Thinking Vista 64-bit -> Can you see any reason for me to not move?

Vista x64 is superb. The only issue I can think of is Max Payne wont install, other than that, it's rock solid. I use VLC, I don't like installing 1000000 codecs or whatever codec packs, VLC just works! I use Symantec Endpoint which is good also, (what we use at work)
 
I'm having a similar 64-bit dilemma right now. If I go Vista do I stick with 32-bit to play it safe or go to 64-bit and risk god-knows-how-many incompatibility issues.

Unless you use really rubbish obscure hardware that you got from the local computer shop for a quid, you wont have any compatibility issues at all really. Its been out for a year, nearly everybody has 64 bit drivers, and most 32 bit apps and that just work anyway, not a massive problem.

Only 1 thing that bugs me is that ATT doesnt run because it doesnt have the signed drivers. This may have changed by now, but i havent checked.
 
A virus scanner is a lot more than a "net nanny", and assuming that viruses can only be introduced onto a system through the web browser is a dangerous view to have - it just takes someone lending you an infected USB drive or coming across an MP3 player shipped with a virus on it (good old Creative, some iPods too).

Even if Vista itself can't get infected (time will tell, hopefully lessons have been learnt since Blaster), you can still pass stuff onto other people. Do you really want to get a bunch of files from someone, not know they're infected, and then burn them to a disc to give to someone else? You'll be known as "the guy who broke my computer" for a while.

Windows has a lot to prove before I'll run it without antivirus. I'm far from a Microsoft hater, but I'm also no where near the platform's biggest fan. It comes down to trust, and I don't trust it yet.
Who in their right mind would run an EXE though on a USB drive or iPod when they don't know what it is? Even if my best mate gave me a USB stick and it had some dodgy looking files on it, I wouldn't blindly run them. I would ask him first if it is correct and even then if I'm not happy with his response I would fire up Virtual PC and try the files out in a VM.

Still, even if you did there's a very high probability that UAC will get tripped and you'd have to elevate your privileges (or click Continue if you're logged on as Administrator) to allow the malware to take hold. Pretty much all the sensitive parts of the Registry, Program Files folder, Windows folder, and definately things like the boot sector are protected by UAC.

I guess it helps that I understand thoroughlythe security changes that have occured in Vista and I have 100% trust and confidence in them. Other people's view on the matter may vary and I accept that...

Anti-virus is pretty much useless these days though. The concept is fundamentally flawed. Infact I saw a news article the other day where the leading brands admitted they were having problems keeping up with the number of malware and variations. It is so easy for any script kiddie to just "repack" the malware so that it evades the AV signatures. It's like your body gets infected with something and the white blood cells just look on at the war going on in your blood stream and don't do anything... But of course that isn't what happens. White blood cells will take up the fight no matter what if they see their comrades are getting taken out. Even if the first few million get defeated, eventually they find a weakness and that is why a week later you start feeling better.

AV is just blind, dumb, re-active, not pro-active, protection. It has been useless for years in my book. If you want protection the only way is to form yourself a mental security policy and use sandboxing/virtual machines. The former part in italics is the most important fundamental security principal that every OcUK user should be able to do.
 
peerguardian doesn't work, I think Protowall does but I didn't have much luck (newsgroups might be better).

M-audio still don't have Vista x64 drivers for my Delta card. They aren't exactly obscure or rubbish.
 
I'm glad you have so much faith in Windows Vista. Maybe it is a complete departure from every single version of Windows that has come before it, and you're welcome to have that opinion. However, until it can prove that then my AV is staying where it is.

Everyone gets lazy/tired, I wouldn't want one mid-placed click to cause me hours/days of grief, so I'll be grateful for my safety net.

Out of interest, what are your credentials? Do you work for Microsoft? Did you develop this wonderful new product? Expecting people to ditch AV on the most regularly (and successfully) targeted computing platform based on your opinions - just because you say Vista is different - is a bit rich. Dismissing AV as useless is far from the majority view.

It's obvious that even Microsoft aren't as confident about their own product as you seem to be:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect/viruses/vista/av.mspx said:
We recommend that you install security software to help protect your computer from viruses and other security threats, and that you keep your security software up to date.
 
Last edited:
Still, even if you did there's a very high probability that UAC will get tripped and you'd have to elevate your privileges (or click Continue if you're logged on as Administrator) to allow the malware to take hold.

I've seen enough evidence of this to believe it. UAC does a lot more to actively protect a system than an AV package.

That said, I still have AV installed for the occasional manual scan.
 
I'm glad you have so much faith in Windows Vista. Maybe it is a complete departure from every single version of Windows that has come before it, and you're welcome to have that opinion. However, until it can prove that then my AV is staying where it is.
That's fine by me. Ditching AV is not for everyone and I accept that. Sometimes people don't have any choice because AV is mandated by their company's security policy - i.e. if you're a homeworker. I know it's not a popular view and sometimes I get some stick for it. But I can guarantee that the view is gaining popularity as AV products grow less and less able to maintain a proper security barrier.

Everyone gets lazy/tired, I wouldn't want one mid-placed click to cause me hours/days of grief, so I'll be grateful for my safety net.
That's what UAC is for :)

Out of interest, what are your credentials? Do you work for Microsoft?
I'd rather not say on here, MSN me.

Did you develop this wonderful new product? Expecting people to ditch AV on the most regularly (and successfully) targeted computing platform based on your opinions - just because you say Vista is different - is a bit rich. Dismissing AV as useless is far from the majority view.
Vista has been out for a year and hasn't had any major vulnerabilities as of yet. It has of course had vulnerabilities but because of the multi-layered security in place in Vista it tends to be that the vulnerability gets caught in the net at one of these layers - even if it is the last layer of defense.

It's obvious that even Microsoft aren't as confident about their own product as you seem to be:
Hold on a minute. I didn't say *everyone* should ditch AV. I said hardcore enthusiasts such as OcUK'ers might want to consider ditching it. Generally these type of people really know what they are doing on their PC but just haven't thought about the prospect of ditching their AV which they have always had since their first PC. I'm not forcing people to ditch it, of course not! I merely asked the OP to perhaps reassess if he still needs it. Hence the play on the "net nanny" name.

I think you've perhaps taken this the wrong way. Let me just quote the key points that I made to put this into perspective:

NathanE said:
Nod32 is also debatable.

NathanE said:
I'm sure they are highly regarded but come on, you are a grown man now - you don't need these "Net Nanny" type of programs any more surely?

I don't really see anything terribly forceful about those comments? I said the subject was debatable, which I am happy to do. Then I simply posed a question to the OP whether he really still needs AV.
 
I said hardcore enthusiasts such as OcUK'ers might want to consider ditching it. Generally these type of people really know what they are doing on their PC but just haven't thought about the prospect of ditching their AV which they have always had since their first PC.
You make a good point, I haven't seen my AV alert me to anything for ages (even on XP).

However, have you seen some of the quality of posting on here :p. There's a lot of people I wouldn't trust with more than one button on a mouse, let alone no AV.

Full Disclosure: I work in an office environment, I wouldn't trust a lot of my users without antivirus, and it's easy for those opinions to follow me home.
 
Last edited:
You make a good point, I haven't seen my AV alert me to anything for ages (even on XP).

However, have you seen some of the quality of posting on here :p. There's a lot of people I wouldn't trust with more than one button on a mouse, let alone no AV.

Full Disclosure: I work in an office environment, I wouldn't trust a lot of my users without anti virus, and it's easy for those opinions to follow me home.

I agree about the mis-click. I just know one night after I've been to the pub that I'll wobble home and check my e-mail...or someone will send me an MSN message saying:

"Hey bro just accept these MSN photos" (virus)

And I'll happily click away :p
 
conrad, if you mean xbox360 pad, then, yes it works fine

as for codecs, use vista codec package, and the 64bit components -made by the same guy

usually i'd only use ffdshow, but vista 64 needs a little kick to get the codecs working in it's media centre

as for the bluetooth, get another dongle, there are some that can use the inbuilt drivers, bluesolil is seriously dog crap! adds about 3-7 programs to startup iirc..
 
Back
Top Bottom