OSDev.org

If anything deserves to go under general ramblings, this is it.

What do you think of Vista? It was released recently and I don't believe it has been addressed here. I was waiting to see WinFS which I think might have actually worked. (theoretically.) Yet, it was scrapped.

Anyway, thoughts, comments, concerns?

Lots of issues with Vista's licence you might want to review..

I would not recommend anyone using this recent Microsoft product (or any past one actually)

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/175801 --This article talks about various problems with the licence.

And..

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17106/Summary-Windows-Vista-News-Contd wrote:basically, is that after you've upgraded your XP install to Vista, you cannot use the license of your old XP install on another computer

Brynet-Inc wrote:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17106/Summary-Windows-Vista-News-Contd wrote:basically, is that after you've upgraded your XP install to Vista, you cannot use the license of your old XP install on another computer

This actually makes sense. (That is, to someone who can get past the part about selling software.) Uh, an upgrade is less than a full version. Therefore, why should you be able to use part of an operating system in two places? I assume that if you buy a full version, you can install the old one anywhere you want.

Brynet-Inc wrote:Lots of issues with Vista's licence you might want to review..

I would not recommend anyone using this recent Microsoft product (or any past one actually)

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/175801 --This article talks about various problems with the licence.

And..

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17106/Summary-Windows-Vista-News-Contd wrote:basically, is that after you've upgraded your XP install to Vista, you cannot use the license of your old XP install on another computer

Holy ****... you mean once you have payed to replace your XP License with a Vista License, you can't use the XP License which has been replaced. Well that is a clear case of false advertising...

You never post any arguments from the other side.. it makes your comments appear weak. If you were to balance two opposing views and find favour against Vista maybe you would have credibility. Unfortunately you seem to not be intelligent enough to notice that your current flaming has not started any viable discussion.

Personally i have alwasy used windows... purely for the fact that i cherish the safety of my system over the stability problems (which never caused me any problem) and the current whorde of buzz words. I have never had problem with viruses and the like, therefore making the system that is designed to know every inch of the harware feel far safer to me. I have never understood how anyone can intrust important data to an operating system that was thrown together in any other fashion.

Windows Vista does nothing to cause me to believe that this true security i feel will disapear.. unfortunately most other features make me ill. Despite an increase in features and an apparnet increase in technolgy to increase speed in tools such as searching, the system is slower than ever. Had Microsoft released Windows 98 about this time i think the Hardware/Software Speed levels would be about equal. Unforunately they seem intent on making there system impossible to be used at appropriate speeds on any current hardware.

As for backward compatability, i am no fan... but if they promise old programs will work it kinda sucks when no Applications (even Microsoft ones) succesful run on the system. Basically i beleive the entire market place is going in the wrogn direction, and even those in the apparently "aware" positions are intent on selling buzz more that the real innovations a technological "restart" of sorts could provide.

The only part of Vista that would make me want to upgrade is the upgraded search features... and that is already handled by so many different 3rd party plugins it's not funny. I see no other features that make me go 'ooh!'. IMHO, the transparent windows are just annoying.

So if I can avoid the DRM and other licensing issues, I will. I'll keep my dual-boot XP and Kubuntu, and be happy with that.

Yay! Yet another platform pissing contest!

Tyler wrote:You never post any arguments from the other side.. it makes your comments appear weak. If you were to balance two opposing views and find favour against Vista maybe you would have credibility. Unfortunately you seem to not be intelligent enough to notice that your current flaming has not started any viable discussion.

I actually thought Brynet showed remarkable restraint in his reply -- at least for him.

I'm kicking the MS habit very soon now (as soon as my Mac arrives). Most of the "innovations" in Vista are ripoffs of things that have been in Mac OS X for years anyway.

Despite an increase in features and an apparnet increase in technolgy to increase speed in tools such as searching, the system is slower than ever. Had Microsoft released Windows 98 about this time i think the Hardware/Software Speed levels would be about equal. Unforunately they seem intent on making there system impossible to be used at appropriate speeds on any current hardware.

Windows has some serious issues with responsiveness, that's for sure. I've always thought that it's simply too aggressive in paging things out to disk, but I'm sure it's also that there's a lot of single-threaded event-driven code in the GUI from the bad old 16-bit OLE days. Their process start-up code probably also has a lot to do with it -- you wouldn't believe how many common operations have to hit the Registry (a nasty performance bottleneck).

I was absolutely floored when I first saw how responsive Mac OS X was even on 8-year-old hardware (350 MHz PPC, 512 MB RAM). It really puts Windows to shame, both in responsiveness and usability. YMMV of course... I'm just tired of paying the MS tax and putting up with their licensing shenanigans, and I'm too old and tired of tinkering to switch to Linux or "naked" BSD.

I did try to: Hold Back.

But from that comment Tyler, It seems more likely that you lack the required intelligence to identify what's secure.

Windows is insecure, unstable.. and poorly designed..

Tyler wrote:i cherish the safety of my system over the stability problems

This statement alone gives me a great sense of humour... Anyone who cherishes security and uses Windows.. (Obviously has no idea what the word means).

I'll quote something for you:

http://www.openbsd.org/ wrote:Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 10 years!

Sure every operating system can be vulnerable to attack, but the design and implementation of NT was flawed.. And invites exploitation.

Human Evolution seems to have held back in a few instances.. You're a prime candidate for study Tyler

Brynet-Inc wrote:I did try to: Hold Back.

But from that comment Tyler, It seems more likely that you lack the required intelligence to identify what's secure.

Windows is insecure, unstable.. and poorly designed..

Please do not mock other's intelligence; it is not appropriate on any board.

Do you know how Windows is unstable? Could you fix it? If you are so bent on WIndows being evil, please disprove me by showing me an operating system written by yourself that is more 'stable' than Vista. Until you can say that you yourself can do better, you have no right to critisize other's work.

Please, don't go ranting on this thread. It was intended to be civilized, and if you can't be civilized I suggest you ignore this thread. Thanks.

Now, back to topic! *Dum dah dum dum!!! Rides horse into the sunset.*

I friend of mine used Vista for a couple of months but recently reinstalled w2k becasue of stability and driver issues with vista..

Alboin wrote:

Brynet-Inc wrote:I did try to: Hold Back.

But from that comment Tyler, It seems more likely that you lack the required intelligence to identify what's secure.

Windows is insecure, unstable.. and poorly designed..

Please do not mock other's intelligence; it is not appropriate on any board.

Do you know how Windows is unstable? Could you fix it? If you are so bent on WIndows being evil, please disprove me by showing me an operating system written by yourself that is more 'stable' than Vista. Until you can say that you yourself can do better, you have no right to critisize other's work.

Please, don't go ranting on this thread. It was intended to be civilized, and if you can't be civilized I suggest you ignore this thread. Thanks.

Now, back to topic! *Dum dah dum dum!!! Rides horse into the sunset.*

Thankyou for the original defence... but i said he lacked intelligence in my original post, i will also try to refrain from stating obvious observations that could be construed as insulting.

Brynet-Inc wrote:I did try to: Hold Back.

But from that comment Tyler, It seems more likely that you lack the required intelligence to identify what's secure.

Windows is insecure, unstable.. and poorly designed..

Tyler wrote:i cherish the safety of my system over the stability problems

This statement alone gives me a great sense of humour... Anyone who cherishes security and uses Windows.. (Obviously has no idea what the word means).

I'll quote something for you:

http://www.openbsd.org/ wrote:Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 10 years!

Sure every operating system can be vulnerable to attack, but the design and implementation of NT was flawed.. And invites exploitation.

Human Evolution seems to have held back in a few instances.. You're a prime candidate for study Tyler

Clearly we are all evolving in different areas then. For example your ability to relate one paragraph to another when interpreting text. In the paragraph immediately before my security comment i mentioned the level of security i was putting into context.

I have no need for internet security from my operating system. The security i quite clearly made a point to acknolwedge was the underlying knowledge that i am using a system based upon formal specification and not Backward compilation and the work of many individuals who do not communicate. Even if windows is prone to high level errors (which i have very rarely seen) and is a rip off UNIX and Mac; i know that at the core the systems running windows are safe.

We are talking here about the system that manages hardware. Many movies have become fasinated with the idea that all our information, our very identities are stored on computers. Aside from the security of the internet. I worry that operating systems like Linux with absolutely no design specification and to which no one has a real grasp of how the over all system should work is not safe software. I would rather not trust Goverment computers to be running any of these systems, but at least at the hardware level, i used to feel safe with windows.

Brynet-Inc wrote:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17106/Summary-Windows-Vista-News-Contd wrote:basically, is that after you've upgraded your XP install to Vista, you cannot use the license of your old XP install on another computer

That has been the case for, uh, as long as I remember, for any kind of software update, both commercial and shareware. You have one (1) version N of a product, you upgrade to version N+1, you still have exactly one (1) product, not 1 x N and 1 x N+1...

Your criticism aims at the wrong spot. I would be more interested in whether I would still be able to downgrade to XP on the same computer if Vista is seriously broken, because that's what I am able to do with commercial / shareware upgrades...

As for the original question, I would use it if it comes with the hardware, for the same things I use XP for - games, DVB-T recording, CD/DVD copying and my DVD authoring toolchain, but not because "it's OK", but because I couldn't be bothered with the much-worse system fiddling that would be required to do the same thing under Linux. If I got an install-and-go solution for these things under Linux, I'd go single-boot tomorrow without a look back.

Colonel Kernel wrote:Windows has some serious issues with responsiveness, that's for sure. I've always thought that it's simply too aggressive in paging things out to disk, but I'm sure it's also that there's a lot of single-threaded event-driven code in the GUI from the bad old 16-bit OLE days. Their process start-up code probably also has a lot to do with it -- you wouldn't believe how many common operations have to hit the Registry (a nasty performance bottleneck).

It's called still limiting your entire application to using one thread per window in your newest .NET technology line, forcing extremely slow invoke calls between threads. Or idiocy.

Tyler wrote:We are talking here about the system that manages hardware. Many movies have become fasinated with the idea that all our information, our very identities are stored on computers. Aside from the security of the internet. I worry that operating systems like Linux with absolutely no design specification and to which no one has a real grasp of how the over all system should work is not safe software. I would rather not trust Goverment computers to be running any of these systems, but at least at the hardware level, i used to feel safe with windows.

That design was in fact pretty good, with Windows NT (up to and including 3.51). NT 4 compromised a few of these for compatibility with 95 (iirc) and 2k was the first to break the kernel-level UI drivers for speed (again iirc).

I don't trust a system that can't even keep running for keeping information secure. Especially since nearly all applications trying to be secure have no idea how/what the OS does with its memory & such and can't check the source to see what it does.

Brynet-Inc wrote:Human Evolution seems to have held back in a few instances.. You're a prime candidate for study Tyler

Tyler wrote:Clearly we are all evolving in different areas then. For example your ability to relate one paragraph to another when interpreting text. In the paragraph immediately before my security comment i mentioned the level of security i was putting into context.

Stop mud-throwing.

I voted for 'I don't like it that much.' I already had a pretty deep view on the latest RC, and I have to say that it doesn't bring me anything I don't have with 2K (for working). The main reason for upgrading to XP in former years was application compatibility (mainly games), and I guess it'll be the same with Vista in 1 or 2 years.

Note that I don't complain about security issues or resource consumption, it's just ... I simply don't need it!

cheers Joe

I wish short life for Vista.

There's no considerable improvements, less chance for freedom with your computer platform and more expenses. Oh, and not to mention lots of big lies.

I see vista as the start of end for microsoft. They are clearly interested on making profit, but they do not care anything about what do users get in exchange. Such behavior makes me feel that somebody is interested about milking the final pot and then letting things to collapse completely. Things are over, unless people are really letting themselves to be cheated.

People should admit that vista is just for pissing into eyes, there's no other goal it will fullfill.

To put myself on more stable position, I've months ago switched to linux. (there were other reasons as well but they all are unrelevant here now...)