![]() ![]() But Vista actually has MORE users in its first year than all of those OSes did in their first years (and has more users than OSX and Red Hat, period). The report says that Vista has fewer flaws in its first year than did XP, some version of Red Hat, and OSX 10.4 did in their first years (and it's not even close). Seems it was only a closely held belief when needed to defend OSX and Linux from MS fanboys.Ģ. And yet other slashdotters appear to be agreeing with you, which raises the question of just how closely slashdotters held that doctrine. Your statement that Vista has fewer flaws because it has fewer users goes directly against long held slashdot doctrine. MS fanboys would claim that OSX and Linux had fewer exploits because they had a much smaller userbase, and they'd be ripped to shreds by slashdotters that would accuse them of engaging in logical fallacy. Slashdotters have maintained for years that userbase size has(almost) no relation to the number of exploits an OS gets. Good thing I never use IE, refuse to use Outlook, and never directly connect to the internet with Windows. I'm actually kinda worried what will pop up once they start getting more users on it after SP1 comes out. I've no doubt from the rest of the experience that the part that secures me and my data is full of holes. I've not gone looking for security bugs, but I'd bed the only "security" part that's near bug free is the one that handles the DRM and anti-piracy functions. I know I've hit more, but I can't recall them right now. The interface has more glitches than I can count, Aero is TREMENDOUSLY slow compared to the usual 2D accelerated display (a disappointment since compiz is FASTER than 2D acceleration), and these are just the issues I can remember. So it occasionally affects LAN, Wifi, etc. Bluetooth has multiple "Hi, I've stopped working and you're screwed till a reboot" bugs, and they seem largely related to a bigger bug Vista has in failing to handle shutting drivers down when suspending in such a way that they wake up when you wake up the laptop. There's more NON-security bugs than I could shake a stick at. I've been using Vista 圆4 for about two months now on a Dell m1330 with 4GB of RAM. Vista is receiving much more flak than XP ever did, and while it might end up improving in the end, the negative press has left a pretty big scar. Windows 2000 people were against XP when it came out, but most folks came around and XP is now one of Microsoft's most solid operating systems. The wireless behavior is terrible, NetBIOS-based file shares are still spotty, the file explorer refuses to remember my preferences, files sometimes end up mysteriously undeleteable, and the new Minesweeper sucks. I use Vista at work because my laptop came with it, and if I could start over again I'd wipe it and go with XP. Vista has DRM that reaches deep into the subsystem, and when companies begin to take advantage of those features (by flagging Windows Media files appropriately), I bet you'll be surprised at what Vista refuses to let you do. ![]() Just you wait until you buy that fancy new Blu-ray drive only to discover that Windows refuses to output DRM'd HD video to your monitor because it has no HDCP support. Vista doesn't check or care if I download 100 new movies and songs from my favorite torrent, burn then to DVD, upload, etc. Lets start with the built in DRM - I only agree with this about Vista itself. Maybe NT, Linux, Vista really are the best we can do. AFAICS, for several decades, OS design has consisted of shuffling the subsystems of a 1960s mainframe into slightly different configurations and slapping a shell on it. Maybe the idea would be more appealing if there were a "clean" design out there that was actually any better than NT, Unix, OsX. I suppose they can try again, but I doubt the results will be any better. (Windows 95 runs about as well with far fewer resources if you don't mind a crash every few weeks). They did that with NT without all that much success. Jack the whole unwholsome mess up, and insert a new frame and engine under it. You don't need an MBA to see why that is not a promising idea.Ībout the best they can do is what they did with NT. ***If they completely ditch backwards compatibility, they could remove all this old cruft and start again with a proper clean design, but as usual they're taking a half-assed poorly thought out approach.***Īt the risk of pointing out the obvious, if Microsoft abandoned backward compatibility, they'd lose most corporate users and many home users as well. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |