Mojave to Revive Vista's Image?

[pfunkman]

Couldn't agree more. However, I work for a a mega bank, and we are migrating to Vista over the next year. When you are dealing with tens of thousands of machines and thousands of applications, you HAVE to test. About 85% of everything works. That's still not a 100% however so its a major task.

That's why I find it hilarious when people take about migrating that many machines from Windows to Linux. It would take forever to any ROI on that if ever.

For the average home user though its a lot easier. That said, the average home user probably doesn't NEED Vista. But it is overall a more solid OS and on new hardware mainstream hardware, performance isn't an issue.

Yeah in hindsight i guess forgot to mention proprietary and custom software for businesses and such. Really though this thread is about the consumers perspective on vista and how warped it has become by people that really have no idea what thier even saying.

Businesses for obvious reasons work very differently when it comes to thier software and migrating.

As for migration to linux the big difference is if a business wanted to migrate to linux they would have a whole community willing to help make the transition as effortless as possible. It would suck at first but for alot of companies the cost difference and community makes alot of difference.

 

[heatlesssun]

Yeah in hindsight i guess forgot to mention proprietary and custom software for businesses and such. Really though this thread is about the consumers perspective on vista and how warped it has become by people that really have no idea what thier even saying.

Businesses for obvious reasons work very differently when it comes to thier software and migrating.

As for migration to linux the big difference is if a business wanted to migrate to linux they would have a whole community willing to help make the transition as effortless as possible. It would suck at first but for alot of companies the cost difference and community makes alot of difference.

Yeah, a Linux migration wouldn't be so bad if everyone had control and access over their hardware and knew what they were doing, but you really can't do that in a place like a bank with tens of thousands of users. You have to have some bureaucracy in place otherwise it would be a disaster.

 

[Cyrilix]

If you're afraid of a protected process, you're quite paranoid. You have no evidence that it will cause the world to end. In fact, you have no evidence that it will overtake your entire system and leave you high and dry. The only thing you can assume, and should assume, is that they can prevent you from viewing protected media. Well, enough about thinking in possibilities that are far from probability. There's the possibility, even in Canada, that a random person I meet could have a gun, be in a bad mood, and just shoot me without my being able to suspect or react to it. Fortunately, such a possibility does not make me avoid all human contact like the plague. Panhead, please explain the reasons for your paranoia and conspiracy theories.

 

[mdburkey]

Your whole post shows that you know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about vista. Tell me, what software would you need to replace if you moved to vista? Test and validate for compatibility? With the exception of some drivers and very few dated programs if a program works on XP it will work on vista. Anyone that tells you otherwise is either a liar spreading FUD or a tard that believed the liar spreading FUD.

It is posts like this that irritate the crap out of me.

For the average HOME user, what you say is true -- the vast majority of applications that run on XP will run just fine on Vista.

For many custom business applications and/or development applications, there are a LOT of programs that "almost" work in Vista but have issues for numerous reasons (some of which I can personally attest to -- and, as I stated in an earlier post, some of which got fixed with SP1 [although not ever as an official patch prior to SP1, contrary to what MS would have you believe]).

Specifically, I have seen a lot of programs that expect to be able to write to their REAL directory under "\Program Files\" rather than their virtual one under the User folders. For many, simply running them with elevated privileges fixes the problem -- although having to do so is a bit of a pain. That said, running them with elevated privileges also causes some other major problems with the VB6 runtime compatibility handling in Vista and with how many install programs work (i.e. you may end up with DLL's and OCX's scattered across the real and virtual directories for a program). In some of these cases, you can get the programs to work by manually installing them and putting the files in places they really should be -- but not always.

There are also numerous shared database/networking type applications that simply will not work due to security enhancements in Vista. Some of them are infuriatingly complex as well -- for instance, one problem I know of that currently existing in a custom database access application appears to work FINE. Everything seems to work, there is never an error, and the user never realizes anything is going wrong...at first. However, given a day or so of heavy use, we end up with database corruption issues -- and it ONLY happens when people are using the client software under Vista. Somewhere, somehow, something is getting out of sync or transmitted out of order...good luck on finding THAT problem. This code is well known, thoroughly debugged, and works fine under everything from NT3.5 through XPSP3.

There are also still lots of "weird" issues that crop up on mixed Vista/XP/2K/NT/98/etc networks. I still have a lot of clients who run Server 2000 (and even a few still running NT4 Server) -- and even with Server 2003, sometimes things just act strange. MOST of the time Vista cooperates, but sometimes a machine that is to all appearances identically setup to another one will either not see another machines shares or have strange permission problems accessing the server. In the ONE larger installation I have dealt with where everything was running Vista (a serverless setup with far too many personal shares) everything actually worked pretty well (I still personally loathe Vista's networking UI, but it IS functional at least). When everyone is running Server 2008 and Vista, these issues will largely go away, but from an IT perspective, I shudder everytime I hear someone has bought a new laptop or desktop with Vista on it and wants to hook up to the network. I can state emphatically that I had nowhere near as many mixed platform networking problems during the transitions from NT4>2K->XP and even 95 and 98 generally interoperate better (or at least more predictably -- things that don't work usually ALWAYS don't work, with Vista it's been more a it usually works, but if it doesn't, then may the Lord help you).

From a BUSINESS perspective, these issues are killers -- and preclude Vista use on a lot of machines.

 

[willyspuddle]

I work on HP,ACER, Dell and Compaqs running Celeron CPU and 512 ram with Vista Basic. They take 8mins to startup and average 2min application launches. There is no way anyone could not notice this. The same systems running XP are actually quite snappy. Now Core2 with 3gig ram, and GPU is a different story.

Cheers!

 

[heatlesssun]

I work on HP,ACER, Dell and Compaqs running Celeron CPU and 512 ram with Vista Basic. They take 8mins to startup and average 2min application launches. There is no way anyone could not notice this. The same systems running XP are actually quite snappy. Now Core2 with 3gig ram, and GPU is a different story.

Cheers!

What kind of Celeron? I've installed Vista Home on a 512MB Prescott P4 2GHz laptop and it worked fine. 1 minute boot time. Never have installed Vista on an old Celeron and I admit, for that low end of a system probably not worth it.

 

[AOM]

I too agree that I dislike the negative attitude some people carry toward Vista, especially those who have no techinical understanding of anything, can barely use a microwave or make toast, but bash an OS they don't understand.

I remember the same thing when XP came out, people on 98 hated it but hadn't used it at all, or were on Win2kPro ( loved 2kPro btw) and hated XP. Everything has to mature, with that comes the process of dealing with issues, big or small, period.

I use Vista Ultimate 32bit on a couple of machines, the one in my sig and another newer Sony laptop. I have XP SP3 running on an old xp box, runs better on the older hardware, that's life.

Amazing that people complain that it doesn't run well on older hardware, well newer games don't run as well or at all on older hardware, yet people find that normal or just fine or expect it.

Everyone wants better hardware, software, slicker graphics and ui, but some don't want to except that with those improved looks/performance you need newer hardware to take advantage of it or to use those newer features.

I can see people's arguements for not upgrading if they don't have the need, but if you buy a new box capable of running Vista and it comes with it, I'd leave it be, it works just fine.

I think Microsoft does a pretty damn amazing job imo with Windows, it runs on a unforseen amount of different hardware configurations with just a few downloads of the necessary drivers/bios software installed and does it damn well.

I don't see another OS doing everything Windows is capable of in a friendly to use GUI that anyone can sit down and learn to use pretty easily, at least the basics. When I see small children learning to use windows 4-7 yrs in age, doing things I have a harder time teaching some adults to do in less time, it shows me that MS has done a good job.

That may not make sense to some, to some it might.

 

[NKDietrich]

You are correct to a point.
No one can honestly say that nothing has Vista drivers or that none of their programs will run on Vista, but I don't think anyone here has said that.
What has been said, and is quite true for many of us, is that many applications won't run in Vista. Many large corporations, particularly those in financial industries, have internally developed applications that break in Vista.

Oh, of course, I assumed since the original article was about Jon Q. Public consumer that's what we were discussing here. Obviously migrating an OS on an enterprise level is risky and requires a lot more forethought. Poorly designed proprietary applications coded internally or by a shoddy third party are almost certain to run into problems anytime a major OS or hardware change comes around.

While no one here has said that nothing has Vista drivers or that no programs will run on Vista, that is because the [H] has a generally more experienced and educated crowd. The intertubes as a whole and people you talk to in person are far more likely to believe that nonsense and parrot it along to anyone they meet, so that they can pretend to know something about computers.

 

[pxc]

The Ars article had summarized it nicely in one sentence, especially the last part:

Bill Veghte, Microsoft's senior vice president of Online Services & Windows Business Group and the man who recently outlined the Windows roadmap, strongly believes that Vista's negative opinion by many users is due to poor perceptions created by the media, from Apple's anti-Vista ads to many journalists spewing Vista hate because it brings in the hits.

 

[ianken]

Couldn't agree more. However, I work for a a mega bank, .

You had me 'till "bank."

I worked with the win95 roll-out for several banks. Banks and large non-it institutions tend to have hardware and software that predates the Ark of The Covenant, and is almost as lethal.



Banks are the worst for IT deployments. OMG! My COBOLs will not run? Oh noes! Where is my TTY terminal?

Again, You have my sympathy.

 

[ianken]

Thanks no-edit forum...ahem...

I run Vista X64. And I love it. But to be honest it was a HUGE pita to get running due to various driver issues and the 4GB/x64 bug. But it is rocking now and I'd never go back to XP. Gak.

 

[heatlesssun]

You had me 'till "bank."

I worked with the win95 roll-out for several banks. Banks and large non-it institutions tend to have hardware and software that predates the Ark of The Covenant, and is almost as lethal.



Banks are the worst for IT deployments. OMG! My COBOLs will not run? Oh noes! Where is my TTY terminal?

Again, You have my sympathy.

Actually, it's amazing just how big of a mix of things are at the bank. Some things are state of the art and top notch, some things predate dirt. That's the problem. so many systems and apps its amazing that for the most part things work pretty well.

We actually have great desktop deployment technology. All of our major desktop client apps are cataloged and web deployable. It makes Synaptics look ancient.

 

[pfunkman]

It is posts like this that irritate the crap out of me.

For the average HOME user, what you say is true -- the vast majority of applications that run on XP will run just fine on Vista.

Next time read the thread this thread is about an article concerning the average consumers perspective on vista. Nothing you said after this point is relevent or even matters. On top of that the issues you bring up are more of the same that arise with each new generation of any OS.

For business it is clearly different but considering the popular opinion of vista dont even have anything to do with business applications how can you stick up for these assumptions? In fact if you would ask the average consumer which OS they think is more business oriented they would likely point to vista thanks to apples misleading ad campaign.

There will always be more of the same for large scale businesses and the like when migrating to any OS it is not vistas fault time dont stand still. If you have not figured this out you have not been doing computers long enough.

I ask you again name one single piece of software you use that wont work in vista.

 

[ßeta]

I'm looking at this page right now on a crappy gateway laptop with 1GB of ram and a 1.46GHz and its smooth as my GTS. Before SP1 i did hate how it would take longer to calculate time remaining on a file transfer than it took to transfer the file. but that was before.
I used to game on vista with 1GB before i upgraded to 4GB and it ran smooth.

 

[Manaknight]

If I could natively game on Linux I'd never touch a MS product again.

here is the killer for linux, i dont feel like programming a wrapper when i want to load a driver. i don't feel like programming my OS because it's not finished.

all operating systems have their pro's and cons. personally i hate linux the most out of all of them. i'm all for tweaking and control. but the fact that i need to basically finish pieces of the os or the software to have it do what i want is too much.

if i genuinely had a better and compatible alternative to windows, i'd give it a shot with an open mind. but it just hasn't come along yet.

 

[JDAdams]

Vista is useless for me for purely technical reasons - I can't perform an in-place upgrade from XP 64-bit to Vista 64-bit, and I'm not willing to re-install hundreds of games and programs manually after doing a fresh install. Having no migration path from your old to your new software = fail. I will eventually install Vista when I want to play DX10 games, but it will be as a dual-boot option and solely for that purpose. It also won't be for some years since I still tons of pre-DX10 games to work through and there still isn't hardware powerful enough to run DX10 to my satisfaction, so I'm holding off buying games like Crysis until I can get the full experience (1920x1200, 8xAA, 16xAF, everything on maximum, vsync, 60FPS consistent) which even the latest cards are nowhere near delivering > http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUzMSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[Master Blaster]

WERD.

99% of the issues w/ Vista were NOT M$'s doing. These companies had access to all the alphas and betas to get drivers going. It took them almost a YEAR post-release to get things right.

MS took a lot of abuse for other people's failures.

This. I was on neowin reading this yesterday and it made me grin. In addition to this, I almost wish MS would make some commercials to 1up the lame mac commercials. And they think MS follower are sheeple - please!

 

[bigstusexy]

All of these people who just blindly tear down vista and most of them haven't used it, haven't installed a legal copy and ran it but just follow all the other people yapping away about how bad it is that may be just like them.

This cycle repeats every new MS operating system (and lets not forget the people that say they wait for the first service pack before the switch) that has been released for a long time. I've heard that 98 was nothing but 95c with better usb support, and don't forget all the articles to run 98 with the 95 core.

2000, it was stated as being completely terrible and the most horrific thing in the world, so many games, so many program, drives, what have you, didn't work on the new NT model and to some extent I don't believe 2000 was meant for home use at first.

ME, people hated this one. I thought it was a mixed move but once you learned what spyware was and how to remove it I found it pleasant, awesome and stable.

XP, back to the 98 cries! It was touted as a shiner 2000 with more crap on it and slower and no need for it. Now people don't want to get rid of it.

It's hip and cool to bash Microsoft, just like the Bell phone company. If your computer is 2 to 4 years old its old, sorry its old its not a car, its a product of a ever advancing industry that has Milestones annually. With that said I run vista on my Asus P4C800-E and 3.0Ghz P4 hperthreaded and 1 now 2GB of DDR(not 2, just DDR) and its fine an old Geforce 4 card is my lowest performing part but it gets me aero.

Ok, I'm done ranting like a mad man.

 

[Scali2]

2000, it was stated as being completely terrible and the most horrific thing in the world, so many games, so many program, drives, what have you, didn't work on the new NT model and to some extent I don't believe 2000 was meant for home use at first.

It wasn't, since there was only a Professional edition. It was just NT 5.0 (and earlier NTs were all aimed only at corporate markets, in the early days consumers simply didn't have a 386 and the required memory to run it in the first place).
Windows ME was the 'Home edition', but unlike XP and Vista Home editions, it didn't share the codebase of the Professional/Workstation/Server editions. It was still the 9x codebase.

Microsoft wanted to move everyone to the NT codebase, because hardware had now matured enough for consumers, and the added stability and security was a big advantage over the DOS/9x line. Problem was mostly with software that wasn't compatible with NT, so 2000 didn't work well for consumers... and even XP had its share of troubles at first, especially with games and such, which were often written exclusively for 9x.

 

[Serpico]

I think its quite interesting, but i know for a fact that i definitely didnt like Vista before Sp1 and everything. Now its alot better and i definitely dont mind using it over XP. I have both and i think that Vista has alot of little features that make it more enjoyable than XP.

I'm in the same boat as you. Vista was bad before SP1, now it isn't. Simple.

 

[Exavior]

It wasn't, since there was only a Professional edition. It was just NT 5.0 (and earlier NTs were all aimed only at corporate markets, in the early days consumers simply didn't have a 386 and the required memory to run it in the first place).
Windows ME was the 'Home edition', but unlike XP and Vista Home editions, it didn't share the codebase of the Professional/Workstation/Server editions. It was still the 9x codebase.

Microsoft wanted to move everyone to the NT codebase, because hardware had now matured enough for consumers, and the added stability and security was a big advantage over the DOS/9x line. Problem was mostly with software that wasn't compatible with NT, so 2000 didn't work well for consumers... and even XP had its share of troubles at first, especially with games and such, which were often written exclusively for 9x.

Exactly.

2000 was not suppose to be ran in homes. It was meant to be their upgrade for NT4 and XP was going to be the replacement for 98. However people didn't listen and they kept trying to install 2000 on their home machines, they kept bitching about stuff not working... So Microsoft decided that they would throw out ME to bridge the gap between 98 and XP while working on SP3 for 2000 that would fix some of the problems that it had. Mainly not supporting directx for games, or at least a newer version. Problem was that ME was thrown together too fast and had a lot of problems of its own. They just took 98, upgraded some stuff in it, threw in some 2000 features and some features they had planned for XP and called it good. They could have really just skipped ME and maybe added a few more people to SP3 and maybe got that out the door sooner. That would have solved their problems a lot better than releasing ME. Although if I am correct I think that SP3 might have actually came out before or just a little after ME as it was anyway.

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

Vista is useless for me for purely technical reasons - I can't perform an in-place upgrade from XP 64-bit to Vista 64-bit, and I'm not willing to re-install hundreds of games and programs manually after doing a fresh install. Having no migration path from your old to your new software = fail. I will eventually install Vista when I want to play DX10 games, but it will be as a dual-boot option and solely for that purpose. It also won't be for some years since I still tons of pre-DX10 games to work through and there still isn't hardware powerful enough to run DX10 to my satisfaction, so I'm holding off buying games like Crysis until I can get the full experience (1920x1200, 8xAA, 16xAF, everything on maximum, vsync, 60FPS consistent) which even the latest cards are nowhere near delivering > http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUzMSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

If you're that lazy to start anew with a new OS, that's laziness, not an issue of any specified OS in general. Some of us here have installed OSes a thousand times over & wind up gaining the benefit of a clean slate to game & task with. In-place upgrades are far worse than dealing with reinstalling applications & tossing the registry/HDD clutter you get from any Windows OS. When you do an in-place upgrade with Windows (any version), you gain all of the crap you had with the prior installation. Even apps act shoddy & quirky when you overlay a new OS over them. I don't think you know about Windows well enough to know that you're running into a wall with the argument you gave.

 

[Scali2]

Exactly.

2000 was not suppose to be ran in homes. It was meant to be their upgrade for NT4 and XP was going to be the replacement for 98. However people didn't listen and they kept trying to install 2000 on their home machines, they kept bitching about stuff not working... So Microsoft decided that they would throw out ME to bridge the gap between 98 and XP while working on SP3 for 2000 that would fix some of the problems that it had. Mainly not supporting directx for games, or at least a newer version. Problem was that ME was thrown together too fast and had a lot of problems of its own. They just took 98, upgraded some stuff in it, threw in some 2000 features and some features they had planned for XP and called it good. They could have really just skipped ME and maybe added a few more people to SP3 and maybe got that out the door sooner. That would have solved their problems a lot better than releasing ME. Although if I am correct I think that SP3 might have actually came out before or just a little after ME as it was anyway.

Both 2000 and ME were released in 2000.
SP3 for 2000 wasn't released until August 29, 2002, at which time XP had already been on the market for about 10 months.

 

[The Donut]

if a program works on XP it will work on vista. Anyone that tells you otherwise is either a liar spreading FUD or a tard that believed the liar spreading FUD.

Our ShoreTel IP phone software does not work at all on Vista, it won't even launch and it has to be modified to even install.

 

[Modred189]

Our ShoreTel IP phone software does not work at all on Vista, it won't even launch and it has to be modified to even install.

QFT. Now, the VAST majority of software that works in XP works in Vista, but for some reason there are a lot of companies out there in the professional arena that are way behind, or just lazy. Novell, for example, only recently released a Vista client for some of its stuff...

That's just poor business on their part.

 

[bonsai]

That's just poor business on their part.

If a limited number of their clients are using Vista then why would they bother spending their time and resources updating the code? It's a chicken and the egg thing, but the return for the investment isn't there yet so it's not a high priority.

 

[panhead]

If you has a way for Microsoft to LEGALLY (not getting sued that is) to play Blu Ray movies and other protected content without all the BS they have to go through to make it straight forward process and not have to do things like protected processes you need to give them a call. They have a VERY high paying job waiting for you!

Windows XP SP2 plays Blu-ray content without protected processes. Why does Vista need them?

 

[Azhar]

Windows XP SP2 plays Blu-ray content without protected processes. Why does Vista need them?

Because XP was made before Blu Ray. Why do you insist on going out of your way to make dumb arguments? You're obsessed with DRM and protected processes.

 

[Azhar]

If a limited number of their clients are using Vista then why would they bother spending their time and resources updating the code? It's a chicken and the egg thing, but the return for the investment isn't there yet so it's not a high priority.

That's a bogus argument. This isn't a chicken and egg thing. Microsoft already put out the operating system. Now it's the software developer's turn to make use of it. Users can't use what isn't there.

It's ALWAYS been this way. Developers who fall behind are usually the ones that get bought up by bigger businesses or bankrupted.

 

[panhead]

Panhead, please explain the reasons for your paranoia and conspiracy theories.

Vista is a fundamental change of the personal computer. Users no longer have unrestricted access to the programs running on their computer. All other OSes allow the user to determine exactly what any process is executing on the computer. The PC has been transformed into a media appliance. Antirus software cannot determine if there is malicious code in protected processes.
Users can no longer independently verify what processes are doing on their computer. The protected process concept invites exploitation by hackers as means to hide their malware. The code bloat to support the protected process functionality slows the computer. The MPAA is the only entity that benefits from this DRM and the consumer foots the bill.
I don't think Microsoft would intentually put malicious code in a protected process, but the fact that no one other than Microsoft can determine what the process are actually doing on the PC is disconcerting.

 

[Exavior]

Both 2000 and ME were released in 2000.
SP3 for 2000 wasn't released until August 29, 2002, at which time XP had already been on the market for about 10 months.

I could have swore there was a larger gap between 2000 and ME. Guess it's just been such a long time ago that seems like a lot larger timeframe in my head. Thanks for the information.

 

[bonsai]

That's a bogus argument. This isn't a chicken and egg thing. Microsoft already put out the operating system. Now it's the software developer's turn to make use of it. Users can't use what isn't there.

It's ALWAYS been this way. Developers who fall behind are usually the ones that get bought up by bigger businesses or bankrupted.

If a company doesn't see value in putting time and money into a project, then they aren't going to do it. That's how businesses run, they aren't going to invest money into something unless the return is worth that investment. It's the same reason game developers don't develop for OSX or Linux platforms. Until more enterprise users are adopting Vista, then the software companies have no need to update thier software.The chicken and egg comes in because the users don't see value in Vista because their software doesn't work.

 

[heatlesssun]

If a company doesn't see value in putting time and money into a project, then they aren't going to do it. That's how businesses run, they aren't going to invest money into something unless the return is worth that investment. It's the same reason game developers don't develop for OSX or Linux platforms. Until more enterprise users are adopting Vista, then the software companies have no need to update thier software.The chicken and egg comes in because the users don't see value in Vista because their software doesn't work.

The typical business app that I've seen that doesn't work in Vista tends to have other issues. Solid applications in the Vista place tend to work in Vista just fine.

Plus at this point, Vista is going on two years old and its replacement will be here in about 18 months. Some guys had better get on the stick.

 

[panhead]

Because XP was made before Blu Ray.

Vista needs protected processes because it was released after Blu-ray? I don't follow your logic.

 

[Scali2]

Vista is a fundamental change of the personal computer. Users no longer have unrestricted access to the programs running on their computer. All other OSes allow the user to determine exactly what any process is executing on the computer. The PC has been transformed into a media appliance. Antirus software cannot determine if there is malicious code in protected processes.
Users can no longer independently verify what processes are doing on their computer. The protected process concept invites exploitation by hackers as means to hide their malware. The code bloat to support the protected process functionality slows the computer. The MPAA is the only entity that benefits from this DRM and the consumer foots the bill.
I don't think Microsoft would intentually put malicious code in a protected process, but the fact that no one other than Microsoft can determine what the process are actually doing on the PC is disconcerting.

I've found that the biggest slowdown in Vista is the emulated DX9 layer (which has nothing to do with protection or DRM or anything, just a different driver model). I've benchmarked a lot of my performance-critical code on XP, XP x64 and Vista, and unless DX9 is involved, there is really little or no performance difference, and sometimes Vista is actually slightly faster.
So all this talk about protection and PCs slowing down... I've not seen it, and I've looked. Sounds like FUD to me.

 

[legendz411]

Sadly, this is one of the most levelheaded and reasonable approches to the protected processes and/or DRM thing I've seen in a while.

Vista is a fundamental change of the personal computer. Users no longer have unrestricted access to the programs running on their computer. All other OSes allow the user to determine exactly what any process is executing on the computer. The PC has been transformed into a media appliance. Antirus software cannot determine if there is malicious code in protected processes.
Users can no longer independently verify what processes are doing on their computer. The protected process concept invites exploitation by hackers as means to hide their malware. The code bloat to support the protected process functionality slows the computer. The MPAA is the only entity that benefits from this DRM and the consumer foots the bill.
I don't think Microsoft would intentually put malicious code in a protected process, but the fact that no one other than Microsoft can determine what the process are actually doing on the PC is disconcerting.

 

[Azhar]

Vista needs protected processes because it was released after Blu-ray? I don't follow your logic.

That's because like everything else, you chose to ignore facts so long as you could maintain your conspiracy theory.

I was referring to your statement as to why XP isn't running protected mode but Vista is. XP was made before Blu Ray, so Microsoft didn't have to go back and change their code. However if Microsoft wants to stay out of legal trouble, they had to include protected processes in Vista, which was made during/after Blu Ray's existence.

How the hell could Microsoft from 7 years ago predict how Blu Ray would work when they made XP? Hell, even Blu Ray Consortium still don't know how Blu Ray'll turn out because they're forever changing it!

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

It might be different if you have a state of the art desktop, but speaking as a person who uses Vista on their laptop, the drivers crash to often. The wireless networking service is problematic as well. It doesn't matter whose fault it is; crashes are bad. On the other hand Vista is much better for Tablet functionality, so I'll probably reformat it again for the third time. I've already had to format it because it kept blue screening at boot up and finally corrupted so many boot files it couldn't boot anymore. My experience has been less than flawless, but a lot of it may be shitty Gateway hardware as well.

 

[Exavior]

It might be different if you have a state of the art desktop, but speaking as a person who uses Vista on their laptop, the drivers crash to often. The wireless networking service is problematic as well. It doesn't matter whose fault it is; crashes are bad. On the other hand Vista is much better for Tablet functionality, so I'll probably reformat it again for the third time. I've already had to format it because it kept blue screening at boot up and finally corrupted so many boot files it couldn't boot anymore. My experience has been less than flawless, but a lot of it may be shitty Gateway hardware as well.

Odd, i ran it on my hp laptop since the first beta till release and it never had any trouble with wireless networking on that.

 

[Optimus]

Funny how some of this discussion has followed along the lines of what MS has such an issue with, and why they designed the Mojave experiment to begin with: fud.

The best part is, the people spreading it really have no idea that's what's happening.

Wow! That was weird...
I just got a flashback to the last 5 years of Linux development. Replace "MS" in that quote with "Linux" and "Mojave" with whatever experiment regarding Linux and it applies to everything Microshaft has been trying to do for the last 5 years to Linux.

I don't like unsubstantiated FUD in any form, but...
Microshaft is just getting what they deserve.
I believe the quote "Turn about is fair play," applies to this situation.

As for me, I've got a laptop that dual boots Vista, RHEL4, and RHEL5 at work. Vista came pre-installed. For about a year I was running in RHEL4, and for the last 6 months it's been RHEL5 exclusively. When have I used Vista? When I go on business trips about once a year, I have to get my WoW fix in.