Vista now officially obsolete! [Archive]

nicky munchkin

29-09-2007, 19:23

If DX10 does come on XP, then yes there will be no need to upgrade to Vista, however, you can't stay on XP forever. What if you don't like Microsofts next version of Windows (Windows 7 as its called to be released around 2010), and the one after that. So your saying in 10 years time you'll still be on XP. In fact, it cant be done, MS will be ending all support for XP, and by around 2009 (2010 for XP Pro imo) wont even activate it.

And I can't see the DOJ/the EU suing them over it, because lets face it, if you don't like it, by a Mac (or run Linux). Besides, by 2010, no one will be using XP except the small few. Why? Because things require more and more memory, so we will need 64bit Windows to keep up (and don't say XP 64bit, because that was the worst version of Windows ever- no drivers, lots of stuff went t1ts up on it). Well maybe we wont need more than 4gb memory by 2010, but you get the idea of the way its going.

Basically to cut a long story short, you keep suggesting all these ways to keep using XP, but your just kidding your self into a false sense of security.

And thats my 2 cents.

Tom

29-09-2007, 19:45

I think the idea is that you can run XP until the situation with Vista (hardware requirements, support, drivers, incompatibilities) is improved.

I envision I'll end up needing to install Vista at some point, but I won't be doing that until I can successfully wee all over the requirements with the computer that I've just built ;)

So in a year or two, probably

jacobzcoool

29-09-2007, 20:16

nicky munchkin

29-09-2007, 21:12

Entirely. I am waiting until drives for vista are fixed (another 5 or 6 years at current rates), and I can build a rig that will actually have enough hardware to run vista properly, then I will get vista and remove all the rubbish from it, but until then, XP FTW.
I have an E4300, 2gb RAM, and Vista boots, shuts down, much quicker than XP. Uses more memory (although thats inevitable), but then as I don't play games, the memory is never used to the max anyway, even when I have Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, loads of tabs in IE all open, MSN etc.

As for the so called "rubbish", it depends entirely on what your definition of rubbish is. I find all the new stuff useful (I took Media Studies at A-Level so find movie/dvd maker etc. all a great help). Then theres Windows Firewall, much better than XP firewall. And of course as long as your behind a router, then your perfectly safe. Windows Defender, one of the best (as tested by Which? Magazine*).

In fact by removing/disabling all this stuff, and then installing your own (Ad-aware, Spybot, ZoneAlarm etc.) then your making it much worse, speed wise.

*No I do not buy Which? Magazine, my mother does.

Modd1_uk

29-09-2007, 21:46

Dont get me wrong, original look at vista ( desktop for instance ) looks very nice, performance however is pants, everything takes too much memory, not everything works properly, things are harder to find, its not as easy to navigate.

I for one am holding out for a way to play dx10 on XP as i really dont want to spoil my rig by putting vista on it.

Andy

Daza

29-09-2007, 22:12

Right, as someone that is currently using vista I'm getting pretty tired of people saying this and that don't work.

All of my peripherals and components work with vista with the occasional driver hick-up which I sorted with a quick google search, just because the company haven't released vista drivers does not mean some one else hasn't.

OK Ill give-in to the memory I'm currently idling at 800mb, and finding files can be a bit confusing at times but thats to be expected with a new look.

OK so yes I'm still using XP as my main OS, but the only reason I'm not using vista is because I don't want to pay for it yet the copy of vista on my other machine is from my uncles pc.

That and I don't want to spend all week transferring all the files/programs Ive got.

But really there is no benefit yet of me using vista on my main machine that is worth the price premium but I've set myself a date of when I get an X38 board to change OS, as xp will kick up a fuss anyway as its a new board.

Davzik

29-09-2007, 22:32

Why not run both and do some comparisons, check my sig, I run vista AND XP PRO (both "legal" :D) It aint hard either, get an external HD, backup your stuff and format, install XP then make a new partition for vista, put in the vista dvd/cd and install into the new partition. There you go, you have a dual boot!

Daza

29-09-2007, 22:38

Cough done that (http://forums.kustompcs.co.uk/showpost.php?p=418736&postcount=7) cough.

What you have to understand is I have two pcs, one for gaming which runs XP.

And one for backup and testing which runs XP and vista, the only reason I'm on this one is my main pc doesn't like getting wet.

DT1

29-09-2007, 22:42

Right, as someone that is currently using vista I'm getting pretty tired of people saying this and that don't work.

And no doubt the people that are having problems that aren't just 'user error' are getting fed up of people that say, 'My Vista works fine so it must be your fault...'. :)

Daza

29-09-2007, 22:46

My Vista works fine so it must be your fault...

:p 12345678 and 9

TriggerHappy

29-09-2007, 22:51

I think most people on here know how to use dual boot :|

I used vista for about 6 months. The only reason I changed back to XP was because there were a couple of programs thats came up which refused to install on vista (not drivers)

Other than that, it was a good OS, lots of nice touches that I miss. I will be switching back as soon as the programs ect are more compatible.

People just seem to point out all the faults with Vista without having experienced it properly and as Nicky said, your going to have to use it some day. Im pretty sure it will be a very good OS once Microsoft sort out the issues and devs bother to code for it.

The point about Microsoft rushing it though seems to be true and checks out in my opinion, we can only hope that by SP1's release it will be pretty much sorted.

[M]uuhh

29-09-2007, 22:59

More vista hate...

Vista "now" officially obsolete!?

give me a working copy that allows me to run Bioshock and world in confect in DX10 mode "NOW"?

By the time anything works for this, we will all be cruising on Vista. only the hardcore will remain on XP like they did with 98SE.
Time moves on, software changes. just cos your desktop is now Glossy with HD doesn't mean your world is at an end.

When you can get animated wallpapers on XP give me a call and ill consider downgrading. until then!

[M]uuhh

29-09-2007, 23:09

And no doubt the people that are having problems that aren't just 'user error' are getting fed up of people that say, 'My Vista works fine so it must be your fault...'. :)

if you dont check hardware compatability it is your fault. do you go to a store to buy a pc game and walk out with a Mac version and expect it to work?

DT1

29-09-2007, 23:24

See what I mean...

No doubt that you'll be telling me next that ME was an improvement over 98SE. :p

jameson_uk

29-09-2007, 23:58

looks very nice, performance however is pants, everything takes too much memory, not everything works properly, things are harder to find, its not as easy to navigate.
Why do you say performance is pants?? For general PC use there is no noticable difference between XP and Vista.

I know some FPS have lower performance but based on the benchmarks I have seen, this is a few % worse. These problems appear to be down to the drivers not Vista and they are getting better all the time.

As for things being harder to find, this is nonsense. They are just located in different places. I know it shouldn't bother me as it is individual preference but it does annoy me when the first thing people do with a new OS is try and turn it into the old one. Rather than spending five minutes looking where something has moved to, they want it in the old place. It was the same when people went into XP and the first thing they did was turned off themes and set control panel to "Classic View".

As for navigation, how is this harder than XP? most of it is the same.

I can see little reason to get people to upgrade from XP to Vista but it really does get me when people are buying new PCs and asking for them with XP. From what I have seen, these people tend to also be the "Use AVG it is free" brigade....

Daza

30-09-2007, 00:05

"Use AVG it is free" brigade....

Which I pay £30 a year for pffft....... :D

[M]uuhh

30-09-2007, 00:58

See what I mean...

No doubt that you'll be telling me next that ME was an improvement over 98SE. :p
Forgive me, wasnt ME just 98SE with a few visual improvements? next you will be telling me Vista is the same as XP.

Relay, all these vista bashers, i cant believe that fact they are basing Vista when XP was a LOT worse particularly in Pre SP1 and Post SP1. i particularly remember that Virus that spread without having to download any file or open any email, that caused PC's to reboot constantly.
The reason your happy to use XP now is because it has 6 years of development and patches and improvements. Give vista 5 or 6 months and it will be in a similar position, Please just stop bashing something cos its different. its not a healthy way to live your life!

Fat Jez

30-09-2007, 01:17

If the people bashing Vista weren't kids who are stuck in their comfort zone and too scared to learn something new, then I might take them more seriously. At the end of the day though, when you get out in the big bad world and somebody is paying you to do a job, you use the tools provided. If my employer tells me that I have to use Solaris, MacOS X, Linux, XP or Vista, I will, because those are the tools they've given me and there is no point in whining. You have to be prepared to move with the times, especially in industry.

The people bashing Vista are going to be a bit stuck in a few years when support for XP is withdrawn and they are stuck in the past with no transferable skills.

Cheers,
Stephen

jesush++

30-09-2007, 01:40

Entirely. I am waiting until drives for vista are fixed (another 5 or 6 years at current rates), and I can build a rig that will actually have enough hardware to run vista properly, then I will get vista and remove all the rubbish from it, but until then, XP FTW.

Exactly what hardware are you talking about.

I have 2gb ram, ATI x1950 XTX E6600, Webcam, Bluetooth adaptor, Sound Card etc, and i dont have a single problem with drivers.

All this, Vista doesnt have my drivers is bulls**t.

jesush++

30-09-2007, 01:43

The only reason I changed back to XP was because there were a couple of programs thats came up which refused to install on vista (not drivers)

Try running the install programs in compatibility mode. Ive just installed NetMeeting in compatibility for NT 4 SP5, whereas it refused to install normally on vista.

Sorry for the double posts

TriggerHappy

30-09-2007, 06:01

Ye, I did try that :) I had already installed a number of programs that way and they worked just fine. But the 2 I'm referring too just refused to work :( No doubt these will be updated soon and I shall then be going back to vista.

Fireblade

30-09-2007, 06:18

uuhh;419131']

if you dont check hardware compatability it is your fault.

In fairness... even those with peripherals for which "Vista compatible" drivers have been released, are still having problems.

I agree that's not Vista's fault though. Manufacturers were given years of notice about Vista being released, yet many still haven't released compatible/working drivers :rolleyes:

Exactly what hardware are you talking about.

I have 2gb ram, ATI x1950 XTX E6600, Webcam, Bluetooth adaptor, Sound Card etc, and i dont have a single problem with drivers.

All this, Vista doesnt have my drivers is bulls**t.

For the reasons outlined in my reply to [M]uuhh above... it doesn't follow that just because you're not having problems with the particular make/model of peripherals you're using, that anyone saying they are having problems with theirs is talking bull$h1t :rolleyes:

Whilst I don't doubt the majority of those running Vista don't have problems, I know of many experienced users - on both these and other forums, who do have various problems with Vista.

So whatever the reasons (primarily hardware/software compatibility]...the simple fact is, that [many] problems do exist with it for many.
Whether it's the fault of the OS itself - or the fault of manufacturer's, is neither here nor there to those having the problems :(

nicky munchkin

30-09-2007, 09:53

At the end of the day though, when you get out in the big bad world and somebody is paying you to do a job, you use the tools provided. If my employer tells me that I have to use Solaris, MacOS X, Linux, XP or Vista, I will, because those are the tools they've given me and there is no point in whining. You have to be prepared to move with the times, especially in industry.Theres this dude in my ALevel ICT class who is refusing to use the computers when they move to Vista. It's as if he was expecting them to say "Oh no please don't do that, we want you to pass badly, we'll keep them all on XP just for you".

jacobzcoool

30-09-2007, 10:24

lol. My school is still using XP.

As for the control panel and themes, yeah, XP's default theme isn't very nice which is why I changed it. As for the control panel though, yes I have it on classic view, as I don't like to have to spend 15 min looking for the right option. the new control panel view, much like vista itself, is designed to appeal to noobs and people who know nothing about computers TBH.

Fat Jez

30-09-2007, 10:34

the new control panel view, much like vista itself, is designed to appeal to noobs and people who know nothing about computers TBH.

So was the new start menu on XP. So you do what I do and switch it to the classic view.

Honestly Jacob, if those are the best arguments you can come up with, I'm not very impressed. You seem to be complaining about Vista because it's something to complain about, not for any real reason.

Cheers,
Stephen

Tom

30-09-2007, 11:23

If the people bashing Vista weren't kids who are stuck in their comfort zone and too scared to learn something new, then I might take them more seriously.
Kids? I think you'll find that it's generally the grey and weary whom take comfort in sticking to what they know :p

I checked Vista out - I've got enough performance to run it, but without a extra GB of memory or so; it really is a dog comparatively. Besides; I'm still stuck in NForce2 ownership (money :() and Nvidia decided that they didn't fancy writing drivers for it anymore.

To Microsoft's credit, Vista had drivers for most of the devices and WU'd the rest. These are mostly XP drivers being run in some compatiblity mode, to my knowledge.

I have an E4300, 2gb RAM, and Vista boots, shuts down, much quicker than XP. Uses more memory (although thats inevitable), but then as I don't play games, the memory is never used to the max anyway, even when I have Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, loads of tabs in IE all open, MSN etc.

Unfortunately I was left with about 25MB free memory out of 1GB total, which doesn't leave much to game with. FEAR uses about 1.1GB whilst running on high texture settings and even with 2GB of RAM under Vista, you're going to notice more paging to the disk than you would with the same setup under XP.

My stance has always been that, I wouldn't mind running Vista when I've got a computer that laughs in the face of the increased resources it requires. Even if I think it's unjustified. (Ubuntu 7.10 has far fancier effects and uses roughly the same memory footprint as XP ;))

And for the love of all that's innocent Nicky, don't for one second believe a god-damn thing that 'Which?' say. Have you seen what these experts try to say about cameras? Let-alone computers!

DT1

30-09-2007, 12:53

uuhh;419140']Please just stop bashing something cos its different. its not a healthy way to live your life!

Are you talking about me?

I haven't 'bashed' Vista once, I have simply pointed out that I don't think that all the problems can be laid purely at users or their hardware.

If that was the case then Vista really would be a perfect OS, by which I mean one which has no intrinsic errors.

I shall make my smileys a bit more obvious, but I think Daza took my comments in the way that they were intended. :D

[M]uuhh

30-09-2007, 16:32

So was the new start menu on XP. So you do what I do and switch it to the classic view.

Honestly Jacob, if those are the best arguments you can come up with, I'm not very impressed. You seem to be complaining about Vista because it's something to complain about, not for any real reason.

Cheers,
Stephen
Hes against vista cos its only appeals to "noobs" and only "noobs" use it.

Are you talking about me?
No i was talking in general. first line was for you :)

jacobzcoool

30-09-2007, 18:02

No, I only object to vista because of the rubbish unnecessary features (UAC anyone?) and the resource hogging.

Anyway, can we please get back on topic here? :rolleyes:

Fat Jez

30-09-2007, 18:07

No, I only object to vista because of the rubbish unnecessary features (UAC anyone?) and the resource hogging.

If you were using a Unix based OS, you'd understand that UAC is no different to sudo or having to su to root to run certain tasks. Yes Vista uses more resources, but the jump from 2000 to XP was no different.

Cheers,
Stephen

jacobzcoool

30-09-2007, 18:52

But on UNIX you generally don't run fullscreen games to be interrupted every 10 sec by UAC. The day my account is a limited account if the day I stop using Windows! lol

Fat Jez

30-09-2007, 19:04

I've never had a full screen game interrupted by UAC! Dunno what you are doing to trigger that? And you can switch off UAC.

If you won't use a limited account in Windows, does that mean you'd insist on always using root on a Unix system? You'd never get near one of the systems I support if the answer to that is yes!

Cheers,
Stephen

jesush++

30-09-2007, 19:05

But on UNIX you generally don't run fullscreen games to be interrupted every 10 sec by UAC. The day my account is a limited account if the day I stop using Windows! lol

Exactly what are you doing that UAC interupts you every 10 seconds?

Jacob, its clear that your dislike of vista is as irrational as your dislike of firefox etc, and now you are arguing just for the sake of it, making spurious points that are clearly untrue.

Tom

30-09-2007, 19:39

If you were using a Unix based OS, you'd understand that UAC is no different to sudo or having to su to root to run certain tasks.
I have to disagree. Whilst maybe the intentions are similar, the effect is not.

UAC goes beyond security, it is truly annoying. I know you can turn it off, but I always wonder what they were thinking when someone said, 'Let's make sure everyone's got to press OK twice! Oh, and dull the screen too!' :rolleyes:

Using 'su -' on a *nix system is a totally different story, too. You also don't get asked twice when you're root; you do with UAC as the Administrator.

[M]uuhh

30-09-2007, 19:44

if our an advanced Computer user, turn it off, if you dont know how to administrate a computer like 70% of the world, then whats the problem with it? it means less peopel ****ing up their computers. why cmplain about something thats easily disabled. if you get dropped to desktop every 10 secs as you say jacob then it sounds like you have a virus.

RazzleUltra

30-09-2007, 19:47

Haven't you all heard?

It's fashionable to bash Vista. Anyone who likes it or is even indifferent is clearly a loser who just doesn't keep with the trends...

Doesn't matter if you can't think of a good reason either...

:rolleyes:

nicky munchkin

30-09-2007, 20:04

But on UNIX you generally don't run fullscreen games to be interrupted every 10 sec by UAC. The day my account is a limited account if the day I stop using Windows! lolTurn UAC off :confused:

jacobzcoool

30-09-2007, 20:28

dislike of firefox etc.
WTF? I have been using Ff for months and months now. OFC as soon as I even mention if you go 'ZOMFGROFLWTF IE LOLZ!!1' and ignore what I actually posted.

[M]uuhh

30-09-2007, 20:33

WTF? I have been using Ff for months and months now. OFC as soon as I even mention if you go 'ZOMFGROFLWTF IE LOLZ!!1' and ignore what I actually posted.

you just ignored what we posted.

jacobzcoool

30-09-2007, 21:02

uuhh;419203'] if you get dropped to desktop every 10 secs as you say jacob then it sounds like you have a virus.
no, I don't have malware as I don;t have Vista :p

What I meant was as UAC creates a popup, I guess this would cause a game to minimise like most popups.

Yes, I know UAC can be disabled, it is more the actual fact that it is there in the first place that I object to. If you don't like real computers where you have to actually know something, get a mac. or a calculator.

nicky munchkin

30-09-2007, 21:06

no, I don't have malware as I don;t have Vista :p
Yeah despite the fact Vista has many more security features, than XP :confused:

jacobzcoool

30-09-2007, 21:13

Like IE7? :rolleyes:

jesush++

30-09-2007, 21:14

no, I don't have malware as I don;t have Vista :p

What I meant was as UAC creates a popup, I guess this would cause a game to minimise like most popups.

Yes, I know UAC can be disabled, it is more the actual fact that it is there in the first place that I object to. If you don't like real computers where you have to actually know something, get a mac. or a calculator.

So it seems you are saying that you havent actually experienced this happening, but guess that it would happen?

It would also appear that your saying that people who use vista with UAC on, know nothing in relation to computers? Do you honestly believe that?

[M]uuhh

30-09-2007, 21:29

So it seems you are saying that you havent actually experienced this happening, but guess that it would happen?

It would also appear that your saying that people who use vista with UAC on, know nothing in relation to computers? Do you honestly believe that?
i dont think he would say it if he didnt believe it! :eek:

its obveuse to some people that your not Cool if you use UAC! :confused:
Like IE7?

IE7 is also on XP. and i personally find it more secure than IE6!
Vista has a lot more security features than XP, like the Firewall which has been mentioned a few times already.

Fat Jez

30-09-2007, 21:32

no, I don't have malware as I don;t have Vista :p

What I meant was as UAC creates a popup, I guess this would cause a game to minimise like most popups.

So you have no experience of using Vista but assumed it would interrupt? Believe me, if I was in the middle of a game and UAC interrupted me, I would want it to, because it would mean an unauthorised program is trying to do something it shouldn't.

For the record though, I've yet to have any malware because I don't install stupid apps and run AVG. And I've never had a game interrupted by it either.

Cheers,
Stephen

nicky munchkin

30-09-2007, 21:35

Like IE7? :rolleyes:
What :confused:

IE7 is much more secure and better than IE6 (and in many cases than Firefox). It also looks like you've gone from being an IE fanboy, to a FF fanboy.

Try googling "Firefox Myths".

Faster than Internet Explorer 6

Myth - "Firefox is Faster than Internet Explorer 6" - Example (http://www.randem.net/design/2005/06/firefox.html)

Reality - Internet Explorer 6 is clearly faster than Firefox 1.x and 2.x in 5 out of 7 measures of performance and is significantly faster from a cold start. - Source (http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#winspeed)

Notes - The argument that components of Internet Explorer may load during Windows Startup is nullified by Opera (http://www.opera.com/)'s start times. Which means there is no excuse for this except poor coding on Firefox's part.

Faster than Internet Explorer 7

Myth - "Firefox is Faster than Internet Explorer 7" - Example (http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=159825)

Reality - Internet Explorer 7 (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx) is clearly faster than Firefox 1.x and 2.x in 4 out of 7 measures of performance. - Source (http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#winspeed)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/Icons/Security.jpg (http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=advisories) Security

Myth - "Firefox is Secure" - Example (http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/2389#comment-4244)

Reality - Firefox is anything but Secure with multiple unpatched vulnerabilities allowing exposure of sensitive data to local users. You only need one vulnerability to be insecure. Since Firefox v1.x was released, users have been exposed to over 293 security vulnerabilities and counting.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/Icons/CVE.jpg CVE (http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=firefox) - lists over (293) security vulnerabilities in Firefox. - Source (http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=firefox)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/Icons/Mozilla_Foundation.jpg Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html#Firefox) - lists over (190) security vulnerabilities in Firefox. - Source (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html#Firefox)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/Icons/Secunia_Small.jpg Secunia (http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=advisories) - lists (169) security vulnerabilities in Firefox, over (100) are rated Highly Critical. - Source (http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=advisories)

Notes - The number of Secunia "advisories" (44) does not equal the actual amount of "vulnerabilities" (169). Over 10 advisories have multiple vulnerabilities, look carefully. SA19631 (http://secunia.com/advisories/19631/) - Lists 24 Vulnerabilities Alone!

"In the excitement that surrounded its launch last year, Firefox was unreasonably portrayed by some as having unbreakable security, but the vulnerabilities that have been detected in recent months are injecting a dose of reality into this myth, analysts say." - Source (http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/20/HNfirefoxmatures_1.html)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/Icons/Opera.jpg (http://secunia.com/product/10615/?task=advisories) Most Secure Web Browser

Myth - "Firefox is the Most Secure Web Browser" - Example (http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/13933#comment-24217)

Reality - Opera (http://www.opera.com/) is currently the most Secure Graphical Web Browser in Windows. - Source (http://secunia.com/product/10615/?task=advisories)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/Icons/IE.jpg (http://poptech.blogspot.com/2006/09/internet-explorer-6x-more-secure-than.html) More Secure than Internet Explorer 6

Myth - "Firefox 1.x is more Secure than Internet Explorer 6" - Example (http://news.com.com/Mozilla+Were+more+secure+than+Microsoft/2100-1032_3-5630529.html)

Reality - Internet Explorer 6 has been more secure than Firefox 1.x in 2006. - Source (http://poptech.blogspot.com/2006/09/internet-explorer-6x-more-secure-than.html)

Firefox 1.x (2006) - 13 Advisories (http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=advisories_2006) = 88 Vulnerabilities
Internet Explorer 6.x (2006) - 16 Advisories (http://secunia.com/product/11/?task=advisories_2006) = 36 Vulnerabilities

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/Icons/Patch_Time.jpg (http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=advisories) Patch Time

Myth - "Firefox Vulnerabilities are Quickly Patched" - Example (http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/20807#comment-68149)

Reality - Multiple vulnerabilities have remained unpatched for a long time. - Source (http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=advisories)

SA12403 (http://secunia.com/advisories/12403/) - Unpatched since 08-30-2004
SA12580 (http://secunia.com/advisories/12580/) - Unpatched since 09-18-2004
SA20442 (http://secunia.com/advisories/20442/) - Unpatched since 06-06-2006
SA23046 (http://secunia.com/advisories/23046/) - Unpatched since 11-22-2006

jacobzcoool

30-09-2007, 21:38

well, as that site says, IE6 security > IE7.

Also, I see the number if IE vulns aren't even listed. I guess they tried but their servers ran out of storage :D

I never said Ff was 100% secure, nothing is.

nicky munchkin

30-09-2007, 21:42

well, as that site says, IE6 security > IE7.

Also, I see the number if IE vulns aren't even listed. I guess they tried but their servers ran out of storage :D
That sites at least a year old, I'd think IE7 is now more secure than IE6.

Anyways I don't want to start a browser war so lets drop it eh ;)

[M]uuhh

30-09-2007, 21:50

Jacob i remember you being very anti Firefox just like you are Very Anti Vista right now. could it be that all your Vista hate is based nothing more on your own personal stubbornness to change instead of actual facts?

President_Evil

30-09-2007, 22:01

http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/
http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/

woot. keep an eye on this, looks promising :)

Vista has always been obsolete. XP was good, But Linux is better.

anthonylei

01-10-2007, 23:43

does anyone knows a rough release date of Vista SP1??

[M]uuhh

01-10-2007, 23:55

no, as with most things in life, it will be ready when its ready. its in closed Beta testing right now. its very hard to put release dates on things like service packs.

nicky munchkin

02-10-2007, 00:18

Its estimated around Q1 2008, although as Muhh said, theres no specific date set.

Retroanaconda

02-10-2007, 00:51

Funny, Q1 2007 was 6 months ago ;)

Pretty sure you mean 2008 yeah?

anthonylei

02-10-2007, 10:22

uuhh;419359']no, as with most things in life, it will be ready when its ready. its in closed Beta testing right now. its very hard to put release dates on things like service packs.

mmmm... hopefully it is within 3 months.... :rolleyes:

Funny, Q1 2007 was 6 months ago ;)

Pretty sure you mean 2008 yeah?

I am pretty sure Microsoft 's big mouth said 2007 Q1 :D

Davzik

02-10-2007, 10:26

Faster than Internet Explorer 6

Myth - "Firefox is Faster than Internet Explorer 6" - Example

Reality - Internet Explorer 6 is clearly faster than Firefox 1.x and 2.x in 5 out of 7 measures of performance and is significantly faster from a cold start. - Source

Notes - The argument that components of Internet Explorer may load during Windows Startup is nullified by Opera's start times. Which means there is no excuse for this except poor coding on Firefox's part.

Faster than Internet Explorer 7

Myth - "Firefox is Faster than Internet Explorer 7" - Example

Reality - Internet Explorer 7 is clearly faster than Firefox 1.x and 2.x in 4 out of 7 measures of performance. - Source

Does that mean IE has gotten slower? ( i know gotten isnt a word but it is early lol.)

nicky munchkin

02-10-2007, 16:44

Does that mean IE has gotten slower? ( i know gotten isnt a word but it is early lol.)
Yeah, the much better theme, more security features (anti-phising etc.) takes its toll on the memory.

jacobzcoool

02-10-2007, 16:47

Yes. All that rubbish M$ added, like the really badly implemented tab system.

RazzleUltra

02-10-2007, 17:02

What's wrong with the tabs in IE7? I use Firefox on my Mac and both IE7 and Firefox on my Windows PCs, and I can't say I have a preference.

PS Is anyone else bored to tears by the use of 'M$'?

Retroanaconda

02-10-2007, 17:31

Yeah, about four years ago.

RazzleUltra

02-10-2007, 17:34

..and I thought it was just me...

Don't get me wrong, I have a healthy cynicism for all big companies, but it's just a bit over done in my opinion.

[M]uuhh

02-10-2007, 18:20

What's wrong with the tabs in IE7? I use Firefox on my Mac and both IE7 and Firefox on my Windows PCs, and I can't say I have a preference.

PS Is anyone else bored to tears by the use of 'M$'?

personally i prefer IEs tabs to FF tabs, in FF i have to configure them how i want with IE they work just like i want them to out of the box. anti fishing and tabs and security is not Rubbish jacob. at least, to most of this worlds population.
and i agree is it really that hard to type Microsoft?

Tom

02-10-2007, 18:41

I am pretty sure Microsoft 's big mouth said 2007 Q1 :D
Even Microsoft can't have been planning to release SP1 in the same quarter that they released Vista.

Even if they wanted to, there's no way it would have ever happened.

Q1 2008 sounds far more sensible to me, too. :rolleyes:

Davzik

02-10-2007, 20:32

uuhh;419441']personally i prefer IEs tabs to FF tabs, in FF i have to configure them how i want with IE they work just like i want them to out of the box. anti fishing and tabs and security is not Rubbish jacob. at least, to most of this worlds population.
and i agree is it really that hard to type Microsoft?

Agreed. Me too lol. I like the scroll wheel click to open a new tab and to close them as well.

jacobzcoool

02-10-2007, 21:10

Hmm, I don't like the anti phishing as it is by microsoft, so they could easily make it block things they don't like e.g. Linux or sites that don't like vista, or sell the data for marketing (they are microsoft, after all)

The tabs in IE7 are just annoying, like how they open on the wrong order if you try and open 10 tabs in a row

Tom

02-10-2007, 21:23

Hmm, I don't like the anti phishing as it is by microsoft, so they could easily make it block things they don't like e.g. Linux or sites that don't like vista, or sell the data for marketing (they are microsoft, after all)
Unfortunately, this would land them in yet another anti-trust case faster than you can say 'Windows Media Player'.

And I have to agree - Firefox's tabbed browsing is a nicer solution. :)

[M]uuhh

02-10-2007, 21:37

Hmm, I don't like the anti phishing as it is by microsoft, so they could easily make it block things they don't like e.g. Linux or sites that don't like vista, or sell the data for marketing (they are microsoft, after all)

Do you have evidence/ proof, or even a credible rummer to support this?

i doubt it. infact the anti phising filter in IE7 is one of the best.

jacobzcoool

02-10-2007, 21:43

yeah, but I don't need an anti phishing filter, I just delete dodgy emails :p

[M]uuhh

02-10-2007, 22:31

If only everyone had your intelligence Jacob.

Fat Jez

02-10-2007, 22:32

yeah, but I don't need an anti phishing filter, I just delete dodgy emails :p

Phishing is nothing to do with dodgy emails, it's all about sites pretending to be something they are not with similar URLs.

Cheers,
Stephen

Davzik

03-10-2007, 19:01

Hmm, I don't like the anti phishing as it is by microsoft, so they could easily make it block things they don't like e.g. Linux or sites that don't like vista, or sell the data for marketing (they are microsoft, after all)

THATS SO TRUE, if any1 has a 360 try changing their motto to include the word "linux". It says it is unacceptable ROFL.

[M]uuhh

03-10-2007, 19:16

if its so true where is the evidence? surly the Microsoft haters of the world would have used something like that to further there opinions. but i cant find any evidence of the Anti phising blocking legitimate websites. You cant claim something is True just because you have a cynical opinion about something.

jacobzcoool

03-10-2007, 19:28

the point is they could if they wanted to. I try to avoid M$ controlled stuff, bad enough using Windows as my main OS haha

nicky munchkin

03-10-2007, 20:07

the point is they could if they wanted to. I try to avoid M$ controlled stuff, bad enough using Windows as my main OS haha
Don't use it then! Install Linux, install WINE, your games should run fine. Games that run under Linux will run even better (better FPS).

Besides they'd be brown bread in next to no time if they pulled a stunt like that.

nicky munchkin

05-10-2007, 22:02

Davzik

05-10-2007, 22:15

TriggerHappy

06-10-2007, 04:17

Bad marketing?

Which would you release 2+ SPs free of charge or a totally new product that 1. Keeps the brand fresh and 2. you can SELL and make money on.

I didn't have problems with vista really as Ive said, but waht does annoy me is the pricing. Its virtually DOUBLE!!! Of what it is in the US, now how it can cost £200 to ship a box the size of a video tape by the million I might add Ill never know. Just ridiculous, and they wonder why people use pirated copies...

[M]uuhh

06-10-2007, 08:46

ITs double the price for 3 reasons, 1: Import Duty, 2: 17% VAT, 3: We live in rip of Britain where everything costs more than the US.

jesush++

06-10-2007, 13:30

uuhh;419713']ITs double the price for 3 reasons, 1: Import Duty, 2: 17% VAT, 3: We live in rip of Britain where everything costs more than the US.

QFT.

Now, lets wait and see Jacob try to tell us how those three reasons are Microsofts fault, sorry "M$"'s fault.

nicky munchkin

06-10-2007, 13:46

Vista 's still cheaper than XP.

Home Basic cheaper that corresponding version, XP Home.
Home Prem cheaper than corresponding version MCE.
Business cheaper than corresponding version XP Pro.

Tami

06-10-2007, 14:20

Vista is evil.

DT1

06-10-2007, 14:41

uuhh;419713']ITs double the price for 3 reasons, 1: Import Duty, 2: 17% VAT, 3: We live in rip of Britain where everything costs more than the US.
As far as I can recall there is no import duty on software, it is a supply of services. The medium, i.e., CD/DVD, will incur VAT and duty but not the software.

And it is 17.5% VAT.

jacobzcoool

06-10-2007, 16:35

so 17.5% on about 40p worth of DVD plus a few p of packaging...

bloody rip off britain...

Tom

06-10-2007, 20:10

I think the reason everyone thinks Vista is such a memory hog, is because there used to XP. Take Ubuntu, that needs 256mb RAM to install, and thats Linux! XP is 6 years old, and thats ancient in operating systems. In fact if it were not for the service packs, it would certainly be obsolete. Thats why it requires so little RAM. Its like booting NT4 off a P4.

Ubuntu's installer is a Live CD - it requires 192MB of RAM (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements#head-2659cd6ecdcc610d675550bceabb5cbfb76541b8) because it's running completely from memory. If you use the Alternate Install CD, it's absolutely fine to run it from a 64MB system.

I'd also note that, a fresh install (no apps ) of Ubuntu will use less memory than XP.

In fact XP has to be the most modern Operating System that requires the least memory.

Take MCE 05 which is a modern version of Windows, that requires 256mb RAM, which meaning that Vista requiring 512mb of RAM, is certainly on track in todays terms.

Vista requires 512MB for installation purposes, but have you ever used it on a system with only 512MB of memory? Good god it's horrid.

I was experimenting with Vista recently; until you reach about 1.2-1.5GB of system memory, you're left with about ~25MB of memory for your applications. We've had to add another 4GB to a customers' VM host just because I've had to assign 2GB to each Vista VM to stop them running each other down due to excessive paging (HDD I/O in VMs isn't the best).

Want to run Outlook 2007, several browser windows and other small apps? About the average usage at my office, and you need about 2GB RAM too keep away from the slow-down.

I'm not knocking the fact that after 6 years you should need more memory, but what is there in Vista that there isn't in XP, or for that matter - Ubuntu? ;) I added an extra GB to my PC briefly and it only served to help with HL2 under wine.

Because Microsoft never released a version of Windows in 6 years (well they did, -MCE, they just never pushed it enough so people thought it was for HTPC's only, and it was basically still an update of XP anyway) this is why people think Vista is a hog, this is why not enough will move to it, because they spent so much time making the buggy XP no service pack better, that people are too happy with it. If they'd spent 6 years trying to patch up ME, it would certainly be decent now.

Hah! Unlikely since Win ME was flawed before it was even released. You can't polish a turd in six years or sixty.

And this is all Microsofts bad marketing tactics.

No, it's Microsoft's bad design. Their marketing is generally quite good... It's the product that lets us all down. ;)

[M]uuhh

06-10-2007, 21:45

I'm not knocking the fact that after 6 years you should need more memory, but what is there in Vista that there isn't in XP, or for that matter - Ubuntu? ;)

I thought it was obvious by looking at Vistas Desktop to see what XP hasn't got. High resolution icons, side bar w/ gadgets. (yes you can get sidebar software on XP but its not as good.) also the cool theme which i personally love.
but the amount of things vista has that XP dosnt is quite large.

No, it's Microsoft's bad design. Their marketing is generally quite good... It's the product that lets us all down. Windows 98 was a letdown, 2000 was a let down, XP was a letdown, Vista is a let down. so whats new? people think we live in some kind of Paradise where everything is suited for everyones personal needs. Well we dont live in a perfect world, however noone ever knocks Linux, Linux must be the truly perfect OS out there!

nicky munchkin

06-10-2007, 21:50

Vista requires 512MB for installation purposes, but have you ever used it on a system with only 512MB of memory? Good god it's horrid.
Actually yes, I run it on a 1.6ghz celly with 512mb RAM. Apart from the initial boot time, it seems to load programs etc. as fast as XP (maybe a titch slower).

In fact you only need 512mb for the install, you can take out a stick and run it off 256 afterwards, although yes I would rather pull my fingernails out with pliers.

Hah! Unlikely since Win ME was flawed before it was even released. You can't polish a turd in six years or sixty.
Yes okay ME was a bad example as its based on the 9x kernel. But XP was still awful when it was released.

I'm not knocking the fact that after 6 years you should need more memory, but what is there in Vista that there isn't in XP, or for that matter - Ubuntu?
1. DX10, and yes I know everyones saying DX10 will be released on XP, but I can't see it even being finished before plenty of legal action from Microsoft.
2. Nice theme. And don't say add a fake Vista looking theme to XP, cos that really did hog memory. My friend does that and his laptop (same spec as my laptop as in sig- the 1.6ghz celly as mentioned above) takes about 3mins to get from turn on to a point where you can move the mouse cursor. And no he doesn't have a load of garbage running in the background.
3. Better security, much better browser than IE6, Windows Firewall better, more media type programs (good for me).
4. Yes thanks to WINE, Linux kicks ass, I run Linux on my main PC now, and Vista only on the laptop.

I cannot see why everyone is so obsessed with sticking with XP, it just feels so old (thats my opinion though). At least Microsoft managed to make an OS that visually keeps up (even if it is a rip off of OS X).

[M]uuhh

06-10-2007, 21:57

Just think, in 5 years time people will be saying the new Windows Crayon edition is a letdown slow and a memory hog and Vista is the best by far.

jacobzcoool

06-10-2007, 22:45

FFS people... the vista theme is UGLY! What do you all see in it? :p :eek:

[M]uuhh

06-10-2007, 22:57

more than you do, you cant expect 1 theme to suit everyone, if you dont like it, customise it, but i personally rate it 110% improvement on what XP could do. the hardware accelerated theme is one of many improvements Vista has implemented over XP.

When i use XP i use the Classic theme, like Win98, with Vista i use Aero as i find it very streamlined and aye catching.

Jacob, show us a screenshot of your XP theme so we can see why you think Vista is so poor! :D

jacobzcoool

06-10-2007, 23:10

Its the MCE one. A lot better than vista IMO - dark coloured UIs just don't work.
Aero is pointless, sure, it looks ok, but it wastes a load of resources.

[M]uuhh

06-10-2007, 23:14

Its the MCE one. A lot better than vista IMO - dark coloured UIs just don't work.
Aero is pointless, sure, it looks ok, but it wastes a load of resources.

then disable it, you can have vista run classic theme too...

Modd1_uk

06-10-2007, 23:26

Give vista time and we will be singing its praises. Same with xp when it was released people used 98 still til xp was " fixed ", give it time.

[M]uuhh

06-10-2007, 23:34

Give vista time and we will be singing its praises. Same with xp when it was released people used 98 still til xp was " fixed ", give it time.

true, i didnt use xp until SP1

Archaon

07-10-2007, 00:10

uuhh;419758']Well we dont live in a perfect world, however noone ever knocks Linux, Linux must be the truly perfect OS out there!
Because most people don't even know what it is. Which kinda says it all, really...

Tom

07-10-2007, 02:59

uuhh;419758']I thought it was obvious by looking at Vistas Desktop to see what XP hasn't got. High resolution icons, side bar w/ gadgets. (yes you can get sidebar software on XP but its not as good.) also the cool theme which i personally love.
but the amount of things vista has that XP dosnt is quite large.

Mostly aesthetics. Which is fine if you've got the resources - I don't.. Yet. See my original posts in the thread, as I've explained that point over and over again.

I'm still laughing though - I get as much eye-candy, with full OGL desktop effects, in the new Ubuntu beta.. Ohhh and the memory usuage is a third of Vista's ;)

uuhh;419758']
Windows 98 was a letdown, 2000 was a let down, XP was a letdown, Vista is a let down. so whats new? people think we live in some kind of Paradise where everything is suited for everyones personal needs. Well we dont live in a perfect world, however noone ever knocks Linux, Linux must be the truly perfect OS out there!
Apples to oranges. Compare a particular distro to a particular Windows version and you'll be getting closer to a comparison worth reading. Sarcastic comments about Linux in general don't show much of an understanding though.

Actually yes, I run it on a 1.6ghz celly with 512mb RAM. Apart from the initial boot time, it seems to load programs etc. as fast as XP (maybe a titch slower).

In fact you only need 512mb for the install, you can take out a stick and run it off 256 afterwards, although yes I would rather pull my fingernails out with pliers.

Having fully experimented with, even 1.25GB of RAM in a Vista machine, before thinking 'screw this, we're gonna need more RAM', I think your requirements of the OS are lesser than those whom work with me - at least in this instance.

1. DX10, and yes I know everyones saying DX10 will be released on XP, but I can't see it even being finished before plenty of legal action from Microsoft.
DX10 is only a Vista exclusive because MS want you to upgrade. You know this already - so it's not a feature of Vista, it's more a bribe to get you upgrading.

2. Nice theme. And don't say add a fake Vista looking theme to XP, cos that really did hog memory. My friend does that and his laptop (same spec as my laptop as in sig- the 1.6ghz celly as mentioned above) takes about 3mins to get from turn on to a point where you can move the mouse cursor. And no he doesn't have a load of garbage running in the background.
I don't dislike how Vista looks, and XP's default theme is tired and old, but it's certainly not worth the increased resources the OS uses up for it. Aero's a BIG let-down compared with what Apple/Compiz have done with 3D desktop acceleration.

3. Better security, much better browser than IE6, Windows Firewall better, more media type programs (good for me).
IE7's available on XP .. Software firewalls are mostly useless, particularly when they automatically make exceptions for common services, which is where the damn vulnerabilities end up coming from.

I cannot see why everyone is so obsessed with sticking with XP, it just feels so old (thats my opinion though). At least Microsoft managed to make an OS that visually keeps up (even if it is a rip off of OS X).
Vista's horrid with >1.5GB of RAM - that's why everyone's obsessed with sticking to XP, because by and large I'd imagine most PCs out there still only have >=1GB of RAM.

And 'keeps up'?! Have you seen compiz-fusion? Ubuntu 7.10 is out (with compiz-fusion included) in 11 days. You'll forget all about Vista's visual effects ;)

uuhh;419762']Just think, in 5 years time people will be saying the new Windows Crayon edition is a letdown slow and a memory hog and Vista is the best by far.
Oh for sure. I'm sure you could find this thread, from six years ago, talking about XP instead of Vista.

But it's because Microsoft keep doing the same damn thing - make a massive song and dance about not a great deal. And then spend a few years trying to deliver exactly what they've promised.