I am not sure what is going on here, but I am beginning to sense an MS employee has infiltrated this forum, and is very wrong in his/her opinion. :p By the way, I have a friend leaving AD for something more lucrative who is not happy with Vista at all! He even calls it MEII and he worked on it!
And as far as being secure, it already has a ton of patches out, so I don't buy this security portion. It is only marginally more secure than Windows XP, and if you turn of the terrible UAC, then what do you have left as a secure platform?
As for some of the software incompatibilities, I have a critical accoutning app that won't run, VPN issues, simple burning programs failing to function, video editing tools that are borked, and DVD players that can't play DVD's - this list is endless. Don't tell me that everything works fine! If you plan to use it to play the occasional game, no problem then, but don't try and work on it and expect things to function smoothly.
The only thing secure seems to be MS's built in DRM to appease the RIAA and MPAA - the only real change here.
I could go on and on all day about this and that, but I'd be wasting my breath, so lets let the industry talk for me:
http://www.crn.com/software/199701019
Quote:
THE BOTTOM LINE
Based on the Test Center's findings, businesses that migrate their Windows PCs from XP to Vista will get a slightly more secure OS. But as the Finjan reports showed, Vista's security remains wafer thin.
In the end, both the Vista and the XP test notebooks were almost equally damaged by viruses, trojans and other malware. And because most of the Web sites in the test were able to exploit Vista's weaknesses, Internet users are just about equally vulnerable with both OSes.
VARs can still cite improved security as a selling point for Vista upgrades. Yet to avoid giving customers a false sense of safety, solution providers should stress that third-party security suites also will be needed to provide systems with ample protection.
|
