Van Posted June 20, 2007 Author Posted June 20, 2007 Oh ok, I didn't get it at first... Yeah, it is weird but like you said, many games are now being made to be compatobile with Vista... So just wait a few more months and tons of commercial games with be able to be played - Van
karath Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Oh ok, I didn't get it at first... Yeah, it is weird but like you said, many games are now being made to be compatobile with Vista... So just wait a few more months and tons of commercial games with be able to be played - Van\ Fair enough, I guess ure right... though halo 2 apparently is really bad
joemama718 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 yeah most likely new games will be vista compatible. anyone know what exactly about vista makes it uncompatible?
andy Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 anyone know what exactly about vista makes it uncompatible? Security perhaps? Do games still try to execute code off the stack? That would probably not work any more. Stack code should never be marked as executable it brings in a whole load of attack vectors via buffer overflows. Not only can you control the address to return to but you could have put all the nasty code straight in the stack ready to be run. really bad. Microsoft don't really care much about backwards/forwards compatibility. Mind you with a release schedule of one release in several years most technology becomes pretty obsolete by the time they retire the old version.
Van Posted June 20, 2007 Author Posted June 20, 2007 I'm not sure about that... But does Microsoft normally have this problem when they come out with a new windows? - Van
joemama718 Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 lol microsoft always has problems. it's pretty sad/funny/unfair though...microsoft get's attacked for many things that it does. some of the things they deserve bashing for, like
Kyougi Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Vista = bloatware. I'm tired of their Halo 2 PC lies.
joemama718 Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 lol idk why but i typed more than that in the previous post... "...like [i forget the negative stuff], but microsoft has gotten some unfair blaming recently, particularly concerning the built in default search options and default search engine in IE...Google's forcing Microsoft to change that, saying it puts other desktop searches at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, Mac's come with Safari, spotlight, and etc, and no one cares about that."
Van Posted June 21, 2007 Author Posted June 21, 2007 Well, I'm not a tech genius, but maybe this publicity/criticism towards Microsoft will force them to create a better more secure product... Maybe Microsoft will suprise even the most loyal Mac fan boys in a few more updates - Van
andy Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Well, I'm not a tech genius, but maybe this publicity/criticism towards Microsoft will force them to create a better more secure product... They've been getting this criticism for a long time and they haven't improved much. They won't improve security because it's not cost effective. If people will buy your insecure product why waste money on making it secure. I'm also thinging it would require a huge change. OSes like Unix/Linux/BSD and to some extent Mac have security built in at the kernel level. It also takes a shift in mindset for both users and programmers. When you write a Windows application many developers assume it has administrator privilages. In Linux you assume your code is running unprivilaged unless it really needs it. And even then many applications that need root (Linux equivllent of Administrator) powers will drop them once it's done what it needs to do. This is common in webservers, they need to run as root to bind on port 80, they then switch to a lower user to limit the damage done if they are somehow taken over. Up to Windows XP there was no easy way to run as a "Limited User" and still do things like install software without logging out and logging back in again. On Linux (and I think Mac) you can perform actions like installation by providing the root password (some distros you supply your user password). Not sure if Vista has fixed this major problem.
joemama718 Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 well I've only used Vista on an admin account, but I'm pretty sure it will ask you to provide an admin password on a limited account...I thought XP had that too?
Dragonfire Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 I just want a few features in my operating system like the aero theme, the dreamscene wallpaper thing and the dock of vista and if I get them in my operating system I won't bother switching to vista for quite a few months.
AJKING Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 I wouldn't go near it at the moment as it has just came out and there might be some bugs, fixing them will be more than buying the actual thing!!
Gimpro Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 I think Vista would probably cause my computer to implode and cause a blackhole. Im not exactly running the most recent peice of technology here, plus i hear its quite buggy. Thus my awnser = No
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now