XP "it lives beyond the grave"

[Deleted User]

TonyLisaP wrote: »

Unfortunately the security side of things in Vista are half the problem with Vista. Users demanded it then didn't like the impact when it was introduced. Catch 22.

True, good point.

As I've mentioned before, UAC has started to steer developers into writing their software in such a way it isn't triggering UAC prompts to the user by elevating it's access to any higher level than it should be.

That said, I do often wonder how many people read and understand the UAC prompt without just clicking Continue. Features are only as safe as the person using the machine..

TonyLisaP

i have turned off uac, it is just too annoying. fortunately I know what I am doing and my windows machine isn't allowed on the internet for anything but ms updates anyway. The beauty of VMWare and Linux.

isofa

be_alright wrote: »

The way Vista was redesigned to make security the #1 focus to end the poor design of 95/98/ME/2K and XP certainly is a major factor in why Vista is superior to all other MS offerings.

The initial plans for security for Vista, compared with the final release, was pathetic really. The UAC is ineffective (especially as many users just disable it), not insisting all driver and software manufacturers have to sign their software, before installation could take place, was a huge back down.

A basic Vista system will be more insecure than a fully locked down XP system (with third party apps, firewalls, virus and anti-splyware). However, that said, you can take any element of any OS and say one is better than the other, it's all subjective to a point. A knowledge user can make Vista just as secure.

Vista, in my experience, is not that much progress, especially for the enormous development time and constantly delayed release. It's fine, it's works, but many of the "flash" features people had enjoyed in previous versions of OS X, which from first principles is much more secure. I don't have a problem with Vista, I just don't think it's that much of a leap forward either.

I predict (and it's only my opinion), that in a few years time, Vista, will be regarded like ME, Windows 7 will be the one people and companies jump too en-mass.

If it was such a giant leap forward, more secure, more efficient etc - many more people would have abandoned XP more quickly, but because XP is proven and reasonably sound, stable technology, that hasn't happened, and MS were put on the back foot - hence extended support for XP for many years. This is very different from the switch from 98 to W2K or XP. (And even more so from the leap from 3.1 to 95 - although again Mac users will be smug here!)

Before anyone starts a further OS war - these are my opinions only :j

pro_bono

Isofa,
Sorry, to jump in on this thread but, OH is looking for a laptop for home and work (teacher) and we are unsure re Vista and the existing OS (XP) at home. Should we have any concerns re compatability between them. ie if work is saved in XP and downloaded to the Vista laptop in word, exel or powerpoint, would we still be able to read it as it was saved?

Psychofly

Docs like that will be fine mate. No issue there.

BillScarab

pro_bono wrote: »

Isofa,
Sorry, to jump in on this thread but, OH is looking for a laptop for home and work (teacher) and we are unsure re Vista and the existing OS (XP) at home. Should we have any concerns re compatability between them. ie if work is saved in XP and downloaded to the Vista laptop in word, exel or powerpoint, would we still be able to read it as it was saved?

The OS isn't relevant, it's the version of Office that matters. If you install Office 2007 by default it saves in a format that is not compatible with earlier versions. However you can set it to save in earlier Office formats so you won't have an issue.

moonrakerz

Riq wrote: »

Vista is far far superior to XP.

It's called progress and change.

No, it's called change for the sake of change !

[Deleted User]

moonrakerz wrote: »

No, it's called change for the sake of change !

It's called change to rectify the extremely unsecure operating system that is XP!

espresso

be_alright wrote: »

It's called change to rectify the extremely unsecure operating system that is XP!

Rubbish! It's change to generate billions more revenue for M$.

:rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

espresso wrote: »

Rubbish! It's change to generate billions more revenue for M$.

:rolleyes:

There's a very similar debate (abliet much more technical) happening on another forum I frequent. I can't really sum it up much better than this:

XP was made more secure by introduction of the security centre, automated updates and Windows Firewall. Vista introduces protected kernel, UAC, IE7+ Protected Mode, a vastly improved firewall (it's very good actually), parental controls, more GPO's, further refined permissions, Address Space Layout Randomization and Windows Defender. Whilst Defender can be ADDED to XP, nothing else on that list can be

Don't be so oblivious to the changes that were made in Vista for your benefit.