Windows 8 Metro: No Flash

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't remember Vista reviews being negative before it came out officially.

I very strongly suspect that if you gave a Windows 7 user access to a Vista machine it would take them a long time to realise that they weren't using Win7. The main problem with Vista was that a typical PC of the time wasn't up to running its GUI.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I very strongly suspect that if you gave a Windows 7 user access to a Vista machine it would take them a long time to realise that they weren't using Win7. The main problem with Vista was that a typical PC of the time wasn't up to running its GUI.

Well when I tried it (in an attempt to implement a PC-DVR) I was immediately appalled and opposed to the way it worked.

That was definitely not the case with Win7.

It mostly had to do with the default way the security was implemented for running/installing things.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I very strongly suspect that if you gave a Windows 7 user access to a Vista machine it would take them a long time to realise that they weren't using Win7. The main problem with Vista was that a typical PC of the time wasn't up to running its GUI.

I know in my experience with Windows 7, and Vista both, as a non user (I prefer Linux with KDE or IceWM), is that Vista was a lot more heavy handed with some of its practices. On the few times I had to use a vista machine, it kept asking me if I was sure I wanted to do things. Also, the way things were arranged wasn't always logical. Not to mention performance issues. It was well documented at the time of release, that the minimum requirements of a machine to be Vista Certified was lower than generally recommended, and so many machines ran like crap with Vista out of the box. For 7, MS took all the best parts of Vista, and just fixed the problems. Vista SP1 also fixed a LOT of problems.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

On the few times I had to use a vista machine, it kept asking me if I was sure I wanted to do things.

I remember reading on some website that this is because you can be administrator, but not Administrator.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I remember reading on some website that this is because you can be administrator, but not Administrator.

I don't understand that. Could you elaborate?

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't understand that. Could you elaborate?

I think he means, be logged in as the user administrator, but not really have the authority of an Administrator.

As far as that goes, I'm not sure. MS was stupid when they switched from a single user to multiuser system, to have the default account be Administrator. No other OS does that. Basically removes many of the positive features of being multiuser. Anyone gets access to your system, and they automatically have full access to mess things up. Anyone who doesn't know what they're doing, can mess things up. A proper multiuser OS, has an administrator account that is only used for system wide changes, and for all other usage, everyone has a personal account and they can only change things that effect them. If things are done properly, if you get a virus under this sort of thing, worst case scenario, you blow out just that account, and all other accounts can continue using that computer uneffected. Admin, or Root, gets compromised and everything gets hosed.

In my opinion, MS was stupid for being single user for so long. They didn't switch to that for consumers until XP in 2001.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I think he means, be logged in as the user administrator, but not really have the authority of an Administrator.

Yes, this is what I was talking about.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, Windows 95 was good for its day. You left Windows NT, too.

Win 95 was one of the biggest security holes ever, hahaha...

I used to to "nuke" those computers via pings, when I was in the University ... ... connect remotely, "posses" the machine, it was fun!

[jocampo]

In terms of usability (not reliability or secure) I think Windows 95 was a big step, a big change. However, I think that so far, Windows 2008 has been not so insecure or open than previous boxes.

Of course, there is no perfect operating system, and I still prefer Linux for sure, but Windows 2008 is not bad. The main problem, Win2008 is a server Os, so users don't usually run it on their PCs.

Vista is crap! We are just replacing all our PCs with Win 7 because that. Slow, buggy, really bad. Even in terms of memory footprint, XP was better.

Now with Win 8, people probably won't be able to dual boot or install Linux! Thanks to a new way the MBR works; requires some type of encrpytion, so installing another Os won't work (that's what I've read, actually this morning via Zite)

Thanks Bill!

Ironically, I love MS-SQL, a Microsoft product.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jocampo

In terms of usability (not reliability or secure) I think Windows 95 was a big step, a big change. However, I think that so far, Windows 2008 has been not so insecure or open than previous boxes.

Of course, there is no perfect operating system, and I still prefer Linux for sure, but Windows 2008 is not bad. The main problem, Win2008 is a server Os, so users don't usually run it on their PCs.

Windows Server 2008 is simply the server version of Windows 7. It's the same o/s under the hood.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Windows Server 2008 is simply the server version of Windows 7. It's the same o/s under the hood.

Not really. As far as I know, the Win2008 kernel has been optimized for better performance, for server's tasks. But yes, the code is basically the same.

Plus of course, there are some features that are available on the server version that won't on the regular Windows, like Cluster services.

[hidari]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I very strongly suspect that if you gave a Windows 7 user access to a Vista machine it would take them a long time to realise that they weren't using Win7. The main problem with Vista was that a typical PC of the time wasn't up to running its GUI.

Have to agree with Harry T. and strongly disagree with Joecampo. both of my machines are Vista and run very well. I have used Win7 from time to time and am fairly unimpressed. The big jump was from XP to Vista... not Vista to Win7...

and everyone that says Vista is Crap seems to be talking like sheep. I know many people who have Vista as an OS and have no problems. Microsoft did have problems with Vista at the start, but those problems were ironed out. Vista has been stable for a long while now. I am now on my last 6 months of Vista support until it drops next April and then will keep the computers as is until they die.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by hidari

Have to agree with Harry T. and strongly disagree with Joecampo. both of my machines are Vista and run very well. I have used Win7 from time to time and am fairly unimpressed. The big jump was from XP to Vista... not Vista to Win7...

and everyone that says Vista is Crap seems to be talking like sheep. I know many people who have Vista as an OS and have no problems. Microsoft did have problems with Vista at the start, but those problems were ironed out. Vista has been stable for a long while now. I am now on my last 6 months of Vista support until it drops next April and then will keep the computers as is until they die.

You have to remember though, People started getting Vista in November 2006, and SP1 (which took care of a lot of issues) wasn't released until February 2008, so for well over a year people were stuck with buggy and slow systems. Also, many systems that shipped with Vista, especially early on, were really too much on the weak side to handle Vista. So, for basically half of Vista's retail life span (7 was released in October 2009), it was known to have issues. It earned its reputation, and while things may be better now, you cannot shake a earned reputation.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by hidari

Have to agree with Harry T. and strongly disagree with Joecampo. both of my machines are Vista and run very well. I have used Win7 from time to time and am fairly unimpressed. The big jump was from XP to Vista... not Vista to Win7...

Sorry, disagree on what part?

Windows Vista was a horrible operating system. We're a company of 300k users, worldwide! We're the best software tester for MS. We even have an open license with them. Trust me, I know what I'm saying. I am not repeating what people is saying. I have that problem, same for lot of other peers at work.

Even after patches, is still slow and buggy. And you can't change that, it's because the code itself.

Good if worked for you. But even Microsoft admitted it long time ago

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Sorry, disagree on what part?

Windows Vista was a horrible operating system. We're a company of 300k users, worldwide! We're the best software tester for MS. We even have an open license with them. Trust me, I know what I'm saying. I am not repeating what people is saying. I have that problem, same for lot of other peers at work.

Oh, I agree entirely that Vista would not a be a good corporate o/s. But on a home PC, with adequate hardware, and "user account control" (UAC) disabled, it's pretty reasonable.