Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 7

Just thought I’d share some thoughts on the new OS and the new browser, in case anyone is considering preparing for the upgrade (or downloading it illegally… >_>).

<I>Windows Vista</I>
Previously “Windows Codename: Longhorn,” which, ironically, is still what it shows on the boot screen. It does, however, say “Vista” inside of Windows, unless you try to check which version of Windows you’re running, whereas it still says “Longhorn beta 1.” The default “Aero” theme is much cooler than the “Luna” theme that shipped with XP, but it’s also more video-intensive; expect it to run slow on any machine with less than 64MB of VRAM. The Start Menu is cool, in the fact that it doesn’t pop-up as many windows; for example, when you click “All Programs,” instead of bringing up a seperate menu with all of your programs, it just replaces your list of recently used programs with your all programs list, with collapsible directories. The power management is a little niftier (I noticed because I was using it on my laptop), and it has presentation settings enabled on the taskbar by default (maybe not on a desktop), but other than that, it’s pretty much unchanged from XP so far. It looks different, and they’ve included “Virtual Folders,” which are really just fake folders that store links to files in real folders, but other than that, it’s primarily the same beast. Of course, this is still just beta 1, and they’re supposed to have more meat in beta 2, so we’ll see.

<I>Internet Explorer 7</I>
This is the best part of Windows Vista. What’s more, there’s already an XPsp2 beta of it out there, too. It’s far better than IE6, and has most of the features that people whined about IE6 not having (such as tabbed browsing and RSS support). It takes a moment or two longer to start on slower PCs, but no longer than Firefox does. Oh, and it’s still compatible with all of the Active-X controls that IE6 was, but just like IE6sp2, it warns you before installing them that they can damage your computer, and you should only install them if you trust the source. It appears to reuse IE6sp2’s popup blocker, but it has a new “Phishing Blocker,” which so far has done nothing at all, except warn me that I was going to RPGC… -_-

Anyway, IE7 is definitely worth the download when it’s released, Vista is only worth the purchase if you’ve got a beefy computer. I’m a little disappointed in how Vista handles my 256MB Radeon Mobility X600, as that should be able to run every game full speed (but can’t in Vista… -_-).

I can download it legally (MSDN Alliance).

Last time I tested, it started up eating 680 or so Mb of virtual memory. I’m not in the mood of downloading it again, could you please open the Task Manager and see how much memory it’s eating next time you boot?

It’s rubbish and it won’t be worth what it’ll cost. It is the exact same old Windows that hasn’t really changed from Windows NT 4.0. Except that you now are expected to be rich enough to have at least 1GB RAM and at least an ATI X700 or a nVidia Gefore 6600GT.

Greatly increased requirements and usage of system resources for a slight incremental improvement in functionality? I love computers. </sarcasm>

I’ve tried IE7, and It is a huge improvement from 6. I really like Windows XP, and if I hear bad things about Vista i’ll most likely stick with XP.

Vista is basically XP with a 3D Gui. The only functional change so far seems to be that Vista was already born on .NET, and will be released with the 2.0 version of the framework - while in XP you have to install the framework if you want it, and most people so far have the 1.1 version installed. This concerns only software developers, though.

It would come with WinFS. It was the most important change, the one which would have the greatest importance for one to decide whether or not to migrate. But they cancelled the idea, so probably it won’t be worthy the bother to install Vista during its first few months.

Why would i use IE7 when firefox works perfectly fine? <img src=“”>

Besides, anything truely groundbreaking has been removed from the release, this is just a stupid filler version.

Quoted for emphasis.

Recently a lot of security holes have been found in it, more than in IE for the same amount of time. I’m not a M$ supporter when it comes to browsers, but lately FF is making me sad. The only advantage it will still have over IE7 is that it runs faster.

Let me guess, getting old dos console apps is an even bigger pain on Vista than on XP, right? …I hate XP.

Yea, i was going to say “when firefox is less of a resource whore”, but having no expierence with the new IE, i didn’t want to pass judgement yet.

Indeed. From what I remember, there was no command prompt shortcut in the start menu. It doesn’t have anything that would even slightly remember DOS. I hope it was me who couldn’t find it, though.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that was the case… And this new OS will probably be more paranoid than XP, only just as error-prone and with weak security. Changing the look and making it eat up more resources doesn’t make it a new thing. It’s like all those Street Fighter re-editions.

I don’t know about that, IE7 seems to be moving as fast if not faster than firefox does. its using about 25mb of system memory, while FF is using about 20mb.

“Windows XP is just like Windows 98 except with a lot more features for you to hunt down and disable.”

Except that Windows 98 doesn’t have SP2.

Did they rewrite the code? Did they rework the whole thing and eliminate all the legacy code that made it so horrible in the past? Can I get a neutral opinion of both?

And I’ll be sticking with Firefox either way. I wuvs it.

In all honesty I’ve hated IE ever since I first used it. Even when it was in its prime I still preferred Netscape. My old comp still has Netscape 4.6 on it, and believe it or not, not a trace of IE. I love when they didn’t make every program a mandatory system component that’ll ruin your computer to get rid of. >:

I preferred Netscape until IE5 came out, and then I only switched to IE when websites started forcing one to use the ActiveX controls. If Firefox used supported ActiveX (especially if it allowed you to determine when ActiveX software should be allowed to install, like IE6sp2 and IE7 do), then I’d probably be a bigger fan of Firefox. As it is, I like it in theory; it helps web developers by supporting W3C standards, and whatnot, but it doesn’t help the end user, because most major websites (like Yahoo and the like) support IE exclusively. For most users, Firefox isn’t yet a viable option.

I’ll have to admit I have no idea what ActiveX is or what it does. In any case, I have to say that I’m biased against IE for reasons I’m not even aware of. I just have this natural aversion to IE. I couldn’t explain what it is or why it’s there. I just know that I hate using it with every fibre of my being.

I will say that in the time I’ve used Firefox, I’ve only seen it let me down once, and in a very minor way. Simply that on a single site, the categories of links didn’t appear, and I was left to figure out what the categories were on my own.

That’s once. Definately overlookable. Sites like Yahoo and the like have always worked fine for me, also. I’ve gone so long without using IE now, that I’ve forgotten what I like about it that IE doesn’t have, or does in inferior ways. I can’t say I’d be a good debate partner now. :stuck_out_tongue:

Yeah, only they got actual updates, tweaks and bugfixes.

In theory, its just a way for Microsoft to extend the functionality of all of their software, by allowing them all to share components and talk to each other. I’m sure someone like Ren can go into deeper detail about what it should do.

However, in reality, its pretty much just a huge gaping security hole in their browser. It allows trojans and viruses to install themselves on your machine without (or with little amount of) your knowledge. It can also be used to activate dormant malware on your system. Say an attacker puts a backdoor program like a BackOrfice or Sub7 server on your computer, but never activates it. If you enter the right website, that application can be started.

The good news is that it is going to be replaced by .Net…eventually.