Why is SP-1 Vista needed NOW Vista News Discuss Why is SP-1 Vista needed NOW in the Windows Vista forums; A Microsoft security executive released data Thursday showing that, six months after shipping Windows Vista, his company has left more publicly disclosed Vista bugs unpatched than it did with Windows ...

[Snuffy]

A Microsoft security executive released data Thursday showing that, six months after shipping Windows Vista, his company has left more publicly disclosed Vista bugs unpatched than it did with Windows XP. In total, Microsoft has patched 12 out of 27 disclosed Vista vulnerabilities in the six months after it first shipped last November. During XP's first six months, Microsoft's security team patched 36 out of 39 known bugs. The data was published by Jeff Jones, a Microsoft security strategy director, who said that overall, Vista was doing better than XP. "Windows Vista continues to show a trend of fewer total and fewer high-severity vulnerabilities at the six month mark compared to its predecessor product, Windows XP," he wrote.

Jones didn't address the larger number of unpatched vulnerabilities, but he did note most of the unpatched Vista bugs were not critical. Microsoft had left only one high-severity Vista vulnerability unpatched during the period. At the end of XP's first six months, there were two high-severity bugs that were unpatched. Microsoft patched 23 high-severity XP bugs during its first six months, compared with only one high-severity Vista flaw. Jones argued that Vista had a lower number of vulnerabilities than competitive operating system products such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Mac OS X.


http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...1/article.html

[ProCookie]

Surly there are more bugs than that? when they say bugs i take it they mean BIG bugs. They probably don't want to mention minor bugs so it makes Vista look more efficient.

[crabby]

Vista shipped with under 500 internal bugs. So that list is definately not comprehensive

Most bugs are now with third party software though.

crabby

[ProCookie]

Its like when they released Vista they said the bug count was below 500 as if that was a good thing??? if they knew there were bugs why didn't they fix them before release, giving users a better experience with the product and maybe we would get less people dissin Vista all the time.

[Snuffy]

Some of the BUGs in Vista go back as far as Windows 2000.
Several sites (MVP's) have listed over 100 still needed fixes.
Many ppl have fixed over 500 different minor items... which will never be listed. The 1st are drivers, and 2nd are programs which must be ran in "compatible" mode... or thru "DEP" mode...
such as programs which no matter what you do, they will not work... add them to "DEP" and they work perfect.

Data Execution Prevention (DEP) is a set of hardware and software technologies that perform additional checks on memory to help prevent malicious code from running on a system. In Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) and Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, DEP is enforced by hardware and by software.

The primary benefit of DEP is to help prevent code execution from data pages. Typically, code is not executed from the default heap and the stack. Hardware-enforced DEP detects code that is running from these locations and raises an exception when execution occurs. Software-enforced DEP can help prevent malicious code from taking advantage of exception-handling mechanisms in Windows.

Per-program DEP configuration
For the purposes of program compatibility, you can selectively disable DEP for individual 32-bit programs when DEP is set to the OptOut policy level. To do this, use the Data Execution Prevention tab in System Properties to selectively disable DEP for a program. For IT professionals, a new program compatibility fix that is named DisableNX is included with Windows XP SP2. The DisableNX compatibility fix disables Data Execution Prevention for the program that the fix is applied to.

The DisableNX compatibility fix can be applied to a program by using the Application Compatibility Toolkit. For more information about Windows application compatibility, see Windows Application Compatibility on the following Microsoft Web site:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875352
During Beta test we had to run many program under DEP

PS: Bugs are decided on the number of problems noted... sort of like 100 testers, and only 10 have the problem it is not a BUG. Not sure what the requirement is, but HONESTLY SOME BUGS IN VISTA WERE NOTED IN WINDOWS 2000. and still in XP and Vista, so apparently MS feels the percentage is too small to consider a problem...

[crabby]

It's simply impractical to remove all bugs. Many of them would be so insignificant that they hardly effect any users and yet could take months to resolve.

This isn't a perfect world

crabby

[Snuffy]

Originally Posted by crabby

It's simply impractical to remove all bugs. Many of them would be so insignificant that they hardly effect any users and yet could take months to resolve.

This isn't a perfect world

crabby

Stands to reason. [My day dream] If I could manufacture a special item, which I knew was flawed, charge overhigh prices, and also knew that someone would fix it FREE for the person whom bought it, Why Should I make it almost BUG FREE. That would cut into my margin of Profit ... I want to be a Billionaire, by 30.
This is the only way I know how to do it... that is also why I dropped out of college, my professers said that was not ethical ... I also did not have enough money then to BRIBE them..but I do now...[/My day dream]

[crabby]

crabby

[felix8406]

I believe there will always be bugs, especially with a new OS, as it’s supposed to work with so many different manufactures, however, the biggest issue, as far as I’m concern, is the fact that engineers have such a tough time preventing other software from crashing or affecting the OS. If I installed a program and for whatever reason something just doesn’t go well, I wouldn’t mind if Vista would warm me about it and shut the program off. However, that’s not always the case. I have lost restore points or had to use system restore, and even had to reinstall Vista in order to get it back on track, just because a program did not installed correctly or had a bug.

The way I see it is simple, just build an OS that cannot be affected by any other application. If a particular application has a flaw, the OS should be allowed and able to override it and prevent it from corrupting the OS or other files within the system. Of course, I can always dream about it.

[Snuffy]

Yes, the DREAM seems to be almost the same , I for one would also appreciate the fact that not every body wants all the EXTRA CRUD that is included, and would like the ability to NOT INSTALL like many programs do include.
Agree all of us can DREAM...