A little defence of Vista 64

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: Energizer Bunny

Your system's potential for exploitation is also considerably higher now that you've switched off UAC, unfortunately. In today's world, I'd be keeping UAC switched on

The reward is categorically worth the risk for me. I survived without UAC in XP for years and I'll take the risk in Vista. If I get burned, I'll know who to blame next time I swing by a mirror.

I keep UAC on,only took me 2 weeks from moving from XP to Vista x64 back in Jan to get use to it,besides now it does not even bother me,seems second nature now.

It is quite the pain in my dual boot setup. It doesnt allow a clear way to share drives between XP and Vista. If you have any suggestions i would *love* to hear them.

 

[Hurricane Andrew]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: Energizer Bunny

Your system's potential for exploitation is also considerably higher now that you've switched off UAC, unfortunately. In today's world, I'd be keeping UAC switched on

The reward is categorically worth the risk for me. I survived without UAC in XP for years and I'll take the risk in Vista. If I get burned, I'll know who to blame next time I swing by a mirror.

I keep UAC on,only took me 2 weeks from moving from XP to Vista x64 back in Jan to get use to it,besides now it does not even bother me,seems second nature now.

It is quite the pain in my dual boot setup. It doesnt allow a clear way to share drives between XP and Vista. If you have any suggestions i would *love* to hear them.

Huh? If you're XP drive is NTFS, there should be ZERO issues sharing a drive.

 

[randym431]

I'm ashamed I let others keep me from vista for so long. After I did go vista, I have not had any problems. Constantly finding out how vista wins hands down over xp. Now, I look on xp as I do win95, in that I'd never degrade backwards to the stone age.
Just build a system with vista ready hardware. Like the Asrock alive vista motherboards. They love vista like fish love water.
A lot of people believed the world was flat, until they went exploring for themselves...

 

[Compddd]

I'm strongly contemplating getting Vista Ultimate and installing the 64bit version. Would the system in my sig be ok?

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Compddd
I'm strongly contemplating getting Vista Ultimate and installing the 64bit version. Would the system in my sig be ok?

I don't see why not,personally I think Vista x64 HP is better option then Ultimate unless you need the extra features that the Ultimate version has.

 

[bigi]

My Vista experience improved dramatically once I switched off UAC.

It has been said many, many times that disabling UAC is the stupidest thing one can do with vista.

 

[bigi]

I'm strongly contemplating getting Vista Ultimate and installing the 64bit version. Would the system in my sig be ok?

It'd be OK for sure. I'd go for as much RAM as possible, especially considering its prices now. I've had 8Gb for a year now. Vista really makes a good use of memory...

 

[gramboh]

Originally posted by: Hurricane Andrew
Actually, rather than switch off UAC, a happy medium is to edit your local security policy (Orb-type "local" and it should be the first choice). Under Local Policies, select Security Options, and change the setting for User Account Control: Behavior of elevation prompt for administrators in Admin approval mode to "Elevate without prompting". 99% of UAC prompts will vanish, you'll still have IE's protected mode available, and you'll still need to "run as administrator" for some command prompt, powershell, and other sensitive apps.

The problem is, you are then giving root privledges to processes without any knowledge (basically like it was in XP). So any copy/move/modify operation on system files, or any program needed root privledges will get it without your knowledge. It is good you get to keep the IE sandbox mode, but you are basically disabling UAC.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: Energizer Bunny

Your system's potential for exploitation is also considerably higher now that you've switched off UAC, unfortunately. In today's world, I'd be keeping UAC switched on

The reward is categorically worth the risk for me. I survived without UAC in XP for years and I'll take the risk in Vista. If I get burned, I'll know who to blame next time I swing by a mirror.

I keep UAC on,only took me 2 weeks from moving from XP to Vista x64 back in Jan to get use to it,besides now it does not even bother me,seems second nature now.

:thumbsup:

I've been using RunAs in Win2000 and WinXP for years, so for me UAC is like having the red carpet rolled out. All the security (and then some), significantly less hassle. Not to mention the functionality/compatibility enhancements already mentioned.

It's ironic that Microsoft has been criticized ad infinitum for their OSes not being secure enough, and now that they begin seriously doing something about it, they get criticized because Vista doesn't work like Windows95.

The foundation of it is still poor though. They basically slapped UAC on anything that wants to install or change.

At least with Linux/OS X it only asks for permission if the installation deals with root level files.