Based on Turey's astute observation and advice, I've split the offending posts and moved them to a different forum.
Excuse Me ? I don't insult you by calling you names Ian.
Hmm. On a first name basis now, are we?
You don't have to agree with me, hell, argue with me, provide some decent points and get a discussion going, but calling me a fanboy n00b? That's pretty disappointing, coming from you, someone I have until now respected.
An insult is only insulting if it's true. You don't have to take them personally anyway. The hallmark of a good debate is cutting through the crap to focus on the underlying issues.
And I'm rather surprised that a single insult can overturn the respect garnered by a five-year career on HLP. Either you held me in low regard already, or my insults are more powerful than I thought.
As the project leader (even though Taylor is doing all the work these days)
Co-leader, with Taylor. I defer to Taylor on nearly all matters where we have a difference of opinions, by the way.
I'm putting you firmly in the camp of "I haven't tried windows vista, I don't want to hear from someone who officially beta tested the system since beta 1, and unofficially since the 36xx builds, and I would rather just persist in my belief that any newly developed work must be inherently insecure because thats the common wisdom and the way it was in the past, and I'm not changing my ways"
Windows xp sp2 as it currently exists is WAY LESS secure than vista despite the fact that even if vista contains new security issues (of perhaps, the new networking stack for example - something i see cited often but with absolutely no objective examples as to why other than "it's new, it must have problems/be buggy") then it's own technology like ASLR and UAC goes a long way to mitigating them out of the box for the vast, vast majority of users.
Okay, let's take these issues one at a time.
1) I'm placing you in the camp of "fanboy n00b" because it appears, from your posts, that you believe beta-testing Vista has bestowed some sort of elite status on you. That may or not be true in your case, but in general it is quite common for members of an exclusive club to form some sort of superiority complex.
2) Your posts appeared to have an arrogant tone to them, as both Selectah and I noticed. Whether or not you intended it this way, it detracted from your authority to speak on the subject.
3) You are trying to make the case that Windows Vista is more secure than Windows XP. But that's not what you claimed in your earlier post: "If you want to stay with a system that has an outdated audio subsystem and paints all over its windows with ugly white redraws in the same manner as windows 95 (ie, with a desktop composition model from 10 years ago) that's fine by me. I'm firmly in the camp of 3D accelerated desktops with no redraw or sync issues." The only thing you mentioned was graphics; and graphics are completely irrelevant to performance, stability, and reliability. Graphics are nothing more than marketing, when you come right down to it. A judgement of two systems based on graphics only is a very poor judgement indeed. That more than anything else solidified your status as a fanboy n00b in my mind.
4) Any newly developed work is
inherently insecure. That's not only common wisdom, it's a well-established pattern. Human beings aren't perfect; any brand-new system they design is bound to have bugs in them. This happens with new developments in all fields of engineering; it's not exclusive to Microsoft.
You may not remember, but back when Windows XP first came out, people were hailing it as the most secure Windows operating system ever, the greatest single step advancement in Windows technology since Windows 95, etc. There were Windows XP fanboys back then just as there are Windows Vista fanboys today. And what happened? Windows XP was revealed to be chock full of security holes. There were people back then who were asserting that Windows 2000 was more stable and secure than Windows XP, and they were right. I believe the people saying the same thing about Windows XP over Windows Vista will be proven right too.
I've used vista long enough "in the wild" to know that it is more secure than windows xp sp2, and it is also a hell of a lot nicer system to use as well.
That might be the case. But it very probably is also the case that Windows Vista has a whole bunch of security flaws that haven't even been found yet. Again, Windows XP went through the same routine.
As far as arrogant attitude, well, i'm sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent.
Okay, fair enough. I would advise you to be more careful constructing your tone in the future, though; since at least two readers reached a conclusion you did not intend them to reach.
But I dont' see any one else in here discussing the details of why vista is better or bringing examples as to why it is, in fact, more secure right now than xp will ever be, or vice versa, providing exact details of why it is more insecure... instead I see those that have probably never even used it, and certainly haven't proved to me that they know more about it than I do, basically being microsoft haters and saying "it's probably full of bugs" without even giving it an objective chance.
Prove me wrong, tell me exactly which features create more issues for than xp does ? and why ? Come up with a decent argument that I cannot refute, instead of calling me names because you don't agree. The ball is in your court.
I was forming a reasonable conclusion about the stability of Microsoft products, based on their long and celebrated history of falling flat on their face in that regard. Considering that past Microsoft products ship riddled with bugs and security flaws, it is rational to expect future products to ship with the same bugs and flaws. It would be irrational, in fact, to expect anything different. You may be right; Vista may be the counterexample. But the odds are against you there.