Jump to content

British Schools Told to Avoid Vista


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#21
Gabotron

Gabotron

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
Well if you don't like it, go the smart way and disable it, why complain?

Run (win+r), services.msc. Find Superfetch and disable it. Voila.


Edit: Also, ram is a non-issue here. As stated, it is really good and fast at clearing ram needed for bigger applications. With 1go of ram, you should be OK with Vista (2go is the sweet spot really). And don't forget that unused Ram is pretty much worthless...

#22
Forceman

Forceman

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
Yer talking about Windows, most other OS's use the ram properly, it's only Vista that till now makes more use of it ,some would argue it's the wrong way of doing it.

#23
vbetts

vbetts

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
  • Gender:Male
That's also another problem of Vista.

People expect ram like 512 mb or even 1 gb to be enough. Although, having 1 gb of ram, it depends on the interface and speed of the ram for performance. Vista is a new OS. Of course it's going to need more, but I can say out of expirence of having only 1 gb of ram with both Vista and XP, Vista uses and allocates my ram way better than XP ever did for me. Even more when I didn't truely have 1 gb of ram, when I was running the Xpress 200.

#24
Forceman

Forceman

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
Yes, it's ironic that Vista uses memory far better but alot of people find it slower :censored2:

#25
vbetts

vbetts

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
  • Gender:Male
Like I said before in another thread, maybe even this thread. Vista can go both one of two ways, good or bad. While there are a lot of people having problems with vista, including the speed of the OS, there are also tons of people who Vista has done good for. Plus, most of the complaining of Vista was around when Vista came out for the first few months. Hardly you see the problems people used to face with Vista. That right there is why some people do not trust Vista. They're going off of articles that were made when Vista first came out. XP had the same problems Vista faced, the only reason people didn't complain so much about XP was Me was the OS that came out before XP. ME compared to XP, is nothing. 2000 compared to XP when it first came out, you could hardly spot a difference in performance.

#26
Forceman

Forceman

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
Not really, Vista still needs higher specs, DRM infected, confusing versions, poorer usability, slower file copy, SP1 only fixes bugs not OS flaws. Also Vista gives users a false sense of security, it also has the highest unknown unpatched vulnerabilities.

#27
vbetts

vbetts

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
  • Gender:Male
DRM is the most annoying thing in the world, XP had it's share of problems with DRM as well. What's so confusing about the versions? Honestly, you don't have to know anything really and can tell the difference.

Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, Vista Ultimate. As for poor usability, that's completely guided by opinion. Slower file copy, yes that is a problem, with SP1 rolling along, thing's like that aren't much of a problem. As for SP1, unless you run SP1, you should have no right to judge it at all. For the specs, like I said earlier, it's a new OS. It's just as leopard. Basic things, yes it will be easy for a machine with a single core that's either netburst sse2, or lower than 1.8 ghz, but trying to put extensive pressure like heavy problems on it, yeah it will slow down. But Vista doesn't need the highest of specs. I'm speaking from my own expirence on that once again.

#28
Gabotron

Gabotron

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Not really, Vista still needs higher specs, DRM infected, confusing versions, poorer usability, slower file copy, SP1 only fixes bugs not OS flaws. Also Vista gives users a false sense of security, it also has the highest unknown unpatched vulnerabilities.



One can build a Vista capable machine for around 500$ (i'm talking 2go ram, dual core, something decent...). Specs will not be an issue when people upgrade to something decent and stop trying to run it on a 5 year old PC. As for DRM, I have never encountered it yet, and I have been using a lot of media files too. That DRM thing, while it exists, is not as bad as you think. If you get confused between 4 version (8 if you count x64), you may have ADD. Usability, as the other guy said, is stricly based on opinions. While I dislike the new control panel, everything else is a notch or two above XP.

The file copy thing is really an issue, however SP1 fixes it really well (at least the betas I have tested), and the network speed too. The false sense of security? I am not really sure about that. It is a lot, LOT better than XP sp2, but still has issues, just like any piece of software.

And claming it has the "highest unknown unpatched vulnerabilities" is pretty retarded to me. If they are unknown, this means this is purely based on assumptions. Some reports lately stated that Vista has much, much less issues and vulnerabilities than XP at launch, and it did pretty well against Leopard bug-wise.

As stated above, most of what you are saying comes from early reviews of Vista. Some of these things were myths right away, others have been fixed since then (it has been a year, dont forget).

Honestly, it seems to me you have never used Vista, or at least not recently. Before saying such things, you may want to educate yourself or at least have some experience to back it up. Else, you look like a fool (just like that guy claiming that OSX is invulnerable to bugs and viruses).

#29
vbetts

vbetts

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
  • Gender:Male
But OsX is...


THEY WOULDN'T LIE TO USE, WOULD THEY?! I think so....=[

#30
Forceman

Forceman

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
It's no claim, it's from Microsoft's own submission of security for the first year, more patched vulnerabilities dont make it more secure, it's the unpatched ones that make it worse. Symantic found that Vista was not stopping mailware and virus's as much as been claimed and Windows defender came out one of the worst of all the mailware apps.

Also XP SP2 fixed alot of the security issues with XP, it was a simple fix which Microsoft should have done in the release of XP, Vista didn't put a holt to the Windows security nightmare like of pre XP SP2, they pretty much had it under control before Vista was every released.

#31
Gabotron

Gabotron

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
You are once again talking out of your ass. Do you even have any empirical evidences or any unbiased sources for that matter to back what you are claiming? Hey, if I came here and claimed Jesus told me that Vista sucked, you wouldn't believe me right? {censored} I'm having doubts now.

#32
Forceman

Forceman

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
It's not my fault you dont read news about these things, go find out and use your brain to do so. Did Microsoft shovel it into your mind so much you believe Vista is so secure?

#33
Gabotron

Gabotron

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

It's not my fault you dont read news about these things, go find out and use your brain to do so. Did Microsoft shovel it into your mind so much you believe Vista is so secure?


Classic. Now I'm a fanboy. I guess debunking myths spewed by kids lacking attention makes me one. Did I even attacked Mac anyway?

And yes, I do read news about these things. News written this very year (2008, by the way). What I read combined with my own experience tells me you have no idea what you are talking about. But I guess it's always gonna be a OS vs OS issue for you guys, so I may as well talk to a brick, but I'm pretty sure some people around have a clue and don't mind some objectivity once in a while.

#34
vbetts

vbetts

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
  • Gender:Male
Defender malware? If that was the case, then we would have heard about it before Vista came out. Defender in XP SP2 is the same as Vista, excepted ported to Vista. Never have there been any type of claims like this, but it's common sense that unpatched problems aren't secure. Microsoft hasen't ever officially released any SP for Vista for the general public(though it's leaked and easy to make vista download it from windows update). This is any OS where the biggest patches are released in a type of service pack. Vistas problems when found, most have been fixed. Which is why you don't see so many people complaining on Vista.


But no one is claiming Vista is so secure. The only thing we're saying, is Vista has been patched more and more, has have progress on protecting users, and is not as bad as you make it out to be.

#35
Forceman

Forceman

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
Posted Image

Vista has just about as many fixed as unfixed and also it's worth noting that both OS X and linux had duplicate security issues against it which is wrong.

Funny thing is that unpatched has got worse since 6 months ago.

#36
Gabotron

Gabotron

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
"Vista has just about as many fixed as unfixed and also it's worth noting that both OS X and linux had duplicate security issues against it which is wrong"

So the graph is right when it comes to Vista but wrong about Mac and Linux? Anything else dumb you wanna share with us tonight? If anything this graphic just proved my point. That was actually the one I was referring to earlier but was too easy to look it up. Thanks, huu, i guess....

Edit: The more I think about it, the more I'm glad I didn't, it seems bogus. Probably not for the reasons you think tho.

#37
vbetts

vbetts

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
  • Gender:Male
That's old. It has TIGER on it, how about a more up to date graph?

#38
Forceman

Forceman

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
lol, you just dont get it do you, first YEAR of the OS's, Leopard has not been out for a year, duh.

The first 6 months one Vista has LESS unpatched, now a year is gone Vista has MORE unpatched, get it now do we?

#39
Gabotron

Gabotron

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
Yeah, {censored} unpatching itself, got it. You make as much sense as my sister about anything else but music.

Anyway, what about Linux and Mac? According to that graphic, Vista is doing really good.

#40
vbetts

vbetts

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
  • Gender:Male

lol, you just dont get it do you, first YEAR of the OS's, Leopard has not been out for a year, duh.

The first 6 months one Vista has LESS unpatched, now a year is gone Vista has MORE unpatched, get it now do we?


? That really makes no sense, so then aftering being patched, Vista becomes unpatched? No, it doesn't work like that. Even if this graph is true(Which you have not put any evidence in this, no source except for the graph itself) Vista is still being patched.


If you don't like Vista, then that's fine. But don't ruin it and give it a bad name when you have no idea what you're going on about.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2017 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy