Mar 07, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Windows Vista
Windows Vista is due later this year, and on Monday, Microsoft UK announced which SKUs - stock-keeping units - it will be offering. David Weeks, our local Windows Client Marketing Manager, says prices haven't been decided. However, it's going to cost you.
Weeks says Microsoft has changed from a "platform" to a "customer" focus, so there won't be separate editions for different types of hardware (unlike now, where there is XP Tablet Edition for Tablet PCs, and so on). You thus have to make two decisions: first, are you a home or a business user? Second, do you want the basic version or one with fancy extras? The four boxed versions are therefore Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, and Business.There are another two versions you can't buy. At the bottom end, there's a starter edition for "emerging countries". At the top end, there's Vista Enterprise, available only under Microsoft's Software Assurance and big business schemes. All packages will be available as upgrades. Weeks reckons that Home Basic will cost roughly the same as today's XP Home (£89.99) while Vista Business will be priced like XP Pro (£169.99). However, if you want a noticeable upgrade, you will have to buy a Premium or Ultimate edition at a price to be determined. Upgrades will be available from all versions of XP, but if you are still on a DOS-based version of Windows (3.1, 95/98/SE or Me) you will have to pay the full price for Vista. The fate of Windows 2000 users has yet to be decided. The Home Basic version, for "low-end PCs", is pretty basic and doesn't include the new Aero Glass user interface. To get the new 3D interface and the digital entertainment experiences that used to be part of Windows Media Center Edition - including Xbox 360 extensions - you have to buy the Premium version. The Premium, Business and Ultimate editions also include some features from today's Tablet PC Edition, such as Ink recognition. This will appeal to people who use graphics tablets. The Enterprise edition includes BitLocker drive encryption, Virtual PC Express support for hosting a second operating system, and the Subsystem for Unix-based Applications (SUA), which is intended to run Unix programs. Finally, there's the Ultimate edition, the one you really want. It combines the home/multimedia features - which some business users will want for things such as presentations - with the Enterprise features - which some home users will want for things like running an old copy of Windows 98/SE/Me, and their old applications and games. Apparently, all versions of Vista have new security features such as Windows Defender (the anti-spyware program), a better firewall, Internet Explorer 7, and global search utilities developed from MSN Desktop Search. Any Vista user who wants BitLocker will be able to download it. Either way, it's not true that most Vista users will have encrypted hard drives that the police won't be able to access, as has been suggested (http://tinyurl.com/8bwcg). And while Weeks says BitLocker does use Vista's TPM (Trusted Platform Module) for security, DRM (digital rights management, for media files) does not use the TPM. What all versions of Vista lack is anti-virus software. A bunch of companies make a nice living out of supplying AV software, and Microsoft has backed away from taking food from their mouths; or possibly from attracting yet more attention from antitrust departments. Otherwise, Vista is based on the current Windows Server 2003 codebase and has various improvements that make it the most secure version of Windows so far - easily hurdling what is a regrettably low bar. Jack Schofield Submitted by RetroActive on Wednesday, March 1st Source www.nzbzone.com 
|
|
Mar 07, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
When Xp first came out, I remember everyone saying how xp pro had more security features than the home version, im not too well informed on each of the versions of vista, but im probably going to obtain the "Ultimate" edition, anything less would be .. uncivilized.
|
|
Mar 07, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Jun 26, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
what a shitty os.
just like xp, you gotta wait 2 years before it actually runs well. thats on top of the 2 more years of delays on a public release of vista. also gotta wait for dx10 since it's a necessity to run all the fancy shit vista does.
|
|
Jun 26, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Windows Vista Beta 2, Build 5384.4 (32-bit x86) It runs pretty smooth.
Disabled Bitlocker Driver Encryption Digital Rights Management Set to accept all drivers even if there not digitally signed, which made my audio drivers kick in. once i tweaked it a bit it was running nice. Pentium D 3.0ghz Dual Core 2048ram Nvidia 6600gt I think the aero glass theme will slay peoples computers unless they have a modern processor like they claim.
|
|
Jun 26, 06
|
||||
|
||||
|
sounds pretty lame to me.
The two things i was looking forward to with vista was the new filesystem and the SVG desktop. Both of these features where axed. I haven't been impressed with an MS OS since win2k. I doubt i'll ever install vista. Hopefully it will do something to address the virus/spyware/adware issue that plauges every install of windows i see.
|
|
Jun 26, 06
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hate to break it to you bub but OSS quite often has a number of security exploits. A poorly administered Windows system is about as secure as a poorly administered *nix system. a well administered Windows system is about as secure as a well administered *nix system. Windows is just more targeted amongst crackers because it's more commonly used, and your typical Windows user knows butt all about network security. Your typical linux user is a completely different case. Watch vista come out with a bunch of features unix-heads have been doing for years. Then watch Microsoft claim that they invented the concepts. Same thing happened when Win95 came out, then Win98, Then win2k, then winxp.... As much as everybody raves about how fantastic the next version of windows is going to be it always turns out disappointing. Major releases are not Microsoft's forte. Their software is really only ever comparable after they've released it, it's been out for about 2 years and they've patched the shit out of it since. I think XP's Service Pack 2 finally became "stable" by *nix standards about a year after it came out.
|
|
Jun 26, 06
|
||||
|
||||
|
PS: It's kind of a joke amongst my coworkers whenever Microsoft sends an update notice along with the words "Invisible upgrade, no customer impact". Kinda because every time they say that we get blown over from calls by people who got the upgrade and now nothing works.
|
|
Jun 26, 06
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
*nix nerd myself. UbuntuuuUUU!U1uus!
|
|
Jun 27, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
considering how close we're getting to where OSX will able to run on off the shelf PC hardware, I'm gonna bet dimes to dollars MS won't be running after small time piracy of Vista anymore than they did with XP. There's only so many legal-dept dollars for them to use up and it's far better going after larger companies where the return is not only larger, but also far more likely to materialize than if they'd cracked down on piracy on a personal level. Plus, leaving the small time pirates alone means they'll all get used to vista and when it comes time for them to recommend a legit OS to their corporate employers they'll recommend it.
|
