Microsoft Vista: What's Up?

Off Topic
21

[quote]pookie wrote:
brucevangeorge wrote:
Still. Its alot safer than Windows. Even with those minor flaws.

Some of those flaws are pretty major. The problem is that Apple is refusing to acknowledge and repair some of those flaws. In some cases, they “spin” those flaws as “features”: product-insecurity@apple.com | Rixstep's The Technological

Apple seems to be making all the same mistakes Microsoft made 5 years ago. OS X has been getting less safe with each new revision.

And if you ever have security issues… just get a good firewall. No?

A firewall won’t help you if you receive an email with an attachment and you click on it. Or is you download and open a picture of the new Mac OS X that turns out to be an executable… The wireless driver bug is also not affected by a firewall’s presence.

Getting Mac users to cooperate in their own downfall is incredibly easy, because most of them still believe the myth that OS X is invulnerable.

Some of the holes require no user interaction at all. Many vulnerable Macs are protected the same way many vulnerable Windows PC are: By being behind a router.

They’re also protected by their lack of market share, something that Windows has in abundance. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Good point. And goodthing there’s an alternative to Mac if you require good security.

Linux.

22

[quote]Ren wrote:
The only reason I would get vista is DX10, pretty graphics are awesome. Unfortunately I would have to upgrade my RAM and GFX card quite a bit, which means a new motherboard. I’ll hang on to XP for another year or so I think.[/quote]

If you’re going to upgrade everything… why not just buy a new PC?

You won’t get much off the old components if you sell them. Way less than 1/2 store price… or there’s always eBay.

23

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
I’ve had Office 2007 Enterprise Edition for a few weeks now and it’s leaps and bounds above Office 2003. The whole system is built around tabs and graphically more user-friendly.[/quote]

Cool. Have you used it on XP?

How is the performance hit compared to 2003? I’ve been thinking of switching, but I don’t want another hog on my computer.

24

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
I’ve had Office 2007 Enterprise Edition for a few weeks now and it’s leaps and bounds above Office 2003. The whole system is built around tabs and graphically more user-friendly.

Cool. Have you used it on XP?

How is the performance hit compared to 2003? I’ve been thinking of switching, but I don’t want another hog on my computer.[/quote]

Yeah it runs fine on XP. I’ve got a 2.8 (not dual-core), 800MHz, 2GB Dual-Channel. So nothing special really. It’s not much different from 2003 performance hit-wise. I noticed a bigger hit going from Office XP to Office 2003 for some reason.

What I like about 2007 is the integration of the tabs. All menus/toolbars are basically gone, everything is a tab now. And the most used functions are always visible in a given tab.

Also, one of the coolest benefits for both Word and Excel is when you are editing colors of text or a cell shading, you highlight what you want to change and go up the the tab area and as you cycle through the endless options of colors (something new to excel, as before it had limited color choices) it actually changes the highlighted text on the fly as you cycle through so you can see how it will look. Same with changing the font. Hard to explain, but cool when you use it and a great time-saver.

I like it. So far I’m only using it at home. It’s not available retail or OEM yet (I don’t believe) so I’m still stuck on 2003 at work.

You said you’ve run Vista. Anything enw/cool to talk about or is it really just a cosmetic upgrade to XP?

25

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
You said you’ve run Vista. Anything enw/cool to talk about or is it really just a cosmetic upgrade to XP?[/quote]

I like the new explorer. Its alot easier to use and more intuitive. You know how there are folders? Well in the new explorer, it shows you in the icon what’s in the folder. If you have a bunch of pics, it looks like the folder is stuffed with them and the image images are the actual pictures inside!

But other than that I didn’t really bother to use it. The thing was lagging on a Pentium 4 2.8ghz with 1 gig ram. It started choking when I opened more than 3 windows… so I got pissed and got rid of it.

Not only that but it used around 640-680 Megs of ram doing absolutely nothing! (this wold explain the choking).

Overall I think its a good system. Nothing revolutionary. Still has wordpad, disk defragmenter, calculator and all the other crap from the windows 95 days that they still haven’t changed. They just added more on top with a shiny interface to boot.

Not a huge change. And I’m deffinetly not upgrading until I absolutely must.

I have to buy a new computer if I want to even start it up! I don’t think its worth it. I’d rather use Ubuntu Linux if I must. At least its a pretty good little OS.

26

[quote]pookie wrote:
Dr Stig wrote:
As said, Vista uses loads of memory. The RC1 ast at over 600mb idle. Great if you have 2gb of ram, but not that many people do.

Vista is designed to use that much memory. Unused memory is wasted, so Vista uses as much of it as it can; preloading often used application before you’ve even clicked on them, among various other optimisations.

Search for “SuperFetch” and “ReadyBoost” for more detailed explanation of Vista’s aggressive memory usage.

[/quote]

Yeah I know, I first noticed them when prowling services.exe to look for stuff to turn off. But regardless it still uses 600mb of memory ‘idle’ no matter what it thinks its using it for and no matter how ‘helpful’ it is.

27

Of course they have the technology to make something ground breaking, like for instance getting rid of the ms-dos base for good and design operating systems that boot up instantly, wont drain valuable system resources etc…

Bringing those technologies to consumer markets would simply drain too much resources at short term and cut into their long term revenue. Being able to steadily develope the field and reap continuous profits while keeping costs at minimum is what it’s all about. There is nothing that would force this trend out at this time.

Kinda like a bodybuilder who goes full on on roids, gains massive amounts of muscle, burns himself out and loses all the muscle in a flash because he didnt take his time building a solid base first.

Maybe someone understands what I am trying to say, I certainly do not hah.

28

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Good point. And goodthing there’s an alternative to Mac if you require good security.

Linux.[/quote]

Greater security, but also a lot less user-friendly (and I did try the more “friendly” Ubuntu which ended up doing a number on my machine when one of the updates when horribly awry). Trade-offs for everything I suppose.

29

[quote]R@NE wrote:
like for instance getting rid of the ms-dos base for good[/quote]

MS-DOS has never been the base for the NT family of Microsoft OS (since Windows NT 3.1 back in 1993). The whole lineage, Windows NT 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, Windows 2000, XP and 2003 are built on that base.

The DOS based OS where Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WfW and then 95, 98, 98SE and Windows ME (Millenium Edition) released in 2000. Nothing DOS based has been seen since.

30

I just built my dada “vista ready” machine. Based on PC World’s recommendations for a non-power user I added 2gb of ram, a 250gb HD, and only opted for the 64bit processor. The GPU is an on-board Nvidia.

I have my doubts as to whether or not the on-board video will be very useful, as it draws from the installed ram.

But he’s not a power user, and I’m pretty sure the 64-bit chip will handle everything he’ll be doing 'puterwise.

31

I KNEW you guys would take off and start getting beyond my knowledge base!

But that’s cool! I love learning new things!

Let’s keep the discussion going! I’ll have something to at least discuss with my Local Computer People.

That brings up another thought I’d like you guys opinion on. I think that the Local shops are GREAT places to get computers (that’s where I’ve brought my last two), especially with a limited knowledge base like my own.

The guys often are EXTREMLY smart; and have often called themselves “lazy geeks” who hate “real” jobs!

They have been really cool about walking me through things; and after explaining what I need, of not giving me less or more than I really need.

What do you guys think about using the small, Local companies?

Mufasa

32

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I KNEW you guys would take off and start getting beyond my knowledge base!

But that’s cool! I love learning new things!

Let’s keep the discussion going! I’ll have something to at least discuss with my Local Computer People.

That brings up another thought I’d like you guys opinion on. I think that the Local shops are GREAT places to get computers (that’s where I’ve brought my last two), especially with a limited knowledge base like my own.

The guys often are EXTREMLY smart; and have often called themselves “lazy geeks” who hate “real” jobs!

They have been really cool about walking me through things; and after explaining what I need, of not giving me less or more than I really need.

What do you guys think about using the small, Local companies?

Mufasa[/quote]

Typically these guys are better than the big box store geeks. But not always. Anytime you can get personalized service I say go for it.

33

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Did anyone else (like me) take advantage of the MS offer to watch some of their webcasts and get a free copy of Vista sent to them?

http://www.powertogether.com

They are all sold out of getting a free copy/license of Vista Business, but they still are running the Office Professional 2007 promotion. You basically sign up, watch 3 of their webcasts (some of which are fairly interesting) and then 6-8 weeks later, you get the software mailed to you. Voila![/quote]

Crap - Office is sold out now. Thanks though!

34

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I KNEW you guys would take off and start getting beyond my knowledge base!

But that’s cool! I love learning new things!

Let’s keep the discussion going! I’ll have something to at least discuss with my Local Computer People.

That brings up another thought I’d like you guys opinion on. I think that the Local shops are GREAT places to get computers (that’s where I’ve brought my last two), especially with a limited knowledge base like my own.

The guys often are EXTREMLY smart; and have often called themselves “lazy geeks” who hate “real” jobs!

They have been really cool about walking me through things; and after explaining what I need, of not giving me less or more than I really need.

What do you guys think about using the small, Local companies?

Mufasa[/quote]

HELL YES! I always get the beast deals there too. No more BestBuy, CircitCity or Futureshop.

Its ridiculous how much they charge for computer parts and service.

$400 for a videocard? Hell no. I can get the same one from a local shop for $250.

You just got to find a good one though.

35

[quote]pookie wrote:
R@NE wrote:
like for instance getting rid of the ms-dos base for good

MS-DOS has never been the base for the NT family of Microsoft OS (since Windows NT 3.1 back in 1993). The whole lineage, Windows NT 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, Windows 2000, XP and 2003 are built on that base.

The DOS based OS where Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WfW and then 95, 98, 98SE and Windows ME (Millenium Edition) released in 2000. Nothing DOS based has been seen since.
[/quote]

Aye care to explain more in detail what they are based on then?

I’ll throw random words out there too… x86 and BIOS, how to get rid of them? Should we get rid of them and when, if at all do we see first “hollywood operating systems”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_operating_system

36

[quote]R@NE wrote:
pookie wrote:
Aye care to explain more in detail what they are based on then? [/quote]

The NT family of operating systems are based on the Windows NT kernel.

What is called “the kernel” is the program who’s in charge of the hardware. Other programs use the kernel to get memory, to access files, etc.

In a similar way, what people refer to as “Linux” is generally a “distribution” like Red Hat, which is the Linux kernel bundled with many utility programs.

MS-DOS was barely an operating system; as it’s name implied, it was mostly a “disk operating system” which would read a program from a disk and then give it entire control of the machine. Program didn’t go through DOS access the hardware, they made they BIOS calls directly.

The problem with that approach is that it makes multitasking extremely complicated. DOS programs would expect to “own” the entire hardware while they were running.

Modern OS do not relinquish control of the hardware to any single program. You can see them as “arbitrators” that give each program some CPU time and memory as needed.

Other advantages of these OS is that they’ll provide standard libraries for using a printer, a soundcard or the graphics card. The old DOS WordPerfect used to ship with 2 floppies that contained only printer drivers. And each company who wrote a word processor would have to repeat the effort. Under Windows, a developer is provided with a standard printing library and Windows takes care of producing the output on thousands of different printers.

x86 refers to the CPU architecture of Intel chips since the 8088. It’s called “x86” because Intel always ended it’s chip names with “86.” You might remember shopping for “a 386SX” or a “486 DX2” before Intel decided to use the Pentium name.

Getting rid of “x86” is rather unlikely, because of the incredible quantity of available software for that architecture. If it ever happens, chances are that whatever chip replaces it will emulate x86 in some way to provide backward compatibility.

As for the BIOS, it’s basically the strict minimum the computer needs to be able to operate. With modern operating systems (NT, Linux, BSD, etc.) all functions of the BIOS are taken over once the OS is loaded. So it’s basically “replaced” within minutes of booting.

Hopefully, Hollywood OS don’t mean that we’ll be stuck with Hollywood computer security. :slight_smile:

37

[quote]pookie wrote:
R@NE wrote:
pookie wrote:
Aye care to explain more in detail what they are based on then?

The NT family of operating systems are based on the Windows NT kernel.

What is called “the kernel” is the program who’s in charge of the hardware. Other programs use the kernel to get memory, to access files, etc.

In a similar way, what people refer to as “Linux” is generally a “distribution” like Red Hat, which is the Linux kernel bundled with many utility programs.

MS-DOS was barely an operating system; as it’s name implied, it was mostly a “disk operating system” which would read a program from a disk and then give it entire control of the machine. Program didn’t go through DOS access the hardware, they made they BIOS calls directly.

The problem with that approach is that it makes multitasking extremely complicated. DOS programs would expect to “own” the entire hardware while they were running.

Modern OS do not relinquish control of the hardware to any single program. You can see them as “arbitrators” that give each program some CPU time and memory as needed.

Other advantages of these OS is that they’ll provide standard libraries for using a printer, a soundcard or the graphics card. The old DOS WordPerfect used to ship with 2 floppies that contained only printer drivers. And each company who wrote a word processor would have to repeat the effort. Under Windows, a developer is provided with a standard printing library and Windows takes care of producing the output on thousands of different printers.

I’ll throw random words out there too… x86 and BIOS, how to get rid of them?

x86 refers to the CPU architecture of Intel chips since the 8088. It’s called “x86” because Intel always ended it’s chip names with “86.” You might remember shopping for “a 386SX” or a “486 DX2” before Intel decided to use the Pentium name.

Getting rid of “x86” is rather unlikely, because of the incredible quantity of available software for that architecture. If it ever happens, chances are that whatever chip replaces it will emulate x86 in some way to provide backward compatibility.

As for the BIOS, it’s basically the strict minimum the computer needs to be able to operate. With modern operating systems (NT, Linux, BSD, etc.) all functions of the BIOS are taken over once the OS is loaded. So it’s basically “replaced” within minutes of booting.

Should we get rid of them and when, if at all do we see first “hollywood operating systems”.

Hopefully, Hollywood OS don’t mean that we’ll be stuck with Hollywood computer security. :)[/quote]

Geek. :slight_smile:

I’m actually disappointed in you. You didn’t even say what BIOS stands for.

I also agree. x86 is here to stay in some form or another. It really wouldn’t be useful to eliminate it unless we all go 64-bit (or higher, 128-bit would be cool) at some point. Even then it’s still useful as a backbone to updated architecture.

38

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Geek. :slight_smile:

I’m actually disappointed in you. You didn’t even say what BIOS stands for.[/quote]

Born In Open Space?

Gotta leave a few exercises for the reader, you know.

Well it seems that 64-bit will be through x86-64. At least they added registers to that somewhat sucky architecture. Not that it matters for most developers, programming in Assembler is a dying art.

128-bit? Never say never, but I’m a bit skeptical. I can’t think of an application where 64-bit addressing would be insufficient. What are you doing that you need more than 17 billion gigabytes of addressable space? You might get buses that are 128-bit or larger, but a true 128-bit CPU seems unnecessary right now and for a foreseeable future.

Maybe for Cmdr. Data.

I think that eventually, it’ll be virtualized and/or emulated. There’s a strong current towards virtualizing hardware (vmWare, Virtual PC, Xen, etc.) with the newest chips from AMD and Intel having built-in hardware support to make virtualization easier. The “old-school” emulation on modern game consoles and general backward compatibility fad all point in the same direction: An eventual computer that allows you to run just about every program and OS in existence regardless of your actual hardware. The only restrictions will probably be from copyrights and DRM.

39

[quote]pookie wrote:
Maybe for Cmdr. Data.[/quote]

Commander Data? Is that a new Star Trek game coming out?

I could see massive CPUs for that.

[quote]pookie wrote:
The only[/quote] temporary [quote] restrictions [/quote] until it gets hacked [quote] will probably be from copyrights and DRM.
[/quote]

LOL. Fixed it for you.

40

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
pookie wrote:
The only temporary restrictions until it gets hacked will probably be from copyrights and DRM.

LOL. Fixed it for you.[/quote]

We might be surprised.

DVD was initially hacked because some doofus at Xing left a key he shouldn’t have in one of their media players. It made the decryption efforts a lot easier.

The X360 has been hacked to play backup games, but as of yet, no one has managed to get arbitrary code to run on it.

On the old Xbox, you can compile your homebrew code using an illegally leaked compiler from Microsoft; but all attempts to recovers the original signing key have failed.

Blu-Ray is apparently a DRM nightmare. It might hold for a long time.

The push for a format that replaces DVD is in large part because companies have lost control of the DVD format. If they can convince everyone to switch to HDDVD and BluRay, we go back to pre-DeCSS days, when the only copies of DVDs were analog ones.

Most hacks & cracks are because companies cut corners when implementing their security (for example, there are 17 “failures” documented for the first Xbox.)

When they eventually manage to get it right, it’ll be a whole lot harder to do what you want with the hardware. Doing cryptography correctly is hard; but when it is done correctly, it is near impossible to crack.

The current trend with having equipment that’s connected to the internet also means that companies will be able to “fix” their hardware after shipping it. See the fight between Sony and PSP-homebrew fans for an example.

Don’t forget that many companies which hold the rights to a lot of media content are lobbying to have DRM integrated at the lowest levels in all equipment. You probably heard of “Palladium” a few years back. Microsoft has stopped talking about it (because most people didn’t understand it, and those who did hated it), but it’s various features are still slowly appearing in their various products, from Windows Media Player to Media Center.

Recent laws like the DMCA and UCITA also mean a hacker can be sued, fined and even imprisoned for bypassing (or even trying to bypass) DRM mechanisms.

Reaching the conclusion that our best “free-for-all” years are behind us is not undefendable.