XP or Vista

XP or Vista

  • Windows XP

    Votes: 47 58.8%

  • Windows Vista

    Votes: 33 41.3%
  • Total voters
    80
Status
Not open for further replies.
tlarkin said:
That is a great point, which relates to what I am saying. Windows is a huge let down because of what developers have to do, and how windows functions as an operating system. When you allow every developer and their dog access to the kernel you are asking for security flaws, and people write sloppy code. I mean ever try to write a script? Did you always use full command paths? Sometimes I don't because I can't remember where everything lives and I am too lazy to use the whereis command for every command I want to look up.

The market is changing though, and it will change over the next few years. I think you will see Macs gain market share and Microsoft will lose desktops to Linux as well. However, Microsoft will still have a very strong market in the server side technology. Active Directory is not a bad thing, it is just hard to get to properly work with third party. Once all other clients become more compatible with Windows Server products I think you will see a huge market shift. I already know some places around town where I live that have in the last two years switched over to a 50:50 Mac/PC environment.
Click to expand...
Yes, anyone can change the kernal, but it won't make it into an official release unless approved by the majority of well-known kernal developers.
 
Motoxrdude said:
Yes, anyone can change the kernal, but it won't make it into an official release unless approved by the majority of well-known kernal developers.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that by design, Windows allows third parties access to the OS's kernel hooks. Which is a huge security flaw by design. Windows is a closed kernel, and only MS developers work on it. However, they give developers like symantec and Macafee access to their kernel hooks so their applications can access the Windows Kernel. Which is why you see so many exploits and viruses for Windows, they don't need to run as root or admin if they can just access the kernel hooks.
 
tlarkin said:
No, I am saying that by design, Windows allows third parties access to the OS's kernel hooks. Which is a huge security flaw by design. Windows is a closed kernel, and only MS developers work on it. However, they give developers like symantec and Macafee access to their kernel hooks so their applications can access the Windows Kernel. Which is why you see so many exploits and viruses for Windows, they don't need to run as root or admin if they can just access the kernel hooks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it can go both ways, don't give them access then you can't do anything when virus's embed themselves in it, but make it easier on viruses to get into the kernal. Don't allow access, makes it harder to get access to the kernal, but impossible to remove once embedded.
 
PC eye said:
I'm forced to agree with Jabes there. After reading over the last two pages it sounds like a school yard brawl rather then a poll on strictly two versions of Windows. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Albeit heated, it's been a very good debate, IMO. Discussing the differences between the two operating systems' is germane to the poll, and w/ a few exceptions, the comments have been relatively peaceful. :)
 
Last edited:
The introduction of Linux and OS X, Apple/Mac etc. along with XP and Vista should be saved for a poll on OSs in general like one some time back. We're trying to share notes on what we are finding as far as pros and cons with XP and Vista in that sense. You can sure it took some time before many looked at XP as the option to 98SE some years back. Likewise the hesitation for any new version is common regardless of improvements or hinderences.
 
PC eye said:
The introduction of Linux and OS X, Apple/Mac etc. along with XP and Vista should be saved for a poll on OSs in general like one some time back. We're trying to share notes on what we are finding as far as pros and cons with XP and Vista in that sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, discussion about OSX and Linux don't really belong in this thread. I see your point.
 
And now for the latest update on the poll's results:

XP = 42 count = 61.76%

Vista = 26 count = 38.24%

There was one or more OS threads seen while maybe we should poll who first went for XP over a previous version sometime to see how it was looked at then. Likewise Vista is getting it's own mixed reviews depending on user.
 
Jabes said:
wow I have better things to do then read dumb posts ^^^^^^ tlarkins
Click to expand...

I didn't read them either. But then I've been away.

BTW your sig does give the impression of 'smartass'

And anyone who thinks an AMD 3000 is a POS is a noob. Not everyone should need a dual core 6000+ to browse the net and do everything they want with a PC.

I still have a P3-1000 desktop here in the house. But then I've probably been around a bit longer than you have ;) Ah, the days when 512meg was a really big HDD rather than a small amount of RAM ;)

If Vista means needing a 6000+dual core PC, then it's no wonder many people are sticking with XP as they are.

And where did you get the 3000 laptop, etc, if not from your parents? Must be a well paying afternoon job?
 
I loved Vista when it first came out, but i have now gone back to XP

it runs faster ten vista imo as i can visibally see it running better now and wat of te new features in Vista do people really use? Because i didnt use any...

Thats just my mini-rant :)
 
mep916 said:
Yeah, discussion about OSX and Linux don't really belong in this thread. I see your point.
Click to expand...

PC eye said:
The introduction of Linux and OS X, Apple/Mac etc. along with XP and Vista should be saved for a poll on OSs in general like one some time back. We're trying to share notes on what we are finding as far as pros and cons with XP and Vista in that sense.
Click to expand...

Someone agrees....

amosf said:
I didn't read them either. But then I've been away.

BTW your sig does give the impression of 'smartass'

And anyone who thinks an AMD 3000 is a POS is a noob. Not everyone should need a dual core 6000+ to browse the net and do everything they want with a PC.

I still have a P3-1000 desktop here in the house. But then I've probably been around a bit longer than you have ;) Ah, the days when 512meg was a really big HDD rather than a small amount of RAM ;)

If Vista means needing a 6000+dual core PC, then it's no wonder many people are sticking with XP as they are.

And where did you get the 3000 laptop, etc, if not from your parents? Must be a well paying afternoon job?
Click to expand...

A 3000+ becomes junk when you try to run Vista on it and complain... Vista was never meant to run on this 90nm technology. You know Vista requires more than that, so why try it... Seriously, did you expect Vista to say "Exclusive P4/A64 Support"? NO!! You didn't!
 
you know what happens in these thread, someone says he doesn't like vista, then start criticizing each and every damn fault about vista, while a vista fan boy reads the post he gets pissed and replies back, now this is where the war starts.
And somewhere in the middle an advance tech comes in and tries to explain the problem diplomatically and he also gets involve in the forum wars...lol
thanks god i ain't a part of it...lol
 
INTELCRAZY said:
A 3000+ becomes junk when you try to run Vista on it and complain... Vista was never meant to run on this 90nm technology. You know Vista requires more than that, so why try it... Seriously, did you expect Vista to say "Exclusive P4/A64 Support"? NO!! You didn't!
Click to expand...

So, by that logic anyone who just wants to run MS word and surf the internet and maybe once in a while burn a CD, must upgrade their hardware because Vista says so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top