21 months later, Vista is still more secure than XP...

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=505

a safe is more secure than a wallet/purse, but much less functional.
a tank is more secure than an Porsche, but isn't nearly as much fun to
drive.

a fencepost is smarter than.....but not nearly as much fun to torture.

"FB" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=505

As in every day life, in the computer world we are confronted with trade-off
situations. There is no perfect SW and that includes the OSs. I'm sure Vista
has great inprovements, but at what cost? We as users decide if the the
advertised improvements are worth the "glitches". From what I've heard and
read the user community does not think so. Speaking for myself, I had never
encounter a serious security problem in my system (my anti-virus & spy-ware
SW took care of that) using XP. On the other hand I want my applications to
run fast and stable and I'm ready to pay good money for that. Vista has not
live up to my expecations in the year or so I've used it and I grow tired of
the the same "is more secure"-argument. I don't want more security if it is
bought with unstable and slow applications.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:54:12 +0200, "Billinares"
<> wrote:

>As in every day life, in the computer world we are confronted with trade-off
>situations. There is no perfect SW and that includes the OSs. I'm sure Vista
>has great inprovements, but at what cost? We as users decide if the the
>advertised improvements are worth the "glitches". From what I've heard and
>read the user community does not think so. Speaking for myself, I had never
>encounter a serious security problem in my system (my anti-virus & spy-ware
>SW took care of that) using XP. On the other hand I want my applications to
>run fast and stable and I'm ready to pay good money for that. Vista has not
>live up to my expecations in the year or so I've used it and I grow tired of
>the the same "is more secure"-argument. I don't want more security if it is
>bought with unstable and slow applications.

Amazing to me how people fall for marketing hype. The two biggest
"features" Microsoft hyped to death about Vista were Aero and UAC.
Both suck.

Before installing Vista I like many looked forward to what was suppose
to be a "radical" improvement in graphics. What did we actually get?
Transparent window borders. Oh wow, were we suppose to be impressed
over that Mickey Mouse eye candy improvement? Yes, I know Vista also
improved fonts some, and icons are better but is this worth the price
of a upgrade? Not in my book.

UAC has been much discussed already. It simply doesn't live up to the
hype either. No matter how hard the faithful try to push it as some
great advance in "security" anyone even vaguely familiar with Windows
understands UAC's purpose is little more than a nag screen one can
easily click through.

My biggest gripes about Vista is for many it performs WORSE than XP
especially in important areas like file handling. That is simply
inexcusable no matter how much the apologist crowd whines or remains
in denial. Combine all those things with changing the interface for
what seems to be mostly windows dressing, again I feel cheated. I'm
not obviously alone in these opinions, but true to form fanboys stick
their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong with Vista with
the dumbest of the crowd actually crowing Vista is wonderful.

Ringmaster wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:54:12 +0200, "Billinares"
> <> wrote:
>
>> As in every day life, in the computer world we are confronted with trade-off
>> situations. There is no perfect SW and that includes the OSs. I'm sure Vista
>> has great inprovements, but at what cost? We as users decide if the the
>> advertised improvements are worth the "glitches". From what I've heard and
>> read the user community does not think so. Speaking for myself, I had never
>> encounter a serious security problem in my system (my anti-virus & spy-ware
>> SW took care of that) using XP. On the other hand I want my applications to
>> run fast and stable and I'm ready to pay good money for that. Vista has not
>> live up to my expecations in the year or so I've used it and I grow tired of
>> the the same "is more secure"-argument. I don't want more security if it is
>> bought with unstable and slow applications.
>
> Amazing to me how people fall for marketing hype. The two biggest
> "features" Microsoft hyped to death about Vista were Aero and UAC.
> Both suck.
>
> Before installing Vista I like many looked forward to what was suppose
> to be a "radical" improvement in graphics. What did we actually get?
> Transparent window borders. Oh wow, were we suppose to be impressed
> over that Mickey Mouse eye candy improvement? Yes, I know Vista also
> improved fonts some, and icons are better but is this worth the price
> of a upgrade? Not in my book.
>
> UAC has been much discussed already. It simply doesn't live up to the
> hype either. No matter how hard the faithful try to push it as some
> great advance in "security" anyone even vaguely familiar with Windows
> understands UAC's purpose is little more than a nag screen one can
> easily click through.
>
> My biggest gripes about Vista is for many it performs WORSE than XP
> especially in important areas like file handling. That is simply
> inexcusable no matter how much the apologist crowd whines or remains
> in denial. Combine all those things with changing the interface for
> what seems to be mostly windows dressing, again I feel cheated. I'm
> not obviously alone in these opinions, but true to form fanboys stick
> their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong with Vista with
> the dumbest of the crowd actually crowing Vista is wonderful.

My hubby Ringmaster is never satisfied with anything. If there would
be nothing to complain about, he would still complain!

malakies....

The only reason vista doesn't get infected that much, is because you are
spending time trying to fix - configure it all the time...
No time to actually do something in order for it to get infected!

Hey FRANK... YOU SUCK! lol

Go take your fur-ball 4 legged girlfriend for a stroll instead of trolling
in here for a change!



"FB" <> wrote in message
news:#...
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=505

FB wrote:

21 months later and Frank is even more of a disgusting troll than ever.

Alias

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g6kkss$3j9$...
> FB wrote:
>
> 21 months later and Frank is even more of a disgusting troll than ever.
>
> Alias

Again you have nothing productive to offer. As usual

Bill Yanaire wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g6kkss$3j9$...
>> FB wrote:
>>
>> 21 months later and Frank is even more of a disgusting troll than ever.
>>
>> Alias
>
> Again you have nothing productive to offer. As usual
>
>

Liar. I help people in these groups all the time. You NEVER do.

Alias

"Alias" <aka@mascaradoyanónimo.jo> wrote in message
news:g6km79$2le$...
> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:g6kkss$3j9$...
>>> FB wrote:
>>>
>>> 21 months later and Frank is even more of a disgusting troll than ever.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>> Again you have nothing productive to offer. As usual
>
> Liar. I help people in these groups all the time. You NEVER do.
>
> Alias

Wrong. I have helped a few people. I know you have helped people also.
The majority of your posts are not productive.