Charlie Tame wrote:
<snips>
>
> No, non Vista drivers don't work, tried lots when I had problems with
> numerous brands / models, Vista is almost totally inflexible, and even
> some "Vista" drivers don't work properly so it's a lottery.

You got that right! I'm really not impressed with Vista so far myself.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
> Charlie Tame wrote:
> <snips>
>>
>> No, non Vista drivers don't work, tried lots when I had problems with
>> numerous brands / models, Vista is almost totally inflexible, and even
>> some "Vista" drivers don't work properly so it's a lottery.
>
> You got that right! I'm really not impressed with Vista so far myself.
>


Well I think they applied a lot of ingenuity with XP, and for that
matter W2003 server which you'd expect to be more "Rigid" was the same,
but Vista nitpicks everything (I suppose in the name of "Security) but
in reality is suffering from much the same vulnerabilities... they
should have broken the incestuous relationship between the core and IE,
the core and WMP and come up with totally new products which are
independent leaving their browser and player to develop their own
security. Was time for a different set of products with the same "Look
and feel", instead we got the same old products with a different look
and feel.

Charlie Tame wrote:
> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
> wrote:
>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>> <snips>
>>>
>>> No, non Vista drivers don't work, tried lots when I had problems with
>>> numerous brands / models, Vista is almost totally inflexible, and
>>> even some "Vista" drivers don't work properly so it's a lottery.
>>
>> You got that right! I'm really not impressed with Vista so far myself.
>>
>
> Well I think they applied a lot of ingenuity with XP, and for that

Agreed. For all the problems XP had, it also had some worthwhile features.

> matter W2003 server which you'd expect to be more "Rigid" was the same,

I love the fact that the server boots into a classic look and feel. I
also like the volume shadow copy feature.

> but Vista nitpicks everything (I suppose in the name of "Security) but

IMO, with vista it seems like they are trying to hoist all of the
responsibility for security on the user instead of trying to actually
fix the problems. It's like they are using the wrong kind of bandaid
fix for it.

> in reality is suffering from much the same vulnerabilities... they
> should have broken the incestuous relationship between the core and IE,
> the core and WMP and come up with totally new products which are
> independent leaving their browser and player to develop their own
> security. Was time for a different set of products with the same "Look
> and feel", instead we got the same old products with a different look
> and feel.

Totally. While I am a bit of a skeptic, I think that Vista was a dud
and they could still do much better with vienna. Time will tell.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
> Charlie Tame wrote:
>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
>> wrote:
>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>> <snips>
>>>>
>>>> No, non Vista drivers don't work, tried lots when I had problems
>>>> with numerous brands / models, Vista is almost totally inflexible,
>>>> and even some "Vista" drivers don't work properly so it's a lottery.
>>>
>>> You got that right! I'm really not impressed with Vista so far myself.
>>>
>>
>> Well I think they applied a lot of ingenuity with XP, and for that
>
> Agreed. For all the problems XP had, it also had some worthwhile features.
>
>> matter W2003 server which you'd expect to be more "Rigid" was the same,
>
> I love the fact that the server boots into a classic look and feel. I
> also like the volume shadow copy feature.
>
>> but Vista nitpicks everything (I suppose in the name of "Security) but
>
> IMO, with vista it seems like they are trying to hoist all of the
> responsibility for security on the user instead of trying to actually
> fix the problems. It's like they are using the wrong kind of bandaid
> fix for it.
>
>> in reality is suffering from much the same vulnerabilities... they
>> should have broken the incestuous relationship between the core and
>> IE, the core and WMP and come up with totally new products which are
>> independent leaving their browser and player to develop their own
>> security. Was time for a different set of products with the same "Look
>> and feel", instead we got the same old products with a different look
>> and feel.
>
> Totally. While I am a bit of a skeptic, I think that Vista was a dud
> and they could still do much better with vienna. Time will tell.
>


Well I don't think I'd be inclined to spend $100,000s if I were a big
company just to get my employees better eye candy, I mean it won't
really improve the "Look" of my website (As most customers will ever see
it) and so I see no real profit + my IT guys are telling me it's a PITA
to get set up right. On a sales floor it might look good, sure, but it's
not going to "Earn" much in the office...

Most US companies are watching budgets a bit, I think they needed to
show some value for money and it's not there when you take all into
account. Not everybody can afford to be cutting edge just for
appearances sake.

I suppose it's not really been mentioned but running Vista as host to
an XP VM is something they could have packaged with it, give folks an
easy way to import / save all their older stuff and keep using it and
gain some experience before taking a leap into the dark.

In message <fggsc7$8tj$1@aioe.org> The poster formerly known as 'The
Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:

>IMO, with vista it seems like they are trying to hoist all of the
>responsibility for security on the user instead of trying to actually
>fix the problems. It's like they are using the wrong kind of bandaid
>fix for it.

Unfortunately, the user *IS* the problem. Out of the box, XP SP2 is
more or less fully secure to sit on the internet, and once you turn on
automatic updates and run as a limited user, you're more or less secure
as well.

The problem is that users don't do that, they run attachments from
unknown/untrusted sources, install ActiveX controls at a whim, run as
full administrator, and then act surprised when their PC gets
compromised.

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <fggsc7$8tj$1@aioe.org> The poster formerly known as 'The
> Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:
>
>> IMO, with vista it seems like they are trying to hoist all of the
>> responsibility for security on the user instead of trying to actually
>> fix the problems. It's like they are using the wrong kind of bandaid
>> fix for it.
>
> Unfortunately, the user *IS* the problem. Out of the box, XP SP2 is
> more or less fully secure to sit on the internet, and once you turn on
> automatic updates and run as a limited user, you're more or less secure
> as well.
>
> The problem is that users don't do that, they run attachments from
> unknown/untrusted sources, install ActiveX controls at a whim, run as
> full administrator, and then act surprised when their PC gets
> compromised.
>


Actually even running as Admin full time is nowhere near as dangerous as
claimed IF the user is responsible, however on systems where something
has to run unattended and reliably the advice to fully automate updates
is much more dangerous, since any task not running as a service is often
hosed. UAC has just made it even more likely that folks will try to find
a way around it...

In message <#5$2ejkHIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> Charlie Tame
<charlie@tames.net> wrote:

>DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In message <fggsc7$8tj$1@aioe.org> The poster formerly known as 'The
>> Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, with vista it seems like they are trying to hoist all of the
>>> responsibility for security on the user instead of trying to actually
>>> fix the problems. It's like they are using the wrong kind of bandaid
>>> fix for it.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the user *IS* the problem. Out of the box, XP SP2 is
>> more or less fully secure to sit on the internet, and once you turn on
>> automatic updates and run as a limited user, you're more or less secure
>> as well.
>>
>> The problem is that users don't do that, they run attachments from
>> unknown/untrusted sources, install ActiveX controls at a whim, run as
>> full administrator, and then act surprised when their PC gets
>> compromised.
>
>Actually even running as Admin full time is nowhere near as dangerous as
>claimed IF the user is responsible, however on systems where something
>has to run unattended and reliably the advice to fully automate updates
>is much more dangerous, since any task not running as a service is often
>hosed. UAC has just made it even more likely that folks will try to find
>a way around it...

Like I said, the user is the problem. If the user is responsible, they
won't have many issues (although application level exploits are always
going to be a problem, but it hasn't been a huge issue recently, it's
simply easier to trick morons into installing a trojan then to actually
find exploits -- Most exploits that are actually used weren't discovered
by blackhats until after the patches came out, hence "exploit
Wednesday")

For users that aren't responsible (most of the individual PC owners on
the planet), UAC is a stop-gap attempt to get their attention before
doing something stupid.

In my opinion, it's not even that, it's just a step towards annoying
users into getting software vendors to fix their crap so that a future
version of Windows can have users run as a true limited user without
creating huge software incompatibilities. The virtualization feature is
another clear example of Microsoft moving in this direction.

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <fggsc7$8tj$1@aioe.org> The poster formerly known as 'The
> Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:
>
>> IMO, with vista it seems like they are trying to hoist all of the
>> responsibility for security on the user instead of trying to actually
>> fix the problems. It's like they are using the wrong kind of bandaid
>> fix for it.
>
> Unfortunately, the user *IS* the problem. Out of the box, XP SP2 is
> more or less fully secure to sit on the internet, and once you turn on
> automatic updates and run as a limited user, you're more or less secure
> as well.
>
> The problem is that users don't do that, they run attachments from
> unknown/untrusted sources, install ActiveX controls at a whim, run as
> full administrator, and then act surprised when their PC gets
> compromised.
>

MS could still use a better method than only to try to heap it all on
the user.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett