Vista took one for the team

Sure, Windows 7 is a better Windows than Vista, but it would have been much less so in December 2006 when Vista was released. Enough adjustment to Vista has happened that Windows 7 won't be as imposing a change.

I'm coming to the belief that Windows 7 is basically Vista 1.5 - a notably upgraded, but not substantially different, product. But the passage of time and "work" done by Vista has freed Windows 7 from the disrepute of its predecessor.
My sense of the complaints about Vista is that the two biggest ones had to do with UAC (User Access Control) and lack of support for devices. Microsoft compromised some on UAC in Win7 (that compromise led to some controversies—I think they caved in to bad PR, they see it differently) but the basic principle of UAC in Windows 7 is the same.
The real problem that UAC tries to solve is when third-party software requires privileged access. In almost all cases, there are ways to do what the software needs to do without requiring privileged access or, in the alternative, segregating the privileged components into a service and communicating securely with it. This is, for instance, how Automatic Updates works on your system without requiring you to provide administrator credentials.


Vista Took One for the Team

 

[sassofalco]

Microsoft compromised some on UAC in Win7 (that compromise led to some controversies—I think they caved in to bad PR, they see it differently) but the basic principle of UAC in Windows 7 is the same.
Vista Took One for the Team

Thanks echrada for lead-in to a well discussed issue.........Microsoft and UAC. Still, some very interesting views, and my UAC remains enabled!!

 

[Iforgot]

Microsoft has developed the mentality for pc users for years...

It really has come back to bite them on the b*m..

I've always used a user account.
Administrator is "run as" only when needed.

Now, also have Microsoft allowed us to remove IE?

 

[johnwillyums]

I've not been into computers for very long. The first operating system I experienced was XP Pro.

I used that for about a year and then went to a new machine and Vista 64 bit.
I just thought it was amazing straight away. It looked much more grown up somehow and it was compatible with all my peripherals so no issues there.
Everybody moaned about UAC but I don't mind it at all. It's a little bit of a hassle but nothing really and I've had no problems that I didn't cause myself in two years.( so it works)

Things got better after SP1 but I was fully up to date anyway so it didn't make that much difference to me.

Other complaints were that it used a lot of resources and was actually slower than XP and I agree with both of those statements.
But. I'd just got a new, much more powerful machine than I had been used to and to me it seemed faster than XP and more stable.
As such the XP vs Vista debate and the keep XP alive campaign were a bit of a mystery to me. I couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't prefer Vista.

For a while I dual booted Ubuntu and it's certainly amazing, very fast indeed, and the Compiz Fusion eye candy make Vista, W7 and Macs OS look fairly ordinairy.
Problem was I still didn't ( and still don't) know enough about Vista so I found the extra learning curve involved with learning to use Ubuntu too much.
I opened in Ubuntu less and less in the end I wiped it.

I hope that the same thing won't happen with this W7 Beta dual boot but for different reasons.
This is not a steep learning curve, it's ok, it's not that much different, it's got a couple of nice touches but nothing "wow" that I've yet discovered.
It fact it's a bit boring and I'm worried I'll stop bothering booting it cos I've got my Vista setup very nicely at the moment (new install).
Also it doesn't seem any faster or less demanding on RAM or CPU

I'm not sure it's even Vista 1.5.
It's more like some Firfox Add-Ons and a couple of new Google Apps.
I suppose moving straight from XP to Vista 64 was a bigger step than previous Windows versions. I don't know, wasn't there.
As I've said elsewhere I'm underwhelmed with W7.
Best wishes, John

 

[Rising]

I don't find UAC to be a hassle at all. So I have to physically move my finger to click a button? OMG!!! WHAT DO I DO?! AGGGHHHHAKJHBHGSJHGBSHGBSH!!!

At least, that's how some people seem to react. Say my comp gets hit by a trojan or virus and it tries to access sensitive material that can seriously screw up my system. It needs administrative privileges to do that. If you know you didn't activate said UAC prompt, then likely, something else did. Seems useful to me.

 

[avgwarhawk]

UAC is no bother to me either. I find that the computer gurus feel the UAC is a hand holder and these gurus do not need to have their hand held. I'm sure they don't. However, I think there are more non-computer gurus who do need their hands held. UAC helps these folks stay out of trouble. It sure beats having to go to someone to have a virus removed for $100.00.

 

[stew2]

I like Vista i think its a notible improvement over XP. I built my first pc two years ago with vista in mind and havent upgraded anything since then. In that time iv never had a virus or spyware on my machine and i have UAC disabled and no virus or spyware scanner installed. I install AVG every four months or so do a scan and then bin it just for peace of mind. Blue screens have never happened either whereas on XP they happen quite a lot.

I think the problem with vista is it comes with just too much c**p like UAC, sidebar, etc. I personally would love to see an OS come on two disks one with the minimum it requires to run and the other with everything else leaving it up to us if we want to install it or not.

As for "Vista took one for the team" i really dont agree and il be skipping windows 7.

 

[echrada]

I like Vista i think its a notible improvement over XP. I built my first pc two years ago with vista in mind and havent upgraded anything since then. In that time iv never had a virus or spyware on my machine and i have UAC disabled and no virus or spyware scanner installed. I install AVG every four months or so do a scan and then bin it just for peace of mind. Blue screens have never happened either whereas on XP they happen quite a lot.

I think the problem with vista is it comes with just too much c**p like UAC, sidebar, etc. I personally would love to see an OS come on two disks one with the minimum it requires to run and the other with everything else leaving it up to us if we want to install it or not.

As for "Vista took one for the team" i really dont agree and il be skipping windows 7.

I am very happy for you that you have not had any problems. However, it seems to me that you are taking unnecessary risks. With all the free anti virus programmes out there you really should have one running on your machine.

Remember it is not only an infection over the internet that is putting you at risk. You can put a Cd/DVD into your machine and get an infection or a memory stick....

But I am not here to preach to you .... Windows 7 will get you some time or the other.

 

[stew2]

"Windows 7 will get you some time or the other". I dont think so, from what iv seen of it theres nothing really new and so no need to upgrade.

As for virus and spyware scanners theres no need to have them, so i dont ( just google on ways to do this).

My rig runs faster than my mates quad core pc for everything except for games as his GPU is loads better than mine. This is because on startup he's got virus scanners, defragers, spyware scanners, UAC, firewalls, etc, etc.................

 

[avgwarhawk]

What I have read about 7 is that it is faster than Vista. More stable. What else does it really offer. Come on, sell me Windows 7. Tell me something that will make me go drop another $200.00 for a new OS

 

[jhuk]

Got to laugh at the times (countless when I was part of #Winbeta) I have had to listen to nonsense from someone leet who thinks they do not need protection on their PC.

If I was MS I would block their PC from the Internet as its not helping others.

 

[stew2]

Wow thats pretty rude and not a single comment about windows 7 or vista which is what this thread is for.

I could go into what iv done to my pc but it would take to long but anyway iv been two years without any viruses, spyware or cookies damaging my system and my dad's work pc which i set up in the same way a year ago has also been malware free as well.

From what i understand about virus scanners they have to have definitions updated to catch the latest threats and if in the meantime your unlucky enough to get one of these viruses before your update arrives well it has that time to do whatever it was programmed to do.

So then you take your virus messed about pc online where the rest of us would prefer you didnt. But anyway back to Windows 7 and vista i think

 

[MadDad2]

Sure, Windows 7 is a better Windows than Vista, but it would have been much less so in December 2006 when Vista was released. Enough adjustment to Vista has happened that Windows 7 won't be as imposing a change.
I'm coming to the belief that Windows 7 is basically Vista 1.5 - a notably upgraded, but not substantially different, product.
Vista Took One for the Team

Take XP and use it without Administrator rights, and ya got Vista out of the box. Not that big a deal to disable, but safer to leave it on. Personally I disabled it right off.

 

[BryceEason]

I'm still against the UAC, until they make it better. I come from using Archlinux for a good while, Ubuntu is for Windoze people. I much prefer the way Linux handles administrative access for installing. It hardly ever needs root access except to install certain things and then you just type sudo pacman -S package (the archlinux install command) and it ONLY uses admin access to install that one package and in the one place it goes, and then it goes back to regular user access. It's a lot better in my opinion.

I had Windows 7 on my desktop for about a month and everything is fine, but my surround sound doesn't work in it and it took some time to get it to work in Vista Ultimate 64bit to. Now, once you've been around surround sound on every thing you own (tv, home theater, computer, etc), it's hard listening to the plain old default sound system, so I went to Vista for that. And for my games of course. Although most of them ran fine on W7.

I'm also displeased that they're removed the Classic Theme from Windows7. I mean that was the best theme out there for all you power purists, like me XD. 8gb RAM and 3.8ghz isn't enough for me, I must have more. Well, enough of my rant.

Still, Archlinux is the best, followed by Windows 7 and then Vista Ultimate 64bit.

P.S: I still don't get why they made the Home X editions of Vista, seems like a waste to me. Ultimate was only like $180 at Newegg, so meh.

@The UAC Topic: I do not run UAC currently on my Vista desktop, as I don't see a need for it. In my opinion, no one really needs it if you're smart about what you do on the computer. You'd have to be a complete dumb ass to get in trouble with a download, etc. Rule of thumb I abide by; If I don't know the publisher of a download, torrent, software, etc, I download it and scan it with aVast (FTW) and then install it. Otherwise I just download and install it. I do run aVast, although it's kinda a resource hog (again, the power purist deal lols) so sometime I'll leave it on for a week or less and others I'll just turn it on to scan downloads, etc and for nightly scans. Another good internet rule: NEVER EVER use IE, I don't care how non-geek you are, it's crap. Firefox and Opera, and Chrome are much better and superior. Use them. Thanks, there's my rant.

 

[jhuk]

@ stew2 , 1st of all I was not rude. :huh:

2nd you are clueless for what you do and should not even be allowed on the WWW with your PC IMO.

You do not understand anything and do not know if your PC is infected or not.

Again I have heard it all for the past 8years and I will not listen to this nonsense from anyone and I am not about to start to with you.

I also do not need mention if its Vista or Win 7 as it has little to do with the nonsense your spreading and I do not want others to be as irresponsible e as you and copy you.

 

[stew2]

"Got to laugh at the times I have had to listen to nonsense" from someone who thinks they know best.

I understand as much as i know and if you read my post you would see i do install a virus scanner and run it just to be on the safe side every four months or so. 2 years and still waiting for that first virus.

I wasnt suggesting anyone do this and i didnt give instructions on how to do this my post was about what i had running and if i found vista good or not. But really you should have an open mind to ideas and not just "I will not listen to this nonsense from anyone and I am not about to start to with you"

Finally this is a thread about windows7 and vista focusing on whats wrong with vista and if Windows7 is a big step forward or vista 1.5 as suggested.

But anyway your free to say what you want and i wont reply to your next rant lol although you should open a new topic if your so passionate about it as i feel we are monopolising this thread.

 

[jhuk]

1st It was not a rant and you seem good at making accusations of ranting and rudeness when all can see on both charges I am innocent.

2nd I will not be opening another topic to discuss something that is common sense to even novice PC users in that they need protection.

 

[echrada]

Enough guys!

 

[johnwillyums]

Agreed, quite enough.
I think we should be talking about what W7 offers us over Vista.
I hear MS are reconsidering the watered down version of UAC that comes with 7 and, as others have said, it's not really a hassle at all and I certainly find it reassuring and useful
so I hope they keep it in.
However I'm still not that impressed with 7 over Vista and I am booting it less and less.
I know 7 is an inevitability but I've yet to see anything to make me impatient for the final release.
C'mon guys, convince me, John

 

[Barman58]

Hello John,

Apart from some sort of HTML mind control :huh: no one will be able to convince you, except yourself :D.

The thing with all new OS releases is that there is often nothing in the OS itself that will make an upgrade a "must Have", what does that is a killer Application that only works, (or is significantly better), on the new OS.

This may or may not come with windows 7, (Microsoft's own policy of backwards compatibility often works against them here), only time will tell.

Personally I find Windows 7 to be more intuitive and snappier to work with than Vista on the same hardware, It may not be something that can be quantified but is just a perception I have.

There is no need to upgrade to Windows 7, if Vista is working then stay with it. If a "Killer App" appears then reconsider at that time. I always thought Vista was a good OS I personally believe Windows 7 to be a better one In my opinion

The vast number of sales of the OS will be from being included with new hardware sales rather than from upgraders going out and buying a copy. I will upgrade as this is in my interest due to the work I do - I will be expected to support it when it's released, I will also continue to run XP and Vista for the same reason.