Anticipating Release of Windows Vista

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by DVD+R, Jan 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DVD+R

    DVD+R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    The Antipodes
    According to reports, Windows Vista will be available to the public sometime in January of this year 2007. However I have heard several reports from people in forums etc.. that the Windows Vista Version will restrict what Security Software you install on it, for example Firewalls,and AntiVirus's. But what about Anti Spyware? I havent read anything about that,So the thing is this! How true is it that Microsoft have installed a restrictive addition for 3rd party Software to be unable to run on Vista,because they consider their OS Firewall sufficient Etc.. Also there will be several flavours released all giving a little extra. Is this New version of Windows really worth the hassle of Upgrading or doing a Complete Clean Install,and Will I be able to run much the same software I have now, such as NOD32 Outpost Firewall Pro,and AVG Anti Spyware. I like the thought of installing Vista,but which one to choose if I do? I run a 3.62Ghz Machine with 1024MB RAM. with ATI-Radeon G-Cube X800XT 256MB PCI-Express Video Card.
     
  2. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    The EU has threaten Microsoft against such practices. So i don't know if that's still true.

    Anyway, do you really want Vista? Is it DirectX 10 and a few other things that caught your eye?
    I know Vista is better than XP (has to be), but is it that much better? I read in a magazine that there are lots of reasons to upgrade, but i wasn't convinced ($/benefit).

    On a side note, i finally have a test pc, although not mine exclusively, and i'm going to try Ubuntu and SUSE. Hurray for me:D
     
  3. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    at the moment theres not many security software for Vista, so its difficult to notice if theres any restriction at all.

    i myself run Vista, but most people are better off waiting and seeing how it progresses.
     
  4. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    True, in the EU, things like default search for IE have to be configured by the user on first run, and other things which I cant remember off the top of my head - its to do with anti trust rulings made.

    Also, Korea has banned them from installing Media player as the default player and similar for the IM.
     
  5. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    As with all MS products, wait until SP1 :D

    I wont be upgrading to Vista for atleast a year (for me there is very little benefit, XP runs well, no new features that I NEED or desire to try out), XP still has a long shelf life and will be supported for a few years yet.

    Even our old Win2k workstations and servers still function fine.
     
  6. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,054
    I agree about waiting a while. I will play with it, but I was quite turned off by RC!. Has some neat stuff, but also a lot of changes that seemed like changes for change sake, and worse yet there was no way to turn off Windows Defender. Also I saw nothing I couldn't live without.
     
  7. tlu

    tlu Guest

    From all I've read Vista should be considerably more secure than XP - unless most users (who are only used working as admin) disable some of the new security features. And I'm sure most of them will indeed ...
     
  8. ESQ_ERRANT

    ESQ_ERRANT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Posts:
    72
    I, too, have been wondering about the new Windows OS, VISTA. Even if all the bugs are worked out, my gravest concern pertains to security issues, which is after all, the central focus of Wilders' forums. And, as Wilders provides, overall, the best and most comprehensive discussion of security issues and software, I would like to obtain views from others on whether VISTA can, indeed, serve the user better security protection than Windows XP.

    In that regard, if VISTA's own built-in security is at least equal to the best of the third party software that has been reviewed here, then VISTA does merit serious attention and accolades. Otherwise, it does not.

    I point to the most recent issue of PC Magazine which devotes considerable attention to VISTA. In fact, the subtitle to the January 2007 ("double issue") is: "The Essential Guide [to VISTA]." For all the hooplas that PC Magazine heaps on Windows VISTA there is, nonetheless, a sobering note of caution on page 89 of the magazine.

    The heading on that page is "Microsoft Locks Down Security . . . and Roils Security Vendors" (ellipses in the original title). The key to Microsoft's security of the VISTA OS, according to PC Magazine, is Microsoft's "PatchGuard." PC Magazine says of "PatchGuard:" "[e]ven more important, though, are the obstacles that PatchGuard raises. PatchGuard completely locks down the components of Vista, preventing any and all modifications. If malware somehow breaches the containment vessel and taints the kernel, Patchguard kills off the intrusion by deliberately crashing the system. [Thus], [r]ootkits won't be able to hide by subverting the Windows kernel. Vista will be more secure and stable because the most important system elements can't be changed."

    But, then, PC Magazine adds, "[t]here is a dark side to this lockdown. Many third-party security vendors also patch into the kernel at a very low level to offer additional security protection. PatchGuard keeps out everyone -- bad guys, good guys, even Microsoft apps." Of note, PC Magazine says, "Microsoft really, really (emphasis in the original with the second "really") wants third party vendors to stay out of the kernel." To get around this third party vendors will, according to PC Magazine, have to explain to Microsoft why they want to patch the kernel, but this means giving up the vendors' own secrets. The big Companies, according to PC Magazine, such as McAfee, Trend Micro, F-Secure, Symantec and Computer Associates, will be working with Microsoft to work out compatibility issues. But, where does that leave everyone else?

    If Microsoft's PatchGuard technology were really all that one needs to lockdown the OS, then, so be it and wouldn't that be wonderful? All the better for Microsoft and for the user as the latter can save considerable money and time worrying about stability of his machine and with compatibility issues. But, such is not the case. PC Magazine says, quoting from Symantec's Security Response, "[h]ackers have already broken PatchGuard and can disable it" . . . [and] "legitimate security vendors can no longer protect the kernel."

    The matter of Microsoft's desire to monopolize the arena of computer security has, I know, been raised some months ago. But now, as VISTA, is just about ready to make its long-awaited debut and dispensed like so many AOL giveaways, what is one to do about security. Perhaps, for now, the bulk of users, apart from big business, can avoid VISTA altogether and be none the worse for it. But, in the next several years, XP will be phased out and, ultimately, given no further support. Do we rely on Microsoft virtually for everything -- OS, security apps, office apps, graphics, etc.? Any comments? Any concerns?
     
  9. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    Some thoughts:
    1- hackers can do it, so can third party vendors?
    2- if it were impossible to get to the kernel, why would it be necessary to install security all the way up there?
    3- if one is worried, LINUX? :rolleyes:
    4- no matter the argument, Microsoft HAS to work a solution with third party vendors. Or not sell in the EU:D
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.