XP vs. Vista


Recommended Posts

RAID 0
Oh yeah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZZq7Kq2xNk

http://www.pcworld.com/article/132016/twos..._published.html

http://www.walkernews.net/2007/04/10/hack-...count-password/

No need to. XP is in better shape right now so it's best to go with it, until (if) Microsoft can fix Vista to acceptable levels, i.e., it's better overall than XP. Right now it isn't.

Ever problem I've had with Vista was/is driver related. Maybe the people writing the drivers are a bunch of morons? Who knows.

The FACT (read as FACT) is, so many people are using Vista with little or no problems. You can't deny that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
Ever problem I've had with Vista was/is driver related. Maybe the people writing the drivers are a bunch of morons? Who knows.

The FACT (read as FACT) is, so many people are using Vista with little or no problems. You can't deny that.

That's right, and I'm one of them. Just so happens that I still like XP better, that's what I'm telling you.

So...when it took forever to copy files in Vista, before they fixed it with SP1, which DRIVER was that caused by? When UAC annoyed the crap out of you, but didn't make the computer more secure, what DRIVER was that caused by?

Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0

Oh so I guess Vista is not Microsoft's most secure Windows version to date? So like.. XP is better for security? Because I mean... it's better in every way, right?

That's right, and I'm one of them. Just so happens that I still like XP better, that's what I'm telling you.

AND THE TRUTH COMES OUT!!

Vista works fine for you... but... you like XP better. Glad to see you stating feelings as fact.

Hell, I LOVE blondes, never had any trouble with them... but red heads are better.

^ See what I mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
Oh so I guess Vista is not Microsoft's most secure Windows version to date? So like.. XP is better for security? Because I mean... it's better in every way, right?

Yeah, it's the most secure right now because hackers have had 6 years to hack XP, and not as long to hack Vista. Compared to UNIX or an Apple OS, Vista is not that secure, sorry.

Oh so I guess Vista is not Microsoft's most secure Windows version to date? So like.. XP is better for security? Because I mean... it's better in every way, right?

AND THE TRUTH COMES OUT!!

Vista works fine for you... but... you like XP better. Glad to see you stating feelings as fact.

Hell, I LOVE blondes, never had any trouble with them... but red heads are better.

^ See what I mean?

No, Vista doesn't work "fine". Things crash on it, and it's slower than identical systems I have that have XP installed on them. Also, Steam runs like crap on Vista. Some games just plain aren't supported either. I do like XP better, because it IS better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0
Yeah, it's the most secure right now because hackers have had 6 years to hack XP, and not as long to hack Vista. Compared to UNIX or an Apple OS, Vista is not that secure, sorry.

Again you're wrong. I'm not going to post links that show studies of Vista being more secure than OS X because you don't listen to facts or try to reason with people, you're just here to state what you believe is right, no matter what evidence is shown to you to prove otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kazuyette

non.sequitur , please go back to your cave coding some obsucre drivers for your beloved UNIX boxes, you will do a great service to this community ;)

And I forgot ... On the consumer side, XP is DYING, so get on with it, stay with your outdated OS and when you'll have something interesting to write then come back here.

A little bit OT : I love when I see those PCs downgraded to XP because of all this FUD and then skinned/bloated with lots of stuff to make them looks and act like Vista. This makes me laugh so hard. Why try to get an inferior OS looks like Vista when the original perform so much better on modern hardware ?

Edited by kazuyette
Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
non.sequitur , please go back to your cave coding some obsucre drivers for your beloved UNIX boxes, you will do a great service to this community ;)

You have a problem with UNIX now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
stevehoot

Your security knowledge is minimal. The articles show that if you already have local admin rights, you can get around UAC. It also shows that if you run an application, it can spur another app to run from the same credentials that the parent app was run with. Finally it shows that if you have full physical access over a machine then you can own it.

The "hacks" show nothing other than if you have physical or admin access you can own a machine. This has been the case since the invention of the computer and EVERY operating system has these "hacks".

Vista's security model is a lot better than XP in a number of ways. Running processes like IE as a very limited user is something that can't really be denied when it comes to vast improvements over XP.

In addition, items such as ASLR, Defender, UAC, default permissions, parental controls, security centre etc. all offer slightly better security than XP. Whilst none of them are perfect, each bit layered makes attacking a machine much harder from an remote perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jesseinsf
Oh so I guess Vista is not Microsoft's most secure Windows version to date? So like.. XP is better for security? Because I mean... it's better in every way, right?

All Viruses prior to vista may not work on vista because of directory changes. Example: Like the Application Data folder is just a shortcut that no one has access to. The actual new folder now is AppData which is now under the Users folder and not the "Documents and settings" folder. The "Documents and settings" folder is also a shortcut that no one has access to (Like a Dummy folder).

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
Your security knowledge is minimal. The articles show that if you already have local admin rights, you can get around UAC. It also shows that if you run an application, it can spur another app to run from the same credentials that the parent app was run with. Finally it shows that if you have full physical access over a machine then you can own it.

The "hacks" show nothing other than if you have physical or admin access you can own a machine. This has been the case since the invention of the computer and EVERY operating system has these "hacks".

Vista's security model is a lot better than XP in a number of ways. Running processes like IE as a very limited user is something that can't really be denied when it comes to vast improvements over XP.

In addition, items such as ASLR, Defender, UAC, default permissions, parental controls, security centre etc. all offer slightly better security than XP. Whilst none of them are perfect, each bit layered makes attacking a machine much harder from an remote perspective.

Nice post, you sound like a Microsoft VP in full damage control mode.

All Viruses prior to vista may not work on vista because of directory changes. Example: Like the Application Data folder is just a shortcut that no one has access to. The actual new folder now is AppData which is now under the Users folder and not the "Documents and settings" folder. The "Documents and settings" folder is also a shortcut that no one has access to (Like a Dummy folder).

Not all viruses rely on directory structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0

Nice post, you sound like a Microsoft VP in full damage control mode.

OK. Steve did a great job with that post. He didn't name call, just gave his two cents and from what I can tell, he's right on the money. Instead of using logic, reason and facts..... oh what's the use. I'm gonna go smoke a bowl, maybe after that I'll feel better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
darth_vader

We all had problems with vista back in 2006/7 , but now vista is as much reliable as XP and I don't have any problems with It. Of course if you have an old garbage with 1 gig of ram and 1.5 single core you WILL have problems regarding the performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
Nice post, you sound like a Microsoft VP in full damage control mode.

OK. Steve did a great job with that post. He didn't name call, just gave his two cents and from what I can tell, he's right on the money. Instead of using logic, reason and facts..... oh what's the use. I'm gonna go smoke a bowl, maybe after that I'll feel better.

Good luck with that. Since as far as I know they don't give random drug tests in 3rd grade, you should be safe.

We all had problems with vista back in 2006/7 , but now vista is as much reliable as XP and I don't have any problems with It. Of course if you have an old garbage with 1 gig of ram and 1.5 single core you WILL have problems regarding the performance.

I'm running Vista on a quad core with 8gigs ddr3, a 790i board and 3 Nvidia 280s (just one of my pcs). I'm tired of seeing the "this program has stopped responding" box in Vista. In XP things just work, in Vista it still doesn't feel "polished" like you would expect after 2 years, and that's sad. I'd love to recommend to people that they should run Vista but right now I just can't do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenji
We all had problems with vista back in 2006/7 , but now vista is as much reliable as XP and I don't have any problems with It. Of course if you have an old garbage with 1 gig of ram and 1.5 single core you WILL have problems regarding the performance.

We did? I have been using Vista as my main OS since it was in Beta and I have NEVER had a problem with it. I had "an old garbage machine" with 1GB of RAM and a 1.3GHz Pentium 3 this time last year and it ran vista perfectly. My folding machine is also "old garbage" too (See 3rd sig), it runs Vista fine as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
Where's the petition for Microsoft to ask them to continue with Windows 98 and dump XP, because XP was in such bad shape (you know, like they just did with Vista?). Oh yeah, that's right, there wasn't one.

Really?

Could it be because the Internet was not as big or accessible as it is today? Could it be the extra pressure from Apple and other rival companies that was not around back then but it's here now? There's many variables in why there was no petition to ditch XP. Sorry.

This just kills me. So the Internet created petitions? Wow, I didn't know that. I was always under the impression that petitions existed in non-digital form before the Internet. To suggest that there was never a petition calling for 98 to replace XP because the Internet wasn't as "big or accessible" as it is today, is just ridiculous. The last time I checked, when XP launched the Internet was pretty "accessible" at that time.

We did? I have been using Vista as my main OS since it was in Beta and I have NEVER had a problem with it.

Now I know that's a load of crap, and so do you, Mr. Gates. What are you doing in these forums anyway, I thought you stepped down? Go watch your 1000" plasma TV.

Let's pretend for a second that you believe your delusions. Doesn't it bother you that you could have been running XP better, that whole time? Why suffer for nothing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chosen One

How is gaming on Vista compared to XP ? I got a copy of Vista sitting here haven't installed it in fear of games will lose that 10% performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
This just kills me. So the Internet created petitions? Wow, I didn't know that. I was always under the impression that petitions existed in non-digital form before the Internet. To suggest that there was never a petition calling for 98 to replace XP because the Internet wasn't as "big or accessible" as it is today, is just ridiculous. The last time I checked, when XP launched the Internet was pretty "accessible" at that time.

Lame response.

1) The Internet did NOT create petitions - however, the apathy that has spread around, people are more likely to use an online petition than do anything REAL about campaigning/protesting.

2) The nature of the web back when XP was launched was very 1-way. There was a lot less interraction. With the advent of "web2.0" (ugh) and social networking - campaigns/causes/issues spread like wildfire - people jump on a badwagon much quicker with no other reason than "my mate forwarded it". Yes the web was accessible, but not for the same reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
How is gaming on Vista compared to XP ? I got a copy of Vista sitting here haven't installed it in fear of games will lose that 10% performance.

Compared to XP? Not that good. Unless of course you like random crashes and windows that say "this program has stopped responding". The annoying "white-out" effect on windows that aren't responding is a nice touch too, you'll love that...

Lame response.

1) The Internet did NOT create petitions - however, the apathy that has spread around, people are more likely to use an online petition than do anything REAL about campaigning/protesting.

2) The nature of the web back when XP was launched was very 1-way. There was a lot less interraction. With the advent of "web2.0" (ugh) and social networking - campaigns/causes/issues spread like wildfire - people jump on a badwagon much quicker with no other reason than "my mate forwarded it". Yes the web was accessible, but not for the same reasons.

So then it's your belief that if XP was replacing 98 TODAY, that we'd have a petition on our hands, calling for XP's dismissal? You know that's not true. People have been complaining for thousands of years, if XP was that bad people would have gotten it replaced (or tried to). XP was better than 98 AT LAUNCH and you know it. You can't say that about Vista. You can't even say that NOW, two years later.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that Vista WASN'T the worst OS launch in Microsoft's history?

Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0

That's cool you have 8 gigs of RAM and are only able to use half with XP. Don't give me this, "I'm on XP 64 bit" either becuase as we all know, drivers for that are hard to come by and as far as I know, only major hardware vendors bother to write drivers for XP 64 bit. Oh wait... you write your own. Sorry, I forgot.

Good luck with that. Since as far as I know they don't give random drug tests in 3rd grade, you should be safe.

I'm 28. I can do to my body as I choose. What you do to yours... that's not my business. My work doesn't give random drug tests either... in fact, it's rather cool to sit down and have a beer with the owner at his place while smokin some sweet Cali herb!

/So yeah, it's like... what ever man.

//Oblig California stoner lingo

///but not really

How is gaming on Vista compared to XP ? I got a copy of Vista sitting here haven't installed it in fear of games will lose that 10% performance.

The loss is minimal, or should I say.. negligible. With SP1 some say you might lose 2-5 FPS depending on the game. My buddy has Vista Ulti 64 bit, and it plays every game he runs at max settings with no hiccups. In fact, it's friggin awesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
darth_vader
We did? I have been using Vista as my main OS since it was in Beta and I have NEVER had a problem with it. I had "an old garbage machine" with 1GB of RAM and a 1.3GHz Pentium 3 this time last year and it ran vista perfectly. My folding machine is also "old garbage" too (See 3rd sig), it runs Vista fine as well.

ok, but have you played same games with 1 gig and that P3, with that config you can barely run games on XP .... not to mention vista. I am realy sure that you can run vista with 512 mb ram and 1 GHz cpu ... but how long It will take to run wordpad .. hmm...

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
That's cool you have 8 gigs of RAM and are only able to use half with XP. Don't give me this, "I'm on XP 64 bit" either becuase as we all know, drivers for that are hard to come by and as far as I know, only major hardware vendors bother to write drivers for XP 64 bit. Oh wait... you write your own. Sorry, I forgot.

Good luck with that. Since as far as I know they don't give random drug tests in 3rd grade, you should be safe.

I'm 28. I can do to my body as I choose. What you do to yours... that's not my business. My work doesn't give random drug tests either... in fact, it's rather cool to sit down and have a beer with the owner at his place while smokin some sweet Cali herb!

/So yeah, it's like... what ever man.

//Oblig California stoner lingo

///but not really

Actually I use a little less than half with XP. I'm not on XP x64, never said I was. I don't write Windows drivers. Actually smoking weed is illegal and you can't "do to your body what you choose".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wilhelmus

That ("copy c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe c:\windows\system32\cmd.src") does not work,

requires Administrator elevated command prompt. "jagex" seems to run UAC disabled...

Didn't create "exploited.txt" file to system folder (Corrupted few shortcuts though...).

Tried, but running mmc.exe gave "Class not registered" error.

(Test system were Vista Ultimate, SP1, UAC enabled)

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
ok, but have you played same games with 1 gig and that P3, with that config you can barely run games on XP .... not to mention vista. I am realy sure that you can run vista with 512 mb ram and 1 GHz cpu ... but how long It will take to run wordpad .. hmm...

The guy said he's been running Vista since the beta and he's had NO problems at all up to this point (despite there being several know problems with the OS at that time). That should have been your first clue that he's full of crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chosen One

so should just stay with xp then lol.. I do like Vista tho.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
So then it's your belief that if XP was replacing 98 TODAY, that we'd have a petition on our hands, calling for XP's dismissal? You know that's not true.

I disagree - I would say that we would have the exact same issue. If not more. Vista - XP is actually a smaller change than 98 - XP.

People have been complaining for thousands of years

So you contradict your previous statement?

if XP was that bad people would have gotten it replaced (or tried to)

They did. XP was the first time that you could say no to the EULA and demand a refund from your PC supplier. Linux has seen MASSIVE increases during the XP era.

XP was better than 98 AT LAUNCH and you know it.

How quickly we forget. XP had MASSIVE driver issues at launch that eclipse the Vista ones.

You can't say that about Vista. You can't even say that NOW, two years later.

Actually I can. I have been using Vista since Gold, and never had ANY problems whatsoever. Maybe I couldn't get a driver for my pretty obscure graphics tablet - but that's a manufacturer issue, not Vista. And it was resolved within a month.

Sorry, but please don't tell me what I can and cannot say, as you are not me, and don't have my experiences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.