Vista anyone?

[ShockQueen]

I'm going on the other side of the spectrum here since the previous question was about Linux. I just installed Vista Business on my laptop (got it in a promo), and I have to say that so far........SO FAR it's running pretty well! I loaded up my Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Bryce, and a bunch of my other programs, and no crashes as of yet. Anyone else who was brave enough to try it yet?

[hoverfly]

I'm going on the other side of the spectrum here since the previous question was about Linux.

I just installed Vista Business on my laptop (got it in a promo), and I have to say that so far........SO FAR it's running pretty well! I loaded up my Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Bryce, and a bunch of my other programs, and no crashes as of yet.

Anyone else who was brave enough to try it yet?

Not untill l buy a new computer, several years away that I will use Vista. Have you seen the prices on a full copy!! I don't buy upgrades full copies work the best. Becides, I have not had to do any thing to my XP for over a year, that's good enough for now.

[Elegant]

I don't have too much difficulty with XP, so I'll stick with it until I probably install some Linux. My PIV 1800GHz with 256MB RAM and 80GB HDD may have a hard time with (hasta la) Vista, and I ain't no hardcore gamer etc. to buy a new graybox.

[Francis]

Having seen Vista running on a Core2 Duo machine and it having problems there, I don't think I shall be installing it to my 2.8Ghz AMD XP machine. I'm running XP MCE at the moment and it's working well, well enough for windows anyway. My 2.2Ghz AMD XP is running XP Home and doing fine apart from odd hardware crashes caused by my graphics card overheating. Vista? The view aint that good!

[chris100575]

A couple of the guys at work have tried it, and none of them thought it was worth upgrading from XP unless it was because you particularly wanted Vista. I'll be sticking with XP for the forseeable. Chris

[musiclover]

I'm still have Windows XP on one computer, and Linux on another. I'm not considering an upgrade until Service Pack 1 arrives. And draconian DRM system built into Vista makes me think twice about upgrade.

[ShockQueen]

Yeah, once I saw that part (the DRM), I'm thinking it's not that large of an upgrade (aside from the eye candy) that I might just go back to XP MCE anyway. It works, it runs my programs, and it takes up less room than Vista. Meh...I got it free anyway, so I can always put it on again later should the mood arise.

[musiclover]

I just don't want to have to buy new monitor and new graphics card beacuse Vista needs to estabilish secured video path between monitor and graphics card in order to play HD video ("premium content", as Microsoft says). And DRM stuff in Vista sometimes loads the CPU up to 50% Eye candy? For those who want nice and pleasant GUI, I can recommend Mac OS X

[hoverfly]

I just don't want to have to buy new monitor and new graphics card beacuse Vista needs to estabilish secured video path between monitor and graphics card in order to play HD video ("premium content", as Microsoft says). And DRM stuff in Vista sometimes loads the CPU up to 50%

Eye candy? For those who want nice and pleasant GUI, I can recommend Mac OS X

Oh great another power hungry program, like I said before it's going to be several years before I upgrade. My mother still uses Windows 98 and the computer got to be close to 10 years old. For just surfing and email, really how much do you really need? My next computer, I was thinking one of those Apple cubes.....small compact, OS X........

[jmc]

Microsoft's tactics make a lot more sense once you realize the true purpose of Windows.

Ever since the days of 3.1 we have been told that Windows:

1). Makes your computer easier to use.

2). Makes programs easier to use.

3). Allows programs to interact with each other and share data between themselves.

4). Makes you more productive.

5). Makes the "computing experience" more enjoyable.

Those are all "side-effects" at best. Windows really exists for one and only one purpose -- it is a marketing tool. It is there to get you to buy stuff, stuff such as: more memory, bigger hard drives, faster CPU's, faster motherboards, more capable video cards, more capable monitors, licenses for new versions of software, input devices, entire computer systems, etc. And now hardware is so advanced that even the older systems are still extremely powerful. The only way to sell us new stuff is to come up with a killer OS that sucks up clock cycles in such profusion that the "super-duper high-speed screamer system" from last year slows to a crawl. Enter Vista.

Sorry, Bill -- I'm just not riding your train anymore.

[sendra45]

Microsoft's tactics make a lot more sense once you realize the true purpose of Windows.

Ever since the days of 3.1 we have been told that Windows:

1). Makes your computer easier to use.

2). Makes programs easier to use.

3). Allows programs to interact with each other and share data between themselves.

4). Makes you more productive.

5). Makes the "computing experience" more enjoyable.

Those are all "side-effects" at best. Windows really exists for one and only one purpose -- it is a marketing tool. It is there to get you to buy stuff, stuff such as: more memory, bigger hard drives, faster CPU's, faster motherboards, more capable video cards, more capable monitors, licenses for new versions of software, input devices, entire computer systems, etc. And now hardware is so advanced that even the older systems are still extremely powerful. The only way to sell us new stuff is to come up with a killer OS that sucks up clock cycles in such profusion that the "super-duper high-speed screamer system" from last year slows to a crawl. Enter Vista.

Sorry, Bill -- I'm just not riding your train anymore.

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hoverfly]

Microsoft's tactics make a lot more sense once you realize the true purpose of Windows.

Ever since the days of 3.1 we have been told that Windows:

1). Makes your computer easier to use.

2). Makes programs easier to use.

3). Allows programs to interact with each other and share data between themselves.

4). Makes you more productive.

5). Makes the "computing experience" more enjoyable.

Those are all "side-effects" at best. Windows really exists for one and only one purpose -- it is a marketing tool. It is there to get you to buy stuff, stuff such as: more memory, bigger hard drives, faster CPU's, faster motherboards, more capable video cards, more capable monitors, licenses for new versions of software, input devices, entire computer systems, etc. And now hardware is so advanced that even the older systems are still extremely powerful. The only way to sell us new stuff is to come up with a killer OS that sucks up clock cycles in such profusion that the "super-duper high-speed screamer system" from last year slows to a crawl. Enter Vista.

Sorry, Bill -- I'm just not riding your train anymore.

Hay I my self have a copy of 98, one full/one brand based copies of XP so why do I need any thing else? The only way people who are going to upgrade in masses is buying a new computer (unless they have a full version of XP to reload or to run Duo processers) or MS stops support on XP at some time like on 98. I don't see the EU allowing that to happen, or it's passable that Apple's OS X could be a contender at some time in the feature since they switched to lntel based processors. Hmmmmmmmmm Apple has not been able to sustain it's own PC market so why not compete at some time?

[musiclover]

My next computer, I was thinking one of those Apple cubes.....small compact, OS X........

You should consider buying a Mac mini (http://www.apple.com/macmini) - very small computer (it's not much bigger than average external hard drive), has dual-core CPU, runs OS X and even can run Windows natively (if you want)

[geo_t]

I'm still have Windows XP on one computer, and Linux on another. I'm not considering an upgrade until Service Pack 1 arrives. And draconian DRM system built into Vista makes me think twice about upgrade.

I hate to break this to you, but to watch high-definition ("premium") content on any equipment you will be using DRM, even on your TV. High-definition content requires the use of HDCP over a HDMI connection. Any other connection (composite, component) will be reduced to standard definition, as will a digital connection (DVI or HDMI) that doesn't support HDCP.

This isn't a specific Microsoft thing, it's being driven by the content companies. Any other software or hardware company that wants to display high definition content is restricted in the same way. The first generation of Toshiba HD-DVD players used a specialized Linux operating system with HDMI/HDCP for the main high-def output. MS Vista just happens to be the first publicly available OS that supports all these content restriction systems. If Apple wants to let their systems play HD content, they too will have to support HDCP and the attendant restrictions. Too bad that the leading technology companies are being held ransom by the movie companies.

[Trolldeg]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows.html

[Tech]

How come only Windows users need to concern themselves with anti-virus software? Linux and Mac users don't. Doesn't that tell you something?

Thats not a Microsoft problem, its a popularity problem. Honestly, what virus writer is going to waste their time on viruses for 5% of the market?

If linux or Mac had 95% of the market, then the situation would be the same, everybody would need antivirus for their mac or linux box.

In fact, there are plenty of viruses that affect the mac, and some linux systems but because these machine account for such a small percentage of the market, you just dont hear about it.

Anybody receiving an emails or viewing a web pages would be wise to have some form of protection from viruses, dispite their choice of O/S

[musiclover]

This isn't a specific Microsoft thing, it's being driven by the content companies. Any other software or hardware company that wants to display high definition content is restricted in the same way. The first generation of Toshiba HD-DVD players used a specialized Linux operating system with HDMI/HDCP for the main high-def output. MS Vista just happens to be the first publicly available OS that supports all these content restriction systems. If Apple wants to let their systems play HD content, they too will have to support HDCP and the attendant restrictions. Too bad that the leading technology companies are being held ransom by the movie companies.

Just read this

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

It's not only HDCP...

[hoverfly]

Good grief, and I thought Windows ME was all AFU, Vista could top it. Many people don't really care for premium media, lots have to do with convenience. MP3 content is not the best sounding but in a car or head set it works just fine and people are happy. I do not see the connivance in using this program. I do support some kind of protection of property but the system has got to work. Nobody is going to repurchase their entire video library just because somebody cracked the encryption code and the next Media player he/she perches is no longer back wards compatible. Personally I see XP a main stay for some time to come. MS will not have much to do with that as they will be loaded up with law suits from all corners of the Earth and be forced to continue supporting it until it's resolved, most likely another new OS introduced. I also can't wait to see somebodies electric bill some day, Vista could be blamed on adding additional CO2 green house gas to the plant as it will consume considerable more power to run.

[chris100575]

Thats not a Microsoft problem, its a popularity problem. Honestly, what virus writer is going to waste their time on viruses for 5% of the market?

If linux or Mac had 95% of the market, then the situation would be the same, everybody would need antivirus for their mac or linux box.

In fact, there are plenty of viruses that affect the mac, and some linux systems but because these machine account for such a small percentage of the market, you just dont hear about it.

Anybody receiving an emails or viewing a web pages would be wise to have some form of protection from viruses, dispite their choice of O/S

Actually, that's not accurate. Take a look at this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

Chris

[Ozzard]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

A good example of why one should choose one's sources carefully. That's dated 2004, and was inaccurate then.

Firstly, it ignores the only worm that took down the Internet - the Morris worm of 1988. Presumably the writer wasn't around at that time. I was, and well remember pulling the University of Manchester network off the 'net while we ran round patching the UNIX machines (SunOS, particularly) and VAXen against the hole in sendmail it was exploiting. The Sun monoculture at that time was a tempting target, and it was exploited in the same way that the Microsoft monoculture now is exploited. No virus or worm since that date has managed to do such damage to the infrastructure - although much of that is due to the larger size of the 'net now.

Secondly, increasing vulnerabilities have been found and are continuing to be found in Mozilla and Firefox. Have a look at the new releases "for security issues" on Firefox.

Thirdly, there are some stupidities even now - like the dead simple BSD telnet exploit that was fixed in 1993 and has just reappeared in Solaris 10 and 11. UNIX, once again. Poor regression testing isn't just a problem at Microsoft, it appears. These are not unusual, and they get exploited.

I agree entirely with the writer's point that running with elevated privilege is inherently insecure, and that Microsoft OSs (because of the past history of poorly-behaved applications) encourage that while UNIX systems discourage it. I agree with his point that the monoculture will be targeted. But he really should try to produce an article that gets the facts right - and, arguably, we should now be quoting from 2007 articles, not 2004 ones.

- Peter

[Ozzard]

Where do viruses come from?

As I say on my home page (see my profile if you want to get there - I *think* it's public)... there are two of the seven deadly sins that drive the 'Net as they drive everywhere else. They're greed and vanity. Virus writers aren't immune.

Vanity: There is a certain cachet to being the notorious hacker who wrote such-and-such a virus. Viruses of this type are signed (sometimes subtly) by the writer, usually with their handle. This was the original reason for most virus-writing: "look what I can do, folks".

Greed: Viruses, but more particularly worms and trojans, can drop other malware on a system. Malware that can key-log and screen-scrape, reading your credit card number and expiry date as you key it on a shopping page, or your social security number, or your bank username and password. There is increasing evidence that the sophisticated modern malware is written by organised crime groups - and occasionally national governments - to be used as a data extraction tool. The results can be pretty lucrative.

I'd also add: revenge and pure destruction. The Chernobyl virus (one of the very few to cause *hardware* damage as opposed to merely software damage) was in this category. Someone was pissed off with the world, and wanted the world to know it. They succeeded - two of my acquaintances needed new motherboards post-Chernobyl after their BIOSes got trashed and they realised the flash memory carrying the BIOS was flow-soldered to the board.

This is a primer. Happy to go deeper - and include topics like phishing, zero-day attacks, spear-phishing and the like - if folks want, but it's probably time to split the thread if we do.

- Peter

[jmc]

Where do viruses come from?

Just try to imagine the power trip someone would get by seeing his (and most virus writers and script kiddies are males) little piece of malicious code bring millions of computers to a standstill -- and such reports are often disseminated by the major media outlets. Since so many boxes run Windows, that OS becomes a very large target (as well as -- because of design issues -- a very easy target).

At one time, most viruses were legitimate attempts to expose weaknesses in computer security systems -- if "Company A" succeeded in breaking into "Company B's" system then the flaw that allowed that to occur was exposed and fixed. Now most viruses come from people who just want to make our lives miserable or have an "axe to grind" with a major software vendor -- and who is the biggest target of them all?

[Ozzard]

(could someone with moderator privs split this this thread about where we started talking about viruses? It's now off-topic, but this is not the right point in the discussion to start a new thread) Most AV software has heuristics to spot "virus-ish" behaviour - hooking into the operating system at a low level (usually on disk I/O) is a prime example. Such a thing may or may not be a virus; the company would rather you packaged it up and reported it. Similarly, people change viruses - script kiddies the world over will take an existing virus, mutate it, and re-release it. The new virus still does damage, but isn't the same as the old one. Most AV software detects virus strains that look "a bit like" existing ones, and invite you to report them so that they can be confirmed. When you were running Windows with AV, did you have any other software along with the AV package, notably a firewall? A good firewall will stop most of the worms and other nasties trying to get in over your broadband connection; running with the firewall disabled is asking for infection. For example, I used to think I was safe on dial-up without a firewall and with file+print sharing disabled until I got hit by CodeRed*. If you're interested, try the same "honeypot" trick again and then run an open-source virus scanner such as CLaM across the system. If necessary, review the source code of CLaM first to make sure it's not dropping viruses or reporting false signatures. OSX *does* have to worry about viruses, just not as much, for a number of reasons: - It's not as popular, so fewer virus writers target it; - It's not as popular, so there are fewer systems out there trying to infect yours; - It's harder to write viruses for, so fewer virus writers target it; - Most users don't routinely run as root, so the damage a typical virus can do is more limited - there has to be another exploit that the virus can use to gain root before it can do any major damage. - Peter * Yes, I do run a SQL Server installation at home.

[Tech]

This thread is about windows Vista, if you cant stay on topic, why not start another thread yourself? A little bit of side tracking here and there is never an bad thing anyway, as one conversation always leads to another, which is the point you would go and start a new thread and allow this one to carry on with its topic and get back on track.

[sendra45]

This thread is about windows Vista, if you cant stay on topic, why not start another thread yourself?

A little bit of side tracking here and there is never an bad thing anyway, as one conversation always leads to another, which is the point you would go and start a new thread and allow this one to carry on with its topic and get back on track.

As anti virus software is aimed mainly at windows users and will make a killing from vista, I dont see that this is off topic.

he said, in a MS free house.

Nigel

[chris100575]

Actually Ozzard it's dated 2003. The fact remains that MS leaves itself wide open to viruses by encouraging a range of sloppy if not downright stupid practices: runnning as an administrator all the time; hiding file extensions so users don't realise that anna_kournikova_naked.jpg is actually an executable that will hose their system; Outlook Express automatically opening such attachments etc. Sorry MS, getting users to run with an unrestricted account isn't compensated for by asking them three times if they really mean it when they try and delete something. Chris

[bigj3650]

well vista doesnt open anything that looks dodgey from what iv seen so far (iv just installed Vista Home Premium) and it seems to be working quite well... altho it wont let me run photoshop or premiere (im in the process of buying adobe photoshop elements 5 and premiere elements 3...which have a vista update...BUT ANYWAY) so far im liking the ideas that they have came up with....the installation process is damn near impossible to screw up (meaning that it will be REALLY easy for hackers, crackers, etc...to find a way round it) but its not bad...iv seen worse. J.

[Firefox]

I've been running W98 and ME until this year. The only gripe I have had against them is that they are not very USB compatible. They are supposed to be, but you have to download various extra drivers and fiddle around. Also, some maintenance required on start up progs and spyware to keep your computer ticking smoothly. XP is a marginal improvement. I can't see that Vista could be much better given the current state of software/internet needs. Very often a new name is brought out by the marketing guys to get some cash from upgrades from people who must have the latest OS. To be honest, in terms of basic layout and operation, XP is not that much different to W95.

[geo_t]

well vista doesnt open anything that looks dodgey from what iv seen so far (iv just installed Vista Home Premium) and it seems to be working quite well...

altho it wont let me run photoshop or premiere (im in the process of buying adobe photoshop elements 5 and premiere elements 3...which have a vista update...BUT ANYWAY)

I have found quite a bit of software that doesn't play all that well with Vista, and a lot of it is caused by the same problem - programs trying to write user data to the system folder, program folder, or system registry keys. In any system it's never a good idea to have user data being written to the same location as program/system files. That's why Windows 2000 and XP (by default) don't let you see the contents of c:\windows and c:\program files. Vista takes that one step further by (a) actively stopping programs writing to system areas, and ( creating a "sand box" area away from the system folders so that programs can still work. It's not perfect as some programs don't recognize the spoofed "c:\windows" and "c:\program files" folders, but it's a start.

[ And before anyone chimes in with "get a Mac", I'll remind you that Apple damaged compatibility with old apps when they let OS X loose (remember "classic mode?"), and with the introduction of the Intel Mac's totally stopped old software from running. Whose approach is better? It's a wash - M$ allowing old stuff to run leaves the same security holes open; Apple not allowing it to run can annoy users who have to buy the same software all over again. ]

Whose fault is this? I'd lay it at the feet of the programmers. M$ (for all their faults) have been telling developers not to write to system areas for some time now, yet developers still do it. I don't know what it is - laziness or just a cavalier I-know-better-than-BillG attitude, but with Vista out there that's starting to bite people in the butt.

Oh yeah, Vista is the first M$ desktop operating system that really makes it easy to run as a non-admin user without having things stop working. That makes the old Unix geek in me happy.

[geo_t]

To be honest, in terms of basic layout and operation, XP is not that much different to W95.

With all due respect to Firefox, that's one of the craziest statement's I've read about Windows in a while. It's like comparing a new Bentley to a Model-T and saying there's not much difference.

Remember the old server/workstation operating system Windows NT? After version 4.0, it mutated into Windows 2000 (NT 5.0), Windows XP (NT 5.1) and now Windows Vista (NT 6.0). I know an awful lot of people have used/are using Windows 95 through ME, but retiring the old tired MS-Dos based operating system for NT based one was one of M$'s better moves. Vista builds on XP in a lot of ways, but most of them are not really evident... improved system security, randomised memory mapping, better firewall, built in malware detection, and finally the need to always run as your computer administrator has been vanquished.

Ah... I seem to be drooling on myself.