Discussion on:

Don't be misled by these 10 Windows Vista myths

Have you heard some of the same skewed facts and misinformation described here? Did any of these clarifications come as a surprise to you?

there are some issues that I had.
The first is security. Although there have been security improvements, the SW is more bloated and there are many known issues that need to be worked on. The article states that Vista is more secure than XP, but it has yet to be proven.

Also, the article mentions pricing and states that they are exactly the same as XP versions, except with more features. But what about the features that were ripped out, or changed around.

The arguments w2ktechman makes are weak. On one hand he acknowledges there are security improvements, but then indicates that it hasn't been proven that Vista is more secure than XP. Using his own argument, it hasn't been proven that Vista is *less* secure than XP.

However, we can point to Vista's UAC feature as an example where security has improved and there is no real equivalent in XP. One has to conclude by just this feature alone that Vista *is* more secure than XP. It is difficult to argue, at this point in time, that Vista is less secure due to the number of reported bugs as compared to XP. Only with sufficient time and analysis, will we be able to determine whether the security improvements Microsoft made in Vista actually paid off.

Whether the software is bloated or not is a matter of opinion. Let's not confuse additional features with bloat. You could say *any* software is bloated, if you don't use the majority of it's features. But that doesn't mean that it's bloated for someone else who does use the majority of it's features. What you might desire is the ability to remove features that you don't personally use. Both XP and Vista allow you to do that, but maybe not at the granular level you might like.

Lastly, if you are going to argue "there are many known issues..." then provide references to a few issues that support your argument instead of waving your hands in the air, otherwise they just look like the FUD the article was trying to dispel.

Install it without IE7 because you want to use an other browser.

Additional features aren't bloat, unnecessary/unwanted features are.

So not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

I welcome the foundation behind UAC, but I feel the constant alert / query will really annoy people. Until a lot more apps come out that work with UAC so the user doesn't get queried, I see problems.

Particularly people running as admin and then hammering the return key flat every time the dialog comes up without looking at what it says.

Are you sure?

oops

I did not state that Vista was less secure, only that it has not been proven yet that it is more secure. You are reading between the lines, and not at what I wrote.

Bloated SW has more parts that can be problematic. And yes, most SW from large vendors are bloated as they add new features often to create more capitol by selling the new and improved versions.
Vista is a much larger OS than previous ones, yes it does do more as well, but being larger (many more lines of code) can create more unexpected results (security holes, bugs, etc.).

And finally, it is well documented, even by MS that there are many known issues/bugs with the OS. That didnt stop them from releasing Win2k which had more than 28,000 upon release date, and it did not stop them from releasing Vista either.
So your assessment of my comments was really not correct. If you are going to accuse me of not liking Vista, you are correct, and I have never stated otherwise. All that aside, I was just commenting on the article and a few issues that I saw with it, although I did like the article.

Features are not bloat. Bloated software is that which is written with more lines of code necessary to get the job done. Any particular feature of a program can be written efficiently or in a non-efficient manner, hence bloat.

Uninstallable "features" are bloat.

Take the Firewall for example. I use a hardware firewall at home; I don't want Windows Firewall, I can disable it, but I cannot remove it.

It is bloat.

And the UAC is quite annoying. It is the first thing I turned off. It should be made so that it is can be made more granular. Accessing the system files; sure. Changing screen resolution, I think not.

If I download and install the latest and greatest version of Mandriva or Debian or whatever and it has all kinds of "cool/new" features that I can't get to work on my laptop that is a PII 166 mhz, then can I say Linux is "bloated"?

Especially since so many Linux zealots on here rant and rave on how Linux will run so fast on just about anything. If they are so right, man, I'm taking up dumpster diving and finding me a sweet ole x386 for my personal pleasure. It should be a speed demon on Linux.

I can't uninstall all those cool new Linux features unless I take the next 2 years, read a library or two of books, watch a few videos, and otherwise piss away a vast swath of my time learning a new OS.

Linux does not require a library of books. Learning various versions of Windows requires re-learning everything all over again.

For basic use of Linux (install, configure, use) yes, a book is the best way to start. Just like DOS, Windows, Mac. When you first learned to use Windows, did you just turn it on and know everything??? Learning any new OS requires a bit of LEARNING, that includes reading.
What a dumba$$ post you made.

If you think for a second that anyone can install, use and understand Linux after only using Windows all their life, you're a fool.

I have 7+ years in the tech biz and I have tried Linux numerous times only to be so totally frustrated that I have once again tossed it aside.

You can fool yourself by thinking Linux is easy but the rest of us know better.

I stated that all OS's require a bit of learning, and that 1 book, not the library + videos + others that you stated.

Windows required learning too! You werent born with the knowledge were you?

Learn to read before sputtering off even more dumba$$ remarks tardboy!

Now that's mature.

Sure one book can teach you Linux as long as it's 500+ pages with web references.

And good luck asking any friends, family, co-workers, etc for help when you need it because 90% will be using Windows and know nothing about Linux.

had a bad day from data recovery failure. Sorry for the bad remark.

However, learning basic usage for Linux does not require a 500 page book even. It is as easy to pick up as Win is. maybe a 50-80 page book could get one started and running. Learning mid to advanced Linux will require a 500 page book. Learning to master Linux would require a small library.
You are correct though that if a problem happens, everyone already knows Windows so verbal support and asking around is much harder in Linux.

I whole-heartedly agree! My biggest, longest lasting dislike about Windows, and most Microsoft software is bloat: anything installed that I did not ask for, do not want, do not need, and is not required for stable function of the OS/Software Package. I have never used, nor will ever use WMC, Windows Firewall, Outlook/Outlook Express, ... et cetera. They are wholly useless to me.
As such, installing such items that I do not use, and are not required by the OS for stable operation (I've forcefully removed them piece-by-piece with no stability issues) constitute bloat for me.
Microsoft needs to do just a few easy things to make an OS worthy of modern users hard-earned cash:
1) allow total control over what is/is not installed. If it is not 100% necessary for the OS to run, it's an option, period!
2) Support, or allow others to support, all available hardware. There is no reason why I have issues in addressing and recognition of my two-cpu mobo out of the box. I have 2 AMD 64X2 5200+ chips installed. They run wonderfully and are recognized and addressed properly in XP Media Center 2005; Why can't Vista see that there are four cores on two separate chips. That's not marketing and licensing, that's poor coding, and poor environmental awareness.
3) Allow support for non-windows media formats. It doesn't have to be in WMP 11, just allow Vista to install other software that includes DRM-Free software code. BSPlayer and WinAmp are both widely distributed, making up more than reportedly 70% of the most used media software across platforms, and almost 50% on Windows systems. Blocking this software from installing by default, and requiring extensive computer knowledge to install them, is also poor coding. Microsoft may like DRM, the vast majority of consumers the world-over don't. There is no law that states that legally purchased music in one platform may not ever be played in another. Microsoft is not God and Judge.
Fix those problems, and we're back on track.

Not only should the UAC be made more granular, but so should the package selection at install time. I'm not a fan of Red Hat, but take the RPM: you select a package - if it has any dependencies on other packages it tells you. You can then decide as to whether you want those packages on your system, or if you'd prefer to give it a miss. This way, you see what packages are a neccessity and which ones are optional extras. Works a charm. Many versions of Linux that I prefer (including Suse 10 +) also have this feature.

"...I have 7+ years in the tech biz and I have tried Linux numerous times only to be so totally frustrated that I have once again tossed it aside..."

This explains why you have such an aversion to Linux and anything else that is not from Microsoft, what you work with every day.

Not all technical people have the trouble with Linux you are having. You should consider this as something you should work on. There is nothing wrong with Linux. Linux is wonderful.

Most programmers I know, and I know a lot, are self-taught masters on multiple platforms from handhelds (Palm, Windows CE), to desktops (Windows, Linux, Mac, DOS, OS/2), to servers (Windows, Linux, Unix), to mainframes (IBM's z/OS).

Personally, I always look forward to the opportunity to work on a new platform, and I have never set one aside yet.

Don't give up. Persevere through the early frustrations. You'll find that you can master multiple platforms. And, each one you master will make the next one easier to master.

And, stop posting negative crap about Linux since the problem is really within you.

Looking at replies to your post, they are going into a tirade about Linux being bloatware. Since when is Linux part of this discussion? We are discussing Vista. Please stay on topic.

Are you guys serious about space? As features are disabled, they are not taking resources (other than disk space), so what is the issue?

IE7 cant be uninstalled, who cares? This is again an issue of disk space. Just because it is there does not mean that it has to be used.

Disk space? Seriously, 750 gig hard drives are less than $200, and we are worried about 50 megs?

Your argument is exactly the reason that, while computers keep growing exponentially in capabilities, we end up not being able to do any more -- but we can do the old stuff with a bunch of new shiny annoyances tacked on.

It seems like Deb was reaching a bit for some of the myths. I don't think I've ever heard about Vista not being able to dual boot.

Also, when she's talking about video cards - I have it good. I have a nice video card that'll handle it just fine. However, I know that out of my entire IT staff, about 80% of them have video cards that have less than 128 Mb of video RAM, and older Pentium 4 PCs. Although a GeForce 5200 may be "inexpensive" for some, it still means that they'd have to buy an upgrade, and not everyone has $80 (that's just a random stab at how much it costs) to buy a replacement video card.

Add to that the ever-increasing senior population who are less up-to-date with technology, and you end up with a lot of people who will not be getting Vista without buying a new PC.

Personally, I don't like having different versions of Windows. It only multiplies the different number of operating systems I have to know about in order to troubleshoot if an issue gets to me. As much as I hate those biased, stupid PC-vs-Mac commercials, the latest one that talks about Mac only having one version DOES have some appeal.

If you think that having a couple of versions of Windows is fun to support -- try Linux.

With over 500 'popular distros' to choose from -- multiplied by the number of different tools, utilities and applications tacked on to make them the least bit functional -- you have a nightmare on your hands.

Ever hear of anyone needing to 'recompile portions of the os' to get anything to work in Windows? No they can't, and no, they don't need to.

If you think that having a couple of versions of Windows is fun to support -- try Linux.

With over 500 'popular distros' to choose from -- multiplied by the number of different tools, utilities and applications tacked on to make them the least bit functional -- you have a nightmare on your hands.

Ever hear of anyone needing to 'recompile portions of the os' to get anything to work in Windows? No they can't, and no, they don't need to.

I've never recompiled Linux.

I've had things that don't work of course, usually the result of some MS psychophant, Toshiba for instance.

As for the crack about functional, well you definitely need to go back to class.

If the range of Vista options is good, then those in Linux Distro's must be awesome yes?

"Ever hear of anyone needing to 'recompile portions of the os' to get anything to work in Windows? No they can't, and no, they don't need to."

That's right -- you don't need to recompile anything in MS Windows itself to get things to work. Instead, you have to use a completely different system -- one that's capable of doing such things, unlike MS Windows.

It's great how you never need to do any work to get things working when you limit yourself to never doing those things.

Overrall, I agree with this post, despite a small problem with the phrase "up to date with technology". There are reasonable requirements to keep you tech skills/toolkit up to date so that they are relevant, but the average Joe ( sixpack ) doesn't need the most current version of an OS to meet their needs. For me, XP is fine, and since I still build my computers, there is no reason to upgrade until XP ceases to meet my needs.

I think MS releases multiple versions of the OS strictly for sales. Its a common technique to set up a price model for different segments of the population in order to maximize market penetration.

e.g. Take the same software base, then disable portions and sell that version for a lower price. I mostly see this done with software, but CPU and video card manufacturers have done the same.


Simplicity is nice, and I do think MS overdid the pricing model technique with Vista.

Whe had 3 machine with Windows 2003 installed. We kept getting this message thay they were illegal when we tried to download installations. Now that we have Winndows Office 2007, my bodd thinks we are legal. But, actuall, it was the operating system that was illegal because it was copied to the 3 diferent machines and would not allow us to download upgrades. Now, we are back networked, but I can't use my floppies with documents used as formats, nor can I email from home where I have Windows xP as my operating system. The computers at the office will not open any of the attachments. I went through a big, big hassle yesterday I was sick and had to retype the divorce decree. It was a mess.So, what I'm seeing is that I can't send emails from my home computer now to my boss of the law clerk because they cannot oppen then. Where there was Outlook, it has been replaced with Outlook Express, and I need all of the information that was in outlook. They say that they made back up copies, but I can't find them if they did, and I can't figure out how to open the backups and set them up for use. What is the solution?

First thing, make sure you have a legal purchased license for each PC.

In other words, you should have 3 copies of Windows XP or Windows Vista with 3 SEPARATE Certificates of Authenticity.

Also, you will need three separate purchased licenses of Office 2003 OR Office 2007. Either one will run on XP OR Vista.

If you do that, everything should work.

Not all oem pc's have the disks
But they must a license each stuck to the case

Firstly, (and lets just ignore the fact that you have unlicensed software since that is a huge issue... in a LAW OFFICE???), why would you want to move from a Server OS to a Desktop OS?
There are numerous issues you could be running into here, but it would require digging into your environment and finding out how / what is configured.

I know, hard to understand this post. My interpretation:

Whe had 3 machines with Office 2003 installed. We kept getting this message that they were illegal when we tried to download updates from Windows Update (think Genuine Advantage). Now that we have Office 2007, my boss thinks we are legal.

But, actually, it was the OS that was illegal because it was copied to 3 diferent machines and would not allow us to download updates.

The rest gets a bit confusing...

The trick of understanding the message is to do a direct translation into another language such as Spanish. You then translate it back into English.

What he really wants to know is where can he find the ".pst" files that contain all his emails in Outlook 2003.

look here on the computer that has your emails:

C:\Documents and Settings\your user name\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Outlook\Outlook.pst

You can import this file into outlook 2007.

I think he's also missed the point that he might need to save his doc's in )ffice 2007 as Office 97-2003 docs for his recipients to open them!

Is not allways illegal
The main thing is to have a licence for each pc

In answer to your Office 2007 with Vista post tag, Ummmm.. Yeah, that's what the two of them were all about!!! For the last 6 months all there has been is the Vista/2007 hype.

Windows 2003? That's a server OS. Are you running server OSs on desktop machines? Or are you referring to Office 2003, which is an APPLICATION? Windows and Office are two different things, Office CAN'T run without Windows, but Windows is very happy NOT having Office installed.

If the OS is copied to three different machines, YOU ARE running pirated copies of the OS. This is what WGA is all about. If you can't email attachments to your office and have them open, you probably DON'T have the application required to open them, it's as simple as that. The compatibilities have nothing to do with the OS, and LITTLE to do with recent versions of Office, as their documents are (of late) interchangeable between the various versions of Office, with the notable exception of Access.

As far as your boSS not being able to open them, can he not OPEN them, or are they being blocked? BIG difference. If he cannot open them, then the application necessary to open them is not installed on the receiving computer. As far as them being blocked, most Excel files will be blocked by Outlook and Outlook Express, due to the possibility of harmful macros being possible payloads. There are many OTHER types of files that can be blocked as well. .EXE, .XLS, .JPG, .COM... All will be blocked by the security settings.

If they formatted without backing up your files, then your emailbox is gone. You will be searching for a file called "Outlook". If you find it, and you DON'T have Outlook installed, you can't put that information into Outlook Express. You need to install Outlook. Once installed, set it up as you usually would, then copy the OLD Outlook file over the NEW Outlook file. (I actually rename the new one, and copy the old one into the same directory.) Easy.

One last brutal, potentially painful thing... I am amazed you made it... With typing skills and grammar like that, how do you keep a job? Learn how to use a spell check! You post like some of the teenagers at one of the audio electronics forums I frequent, yet you claim a "Legal/Medical Professional" status...

Office 2007 will not open older document files. If you create a document in Office 2007, those with earlier versions will not be able to open them, either. Download OPEN OFFICE from openoffice.org It is free and will open just about anything and the file that you make should open when you e-mail them to other people. If not, have others download Open Office. It should solve your problem. MS didn't bother to let anyone know that they want to make sure that "YOU" have to use their products or you are SCREWED! I hope that this helps. Thanks ED

Microsoft has always supported older document formats. For example you can open a Word or Excel docment created in a previous version of these in Office 2007. The exception to this has always been Access. Many features that are used in Access databases have had to be converted over to the new version. Sometimes that worked, some times it didn't.

The statement that you can't open Office 2007 documents in Office 2003 is not 100% correct either. You can open Word documents created in Word 2007 with 2003, but you can't open Excel 2007 (saved in it's native format xlsx) with Excel 2003. You would have to save it as an Excel 97-2003 version.

you can set the default save format to Office ver. 2003. It has to be done program by program, however.

Click on the ridiculous little circle at the top left of the program window. At the lower right of the dialogue/window that opens, configure the preferences.

For opening files of older versons
Are you say this is not so with Office 2007

will not open older document files? Which? Wordstar 1? If you are sharing files with an older version of Office(any version from 97 up) you should save in the compatible format. If you save in 2007 format, then the user of an earlier version of Office merely needs to download a free filter from MS that workjs invisibly behind the scenes.
eddrone has presumably neither seen nor used Office 2007

How about M$'s flagship development environment (Visual Studio 2005) being INCOMPATIBLE with Vista.
1) The IDE actually recommends you run as Admin everytime you run the darn thing. Yeah, that's good security design for you.
2) Even more importantly, the C compiler offers the worst downward compatibility in windows history. The thing can't doesn't even recognize attributed class from VS 2003.
3) Every new release, the code output gets slower and slower. I compiled the same template objects using VS6 and VS2005. The latter took an average of 4 times as long to execute as the former. Not to mention the productivity hit you have to take with the increased compile time that one can hardly ignore each time you press build. You call that progress? If this is the result of outsourcing, please stop!

In fact, if you look at the official documentation, you have to go back to 1998 (Visual Studio 6) to find an officially compatible compiler.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I spend alot of time in VS, but I thought VS 2003 was not compatible but VS 2005 was.

Neither VS2003 nor VS2005 are compatible out of the box.

You have to install two service packs to VS2005 to be officially supported. But even after that 1 hour upgrade; VS2005 is still the worst visual studio ever produced by microsoft. I am sticking to VS2003 until they fire Steve Em-Balmer and produce a viable alternative.

If you wrote apps for the .Net 1.x framework, be prepared to start having to update your code. The .Net 2.0 framework is ok, but still requires some tweeking to make things hunky dory.

Long story short, MS dropped the ball on Vista for developers.

A-Men!

"...otherwise they just look like the FUD the article was trying to dispel..."

The constant validation and making me approve everything is a major PITA. If I launch a task it shouldn't bother to prompt mr. If it comes as an RPC, It should be not run automatic.

Is it more secure not when people get so annoyed they click the do not ask me again hutton? I be1lieve that the Vista is stunted. However Ubuntu 6.10 runs like a scalded Dog on the new Toshiba Laptop. with 2GB of RAM. In fact in WINE some things I use are much faster than VISTA without the constant prompting, and the basis for security is Linux OS.

The article stated that most of the XP apps were imported onto Vista. In addition, it's possible to show multiple OS's in the Boot feature when starting/restarting your computer. For instance, I run XP Pro SP2, Vista 32-bit and 64-Bit, Office 2007, Groove, Exchange. Now I do run custom computers, but I spend less than $1,000 getting them running and configured, along with the hardware I want. The OS IS backward compatible with nearly every app on XP, but with dual-boot feature, why do this? Also, Office doesn't need to be on the computer, I just have it and use it.

about Vista include George Ou and now Steve S Warren.

Bit telling that.

Since you are using it to install an upgrade, you will not be able to use your own license number even if you ditch Vista.

Take a good look at google and seek for clean install Vista from Upgrade DVD to solve this issue!

And spreading rumors like that is exactly the ignorant behavior this article was written to counter.

Installing an upgrade copy of Vista makes your previous OS license legally invalid. Why? Because the upgrade license for Vista is contingent on a prior version. This is why the upgrade is cheaper.

It does NOT make the XP key technologically invalid. You can still uninstall Vista and reinstall XP, using your previous key, without any problem.

What you can't do, legally, is upgrade a PC to Vista, and then use your XP key to install XP on a different machine. But the key would still work to do it.