Symantec sees an Achilles' heel in Vista

TalkBack 10 of 82:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

I agree to simplicity

XP is a bit more GUI involved, but there were issues in connectivity between Home and Professional. I found Win2k way more stable on all platforms and easier to link to other networks. I found XP to be very problematic and the built in firewall either allows all traffic or no traffic. Configuring it was a total B*T*H. I also found XP to be less secure than Win2k, and less friendly linking to domains. I found that the accounts tend to corrupt quite easily causing me to re-add them to the domain. DNS was also hard to configure to work properly with XP.

At the time of beta testing for Vista, I found way to many problems with it but it was first build and beta. Of course, there would be some issues but I was shocked that it didn?t quite work out of the box. Usually when I test a beta, it?s usually working to some degree and reporting bugs usually isn?t a problem. First off, I tried loading Vista on a Dell Inspiron 9400 with 1 gig of RAM, 100gig HD, DVD Rom, the works. I loaded a basic video driver, basic CD/DVD driver, and that?s about it. It wouldn?t load any other drivers. So first report was driver issue. Office 2003 wouldn?t load. Had problems and stopped in the middle of installation. With the second build and third builds, more driver support was added and it loaded ok on a Dell Poweredge dual SC system. I was not impressed with boot times or shut down times. I found it to be extremely bloated in boot up. Hope the final is better.

Regarding the topic at hand, I find it strange that MS would build the networking stack from scratch and present it in this release of a new OS. Vista will fail without proper testing. This is not a good move on MS?s part. It is taking a chance with an IP stack that?s not been tested in any real regard and really not ready for the deployment of IPv6. I feel this will doom the launch of Vista. They should keep the old code that?s been tried and true. That code has had plenty of time to mature and evolve. It would certainly give Vista a fighting chance. At this point in the game, it?s foolish to push out Vista under these circumstances. At present, Vista is seriously lacking key features that recently were removed under the guise of ?stability?. Those key features were what people were looking for. Removing them reduces Vista to nothing more then XP with more eye candy. Also, Vista is being ported as a ?client-based? OS. How this will fend with Windows 2003 server is beyond me. 2003 server was built around XP core with extracts from Windows NT 4.0. It is not geared to support IPv6. So there may be an incompatibility from the start. I don?t think the public can stand to be disappointed anymore. With the current patch Tuesday thing, the instability of the current OS and the fact that MS will remove support for XP by October 2006 (maybe 2007), I can?t see them progressing to the next stage.

Posted by: mypl8s4u2   Posted on: 07/19/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now