is vista worth using now?

[Mem]

We don't need to do that. We just need to prevent the average home user from filling up their computer with all the stupid spyware and malware along with the 20 toolbars.

That's where UAC can help(think of it as one small part of a security defence),some people forget all the wasted hours fixing/repairing PCs due to stupid users that click/open up unknown programs etc...

You have to remember no PC or OS is perfect,same goes for the user too,put them together and its only a question of time before something happens.
Personally extra security ie UAC is more then welcome in my case and especially for the average user,I consider myself wise when it comes to safe surfing/security but know there's always the small possibility of something trying or getting through.

Don't forget the user that gets his PC infected and passes it on to another person/company too,chain reaction etc....

Vista helps on security more then XP does and that alone is one good reason.
It seems nowadays some people with their PCs are getting too lazy IMHO,they expect their PC to be able to do everything,common sense goes a long way, you can never have too much security in my books.

I was reading a thread in a different forum about a guy that got his credit card details stolen from his XP PC(turned out he also had loads of spyware etc on his PC),I was thinking if he had installed/taken extra security or been using Vista with UAC etc would it still have happened,it's when you see posts like that I'm glad I have UAC enabled(and I use AV,anti-spyware programs,software firewall,router with hardware firewall etc),
surfing is like sex you want to do it the safe way or the hard way?

 

[imported_spike99]

I know this is a bit off topic... but here is an update on my problem...

OK, so I initially had BSOD playing AOE III, and game crashing with COH. After uninstalling NVIDIA ForceWare Network Access Manager then it appears that my video driver problems were resolved... until last week end... where I experienced same problems as before... BSOD & crashing...

I decided to reinstall latest beta driver... After doing this... PC became unresponsive.

I have Everest Ultimate and when PC starts, Everest starts up with windows and it got stuck loading drivers (I'm assuming loading video driver)... and I believe this resulted in other programs getting stuck/unresponsive....

I updated Everest not to start when Windows starts up and my problems seem to have been resolved now... as far as PC not getting stuck/unresponsive. I have played a few games AOE III & COH and I have not experienced any problems either... I'm assuming this is a result of me reinstalling video drivers...

I previously had Everest since the beginning and I had no issues... I have not done any recent updates or anything that I can think of... I am now starting manually Everest Ultimate but I'm reluctant in having it start in when Windows starts up fearing it's going to lock up again... A bit of a hassle starting it every time I start PC.

Also, I'm feeling that a week or 2 from now.. I may have video driver problems again... And have to reinstall video drivers again...

Anyone have any suggestions ?

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: spike99
I know this is a bit off topic... but here is an update on my problem...

OK, so I initially had BSOD playing AOE III, and game crashing with COH. After uninstalling NVIDIA ForceWare Network Access Manager then it appears that my video driver problems were resolved... until last week end... where I experienced same problems as before... BSOD & crashing...

I decided to reinstall latest beta driver... After doing this... PC became unresponsive.

I have Everest Ultimate and when PC starts, Everest starts up with windows and it got stuck loading drivers (I'm assuming loading video driver)... and I believe this resulted in other programs getting stuck/unresponsive....

I updated Everest not to start when Windows starts up and my problems seem to have been resolved now... as far as PC not getting stuck/unresponsive. I have played a few games AOE III & COH and I have not experienced any problems either... I'm assuming this is a result of me reinstalling video drivers...

I previously had Everest since the beginning and I had no issues... I have not done any recent updates or anything that I can think of... I am now starting manually Everest Ultimate but I'm reluctant in having it start in when Windows starts up fearing it's going to lock up again... A bit of a hassle starting it every time I start PC.

Also, I'm feeling that a week or 2 from now.. I may have video driver problems again... And have to reinstall video drivers again...

Anyone have any suggestions ?

Do you know if Everest Ultimate is 100% compatible with Vista x64?..if not try running it in XP compatibility mode and as admin from properties of the exe.

Btw if you are not sure about compatibility then I would double check with the company to make sure it is compatible with Vista x64.

Have you tried installing the new official WHQL 163.75 drivers?

 

[imported_spike99]

Do you know if Everest Ultimate is 100% compatible with Vista x64?..if not try running it in XP compatibility mode and as admin from properties of the exe.

Btw if you are not sure about compatibility then I would double check with the company to make sure it is compatible with Vista x64.

Have you tried installing the new official WHQL 163.75 drivers?

Yes, according to Lavalys website (http://www.lavalys.com/product...req.php?ps=UE&lang=en), Everest ultimate is compatible with Vista x64. Not sure if this means anything... but when my PC was unresponsive I went to Windows Task Manager and kill Everest by selecting the "Processes" tab and selecting Everest... If I'm not mistaken... I believe I saw "Everest 32"..... Not sure if this means 32bit version or not... I'm going to check with them on this...

I know that I was previously running 163.75 when it was in beta version... Not sure if there's a difference between WHQL and the beta version. The only reason I downloaded beta 169.04 was because it was recommended for Crysis single player demo.

I guess I can go back to 163.75 if I encounter BSOD & Crashing.....

 

[Mem]

I guess I can go back to 163.75 if I encounter BSOD & Crashing.....

I doubt its the drivers,you could try uninstalling Everest for a few weeks and see if stability improves,soon find out if that is the real problem.

 

[imported_spike99]

I doubt its the drivers,you could try uninstalling Everest for a few weeks and see if stability improves,soon find out if that is the real problem.

OK... I'll wait until I have problems again... When I see video driver problems I will uninstall Everest and see if I encounter problems again.... This may take some time... Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: Mem
That's where UAC can help(think of it as one small part of a security defence),some people forget all the wasted hours fixing/repairing PCs due to stupid users that click/open up unknown programs etc...

I know that. UAC is "Run as" for dummies. So does that mean that power users need it? Why not make it an option instead of a feature (ie standard).

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: Mem
That's where UAC can help(think of it as one small part of a security defence),some people forget all the wasted hours fixing/repairing PCs due to stupid users that click/open up unknown programs etc...

I know that. UAC is "Run as" for dummies. So does that mean that power users need it? Why not make it an option instead of a feature (ie standard).

The whole default load of XP or Vista seems tuned to the dumbest user possible, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If you're smart enough to tune your installation of Windows to your preferences, good for you

If not, why complain about how Microsoft attempts to present Windows in the easiest, safest manner possible? Some things leave me scratching my head, like the apparent preference for no desktop icons save the recycle bin, but I guess that's what they think people want in general. Whatever, I usually give people desktop icons for IE, their Docs, and if requested : network/pc, etc.

UAC is a sticky subject, some people absolutely hate it. On my OEM boxes, I usually try to let the system finish it's prefetch/superfetch/UAC nagging period before turning the 'keys' over to the user, along with a short tutorial on Vista. Most of the time, just taking those moments to help people familiarize and get comfortable makes a big difference. To this day, I still get customers bring in Vista boxes screaming at me to put XP on there. For this, I make a decent amount of money, but I always try to go over Vista one last time with them to help them with their aggravations, but people can be fairly insistent.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: mechBgon
In the first place, neither UAC on Vista, nor using a non-Admin account on XP, are "a complete waste," unless you consider using potent, proactive security safeguards "a complete waste." Personally, I consider them "extremely worthwhile."

Thanks for agreeing with me on one part...

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Secondly, since you claim "it's the same thing," go ahead and show us how WinXP virtualizes Registry and directory structures when using a non-Admin account, as Vista does with UAC enabled.

We don't need to do that. We just need to prevent the average home user from filling up their computer with all the stupid spyware and malware along with the 20 toolbars.

Actually, we do need to do that The compatibility underpinnings make it possible for many softwares to run on a non-Admin account on Vista without any special effort by the user. Case in point: the Mechwarrior4 games, which will not run on WinXP as a Limited user, work fine on Vista thanks to UAC's virtualization capabilities. No UAC prompts are seen, incidentally... try to remember that UAC is not simply elevation prompts.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Actually, we do need to do that The compatibility underpinnings make it possible for many softwares to run on a non-Admin account on Vista without any special effort by the user. Case in point: the Mechwarrior4 games, which will not run on WinXP as a Limited user, work fine on Vista thanks to UAC's virtualization capabilities. No UAC prompts are seen, incidentally... try to remember that UAC is not simply elevation prompts.

That's a very limited issue though. 99% of the applications out there do not require this. Many computers share one account that has admin rights anyways. It's not common enough to require something as stupid as UAC.

Sorry, there's nothing you can say to convince me that UAC is anything other than to protect the normal (ie non-Power) user from screwing up their own computers. It is just another thing for Windows to boast about TCO. It's less time that is spent fixing problems that users put upon themselves and less cost to IT to support those problems.

That's all. It's not some miracle feature that makes Vista worlds better than Windows XP...at all.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Actually, we do need to do that The compatibility underpinnings make it possible for many softwares to run on a non-Admin account on Vista without any special effort by the user. Case in point: the Mechwarrior4 games, which will not run on WinXP as a Limited user, work fine on Vista thanks to UAC's virtualization capabilities. No UAC prompts are seen, incidentally... try to remember that UAC is not simply elevation prompts.

That's a very limited issue though. 99% of the applications out there do not require this. Many computers share one account that has admin rights anyways. It's not common enough to require something as stupid as UAC.

Intuit QuickBooks much?

I think (based on years of non-Admin operation in Win2000/XP) that the virtualization features of UAC are more valuable than you realize.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: Mem
That's where UAC can help(think of it as one small part of a security defence),some people forget all the wasted hours fixing/repairing PCs due to stupid users that click/open up unknown programs etc...

I know that. UAC is "Run as" for dummies. So does that mean that power users need it? Why not make it an option instead of a feature (ie standard).

You can disable it so don't see your problem(think you are nick picking as they say).As to power users suppose a trojan gets through some how and UAC prompts you,that's where it can help power users too,I'm not saying it is 100% perfect or will detect everything ,but as I've already stated its an added layer of defence.

End of the day you want security or not?..choice is yours( enabled or disabled).

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

I know that. UAC is "Run as" for dummies. So does that mean that power users need it? Why not make it an option instead of a feature (ie standard).

I think this is your answer, specifically the first two bullet points.

Experience with the security of real-world software has led to a set of high-level principles for building more secure software. Microsoft refers to these principles as SD3+C ? Secure by Design, Secure by Default, Secure in Deployment, and Communications. The brief definitions of these principles are:

• Secure by Design: the software should be architected, designed, and implemented so as to protect itself and the information it processes, and to resist attacks.
  
• Secure by Default: in the real world, software will not achieve perfect security, so designers should assume that security flaws would be present. To minimize the harm that occurs when attackers target these remaining flaws, software's default state should promote security. For example, software should run with the least necessary privilege, and services and features that are not widely needed should be disabled by default or accessible only to a small population of users.
  
• Secure in Deployment: Tools and guidance should accompany software to help end users and/or administrators use it securely. Additionally, updates should be easy to deploy.
  
• Communications: software developers should be prepared for the discovery of product vulnerabilities and should communicate openly and responsibly with end users and/or administrators to help them take protective action (such as patching or deploying workarounds).

While each element of SD3+C imposes requirements on the development process, the first two elements?secure by design and secure by default?provide the most security benefit. Secure by design mandates processes intended to prevent the introduction of vulnerabilities in the first place, while secure by default requires that the default exposure of the software?its "attack surface" be minimized.

--from The Trustworthy Computing Security Development Lifecycle

Computer crime is big and getting bigger. One estimate recently said that it is now bigger, dollar-wise, than the illegal drug trade. Worldwide. The tide needs to turn. Yeah, shipping Vista with Win95-style behavior would've spared Microsoft a lot of criticism, but you know what Yoda says about the easy path... IMHO the implementation as delivered is an acceptable compromise which makes it possible to run a non-Admin account for nearly everything.

 

[beatle]

I ran Vista for a few days before going back to XP. There were a few problems, most of which I was going to try to live with:

- Audigy 2 ZS was completely crippled. Onboard sound restored bass redirection to my sub and was 80% of the Audigy 2 ZS in SQ and gaming features.
- No support for my 6 year old scanner. Ok, it's old and EOL. I can almost accept this as I paid $25 for it anyway.
- Interface has a few quirks, different menus, different UI, etc. I would just get used to it or customize it to my liking.

The straw that broke my back was network printing. This is a known problem (just google it) and none of the fixes worked for me. Believe me, I tried a LOT of weird tricks to print to the printer on my server and I just couldn't get it to work. I'll try again when the OS is more mature. I didn't notice sluggishness in the OS or programs. I agree that RAM use is overblown, especially for users concerned with performance. How much is 2GB of RAM again?

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: Mem
That's where UAC can help(think of it as one small part of a security defence),some people forget all the wasted hours fixing/repairing PCs due to stupid users that click/open up unknown programs etc...

I know that. UAC is "Run as" for dummies. So does that mean that power users need it? Why not make it an option instead of a feature (ie standard).

Anyone that doesn't realize that UAC can be turned off should probably not be considered a power user.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
Anyone that doesn't realize that UAC can be turned off should probably not be considered a power user.

QFT.

 

[dmcowen674]

OK my wife has had enough of Vista and me too that I can't help her with all the problems with it.

Microsoft guys on here.

Will Microsoft kill the Vista License and give us an XP License for her laptop instead or does Toshiba have to do it?

I've seen that Dell has an XP option but I don't know if Toshiba does.

Thanks

 

[pugh]

Agreed

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
Anyone that doesn't realize that UAC can be turned off should probably not be considered a power user.

In the event you weren't paying attention...

I shouldn't have to turn it off. I never said I did not know how to. They can have it selectable as an option during setup. Do you want UAC? Do you want SuperFetch?

Heck, IE7 asks you if you want the stupid Phishing Filter enabled. I don't see why Vista shouldn't prompt you for these too.

I also think indexing is a complete waste. I have over 1TB of data on the hard drives in my rig. Install Vista and it chugs away indexing for hours and hours. I don't need that crap. I know where I put my data.

I don't even need to use the search feature on Windows XP. Why do I need it on Vista?

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
Anyone that doesn't realize that UAC can be turned off should probably not be considered a power user.

In the event you weren't paying attention...

I shouldn't have to turn it off. I never said I did not know how to. They can have it selectable as an option during setup. Do you want UAC? Do you want SuperFetch?

As I already pointed out, part of the SDL is to send stuff out secure by default. Vista will be in the crosshairs of the bad guys for the next 5-10 years, and judging by the developments of the last 5 years, it's better to err on the side of more-secure setup defaults, IMHO.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK my wife has had enough of Vista and me too that I can't help her with all the problems with it.

Microsoft guys on here.

Will Microsoft kill the Vista License and give us an XP License for her laptop instead or does Toshiba have to do it?

I've seen that Dell has an XP option but I don't know if Toshiba does.

Thanks

Whuh? Weren't you shopping this "story" 4-months ago during another irrational anti-Vista tirade???

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK my wife has had enough of Vista and me too that I can't help her with all the problems with it.

Microsoft guys on here.

Will Microsoft kill the Vista License and give us an XP License for her laptop instead or does Toshiba have to do it?

I've seen that Dell has an XP option but I don't know if Toshiba does.

Thanks

Whuh? Weren't you shopping this "story" 4-months ago during another irrational anti-Vista tirade???

I've brought the problems up with her laptop since we got in February.

Now I am asking what are our options?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK my wife has had enough of Vista and me too that I can't help her with all the problems with it.

Microsoft guys on here.

Will Microsoft kill the Vista License and give us an XP License for her laptop instead or does Toshiba have to do it?

I've seen that Dell has an XP option but I don't know if Toshiba does.

Thanks

Whuh? Weren't you shopping this "story" 4-months ago during another irrational anti-Vista tirade???

I've brought the problems up with her laptop since we got in February.

Now I am asking what are our options?

Okay dmcowen, I'll play along, even though I suspect that your post is just the warmup for more of you unique brand of Vista-bashing. MS has a dedicated supoort line for this sort of issue. Let me know if you need the number.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK my wife has had enough of Vista and me too that I can't help her with all the problems with it.

Microsoft guys on here.

Will Microsoft kill the Vista License and give us an XP License for her laptop instead or does Toshiba have to do it?

I've seen that Dell has an XP option but I don't know if Toshiba does.

Thanks

Whuh? Weren't you shopping this "story" 4-months ago during another irrational anti-Vista tirade???

I've brought the problems up with her laptop since we got in February.

Now I am asking what are our options?

Okay dmcowen, I'll play along, even though I suspect that your post is just the warmup for more of you unique brand of Vista-bashing. MS has a dedicated supoort line for this sort of issue. Let me know if you need the number.

You're kidding right?

Support for what, being a step backwards?

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You're kidding right?

Support for what, being a step backwards?

I wouldn't bother. He has his head so far up his own ass that he will never see the sun for another 20 years or so.