More than five years after the release of Windows XP, Windows Vista has arrived. The party line out of Redmond is that "Windows Vista is Microsoft's most secure platform to date," and you won't find anyone at Microsoft saying otherwise. But saying it's Microsoft's most secure operating system isn't saying that Windows Vista is the most secure operating system on the market today. No one can say that, I suspect, but Microsoft is really sensitive about security, saying that security is one of the main pillars that support a user's decision to upgrade to Windows Vista. Unfortunately for most home users, the actual security features in Windows Vista Home Basic and Home Premium will amount to little more than a pillar of salt. That's not to say home users won't get enhanced security with Windows Vista; they will. It's just that most of the security enhancements touted in Windows Vista don't appear in the Home Premium and Basic editions, and what's there, what's not already available within windows XP, could have fit into a free Windows XP service pack instead of requiring a $200 upgrade.
The spin
I have several marketing documents from Microsoft, but I'll refer to one entitled "Windows Vista Quick Reference Guide." These are talking points for software reviewers regarding security, mobility, networking, deployment, and application compatibility. Under security, the document states that Windows Vista's development followed the Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle. Programmers were required to take security training, strict coding standards were enforced, and throughout the cycle, rigorous testing and review of the operating system code was done. That's the marketing spin.
Most of the security enhancements touted in Windows Vista don't appear in the Home Premium and Basic editions, and what's there, what's not already available within windows XP, could have fit into a free Windows XP service pack instead of requiring a $200 upgrade.
The reality is a little different. At least one major antivirus vendor, Kaspersky, has said there will be vulnerabilities reported soon within Windows Vista. "We're not asking whether vulnerabilities will be found, but when," said Alexander Gostev, principal antivirus researcher for Kaspersky. Indeed, there's already been one Vista-related vulnerability reported, one that affected earlier versions of Windows, as well. You'd think Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle would have caught that.
A shell game
The marketing document goes on to list a dozen bulleted security enhancements within Windows Vista, such as Enhanced Authentication Model, User Account Control (UAC), BitLocker Drive Encryption, Encrypting File System (EFS), Protected Mode for IE 7, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, Enhanced Firewall Management, Group Policy for Device Lockdown, Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), Kernel Patch Protection, and Network Access Protection. That's 12 enhancements that sound really thorough, if you get them.
However, because there are six different editions of Windows Vista, with varying features in each, only the people who purchase the $400 Ultimate edition or have access to the Enterprise edition (for volume-license customers only) will see all 12 features; for $200, home users will see fewer than half. I spoke with Pete McKiernan, a senior product manager for Windows at Microsoft, who said that BitLocker hard drive encryption wasn't included in the Home editions because Microsoft feared home users would lock themselves out of their systems. He agreed that another feature, Device Lockdown, required a group policy, and therefore wouldn't be in the Home edition, nor would Network Access Protection, Enhanced Authentication Model, or Encrypting File System (EFS). That's 5 out of 12 security enhancements that you won't find in the Home editions of Windows Vista.
I wouldn't have minded a Windows XP service pack offering just ASLR. But Microsoft wants me to pay $200 for security features I don't use or need just to get the one feature I truly do need.
Pete did say that all 64-bit editions of Windows Vista include Kernel Patch Protection, but I told him that most home users are running the 32-bit editions. It remains to be seen whether the 64-bit PatchGuard, also known as Kernel Patch Protection, works as advertised. At last summer's Black Hat Briefings in Las Vegas, researcher Joanna Rutkowska hacked Windows Vista's PatchGuard before a live audience that included several Microsoft employees who had also presented at the conference. If we include PatchGuard, that makes half of the security enhancements in Windows Vista that won't be on your home system.
What you get
So what do you get with Home Premium and Home Basic? You get Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), which protects against return-to-libc attacks, where an attacker uses exploit code to call a system function. ASLR randomizes the function entry points for common system calls, so on a typical 32-bit Windows Vista machine, an attacker stands a 1-in-256 chance of getting the address right, which should slow down an attacker. And home users will get not one but two firewall consoles within Windows Vista (why Microsoft couldn't reconcile them, I don't know), but you still won't get full outbound protection within the Microsoft Firewall without some serious configuration. The new Windows Firewall with Advanced Security on Local Computer console provides different profiles for Domain Policy (corporate networks), Private Profile (home networks), and Public Profile (Wi-Fi hot spots), but the language offered is all legalese at best: "Inbound connections that do not match a rule are blocked" and "Outbound connections that do not match a rule are allowed." Basically, all inbound data from the Internet is allowed (as it should be) except where a rule exists; outbound data from your computer is also allowed (as it should not be) "except where excepted"--one of my all-time favorite Microsoft-issued statements. The difference here is that unless you create specific rules to block outbound data--say, from spyware or rogue apps--you won't have true two-way firewall protection with the Microsoft Firewall; there are no outbound rules provided by default. The reality is that most people will never tweak these settings and therefore won't be as well protected as they would be with the free edition of ZoneAlarm, a true two-way firewall.
User Account Control (UAC)
Perhaps the most visible security change within Windows Vista is User Account Control (UAC), a dialog box that appears whenever system settings might be changed. I agree with McKiernan that UAC is a step forward in security, but I disagree with its final implementation. If you are a standard user, using a second account on someone else's computer, you will need at administrator's password in order to perform certain system functions. An annoyance, but that's real security.
If you are the only one using your Home edition of Windows Vista, logically, you should be running the administrator account. But as a solo account user (administrator) within Windows Vista, you are actually running as a standard user until UAC flags you, only then do you escalate to administrator privileges. Unfortunately, Microsoft made it so that administrators need only click Continue to access escalated privileges, no password required. McKiernan says Microsoft did that because it assumes administrators know how to respond to UAC messages, but I pointed out that other operating systems require even solo account users to enter a password before making system changes. And how long will it be until some malware prompts a UAC message, knowing the Windows Vista account user will just bat it away with a click of the Enter key?
The IE 7 features
Perhaps the biggest improvement over Windows XP is that Windows Vista places Internet Explorer 7 ActiveX processes into a sandbox. The sandbox allows the ActiveX component to run while you are using IE 7 and terminates it when you close IE. But you get even better security if you don't use Internet Explorer and use Firefox 2 or Opera 9 instead. Microsoft could have provided this sandboxing feature for free within Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP, but the company withheld it, wanting to give Windows Vista users some value for their $200.
And I've seen it spun that Windows Vista includes built-in antiphishing protection. But Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP--and for that matter Firefox 2--also blocks phishing sites. Unfortunately, neither browser performs as well as the stand-alone antiphishing toolbar from Netcraft or the antiphishing technologies from Symantec and McAfee. And Windows Vista ships with Windows Defender, but Windows XP SP2 already has Windows Defender, and I don't use it. In testing done last spring by CNET Download.com, Windows Defender missed some of the test spyware, finishing well behind other antispyware programs on the market today.
Nothing to see here, move along
Other security enhancements I see on my Windows Vista Home Premium machine are truly minor. One blocks double extensions in e-mail attachments, a common trick used by criminal hackers. But a Sophos study found that this e-mail security exists only if you use the new Windows Mail e-mail client--think Outlook Express with a prettier name. Most people won't use Windows Mail; they'll use their Web-based client before adopting Windows Mail.
Out of the 12 security enhancements within Windows Vista, only ASLR is notable; my decision on the value of UAC is mixed; and even within Windows XP SP2, I don't use IE 7, Windows Defender, or the Windows Firewall, so these are unnecessary. Given that Windows XP SP2 was a beast of a service pack to install, I wouldn't have minded a Windows XP service pack offering just ASLR. But Microsoft wants me to pay $200 for security features I don't use or need just to get the one that I truly need. I'm going to wait until Windows Vista Service Pack 1, code-named Fiji, is released, sometime before the end of the year. Maybe then the security enhancements within the Home editions of Windows Vista SP1 will be worth the $200.
*******************
s Windows Vista Faster Than XP?
Our Windows Vista coverage began with a hands-on diary by MobilityGuru's Barry Gerber, followed by an assessment of gameplay under Windows Vista by graphics presidente Darren Polkowski, as well as a complete feature rundown of Vista. Barry took the new operating system and its look & feel with a grain of salt, while Darren was disappointed because OpenGL support was dropped along the way, meaning that Windows Vista currently offers horrible performance for graphics applications utilizing the Open Graphics Library.
We are sure that mainstream users will appreciate the improved usability of Windows Vista, and the average office/multimedia user will likely never notice the lack of OpenGL. However, a chapter on the overall performance of Windows Vista requires more dedication. In particular, two things require an in-depth analysis:
* Basic Windows Vista Performance
How does Windows Vista perform compared to Windows XP? Will applications execute equally quickly, or will they even run slower due to the new features and the AeroGlass interface?
* Windows Vista Performance Enhancements
With SuperFetch and ReadyBoost, Windows Vista introduces two features to make use of today's technology in order to improve the user experience. This means that more application data should be actively cached into all available memory (SuperFetch), whether that is physical RAM or a USB Flash memory device (ReadyBoost). Microsoft's goal was to create balanced performance by removing delays in everyday work.
This article deals with basic application execution under Windows Vista Enterprise, which is representative of the other editions. We put together a high-end test system and performed a comprehensive benchmark session both with Windows XP Professional and with Windows Vista Enterprise to see if there are differences. And indeed, we found that there are some...
Software And Vista
Although the main Windows Vista core has undergone lot of modifications, many of your applications will work with Vista. There is, however, no guarantee. You should definitely try any essential software on Windows before you upgrade.
Process scheduling and thread pooling have been improved in Vista; a deadlock protection mechanism and hardware partitioning for virtualization support were added, together with many more features.
We tried lots of different programs under Windows Vista Enterprise, and came up with a list of software that definitely works.
Games
* Call of Duty 2
* Far Cry
* F.E.A.R.
* Unreal Tournament 2004
Applications
* Adobe Acrobat 8
* Adobe Photoshop CS2
* Autodesk 3DSMax 8.0
* AutoGK 2.4
* Hamachi
* KeePass 1.06
* LAME MP3 Encoder
* MainConcept H.264 Encoder
* Miranda Messager 0.5.1
* Microsoft Office 2003
* Microsoft Office System 2007
* Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.1
* Mozilla Thunderbird 1.5.0.9
* Nokia PC Suite 6.82.22.0
* Ogg Vorbis 1.1.2
* OpenOffice 2.1
* Picasa 2
* Putty
* Skype 2.5.x and 3.0
* SmartFTP 2.0
* Sungard Adaptive Credit Risk Calculation 3.0
* SonyEricsson PC Suite 1.30.82
* SQLyog 5.22
* Symantec AntiVirus 10.2.0.224
* UltraEdit 32 12.10
* WinRAR 3.70
* XviD 1.2.0
Benchmarks
* 3DMark 06
* Cinebench
* PCMark05 Pro
* SiSoft Sandra 2007
* SPECviewperf 9.03
In other cases there were some issues.
We found Vista updates for the Futuremark benchmark programs 3DMark and PCMark, as well as the popular data compression tool WinRAR. Lots of video-related software such as DivX could no longer be installed; new versions are required. The popular audio player WinAMP 5.32 throws up an error at startup, yet it works properly. Quake IV can still be executed, but the installation program did not work. Applications that run their own memory management won't benefit from Vista's SuperFetch function. For example, Adobe Photoshop takes care of creating a temporary work file every time it launches - Vista has no access to this process and cannot speed it up.
There are some types of software that you should only use if they have been specifically designed for Windows Vista: firewalls, anti-spyware and anti-virus software needs to be Vista-Ready.
*************
Before you upgrade your Windows XP system to Windows Vista or replace it with a new Vista system, it would be helpful to know how your upgraded or new machine's performance will compare with that of your current XP-based model. CNET Labs tested two laptops with XP and Vista to see how performance differs between the two operating systems.
Windows XP may be old, but this veteran can still take on its successor.
Five years and 50 million new lines of code after Windows XP made its debut, Microsoft released its successor. Windows Vista is available in no less than six editions, each of which boasts a different set of bells and whistles. Regardless of the graphics, entertainment, and security features packed into each edition, the same engine drives them all. Microsoft makes modest recommendations on what mix of hardware is needed to make that engine run. CNET is of a different mind, however, about what you need to smoothly run Vista; we recommend a more robust rig than what Microsoft suggests.
Before you upgrade your current computer to Vista or replace it with a new Vista-based system, we think it's helpful to know how your upgraded or new machine will compare to your current XP-based model in terms of performance. CNET Labs tested two laptops with XP and Vista to see how performance differs between the two operating systems. We chose the midrange ASUS W7J and the highend Dell XPS M1710 for our tests. For both systems, we first ran all of our tests with Windows XP installed and current drivers. We then upgraded the laptops to Windows Vista Ultimate, installing Vista on top of XP, thereby keeping all of the applications and data files intact. Lastly, we then reinstalled Vista Ultimate, this time formatting the systems' hard drives and doing a "clean install" of the operating system.
A word about drivers
Even though Vista has been in the works for the last five years or so, not all Vista drivers are ready for prime time. So when looking over our benchmark results, you'll need to do so with a grain of salt. Our testing was done in the weeks immediately following Vista's large-scale public release. It's entirely possible--even probable--that, as better driver updates become available over time, Vista performance will improve.
Which OS will prevail with this aging shooter?
We took two approaches in regard to drivers for our testing. For the midrange ASUS laptop, we tested using the drivers that installed automatically from the Vista install disc and via Windows Update--with the sole exception of installing the Vista beta graphics driver downloaded from Nvidia's Web site. This approach gave us a snapshot of how robust the default drivers are. (We manually installed the beta graphics driver because we wouldn't have been able to run our 3D test with the default driver.) For the high-end Dell laptop, we updated the Vista drivers with all those available for the particular model from Dell's Web site. This scenario allowed us to examine the best possible performance with the most recent drivers.
Immediately following the installation of Vista on the high-end Dell, Vista reported a Windows Experience Index of 1.0, and it lacked Aero Glass support. After updating all of the Dell's drivers, however, the Windows Experience Index jumped up to 4.7, and Aero Glass support was enabled.
************
Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown
http://images.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/chart33.gif
Windows Vista doesn't require more energy than Windows XP, whether running under full CPU load or idle. We also tried to stimulate the power consumption at the plug by aggressively moving windows or by switching between multiple tasks in 3D mode (Windows key + [Tab]). We would have expected an increased power draw, since Vista and its AeroGlass interface are more 3D-intensive and require 3D acceleration. However, there was no noticeable increase in power requirements due to the involvement of the 3D subsystem. This might be different with automated loads, but a single user cannot cause sufficient 3D load to influence the power draw.
Conclusion: K.O. For Windows Vista?
Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications).
Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors.
There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications. Both ATI and Nvidia will offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be seen if and how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it.
We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue.
There is good news as well: we did not find evidence that Windows Vista's new and fancy AeroGlass interface consumes more energy than Windows XP's 2D desktop. Although our measurements indicate a 1 W increase in power draw at the plug, this is too little of a difference to draw any conclusions. Obviously, the requirements for displaying all elements in 3D, rotating and moving them aren't enough to heat up graphics processors. This might also be a result of Windows Vista's more advanced implementation of ACPI 2.0 (and parts of 3.0), which allows the control of power of system components separately.
Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Is this a K.O. for Windows Vista in the enthusiast space?
If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with XP. But as long as you don't need to finish workloads in record time, we believe it makes sense to consider these three bullet points:
* Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free.
* There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.
* No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor.
Although application performance has had this drawback, the new Windows Vista performance features SuperFetch and ReadyDrive help to make Vista feel faster and smoother than Windows XP. Our next article will tell you how they work.
*******************
Vista is Slow, bugs n stupid :P