Why vista will suck!

[zambelli]

I don't have the means to prove the contrary, but you have. Seeing how you defended Vista against unwarranted attacks previously, will you defend it now, or accept my conclusion ?
Well, this is not so much about defending Vista as it's about me looking at the TH benchmark and thinking, "Wait, that doesn't make sense."

I'll try to run some DShow decoding tests when I have time again, but if anyone else has a dualboot XP/Vista setup, I'd highly encourage them to try the same.

or maybe "Media Foundation Protected Pipeline" gets in the way in TH tests like in this case? (from Peter Gutmann article)
Highly unlikely, considering that neither apps used in the benchmark use Media Foundation. Remember, MF is a new API - you'd have to rewrite your app in order to use it - it doesn't just automatically kick in.
Even WMP in Vista only uses MF for WMV/WMA playback. Everything else still goes through DirectShow.

[GrofLuigi]

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
===================================================

Peter Gutmann, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html


Last updated 18 February 2007

Noticed it's html now (with many links), includes reply to Microsoft's reply, and few other things are updated as far as I can see.

Sorry, the forum wouldn't let me post in the other (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=119731) topic.

GL

[jeffy]

Feb 12, 2007 IDG UK, MacWorld:
"Vista not playing nice with gamers"
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/12/vistagames/index.php

Santa Clara, Calif.-based Nvidia has released a processor for DirectX 10, the GeForce 8800. The drivers for the GeForce 8800, however, remain in beta and are not WHQL-certified.

Still true as of today: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_100.64.html
Windows Vista 32-bit

ForceWare Release 100
Version: 100.64
Release Date: February 13, 2007
Beta Driver




“Our [quality assurance staffers] didn’t expect there to be an extraordinary number of bugs, but people are hammering pretty hard on Vista, and there are obviously some parts that we missed,” said Daniel Vivoli, senior vice president for marketing at Nvidia.


While pointing out that other vendors such as mouse and keyboard maker Logitech International SA, sound card maker Creative Technology and Cisco Systems, as well as its wireless print server subsidary, Cisco-Linksys, have also gotten complaints for malfunctioning Vista drivers, Vivoli acknowledged that Nvidia deserves the criticism it is receiving.

Plus IDG:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128961-c,games/article.html

Can someone please comment on malfunctioning drivers even for Logitech and Creative? Any personal experience?

[migrena]

Highly unlikely, considering that neither apps used in the benchmark use Media Foundation. Remember, MF is a new API - you'd have to rewrite your app in order to use it - it doesn't just automatically kick in.
Even WMP in Vista only uses MF for WMV/WMA playback. Everything else still goes through DirectShow.i will repeat - there are reports of mf running even when there is no "premium content" present, or not closing after "premium content" was removed from system
as i see it the "premium content" detection mechanism is not perfect and some actions may trigger/not trigger closing mf, th team could (accidently or not) do sth like that

i also dont have vista so i can't run any tests...

actually windows 2000 smokes em all....put that on a dual core 3.4 ghz for just video encoding and/or digitial editing and it is sooooooo fast, the way an OS should be; no overhead, no Aeroeo (whatever it is) nonsense. Just speed speed speed.....well im happy win2k user but using non-x64 system these days is not an option, thats why i'm planning moving to x64 platform soon... but opinions about vista doesnt really encourage me to buy it

[Bathrone]

Try using Vista and Windows update!!! Many reports about people getting their systems hosed with Via chipset upgrades. And now, this happened to me:

Vista and windows update needs alot of improvement. I got the shits with all the other reports about problems with Vista/Windows Update when it effected me as well so I decided to call MS tech support about this problem cos I figured if they are wasting my time with this crap I will call them and get them to fix it. Afterall, I paid for the retail licence and I'm going to make use of the support that comes with it.

Two and half hours on the phone!! All to remove a bodgy keyboard driver install called Key Maestro!

Heres the rundown:
1. Key Meastro was an optional install published through windows update to upgrade my keyboard driver so I figured it was correct for my hardware as windows update does the scan and recommends things to upgrade. And lets face it, its a freaking keyboard driver what can go wrong and worst case I can rollback it anyway.

2. When I saw how dodgy this Key Meastro crud was I went to uninstall it. However its not listed in installed updates or installed programs so there is no normal method for uninstalling it. And it does appear in windows update history as being successfully installed, as well as infesting my system with its dodgy code in Program Files, drivers, startup executable on the kernel etcetc

3. I saw a remove program in Files\KMaestro and when I executed that even with admin priveldge the thing appeared to hang, reported to not be responding and then after sometime I closed it leading to vista going through its problem process with submitting to MS.

4. Then I manually deleted the Program Files\KMaestro but upon rebooting the bloody thing came back from somewhere else on storage and reinstalled itself!!!

5. I got rid of the Files\KMaestro files again but then had an access denied error trying to delete the driverstore repository where this bloody thing was also stored.

6. All throughout this process the support monkey doesnt know what to do and I keep being put on hold while he talks to someone else about what to do. It was during one of these on hold sessions that the not responding driver remove process actually came alive again from apparently no cpu or disk activity and reported that the uninstall had finished and all I had to do was to reboot.

7. Upon reboot Vista has now picked up the same stupid driver from the driver store repository that I have no proveledge to delete!

8. Then the support monkey has the idea to do a system restore so I boot from DVD and find that I dont have any system restores before the date of the keymaestro install.

9. At this point my growing frustration was tipped over the edge when the support monkey started claiming this was a third party product blah blah blah. I said, look pal, Windows Update does a scan of my hardware and after making a determination of the current state of my hardware and the software revisions installed it then provides recommendations on what to upgrade. Hasnt MS done any testing on this bogus bit of software? Why release a driver that cant be uninstalled? And more to the point, as I have a MS Internet keyboard why the hell doesnt windows update point me to the MS intellitype driver instead of some two bit bodgy crud that doesnt work? And how did this crap bit of software ever get digitally signed as ok? He tried to argue windows update was for things like upgrading internet explorer 6 to 7 and third party things are optional and its up to the user to decide. So I reinforced my fair belief that windows update should indicate the correct driver to install, especially on Microsoft's own hardware for christs sake or if thats all too hard dont include any uncertain third party stuff on windows update because it creates the impression its been through the MS certification process. The stupid tool just gave me this spiel about feedback and talking to his supervisor.

10. So then I was in the emergency command console, but for some reason I couldnt access the driver store from the system32 directory. The support monkey had obviously enough by this point but I refused to get off the phone unless it was fixed. Eventually it occured to me as I had partitioned by storage up and had kept XP Pro I was actually hitting the XP install and the emergency command console drive letter mapping was all wrong. When I finally got into the vista partition I was able to delete the driver store repository from the HDD free of the access restrictions in other modes.

11. Then I installed the MS intellitype driver and all was good.

One problem remains however - the windows update history reports that I have successfully installed the Key Maestro driver update.

[JohnnyMalaria]

The stupid tool just gave me this spiel about feedback and talking to his supervisor.


With that kind of attitude towards someone who is trying to help via telephone, you deserve problems....

[dragongodz]

With that kind of attitude towards someone who is trying to help via telephone
so you wouldnt start to feel frustrated after spending two and a half hours on the phone, being put on hold constantly, only to end up being told "its not really our fault you installed it anyway" ? oh come on not even your fanboyism could be that ridiculous.

the fact is windows update should not be telling you anything you can install, optional or not, that MS isnt willing to backup/support and has been tested.

you deserve problems
and thats got to be one of the most stupid and plain insulting responses i have read for a long time. if thats the type of rubbish you are going to post then go and post it elsewhere.

[migrena]

i wonder what is the official ms statment about winupdate installing 3rd party software that is not supported by ms
i mean without big flashy red blinking information about this...

[JohnnyMalaria]

and thats got to be one of the most stupid and plain insulting responses i have read for a long time. if thats the type of rubbish you are going to post then go and post it elsewhere.

You're right and I apologise for the statement.

It was a too-quick reaction to something I see a lot - treating support staff and shop workers as morons. Like most of us, they are just trying to do their jobs to pay their bills. It's not *their* fault that their company's product has issues. By all means be frustrated with the company, but don't be personally abusive.

[Bathrone]

Johnny I can understand your point of view however I think honestly if you met me personally you would see that I make a careful point to maintain professional relations, and it really does take alot for me to reach the point where I'm extremely frustrated / having a go at someone both in my personal and professional life.

I do think the support staff member was stupid - he had me going through diagnostic stuff that were totally unrelated to my specific problem and he was dismissive of my point about what is clearly a major flaw in windows update being itts giving drivers that are wrong and are unsupported. He wasnt equipped to deal with the issue and after being on the phone for two and a half hours - most of which was on hold - I hope you can see my point of view.

Mate I would be the first one to acknowledge genuine help and if I had of gotten it my responses on forums like this one would have been much different.

However that said in no way do I think Microsoft as a company is stupid. I acknowledge some excellent help I have gotten from insightful posts like Zambelli and BenWaggoner on this forum. Generally their products keep getting better and better - just not in this case at this time.

[wmansir]

I finally got around to running some tests.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/706/chartws4.gif

On average Vista was 4% slower, but that's including the unusual case of 2 instances of Procoder running. It's a dual core system and ProCoder is mutlithreaded, but it still runs a little faster with 2 instances in XP. In Vista I reran the test twice and the process that took 168 minutes in XP took 188 and then 198.

[Manao]

I finally got around to running some testsToo bad nobody did the directshow tests :(

Anyway, your tests show once again that when it comes to simply crunching numbers, Vista isn't that slow.

[dragongodz]

On average Vista was 4% slower
so lets set the way back machine to the first page of this thread.

quoting wmansir
The only thing that interests me is if Vista's DRM impacts other processes when no protected content is present. Does anyone have any PROOF of that?

which was after my post containing
even if you do not use any protected content your cpu consumption is still going to be increased by the check process sitting in the background running anyway.

i think you have proven yourself that vistas extra processes or design is using extra cpu cycles. even dave marsh admitted it, though he gave the spin of "extra functionality".

your tests show once again that when it comes to simply crunching numbers, Vista isn't that slow.
define "that slow". the point is it is slower and this is, as you point out, just crunching numbers.

Too bad nobody did the directshow tests
yes it would be interesting to see how much speed difference there is with the changes to directshow/directaudio etc.

[zambelli]

i think you have proven yourself that vistas extra processes or design is using extra cpu cycles. even dave marsh admitted it, though he gave the spin of "extra functionality".
Wow. Talk about a leap of logic. Based on his tests alone you have concluded that the 4% performance difference is due to DRM and other "check processes sitting in the background running"? Was there a process utilization chart that you got but nobody else did? Until somebody provides a data breakdown by process, thread and module - I really don't see how you can jump to that conclusion.

[dragongodz]

Wow. Talk about a leap of logic.
WOW. talk about not even reading what you quote.

i said
vistas extra processes or design is using extra cpu cycles.
i did NOT say
the 4% performance difference is due to DRM and other "check processes sitting in the background running"
so please do not try and put words in my mouth that i did not say.

Until somebody provides a data breakdown by process, thread and module
of course until somebody does a breakdown nobody can say how much of what is using what. however to say that a process running in the background is using totally zero cpu constantly is foolish. so it is just as ridiculous for you to try and have a go at suggesting its not any particular process that is at least a part of the slowdown.

the point is that either extra processes, whatever they may be including DRM related, or even similar processes that may have had design changes for vista are slowing it down with those tests. if the drm processes are running at that time then of course i would include them as being a part of it but that does not mean i say they are the totality of it.

[HeadBangeR77]

the point is that either extra processes, whatever they may be including DRM related, or even similar processes that may have had design changes for vista are slowing it down with those tests. if the drm processes are running at that time then of course i would include them as being a part of it but that does not mean i say they are the totality of it.
I must agree in general. I can't see any complicated philosophy behind those figures. For me the thing is rather easy and reminds of graphic cards' benchmarking in the old days. ;) Me thinks the same logic applies here: kill every possible background process, disable everything including anti-virus and firewall, turn off every unneeded system service off, defragment your HDD, reboot, check the processes again, wait a while and benchmark. The more free memory, the less background processes, the better (as a rule).

That's why Win2k was faster than XP at least in the beginning, because it was derived of all those bells & whistles that XP has (even if you turn them off, it's still not the same). Also the slightest change, like graphic card drivers, can influence many different applications (e.g ATI's old Control Panel vs. Catalyst-The-Big-Cow-Control-Centre), and I'm not talking about damned 3D Marks here. Still, it's usually just a few percent (usually less than 5%) - some freaks however would kill for those small improvement.

Now the people with dual-boot XP/Vista OSes should install the same software (if it's possible at all), try to disable every unneeded process (what could be OS-depending), and than benchmark for pure numbers crunching.

just my 2 cents ;)
HDBR77

[zambelli]

WOW. talk about not even reading what you quote.
...
so please do not try and put words in my mouth that i did not say.
I didn't make up your words. You referenced Dave Marsh's blog which was on the subject of DRM in Vista. His blog said:

Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality.
You then said:
i think you have proven yourself that vistas extra processes or design is using extra cpu cycles. even dave marsh admitted it, though he gave the spin of "extra functionality".

It seems clearly implied that you were refering to the processes of the protected path, otherwise I'm not sure why you would've mentioned his blog post.

however to say that a process running in the background is using totally zero cpu constantly is foolish. so it is just as ridiculous for you to try and have a go at suggesting its not any particular process that is at least a part of the slowdown.
I'm not saying it's not a particular process slowing it down! It might be DWM.exe (Aero) for all we know. However, what I AM saying is that it's highly unlikely it's anything DRM related that's slowing down this Vista scenario because the DirectShow MPEG-->XviD transcoding doesn't even touch the protected path!

[Shinigami-Sama]

Zambelli
I'd always though MSPaint never touched anything security related, but there was a hotfix in XP that patched a security hole that a remote used gain control over the system
so I wouldn't say 'it doesn't touch' I'd have to say 'it shouldn't touch'

[HeadBangeR77]

I'm not saying it's not a particular process slowing it down! It might be DWM.exe (Aero) for all we know. However, what I AM saying is that it's highly unlikely it's anything DRM related that's slowing down this Vista scenario because the DirectShow MPEG-->XviD transcoding doesn't even touch the protected path!
If it's the Aero thingy, then, like I said, people should disable /kill /turn off everything they can before benchmarking, which will make the two OSes more similar to each other in terms processes running in the background and free memory. If some of those just can't be turned off, well, it's OS dependency then, yet such an approach would be more fair imho if we want to compare e.g. memory management or changes in the core itself. This would be pure number-crunching, and would exclude some factors as being the cause of the mentioned slow-down.

[dragongodz]

However, what I AM saying is that it's highly unlikely it's anything DRM related that's slowing down this Vista scenario because the DirectShow MPEG-->XviD transcoding doesn't even touch the protected path!
false logic. a process does not have to be in use by the programs used for the test to be using cpu cycles. so your guessing that any running process, whether drm related or not, has no effect is wrong.

It seems clearly implied that you were refering to the processes of the protected path, otherwise I'm not sure why you would've mentioned his blog post.
mentioned as 1, i repeat so you do not misunderstand - 1, of the possible processes contributing, repeat again - contributing to the speed difference. as i already agreed how much can not be determined of any process without much more fine detailed testing of them.
at no point did i say drm related processes are responsible for the TOTAL 4% speed difference which is what you did say i said(see my quote of you in my previous post).

infact i said
extra processes, whatever they may be including DRM related, or even similar processes that may have had design changes for vista are slowing it down with those tests. if the drm processes are running at that time then of course i would include them as being a part of it but that does not mean i say they are the totality of it.
note the bold parts.

i dont think i can say it clearer than that. so either you choose to understand what i really said or not. either way i am not going to bother wasting my time constantly repeating myself.

[foxyshadis]

Using 500 cycles a few times a second to say "no, I have nothing to do, go on to the next thread" isn't going to register even a blip in performance with a dual multi-ghz monster. You could start up a thousand idling background processes that do nothing but chill out, and your encode speed might drop .1% on the outside. Now if there's any memory contention, then that could cause problems.

But I agree, for an operating system that was touted as having an improved, more efficient scheduler, minor drops in most performance marks is pretty unconvincing.

[dragongodz]

You could start up a thousand idling background processes that do nothing but chill out, and your encode speed might drop .1% on the outside.
and you could have 1 process that reduces your encode speed to half. it all depends on what the process is doing and how many cycles its taking to do it. let me know when you find where MS has said how much each process run in xp or vista actually take and how much impact that can have. because other wise we can only go by the evidence we have and that isnt .1% difference but 4% with wmansirs test.

again that doesnt mean any particular process is the total of that but rather its all processes together. also consider that its just as possible that some similar processes from xp may be faster(sped up/optimised etc) in thier vista form. we have no idea what effect the processes are having individually(would require multiple high accuracy tests to make sure to catch your .1% instances) but rather the totality demonstrated by the test.

its is pretty safe to say that new processes, not running on xp but present on vista, add to any speed loss no matter how small that contribution may be.

[AHelpingHand]

I think I'll do like many people will, wait for Vista Sp2 :)

[Kurtnoise]

http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/96498

[JohnnyMalaria]

You'd have to be pretty stupid to open any attachment at all from someone you don't know.

You can also achieve the same effect with XP and Vista if configured "out of the box". By default, both OSes hide extensions for known file types. So, create a file called Foo.jpg.exe and it will appear as Foo.jpg. The vast majority of users don't bother to enable showing extensions.

I guess Microsoft and the "other operating systems*" vendors will just have to tell writers of right-to-left languages to go to hell because some people are too stupid or blissfully ignorant to follow some basic security rules.

*Mac OS X - guess that must suck, too.

[Sharktooth]

it's still a potential security problem XP users dont have.
i mean, dumb users are dumb users... but still there's no way in vista to disable the unicode extentions in filenames, so even by mistake, those malicious files can compromise the system while on XP it is clear they are suspicious...
also the average user will just think vista is more secure than XP so he will pay even less attention to those kind of things...

[anti]

The system is only as secure as its least secure part, in which case, this generally would happen to be the user.

Like Sharktooth said, a dumb user is a dumb user. Regardless of the operating system, nix/xp/vista, if a less informed individual is behind the wheel you're more likely to crash.

Though with nix it's less likely to happen since it requires a bit more foresight to just jump into. Akin to having a novice drive a car, but someone experienced drive a transport truck.

[kumi]

You don't have to be dumb, anyone can fall prey to that trick. Unless you're going to examine each and every filename for the bug^H^H^Hfeature before opening, and who the hell has time for that?

[Shinigami-Sama]

I haven't even heard of that exploit yet...
then again I can keep track of nearly every file on my workstations...

[Sharktooth]

M$ should have called Vista "the most INSECURE windows OS"...
they arent just able to make things the correct way... except for documentation...

[toytown]

M$ should have called Vista "the most INSECURE windows OS"

Why? Theres been less secure versions of windows in the past, if your going to post absolute dribble, then back it up.

they arent just able to make things the correct way

Which is why most of the worlds computing population is on a windows based system. Because its been programmed completely wrong............

[Sharktooth]

Why? Theres been less secure versions of windows in the past, if your going to post absolute dribble, then back it up.
Coz it was hacked even before it got released. Coz it shows new and critical security flaws that were not present in previous windows versions. Coz it makes the user pay less attention to security coz he thinks the OS "have to be secure" coz the abundance of (useless) pseudo security related crap. coz of: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6316253.stm , etc...
Also, have a look here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=116701&highlight=EULA+button
It's a very long thread... so, good reading...

Which is why most of the worlds computing population is on a windows based system. Because its been programmed completely wrong............
Ppl is like sheeps... and M$ knows that. Instauration of a monopoly is just a consequence.
The progessive annihilation of individuality makes ppl think as a unique entity... Ppl acts like sheeps...

[foxyshadis]

Coz it was hacked even before it got released. Coz it shows new and critical security flaws that were not present in previous windows versions. Coz it makes the user pay less attention to security coz he thinks the OS "have to be secure" coz the abundance of (useless) pseudo security related crap.

Which of those don't apply to older releases of Windows again? (Aside from pre-release hacking, since pre-2000 releases weren't given to the public.)

[JohnnyMalaria]

Ppl is like sheeps... and M$ knows that. Instauration of a monopoly is just a consequence.
The progessive annihilation of individuality makes ppl think as a unique entity... Ppl acts like sheeps...

So who or what is shepherding you? :p

Perhaps we should all just go out and write our own individual operating systems. But we'd have to build our own processors (can't have the Intel shepherd sway us). :rolleyes:

[Kurtnoise]

Funny (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html?tag=nefd.only)...

Personally, I'm not against vista (or Windows more generally). Linux has also some cons...I used to use both and I'm more or less fine with them but I've some skills. Hoping that end users will have more advices or more choices in the future about this. That's all I want.

[Sharktooth]

Which of those don't apply to older releases of Windows again? (Aside from pre-release hacking, since pre-2000 releases weren't given to the public.)
one example is the recent security issue with unicode extensions in file names...

[HyperHacker]

You'd have to be pretty stupid to open any attachment at all from someone you don't know.hey i can't get aacskeys to work it shows a bunch of numbers here's a screenshot (http://nasty.file.here)

I don't recall seeing the part where it said the file has to be attached to an email.

[foxyshadis]

one example is the recent security issue with unicode extensions in file names...

No, no, no, no.

Every new version of windows has introduced new attack vectors while handling old ones better. That was your big gripe, right? The fact that they're all old now doesn't mean they weren't new then. It's practically a fact of life, even if it's a very disappointing one, and why a lot of people don't upgrade permanently for a year or two. (XP's unicode support led to a lot of spoofing problems with trojans, even if they couldn't hide the executableness this way it did open the door to the IDN problem.)

Anyway, seriously, why do you care so much that other people use XP instead of Vista? No one's asking you to install it or claiming it's invulnerable, just better against XP's threats.

[JohnnyMalaria]

hey i can't get aacskeys to work it shows a bunch of numbers here's a screenshot (http://nasty.file.here)

I don't recall seeing the part where it said the file has to be attached to an email.

I think you're being a bit anal :)

This is yet another example of supposedly harmless files, such as documents, images, mp3 files or even playlists, potentially carrying damaging code that exploits holes in the associated software, and users should avoid files, even of these types, that come from unknown or untrustworthy sources.

Opening an attachment is one example that I happened to mention to illustrate the need for vigilence by the end user/recipient.

I'll phrase it differently:

You'd have to be monumentally stupid to click on a link in a document from an untrusted source without seeing what the link really is - i.e., unobsfucated or have a very good reason to assume it is safe.

[Shinigami-Sama]

I think you're being a bit anal :)



Opening an attachment is one example that I happened to mention to illustrate the need for vigilence by the end user/recipient.

I'll phrase it differently:

You'd have to be monumentally stupid to click on a link in a document from an untrusted source without seeing what the link really is - i.e., unobsfucated or have a very good reason to assume it is safe.

I know people that don't know that little status bar exists, and that it shows the url of the link they're going to click
I also know the ones that open links from they're great aunt jane without thinking about - oh wait she uses IE5 doesn't own a virus scaner or other scanners, now little johny is bugged

I do agree though
software vendors, open and not need to start adding little things to make the users more aware of what they're doing

[R3Z]

You'd have to be monumentally stupid to click on a link in a document from an untrusted source without seeing what the link really is - i.e., unobsfucated or have a very good reason to assume it is safe.

Nah, its M$'s fault. Everything is their fault.

Linux doesnt have patches or security threats, neither does OSX.

People dont use what works for them, they are just sheep who steep to using shite software because they have no brains.

Back to reality, its a shame viruses exist - but you need to take care and responsibility for your own actions. I totally agree with you.

[deuce2]

Why Microsoft must abandon Vista. This guy bashes it from several angles including the dreaded DRM issue :devil:. http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13506_1-9785337-17.html

[foxyshadis]

It's not that interesting, it just repeats the points made in this thread and a thousand others. (As do the comments, pro and con.) Then again, that's pretty much the level of insight cnet regularly offers.

[R3Z]

Why Microsoft must abandon Vista. This guy bashes it from several angles including the dreaded DRM issue :devil:. http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13506_1-9785337-17.html

From the bs article;
With Mac OS X hot on its tail, Vista is simply not capable of competing at an OS level with some of the best software around.

:rolleyes:

So OSX is "hot on its tail" but it cant compete ?

While i dont use vista, i have tested it extensively in a workplace evaluation fo a 10,000+ user plus environment. My biggest issues are performance out of the box and user familiarity with the UI.

[HyperHacker]

You'd have to be monumentally stupid to click on a link in a document from an untrusted source without seeing what the link really is - i.e., unobsfucated or have a very good reason to assume it is safe.Do you really check the status bar every time you click a link in your browser? And that's only one way you might get such a file.

I know people that don't know that little status bar exists, and that it shows the url of the link they're going to clickThere's also this problem (http://somereallyfreakinglonghugepath.thatwillfilluptheentirestatusbar.andmakeyouunabletoseethefilename/becausethetexttakesuptoomuchspace/lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala/gfjkhdfkjghfdhgkjdshghjgfdajftdjagfjesygfruyesgfjesgjygtgyratiuy76458756gfdfgdsfhdhgdshdgss/download_the_file.php?sid=487432985698456874368746587658768746&dt=57645&foo=bar&answer=42&file=nasty.file.here), or (obviously not here) using Javascript to change the status bar text.

[Sharktooth]

@HyperHacker: eheh... when someone doesnt want to see, he's more blind than a blind... it's useless to discuss with those ppl about something they continue to ignore.

[Revgen]

Why Microsoft must abandon Vista. This guy bashes it from several angles including the dreaded DRM issue :devil:. http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13506_1-9785337-17.html

Great blog entry.

I only started Windows XP when my Dad and I found a cheap XP Pro Corporate version at a computer show that allowed us to install to multiple computers without having to activate. I will unfortunately, be upgrading to Vista since I'm a computer tech and need to use it to learn and help those who have it installed.

[zambelli]

Great blog entry.

I only started Windows XP when my Dad and I found a cheap XP Pro Corporate version at a computer show that allowed us to install to multiple computers without having to activate. I will unfortunately, be upgrading to Vista since I'm a computer tech and need to use it to learn and help those who have it installed.
Great? The guy barely checked his facts. I had a sneaky feeling that blog post would end up on this thread. It's full of inaccuracies and FUD, but this one was my favorite:

One significant problem that I have with Vista is its inclusion of new DRM, specifically the company's decision to install Protected Video Path. To prevent a person from copying (or in most cases, backing up) a movie, the operating system provides process isolation and if an unverified component is in use, the operating system shuts down DRM content. For the first time on any operating system, we're not even allowed to backup our favorite movies? Come on.
Before I point out how that entire paragraph is one giant lie, let's do a quick show of hands instead:

How many of you have been blocked from ripping DVDs by Vista's Protected Media Path?

[JohnnyMalaria]

Do you really check the status bar every time you click a link in your browser? And that's only one way you might get such a file.

No I don't and that isn't being hypocritical since I said "or have a very good reason to assume it is safe."

[JohnnyMalaria]

Why Microsoft must abandon Vista. This guy bashes it from several angles including the dreaded DRM issue :devil:. http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13506_1-9785337-17.html

What a shite blog. Nothing new to say. No different than the ramblings from Jan/Feb of this year.