What are the actual advantages Vista has over XP?

[rmed64]

I honestly can't think of many positives over XP that Vista brings to the table. The only things I can think of is it allows more than 4GB memory usage and has DX10. The negatives are pretty big right now. It is a memory hog and drivers are immature, making some hardware like sound cards and printers not even work.

I keep hearing about problems and ridiculous memory usage from the operating system, and I just wonder why people would actually buy Vista right now.

Why did YOU buy Vista? (If you didn't get it pre-installed on a new PC mind you)

 

[eeyrjmr]

XP can address more then 4gig of memory locations as well

 

[zacdl]

Are you talking about 64 bit advantages or Vista advantages? Two different things.
Vista (and XP) 64 bit both support over 4GB of RAM. The 32 bit counterparts do not.

ALL Vista has DX10. You also get much better security and an easier-to-work-with OS. The built-in tools alone cut back on how many programs I have to download for XP. Tons of advantages- do some reading.

I suggest you do some reading up on RAM usage. It's actually a good thing. Being I am sick and tired of posting the same old stuff multiple times, I just wrote it down in a blog entry here. To put it simply, unused RAM is wasted RAM. Microsoft understands this and is why Vista is one of the few OS that actually puts ALL of it to use.
Drivers are pretty darn good. I haven't had any problems with it. Most of the people that are currently using Vista will tell you that (although granted there are some loud-mouthed individuals hell-bent of bashing Vista no matter what).

But Vista obviously won't work on your 10-year-old hardware. If you have hardware so old that Vista won't support it- it's time to upgrade anyways.
I'll never go back to XP, if it's my choice on my computers.

 

[markt435]

Why did YOU buy Vista?

cuz it was free PowerTogether deal. coulda got Office 07 too but i didn't. OpenOffice works good enough for me.

honestly, i wouldn't have upgraded otherwise since i'm a poor ass college student haha

 

[Hypernova]

Non driver related stability for one, explorer.exe has yet to die once for me on vista. On XP it crash a lot and had to be restarted. I have yet to encounter a crash that's not driver oriented and those are few and far between.

I didn't have to pay either, MSDNAA from Uni. They even provide 2003 Enterprise but I don't what to do with that yet. Probably convert my current laptop into a server once it retires.

This is just another Vista bashing thread in disguise.

 

[General Crespin]

Why did YOU buy Vista?

Because I wanted to.

 

[g1xx3r]

I honestly can't think of many positives over XP that Vista brings to the table. The only things I can think of is it allows more than 4GB memory usage and has DX10. The negatives are pretty big right now. It is a memory hog and drivers are immature, making some hardware like sound cards and printers not even work.

I keep hearing about problems and ridiculous memory usage from the operating system, and I just wonder why people would actually buy Vista right now.

Why did YOU buy Vista? (If you didn't get it pre-installed on a new PC mind you)

I bought it for my new C2D build and figured I would try something new..Couldnt be happier..

 

[digital_exhaust]

I honestly can't think of many positives over XP that Vista brings to the table.

According to your sig your on XP, not Vista. The reason that I mention this is because I think it would be rather difficult for you to come up with many positives that a new OS could "bring to the table" without actually using it.

I bought Vista because, after using it since the early beta's, I became very comfortable with it and came to appreciate it for what it is..... a completely new (and, in my opinion, better) OS.

 

[rmed64]

Hey, Im not trying to step on toes. Just alot of what I read is bad stuff about Vista.

I play games alot, and Vista is well known to perform worse at games than XP.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[TheGamerZ]

I play games alot, and Vista is well known to perform worse at games than XP.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

That is the same exact argument that people had with XP vs 98SE when XP was the new kid on the block. "98SE plays games faster, XP is a worthless eye-candy piece of sh*t bloated OS"

Yet look at XP's ultimate success. Initial launch is always, always rocky. You have to give it time so everything can fall into place.

Gaming performance for me isn't noticeable to me. All my games are equally playable on XP and Vista. Sure maybe a game runs at 80FPS on XP and 70FPS on vista... but who cares.

I love Vista for its added features, extra security and stability.




My $.02

 

[svet-am]

I suggest you do some reading up on RAM usage. It's actually a good thing. Being I am sick and tired of posting the same old stuff multiple times, I just wrote it down in a blog entry here. To put it simply, unused RAM is wasted RAM. Microsoft understands this and is why Vista is one of the few OS that actually puts ALL of it to use.

i sincerely hope that you're not a serious computer scientist with that line of thinking. having the OS use more RAM and then leaving less left over for applications to use for their operation is NOT a good thing. An OS is, by definition, a thin layer of software that resides between the metal and the user's application.

While I agree in a somewhat obtuse way that if you buy 4GB of memory and never use that much then you wasted money on memory that you don't need, I don't agree at all that it's okay for the OS to use all of that memory "just because". I use Photoshop a lot and some of my work projects can get upwards of 3.0-3.5GB in size (working with full page, 600-1200dpi, CMYK color). It would really piss me off if I couldn't open my project on a 4GB machine because Vista is taking up half of my system RAM just because it feels like it.

 

[Riddlinkidstoner]

i sincerely hope that you're not a serious computer scientist with that line of thinking. having the OS use more RAM and then leaving less left over for applications to use for their operation is NOT a good thing. An OS is, by definition, a thin layer of software that resides between the metal and the user's application.

While I agree in a somewhat obtuse way that if you buy 4GB of memory and never use that much then you wasted money on memory that you don't need, I don't agree at all that it's okay for the OS to use all of that memory "just because". I use Photoshop a lot and some of my work projects can get upwards of 3.0-3.5GB in size (working with full page, 600-1200dpi, CMYK color). It would really piss me off if I couldn't open my project on a 4GB machine because Vista is taking up half of my system RAM just because it feels like it.

You DO realize that once you open a program any ram that was being used in the background (superfetch anyone) gets allocated to whatever program you opened.

It makes good use of it, not gobble it up. How do you think people with 1GB or less use Vista? Runs just fine on my lappy.

 

[svet-am]

You DO realize that once you open a program any ram that was being used in the background (superfetch anyone) gets allocated to whatever program you opened.

It makes good use of it, not gobble it up. How do you think people with 1GB or less use Vista? Runs just fine on my lappy.

actually, it doesnt. Look at the Vista SDK and development documentation. While the part that Vista was using gets swapped out of ACTIVE RAM, it gets paged to the swap file. So, your app still doesnt have access to all of Vista's resources since it cannot make use of the entire swap file, should it need it. In my example, Photoshop, this is not of as much concern since Photoshop has its own page file and paging scheme, but it can affect other apps like games.

 

[reil]

i sincerely hope that you're not a serious computer scientist with that line of thinking. having the OS use more RAM and then leaving less left over for applications to use for their operation is NOT a good thing. An OS is, by definition, a thin layer of software that resides between the metal and the user's application.

While I agree in a somewhat obtuse way that if you buy 4GB of memory and never use that much then you wasted money on memory that you don't need, I don't agree at all that it's okay for the OS to use all of that memory "just because". I use Photoshop a lot and some of my work projects can get upwards of 3.0-3.5GB in size (working with full page, 600-1200dpi, CMYK color). It would really piss me off if I couldn't open my project on a 4GB machine because Vista is taking up half of my system RAM just because it feels like it.

however would you prefer your applications to use available ram to cache data to run faster? especially if it was smart enough to shrink the cache size when another application requests more ram?
because thats how i thought vista worked. the ram is available for any application to use but while its not in use, it uses it as a cache. I assumed you were talking about caching since you mention taking up half your system ram.

for base ram usage of the OS, it doesn't seem that much larger than when i had xp installed.

i've been running vista since the end of april, and i prefer it over xp on a decent computer. i find explorer easier to use now and i love the searchable start panel.

 

[Bleedblue12345]

i sincerely hope that you're not a serious computer scientist with that line of thinking. having the OS use more RAM and then leaving less left over for applications to use for their operation is NOT a good thing. An OS is, by definition, a thin layer of software that resides between the metal and the user's application.

While I agree in a somewhat obtuse way that if you buy 4GB of memory and never use that much then you wasted money on memory that you don't need, I don't agree at all that it's okay for the OS to use all of that memory "just because". I use Photoshop a lot and some of my work projects can get upwards of 3.0-3.5GB in size (working with full page, 600-1200dpi, CMYK color). It would really piss me off if I couldn't open my project on a 4GB machine because Vista is taking up half of my system RAM just because it feels like it.

like the poster above stated, vista actually USES all the system RAM when your say browsiing, but it than releases that back to the application when it needs it. Its a great way to do things, im tired of people saying that vista is all "bloated" and it "sucks", its actually a much improved version of xp, and as driver support increase, and as more and more people switch to it, xp will go the way of the dinasour, just as 2000/98/95 did before it. Its natural really.

 

[XOR != OR]

You also get much better security and an easier-to-work-with OS.

I would argue this point: UAC is just another couple boxes for users to click through to get what they want. It's not security for your average user, it's a pain in the arse.

I'd say, if anything, it's less secure due to the illusion of security it provides.

Drivers are pretty darn good. I haven't had any problems with it. Most of the people that are currently using Vista will tell you that (although granted there are some loud-mouthed individuals hell-bent of bashing Vista no matter what).

Some drivers may be; My video card was never actually stable in Vista. It was fine until you turned on anti-aliasing. Then it'd lock up and restart ( the vid card ) a couple times in a game. It's an x1950. Sound was funky too; I have a 5.1 capable sound card, but only the two front speakers. Every now and then, the drivers would shift the sound around. Never could tell why.

I installed vista in march; I just recently reinstalled XP. The default interface in Vista never got comfortable for me, it always felt clunky. I gave it a fair shake and went out of my way to use it ( and I can deduct the cost on my taxes ).

At this time I can not, in all honesty, recommend Vista to anybody.

 

[svet-am]

like the poster above stated, vista actually USES all the system RAM when your say browsiing, but it than releases that back to the application when it needs it. Its a great way to do things, im tired of people saying that vista is all "bloated" and it "sucks", its actually a much improved version of xp, and as driver support increase, and as more and more people switch to it, xp will go the way of the dinasour, just as 2000/98/95 did before it. Its natural really.

well, obviously this is just a Vista hippy lovefest, so I'm going to step out of this thread because the people here obviously don't want to be bothered with real-world benchmarks and testing. So, I'm going to exit by saying that if you love Vista "just because" that's fine and it's your right. But, if you're going to cite technical superiority, then make sure it actually is technically superior (by using benchmarks and actual testing) before you begin espousing its virtues.

 

[reil]

well, obviously this is just a Vista hippy lovefest, so I'm going to step out of this thread because the people here obviously don't want to be bothered with real-world benchmarks and testing. So, I'm going to exit by saying that if you love Vista "just because" that's fine and it's your right. But, if you're going to cite technical superiority, then make sure it actually is technically superior (by using benchmarks and actual testing) before you begin espousing its virtues.

well for me its about similar performance with greater ease of use, which isn't measurable. i use xp at work, vista at home and i find it easier to do file system navigation, which for some reason is one of the main things i do on this computer. also i find the layouts of certain things easier, like control panel.

 

[zacdl]

I would argue this point: UAC is just another couple boxes for users to click through to get what they want. It's not security for your average user, it's a pain in the arse.

So... by blocking a program and giving the user another chance to stop it in its tracks- it doesn't add to security?
Of if their accounts are not Administrator- it doesn't prevent them from screwing the system up?
I call BS.

The default interface in Vista never got comfortable for me, it always felt clunky. At this time I can not, in all honesty, recommend Vista to anybody.

Oh, by all means, just because you didn't personally like the looks is yet another great reason to throw Vista out the Window!

well, obviously this is just a Vista hippy lovefest, so I'm going to step out of this thread because the people here obviously don't want to be bothered with real-world benchmarks and testing.

AKA- "I cannot refute what has been presented to me."

 

[GotNoRice]

That is the same exact argument that people had with XP vs 98SE when XP was the new kid on the block. "98SE plays games faster, XP is a worthless eye-candy piece of sh*t bloated OS"

Yet look at XP's ultimate success. Initial launch is always, always rocky. You have to give it time so everything can fall into place.

Gaming performance for me isn't noticeable to me. All my games are equally playable on XP and Vista. Sure maybe a game runs at 80FPS on XP and 70FPS on vista... but who cares.

I love Vista for its added features, extra security and stability.




My $.02

I can see vista eventually working out it’s kinks and becoming more accepted, but that doesn’t really change the facts at hand when someone is looking for an OS to install *today*.

Right now Vista vs. XP is a lot less like 98se vs. XP than it is 98se vs. Windows2000. Windows2000 was out for a year and a half before XP, allowing drivers a chance to come out and mature during that time, since 2000 and XP drivers were/are basically the same. By the time XP came out half the people I knew had already moved over to windows2000.

I’ll upgrade to Vista when the games I run won’t run *slower* and when I don’t have to fight my computer just to be able to do things that took one or maybe two clicks in XP.

 

[XOR != OR]

So... by blocking a program and giving the user another chance to stop it in its tracks- it doesn't add to security?
Of if their accounts are not Administrator- it doesn't prevent them from screwing the system up?

Oh? When did I say XP was the nirvana of security? I merely stated that, if anything, Vista security is worse than XP by giving only an illusion of security.

Worse, UAC trains users to "just click boxes". Have a game that needs to run as admin? Well, click the box. You do this enough, users will just click them to get them out of the way.

Oh, by all means, just because you didn't personally like the looks is yet another great reason to throw Vista out the Window!

It is for me.

Although it's possibly worth mentioning that Apple manages to design interfaces that are intuitive.

I appreciate that Vista's interface will appeal to other people; it just doesn't to me. And that's "OK". But I can only base my recommendations off my own personal experiences.

 

[Glow]

I'm sure in 6 years Microsoft has done nothing to benefit the consumer in a new OS so yes stay with XP because Vista is merely a marketing gimmick

 

[GotNoRice]

I'm sure in 6 years Microsoft has done nothing to benefit the consumer in a new OS so yes stay with XP because Vista is merely a marketing gimmick

They also upgraded XP constantly during that period of time. A current install of XP, or even something like Media Center Edition is a long way away from first came out in 2001.

On the other hand they seem to have done tons of research and development... particularly in the areas of DRM.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Ah geez, not this DRM shit again...

To be able to do what Vista does, Digital Rights Management was a requirement for the OS to appease most every major movie and music studio on the planet. They might be Microsoft, but even Microsoft can't just do whatever the hell it pleases, regardless of what people keep reading.

DRM only comes into play (no pun intended) specifically when DRM-enabled content is played - funny how that works, ain't it? DRM works when DRM-enabled content is chosen? Play non-DRM-enabled content - can anyone say "mp3 files" - and this non-existant issue becomes even more of a non-existant issue.

DRM has nothing to do with the day-to-day operation of the OS. It doesn't affect playing non-DRM-enabled content whatsoever, and it doesn't drain the resources of the machine when you are playing DRM-enabled content.

I really have no idea what you all think is going on - meaning those that wield the "DRM" sword as if it was sharp or actually caused damage - but you really should learn something about the who-what-when-where-and-why of Vista before just spouting off the DRM tag because, well...

As zacdl said earlier, "I call BS."

And please, don't post links to that ridiculous document purporting to be about DRM in Vista and the mass hysteria behind it.

 

[bangmal]

actually, it doesnt. Look at the Vista SDK and development documentation. While the part that Vista was using gets swapped out of ACTIVE RAM, it gets paged to the swap file. So, your app still doesnt have access to all of Vista's resources since it cannot make use of the entire swap file, should it need it. In my example, Photoshop, this is not of as much concern since Photoshop has its own page file and paging scheme, but it can affect other apps like games.

You are amusing. Make sure you understand what the SDK actually means.
The superfetch of vista is very similar to how the cache of CPU. They do the branch prediction and preload some portions of the codes that are likely to execute. If the code cached are not needed. The OS just releases the memory for whatever program asks for. It is a cost-less action, as the OS does not need to wipe off the memory before new data written on.

 

[zacdl]

Vista security is worse than XP by giving only an illusion of security.

How so? I really would like to know your thinking behind it...
Anything that STOPS a process in its tracks giving you another chance (Or in the case of a limited user- it STOPS it. Period.) is a great security enhancement.

UAC does not train users to click boxes. Nay, if it prompted you some ridiculous amount of times, it would. But I am LUCKY to get 1 per day.
And the ones I do get- I expect. Installing a plugin, program, running anything in Windows with the little sheild, etc.

So next time I come back from my PC not being used for 3 hours and have a UAC box popped up- I know that I didn't do anything to bring that box up, and that SOMETHING was trying to run while I was away. XP would have just allowed it to run.

It is a cost-less action, as the OS does not need to wipe off the memory before new data written on.

Superfetch is nothing more than a benefit. End of story.
What it does speeds the computer up- what user doesn't want that?
If a user action requires more RAM- it gives its work up for the user.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any downsides to it than the initial Vista install when it is trying to figure out what programs it needs to be caching- resulting in increased hard drive activity, but this all falls away after a couple of weeks.

 

[ChingChang]

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any downsides to it than the initial Vista install when it is trying to figure out what programs it needs to be caching- resulting in increased hard drive activity, but this all falls away after a couple of weeks.

It's also low priority IO so you shouldn't notice a slowdown from that hard drive activity :]

 

[pigster]

I'd say, if anything, it's less secure due to the illusion of security it provides.

You're ignoring the fact that the whole RPC system has been redesigned and hardened - that's a pretty significant security enhancement

And while I really don't much like that UAC thing, I like the fact that it defaults to using non-admin accounts for users

 

[jimmyb]

Superfetch is nothing more than a benefit. End of story.
What it does speeds the computer up- what user doesn't want that?
If a user action requires more RAM- it gives its work up for the user.

What bangmal was attempting to point out, is that when you need to use memory holding cached data (from Superfetch), that data has to be sent to the page file, which not only increases the size of the page file, but also adds additional I/O work which would not otherwise have to be done. I think you would find that large memory allocations are slightly faster when there is no program caching. This would be a simple and interesting test to write.

Personally I think caching data in memory is a really smart thing to do, but I can't say it is without any drawbacks (in a rather pedantic sense).

 

[XOR != OR]

How so? I really would like to know your thinking behind it...

I explained myself. And the full quote was, "If anything, Vista's security is worse than XP".

Anything that STOPS a process in its tracks giving you another chance (Or in the case of a limited user- it STOPS it. Period.) is a great security enhancement.

Sure, for you and me. But what about your average user? Warning dialogs distress them; they just want them gone. They won't bother really reading the text of the dialog, and they wouldn't really understand it if they did. Clicking OK in the past has made the little buggers go away; this just reinforces it.

UAC does not train users to click boxes. Nay, if it prompted you some ridiculous amount of times, it would. But I am LUCKY to get 1 per day.

Think of your average user; There will be a game or two they have to run as admin ( WoW anybody? ); they will have to deal with UAC prompts at that point.

And the ones I do get- I expect. Installing a plugin, program, running anything in Windows with the little sheild, etc.

That you'd expect sure; We aren't talking about you though. Security has always been weakest with the end user. A vast majority of which won't know why that box is popping up, they just want it gone.

You're ignoring the fact that the whole RPC system has been redesigned and hardened - that's a pretty significant security enhancement

I'm not ignoring it; I'm focused on a different aspect of security. Time will tell if MS managed to make a more "hacker-proof" OS.

And while I really don't much like that UAC thing, I like the fact that it defaults to using non-admin accounts for users

Which is a step in the right direction ( running as limited user ), proceded by two steps back ( UAC ).

Users have always been the weakest link, and always will be. Giving them *more* choices is just aggravating the problem, not soothing it.

 

[Betrayer00GT]

It seems anywhere I go I find some discussion of Vista that seems to be short on detail and high in frustration/loathing. I guess I can understand that, since I see no information around the web on the useful changes made to Windows with Vista, much less why we should be willing to put up with UAC in order to get them, much less why UAC is just the first attempt (and clunky, as first attempts often are) at the interface to some of the improvements in Vista for users in Vista.

Certainly, I am no expert in OS security in any form. I am an IT professional though, with the training resources of a large IT Outsourcing company (>$20B in annual revenue) available to me. One that actually really cares about training its employees on new/emerging/relevant technologies. Thus the online access to reference books for free, free (to me at least) online training, as well as other no-cost, employer-provided knowledge expansion methods.

Based on what I have been able to read, Vista is actually a major security upgrade vs XP. It also seems to show an attempt to take security into serious consideration regarding the development of Windows over time (the future). There are some excellent "infrastructure" changes in the OS that really kick things up a notch. Too bad many of the changes have been present in other, non-MS OSes for some time.

The things I have found are in Vista show me that MS is finally trying to implement meaningful security. Key words there are "finally" and "trying". They are MS, so this is included along with all the other stuff they do to try to keep their dominance and make as much money as humanly (not legally, just humanly) possible. They do employ enough developers that they should be able to get things ironed out, eventually (something about enough monkeys pounding on enough keyboards, right?).

I must say in learning how things are different in Vista vs XP, I was also saddened about the state of Windows security, in general. This is because my Sun Solaris 10 training was progressing in parallel. The more I learned, the more sad I got, since it became very obvious exactly how irrelevant real security concerns were to the development of Windows for so very long a period of time.

Anyway, let me see if I can gather the bigger changes up and dump them in here, with out going into SIDs, ACLs, or SACLs - for the benefit of readability. This may not be the best possible way to describe things, but I just do my best. I don't see much (anything?) about any of this around the general web, so I guess I am just saying that anything is better than nothing. Obviously, I can say nothing to actual effectiveness, either. Maybe someone else here has info/evidence for that, though.

Integrity Levels

There are new access controls in town. They are mandatory, too. In addition to NTFS and registry permissions and the like (which are discretionary, since users/admins can turn them off), there are now "integrity levels" that are assigned to everything to control access among the various system objects.

Processes, services, user accounts, files, folders, registry keys - you name it, they have been assigned an integrity level. Also, since they are mandatory, there is nothing a user/administrator can do to override them or disregard them. Additionally, these access controls supersede all other access controls. They are new for Vista and in all flavors of it.

There are 6 "Integrity Levels". From lowest to highest:

• Untrusted
• Low
• Medium
• High
• System
• Installer (<- not used in the released version of Vista, according to what I have read)

Everything that does not have a defined level is "Medium". Any file you create in Vista is a "Medium" integrity file, for instance. Unless you click "Run" in IE under "Protected mode", then that temp file gets a "Low" level to run. Equivalent levels can modify each other, and higher can modify lower, but a lower cannot modify a higher. IE7 "Protected Mode" is just ruining IE in "Low", and making anything it creates "Low" as well. Certain Registry keys were given "Low" settings for this to work, while also retaining user settings.

Hardening Services

Microsoft essentially uses a separate Terminal Services session to stuck the services into. Services use "Session 0", and there are new rules about Session 0. The user's session is "Session 1", now. Here are the Session 0 rules, in brief.

• does not have a user interface of any kind
• can't communicate with the video hardware
• can't pop up messages to users in the other sessions
• can only communicate with other sessions via a Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
• Obviously, compatibility suffers. At least in part because some drivers are started by a service and will have issues like not being able to pop up a dialog box (Printer drivers, maybe others).

Services can be configured to list the minimum level of Privileges they need to function. Services that are so configured (some that ship with Vista weren't) will be grouped together with services that need the same privileges, then they are run within an svchost.exe that has only those privileges applied. Instead of one svchost.exe running under a full privilege "LocalSystem" account (with the Keys to the "Windows Kingdom") as in XP, services are run with multiple svchost.exe using a "least privilege" concept. About time Windows! Only when a service has been so configured, however (3rd party services certainly will not be, at least not very often or any time soon)

Services can be configured to tell the Windows Firewall "I need only use Port:____". Also, the Windows Firewall (by default) will block outgoing network access attempts by some services, since changes in Vista allow each and every service to be identified on an individual basis. They get identified just like each user gets identified. This change helps prevent certain services from spreading their influence around if they were to be "hijacked".

Being able to identify each and every service in Vista (not possible in XP, they all looked like a single entity in that OS) enables more "service isolation". A fancy way of saying that, for instance, all the EventService service only needs to ever actual modify are the event logs themselves so lets set things so that is all they can modify. This is because services can be added to the discretionary (Read: XP and earlier) access controls (NTFS, Registry, etc) just like a user can be, since services are now identified individually as I mentioned.

User Account Control (UAC)

The thing everyone loves to hate. UAC is essentially the interface that allows the user to run at Medium Integrity, even if they are running with an Administrator account. UAC is almost an interface for a "su root" or "sudo" type switch of access level, but in the GUI world of Windows. UAC allows you to get your user account a "High" integrity level, which is required to interact with most of what matters in Vista.

I think you can argue that it also does a great service to the Windows user community. It issues a sort of "Wake up!" call those times when a run-of-the-mill user is being tricked into malicious modification of their system. It also provides a "Hey, this action is important and could have serious consequences" type heads-up to users who otherwise probably have no idea which of their actions could actually be security-related.

Too bad it is probably just being turned off by most users. The "least privilege" approach should have come to Windows user accounts long ago. Better late than never, and surely this mechanism will get better over time. This is the first try, so I would expect problems. Even from people who should know better. UAC is annoying, but seat belts annoy some people, too.​

Maybe I need to apologize for posting this (or at least for the size of it), but I know there are intelligent people here who have a passion for learning/information. I have seen a lot of complaint about Vista's poor compatibility and "features" like UAC, but not much apparent understanding or knowledge on some of the reasons/causes for them. I certainly haven't seen any discussion regarding what the underlying changes which brought them about might show us regarding MS' direction on security for the future. After all, they do seem to be moving on the security of Windows, but where does this new movement take us?

I am hoping my attempt to share what I think I have learned is taken in regard to why I posted it.

Maybe I am missing the coverage, or I'm just "drinking the cool-aid" as an "M$ fanboy". I would like to first point out that I, personally, would call Office "Bloatware", and my machine has OpenOffice.org 2.1 installed. I wouldn't extend the "Bloatware" label to Vista, on the whole though. This is MS, so you can expect certain tactics and tricks, but they do actually seem to be putting in some effort this time on the security front. I think the changes are way worth it. If not now (and not for everyone) then certainly in the long run (and for most people).

Maybe that does make me a "fanboy".

Anyway, comments/suggestions/ideas?

 

[zacdl]

I explained myself. And the full quote was, "If anything, Vista's security is worse than XP".

And that explains yourself how????

Sure, for you and me. But what about your average user?

You keep ignoring the limited user account over and over again. I mention it over and over again. Fact of the matter is, they can't screw with the system with limited access.

If they have Admin access- it stops the program in its tracks. I'm sure SOME users actually read them. It goes contrary to what you bring up: Almost all users I come into contact with analyze each prompt they are given- they don't just hit OK. Expecially when it comes out of nowhere (like malware).

XP offers NONE of this- so I don't know how you can argue that Vista is less safe.

There will be a game or two they have to run as admin ( WoW anybody? );

So are we talking about average users, or geek users? Honestly- you can't have it both ways.

 

[ChingChang]

Even if WoW does trigger UAC prompt, you could just change the installation path so it's not in a system folder. Don't blame MS for a poorly coded program.

 

[WhiteZero]

I really liked the ability to control the volume on individual programs... that was the main + that comes to mind.
I've gone back to XP for now. ^_^

 

[Monkey God]

I got mine for free (MSDN FTW!).
To sum it up from a "usability perspective"

It runs MUCH smoother and faster with high end resources, and I like a number of the UI enhancements. By App sound metering is awesome, mini-window app preview is nice, dual monitor support seems more robust. Alot of little things I like. Side bar is very nice.

I absolutely despise UAC though. I have *never* been so annoyed in my life with a computer.
When I am working, and doing multiple things at once, its great. Crappy for gaming though.

Im still dual booting to XP for gaming.

 

[scotlandrocks]

I bought Vista because I work in IT and I figured I'm going to have to check out this new OS that everyone&#8217;s going to be using, I put Vista on my media centre machine because I got a free copy of it from the Dell upgrade scheme and thought why not.

Advantages that I see:
Navigation around the OS, I find that&#8217;s its very easy to find things as long as you don't go looking for where they were in XP. Seems silly but things have been moved to places where it makes more sense for them to be. Navigation around the file system in Vista is very easy.

Security, probably get my head blown off for saying this but the security IS better. Internet Explorer sandboxed, UAC: I like knowing what apps are wanting to run with admin rights, defaulting to limited user account, spy ware scanner built in and semi decent firewall (not to be relied upon on their own but very useful none the less.

Stability, I haven't had a single crash yet that wasn't 3rd party software and none of them required a reboot.

Faster, Vista is faster on my system than XP was, boots faster, apps load faster. Though I can't comment on whether games run faster because I never run benchmarks.


Disadvantages than I see:
Support: lots of software isn't there for Vista yet especially 64 bit, if encountered a few apps that just won't run on Vista 64 bit, Vmware server was one that really bugged me.

Hardware: Vista need a decent machine, it will just piss you off running it on a machine where you know XP would be faster. 2 GB of RAM: makes a huge difference to how well Vista runs.

Gaming: A lot of my older games that I have had sitting around, just won't run in Vista of the bat. A very big disadvantage.

 

[djnes]

I’ll upgrade to Vista when the games I run won’t run *slower* and when I don’t have to fight my computer just to be able to do things that took one or maybe two clicks in XP.

As far as games, some older ones don't run, but that's about it. As far as "fighting" your computer to do things XP could do easily, I believe what you are referring to is the learning curve. The only way around that is to use the actual OS. As I've used Vista more and more, the placement of things have been more intuative than in XP. It does take a little getting used to, but you can't wait for that...you need to use the OS to overcome this barrier. Aside from some very unique incompatibility, there's really no reason NOT to use Vista on a newer build, in a home setting.

 

[Cyrilix]

As far as games, some older ones don't run, but that's about it. As far as &quot;fighting&quot; your computer to do things XP could do easily, I believe what you are referring to is the learning curve. The only way around that is to use the actual OS. As I've used Vista more and more, the placement of things have been more intuative than in XP. It does take a little getting used to, but you can't wait for that...you need to use the OS to overcome this barrier. Aside from some very unique incompatibility, there's really no reason NOT to use Vista on a newer build, in a home setting.

I feel the same way about Office 2007, which I find is a GREAT program, and totally destroys Office 2003 (which I've never considered an upgrade over something like Office 2000). The UI and the presentation does take some getting used to, but once you realize what you can do with it (the previous versions off Office hid a great many useful features from the common eye), you are able to create much more compelling documents than before.

 

[djnes]

That's a perfect example, Cyrilix. Even now, there are times I take a few minutes to find a feature that I am looking for in Office 2007. However, I absolutely love how the ribbon options at the top change to be more relevant to the type of work I am doing in the document.

 

[phide]

DRM has nothing to do with the day-to-day operation of the OS.

Not entirely correct.

Some of you may be aware of Vista's new audio stack. According to Microsoft architects, this was done for primarily two reasons. The first, and probably most important to us, is that the removal of the hardware abstraction layer alleviates crashes, lock-ups and blue screens experienced in XP due to the fairly antiquated audio system in XP, and the lack of stringent standard for audio drivers. According to Microsoft, most crashes in XP are actually related in some way to the audio system. The second reason for the new stack is to be able to do broad, system-wide DSP. Bass redirection, room-mode correction, loudness equalization, HRTF and other technologies are possible in Vista because of the new stack.

There is a tertiary benefit to the new audio stack that isn't really spoken of, however, and that's so that DRM can be easily enforced across the now-entirely-software stack. In XP, this same level of DRM couldn't be enforced with the HAL remaining intact and operational.

Some of you already know how the new audio stack affects us. It has benefits, but it also has caveats. Many older (and some current) DirectSound based titles lose surround support entirely. The benefit of our Creative/E-MU DSPs (the 10K1, K2 and the 20K1, also known as the X-Fi) is eliminated in DirectSound titles, when it was fully supported in XP and previous OSes. No hardware acceleration; no surround sound in many cases; and no EAX. Naturally, developers have been adopting the open-source OpenAL API at an above-average rate recently, and both OpenAL and ASIO aren't subject to the constraints of the new audio stack (to my knowledge, Vista's internal DRM cannot be enforced across these APIs). Our Audigys and X-Fis work as advertised with OpenAL-based games. If they aren't OpenAL-based, we have to use an inelegant function call wrapper called ALchemy (and if you're an Audigy owner, you're just plain shit out of luck at the moment) that reduces performance and increases latency.

The prime reason for the new audio stack is to reduce crashes and increase features, and it seems that it works. Vista's audio stack, as a baseline, is not nearly as destructive to the audio signal as was XP's kMixer, because high-precision floating point resampling is the baseline in Vista. But there's also this DRM aspect to it, and it certainly affects us.