Windows Vista

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:09 pm

edge, bear in mind that it's still in beta. They haven't even put out the first actual Release Candidate yet. And in regards to the software installation thing, what do you expect? Who's to determine what is adware and what is ad-supported and approved by the user? Windows Defender should be catching the known malware other than viruses, and will treat it differently than installing your favorite FTP client. Sorry, but security and convenience are almost always at odds.

And as far as "real security fixes", you are aware that they've abandoned the GINA architecture and NTLM support in Vista and Longhorn, right? Those changes alone drop off a bunch of old security issues. Check out http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/0 ... docid=3731 for some good info on that particular part. Check out http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/200 ... docid=3747 for a somewhat in-depth overview of security changes in Vista.

Teranfirbt · Post by **Teranfirbt** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:07 am

So far after an hour or so I'm not really impressed... The installer was much cleaner than the XP installer, but after playing around with settings I find Vista to be 90% XP with a bunch of glitz....
It is however, using over 700 megs of memory on boot, which doesn't leave much RAM left on my system to play with, it was hitting the swap file a lot..
Teran rating(TM): Meh

Infin8Cyn · Post by **Infin8Cyn** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:34 pm

XP was just 2K with more glamour and some minor operating mods.

edge · Post by **edge** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:16 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="643942"]edge, bear in mind that it's still in beta. They haven't even put out the first actual Release Candidate yet. And in regards to the software installation thing, what do you expect? Who's to determine what is adware and what is ad-supported and approved by the user? Windows Defender should be catching the known malware other than viruses, and will treat it differently than installing your favorite FTP client. Sorry, but security and convenience are almost always at odds.[/quote]

Oh, I absolutly agree. This is right along the lines of what I was getting at, but it makes more sense the way you said it. My biggest gripe there is that they are making an attempt to handle software installation the way everyone else is, but they're cutting out the important parts and leaving just the annoying parts.

I understand that end users might get annoyed with having to enter an administrator password to install software, but it gets the point across a little better than just a "yes/no" box, which we've been seeing for years anyway. Most of the time, a user is more likely to read what something says if it requires you to type something in.

And as far as "real security fixes", you are aware that they've abandoned the GINA architecture and NTLM support in Vista and Longhorn, right? Those changes alone drop off a bunch of old security issues. Check out http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/0 ... docid=3731 for some good info on that particular part. Check out http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/200 ... docid=3747 for a somewhat in-depth overview of security changes in Vista.

Rock on. This is was not aware of. I'm glad to see these changes coming around.

Over all, I'm not really impresses, but I am anxious to see what the final product will hold for us, and if we'll see some of the improvements that so many people are really looking for (and less of the "oooh! shiny!" factor). I'll admit, I like a good looking interface, but I'll take a system that works well over one that looks good but functions poorly any day. And for the rcord, XP (stock with Luna OR classic) looks like ass.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:19 pm

It looks fine, jerk

Jedi_Vader20 · Post by **Jedi_Vader20** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:23 pm

Since I don't have a DX9 graphics card, I decided to install it on my Dell Latitude C810 laptop as it would look the same as on my PC.

Apart from some minor video card issues, Vista runs as well as XP, if not a little better, and all my devices work great.

However, that being said, I've had niggling issues with Apache 2.2.2.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:31 am

And I have it on my Latitude C840 laptop.

Observations: A 1.6GHz P4 with 1GB RAM and a 15GB main partition is *just* sufficient to run it with a few other apps, with 700MB of RAM taken up and CPU sitting at 10%-15% when nothing else is happening. I'm also running Office 2007 Beta 2 for productivity evaluation. (Hint: Those of you skipping Vista -- do NOT skip Office 2007! The first major upgrade to the suite since Office 97!)

I've already found and reported a few bugs, among them an issue with partitioning that required I get out a BartPE CD, an inability to load nVidia drivers due to a Code 43 error, and an odd one where IE7 grabs handles at a rate of 1500-2000 per *second* until it's killed in Task Manager. I watched it get to over 300,000 today as a test.

Nice new features:

New IE7 security model
New directory architecture simplifies some things -- somewhat
Information in copy/move dialogs
Checkboxes in Explorer
VASTLY improved Event Log
Least User Access (what others have complained about, I like because I know what's going on in my system, though it is a little overkill)
Modular sign-on system (still being reworked)
Improved installation failure detection
Much faster installation over Beta 1 (dropped from 2.5 hours to 45 minutes for me)

Annoyances:

New IE7 security model
New directory architecture moves things in 93 different directions
7GB base installation (may get chopped after actual release)
Long-term use on anything less than 2GHz/1GB/7200RPM/128MB is going to suck

FireAza · Post by **FireAza** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:20 am

Question for those on the Vista beta, does it run fast like MS claimed it would?

Post by **Martin Blank** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:17 am

It's reasonably quick, all things considered. Some tests on 3GHz systems have showed that XP SP2 and Vista Beta 2 perform about the same under load. That is saying something for beta code.

battalon127 · Post by **battalon127** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:02 pm

Wasn't Vista supposed to have greatly reduced boot times as well? How's that looking?

Felan · Post by **Felan** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:52 pm

[quote="battalon127";p="649487"]Wasn't Vista supposed to have greatly reduced boot times as well? How's that looking?[/quote]

Upon actual boots it was quite speedy. Nothing special, but enough to see a difference.

The big speed boost is when you turn off the pc, Vista actualy Suspends to Disk and shuts off the pc. It works incredibly well and the computer boots back up like in what feels like seconds or so when you turn it on. Of the things about vista, that impressed me the most.

(ok the shiney aureal borealis thingie when you first install was kinda impressive too >.> )

kaiju01 · Post by **kaiju01** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:55 pm

And how much disk space does Vista require for a suspend to disk, if that information is available? Smaller than XP I hope.

KaymeeraUnleashed · Post by **KaymeeraUnleashed** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:19 pm

Enough to cache the memory I suppose, so 512MB for 512MB of RAM, etc...

kaiju01 · Post by **kaiju01** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:59 pm

Hehe, ok, I knew that much. The only computer on which I have used hibernation is my laptop with 512MB RAM. Windows claims it will require 2GB for my new desktop. I used plenty of memory on the old laptop, so I never knew whether XP simply caches all of the RAM or only the used portions. So perhaps some knowledgeable folk can tell me whether XP and Vista do or don't. Is it necessary to save every bit to the disk?

There's obviously a tradeoff point between saving all data and saving selected data with the addresses. The more I think about it, the more likely I think it is caching everything, as doing a select read/write would be time consuming unless memory management keeps things in large amiable chunks.

I'll be quiet now.

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:02 pm

Sounding good!

You mentioned an updated log Martin, care to elaborate? More detailed or just shows more events?

Real Life Forums

Windows Vista

Re: Windows Vista

Who is online