Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

Vista - The Wow starts now

Recommended Posts

One of my customers got tired of the incessant Virus /Spyware wars and figured, "OK, I'll upgrade to Vista, but wanted to try it out first, so she ordered one from Dell with 2 Gigs of RAM and a 3Ghz processor, (Basically a machine that had double of everything in the office). She said it was incredibly slow, considering how much better of a machine it was than the XP machines she already had, and she definitely wasn't impressed. After reading a paper on how Disney moved most of their design staff over to Linux, running Photoshop on Crossover Office, She called me in to evaluate Xandros Linux (A version of Linux that's compatible with NTFS & Active Directory) and Scalix (an Exchange Replacement). After evaluating these, she decided to go with a Linux setup and for the past 6 months, hasn't had to worry about Spyware, Viruses or a host of other issues. In addition, she's able to set the security where she needs it to be, without needing to disable certain features, because "that's just how it works" with Windows. Overall, MS should be very afraid that many more will follow their example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've seen another trend at work... many former open source crusaders have moved to the Mac platform. Linux isn't as cool as it used to be, the new-car-smell is definitely gone.

At the end of the day end-users don't care what's keeping the network up and running or how a website is powered. I mean when was the last time you wondered where your electricity came from?

There's really no contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with Macs is that their cost of entry is even higher than PC's. When we were looking at upgrading my client, the subject of Macs came up, but here's how it went. For all her PC's to be upgraded to Linux, we decided to convert an existing File Server to the Linux Server, tying it into the windows Active Directory to keep Authentication and Mailboxes for everyone the same. In addition, converting all the desktops, could all be done from the Xandros Server, once that was setup. So the only cost was software, about $2000.00 total or $100.00 per desktop.

If we would have wanted to upgrade everything to Vista, we would have needed more hardware and memory PLUS the OS, so now we were looking at around $600.00 per desktop ($12,000.00). Finally, for us to move to Macs, we were looking at about the same Hardware costs of going to Vista (with Mac Mini's) but not as much horsepower and an extra $1000.00 for the Mac Server software. Of course if we actually wanted comparable hardware to what was being replaced, then we would instead go with about $1000.00 per station.

From what I understand Disney saved over $100,000.00 in licensing when they moved to Linux, I guess those kind of savings can't be matched by macs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Linux gets about 1/3rd of the Server Market share but their desktop market share is actually a bit lower than Macs, however, now that Linux is getting much easier to use, Desktop market share has been growing faster than Macs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how opened source stuff could be better. So many more man hours of engineering time is available in propriety stuff like Windows. If security is an issue, why not just get software to surf invisibility which fools the internet that you are not anonymous. With all the innovative security software out there, someone has got to have patched the lack of security rules in Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by rapilot:

I don't see how opened source stuff could be better. So many more man hours of engineering time is available in propriety stuff like Windows. If security is an issue, why not just get software to surf invisibility which fools the internet that you are not anonymous. With all the innovative security software out there, someone has got to have patched the lack of security rules in Windows.

Well Padawan, the reason that Open Source is more secure is in the way that it's designed. I will admit though that the new version of windows goes a LONG way towards creating the same type of secure atmosphere that you have in Macs and Linux. Basically there are thousands upon thousands of viruses and spyware that affects Windows PC's and virtually NONE that affects Macs, Linux and Unix. Keep in mind that about a third of all servers out there are Linux, so it's not because there aren't enough machines running it. It's because of the fundamental design of the system.

A good "For Instance" is the fact that Quickbooks MUST be run in a user session that has Power User enabled. Yes, if you're great with Windows, you can lock down the rest of the system so that the person you granted "Power User" status to, can't screw things up "too" royally, but the real question is, why does windows design their software this way? Where many applications (Such as Games) have to be run not just in Power User mode, but in FULL Administrative Mode? In case you're not aware, Administrative Mode, which is the way that the vast majority of people run their Windows Sessions, leaves your system Wide Open for attack.

Linux, Macs and Unix don't run this way. Sure you have a "Root" account, but it's never used except for the initial setup. Additional accounts that are created are given basic access, then each time that person wants to do something outside of the basic access realm, the system prompts you for the root password. This is the main reason Windows computers are so easy to compromise, all you have to do as a Hacker, is create something that "Acts" as if it's the user doing it, and you sail through most security setups - Until they have a "Definition" for your malicious program.

Keep in mind that my client was not only having to deal with paying exorbitant prices for these proprietary setups, but also money for things like Anti-Virus, and Anti-spyware programs. In addition, programs like Xandros, already come with Word Processing, Spreadsheet and presentation programs, where with Windows, you have to pay hundreds extra for all that. So she decided that moving forward, instead of buying more and more of the "Problem" systems, she would switch to a more secured OS that runs everything she needs to run. Why pay more, especially for something that just causes headaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought Windows had built in hackability, but I did not know it was this bad. I think a reason why Data Execution Prevention had to be invented is because programs have to be run in Power User or Full Administrative mode as said in the previous post. What is the reason for allowing one program to mess with code in another program.

I noticed from my firewall that cookies are running when I have no Internet browser running. Come on, what is the reason for that? Windows will probably call its built in hackability a connectivity feature. I have a feeling that most so called security flaws are really connectivity features. I am sure most consumers don't want super easy to use connectivity across the internet. A connectivity allowance slider in Windows would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that code from one program affects another is, again, because of the way that Windows is designed. Let's say that the Linux OS is like the solar system. You have the Sun which is the Core operating system, and Earth is the video system, Mars is the File system, mercury is the Printer subsystem, Saturn is your Browser system. Each one is seperate and acts independently, if say the Browser stops functioning, you kill the process and start over again, or better yet, if you were using say Opera as your browser, you power up Firefox instead. If KDE starts acting up (your video system) you can kill it and either restart it at the command line, or start a Different GUI, like Gnome. You can do all this without having to reboot. Windows is a Giant, like Jupiter. Windows has EVERYTHING under ONE kernal. The File system, TCP/IP, the Video, the Browser, it's all under a single "entity" so to speak, so if ONE goes down, they can ALL go down. Something that might only affect your browser could freeze up your system and you have to reboot the whole thing. Linux, Mac, Unix, none of them do this, which is why they're more stable.

While Vista does address some of the security concerns the level of BLOAT in this package is amazing. I went out to one of my clients homes to fix a Vista installation (BellSouth couldn't get it to work with their DSL) What's funny is the guy had a decent Dell computer,It was an AMD3200+ with a Gig of RAM, a built in 6150 Video Card (capable of 3D display) and a large and fast HD. If you can imagine XP running on 256Megs of RAM, with a 32MB standard video card, well that's what it felt like. Suuuuupppper Slowwwwwwww.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just more Microshaft bloatware in my book. Same advertising buzz words, wtc etc ad nauseum.

Evidenced by Darkling' post, it's garbage and I just don't feel compelled to waste $260.00 on more of the same old Microshaft erawtaolb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Darkling:

One of my customers got tired of the incessant Virus /Spyware wars and figured, "OK, I'll upgrade to Vista, but wanted to try it out first, so she ordered one from Dell with 2 Gigs of RAM and a 3Ghz processor, (Basically a machine that had double of everything in the office). She said it was incredibly slow, considering how much better of a machine it was than the XP machines she already had, and she definitely wasn't impressed. After reading a paper on how Disney moved most of their design staff over to Linux, running Photoshop on Crossover Office, She called me in to evaluate Xandros Linux (A version of Linux that's compatible with NTFS & Active Directory) and Scalix (an Exchange Replacement). After evaluating these, she decided to go with a Linux setup and for the past 6 months, hasn't had to worry about Spyware, Viruses or a host of other issues. In addition, she's able to set the security where she needs it to be, without needing to disable certain features, because "that's just how it works" with Windows. Overall, MS should be very afraid that many more will follow their example.


Indeed. Good choice there on Linux, though Ubuntu (which supports Samba) would probably have been better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

... Good choice there on Linux, though Ubuntu (which supports Samba) would probably have been better.

Ubuntu is a nice distro, but the nice thing about Xandros Pro is that it's designed to interact with Windows environments from Active directory all the way to NTFS writing ability. It's specifically designed to work in a Mixed environment, and since we were going to implement everything in phases, it just worked out better.

Any chance on a Linux version of UC? I hear Transgaming has a portability engine that makes it possible to port a game to both Mac & Linux. They also have a product called "Swift Shader" that allows you to develop a 3D game that can be used in almost any platform.

[ 03-24-2007, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Darkling ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Darkling:

Any chance on a Linux version of UC?


Never. As in not ever. As in, you couldn't pay me enough. As in, the next person who asks me this is getting a severe virtual beating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Any chance on a Linux version of UC?

Never. As in not ever. As in, you couldn't pay me enough. As in, the next person who asks me this is getting a severe virtual beating.


Well, what about Solaris then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee:

Well, what about Solaris then?

rrrrRRRRUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have 2 hardware firewalls, win2Kpro, with NO virus scanners or firewalls running, so my machine is still quick, plus I have a server with full backups sitting between my machine and the hardware firewalls, so if a hacker does get through the hardware, he finds the server instead, and he can have a fricking ball for all I care, because with scsi drives and the backup on 2 GB SD card, it takes me about 5 minutes to recover.

Have never been hacked, because my routers also make my computers invisible to the net, and kick anyone that is trying to push information into my network that has not been asked for.

Vista? BAH, forget about it, I like Win2k, and will put up with XP if I have to, but there is no way that I am going to put that hog on a machine, there is just NO way.

OBTW the routers with the hardware firewalls, are based on Linux...LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

OBTW the routers with the hardware firewalls, are based on Linux...LOL

Most are these days. Windows 2k3 doesn't offer the same capabilities as IP tables and a lot of the Unixes out there are still using IP chains leaving Linux as king in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Vista? BAH, forget about it, I like Win2k, and will put up with XP if I have to, but there is no way that I am going to put that hog on a machine, there is just NO way.

OBTW the routers with the hardware firewalls, are based on Linux...LOL

I have a Dual Monitor system on my desk with a NoMachine client on my Win2K system so I can run my Linux thin client on one screen, and Win2K on the other. This way if I need to cut and paste between the two, I can do so. I use XP, after hours, for games and other things that won't run on my Win2K machine, but I find it to be a lot slower, even though I'm running 2GB of RAM on my XP system and only 1GB on my Win2K machine. Funny thing is that my Linux system is the lowest end machine and it's the fastest, even though I'm running it in Thin Client Mode!!! I do, however, run Panda Anti-Virus on my systems both for AV and Spyware protection, plus I like the Parental Controls on it, to block my kids from MySpace, Porn sites and other malware.

I brought in my clients machine with Vista on it, so I could convert back to XP for my client (they're taking that one home for the kids) and put it through the paces and MAN!!! is that thing slow. It has twice the processing speed and twice the memory of my Win2K machine and it's still half as fast!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

As I said, I love Win2K, I have no idea why they think that more is better.

Quit adding stuff that just slows my machine, give me simple, and let's go!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the problem is that they focus on features rather than operating system technology. The Windows Vista information in the link says nothing about memory allocation technology improvements, scalability, or task allocater improvements. What are they selling here? Are they selling a new operating system or a bunch of add ons to the old operating system?

The problem with Windows is they don't believe in embedded operating systems. They should have redesigns from the ground up to some extent for the consumer operating system and the network operating system for business.

I have a feeling that security is only achieved through addons rather than redesigns. Security is only achieved at the expense of speed. Security features are probably just addons that work to contradict the windows features that create security problems.

I think the solution to security problems is probably just to shut off scripts or program controls period. Maybe I am ignorant, but no data should ever be executed-period. I don't like browser scripts. I always say no to ActiveX requests unless the webpage won't run without them. I don't know how unwanted programs get installed but I believe it is probably because of scripts, which would make their origin very uncomplicated.

However, I am not sure Windows XP is slower in every way than Windows 2000. Games may be faster on Windows XP. A forum said Falcon 4.0 runs fastest on Windows XP.

I think the biggest culprit for speed is not memory allocation or task allocation slowness, but incessant disk activity caused by unneeded Windows processes. I wonder if limiting virtual memory would get the hard disk drive to stop running.

[ 03-27-2007, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: rapilot ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Microsoft operating systems, XP and Vista, and somewhat with Win2K, are full of all kinds of crap.

Vista has the new security features, and the security, and this, and that, and this other thing, I mean Geez, come on!!

I don't use a virus scanner that is on all the time, like Mcaffe or Norton, Or for that matter MS.

It takes up WAY too much memory, etc.

I want a nice basic OS, and then be able to run each program separately if I want to.

You DO NOT need every fricking feature running all at once, and with Vista, you don't have a choice, same with XP.

On my Win2KPro, I have turned just about everything off, NO startup programs at all, and the least amount of Windows crap as I can drop.

My machine runs great, and games run like a champ, even those that are supposedly made for higher end machines.

If Mocrosoft would create an OS, that is NOT based on the lowest common denominator, I would be a happy camper, but there's not enough money in it.

The OS has to be user friendly, no matter how big it becomes, or how slow it makes a riproaring racecar of a machine. Vista turns a ferrarri into a volkswagen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Vista is a step forward in my opinion. Outside of video games my experiences with the final release have been much better than the experiences I had with the earlier releases. For starters the memory management is a lot better inside the actual OS, and it just runs cleaner. I've not experienced the kinds of temporary lockups that I experienced often with Win2k and WinXP (especially while doing networking stuff).

What needs to really happen to Windows is it needs an interface redesign. Vista was a step forward, but the interface is still clunky IMO. It needs some serious KISS and they need to throw some better menu design into it... radial menus are good.

Honestly though, I've not seen the huge slow downs that people are experiencing outside of video games, and I've been using it for about a month now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee:

Honestly Vista is a step forward in my opinion. Outside of video games my experiences with the final release have been much better than the experiences I had with the earlier releases. For starters the memory management is a lot better inside the actual OS, and it just runs cleaner.

Well, I've run side by side comparisons on things like opening Email, browsing websites and even simple things like inserting images into word docs, and XP wins EVERY time. The worst part is that I'm comparing a 3Ghz Vista machine with a Gig of RAM to an 2Ghz XP machine with 512Megs!!! Honestly, I haven't tried any games on it, but considering the fact that it's even more processor and memory intensive, I can only say that it will be slower as well.

As for a cleaner design, did you take a look at the 'Network' dialog box on it? Full of clutter to the point that you don't know what you're doing. The only thing that's cleaner about Vista is the desktop, it doesn't automatically drop an Icon for everything anymore, but you have that same feature in XP, simply turn off the icons on the desktop.

I'll probably do the same with Vista that I did with XP, wait until most of the machines sold have 4X the processing power and 4X the memory, then get it. This way I won't Notice a performance decline. These days the performance difference between XP and 2K is there, but not so noticeable anymore on todays faster machines, but I remember installing XP on a 400Mhz machine with 256Megs of RAM and man... WAS THAT THING SLOW. And this is the same problem today.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×