Ten Reasons to buy Windows Vista

[Warrior]

Crazed hit the nail on the head.

They more likely share similiar "mistakes" or bugs left in the code that they didn't anticipate, 2k3 was an entire kernel overhaul from XP. Almost no XP code is left, since they built of SP2 technology it's logical they'd share some vulnerabilities.

[ink]

So much for their "bidirectional software firewall"

We expected Vista's firewall to address a major shortcoming in XP's built-in protection by alerting you to outgoing as well as incoming traffic. But the new firewall monitors only incoming connections by default. Microsoft contends that this is sufficient for most users. We continue to recommend that you replace it with a bidirectional product, such as Zone Labs' ZoneAlarm.

from original document, and how many current windows users would actually know how to change anything from the default setting? (clue: not enough.)

also...

Vista's BitLocker feature adds security to notebooks and other PCs by letting you encrypt the entire hard drive. If your computer (or just the hard drive) is stolen, the thief can't access your data without your 48-digit encryption key. If your computer carries the not-for-profit Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Platform Module chip, the key is retrieved automatically when you log in to Windows. Otherwise you can put the key on a USB drive, which you then use to unlock your hard drive every time you boot, or enter the key manually whenever you start your machine.

key words being letting you which I take means it's not on by default either
all these additional security features mean jack if the user doesn't understand how they work, which most don't alone with winxp "security", i think this will just confuse people (general populus) more!

Perhaps most crucial (and least sexy) is the long-overdue User Account Protection, which invokes administrator privileges as needed, such as during driver updates or software installations. UAP makes it much more convenient for users to operate Vista with limited rights (meaning the system won't let them do certain things, like load software, without clearance from an administrator). This in turn limits the ability of malware to hose your system.

This in turn will limit the ability of malware to hose your system up until a day after it's release, who are they kidding?

3. Righteous eye candy

Yay more to be disabled! And thats their #3 reason to get it! Ha, if I wanted righteous eye candy I'll play Battlefield2.

[iago]

Crazed hit the nail on the head.

Good, because I disagree with what he said.  I don't think that an idea can be "new" only to certain people and not to others.  Either it's something new, or it's not.  In this case, it's not.  People who think it's new are wrong.

They more likely share similiar "mistakes" or bugs left in the code that they didn't anticipate, 2k3 was an entire kernel overhaul from XP. Almost no XP code is left, since they built of SP2 technology it's logical they'd share some vulnerabilities.

I'm not saying that they didn't change anything, I'm quite sure that they changed a lot.  But there is also a lot of stuff that they didn't change, and that's where vulnerabilities come from.  The exploit code for MS03-026 and MS04-011 are identical on Windows XP and Windows 2003.  Even if they changed a single variable or even recompiled the code with different libraries/flags, that wouldn't be the case.  It's the SAME code.  Some of Windows 2003 shares Windows XP code. 

[CrAz3D]

Crazed hit the nail on the head.

Good, because I disagree with what he said.  I don't think that an idea can be "new" only to certain people and not to others.  Either it's something new, or it's not.  In this case, it's not.  People who think it's new are wrong.

You're missing the concept.

It isn't a new idea, but it is new to Windows users.

e.g. You buy a used car.  Around here most people would say "I bought a new car".  It isn't new to the previous owner, but its new to the current operator of the car.

[ink]

so are you saying that Microsoft has stated in the past that it's operating systems were NOT secure? If not, then it's not a new concept, just slapped a "new" label on it. Kinda like when they put "0grams of fat!" on things like gum packs, of course theres no fat it's just used to catch ppl (usually not very intelligent).

[Warrior]

So much for their "bidirectional software firewall"

We expected Vista's firewall to address a major shortcoming in XP's built-in protection by alerting you to outgoing as well as incoming traffic. But the new firewall monitors only incoming connections by default. Microsoft contends that this is sufficient for most users. We continue to recommend that you replace it with a bidirectional product, such as Zone Labs' ZoneAlarm.

from original document, and how many current windows users would actually know how to change anything from the default setting? (clue: not enough.)

also...

Funny, Microsoft bundles software with their OS and get slammed for Antitrust in EU and when they don't they get slammed by you. Amazing.

In addition to using these built-in Windows Vista features, you should help keep your computer healthy by using antivirus software such as Windows OneCare or an antivirus solution from one of Microsoft's partners. Whichever option you choose, remember to update your antivirus software regularly. These updates are generally available through a subscription from your antivirus vendor.

Together, these tools can help you protect your PC from malicious software.

Vista's BitLocker feature adds security to notebooks and other PCs by letting you encrypt the entire hard drive. If your computer (or just the hard drive) is stolen, the thief can't access your data without your 48-digit encryption key. If your computer carries the not-for-profit Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Platform Module chip, the key is retrieved automatically when you log in to Windows. Otherwise you can put the key on a USB drive, which you then use to unlock your hard drive every time you boot, or enter the key manually whenever you start your machine.

key words being letting you which I take means it's not on by default either
all these additional security features mean jack if the user doesn't understand how they work, which most don't alone with winxp "security", i think this will just confuse people (general populus) more!

Don't know what you're getting at, of course it'd be enabled by default. I'd also like to note how much time has been put into the User Experience. This makes it easy to find and change settings in Vista, no longer are programs hidden in a folder you'd hardly look for. The Control Panel has been revamped, and last time I checked most users knew how to use the control panel.

Perhaps most crucial (and least sexy) is the long-overdue User Account Protection, which invokes administrator privileges as needed, such as during driver updates or software installations. UAP makes it much more convenient for users to operate Vista with limited rights (meaning the system won't let them do certain things, like load software, without clearance from an administrator). This in turn limits the ability of malware to hose your system.

This in turn will limit the ability of malware to hose your system up until a day after it's release, who are they kidding?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/security/#uap
You may want to read up some, take a look into all the measures. You may want to read into Vista security in general, you seem pretty uninformed.

3. Righteous eye candy

Yay more to be disabled! And thats their #3 reason to get it! Ha, if I wanted righteous eye candy I'll play Battlefield2.

Unless the majority of users think like you, they arn't going to care. Sorry.

[ink]

All the info on it's security features was gotten from the article @ PCWorld.com.
Anywho, you just seem to be sticking up for Microsoft for the sake of sticking up for them.
Microsoft can claim that its been REVAMPED and made EASIER but then again how difficult is it to Click START>CONTROL PANEL. I'll believe it when I see it

[ink]

So much for their "bidirectional software firewall"

Unless the majority of users think like you, they arn't going to care. Sorry.

I'll take this as a compliment, since I'd take it as an insult if you said the majority of windows users did think like me. LOL.

[JTN Designer]

...I can't believe people don't want Windows to upgrade security because "Done by BSD/Linux". I don't care, Linux stole enough from Windows. Go get your own damn drivers/software and stop using ndis wrappers and Wine before you start crying about who did what.

15 Minute install is possible. Done by Apple.

I (and most people I know) don't run ndis or wine.  And it's not fair to complain that Linux uses reverse-engineered Windows drivers for a lot of things because the companies who make the hardware only support Windows.  I think it's more impressive that the Linux people went to all the extra work. 

And it's not that I don't want Windows to upgrade security, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  They are calling security a "new feature", which I think is stupid.  They're advertising that they now have a secure operating system (which only took what, 20 years?) while every other OS beat them to it a long time ago.  That should hardly count as a "feature" of an OS, don't you agree?

A company of which dominates the market. I plan on buying Vista once it comes out, and within the next year, upgrade both of my servers to win2k3.

[Warrior]

All the info on it's security features was gotten from the article @ PCWorld.com.
Anywho, you just seem to be sticking up for Microsoft for the sake of sticking up for them.
Microsoft can claim that its been REVAMPED and made EASIER but then again how difficult is it to Click START>CONTROL PANEL. I'll believe it when I see it

Actually, I've used Vista (Beta1 and December CTP) and I happen to hate Linux and all of it's users. I also cannot stand when people put Windows down so I intend to prove them wrong every single time. They usually end up with responses like yours in an attempt to save face after I prove them wrong.
Tip to all Linux users: Lose the false sense of superiority, you arn't fooling anyone.

[iago]

All the info on it's security features was gotten from the article @ PCWorld.com.
Anywho, you just seem to be sticking up for Microsoft for the sake of sticking up for them.
Microsoft can claim that its been REVAMPED and made EASIER but then again how difficult is it to Click START>CONTROL PANEL. I'll believe it when I see it

Actually, I've used Vista (Beta1 and December CTP) and I happen to hate Linux and all of it's users. I also cannot stand when people put Windows down so I intend to prove them wrong every single time. They usually end up with responses like yours in an attempt to save face after I prove them wrong.
Tip to all Linux users: Lose the false sense of superiority, you arn't fooling anyone.

I've seen you prove nobody wrong.  The fact that you think you have casts a lot of doubt on your goals. 

[Warrior]

Then you're blind, because I still don't see anyone posting anything significant proving what I said otherwise. You guys always look for something wrong in Windows when your kernel isn't anything pretty and it gets annoying to Windows users. I highly doubt Vista will flop..more like wipe Linux out the desktop scene..

[MyndFyre]

Then you're blind, because I still don't see anyone posting anything significant proving what I said otherwise. You guys always look for something wrong in Windows when your kernel isn't anything pretty and it gets annoying to Windows users. I highly doubt Vista will flop..more like wipe Linux out the desktop scene..

I doubt it will wipe Linux out, but I still think that the better majority (meaning larger) of people who claim to be "pro-Linux" are script kiddies who run Windows 99% of the time and just use a PHP webserver that their moms pay for and they use CPanel to administer.  Meaning: they don't know anything about operating Linux.

An analogous situation would be Joe being Canadian. Everyone knows he's not, he lives in the US, he was born in the US, but claims to be Canadian.  Just because he says "eh."  I say "eh" too.  It doesn't make me Canadian.

But yes I agree, Linux is annoying to Windows users, and arguably so is Windows.  At least in Windows, though, I intuitively know where to go to operate my machine my way.  That may be true in Linux too, but it's not my experience.  In my mind, having to go to a command line is not intuitive.  I used DOS for the better part of my life, and I know the intracacies of the DOS command line so well I could write you a batch file that would make your computer self-destruct from its leet-ness.  Still, Windows is infinitely more intuitive than a command line.  I think expecting a user to go to the commandline, enter "su" and "sudo some-obscure-file-name-with-architecture-id.rpm" just to install something is not intuitive.

With a little common sense and knowledge you can secure a Windows computer.  I know, because I've done it.  Multiple times.  It's not that hard.

[Warrior]

I agree with you for the most part, pretty good points brought up.
I just don't see Linux surviving much on the desktop after Vista and Leapord hit the shelves.

[Newby]

I think expecting a user to go to the commandline, enter "su" and "sudo some-obscure-file-name-with-architecture-id.rpm" just to install something is not intuitive.

I see nothing wrong with sudo installpkg filename.rpm installing successfully (without interaction) a program. I don't know about you, but I get sick of clicking "Next" on EVERY installer...