Vista and SH III

[Bis71]

I've heard the Vista has listed Starforce as a forbiden exe. Will we be reduced to cracks to run SH III on Vista?

[Boris]

I installed SH3 on Vista x64... which kinda made using the crack a requirement... I'm not sure about the x86 version.

I abandonned the whole thing though... even RC2 caused too many problems for me, I couldn't get all drivers to run, AA wouln't take effect with the nvidia drivers... and games just run slower.

So it was back to XP for me. I hope they sort those issues out for the official release of Vista.

[Bis71]

Thamks. I'm approaching Vosta as I would a coiled rattlesnake.

[Respenus]

So it was back to XP for me. I hope they sort those issues out for the official release of Vista.

Forget it. Microsoft has banned everysingle one of third party antivirus programes. Meaning all other third party programes will have problems. I'll stay on Xp as long as they keep making stuff for it.

Microsoft a bit too far with Vista, atleast that is my opinion. When all will fail, we'll just go to Linux and pray they make a decent emulator or that all software makers convert to Linux too!

[Bis71]

You mean Vista won't run Morton, etc?

[The Noob]

What. The. Bloody Hell?!

Banned all Third party software? Bill "The Borg" Gates went too far with that. I mean, if that would be true he would be a nuts moron! :down:

[Respenus]

Sorry if you got me missunderstood.

I know MC banned all third party Anti-Virus programmes, so I extrapolated that things won't be nice for other similar programmes (sorry I forgot to mention it earlier). When Bis71 said Starforce won't work on Vista I premused that many other programmes (like AV) won't work!

Sorry :oops:

[Bis71]

No, only proven, dangerous, lying, useless scummy EXEs. Did I mention Starfoce?:lol:

[GT182]

That's because Vista is loaded with DRMs and which will not let 3rd party software run. MS wants you to pay for everything and have their approval too. At $400 for the deluxe Vista OS, I imagine XP will still be the favorite for a long time to come. Yes you can get cheaper versions of Vista but why when it does the same for all forms of the OS. Only problem is you'll have to build your own computer, as everything prebuilt you get from stores will be "you know what" very soon.

I didn't want to change to Xp when I Windows ME, but now... I surely don't want Vista.

[Respenus]

Vista Is Bad!!! Keep Away From Vista!!! Don't Let Microsoft Destroy You!!!
:lurk:
:help:
:gulp:
:lost:
:/\\chop

:dead::dead::dead:

[The Noob]

ARG! VISTA SUCKS!!! :mad::mad::mad:

I want my third party freeware!!!! I hate paying! :damn::damn::damn:

Micro$hit, i am going to sink you! AK Voraus!

[Dantenoc]

Windows Vista, as a principle, doesn't have a problem with you running Silent Hunter III. However, Ubisot decided to ship SHIII with StarForce as copy protection, and therein lies your problem, since Starforce isn't Vista compatible. It would be a very simple issue to fix, exept that Ubisoft isn't willing to drop StarForce for SHIII, and StarForce hasn't bothered to make it's product Vista compatible neither.

Windows Vista may surely have problems and issues but there's no point in making horror stories about it while it's still on Beta mode.

On this issue, at least, let's focus on the real problem: StarForce.

[Godalmighty83]

heres to staying away from vista as long as humanly possible.

[Boris]

heres to staying away from vista as long as humanly possible.

Yep I was exactly the same when XP came out... i held out with 98 by my fingertips until I finally fell from the cliff... by then XP was acceptable.

[bookworm_020]

Maybe with need to move to Apple Computers!! Then we would get a decent OS!!

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

My biggest problems with Microsoft are: 1) their OS has more holes than a sieve, 2) they strive and drive to ram their OS down everyone's throat, 3) they use whatever tactics necessary to dominate the market and kill competion, 4) they most certainly do NOT listen to customer feedback, and, last but certainly not least . . .


Their final, released versions work worse than anyone else's alpha test-bed versions!

[oddroy]

Interesting. Sounds like an easy trip to Russia...

http://www.star-force.com/protection.phtml?c=261&id=707

[Dantenoc]

Please submit your applications before January 31 2006.

great :shifty:

[Respenus]

Please submit your applications before January 31 2006.
great :shifty:

:p:p:p

But back to Microsoft and Vista!

The thing is, that it has EU on it's back. He tries to have a monopol in the EU, but we have laws against it. He'll probably get away with it, but not without paying huge ammount of money!

[Hylander_1314]

Sounds like there will be a lot of brainiacs figuring out workarounds for ball and chain Vista approach. Just like Xp has workarounds to only load what you let it load, as opposed to what Borg Gates thinks you need loaded.

Remember, there's always a way to get around the goofy s#$t..................
It will just be a matter of time.

[Potoroo]

I know MC banned all third party Anti-Virus programmes,
Microsoft did nothing of the sort.

Vista Windows Security Center can be disabled (albeit manually) and you can run third-party security suites. The real problem lies with PatchGuard, a good idea poorly implemented (and then only in Vista64). Anti-virus programs use two approaches to combat malware. If the malware is known then it can be detected via its signature and be quarantined or deleted. However, the real problem lies with what is called zero-day malware - malware previously unknown and for which therefore there is no known signature. Current anti-virus software uses heuristic techniques to detect zero-day malware. However, these techniques rely on very low-level analysis of things like system calls and so on, for which current anti-virus software relies on kernel access to monitor. In seeking to prevent unauthorised kernel modification (a Good Thing), PatchGuard by way of a side effect also prevents anti-virus software from accessing the kernel (a Bad Thing).

Microsoft have subsequently announced they will allow API access to the kernel for third-party security software vendors, so you can stop spreading your utter nonsense right now.

[P_Funk]

Maybe with need to move to Apple Computers!! Then we would get a decent OS!! Bollocks to Macs and Bollocks to windows. The only truly good OSs are Unix based Open Source ones. Linux, BSD, and everything else (there's plenty of diversity).

Macs are stable but unless you want to make your own games you aren't going to find much compatibility. Windows is and always will be buggy. Windows is a flawed system. It started as DOS and that was flawed. 3.1 ws as flawed because of its DOS dependency. Same with 95, 98, ME and even XP. It's all buggy flawed code. Compared to open source OSs Windows doesn't even get updated very much. Some Open Source code is updated DAILY!

Linux is better for the same reason Grey Wolves and SH3 Commander is better than that horrible proprietary expansion pack for SH3: made for the user by the user.

As for compatibility Linux is much better than Apple. Not only are there promising emulators like Cedega that can get many top of the line games running like HL2, Doom3, and BF2, but also a few game developers are actually making Linux compatible versions of games. Neverwinter Nights is a good example.

The writing is on the wall. Microsoft isn't doing a good job of competing with the furiously fast open source project and it has finally caught up.

The Users Shall Control the Means of Production.:rock:

Power to the people!:|\\

[Hylander_1314]

P Funk,

Will the open source systems run any simulators at present? Or is it wishful thinking on my part. If so, is there any hassle to get them going? And lastly, how much do they cost compared to M$' stuff.

[kiwi_2005]

Well what Vista RC2 are yous downloading? Ive heard nothing but praise for it over here, gamers that are running RC2 cannot speak highly enough of it and say its the dream OS we gamers have been waiting for, they get no drivers problem they say their games run way better than winxp and they aint going back, to them it would be like going back to windows95. They're completely impressed the way games run on this vista.

Maybe vista runs better on certain hardware:hmm:

[Potoroo]

Well what Vista RC2 are yous downloading? Ive heard nothing but praise for it over here, gamers that are running RC2 cannot speak highly enough of it and say its the dream OS we gamers have been waiting for, they get no drivers problem they say their games run way better than winxp and they aint going back, to them it would be like going back to windows95. They're completely impressed the way games run on this vista.

Maybe vista runs better on certain hardware:hmm:
SH3 isn't the problem for Vista, StarForce is.

[Tim D]

Sounds like bad news for Ubi, hopefully they can make it work on Vista sometime soon and get some more sales out of it. Maybe even a bundle with SHIV. I am very scared of SF due to past trouble. So SHIII is collecting dust on my shelf above my new computer:down: , while I wait for SHIV.

[P_Funk]

P Funk,

Will the open source systems run any simulators at present? Or is it wishful thinking on my part. If so, is there any hassle to get them going? And lastly, how much do they cost compared to M$' stuff. The emulators run progrms in general and they have developed to the point where they can run games with enough effort. For the average gamer or simmer it isn't easy to do. It can be laborious to get all yourvideo hardware to run properly sometimes and emulation is far from stable. That said it has potential for the future. Stability is always a staple of Open Source.

The fact is that Linux is a big learning curve for people who have used Windows their whole lives. Windows, especially since XP, has sought to homogenize the OS and simplify it. You can't really make XP your own that easily, not in the Kernel. Ever wonder why the XP installation program takes so damned long to load? Because it loads mountains of drivers so it can access any potential hardware you have. But Linux loads WHAT YOU HAVE. You can cusatomize your installations to be hardware specific. You can make Linux totally customized to your system. It takes more work and judging by how hard it was for me to get my friends to move from IE to Firefox most people aren't up for it.

Windows is like taking your car to the dealer for repairs. Open Source is like working on your hot rod in the garage.

That isn't to say that you can't hot rod windows to a certain extent. But they made it intentionally difficult. Open Source is meant to be flexible and modular.

If you want to pursue an open source OS you won't be running a game a day after you install it.

http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=29
That is a link to Cedega. It isn't free like open source OSs. You have to pay for a subcription ($5 a month). It also isn't reputed by the Linux community t work as simply as the site implies. However it is a very good alternative for the Windows gamer. The subscription isn't very convenient but things keep improving.

I'll add that I'm not an expert on Linux and the like. My dad does most of that stuff. But I learn from him. I can't explain how it all works inone reply. Open Source software is so huge that it really is a matter of finding your own way through it all. The beauty of it is that YOU decide what to run and what works for you.

If you're looking for a good place to start SuSe 10 is a pretty good Linux. It is on par with Windows and uses a slick GUI. In my experience it presents the smallest learning curve of all the OSs for a windows user.

[Dietrich]

Well, some of us are only sticking with Windoze as that's where the games are. However there's no reason why that will last forever. But it is a question of timing. All the big companies are producing for PC... which one will break O/S first? It will need several big titles to agree. But it could be done.

Perhaps SH5 will be for Linux/Mac/???

[Respenus]

I know MC banned all third party Anti-Virus programmes, Microsoft did nothing of the sort.

Vista Windows Security Center can be disabled (albeit manually) and you can run third-party security suites. The real problem lies with PatchGuard, a good idea poorly implemented (and then only in Vista64). Anti-virus programs use two approaches to combat malware. If the malware is known then it can be detected via its signature and be quarantined or deleted. However, the real problem lies with what is called zero-day malware - malware previously unknown and for which therefore there is no known signature. Current anti-virus software uses heuristic techniques to detect zero-day malware. However, these techniques rely on very low-level analysis of things like system calls and so on, for which current anti-virus software relies on kernel access to monitor. In seeking to prevent unauthorised kernel modification (a Good Thing), PatchGuard by way of a side effect also prevents anti-virus software from accessing the kernel (a Bad Thing).

Microsoft have subsequently announced they will allow API access to the kernel for third-party security software vendors, so you can stop spreading your utter nonsense right now.
I won't even reply to such kind of nonsense. Heuristic control as you name is, si called Proactive Defense in my AV and he's an article confirming what is just said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5399534.stm

It's a bit old, but I don't think much has changed!

OPEN SOURCE WILL WIN!!!

PLZ tell me if I went over the line with this one!

[Redwine]

I will wait a year .... or two ;) to think about to migrate my OS .

:up:

PD : if you read the Flight Simulator X, it requieres a double amount of memory to be used in W Vista than in W XP....

256 Mb for W XP and 512 Mb minimun for Vista......

Mmmhh....

[fredbass]

I dont' know about the AV issue, if any, but I'm sure most of us will eventually need to use Vista. I would expect a greater desire for 64bit OS's as well and Vista will be the time for many to switch. I already am forced to use non-approved files to play SH3 since I have an XP64, so it won't be a surprise to me that once you get Vista that you might be forced to use non-approved files for some games that were developed prior to Vista, like SH3. Luckily, those files are available and will solve your problem. You just need to find them. :smug:

[Potoroo]

I won't even reply to such kind of nonsense. Heuristic control as you name is, si called Proactive Defense in my AV and he's an article confirming what is just said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5399534.stm

It's a bit old, but I don't think much has changed!
Everything has changed. As I said, Microsoft have subsequently announced they will allow API access to the kernel for third-party security software vendors, so you can stop spreading your utter nonsense right now. They never "banned" third party anti-virus programs in the first place. You got everything wrong. You really shouldn't comment on issues you don't understand.

[Respenus]

I won't even reply to such kind of nonsense. Heuristic control as you name is, si called Proactive Defense in my AV and he's an article confirming what is just said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5399534.stm

It's a bit old, but I don't think much has changed! Everything has changed. As I said, Microsoft have subsequently announced they will allow API access to the kernel for third-party security software vendors, so you can stop spreading your utter nonsense right now. They never "banned" third party anti-virus programs in the first place. You got everything wrong. You really shouldn't comment on issues you don't understand.

No comment. I don't want to get banned because of flaming. :nope:

[P_Funk]

I believe this is the news which has changed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6058512.stm

Firstly everything hasn't changed. Just because Microsoft says they're doing it doesn't mean it has opened the doors. The only reason they changed was because of the flurry of negative press surrounding this.

And I'll single out one quote from the whole thing that I like:
"Vista is not going to be the answer to the virus problem..."

Some things never change.

[Potoroo]

I believe this is the news which has changed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6058512.stm

Firstly everything hasn't changed. Just because Microsoft says they're doing it doesn't mean it has opened the doors. The only reason they changed was because of the flurry of negative press surrounding this.
Make up your mind. Either Microsoft is now providing security software vendors with API access to the kernel or they aren't. As it happens, they are.

Furthermore, since this issue only affected Vista64 (PatchGuard isn't part of Vista32), by no reasonable stretch of the imagination could Microsoft be said to have "banned" third-party AV software. After having been panned for so long for their lack of emphasis on security, now they're being panned because they're implementing what is fundamentally a sound idea.

By all means give Microsoft a kick when they deserve it, but allowing rabid anti-MS sentiment to get in the way of the facts is unhelpful, to say the least.

[NightCrawler]

While you install SHIII, you have a choice to install starforce, is there a way to dont install starforce and install SHIII after that question?

Or SHIII will need Starforce?

It's not Vista problem, it's UBI problem, why they come up with that piece of &*&* program, to see, if we all buy originals games...

And remember Vista runs better on a Dual core system of Intel or AMD 64x2 5000+
with 2GB of memories.
Vista will use 750MB only to boot/run vista, and you need more memories to play games on... so 2GB at least, more is better.
than a State of the art GPX card(SLI-bridged) or a single PCI-Express that have 512MB of GPX memories on board...
To run SHIII smoother without slower down the system...

For me it will be time to upgrade my system when Vista become available, and maybe who knows, you can install 2 OS on the same system, when Windows NT4.
In that time i could select under DOS mode. to select Windows NT or Windows 98SE...

For me it's a great sollution, but dont know why windows corp dont do that again. so
we can select under DOS mode as:

1. Windows XP.
2. Windows Vista.

In present time as today, HD's is above 500GB, and some GEEKS they come up with 1.5Terrabytes... thats 1500GB?????
So even if you have a standard IDE 80GB as C drive without partitions, you have enough to install 2 OS on C drive...

But i will come up with a system that have a small GB like a Western Digital Raptor 10.000RPM 74GB, and Maxtor for games, and other stuff to storages...

I wait when Windows Vista will be released, and i think UBI learn there lession with Starforce, and dont use it in SHIV. next year.
Windows Vista will be released this year December.

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Make up your mind. Either Microsoft is now providing security software vendors with API access to the kernel or they aren't. As it happens, they are.

Furthermore, since this issue only affected Vista64 (PatchGuard isn't part of Vista32), by no reasonable stretch of the imagination could Microsoft be said to have "banned" third-party AV software. After having been panned for so long for their lack of emphasis on security, now they're being panned because they're implementing what is fundamentally a sound idea.

By all means give Microsoft a kick when they deserve it, but allowing rabid anti-MS sentiment to get in the way of the facts is unhelpful, to say the least.

The problem, my friend, is not that they're being 'panned' "because they're implementing what is fundamentally a sound idea". It's because they arbitrarily and intentionally created a 'security' arrangement that prevented me, as the owner of my pc, of being able to run the anti-virus programs of my choice, and was forcing me to use theirs, and only theirs.

That sounds familiar, no? Lessee . . . forced to use IE only if you wanted a browser, forced to use only their media player . . . at least until the public erupted in a furor and they changed things.

My $0.02 worth? I don't trust Microsoft's quality. In anything. And I certainly have no confidence, at all, in the knowledge that the only thing between my pc, and my privacy, and my security, is their security software.

[Potoroo]

The problem, my friend, is not that they're being 'panned' "because they're implementing what is fundamentally a sound idea". It's because they arbitrarily and intentionally created a 'security' arrangement that prevented me, as the owner of my pc, of being able to run the anti-virus programs of my choice, and was forcing me to use theirs, and only theirs.
Vista64 is an unreleased product. If you choose to install a release candidate knowing it is unfinished that's your business.
That sounds familiar, no? Lessee . . . forced to use IE only if you wanted a browser, forced to use only their media player . . . at least until the public erupted in a furor and they changed things.
Neither claim is true. Being forced to install something, like IE4 because of its many interdependencies, is one thing, but you've never been forced to use either IE or Windows Media Player. I've been quite happily using third party browsers and media applications for many years. There was a time when Microsoft's apps tried to take over and make themselves the default every time you blinked but you were still always able to use your third party apps.
My $0.02 worth? I don't trust Microsoft's quality. In anything.You clearly don't know much about Microsoft's vast range of software then. Some of its products, like SQL Server, for example, are excellent. Some could stand significant improvement. But to claim the largest software company in the world is incapable of producing any high-quality products at all is ludicrous.
And I certainly have no confidence, at all, in the knowledge that the only thing between my pc, and my privacy, and my security, is their security software.
Since that won't be the case in the released product you should be quite happy then.

[Respenus]

The problem, my friend, is not that they're being 'panned' "because they're implementing what is fundamentally a sound idea". It's because they arbitrarily and intentionally created a 'security' arrangement that prevented me, as the owner of my pc, of being able to run the anti-virus programs of my choice, and was forcing me to use theirs, and only theirs.

That sounds familiar, no? Lessee . . . forced to use IE only if you wanted a browser, forced to use only their media player . . . at least until the public erupted in a furor and they changed things.

My $0.02 worth? I don't trust Microsoft's quality. In anything. And I certainly have no confidence, at all, in the knowledge that the only thing between my pc, and my privacy, and my security, is their security software.

HEAR HEAR MY FRIEND!!!

Stuff it ** *** ***!!!

That's what I like to hear.

Potaroo, no offense but I has been proven times and times again MC CAN NOT!!! be trusted. I'm sure you can believe THOSE MANY, MANY stories of people having SOLID arguments against MC.

I only hope this time MC has to pay 1,000,000,000 (That's right, it's 1 billion) Euros to the EU. This way, we can afford to buy Open Source computers for all the EU institutions :yep:

"I don't trust Microsoft and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my computer."

And make sure you read this: http://bill-gates-pet-crow.freeonlinegames.com/

Your gonna laught your Bernard out of the sub! :lol:

[theluckyone17]

Will the open source systems run any simulators at present?

WW2 Uboat: Danger From The Deep (http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net). It's currently showing promise from what I've seen, but it's definitely a work in progress.

WW2 Flight: Targetware (http://www.targetware.net/index.php). I haven't looked at this in a while, but it looked good the last time I looked at it. Mind you, it's not open source, and it will be charging in the future (for the multiplayer aspect, which is understandable), but it is cross platform. OS is best, but I'll settle for CP if it gets more games on Linux.

There's more out there, but this should get you started.

[Potoroo]

Potaroo, no offense but I has been proven times and times again MC CAN NOT!!! be trusted. I'm sure you can believe THOSE MANY, MANY stories of people having SOLID arguments against MC.
That's no reason for you or anyone else to make claims about Microsoft that are untrue. If they're as bad as you clearly like to think they are then the truth will suffice to sink them.

[The Noob]

"I don't trust Microsoft and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my computer."
Oh yeah! :yep:

Edit: WTF?! My avatar! :rotfl::rotfl:

[P_Funk]

Potaroo, no offense but I has been proven times and times again MC CAN NOT!!! be trusted. I'm sure you can believe THOSE MANY, MANY stories of people having SOLID arguments against MC. That's no reason for you or anyone else to make claims about Microsoft that are untrue. If they're as bad as you clearly like to think they are then the truth will suffice to sink them.
We all know that making crappy products won't sink Microsoft. SOme of their software might be good but the whole suite that is windows is a pain in the ass. The only thing that keeps them alive is the fact that they have a veritable monopoly on the market (like software producers that make everything Windows only compatible). The other thing is the absurd and irrational human dependency on familiarity that marketing people call brand loyalty. This is demonstrated in how hard a time getting some of my friends to use Firefox was. With all that can be said about it my friends only response was "i just don't want to". Subsequently they have somehow tried it and are never going back to IE.

The lesson there is that peole have been conditioned to use windows and most are scared or ignorant of other possibilities. Brand Loyalty and ignorance make up for alot of why people buy things.

So until Microsoft actually makes its software unusable people will always use them, at least in the froseeable future. This doesn't mean that microsoft isn't largely crappy in comparison to other software alternatives. Vista doesn't promise to be any different. They said that XP would mean the end of the Blue Screen of Death. That's true but that didn't end the problems that you usually associated with it. Windows was based on flawed coding and flawed thinking. It won't change. Proprietary giants like Microsoft will always be the same because unlike what economic theory teaches about capitalism these companies strive not to be competitive but to be monopolies. So competition usually involves being fresh and risky. THe goal of all companies is to have security. The risks involved in being competitive are beyond the comfort zone of a corporation that seeks only to dominate a market and so it sticks with what has worked. Linux is innovative. Windows is not.

We can go on all we like about the minutia of whether Microsoft has promised this and has done that. In the end I have had so many issues with Microsoft and Linux and 3rd party software has been a nearly painless experience. The only thing keeping me using windows is gaming and the future looks bright for Linux gaming.

Windows just sucks. It is the public familiarity with it that keeps it popular. And anyone can say that they like windows but that doesn't mean that overall it isn't a flawed piece of coding and one which isn't likely to be made nearly as stable as open source counterparts in one more release.

[Dantenoc]

Stop highjacking this thread already.

If you like linux that's your prerogative, but that has nothing to do with the fact that starforce is XP dependant. You keep talking and talking about linux like it mattered in this thread, when the truth is Silent Hunter III won't run on Linux either for the very same reason that it won't run on vista: Starforce.

Silent Hunter III comes with a Starforce that was specificaly written for windows XP, and won't run on any other platform... blaiming microsoft for that is just as silly as blaiming Nintendo for not allowing me to play a PlayStation game that I bought.

If you have issues with Microsoft, please, open up a thread in the general forum.

[P_Funk]

I'm just following the natural contour of the thread. A thread's subject can shift if people say things. It's like a conversation. And I'm just responding to other people's comments.

[wamphyri]

I couldn't read through all that anti-vista stuff but one thing I did hear is that they are going to make a version of directx10 that works with xp .. so you won't have to get F'n vista to play dx10 games

just something I read on a tech site.

wamphyri

[Potoroo]

I couldn't read through all that anti-vista stuff but one thing I did hear is that they are going to make a version of directx10 that works with xp .. so you won't have to get F'n vista to play dx10 games
You have been misinformed.

On October 16 http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110 claimed that DirectX 9.0L would replace 9.0C to allow DX10 applications to run on XP. That claim was spurious and was retracted on 17 October (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35140). DX9L will only run on Vista. There is no DX10 for XP. That would require non-trivial modification to XP and Microsoft aren't prepared to do it.

[Respenus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Respenus
"I don't trust Microsoft and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my computer."


Oh yeah! :yep:
It's a changed quote by James T. Kirk in the final original series movie (ST6:Undiscovered Country). And my statment is true 100%. Don't ask for an explanation!

The other thing is the absurd and irrational human dependency on familiarity that marketing people call brand loyalty.
Don't you just hate that! (More explained in the next paragraph)

The lesson there is that peole have been conditioned to use windows and most are scared or ignorant of other possibilities. Brand Loyalty and ignorance make up for alot of why people buy things.
I have the same problem all the time. How to convince people that there is other, free software and it's better then the on MC offers! I have a small dislike for people that don't understand computers and an almost raging hate towards those who say:

...my friends only response was "i just don't want to".
and to all who are "file, save as" guys. It means they know what file, save as will do in MC word, but aren't sure in Excel, Power Point, or any other programe. Yes I'm intolerant :nope:

The only thing keeping me using windows is gaming and the future looks bright for Linux gaming.
Hate to jump on the wagon, but that's my main argument on using windows. Reading this thread I have seen the bad in my ways and will make a dual install soon.

On the side note. I'd rather give, for ex. Gentoo, 20$ and they deliver to my mail a DVD with a workable 64bit OS and with a gazillion of pre-compiled programs so that I don't have to download them and compile them (takes time).

Stop highjacking this thread already.
I'm just following the natural contour of the thread. A thread's subject can shift if people say things. It's like a conversation. And I'm just responding to other people's comments.

I agree with P_Funk. The thread took a way into a debate on Vista (I admit the fault I did, but some good came out of it anyway), so we debated. Why make another thread when this one works just fine.

That would require non-trivial modification to XP and Microsoft aren't prepared to do it.
Again not bad feeling towards you, but you effectivly closed your own comment. You admited that MC is JUST NOT WILLING to take the extra step towards more pleased customers.

Slovenia joined the EU in 2004 and at school we have computers that came with a pre-installed Linux (Slovenian language). Noone uses Linux, but it means that some public organisations/institution are comming to their senses and that Open Source is more spread then others.

[Potoroo]

That would require non-trivial modification to XP and Microsoft aren't prepared to do it.
Again not bad feeling towards you, but you effectivly closed your own comment. You admited that MC is JUST NOT WILLING to take the extra step towards more pleased customers.
No, I didn't, but your fervid irrationality isn't worth wasting time on.

[P_Funk]

Ignoring the pointless comments of those who want us to stop bursting their Windows bubble, I'll add that Windows is only truly effective in the private market and where contracts exist. Where some companies have an agenda in supporting Windows rather than a better alternative.

A few tid bits of info. I'll start with the story of an American Naval vessal (a destroyer I think or something similar) that was being retrofitted with a new computer system. The engineers wanted to use an open source program to power the ship's computers but the brass above forced them to use a Microsoft one. The best part was when while out in the seas the ship's computers crashed and the ship was redered adrift and was forced to be towed into port. I wonder why the Navy forced the usage of a Microsoft system over a better open source one?

Then there are the small little stories about open source such as the fact that a greatpart of the internet is powered by Linux servers and that all kinds of governments and businesses are using Open Source software. I think one of China's sattlelites is powered by a l inux computer.

It's obvious to me that windows is a very narrowly functional program and that it's sufficient for only home PCs and that it could change quickly if people actually woke up and had some cajones for change.

[Hybris]

The only problem I have had with vista is the fact its a power hog. I mean has anyone looked at the requirements? You need show much power and Hard drive space you matterwise forget playing any games because vista is taking all your video and processor power.

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Want an example as to why I loathe Microsoft and Windows?

If you happen to have Windows set up for automatic updating (which for the most part I do recommend) you might not be aware that MS has decided that IE7.0 is a 'high priority' update. This means that it will automatically install on your pc if you have your pc set up for automatic notification and updating.

Now, if you do a bit of hunting you'll discover that, at some point a while ago, MS kinda announced (albeit without a great deal of fanfare or notice) this little factoid. They also provided a downloadable 'toolkit' for preventing IE7.0 from being installed via automatic updating.

(Should you be curious, the toolkit to do that is located here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=4516A6F7-5D44-482B-9DBD-869B4A90159C&displaylang=en (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=4516A6F7-5D44-482B-9DBD-869B4A90159C&displaylang=en))

Now here is where it gets interesting: when you download, then run, the file, you'll first get a prompt asking to accept terms and conditions (I've no problem with that) but then get a prompt to "Please type the location where you want to place the extracted files".

Eh?

Files?

I just want to block IE7.0 from installing on its own. I need files!? (yes, files; plural) to do such a simple task?

Evidently yes.

Well, let's read the instructions for install on the original page where I could download the toolkit (go ahead and do so now if you want several good laughs; if you're feeling lazy here is the entire set of instructions: "Click on the link to download the package and select ‘Open’ to run the package. You will be asked to accept the end-user license agreement (EULA) before you gain access to the package components." Quite helpful, eh wot?)

Well, as they've helpfully supplied no suggested default location (the entry box is blank) at least they've given me a 'browse button'. So let's click that, and choose desktop; always a pretty safe bet.

Click OK after that, and whoo-hoo! Extracted files!

And yes, it is files. Four of them to be exact: one .jpg file, useful only if you're an admin responsible for multiple systems; one .adm file --a Group Policy Administrative Template-- again useful only for admins responsible for multiple systems; one .htm help file . . . which isn't additionally helpful, as it's simply a partial section of the original toolkit download page; one .cmd file.

So boys and girls . . . which one are you supposed to use?

Logical process of elimination will leave you with the .cmd file. Click it, see it flash and blink, and the jobs finished! IE7.0 now will not automatically replace your current browser!

Errrr . . . no.

See, here's the fine print: "The script creates a registry key and sets the associated value to block or unblock (depending on the command-line option used) automatic delivery of Internet Explorer 7 on either the local machine or a remote target machine." [emphasis mine]

Have I lost you yet?

Here's a bit more of an explanation, and again I quote from their site and file:

The script has the following command-line syntax:
IE70Blocker.cmd [<machine name>] [/b] [/u] [/H]

Simply clicking on the extracted command file (IE70Blocker.cmd) won't do diddly-squat all on its lonesome. It needs to have one of the above command-line options included.

Well, we're not going to let this beat us, are we? Nopers!

So let's just copy that ol' file name " IE70Blocker.cmd", then click "Start-Run" and paste it there and run it. Hmmmmm . . . error message; Windows can't find it.

Undeterred, lets browse and find it. We do remember where we extracted it to, yes? Ah, there it is . . . select, click OK and add that command-line option thingie . . . oh wait . . . it just blinks and never gives me the chance.

Well, let's add the /B in the run box dialog and . . . --sighs-- . . . error message; Windows can't find it.

Now perhaps there is another way of doing this, but let me tell you how I did so after reaching this point. I ran 'command' (enter 'command' in the run dialog box; you'll get a DOS-type window pop up) typed in IE70Blocker.cmd and hit enter.

Oh joy: it tells me that IE70Blocker.cmd is not recognized blah-blah-blah. So now I have to, manually, via keystrokes, change my current directory so that my desktop directory is current. You all know how to do that in command, yes?

Considering that MS rammed GUI down our throats, I would find it difficult to believe that one out of a hundred understand how to operate their pc using command instead of the graphical interface of Windows.

I'm not even finished, but I don't feel I really need to continue. I'll just recap:

In order to perform a simple (and reasonable) task --that of choosing to block an automatic update and install of IE7.0-- Microsoft has created a toolkit that the vast majority of the users of their software will have no idea how to get it to work. Worse, because it appears to work (clicking the .cmd file has a small window pop up and vanish within an eye blink, and with no accompanying error message stating the operation either failed or was incorrectly performed) most people will assume they have blocked IE7.0 from installing.

What a rude awakening they will have.

I began this with the simple statement of "Want an example as to why I loathe Microsoft and Windows?" Hopefully this will help explain.

[Potoroo]

Ignoring the pointless comments of those who want us to stop bursting their Windows bubble,
I've worked with many operating systems in an IT career spanning more years than you've been on this planet. None of them have been perfect. I first used (Berkeley) Unix at uni in the early '80s. Why Linus Torvalds chose to resurrect this dinosaur, which saw the light of day in 1969, is beyond my understanding, but be that as it may. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of operating systems.

I mention it in passing to put in perspective the absurdity of your claim that a 19 year old with no IT qualifications or real world experience is somehow going to burst anyone's nonexistent "Windows bubble". Come back with 25 years of IT experience under your belt and we might have something to discuss, but right now all I see is teenage arrogance. I've sunk the boot into Microsoft more than a few times over the years ever since I was working with MS-DOS back before you were born but I have sufficient maturity to also give Microsoft a pat on the back when it's deserved.

If you and your cohort truly want to advance the cause of Linux you do yourselves a disservice with your complete lack of balance and your propensity to exaggerate both Microsoft's failings and Linux's merits. My elder son, who is a tad older than you and is just finishing his honours year in his Comp.Sci degree, is currently using my old PIII as a Linux server, but I'm pleased and proud to say he is aware of its weaknesses as well as its strengths and he doesn't need to try to make himself feel superior by denigrating things he doesn't truly understand. You would do well to do the same.

[P_Funk]

Just what I needed, an old man telling me that since he is an expert and that I am a mere child, albeit with voting rights, what I have to say is meaningless! Well I really can't stand older people that seem to need to be my grandfather.

I never said Microsoft or Windows is wholly inadequate but I'm not going to congratulate Microsoft just cause your experience says they are splendid and not as evil as all us young rapskallions say.

Oh and I like the part where you decide to tell me that you are to universally qualified and that I have no basis from which to form an opinion while you decide not to refute my allegedly immature claims with hard proof but only with an equally arrogant game of lets see who's birth certificate is older.

If I'm so off base and you are so damned correct I'd like to see you go through it all and tellme why I'm wrong. I hate people like you that say "oh you don't know anything" and make that the sum total of your argument.

Lets see some of that IT experience in action please. And if you have no patience to enlighten me nor any desire to actually argue in a fair way then I see no purpose in you actually making any comments on what I have said. I may be young but I know the conventions of polite conversation and the "rules" of argument. Play or sod off.

[Potoroo]

As I said, this is not the place for a detailed discussion of operating system design. However, I will point out how your desperate need for a course in Logic 101 makes trying to discuss anything with you pointless.
Just what I needed, an old man telling me that since he is an expert
As I am qualified in Comp.Sci and have over 25 years of experience in the profession, I am entitled to claim some expertise (as I did). That does not mean I am an expert, merely that I have the advantage over someone with neither.
and that I am a mere child, albeit with voting rights, what I have to say is meaningless!
Since you have neither qualifications nor extensive experience on what basis other than wishful thinking are you arguing?
Well I really can't stand older people that seem to need to be my grandfather.
What you really seem to hate is anyone who knows more than you do.
but I'm not going to congratulate Microsoft just cause your experience says they are splendid
I didn't say that.
Oh and I like the part where you decide to tell me that you are to universally qualified
I didn't say that.
If I'm so off base and you are so damned correct I'd like to see you go through it all and tellme why I'm wrong.
I've already refuted the false or exaggerated claims about Vista made in this thread, which is what's relevant to this topic.
I hate people like you that say "oh you don't know anything" and make that the sum total of your argument.
I didn't do that.
I may be young but I know the conventions of polite conversation and the "rules" of argument. Play or sod off.
That pretty much sums it up, but I doubt you'll see the irony in your own words.

[P_Funk]

Well that was a petty example of your arrogance. Very good use of the "I didn't say that" line. Very good indeed. Apparently you can draw conclusions from what I say but I however cannot in regard to what you say. I see that lovely hypocrisy is also lost on you. And I think people can make a little exaggeration for effect without you saying "that isn't a direct quote!". But nevermind since you obviously are at that stupid point where there is no argument. You're just taking the piss out of me and we are way beyond facts. And if what I say, aside from whats directly relates to the original tag line of this convo, is of no concern of yours why do you persist in asserting your "realtive" superiority, I'm sorry not "expert" authority?

[Respenus]

Potoroo!

People like you mkae me feel all warm and cudly from the inside. Which usually means I'd blow their fraking heads off.

Just beacsue we are younger and don't have years of experience, doesn't mean we are not intitled to an opinion which may/or may no be right. You on the other hand want to force us into keeping quite, keeping your lovely little world safe.

I respect my eldars, I have been brought up to do so, but with you, I (read: WE!!!) can't talk with. You degrade us, because we are younger, but in fact your showing that all you years as a living being haven't tought you respect and admitance that someone might be right afterall.

This thread is going toward flaming and I would ask both parties (Potoroo, me and P_Funk) to stop right now, as I have a REALLY bad feeling and things might just get too hot.

[Potoroo]

but in fact your showing that all you years as a living being haven't tought you respect and admitance that someone might be right afterall.
On the contrary, I'm the first to acknowledge I can be wrong. However, when a couple of teenagers make out they're going to "save me" from my non-existent "windows bubble" or dismiss what I say as "pointless" presumably because I haven't accepted Linus Torvalds as my personal Lord and Saviour I take exception. Quite frankly I doubt either of you would know a well designed operating system if it leapt up and bit you. At the end of the day Linux is just another Unix and Unix has never been on my list of good operating systems. Put it down to my being spoiled by VAX/VMS during my days at DEC if you like but at least I've got something to compare it against. What have you got except a fanatical and faddish dislike of Microsoft?

[SteveW1]

While I might not be an Operating System guru as some people in the world are and might not know as much about things in the world as these people and while I have respect to all the people who have posted in this thread and their views I believe it was about SH3 and Vista can this thread please be brought back on track and a potential Flaming War be averted.

[Respenus]

What have you got except a fanatical and faddish dislike of Microsoft?

Knowledge that one day the so called "humanitarian" Bill Gates will get nailed down and all will be good. The only future is a free future!

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

I'm a tad curious why our pro-Microsofters haven't commented on my post.

Perhaps because it's fact rather than opinion?

[joea]

I read it and thought it a good post. :up: But had to highlight it as I use the haylazblue schem and it came out white so I could not read it. :down: Again good points....I always try to choose what to update so thanks for the warning.

Firefox user btw. :p

[daSmirnov]

Hey guys, I'm a Microsoft MVP for Windows Shell/User... Happened to saw this post and couldn't resist but correct a few mistakes.

1) Silent Hunter 3 works great on Windows Vista x86 - I'm actually playing it right now. All you need to do is install it, and then install the Vista compatible Star Force driver from http://www.star-force.com/protection.phtml?c=83&id=963 (http://www.star-force.com/protection.phtml?c=83&id=963)

I don't know about x64, but if memory serves me it didn't work on Windows XP x64. I'm not sure if using a 64-bit Star Force driver would do the trick or if there's something in SH3 itself which Ubisoft would need to update.

If you've got an nVidia card be prepared for a struggle with performance as their drivers throughout the beta have been nothing but lacking. I've moved to ATi cards in all but one of my machines now and can't tell the difference between Vista and XP with performance. Hopefully they'll get their act together in the next few weeks - I'm tired of having to use nVidia's XP drivers to get my machine to sleep properly.

2) Yes Vista requires more memory; the minimum requirement for XP was 64MB-128MB. Windows Vista is 512MB.

3) No Microsoft haven't blocked 3rd parties from Windows, that is just plain stupid, one of the key reasons for Windows' success is how easy it is for 3rd party developers to expand on it.

4) No Microsoft haven't blocked 3rd party anti-virus, what they have done in x64 (both Windows XP and Vista) is prevent anyone modifying the Windows Kernel, they decided to do this after the huge number of crash reports were due to modifications to the Kernel. This doesn't affect 32-bit versions. This is a *good* thing, before any application could overwrite parts of the core Windows system, often with less than desirable results.

Some Anti-Virus vendors weren't overly keen on this because rather than actually update their products like everyone else they decided to start complaining. The main two being Norton and McAfee, which I’m sure anyone who have tried to troubleshoot people’s computers with this software on knows how poorly written it is. There are plenty of AV solutions for Windows Vista, Avast and AVG have free ones and most of the other commercial ones will have support by the time Vista is on the shelves. You can read a bit more about this from: http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=35786

So yes you can play SH3 on Vista!

In order to perform a simple (and reasonable) task --that of choosing to block an automatic update and install of IE7.0-- Microsoft has created a toolkit that the vast majority of the users of their software will have no idea how to get it to work. Worse, because it appears to work (clicking the .cmd file has a small window pop up and vanish within an eye blink, and with no accompanying error message stating the operation either failed or was incorrectly performed) most people will assume they have blocked IE7.0 from installing.

IE7 is a big step forward in security, so it should be installed on every XP SP2 and 2003 machine.

The tool kit you mention and go on and on about is really for corporations, either where they've not fully tested IE7 in their environment, or they've got internal web applications that aren't current compatible. That's why it uses things like Group Policy and is "complicated" for normal users, because, err, it isn't for normal end users.

Ordinary end users like most people here can just press cancel when Auto Updates asks if they want to install IE7. They just press cancel and they won't get bothered with it again.

If you're going to take a thread off-topic to go on some childish "M$" bash, at least get your facts right first.

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

4) No Microsoft haven't blocked 3rd party anti-virus, what they have done in x64 (both Windows XP and Vista) is prevent anyone modifying the Windows Kernel, they decided to do this after the huge number of crash reports were due to modifications to the Kernel. This doesn't affect 32-bit versions. This is a *good* thing, before any application could overwrite parts of the core Windows system, often with less than desirable results.
Microsoft was preventing anyone from accessing the kernel. Not modifying it, accessing it. That's a pretty hefty difference. And the reason the AV people were complaining is that one of their means of proactive antivirus protection is hueristic scanning. If they are blocked access to the kernel, all sorts of nasty things could happen there and your 3rd party AV would have no clue it was.

Now, as MS will smugly tell you, the security protocols of Vista guarentee protection from viruses, malware, trojans, etc., so there is no reason to desire 3rd party examination and protection.

Of course, XP was supposed to be such a leap forward in things, too. Come to think of it, so was '98. Considering the many, many security issues, holes and flaws Microsoft's OSs have consistently demonstrated in the past, I'll bet the title to my house and cars that within 6 months of release you have successful attacks on Vista. Including ones that are designed simply to sneer at Vista's 'security'.

Some Anti-Virus vendors weren't overly keen on this because rather than actually update their products like everyone else they decided to start complaining. The main two being Norton and McAfee, which I’m sure anyone who have tried to troubleshoot people’s computers with this software on knows how poorly written it is.
You can't update when 1) you're blocked access to the files, and 2) refused being able to examine the OS in order to design protection for it. That was the AV peoples point. And I've rarely had any problems diagnosing, troubleshooting or fixing anyone's computers with either Norton or McAfee. They might be 100% perfect, but they aren't the devil's tools either.

If you're going to take a thread off-topic to go on some childish "M$" bash, at least get your facts right first.
Excuse me!? I merely commented on statements already made, and in the directiopn they'd been heading. I sure as Hell didn't take this thread 'off-topic'. As for your opinion of my statements being 'childish', well, you're entitled to whatever opinion you wish. Then again, so am I. And if my opinion of a product or company, with whom I've had over 20 years of experience, is less than glowing, well, I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are.

As for getting my 'facts right', I'd spent several hours researching this. I didn't just leap into it and start pistoning away at keys. As it happens, the one article I drew most of my information from didn't make clear just how automatic update would present IE7.0. The implication of the article was that IE7.0 was included as part of an automatic install, and the only way to keep it from being installed was the toolkit . . . which I clearly researched personally, which should be apparent from my post. The article did not specify or clarify any difference between corporate or personal systems, and so neither did I. For that I will say mea culpa, but not for anything else.

[daSmirnov]

Microsoft was preventing anyone from accessing the kernel. Not modifying it, accessing it. That's a pretty hefty difference. And the reason the AV people were complaining is that one of their means of proactive antivirus protection is hueristic scanning. If they are blocked access to the kernel, all sorts of nasty things could happen there and your 3rd party AV would have no clue it was.

I suggest you actually read up on this a bit more, this is a good place to start: http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsvistasecurity/archive/2006/08/11/695993.aspx

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Microsoft was preventing anyone from accessing the kernel. Not modifying it, accessing it. That's a pretty hefty difference. And the reason the AV people were complaining is that one of their means of proactive antivirus protection is hueristic scanning. If they are blocked access to the kernel, all sorts of nasty things could happen there and your 3rd party AV would have no clue it was.

I suggest you actually read up on this a bit more, this is a good place to start: http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsvistasecurity/archive/2006/08/11/695993.aspx

How about something other than a pro-Microsoft site? Like these?

http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/193303504
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127379/article.html
http://www.cnet.com.au/software/security/0,239029558,339271785,00.htm

I actually do read. I can't begin to tell you, however, how warm and fuzzy you make the cockles of my heart feel over your blithe assumption I'm an illiterate lump that has some sort of agenda against Microsoft.

Now, as this is starting to wander into a much warmer place than it should, this will be my last post here. There's always PMs and emails should anyone feel the need to continue.

[daSmirnov]

OK there's two ways Microsoft can go about this, they can either make the system more secure (by preventing 3rd parties loading code into the kernel), or they can leave it like it is.

Some companies, like the previously mentioned Symantec and McAfee have an interest in keeping Windows insecure, so they can maintain their near total control of the OEM computing market.

Let's see what another AV company has said about Microsoft's work with PatchGuard: http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/10/vista-admins.html?_log_from=rss

The public are waking up to the fact these AV companies produce garbage, they've known Microsoft would be using PatchGuard for years, since well before Windows XP x64 shipped (which has the same technology I might add) and they've done nothing about it, while all the small AV companies have gotten ready, now it's too late and they tried to make the EU and Korea delay the launch of Vista!

I fail to see what possible argument you can make against the technical reasons for preventing 3rd parties from loading unknown code into the kernel. Microsoft kill off a whole attack vector by doing that, with minimum compatibility issues. Symantec and McAfee are doing it out of business reasons, not technical.

[theluckyone17]

Alrighty... since we're already off-topic, and we've obviously got people on both sides of this off-topic arguments, I figured I'd step in and ride that middle line.

Background: My 40-60 hour a week job consists of retail computer services. I drive from Point A to Point B, with the sole intent of fixing the general public's computer issues, whether it entails installing a wireless network, removing their latest virus/spyware infection, or simply teaching them how to use their digital camcorder. I may not be the smartest guy around, but I'm the guy in the trenches, so I gotta figure that counts for something.

The general public seems to treat their computer like an appliance. They don't want to know how it works, why it works, or why it doesn't work any more. They want to be able to turn the thing on, get to their email, print their pictures, etc., without ever having to wonder what the computer is doing or how it's doing it. I've even seen clients with a fairly obvious spyware infection that don't care. If it slows their system down, they wait, or otherwise occupy themselves until the system's done its thing. I usually get called in when it's gotten to the point that they can't realistic operate the computer any more. Even when it comes to installing wireless networks and the like... this isn't incredibly difficult stuff, people. A quick google search reveals a lot of information and self-help tips on performing what I do. But people I see don't want to have to deal with it, don't want to think about it, and just want it to work.

It's kinda like the people who get in their car each morning, turn the key, and drive it from Point A to Point B, without ever wondering how their automatic transmission does its job, wondering if that slow leak in the right front tire has gotten worse, or wonder what they're going to do if that squeak in the left front was a failing ball joint, and it's going to separate right *now*. (Yeah, I work on my own car, too)

My point? People don't care if IE7 is an automatic upgrade... even if they happen to notice. As long as they still get their email, edit their pics, etc., they don't give it any more thought than that.

I've thought about what would happen if most of those people were put on Linux... and the situation really doesn't change. As long as the computer does what they want it to, and they've got somebody to take it to when it doesn't do what they want (or how they want), they're probably never going to notice.

Me, on the other hand... I drive a manual transmission because it shifts when I want it to. I work on my cars myself so that I know what's going on, how it's working, what it's supposed to, and why it's not. If I don't know, then I find out. I want options. I want to play with it. If something doesn't work the way I want it to, and it's not possible to change it, I want the limitation to be my abilities, and not some big corporation whose biggest concern is their profits.

So I dual boot, maximizing my choices. I wanna game, I boot to XP. I wanna do everything else without having to worry (excessively) about picking up viruses and spyware, being able to place the clock specifically where I want it to be, how the focus follows the mouse cursor, and any other whim that comes to mind.

Do I think most people need what I need? Nope. Do I think Linux is right for most people? Yes. Do I think that Windows is right for most people? Yes.

As a result, I could care less that Microsoft doesn't want to play fair with third party security software companies. If their choices are poor, and result in more infections, it means more revenue for me. If their choices are good... well, I don't have to work as hard as I do, and I can do something more productive with my time. If SH3 doesn't work with Vista, I'll triple boot Vista, XP, and Linux. If SH3 does work with Vista, then maybe Vista will replace XP. If I'm not happy with Vista, I'll stick with my current situation.

What I do get perturbed about is MS trying to "artificially" provide limits, going out of their way to make what I want to do a hassle (you may notice that I've got a similiar irritation with Digital Rights Management). If they somehow changed Vista's boot method so that it prevented Grub from loading it... well, I'd get irritated (and Vista would soon find its partition merged with something more accommodating [sp?]). If Grub did the same in reverse... well, bye bye Grub.

Grub, btw, is a boot loader, currently capable of giving me a selection of which operating systems I would like to start when I (re)boot my system, for you Windows-Only folks out there.

In short, MS could turn Vista in to the operating system of choice for big, purple, fluffy dinosaurs singing children's songs for all I care, as long as I had the option to use something else. If they tried to force me to use it, I'd get irritated.

And if you've reached this far, I appreciate your abilities to read through the unfiltered rough draft of a rant & rave. Now go do something more worthwhile with your life, like playing more SH3. :up:

[Respenus]

Some companies, like the previously mentioned Symantec and McAfee have an interest in keeping Windows insecure, so they can maintain their near total control of the OEM computing market.

:stare::stare::stare:

OMG!!! Someone is EXTREMLY pro-Microsoft. Let's admit it. Every OS was a HUGE LEAP in security. My a**. 98 was the biggest whole in MC OS history. Then we have XP, when only SP2 patched the security issue a bit, but it still has flaws. And I won't even start at Vista (because I know nothing about it (but I do know why AV companis had problems)).

AV firms don't want to maintain total control as you put it. The problem is the uneducated people who just buy a computer, they don't understand the computer (*Golum speak*).

And the reason the AV people were complaining is that one of their means of proactive antivirus protection is hueristic scanning.

My point aswell!

Now, as this is starting to wander into a much warmer place than it should, this will be my last post here.

Agreed!

[GT182]

With all the viri that McAffee and Norton let into my pc, I switched to AVG .... which uses hueristic scanning. This move was over a year ago and since then I've not had one trojan, virus or anyother malware get in. I wouldn't trust Vista one iota to have the necessary means to protect my computer. The same goes for the Windows Firewall in XP....it stinks.

[fredbass]

I'd like to thank daSmirnov for his insights in helping some of us who were unclear on the compatibility of SH3 with Vista. So it now seems that for those of us who will eventually be getting Vista, which is 90 percent of us, that there is little to worry about in that regards except possibly the need for additional memory.

I don't know of any 64-bit drivers from Ubi so I assume for those of us who have x64 that we'll continue to need the unapproved files to play SH3.

PS: I use Avast AV. :)

[daSmirnov]

AVG and Avast are the best.:up:

http://www.portalforums.net/images/sh3vista.jpg

Yes, here's me getting my butt kicked.

[The Noob]

About IE 7 automatic install...WHAT. THE. FLYING. @$%&***!

That means IE 7 will automatically replace my current browser? NO! NOOOOOOO!!!!!

[elite_hunter_sh3]

ok first of all everyone here knows vista is "satans child" and microsoft is "satan" i found out a way you can easily get windows vista without getting it..

i have windows xp sp2 yet everything looks like vista even that tranparent look unfortunaetly i dont have the 3d views but my windows is xp ??? how is that so?

i typed in google this:

"windows xp vista theme"

find that and download it and skin ur win xp now everything looks like vista even the little sidebar with the clock and programs !! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[daSmirnov]

About IE 7 automatic install...WHAT. THE. FLYING. @$%&***!

That means IE 7 will automatically replace my current browser? NO! NOOOOOOO!!!!!

It will replace IE6, it won't change your default browser settings.

[bigboywooly]

ok first of all everyone here knows vista is "satans child" and microsoft is "satan" i found out a way you can easily get windows vista without getting it..

i have windows xp sp2 yet everything looks like vista even that tranparent look unfortunaetly i dont have the 3d views but my windows is xp ??? how is that so?

i typed in google this:

"windows xp vista theme"

find that and download it and skin ur win xp now everything looks like vista even the little sidebar with the clock and programs !! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

The theme I presume you are talking about has been pulled on request from MS

So its not available now :nope:

[NightCrawler]

About IE 7 automatic install...WHAT. THE. FLYING. @$%&***!

That means IE 7 will automatically replace my current browser? NO! NOOOOOOO!!!!!
It will replace IE6, it won't change your default browser settings.

It works great with Firefox...., even i downloaded IE7.0(actualy stole the concept from Firefox) and Windows said we have new gizmo's like TAB-BROWSERS.. ugh ugh, i think Tab-browsers Firefox already have in 1.1v...


Yes Windows Vista use allot memories... 512MB(nice) but you cant play any games...

To make Vista efficient... 1GB or more...
We all gamers, most games comes with 2GB memories, for them no worry about upgrading Vista....

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Yeah . . . no reason to worry about those spiffy, hacker-proof security features of Vista now is there?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20061208/tc_pcworld/128115

[Potoroo]

Yeah . . . no reason to worry about those spiffy, hacker-proof security features of Vista now is there?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20061208/tc_pcworld/128115
It's a clever workaround of Vista's activation feature but Vista itself remains uncracked. In this instance Vista still has to be installed with a KMS product key, so if that activated system ever goes through the WGA system with a known pirated key, Microsoft will be able to track it down and eventually close the loop. Also, since this is a true KMS server the activation is only good for 180 days, then the client needs re-activation.

[nightdagger]

I was reading the flaming about Vista and damn! I know it was a couple of months ago, but y'all were treating the betas like they were actual releases! And a lot of it wasn't true!

[peterloo]

Bill Gates, You Are Too Agressive to block other AV softwares. You really wanta lawsuits from other countries

Guys, stay away from Vista and Office 2007. Never buy any of the Bill Gate products. Use openoffice as a substitude and
TEACH BILL GATES A LESSON

[loreed]

I read that the reason the anti virus venders were complaining was that Microsoft closed the Vista Kernal making it difficult if not impossible for third party AV venders to run their programs the way the have in the past. Microsoft didn't ban any one, they just said here are the parameters in which we will be building Vista. Most of Microsoft's users are business from mom and pop stores to General Motors and those customers demanded a more secure operating system locking the kernal goes a long way in doing this.