[Alvin.C]

Originally Posted by Riznarf

...Another con is the added crappy security....Get AntiVirus, firewall, antispyware/malware. Don't be stupid...the new Vista security features are a neusience. In order to get complete functionality out of some programs you'll need to 'Run as Administrator' or, confirm with Vista about three thousand times, that, yes you actually do want to open firefox. The right third party programs, ZoneAlarm, McAfee, etc... can do a far better job at protecting your computer than Vista can...

Sorry Riznarf but you've truly left me thunderstruck .

Crappy security is certainly not a term to be used in a sentence with Windows Vista. Windows Vista UAC is a significant step ahead in terms of improved security. Compared to Windows XP, there is no doubt that Windows Vista is more secure than Windows XP, especially if you use an administrator account in Windows XP as your primary account (like nearly all Windows XP users do). You aren't running as a superuser, unlike the default in Windows XP.

Secondly, you're only presented with UAC elevation prompts when performing an administrative task (such as installing a program, uninstalling a program, chaning a significant OS setting or altering system files). This is a simple, yet highly effective way of improving security.

Thirdly, you say that 'the right third party programs can do a far better job at protecting your computer than Vista can'. Windows Vista security features are not supposed to replace the need of antivirus software and spyware / adware software (though it does come with Windows Defender - which is generally effective at blocking and removing spyware / adware). Windows Vista security features are an additional layer of security, not a replacement for anti-malware software. Vista security features (such as UAC) + antivirus software + anti spyware / adware will give you greater protection than Vista with security features disabled + anti-malware software, or Windows XP + anti-malware software for that matter (especially when running as superuser).

Originally Posted by Riznarf

If you MUST have vista, disable the sec'y features...

Sorry but this is advice is just horrifying. You may find UAC annoying, but disabling it is a failure to recognise the importance and significance it has in security, and utter impatience and ignorance in my eyes. If you have Vista, and you're fustrated about UAC elevation prompts, do not disable UAC, instead suppress UAC elevation prompts while keeping UAC enabled.

[Nitestick]

you misquoted me mate. i acknowledged superfetch and said that it does not appear to be the only thing stealing away memory. there appears to be some vicious memory leaks, particularly in the sidebar.

[Alvin.C]

Originally Posted by nitestick

you misquoted me mate. i acknowledged superfetch and said that it does not appear to be the only thing stealing away memory. there appears to be some vicious memory leaks, particularly in the sidebar.

Apologies, as I was responding to your disagreement to my arguement of SuperFetch using memory for a good cause.

Though I do understand that there are memory leakage problems, especially since programmers are getting lazier with their coding, and taking advantage of the fact that users have more RAM in their systems.

[Nitestick]

it's all good

[Riznarf]

Crappy security is certainly not a term to be used in a sentence with Windows Vista. Windows Vista UAC is a significant step ahead in terms of improved security.

Um....yes it is. I've done extensive research in the programming of Vista and here's the lowdown. FIRST of all, XP also has a UAC, yes, its not as active, but Vista FAR overdoes it. All the UAC does in Vista is ask you if you're sure if you want to install something etc... As long as you're not stupid/visiting infected websites (which forefox now catches before it lets you go there) and blatantly downloading viruses (which any active virus scanner would catch anyways before it infected your system) the UAC simply asks if you're sure you want to do an action. Other than that IT SERVES NO SECURITY PURPOSE.

All I'm saying, is that Vista didn't really do anything that third party programs couldn't allready do better.

Windows Vista security features are an additional layer of security, not a replacement for anti-malware software. Vista security features (such as UAC) + antivirus software + anti spyware / adware will give you greater protection than Vista with security features disabled + anti-malware software, or Windows XP + anti-malware software for that matter (especially when running as superuser).

I couldn't disagree more. Based on the design of the Windows security programs, third party programs are still much better than then. In fact, I looked at the algorithms used in the Windows software...third party antivirus software from the mid-1990's is still better than this (not really, but you get my point) It MAY be a good second line of defense, but lets not kid ourselves....

Basically what I'm saying is that Microsoft is not known for its anti-virus/malware, etc...programs. Would you buy an car made by an airplanne company? Its the same sort of thing with Vista. Other companies focus all their time at anti-virus...and it shows. The Vista security feature are not worth it. I stand by my conviction, stick with XP and third party programs, youll be better off. Vista is nothing but frustration for many many other reasons besides the security.

As for the RAM, most of the extra ram is being used for the sidebar, which is kinda cool......I guess, but you can download applications for XP that do the same thing and use up 1/10th of the RAM vista does. Anyone else?

[vernong1992]

actually that UAC is really good, my friend got bored and he dared me to go a site that will give his Vista PC a virus.... i decided to get the notorious WinAntivirus and we left UAC on and well it tried and failed.... stupid virus didn't stand a chance... we didn't find any damage when we scanned with Spybot and Ad-Aware, but for safety reasons we reinstalled......

[Alvin.C]

Originally Posted by Riznarf

Um....yes it is. I've done extensive research in the programming of Vista and here's the lowdown. FIRST of all, XP also has a UAC, yes, its not as active, but Vista FAR overdoes it. All the UAC does in Vista is ask you if you're sure if you want to install something etc... As long as you're not stupid/visiting infected websites (which forefox now catches before it lets you go there) and blatantly downloading viruses (which any active virus scanner would catch anyways before it infected your system) the UAC simply asks if you're sure you want to do an action. Other than that IT SERVES NO SECURITY PURPOSE...

Vista UAC is more than how you've described it, and in no way is such a security model present in Windows XP editions.

UAC is a security model that's comparable to the security model in Linux and Mac OS X, that is, by default, applications and system services run with standard user, non-administrative, non-superuser privilages. If and only when administrative privilages are required, will Vista prompt the user for permission to elevate user privilages in a secure desktop environment, and run with such privilages only for the duration which it is needed.

Paul Thurrot's SuperSite for Windows - Windows Vista Feature Focus: User Account Control
A Closer Look at Windows Vista, Part I: Security Changes- Developer Zone - National Instruments

By default in XP, users run with complete administrative privilages, which consequently mean that all software including malware, also run with administrator privileges as well, thereby giving full access to the operating system. This is a major weakness in security, and this is why many XP users (even without anti-malware software) experience problems with functionality of the OS because system files such as IE files and the registry has been significantly altered, due to malware running with complete admin privilages. UAC also offers File System and Registry Virtualization giving a sandbox for compatability of legacy applications.

You may argue that not all users run as administrator in XP and instead use limited user accounts. But it's very primitive compared to UAC. Limited users can right click a program and 'run as' administrator, but many applications do not work correctly with that configuration. It's also very restrictive. For most administrative tasks, the user must log out of a limited account and log into an admin account. This is why many users continue to use administrator accounts. UAC alleviates this.

UAC does serve as a security purpose. Applications and system services cannot perform administrative tasks without your approval, which include malware. This means system files are protected.

Originally Posted by Riznarf

All I'm saying, is that Vista didn't really do anything that third party programs couldn't allready do better...

...I couldn't disagree more. Based on the design of the Windows security programs, third party programs are still much better than then. In fact, I looked at the algorithms used in the Windows software...third party antivirus software from the mid-1990's is still better than this (not really, but you get my point) It MAY be a good second line of defense, but lets not kid ourselves....

The design of what Windows security programs? Windows Vista UAC and antivirus software are not two of the same thing. UAC is not anti-virus software. You can't benchmark the two, because they both have different primary purposes. In addition, the more lines of defence present, the more secure your system will likely be.

Antivirus software is not perfect. Many users do not update virus definitions, and many times will new viruses be deployed before antivirus vendors realise they exist, find out what they do to the system, and push out definitions for them to user's PCs. In addition, a lot of viruses cause significant damage to the operating system that is often irreversible / difficult to reverse that they must repair the OS or reformat.

Vista UAC is not designed to prevent malware from getting onto the system, that is the primary job of antivirus software. It is designed to prevent the unauthorised execution of such malware (or any program for that matter) occuring without the user's consent, when malware is already on the system, by giving the right privilages at the right time.

Originally Posted by Riznarf

Basically what I'm saying is that Microsoft is not known for its anti-virus/malware, etc...programs. Would you buy an car made by an airplanne company? Its the same sort of thing with Vista. Other companies focus all their time at anti-virus...and it shows

No, microsoft is widely known for operating system software. Alwil and Grisoft are known for their antivirus software. Like I said in my previous post, vista security features cannot replace antivirus software. This is why I have Avast! Antivirus installed on my Vista OS. Vista UAC simply adds an extra layer of security, which is superior to the security of Windows XP administrator accounts, and superior to the usability of the 'run-as' option of Windows XP limited user accounts.