i had a play with vista business versions today

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by lodore, Jan 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    hello,
    today at college we installed windows vista business.
    you can get all the new features in xp.
    1. desktop search you can use the xp one made by MS:D
    2. better themes you can use window blinds.
    3. transparent windows you can use ATI hydravision in Xp or the nvidia thing that does the same thing.
    4. side bar and widgets yahoo widgets or similar program.
    5. backup well just any backup program really on xp.
    6. defrag program just use diskeeper or perfectdisk on Xp or use it on vista if you gonna get it.

    also the user access control is rubbish it alerts on opening bulti in windows stuff like opening windows management console for settings etc.
    so what it takes two clicks to excute malware instead of one:D
    first click is exeucting the malware exe file.
    second click is clicking yes to the windows message asking if you want to allow the change.
    non technical people are gonna hate the HIPS like prompts when you open up control panel etc and most likely eiether turn it off or just click yes to everyone cos they are used to clicking yes on safe ones.
    anything ive missed?
    btw what sidebar for xp closely resembles the vista one and has the following widgets for it
    1.weather so i can have weather for where i live and one other place.
    2. currency convertor so i can have it always set on us dollers to uk pounds since i do that conversion alot.
    3. cpu meter.
    the side bar was the only good thing lol.
    as said before if it was relaleased 2 years ago like ti was meant to then xp wouldnt have desktop search etc etc and then people would have reasons to buy it. it doesnt even seem faster when running.
    there is a services tab under task manager now which there isnt in xp but you can use third party programs for that.
    its just xp with newer interface. once you go under the new gui its plan old windows with the same tabs.
    the install process was alot faster than install xp thou.
    ps has anyone know if you can still get windows 200 pro cheap anywhere for my test pc?
    any comments on any part of this thread will be useful
    lodore
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2007
  2. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Well, it´s not the same that XP. Rewriten network stack, audio stack in user-mode, DX10 to name a few.
    However, Vista lacks "must-have" features for most people.
    It´s another example of "too little, too late" and don´t get me start on DRM crap.
     
  3. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    thats true it does have better networking and audio but most of the features are old and ms should of got vista out two years ago.
    you can get xp as secure as vista quite easy.
    wow it finaly gets a two way firewall lol
    i woul be really happy if i could get a cheap version of windows 2000 pro for my old pc.
    at least with windows 2000 they dont install software that phones home at every logon with windows 2000 unlike XP.
    i like alot of people here like windows 2000 pro.
    lodore
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2007
  4. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
  5. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    I was entertaining the pea-brain notion of actually going out to pick up a Vista os, but the more i read about it all over the net, (rave reviews :thumbd: ), the more Windows 2000 Pro looks inviting as an alternative. So i have to agree with the above mention on it.

    Vista is another excuse for running away from XP just like they ran in panic from 98/Me without first revisiting them with a fresh new re-write. Truth is they are running short of excuses anymore, people/users the world over are quite fed up with it and now have caught on fully to it.
     
  6. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Iodore, while this statement is true, it seems that you're missing one important aspect: Although I haven't tried Vista myself, from all I've read (e.g. on http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/00d04415-2b2f-422c-b70e-b18ff918c2811033.mspx?mfr=true ) it is quite obvious that Vista is the first Windows version that makes it rather easy for any user to apply a consequent LUA approach - if he/she only wants to!

    We all know that up to Windows XP most users were only using their admin account. Even most security-aware users here on WildersSecurity prefer installing and playing around with a dozen or so of HIPS software but refrain from using a standard (or restricted) user account because that is allegedly too complicated (I've never understood why - but that's another story).

    On Vista, however, UAC is also enabled by default for any standard account. If a task requires admin rights, a "Credential Prompt" requires an admin password. (This reminds me of the situation on my Ubuntu Linux machine where the respective password is requested when an application needs root privileges.) This probably means that it's no longer necessary to start such tasks via "Run as.." or via approaches like Aaron Margosis' "MakeMeAdmin".

    In other words: Vista is the first Windows version where the users have NO excuse for NOT using a (restricted) standard account since applying a LUA approach has finally become comfortable!

    So it seems to me that Vista has the potential to considerably increase Windows security since a security strategy that no longer relies only on third party software packages is highly facilitated.

    Needless to say that Microsoft wasn't consequent again. As explained in above link, the first account created by default during the installation of Vista is an admin account again (with UAC applied - the two more clicks you mentioned). Only any account deliberately created thereafter is a standard account - which means that most users will unfortunately not create it. This makes it obvious that the Linux approach, where a retricted user account is a matter of course and one important cornerstone of its security, is still superior.

    Nevertheless, the potential for better security in Vista is there. Just use it!
     
  7. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    i sort of see your point but that would mean if i got vista and i used sonicstage on it when its vista compatible i would have to put in the admin password everytime to use sonictage.
    i use sonicstage everytime i use the pc and it would drive me insane havinf to keep putting it in.
    also my points about UAC was that most people dont understand what the prompts from HIPS mean and UAC is party another HIPS and quite alot of users wont want to learn how it works and eiether turn it off and click allow on everyone.
    now people have said in the past that if you install a HIPS software on there computer and they dont understand it and just click yes then its worse than no secuirity, do you agree?
    if say a home user upgraded to vista and had to keep ansering prompts to use windows program they will just get someone whos knows about computers to turn off uac and then you are back in the windows xp boat again just with a nicer interface and a few more features.

    the features that vista is useful for are as follows,
    max 16gb of ram rather than xp's 4gb even thou atm you dont really need more than 4gb most people only need 1gb.
    true 64bit OS useful for 64bit processers so the it runs faster.
    if the price was cheaper it would be ok but its not.
    sure it i used it then it would be a fresh start for my pc and it would run faster due to using 64 bit rather than 32bit.
    i would like to know people opintions once thye have used it for a while to see if its more reliable and you need to format less etc etc. also windows loading up faster.
    it did seem better on those machines than xp did thou.
    so maybe the refinements did help.
    if it wasnt so darn expensive thou.
    at least its not like windows ME=D
    lodore
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2007
  8. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    my opinion:

    it still needs maturing but ive been using it as my main OS with no problem. startup seems far slower but i dont know if its directly related to the OS or something else.

    as for reinstalling, i *may* do it less often (in the future) but so far my reinstalling habits are the same as with XP.
     
  9. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    if i brought a new laptop/pc right now i would probaly try and get it to dual boot xp and vista so that i can maybe just use xp to play around and test.
    did you get a new pc/laptop for it?
    or did you do a fresh install on a old pc/desktop?
    or upgrade from xp?
    lodore
     
  10. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    fresh install on old PC.
     
  11. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    what version of vista?
    lodore
     
  12. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    same as you; Business
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.