Ask Your Vista Questions Here.

Windows Vista on the cheap

p2pnet.net news:- It seems an upgrade loophole could offer some people a way to get Windows Vista on the cheap.

Microsoft confirmed reports that customers can successfully install an upgrade version of Vista, "through a bit of installation ledgerdemain," says DigitMag, quoting an Ars Technica description of how it works.


"Essentially, Vista is fooled into upgrading itself, thus allowing customers to avoid the need to have a prior copy of Windows XP or 2000 installed on that computer," says the story.

How much could they save? "The difference between the full and upgrade price of Vista Home Basic is US$100 ($199 vs. $99). For Vista Home Premium, it is $80 ($239 vs. $159). For Vista Business, it is also $100 ($299 vs. $199). For Vista Ultimate, it is $140 ($399 vs. $259)."

DigitMag quotes a Microsoft spokeswoman as saying Bill and the Boyz are, "well aware of the workaround," which, "violates the terms of use agreed to when they purchased the upgrade version of Windows Vista. As such, we believe only a very small percentage of people will take the time to implement this workaround, and we encourage all customers to follow our official guidelines for upgrading to Windows Vista, which can be found at www.WindowsVista.com, instead."

Most larger corporations buy Vista in volume licenses, which are usually discounted off the list price, and, "the time involved in having IT staff manually installing Vista twice on each PC would more than outweigh any potential cost savings," says the story.

But some people could benefit, it goes on: power users and hobbyists, "who own multiple computers running Windows as well as Linux and Mac OS X. Indeed, one concrete scenario would be someone with a used PC that's just one or two years old running either Linux or OS X who decides to convert it to Vista and buys the upgrade version of the OS to do so.

"Such users may argue that they are such good customers of Microsoft that they should be allowed to save a little bit of money when Microsoft goofs, like when a retailer is forced to honor a misadvertised price.

"But Microsoft remains officially adamant. The spokeswoman noted that customers buying and installing an upgrade version of Vista onto one PC also forfeit the right to use XP on another PC, unless they own more than one full retail copy of XP."

Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
DigitMag - Psst, wanna save $140 on Windows Vista?, February 20, 2007
Associated Press - Egyptian Blogger Sentenced to Prison, February 22, 2007
http://p2pnet.net/story/11405


Now, however, this workaround allows users to perform a “clean install.” The process is a bit tedious, but is not hard at all to complete. Users have to perform these simple steps to perform a clean install of Vista without a previous version of Windows installed with an upgrade DVD:

1. Boot from the Windows Vista Upgrade DVD and start the setup program.
2. When prompted to enter your product key, DO NOT enter it. Click "Next" and proceed with setup. This will install Windows Vista as a 30-day trial.
3. When prompted, select the edition of Vista which you have purchased and continue with setup.
4. Once setup has been completed and you have been brought to the desktop for the first time, run the install program from within Windows Vista.
5. This time, type in your product key when prompted.
6. When asked whether to perform an Upgrade or Custom (advanced) install, choose Custom (advanced) to perform a clean install of Vista. Yes, this means that you will have to install Vista for a second time.
7. Once setup has completed for the second time, you should be able to activate Windows Vista normally. You can also delete the Windows.old directory which contains information from the first Vista install.

 

about the drivers for vista, are they completly different than xp pro drivers? cause am just wundering about my drivers for my m-audio interface, if the normal xp 32-bit drivers would work with vista?

anyone tell me about it

 

K.HAMMETT
YES VISTA DRIVERS are completly different than xp pro drivers

CLICK ON THIS POST AND YOU WILL FIND A BUS LOAD OF VISTA DRIVERS
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/17/308662#2843471

Don't waste your time searching dozens of vendor websites every month for the driver updates you need.
Just bookmark this page and come back whenever you need a new driver.
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/17/308662#2843471

 

is not vister 32 XP driver compatible?

 

IF RAN IN XP COMPATIBILITY MODE
when i was running vista,i had to go to the manufacture or vista sent for the drivers..

what i posted above made it easy to get the drivers

 

Software Missing From Vista's "Official Apps"
Posted by Zonk on Thursday February 22, @03:27PM
from the big-holes dept.
Windows Microsoft Software
PetManimal writes "Microsoft has just released a list of 800 applications it says are 'officially supported' on Windows Vista. What's special about this list, however, are the programs that are not included: 'Popular Windows software that is conspicuously missing from Microsoft's list includes Adobe Systems Inc.'s entire line of graphics and multimedia software, Symantec Corp.'s security products, as well as the Mozilla Foundation's open-source Firefox Web browser, Skype Ltd.'s free voice-over-IP software and the OpenOffice.org alternative to Microsoft Office.' Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming, as discussed earlier on Slashdot."


GO HERE TO SEE ALL---->800<---- 'officially supported' SOFTWARE FOR VISTA
AS THAT WOULD BE TO MUCH TO POST..

Applications that have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo

LINK
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305

 

Mmmmm don't you mean applications that have PAID for their "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo?

lets face it MS will never b consumer friendly its up to the consumers to fight the OS to get older stuff to work.

 

Windows Vista: The Best Case for Windows XP Ever
Email email this story to somebody Discuss discuss this story with others Print print this story
Submitted by Pulp on Thursday, February 22, 2007

by Dustin Sklavos

In this editorial Dustin shares his Windows Vista upgrade experience and why he's running with open arms back to Windows XP.

INTRODUCTION

I've been following Vista's development since builds before Beta 1. I've been able to play with Vista as it's grown up. My experience with the RTM version was a positive one, positive enough that I set aside a partition on my desktop explicitly for installing Vista on when it came out. And so when it came out, I got a retail copy of Vista Home Premium to install on that waiting hard drive space.

After using Vista for a bit, I'll be going back to XP and using that partition as a scratch disk for quite a while.

When you use a beta you operate under the assumption that it's a beta, thus flawed, and that these flaws will eventually be corrected. As a result, I was fairly positive about Vista last year. I felt like once these details were taken care of, we might have a worthy upgrade.

Of course, this was before any of us knew just how badly Microsoft was going to screw us, and unfortunately there isn't any better way to put it. Someone, somewhere in the heirarchy decided that "customer" was synonymous with "beta tester." If that were the end of our woes it might not be so bad, but it's not.

So before I launch into what will wind up being a fairly damning tirade, I'll get to what ISN'T so bad about Windows Vista.

WHAT DOESN'T VISTA DO WRONG?

Well, provided you don't buy Vista Home Basic, the "Intel Core Solo" mongoloid inbred cousin of the family that no one talks about, you get to enjoy Aero Glass which is, admittedly, very pretty. If Microsoft did one thing right with Vista, it's with how they handle the personalization of the operating system. It's something they take so seriously that they've actually reorganized these features into a "Personalize" menu that shows up on right-clicking the desktop where "Desktop Properties" used to be. It's a nice touch.

The Games Explorer, ignoring how poor a choice for gaming Vista is right now, is a very welcome addition as well. It's "smart." It's also a part of one of the smarter organizational changes of Vista.

Unless you've serviced a computer or gotten into the nitty gritty of your own, you may not be aware of how asinine the organization of your files is in XP and its predecessors. In Windows XP, your "My Documents" folder is located at:

C:\Documents and Settings\yourname\My Documents

That's not too bad, until you see all the crazy folders scattered around these that lead up to it.

In Vista, it's:

C:\Users\yourname\Documents

Cleaner, simpler. The newly redesigned start menu dedicates individual folders to music, pictures, video, documents, games, and so on. If you click your name, it'll show you these folders and a couple more, including a nicely dedicated download folder. No more downloading crap straight to your desktop or losing it in My Documents.

This abstraction is a far cry from having to make folders in old Windows versions and mixing up all your stuff. It's a really nice organizational touch and one of Vista's stronger, subtler points. Because of it, the casual user will NEVER have to think of the directory tree again.

Windows Sidebar is also a cute feature, but it's one that's better suited to the dual-monitor setups which are becoming a bit more common. It's a nice addition that's unfortunately undermined by a lot of the buggy gadgets floating around online, gadgets that may have worked in betas, but in newer versions have serious problems. Unfortunately, installing new gadgets isn't all bread and roses, as I'll explain later.

Windows Sidebar and Gadgets can be seen on the right side of the screen in this Vista screenshot

The Mobility Center is a nice idea that unfortunately isn't being embraced like it should. This isn't unexpected, it's just a shame. Clumping all of these laptop controls in one place is a great idea, but it's ultimately up to the manufacturers to take advantage of it.

Windows Vista Mobility Center

Beyond Aero Glass, Vista's just plain...nice to look at. Icons are vivid, operations are more animated, and the UI moves more fluidly by virtue of being offloaded to the graphics processor.

Windows Vista Aero in action

And hey, even Solitaire got a makeover.

WHEN "INTUITIVE" STOPS BEING INTUITIVE

Unfortunately, Microsoft's developers hate you. When you use Mac OS X, it's really designed to abstract you from having to deal with the internals of your system. It's all designed to create an experience, and consistency is key.

Now, Microsoft's developers feel that the menus at the top of the screen - you know, File, Edit, and their kin - are past their prime and not the way things should be. They could be right.

The problem is that we've been using those for ten years now. We use them in EVERY OPERATING SYSTEM ON THE MARKET. Even the primary innovators in user interfaces, Apple, haven't disposed of it. Why? BECAUSE WE'RE USED TO IT. Whether or not it's the best way to handle it is irrelevant at this point.

I refuse to believe there isn't a better option for controlling a computer than a keyboard and mouse (it's at least a fact that the QWERTY keyboard layout is not the most efficient). But they've been in use for over two decades. They're pretty much the way it is. Everyone is used to them. Such is the way of the menu bar.

You may wonder what the heck happened to it in Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and elsewhere. I know I wind up getting mixed up.

And this is the problem with Vista's interface: it's not intuitive. In fact, it's LESS intuitive than its predecessors. Windows tend to be busy, full of color and information that, while nice to look at, can easily confuse the neophyte. People that have spent years getting used to Windows now need to change their habits again.

Why?

Because Microsoft thinks making you learn a new system is better, underlining the difference between what a programmer finds intuitive and what an average joe finds intuitive.

USER ACCOUNT CONTROL (UAC)

User Account Control (UAC) is a feature that has been relentlessly derided since some of the earliest builds of Vista, and it's easy to understand why. Simply put: it's annoying as hell.

Windows Vista needs your permissioin...again

Let me explain. When you try to install a program, UAC will dim your entire screen and lock up the machine until you respond to the window in the middle of the screen that asks for your permission to run the file. Until you do this, you can't do anything else.

Okay, well...you double-clicked it. I know when I double-click something that usually means I want it to run, but your mileage may vary.

The intended purpose of UAC is security, and the idea behind it is that if spyware or malware tries to install itself in your system, it'll pop up so you can deny that software access to your machine. And that's not necessarily a bad idea.

The problem is that it asks you ALL. THE. TIME. With legitimate programs! I'm no designer so I can't tell you how to solve this problem, but it seems like Apple did.

I'll tell you where it gets really stupid, too. You remember Windows Sidebar? Well, let's say you find a gadget on their site you want to install. Here's what will happen:

1. Internet Explorer will ask you if you want to download file.
2. Internet Explorer will ask you where you want to download the file to.
3. When you try to run the file, Windows will first ask you if you're sure you want to.
4. UAC will then tell you the file is trying to run, and will ask you if you want to allow it.

...that's four freaking steps to install a plug-in for a program that not only comes with Vista, but in fact starts up with Vista by default!

Probably the most damning aspect of all this is the realization of how little it actually achieves. Sure, it will help reduce the number of spyware and malware infections out there by a little. But it will wind up pissing off a lot more users, and it shows up so frequently that people will just start clicking "Allow" without even thinking about it, much as people did to ActiveX prompts when spyware and malware were just starting to become a problem.

One step forward, two steps back.

What makes it more frustrating is that this feature was routinely derided and complained about throughout beta testing, and has successfully made it to retail release almost entirely unchanged despite frequent and almost universal protests. Why bother accepting feedback on it at all?

DRIVER PROBLEMS

Most people who've used Vista or at least "caught a whiff of it" by now know that it's having some driver issues (putting it mildly).

Two of the major offenders right now seem to be nVidia and Creative. Now while I'll take any chance I get to throw rocks at Creative's drivers, I'm going to be an nVidia apologist. The fact of the matter is that Vista got rushed out. More than that, the designers, despite using XP's architecture for Vista, changed the way the system handles drivers, citing "driver failure" as the leading cause of XP blue-screens.

This is not untrue. 90% of my OS crashes and blue-screens have been from driver failure. (The other 10% was just bad RAM.)

HOWEVER. Graphics driver related crashes that bring the system down almost NEVER occur during normal use of the operating system. XP is surprisingly stable, no matter how much the slashdot crowd wants to throw stones. Graphics driver related crashes and hiccups occur when? During gaming. And if you're gaming with super important stuff loaded in the background, well...why haven't you closed it? You're wasting performance.

The point I'm getting at is that this is a cure that's worse than the disease. I wonder why performance is bad and drivers are having a hard time maturing? Maybe because it's XP but it's not, and everyone has to scramble to write Vista compliant drivers.

This, of course, isn't the worst of it. But the worst of it you can level at the vendors and not Microsoft.

I had to go through the forums here, plus ASUS's website, and use a little old-fashioned know-how, just to get drivers that worked on my Asus A8Jm. Worse than that, the power management software that I enjoyed using in XP was crappy in Vista.

At least nVidia tells you where you can download your wonky drivers. ASUS makes you hunt for it while you stare at that "Windows Vista Capable" sticker on your laptop, wondering "what did I do to deserve this?" and "wouldn't it just make sense to put a Vista link on the front page?"

Oh, and so we're clear, the driver salad I wound up having to install was a nightmare. I know what I'm doing and this was too much, I can't imagine Joe Sixpack having to go through this hoopla.

And for all that effort, what happened? 100% CPU use coming out of hibernate/standby, an internet connection that drops me randomly assuming it works at all, a full 45 minutes less battery life, and for all this it nearly cost me a midterm.

Why was Vista released again?

DEFECTIVE BY DESIGN: DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT

This is the one that the Slashdot crowd keeps barking about, and with good reason: no matter how much spin Microsoft or any one of the other bigwigs puts on it, DRM is bad for consumers. They claim that DRM allows them more avenues to release things to you, the consumer, thus giving you more ways to enjoy these...things.

But the reality is that any one of these things, be they music, video, even computer games, could've been released without digital rights management. I used Apple's iTunes store once to buy one album, and when I found that music basically marooned on my iPod because iTunes refused to work properly, I decided it wasn't for me. I paid for it, why can't I do what I want with it?

This is what Vista's DRM promises to do for you. And by for you, I mean to you. Integrated into the system is technology called HDCP (High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection), designed to "close the analog hole" as the bigwigs like to say. Basically, what HDCP means to you is that if you have an HDCP-enabled monitor, and an HDCP-enabled video card, you can enjoy HDCP-protected media.

Pardon me for being vulgar, but HDCP can kiss my analog ass. I have an HDCP card and an HDCP monitor because I'm an insane enthusiast, but many people don't have these luxuries. To enjoy these, desktop users'll be spending a minimum of $200 on a shiny new flat panel that is HDCP enabled and a minimum of $60 on a shiny new video card that is HDCP enabled, and this is all assuming that these pathetically cheap discounts are upgrades on your existing hardware. And notebook users? Well, it's not like you can change either your monitor or video card.

I don't see HDCP going very far, but its existence is pretty offensive to begin with, and allegedly is going to be tied to HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

Another delightful new technology is the TPM, or Trusted Platform Module. This is hardware that's been quietly shipping for a little while now, and you may or may not know if you have it. It's a little chip in your computer that does the following:

1. Makes your computer distinctly identifiable to you and only you, as no two TPM chips are identical.
2. Makes it so that DRM-encrypted data produced on/downloaded to your computer can ONLY be used on your computer.

More information is available in its Wikipedia article (found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module).

The first is a massive privacy violation; the second doing nothing more than facilitating even more restrictive DRM.

Windows Vista will inevitably make use of either, but its biggest use at this point is for what Microsoft calls "BitLocker Drive Encryption." For notebook users this is conceivably a good thing, as it allows a user to encrypt more or less their entire hard drive. The problem as I see it, however, is that this encryption is tied strictly to Vista.

I remember going to a seminar delivered by Microsoft when Vista was still in beta in early 2006 and asking the presenter what exactly could prevent Microsoft from basically "switching off" your access to the encrypted volume. He couldn't give me an answer. So if you're pirating a copy of Enterprise, this is food for thought for you. I don't condone piracy, but I don't like the idea of Microsoft reaching out and touching anyone.

Mercifully, BitLocker's only available in Enterprise and Ultimate versions of Vista.

Of course, the nastiest bit of DRM in Microsoft's stable is for "protecting" their own baby, Vista itself. Most of you are probably pretty familiar with Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA), which is a misnomer if I've ever heard one. The WGA included in Vista is capable of shutting down important parts of the operating system; Microsoft's Steve Ballmer has gone on record recently as saying "We have new technologies built into Windows Vista, something we call Windows Genuine Advantage [that] we've really dialed up in capabilities with the Vista release...We [will] really ferret through how far we can dial it up, and what that means for customer experience and customer satisfaction." (http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php/id;7680622;fp;16;fpid;1)

Most peoples' experiences with WGA in XP have been pretty dismal: some legitimate users have been locked out of their legal versions of XP by it, while some pirates have been free to continue using their illegal copies. So to say that Vista's WGA is even more potent doesn't exactly make me want to race to install it.

Ultimately, Microsoft insists that its stance on DRM, particularly HDCP, was the result of pressure from the movie studios, which I find somewhere between hard-and-ludicrous to believe. Windows is a monopoly; everyone knows it. Just like how the RIAA told Steve Jobs to change the prices on iTunes and he was able to tell them what to go do with themselves, Microsoft could VERY easily have told the MPAA off. But they didn't.

CONSUMER UNFRIENDLY: UPGRADES / VERSIONS

To me, some of the nastiest DRM is when for all intents and purposes you should be able to do something, and you can't. There's no reason you can't other than a flag in the software that says "no." So I can't help but get a little bit irked by the fact that every version of Vista is on each DVD of it sold, regardless of how it's labeled, but you can only use certain features if you have the right key. It makes the differences between the myriad versions that much more absurd.

Oh my, and how many versions there are. First of all, keep in mind there are 32-bit and 64-bit versions of each of these excepting Starter:

* Starter
* Home Basic
* Home Premium
* Business
* Enterprise
* Ultimate

I'll condense the nonsense for you. Starter doesn't exist for most people. Home Basic is the "Core Solo" of the Vista line-up, offering none of the bonuses that most people would want Vista for, namely Aero. Home Premium offers you Media Center functionality (which I admittedly do like), but the Mobility Center (Microsoft's feature geared towards notebook users) is (inexplicably) minorly crippled; I believe the "Sync Center" allowing synchronization with a desktop is missing. Business is more secure and has more fully-featured networking abilities. Ultimate just plain has everything. Enterprise is strictly for business customers.

One of the most damning things about this market segregation is the fact that Microsoft's site doesn't make any of this crap easy to learn. Beyond that, Home Premium is more expensive than XP Home Edition is; I had to pay extra when I ordered my laptop to get Premium instead of the useless pile Basic is, and I'm going to wind up paying extra again to get a copy of XP to install on it so I don't have to use Vista.

It gets worse, though. Here are some other restrictions you should know about:

1. Only Ultimate ships with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions included. All other retail versions ship only with the 32-bit software; you'll have to order the 64-bit discs from Microsoft. Your license WORKS with it, but you need to order the disc if you don't have one handy.
2. OEM versions come in 32-bit and 64-bit only. So if your shiny new notebook came with Vista and you eventually want to make the jump to the 64-bit version, good news! You're going to have to buy Windows Vista. I mean, you already own it, but you'll have to buy it to get the 64-bit version. Sure, you can order an OEM 64-bit version, but you still have to pay for Windows Vista AGAIN.

But wait! There's more!

Let's say you're upgrading to Windows Vista from XP or 2000. Now, somewhat more knowledgable users know that upgrading an existing operating system installation to a new one is generally a bad idea. XP had a scheme wherein if you had the upgrade version, you could do a clean install if you verified you had a CD of the older operating system. Not anymore with Vista!

If you buy the upgrade versions of Vista Home Basic or Premium, you'll need an activated installation of XP already on your system. So if you reformat your system once in a while (I do it almost pathologically), you'll now need to install TWO operating systems to get an install of Vista going.

As of the writing of this article, the only way to get a clean install of an Upgrade version is to install from the CD without using a CD key, and instead of activating it, promptly do an in-place upgrade of Vista with the key. This is a hole that I suspect will be closed at some point.

People like me who would've considered buying the upgrade version of Home Premium are now basically looking at spending up for the retail version if they want the freedom to do a clean install. Hooray!

64-BIT HOSED AGAIN

How Microsoft can continue screwing the pooch on 64-bit operating systems, I'll never know. The hardware is by and large out there. The majority of shipping notebooks now have 64-bit capable processors. The VAST majority of shipping desktops have 64-bit capable processors.

So when I look at Apple, who can change their underlying hardware from 64-bit to 32-bit to 64-bit and the end user NEVER NOTICES, I have to wonder why Microsoft has to ship different versions at all.

64-bit Vista has inherited all the problems of XP 64-bit as well: no 16-bit application compatibility, touchy 32-bit compatibility, hit-and-miss hardware compatibility. It requires 64-bit drivers even though I seem to remember at some point Microsoft saying that Vista would use a unified driver for 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista. Oh well. Who needed WinFS anyhow?

64-bit processing is supposed to IMPROVE performance, but performance in 64-bit Vista is generally down over the 32-bit version (whose performance is also down from XP!)

What really concerns me is that 32-bit Vista is the one being rolled out right now, even on 64-bit hardware, which is again going to seriously cripple widespread adoption of 64-bit computing. And remember what I said about OEM versions of Vista not being licensed for 64-bit?

This wouldn't be a huge deal if it wasn't for the fact that high end users like yours truly are about to hit the 4GB limit of system RAM. 32-bit Vista (and XP) can only address a total of 4GB of RAM; even then, the operating system will never show that much RAM installed. Usually it displays an amount between 2.75 GB and 3.25 GB being available. Long story short: the RAM limit in 32-bit computing is about to get hit, with even mid-end notebooks now shipping with 2GB of RAM installed.

Vista was supposed to be the great savior for 64-bit computing, but it's a bust.

CONCLUSION

Windows Vista is Windows ME Part 2. It took five years to develop because three of those were spent building a brand new code base that didn't work at all and wound up getting scrapped, and the remaining two were spent just tweaking the XP code base. Almost all the features we were promised early on were discarded and what we end up with is a warmed over Windows XP that doesn't even do us the dignity of working properly out of the box. I think it's particularly telling that they've already announced the next major Windows release for late 2009.

It shouldn't have been rushed out. It shouldn't have even been released in its present state. This launch is vastly worse than XP's was, and reeks of arrogance on Microsoft's part, leveraging a monopoly on a world of consumers. I couldn't NOT get it on the laptop I ordered from HP. I'm not going to sit here and preach about Linux, which I still think is even LESS ready for primetime than Vista is. What I AM going to tell you is that against XP, the security features in Vista aren't worth it if you compute smart (something I wrote an article on a while back), DirectX 10 will take a while to reach critical mass for gamers, and frankly...XP just works. And it works a heck of a lot better right now.

Microsoft doesn't want to wait another five years for its next operating system release, but have you noticed anyone really complaining about the wait for Vista? I only complain because I think for five years of development you should have something to show other than an interface overhaul and widgets. We didn't NEED Vista the way we needed XP when it was released.

Vista offers no compelling reason to upgrade. There are other, better places to spend your money, and the only reason I can think of for forcing OEMs to produce machines with Vista AND ONLY VISTA is to make some extra money on all those copies of XP that they're going to sell when consumers figure out what a pile Vista is and make the jump back to XP.

AVOID.

 

How To Disable Windows Defender From Starting In Vista
Feb 25, 2007 - 2:02 PM - by Digital Dave
Of course before you do this you do want to make sure you have a replacement anti-spyware ready to install.

If you have other anti-spyware programs, they will most likely be better than the Windows Defender Microsoft ships with vista. You can disable this from running at startup and save yourself some valuable resources and make your boot times faster. Here’s what you do:

wordpress.com



How To Disable Windows Defender From Starting In Vista
25 02 2007

If you have other anti-spyware programs, they will most likely be better than the Windows Defender Microsoft ships with vista. You can disable this from running at startup and save yourself some valuable resources and make your boot times faster. Here’s what you do:

1. Hold the “windows key” and press the letter “r”
2. In the box type “msconfig” and press enter
3. Click “Continue” on the message box if you have one
4. Select the “Startup” tab at the top
5. Locate the Startup item called “Windows Defender” and uncheck the box
6. Click apply, click ok, then reboot

That’s it! No more windows defender loading at startup. And if you ever want it to load again, you can just repeat these steps and check the box again.

 

ireland

Question dose Windose Defender black list programs MS frowns on or just spy ware in general?

 

ZIppyDSM
sorry i do not know the answer..
as if ye remember i pulled the vista hard drive the other day..and no longer using vista..to much crap to fix and i can not stand vista..may be in a year or two i will retry vista again..and i put in the windows 2000 hard drive..that i am posting from now..

Visual Tour: 20 Things You Won't Like About Windows Vista
link
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9000829

 

*noogies yur green skull*
XP sp2 up to date (6 months ago) has it ya silly

 

i do not have Windose Defender installed on xp-pro or home..ya silly..its junk...

 

ZIppyDSM ya silly


Windows Defender fails in new malware test

windows defender Windows Defender has been slated in a new test that found it could detect barely half of the malware thrown at it during the last year.

According to Australian testing company Enex Testlab, in full scanning mode the anti-malware scanner could only pick up 53.3 percent of an unspecified list of malware threats thrown at it during 2006, with the quick scan scoring a detection rate of under half. This contrasted with the superior scores achieved by a number of other anti-malware software, including a top score for PC Tools Spyware Doctor.

Critics will point out that the test was paid for by PC Tools itself, which offers an easy way for Microsoft to attack the results. The program has also spent 2006 in an unfinished state and was only released for XP in October of 2006, which one might think would make criticism of it misleading and unfair. Techworld.com - Security News - Windows Defender fails in new malware test Linked by shanmuga Wednesday, 21st February 2007 11:53PM

Windows Defender fails in new malware test

By John E. Dunn, Techworld

Windows Defender has been slated in a new test that found it could detect barely half of the malware thrown at it during the last year.

According to Australian testing company Enex Testlab, in full scanning mode the anti-malware scanner could only pick up 53.3 percent of an unspecified list of malware threats thrown at it during 2006, with the quick scan scoring a detection rate of under half. This contrasted with the superior scores achieved by a number of other anti-malware software, including a top score for PC Tools Spyware Doctor.

Critics will point out that the test was paid for by PC Tools itself, which offers an easy way for Microsoft to attack the results. The program has also spent 2006 in an unfinished state and was only released for XP in October of 2006, which one might think would make criticism of it misleading and unfair.

Equally, there is some evidence that the software might not be the best on the market. A test by another rival security company, Webroot, found Windows defender to be even less effective in spotting spyware and potentially unwanted programs (PUPs) when pitted against a sample list of 25 threats. It missed 84 percent of them.
“We wanted to prove through an independent and unbiased review - where PC Tools did not choose or supply the sample-set, that Vista’s anti-spyware protection is in fact inadequate, and could result in a false sense of security to consumers,” said PC Tools CEO Simon Clausen.
Clausen also criticised the Webroot test, accusing it of being unhelpfully selective. “While we agree with the overriding conclusion that Vista security is lacking, this approach fundamentally contradicts the laws of statistical analysis, and clearly creates a bias result. By hand-picking the sample-set, it is easy to return results showing whatever you want. It would even be possible to show Vista had zero percent blocking ability,” he said.
PC Tools achieved a full scan detection rate of 88.7 percent in the Enex Testlab tests, which some might point out is good but far from foolproof. Comparing oneself with the least developed product on the market looks a bit complacent in this light.
The origins of Windows Defender lie with a product the company acquired in 2004 when it bought anti-spyware company Giant Software in contentious circumstances. The product was known as Windows Anti-Spyware until the 2005 RSA conference after which it was reborn as Defender. The software is available for all versions of Windows, including Vista, and
excluding Windows 2000.thank god its can not be run on windows 2000,i use spysweeper

http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=8073

 

ireland
I knew it failed just was wondering how bad

of coarse it fails MS is getting money from some of the spy ware people heaven forbid they block the stuff their getting paid to let in *rolls eyes*

 

Tricking Vista's UAC To Hide Malware
Posted by kdawson on Monday February 26, @07:42AM
from the protective-coloration dept.
Security Windows
Vista's User Account Control, love it or hate it, represents a barrier against unwanted software getting run on users' computers. A Symantec researcher has found a simple way to spoof UAC and says that it shouldn't be completely trusted. The trick is to disguise the UAC warning dialog in the color associated with alerts generated by Windows itself.


Vista's UAC Warnings Can't Be Trusted, Symantec Says
Hackers can trick Windows Vista's User Account Control to hide malware, researcher found.
Gregg Keizer, Computerworld
Thursday, February 22, 2007 06:00 AM PST

Windows Vista's User Account Control (UAC), a system that Microsoft says makes the new operating system safer from attack, can be spoofed and shouldn't be completely trusted, a Symantec researcher said on Wednesday.

Ollie Whitehouse, an architect at Symantec's advanced threats research team, first used a blog entry Tuesday to point out how a hacker could use a file included with Vista to disguise the UAC warning dialog in the color associated with alerts generated by Windows itself.
Spoofing a UAC Dialog, Step by Step

The process to spoof a UAC dialog is roundabout, but doable, said Whitehouse. It would start with a user falling for any one of the current hacker tricks. "The most likely scenario is that a user gets compromised by malicious code, from a Trojan [horse] or a vulnerability in a third-party application like Office or a browser," he said in an interview.

Next, the malicious code would drop a malformed .dll file onto a part of the hard drive that the user, who would presumably be running as a restricted Standard User, was allowed to write to. Because the user has rights to write to the disk, a UAC wouldn't pop up at that point.

Finally, the malicious code would call the "RunLegacyCPLElevated.exe" -- the Vista executable that provides backward compatibility to older Windows Control Panel plug-ins -- which in turn runs the .dll. That pops up a UAC dialog, but because RunLegacyCPLElevated.exe is set to run those Control Panel plug-ins with full administrative privileges, the dialog is bordered by Vista's own greenish color to signify the file is part of the operating system. As soon as the user clicks the "Confirm" button, the malicious code is granted administrative privileges, giving the code -- and thus the attacker -- full access to and complete control of the machine.
Colors Key to Trust

"The different colors imply the level of trust," Whitehouse argued. "The green color signifies the warning is coming from Vista. Blue-gray means it's a third-party application, but it's signed. Yellowish-orange means it's not signed and the source can't be guaranteed." Vista also borders some UAC dialogs in red to note applications it's automatically blocked.

The bottom line then, said Whitehouse, is: "Would the user treat this UAC with the same amount of caution?" His answer: No. Users will, as Microsoft intended when it selected those colors, note the teal border of the spoofed UAC and likely click through without a second thought, he said.

"This does require some user interaction, but we can mask something [malicious] in a way that makes it look less alarming. UAC is just one of the tools that Microsoft architected into the OS to allow the user to make more informed judgments. But it's somewhat undermined" by this, he said.
Microsoft: Not an Issue

Whitehouse said he contacted the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) about two weeks ago to describe his findings. "They did not see it as an issue," he said. Instead, the MSRC pointed him to the "Security Best Practice Guidance for Consumers."

"It's very important to remember that UAC prompts are not a security boundary -- they don't offer direct protection," said Whitehouse. "They do offer you a chance to verify an action before it happens. Once you allow an action to proceed, there may be no easy way back. So while Microsoft may use the word 'trust' in relation to UAC in some of their [other] documentation, in actual fact, even the data these UAC prompts provide you with can't be trusted."

Microsoft officials were not available for comment.

Symantec has regularly slammed Vista's security provisions -- including a public spat over the 64-bit version's new kernel-protection technology, dubbed PatchGuard. Last month, Symantec executives talked up research it was doing on UAC, which may result in software to give users more control over how frequently Vista pops up the alerts.

Whitehouse denied that there was any connection between his research and possible UAC-related product plans

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129268/article.html

 

Vista Codec Package 4.2.9
Author: Shark007
Date: 2007-02-26
Size: 23.4 Mb
License: Freeware


With Vista Codec Package installed, you won't need to install any other codec or filter. Many user suggested default settings are implemented. It does not contain a media player. It does not associates filetypes. With this package installed you will be able to use any media player (limited only by the players capabilities) to play DVD's, movies and video clips of any format. Streaming video (real and quicktime) is supported in web browsers. Visit the homepage to get a 64bitAddon which enables xvid, divx and DVD playback in Vista's MediaCenter.

Codecs have always been a pain in the butt. This package takes from the best, all the big name creators, several small guys too, and compiles all this into a single pack. All possible conflicts are already dealt with, many user suggested default settings are implemented.

This package does not contain a media player. This package does not associates filetypes. With this package installed, you will be able to use any media player to play DVD's, movies and video clips such as quicktime, realmedia, avi, mpeg, Flv, swf, wmv, etc. Streaming video can be played within web browsers. By default, you shouldn't need to make any adjustments to enjoy playback immediately.

Users now have the ability to choose what is installed using the public redistributable and after an unattended install, you can select to remove specific portions without removing the entire package. Future releases will recognize previous releases and perform upgrade installations.

Changelog:
MAJOR CHANGES to the Installation Architecture
require a clean installation - DO NOT UPGRADE
- fix installation errors caused in previous release (428)
- Update FFDshow components to t969

download here
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download5326.html

 

FREE,WINDOWS VISTA UPGRADE ADVISOR..........Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor is designed to help Windows XP users identify whether their PCs are ready for an upgrade to Windows Vista, which edition of Windows Vista meets their needs, and which features of Windows Vista will be able to run on their PCs .....(free).....GO THERE!
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...c24f-4863-a389-3ffc194924f8&displaylang=en&tm

 

Vista WGA problems confirmed
Feb 26, 2007 - 11:04 PM - by Digital Dave
Oh I would have been so pis*****. Oh... the email I would have written.

When I installed a beta version of Acclaim's 9Dragons role-playing game (protected, apparently, by nProtect's GameGuard anti-cheating software), Vista dropped a bomb on me. A time bomb, that is. The software convinced the Windows Software Licensing service that the operating system was being tampered with, deactivating the system and starting a 72-hour countdown to "reduced functionality mode." This image gallery documents the process:

blogs.zdnet.com




This morning I reported on Vista activation and validation problems I've been hearing and reading about in the last few weeks. This afternoon I have a firsthand report.

When I installed a beta version of Acclaim's 9Dragons role-playing game (protected, apparently, by nProtect's GameGuard anti-cheating software), Vista dropped a bomb on me. A time bomb, that is. The software convinced the Windows Software Licensing service that the operating system was being tampered with, deactivating the system and starting a 72-hour countdown to "reduced functionality mode." This image gallery documents the process:

I'm baffled that this Windows error message doesn't actually mention Windows. It just says "your license" and "your software." How am I supposed to know which license and which software. And in the left-hand-meet-right-hand department, where's Windows Defender in all this? I'm installing a piece of software that is tampering with my operating system, according to the Windows Software Licensing module. So why is Windows Defender looking the other way while this dastardly deed is being done? Why doesn't it detect and block this software?

In this case, closing the game and restarting the computer allowed me to reactivate over the Internet, but other people haven't been so lucky, based on reports filed at Microsoft's Vista Validation Issues forum.

For the record, I think Acclaim deserves a share of the blame for this problem. This problem has been known for a month, maybe much longer. When I installed the 9Dragons software today, it auto-updated itself to the latest version. Supposedly, nProtect has had a patch available for some time, so why doesn't Acclaim include it?

Still, shifting the blame around is cold comfort to a Windows user who downloads and installs a perfectly innocent-looking program only to discover that they've actually pulled the pin on a grenade that will go off in 72 hours unless it's disarmed.



So far, it looks like most of these problems respond to simple treatment: uninstall the game or program and reactivate, by phone if necessary. Still, it's a hassle to deal with, and nontechnical users are likely to be thoroughly confused.

I was fortunate enough not to reach "reduced functionality mode." Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has an excellent image gallery showing exactly what that looks like. (Hint: not fun.)

I'm still waiting for a response from Microsoft.


GO HERE TO SEE THE PIXS WITH THE STORY
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=221

 

Realtek High Definition Audio for Vista 1.60
Feb 27, 2007 - 7:19 AM - by Digital Dave
Updated for the folks who just might need them.

majorgeeks.com

Realtek High Definition Audio for Vista 1.60
Author: Realtec
Date: 2007-02-26
Size: 15 Mb
License: Freeware
Requires: Vista

DOWNLOAD HERE
http://www.majorgeeks.com/_Realtek_High_Definition_Audio_for_Vista_d5513.html