Vista - Necessary?

[Hulk]

I'm using XP Home right now and I feel as though I really don't notice the OS, which I think is how it should be. My computer is stable and easy to use.

I'm trying to find reasons to upgrade to Vista?

I mean the move from Windows 3.1 to 95 was a no brainer. 3.1 was clunky and buggy.

Same for the move from 95 to XP. XP is easier to use and much more stable.

Now that we have a stable and easy to use OS why the need for a big revision change?

Or is Vista more of an evolution rather than revolution of XP?

I know there are other threads on this but for general day-to-day use what are the people use Vista seeing as the big improvements?

 

[postmortemIA]

MS has to make $.

 

[corinthos]

I was happy with NT and saw little reason to move up, but eventually had to because they stopped providing updates to support something or other under NT... probably same will happen with XP, but not right now.

 

[dderolph]

You were using Win 95 until you got Win XP? Whew, that was a long spell, wasn't it? LOL

I'll probably not seriously think about changing from XP to Vista for at least two years.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: dderolph
You were using Win 95 until you got Win XP? Whew, that was a long spell, wasn't it? LOL

XP came out in 2001 right? So that's a six year gap. By the time vista is out... 2007-2001 = 6 years!

 

[nweaver]

no, it's not required. I don't run windows on any of my home computers at all.

 

[phisrow]

Sooner or later DX10 will become a de facto requirement for gaming; but that aside you should be able to get a fair few more years out of XP.

 

[Genx87]

Vista has some nice security features and a pretty new interface. But to me that isnt worth 400 bucks. I will keep on using XP until I cant anymore and upgrade like I did with 98 when I finally dropped it for XP in 2002 on my game rig.

 

[Kadarin]

Still using Win2K here, and it works fine. I won't change OS on this machine until I actually benefit substantially from an upgrade.

 

[Lemon law]

From a security standpoint---XP is a massive security hole---hopefully vista will be better and will not
require so many security applications be run. But the jury is still out on this---and I am in no hurry to
upgrade.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Vista has some nice security features and a pretty new interface. But to me that isnt worth 400 bucks. I will keep on using XP until I cant anymore and upgrade like I did with 98 when I finally dropped it for XP in 2002 on my game rig.

You trust Microsoft (or any other closed source software company) with security? :Q

 

[Shawn]

hell no. win2k will still suffice.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Genx87
Vista has some nice security features and a pretty new interface. But to me that isnt worth 400 bucks. I will keep on using XP until I cant anymore and upgrade like I did with 98 when I finally dropped it for XP in 2002 on my game rig.

You trust Microsoft (or any other closed source software company) with security? :Q

Where did I state that? I said Vista has some nice security features.

 

[Nothinman]

Or is Vista more of an evolution rather than revolution of XP?

That's the idea, it's only as necessary as you make it.

From a security standpoint---XP is a massive security hole---

Oh please, the security hole is only as big as you make it.

 

[Lemon law]

Are you nuts Nothinnerman--when you state---Oh please, the security hole is only as big as you make it.

The security hole is and remains as big as other not so nice people can make it---and a responsible OS writing company's job is to make that security hole as small as humanly possible. A test win XP flunks beyond any doubt.---and given the microsoft track record---I see no reason to trust they have done a real excellent job with vista.---but as vista gains critical mass---you can bet much effort will be expended to exploit any security holes in that OS.

At some point in time, the government--representing the public interests will have to step in and force microsoft to get security right when microsoft fails to get it right---this crap of waiting six more years to see another security hole of an OS will no longer get it.

 

[A5]

I'll get it free from MSDN-AA, so I'll probably have it installed by this time next year.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Are you nuts Nothinnerman--when you state---Oh please, the security hole is only as big as you make it.

The security hole is and remains as big as other not so nice people can make it---and a responsible OS writing company's job is to make that security hole as small as humanly possible. A test win XP flunks beyond any doubt.---and given the microsoft track record---I see no reason to trust they have done a real excellent job with vista.---but as vista gains critical mass---you can bet much effort will be expended to exploit any security holes in that OS.

At some point in time, the government--representing the public interests will have to step in and force microsoft to get security right when microsoft fails to get it right---this crap of waiting six more years to see another security hole of an OS will no longer get it.

I have multiple Windows boxes without any problems. I have some with problems, I have *nix boxes that get owned, I have *nix boxes that are fine.


Security is all in the user. Sure, there more exploits for windows then linux, but it's not hard to bypass those. I'm going on 4+ years on this XP install, without any major work on it, and I have hammered the crap out of it.

If you want to see a marked improvement in MS security, go look at IIS5 to IIS6. It's night and day. Not to say Vista is going to be secure, bugfree, or nice...I still won't be getting it.

 

[Nothinman]

Are you nuts Nothinnerman--when you state---Oh please, the security hole is only as big as you make it.

No, I'm perfectly sane AFAIK. Can you point me to one working exploit that grant admin access to a regular user? I won't even complain if it requires user intervention is a huge part of "as big as you make it".

The security hole is and remains as big as other not so nice people can make it-

"The" hole? So there's one big one that still isn't fixed? Can you show me?

A test win XP flunks beyond any doubt.

So you do have a test case? Good, I'd like to try it myself.

I see no reason to trust they have done a real excellent job with vista.---but as vista gains critical mass---you can bet much effort will be expended to exploit any security holes in that OS.

But you admit that you run XP even though you don't believe that you can trust it or the people who created it?

At some point in time, the government--representing the public interests will have to step in and force microsoft to get security right when microsoft fails to get it right---this crap of waiting six more years to see another security hole of an OS will no longer get it.

But the government (assuming you mean the US government) would have to begin to understand computer security themselves first and I wouldn't place any money on that happening any time soon.

 

[stash]

and given the microsoft track record

You might want to recheck that track record.

So here we have more unsubstantiated FUD (not just the sentence I quoted, the entire post). If you are going to make such statements, you need to back them up with facts.

 

[Lemon law]

To all,

At least with XP---any sane user needs a firewall--and forget the sp2 one which is a toy---an antivirus program, a number of anti-spyware programs, add in some sort of process control,
a non-microsoft web browser that does not use active X, and some sort of sandboxing is also recommended. All of these layers of protection are almost required to have any semblance of security using XP or earlier microsoft windows os's---nearly all of these applications come from third parties---and a number of paid ones can cost more than the OS itself.

Where does this novel notion come from---that microsoft is somehow not liable for fixing its own glaring faults and mistakes?---when all kinds of other products are routinely recalled and fixed at manufacturer's expense when they prove dangerous to the end users.?

And then come to me and tell me that microsoft is not dropping the ball big time---a safe OS would need none of these---and is well within microsoft's abilities and responsibilities.

At least the EU is starting to hold microsoft's feet to the fire---why should the USA be far behind?

By any stretch of the imagination---the microsoft track record stinks--and their only response is to start off to the races to develop the next OS with minimal efforts to fix the one they already have.

 

[InlineFive]

Lemon law, have you even bothered reading around? Vista fixes many of the "faults" that you see in Windows XP.

 

[Nothinman]

At least with XP---any sane user needs a firewall--and forget the sp2 one which is a toy---an antivirus program, a number of anti-spyware programs,

Only if you don't use common sense. AV and AntiSpyware were forced on my machine where I used to work and I can't think of a single instance where they actually caught something.

add in some sort of process control,

WTF is that supposed to mean?

a non-microsoft web browser that does not use active X, and some sort of sandboxing is also recommended.

I'm no fan of ActiveX but it's far from a big problem and what kind of sandboxing are you talking about?

All of these layers of protection are almost required to have any semblance of security using XP or earlier microsoft windows os's

Only if by 'almost' you mean 'if you don't have any common sense'.

nearly all of these applications come from third parties---and a number of paid ones can cost more than the OS itself.

And if MS shipped them all as part of Windows you'd be complaining that MS is abusing their monopoly power to kill 3rd party developers.

when all kinds of other products are routinely recalled and fixed at manufacturer's expense when they prove dangerous to the end users.?

Windows isn't dangerous when used properly.

And then come to me and tell me that microsoft is not dropping the ball big time---a safe OS would need none of these---and is well within microsoft's abilities and responsibilities.

Whether they were necessary or not the products would still exist because the developers know that someone will buy them whether they really need them or not. Just look at all of the defrag and memory optimization tools out there.

At least the EU is starting to hold microsoft's feet to the fire---why should the USA be far behind?

The US already had their anti-trust trial and they even won.

By any stretch of the imagination---the microsoft track record stinks--and their only response is to start off to the races to develop the next OS with minimal efforts to fix the one they already have.

Right, because they stopped shipping security patches for XP a long time ago...

 

[nweaver]

Most of what you mentioned can be mitigated/reduced with just simply using limited accounts.

Limited accounts is one of the BIGGEST things, and it's been in XP since pre SP1...

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry, I still see the apologists for microsoft saying its ok to ship what amounts to a car with a leaky roof---and then blaming the user when it rains. When the answer is and remains,
its microsoft's responsibility to fix the leaky roof.

It remains my hope that vista will be better---but given the track prior track record---what rational person can put any faith that if massive new security holes are discovered in vista---that microsoft will now step up to the plate and fix them.

For those of you that doubt---try reading the warnings on a ladder some day.

 

[Hulk]

Originally posted by: dderolph
You were using Win 95 until you got Win XP? Whew, that was a long spell, wasn't it? LOL

I'll probably not seriously think about changing from XP to Vista for at least two years.

You're right I did upgrade to Windows 98 but I was considering that as more a service pack for Win95 than a new release.