone to spy on what i'd do i'd move into a hotel.

You are an idiot if that is your only reason for battling Vista. Shut up about the spying already. Microsoft collects anonymous statistics about how users are using the software. Guess what, many software vendors do that, like our favorite, Google. These statistics are used to make software better for /you/.

That's right, the consumer is in mind. You didn't think Microsoft was /all/ marketing and lies, did you?

PirateHead wrote:

Windows is fascism for your PC in a shrink-wrapped box.

I'll take my fascism then ;) There are those of us who simply don't care. I know that its a case of principle, but really, honestly. Tinfoil hat on - Check. World falling apart - ?

Kaioken wrote:

Sure, "power users" then, or whatever you want to call it. But there's still no reason for Average Joe that doesn't do any of that on that on his computer to require to have higher-end specs just to be able to run his OS.

Average Joe's specs are increasing too. At least they are here, and they undoubtedly are elsewhere as well.

As for memory being expensive, what? 2GB of DDR2 memory (as 2x1024MB) will cost me something akin to 300kr, which is about 62 USD.

I never said whether it was expensive or not;

Sorry; either you edited it, or I read 'memory' as 'money' in that sentence.

price isn't the only issue here. The fact that just running your OS (Vista) and nothing more has as high requirements such as some 3D, intensive games, is absurd.

That is an absurd maltraction of the truth. It simply isn't that resource intensive. At all. I don't want to run Vista on under 1.5GB, but I don't want to run XP on under 1GB. By your definition of fine, Vista will run fine on ~750mb RAM.

The fact hardware is advancing doesn't mean every OS should necessarily be a more resource hog than the previous, because it now can. That partly negates the hardware upgrading itself, which is obviously bad, which is another good reason not to upgrade.

No, its not a good reason not to upgrade. Thats like saying you shouldn't be using a car because it uses more resources than a horse carriage, despite the fact that resources are much easier to come by and utilize than they were back then. That is, again, absurd. The OS hasn't been hogging more resources 'just because', thats just a way of trying to make it look like something it isn't.

I actually forgot to complete a sentence in my previous post, which relates here:

Yes, but realize that these are high end specs. 1GB is already a rather lot of memory, and 2GB memory and new/powerful multiple-core processors are only needed by gamers, and an important point to make

...is that your high-end system will get better performance on XP, so why upgrade your system in order to be able to install Vista? That's ridiculous.

Because I want features that Vista has? Because I want future support? Because I want future patches? Because I want to utilize DX10? Because I want widgets? Because, no, Vista runs my games JUST as well. It also runs Photoshop just as well. It also runs video rendering just as well. We're talking about a difference of 200MB ram here, Kaioken. Thats the difference between having Firefox open or not, if you leave it on for a while.

As for resource hogging, yes. I'd loathe to be running Vista on anything under 1.5gb RAM, because it simply doesn't run anything near smoothe even with everything turned off.

On the other hand, you've got XP which has the requirements of 256MB which leaves you with enough memory for games even if you've got 1GB RAM, and a load if you've got 2 or more.

Sure, games that were made 2 years ago or more. Any new game lists 1GB of RAM as a *minimum*.

They made the interface smoother and more aesthetically pleasing. Thats a positive, not a negative.

No, it is a negative since it comes as part of all that resource-hogging. Some of this ties into opinion, personally I couldn't care less how it looks as long as it's not incredibly ugly and still usable (conveniently), and I don't like it too fancy either. But I think I'm right in thinking that people would generally prefer a fast but "ugly" computer, or a fancy, 'aesthetically-pleasing' but slow, resource-hogging computer.

But that isn't the correct comparison. The correct comparison is:

Fast and ugly

Almsot as fast and nice looking.

And no, you're incorrect. The market shows you are. If you were, we'd still all be stuck in DOS.

They also added some media managing functions which are great, if you need them
They also added a 'Games' link which, while minor is still neat. It automatically adds any games you install and allow you to access them from a special type of Games folder

That all sounds like what I referred to earlier (although I can't weigh it truly before seeing it myself), focusing on the wrong things. This looks like some fancy features for marketing and getting more <s>users</s> customers, but of no real benefit for power users, or perhaps users who are computer-savvy enough to be able to find and conveniently access their games without a help-menu.

Earlier you were talking about Average Joe, now you're talking about power users? Pick one. Of course there are fancy features for marketing - There are fancy features for marketing in Windows 98SE, Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows Vista, Mac OSX, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Red Hat, etc.

What you're implying is that people WANT to do things the hard way; which, generally speaking, is not the case.

Boot-time seems faster for Vista than XP for me,

Are you sure it's not because you might've upgraded your system since XP, so you can run Vista? :P

This computer ran XP first. Then Vista. The only thing I've seen that is unable to run Vista properly are laptops with bad graphics cards and less than 1.25GB RAM. And if you notice, I've advocated not running Vista with under that.

First you argue for average joe not having enough RAM. Despite that, there is not a SINGLE computer for sale in a computer shop here in Denmark ANYWHERE that is new with under a dual core processor and 1GB RAM (which *will* run Vista fine for average joe).

Then you argue power users don't want useless fluff; but power users often have better computers, where it doesn't matter - And plenty of the things in Vista are NOT fluff. Added security? Easier searching? Better data storage? Better cross-system compatability? Better user privileges?

and it locks up less than XP does.

The great improvements in XP on the previous OSs are those, it is much more stable and personally XP already locks up quite rarely for me, so I don't need Vista for that. I suppose experience may vary from computers and users, but XP is still quite stable.

Yes, XP is 'quite stable'. Vista is more stable. I've had to work with over 400 computers in the past 6 months, a mix of specs running either XP or Vista (and some Linux). Overall, Vista is *far* more stable. Average joe also has an easier time navigating Vista than XP.

The task manager is nicer about responding than it is in XP sometimes, being less prone to go unresponsive.

+

The sherlock-like 'search' function at the bottom of the start menu works really well - I couldn't go back to XP because of this alone.

So, any real improvements Vista made? You won't return to XP because of a search feature? If it bugs you that much you could always download a 3rd-party processor managing and searching programs that are better than operating systems' default ones.

See, except, they aren't - Because thats having to resort to a third party program to do exactly what the Vista sherlock function does. Which it does BETTER than the third party programs. Its not a question of 'bugging me' much, its such a vital feature that every single OS copied it since OSX.

No, XP is not safer by *any* margin. Vista is currently the operating system with the least highly critical system holes.

And your basis for this is? Have you run a series of throughout tests for a few weeks or something? I doubt Vista is going to have any less critical security patches than XP. They're just not out yet unlike XP's (sure, they're still coming out for XP as well).

Yes, I have. I've also attended corporate meetings with Intel, AMD, Apple, CISCO, Red Hat and others present where these things were discussed. I also recieve weekly internal corporate letters that disclose statistics on this stuff.

2) Transfer speed is very slow, as low as 4MB / second sometimes.

It's not about security, but I'd still consider this critical.

Vista is currently the operating system with the least highly critical system holes.
Current bugs:

What? Do you think you and Microsoft together are aware of all the bugs?

No, of course not. Those are the current bugs I and my co-workers at several thousand stores have run across which recieved the most notice.

I work with computers, by the way. I love Apple machines, and I'm fine with Windows and I'm pro Linux as well. I do IT tech support for firms, and I've repaired close to a thousand computers by now, running any darn spec you can imagine made within the past 15 years. I know what I'm talking about here, its my job to know.

How about you start your own topic to ask that question? That post has NOTHING to do with Vista