I wonder how many of those downgrades are due to all the shit-ware that computer distributors like Dell put on the OS.  Seriously though, the whole "Vista is shit" routine is really getting old.  The damn OS is now near bullet proof, and doesn't have half the trouble these people think.  But what can you do, people see Apple's ads and listen to the crap over the net about how Macs are the second coming, and believe it. 

Personally, I do hope Macs continue to get popular.  Eventually, it's going to reach the point when the retarded fanboy rants can no longer over shadow the problems they have, and people will realise what Apple's about, giving people flashy hunks of shit that costs a small fortune.

---

People are idiots, but it doesn't really matter.  People are moving to 64bit Windows in a big way, and XP is gonna die quickly as 64bit software gets released, which is going to start happening soon.  As well as games that have the 64bit editions that run and perform better.

I mean, it's silly to plant a flag in your OS as though it matter.  I know I'm going to throw Vista in the trash as soon as Windows 7 launches.  Some XP scab will take it out of my trash can and start the shit all-over again with the whole, "I'm not leaving Vista" baloney.

i stuck with 98se until downloading from bit torrent got common, by then SP2 for XP had been released and things really were getting better for XP.
i dunno about vista, i'll end up using it eventually i'm sure, but the point is why would i ditch an OS that runs faster on my current hardware for one that doesn't?

btw: vista has a massive security hole that was demonstrated at the blackhat con. it is potentially uncorrectable too. it allows you to execute anywhere in memory you like. it bypasses data execution prevention and address space layout randomization which is extremely troubling. i think the presentation was called "attacking the vista heap" and is in my opinion, revolutionary in terms of how secure vista is by design.

---

K, the Blackhat hack you are talking about was not a vulnerability in Vista's security but an exploit.  You can't hack into Vista with it.  For that, you need a vulnerability.  Which their demonstration didn't provide.  It just showed you how to get elevated access once you DO find a vulnerability.  Their demonstration used a long patched vulnerability, and tried to show it as something new. 

Basically it was a bogus false alarm. 

They had no way in.  They admit that.  In addition, they point out that XP is worse than Vista when it comes to security. 

You read sensationalized press information about it.  Here's a good interview with the folks involved with the demonstration, clarifying it. 

It's not a "Massive Security Hole" it's not even a hole.  It's a rather minor issue that the authors themselves have said in their own article that Microsoft, Sun, and Adobe are going to have corrected soon.  They may already.  I haven't looked at my automatic update patch notes to see if they did.  But at no point could you actually break into Windows Vista and run programs or something.  That was never possible.

  From the outside, it's hard for people to understand why the downgrading happens.  It's not because you buy a new computer, and Vista starts crashing and freezing or things don't work right.  Vista is solid.  It works fine.  Better, in most cases, than XP.

  The problem is XP.  In that, XP allowed developers to do things the wrong way.  In XP, everyone is an administrator and has God powers.  So your application can install itself anywhere, change the registry, put hidden files in the system, add stuff to the Windows folders, open communication ports, etc, etc, etc.  All of which is BAD, BAD, BAD.

  But that's the way it was always done.  But during the development of Vista, Microsoft provided developers information that said, "You should not do it this way, you should do it THE RIGHT WAY."  But many developers didn't listen, and went ahead and programmed things wrong.

  So Microsoft has the difficult job of trying to backwards support the old software that is programmed wrong, and still provide security in Vista.  The ways they do that are complicated, and I'm not gonna discuss that here.

  But, some applications don't play nice.  In most cases, these are business applications, or custom applications, and older software packages.  And because they don't work right, businesses have to downgrade.  This isn't Vista's fault.  It's the original software package's fault. 



  Let me give you a small example of the problem.

  In Windows, programs get installed in the "Program Files" folder.  So if you write a program, you might put everything in a folder like, "Program Files\PacMan3\"

   In your game, you keep a highscore table.  As the developer, you need to store that highscore table to a location.  So most developers choose to place it in the same folder that the program is sitting in.  This is wrong.

  The reason this is wrong is because writing to the "Program Files" folder is dangerous.  It's something only administrators should be able to do.  Your software shouldn't be running as an administrator, so it shouldn't be writing to the Program Files folder.  Why not?  Well, because executable files are run there, and a virus could have a field-day changing all the Program Files to a virus, etc.

  What good developers are supposed to do is write their data (In this case, the highscore table) in the User's folder.  This is where a user has access to write stuff.  The game would have its own folder, and be able to write and store files there.

  Ok... So...  Almost every application ever written for XP doesn't work properly.  So does that mean everything on Vista is broken?  No.  Microsoft provides a "Virtual" Program Files area for each user.  So that when your game writes to Program Files, it actually writes to an isolated area that is transparent to the program and tied to your user account.  It finds what it wants, you see the High Score table, and everything is working fine.  You have no idea this is even going on.  If it worked in XP it works in Vista, it's just more secure.

  So if you're a home user, and the only user of your machine, you would never experience a problem with this.  No errors, no problems, all is well.

  HOWEVER!!!  Lets say your dumb brother decides to login with his account, and play PacMan3.  He gets to the High Score table, and your score isn't there.  What the fuck?  You log your brother out, and log back in as yourself, you go into PacMan3, and now your score is there.  Ok, that is strange.  What's going on?

  The virtual "Program Files" is tied to each user.  So that, while Vista allowed the application to write out the highscore table, it didn't allow it to be shared (And thus, potentially infect your brother's account.)  So that your brother doesn't have access to the same information.

   In the case of PacMan3, this is no big deal.  You just don't get to share the highscore table.  But in a business application world, it's a problem, because if you are sharing business data, you can't NOT have access to it.  So folks downgrade to XP, which is unsafe, but able to share files adnausem. 

  It's important to remember, that the reason this is happening is because the software packages are written wrong in the first place.  Had PacMan3 written its data to the user file like it's supposed to, then everyone playing would have access to the shared data.

  You can get around this entire issue by running everyone as administrator (Like XP does by default).  But most people don't know this, and it's largely unsecure to do that anyway.  So folks downgrade, because it's easier to go with what-you-know than to learn something new.

  These are trade-offs that Vista makes to bring the bad habits of XP into a more secure OS.  The problem is intensified by the fact that a lot of people are saying, "Well Vista is crappy, I'm gonna wait for Windows 7 which is the real OS."   Big mistake.  Because Vista is the stepping stone to help you get into Windows 7.  Windows 7 will likely be more secure than Vista, causing the older XP apps that were never coded properly to just not work.   (Although, it's likely Microsoft will wait until Windows 8 to start tightening it down more.)

  Vista is solid.  It's a good OS.  The problem is XP support.  It does a good job supporting it while maintaining backwards compatibility, but it can't open itself up to all of XP's terrible weaknesses. 

  Business doesn't have the time and money to rewrite their giant productivity apps.  So they'll stick with XP until they can't get it any longer.  That's why Microsoft phases it out.  To force big business to get their software into compliance, and get secure.  (And also to make money.)  Otherwise, we'll never get to 64bit computing on Windows because people will sit around with their thumb up their ass uisng 32bit XP forever because they don't realize that their software is the problem.

  Sorry so long.  I type really fast.

K

Very soon, very very soon.  Microsoft's update team has mentioned that 20% of the Windows Update calls for Vista are now 64bit edition, and that manufacturers are now pushing 64bit in ads and flyers over 32.  The transition is unfolding because people are buying 64bit hardware and they want to use it.  Drivers are pretty good now, so it's about as solid as 32bit with a couple small exceptions where drivers still are an issue. 

The next couple months drop some large artware packages that are 64bit (I don't know names, because I don't follow that scene, but they mentioned names in the article.)  And the next generation game engines (Rage for one) will get better performance on 64bit over 32.  Which will drive further adoption of gamers, and everyone else will follow.

I want to see 32bit die.  We've had 64bit hardware forever now.  It's time to move forward.