Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,234
Well Far Cry and Half life 2 have 64bit patches so things are going the 64bit way.....
Why i'm not installing 64x Vista
- Thread starter Freakfish1
- Start date
Vista "hacks" for what? Vulnerabilities? I've not heard of any major ones yet. Activation has already been cracked apparently but that's nothing to do with security.Bash said:Can you quantify that further as I've always believed NT was very insecure?
I've also heard that there are Vista hacks already?
NT got a bad name from previous incarnations of Windows (9x) and XP pre-SP2. From a technical standpoint, NT has a more secure "design" than many of the other common OSes. NTFS for instance has much finer grained security controls than pretty much any other file system. Contrary to popular belief, NT doesn't really have any fundamental design flaws. It's design is perfectly sound and in somes parts (generally the kernel itself) is actually better than the competition. NT's security is only let down by the occasional bug - but that happens with any software.
Like I said, XP pre-SP2 didn't really improve security at all over what was in Windows 9x. They just disabled everything that NT offered to prevent backward compatibility problems. Thankfully those days are gone and Microsoft is no longer to scared to enable full security measures on desktop PCs (Vista).
Last edited:
Bash said:Can you quantify that further as I've always believed NT was very insecure?
I've also heard that there are Vista hacks already?
As long you do not accept (click accept) the answer is no. UAC is something M$ got right I think .. despite the fact is annoying, the user is responsible if gets conned and unleashes malicious code.
I'm running vista 64bit Ultimate RTM so far for over a week and havn't encountered anything that would indicate to me it was 64bit rather than 32bit. Nothing so far has had a problem or run slowly or been more difficult because I'm running the 64bit version instead of the 32bit version.
Get the 64bit version, you wont notice the difference and in some cases it will be faster.
Get the 64bit version, you wont notice the difference and in some cases it will be faster.
NathanE said:
exploit NtRaiseHardError privesc? Privilege escalation.
NathanE said:
What other common OSes are you comparing it to Nathan? What other file system and finally what is the competition to which you are referring?
NathanE said:
I think that remains to be seen?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 113
- Location
- Cornwall
The bottom line is...............
If you buy a version of Vista with both 32 and 64 i would install 32bit.
If you havent bought a version with both 32 and 64 but only 64bit, install 64bit.
At the end of the day people rant on about 64bit being the future, i agree, but it definatley aint now. (sorry that came out all wrong and aggressive, but i cant be bothered to delete and start again) Thats why i'm installing 32bit
If you buy a version of Vista with both 32 and 64 i would install 32bit.
If you havent bought a version with both 32 and 64 but only 64bit, install 64bit.
At the end of the day people rant on about 64bit being the future, i agree, but it definatley aint now. (sorry that came out all wrong and aggressive, but i cant be bothered to delete and start again) Thats why i'm installing 32bit
A privilege escalation bug that is mitigated by Vista's other security features. UAC for example. Hardly a major vulnerability is it?Bash said:
Pre-Vista OSes however are obviously at quite severe risk.OSX, Linux et all and the file systems that these OSes typically run on.Bash said:
I would have though it was pretty clear. The amount of effort Microsoft has put into Vista's security has clearly raised the bar for the entire desktop/workstation OS industry.I think that remains to be seen?
Of course at this early stage it's impossible to put a monetary figure (i.e. security disaster recovery costs for businesses) on Vista's security improvements.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
i dont understand Tutes argument about x86 and x64 drivers.
Yes dev's have to produce a set of both, but that certainly doesnt mean that the x64 drivers are going to be as polished, or as efficient as the x64 versions, which may mean that x86 is actually better in the short/medium term until devs start to drive majority of resource to writing their x64 drivers...
Yes dev's have to produce a set of both, but that certainly doesnt mean that the x64 drivers are going to be as polished, or as efficient as the x64 versions, which may mean that x86 is actually better in the short/medium term until devs start to drive majority of resource to writing their x64 drivers...
Most x64 drivers can be produced simply by recompiling the code for x64. Developers are just lazy and need that little extra push.Nickg said:
A driver written for x86 and recompiled for x64 can only be >= in performance. Something would really need to screw up for it to reduce in performance.
Of course when drivers are written from the outset for x64, that's when the gap will start to open up
All you people who have both 64/32 bit versions ..Hell! even you 32bit only Vista
who are only going to use 32bit version because of driver support from here on in must lie & say 64bit to any survey that asks, for the greater good & speeder development of 64bit software, games & drivers
who are only going to use 32bit version because of driver support from here on in must lie & say 64bit to any survey that asks, for the greater good & speeder development of 64bit software, games & drivers