Printable View
What do you prefer of Windows Vista?
I really want to know because I'm currently running on Windows Vista Home Basic. =|
If I get Vista Ultimate (x32) then what will be the difference between x32 and x64? Hmm!...
HOME PREM FEATURES:
1) Aero, AeroGlass, Flip 3D, Hover-over-programs-in-taskbar-for-preview, better security than Home Basic
ULTIMATE FEATURES:
1) All features from Home Prem + below features, enchanced security, + a few more I forgot =P
So tell me what you think?
What I think?
Vista sucks.
- Hammad
Well Hammad,
Why do you think it sucks? I think it rules, but I don't know what version to choose =|
Pick the version that would run smoothest on your pc.
An btw, vista sux hard, but thats my opinion.. buy vista if u like it, dont let us make u dislike it ;)
Slow and loads of virus and hackers.
Also, loads of bugs.
I dont understand why Vista would have more Virus's and hackers, I also dislike Vista, But I don't think that because it's a new OS it's prone to more Virus's and hackers, if anything Vista has actually done a decent job of having a secure Windows OS.
Umm... XP has more viruses. Actually it's much harder to get a virus on Vista thanks to it's in your face security...
"Do you wish to install <some random virus>?"
Umm... No?
Now as for the different versions of Vista.
Business = XP Pro (Domain support + enhanced networking options)
Home Premium = XP Media Center Edition (MCE program)
Ultimate = Business + Home Premium + Hold'em Poker game
As for the difference between x86 and x64, it all depends on your hardware. 64-bit is the way to go if you got a 64-bit CPU as it allows for you to have access to move then 3gb of RAM and performs better. If you get the x86 (32-bit) then don't bother as XP will be a better option.
Now if you buy the retail version of Vista you get both the x86 and x64 versions on the same disk. If you buy the OEM version then you need to pick one or the other.
As it stands right now, you should only run Vista if you need to run a 64-bit OS.
I myself run Vista Ultimate x64 as I do need to use a 64-bit OS and not to mention Vista runs better on my setup.
NoPeace - out
Well thanks for the advise. =]
I think I might buy Windows Vista Home Premium from Dell, they sell it cheap. Or should I just buy an upgrade disc?
Just go to a hardware site like ZipZoomFly and Newegg.com - Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, Digital Cameras and more! and buy an OEM copy of it. You will save about half the cost of the retail version. I got an OEM version of Vista Ultimate x64 only for $200 and they are cheaper now.Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPro123
NoPeace - out
so far the windows history of exploits shows that if an exploit is discovered in xp it usually works on win2000, win2003, win98, winme,Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenrat
because vista is new and brandspanking great, using new architecture and stuff exploits found in vista should be only for vista and exploits for previous ms osses should only affect previous osses.
but so far (im not certain here) but all the exploits that work on vista work on xp, win2000, win2003 ... dissapointing
ms recycling source code..
milw0rm - exploits : vulnerabilities : videos : papers : shellcode << recent exploits
What do you expect? XP and 2k both uses the same NT kernal while 2k3 uses an updated NT kernal and Vista uses a slightly updated 2k3 kernal. With Vista SP1 and 2k8 the kernal has been updated again but still... It's all the same NT kernal so the foundation of the OS isn't much different over the versions. Sure the newest incarnation is much different but the difference isn't any more then the NT4 to NT5 kernal (XP and 2k).Quote:
Originally Posted by omen
So yeah they are recycling the source code. Makes sense really. Why reinvent the wheel when you can just add improvements on it.
NoPeace - out
i dont want to get no infraction for dragging this topic...
yeh when i first read about longhorn in 2002 it was supposed to be all new kernel, and the entire filesystem based around proprietary sql model.Quote:
What do you expect? XP and 2k both uses the same NT kernal while 2k3 uses an updated NT kernal and Vista uses a slightly updated 2k3 kernal. With Vista SP1 and 2k8 the kernal has been updated again but still... It's all the same NT kernal so the foundation of the OS isn't much different over the versions. Sure the newest incarnation is much different but the difference isn't any more then the NT4 to NT5 kernal (XP and 2k).
So yeah they are recycling the source code. Makes sense really. Why reinvent the wheel when you can just add improvements on it.
the fact that some programs wont run on the updated vista kernel isnt justified by any great new features of vista. i will use vista, i dont just relentlessly bash new works or ms. it's just that why make an os that doesnt natively support more than 3.5 gb of ram, when ram prices make the avera pc have 2gb and more ram ? why make an os that has 5 flavours ? wow - works on windows 64 or what ever that was called wasnt that bad on xp 64 with alot more effort ms could have forced users to migrate to 64 bit computing. because to run vista you need a good cpu and most vista capable cpus are 64 anyhow ...
i mean ms did force us to use ie at one point in time, and we all did, then it forced us to use ntfs because that is the default xp filesystem... im not saying thats bad, im just saying ms doesnt know when to lead and when to follow.
allso something to help people on any vista is if the program isnt working you right click ot then run as admin and it should work!
That won't always work, And I also don't understand why it works sometimes (I know it does work occasionally, my cousin uses Vista and has to do that) But if the account you're on is set to admin privs, then shouldn't the program auto open as administrator? I hope Vista SP1 will fix this, because if something doesn't run many people become discouraged and will just quit.
It's not MS's fault Vista was made as a 32-bit OS. It was originally a 64-bit only OS. When I first started beta testing it we only got access to the 64-bit OS as there wasn't a 32-bit one.Quote:
Originally Posted by omen
It was the hardware manufactures that caused Vista to be made in 32-bit also. You had Intel who made their Core Duo line of CPUs as a 32-bit CPU and most hardware manufactures didn't want to bother spending extra time in writing 64-bit code for drives. That is the reason why you have a 32-bit OS again and the reason why it only supports ~3 gb of RAM.
It isn't MS's fault as they wanted to make it 64-bit but in order for them to get most of the market they needed a 32-bit counter part.
And for a new file system. Vista Ultimate does come with that option you know. In order to use the BitLocker you need to reformat your system into the EFS file system (encrypted file system). From what I've seen it functions just like NTFS but gives the advantage of file encryption at the file system level. Also to be honest we don't need anything more then NTFS. Right now as it stands it's pretty much one of the best file systems out there. Sure you could make it a little more efficient but in a security stand point it's very excellent. And the funny bit is that it's been around well before XP ever showed up. ;)
And I don't get where you say WoW wasn't that bad on XP x64. It was horrible there and not just that but the whole driver support made it even worse. Of course MS could have made it better on XP x64 but at the same time they were working on Vista and concentrated in fixing WoW on Vista x64 instead of XP x64. Hell XP x64 was just a test bed for WoW on Vista anyways. It was originally given away for free to anyone with an AMD64 processor at the time (as Intel was only 32-bit at the time) and then once they saw the demand for it they stopped it and started to sell the horrible OS.
Anyways if you want to see a truly native 64-bit OS then wait till the next Windows. MS has stated that it will be only 64-bit and it makes since as no more 32-bit hardware is being made so there will be no excuses this time around.
NoPeace - outIt's called security. That way it ensure that viruses that are running under an account with admin rights does not have asses to run other programs on the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenrat
If you think that's bad then try running Linux and even worse try running SE Linux. They go as far as making you insert the root (admin) password for everything you do.
NoPeace - out
NoPeace i take it you're not a linux fan :)
about 64bits os its completely ms fault intel had itaniums which were fully 64 bit, and LOADS of other intel cpus had em64t function.
and even though hardware manufacturere didnt want to code them troublesome 64bit drivers what else would have they done ?
i turn uac off in vista.
and coming back to linux :) linux has got the security right, you can use the sudo command to enter the root password every time or run a shell session as root enter password once and use that until youre done.
windows best practices does suggest, use a limited user account all the time and install programs and other things using run as (similar to linux).