Vista Tips, Tricks, Secrets, ...

tlarkin said:
Well with windows you already get a bloat via compatibility mode and the registry.

I agree, I hope Vienna is actually what Vista was suppose to be. If you look at Vista though, they are definitely migrating towards a more Unix-like file structure. They now have gotten rid of power users and all the other ridiculous user accounts they had set up, they now require authentication to install software (which is like a HUGE security plus), and you are no longer required to be an admin level user to run programs.

Oh and having MS office 2k3 crash when loading certain fonts, that were freaking developed by MS, in an MS program running on an MS operating system, and it doesn't work? Seriously, what does that say about their quality control?
Click to expand...

Auugh, I hate power users, and super admins, and all that crap. As far as I'm concerned, it's MY computer, I own it, and if I want to install something that should be fine. Thats what pisses me off about Linux. As far as I'm concerned, as the owner of the computer I should be responsible for setting up the security to the level I want it at.

As far as the Office 2k3, I agree that is pretty bad.
 
Last edited:
Well you know why Linux and Unix have zero self propagating viruses in the wild don't you? It is because they require authentication to install software. That simple admin password is blocking those nasty viruses. If windows finally did what every other OS in the world does it would be more secure, people would wine, but eventually they would get over it.
 
speedyink said:
Auugh, I hate power users, and super admins, and all that crap. As far as I'm concerned, it's MY computer, I own it, and if I want to install something that should be fine. Thats what pisses me off about Linux. As far as I'm concerned, as the owner of the computer I should be responsible for setting up the security to the level I want it at.

As far as the Office 2k3, I agree that is pretty bad.
Click to expand...

Actually Security through Obscurity often ends up being more disturbing to the user... but it is still required.. Windows has made us used to ignoring such securities by not including it..
 
i think the only way MS systems can be made secure is by designing it from scratch as speedylink earlier said... secure systems are designed with security in mind and unfortunately microsoft never had security in mind since the time of windows 95! Remember you could press ESC to ignore the user account password dialog box?? lol!
 
I beg to differ. I'm not saying it's less secure, because it definately is more secure, but seriously, how secure do we need to be? Obviously in business related purposes it's important, but I'm not a business user, I'm a personal user. I have my own ways of blocking viruses, I don't need a super admin whatever password to protect me. To be totally honest the only time I got a virus was on my now 8 year old laptop with XP and no antivirus software on it, visiting a sketchy website I had a feeling would give me a virus. That was about 3 years ago. I really don't know how people get viruses, you practically have to hunt for them to get them.

This all boils down to the whole personal preference thing.

@ xsreality:
I totally remember that. I also remember starting an XP machine in safe mode, and then going into the admin account which very rarely had a password because no one knew about it.
 
Last edited:
xsreality said:
i think the only way MS systems can be made secure is by designing it from scratch as speedylink earlier said... secure systems are designed with security in mind and unfortunately microsoft never had security in mind since the time of windows 95! Remember you could press ESC to ignore the user account password dialog box?? lol!
Click to expand...

I've already covered this before, so I will just give you the cliff notes version on how windows can be more secure

1) require passwords and authentication

2) Get rid of kernel hooks

3) Get rid of Active X, or at least get rid of it having access to kernel hooks

4) get rid of drive letters, go to sym links and use hardware UUIDs

5) get rid of the registry

that would Make windows pretty solid.
 
xsreality said:
yup i agree it is one of the drawbacks of vista that it requires top of the line hardware to run it.. its sad that microsoft's monopoly has led to it making systems not in sync with the existing hardware of most consumers. there is always an alternative of mac and linux... bt again, if someone tries it on an incompatible system and faces BSOD screens (which one will always face with MS systems) and complains that vista is crap then will u agree? my only point is this... that vista works fine on a supported system, thats all.
Click to expand...

BSOD is a windows thing...
 
well i m not technically knowledgeable in operating systems but i think ur above points does suggest a complete system overhaul... i agree registry is one of the most open thing any user can have regarding an OS...
 
tlarkin said:
That is probably the dumbest reason to support an OS, or to tell someone they are wrong. Microsoft is the only company which requires such high specs to run. Every other OS out there can run on several year old hardware specs just fine, except for windows.
Click to expand...

LOL Here we go again with the Mac guy!! Oh no I knew you were a Windows hater!!
 
speedyink said:
Because Vista as it comes will not crash. It's when people start adding sketchy 3rd party programs, crappy antivirus programs, sketchy drivers for chinese devices, etc. that Vista will crash. Same thing goes for XP so the argument that Vista crashes more is moot. In fact Vista has crashed far less than XP did for me.
Click to expand...

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!! No more to say

The mac boy cant mess with me! lol
 
xsreality said:
well i m not technically knowledgeable in operating systems but i think ur above points does suggest a complete system overhaul... i agree registry is one of the most open thing any user can have regarding an OS...
Click to expand...

A registry is clunky, bloat, ridiculous, a security risk, and it creates more problems than it helps. The best thing to do is have self contained applications.
 
tlarkin said:
A registry is clunky, bloat, ridiculous, a security risk, and it creates more problems than it helps. The best thing to do is have self contained applications.
Click to expand...

If you know how to edit, change, and maintain a clean registry then it helps more than hurts!! It all about the know how
 
What exactly is the benefit of the registry? I personally hate the idea of it. Sure it's easy to keep clean, but I definately like the idea of self contained programs more.
 
^^ I think we all prefer that but, windows is not perfect neither is any other OS matter of the fact. But, if you know registry well like me then its no big deal. Also, registry's are better b/c simple reg tweaks can boost system performance by alot!!
 
g25racer said:
If you know how to edit, change, and maintain a clean registry then it helps more than hurts!! It all about the know how
Click to expand...

well plists, launch daemons, and user level preferences you get all the benefits of a registry but with none of the crap.
 
g25racer said:
^^ Still trying to defend Mac!! Would you open your eyes to other things please?
Click to expand...

Are you that obtuse? I am talking about Linux and Unix, and every single version of Linux and Unix, and yes OS X is a version of it, but not the only one.

All of the *nix's have that. In fact a system registry is unique to Windows only and it is retarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top