Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 72962	2006-10-02 17:18:00	Vista; No thanks,	JJJJJ (528)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
488645	2006-10-02 20:46:00	"Transparent Windows" - Can you get this in Linux. If so, why bother with Vista. As you may know, I am still on Win2K, and I found in XP what you find even worse in Vista. Loss of control and too much advice. If you are a Power User, you want to do it there and then and you know why you are doing it. Not all these "Are you sure ?" pop-ups. Each release of Windows takes away more and more of your control. I remember using sysedit in Win 3.0 to tweak the system for optimum performance. With each subsequent release, the tweaking option became less and less, and the solutions tend to be more CPU speed, more RAM, better GF Card, etc. Each release has been a boon for hardware manufacturers, which proves the point that Microsoft has always been in cohorts with them in a subtle way (by designing their OS for the latest hardware) to sell more and keep the gravy train running.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
488646	2006-10-02 23:12:00	Too many pop ups telling me why it didn't want to be changed. Sort of "Do it MY way or else" attitude. Overall impression. The whole thing looks and acts like a spoiled child. Far too slow. As every new version of Windows is. They get worse and worse. Big Brother, 1984 and all that....	pctek (84)
488647	2006-10-02 23:14:00	Sound like "visitor" to me	stingray68 (7305)
488648	2006-10-02 23:36:00	I have an old PC World that is full of articles and correspondence saying why the "new" Windows 95 won't take off I have an even older one with eight pages of praise for OS/2 Warp :D	Nermal (7077)
488649	2006-10-03 00:41:00	Jack, dont understand your problems with Vista mate, I had no issues, 35min install for dual boot. Why did you scrub out XP?. I'm enjoying my install. I like the network neighbourhood map!	SolMiester (139)
488650	2006-10-03 02:16:00	"Transparent Windows" - Can you get this in Linux . If so, why bother with Vista . Yes, but only if you enable compositing support and use a compositing window manager . As you may know, I am still on Win2K, and I found in XP what you find even worse in Vista . Loss of control and too much advice . If you are a Power User, you want to do it there and then and you know why you are doing it . Not all these "Are you sure ?" pop-ups . This lack of control, more than anything else, drove me to use Linux . I can't stand working on a Windows XP any more - I miss my flexible system too much . Each release of Windows takes away more and more of your control . I remember using sysedit in Win 3 . 0 to tweak the system for optimum performance . With each subsequent release, the tweaking option became less and less, and the solutions tend to be more CPU speed, more RAM, better GF Card, etc . Each release has been a boon for hardware manufacturers, which proves the point that Microsoft has always been in cohorts with them in a subtle way (by designing their OS for the latest hardware) to sell more and keep the gravy train running . I agree that Windows Vista adds a lot of extra load and seems to deliver very little to account for this cost . For security it's a bit better than XP though and your average Joe will be a lot safer with a new computer out of the box . Possibly more importantly, Vista forces better security practices on the industry, tearing down the barriers to running Windows in a secure manner . I really don't agree with the complaints being made by security companies such as Symantec . Microsoft pretty much created the mass market industry for them by making their system like swiss cheese and now these companies whine when MS start to close the holes . If MS want to take responsibility for desktop security then good on them - it's about time . The security of average computer users is not a commodity to be bought and sold, it's an essential component of a complete platform and should be provided from the start . Having said this, if MS fail to improve their security tools to compensate they may be paving the way to massive problems and digging Windows' grave in the process .	TGoddard (7263)
488651	2006-10-03 02:27:00	I think I will definately be going onto Vista. As soon as I get a DX10.1 card. Not sure when 10.1 cards will be out, but it should give a fair while for things to settle down a bit. Maybe half a year after Vista?	mejobloggs (264)
488652	2006-10-03 02:41:00	For security it's a bit better than XP though and your average Joe will be a lot safer with a new computer out of the box. Oh hardly. Some of us can be secure without MS help. MS security is like making a bucket out of a sieve, as I have said before. A friend who does desktop support for a large academic institution just sent me her rave about Vista. How much she likes the ability to lock it down so users can't do anything. How cool it is that after you've applied the 4 latest updates for Adobe Acrobat you don't have to reboot the PC. And other stuff that not only makes me never want to use the damn thing but also to never want to work in corporate IT ever again. God, the day I get enthused about *&^$ like that.....:waughh:	pctek (84)
488653	2006-10-03 04:02:00	If MS want to take responsibility for desktop security then good on them - it's about time . The security of average computer users is not a commodity to be bought and sold, it's an essential component of a complete platform and should be provided from the start . Having said this, if MS fail to improve their security tools to compensate they may be paving the way to massive problems and digging Windows' grave in the process . This argument against MS's poor security record is really broken gramaphone stuff . :yuck: What many don't realise is that it always was and always will be an uneven and uphill struggle against those who try to break the software's security, or exploit its vulnerabilities . Think about it - if a thief is determined to break into your car, no matter what you do, he'll find a way in . An Abrams tank can be destroyed given the resources . Same with your house . As is software . MS have been sorely bitten by not being sufficiently proactive in the past, but neither Windows, nor any other system, will ever be invulnerable .	Greg (193)
488654	2006-10-03 04:38:00	I too have had a play and it is a bit slow but that to be expected, my hardware is not up to next years specs . remember that we are looking at an OS that is not designed for the computer you have it for the computer you buy next year . I think the bigest risk is people who think an upgrade to the latest will be better . I remember when XP came out . . . . I got a call from the guy who was very unhappy with XP . he had a PII-450 and it was a bit slow running 98 so he decided that if XP was the new thing he would get it . can you think how slow XP runs on a PII-450??? so in March next year we will have lots of users putting Vista on a duron-1 . 2GHz and then saying it sucks because its slow . the other big risk with Vista is security, they have re-writen the network stack from the ground up . . . . . . I would expect to see crap loads of bugs in it . the Beta1 version of Vista could be taken down with win-nuke, M$ patched that back in 98 but with the "all new" network stack the bug returned . that bug has been fixed in RC1 but i bet there are many more . I do think that it will be better for non-users to use Vista, its a lot harded to do the dumb things, problem is it can also stop the leet users from tweaking stuff . I would expect to see a bit of the unsupported programs problems we all had moving to XP . over all it looks nice, RC1 is very stable, drivers support is still a bit thin but there is a few months to go yet . I think after a few months of using it we will never look back . any questions?? :-)	robsonde (120)
1 2 3