Vista isn’t as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. But, much of the negative press can be placed squarely at Microsoft’s feet. The launch was a mess. Vista did have a lot of problems.
I wiped the hard drive of the laptop I got and installed Vista on it. Why? Because, overall, I think it’s a fine OS and it does a lot of things I like that XP doesn’t. And I love XP.
Of course, to anyone that gets Vista, I suggest turning off User Account Control. It’s a pain. But, it’s a security feature so maybe it’s best that it’s on by default for many.
I’ve always thought the same thing about all the upgrades, that the people badmouthing them either have old outdated hardware or are just cranky.
I’ve used every MS OS from DOS 3.3, Windows 1.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, NT 3.5 all the way up to Vista. I’ve also got boxes running Ubuntu, OpenSuSE and the like. I’ve even worked with OS/400.
But I run Vista on my primary systems. I love running Vista on systems that can handle it. I turn off UAC the first chance I get though. But everything else just simply works fine.
Actually, UAC does NOT suck. It does precisely what it says it does and does it very well. The problem is people don’t like being reminded every time they need elevated privileges to do something such as install software/drivers, run unsigned content or make major system changes.
Virus and malware purveyors love people who "turn off UAC first chance they get" yet continue to run with their default account, essentially with full administrative priviledges. I love listening to those folks whine when they get hosed by some stray bit of malicious code. I always ask the same question:
"Was UAC turned off?"
If the answer is ‘yes" I say-
"Download DBAN, wipe the drive, reinstall (once your machine is rooted it’s no longer your machine no matter how certain you are you ‘cleaned it all up’) and LEAVE UAC ON unless you are prepared to run in a simple user account rather than an admin account.
UAC exists because too many morons couldn’t be bothered to run an account without admin privilidges- keys to the kingdom for your average virus and malware writer.
One of the main reasons that Linux has always been more secure than Windows is that by default Linux uses a system virtually identical to UAC. This is a big part of the Linux/Unix security model, and it’s what Microsoft eventually had to admit was crucial to addressing their serious malware problem.
There are other problems in Windows’ security model, but this was always the biggest one.
I’ve been using vista for almost a year now. At first I hated it with a white hot fury that can barely be described. It was unstable, crashed constantly and the updates never worked. I can’t tell you how many times I reinstalled. It helped for a little while, but it would always fall apart. Then I tested my high end gaming RAM. It showed errors in the first 5 seconds. It was at that point that I swore off Corsair and bought some cheapie Kingston RAM. It’s been rock solid ever since- easily as good as XP at its best. Now I’m just mad that they’re coming out with a new one in a year.
{ 9 comments }
Vista isn’t as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. But, much of the negative press can be placed squarely at Microsoft’s feet. The launch was a mess. Vista did have a lot of problems.
I wiped the hard drive of the laptop I got and installed Vista on it. Why? Because, overall, I think it’s a fine OS and it does a lot of things I like that XP doesn’t. And I love XP.
Of course, to anyone that gets Vista, I suggest turning off User Account Control. It’s a pain. But, it’s a security feature so maybe it’s best that it’s on by default for many.
It’s still too slow for me, but otherwise I don’t mind it.
It is a bit of a resource hog. So, yeah, one does need a beefier rig but, then, I think the same thing occurred in the move from 98 to XP.
I’ve always thought the same thing about all the upgrades, that the people badmouthing them either have old outdated hardware or are just cranky.
I’ve used every MS OS from DOS 3.3, Windows 1.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, NT 3.5 all the way up to Vista. I’ve also got boxes running Ubuntu, OpenSuSE and the like. I’ve even worked with OS/400.
But I run Vista on my primary systems. I love running Vista on systems that can handle it. I turn off UAC the first chance I get though. But everything else just simply works fine.
chad’s last blog post..Possibilities of The Impossible
See, UAC does suck!
Actually, UAC does NOT suck. It does precisely what it says it does and does it very well. The problem is people don’t like being reminded every time they need elevated privileges to do something such as install software/drivers, run unsigned content or make major system changes.
Virus and malware purveyors love people who "turn off UAC first chance they get" yet continue to run with their default account, essentially with full administrative priviledges. I love listening to those folks whine when they get hosed by some stray bit of malicious code. I always ask the same question:
"Was UAC turned off?"
If the answer is ‘yes" I say-
"Download DBAN, wipe the drive, reinstall (once your machine is rooted it’s no longer your machine no matter how certain you are you ‘cleaned it all up’) and LEAVE UAC ON unless you are prepared to run in a simple user account rather than an admin account.
UAC exists because too many morons couldn’t be bothered to run an account without admin privilidges- keys to the kingdom for your average virus and malware writer.
Just my 2 cents.
One of the main reasons that Linux has always been more secure than Windows is that by default Linux uses a system virtually identical to UAC. This is a big part of the Linux/Unix security model, and it’s what Microsoft eventually had to admit was crucial to addressing their serious malware problem.
There are other problems in Windows’ security model, but this was always the biggest one.
I’ve been using vista for almost a year now. At first I hated it with a white hot fury that can barely be described. It was unstable, crashed constantly and the updates never worked. I can’t tell you how many times I reinstalled. It helped for a little while, but it would always fall apart. Then I tested my high end gaming RAM. It showed errors in the first 5 seconds. It was at that point that I swore off Corsair and bought some cheapie Kingston RAM. It’s been rock solid ever since- easily as good as XP at its best. Now I’m just mad that they’re coming out with a new one in a year.
RyanR’s last blog post..Faces of Math
Microsoft does some clever marketing.
It doesn’t seem that clever to me or to this guy or this guy.
Now I’m just mad that they’re coming out with a new one in a year.
I wouldn’t hold my breath…
Comments on this entry are closed.