| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Why Windows Vista Won't Suck | |
|
||
| Time: 18:46 EST/23:46 GMT | News Source: ExtremeTech | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Major Kernel Overhaul Many users view Windows XP (and Windows 2000, and previous Windows versions) as unsafe. No matter how many patches and updates Microsoft releases, the foundation of the OS itself—the kernel—is designed and built in a way that prevents it from being truly secure. The only solution, it is argued, is to redesign and rebuild the kernel with a focus on security and stability. Well, that's exactly what Microsoft is doing with Vista. The whole kernel has been reorganized and rewritten to help prevent software from affecting the system in unsavory ways. In Vista, it should be much more difficult for unauthorized programs (like Viruses and Trojans) to affect the core of the OS and secretly harm your system. That's not all, of course. Microsoft has made it their aim to make life easier on developers by improving and simplifying the way software interfaces with the system and the underlying hardware. Naturally, performance has been a major concern, too. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 453 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:28:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1401 (65.255.137.20) at 2/28/2006 7:03:39 PM |
| And as for now we are wondering, 'Why does Windows Vista suck?' |
| #2 By 23603 (70.82.83.103) at 2/28/2006 8:23:12 PM |
|
You should have said "And as for now I am wondering"
I know it is hard to admit but let face it.....Vista will kick ass. Sorry dude |
| #3 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 2/28/2006 9:51:08 PM |
|
da question i gots is whether i look back two years from now and think that xp sucks.
this impacts me and my bottom line very much. |
| #4 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/28/2006 10:01:28 PM |
|
Hmmm... great article overall in that someone (finally) covers the low-level changes in Vista--hardly anyone is talking about that. Everyone else is stuck on Avalon, Indigo, backporting to XP, the missing WinFS, etc. etc.--in no small part due to Microsoft, of course. But they've carried that focus way too far, declaring Vista to be nothing more than a glorified XP SP3. As this article shows, that is hardly the case.
On the other hand, pointing out the NT kernel as a major reason why Windows is unsafe is very misleading. The kernel has never been a source of security problems in Windows, and in reality it's just as safe as other commercial OSes. It's what sits ON the kernel that has caused all the security grief in Windows--IE to this day, IIS in the past, etc. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/28/2006 10:14:45 PM |
| One thing I forgot to mention, though--the driver signing required by x64 editions of Vista should help protect against root kits, and that is a kernel-level improvement. That is definitely important, but that's not what the article addresses (it makes no distinction between x86 and x64 versions). |
| #6 By 32313 (72.27.21.74) at 2/28/2006 10:30:42 PM |
| I think February CTP is an excellent release, simply because my Video Card and Sound Card drivers are fully supported out of the box and they don't crash the system. Performs much better than 5270. |
| #7 By 1401 (65.255.137.20) at 2/28/2006 10:34:47 PM |
| do you have glass, awondray? |
| #8 By 1401 (65.255.137.20) at 2/28/2006 10:35:54 PM |
| #5 - why does the driver signing in x64 protect? Does it not protect in x86 as well? |
| #9 By 1401 (65.255.137.20) at 2/28/2006 10:37:09 PM |
| #2 - I actually agree with you, but I don't think the initial release will kick ass. I'm thinking around the SP2 timeframe, they will pull it all together. Of course that's a few years out yet... |
| #10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/1/2006 3:28:18 AM |
|
#8--my understanding is that it is required in x64, but not in x86. Of course, you can use signed drivers in x86, but it's not a requirement.
I finally got the Feb CTP up and running--what an improvement over December! December was a total DOG, performance-wise. February is MUCH better... good enough perhaps to try it for everyday use (if you're into that kind of thing). December was not usable in a day-to-day setting, at least not on my hardware. There are definitely improvements over XP in many areas, but I have some gripes as well... I'm sure things will get better as time goes along, though, as it has from December to February. |
| #11 By 5912 (62.58.60.30) at 3/1/2006 3:54:14 AM |
| It's funny how with every new release of Windows the PR still mentions that "this version will be significantly faster than the previous version!". NO version of Windows ever turned out to be faster than the previous version: It's the the hardware that has done so. I really would not dare to install Vista on the laptop that I have been using the last 2 years. |
| #12 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/1/2006 5:11:53 AM |
|
#11--yes and no. Yes, it's faster considering the current hardware, but it's not the hardware alone that enables that--the OS has to take advantage of that hardware. Windows 95, for instance, isn't going to be able to utilize hyperthreading or multiple CPUs, it certainly won't take advantage of a 64-bit processor, it will struggle handling how much RAM we stick in machines today, etc. So, the old OS on new hardware isn't going to run faster than the new OS; of course, the new OS will likely not run as fast as the old on old hardware, either.
There are some things that aren't entirely relative to the hardware, though; for instance, take NTFS vs. FAT. When searching for a file, FAT's performance will average O(n) (where n is the number of files), but NTFS will average O(log(n))--a huge difference as the number of files increases, which is certainly important these days. This is independent of the drive's performance. |
| #13 By 17996 (66.188.88.180) at 3/1/2006 1:13:42 PM |
|
The primary reason that extra protections is in the x64 version and not the x86 version is that in the x86 version it would cause too many problems for people upgrading and for people using legacy hardware/software. Of course, since it would be a change for security's sake, I'd vote that they make the change regardless.
The article overall is pretty good, but it definitely exaggerates the amount of "rewriting" done for Vista. Yes, the network and audio stacks have been largely rewritten, but has "the whole kernel" really "been reorganized and rewritten"? No. The overall design of the kernel is still the same as it has always been in NT--no huge reorganization. And they definitely didn't rewrite the kernel from scratch. But as with any new NT version, there have been refinements and smaller changes. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 453 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:28:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
