Forceman Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabotron Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 But OsX is... THEY WOULDN'T LIE TO USE, WOULD THEY?! I think so....=[ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabotron Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabotron Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabotron Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 That's old. It has TIGER on it, how about a more up to date graph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabotron Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 It's not about them really since the thread is about Vista, but the unpatched are nowhere near their patched numbers which is good. What I'm saying is that Vista has worse unpatched than 6 months ago and is nearly half of what is patched. So, like I stated, Vista gives a false sense of security given it's unpatched numbers are nearly half of what it's patched numbers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foodfightr Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 They're not exactly saying go buy a new mac for leopard either. They're just happy with what they have already- it's probably good enough for school. Why do we use Microsoft Office? Because everyone uses it. (Chicken or the egg...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabotron Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Tiger has more fixed issues. No {censored}? It's been out since mid-2005, Vista since January 2007 if I recall correctly. When you get a system X, its gonna come with Y numbers of issues that are gonna take Z amount of time to fix. With Tiger out for much longer, there are no reasons for it NOT to have more issues fixed than unpatched. What matters here is how much vulnerabilities there were initially wich, according to this graphic, gives Vista the edge. And thats not about being a fanboy, thats about interpreting the graph you supplied us with. Edit: OEM Vista was out by november 2006 actually. Retail Jan 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 It's not about whats been out the longer, it's based on each for the first year of release, Tiger's first year, Ubuntu LTS first year, Vista's first year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabotron Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I stand by my point. Vista still has less both overall and unpatched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Right, other than the fact that other OS's come with more software and third party software and libraries. It's worth noting that some people dont have the stuff they say installed. Unpatched are worse, more patched the better, more than the first 6 months is not going forward, it's actually worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabotron Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Thats an assumption. Now why exactly would Vista get more unpatched issues over time than Tiger other than the fact that you are a biased moron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 What part of unpatched near half of patched numbers dont you understand? The only moron here I see is you bring Tiger into the equation, it's about VISTA, NOT, Tiger, NOT Ubuntu, this thread is about......what again?, VISTA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Any school that is using XP should stick with it. Not because Vista isn't better, but because theres no point in upgrading. Schools that use Macs should stick with whatever version of OS X the computers shipped with. 10.3 and 10.4 are fine for Safari, iLife, and Office/iWork. The same goes for XP. In fact, the only schools that should upgrade OS's are the schools that use Linux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabotron Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 The reason I brought Tiger is because YOU gave us a graph showing how "bad vista is" while this graph happen to compare it to OsX (wich is considered pretty damn safe), wich is doing WORST. Wich implies that either Vista is good or Tiger sucks. You pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts