Vista not so hot as claimed by MS

[Trooper110]

Computerworld - Vista laid low by new malware figures

Surprise, surprise, surprise....

Given it's better than XP, but I run XP with AVG and occasional other scans, haven't managed to even download anything suspicious yet. You just have to not be retarded. Oh wait, there goes the qualifications of 90% of the US...

[CarbonFire]

They need to sandbox the crap out of Win32.....it's been time to put that buggy legacy to bed for a while now. Vista should have been the transition, but MS wimped out and went for the cheap buck. Now they've got this supposedly new high performance OS that's still hampered by the ghosts of bad decisions and old technology.

Windows 7 can't come fast enough. Let's hope MS has learned from their mistakes and finally puts Windows NT to bed.

[Hawkeye426]

Its too hard to transition away from the Win32 API many devs still use it to this day as it requires no prereqs on deployed systems. and there are no great alternative except .NET (Google .NET Problems)

[Sirex]

I used .NET once, and went back to Win32.
Why?
Its less hassle, plus I dislike the way .NET handles some things.

Way I see it, why should I force my users to install stuff to run my things, when I can compile them for instant run?

[CarbonFire]

Its too hard to transition away from the Win32 API many devs still use it to this day as it requires no prereqs on deployed systems. and there are no great alternative except .NET (Google .NET Problems)

Yes, it may be hard. But MS is going to have to make the transition at some point. Vista was a missed opportunity to do just that, and Windows 7 will be another chance to clean the slate. The longer they drag this out, the worse it's going to be once the inevitable transition takes place (and the longer we will suffer from the tryanny holey Win32 code). Like you said Hawkeye, developers are still developing for the Win32 API to this day, and they will continue to do so until it is put to rest. Few are going to develop for the 64-bit/.Net API if the majority of people aren't running it, so we continue in this vicious, never-ending catch 22.

We simply cannot keep running on the Win32 forever. Eventually MS is going to have to pay the piper.

[Apache Warrior]

Yes, it may be hard. But MS is going to have to make the transition at some point. Vista was a missed opportunity to do just that, and Windows 7 will be another chance to clean the slate. The longer they drag this out, the worse it's going to be once the inevitable transition takes place (and the longer we will suffer from the tryanny holey Win32 code). Like you said Hawkeye, developers are still developing for the Win32 API to this day, and they will continue to do so until it is put to rest. Few are going to develop for the 64-bit/.Net API if the majority of people aren't running it, so we continue in this vicious, never-ending catch 22.

We simply cannot keep running on the Win32 forever. Eventually MS is going to have to pay the piper.

+Infinity
Apache

[DougBob]

I guess it really doesn't surprise me

[Apache Warrior]

The funny thing is, every release by MS gets the same reaction. People said the same things and refused to upgrade from 3.1 ti Win 95, from Win 95 to Win 98, from Win 98 to XP and my second favorite from ME to XP. 3.1 to 95 was my favorite. Anything was better than Win 3.1 except Win 3.0.
Apache

[Shazbot]

The funny thing is, every release by MS gets the same reaction. People said the same things and refused to upgrade from 3.1 ti Win 95, from Win 95 to Win 98, from Win 98 to XP and my second favorite from ME to XP. 3.1 to 95 was my favorite. Anything was better than Win 3.1 except Win 3.0.
Apache

Yup, it happens every time. MS operating systems are always cutting edge when they come out and most computer users can't keep up so they just bash it instead.

The operating systems are always very resource intensive but after two or three years the hardware has catches up. I hear people all the time calling windows XP "light" and "trim". Hah! Where were they when the OS was released? People had a fit! The same with all the past operating systems you mentioned.

[Nomadicus]

Under the covers, many parts of Vista are superior to XP.
Sad they nurfed the sound and video and UI so no one talks about the good stuff.
Windows 7 won't be secure (as in nearly perfect). Kernel/User mode OS's never will be. Sigh . . .

[CarbonFire]

Under the covers, many parts of Vista are superior to XP.
Sad they nurfed the sound and video and UI so no one talks about the good stuff.
Windows 7 won't be secure (as in nearly perfect). Kernel/User mode OS's never will be. Sigh . . .

I know Vista is a more capable OS, but from the end-user's perspective, it does very little that can't be accomplished via XP. The issue is that while Vista has better walls around the buggy Win32 Kernel, it's still Win32.

Will Windows 7 be 100% secure? No, as you said no OS is. But they're going to have to make that jump to a more secure, built from the ground up kernel that will stand up to the riggers of a dangerous internet. Right now, we have an entire rogue INDUSTRY around exploiting Windows and that's just insane.

[mapes]

Windows 7 won't be secure (as in nearly perfect). Kernel/User mode OS's never will be. Sigh . . .

Please explain this?