I'm surprised to see there are no UNIX users here, I love linux don't get me wrong, but I find *BSD, more secure, reliable, and easier to use... but then I also use Debian and Fedora. Only thing with Fedora is the distributions go obsolete so fast... they are more bleeding edge...

XP on my desktop and Vista on my laptop.

When I worked in IT (from 1989) I was very anti-Microsoft and pro Unix. But now I don't really care. Linux hasn't advanced Unix in any way that really benefits the average user, except for being free.

As for Java, what a mess they made of that. No wonder most people use .Net.

I'm not trolling

"Linux hasn't advanced Unix in any way that really benefits the average user, except for being free."

Besides, from a programmer's stand point, which would you rather target? A large audience? or a small one?

Pirate Copy

yeah what's the problem with Vista?

Windows Vista, an operating system released by Microsoft in November 2006, has received substantial criticism by reviewers and users. Due to issues with privacy, security, performance, and product activation, Windows Vista has been the subject of a number of negative assessments by various groups.

Contents:

* 1 Security
o 1.1 User Account Control
o 1.2 Driver signing requirement
o 1.3 Flaws in memory protection features
* 2 Digital rights management
o 2.1 Notable critics
o 2.2 Reaction to criticism
* 3 Hardware requirements and performance
o 3.1 Speed
o 3.2 File operation performance
o 3.3 Game performance
o 3.4 Software bloat
o 3.5 Vista capable lawsuit
o 3.6 Laptop battery life
* 4 Software compatibility
* 5 Folder settings bug
* 6 Removal of announced features
* 7 Pricing
* 8 Software Protection Platform
* 9 Sales figure inflation
* 10 Windows Ultimate Extras
* 11 See also
* 12 Notes
* 13 Footnotes
* 14 External links

Security

According to CNET, some critics are unenthusiastic about the Vista security features, claiming that Vista "offers mostly basic protection and is not the best of its class." Natalie Lambert, an analyst with Forrester Research, stated, "There is no doubt that Vista will be Microsoft's most secure operating system. However, most secure is not equivalent to secure."[1]

In February 2008, Bitlocker was shown to be vulnerable to a cold boot attack.[2][Note 1] According to the researchers, the risk can be mitigated by configuring two-factor authentication (e.g. a boot PIN in conjunction with a TPM), by disabling power standby mode and using hardware that overwrites memory during POST if the operating system does not shut down cleanly.

User Account Control

The following concerns have been raised about the new User Account Control (UAC) security technology: Many third-party programs do not follow the principle of least privilege and therefore need be run as an administrator, triggering UAC prompts. For some time, Microsoft has recommended that programs be written to run as a standard user. However, because nearly all users are administrators by default in previous versions of Windows, many developers have incorrectly assumed that their applications will always execute with these privileges, or have not regression tested their code for LUA bugs.[3] Microsoft added file and registry virtualization technology as well as application compatibility shims to reduce the number of these legacy applications that trigger UAC prompts.[4]

User Account Control can be disabled through the Control Panel; however, this also disables privilege separation features such as Internet Explorer 7's Protected Mode, which relies on UAC for its operation.

Driver signing requirement

64-bit versions of Windows Vista allow only signed drivers to be installed in kernel mode; this feature cannot be easily overridden by system administrators.[5][6]

In order for a driver to be signed, a developer will either have to pay Microsoft for the driver to be tested by Microsoft's WHQL Testing[7] or, if WHQL testing is not required, to purchase a "Software Publisher Certificate"[8] with which to sign the driver.

The following criticisms/claims have been made regarding this requirement:

* that it reduces Vista's compatibility with older hardware [9]
* that it disallows experimentation from the hobbyist community.[10] The required authenticode certificate for signing Vista drivers are expensive and out of reach[11] for small developers, usually about $400–500/year (from VeriSign).
* that it might exist not only for security reasons, but also to enforce Digital Rights Management policies, especially the Protected Video Path.[12][13]

Unsigned drivers could initially be installed through the use of tools included with Vista,[14]as well as some third party utilities such as Atsiv[15]. However Microsoft has closed these workarounds with hotfix KB932596,[16] which is included in Service Pack 1. Microsoft claims that using strict driver handling means more security, while critics note that few if any security attacks have manifest in software drivers, which are almost always written by equipment manufacturers.

Flaws in memory protection features

Security researchers Alexander Sotirov and Mark Dowd have developed a technique that bypasses many of the new memory-protection safeguards in Windows Vista, such as address space layout randomization (ASLR). The result of this is that any already existing buffer overflow bugs that, in Vista, were previously not exploitable due to such features, may now be exploitable.[17][18] This is not in itself a vulnerability: as Sotirov notes, "What we presented is weaknesses in the protection mechanism. It still requires the system under attack to have a vulnerability. Without the presence of a vulnerability these techniques don’t really [accomplish] anything."[19] The vulnerability Sotirov and Dowd used in their paper as an example was the 2007 animated cursor bug, CVE-2007-0038.

Security researcher Dino Dai Zovi has claimed that this means that it is "completely game over" for Vista security.[20] Sotirov has tried to refute this, saying that "The articles that describe Vista security as 'broken' or 'done for,' with 'unfixable vulnerabilities' are completely inaccurate. One of the suggestions I saw in many of the discussions was that people should just use Windows XP. In fact, in XP a lot of those protections we’re bypassing [such as ASLR] don’t even exist."[19]

Digital rights management

Another common criticism concerns the integration of new forms of digital rights management (DRM) into the operating system, specifically the Protected Video Path (PVP), which involves technologies such as High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) and the Image Constraint Token (ICT). These features have been added to Vista due to an agreement between Microsoft and major Hollywood studios.[21] This will concern, among other things, play-back of protected content on HD DVD and Blu-ray discs, but it will not be enabled until at least 2010.

The Protected Video Path mandates that encryption must be used whenever content marked as "protected" will travel over a link where it might be intercepted. This is called a User-Accessible Bus (UAB). Additionally, all devices that come into contact with premium content (such as graphics cards) have to be certified by Microsoft.[21] Before playback starts, all the devices involved are checked using a Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) to verify if they are genuine and have not been tampered with. Devices are required to switch off or artificially degrade the quality of any signal outputs that are not protected by HDCP. Additionally, Microsoft maintains a global revocation list for devices that have been compromised. This list is distributed to PCs over the Internet using normal update mechanisms. The only effect on a revoked driver's functionality is that high-level protected content will not play; all other functionality, including low-definition playback, is retained.[21][22]

Notable critics

Peter Gutmann, a computer security expert from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, has released a whitepaper[23] in which he raises the following concerns against these mechanisms:

* Adding encryption facilities to devices makes them more expensive, a cost that is passed on to the user.
* If outputs are not deemed sufficiently protected by the media industry, then even very expensive equipment can be required to be switched off (for example, S/PDIF-based, high-end audio cards).
* Some newer high-definition monitors are not HDCP-enabled, even though the manufacturer may claim otherwise.
* The added complexity makes systems less reliable.
* Since non-protected media are not subject to the new restrictions, users may be encouraged to remove the protection in order to view them without restrictions, thus defeating the content protection scheme's initial purpose.
* Protection mechanisms, such as disabling or degrading outputs, may be triggered erroneously or maliciously, motivating denial-of-service attacks.
* Revoking the driver of a device that is in wide use is such a drastic measure that Gutmann doubts Microsoft will ever actually do so. On the other hand, they may be forced to because of their legal obligations to the movie studios.

Steve Gibson of Gibson Research Corporation has stated during his Security Now! show that he agrees with Peter Gutmann in principle and that what he proposes is a factually accurate description of what is found in the specification from Microsoft.[24]

The Free Software Foundation is conducting a campaign called "BadVista" against Vista on these grounds.

Apple Inc, Microsoft's major competitor, frequently made Vista a target of its "Get a Mac" advertising campaign.

Reaction to criticism

Ed Bott, author of Windows Vista Inside Out, has published a 3 part blog which rebuts many of Gutmann's claims.[25]

Ed Bott's criticisms can be summarized as follows:

* Gutmann allegedly based his paper on outdated documentation from Microsoft and second-hand web sources.
* Gutmann allegedly quotes selectively from the Microsoft specifications.
* Gutmann allegedly did no experimental work with Vista to prove his theories. Rather, he makes mistaken assumptions and then speculates wildly on their implications.
* Gutmann's paper, while presented as serious research, is really just an opinion piece.

Technology writer George Ou claims that Gutmann's paper relies on unreliable sources and that Gutmann has never used Windows Vista to test his theories.[26]

Gutmann has responded to both Bott and Ou in a further article.,[27] which states that the central thesis of Gutmann's article has not been refuted and the response of Bott is "disinformation"

Microsoft has published a blog entry with "Twenty Questions (and Answers)" on Windows Vista Content Protection, intending to refute some of Gutmann's arguments.[28]

Paul Smith, a Microsoft MVP, has written a response to Gutmann's paper in which he counters some of his arguments.[29] Specifically, he says:

* Microsoft is not to blame for these measures. The company has been forced to do this by the movie studios.
* The Protected Video Path will not be used for quite a while. There is said to be an agreement between Microsoft and Sony that Blu-Ray discs will not mandate protection until at least 2010, possibly even 2012.[30]
* Vista does not degrade or refuse to play any existing media, CDs or DVDs. The protected data paths are only activated if protected content requires it.
* Users of other operating systems such as Linux or Mac OS X will not have official access to this premium content.

Microsoft also noted that content protection mechanisms have existed in Windows as far back as Windows Me.[31]

Hardware requirements and performance

According to Microsoft, "nearly all PCs on the market today will run Windows Vista" and most PCs sold after 2005 are capable of running Vista.[32][33][34]

Much hardware that worked in XP does not work, or works poorly in Vista, due to companies going out of business, lack of interest in supporting old hardware, and changes in driver models.[35] Service Pack 1 for Vista is said to fix many of these problems.[36]

Speed

Tom's Hardware published benchmarks in January 2007 that showed that Windows Vista executed typical applications more slowly than Windows XP with the same hardware configuration.[37]Ten of the 15 application tests that showed performance drops did not consider the radical design changes in Vista. Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (or SPEC), the maker of those tests, states that such "results should not be compared to those generated while running Windows XP, even if testing is done with the same hardware configuration." SPEC acknowledges that an apple-to-apples comparison cannot be made in cases such as the one done by Tom's Hardware, calling such studies "invalid comparisons."[38] In the two tests involving real world applications, WinRAR and Adobe Photoshop, Vista was faster by 21.8% and 5.5% respectively. The remaining three application benchmarks showed negligible differences between XP and Vista, with both showing leads of less than 2% among the three. According to Devil Mountain Software, Windows XP Service Pack 3 outshines Windows Vista in performance and in other benchmarking tests.[39]
“ Vista, both with and without SP1, performed notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35 seconds. ”

File operation performance

When first released in November 2006, Vista performed file operations such as copying and deletion more slowly than other operating systems. Large copies required when migrating from one computer to another seemed difficult or impossible without workarounds such as using the command line. This inability to efficiently perform basic file operations attracted strong criticism.[40] After six months, Microsoft confirmed the existence of these problems by releasing a special performance and reliability update,[41] which was later disseminated through Windows Update, and is included in Service Pack 1.[42]

Nonetheless, one benchmark reported to show that, while improving performance compared to Vista's original release, Service Pack 1 does not increase the level of performance to that of Windows XP.[43] However, that benchmark has been questioned by others within ZDNet. Ed Bott both questions his colleagues' methods and provides benchmarks that refute the results.[44] It should also be noted that XP's file copy operation may seem faster than Vista's, when in fact it is not. This is because under XP the operation can be pushed off to cached I/O, meaning that the file copy dialog may be dismissed long before the file has actually been copied to disk.[45]

Game performance

Early in Vista's lifecycle many games showed a drop in frame rate compared to that experienced in Windows XP.[46][47][48] These results were largely the consequence of Vista's immature graphics processing units drivers, and higher system requirements for Vista itself.[49][50] Some recent benchmarks seem to suggest that, as of mid-2008, Vista SP1 is now on par with Windows XP in terms of game performance.[51] However, game developers' recommended memory requirements on Vista are still higher than on XP.[52][53][54]

Software bloat

Concerns have been expressed that Windows Vista may contain software bloat. Speaking in 2007 at the University of Illinois, Microsoft "Distinguished Engineer" Eric Traut said, "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit." He went on to say that, "at its core, the kernel, and the components that make up the very core of the operating system, is actually pretty streamlined." [55]

Former PC World editor Ed Bott has expressed skepticism about the claims of bloat, noting that almost every single operating system that Microsoft has ever sold had been criticized as "bloated" when they first came out; even those now regarded as the exact opposite, such as MS-DOS.[56]

Vista capable lawsuit

Two consumers sued Microsoft in United States federal court alleging the "Windows Vista Capable" marketing campaign was a bait and switch tactic as some computers originally installed with Windows XP could only run Vista Basic. In February 2008 a Seattle judge granted the suit class action status, permitting all purchasers in the class to participate in the case.[57][58] Released documents in the case, as well as a Dell presentation in March 2007, discussed late changes to Windows Vista which permitted hardware to be certified that would require upgrading in order to use Vista, and that lack of compatible drivers forced hardware vendors to "limp out with issues" when Vista was launched.[58][59] This was one of several Vista launch appraisals included in 158 pages of unsealed documents.

Laptop battery life

With the new features of Vista, criticisms have surfaced concerning the use of battery power in laptops running Vista, which can drain the battery much more rapidly than Windows XP, reducing battery life.[60] With the Windows Aero visual effects turned off, battery life is equal to or less than Windows XP systems.[61] "With the release of a new operating system and its new features and higher requirements, higher power consumption is normal," as Richard Shim, an analyst with IDC noted, "when Windows XP came out, that was true, and when Windows 98 came out, that was true."[62]

Software compatibility

Significant problems have surfaced with other software running under Vista. According to Gartner, "Vista has been dogged by fears, in some cases proven, that many existing applications have to be re-written to operate on the new system."[63] Cisco has been reported as saying, "Vista will solve a lot of problems, but for every action, there's a reaction, and unforeseen side-effects and mutations. Networks can become more brittle."[64] According to PC World, "Software compatibility issues, bug worries keep businesses from moving to Microsoft's new OS."[65] Citing "concerns over cost and compatibility," the United States Department of Transportation prohibited workers from upgrading to Vista.[66] The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the rollout (of Vista) is significantly behind schedule because "several key programs still aren't compatible, including patient scheduling software."[67]

As of July 2007, there were over 2,000 tested applications[68] that were compatible with Vista. Microsoft has published a list of legacy applications that meet their "Works with Windows Vista" software standards[69] as well as a list of applications that meet their more stringent "Certified for Windows Vista" standards.[70] However, as of July 2007, software compatibility problems were still hindering adoption of Vista.[71] Microsoft has released the Application Compatibility Toolkit 5.0 application for migrating Vista-incompatible applications, while virtualization solutions like VirtualBox, Virtual PC 2007 or those from VMware can also be used as a last resort to continue running Vista-incompatible applications under legacy versions of Windows.

Microsoft also provides an Upgrade Advisor Tool (.NET must be installed and an Internet connection is required) which can be used on existing XP systems to flag driver and application compatibility issues before upgrading to Vista.[72]

Folder settings bug

The Vista explorer holds a significant bug regarding the templates used to show content. Whenever Vista opens a folder, the system tries to guess the predominant file type existing, and applies a "template" of icon size and properties.[citation needed] This behaviour cannot be overridden[citation needed], even if the user applies a custom view to your folders. Neither the user is allowed to apply a coherent style to his disk structure. Vista "forgets" the last settings applied and shows (again) it's preferred template, driving to unpleasant user experience.[citation needed]

Removal of announced features

Microsoft has also been criticized for removing some heavily discussed features such as Next-Generation Secure Computing Base in May 2004, WinFS in August 2004, Windows PowerShell in August 2005 (though this was released separately from Vista prior to Vista's release, and is being included in Vista's successor, Windows 7), SecurID Support in May 2006, PC-to-PC Synchronization in June 2006.[73] The initial "three pillars" in Vista were all radically altered to reach a release date.[74]

Pricing

Microsoft's international pricing of Vista has been criticized by many as too expensive.[75][76][77] The differences in pricing from one country to another vary significantly, especially considering that copies of Vista can be ordered and shipped worldwide from the United States; this could save between $42 (€26) and $314 (€200). In many cases, the difference in price is significantly greater than was the case for Windows XP. In Malaysia, the pricing for Vista is at around RM799 ($244/€155).[78] At the current exchange rate, United Kingdom consumers could be paying almost double their United States counterparts for the same software.[79]
“ Microsoft has come under fire from British consumers about the price it is charging for Vista, the latest version of Windows.

British (and French) customers will pay double the US price. The upgrade from Windows XP to Vista Home Basic will cost £100 (€126), while American users will pay only £51 ($100, €64).[80]
—Computer Active

Software Protection Platform

Vista includes an enhanced set of anti-piracy technologies, based on Windows XP's Windows Genuine Advantage, called Software Protection Platform (SPP).[81] In the initial release of Windows Vista (without Service Pack 1), a major component of this was a reduced-functionality mode, which is entered when it is detected that the user has "failed product activation" or that their copy is "identified as counterfeit or non-genuine."[82] The technology was described in a Microsoft white paper as follows:
“ The default Web browser will be started and the user will be presented with an option to purchase a new product key. There is no start menu, no desktop icons, and the desktop background is changed to black. [...] After one hour, the system will log the user out without warning.[83] ”

This was criticised for being overly draconian,[84][85] especially given an imperfect false-positive record on behalf of SPP's predecessor,[86] and at least one temporary validation server outage.[87][88]

SPP was significantly altered in Windows Vista Service Pack 1. Instead of the reduced functionality mode, an installation of Vista left unactivated for 30 days presents the user with a nag screen prompting them to activate the operating system when they log in, changes the desktop to a solid black colour every hour, and periodically warns the user about software counterfeiting with notification balloons. In addition, updates classified as optional are not available to unactivated copies of Vista.[89] Microsoft maintains a technical bulletin providing further details on product activation for Vista.[90]

Sales figure inflation

According to industry sources, as of late July 2008 Windows XP is still outselling Windows Vista, especially in business sales. According to HP, Microsoft is unethically manipulating and inflating Windows Vista sales figures.[91][92] An HP manager is quoted in APC:
“

"From the 30th of June [2008], we have no longer been able to ship a PC with a XP license," said Jane Bradburn, Market Development Manager, Commercial Notebooks for HP Australia.

"However, what we have been able to do with Microsoft is ship PCs with a Vista Business license but with XP pre-loaded. That is still the majority of business computers we are selling today."
”

Windows Ultimate Extras

Windows Vista Ultimate users can download exclusive Windows Ultimate Extras. These extras have been released much more slowly than expected, with only four available as of June 2008, which has prompted some criticism.[93][94][95] Barry Goffe, Director of Windows Vista Ultimate for Microsoft states that they were unexpectedly delayed on releasing several of the extras, but that "Microsoft plans to ship a collection of additional Windows Ultimate Extras that it is confident will delight its passionate Windows Vista Ultimate customers."