will sp1 for vista really make it worth switching from xp

[nero78]

sp1 will include windows core 6.1 which will be compatible with Windows Server 2007 (Longhorn).

[Kadzait]

Of course MS is going to say Vista is faster to push sales. I'm not trying to start something. I serously wanted to know because I didn't upgrade because atleast 5 sources I found say XP is faster. Just google 'gaming xp vs vista'.

I've actually found that games usually do tend to run faster (this is not always better though, depending on the game) on Vista than on XP, but it's mostly due to how the OS manages the memory. Of course, there is the slight problem that it crashes every once in a while... but that'll be fixed soon. Of course, I expected some problems, because the OS is new.

[MrCobra]

That doesn't make much sense considering all the eye candy is turned off while games are running.

The eye candy is not visible but the composting engine is still very much active.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

The eye candy is not visible but the composting engine is still very much active.

Composting engine? lol

And no, the compositor is not running when you're playing a game. Turning off Aero manually when playing a full screen game is completely unnecessary and won't make the slightest bit of difference.

[freak_power]

The main reason would be not only to force developers to work with non-admin accounts, but it would remove the burden of testing with UAC both on and off.

Plus it would prevent people from turning it off... which no one should be doing.

Are you trying to be funny?

If so i'm gonna get ****ed off and start deleting things in Vista like UAC...so when I install Vista there will be no **** trace about it.

[Dashel]

I honestly doubt SP1 will address most, if any, of the qualms people have with Vista. In six months+ drivers should mature enough and beyond that Vista works great. Short of a potential retooling of UAC and things of that nature I doubt much will change.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Dashel

[freak_power]

I honestly doubt SP1 will address most, if any, of the qualms people have with Vista. In six months+ drivers should mature enough and beyond that Vista works great. Short of retooling UAC and things of that nature I doubt much will change.

UAC is just implemented stupid. If they wanted to prevent malicious code to run, they could prevent it in the background. Heck why they couldn't write a decent antivirus program for Vista as part of Security Center, and get rid of UAC.

UAC is so stupid that it will scream on everything. If you install Everest, the app won't start because it will be prevented by UAC. And everest is nice app where you can set you taskbar icons to diplay the system temperature etc.

What's funny that Microsoft doesn't understand why people are yelling at Security measures in Vista, and why are they against it. Nobody is against good security in OS, but people are against it if it's done stupid and annoys the crap out of them. I use word 'stupid' often, and i don't use it to offend anybody including Microsoft...it's just an expression of my feelings when i have to deal with UAC in such a way...

[Brandon Live Veteran]

UAC is just implemented stupid. If they wanted to prevent malicious code to run, they could prevent it in the background. Heck why they couldn't write a decent antivirus program for Vista as part of Security Center, and get rid of UAC.

UAC is so stupid that it will scream on everything. If you install Everest, the app won't start because it will be prevented by UAC. And everest is nice app where you can set you taskbar icons to diplay the system temperature etc.

What's funny that Microsoft doesn't understand why people are yelling at Security measures in Vista, and why are they against it. Nobody is against good security in OS, but people are against it if it's done stupid and annoys the crap out of them. I use word 'stupid' often, and i don't use it to offend anybody including Microsoft...it's just an expression of my feelings when i have to deal with UAC in such a way...

You've demonstrated day after day that you have no clue what the purpose of UAC is or how computer security works. UAC is not stupid. UAC allows you to run applications with only those privileges that they actually need. For example, why would a word processor need access to your boot configuration or the ability to delete files in your Windows directory? It wouldn't, unless perhaps it was compromised by an attacker or a malivious text file / macro that wanted to harm your system.

UAC is very well implemented and I don't think most users are going to be bothered by it.

[OPaul]

Getting alerted every time I want to launch an application is a bother to me.

[freak_power]

You've demonstrated day after day that you have no clue what the purpose of UAC is or how computer security works. UAC is not stupid. UAC allows you to run applications with only those privileges that they actually need. For example, why would a word processor need access to your boot configuration or the ability to delete files in your Windows directory? It wouldn't, unless perhaps it was compromised by an attacker or a malivious text file / macro that wanted to harm your system.

UAC is very well implemented and I don't think most users are going to be bothered by it.

I don't know why would a word processor need access to your boot configuration...perhaps you should ask your coworkers?

Why would you be able to browse and actually see boot configuration file at first place? As I said Windows has horrible folder/file organization, and outdated file system. Windows Search, UAC is an attempt to fix really bad things.

[Tantawi]

Excuse me Brandon Live, but you're just not going to sell your company's ideas to everyone.

I know UAC is good and all, and it's a good move for MS to put it in Vista, but just don't assume everyone will be using it, and don't expect that everyone SHOULDN'T turn it off as you suggest, everyone is free with his PC and SHOULD use it the way he wants it to be. If I'm infected by a virus because I didn't turn on the UAC then I'll only blame myself and I wont blame MS for my stupidity, simple as that.

Just try to be more flexible and understand each one needs and don't be a sales person like most of your posts in this forum IMHO.

All respect.

[MrCobra]

You've demonstrated day after day that you have no clue what the purpose of UAC is or how computer security works. UAC is not stupid. UAC allows you to run applications with only those privileges that they actually need. For example, why would a word processor need access to your boot configuration or the ability to delete files in your Windows directory? It wouldn't, unless perhaps it was compromised by an attacker or a malivious text file / macro that wanted to harm your system.

UAC is very well implemented and I don't think most users are going to be bothered by it.

You've demonstrated day after day that you only spout the rhetoric BS that MS feeds you.

[SMELTN]

I agree on both sides of this argument. But Honestly I think this REALLY does some up my frustrations with UAC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n4mdcXa8B0

Still LOVE Vista though and do not plan on going back to XP.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Getting alerted every time I want to launch an application is a bother to me.

You don't ever have to be alerted when you launch an application. If you're running applications elevated, something is wrong.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I don't know why would a word processor need access to your boot configuration...perhaps you should ask your coworkers?

Huh? I asked the question. UAC is the answer - it allows you to run your applications without privileges they don't need (like access to files that don't belong to that program, or the ability to affect the system or other users). You keep insisting that you'd rather have random apps be able to access that stuff. At least make up your mind.

Why would you be able to browse and actually see boot configuration file at first place? As I said Windows has horrible folder/file organization, and outdated file system. Windows Search, UAC is an attempt to fix really bad things.

What are you even talking about? "Browse and actually see boot configuration file" - what??? I'm talking about the code running inside of an everday app (or code injected into it by an attacker) having programmatic access to system-wide settings. You can't see the bootloader or other configuration data in Explorer (unless you change your settings) on the filesystem - and it sounds like you agree that's the way it should be. But that's completely orthogonal to the discussion.

What is wrong with Windows' file organization? There's a folder for the OS, a folder for executables and libraries, and a home directory for every user. Works pretty darn well for me. And if the file system in Windows is so outdated (it's not) or bad, why is everyone trying to copy it? (Reiser4, and other B+ tree systems) What filesystem would you prefer? The only other filesystem as modern as NTFS is ZFS, but even that has its drawbacks - they don't even support encryption yet, and no useful OSes support it yet either.

You obviously lack any technical knowledge regarding these topics, and yet you insist on droning on with your terrible advice to unwitting users and making absurd claims like the ones above. I mean, why bother? Why not do something useful with your time? Go read some books or take some classes, maybe then you'll be able to speak on such subjects with some authority.

[Malisk]

Given that we don't know the feature set and/or bug fixes made in SP1, I think the OP question is impossible to answer..

Personally, I find the RTM of Vista being more than usable and worth switching from XP with, assuming you have 100% proper drivers. But that's not a problem SP1 will solve for the hardware vendors, and also a problem you may already have solved in the RTM, depending on your hardware... It's unrelated to Microsoft's SP plans.

[Mayhem]

I have UAC activated and never bothers me only when i install some new program with is his meant to do, i download files from any program, copy files to anywhere or delete files and i dont have any UAC popups (unless in directories like Program Files and Windows of course), it ask me also when i try to do some admin stuff like Device Manager, Computer Management, etc but his indeed what is intend to do has you are doing admin stuff

UAC is perfect? probably not

UAC is well implented? probably not, the issue i have with UAC for ex is when i try to delete something from Start menu, UAC in there its real annoyed and with large setup files with UAC enabled the opening (and the UAC popup) is way delayed, for ex: a setup from a program that has 100mb file with uac open in 5 seconds (looks like UAC is analysing the file), with UAC off its opens in 1s (tested with windows rebooted also)

so apart of that 2 things and you can be easy be fixed by microsoft (the start menu stuff) and the other maybe not be UAC issue and something with my pc with UAC enabled, who knows, memory, etc, Brandon can you give me some info if this behavior in large files is normal with UAC?

but like i said, apart of that 2 things i dont have any issues with UAC and dont understand why ppl have to run programs elevated all the time, having lots of UAC when trying to copy or delete files, etc

[raskren]

I don't know why would a word processor need access to your boot configuration...perhaps you should ask your coworkers?

Talking without saying anything. Wow!

Why would you be able to browse and actually see boot configuration file at first place?

I don't know. Why are you mucking around in system files?

As I said Windows has horrible folder/file organization, and outdated file system. Windows Search, UAC is an attempt to fix really bad things.

O RLY? NTFS is actually a pretty advanced journaled file system. File/Folder organization is only as good as you make it so horrible organizations is really your fault. A search function is necessary and expected no matter how advanced the file system is. UAC is an attempt to fix the broken Admin/Limited User model established by previous NT operating system, and it works.

Do you get a tremendous sense of power by defeating in box security mechanisms?

You obviously lack any technical knowledge regarding these topics, and yet you insist on droning on with your terrible advice to unwitting users and making absurd claims like the ones above. I mean, why bother? Why not do something useful with your time? Go read some books or take some classes, maybe then you'll be able to speak on such subjects with some authority.

...and....owned!

[Deihmos]

Will sp1 for vista really make it worth switching from xp. First how long will it take for sp to come out for vista 6 months, a year. Second a lot of annoying features like uac are still going to be there by design and will not fixed by a service pack. Third there will be no gurantee that dx9c games will work faster than they do in xp(probably still work slower). I also think a lot of older programs will never work properly with vista and you will just have to replace them.

Finally will sp1 for vista just be a bug fix or will also it include software design changes to in response to conusmer complaints. I think vista and needs to be redesigned some more to make it better

It's already worth it right now if you ask me. with aero everything is super fast with no loading. That has to be the best thing about Vista.

Games perform just as well as XP IMO but i don't do any of those performance test / frame rate test or any of those garbage.

[bobbba]

You've demonstrated day after day that you only spout the rhetoric BS that MS feeds you.

from what I can see, brandon has given helpful advice to many while all you seem to have contributed is your own fantasy anti vista rants. why you are posting this stuff in a forum titled "Vista Support" is beyond me...

[Ironman273]

As for UAC, as more and more programs get used to the idea of NOT running elevated and doing things they shouldn't, the programs we use on a day to day basis will not bother us with UAC and we'll see it pop up only when a program is trying to be malicious.

This reminds me of the switch to Windows 95 when a lot of programs had that 16-bit Windows 3.11 look and feel. Just give it time people. It's a good thing in the long run.

[»X«]

Since my fresh install of Vista ive decided to actually leave UAC on for a change. And to be honest you dont really notice it. But it is catch 22. You either blindly click on allow or whatever because It keeps coming up, or you turn it off because it does keep coming up. There is the third option which in my experience doesnt happen. Actually take the time to read thoroughly every box that pops up.

Im not saying UAC is crap, after all Im using it without a problem. I just think it makes us more mindless. Oh a warning, allow, must be that UAC again. I would be more inclined to read a dialog like that if UAC RARELY popped up a message rather than every 5 minutes.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

so apart of that 2 things and you can be easy be fixed by microsoft (the start menu stuff) and the other maybe not be UAC issue and something with my pc with UAC enabled, who knows, memory, etc, Brandon can you give me some info if this behavior in large files is normal with UAC?

I know what you're talking about, although I'm not sure UAC is to blame. I'm certain it's a security / certificate-verification related check, but I'm not sure if it's IE / the shell because the item has the "downloaded from the internet" flag set on it, or if it could be Defender or something like that. It's possible it's related to UAC parsing the manifest, but I doubt that would ever take so long. Signature verification or real-time malware checking make more sense to me.

[freak_power]

Talking without saying anything. Wow!

I don't know. Why are you mucking around in system files?

O RLY? NTFS is actually a pretty advanced journaled file system. File/Folder organization is only as good as you make it so horrible organizations is really your fault. A search function is necessary and expected no matter how advanced the file system is. UAC is an attempt to fix the broken Admin/Limited User model established by previous NT operating system, and it works.

Do you get a tremendous sense of power by defeating in box security mechanisms?

...and....owned!

Security mechanism in Windows is joke including the one in Vista. For any serious work i use Linux, and i do programming on mainframe, in java and c++, and for entertainment, video/audio editing i use Mac OS. The only thing i use Windows for is gaming and XP is just good enough for now.

I didn't say that search function is not needed for OS, but the way it's done in Vista is joke and as I said it's just an attempt to fix horrible file/folder organization in Windows which didn't change since Windows 3.11.

For example if you think that is normal to have Windows Folder visible and that you can access it in any way...then you already faily in the Security. I can take control over any file and delete it or change it or do whatever i want to it even UAC is on, which means UAC means nothings...

[raskren]

Security mechanism in Windows is joke including the one in Vista. For any serious work i use Linux, and i do programming on mainframe, in java and c++, and for entertainment, video/audio editing i use Mac OS. The only thing i use Windows for is gaming and XP is just good enough for now.

I didn't say that search function is not needed for OS, but the way it's done in Vista is joke and as I said it's just an attempt to fix horrible file/folder organization in Windows which didn't change since Windows 3.11.

For example if you think that is normal to have Windows Folder visible and that you can access it in any way...then you already faily in the Security. I can take control over any file and delete it or change it or do whatever i want to it even UAC is on, which means UAC means nothings...

Nice job continually skirting around points others have made. All you do is reiterate the same nonsense over and over again without making any valid, informed, concrete points. I get more coherent arguments and lively discussion out of my 7 year old.