The Dangers Of Windows Vista

[Selena Aninikkou]

Well, I presume everyone here knows I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft or the Windows monopoly. However, this is worse than dislike; Vista is downright dangerous for people to use if they want free use of their computers....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/27 ... monstered/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28 ... _analysis/
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/p ... a_cost.txt
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0%2C1895% ... 6%2C00.asp
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29 ... _analysis/
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1871
http://news.com.com/Hollywood,%20Micros ... &subj=news
http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/14787/
http://www.fin24.co.za/articles/default ... 90_2045284
http://badvista.fsf.org/

How about an operating system that requires a souped up new processor (2.0 GHz min), at least 1GB of ran (2GB recommended), a very very powerful video card, a new monitor with built-in security protection, and adds no real improvements over Windows XP? However, it does give Microsoft the power to turn off your computer if they feel you're not paying them enough money, and it can disable your output ports (sound & video) if Hollywood thinks you might try and pirate their content. Oh, and a EULA that forbids using anything other than Windows Vista on your computer, and a system that's intentionally designed to block 3rd party antivirus & firewall programs from protecting you so Microsoft can monopolize THAT industry as well.

Seriously, JUST SAY NO TO VISTA!

[Anamnesis]

Whee! My nightmares have come true!
Do we get to slay them, yet?

[AnimaVex]

... I... think I'll just stay with XP. It's much safer.

I've got nothing against Microsoft, but... that's just insane.

[Kohaku]

Those... Those... Urgh! Am I allowed to use the 'b' word?

[Beyond]

A crack apeared for the windows validation tool before it was even released. Many more cracks followed after the release and its fixes.

The same will happen. It's the strong bond between the demand and piracy who levels up the table.

[Cow Belle]

Wow. Really, just wow.

I've read each one of those articles, and here's what I think...

1: Who needs to upgrade? I mean really, window has been and always will be a glorified DOS. That's what any OS is. A Disk Operation System. The only reasons that I can think of for doing this is the fact that software and hardware is changing. The reason I think we keep upgrading up to the next os is because of the new versions of MS office. Really, do we need a gig of hard dive space just to run excel and power point? How much ram does it take to just run word. You have to upgrade to the next OS and Office because if you don't you won't be able to read the files from the newer version. Good Grief!! This stuff is just insane. We don't really don't need all this crap.

As for the hardware side, I can see the fact OS upgrades are needed just so they can keep the fundamental DOS functions. Such as, USB, Firewire, New and bigger hard drives, Ram (witch is a BOIS function as well), New networking items and the like. This stuff I can see the reason for an OS upgrade but all this new hard were crap is just that. Crap.

2: I really like that article about upgrading for no real reason. If it isn't broken why fix it? I have been using MacOS9 for nearly 10 years now and It still does what I want it to do. I use photoshop 5.0, AOL Instant Messenger, Finale 2002, Itunes, IRC, MP3 Alarm Clock (The best alarm clock ever), Apple works, Mozilli, Sibelius and lots of other things. I can also scan stuff in and print out like a pro. Also I've got a great Wacom tablet. Every thing still works for me now as it did then and fast! I often find if really funny that my Mac with an really outdated OS and CPU is faster then the newer computers. Why my mac is up and running within 4 minuets of turing it on, while it takes the Windows XP computers with a much larger RAM and CPU 13 minuets and 32 seconds to load everything just so you can do something. ((Like all the anit-viuse stuff, the device drivers, The core OS etc., etc...)) Yes you can open something but it's not going to do much until it's loading all the stuff it needs. It's just crazy.

3. What does old MS care about the end users right? It's a big corporation that to me has lost sight of what it's really working for. You and me. Why does anybody care about what old Johnny that only uses his PC to check his e-mail? It's just a number. Big corporations like this just tick me off. >_<

4. Do you remember old DOS for that mater? It was used just to hold all our files together. When Windows and MacOS came out it helped people understand what was on there computers and made them easier to use. All this things were used for is a shell for DOS. ((heck, does anybody remember old dosshell.exe? for that mater)) When the windows OS came out it was just a piggy back to DOS. A shell. Over the years they improved that shell over time. Heck, people sometimes forget that the Windows and MACOSX is just a shell. Now this is all good for the shell aspect but all this other bull that there tacking on with this stuff just for VISTA? Which is still the same old shell that you've been using for all these years..... Why bother

Anyways, why bother is what I'm saying to this new Windows OS. Why bother.

[Anamnesis]

Ask yourself THIS: Does Windows 98 still do what it's supposed to do?
There's no real need to upgrade; Just for security reasons, of course, but that can be done in SERVICE PACKS/software updates. Why is Microsoft bothering to make new software, when the previous one works just fine with the times?
It doesn't make sense... I could say the same about Apple. Where I anticipate the arrival of Leopard, I don't think it is NEEDED...

[Aaron]

I often find if really funny that my Mac with an really outdated OS and CPU is faster then the newer computers. Why my mac is up and running within 4 minuets of turing it on, while it takes the Windows XP computers with a much larger RAM and CPU 13 minuets and 32 seconds to load everything just so you can do something. ((Like all the anit-viuse stuff, the device drivers, The core OS etc., etc...)) Yes you can open something but it's not going to do much until it's loading all the stuff it needs. It's just crazy.

Mine doesn't nearly take 13 minutes, or even 5, to completely load up. For me, the norm is within 4 minutes, depending on what I have set for it to actually do on start up, and thats between the time I press the start button in the morning until the time when I'm browsing the internet. So I don't really get where the 13 minutes and 32 seconds come up. As far as I'm aware, it mostly depends on what you have your computer doing on startup.

That said, I'm not upgrading because I have no real reason to. My computer works fine as is.

[Cow Belle]

You're computer must not be boggled down with hidden apps like yahoo toolbar, spywere, ant-viuse junk, and a zillion file applications and there file extensions. :p

(yet..)

[Aaron]

You're computer must not be boggled down with hidden apps like yahoo toolbar, spywere, ant-viuse junk, and a zillion file applications and there file extensions. :p

(yet..)

Or I just don't ask my computer to do a million things on startup :p Either way, your whole "XP takes 13 and a half minutes to start up!" is certainly not a sure thing. I timed mine today. It took 1 minute, 51 seconds from me pressing the on button to me accessing the internet and getting on my way, that includes the anti-virus/spyware software (it would take less than a minute if I didn't have Spysweeper on my computer), as well as Aim loading up. The load up time depends on a lot of things, and I would wager what you have it do on start up has more of a factor than simply having XP as your OS.

The Macs my school uses take much longer to start up than my computer does. Any computer can take a long time to do things if you have it doing a lot at once, and many people have their computers run things on start up without realizing it.

[Cow Belle]

I guess I wasn't very clean on that "XP takes 13 and a half minutes to start up!" thing. What I was meaning what the time it took to load up windows, (which isn't quite fast).and load every thing extra from that. It took all that time to load all the extra stuff. Also when windows xp is loading there's a short time that you can't load any programs because it's loading all that extra stuff first, then the programs, then the network stuff....

You're right. If we didn't have all that stuff that we put on there we would have a faster healthier computer :p.

[Lucky]

It's not ment for old computers, only newer computers. Anything you got from dell and ect now will have the right hardwear so the OS and Hardwear will work correctly.


It doesn't surprise me it doesn't work on any older computers. That's why I'm sticking with XP till my computer's hardwere is so old I need to upgrade the whole thing.

[Funny Hat + Funny Accent]

I'm surprised no one has tried suing Microsoft for this yet. Also, if someone finds a way to place this under a trust definition....

..Well, Microsoft will have fun, probably in a very bad manner.

[Aaron]

I'm surprised no one has tried suing Microsoft for this yet. Also, if someone finds a way to place this under a trust definition....

..Well, Microsoft will have fun, probably in a very bad manner.

I'm pretty sure, with it being this new, any lawsuit would have a hard time on any grounds, as it hasn't had time to have a big impact yet. You can't really win a lawsuit unless the people you're suing have actually done something, and Microsoft haven't done anything with this yet.

[Funny Hat + Funny Accent]

Good point.... That would make some sense.