Windows 7 Forums

Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: In defence of Vista

16 Jul 2009   #11
spiritwolf

Windows 7 ultimate x32 7600.16385
 
 

i remember ME or Win95 with (no) USB support or suffer through a driver installation on anything that why vista is a mistake from MS.. but mines have been working just fine just that it does not support all my games n eat a lot of memory......but i have long left xp pro since it has cool new features but win 7 is much better so far less memory eater


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
16 Jul 2009   #12
sjaak327

Windows Vista, Server 2008, Leopard, Suse
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by WiZaRd7 View Post
Clearly you are not old enough to remember ME or Win95 with (no) USB support or suffer through a driver installation on anything pre XP SP2
LOL !

I even worked with Ms-dos 4 when it was current... Almost 40 thank you very much, with around 25 years duty in IT.

Not sure what Win95 or ME has to do with anything, I was talking about vista and about Xp being the most insecure OS ever developed by Microsoft. Or should I say the OS with the most security vulnerabilities ever, even now new vulnerabilities come out every day.

In any case, both Win95 and Me cannot really be considered as they are not based upon NT, but rather ms dos.

USB support, is was added since Win95SR2.1 So that statement is not entirely accurate. At the time of Win95 there were hardly any USB devices. Seems to me your age is making you forget some things

In any case, the Vista driver problems, were tiny for me personally, but hey people complained about it a lot so...
My System SpecsSystem Spec
16 Jul 2009   #13
MrAleX

Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Build 7600
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by sjaak327 View Post
Vista rocked from RTM onwards, but of course it differed greatly from XP, and had driver and compatiblity issues, XP was never a particular good OS, and is still the most insecure OS ever developed by Microsoft.
oh yes xp is da baddest MS OS. vista has more drivers embedded, but 7.. just a little! nearly EVERY part of my laptop installs smoothly with win 7. perfect, MS, congrats, you did it.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

16 Jul 2009   #14
KazeNoKoe23

Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by WiZaRd7 View Post
Clearly you are not old enough to remember ME or Win95 with (no) USB support or suffer through a driver installation on anything pre XP SP2
Those were the days. I remember something a bit more recent that was funny. It wasn't that big a deal then (although it would be now), but Windows 2000 (via SP3 I believe) had native USB 2.0 support before Windows XP did.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
17 Jul 2009   #15
FXDriverGuy

Windows 7
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by sjaak327 View Post
LOL !

I even worked with Ms-dos 4 when it was current... Almost 40 thank you very much, with around 25 years duty in IT.

Not sure what Win95 or ME has to do with anything, I was talking about vista and about Xp being the most insecure OS ever developed by Microsoft. Or should I say the OS with the most security vulnerabilities ever, even now new vulnerabilities come out every day.

In any case, both Win95 and Me cannot really be considered as they are not based upon NT, but rather ms dos.

USB support, is was added since Win95SR2.1 So that statement is not entirely accurate. At the time of Win95 there were hardly any USB devices. Seems to me your age is making you forget some things

In any case, the Vista driver problems, were tiny for me personally, but hey people complained about it a lot so...
Well, I was well into my studies to get a computer engineering degree when MSDOS 4 came out (and a computer enthusiast since the ZX Spectrum days) and I can tell you that your statements are grossly inaccurate.


XP the most insecure OS ever developed by Microsoft? Sure, that's why techies and businesses alike are still refusing to "upgrade" although practically forced at gun point by now. The fact is that XP is the longest used OS version in the history of OS versions. Sure this means it still has fixes coming out but that's only because it is still being used, a lot. 100% bug free softwareis so legendary a tool as the philosopher's stone.


Windows 95 based on MS-DOS? That's something not even worth arguing. But what makes only an OS based on NT.. an OS (which we can then consider to be insecure), in any case?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
17 Jul 2009   #16
Zidane24

Windows 7 Home Premium x64 - Mac OS X 10.6.4 x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by sjaak327 View Post
LOL !

I even worked with Ms-dos 4 when it was current... Almost 40 thank you very much, with around 25 years duty in IT.

Not sure what Win95 or ME has to do with anything, I was talking about vista and about Xp being the most insecure OS ever developed by Microsoft. Or should I say the OS with the most security vulnerabilities ever, even now new vulnerabilities come out every day.

In any case, both Win95 and Me cannot really be considered as they are not based upon NT, but rather ms dos.

USB support, is was added since Win95SR2.1 So that statement is not entirely accurate. At the time of Win95 there were hardly any USB devices. Seems to me your age is making you forget some things

In any case, the Vista driver problems, were tiny for me personally, but hey people complained about it a lot so...
don't forget win98 was also MS-DOS based
My System SpecsSystem Spec
17 Jul 2009   #17
Antman

 
MS - A flash in the pan?

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by FXDriverGuy View Post
Well, I was well into my studies to get a computer engineering degree when MSDOS 4 came out (and a computer enthusiast since the ZX Spectrum days) and I can tell you that your statements are grossly inaccurate...
True.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by FXDriverGuy View Post
The fact is that XP is the longest used OS version in the history of OS versions.
Not true.

TOPS 10, Linux, Kronos, even OS/390... MCP - 48 years and counting.

I really do know what you mean though. Apples and oranges, I know.

Am I a PC? I am a way back machine.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
17 Jul 2009   #18
sjaak327

Windows Vista, Server 2008, Leopard, Suse
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by FXDriverGuy View Post
Well, I was well into my studies to get a computer engineering degree when MSDOS 4 came out (and a computer enthusiast since the ZX Spectrum days) and I can tell you that your statements are grossly inaccurate.


XP the most insecure OS ever developed by Microsoft? Sure, that's why techies and businesses alike are still refusing to "upgrade" although practically forced at gun point by now. The fact is that XP is the longest used OS version in the history of OS versions. Sure this means it still has fixes coming out but that's only because it is still being used, a lot. 100% bug free softwareis so legendary a tool as the philosopher's stone.


Windows 95 based on MS-DOS? That's something not even worth arguing. But what makes only an OS based on NT.. an OS (which we can then consider to be insecure), in any case?
It is NOT grossy inaccurate, the number of vulernabilities that have been discovered for XP are staggering. The reason Vista was so late, was that Microsoft was forced to work on XP and make it more secure (service pack 2). The reason companies did not consider upgrading to Vista had nothing to do with XP not being insecure, and had everything to do with application compatibility. In corporate environments, with locked down internet access, XP's architecture is less of a problem. Even though even there XP has left it's marks.

In fact, even XP3 still suffers from things like drive by downloads, simply because once you run that OS as admin, it's dead easy to bring down the OS.

The above is not worth arguing and can be easily verified. The fact that Windows 95 is based on MS-dos is indeed not worth arguing, as it still even booted MS-dos (version 7.0). The NT family is a different family, and surely more secure. I am not saying that Win 95 was more secure then XP, probably not. But in the NT family, XP holds the records for security vulnerabilities, the majority in the first few years of it's release.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
17 Jul 2009   #19
FXDriverGuy

Windows 7
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by sjaak327 View Post
It is NOT grossy inaccurate, the number of vulernabilities that have been discovered for XP are staggering. The reason Vista was so late, was that Microsoft was forced to work on XP and make it more secure (service pack 2). The reason companies did not consider upgrading to Vista had nothing to do with XP not being insecure, and had everything to do with application compatibility. In corporate environments, with locked down internet access, XP's architecture is less of a problem. Even though even there XP has left it's marks.

In fact, even XP3 still suffers from things like drive by downloads, simply because once you run that OS as admin, it's dead easy to bring down the OS.

The above is not worth arguing and can be easily verified. The fact that Windows 95 is based on MS-dos is indeed not worth arguing, as it still even booted MS-dos (version 7.0). The NT family is a different family, and surely more secure. I am not saying that Win 95 was more secure then XP, probably not. But in the NT family, XP holds the records for security vulnerabilities, the majority in the first few years of it's release.
I didn't say XP was the bastion of security, but certainly not the most insecure OS developed by Microsoft. I did say that any OS used so widely and so long was bound to have many vulnerabilities discovered. I did say that anyone who believes things would be different for any other OS in the same situation may as well believe in philosopher's stones.

It's certainly a security risk to give highly inexperienced people administrator rights but that has got nothing to do with real OS security. It's certainly dead easy to bring down any OS in existence if you have sufficient rights, and it always will be. That's the whole point of having these rights in the first place.

Windows 95 used a DOS subsystem to boot and keep the necessary compatibility. Calling that OS DOS-based was a way, at the time, to give an idea of the differences between NT and Chicago to people that had no idea at all. Something akin to telling them that a highway is just like a goat path and has nothing to do with air travel.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
17 Jul 2009   #20
Antman

 

From Surviving the Next Operating System -- H. Gilbert (1995)

We used to run Windows under DOS, but Windows 95 runs DOS under Windows.

When Windows 95 boots, the Windows Virtual Machine Manager (VMM) initializes itself and loads the VxD modules that were previously Windows device drivers. VxD drivers exist for IDE and SCSI disks and for the extended VFAT file system. The network support loads support for Windows NT and Novell servers. Since this support runs as a VxD, it can be loaded into memory above the first megabyte of RAM. Although VxDs support Windows applications, they also support DOS programs running under the control of the VMM. Therefore, the command shell of Windows 95 will have access to extended features (such as long file names) that real DOS device drivers and file systems would not support.

However, there are still occasional odd devices that only have DOS device drives. Windows 95 must still support them. So at this point, the VMM creates a "DOS Virtual Machine" that is actually fairly real. It loads into the fairly real DOS virtual machine any drivers that it finds mentioned in the CONFIG.SYS dataset, and any resident routines that it finds mentioned in AUTOEXEC.BAT. Later on, when Windows 95 receives a request for a device with no native VxD support, it uses the Real Mode Mapper (RMM) to pass the request down to the fairly-real DOS where the old driver can process it (synchronously and using buffers in the 640K area).

A major feature of Windows 95 is that it "gets rid of DOS." Technically, this is a correct statement. However, the DOS programs are simply merged into the \WINDOWS directory and the DOS system function is repackaged. This new version of DOS supports long file names, and \\SERVER\SHARE\FILE.EXT syntax wherever a file or directory might appear. However, the change is still evolutionary and not radical. There has been a shift in emphasis. The glass switches from being half empty to half full.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 In defence of Vista




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Removing Vista from Dual Boot but retaining progs on Vista partition
With the help of this forum and the Partition Wizard I have successfully installed Windows 7 64 bit on a separate partition (H) on my hard drive and I now have a dual boot system. The other partition (C:OS) runs Vista 32 bit OS. The problem I have is that all my programs, files and settings are...
Installation & Setup
Kensington Trackball OK In Vista But Not In Win7 Vista Compatibility
I have a Kensington Trackball (Expert Mouse) model 64217, which is the old grey 4 button billiard ball style trackball and which is far and away my preferred mouse device (it’s been around since Windows XP days). Kensington got considerable grief (and rightly so in my opinion) when Vista came out...
Drivers
Remove Vista from Vista / Win7 Dual Boot - Separate Drives
I have two drives (C and D) with Vista on one and Win 7 on the other (not sure if they're actual drives or partitions of a single drive, how do I tell?). I am dual booting and never use Vista. Starting to need the disk space and want to delete Vista. Is this difficult in this scenario?
Installation & Setup
Security-problem with Comodo´s firewall & Defence+ !
hi ! there seems to be a really BIG Security-problem with Comodo´s Firewall & Defence+. last night i when running Comodo´s Leak-Test (CLT) i discovered that it´s NOT working as it should & as it used to do. i only got 180 / 340 points ! OMG...:shock: a complete disaster, although...
System Security
Removing Vista from Dual-Boot System Vista + Windows 7
Hey guys, I've been looking through the forum and found some similar posts, but wanted to make sure that I understand everything before actually proceeding. I have a HP HDX 16t which came with Vista Home Premium 64 bit. I used the Windows 7 Upgrade Disk to do a clean install of Win7 on a new...
Installation & Setup


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App