Windows Vista

http://www.tomcoyote.org/tech/vista-...our-xp-key/74/

Vista upgrade invalidates your XP key
January 29th, 2007 by Blair

If you choose to purchase an upgrade version of Windows Vista to upgrade XP, you will no longer be able to use that version of XP. Either on another system, or as a dual-boot option. The key will be invalidated, preventing activation.

From Vista’s EULA found here (PDF) (click here!)

13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligiblefor the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.

For many people this may not be a problem, but it’s a change from earlier versions of Windows.

In a sense they're kinda correct. The upgrade price is for an upgrade, not a duplication. It'd be like buying a $50 gift certificate, paying $25 to have it upgraded to $75, and then trying to use the original $50 cert as well.

However, you SHOULD be allowed to go back to your old one by abandoning the new. Of course, Microsoft don't want this, as Vista has a lot of features that make things better for MS.

Not that activation is such a killer really. It's possible to activate the same key multiple times, as long as you ring MS. I reckon there'll be a pretty easy way to get around this one too, it just takes someone to find it.

Has anyone here actually used Windows Vista yet? I know someone who got in on a new computer and he hates it. He is quite computer savy too.

(a side note.. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but this guy is a reviewer for a Gaming Magazine and gets to try all the new games.. AND they buy him fancy gaming computers as part of his job! That would be such a fun job to have.)

I've used it at my job (geek squad) and it's very different, so people who are used to things on their computers working one particular way won't like it at first. As long as you have enough ram and a good enough video card, you won't have any problems with slowness; with a fast video card it may even be more responsive than XP because the GPU is handling a lot of the GUI calculations now instead of the CPU. This will be true even on Home Basic computers without Aero graphics because the GUI is still done through the GPU.

I do like that the 'search' field in the start menu can be used as a command line. I can type cmd in there and get a dos box right away, for example. If I want to get to my c: drive I can just type c: in there to bring it up, no going to My Computer, whoops I mean just Computer, and double clicking on C.

The Widgets^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGadgets are cool, just as they are in OS X. I want one that tells me when I've forgotten that I'm threshing.

Through the college I can get Microsoft Software for free, I just picked up my 'Vista' today, but I still dont know if I am going to use it...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grantref
The Widgets^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGadgets are cool, just as they are in OS X. I want one that tells me when I've forgotten that I'm threshing.

---

Apparently RosMud works fine under Vista. So maybe I could incorporate something. ;) Be another big job, though.

Ismenia, this thread is specifically for Vista discussions of the general nature. not just about the first post. Feel free to just talk about Vista in this thread! or if there are specific topics about Vista that warrant their own threads, feel free there as usual. :)

Apple: iTunes Users Should Wait on Vista

Quote:

---

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Apple Inc. is urging some iPod and iTunes users to hold off on upgrading computers to Windows Vista, warning that the iTunes music software may not work well with the new operating system from rival Microsoft Corp.

---

SOURCE

Quote:

---

Originally posted by karahd
Apple:

SOURCE

---

Mmmm. Apple sauce.

(Okay. So ignore me, it's 3AM.)

I've had zero problems with my ipod and itunes using Vista. As for the Gadgets/Widgets thing, there's a good difference between them in the functionality department. On OSX, the widgets are like a whole other desktop unto themselves, you actually have to hit a button or click on something to bring them up. In Vista, the chill on the desktop as a sidebar and are always visible/accessable depending on how you organize your windows. Another interesting thing about Vista is that you can now alt-tab to your desktop, so you can get access to them pretty easily with other applications fullscreened. I agree that it takes some getting used to, but so did the change from 98 to XP (for people who didn't use NT4 or NT5/2k). So far I haven't seen much that I haven't liked about it, except for that it defaults to asking for my permission every time a new application wants to take controll of the processor. Nice for security, annoying for trying to install something (where you basically have to say "yes, I want to install it, fucker" about 3-4 times to even begin installing something). Honestly, using both on a daily basis, I would hesitate to say Vista is an OSX knockoff, or that they're terribly similar. There are a couple similar things, the Gadgets/Widgets thing and the live search/spotlight thing. That's really all I've noticed so far.

What does it mean to "take control of the processor"? And, if you update a program (ie copy a new EXE on top of the old one), does it prompt again?

Unless Windows Vista is anything as complex as Windows XP Professional then I might possibly buy it. But if it turns out to be even worse then that retched thing called "Windows XP Home" then I'm not touching it. I've grown up knowing alot about computer technology and have always hated Macintosh in the fact that you can't get into the "nitty gritty" as you can in Windows with things like DOS or other programs that many people will call archaic. If you know the inner workings of your computer, it's bound to last you a long time with the occasional upgrade. Besides, what's the point of memorizing DOS commands if I can never use them!

Runatsu, these days Macs use a BSD-based Unix-like operating system with a REAL command shell (not anywhere as poor as cmd.exe).

Vista's confirmation for installing things is not the least bit a security feature. It may make people think they're safer, but generally speaking that dialog comes up so often that people will just start ignoring it, or turn it off. Security through obnoxiousness is worse than security through obscurity. And the worst thing of all is that it's pointless -- it doesn't ask for your password or anything, so it does nothing to prevent a kid or a visitor or your stupid girl/boyfriend from installing something that will fsck up your PC.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grantref
Vista's confirmation for installing things is ... pointless -- it doesn't ask for your password or anything, so it does nothing to prevent a kid or a visitor or your stupid girl/boyfriend from installing something that will fsck up your PC.

---

It doesn't?? I heard that it did. Or does it not ask if you're already running as administrator?

If you're on as a user with administrative privileges, you just get a 'did you really mean to do this?' box. As a regular user, you get prompted for admin credentials.

I'd bet that most home users will end up just seeing the confirmation box. It looks like Vista disables the 'Administrator' account by default, but the user created during install is automatically set up with administrator privileges. I don't imagine that most home users will create a separate admin account and then lock down their main one.

*roll*

Yeah. That box would get disabled pretty quickly.

One thing I'd very much like to know, though, is - What constitutes "installing a program"? Many programs don't need any sort of installer (eg RosMud - just unzip it and run it - or some of the programs from grc.com - don't even need to unzip).

Is the prompt on:
* Opening for writing a file with extension "exe"? (ie when you copy/extract the program)
* Making a new directory under "Program Files"?
* Writing a new key to the registry?

Is it possible to bypass that prompt in any way? For example, copying a file "foobar.png" and then renaming it to "foobar.exe", to foil the detection? Believe you me, if there is a way, someone will find it - probably within the month.

Here's a relevant snippet from a TechNet article on User Account Control

Quote:

---

Installer Detection only applies to:

1. 32 bit executables

2. Applications without a requestedExecutionLevel

3. Interactive processes running as a Standard User with LUA enabled

Before a 32 bit process is created, the following attributes are checked to determine whether it is an installer:

• Filename includes keywords like "install," "setup," "update," etc.
• Keywords in the following Versioning Resource fields: Vendor, Company Name, Product Name, File Description, Original Filename, Internal Name, and Export Name.
• Keywords in the side-by-side manifest embedded in the executable.
• Keywords in specific StringTable entries linked in the executable.
• Key attributes in the RC data linked in the executable.
• Targeted sequences of bytes within the executable.

---

It's worth noting that Installer Detection and other aspects of UAC are configurable via group policies.

And Ros, you're right. There will be a way around this, and many people will find it (maybe even simultaneously!). The ultimate frustration will be when someone is jumping through a load of hoops in the name of security, while an intruder bypasses the 'protection' without breaking a sweat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Talsek
The ultimate frustration will be when someone is jumping through a load of hoops in the name of security, while an intruder bypasses the 'protection' without breaking a sweat.

---

Sounds like the last time I went on a plane in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Talsek
Here's a relevant snippet from a TechNet article on User Account Control
(chomp)

---

*jaw drops*

Unless the "targeted sequences of bytes" are incredibly well crafted, this is EASY to dodge. I could write a custom install program, call it "scan.exe", purport it to be a simple malware scanner or whatever, and have it Trojanically install whatever I want it to install. Okay, a lot of people won't run some random malware scanner, but the same applies to almost anything.

Thanks for that article Talsek. I'll read it in more detail at home.

Hubby has been playing around with Vista for a week or so now. He seems to find some really nice things about it. He does complain it seems a bit bloated, but otherwise, some of the features are quite nice. He says IE runs WAY faster in rendering than FF does on the same machine. IE also have some feature that if you have multiple tabs open you can just click one button and it shows all the pages and you can click on the from there. He also likes the gadgit panel. Those are just a few things I have heard him talk about and understood =)

I'll let you know my thoughts as I play around with Vista when I get it as we've decided to bite the bullet and get new gaming machines and will be getting Vista as well.

Machine specs:
Dual core 2 6600, 2GB Ram, nVidia 8800GTX, 320 GB SATAdisk 16mb cache, and Vista Ultimate 64bit

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shani
He says IE runs WAY faster in rendering than FF does on the same machine.

---

Because Microsoft would NEVER EVER build something into the OS that slows down third party browsers...

Quote:

---

IE also have some feature that if you have multiple tabs open you can just click one button and it shows all the pages and you can click on the from there. He also likes the gadgit panel. Those are just a few things I have heard him talk about and understood =)

---

<3 Opera. Opera's had this for years.

The reason is easy.

The libraries for IE are already loaded at boot as IE is tied to many system parts.

FF is not.

The same thing happens in Linux. Konqi loads remarkably fast because its web component library (khtml) is used everywhere.

FF is slower here, too.

Also, FF uses GTK, which is not a native Windows toolkit nor Qt-based (KDE, where Konqi is).

FF is fastest on Gnome as Gnome is built on GTK and is just going to -be- slower on the others ones.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by karahd
The libraries for IE are already loaded at boot as IE is tied to many system parts.

---

As this is so, one would expect that IE would start in about the same amount of time it takes Firefox to spawn a new window. It doesn't. It's actually quite slow to start, really, given that it has hardly anything to load. Firefox is pretty efficient, though I could wish for slight improvements in a few areas. But it's honest, so when you fire it up for the first time it really has to load things.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grantref
Runatsu, these days Macs use a BSD-based Unix-like operating system with a REAL command shell (not anywhere as poor as cmd.exe).

---

Rofl, you guys crack me up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Savaric

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grantref
Runatsu, these days Macs use a BSD-based Unix-like operating system with a REAL command shell (not anywhere as poor as cmd.exe).

---

Rofl, you guys crack me up.

---

Of course, there's better and worse command shells. The hardest to discuss, though, would be the female maritime vendor of csh... as we all know, she sells C shells by the seashore.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
As this is so, one would expect that IE would start in about the same amount of time it takes Firefox to spawn a new window. It doesn't. It's actually quite slow to start, really, given that it has hardly anything to load. Firefox is pretty efficient, though I could wish for slight improvements in a few areas. But it's honest, so when you fire it up for the first time it really has to load things.

---

I feel terrible for you. My experience has always been that IE is rather responsive when I open it, even on first load.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by karahd
I feel terrible for you. My experience has always been that IE is rather responsive when I open it, even on first load.

---

How many clocks from doubleclick to live? Could be I have a distorted view because my boss stuck IE7 onto a 700MHz P-3 desktop, on which it takes quite a while (about as long as Firefox, actually). On the 1GHz lappy, here, I can spawn a new tab in <.1 seconds, and a new window in <.5 seconds - that's what I mean about it being fast to open when everything's loaded. (That's Firefox. I don't use IE on the lappy.)

Quote:

---

Here's where Vista starts to get tricky on us. You see, a lot of games – games Microsoft deems "legacy" games, even though some of them were released last month – use something called DirectSound to interface with the drivers of your sound card. (Built in or otherwise.) DirectSound allowed the sound card to accelerate the audio in games.

Well, dear old Microsoft decided that we no longer needed DirectSound anymore, since they want to push an audio format (Open AL) that is compatible with both the PC and the Xbox360. So, they left it out of Vista. That's right, it's just not there.

So, what does this mean for your average player? Well, unless you use a Creative X-Fi card, your pretty much out of luck as far as DirectSound games go. You'll still be able to get stereo sound from the game, since Vista supports software emulation, but you won't be able to get surround sound or any of the nice audio effects we've all become used to.

---

Just read that on an mmo gaming site. WTF?! All my upgrade plans ended right there.

Nazon, any idea on what games are considered, "Legacy"? Because I've yet to have any sound problems in games in the least, and I've been playing shit as old as the original Command & Conquer.

Microsoft calls their own old protocols "legacy". Something old enough to talk directly to a Sound Blaster (-compatible) doesn't even register on the MS radar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bael
Nazon, any idea on what games are considered, "Legacy"? Because I've yet to have any sound problems in games in the least, and I've been playing shit as old as the original Command & Conquer.

---

The article was taken from mmo site, so the games mentioned there by name were mmos only. And I do know that it is possible to get sound, the trouble is to get something more then stereo, I have 7.1 set myself and refuse to downgrade my experience. Are you getting more then stereo out of your Vista?

Don't buy Vista- problem solved.