My experience with Vista.

Alot of people like to bash Vista, because they don't understand it, or because of what it once was.

'OMG teh DRM!'

I used to be this until I tried rtm...

First of all, it's a ton more secure. TONS. Say you accidentally click on some stupid site? Well this time Vista protects you, sniffs out the sites, even on firefox, and stops you from visting if they have viruses/spyware/trojans/rootkits on them (but still has a link to allow you to visit if you feel like a moron )

It also looks a hell of a lot better. And i'm not talking Aero Glass...

When playing a game, everything looks sharper. It's like getting an ultrasharp monitor, it's like your monitor is now super sharp!

Dual core games seem to run 10-20% faster too, if you have a dual core processor. I dunno about Quad core, but from the tests I've run from my pentium d and a few friends, our dual cores run faster on games optimized for dual core.

The same can't be said for single core games on dual core, which dropped by 20%.

The same can't be said at all either about a single core processor, as I tried RC1 on my 1800+... I had Doom 3 on high settings, 800x600, I now can't get it to run AT ALL.

I'm getting similiar reports as well, huge drops on single core procs in vista.

The one thing I am having a problem with is finding a good antivirus software. All of them are blocked because of ring 0 access. You guys do know what ring 0 access is right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_0

Computer operating systems provide different levels of access to resources. A protection ring is one of two or more hierarchical levels or layers of privilege within the architecture of a computer system. This is generally hardware-enforced by some CPU architectures, that provide different CPU modes at the firmware level. Rings are arranged in a hierarchy from most privileged (most trusted, usually numbered zero) to least privileged (least trusted, usually with the highest ring number). On most operating systems, Ring0 is the level with the most privileges and interacts most directly with the physical hardware such as the CPU and memory.

The reason why so many antivirus/spyware/firewall software is blocked is because they use ring 0 access!

So while they help, they also make it easier for hackers to remotely hack into XP.

Vista has Ring access protections, so antivirus companies can't try this stunt anymore, and it's quite a bit harder to get hacked in Vista.

So there we go. I've had Vista for awhile, but I wanted to share this. I'm gonna get another Vista Business for my main core 2 duo soon, so hopefully it'll turn out as well as for my pentium d!

 

Thanks for the mini-review of Vista.

I'm tired of all the people bashing Vista, because its actually a really good upgrade from XP. Interface-wise, and stability wise. I especially hate how people say they copied Mac OS X, because a lot of the features Vista had first, just that they were delayed before Vista could launch.

Go Vista! Thanks again Zellio.

 

I don't know if you're searching for an antivirus, but I have NOD32 running with Vista Business, and everything works properly.

 

NOD32 ftw. Even Avast worked perfectly when I had Vista. I downgraded to XP because of incompatibility troubles.

A friend of mine sent me a file over Trillian and I supposedly saved it in the defualt location (C:\Program Files\Trillian\AIM\Buddies\Disagreeablehead). But the problem was that the "AIM" folder didn't even exist. Or at least I couldn't see it no matter what. My Bluetooth drivers didn't work, and I had some other slight troubles, so I decided to downgrade to XP for a while. Now that I'm getting another gig of RAM soon, I might as well upgrade to Vista since XP is now a pain to maintain.

 

Are you implying there's less DRM in it now?

And how do you measure this? XP has had 5 years to get cracked and fixed and cracked and fixed. Vista isn't widely available yet. Hard to measure the security of a product that isn't on the market. (Yes, I know the business version is available)

Um.... How does the OS know what's spyware/trojans/rootkits and what's not? The best it can do is stop sites that only IE6 would be stupid enough to let you access in the first place. In a decent browser that wouldn't have been a problem under *any* OS.

Curious, which games have you tested this with?

Which is a mixed blessing. It also makes it a hell of a lot harder to offer any protection beyond what the OS itself does. Which means, in the hypothetical situation that two years from now, Vista's built-in security proves flawed, you're out of luck, because you *can't* just install 3rd party security software. No, you have to.... switch OS? Or pray to MS for a fix?

Do you know much about computer security? There's a thing that's really frowned upon, called security by obscurity. The idea is that attempting to achieve security just by hiding the internal workings of your system is flawed, and only makes it more vulnerable.

On the other hand, systems where anyone knows which encryption algorithms you, where everyone knows how your security works, you'll be much much safer. It'll be easier to both spot and fix security holes.

Vista appears to go the former route. Which has been considered a useless approach for the last 10-20 years.

The idea that "As long as only we, Microsoft, can get ring 0 access, you'll be safer" is just silly. It assumes that there are *no one* better than Microsoft at administrating or implementing security. It also locks out anyone who would do a better job, or who could fix Microsoft's security holes when they turn up.

Basically, who should decide whether to grant ring-0 access to a program? Me or Microsoft? It's my friggin' computer, isn't it? This is DRM all over again.
Now, I'm all for Microsoft making ring-0 access less neccesary. They've moved a lot of drives out into userspace, which means ring 0 access won't be *needed* for these things. That's great, that increases security and stability with no real downsides. But the opposite tactic of *preventing* those who need ring-0 access from getting it? No thanks.

It's also very restrictive for the end user. What if I wanted to play around with writing a driver? I'm a programmer, I *want* to be able to goof around and screw up my system. That's a no-go, apparently. Unless I fork out a few thousand dollars to get every friggin' version of it tested and signed by Microsoft.

What about Daemon-Tools or hamachi other such programs that need ring-0 access? It's not just antivirus apps that have this problem. (Ironically, most copy-protection schemes require it too)

There's still plenty of 3rd party processes running there, and any one of them can still do what it likes (crash the system, or install a rootkit). It's only the security-related ones that have been locked out, apparently. And that's why their approach is so ironically useless. They can't lock down the kernel, because a lot of things *have* to run there. But if they can't keep 3rd party code out of the kernel, then what exactly is the point in removing the API hooks needed by antivirus scanners, firewalls and other security apps?

Is it? How can it be a good upgrade stability-wise, if XP was stable?
Interface-wise, well, I prefer XP's interface. Vista's start menu bugs the hell out of me, for starters. And their habit of moving around control panels and options dialogs just to make it look "different" are just annoying.

Still, I know some people think Aero alone makes up for this. And yes, there are a few actual improvements in the interface too.

That is completely and entirely wrong, you know. They did take a boatload of features from OS X, and they make no secret of it. There's no shame in it either. Apple has taken a few ideas from Windows too over the years. Same goes for Linux. Who cares? But please, don't pretend that Vista didn't take features from Mac OS, or that "Microsoft had them first".

 

mmm..going to have to go with what Jalf had to say.

 

I'm thinking of whether or not I should get Vista for my ASUS. I mainly use my ASUS for gaming, but seeing as it's a single core Pentium M and from what you've posted regarding single core gaming performance, I'm strongly hesitating. But then again, you were talking about RC1.
Would be nice if someone could post some comparisons using single core machines running Vista compared to XP...or am I going to be the one who has to do that?

 

In general, don't upgrade to Vista if you're concerned about performance.
It's well known that in general, DX9-games will run ~20% slower under Vista, and Microsoft/NVidia/ATI have pretty much admitted that this isn't going to improve dramatically.

This is the first I've heard of multithreaded games running *faster* under Vista, and that part surprises me a bit, to be honest. It may be because of their revamped implementation of DX9, or it may just be a fluke.

But for DX9 games in general, stay with XP.

With DX10, it's obviously harder to say, since 1) no games are available to use it, and 2) DX10 isn't available under XP.
DX10 in general is a lot faster than DX9 though, which should make up for a lot of the lost performance.
However, OpenGL offers the same features, so if that catches on, Vista may lose its "lead" there as well. Maybe.

 

And why exactly is Apple OSX so secure?

Because of it's permissions. Because it doesn't allow anybody into it's inner workings.

When you let people have things like ring 0 access, your not only letting developers have access, your letting hackers have access, since it's widely available.

 

First, it isn't. It may be *more* secure than Windows, but it certainly isn't secure.
http://projects.info-pull.com/mokb/
(Ironically, Apple enjoys a different kind of security by obscurity. One of their advantages is the simple fact that far less people use their software, which quite simply means fewer man-hours devoted to finding and exploiting bugs)

Doesn't it? That's not true. As my above post shows, quite a lot of programs need kernel-mode access. Don't confuse ring 0 or kernel-mode with privileged *user* accounts (like root on *nix). They have nothing to do with each others.

OS X and *nixes are very good at making sure the user is running on a limited privileges account almost all the time, and they make it clear when and why root access is required. That is a good thing, and that improves security. (And one Vista still doesn't do properly. The annoying admin approval popups fail to tell you what it is you're approving, and they fail to ask for authentification (no password, just an ok/cancel dialog). In short, they annoy the user without really improving security.

But it has nothing to do with ring 0 which is the CPU mode used for drivers, for hardware interfaces and for the OS kernel. And OS X, like any other OS, allows 3rd party code to be executed there when neccesary.

You always have ring 0 access in some way. What they are doing with Vista is the opposite. They are preventing developers from getting access, without really making it harder for hackers.

 

I didn't skim this, I fully read what you said...

So let me get this straight...

You think this:

In order for a company to make a decent anti-virus software, just to simply... scan your pc, they gotta take it over?

Microsoft needs to expose kernels and ring 0 access ON THEIR SOFTWARE to hackers so that your anti-virus software can simply scan your pc?


The thing is, it's a perfectly sound judgement. They are keeping the root parts of windows secure. How exactly is this not safer?

Can you at least explain why it's not so good then from a technical standpoint? I want to hear this.

Show proof, don't just say words.

Give proof that vista is less secure, otherwise people don't believe you.

If you show proof, people will quickly admit you know what you're talking about.

The thing is, I fail to see how not letting kernels and ring 0 modes hurt anybody, esp. when anti-virus companies have come up with workarounds.

Now, if doing this has made some sort of security flaw in the OS... Something else...

 

You're using 64-bit vista, right? Because as I understand it, only 64-bit has ring0-access protection.

 

Virus makers will also find workarounds, and when they do, it will be tougher for anti virus companies to FIX it, not just scan for it.
So in a sense, this could be seen as a security flaw, as it would be harder to FIX when something wrong is discovered.
This is probably fine for casual users like us, but companies would not like this. This could mean that instead of taking a few hours to kill off a powerful rapidly spreading virus, it could mean days.

 

Vista security white papers can be read here:

http://www.microsoft.com/security/windowsvista/default.mspx

Some videos, discussion and additional information here:

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=262227

I'm not a Vista fanboy (or a hater). Vista will be of most benefit to the "I just want my PC to work, but don't want to know how it works", bittorrent, and random websurfing folks. So we'll all benefit from it (if it keeps botnets in check).

Vista isn't such a big deal for folks who keep their AV/malware apps up-to-date and use some common sense when computing/surfing.

And I think Vista will be the big target now for hackers, giving us XP folks a little break.

Given the issues with a major upgrade, I'm very thankful to everyone who likes to be on the bleeding edge. I'll upgrade when most of the kinks are worked out.

 

No, its gonna be Vista first for the hackers, just for the fun of hacking into the new OS, but if most people continue to use XP they'll attack XP more.

Lots of the hackers just hack for the fun and credit. That's why they rarely hit Mac OS X, because so little people use it its not worth the work to hack into it, although it has been done before in less than twenty minutes.

 

Thanks for the links. I hate it when people say things without facts. Apprantly I was wrong...

 

that's a little rich considering you posted no proof of your findings and just expect everyone to take your review as gospel!

and you don't feel the need to appologise to Jalf for your criticisms of his posts even though you admit you were wrong?

The Microsoft\Apple hacking\scripting debate is as old as computers! In general the winner will always be the one with less subscribers (usually Apple), but with Vista being brand new and currently having a smaller user base - and therefore a smaller internet footprint - it's bound to look good, but you can rest assured that Mac owners will have the last laugh just as soon as Vista gets a global foothold.

I surmise that you are probably fairly new to computing & appear to be one of many victims of Microsoft's sales\hype department! not to worry, a few years experience will change your position.

BTW: The full potential of DRM will only be realised when people begin to understand that the song\movie they just paid to download, Expires & Evaporates after 3 plays or 3 days (whichever is the sooner), or Vista flat out refuses to play the file because it's throwing a hissy fit! you'll be glad your unsigned 3rd party app has ring 0 access then.

OK! so I'm j\k! but rest assured DRM already has that capability, it just needs activation with a "critical update".

note: these are personal views & as such no proof is required.

 

I was posting personal opinions. It's alot different then posting facts without giving reasons or links to them.

EDIT: After reading over what I originally said, I should've made that clear...

Oh wait. I did. The post says 'My experience with Vista.'

If you can't figure out that pretty much the entire first post I made was purely opinion of what I've EXPERIENCED from Vista MYSELF and not fact, then ***.

 

I fall into the "OMG DRM, etc" camp, not so much for its immediate effect on me personally, but because, as I understand things, Microsoft is pushing it on the hardware vendors, which forces them to manufacture black boxes, which is extremely hostile to open source drivers. The more my computer belongs to Microsoft or media companies, and the less it belongs to me, the more displeased I'm going to be.

 

Regarding Security, your posted experience with Vista is premature & may lead many into a false sense of seurity! RC's are not final versions and changes are made before general release, which means your experiences with the Release Candidates are null & void.

Vista's security measures are as yet an unknown quantity in a real world environment! and you have not taken into account that security software providers will soon find ways to bypass just about any access restrictions, and new instruction sets will be released as patches - it happens all of the time and hackers will find ways to access Vista computers sooner than you care to admit.

something else you don't take into account is that any computer that has internet access can be hacked into - ask your Government's security agencies.

If you had been graceful enough to applogise for your mistakes once you had realised the facts were different to your beliefs, I would not have posted here at all! ***

you're obviously excited at being an early adoptor of Vista and that appears to have been the driving force behind some of your erroneous comments.

but don't let me ruin your experience - have a good day.

 

No, in order to keep your PC from being infected or attacked *in the first place*, they need to be able to get access to it.

It's my software if it runs on my PC. So yes, I think that in principle, *I* should be the one deciding which ring 0 software to allow. Of course, users can't handle that in every detail, but it's the principle of the thing. Under XP, anyone with access to the driver dev kit can write software that runs in ring 0. And anyone can install it if they want. I don't need to ask Microsoft for permission to install my virtual CD software, or to use a third-party antivirus solution. I just install it.

I just said. Try rereading my previous post.

***

Why do I care? *** I'm also not trying to say that under no circumstances should one install Vista. People can believe me or not.

Will they? Apparently you admit you were wrong, but I don't see you admitting I was right. Hell, you accused me of not knowing what I was talking about, didn't you? I think an apology is in place, don't you?

....
It does. Quite simply, they are not preventing ring 0 access, they are not preventing software from running in kernel mode. That means naughty software can *still* be executed within the kernel, in privileged mode, in ring 0, whichever term you prefer. They are only removing the API hooks used by antivirus and other security software. But, to take an example at random, the infamous copy-protection software StarForce can *still* infect your PC, it can still fry your DVD drive and muck up your OS. Because it doesn't rely on those API hooks. It installs a virtual driver which sits on top of the ATAPI drivers in kernel-mode,where it can cause as much trouble as it likes.

***

Or is it only your personal opinion that Doom 3 won't run at all?

***

Yep, and it then goes on to make a lot of claims about how amazingly secure Vista is, because of some half-understood article about what ring 0 is.
Which was not part of your "experience with Vista", but are instead

***

 

This discussion has gotten out of hand.