Why Windows Vista Won't Disappoint
Posted by malebolgia on 28 February 2006 - 20:31 · 69 comments & 11710 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by Betaz on 28 Feb 2006 - 20:50
- Thank you Neowin for using a much more mature title
As I had said before, the thread is a pretty good guide for those non-technical people wanting to know what is going to be new in Vista. -
#1.1 Posted by malebolgia on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:23
- You guys weren't suppse to see the story, until after I set the story to be shown (Neowin bug I guess).
-
(6 replies)
#2 Posted by quick on 28 Feb 2006 - 20:52
- I hope they don't keep the EXTREMELY annoying "This Program Needs Administrative Access" popups on every single thing you open....
Makes doing anything very tedious.. :/ -
#2.1 Posted by Rekoil on 28 Feb 2006 - 20:58
- Im pretty sure they wont be removing that, but atleast theres a way to disable it
-
#2.2 Posted by Octol on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:05
- It's my understanding that there will be an easy way for administrators to allow users to run specific applications without administrative permissions.
-
#2.3 Posted by Hurmoth on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:07
- They don't need to completely remove it, but they do need to allow some things without needing admin privileges. Like trying to run the app that rates the system--why does that need admin privileges? Defragmenting your system shouldn't need admin privileges and neither should just opening up System Properties. Now if you go to change any settings in System Properties, then I say yes, request admin privileges, but only at the attempt to change any settings.
-
#2.4 Posted by malebolgia on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:20
- I heard that in the current Vista build Microsoft was supposed to add the password field to the popup. Sadly it isn’t there; I sure hope they add it in the next build.
-
#2.5 Posted by trance on 28 Feb 2006 - 22:30
- the password field that you are looking for is there, just not enabled by default for users in the admin group. You can change it from the consentUI to the credUI (the same UI you would have if you were in the users group and trying to do over the shoulder elevation).
-
#3 Posted by whizbt77 on 28 Feb 2006 - 20:52
- i wonder what neowin is trying to imply....
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by on 01 Jan 1970 - 00:00
-
#4.1 Posted by xorian on 28 Feb 2006 - 20:52
- Knowing Microsoft, it'll serve like one big shortcut to all of their new services being introduced now (the whole Live thing), and they're actually not really THAT innovative, almost everything new in Vista has been done before, with third party applications for Windows XP or on other operating systems.
And all the new security in Vista, will give more advanced users more headaches than comfort. People shouldn't be kissing Microsoft for those new security features as well, because I'd say it's their damn right after being played with by viruses and numberous of exploits.
The thing that got most people their attention is probably the new visuals, which can just as well be done by third party applications in Windows XP.
Also, the prices for Vista are way outrageously high.
To me, the switch from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 was a good one. The switch from Windows XP (or Server 2003) to Windows Vista is just one big hype.
I hate to sound bitter, but there's really hardly anything REALLY interesting about it. I personally wouldn't buy it for the features they're presenting us for sure.
EDIT: Weird, apparently, the comment I was replying to has .. vanished!
Last edited by xorian on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:22
-
#5 Posted by Mayhem on 28 Feb 2006 - 20:59
- there are stuff to prevent viruses that many ppl dont see on vista, for ex: an mirc script. i change somes lines of code on mirc on windows xp, but when i went to vista, the script was the version that i have runned before on vista
whith this i want to say that the files are all protected, only if the user make all the stuff to be admin rights is that the files gets changed. its good at least for viruses
something like that
-
#6 Posted by Rekoil on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:01
- #4.1, People say this exact same thing with every major upgrade, its really starting to get on my nerves. Peronally I think Vista is gonna be good.
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by boogerjones on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:01
- What a silly article. Users will be more inconvenienced with security alerts, security holes will still be identified, effective malware will still be written, and in the end, the user will remain the weak link in Windows security. In other words, little will change.
-
#7.1 Posted by MrCobra on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:21
- @Octol
His points are valid ones. When XP was first announced it was said because it was fully 32bit protected mode that viruses couldn't infect it. Look at what XP has goinf for it today. SP2 was supposed to help guard against malware, but all it's done is to make other write more effective malware that can't be detected during install. IMO, and most might agree, security privileges in Vista need to be more *nix like. -
#7.2 Posted by Hurmoth on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:22
- There's no need for name calling, that won't prove your point. And in a sense, both of you are right and both of you are wrong.
No matter how much Microsoft wants to be perfect, it is impossible. No operating system as advanced as Windows is immune to security holes. Mac OS X is a prime example of this. That's why Microsoft and Apple have patches, to fix bugs.
I old a strong belief that the problem isn't Microsoft, but the end user. Most end users do not want to have to think about what they're clicking on, for example, a user just wants weather, but if they type one thing wrong, they might get porn and spyware instead. My point is, people need to be educated about how to surf the internet and check email safely.
There is nothing Microsoft can do, except lock the system completely down (and even then there'll be exploits to get around that) to help protect the end-user. I personally think Microsoft is heading in the right direction with their security. The thing they don't need to do is rush though. Microsoft has had almost 5 years to work on Vista; hopefully they'll get it right.
-
#8 Posted by chimera963 on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:09
- how many more months overdue will the final release be NOW then? lol, only kidding.
-
#9 Posted by matt74441 on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:18
- Comments Censored.
Please don't call people morons.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by lylesback2 on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:22
- Windows Vista is sure to prevent less fatal errors, and less reinstallations. with the core of Windows Vista being protected, it looks as if, formatting was a think of the past.
-
#10.2 Posted by Hurmoth on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:27
- :p I doubt that. I know a lot of people who do it every couple of weeks, just for the hell of it. Now I do believe that there will be less infections, which will cause less reinstallations. But there's still going to be some of us who do it just because we feel like it--or have nothing better to do with our time.
-
(3 replies)
#11 Posted by CrazyK on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:26
- Vista seems great when I read all of that but I have always been sensible about how I use my PC, Ive never had a virus or anything which affected XP and I don't play that many games. I am very happy with XP and the new colours and icons in Vista actually put me off it a little because they seem to have dumbed the interface down too much. I don't like how explorer hasn't had any big changes, yes I can now change the size of my icons easily from where the file menu used to be (erm how many times do you need to do that a week?) but where is the small handy stuff such as:
The ability to change the creation and modified time of a file and more importantly a folder
The ability to add more comments to a folder or file and then be able to arrange icons dependant on those comments
The option to get the dos name of a file from right click and properties
An easy option to change a files filename association such as .doc .txt .avi from right clicking on a file
The ability to have the new calendar in the taskbar or being able to select where programs are reduced to
The ability to switch off all tool tips everywhere once you have been using them for a month
Why cant we arrange favourites in IE7 by date
And so many more
It sounds silly but these are the things that would really encourage me to upgrade as its things I use every day and have to have a selection of programs currently installed to XP to allow me to do them. -
#11.1 Posted by Laser_iCE on 01 Mar 2006 - 07:02
- 1. Ever tried modifying the file or folder? If you're talking about modifying the time so that it's EARLIER than the actual day/month/year, then that would be rediculous.
"But I swear I didn't do any more on the assignment! Look at the modify date, it's a week ago! I haven't touched it since".
2. Ever tried viewing files by detail?
3. DOS name??
4. You CAN do this, XP, and I assume Vista, simply have file extensions turned off by default. It's as simple as changing Folder Options.
5. Once again, what do you mean, "where programs are reduced to" ?
6. Why would you want to turn off tool tips after a month? I honestly don't see the point.
7. Once again, you CAN do this, simply navigate your explorer window to where your Favourites are stored. -
#11.2 Posted by TRC on 01 Mar 2006 - 17:15
- "1. Ever tried modifying the file or folder? If you're talking about modifying the time so that it's EARLIER than the actual day/month/year, then that would be rediculous."
True but it's quite simple to do. Just set your computer's clock back to the date you wish and modify the folder.
"3. DOS name??"
I'm guessing he means the 8.3 format file name. Isn't it about time to do away with those anyway? How many people really need DOS file name support these days? -
#11.3 Posted by wicker_man on 02 Mar 2006 - 08:36
- ^^^
You have no idea how many people use 8.3 file name nowadays. Me too, for example. 3 main production machines in our company all use 8.3 file names, and the are not easy to upgrade because £250000 is quite a lot of money. You are obviously speaking from a home user standpoint...
-
#12 Posted by hitmark on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:41
- about the only thing that registers on my interest-radar is the backuptool.
it looks as if its able to burn directly to cd/dvd, and that allows me to set some folders. make sure i have a dvd-rw in the drive, and just tell the system to backup said folders at a interval.
ok, so i can do most of that allready with the backup tool thats in windows now, but the big sell for me is the ability to go straight to dvd-rw. 90% of the data on this system i dont care much about, the rest can fit on a dvd nicely
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by trip21 on 28 Feb 2006 - 21:43
- Good idea microsoft hide behind the "we can now make a secure OS" banner to cover the fact their's no good new features in the thing. And the interface just looks bloody annoying to me, either make something truely inovative or stick with what you've got!
-
(5 replies)
#14 Posted by Sn4k36 on 28 Feb 2006 - 22:11
- At first i didn't mind using windows vista at all.. But then the look and feel started to get to my head and made me wanna give up on using vista.. Sure people are going to say it's only beta.. I know that, but the UI in windows vista isn't going to be changing at all.. An i don't feel like buying a copy of windowblinds etc just to give a different look, because that only means more memory we gotta use.
So i'm going to be sticking to windows xp for a very very long time.. until more apps and games come out for windows xp 64bit.. Then i'll be moving over to xp 64bit. -
#14.1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 01 Mar 2006 - 02:02
- XP 64bit was stillborn... it was delayed for far too long and when it was finally released Vista was right around the corner. Also, 64bit is only available in Professional form and was never targeted at consumers - that means that driver supports is awful and application support has been poor (though not as much of an issue). I see moving to XP 64bit as a backward step, as what little you gain in performance (for some applications) and security, is lost through a lack of support and poor performance in other applications.
-
#14.3 Posted by ManMountain on 01 Mar 2006 - 03:18
- Windows x64 is the best OS I've used from MS. Let the sheep flock to using Vista, I'll be happily sticking with x64 combined with Office 12 for quite some time.
-
#14.4 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 01 Mar 2006 - 17:18
- "@14.1 you obviously haven't used 64 bit XP very much."
I have used it enough, I just don't see the advantage of it. If it had been released on time it could have changed computing for the better but as it is it will always remain a sidenote in the history of Windows - I still believe it was delayed to favour Intel, who were late to market. Vista will support 64bit from the start, as well as being targeted at consumers rather than the elite tech crowd - now I know Vista isn't anything special, however it will be well supported. I have an AMD64 CPU and would love a 64bit OS for better performance and increased security, it's just there are too many tradeoffs to make it worth while.
"Let the sheep flock to using Vista, I'll be happily sticking with x64 combined with Office 12 for quite some time."
Yes, cos using XP x64 and pre-release Office software makes you so cool.
I too use Office 12 but I don't flaunt it round in a failed attempt to impress other people... no-one cares, so why even mention it? There is absolutely no reason to even mention using Office 12 apart from for the "1337" factor, which just makes you a rather pathetic person.
"Windows x64 is the best OS I've used from MS."
I don't doubt that it is a great OS - the best MS has made so far - the only thing I question is the support and everyday practicality. Win2000 was a similar situation but was still better supported than XP x64. -
#14.5 Posted by ManMountain on 02 Mar 2006 - 17:41
- "Let the sheep ..."
Yes, cos using XP x64 and pre-release Office software makes you so cool. I too use Office 12 but I don't flaunt it round in a failed attempt to impress other people... no-one cares, so why even mention it? There is absolutely no reason to even mention using Office 12 apart from for the "1337" factor, which just makes you a rather pathetic person.
I meant in the future sense, as in, when Office 12 is available retail. Please don't assume I'm "pathetic" because you misinterpreted my statement.
"Windows x64 is the best OS..."
I don't doubt that it is a great OS - the best MS has made so far - the only thing I question is the support and everyday practicality. Win2000 was a similar situation but was still better supported than XP x64.
As we are all entitled to our opinions in this world, you can keep on just questioning x64's support and practicality, but for me, right now, every day, it's the fastest, most robust Windows OS I've used. Period.
Last edited by ManMountain on 02 Mar 2006 - 17:54
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by andy2004 on 28 Feb 2006 - 22:18
- still doesnt mean im gonna upgrade though, not everyone can afford to rush out and buy vista when its released and the good thing about xp where it is today is at least its a stable OS (unlike when it first came out) and when vista is released it too will have problems. No need to upgrade to vista until its at sp1 stage by which time i may consider upgrading but until then sorry microsoft vista offers nothing at all that xp doesnt already do
-
#15.1 Posted by notuptome2004 on 01 Mar 2006 - 02:13
- firdt off we dont know that ther will be a SP1 syage since microsoft promises that vista will have as less bugs as possble ans i think thats good ther working on maeking it so they dont need things like SP1 or PS2 type patches. out of the box you will have SP2+ like exsperiance
-
#15.2 Posted by werejag on 01 Mar 2006 - 09:41
- notuptome2004
dont be naive. vista will require a service pack either in name or in function. they have always claimed the next os will be different previous os but as we see vista today and its hype we see it as it truly is a failure.
out of the box you will have SP1+ 2k like exsperiance. see how that worked out
-
(2 replies)
#16 Posted by adri1456 on 28 Feb 2006 - 23:17
- I certainly like what I read in the first page, and hopefully it'll just get better as I read it.
But the main concern I have right now, is upgrading the five computers I have at home. I'll have to reteach everyone again, not to mention get a couple of OSes for the different user (uber-geek like me, to regular computer user, to noob computer user)
-
(1 reply)
#17 Posted by stgeorge on 28 Feb 2006 - 23:32
- Geezus Christo, the kernel HAS NOT been "reorganized" and "rewritten", what kind of inane tripe is ExtremeTech trying to push here? It's the same kernel as Windows Server 2003. Nothing more, nothing less. Microsoft will never rewrite the operating system, ever, there is too much gunk out there that "needs to run". Even the new audio stack is loaded up with old Windows 3.1 libraries, so it's all sitting on a giant house of cards.
-
#17.1 Posted by kl33per on 01 Mar 2006 - 07:57
- You sir, do not know what you are talking about. To address your points.
1. Yes it is a new kernal.
Of course Microsoft aren't going to write an entirely new kernal and I don't think extreme tech ever said that. But certainly large portions of the kernal have re-written or improved.
2. The operating system and kernal are not the same.
You use words OS and kernal interchangeably. The kerna; is only one very small (but critical) portion of an OS. The OS is the entire package.
3. The new audio stack is... guess what... new!
The audio stack has beeen re-written from the groud up... period. Now, of course there are libraries to support old applications, but the audio stack is not built on these libraries; it is not sitting on a house of cards. All the "old" libraries do is allow non-Vista apps to still work by passing their audio to the new stack.
-
#18 Posted by bid1 on 28 Feb 2006 - 23:37
- Does this mean we won't be needing anti-virus, anti-spyware software for Vista>???
Is it possible to do System Restore from Recovery Console in Vista? Does anyone know please?
ThanX
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by Foo Fighter on 01 Mar 2006 - 00:53
- Vista won't disappoint, but it will be doomed to suffer the same ridicule as any other Windows release by Linux zealots. No sooner will Vista arrive on store shelves when we begin hearing the banal rantings from the Fish N' Chips brigade, reminding us yet again how evil and greedy Microsoft is...how their software doesn't function, is buggy, and otherwise sucks. As if we hadn't heard the same lines uttered repeatedly before ad nauseum.
*sigh* Yes, I shall look forward to that.
-
(2 replies)
#20 Posted by Max™ on 01 Mar 2006 - 01:52
- Microsoft said pretty much the same thing with XP: "Oh yes it'll be so fantastically secure and stable..." Now look at it...connect it directly to ADSL without any service packs and schzam! A trojan will hit. Either way, people will keep finding holes and MS will keep patching. The only way to stop it is to remove any kind of optical drives from your PC and destroy the internet.
-
#20.1 Posted by notuptome2004 on 01 Mar 2006 - 02:15
- i dotn have that issues and i have dang Cable i dont get things like trojons and crap. if you do then it is because you are a target not that windows XP is to blame so dont blame microsoft peaple for every issues you have cause microsoft isant GOD they cant heal everyone
-
#21 Posted by nicedreams on 01 Mar 2006 - 01:58
- From everything I have seen from this it looks like XP with better wizards for people not used to computers and to make it easier to manage. I'm not hyped up for this at all. I've always been hyped up for new versions of Windows and this is the first time I really don't care.
Novel SUSE 10 looks very promising though and I think it might be a very good alternative.
-
#22 Posted by Xerxes on 01 Mar 2006 - 02:34
- Sounds great that Vista will be more secure, but the real question is "for how long?" I know I'm sounding negative but one thing I've learnt is nothing is safe, all this security stuff will only slow them down (hackers etc), not stop them....to the guys that have access to Vista, how are the user accounts? does the "Limited Account" or whatever it's called now, actually work the way it should? cause in XP the "Limited Account" was a joke and well I ended up making everyone Administrators again cause it ended up easier (the "Limited Account" in XP really should be called "Crippled Account" in my opinion)
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by warr on 01 Mar 2006 - 02:46
- I remember, prior to Windows XP release, Microsoft and their sister review sites said the same thing, "a new core", "a completely different overhaul", blahblah... We all know what it is now.
-
#23.1 Posted by kl33per on 01 Mar 2006 - 08:03
- Compared to the previous consumer line (the 9x series) it is a completely different core. Compared to the previous version of Windows (Windows 2000), it is only minorly upgraded. I highly doubt Microsoft said that Windows XP was a completely new OS compared to Windows 2000. They do have a marketing department, but they aren't stupid.
-
(1 reply)
#24 Posted by axis on 01 Mar 2006 - 04:12
- Hurmoth said it best. Microsoft can only secure an operating system so much before it is up to the users to take some damn responsibility. *nix is so 'secure' because its users know how to use a computer, they don't open email attachments like a clueless Windows user running AOL. The things I find impressive with Microsoft, how they are improving the command line management of a network, in a domain enviornment. You can manage everything in Windows from the command line, utilizing various scripting languages, all available for free with plenty of documentation, if you know how and want to know.
I think its great that Linux, out of the box, can employ mutiple services, like HTTP, FTP, firewall, perl, etc. Windows for the most part can't, you need those other apps. Why? Microsoft is a world business, who runs the world, who are on most of the desktops in the world. They have to make a product that is ready for consumers, not geeks, Linux is the exact opposite, but it has been going in the other direction lately has it not? Trying to please consumers. Read a little, you can manage Windows networks just as easily as you can *nix.
I think Vista is the next generation of the networked OS. It isn't meant to be the sole computer in the house, it is no better then XP then. Vista is meant to be linked together with a domain controller, on a network with other computers work together. Server based Office 2007, Office 2003 SP2 and other network based tools they are rolling out. Exchange 12, Microsoft Shell, ISA, .NET, SMS...all of these tools are based on servers. Goodbye IIS as just being a web server, I think its comming down to serving applications, almost like an intranet.
People please, give Microsoft a break, they do everything wonderfully. They do it on a worldly stage, they have to please billions, because those are their customers. Efficiently running a network is the sole purpose of every network admin, I personally can not wait for 2007 and 2008, when all these tools are finalized. Scripts and scripts to manage your network, then you manage those through some kind of web interface, rule.network. -
#24.1 Posted by markjensen on 03 Mar 2006 - 14:56
- Hurmoth said it best. Microsoft can only secure an operating system so much before it is up to the users to take some damn responsibility. *nix is so 'secure' because its users know how to use a computer, they don't open email attachments like a clueless Windows user running AOL.
Your analogy isn't quite right.
An email attachment in *nix is not executable. In Windows, attachments can be executed right away from the mail client (sometimes automatically, if preview is set on).
-
(1 reply)
#25 Posted by majortom1981 on 01 Mar 2006 - 05:42
- I am a network admin for a library with many public computers. We have not had a single virus . we have not been hacked and our comps have ran for months.
Its called deep freeze and some group policy's -
#25.1 Posted by foxconn287 on 02 Mar 2006 - 00:25
- Most people are idi*** and don't know about them. That's why there's so many viruses and CRAP floating around
-
(2 replies)
#26 Posted by osirisX on 01 Mar 2006 - 06:46
- People are just going to complain that it's over-secure. Microsoft can never win V_V
-
#26.1 Posted by MrCobra on 01 Mar 2006 - 10:22
- I wouldn't say over secure, but every single time you want to access anything it asks if you want to allow it to run. It gets a little annoying. Why does MS Paint and most of the other nonessential things in Windows need that added level of annoyance?
Installing programs or doing system level tasks should require admin rights. Simply wanting to see the Date/Time properties should not.
-
#27 Posted by olger901 on 01 Mar 2006 - 09:24
- Yaay!, finally some improvements where we gotta pay another additional 200 to 500 bucks for. These bucks are for an upgrade from Windows XP (Alpha Windows version) to Windows Vista (Beta Windows version)
However if you ask me, Windows will keep hanging in the eternal Alpha stage, trust me, if it's not security or stability, you will see something else will pop-out which was coded very poorly.
-
(3 replies)
#28 Posted by antny_uk on 01 Mar 2006 - 09:39
- Re-writting any legacy code is the worse thing you can do, espescially on an OS. I hope this is all lies, although it is on the internet so it must be true.
Re-writting only brings new flaws, adding to the code already there would be a much better solution, if you don't agree your wrong -
#28.1 Posted by daneel on 01 Mar 2006 - 09:49
- If re-writing new code only means new flaws what's the point of ever fixing previous issues/bugs ?
I know that Windows contains a lot of legacy code to help some old applications to still run fine or code that was meant for a different era (screens with 640*480 resolutions) but it's not an excuse for fixing limitations that have been around for more than 15 years.
Didn't they say that creating Vista cost them as much as sending a man to the Moon ? I can only wonder where all that money went...
Hopefully 80% of that budget won't be dedicated for the marketing department as it was for Windows XP :p
Last edited by daneel on 01 Mar 2006 - 09:55 -
#28.2 Posted by Havin_it on 01 Mar 2006 - 14:23
- >Didn't they say that creating Vista cost them as much as sending a man to the Moon ? I can only wonder where all that money went...
They actually sent a man to the moon. And he came back with a copy of the moon-dwellers' 1937 edition of their popular ViewPortalsOS™, code-named 'NotMuchOfAViewOutThere'. Of course, don't bother asking the moon-dwellers about it - they've all signed a non-disclosure agreement that's valid until the year 2478. And most of them will be senile by then.
However, I predict that due to a careless oversight by the 'Vista' team, hackers will discover the name of LunaSoft CEO, Zurg McSplurg, embedded in core-dumps of the new OS, provoking the Moon to invade Earth out of embarrassment.
Bring it on I say.
-
#29 Posted by Webgraph on 02 Mar 2006 - 22:50
- Completely rewriting the kernel? While that may improve security, it is simply another money grab for Microsoft. Why? Because when Apple released their OS X, none of the OS 9 applications could work without the Classic emulator installed (not recommended to use anyway); so one can expect the same with the release of Vista.
-
#30 Posted by vcv on 04 Mar 2006 - 19:37
- Actually, no, not all the visuals can be done by third-party apps in XP.
Well, that's exactly what Microsoft is doing with Vista. The whole kernel has been reorganized and rewritten to help prevent software from affecting the system in unsavory ways. In Vista, it should be much more difficult for unauthorized programs (like Viruses and Trojans) to affect the core of the OS and secretly harm your system.