My month with Vista

Bought a new fast desktop system with Vista preinstalled.

First impressions good

2nd impressions - what is going on here? Took me a LONG time to get it
behaving sensibly - as my previous XP Pro system did. Kept on denying
me access to everything even though I was an administrator until I
found a little program that allowed me to take ownership with a click
of the mouse. And as for that UAD - how infuriating. Luckily it can be
turned off. Networking - what a job it was letting my XP system access
it - and I thought that was supposed to be easier in Vista.

Now - still griping about the unbelievably slow file copying to and
from my USB external drive - my XP laptop is about 20 times faster
doing this. Generally though - it's OK and very stable - no crashes
yet.

Was it worth it? I like it but to be honest I feel XP just works a bit
better - easier to find my way around and it seems faster although
it's on a slower system.

Maybe SP1 will sort out the slow file copying. If not, now where's
that XP Pro disk......

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mary,

"...a little program that allowed me to take ownership ..." Care to
share a URL? Sounds useful!


--
Alan

Try this

http://www.howtogeek.com/downloads/TakeOwnership.zip

Mary

>Mary,
>
>"...a little program that allowed me to take ownership ..." Care to
>share a URL? Sounds useful!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Try this

http://www.howtogeek.com/downloads/TakeOwnership.zip

Mary

>Mary,
>
>"...a little program that allowed me to take ownership ..." Care to
>share a URL? Sounds useful!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Thankew!


--
Alan

Added security will always slow down processes. In a recent demonstration,
an unpatched XP SP1 was breached in 11 minutes. There are more than a few
running unpatched systems because they have been told by a family expert
that patches are crap. I have asked a few local clients who have followed
similar advice whether they think that it was the smart thing to do as their
computer is now locked in a boot loop from which there is no escape other
than to start over completely.

Vista security attempts to address the above, and it is for your own good
ultimately. UAC can be turned off, and I have mine turned off, but their are
security issues in doing so. Are you smart enough to be able to spot bad
stuff before it gets you? If you are, then turn UAC off. If not, leave it
running.

Re slow file transfer, Vista indexes files when it moves them around,
something that XP never did. The benefit of indexing is super fast searches.
Vista does not have to search an entire disk looking for files as XP did. it
checks its own index, hence the search gives immediate results.

MS developers are no doubt trying to find a way to make indexing faster,
which will in turn speed up file transfers. If you have a fully patched
system, it will have been addressed in part already, but it is still work in
progress and MS are aware of this.

You are free to go back to XP at any time, but XP is old now and, in time,
Vista will be streets ahead on all counts. You have to appreciate that these
things are more apparent in the wild than they are on the 'few' machine
configurations used in testing. There is also the problem of delivering the
fixes to users so as not to screw up the system. Most of the time, they do a
pretty good job, but there will always be an element of collateral damage.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




"Mary" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Bought a new fast desktop system with Vista preinstalled.
>
> First impressions good
>
> 2nd impressions - what is going on here? Took me a LONG time to get it
> behaving sensibly - as my previous XP Pro system did. Kept on denying
> me access to everything even though I was an administrator until I
> found a little program that allowed me to take ownership with a click
> of the mouse. And as for that UAD - how infuriating. Luckily it can be
> turned off. Networking - what a job it was letting my XP system access
> it - and I thought that was supposed to be easier in Vista.
>
> Now - still griping about the unbelievably slow file copying to and
> from my USB external drive - my XP laptop is about 20 times faster
> doing this. Generally though - it's OK and very stable - no crashes
> yet.
>
> Was it worth it? I like it but to be honest I feel XP just works a bit
> better - easier to find my way around and it seems faster although
> it's on a slower system.
>
> Maybe SP1 will sort out the slow file copying. If not, now where's
> that XP Pro disk......
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

"Mary" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Bought a new fast desktop system with Vista preinstalled.
>
> First impressions good
>
> 2nd impressions - what is going on here? Took me a LONG time to get it
> behaving sensibly - as my previous XP Pro system did. Kept on denying
> me access to everything even though I was an administrator until I
> found a little program that allowed me to take ownership with a click
> of the mouse. And as for that UAD - how infuriating. Luckily it can be
> turned off. Networking - what a job it was letting my XP system access
> it - and I thought that was supposed to be easier in Vista.
>
> Now - still griping about the unbelievably slow file copying to and
> from my USB external drive - my XP laptop is about 20 times faster
> doing this. Generally though - it's OK and very stable - no crashes
> yet.
>
> Was it worth it? I like it but to be honest I feel XP just works a bit
> better - easier to find my way around and it seems faster although
> it's on a slower system.
>
> Maybe SP1 will sort out the slow file copying. If not, now where's
> that XP Pro disk......
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>


Vista is more secure. Writing to the System32 or somesuch directory requires
special confirmation whether or not UAC is enabled. It is pretty much a
must. This means that confirmation needs to be given twice if UAC is on,
once if not for these special directories. It seems excessive, but it is not
really.

Also, running a program with admin privileges with cause a prompt if UAC is
on. It won't if it is off.

Overall, Vista is more secure i.e. a lower rate of vulnerabilities
discovered of any of the current major operating systems. Furthermore, the
UAC system protects users from inadvertant malware compromise. It's what
everyone said they wanted .. better security.

IMHO .. When you first go to install your apps and suchlike, UAC seems to be
in the way, sure, but once things settle down and you have it pretty much up
and running, it is not big deal and, in fact, does make for safer computing.
One solution is to turn it off while installing all your apps, then once
done, re-arm it.

Saucy

Hi Mary,

Welcome to Windows Vista!

I went through the same problems as you did and I am still strugling at
times with Vista.

Did you know that you can take ownership from within Vista Explorer itself
(at least in the Home premium version) ? Right-click on a folder, click the
Security tab than the Advanced button. Click on the Owner tab and there you
go.

As for UAC. Yes, it's annoying, especially when you first setup your
computer (driver's update, new software installation, etc.). It's better to
turn it off at that time and turn it back on and see if you can leave with it
in the long run (as you get Internet Explorer protected mode on only when UAC
is turned on).

Also, it protects you against programs that tries to run with Admin
privileges and may screw up your entire system.


As for your slow external USB drive performance, here are a few things you
may want to try:

1) Using Device Manager (in Control Panel), right-click on your device and
select the "Optimize for Performance" under the Policies tab. You may need
to restart your computer.

2) Turn off your antivirus/firewal and see if performance improves.

3) Turn off Remote Differential Compression. To do this, go to Control
Panel / Add Remove Programs / Turn off Windows features -> Uncheck Remote
Differential Compression. If it makes no difference, you can always turn it
back on.

Good Luck.

Saucy wrote:
> "Mary" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Bought a new fast desktop system with Vista preinstalled.
>>
>> First impressions good
>>
>> 2nd impressions - what is going on here? Took me a LONG time to get it
>> behaving sensibly - as my previous XP Pro system did. Kept on denying
>> me access to everything even though I was an administrator until I
>> found a little program that allowed me to take ownership with a click
>> of the mouse. And as for that UAD - how infuriating. Luckily it can be
>> turned off. Networking - what a job it was letting my XP system access
>> it - and I thought that was supposed to be easier in Vista.
>>
>> Now - still griping about the unbelievably slow file copying to and
>> from my USB external drive - my XP laptop is about 20 times faster
>> doing this. Generally though - it's OK and very stable - no crashes
>> yet.
>>
>> Was it worth it? I like it but to be honest I feel XP just works a bit
>> better - easier to find my way around and it seems faster although
>> it's on a slower system.
>>
>> Maybe SP1 will sort out the slow file copying. If not, now where's
>> that XP Pro disk......
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>
>
> Vista is more secure.

When Vista's market share reaches 10%, we'll see hundreds of posts here
complaining about being infested with malware. Right now, the Black Hats
don't consider Vista worth attacking due to its low market share.

You are fooling yourself if you think that *any* version of Windows is
secure.

Alias

In article <>,
Mike Hall - MVP <> wrote:
>Added security will always slow down processes. In a recent demonstration,
>an unpatched XP SP1 was breached in 11 minutes.

That's a straw man argument. A) added security does NOT always
slow things down and B) A PATCHED XP is still faster than Vista, and in
fatc faster than an unpatched XP.

>
>Vista security attempts to address the above, and it is for your own good
>ultimately. UAC can be turned off, and I have mine turned off, but their are
>security issues in doing so. Are you smart enough to be able to spot bad
>stuff before it gets you? If you are, then turn UAC off. If not, leave it
>running.
>

How exactly does UAC act to protect me from not being able to
"spot bad stuff"?