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

Perhaps because it's fact rather than opinion?

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

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

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!

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.

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'.

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.

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.

I suggest you actually read up on this a bit more, this is a good place to start: http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsvistase...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/secu...9271785,00.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.

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/ne...?_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.

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:

: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*).

My point aswell!

Agreed!

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.

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. :)

AVG and Avast are the best.:up:

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

Yes, here's me getting my butt kicked.

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

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

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

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