Vista - Necessary?

[Nothinman]

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.

Microsoft apologist? I don't have a single Windows box in my house so why would I apologize for them?

And please, car analogies never work. But if you insist, the car MS sold you has a perfectly solid roof it's just that the car happens to be a convertible and most people prefer to ride with it down but never remember to put it up so they end up getting wet periodically. If you had just used common sense you wouldn't have that problem.

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.

You still have yet to provide me with one working exploit, you obviously know where to get them and I'd be really interested in verifying that any one of them works.

 

[stash]

At least with XP---any sane user needs a firewall--and forget the sp2 one which is a toy

The XP firewall is as good or better than pretty much any other 'software' firewall out there (ZoneAlarm, Symantec, etc).

an antivirus program, a number of anti-spyware programs

I don't use any of these on my XP boxes. Completely unncessary and generally ineffective anyway.

a non-microsoft web browser that does not use active X,

You realize that ActiveX and Firefox's extensions are the same thing right? Both require user intervention to install.

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.?

? Microsoft releases security updates on a monthly basis. Pretty much anyone who writes code releases security updates as well. Apple patched 31 vulnerabilities yesterday. Oracle patches hundreds of holes at a time with its releases. What exactly is your point here?

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.

This is complete crap, since development of Longhorn was completely shutdown for months to develop XP SP2. And if you think that Microsoft's security track record from that point forward stinks, you need to get your head out of the sand.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: 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?

Only upgrade to Vista when your requirements for your computer operating system need them. Right now it's probably just a "want", if you are unsure if you should spend 400 dollars or so on Vista, you could probably spend that money on something else you really need.

However, please don't generalize. You say you don't really notice the OS, which you think is how it "should" be. I think differently. I don't care about "ease of use". I care about functionality and flexibility. We both have different requirements, and neither of us are wrong in that regard.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: 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.

I am in the same boat as nothinman, I don't have windows in my house at all, and only use it at work when required. I have moved several servers at work to *nix because I'm more comfortable/like it better then windows. To call me an MS apologist is a sham, and makes you look bad. MS has moved forward with security in the last few years. SP2 is the best example, as is (like I pointed out earlier) comparing IIS5 and it's swiss cheese code to IIS6, which is arguably as secure as Apache (not as good...IMHO, but that's another thread).

 

[M00T]

What do you get when you add outlook + macafee virus scan + forced IT updates to an IBM T43 thinkpad?

...

A turtle. A really slow turtle of a machine that frustrates the entire client base.

I spend most of my work day waiting on the constant Mcafee virus scanning and the forced windows updates by IT. I doubt those two issues will disappear with Vista.