UAC was never intended to replace AV software, in any way...Originally Posted by Elysia
UAC was never intended to replace AV software, in any way...
How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
Indeed. I'm fully aware of what you're trying to explain, but I think Vista did a poor job since it broke so much software. Vista was just incomplete when released...
Depends on what edition. What edition are you referring to?I'll be moving to windows server 2008 as soon as it's out. Regarding cost, that isn't any issue really. Vista OEM is very cheap.
Yes, I agree that apps you do very well without the use of admin functions. However, as I mentioned, UAC breaks more than it fixes. Your normal zip or unrar utility won't be able to extract anywhere you want without admin privileges, and no, they don't ask to be elevated, so it doesn't work.Regarding UAC, you are very wrong in this case. UAC only pops up if you do admin tasks. Recommending to disable UAC is just wrong specially to an end user. You would be stripping them from controlling what apps should and should not do admin tasks and instead handing them over to AV companies like Norton and such (*I hate norton private edition*) Instead, one should try to push the developers to code better applications without the need of admin rights to function.
The whole reason for UAC is that coders in windows been lazy and never cared about making their applications work as a limited regular user account. They always been messing around with windows / system32 and DLL hell. Not to mention registry nightmare.
You pretty much have to run them as admin from the start, which just defeats the entire purpose. Sorry, UAC is a good thing, but it breaks far more than it fixes. Most will just "click away" the prompts anyway. They're not very informative, you know...
And coding for UAC is just a pain in the ass. There's very little information from Microsoft on how to use it except for the stupid manifest. The only ways to use it is by COM (undocumented) or launching a new process whose manifest specifies it must be run as admin, which is just plain wrong. There's no easy way to use UAC, so from my perspective, Microsoft really messed up the whole UAC interface for programmers and I am forever going to loathe them for it.
Sigh.
Oh and Norton security software is bloat. Tests shows they aren't good, and they are resource hogs, as well. Better stay away from them.
But a better firewall is good... how? It's so far below the 3rd part firewalls that it's unacceptable to use for day-to-day usage. It's the same as scrapping it and getting a real firewall.Vista Firewall is better than XP yes. That was what I meant. There are always 3rd party software which are much better and more specialized ofcourse. Overall, I think Vista is a good upgrade from XP only and only if you have a newer PC with a lot of RAM.
So it wasn't... so it wasn't...
So I was meaning that you shouldn't scrap AV software simply because UAC is enabled. Very bad idea.
Allow me to respond to that 'feature' list:
I'll respond to the ones I know about.1. Graphical Interface is now using GPU.
2. DX10.x
3. A strong Search functionality.
4. IIS7
5. Drivers in userspace instead of kernel.
6. Hotpatching without reboot ( SP1 )
7. UAC ( Almost no need for AV anymore )
8. Ability to run as limited user without trouble, being able to elevate to admin upon need.
9. ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization).
10. DEP
11. Function Pointer Obfuscation
12. Windows Service Hardening
13. A MUCH better firewall
14. NX technologies at the Hardware Level
15. PatchGuard
16. File System and Registry Virtualization
17. Internet Explorer Protected Mode
18. NTFS junction points
19. BitLocker Drive Encryption
1. Graphical Interface is now using GPU.
Aero does look nice. I'll give you that much.
2. DX10.x
This is worthless. DX10 has been proven thus far to be slower than DX9. Perhaps this is because of cards, perhaps it's because almost every video driver for Vista has some issue with it. Perhaps it's because DX10 is just terrible.
3. A strong Search functionality.
Who really uses search? There are several thirdy party search progams that do far more, far faster, and far better. As of writing this the indexing system in Vista is completely broken. Turning it off gives a very big performance boost.
5. Drivers in userspace instead of kernel.
This has nothing to do with my system or how it runs. The kernel in Vista runs terrible and the drivers all but suck. So if they are in userspace perhaps they ought to go back to kernel. Actually perhaps they all ought to go into a flaming pile of poo b/c that's what most of them are worth. And I don't believe they are in userspace b/c most newer Vista video drivers (from both ATI and NVidia) have a strange tendency to blue screen and bomb.
My agp driver in Vista (granted AGP is old, but) blue screened on 3GB.
6. Hotpatching without reboot ( SP1 )
Hehe. So they say. Updating Vista OEM was no different than XP. We will see with SP1 but I seriously doubt it will work. I can't tell now b/c I unistalled Vista and went back to XP.
7. UAC ( Almost no need for AV anymore )
I'd rather have my AV. UAC sucks. Plain and simple it is terrible and completely annoying. Problem is if you turn it off you do lose security features and if you turn it on you get to answer 50 questions to do one operation. Abominable invention. But it was never designed to replace AV. In fact I'm not sure the dev team ever really knew what it was designed for.
8. Ability to run as limited user without trouble, being able to elevate to admin upon need.
This is a complete lie. All programs run as limited user regardless if your current profile is admin or not. See there is a BUG in Vista where it does not actually see admins. Perhaps SP1 will fix this. As of right now you must specify which programs should run in admin mode or they simply won't do it. Again very stupid. If you are logged on as admin...um...you should be admin. Nope not in Vista.
12. Windows Service Hardening
I'm not sure what this means but most of the newer services were memory hogs and/or threw exceptions at times. I'd rather turn most of em off anyways. Way too many services doing absolutely nothing.
13. A MUCH better firewall
Which still in the scheme of things blows chunks. It is a HUGE resource hog and shutting it off will not only eliminate a lot of stupid internet based security questions but it will also increase performance. I know because I tried it and it made a big difference. And Windows Defender is another big hog and sub-par compared to other companies that specialize in creating software like Defender.
16. File System and Registry Virtualization
The file system in Vista is completely broken. Rumors have it that even SP1 does not fix the one hour to unzip 10mb bug. This is supposedly cause by DRM or digital rights management. I tried to unzip some files from work while working from home and it took literally forever. My dev box at work has XP and it took like 4 seconds to zip it up and took an hour and a half to unzip it on Vista. Whats with Vista saying it's copying such and such to your drive after you download it? And it takes forever.....
Unacceptable.
17. Internet Explorer Protected Mode
I noticed nothing different about IE except that it was a bit slower and clunkier and crashed more. Nice new feature. Personally I'd rather have a dumb IE that worked than a super savvy secure one that crashes.
18. NTFS junction points
Which are nothing short of confusing. Again they tried to implement a good idea from Linux or moreso steal it....and it sucks in the MS version. Those junctions are more annoying than anything. I'm still not sure why I'd ever use them.
19. BitLocker Drive Encryption
You really want Microsoft encrypting and protecting your drive? Vista already insists on asking you endless questions about stupid crap - I really don't want it touching my data. I could imagine the encryption 'service' dying a horrible death and then my data could never be read. Nice.
So yep, Vista is great. So great I went back to XP after the first week. I'd rather spend my time updating and re-installing all my games, MSVS, SDKs, etc, etc...than spend one more week with Vista. Just face it...Vista is the new ME. It will take some major overhauls to get Vista anywhere near XP. And yet Vista is supposed to be an upgrade from XP?
Last edited by VirtualAce; 02-09-2008 at 02:59 PM.
Erm... I don't think so. The problem lies in that DX10 is Vista-only and therefore the current DX10 is just a DX9 add-on. DX10 should be better than DX9 in many ways, but until games start to take real advantage of it, I doubt it will be faster than DX9.
I think I'll actually agree on that Microsoft did a step in the right direction.5. Drivers in userspace instead of kernel.
This has nothing to do with my system or how it runs. The kernel in Vista runs terrible and the drivers all but suck. So if they are in userspace perhaps they ought to go back to kernel. Actually perhaps they all ought to go into a flaming pile of poo b/c that's what most of them are worth.
Anything in Kernel mode is bad since one misstep and everything dies.
So it's better if everything actually was in user mode.
Yes, performance is going to suffer a bit, but the system will be more stable, if nothing else.
A bug... lol. Nice one.8. Ability to run as limited user without trouble, being able to elevate to admin upon need.
This is a complete lie. All programs run as limited user regardless if your current profile is admin or not. See there is a BUG in Vista where it does not actually see admins. Perhaps SP1 will fix this. As of right now you must specify which programs should run in admin mode. Again very stupid.
But then again, junction points has existed since XP's NTFS version. I don't think it's new.18. NTFS junction points
Which are nothing short of confusing. Again they tried to implement a good idea from Linux or moreso steal it....and it sucks in the MS version.
When you add functionalities specially regarding more shaders, better picture quality in graphics, it does indeed gets slower. You can not add more shaders AND expect it to become faster! It's just natural. DX10 was never about speed. It's about nice graphics which we probably will be seeing in the comming years.
I do, I got around 2million files. Once the indexing is done, there is no performance hit on the system. It goes to background when you are using the PC and it isn't everyday a user adds a couple of 1000 files to be indexed.
Can't really comment on this one, you are not being technical and blaming poorly writen 3rd party drivers on Microsoft.
Yes, time will tell on this one since V and win2k8 will be sharing kernel.
UAC only pops up upon admin task. If you are in need of doing a LOT of admin tasks then you are not a "normal" user hence Vista isn't for "you". However, it is possible to fire off a command shell as admin and do your admin tasks in there. People who complain about UAC asking permission upon zip or rar, their NTFS security settings are simply wrong and mostly these are upgrades from XP. Although : YES, UAC is poorly implemented but it is not a bad function.
You just said what I said really, programs run in limited mode. Simple : More security. Which is not "stupid" but good. Comparing XP to Vista, my dad's laptop has gotten ZERO problems with Vista, no weird toolbars or viruses eventhough he has no AV.
If you do not know what it is, read up on it before commenting. Besides, I buy 2GB RAM cheaper than a meal. Memory is no issue.
As I stated, like XP, like windows 2000 and like windows 95, you WILL need a better PC to run this new OS. I'm sure MS DOS 6 will perform outstanding on your PC
File management takes a long time, but it is not "broken", there is actually a fix for this on windows download. Regarding DRM, No, you are wrong. First of all, I don't usually respond to a comment based on "Rumors..." but for your info, Vista has SUPPORT for DRM. Meaning : IF the content makers CHOOSE to include DRM in their content, then Vista has support for this. HOWEVER, Vista does NOT force ANY DRM on your files and also you can play and use DRM free files as usual without any problems. Facts are better than rumors.
I seriously believe you should use windows 2000 or 95 since your PC seems so slow. IE Protected Mode means it is sandboxed. Read up on it. You are not supposed to feel any difference. It is just more secure.
NTFS has had support for this a long time though, but I agree. Badly implemented.
Yes absolutely! I trust Microsoft more than some unknown kid who I can't make responsible upon data loss. Our data is worth around $400.000.000 , and absolutely without question I trust Microsoft more than some other "free" encryption tool.
...Then again, right tool for the right job. You don't have to use Vista if you dislike it so much? Although what people like you write are exactly the same when XP came out. And almost exactly the same when we moved from NT4 to windows 2000.
I work as a systemsdeveloper. I like new technologies and challenges. I like change.
and please, Give me a break, your comments were all empty without actual facts. I almost suspect you don't even use Vista.
anyway, enough Vista talk darn it... back to subject :
ATI sucks!
Last edited by AloneInTheDark; 02-09-2008 at 03:13 PM.
Ah, but do you trust Microsoft for data encryption more than say, RSA Security? After all, Bubba was not asking if you trust Microsoft "encrypting and protecting your drive" instead of a kid, but whether you trust Microsoft "encrypting and protecting your drive".Our data is worth around $400.000.000 , and absolutely without question I trust Microsoft more than some other "free" encryption tool.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
It was about speed too. Being able to cram more graphics with the same performance impact. They optimized the API itself a lot and shed a lot of backwards compability, so yeah, it's faster. It was also advertised.
The big beef I have with the indexing service is that it fails to keep the index up-to-date. But it's really nice to be able to search for specific files inside a folder.I do, I got around 2million files. Once the indexing is done, there is no performance hit on the system. It goes to background when you are using the PC and it isn't everyday a user adds a couple of 1000 files to be indexed.
You are incorrect in some. Vista actually has DRM and yes, it is implemented for Blu-ray and HD-DVD. If you don't have an HDCP-compatible monitor and graphics card, the resolution will be downscaled 4x.File management takes a long time, but it is not "broken", there is actually a fix for this on windows download. Regarding DRM, No, you are wrong. First of all, I don't usually respond to a comment based on "Rumors..." but for your info, Vista has SUPPORT for DRM. Meaning : IF the content makers CHOOSE to include DRM in their content, then Vista has support for this. HOWEVER, Vista does NOT force ANY DRM on your files and also you can play and use DRM free files as usual without any problems. Facts are better than rumors.
Odd, I have a friend who doesn't have HDCP and he gets normal resolution. But I myself don't even have a dvd drive so I can't tell you in details.
I'm a HDD guy
Yeah, only happens with Blu-ray and HD-DVD. Everything else is DRM free.
In the business world, it isn't always about "RSA"It's support. It's functionality. It's responsibility. Again, yes. I trust Microsoft and would never use anything from someone else on critical business sections.
well, there you have it. It isn't Microsoft but the ones who build HD and BlueRay drives. The content makes force DRM on you my friend.
Your complaints should go toward the HD and Blueray makers.
Microsoft only licenses their technology to implement in Windows. And since the owners require DRM, that's what the consumers get. It isn't something Microsoft forces on you.
So you posit that a well known security company like RSA Security is not able to provide support and software functionality in its area of expertise compared to a company like Microsoft that does not specialise in security?In the business world, it isn't always about "RSA" It's support. It's functionality. It's responsibility.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Most tests by gamers have revealed that DX10 on average is about 30% slower than DX9. I know that all of my games suffered under Vista.
I'm speaking from my experiences with Vista since I was forced to go to it b/c of an XP CD error. These are my true experiences and the various things I found out during my research to correct some of my problems. Indexing IS broke. I still cannot find where it has been fixed. The DRM system is causing issues with the file system. This has been admitted by Microsoft.
Vista is terrible, man. I cannot fathom how anyone would ever want to turn to this crappy OS. I'll wait for the next OS or until they rip the guts out of Vista with future SP's. It was a horrible experience. Most of my software did not work with Vista and I had to call and order new versions just for Vista. MSVS 2005 popped up and said there were known issues with MSVS 2005 and Vista. Nice. So I update it and update it...and update it and finally it appears to work. Compiling on average was about 40% slower in Vista than in XP. I compiled my entire asteroids project on XP and then on Vista. XP blew it away hands down.
So you can believe the hype and the fanboys but my experience was terrible. I'm not a Microsoft basher by any means and people on this board know that. However, MS really dropped the ball on Vista. Oh and they took out sound acceleration at the hardware level. Why? Some say b/c sound was causing the most blue screens on XP and some say it was because of DRM. Whatever the case it was an ignorant move. Even if Vista as it is worked perfect...it's features and security are a step in the wrong direction. Now you have even less control over your system so when someone subverts the good old MS security...you are screwed.
If they released a Linux version tomorrow that ran my games I'd pick it up, install it, and never go back to an MS operating system. That's how upset I am over Vista.
XP OEM (after I freshly installed it and had no updates) still ran better than Vista OEM. That's terrible.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 02-09-2008 at 03:35 PM.
Just like any other drive encryption solution, BitLocker has its pros and cons. One of the advantages of BitLocker is that it supports Trusted Platform Module (TPM). TPM is a microchip that supports several advanced security features, such as storing encryption keys, digital certificates and passwords. TPM doesn't rely on the operating system, so it's not as susceptible to software vulnerabilities and attacks as other methods. It requires RSA SHA-1 and HMAC cryptographic algorithms. BitLocker supports TPM version 1.2 or higher.
(it's a quote)
Well, as Bill Gates said, it could have been more "polished" for sure!
I agree there are many problems but it's normal when something big changes.
As for your legacy software, as most DOS software broke on win95, some software break on Vista.
I think they done a good job trying to keep most of the legacy software functional.
If you have old versions of software created to run on XP, you can't expect the same software to run on something which was not even created when they wrote your software.
and I'm sure Win95 games would perform magically on your PC!
I still strongly disagree on the "broken" indexer though. My indexer works perfectly indexing millions of files. And it Not only indexes the files but also the content.
