VIsta written from the ground up?

E

eeyrjmr

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Apr 23, 2002
Messages
4,363
I was under the impression that Windows:Vista was being written from the ground up

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1911406,00.asp
A security update to address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month.

THIS isn't an attack on Vista having flaws since that is to be expected as it is BETA
BUT to suffer from EXACTLY the same coding flaw as other windows is quite shocking since I was under the impression it was to be coded from the ground up, thus coding the same vuln twice is extreamly unlikely, thus they must of recycled code?

Don't get me wrong I might be a MS basher but I was intreaged by Vista and was actually going to buy it when I rebuild my computer at the end of this year (well buy parts Nov 2006, Buy Vista:Gaming when it is released Q2:2007)

However, if they are re-using code, then there is flaws going to creep in?
 
actually you'd probably see more flaws if they *didn't* re-use code.

Writing everything from scratch is sure to have more bugs than recycled code that has (for the most part) been well patched in the past few years.
 
SO if they are re-cycling code, what I could potentially be buying is just Windows:XP and nothing new then?
 
eeyrjmr said:
SO if they are re-cycling code, what I could potentially be buying is just Windows:XP and nothing new then?
Click to expand...
I dunno where you read that, but it's obviously not the case that it's being written from the ground up. The graphics subsystem/shell are completely new, but everything else is pretty much XP.
 
kumquat said:
I dunno where you read that, but it's obviously not the case that it's being written from the ground up. The graphics subsystem/shell are completely new, but everything else is pretty much Win2000.
Click to expand...
fixt ;)
 
eeyrjmr said:
SO if they are re-cycling code, what I could potentially be buying is just Windows:XP and nothing new then?
Click to expand...
Same thing could be said about buying 2000 ( if you could find it ).

I honestly don't understand all the excitement over Vista. Is there something about xp that you all find lacking? Hell, 2000 still works just fine for me. I only installed Xp because I had a free copy from work ( and that's what everyone at work is using, so I need to have some experience ).
 
Done for a lot of reasons, compatibility reasons, ease...

Why re-invent the wheel unless you need to?
 
eeyrjmr said:
SO if they are re-cycling code, what I could potentially be buying is just Windows:XP and nothing new then?
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Wow, just wow.

Yeah, Vista==XP.
 
I could have sworn I read somewhere Vista was written on the same code as Windows Server 2003....I could be wrong though. It does look like XP but with some new tweaks.
 
Microsoft hasn't coded an entirely new operating system since Windows NT first started development. Since then Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, Windows 2000, and Windows XP have all shared code.

alkoholik said:
I could have sworn I read somewhere Vista was written on the same code as Windows Server 2003....I could be wrong though. It does look like XP but with some new tweaks.
Click to expand...

Code base. The same as Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server Enterprise x64 Edition all come from a Windows 2003 Server SP1 code base.

XOR != OR said:
Same thing could be said about buying 2000 ( if you could find it ).

I honestly don't understand all the excitement over Vista. Is there something about xp that you all find lacking? Hell, 2000 still works just fine for me. I only installed Xp because I had a free copy from work ( and that's what everyone at work is using, so I need to have some experience ).
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow. Ok, I'll go ahead and explain why this is untrue.

Windows 2000 may work fine for you. Simply, that's because you don't know any better. Windows XP outperformans Windows 2000 in many areas. Not only is the interface faster, (hardware permitting) but things such as added security features, improved game and video performance and just plain hardware compatibility all make Windows XP superior to Windows 2000.

Lets not even get into the networking aspects of Windows XP's superiority. I'll just leave it at this: Windows XP has alot of support for group policy object settings and remote desktop features that make a sysadmins job much easier than it was with Windows 2000. To say nothing about much improved Active Directory performance.

Just because people may not feel like an OS is lacking doesn't mean that the industry and software vendors that create the OS shouldn't move forward and continue to try and innovate. Let's also not forget that Mac OS X 1.4x has alot of features that Windows XP users are starting to want. (Most of which aren't necessarily usefull, as much as they are desired.) Vista is a necessity to remain competetive in the market place from a feature standpoint.
 
eeyrjmr said:
SO if they are re-cycling code, what I could potentially be buying is just Windows:XP and nothing new then?
Click to expand...

Surely you can see some middle ground between "nothin' but an XP clone" and rewriting every single line of code in the OS, UI, and each and every utility and application that ships with Windows...
 
masher said:
Surely you can see some middle ground between "nothin' but an XP clone" and rewriting every single line of code in the OS, UI, and each and every utility and application that ships with Windows...
Click to expand...
Sure, but they aren't exactly taking that middle ground.

There is very, very little that's new about Vista besides the shell.
 
kumquat said:
Sure, but they aren't exactly taking that middle ground.

There is very, very little that's new about Vista besides the shell.
Click to expand...

The same thing was said about Windows XP vs. Windows 2000. Those people that said that were wrong. There are many things that Windows XP can do, and do better than Windows 2000 can. Of course many features that were improved upon, such as Active Directory and Group Policy features Not to mention the ease of wireless networking setup, and for the most part, the interface was improved.

Vista has more changes than Windows XP had over Windows 2000. If you'd look into the list of things that Vista is supposed to do, you'd realize that. Will there be an out of box bennefit to Vista over Windows XP? Who knows? What is important here is that Windows XP has become a stagnant product. It's time for a change. Windows XP has been good to us for the most part, just as Windows 2000 was. It is simply time to move on.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
There are many things that Windows XP can do, and do better than Windows 2000 can. Of course many features that were improved upon, such as Active Directory and Group Policy features.
Click to expand...
None of that matters to anyone but large businesses.

Not to mention the ease of wireless networking setup,
Click to expand...
yeah thats kinda nice. need a whole new OS for that though?

and for the most part, the interface was improved.
Click to expand...
Woot, fisher price edition. Alot of people, myself included, go back to the classic look.

Dont get me wrong, I love XP SP2, but theres not much XP gives you *really* that justifies an upgrade.
 
kumquat said:
Sure, but they aren't exactly taking that middle ground.

There is very, very little that's new about Vista besides the shell.
Click to expand...
You mean besides Avalon, Aero, Indigo Web services, EMD, the entirely rewritten security system, 'Metro', 'Superfetch', the new networking tools and features, a new backup system, IE7, "gadget" ui plugins, search folders, and a few dozen other things. You're right...not much new. :rolleyes:

Sure, some of these will be made available for XP as well as Vista. Does that make them part of the original XP codebase however? Not at all.
 
Steel Chicken said:
None of that matters to anyone but large businesses.


yeah thats kinda nice. need a whole new OS for that though?


Woot, fisher price edition. Alot of people, myself included, go back to the classic look.

Dont get me wrong, I love XP SP2, but theres not much XP gives you *really* that justifies an upgrade.
Click to expand...

Total matters of opinion. And I can appreciate and understand that.

From a performance/hardware support perspective. At this current time anything but Windows XP makes no sense on a modern machine. Some day the same will be true about Vista.
 
kumquat said:
Sure, but they aren't exactly taking that middle ground.

There is very, very little that's new about Vista besides the shell.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. VERY incorrect.

The entire installer is new, for starters. That's a major change. ximage, hello!

Open the hood, if you think the shell is the major change. You are only looking at the skin of the onion, try peeling a few layers back.
 
Steel Chicken said:
None of that matters to anyone but large businesses.


yeah thats kinda nice. need a whole new OS for that though?


Woot, fisher price edition. Alot of people, myself included, go back to the classic look.

Dont get me wrong, I love XP SP2, but theres not much XP gives you *really* that justifies an upgrade.
Click to expand...

Sounds like your in your own little world there. I deal with small and medium businesses and by far managing an XP environment is way easier than a 2000 environment which directly translates to reduced administrative costs for the client.

The AD, network, security, PnP, deployment, and management improvements are in no way limited to "large businesses" as you state.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
Wow. Just wow. Ok, I'll go ahead and explain why this is untrue.
Click to expand...
What I stated was a matter of opinion, no a fact to be disproven.
Windows 2000 may work fine for you. Simply, that's because you don't know any better.
Click to expand...
One does not follow the other. I do use and understand xp's benefits, but for me in my personal enviroment, there is little practical difference between the two.
Just because people may not feel like an OS is lacking doesn't mean that the industry and software vendors that create the OS shouldn't move forward and continue to try and innovate.
Click to expand...
While I agree, that still doesn't explain why everyone is so desperate to get their hands on a copy of Vista.
Vista is a necessity to remain competetive in the market place from a feature standpoint.
Click to expand...
Yeah, still doesn't explain it.
 
like other people have posted there are several additions to Vista that has me looking very forward to its release. they may be minor but they are features that will make my life easier ie. finding and sorting files, transparant windows, IE7 improvements to just name a few. I will definately be purchasing a copy.....hopefully there will be enough driver support for the 64bit edition.
 
I heard somewhere that they crippled OpenGL.

Also check this out:
http://tauquil.com/archives/2006/01/06/re-introducing-the-real-windows-vista/

It's Bill Gates talking and demonstrating Vista, but the video portion was changed to someone doing the exact same thing on OS X. So it's basically Windows XP with an OS X shell.

I'm not going to be ruling out use of Vista though. I mean, it's still gonna be a nice OS. The only reason that I may not use it is because of DRM. DRM is simply not fair to anyone IMO, and is FAR too crippling and restrictive

.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
Windows 2000 may work fine for you. Simply, that's because you don't know any better. Windows XP outperformans Windows 2000 in many areas. Not only is the interface faster, (hardware permitting) but things such as added security features, improved game and video performance and just plain hardware compatibility all make Windows XP superior to Windows 2000.
.
Click to expand...


LOL XP superior to 2000??? Are you kidding? It may boot up 15 seconds faster but that is about the only advantage. The interface is slower - takes more resources to run. Put one computer on 2000 and then on XP and there will be a slowdown in the GUI (not noticable, but 2000 is less graphics-intensive). Security Features? LOL. If you are running that "firewall" in XP I suggest you get a real one. Any other security features are pretty weak also. Hardware compability? Bah. Ever since XP came out hardware has come with NTx drivers, so this is a non issue. IMO 2k > fischer price windows any day of the week. I will most likely be upgrading to Vista or perhaps 2003 Server once I am forced to (WMP 11, IE7 (I use mozilla and moz firefox but some sites just bitch if you don't use IE - and IE6 might not cut it in half a year). XP though, imo, is a complete bloated joke of an OS.
 
Spetsnaz Op said:
LOL XP superior to 2000??? Are you kidding? It may boot up 15 seconds faster but that is about the only advantage. The interface is slower - takes more resources to run. Put one computer on 2000 and then on XP and there will be a slowdown in the GUI (not noticable, but 2000 is less graphics-intensive). Security Features? LOL. If you are running that "firewall" in XP I suggest you get a real one. Any other security features are pretty weak also. Hardware compability? Bah. Ever since XP came out hardware has come with NTx drivers, so this is a non issue. IMO 2k > fischer price windows any day of the week. I will most likely be upgrading to Vista or perhaps 2003 Server once I am forced to (WMP 11, IE7 (I use mozilla and moz firefox but some sites just bitch if you don't use IE - and IE6 might not cut it in half a year). XP though, imo, is a complete bloated joke of an OS.
Click to expand...
In 2000 and before you had to fumble with drivers for every little thing. XP eliminates that problem and does it for you. That is one of the major reasons I switched.
 
SJConsultant said:
Sounds like your in your own little world there. I deal with small and medium businesses and by far managing an XP environment is way easier than a 2000 environment which directly translates to reduced administrative costs for the client.

The AD, network, security, PnP, deployment, and management improvements are in no way limited to "large businesses" as you state.
Click to expand...

Large business in this case, I meant more than one person doing IT/support. Maybe I should have said, business over 100 people or so.

But can you say all the administrative bonus's to XP couldn't have been added on to 2K with a service pack? The point is, if you take XP, and subtract 2K, what you get does not justify a new OS. Its another service pack or two. Espcially considering eye candy is no big deal.

Bottom line is MS is in it for the money, and nothing else. If they could talk us into buying a new OS every year they'd do it. The most useful features in Vista wont even be in there when its released.
 
Still scratching the surface... Can W2K do EAP-TLS authentication? What about L2TP/IPSec?

Knowing the answer is important and has nothing to do with how fast something boots, how much memory a service takes, or what default UI is installed.

In general those things way less important, some pretty unimportant, aka default UI.
 
Steel Chicken said:
The point is, if you take XP, and subtract 2K, what you get does not justify a new OS.
Click to expand...
...for you, becasuse you don't know, or don't use what's different.

Some people would require XP over 2K, again, depending on the usage (higher security environments).

BTW, how well does AOE3, a popular new microsoft game, run on 2K?
 
Phoenix86 said:
Still scratching the surface... Can W2K do EAP-TLS authentication? What about l2TP/IPSec?

Knowing the answer is important and has nothing to do with how fast something boots, how much memory a service takes, or what default UI is installed.

In general those things way less important, some pretty unimportant, aka default UI.
Click to expand...

no one is arguing that XP has some more features, only that they were not worthy of calling it a completely new OS. And XP has only NOT sucked when SP2 came out. Before that, it had more problems than it cured.
 
masher said:
You mean besides Avalon, Aero, Indigo Web services, EMD, the entirely rewritten security system, 'Metro', 'Superfetch', the new networking tools and features, a new backup system, IE7, "gadget" ui plugins, search folders, and a few dozen other things. You're right...not much new. :rolleyes:

Sure, some of these will be made available for XP as well as Vista. Does that make them part of the original XP codebase however? Not at all.
Click to expand...

The funny part is you can get all kinds of comparative third-party software and bundle it with Windows XP and somewhat satisfyingly call it Windows Vista: Alternative.

Indigo = Skype, GAIM, online chatting? Etc? Seems pointless but maybe I haven't looked into it enough?
IE7 = Firefox?
UI Plugins = WinCustomize, etc.?
Search Folders = I'm sure there's a program for this.
Back Up System = GetDataBack?
Network Tools = Apache, etc?
New security system = Get the usual firewall/anti-virus/anti-spyware progs together?

Some other bunch of stuff altogether. Although it is a pain to run all programs at once, I guess Vista can only help in performance and "oneness" of where everything runs without any problems or you having to install each one of them every time you install WXP.

Opinions?

-J.
 
Steel Chicken said:
no one is arguing that XP has some more features, only that they were not worthy of calling it a completely new OS. And XP has only NOT sucked when SP2 came out. Before that, it had more problems than it cured.
Click to expand...
You think the differences end there?

How many people know the answer my EAP question w/o looking it up?
(I had to, I knew there was a difference in supported protocols, just not which one. ;))

Raise of hands please. You folks can continue discussion, the rest of us need to read more. :p

I have heard the OS referred to as an onion before. Think you know it all? Peel a layer back.

The fact someone points at the UI and says "ah-hah, that's why you don't want XP" is being ignorant.

edit: and actually, some of the features that aren't being discussed CAN be a reason for a new OS, depends on your needs.
 
Phoenix86 said:
3rd party software doesn't/can't change the core of the OS. Some does, but generally not in a way you want. ;)
Click to expand...

3rd party apps shouldn't have too. some of the firewalls do, because of the way windows looks at security as an afterthought.
 
Spetsnaz Op said:
LOL XP superior to 2000??? Are you kidding? It may boot up 15 seconds faster but that is about the only advantage. The interface is slower - takes more resources to run. Put one computer on 2000 and then on XP and there will be a slowdown in the GUI (not noticable, but 2000 is less graphics-intensive). Security Features? LOL. If you are running that "firewall" in XP I suggest you get a real one. Any other security features are pretty weak also. Hardware compability? Bah. Ever since XP came out hardware has come with NTx drivers, so this is a non issue. IMO 2k > fischer price windows any day of the week. I will most likely be upgrading to Vista or perhaps 2003 Server once I am forced to (WMP 11, IE7 (I use mozilla and moz firefox but some sites just bitch if you don't use IE - and IE6 might not cut it in half a year). XP though, imo, is a complete bloated joke of an OS.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but you sound either inexperienced or just an impatient enthusiast to me.

Speed is one of Windows XP's benefits. Games and apps run quicker on Windows XP compared to 2000 - only if you'd know where to tweak the settings. So many benchmarks and articles over time has proven this. XP is at least 5% quicker than 2000's. Some have seen 15% quicker results.

The interface isn't necessarily slower - it's actually visual animation that makes it seem slower. It's supposed to attract a new base of people and it worked so far. You can make it "less slower" by disabling all the gimmicks while leaving the visual theme on and get a snappy response. Or you can just go back to default theme and it'd be the same.

The Windows XP included firewall is the most least resourceful component compared to any other firewalls. While it doesn't do everything an IT admin/enthusiast would want it to do, it is more than enough for those who do responsible browsing and gaming (or simply put - the customer base). It simply works.

Hardware compatability is improved because it's all NT-based as well. So you're saying if Windows XP didn't come out, then NT drivers wouldn't have came with the hardware? Case in point.

You can run IE and FF at the same time, you know? Or use one of FF's extensions to run an IE tab (usually for developer testing but can be used to view a page that doesn't allow other browsers except IE).

The key point of XP is its improve functionability and ease of use. It wins out on that. Maybe you're an experienced user and didn't find a need for all of that. That's why people like you tweak deep settings by disabling a bunch of things. But all that gives you minimal to okay-ish improvement in speed and leaves you with a ton of broken functions.

-J.
 
Steel Chicken said:
Bottom line is MS is in it for the money,
Click to expand...

umm, can you name me any for profit company that isn't? This is a silly argument against a new OS. Ford/Chevy/Honda/BMW/etc./etc only release a new model each year to try to sell more cars. Heck, even mattresses/other furniture have model years...you can save a bundle by buying last year's mattress if the store has one in stock.

To blame any company for trying to sell a product and make money from doing so is not a logical argument against said product.
 
TECHKnight said:
umm, can you name me any for profit company that isn't? This is a silly argument against a new OS. Ford/Chevy/Honda/BMW/etc./etc only release a new model each year to try to sell more cars. Heck, even mattresses/other furniture have model years...you can save a bundle by buying last year's mattress if the store has one in stock.

To blame any company for trying to sell a product and make money from doing so is not a logical argument against said product.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that releasing a new OS all the time with a bunch of new eye candy and a handful features fails to make it a better OS. I dont care if MS is in it for the money. Of couse they are. But us techie types should know that something is either worth the money to upgrade, or isn't. Just because MS wants our money doesn't mean what they are selling is worth it. They keep pushing "new features (bloat)" that most people dont want or need. The core set of new features we do want, they leave out.

upgrading from any of the 9X/me to XP or 2K = the win
upgrading from 2k to XP, not worth it for most users
uprading from XP to vista...I dunno...whats in there we really need? more cpu exploding and GPU retarding eye candy?
 
Spetsnaz Op said:
LOL XP superior to 2000??? Are you kidding? It may boot up 15 seconds faster but that is about the only advantage. The interface is slower - takes more resources to run.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure anyone showed you, but if you had not seen it yet, XP comes with a "classic" theme which is basically the 2K style but fresher looking. It can be set to this style, turn off the theme service, and wa-la, the desktop takes no extra resources. XP's only been out for just under five years, so if you didn't know, there ya go. The funny thing is with 2K you don't even have the *option* to run a different theme. So you have less choice.

I used to have a screenshot I'd break out for these situations. It showed where I set up a PC with Win2K, tweaked it, took a screenshot of the resources it was using. Then reformatted, set up XP, tweaked, and took a screenshot. The bloated, maniacal, massive, unwieldy XP took *one meg* more system resources than 2K did.

ONE MEG.
 
SuperSubZero said:
I'm not sure anyone showed you, but if you had not seen it yet, XP comes with a "classic" theme which is basically the 2K style but fresher looking. It can be set to this style, turn off the theme service, and wa-la, the desktop takes no extra resources. XP's only been out for just under five years, so if you didn't know, there ya go. The funny thing is with 2K you don't even have the *option* to run a different theme. So you have less choice.

I used to have a screenshot I'd break out for these situations. It showed where I set up a PC with Win2K, tweaked it, took a screenshot of the resources it was using. Then reformatted, set up XP, tweaked, and took a screenshot. The bloated, maniacal, massive, unwieldy XP took *one meg* more system resources than 2K did.

ONE MEG.
Click to expand...

thats just memory. try running both of those OS's (2K + XP with classic look) on an progressively older machines. which one will continue to run on older hardware, and which one will choke first?
 
I honestly don't know which would choke first - I've run Windows XP on a 533 Mhz computer with 128 mb RAM and it ran fine. I've heard of someone running a stripped down XP on a 133 MHz computer and it ran fine. But that's not the point anyway. Everyone has at least a 1 GHz computer nowadays (a huge population does at least) and it will run fine.

-J.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top