Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[VX1]

Or you could try uninstalling everything to do with the program you are installing and start a fresh. There might be something there that hasn't unstalled fully.

[matt]

Vista the way forward?    

Their misunderstanding of security beggars belief.  (Secure because they say so, rather than hardened and proven.  New code is inherently not secure - as it is not proven.)  Microsoft have never understood security.

We get free Vista licenses from MS - it's a giant leap sideways.  Pretty UI, broken usability, obscene memory and resource use.  We still use XP everywhere, or Unix for servers.  Maybe when SP1 comes along...

XP with 2GB is about as good as it gets presently in the MS world.

[cem_devecioglu]

Mostly laptops used today are not in the league of vista hardware requirements..
Easy and guarantee solution (although will be time consuming) is installing the operating system with a clean registry.. (if possible proffesional edition)

I think i will disagree on that one. I would say MOST laptops are more than enough to run vista. My brother runs vista on his celeron powered laptop with 512mb ram and it runs faultlessly.

Matt

Yep..Will run faultless but painfully slow..I've tried even on new cpus and still slow..Anyway matter of personal preference..

[omegalord]

Naaaaa..... not painfully slow at all. No slower than with xp , and without the security flaws.

Im not saying vista is a giant leap forward in security , but you must admint it is better than xp!!

I used to wipe my computer 3-4 times a month on xp (hardened user , on every day etc etc)

On vista thats once every few months now. That no matter what way you look at it is an improvement. Yes the microsoft code is crap , always has been and always will be. Unix is better , thats why the mac osx is so stable in comparison.

Matt

[cem_devecioglu]

One important thing to explain :

Being a programmer I make money mostly from Microsoft..So I can not be neutral...

Sure Vista must be better than XP ...Many programmers work days and nights for that ...

In the old days (on Unix) we had to recompile every C component for make it work on an other unix server or platform..With windows thats no problem now..(mostly)

[matt]

One important thing to explain :

Being a programmer I make money mostly from Microsoft..So I can not be neutral...

Sure Vista must be better than XP ...Many programmers work days and nights for that ...

In the old days (on Unix) we had to recompile every C component for make it work on an other unix server or platform..With windows thats no problem now..(mostly)

So a programmer could never introduce a buffer overrun, or null pointer assignment, or pure virtual call?

That's exactly why Vista is more of an unknown from a security perspective - there's a lot of *new* and therefore unproven code.  There will be bugs and mistakes, and therefore openings for exploit.  But when they explicitly introduce daftness like program executable name governing admin rights on Vista you have to wonder if they understand it at all.

In the old days of recompiling for diff Unix platforms was often more a case of the different hardware and memory architecture - or in pre SVR4 days the different flavours of Unix being essentially different operating systems.  Sequent being Intel were little-endian, SPARCs were big-endian etc.  

I have a background of programming - *nix and Windows.
These days it's mostly security and consultancy.

I'm done hijacking this thread!   8-)

[omegalord]

Normal users dont care about programming or what the code is or isnt. People want useability and security which vosta offers by the bucket load. Everybody slated xp when it first came out, saying "98 is best , this that" , but people warmed to the extra features of xp rightly so. But vista has alot more features still and people WILL warm to it just like they did with xp.

My personal opinion and experience is that under xp i had more problems, issues than i wanted. With vista i have less than half the amount of errors, crashes, etc etc

That surely is the selling point for me and why i will never go back to xp!

Im done with this thread now too , lol  

[Martin_1962]

With XP Pro both home PC and until yesterdays hard disk crash work PC were very reliable.

All XP machines I use have all the animated crap turned off, use class start menu and everything opened up for me to be able to lookafter.

I keep the temporary directories clear and clean out prefetch every few weeks.

Anyway my machines might resemble an XPed 98 but that is not a bad thing as the classic start menu is not bad.

TBH XP is easier to set up than the horrid ME for DOS applications. Our legacy application runs in a 30line VGA mode which still works on XP and yet on 98 on SOME PCs like my last work PC would run in a Window.

From personal experience I'd put XP Pro first once it has been decluttered, then 98.

[TheBoy]

Vista has lots of improvements in it. Mostly for the corporates admittedly, but is a step forward from XP.

Yes, it needs lots of resources, but then so did XP and W2K before when they came out.  XP will run faster on single core machines than Vista will on same hardware, but Windows 3 will run even faster - not that I notice anyone wants to run that

On modest hardware, Aero needs to be turned off.  Not only does it need decent video, and reasonable CPU, but on low spec video cards and integrated ones, you get the double whammy of the video card needing to steal RAM.


Vista is more secure than XP.  Its built on the NT kernel, and as from 2002, MS have been proven to use better coding practices - W2K3 server is proof of that.  All OS's have flaws, but MS have improved dramatically lately - the CERT announcements prove that.  Linux normally tops the list of new vulnerabilities now, though IBM's AIX and HP-UX have taken a battering over the last month.

Solaris, arguably the best of the mid range Unix, tends to get more vulnerability notices than Windows as well - including the gob smacking Telnet one in Solaris 10 - proff Sun's programmer's need a kicking.


Windows, due to its popularity, has had to become secure, and probably is the most secure of the popular OS's.  Though any OS is only as secure as the person using it.

[cem_devecioglu]

As for general, if microsoft really want to make  a crazy secure op.system
trust me nobody can install or use or abuse it..

I remember too many times I go into trouble maintaining connecting remote machines because of firewalls..

From the users point of view security is ok but for maintenance become a problem..

This really is a reason for me to fight with system admins in our intranet..