Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Vista RTM has been faked...


hougtimo
 Share

Recommended Posts


1. I wouldn't mind a blank bootscreen, since I think almost all of you would agree with me on the point that the less time you spend looking at it, the better :)

2. The scrollbars look unfinished, since the buttons appear to be missing. Definitely not too encouraging, as the only time I've seen scrollbar buttons disappear is when the GDI runs low on resources and it doesn't draw them.

The sidebar also looks unfinished. Maybe they plan to add more lines of text to it... but I agree, the background graphic is just distracting and the colors aren't too pleasing either.

but the colours they have done it in remind me of a stagnant pond.

Note also the background image and color scheme of http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/ - it looks depressing.

3. A separator would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound like me...those are my main points of consideration also.

There will always be security issues, anything thats 'tangible' meaning in this case any OS in which anyone has access to the code in any aspect will always be able to introduce a security issue.

When you stop and think about it for a few minutes and consider that the windows series of OS's are the most widespread its seems only natural that the most likely sucess in exploiting any vunlerability will be aimed at windows. Well...yes theres a vunlerability but considering there are millions of lines of code its almost a cretainty some exploit will be coded in without realizing it, is it something that could have been prevented, was it left in on purpose, did someone know about it before it was pointed out? So...in the end, security vunlerabilities don't become vunlerabilities until someone tries to purposely target and exploit them as a means to compromise someones system. Is someone more likely to exploit a Windows OS than a Linux or Apple system? Of course they are simply because the likelyhood and method of exploit has more targets and has the most chance of sucess for them to achieve their goals and in some perverted way the people who exploit these want them to be found out because they reap some type of personal satisfaction either through fame as having discovered the exploit or what ever they get from the compromised system. Consider for example the guy who turned almost a million computers world wide into a zombie network, his goals were selfish, monetary, and the sense of perverted achievement he got from doing it. Does this mean that the OS manufacturer was at fault? No, of course not even if they could have done something to keep it from happening before it happened, its not their fault the exact same as its not the fault of a car manufacturer if people get into car accidents by not paying attention to their driving and doing things that are wrong on the road (running red lights, 'forcing' into a turn lane instead of waiting, speeding, etc...). What can be done about that? What can be done to prevent that? Nothing at all, and its the same with software vunlerabilities, you don't know until it happens and when it does something is done about it. So in the end it doesn't do any good to worry about what vunlerabilities will or will not occur because as long as there is that tangible item, that physical file or path, someone somewhere is going to exploit it. Personally, i'm glad that there are 'watchdogs' that keep us abreast of these as they occur, and MS has acted responsibly in doing so here as well. You are never, ever-never-never, going to have a OS or server that is 100% secure, and thats a fact, so just use what you have and secure it the best you can then keep up to date on the new things that come to light and take the necessary steps to compensate.

In my opinion, those that seek to exploit these along with the virus and trojan producers should be taken out back and shot. Oh Yeah, lets not forget to include the spammers also.

Fair point, it isn't fair to judge an incomplete work.

Anyway I not too worried about its appearance, I' m more concerned about security, speed and functionality. The security problem highlighted in my post is a more important issue.

Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point, it isn't fair to judge an incomplete work.

Anyway I not too worried about its appearance, I' m more concerned about security, speed and functionality. The security problem highlighted in my post is a more important issue.

the Core XML service were not rewritten for vista because backwards app compat was needed, there are lots of services in Vista that could only be changed a little because they had to preserve compatability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I wouldn't mind a blank bootscreen, since I think almost all of you would agree with me on the point that the less time you spend looking at it, the better :)

I'm with you. I want my CPU to put 100% into starting the OS, not running fancy graphics. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't care less about a boot screen really. I don't use a OS for the purpose of showing pretty logos as it boots. As long as it does what it has do and does it well. Personally, I'd rather they bring back the old NT style blue screen with dots as it loads (a text mode screen saying what's loading).

XP with Linux style booting would be rad. Text whizzing by only.

that would be amazing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...