Text 8893, 112 rader
Skriven 2006-01-01 15:13:36 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 8892 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: MS Employees Rage As Internet Explorer Ship Sinks
=============================================================
From: "Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com>

> Big and important do not necessarily mean good, or even useful.

No, but this one has the potential to be that good if everything works when it
ships.

>Is the version of Vista you have
> susceptible to the .WMF vuln?

Depending on the infection vector I would think it might be, but I if it mucked
with anything that asked for privileged level, it's would inform the user and
ask them if they want to do it.  I haven't tested it as I don't have access to
any of the bad wmf's.  (even administrative users would need to confirm any
privileged level access if UAP is turned on, and it is by default)

> Oh great, more eye-candy that requires noisy fans in the GPU.

It'll still run with a lesser card, you just wont get the GUI elements that
require more graphics processing.  I suspect there (are already?) will be
fanless cards available that will be able to handle it anyway...

> "hopefully"?

Yep, can't say anything better than that unfortunately.

> "Looks promising"?

More user mode code supposedly. (for video)  But you have to have a new driver
for your card to take advantage of it.

> Win2k used to boot very quickly for me.  Now, after some visits to
> Windows Update, it takes a long time to boot, and even longer to shut
> down (shutdown approaches three minutes, typically).

W2K was always the slowest boot/shutdown for me.  WinME is still the king boot
time wise, but Vista is pretty fast now.  We'll just have to see about this in
the future.

> Looks like another forced upgrade cycle to me, with little to show for
> my money should I decide to upgrade.

I'm not so sure about that -- for new machine, yep, that seems to be MS's MO,
but for older machines, Vista really isn't designed to run on older hardware.

There's a lot in there to gain from updating, but as always one has to balance
upgrade cost against benefit.  I'll be updating some of my own machines to it
(those that are capable of it), but I don't have any plans of upgrading any
machines at work any time soon.  (well maybe one, female, loves to infect her
pc with adware...)

--
Bob Comer


"Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
news:ag8gr1973ni43itk9dt7k4ihmi68dkalre@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 13:06:09 -0500, "Robert Comer"
> <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Off the top of my head:
>>
>>The new security model is the biggest and most important change.
>
> Big and important do not necessarily mean good, or even useful.  XP was
> supposed to be super secure.  Is the version of Vista you have
> susceptible to the .WMF vuln?
>
>
>>The new UI is only superficially like the old WinXP one, there's quite a
>>bit
>>of change there too, especially if you have a good enough video card to
>>handle it. (And I'm not even talking about the transparent windows, which
>>don't interest me all that much)
>
> Oh great, more eye-candy that requires noisy fans in the GPU.
>
>
>
>>And there's a new OE, renamed Windows Mail, that'll hopefully
>>differentiate
>>itself from Outlook and to fix some of the worst outstanding bugs of OE.
>
> "hopefully"?
>
>
>>There's a new driver model that looks promising.
>
> "Looks promising"?
>
>
>
>>Quicker booting than XP, even though it's got beta debug code in it.
>
> Win2k used to boot very quickly for me.  Now, after some visits to
> Windows Update, it takes a long time to boot, and even longer to shut
> down (shutdown approaches three minutes, typically).
>
>
>
>>With everything it's almost on the level of change to NT3.1 or Win3.1 to
>>Win95 to me.  It's certainly going to break backwards compatibility on
>>some
>>things...
>
> Looks like another forced upgrade cycle to me, with little to show for
> my money should I decide to upgrade.
>
> /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)