backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 155 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Nov 16 at 11:02 AM

Many of the nice features that will be included into the final Windows 7 release were missing in the pre-beta, but will soon be on there way. Among these is the dramatically improved task bar.
Microsoft's new OS is shaping up nicely but numerous reports target some critical spots for improvement

Initial reaction to an early report that Microsoft's Windows 7 might share similar performance and compatibility issues with Windows Vista was mixed and heated.  Some lamented the inability of running Vista adequately on netbooks or older work computers, while others pointed to the OS's track record. 

Due to the strong response, it certainly seems worthwhile to dig into this topic and offer some second thoughts, as well as get some second opinions, to ascertain if InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy was off base, or possibly onto something when he called Windows 7 a "virtual twin of Vista when it comes to performance."

First, let's examine two other early reviews of the pre-Beta of the OS.  These reviews come from the blogging staff of PC World and PC Pro, two publications which typically use and appreciate Windows, despite giving it criticism where criticism is due (though both also feature numerous columns from primary Mac and Linux users).

First of all, PC Pro echoes InfoWorld's sentiments to some extent, stating, "And the net effect? Surprisingly little. At this stage of development, over a year from release, Windows 7 looks almost identical to Vista."

However, the publications points out that many of the upgrades to the OS touted at the PDC and WinHEC -- such as the improved task bar and the improved SSD support -- were not yet supported.  Thus it is very reasonable to believe that some at least minor performance improvements may be in store as well.

They also offer up an interesting observation, which at first seems to be a contradiction.  They state, "Yet Windows 7 does already offer one compelling advantage over Vista: it’s fast. Both our senior pontificators were struck by how nimble Windows 7 feels after you’re used to its predecessor. As Tim Danton writes, 'Vista was never this nippy. You press on an icon and it leaps into action. . . . I can’t remember using any new OS that was this quick.'"

"Fast" they say?  Didn't they just say that it came up short in their benchmarks, failing to improve upon Vista.  The publication aptly points out that the user interface is what has been dramatically tweaked and supercharged.  They point out that the average user doesn't care about benchmarks -- they judge the package by the performance (the wrapping).  Improving this is something PC Pro calls an "inspired move".  It may be something Apple realized some time ago with OS X, but then again, Apple always grossly underperformed against Windows in key sectors like business software, security, gaming, and the most important metric of all -- price.

PC World (carrying a ComputerWorld piece) offers a second perspective on this new OS which promises to add a zippier interface to Window's solid underlying layer.  This publication again echoes the sentiments of the others, stating, "Microsoft would like you to believe that Windows 7 is going to be the next great desktop operating system. It's not."

While likening Windows 7’s relation to Vista to Windows 98 Second Edition's and Windows 98, this publication does soften the blow a bit by acknowledging that it is a significant improvement over Windows Vista.  However, the author later goes on to say when he closes, "All things considered, I'd rather stick with my Linux desktops and Mac OS X."

However, another ComputerWorld reviewer, while agreeing with the repeated theme that base benchmarks are similar to Vista, says that this time Microsoft "gets it right".  The author points out the dramatically improved (and less annoying) UAC feature.  They also mention the improved networking support, and other significant improvements.

So there are a couple of second opinions -- one enthusiastic, one rather pessimistic.  Wrapping up, let’s look at three key things: the merits of testing this early build, (briefly) whether Vista was as bad as some say, and lastly what Microsoft needs to do before Windows 7's release (or risk losing customers).

First, many will question why these veteran computer publications are choosing to test a pre-beta, essentially alpha software, when it’s obvious that performance in the finished product may be dramatically different.  While the merits of such tests are certainly debatable, the fact that the Windows 7 release date is likely less than a year away does give an understandable justification for such tests.  Further, criticism of Windows Vista's pre-betas closely mirrored the criticism of the finished product, as can be seen by perusing past reviews.

But how bad was Vista really?  Honestly, Vista was a pretty good OS.  The vast majority of DailyTech staff have at least one Vista machine in the house.  While the OS certainly had its limitations, it brought dramatic improvements to the Windows GUIs and security.  The OS's biggest problem, for the home user was something Microsoft can't be blamed for -- poor hardware partner support. 

The one place where Windows Vista perhaps fell noticeably short was in business adoption.  While it’s true every generation of Windows OS is met with groans and moans from the business community who say that they can't fit it on their older hardware and networks, Windows Vista pushed the memory, network, and processor use envelope even more than XP did.  And while it brought a lot of compelling features to the table, this seriously hurt its business adoption.

This leads into a final point -- what can Windows 7 do to improve between now and its final release?  Obviously, incorporating the missing features demoed at WinHEC and PDC is not only a must, but is a virtual certainty.  Past that, though, Microsoft needs to ensure that hardware and software partners are holding up their end with compatibility.  Again, these problems, mentioned in the original article are not problems from Microsoft, but they become Microsoft's headaches. 

Finally, and most importantly, something has to be done to allow the OS to run leaner and use less memory and system resources.  Otherwise Windows 7 will likely miss the boat on adoption in two key sectors -- netbooks and the business community.  And this would be truly a shame, since Windows 7 looks to offer a number of tempting features.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Thank You!
By LinkRS on 11/12/2008 10:12:57 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
But how bad was Vista really? Honestly, Vista was a pretty good OS. The vast majority of DailyTech staff have at least one Vista machine in the house. While the OS certainly had its limitations, it brought dramatic improvements to the Windows GUIs and security. The OS's biggest problem, for the home user was something Microsoft can't be blamed for -- poor hardware partner support.


This is what I have been saying sine January 1997! It is just sad that Windows 7 may fail before it starts because of the misinformation and bias against Windows Vista.




RE: Thank You!
By kkwst2 on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By Amiga500 on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank You!
By nosfe on 11/12/2008 10:38:18 AM , Rating: 3
for me its superfetch, photoshop starts up in about 5 seconds on my crappy hdd(~20mb/s transfer speeds max, usually only ~16mb/s)


RE: Thank You!
By AntDX316 on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By rudolphna on 11/12/2008 5:21:53 PM , Rating: 3
Huh funny. Im running Vista Premium on a Pentium 4 3Ghz, 2GB PC2700, with a Radeon 2600xt, and it runs just as fast, if not faster than XP did. Its more responsive IMHO than XP.


RE: Thank You!
By headbox on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By rudolphna on 11/12/2008 9:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I do. I take good care of my computers and keep them clean. I install the minimum crapware necessary. I build computers for people, and fix them when they need fixing, so I know what Im doing


RE: Thank You!
By Arribajuan on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By Belard on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By Cunthor666 on 11/12/2008 5:35:52 PM , Rating: 4
Superfetch is great. I only noticed how slow my dad's laptop was with XP (similar hardware tho) to my one with Vista, after not using XP for over a year now. Not to mention having no need to run any AV programs.

Another point (from article)
quote:
But how bad was Vista really? Honestly, Vista was a pretty good OS.


Was? It still is!


RE: Thank You!
By StevoLincolnite on 11/12/2008 10:59:44 PM , Rating: 5
When I got Vista installed on my old Test Rig (Pentium 4 1.8ghz @ 2.4ghz, 1024mb of ram and a Radeon 9800XT) - The first thing I did was Disable all services I didn't require, I had no Printer on the machine... So I disabled that and so on and so on... The point is I would have rather services in general to be set to Disabled completely, and only activate when you are performing a function that requires it, thus on older based machines this would have been beneficial performance wise and might have helped with notebooks to conserve power as there is less processing going on.

Unfortunately there are so many services which are enabled by default like the Wireless Zero Configuration despite not having a Wireless adapter installed this service was still using resources, which on an Ancient machine means reduction in performance, would have been nice if it was disabled and only enabled when something calls for it.

Vista wasn't a bad operating system, it had it's issues which all Operating systems have, but it also had allot of good points, I think Microsoft did an excellent job personally, Creating an Operating system like Windows isn't something that can be done over night, it's a highly complicated piece of software, which no other Operating system can match when it comes to pure Compatibility with Hardware and Software.


RE: Thank You!
By mathew7 on 11/13/2008 2:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
for me its superfetch, photoshop starts up in about 5 seconds on my crappy hdd(~20mb/s transfer speeds max, usually only ~16mb/s)

In my opinion, this should be solved by Adobe, not worked around by MS. The problem is that the PC industry keeps on going with unoptimized bloat.
With every version the runtime/startup for each application is increased more than the HW could decrease it. Example: win98 on a 3GB HDD had the same startup for me as a Win2K on a 15GB newer (+5years) HDD (I'm actually comparing only the HDDs).
Think how fast would be to use Win98 on a high-end PC if drivers would be available. And 98 does not have any superfetch.


RE: Thank You!
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/12/2008 10:44:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
1. What does Vista do better than a well patched XP using 3rd party anti-virus and firewalls?


Not having to rely on third party anti-virus protection, firewalls, and diligent patching.

To you or I, these precautions may have seemed common sense, but to the average home user you're talking alien speak there.

quote:
2. Are those improvements (if they exist) worth the money in both software and hardware upgrades?


To the average user the biggest improvements are better security and a nicer interface like I said. A lot of the problems like hardware compatibility have been removed, so I'd say Vista is definitely the best buy on the market today.

Its by no means perfect or even outstanding, but that doesn't stop it from being the best buy; compared to bug-prolific, complex Linux or insecure, uncompatible OS X (both of which may still be better solutions for SOME user segments), its the best OS for the general public.

quote:
bout the only thing Vista has over XP was DirectX10


That's just showing how out of touch you are with the general public.

The majority of users don't have gaming cards that can even come close to fully exploiting Direct X 10, and certainly not when Vista was first released. And most users aside from hardcore gamers really won't experience that much excitement going from DX9 to DX10.

I can understand where you're coming from, but understand your opinion is not the average user's perspective.


RE: Thank You!
By tential on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2008 11:05:22 AM , Rating: 5
Vista is far more secure than XP. In XP, you have to run on an Admin account to do anything. And many people are stupid enough to run without a password. Which leaves the system wide open. With Vista you don't. You can modify anything under any account provided you have the admin password. But you can still run programs from the protected space of a more limited account.

The kernel itself is also more secure with the only hooks into it being those that the damn AV manufacturers sued Microsoft into putting in.

DX10 is a nice step and DX11 will definitely be nice. Are gamers supposed to be held back because the majority of people don't care about games. Windows has always been the gamers OS so why not move things forward. Yes many games still don't use DX10 to its full effect (largely from many people still being on XP). But that doesn't mean it isn't better.

Windows 7 supposedly was running fine on a netbook. So hopefully that means they've trimmed down on the required memory.


RE: Thank You!
By Murloc on 11/12/2008 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 3
I like vista more only because of that search bar in the start menu, you write there the name of the application and you get the icon. It dramatically speeds up your work.


RE: Thank You!
By Belard on 11/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank You!
By Garreye on 11/13/2008 11:21:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The "Search" function of vista is useless for anything but your own documents. Looking for LOST DLL, or where a program might have installed itself... nope.


That is because by default Vista only indexes your document/start menu locations. If you want it to index your entire computer, so that you can run fast searches for any file/directory than it is entirely possible. Maybe have a look at the control panel once in a while before you criticize.


RE: Thank You!
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 11:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "Search" function of vista is useless for anything but your own documents.


We must be coming at this from polar opposites. I absolutely love Spotlight under OS X but it needs to be trained to ignore system files otherwise they tend to clutter up your results. In contrast, this sounds to be what you want. Based on the descriptions given, I'd suggest that Vista has the better default configuration since your average user is not going to wanting to search for anything other than their own documents and files.


RE: Thank You!
By mathew7 on 11/13/2008 3:17:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista is far more secure than XP. In XP, you have to run on an Admin account to do anything.

This was discussed already somewhere. For the security of XP, MS is only 50% guilty. They did not have any security during DOS/Win3/win9x era, so when NT-based OSes came, all non-corporate developers still used and tested apps under admin account (I'm talking about small companies who never had contact with big corporations). Also, XP's and 2K's default account after installation was admin. So when an app was deployed to the customer, the programmer was not interested in limited user accounts, and possibly forced the client to use admin account. That's why all the malware had time to develop and spread.

Also, I work for 3 years in a corporation and I can tell you that I can do my work without admin account. UAC would not help me here. The only problem I have with my work PC is the startup time because of domain controller, roaming profiles etc. Also, while I tested Vista, I saw that I cannot go in computer management and run it as limited user (I wanted to only see if the IDE controller was using DMA or not). UAC appeared and there was no option to "continue with limited permissions".


RE: Thank You!
By quiksilvr on 11/12/2008 10:58:52 AM , Rating: 5
I really like this article, but really if all Vista has going for it for the general public is a nice GUI than it really falls short. First off, there exists Vista skins with the Aero interface available for XP. I use it now and my computer looks almost exactly like Vista (except for the search bar). In my opinion, Vista isn't bad, but there really isn't point upgrading if you have XP. You don't have to worry if you buy a NEW computer with Vista but really if you have XP, I say keep it.


RE: Thank You!
By quiksilvr on 11/12/2008 8:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
I really just realized that I said really a real lot...really.


RE: Thank You!
By Targon on 11/12/2008 8:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
While Vista may not provide really amazing new features that stand out, the 100 or so tweaks and improvements over Windows XP are what make it feel a bit better. Keep in mind that you will want 2GB or RAM or more to get acceptable performance though.

This is where certain people will complain about Vista while others have no problem with it. If you have a low end system with 1GB of RAM or less, then chances are you have Windows XP on the machine already. There is no good reason to upgrade from XP to Vista, but at the same time, most people should not be afraid of Vista either as long as there is enough memory to handle it.

In the past, those with a low end system(compared to new systems available at the time) have ALWAYS complained that the new OS was slower. Windows XP did NOT run well on computers with only 128MB of RAM(though Dell still sold a lot of systems with that little memory). Then again, XP didn't even run great with 256MB of RAM. 512MB or 1GB was the preferred amount. The same goes with processing power and such.

So, if your computer is already considered slow, why would you throw a more memory and processing power hungry OS at it? These days, a dual-core processor and 2GB are considered low end, so it's not all that big a deal.


RE: Thank You!
By mathew7 on 11/13/2008 3:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
But do the new "features" really justify the RAM (an probably CPU) usage? I say "not". Look at current ubuntu (8.10). I was really surpised to see the compiz WM (3d desktop) when I booted the livecd on a 3GHz P4 with Intel (I think 945) graphics and 512MB RAM. And I did not see high memory usage. Compiz is a small-memory-footprint WM that makes a big impression.
The memory usage increase of 2K->XP was way smaller than XP->Vista. AND IT'S NOT JUSTIFIED.

So the question is: do they make bad code just to push higher-end systems? I think this practice just showed it's weakness when "ultra-small PC" are feasible.


RE: Thank You!
By Calin on 11/13/2008 2:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
The advanced search bar is available for XP


RE: Thank You!
By Belard on 11/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank You!
By Screwballl on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2008 11:14:46 AM , Rating: 5
Well considering people who call tech support aren't calling to say "THIS PRODUCT IS GREAT!", I'd expect 90% to be upset and hating the product.


RE: Thank You!
By Aloonatic on 11/12/2008 11:30:29 AM , Rating: 5
A lot of people are saying that Vista isn't different enough to XP.

So does that make Vista = XPV2, so Win7 = XPV3?

But then XP was Windows 2000 (W2K) with a nice skin.

So XP = W2KV2, therefore Vista (XPV2) = W2KV3, Win7 = W2KV4?

For the record, I'm using W2KV3SP1 to type this comment :D


RE: Thank You!
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 11:41:20 AM , Rating: 3
Haha so true!

The same arguments we are listing today were always raised 8 years ago upon the release of XP when compared to 98 (which ran games faster remember....) and 2000.. and then again when Vista was released with comparisons to XP.

I assume we will be going over the same thing upon the next release after 7..


RE: Thank You!
By daniyarm on 11/12/2008 11:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
This is a perfect example of how a good working product gets blamed for everything just because of bad publicity.
I know at leat 10 people at work that hate Vista and talk crap about it, but yet non of them have ever used it. I have used it since the day it came out and guess what, not a single BSOD. I could blue screen my XP without even trying hard.
The only problems our IT guys have had with Vista was compatibility with older software and that was the reason it wasn't deployed. Now that all the vendors have released new version, everything seems to be fine and we upgrading to Vista next year.


RE: Thank You!
By Doormat on 11/12/2008 11:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
What makes OSX insecure compared to Windows?


RE: Thank You!
By nosfe on 11/12/2008 11:24:09 AM , Rating: 3
the security holes in it that take ages to get patched?


RE: Thank You!
By headbox on 11/12/2008 5:41:17 PM , Rating: 1
These "holes" are from security breech contests, where hackers might choose not to break Vista because another contest is offering more prize money. Let's talk REAL LIFE here- OS X is not vulnerable to the internet pitfalls Windows is. And don't bring up the "marketshare" argument. There are millions of Macs, especially at Universities and Movie/Music studios. Millions of PeeCee Microsoft drones hate Macs. You'd think there would be ONE virus or malware outbreak... yet there are none.


RE: Thank You!
By raghavny80 on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank You!
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 11:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
Ever wonder why OSX for business use is next to non existent? They get monthly to bi monthly security updates (if that), not to mention that its always been form over security with OSX. Home end-users could care less about security, its all about form over function. Microsoft is trying to address this with Windows 7, though don't expect MS to take a hit on security just to add a fancy new feature. Upon the release of OSX leopard server, the reviews on the Apple.com website for people who were using it were just abysmal, which I just found hilarious that Apple would even allow those kind of reviews on their main page.


RE: Thank You!
By Doormat on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 1:32:53 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Wow, I'm blown away at your complete inability to engage in critical thinking.
I find it funny you say that, without offering any scientific proof on the subject (you know one of the requisites of critical thinking)

First off, Microsoft has a mass userbase compared to Apples, so of course they will be targetted more, thus it is Microsofts duty to seek out and patch these flaws as soon as possible.

Second, instead of releasing updates as they are found and fixed, Apple waits and releases them at one time, which gives allows those who know how to take advantage of these flaws more time to do damage.

Third, Apple has placed dead last compared to Linux and Windows in browser and internet security regardless of which browser is used (Safari or Firefox).

Fourth, Apple has no excuse! They are in a completely closed system, and don't have to deal with the same things that windows and unix based systems do. It should be much easier to fix and deploy these flaws than in Windows without effecting its users.


RE: Thank You!
By nosfe on 11/12/2008 1:37:38 PM , Rating: 5
last i checked OSX is the easiest to hack out of the 3 major operating systems but if security through obscurity works for you then good for you, i prefer something solid between me and the crap floating around the net


RE: Thank You!
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 11:42:54 AM , Rating: 1
Don't read too much into that contest. The guy who hacked OS X did did so using a hack that he'd found previously (hence the speed) and is still an OS X user. If the security in the Mac is so bad, why would a security expert continue to use it?

The only thing that will convince me that Mac OS X security is weaker than that of Windows is the results of a code examination by an independent and trustworthy party or if the number of exploits in the wild is higher. Until then you and everyone else have no idea whether the lack of exploits for the Mac OS is due to "security through obscurity" or solid security.


RE: Thank You!
By Aloonatic on 11/13/2008 11:58:33 AM , Rating: 5
If the "hack" was already known, is that not really bad?

Even worse than a new one?

Being easily hackable is one thing, but not bothering to address known hacks/problems/security flaws is another?

Not got an axe to grind here, just seems like an odd thing to say and I'm assuming that there had been enough time to address the previously known problem and that it was reasonably well knon (not just the guess little secret)

If not, then please ignore this comment :)


RE: Thank You!
By kelmon on 11/14/2008 3:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
I think this one was known for almost a year but was initially raised for the iPhone. I do not know whether this was raised as something that would impact the Mac OS in general, or whether it was not investigated further to see if it did also impact the desktop OS. So, while I agree that the flaw was indeed bad, I do not believe that you can read too much into it. Certainly, you cannot say that, based on this flaw or contest, that Windows Vista is more secure than the current Mac OS. There are too many variables involved.

When there is a reason to worry, then I'll worry but at the moment there isn't one so I don't see the point in doing so. That said, I do think that Apple needs to up their game at addressing flaws that are raised to them in a timely manner.


RE: Thank You!
By King of Heroes on 11/12/2008 1:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of failures in critical thinking...

Mac OS X doesn't have as many *known* security holes because hackers in general don't give a shit enough about OS X to bother exploiting it. Those holes that do show up (and please don't delude yourself into believing that only the flaws that are announced are the only ones that exist) take forever and a day to get solved. Even better, since OS X is a closed, static platform every single OS X machine will have the exact same glaring holes that can be exploited in the exact same way.

Windows has massive market share, this makes it the prime target for any hacker/saboteur worth their salt. Yes, it uncovers a bunch of holes, but it also toughens up the system in general. MS's ability to quickly throw out patches for problems as they appear gives me much more confidence in its security than OS X.


RE: Thank You!
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 11:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that your comment is largely pointless. I'm willing to agree with you that there are more security holes in the Mac OS than are currently reported, and that Apple does not patch them as quickly as we would like. However, how many holes are there? Surely that is the important question here and one that you cannot answer. Unless you know the relative number of flaws in the Mac OS compared to Windows this whole discussion is pointless.

Given that Windows has previously had flaws exploited, I'm curious as to why this gives you confidence. The assumption is that the flaws are fixed and that Microsoft is more prudent in identifying others and fixing them. But that's an assumption and one that isn't based on good history. You could be right but it certainly isn't something that I'd bet the mortgage on.


RE: Thank You!
By jvillaro on 11/12/2008 1:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
No, I think he talking about all the studies and reporta that say that Microsoft provides the fastest response and solution to any kind of security threats and issues out of any other software vendor and by far in the OS's segment.
quote:
Apple because they don't have as many security holes to patch ...
Wow, I'm blown away at your complete inability to engage in critical thinking.


And im amazed that you've been living under a rock these past months and did not see the results when tha Macs where the first computers hacked in the security challenge (don't remember the name of the event).

Give Apple 90% share of the market and you will find out how many security holes they will have to patch. There aren't more issues because what would be the point? 9% tops of computers are OSX? Apple can barely keep up patching
right now.


RE: Thank You!
By mikefarinha on 11/12/2008 2:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Macs where the first computers hacked in the security challenge (don't remember the name of the event).
It was CanSecWests pwn2own challenge.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/mac_ha...


RE: Thank You!
By mathew7 on 11/13/2008 3:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
Those patches need developers and they need money. MS is pushing Vista so much because they want more money. They could have kept XP for 10 years or put a small set of improvements in Vista (and probably not get so much hatred), but they need to justify why a new OS costs so much. So the fact that they have the fastest response is proportional to their fundings.

Oh, and compare bugs/patches with inventions, not with production. You cannot invent on command or plan inventions. So the fact that a Mac was hacked in 10s compared to 10hours for Win doesn't have any relevance. On the next conference roles can be reversed. And security rate is very dependent of market share (like how many try).
If Apple would have had 90% market share, they would have the developers to release a patch every day (or other period you may think of).


RE: Thank You!
By mathew7 on 11/13/2008 5:02:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever wonder why OSX for business use is next to non existent?

Yes, I do, but it has nothing to do with security.
It's the compatibility. Why would I use an OS which runs 10 of my required apps and not 5 of them when I can use an OS that runs them all.
It's a vicious cycle: market share will not increase until app ports are not increased, but app ports are increased only if market share is big enough to obtain a profit. It's like a race condition in programming: 2 tasks waiting for each other and going nowhere.
GNU/Linuxes only problem is the many choices of distributions and lack of support/responsibility. A MS-type marketing would raise it's market share very much.


RE: Thank You!
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 11:59:32 AM , Rating: 2
Office use of the Mac is limited for many reasons but the security policy for the Mac OS is unlikely to be a major factor. The patching policy of Apple is considered a problem not because they don't issue them often (if there is nothing to patch...) but rather you don't know when they are coming and surprise is never popular. Transparency has never been Apple's strong point (although they seem to be making more of an effort recently) and that hinders adoption of the Mac by businesses.

As far as I am concerned, the problem that Apple has it that they don't have a platform like Windows does. I really can't stand Windows itself but Microsoft has produced software and services that play nicely with each other and replacing a Windows infrastructure for one from Apple is next to impossible. SharePoint is really important to our company, for example, and Apple has absolutely no replacement for this.


RE: Thank You!
By Hieyeck on 11/12/2008 11:25:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:

Not having to rely on third party anti-virus protection, firewalls, and diligent patching.

To you or I, these precautions may have seemed common sense, but to the average home user you're talking alien speak there.
So you're implying Vista will NEVER have to be diligintly patched? That MS will be better at putting out AV and FW patches than companies whose SOLE BUSINESS is to fix this? Get real. The only OS that will never need to diligintly patched are Apple OS's, because Apple never actually fixes problems - you just buy a new version.

quote:
To the average user the biggest improvements are better security and a nicer interface like I said. A lot of the problems like hardware compatibility have been removed, so I'd say Vista is definitely the best buy on the market today.
It's not BETTER security, it's just security that hasn't been broken yet. All security breaks, there's no such thing as better - there's only staying ahead of the curve (see WEP/WPA/WPA2 - if you can't figure out what I mean, stop posting news to this site.). The only VISIBLE security feature to the user is UAC, and that serves to annoy more than help - not to mention it can already be easily circumvented.

I won't argue the prettier interface. Shinier stuff always sells better. But frankly, it's just a theme. If you really wanted shiny that bad, you just need to GOOGLE HARDER. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=vista+theme+fo... - I only wish I could link the I'm Feeling Lucky link.

DirectX 10 IS the only advantage of Vista, and that's only because MS knew they'd be desperate to sell Vista with is piss poor pre-release reviews. They made the concious decision to NOT put out the APIs for XP. And I agree that DX10 isn't that big a deal - which is why I'm sticking with XP instead of blowing $300, but that hardly means he's out of touch with the average user. All he's doing is pointing out Vista's only "advantage" over XP. I'd say you're out of touch with us 'power' users.

Alas, you're right about the "average user". They're too stupid to use google to realize the shiny can be gotten for FREE on XP. But hey, it's why I get paid big bucks to sit on my ass browsing DT, so I'm not one to complain.


RE: Thank You!
By mikefarinha on 11/12/2008 12:18:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The only VISIBLE security feature to the user is UAC, and that serves to annoy more than help - not to mention it can already be easily circumvented.


Perhaps you should do some research on a product before ripping it a new one.

Windows Vista Security Features:
-UAC
-Firewall (two way filter over XP with only an incoming filter)
-Built-in Windows Defender
-Drive Encryption
-Parental Controls
-Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR)
-Mandatory Integrity Control
-Windows Service Hardening
-Network Access Protection (NAP)
-Windows Filtering Platform (WFP)
-IPsec is now fully integrated with Windows Firewall
-PatchGuard
-Code Integrity

Sheesh, just because you don't SEE any new security features doesn't mean they're not there. One of the reasons that there were such driver problems with Vista was because Microsoft placed security standards all the way down to the device driver level (and below).

Pull your head out of your arse and maybe you can see Vista for what it is... A fine OS.


RE: Thank You!
By Hieyeck on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By mikefarinha on 11/12/2008 1:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hey if Vista doesn't float your boat then fine, don't buy it. However your insistence in belittling something that YOU have no use for just smacks of unneeded fanboyism.

Let me peel away at another quote of yours.
quote:
It's not BETTER security, it's just security that hasn't been broken yet.


Better security is ALWAYS security that hasn't been broken yet... because security will ALWAYS be broken at some point. Do you think vault makers don't continue build better vaults and safes?

Security is a cat and mouse game, if you can't see that then, like I said, pull your head out of your arse and join the rest of reality.

The best security you could hope for is 'security that hasn't been broken yet.'


RE: Thank You!
By mikefarinha on 11/12/2008 1:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm WELL aware there are PLENTY of other upgrades, but how much of it does the user actually SEE on a daily basis?

Oh, and the best security should be fairly transparent to the end user... So out of all those security features I listed only one of them demands anything from the user, UAC... i think that is a pretty good implementation of all Vista's new security features. Plus they have refined that implementation in Vista SP1 and are enhancing and refining it more in Windows 7.

This is good news for ALL end users, whether they see it on a daily basis or not.


RE: Thank You!
By Hieyeck on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By Hieyeck on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank You!
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 4:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not trying to stir the shitstorm that is fanboism
It searches for keywords, such as swearing and automatically rates you down.. You really think someone is that committed to Jason that they wait until someone posts a negative comment, and instantly reads it and rates you down?

Sorry, you are not that special..


RE: Thank You!
By mikefarinha on 11/12/2008 4:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're a goon.

No the context of the thread was lost on you from the beginning.

Read what Jason wrote:
quote:
Not having to rely on third party anti-virus protection, firewalls, and diligent patching.


What Jason was talking about was that users don't have to go out of their way to enable anti-malware or firewalls or patching. This is done in Vista automatically.

You read into what Jason wrote what you wanted to read:
quote:
So you're implying Vista will NEVER have to be diligintly patched?


Jason never said that "Vista will NEVER have to be diligintly [sic] patched." He said users don't have to worry themselves with it... because if you had a clue you would know that it is done automatically by default. If your Vista PC connects to the internet your Vista PC will be patched, unless you explicitly told it not to.

quote:
Who would you trust more for AV? Microsoft - whose goal is to sell their OS... and XBox... and Office Suite... and... (OK you get the point) AND ON TOP of that, to NOT patch it frequently and diligently; OR would you trust a company who's SOLE BUSINESS is to watch for and protect users against virus, and offers DAILY + CRITICAL patches applied diligently.


Honestly? I'd choose Microsoft. It is their interest, above all others that Windows is as secure as possible. Since they have the lion's share of the market they have the most to loose from having crappy security.

All your other drivel is just a testament to your ignorance of Vista.


RE: Thank You!
By Hieyeck on 11/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank You!
By lco45 on 11/13/2008 2:28:13 AM , Rating: 2
... arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics.
Even if you win you're still retarded.

Luke


RE: Thank You!
By mathew7 on 11/13/2008 4:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
Put yourself one question: if it's so secure, why do big companies avoid it?
-UAC has no use to big comapnies who already use limited accounts
-Firewall is handled by local proxies and computers have no communications beside it.
-windows defender, NAP, same as firewall
-IPsec, they already have 3rd party products licensed
-patchguard, service hardening, MIC are just ways to protect an already bad code which corporations avoid through testing before deploying.

So no, Vista does not have new features that comapies desperately need. But corporations can still get licenses for XP.
While testing it, I found that it was extremely lagging in UI, which I found very frustrating. So the new features are not worth the extra "timings". And after the test, I bought XP 64. And this is only because I intend to use >3GB RAM.
And tell me, if MS would have lowered the price of XP because Vista was released (like it happens in HW), would you have bought Vista or XP? 95% of the users would have said NO to Vista, because they just need an OS.
Vista release and XP EOL are just tactics to keep pushing sales of a new OS and HW. It's good just for MS and some HW companies, but not for consumers.


RE: Thank You!
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2008 4:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not BETTER security, it's just security that hasn't been broken yet


Well considering XPs security was broken a few days after release I'd say Vista is doing pretty damn well.


RE: Thank You!
By CyborgTMT on 11/12/2008 10:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not really a fair argument. Most of the initial security problems with XP were carry-overs from W2K that were not fixed. Hackers had a year and a half of play time with W2K on the market that they didn't have with Vista. And while MS patched W2K, for some reason they let XP into the wild with the exploits still there.

Now that being said, IMO it doesn't matter what security features an OS has prepackaged into it or how well they patch it. A computer is only secure as the person operating it allows. Spend all day searching for Hungarian porn and you get what you deserve; as well as a bad case of hairy palms.


RE: Thank You!
By FITCamaro on 11/13/2008 6:01:10 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
A computer is only secure as the person operating it allows.


Exactly. And by default, Vista is far more secure than XP ever was/is.


RE: Thank You!
By rocketx2 on 11/12/2008 8:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
From the Server to the Cell Phone Microsoft Windows has changed billions of people’s lives for the better... but the Mac did design a cute brochure about it. ROTFLMAO!!!!

Macs use Intel chips, Nvidia graphics so they can boot Vista to run Microsoft Office… all at twice the price. Hey Steve Jobs you’re a PC!!!


RE: Thank You!
By MickKelleher on 11/12/2008 11:25:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:

I can understand where you're coming from, but understand your opinion is not the average user's perspective.


This average user's perspective argument is very subjective.

Having supported thousands of business users of different technical competencies I can guarantee that the average users doesn't really care about any of the points you have used to counter these arguments.

From a user perspective once they can find, open, and user their applications they really don't care what skin the OS is using.

I would argue that in their case Vista and XP are the same for them.
Vista isn't any easier to use, and in some cases more difficult as MS moved things around a bit. If you do upgrade them from XP to Vista the first comment I ALWAYS hear is "why is it so slow?", not "hmmm that looks nice".

I can't agree that Vista is the best OS for the general public but it is adequate if the system has enough resources.


RE: Thank You!
By just4U on 11/12/2008 10:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's easier...

They don't normally have to go thru hoops to upgrade their drivers. The updating proccess is much more streamlined. Search features are easier, media integration is vastly improved..

There are alot of things the average end user will find better about Vista.. once they learn where everything is. That's one great thing Microsoft has done thru the years.. They always have three or four different ways to access most features they believe people might use.


RE: Thank You!
By MickKelleher on 11/13/2008 4:22:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

There are alot of things the average end user will find better about Vista.. once they learn where everything is.


In my experience they don't want to learn where everything is.
They just keep ringing a more experienced PC person and get them to do everything for them.

I think my family only rings me when they need help with their PCs.

Funnily enough I never hear from those with Macs.


RE: Thank You!
By just4U on 11/13/2008 4:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
" Funnily enough I never from those with Macs "

That's because the majority of us don't know anyone who has
one ;)


RE: Thank You!
By just4U on 11/13/2008 4:49:07 AM , Rating: 2
In seriousness tho, I do believe people are becoming a little more savvy with computers as the years go by. But ofcourse those with experts on hand it's convienent to just get them to come over. <shrug>

Mac's are the same. Most people who went out and bought one usually know someone else with alot more experience who they can turn to when things go wrong.


RE: Thank You!
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 12:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista isn't any easier to use, and in some cases more difficult as MS moved things around a bit.


That's where they went wrong with Office 2007. I really respect what they were trying to do with Office and the Ribbon but you try finding an experienced Office user who likes the new interface. It's been 2-years since I started using it and I still have to hunt for where options have been moved to.

By all means provide a new interface that improves on the last one, but please provide a "Classic" interface option for us old dogs that can't be taught new tricks.


RE: Thank You!
By Belard on 11/13/2008 6:50:11 AM , Rating: 2
#1
quote:
Not having to rely on third party anti-virus protection, firewalls, and diligent patching.


LOL, thats funny. Vista still gets VIRUS infections. Its firewall is a toy and only slightly less useless than XP's built-in firewall - but still better than nothing.

#2
quote:
To the average user the biggest improvements are better security and a nicer interface ~I'd say Vista is definitely the best buy on the market today. Its by no means perfect or even outstanding ~ its the best OS for the general public.


Better security? Until the user is done pulling out all of his hair and digs for the option to kill of the UAC... which in turn means that some programs won't work with it on... back and forth crap. Turn it off, vista is pretty much just as weak as an unprotected XP. Lets see, a little tool included with SPYBOT Search & Destory will bug you about programs trying to run that can effect the OS. Its smarter and has a "remember this setting" check box.

Nicer interface? Thats an opinion... XP-MCE is a nice upgrade over XP-Home/Pro. There isn't anything in vista that makes me go oooooooo. The much older MacOS X is still more polished - and it came out before XP. Vista looks a bit like MCE. I see from screenshots of Win7 that the task bar is actually different and without the STUPID circle start Icon that is cut off from the bottom - yet overlays on top of other windows/items on the desktop on its upper end. The "bubble" screen saver is ugly. The Transparancy abiltiy is ho-hum... What nvidia includes in THEIR XP-driver is that ALL non-active desktop windows become very transparent.... and user adjustable. That us USE-FUL. Best buy? For the most part, the PC industry doesn't give users the CHOICE between XP and vista. If MS wasn't shoving it up vender's a~~ (rear end), there would easily be more XP boxes on store shelves than vista. This happened when that WinME came out in 2000... Win98se continued to be available past WinME.

Thank god that Lenovo ThinkPads has optional WindowsXP Pro CDs available for its users (for free with Vista-business)and downloadable drivers if you already have an XP setup disc.

#3
quote:
And most users aside from hardcore gamers really won't experience that much excitement going from DX9 to DX10. I can understand where you're coming from, but understand your opinion is not the average user's perspective.


To a degree, yes. And yet, MS made that rather boring game HALO2 a DX10(Vista) only game... wow! A game with 2003 graphics... requiring a whole new OS. A lot of Halo2 sales were lost - LOL! Actually DX10 was a selling point for me with Vista... but the rest of the package isn't worth it. Crysis, UT3 and other games looks great on my XP system... and I've seen some game title comparisions with DX9 vs DX10... and yes, DX10 can easily blow DX9 out of the water. Of course, with those effects - come video card requirements. But todays ATI 4850 and Nvidia 9800GTX+ cards costing about $150 - that is no big deal.

But theres problems. (1) ATI & Nvidia have their own language to communicate with their GPUs so that the developers DON'T need to rely on DirectX. They can hit the hardware more directly. (2) DRM on PC games as well as piracy IS severely killing the PC-GAME market. BioShock & Spore is are examples, as well as the new Crysis game... such DRM - I REFUSE to buy - much less install. I've bought my games and I don't want to be treated like a crimminal by the game companies. So in effect - a PlayStation3 is in my near future for some gaming. But how many games are in 1920x1200 res? A PC is better made for some games. WOW isn't helping much - but doesn't require Vista or DX10 to run.

So, if the public doesn't need Vista/DX10 for gaming... and most of what people do is surf the net and perhaps type and print a letter to grandma (and I know of some grandmas who have email, webcams)... then what does vista actually offer?

In a way, MS is actually hurting their own PC market with the Xbox by pushing gaming business over there. I thank them for that. It makes the MAC and Linux compatiblity issues to be less important. With a web browser and basic tools - who needs Vista or MS Windows? Yeah yeah, MS-Office, Quicken/Quickbooks are about it.

Just as your OPINION is that you like vista. I and others are allowed to have our OPIONION that vista sucks. Sp1 Vista is better... But I'd rather be stuck with a SP1 XP computer than any version of vista.

If Windows7 is just as sloppy, slow, bothersome as Vista... then I'll be using XP for a while longer. If Apple was smarter - they'd have some affordable $600~800 mini-towers on the market. I don't want an "iMac" AIO... and I don't care to spend $2500~4000 for dual CPU setup with expensive memory and limited video card choices.


RE: Thank You!
By Lightnix on 11/13/2008 8:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
"ATI & Nvidia have their own language to communicate with their GPUs so that the developers DON'T need to rely on DirectX. They can hit the hardware more directly."

That was barely feasible back in the days of bedroom coders making 2D games for DOS systems. Companies only use things like the NVAPI when they're specifically paid to as the amount of extra time in development doesn't give decent results to anything but a specific target platform, which does little but alienate a large part of a market.

That said CUDA will probably die because of DirectX 11's compute language anyway.


RE: Thank You!
By kc77 on 11/14/2008 4:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
For the common end user who is purchasing a new computer with Vista preloaded, preferably with 2GB of RAM, yes Vista is better than XP.

However, you would be hung out and shot for installing Vista in a business setting. Even after SP1, network discovery is a mess, if you're running a Win2K domain controller prepare to do a dance with printers. Novell NDS with Vista... no longer a nightmare, but still can produce issues that didn't exist before. Video adapter stability with SP1 in workstation settings (AutoCAD, Maya Studio) also can be a headache.

While I don't agree with needing 2GB to have a snappy OS, it is an antidote for Vista, and offers better memory management with higher capacities of memory giving the home-user an overall nicer experience.

However, in a business setting MS still has work to do. It does not compare compatibility wise in enterprise environments. There is a reason why the business market has been slower to adopt than would normally be expected. While the "rumor-mill" does play a role in software adoption, we do actually test this stuff before rolling it out and to say that Vista is better than XP in every conceivable way is just wrong and not correct.

Better in some areas? Yes
In all areas? Nope


RE: Thank You!
By bhieb on 11/12/2008 10:47:22 AM , Rating: 2
As a parent I personally like the built in parental controls. I have not had the best luck with the 3rd party solutions, but the Vista one functions nicely. Plus I like Media Center on Vista Home Premium (basic would not really be an options IMHO), but again not a big improvement over MCE2005. Also I like lots of memory it is cheap, and Vista 64 seems way more stable than XP (yes I have both).

Certainly I will not be upgrading any of my existing machines, because I agree the benefit is just not there. However I see no reason not to put it on a new box. Plus hell I just like new stuff. I've been looking at the same boring XP crap for years and I like the new look/functions.


RE: Thank You!
By Screwballl on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank You!
By Scabies on 11/12/2008 12:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
Vista do better? hmm...
The other day we were moving computers around. Two in the same room, one with XP sp3, one with VistaU sp1. Had a printer connected to and shared from the XP machine, but we decided we wanted to just plug the printer into the router (which is not a print server)

Vista: Enter the IP of the printer. Wait for windows update to pull down drivers. Done.

XP: Create a "port" that uses the IP of the printer (like COM1. *shudders*.) Find the drivers (which are in some .exe file, thanks to HP). Oh, you deleted them in anticipation of reinstalling them in a different manner? Well they're no longer on the hard drive, plug the printer back in via USB and let windows update get the drivers. Then unplug and try to connect via your IP-Frankenport.


RE: Thank You!
By chizow on 11/12/2008 3:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. What does Vista do better than a well patched XP using 3rd party anti-virus and firewalls?


1. Better 64-bit support. Vista 64 was developed parallel to 32-bit.
2. Better SLI support. XP can't do more than SLI, so no Tri or Quad SLI.
3. DX10 support.
4. SuperFetch, with 8GB in a 64-bit OS is great.
5. UI, Search, layout etc.
6. New hardware and PnP support. I plug in new devices that are recognized right away, without installing anything.

quote:
2. Are those improvements (if they exist) worth the money in both software and hardware upgrades?

If you're running old hardware, probably not, but if you're building a new system or purchasing a new PC, then its certainly worth the extra $100-$150 for Vista, if it doesn't already come with your PC for free (64-bit + 4GB+ is also being included on an overwhelming majority of new PCs).


RE: Thank You!
By chizow on 11/12/2008 3:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh ya forgot:

7. No BSODs. IE stops responding every once in awhile (due to residual Adobe Flash problems, imo), but thats about it.


RE: Thank You!
By mathew7 on 11/13/2008 4:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Better 64-bit support. Vista 64 was developed parallel to 32-bit.

MS-pushing:Parallel development does not imply support. It's just a "cost-reduction" issue from MS (they could support XP64 as well).
quote:
2. Better SLI support. XP can't do more than SLI, so no Tri or Quad SLI.

MS-pushing:working with nvidia/ati for supporting only in Vista.
quote:
3. DX10 support.

MS-pushing:Exerything is possible in SW, so I don't see why it could not be present in XP
quote:
4. SuperFetch, with 8GB in a 64-bit OS is great.

MS-support of bloated code. Doesn't it increase startup and HDD use? The fact is that until the HDD stops, you will always have laggy app startups. In case of laptops, I consider superfetch more annoying than useful. Didn't they try to force flash drives with this?
quote:
5. UI, Search, layout etc.

Yah, good for average consumers, probably could be implemented in XP
quote:
6. New hardware and PnP support. I plug in new devices that are recognized right away, without installing anything.

MS-pushing:This was also the case for "until XP-release" HW. This is just evolution and HW companies playing-along. Also could be done in XP.

They should have spent more time in refining responsiveness and less time in bloating features. While I don't really blame the features, the fact that the default installation starts them all is what bothers me.
It starts Wireless Zero Config, IPSec, DHCP client when I don't have wireless network, don't use VPN and use static addresses. Why? These should be controlled by drivers, not started by default. Starting something and then realizing it's not needed has a penalty. While not noticeable alone, when you do this to 20 services it is noticeable.
Superfetch was already present in MSOffice (since 97), openoffice, adobe reader, and whole other bunch of applications, called ususally "preload" or "fast start". While it's usefull in general usage, it was killing system startup. Superfetch only improves them slightly because its one that does it for all.

What I'm attacking most is the programming model that seems to ignore runtime, especially on startup. I experiment with HW, so I'm used to installing drivers, but the fact that 20 reboots in 1 hour is normal for me, I cannot ignore the startup time.


RE: Thank You!
By MrPoletski on 11/16/2008 11:02:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. What does Vista do better than a well patched XP using 3rd party anti-virus and firewalls? 2. Are those improvements (if they exist) worth the money in both software and hardware upgrades? For myself - I don't think the upgrade is justified. About the only thing Vista has over XP was DirectX10, and that was only because MS had to try and encourage vista upgrades.


ERm.. Directx 10.

Directx10 was not released only on vista to promote people to upgrade to it. Dx10 marks a completely different driver model for 3D cards and you'd literally have to gut windows xp and rewrite half of it to get dx10 to work with it. It's that big a transition, kind of like the difference between having a system tray icon to adjust your soundcard settings... or "SET BLASTER A220 I5 D3 T4" in your autoexec bat.

DX10 introduces the 3D card as a non-exclusive hardware device for the first time, try running 2 3d games at the same time in XP in a window, side by side on your desktop.

You can't. Your 3D card is an exclusive device and when quake is running, nothing else can use it. This is no longer the case under vista/dx10.


RE: Thank You!
By MickKelleher on 11/12/2008 10:34:40 AM , Rating: 3