Windows Vista's Nasty Surprises. [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

accuracy

05-02-2007, 12:41 PM

February 3rd 2007
by Editorial Staff
http://www.playfuls.com/news_06076_Windows..._Surprises.html

Windows Vista is out. And by now, almost everyone knows three things about Microsoft's first major operating system release in five years: it has enhanced security features, a snazzy interface, and better search capabilities.

But there's more to Vista than these three features - and the new is not all good. While some of Vista's secrets are bound to surprise you pleasantly, others could make you question your decision to upgrade altogether.

--- Registration lockdown

With Vista, Microsoft has gotten stricter than ever on acceptable use of its software. The company's Genuine Software Initiative has been picking up steam over the past year, forcing users to "validate" their version of Windows when a critical patch or desirable new feature is made available over the Internet. If, through this check, the software is deemed invalid, access to the download is denied. Complaints from paying customers of Microsoft's software are not rare under this system.

But with Vista, Microsoft has taken the Genuine Software Initiative to a new level. If you fail to "activate" - or register - your version of Vista with Microsoft within 30 days, the operating system goes into a "reduced functionality mode," which essentially cripples the operating system.

Once in reduced functionality mode, you'll be able to log on to Vista for only one hour. After that, Vista will force a system shutdown. Even during the hour you're logged on, Vista will disable the Aero interface and several other key features that make Vista what it is. About the only thing you'll be able to do is activate the product using one of the acceptable methods.

When Microsoft tried a similar scheme in the early days of Windows XP, there were so many complaints from legitimate users who were blacklisted that Microsoft published a workaround. Unless the program has been significantly improved, a number of users may again find themselves blacklisted - and this time, the complaints will be louder, since reduced functionality mode renders your PC virtually useless.

--- User accounts

Part of Vista's emphasis on security alters the way users of a PC are handled. Vista's new User Account Control (UAC) is at the heart of these security enhancements, and it's a feature that's bound to cause frustrations for a large number of people.

Here's why. By default, Vista monitors a user's actions and throws up a dialog box requiring administrator credentials before allowing any action that has a potential impact on system security.

UAC is designed to prevent malicious software from infiltrating your PC, and it goes some way toward achieving that goal. The downside, however, is that most users will have to deal with annoying dialog boxes whenever they run a program that requires access to sensitive locations. Many beta testers of Vista complained that UAC prompts showed up even when performing seemingly harmless activities.

To avoid such annoyances, Vista owners will have to become thoroughly familiar with the concept of UAC and configure their user account appropriately - no lightweight task.

--- Performance

Windows Vista requires more computing horsepower than any previous version of Windows. While that's not necessarily surprising, what may be is that Vista's visually impressive Aero interface won't even be available to you if your computer does not contain a dedicated graphics card. Roughly half of today's computers will need to be upgraded to run Vista adequately, according to U.S.-based Jon Peddie Research.

Notebook users will be especially hard hit by Vista's hardware requirements. That's because many lower-cost notebooks over the past couple of years were sold with low-cost integrated graphics controllers that work fine when displaying the standard business applications and Web pages in Windows XP. But for Vista, these machines will be inadequate.

Even worse, notebook users with integrated graphics won't be able to upgrade their machines just by purchasing a new video card. Most notebook computers would require an entire motherboard upgrade to work effectively with Vista. In other words, it will make more sense to buy a completely new machine.

Those who do have a dedicated graphics card with at least 64 megabytes of memory will have make sure their systems meet the other unspoken requirement of Vista: at least 1 gigabyte (GB) of system memory. Anything less will have you tapping your fingers far too often - or reducing the number of tasks you can undertake simultaneously.

By Jay Dougherty, Dpa

© 2007 DPA

misscpb

06-02-2007, 05:57 AM

Thank you for your post, that was very interesting. I was watching the news the other day when Bill Gates was being interviewed and he was being pressed about the cost difference between it being sold in the USA and in the UK, he did not commit himself to an answer about the higher charges though.

I wonder what other functions the system will have that we may never be aware of.

accuracy

07-02-2007, 01:02 PM

Installing windows vista (Video

(Take this guy's advice!)

http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Inst...ista-87b3.html

time_2_fight

07-02-2007, 07:13 PM

seamus

07-02-2007, 08:54 PM

And don't forget that the organization that did the security Acid Test on Vista is the good old NSA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801352.html

You don't think they might have a back door, huh?

s

21_12_2012

07-02-2007, 08:59 PM

I wonder what other functions the system will have that we may never be aware of.

Absolutely LOADS i bet...

houdini

08-02-2007, 02:58 AM

well thats my mind made up.
i mean how much money is enough for the Gatesmyster?
makes ya wonder what the money from all the sales is really funding.

i_am

08-02-2007, 06:04 AM

dont invista in vista its crap.
let me tell you why i think its crap... well first of all, it`s the dum mans version of windows, who needs big flashy screens to let you know what your doing?. its all glitter and no substance.
i remmber dos, do you? at least i was learning computer programing as i enjoyed walking through my computer, now you dont have to know anything about computers, just follow the big flashy picture screen and your there, most people who use windows dont even know anything about computers. it wasnt like that before windows, at least kids were learning programing back then in the good old days of non greed.

now they have someone else do it for them, what lazy bunch of prats they are now.

picture in picture is just dumming us down as though we cant be bothered to read the text, lol... maybe that was allways the next step from xp or 95,98, and so on...
i for one will not be getting vista but will invista in something else like food or give the money to my mother and see the smile on her lovely face.. that will be an investment if there ever was one???

Yes, I remember working in DOS. I could fix almost anything. I remember doing a course and asking the instructor to go more into DOS. He said, "why? no-one is interested in how things work." He was right. Out of the whole class only two were keen to do things for themselves. He gave us the books and the two of us went on our own little learning experience. We loved it.

Yep! It is all part of the dumbing down process. I was quite happy with my windows 98. Worked like a dream after they got rid of all the initial bugs but came a time you could not upgrade and if you wanted to run certain applications, you had to upgrade...to XP. The same thing will happen with Vista eventually.

houdini

08-02-2007, 11:52 AM

. The same thing will happen with Vista eventually.
aint that the sad truth

accuracy

23-02-2007, 10:59 AM

20 Feb 2007
Industry expert Clive Longbottom shares the pain of a Vista upgrade

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2183779/...omment-yet-tale

OK, I know that this may not be the first Vista installation story you may have read, but it may add further to the knowledge base of information available to help others make a reasoned decision on whether to go for Vista or not.

I bought a new Lenovo/IBM Thinkpad X60s last year as it was 'Vista Capable', unfortunately just a little early to benefit from the free upgrade to Vista available from many vendors.

So I ran the Microsoft Vista Upgrade Advisor Tool which came up with one major issue - the joys of Symantec Client Security, which had to be completely uninstalled - alongside a few warnings of "minor incompatibilities".

The tool also showed that I could run Ultimate Edition with all the bells and whistles of the Aero interface: 3D, transparency, the lot. Everything looked pretty good for a relatively seamless upgrade.

I went to the Lenovo site, which came up with further advice to uninstall a few pieces of its software, but again, nothing too major.

So, having followed all the instructions (very unusual for me), I put in the Vista DVD and off I went. Just over an hour and a quarter later, I had a machine running Windows Vista.

Aero was there, and all told, it looked pretty good. It looked like the upgrade had gone relatively smoothly. However, then came the problems.

Firstly, internet access just did not work from the Wi-Fi connection. No settings had been carried across to Vista, so I had to remember my WPA settings and so on, but even then, I could not get to any external sites at all.

I could, however, ping internal machines. Finally, by manually putting in DNS entries, I managed to get external access.

Then I found that most of the Lenovo tools did not work. I had to download new software from its site, but no advice was provided as to the order in which things needed to be done.

Even when I had managed to get the automatic updater working, Lenovo's site was still offering me a full range of possible updates, including some that were not Vista compatible.

Eventually, after another three hours or so, I managed to get the laptop to a position where I felt that I had wireless, wired network and 3G connectivity all working, along with the majority of the Lenovo tools working to a greater or lesser degree.

So, then on to the applications. In place of Symantec, I went to apply Trend PC-cillin 2007, which is shown on the Microsoft site as being Vista compatible.

Well, it is, but you have to have the specific Vista version, which is apparently only a beta, so my serial number does not work with the product.

Diskeeper defragmentation software also doesn't work, but there is a version available that you have to ask for specifically, which was all managed well by Diskeeper themselves.

My PDF software doesn't work any longer, and I'm not sure if the vendor is going to bring out a new version in the immediate future.

My main printer also stopped working, and according to Konica Minolta's site, there will be a new Vista driver coming through "sometime in Q2".

However, a quick Google search found a different part of the Konica Minolta site that said that just reinstalling the XP driver would work. Which it did.

Now down to performance. Remember that I had run the upgrade advisor tool, with a result that everything would be fine.

Running Vista on this 'Vista Capable' machine meant that the 1GB of memory ran at an average of over 80 per cent utilisation constantly.

Response could almost be measured in geological timescales. The machine was measured at a '3.1' by Microsoft's own performance tool, which I believe is meant to be pretty good. The games need around a 2.0 to run in full 3D capabilities.

I would not want to use the machine with the performance provided for long. An update to 2GB seems to have corrected this, although the performance figure remains at 3.1 due to the graphics capabilities of the machine.

So what lessons to learn? Well, a Vista upgrade still seems to be a techie thing, and consumers may want to look at either buying a machine with Vista already on it, or to do a clean install to an existing machine, backing up and restoring data files as needed.

For companies, it looks like it creates bigger issues. The upgrade advisor tool missed several compatibility issues that were found after the event. The 'Vista Capable' badge seems to be meaningless; if this was a machine that was built with Vista in mind, the upgrade should have been far easier.

If it just means that the existing operating system is capable of being over-written with a completely new installation of Vista, then this needs to be clarified.

And, if Lenovo is anything to go by, hardware vendors need to provide far better information as to how their drivers will be provided and applied for such 'Vista Capable' machines.

Imaging software may provide some capabilities to create 'golden' images that get around many of the problems found, but only if device drivers are more widely available for items likely to be found in small firms and large organisations.

Finally, many vendors seem to be woefully unprepared for Vista. The lack of programs that are fully Vista compatible, the lack of device drivers for basic things like mainstream printers, and the lack of available information on many vendors' sites is deplorable.

Vista does look good, and I believe that it has some functionality that will make life easier for users, as well as a greatly improved security architecture.

However, at this stage, I think that Vista is only for new machines, for machines where a complete over-write is possible and for techies who don't mind wasting a few hours.

Only when the market has matured a little to provide full support at the application and driver level could I recommend a general user to consider attempting an upgrade.

h1s_l0rdsh1p

23-02-2007, 11:31 AM

There are allot of reasons why you shouldn't trust Windows.

Infact, there are allot of programs you shouldn't trust.

Anyways, I always felt M$ was a thief. But they finally proved it to me with that damn UAC. I mean, Linux, anyone?

Further more. Vista will only make big popularity if people can pirate it. The only reason why M$ has a monopoly, is because the other version of Windows are so easily cracked.

Fuck M$, Fuck the facist Apple. This weekend, I'll be running Ubuntu on my desktop.

seamus

27-02-2007, 05:32 AM

Good on you Lordship!!

I am getting ready to set up an ubuntu box soon for a fileserver.

s

oneofmany

27-02-2007, 12:09 PM

If you have a recording studio, then forget vista, none of my plugins work and for that fact my midi controllers don't have compatible drivers, and look like never having them.

h1s_l0rdsh1p

27-02-2007, 12:13 PM

Good on you Lordship!!

I am getting ready to set up an ubuntu box soon for a fileserver.

s

Kick ass. I still want to try out Ubuntu.

I've ran other Linux OS's, and right now I'm running Fedora Core 6, I'm hoping to use it for FTP uses aswell.

Anybody like music? :D ;)

h1s_l0rdsh1p

27-02-2007, 12:14 PM

If you have a recording studio, then forget vista, none of my plugins work and for that fact my midi controllers don't have compatible drivers, and look like never having them.

If you've got a studio, you should be using Mac OSX. :confused:

oneofmany

27-02-2007, 12:23 PM

If you've got a studio, you should be using Mac OSX. :confused:

spent to many $$$ on recording software, not enough $$$ left for anything. I would love to be running my studio on a dedicated laptop as well but once again, no $$$. OSX operating system sounds good though, I've heard other people talking about it on recording websites. just have to suffice with shitty XP.

h1s_l0rdsh1p

27-02-2007, 12:28 PM

spent to many $$$ on recording software, not enough $$$ left for anything. I would love to be running my studio on a dedicated laptop as well but once again, no $$$. OSX operating system sounds good though, I've heard other people talking about it on recording websites. just have to suffice with shitty XP.

Well, what kind of computer do you have?

If I'm correct, Mac OSX can run on any computer now because of the whole Intel deal. Just D-L it. You know? ;)

oneofmany

27-02-2007, 12:34 PM

Well, what kind of computer do you have?

If I'm correct, Mac OSX can run on any computer now because of the whole Intel deal. Just D-L it. You know? ;)serpentium 4, 2.8 ghz 3 gig RAM
is it on torrent?
I think i found it, what about plugin compatibility?

h1s_l0rdsh1p

27-02-2007, 12:58 PM

serpentium 4, 2.8 ghz 3 gig RAM
is it on torrent?
I think i found it, what about plugin compatibility?

A Mac recoqocnizes just about every plug-and-play devs(unlike Windows plug-and-pray) there is.

Atleast, that's from what I've heard.

It MIGHT work though. 2.8 ghz sure isn't bad. But when you look at a Mac's specs, you have to usually dubble it's number in order to get what you would need for a pc. So, 2.8, would probably be like 3-4 ghz.

I'm not a Mac fan.

accuracy

03-03-2007, 08:15 AM

By Daniel A. Begun and Julie Rivera
28/2/2007
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/notebooks/0,39050495,61992932,00.htm

Editors' note :

This article is based on tests done by our sister site CNET.com. As such, please note that there may be slight differences in the testing procedure. For more information on the actual tests conducted on the product, please inquire directly at the site where the article was originally published. References made to some of other products in this review may not be available or applicable in Asia. Please check directly with your local distributor for details.

Before you upgrade your Windows XP system to Windows Vista or replace it with a new Vista system, it would be helpful to know how your upgraded or new machine's performance will compare with that of your current XP-based model. CNET Labs tested two laptops with XP and Vista to see how performance differs between the two operating systems.

Five years and 50 million new lines of code after Windows XP made its debut, Microsoft released its successor. Windows Vista is available in no less than six editions, each of which boasts a different set of bells and whistles. Regardless of the graphics, entertainment, and security features packed into each edition, the same engine drives them all. Microsoft makes modest recommendations on what mix of hardware is needed to make that engine run. CNET is of a different mind, however, about what you need to smoothly run Vista; we recommend a more robust rig than what Microsoft suggests.

http://asia.cnet.com/i/r/2005/dt/news/logo/windowsxp_b.jpg
Windows XP may be old, but this veteran can still take on its successor.

Before you upgrade your current computer to Vista or replace it with a new Vista-based system, we think it's helpful to know how your upgraded or new machine will compare to your current XP-based model in terms of performance. CNET Labs tested two laptops with XP and Vista to see how performance differs between the two operating systems. We chose the midrange ASUS W7J and the highend Dell XPS M1710 for our tests. For both systems, we first ran all of our tests with Windows XP installed and current drivers. We then upgraded the laptops to Windows Vista Ultimate, installing Vista on top of XP, thereby keeping all of the applications and data files intact. Lastly, we then reinstalled Vista Ultimate, this time formatting the systems' hard drives and doing a "clean install" of the operating system.

A word about drivers
Even though Vista has been in the works for the last five years or so, not all Vista drivers are ready for prime time. So when looking over our benchmark results, you'll need to do so with a grain of salt. Our testing was done in the weeks immediately following Vista's large-scale public release. It's entirely possible--even probable--that, as better driver updates become available over time, Vista performance will improve.

http://asia.cnet.com/i/r/2007/nb/61992932/quake_b.jpg
Which OS will prevail with this aging shooter?

We took two approaches in regard to drivers for our testing. For the midrange ASUS laptop, we tested using the drivers that installed automatically from the Vista install disc and via Windows Update--with the sole exception of installing the Vista beta graphics driver downloaded from Nvidia's Web site. This approach gave us a snapshot of how robust the default drivers are. (We manually installed the beta graphics driver because we wouldn't have been able to run our 3D test with the default driver.) For the high-end Dell laptop, we updated the Vista drivers with all those available for the particular model from Dell's Web site. This scenario allowed us to examine the best possible performance with the most recent drivers.

(Read more and see graphics................)

http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/notebooks/0,39050495,61992932-2,00.htm

accuracy

03-03-2007, 08:37 AM

Danny Colligan
Issue date: 2/28/07 Section: Commentary
http://media.www.thegeorgetownindependent.com/media/storage/paper136/news/2007/02/28/Commentary/Dont-Downgrade.To.Vista-2747338.shtml

Microsoft is using the catchphrase "The 'Wow' starts now" to market Vista, their new operating system. There is, however, nothing awe-inspiring about this software. In fact, it's more likely to elicit emotions that range from anger to revulsion. There is no need to "upgrade" to Vista, no matter how much Microsoft or other salesmen would like you to think the contrary. Installing Vista on any machine that you own, or purchasing one with it pre-installed, is costly, detrimental to your freedoms and, most importantly, completely unnecessary. If you're thinking about getting Vista, I have three (loud) words for you: DON'T DO IT!

Vista is one expensive piece of software. If you buy it straight off the shelf, it will set you back one hundred to four hundred dollars, depending on which version you get and if you are "upgrading" from a previous version of Windows. You might also pay this price when buying a new PC if Vista comes with it. Also, Vista consumes a huge amount of hardware resources, so the old processor and memory that you were running Windows 2000 on just might not cut it with Vista. Dell recommends that users have 2GB of memory while some, such as consultant David Short of IBM, think that twice that amount (4GB) is Vista's "sweet spot." The bottom line is any way you look at it, Vista will have you forking over a sizable chunk of cash.

Expense alone is no reason to shun any product, provided it yields value commensurate with its cost. But Vista has virtually no features that would warrant its cost. This is the grand irony of Vista: it provides essentially no value above and beyond its predecessor, Windows XP. XP, despite its flaws, can probably achieve all of the things a typical user needs a computer to do reasonably well: instant message, download files, browse the Internet, play video games, etc. In this sense, the push to "upgrade" to Vista is exposed for what it really is: a $900 million marketing ploy to make you fork over money for something you don't really need.

So why would anyone feel compelled to buy Vista in the first place? To be fair, let's take a look at some of the features that Microsoft says make Vista a worthwhile purchase. First there is Aero, the user interface. While it is, admittedly, slick eye candy, it is certainly is not anything new in consumer computing: Aqua for Apple's OSX and Beryl and Compiz for Linux all have more features and look better since they have had more time to mature. Second, there is the Instant Search feature which allows for quickly searching all the files on your computer. Again, OSX's Spotlight and Linux's Beagle beat Microsoft to the punch (not to mention you'd be just as well off downloading the free Google Desktop Search application for XP). Even after looking through Microsoft's "100 reasons why everyone's so speechless" promotional site, I'm still scratching my head-why would anyone pay money for Vista when other operating systems' features are superior and it doesn't offer anything compelling enough to "upgrade" from Windows XP?

Yet another reason not to get Vista is the draconian EULA, or End User License Agreement. You might also know this as the legalese that you don't read, scroll to the bottom of and hit the "I Agree" button. If you actually do take the time, however, to read the fine print on Vista's EULA, you'll find a host of distasteful surprises. For example, Microsoft reserves the right to regularly monitor your computer to check the legitimacy of programs and possibly delete ones without your knowledge. And don't even think about installing a single Vista copy on multiple computers: when you "activate" the software, you send information about your machine's hardware directly to Microsoft which will not allow you to activate a different hardware configuration . Add this to some lovely multimedia DRM that Microsoft includes in Vista, and you have an operating system that severely restricts your freedoms as a user. If you have any doubt about who is in control of your computer, just read the EULA for yourself: "this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights."

Don't be hypnotized by the pretty graphics -- putting Vista on your computer is one of the least desirable things you could do this side of hitting it with a baseball bat. If you really do need a new operating system, try one of the free ones like Ubuntu Linux. If you need a hardware upgrade, don't buy a PC with Vista pre-installed. Either get one with Windows XP or another operating system, or consider alternative solutions, like a Macintosh. Whatever you do, just don't downgrade to Vista.

Colligan is a science, technology and international affairs senior.

ho1ogram

03-03-2007, 01:39 PM

I switched to an iMac a month ago. Seamless computing, everything works, looks good, faster, no freezes, more functional, everything is easy to find, etc.

Don't have to worry about virus' and I can run xp or vista on it. I use a free program called NeoOffice that allows me to open and save MS Office documents and spreadsheets. (or for those who still wanna give Bill some $$ there is MS Office for Mac. I got a 30 day trial with this computer but I haven't botheered to use it, NeoOffice works just fine.)

I don't know if you can run Mac OS X on a pc as someone suggested, but I can run vista or xp on the mac. Either using 'boot camp' a free Apple application allowing choice between os x or windows at boot up or I could buy 'parallels' and run both operating systems side by side. Apparently you can even drag and drop files between operating systems.

Check out one of the numerous mac forums for more info.

I'll never go back to windows, using the computer is much easier these days. (and faster, especially at start up). I didn't read the Mac os x contract though, maybe it's worse than the vista one?

tru3

03-03-2007, 08:01 PM

Yes, I remember working in DOS. I could fix almost anything. I remember doing a course and asking the instructor to go more into DOS. He said, "why? no-one is interested in how things work." He was right. Out of the whole class only two were keen to do things for themselves. He gave us the books and the two of us went on our own little learning experience. We loved it.

Yep! It is all part of the dumbing down process. I was quite happy with my windows 98. Worked like a dream after they got rid of all the initial bugs but came a time you could not upgrade and if you wanted to run certain applications, you had to upgrade...to XP. The same thing will happen with Vista eventually.

i'm going back to counting my fingers, chiseling on stone tablets, and using an abacus...

i just bought a new laptop; thank god i listened to my small, still, voice and got xp (like it makes a difference).

hell, i say bring back 3.1 who cares if my dates go back to 1907?

seamus

03-03-2007, 10:37 PM

I tried installing 3.11 on a rather fast machine one time (well, OK, 333MHz). It stank. It CRAWLED when browsing the local network. It didn't open programs fast at all. Windows 98 was much better on the same computer. Realize that, to some extent, an OS is optimized for the hardware of its own era.

And Yes, you can run OSX on certain motherboards very well. I work with a man who does video editing on one such machine. It's faster than his Mac Mini by far! 2.8GHz P4

s

graflok

03-03-2007, 10:48 PM

I mostly use Mandriva Linux.

I recommend either using a Mac or some form of Linux.

Vista is the worst received new operating system ever.

graflok

tru3

07-03-2007, 07:00 AM

kromagg

15-03-2007, 08:50 PM

Once you go Mac, you never go back... :cool:

(Well, apart from when cheap offices or classrooms make you... :( )

seamus

15-03-2007, 09:18 PM

kromagg,

where is that avatar from?

s

pollock

18-03-2007, 09:04 AM

lol:D
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=etk21fy541

pumma

18-03-2007, 03:03 PM

Some good stuff to see/read ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bExK98Xf0mQ

http://www.kmfms.com/

http://www.microsuck.com/

kromagg

20-03-2007, 03:00 AM

kromagg,

where is that avatar from?

s

Sliders.

They're an interesting people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kromagg

graflok

26-03-2007, 06:59 PM

Good news -- Vista is a flop!

In my opinion Microsoft plays a key role in the NWO agenda (seize control of the internet, stop internet media input & output, track citizens, etc.) and Vista is a key element in their plans.

It's nice to know their latest plans aren't going so well.

See this article Three Reasons Why Windows Vista Is Sinking Like A Rock
here:
http://www.dailytechnobabble.com/2007/02/26/three-reasons-why-windows-vista-is-sinking-like-a-rock/

graflok

zacman13245

03-04-2007, 04:26 PM

I believe not too long ago I read about how before Vista was released it had to be submitted to, if my memory serves me, the NSA for a span of a couple months. Did anyone else hear/read about this?

seamus

03-04-2007, 05:12 PM

yes, above in the thread I posted a link to a mainstream news article covering such.

s

illuminist

03-04-2007, 05:13 PM

I'm using a stripped-down version of it. ...And not the one Micro$oft said they stripped, neither.

accuracy

17-04-2007, 03:49 PM

Windows XP To Be Phased Out by Year's End Despite Strong Demand

2007-04-12
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17677/Wind...-Strong-Demand/

Computer makers have been told they'll no longer be able to get Windows XP OEM by the end of this year, despite strong ongoing demand for the OS. Analysts and computer makers are wondering if the move is premature given Vista's ongoing performance and compatibility issues. Dell recently said it would reintroduce XP on a range of machines due to customer demand but Microsoft will only allow this until the end of the year.

Copyright OSNews LLC 1997-2007.

"You will buy Vista AND YOU WILL LOVE IT!!!"

mrguitarbear

17-04-2007, 07:35 PM

My worry about Vista is that Microsoft will be able , via the OS , to rifle through your hard drive and delete what is considered inappropriate - which could be anything.

This could work the other way as well with spyware being downloaded onto your computer in secret , and the NSA may well have a backdoor to download monitoring software into your machine as well.

Its the electronic equivalent of Orwell's ' Thought Police '.

kromagg

02-05-2007, 03:40 PM

truthsayer

04-05-2007, 04:58 PM

Without going over the PC Vs Mac I have to add that Vista IS a blatant -and poor- copy of Mac OSX.

As part of my work I got to test drive Vista in BETA and was asked to give feedback. I simply asked why they had spent six years copying Mac OSX? No surprises I didn't get a response.

Anyway, none of this is a suspires to those of us in IT, its been in the pipeline for years and you'll find that many in IT learn to hate MS and end up switching to Macs (myself included)

If you want to avoid the MS big brother try using a Mac, its the same as Vista only better (its the original, not the copy) since that's already been around for 6+ years and you don't have to worry about big brother virtually breathing down your neck.

kromagg

11-05-2007, 04:01 PM

Nor will you have to worry about upgrading your computer just so you can use an inferior OS.

Sigh, if only you could run OSX on a PC... :(

gold

16-07-2007, 08:03 PM

accuracy

08-08-2007, 12:06 PM

I think that this thread deserves a bump :eek:

cruise4

08-08-2007, 08:06 PM

Vista is the worst operating system MS have ever produced. And I've used them all as a computer tech. And I include Windows 3.1. I cannot believe I have this shit on my screen. Windows Mail is frankly unbelievable. I can only think they rushed this out and it was also a deliberate step backwards in terms of useability. Designed from the ground up to keep things hidden and the user infuriated.

raffles

08-08-2007, 08:37 PM

Heres a link for anyone who fancys running osx on a normal pc.

http://uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/

truthsayer

08-08-2007, 11:22 PM

Nor will you have to worry about upgrading your computer just so you can use an inferior OS.

Sigh, if only you could run OSX on a PC... :(

Very true. My brother has an old iMac Blueberry running Tiger just fine. Thats a 1998 machine running the latest OS, can you imagine a PC of the same age running Vista? Not likely!

You should be able to run OSX on your PC depending on your spec.

fist fury

09-08-2007, 06:40 PM

Lets just say Vista is the software version of the Denver International Airport. Overpriced, delayed, bloated, unpractical, pseudo-majestic design, and with tons of hidden bad things underneath its facade.

snoopsnuffleopagus

09-08-2007, 06:50 PM

Peace & Greetings Ladies & Gentlemen!:

2-fist fury: A brilliant analogy! Bravo! LMAO!

As a novice, I chose osx, I think it was one of my wiser decisions.

Kind Regards!: Snoopsnuffleopagus

accuracy

16-10-2007, 01:22 PM

Government spooks helped Microsoft build Vista

Helping a Vole out of a hole

By Nick Farrell: Tuesday, 09 January 2007
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/01/09/government-spooks-helped-microsoft-build-vista

THE USA GOVERNMENT'S cryptologic organisation, the National Security Agency, has admitted that it is behind some of the security changes to Microsoft's operating system Vista.
According to the Washington Post, the agency which was once so secret that it was jokingly referred to as 'No such Agency' has admitted making 'unspecified contributions' to Vista.

Tony Sager, the NSA's chief of vulnerability analysis and operations group, told the Post that it was the agency's intention to help everyone these days.

The NSA used a red and a blue team to pull apart the software. The red team posed as "the determined, technically competent adversary" to disrupt, corrupt or steal information. The Blue team helped Defense Department system administrators with Vista's configuration.

Vole said that it has sought help from the NSA over the last four years. Apparently its skills can be seen in the Windows XP consumer version and the Windows Server 2003 for corporate customers.

The assistance is at the US taxpayers' expense, although the NSA says it all makes perfect sense. Not only is the NSA protecting United States business, its own Defense Department uses VoleWare so it is in the government's interest to make sure it is as secure as possible.

Microsoft is not the only one to tap the spooks. Apple, with its Mac OSX operating system, and Novell with its SUSE Linux also asked the NSA what it thought of their products. The NSA is quite good at finding weapons of mass destruction that are not there.

blue

30-10-2007, 05:42 AM

I use MAC OSX on a MacBook now and it is by far the best thing i have invested in. :)

adimon

30-10-2007, 06:06 PM

UBUNTU IS THE BEST!

You want pretty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ

You want fast

You want reliable

You want security

You got it - http://www.ubuntu.com/

Macs are too expensive and less configurable. Windoze is completely shit.

Most people will have tonnes of malware on their PCs and not even know about it. 90% of all malware originates with Microsoft. (Read your license agreement if you don't believe me)

Does your PC running twice as fast performing the same functions and totally free software for life not sound like a good thing to you?

Then DON'T download Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/).

If you really must, stick with Gates, then check out nLite (http://www.nliteos.com/), which will help you strip your OS down to a manageable size, so speeding up your PC.

If you've got a studio, you should be using Mac OSX.

Reactor through Linux is a beaut, and so configurable its like plugin city!

kblood

30-10-2007, 07:31 PM

I got a Mac laptop with Mac OSX, but since it is an older Mac it cant run Windows programs and about 10% of all games or less has been converted to Mac :( My stationary is running Windows Vista. It took me maybe 2 days to find and use a working crack, and it seems to be downloading the essential upgrades without complaining, still I am only using Vista to have DX10. I am very annoyed with Vista. As far as I can tell, most of the new "features" in Vista makes it better for software companies. It is more difficult to crack programs on Vista, because the program files of most programs on Vista gets protected, even with UAC turned off... and first thing I did was turning off UAC. Damn that system is annoying :(

Also I have found a few old games that Vista runs like crap. Broken Sword 4 lags like hell, and Unreal Tournament (the original) cannot run properly either. Probably other games as well. The search features isnt something I find all that usefull, since I usually make my own file storage system. I got a system of folders where I have my games and programs, installs and so on, instead of using Vistas, since it is so really clutters it up too much. Also you have alot of junk files Vista will throw in among them anyway, and backing it up is not as easy. I guess most users today are used to just having everything in their program files folder, or whatever it is called in your local language version of windows.

What I dislike most of all, is MS forcing Vista to be sold with computers and not allowing XP to be sold anymore. I am a tech supporter and have to help people getting Vista to run on their computers :( Well, at least it isnt causing much trouble with the things I am helping with, or at least I am not getting those calls.

Another crappy salespitch is how they make some games "Vista Only"... yeah right... at least some decent people made an Windows XP patch for them. That might happen for DX10 as well, and if that happens, Vista got a one way ticket out of my HD :D

gordonfreeman

31-10-2007, 05:41 AM

I am still using my 3 year old Dell Dimension 3000 computer and I am happy with it with all of the upgrades. Windows Vista fucking sucks big time, I have Windows XP Service Pack 2 and that is good enough for me.

I'd recommend Windows XP Media Center 2005, it is way better than Vista.

cruise4

31-10-2007, 09:35 AM

Windows 2000 is better than Vista! It really is one remarkably bad OS.

fremmenwarrior

31-10-2007, 11:35 AM

I agree - I've used Windows 2000 Professional ever since it came out, and with absolutely no problems whatsoever. The 2000 Prof OS is a very stable operating system and my old Dell desktop PC has NEVER ever stuck, crashed, or given me the 'its all over' blue screen shit. Clean and Defrag the Hard Disk, and Disk / files Backup and Restore is quick and easy and reliable - with Vi$ta its a DI$A$TER! How did Micro$uck$ ever get a licence to sell this crock of shit?

How I was saddened when Micro$uck$ stopped updates / patches support for 2000 Prof. I still use 2000 on my non-internet PC, but not sure if its still safe to use on the Internet today as no new patches / updates available now?

I felt really 'conned' when I purchased a new laptop earlier this year. The laptop came with 'compulsory' Windows Vista...

I got home and switched on, expecting to see all the new fancy displays and Aero stuff etc., only to find that the laptop only had Window$ Vi$ta Home Ba$ic installed, and you need to fork out a whole wedge of bucks to upgrade to Vi$ta Premium. What a rip off!!

Ok, I should have done a bit more research about Vista before buying the new laptop, but you will be hard-presssed to buy a new PC with XP on it. The information about the need to upgrade to better?? versions of Vi$ta (and the rip-off cost to do so) was NOT displayed or disclosed by the Retailer, which really pissed me off.

Anyhow, I like the laptop but after using Vista Home Basic for a few days, I wiped the Hard Drive and installed XP Professional SP2 which does everything that I need my PC to do.

I won't be installing Vi$ta on my PC again, even after Micro$uck$ brings out Service Packs; and I point blank refuse to pay for an upgrade to Vi$ta Premium. I tried to install Vi$ta on my sons PC so he could play with it, to at least get some money's worth out of Vi$ta OS that came with my laptop, but the Activation crap soon kicked in so that will be crashing the OS soon.

Does anyone have a link for a 'no-bugs' working Activation Crack for Windows Vista? I've searched long and hard, but there is a lot of shite out there...

Cheers, Fremmenwarrior.

fremmenwarrior

31-10-2007, 12:05 PM

Something else not mentioned on a lot of the Internet Forum's concerning problems with Window$ Vi$ta:

I am convinced that the Vi$ta OS puts such an additional burden upon your PC hardware, that your PC's expected lifespan will be severley shortened. Friends and relatives have all told me that Vi$ta has quite literally 'burnt out' their Hard Disks!! which is understandable as when you have this crappy OS installed, the 'Hard Disk working' LED light hardly ever stops flashing...

is this another Micro$uck$ ruse to make users have to purchase new hardware, and more often?

gorana

15-11-2007, 11:34 PM

I'm the one of absolutelly unsatisfied Vista users. I have to use it at work and i'll fight with everything not to move to vista at home, as long as i can.

Following notebook configuration: Core2 1.8 Ghz, 2 Gig RAM and Nvidia 8400 with shared memory

And can you imagine how fast my company notebook is? It is like 128mb P3-1 Ghz under XP.

Absolutelly strange thing is that searching functionality is ALWAYS active, i mean it is reindexing your data permanently (thats what they at least say).

Anyway, i'm staying with XP at home and i'll probably change to linux ...

G.

accuracy

19-12-2007, 11:51 AM

December 14, 2007 - 11:08am — bex
At least, that's the opinion of Joel Spolsky...

http://bexhuff.com/2007/12/why-does-vista-suck-blame-automated-testing

...this search for the holy grail of program quality is leading a lot of people to a lot of dead ends. The Windows Vista team at Microsoft is a case in point. Apparently -- and this is all based on blog rumors and innuendo -- Microsoft has had a long term policy of eliminating all software testers who don’t know how to write code, replacing them with what they call SDETs, Software Development Engineers in Test, programmers who write automated testing scripts.

The old testers at Microsoft checked lots of things: they checked if fonts were consistent and legible, they checked that the location of controls on dialog boxes was reasonable and neatly aligned, they checked whether the screen flickered when you did things, they looked at how the UI flowed, they considered how easy the software was to use, how consistent the wording was, they worried about performance, they checked the spelling and grammar of all the error messages, and they spent a lot of time making sure that the user interface was consistent from one part of the product to another, because a consistent user interface is easier to use than an inconsistent one.

None of those things could be checked by automated scripts. And so one result of the new emphasis on automated testing was that the Vista release of Windows was extremely inconsistent and unpolished.

Interesting...

This isn't to say that automated tests are useless... far from it. However, if your requirements for "tester" are the same as your requirements for "programmer," then you're not really doing testing. All programmers test their applications... that is, programmers test applications in the way the application is supposed to be used. They are not bothered with inconsistencies, usability, or how the product "feels." Your target market cares... but your developers usually don't.

For that, you absolutely positively need testers who are non-programmers. You need feedback from people like your target market, to give you information on how to make the product better. Even if your target market is nothing but developers -- say, you're making a new programming language -- you still need non developers to test your products... there's simply no better way to test intuitiveness.

Most importantly, you need to teach your programmers that such feedback should be taken very seriously... although always with a grain of salt. Requests for better usability should always be followed... whereas requests for new functionality need more scrutiny. In my experience, highly technical feature requests frequently mask the true needs of the client. You should understand the goals of your clients, and give your developers the freedom to help achieve those goals.

As my database professor John Carlis always said... the client doesn't always know what they want, but they are very fast learners!

UPDATE: Lots of great quotes in the comments... my favorite: "Automated tests ensure the software is working as designed. Human tests ensure the design is working."

Technology Digg / Del.icio.us / whatever...

adzboarder

19-12-2007, 12:40 PM

kblood

19-12-2007, 01:11 PM

Can I just ask a quick question?

Having myself used Microsoft for about 10 or 11 years and having owned a PC in all that time, I realised the other day that in all that time I haven't paid a single penny to Microsoft to use Operating Systems or Office or anything.

Anyone else like me? Who actually buys this shit?

PS: I'm sticking to XP, it's nicely cracked wide open and will do for now.

Vista is also nicely cracked, but still crappy all the same. DX10 doesnt seem to do any difference either, which was my one reason to use Vista. Maybe to make use of 4gb ram is the only thing Vista can actually do, but then the OS itself takes at least 512 mb ram more than XP. A laptop with XP, 1gb ram and geforce 8600 with 512mb ram runs the newest games very nicely. If Vista was the OS, it wouldnt have been anywhere near the same performance, since the OS itself needs the 1gb ram.

As to actually buying Microsofts spyware packages, that has a OS hidden in them, then I have payed for at least one XP.

de_shit

22-12-2007, 03:49 AM

There is a better operating system that runs off of your RAM (computer memory) off of a CD. Its called KNOPPIX (pronounced no-picks) available from http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html .
I like its interface with all of the moving and arty things like moving detail pictures that hover above the object or icon that you click that show what it is, even text that is in it. The upside to it is that its operating system is Debian Linux, a safer operating system that Windows would ever be. The only downside is that any games that you have on Windows might not work on KNOPPIX. Its nice to have it on CD so if you hack a computer you can say "I don't have Linux so I couldn't have hacked the computer in question" thus making The Man feel stupid for accusing you.

accuracy

08-01-2008, 11:14 AM

Free Software Downloads to Optimize Windows XP

The main points of the software titles listed below are:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/xp_software_downloads.html

skyver

08-01-2008, 06:20 PM

Thanks for this. I was using Linux as I am really starting to get pissed off with windows. The only problem is that Linux is not so much for beginners as they make out but it does run sooo much faster than windows. Although I'm typing this on XP, I think I'm gonna install Linux on this machine later.

white horse

08-01-2008, 06:51 PM

Yes, I remember working in DOS.

Gosh! I remember having to load mouse AND soundcard in DOS when loading a game! That and having to make a separate boot disc for each game to load these things!

Lol!

newfiesheep666

12-01-2008, 10:22 PM

Gosh! I remember having to load mouse AND soundcard in DOS when loading a game! That and having to make a separate boot disc for each game to load these things!

Lol!
If anyone has 10 bucks for fuel and a couple of hours of time to spare you might want to spin around the garbage route in the well-off part of town.I've found the full computer I'm usin' now,60"tv,satellite dishes and receivers,dvd players,appliances,furniture,tarps,the list is endless,tools, drills you name it people throw it out.Camping equipment such as tents,kerosene heaters and stoves even patio umbrellas and tables.Depending on the route you may have to check at night or early in the morning,it's like a good ol' scaventure hunt.Check it out sometime,I usually find stuff worth at least your money in the gas used.

raffles

12-01-2008, 11:56 PM

accuracy

27-03-2008, 11:49 AM

Why Is Windows XP Still So Much Faster Than Vista?

(Could it be all that extra spyware, watching what you do for the government, or making sure that MP3 you are listening to is properly paid for? )

Posted by Alexander Wolfe, Mar 25, 2008
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/03/why_is_windows.html

I've finally completed my project to build a performance PC with Intel (NSDQ: INTC)'s upcoming, top-of-the-line Core 2 Extreme QX9770 quad-core processor. Since I had all that speed to spare, I decided to do a dual-boot setup, installing both Windows Vista and XP. Boy, was I surprised. I'm a big Vista fan, but it's shocking to be reminded just how much faster Windows XP really is. And, as a Vista fan, this makes me angry.

Why XP? Normally, I'm a big fan of Vista. I've always thought that it's glitzy Aero interface, which some criticize as useless eye-candy, actually adds a lot to the consumer experience. The OS also makes it arguably easier for non-computer-savvy users to launch their apps and to navigate their ways through the maze of lightweight tasks that type of user is likely to do.

True, applications compatibility and (now) problems with Vista SP1 are definite negatives. However, vendors have worked their way through that first stumbling block. As for the second one, in typical Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) fashion, it, too, will eventually get fixed.

The biggest Vista negative is the fact that it sucks up lots of processing cycles, which could otherwise be applied to useful work. Here again, though, we get back to the newbie (or, average user) argument. Folks running Word, Excel, iTunes, and a Web browser as their main app aren't gonna to run up against this.

Vista's hardware penalty -- i.e., the fact that you need a faster processor, more memory, and a beefier graphics processing unit (GPU) than you do for an equivalent XP system -- only comes into play in the corporate world, where IT departments simply won't spend the extra bucks. That's why I have a Windows XP laptop at work, and why you probably do, too.

Microsoft's solution to this one seems to be simply to wait it out. That is, the "Vista is better" argument, to convince the corporate world to move to Vista, has mostly been a non-starter. So Microsoft is end-of-lifing XP -- OEM and retail sales will end on June 30, 2008, though support will continue for years. This forces the Vista issue on the software side, which is half of the battle.

On the hardware front, my sense is that Microsoft will simply wait for the processor and graphics capabilities of the typical laptop to rise to Vista's level. With dual-core MPUs already widely deployed, this is an imminent reality. The only real gating factor I can see is the price of memory, because 1 GB or 2 GB of RAM offers a marked performance improvement over 512 MB. The takeaway here is, it's your responsibility as a tech person to warn your laptop-hunting relatives away from those discount-retail specials equipped with only 512 MB of RAM.

OK, so back to my dual-boot saga. The reason I opted to install Windows XP is that I had a heavy duty video-editing app I wanted to run. It simply wasn't compatible with Vista. Plus, video is nothing to mess around with, in that you want all your processing power directed to where the rubber meets the road.

The dual-boot installation process is itself no cakewalk. I'll give the cookbook specifics another time, but be prepared for a lengthy session in front of the PC. As with all mods, that's largely because of all the minor, unexpected things which rise up to bite you in the, er, keyboard. Me, I had to continually mess around with the boot order in the BIOS, so that my system would proceed from where it left off on the Windows XP installation disc, rather than unsuccessfully attempt to boot off the temporarily screwed up hard drive.

Back to the big surprise I mentioned up top. With both Vista and XP installed on the new, quad-core PC, I have to admit I find myself opting to boot up in XP more often than not. True, that's partly because I have my video-editing app installed on the XP side. However, XP is so much faster -- for every single task I attempt -- it's not even funny.

Most glaringly, the side-by-side comparison between Vista and XP spotlights just how badly Vista's file-copy performs. This had long been a big user complaint, and supposedly it's been fixed somewhat in Vista SP1. However, it shouldn't even still be an issue, especially since this doesn't involve major functionality but rather a very minor utility.

As an engineering type, I wish I could tell you I had quantitative data confirming my statement that XP is faster than Vista. Unfortunately, I only have my anecdotal, subjective impressions. (But I'm right.) I did run numerous benchmarks. However, the Futuremark PC Vantage benchmark I ran on the Vista side doesn't run under XP. I figured PCMark05 would form a more apt basis for comparison. However, while the benchmark ran successfully on my XP install, it wouldn't get past the hard drive initialization test under Vista. Searching Futuremark's forums, I found this is not uncommon.

In summary, while I still love Vista, I've got renewed respect for Windows XP. Now that it's outfitted with SP2, and numerous updates inspired by years of in-the-field experience, it's clearly more robust and user-friendly than ever.