So you just love Vista do you?

[Reloadron]

Beyond my first post regarding Vista and on a more serious note, I did run the Vista Beta and Vista RC1. I ran it in a dual boot with XP Pro and the only thing I did to make things better was install a newer graphics card on the machine.

Overall, following making sure I had compatible hardware Vista ran just fine for me. I had no problems or issues with the software I ran on it. I do have a new OEM version of Vista Ultimate, however, it can remain in the package for now. Rather than install it on this machine, I will wait till I do a new build to replace this machine. This machine will remain XP Pro till Fall or Winter when I make a new machine for myself. Then this sucker will migrate to the wife and the wife's machine will replace my aging Linux / Win. 2K box.

I figure Vista will just become a part of normal attrition around here. As I replace machines, they will be Vista. I did just order a new laptop with Vista Ultimate and when it arrives I am guessing it will run fine. That will be the newest and first machine I have running Vista other than the Beta / RC1 experiments.

Again, Vista did run just fine for me. I did not however see any major magic over what I do with XP.

Ron

[Lead Head]

Originally Posted by Reloadron

Beyond my first post regarding Vista and on a more serious note, I did run the Vista Beta and Vista RC1. I ran it in a dual boot with XP Pro and the only thing I did to make things better was install a newer graphics card on the machine.

Overall, following making sure I had compatible hardware Vista ran just fine for me. I had no problems or issues with the software I ran on it. I do have a new OEM version of Vista Ultimate, however, it can remain in the package for now. Rather than install it on this machine, I will wait till I do a new build to replace this machine. This machine will remain XP Pro till Fall or Winter when I make a new machine for myself. Then this sucker will migrate to the wife and the wife's machine will replace my aging Linux / Win. 2K box.

I figure Vista will just become a part of normal attrition around here. As I replace machines, they will be Vista. I did just order a new laptop with Vista Ultimate and when it arrives I am guessing it will run fine. That will be the newest and first machine I have running Vista other than the Beta / RC1 experiments.

Again, Vista did run just fine for me. I did not however see any major magic over what I do with XP.

Ron

The Vista Betas were horrible. They were more like an XP with a new shell, rather an whole new OS.

[Reloadron]

Originally Posted by Lead Head

The Vista Betas were horrible. They were more like an XP with a new shell, rather an whole new OS.

I don't know that I would say "Horrible". Maybe lacking a little or as was put XP in a shell. RC1 was pretty good as far as I was concerned. It ran well on this machine (Pentium D with 2 GB RAM). I am guessing about a week and I will see what it does on the new laptop. I had the option of going with XP Pro and after long thought clicked for Vista Ultimate so we shall see. I have a feeling I will be pleased or wonder how I could have been so stupid.

Ron

[yurimxpxman]

Originally Posted by Panda Man

Interesting, but I didn't get Vista for the "security," I knew it wouldn't stop anything any better than XP. Hell I disabled defender and disabled UAC as soon as I installed it, I'm letting me deal with security, not MS

That's what Microsoft calls "Trusted Computing", and what Richard Stallman calls "Treacherous Computing".

To be honest, promoting any version of Windows for security is a joke. If the average user can't scrape by without installing an antivirus suite, then it's nowhere near being a secure system.

That's my $0.02, anyways.

[MantaBase]

Not that I disagree with the general findings, but there are a number of things wrong with the analysis in that article.

I name the most obvious - ignoring warnings from the OS that executing a file may cause a (virus) problem.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Changing default settings in the OS is another stupid mistake - when you don't know what you are doing, or in their case, so you can run scripts via browser.

Running as Admin when Vista (at least my versions) explicitly tells you not to is another.

Also, HP (and I speak from very recent experience) makes changes to the default settings of Vista because thier security system takes over. As an example, some of the products they ship with their systems disable Vista's firewall. Simply turning them off does not re-enable the default settings.

They should have installed clean default versions of Vista for the test.

Ron had it right - commonsense.exe is a file that is lacking in MS products.

Security is a practice, not a product. It doesn't matter if you are running Linux, OSX or Windows. If you are not practicing security, your system is not secure. Even with a good virus scanner (the running of which is actually a form of practicing security).

Again, I actually agree (mostly) with the overall impression of Vista's security - I agree with it because its a copy of the *nix archetype running in NT. Something I know doesn't guarantee security - as I have violated it myself in the days of old and have seen no real change in it since.

That said, it was a poorly designed test - designed in fact to make both Vista and XP look worse than they may be.

Manta

[Dr. V]

This was most definitely done intentionally. But the thing about security is the care.

Mac may care more about security and their users than Windows - or do they?

Put a Mac OSX computer, as-is, into a full Windows environment and I'm pretty confident it will fail quite miserably.

Macs are so extremely controlled, so Apple knows EXACTLY how to go about securing it. Windows-based PCs are capable of running such a disgustingly large amount of software - a large fraction of which can be run on Macs - that they need to be that much more secure than a Mac. Dawning on what I said before, Windows PCs are probably so much more secure than Macs, but just never get a chance to seem that way because they don't have the concealed presence of a Mac. Also, Macs are NEVER put in the position to show off its bad security BECAUSE of the controlled nature of them.

What about individual care?

In my eyes, you care about your computer if you do the following:

-Run a firewall or some type of protection mechanism close enough to what a firewall can offer
-Run an anti-virus program
-Don't do stupid things that could turn into security disasters - basically be cautious

What more can you do? Nothing.