Anyone buying Vista when it comes out?

[l)ragon]

I hear volume license keys are all the rage.

I personally will stick to XP for a while longer due to vista security issues.

What security issues? Vista is undoubtedly more secure than XP will ever be.

He knows secrets ;p

[Newby]

He knows secrets ;p

So do lots of folk. How many secrets are valid is another story.

[AcidAngel]

if anyone cares, newegg is selling OEM vista now, pretty good price if you want to go legit with vista

[K]

What security issues? Vista is undoubtedly more secure than XP will ever be.

So that must be why Vista Service Pack 1 is already in the works, with a focus on "regressions from Windows XP, security, deployment blockers and other high impact issues"

give me a break.

[Newby]

give me a break.

Ok. It only took about ~11 months for Service Pack 1 to come out for Windows XP. It's going to take about the same amount of time (it's been out since November, I read somewhere SP1 for Vista was Q4) for Vista to get there.

You're right. Vista is terrible.

[vuther.de]

http://promotions.newegg.com/msvista/Vista_Products.html

Wow, $200 for Ultimate. I might have to do that.

edit: I'll wait till my 6 month beta version will expire.

[K]

give me a break.

Ok. It only took about ~11 months for Service Pack 1 to come out for Windows XP. It's going to take about the same amount of time (it's been out since November, I read somewhere SP1 for Vista was Q4) for Vista to get there.

You're right. Vista is terrible.

The point is that this is an OS that was supposed to be designed from the ground up to be secure.  The fact that there's already a SP scheduled to address security issues and "regressions from Windows XP" leads me to believe that there's no reason to spend money to upgrade right now, especially since all it's going to do is be less secure and drain more resources.  If I ran Windows, I would stick with Windows XP for the foreseeable future. 

Maybe after two service packs, Vista will be secure like XP SP2, but I'd hold off until then.

[Newby]

So you started using XP after two service packs? I'm curious.

And just because it has security holes doesn't mean it's "less secure" than XP. It just means it has security holes.

Although I am glad you think XP is secure. At least you aren't like "i want it to be as secure as lunix."

[K]

So you started using XP after two service packs? I'm curious.

Yes, before that I was running Windows 2000 with all the updates.  And now I run neither.  When I absolutely need to use Windows, I run XP under vmware.  And I can't think of the last time I needed to.

And just because it has security holes doesn't mean it's "less secure" than XP. It just means it has security holes.

Look at the term "regressions from Windows XP."  That, to me, seems to imply that there are issues with Vista -- security related or not -- that are not issues in Windows XP. 

Although I am glad you think XP is secure. At least you aren't like "i want it to be as secure as lunix."

I think XP is a fine desktop OS provided you know what you're doing.  That said, for about the last six months, I've been running nothing but linux.  I run linux at work, on my desktop, and on my laptop.
The only computer in my house that runs Windows (XP/Media Center SP2) is an old, out of date laptop sitting behind a shelf to serve music to my xbox 360, since apparently the 360 will only understand non-standard broken upnp.  As soon as some of the 360 media software that runs on linux becomes more mature, I'll switch over.


All I'm saying, is from my point of view it makes absolutely zero sense to upgrade to Vista from XP SP2 now.  What do you gain?  Eyecandy (provided you have enough memory/cpu/video card ram to run it), some dubious claims about security, and applications that won't run on Vista due to it's new limited user account requirement.  If you're a hardcore gamer, you will eventually get DirectX 10, and maybe sometime after that you'll get some games that support it!

[Warrior]

What security issues? Vista is undoubtedly more secure than XP will ever be.

So that must be why Vista Service Pack 1 is already in the works, with a focus on "regressions from Windows XP, security, deployment blockers and other high impact issues"

give me a break.

Most of Vistas platforms (.NET 3.0 (Not exclusive to Vista but it's implementation is with WPF and such), DWM, New TCP/IP stack, etc) are version 1.0 so the "Regressions from XP" they speak of are due to this nature.

It's natural an OS is updated, are you going to blast Linux or something for releasing a maintenance version 10-12 months after it's consumer release? I'd call it Quality Assurance.

And on the topic of what's new to Vista, why don't you try doing some research? You seem to be repeating what some ill informed person wrote on their blog or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
You might want to take a look at that.

Most applications run on Vista, with the exception of a few Applications which always seem to break from an OS upgrade (I remember burning tools breaking from 2000 -> XP as well) so don't give me that bull about Limited User Accounts not allowing something to run. Vista has provisions in place to help any application ensure compatibility. At the most you'd get a UAC prompt.

If you don't think Microsoft is investing in backwards compatibility, you're dead wrong.

@Security claims:

Read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_of_Windows_Vista

Can you actually provide something disproving Vistas inherent security improvements? The OS was rewritten from the ground up component wise, you really should read up on it's changes and what was done to secure the OS.

I in fact, hear the same type of bullshit from people claiming IE6 is about as secure as IE7.  It's pretty funny actually.

My advice to you is actually learn what's new to Vista, how it works, and what SP1 will actually address before you try to justify your point on why it isn't worth the money. 

This is the typical response I'd expect from someone who falls under the taint of GNU/OSS/FSF garbage. Uninformed statements.

[K]

This is the typical response I'd expect from someone who falls under the taint of GNU/OSS/FSF garbage. Uninformed statements.

I'm not the one slinging mud here.  I'm not telling you that Linux is "superior" to Windows or that you're stupid for using it.  I'm telling you that I use it; you can use what you want.

You can call me uninformed all you want, but I've seen the Wikipedia page you linked to and read articles about Vista.  The vast majority of what I've read and heard is "Vista is not ready," and "don't upgrade right now."  If you want to spend money on Vista, feel free, I can't stop you.  It's your decision.

[Warrior]

This is the typical response I'd expect from someone who falls under the taint of GNU/OSS/FSF garbage. Uninformed statements.

I'm not the one slinging mud here.  I'm not telling you that Linux is "superior" to Windows or that you're stupid for using it.  I'm telling you that I use it; you can use what you want.

You can call me uninformed all you want, but I've seen the Wikipedia page you linked to and read articles about Vista.  The vast majority of what I've read and heard is "Vista is not ready," and "don't upgrade right now."  If you want to spend money on Vista, feel free, I can't stop you.  It's your decision.

Then what was the point of your prior posts? If you weren't going to try to convince people why Vista is a bad buy, why respond to me at all?

Really, you reading "Vista is not ready", and "Dont upgrade right now" arn't clear indicators of it's security. In fact, most reviewers know little to nothing about security. The fact is from published whitepapers, articles, and some wikipedia it is evident that Vista is leaps ahead of XP in security.

The only thing that makes me uneasy is how new all the platforms are, not time tested which could lead to some potential problems. This is what SP1 is going to address most likely, however.

Edit: I also apologize for the hostility, I misread which direction you were going with some of your statements.

[MyndFyre]

apparently the 360 will only understand non-standard broken upnp.

Non-standard != broken!

About what you said after: I've been using Vista on my notebook since the RTM was released on MSDN subscriber downloads in November, which puts me at about two months.

All I'm saying, is from my point of view it makes absolutely zero sense to upgrade to Vista from XP SP2 now.  What do you gain?  Eyecandy (provided you have enough memory/cpu/video card ram to run it), some dubious claims about security, and applications that won't run on Vista due to it's new limited user account requirement.  If you're a hardcore gamer, you will eventually get DirectX 10, and maybe sometime after that you'll get some games that support it!

Actually, quite a bit.  At least for me.  Vista is a very nice upgrade feature-wise versus Tablet PC Edition in terms of the Tablet PC features.  Voice recognition is phenomenal, as is the handwriting recognition, out of the box.  Voice recognition was really nowhere near where it is now.  And in fact, it's really exciting to see the development platform Microsoft has made out of it - at a recent Vista launch conference, they demo'd some very amazing things a third-party development company was doing with it.

Being an intelligent user, I haven't really had to deal with security warnings from malicious software.  However, I'm very impressed with the frequent updates to Windows Defender, which practically makes anti-adware software obsolete.  I'm also very happy to see the rigorous enforcement of user account control.  On occasion it does get annoying (for instance, today I had to execute an IIS command, but forgot to open the command prompt with administrator privileges).  But overall, that is a great security feature.  And what it really means is, it's no longer Microsoft's fault if you install bad software on your machine.  It's yours.  Because they warned you, and you explicitly authorized it.

In terms of eye candy, it's not just "pretty" because of Aero Glass.  Did you know that, because of the Desktop Window Manager, you can now see a live preview of your window in Alt+Tab/Windows+Tab (the standard switch dialog and Flip3D, respectively)?  I've seen the same video playing in three spaces at once with no slowdown; or, I've seen multiple videos playing at once in Flip3D.  Short of a gaming environment, that's unprecedented.  Flash still goes, movies go, animations, PowerPoint, etc.

Windows is also moving towards a less monolithic kernel by moving most drivers out of the kernel and into userspace.  Warcraft frequently crashes my video driver, but the system simply restarts the driver and WoW keeps on chugging along (like the Little Engine that Could).  Sound, printer, and other accessory devices are also moved into userland, further reducing the chance that a faulty driver can cause a bugcheck.

As for programs that are "broken" because of UAC, well, they are few and far between.  The only one I've come across that is truly broken is SQL Server, and that's because it requires write permissions to \Program Files, and when it's running as NETWORK SERVICE, it doesn't have those permissions.  The management software works fine from Vista, and most people running Vista won't be running SQL Server on it, anyway.  If worst comes to worst, you can simply virtualize it onto a supported OS.  But SQL Server 2005 SP2 will be out shortly, and that won't be that big of a problem.

From a developer's standpoint, Vista's launch is very nice for several reasons.  Besides the fact that it's built on .NET 3.0, it also has supports for the SideBar (gadgets are a great marketing tool) and SideShow (which puts enabled devices, including SmartPhones, in touch with your data however you define). 

Oh - this was also a neat performance enhancement that I got to use for the first time today, ReadyBoost.  ReadyBoost can take a USB2, SD, or CF memory device and use it for a special pagefile.  Since USB2 memory devices can perform better than a hard drive, particularly notebook hard drives, it's a nice performance gain.

BitLocker supports full drive encryption using either a TPM or USB stick to store the encryption key.  Police agencies are being instructed to search for and confiscate USB devices because BitLocker is not being designed with a back door.

IIS 7 causes some minor problems with website development in Visual Studio 2005; however, if you know what they are you can avoid them, and the benefits you gain are great.  Previous "Professional" editions of the OS supported only one Web Site with multiple virtual directories; IIS 7 is not so encumbered.

The only reason it's not installed on my desktop PC (the one I'm using right now) is because NVidia hasn't released 590i chipset or 8800 graphics drivers for Vista yet.  The machine was built for Vista and it's going to last a good, long while.

[Kp]

I'm also very happy to see the rigorous enforcement of user account control.  On occasion it does get annoying (for instance, today I had to execute an IIS command, but forgot to open the command prompt with administrator privileges).  But overall, that is a great security feature.  And what it really means is, it's no longer Microsoft's fault if you install bad software on your machine.  It's yours.  Because they warned you, and you explicitly authorized it.

In theory, I like the ideas behind this elevation and the associated protections.  In practice, I find it somewhat lacking.  It's very disruptive to have the entire screen black out when Vista decides it needs to prompt for confirmation.  This would be good when you are being prompted to enter your password (to make it more obvious that you are being prompted by Windows Vista, as opposed to some unprivileged application trying to deceive you), but it's just annoying when the dialog is just an "OK"/"Deny" dialog.  Am I missing some reason why the disruptive UI is needed even for yes/no queries?  I would think that a topmost centered window would be good enough.

Also, the part about it being the user's fault is a bit of a problem from a social standpoint.  Internet Explorer has had security settings to prompt for ActiveX controls for a long time, but we still see people installing stupid/dangerous controls despite Internet Explorer's warnings.  I fear that UAC will end up much the same way.  Users will be trained to elevate any application which asks because "things don't work if I hit 'no'" or some similar excuse.  If such a trend takes off, we may see ISVs (in particular, copy prevention vendors, anti-virus vendors, etc. -- the folks who want to be in the kernel, but really should not be) decide that it's easier to mark their application as requiring elevation than to actually fix it to work with a limited account.  I hope I'm wrong.  That said, the elevation support is a great idea for power users who want to run things with reduced rights whenever possible.

Police agencies are being instructed to search for and confiscate USB devices because BitLocker is not being designed with a back door.

<hat type="tinfoil">BitLocker does not have a backdoor that Microsoft will publicly admit to at this time.</hat>

I have never been greatly fond of Windows systems and will likely wait a long while before installing Windows Vista, but overall I will grant that they have made some improvements.  It's unfortunate that they also spent so much time putting in additional DRM support, particularly at the hardware level.  If the improvements stand the test of time, it will be good to see.  Now, if they just had proper Mandatory Access Controls (like SELinux has and like Mac OS X 10.5 plans to have)...  The "mandatory levels" are a good start, but are not nearly granular enough for my tastes.

[Invert]

I do agree with Warrior and MyndFyre that Vista is designed to be a much more secure operating system than the predecessors. However, I do believe it does need to live in the real world for a little bit so it can be put to the test. It's like releasing a zoo animal into the wild, there is that time of adaptation.

I did install the Business version on my laptop to test it and it's been running great so far.

<hat type="tinfoil">BitLocker does not have a backdoor that Microsoft will publicly admit to at this time.</hat>

lol