Security Or Flexibility?

Hi. If microsoft asked you, do you prefer security over the flexibility or flexibility over the security? what your answer will be?

I think that Vista failure is based on this issue. In the time that many of users asked for more security, Microsoft did the biggest fault in its history by producing Vista in this way. they throw the flexibility away to give more security. Every body know that microsoft windows systems got their popularity from their flexibility. Although, Some people think that Microsoft spying on them, they used Microsoft products for years, because they prefer flexibility over the security ( I one of them). However, if microsoft didn't correct their fault in the next windows system, I think that another company will share the OS market.
Microsoft, Watch Google!


Note #1: I'm posting this thread because I really care about your opinions, and I respect them. So, please be respecteful in your response or do not post a reply.
Note #2: This thread is for telling your opinion, not for proving that I'm wrong.


Thank's

I dont really see how one necessarily excludes the other. I'm all for both options, and in the case of Vista, yes they made it more secure than XP, but I dont see where they made it less flexible.

This thread seems to be more about Microsoft than the issue of Security vs Flexibility.

I would say the Vista Failure is based upon the fact that it was a poorly designed operating system, and had too many issues at launch.

I can understand your point but the Various Linux distro's manage to be secure and flexible, i don't think you should have to focus on 1 or the other, and Vista's Security annoyances i think are more of an issue with the individual user at home then the corporate market, and the corporate market is where Vista has really failed to take off.

I actually think the Biggest Failure with Vista was not to do with Security at all, Vista has failed to take of in the Enterprise because of 2 main reasons;

1, Many Standard Corporate PC's couldn't run it (and still cant) because it is such a memory hog.

2, Device Compatibility& Driver issues when it was released.

It does looks like Windows 7 could be a lot better product so maybe they will get it right this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

..
1, Many Standard Corporate PC's couldn't run it (and still cant) because it is such a memory hog.

---

I dont see how everyone can keep saying this. Everywhere I go I keep hearing people complaining that Vista wont work well unless you have atleast 2GB of memory, but yet I ran Vista Ultimate for one entire year with only 1 GB of ram and it ran flawlessly, I even played Call of Duty 4 regularly on it.


I feel I am going off-topic here though, I apologize. Or what is the topic really? Should we discuss Vista's "failure" or should we discuss security vs flexibility?

Hi,

Quote:

---

I ran Vista Ultimate for one entire year with only 1 GB of ram

---

In most corporate environments you will not have 1 GB of ram in your average workers PC.

In my last workplace and where i work now the standard PC still only has 512 mg of Ram. but From what i hear from people i know this is true for many many organisations and rolling out Vista would have required a PC Refresh which is extremely costly.

Quote:

---

I feel I am going off-topic here though, I apologize. Or what is the topic really? Should we discuss Vista's "failure" or should we discuss security vs flexibility?

---

I addressed the issue simply because the premise was that it was Vista's Security was the reason for it's failure.

I do actually agree with you on the point that why should you have to sacrifice one for the other, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

We got the security changes in Vista for three main reasons:

• It was an attractive malware target due to omnipresence.
• Amateur computer users never made the transition from Win9x's weak security to the NT security model, where you should seldom be logged on as admin.
• The press decided Microsoft made an easy target and shouted every vulnerability from the mountain tops.

It pretty much boils down to that.


Changes have been made in Windows 7 to "tone down" the UAC elevation prompts for many system functions. Pretty much everything else that was done for security enhancement is the same though, as well as AppCompat shims such as registry and filesystem virtualization to let old programs limp until they're updated.

Vista actually had quite long private and public beta periods. Sadly most software developers never took advantage of the time, information, and tools Microsoft provided to make their programs ready for Vista. This led to more UAC and AppCompat headaches for users than they would have seen otherwise. It has also led to a large "cult of the crybabies" among amateur and small-shop programmers.

Windows 7 is in the middle of a very long public beta period now.


There has been no "Vista failure." It was always expected that the successor to WinXP would require newer and beefier hardware, so most users would first encounter Vista when buying a new machine. This has and continues to go very well overall.

It was never meant as an upgrade OS for old machines, and Microsoft did drop the ball on the "Vista ready" certification for machines sold just before Vista was available. They let vendors get away with shipping substandard machines under that banner (with XP on them). I can see anyone who got trapped by this being a bit upset.


But all of this negativity is pointless. Vista and soon Windows 7 represent the present. No matter how you feel about it there is no holding it back.

As far as "issues at launch" go, this was almost 100% a problem with hardware manufacturers not providing proper drivers. We saw the same thing when XP came out. There was also foot dragging by antivirus and software firewall vendors. But they'd had LOTS of time to work this out before Vista was released.


I think we need a better description of what is meant by "flexibility" before we could discuss that.

Quote:

---

There has been no "Vista failure."

---

Sorry to hijack this thread but...

are you really saying that Vista has been a great success ?

Quote:

---

It was always expected that the successor to WinXP would require newer and beefier hardware

---

Not by me it wasn't, why should it ? and most companies i think would disagree with that too, which is why the Enterprise take up of Vista has been so poor.

And if this is the Case why has Microsoft made Windows 7 less Resource Intensive than Vista ?

Quote:

---

Sadly most software developers never took advantage of the time, information, and tools Microsoft provided to make their programs ready for Vista.

---

I wasn't talking about programs being Vista ready but Drivers. There where all sorts of problems with Drivers when it first came out.

I know because i had god knows how many Phone calls from (my less IT literate) friends asking me how to fix them. Sometimes not even on old machines. One of my friends bought a brand new Dell Laptop with Vista Installed and half the Drivers didn't even work on that.

Look i know that now Service packed up and more mature that Vista basically works, but i i still wont buy it. As a product it has lost confidence with the Market which is why the are bringing Windows 7 out so soon afterwards.

I haven't tested Windows 7 myself in Beta but from all i hear it is Generally the release Vista should have been, and i am greatly looking forward to coming out.

I will be happy to buy it (as long as it live up to the hype) and finally shut up the Mac brigade who keep telling me i should by a Mac.

New versions of OS's nearly always need beefier hardware. The difference here is in how much, and due to the long time between the releases of XP and Vista, the size of the increase is clearly to be expected - I was pleasantly surprised that my ageing PC (with only 512MB of memory) is good enough for Vista.


Enterprises tend to have a general rule for new software (OS or otherwise), which is "not until Service Pack 1".

In terms of OS's there is often also "only when we upgrade the computer".

The only difference I've seen with Vista is the addition of "not until our software suppliers have sorted out their issues". In many cases those issues have been clear since Windows 2000, but could be worked around before.


I have worked for various companies since the release of Vista, and have yet to find one where they had anything against Vista or Microsoft - but most of them have moaned about other software and/or hardware suppliers who weren't ready, and thus held the company back from upgrading.

Quote:

---

I wasn't talking about programs being Vista ready but Drivers. There where all sorts of problems with Drivers when it first came out. ...

---

Drivers are a specific kind of program, and the driver providers have almost as little excuse as other programmers. Admittedly they had more changes to contend with, but they did have lots of warning and testing time.

If a company sells computers with inadequate hardware/drivers, that is their fault - not the fault of the OS they provide it with.


As to Windows 7 being released "so soon afterwards", that is clearly not the case - it is being released on a slower schedule than previous versions (the gap between XP and Vista was unusually large).



Like others, I have no idea in what way Vista is supposed to be any less flexible than previous versions of Windows - I certainly haven't noticed anything myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

are you really saying that Vista has been a great success ?

---

Yep. Works great for me, works great for my customers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Not by me it wasn't, why should it ? and most companies i think would disagree with that too, which is why the Enterprise take up of Vista has been so poor.

---

Enterprise takeup of everything is slow. There are machine replacement costs for one thing. For another there are the legions of box jockeys out smoking on the loading dock who don't want to have to actually learn anything, and they spread a lot of FUD... well, just like we see here. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

And if this is the Case why has Microsoft made Windows 7 less Resource Intensive than Vista ?

---

Win7 offers some real improvements. It's called progress. And Win7 is to Vista as XP SP2 is to XP Gold. XP SP2 was actually a new OS, and almost one we had to pay for separately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I wasn't talking about programs being Vista ready but Drivers. There where all sorts of problems with Drivers when it first came out.

---

Last time I looked this was a programming forum site. Not sure where you should go to whine about driver issues, but I don't think it's here. And the driver problems weren't Microsoft's fault anyway, it was the slacking hardware manufacturers who screwed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I know because i had god knows how many Phone calls from (my less IT literate) friends asking me how to fix them. Sometimes not even on old machines. One of my friends bought a brand new Dell Laptop with Vista Installed and half the Drivers didn't even work on that.

---

How is this not Dell, etc.'s problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Look i know that now Service packed up and more mature that Vista basically works, but i i still wont buy it.

---

Who cares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

As a product it has lost confidence with the Market which is why the are bringing Windows 7 out so soon afterwards.

---

Ahh, like how XP came out a little more than a year after Win2K hmm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I haven't tested Windows 7 myself in Beta but from all i hear it is Generally the release Vista should have been, and i am greatly looking forward to coming out.

---

Do what you have to, but don't be naive. Win7 is a reworked Vista, and is even more different from XP than Vista was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I will be happy to buy it (as long as it live up to the hype) and finally shut up the Mac brigade who keep telling me i should by a Mac.

---

It's up to you what you choose to do. Why should we care?

If you're worried about what a Mac user says you have bigger problems. They've made a conscious decision to FAIL. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

...are you really saying that Vista has been a great success ?

---

Yep. Works great for me, works great for my customers.

---

It doesn't really mean it is successfull globally, does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

There has been no "Vista failure."...

---

It was and still is failure - it's not advertised as such, though. :ehh:
Vista reminds me that troublesome Ford Taurus from the 90's that claimed "best selling" title by "selling" itself to rental car companies like Herz, etc.
Similarly, Vista was mostly installed on new computers and downgrade to XP wasn't (and still isn't) free.
Corps did of course buy it but did not hugely deploy it (like they did XP) because of the cost effective conversions from legacy systems.
If you call that "success story" I'm sure many will disagree.

Regards.

But to get back to the topic.. what is this "flexibility" we're supposed to be discussing anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atheist

I dont see how everyone can keep saying this. Everywhere I go I keep hearing people complaining that Vista wont work well unless you have atleast 2GB of memory, but yet I ran Vista Ultimate for one entire year with only 1 GB of ram and it ran flawlessly, I even played Call of Duty 4 regularly on it.

---

Yeah, I'm running Vista Ultimate on my pc with 2GB RAM without any problems too. Lets not forget that it could be the progams which users are running on Vista keep failing because they were made for Win 95 or another operating system along those lines.

Edit:

Yesterday, I finished playing Command and Conquer: Gold (Win 95 game) on Vista and the only thing that kept failing was the game.

Can we add a Both option?

ps- Vista is great!

When high security required, OS programmer should put alot of restrictions that in many cases reduce the OS flexibility.
The good programmer should figure out a way to increase efficiency of the OS and secure it to the required level without sacrifice its flexibility.
He should manage this issue in a wise way.
As I know, until now there is no universal standard definition for the OS. but we can say that OS is a resource manager. However, it is axiomatic that OS programmer should build a system that requires resources as low as possible.
OS users usually don't care about the internal architecture of the OS. But, they care about the result of that architecture. So flexibility in the users perspectives is the overall performance of the OS compared with its requirements and convenient of use
Finally, I think that Microsoft didn't build vista in a balanced approach that satisfy its customers. It misunderstand the real needs for them.
The result is an inelastic system, that requires huge resources without giving any thing mentioned more than XP! The result is the biggest failure in Microsoft history.

Thank's for sharing your opinions...

Is this thread really about Vista?

Pino

By the way, when I said "Security over flexibility, or Flexibility Over Security", I meant which one is the first in your priority list. Not which is the one that you can leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atheist

This thread seems to be more about Microsoft than the issue of Security vs Flexibility.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

Is this thread really about Vista?

---

If you read my original post carefully, you will see that I said:
"If microsoft asked you, do you prefer security over the flexibility or flexibility over the security?"

So, this thread is related to "Security And Flexibility" in microsoft products. Specially Vista.

Thank's

I wouldnt ever be able to choose one.

A modern application should have both.

Pino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

A modern application should have both.

---

That what I said exactly in my previews posts - when your OS dosn't balance these things fairly, it will just fail! (Note: Fairly depends on your customers needs)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I can understand your point but the Various Linux distro's manage to be secure and flexible, i don't think you should have to focus on 1 or the other.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atheist

I dont really see how one necessarily excludes the other. I'm all for both options.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

I wouldnt ever be able to choose one.

---

But you really have to choose here, because you have these facts:
1) Human Programmer - who has limited knowledge -.
2) More Security usually means less flexibility.
3) limited hardware resources.
4) Unlimited levels of Security&Felxibility.

So, when your computer will contains very sensitive information you will strongly prefer security over flexibility. But, at the same time, you don't want a system that require 100 ineractions from you to do a simple job.
What I want to say is: Priority list can handle many items, but they must be ordered.

thank's

I've still got no idea what flexibility you think has been lost.

Vista does require more resources, but provides lots of extra features too - such as per-application volume settings, file previews in Explorer windows, enhanced Task Manager, searchable Start menu, etc.

To me that seems like more flexibility, and increased ease of use.


The only hint you've given is "100 interactions", which to me implies that you don't like UAC... but with appropriately designed apps that only requires one extra action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

I've still got no idea what flexibility you think has been lost.

Vista does require more resources, but provides lots of extra features too - such as per-application volume settings, file previews in Explorer windows, enhanced Task Manager, searchable Start menu, etc.

To me that seems like more flexibility, and increased ease of use.

---

And thats the point of this thread, variations of opinions. You see that its worth to use huge resources to provide somethings like "searchable Start menu", while I don't.
As I said in the OP: "Note #2: This thread is for telling your opinion, not for proving that I'm wrong."
I said that because I don't want posters to get out from the original target and get in an "Infinite Loop". Because some times, people can't see what they don't want to see.
By the way, you didn't vote, what do you prefer?

Quote:

---

The only hint you've given is "100 interactions", which to me implies that you don't like UAC... but with appropriately designed apps that only requires one extra action.

---

if UAC can be disabled, thats dosn't eliminate "Bad Design".
many people called Vista as "Annoying OS" because of its UAC.
UAC may not the biggest problem, but it is "The straw that broke the camel's back".
Thank's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

I've still got no idea what flexibility you think has been lost.

Vista does require more resources, but provides lots of extra features too - such as per-application volume settings, file previews in Explorer windows, enhanced Task Manager, searchable Start menu, etc.

To me that seems like more flexibility, and increased ease of use.


The only hint you've given is "100 interactions", which to me implies that you don't like UAC... but with appropriately designed apps that only requires one extra action.

---

Or you just switch it off. Flexibility FTW ;)

Pino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visual Basic.Net

And thats the point of this thread, variations of opinions. You see that its worth to use huge resources to provide somethings like "searchable Start menu", while I don't.

---

I dont get it, this thread was supposed to be about security vs flexibility, but it seems to be more focused about how Vista was designed. Now you have begun comparing Resource usage versus functionallity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visual Basic.Net

As I said in the OP: "Note #2: This thread is for telling your opinion, not for proving that I'm wrong."
I said that because I don't want posters to get out from the original target and get in an "Infinite Loop". Because some times, people can't see what they don't want to see.

---

Thats the problem, there original post's target was mainly focused on discussing Vista's flaws. It is unevitable that the responses will touch this subject aswell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visual Basic.Net

if UAC can be disabled, thats dosn't eliminate "Bad Design".
many people called Vista as "Annoying OS" because of its UAC.
UAC may not the biggest problem, but it is "The straw that broke the camel's back".
Thank's

---

But is not that flexibility in itself? Being able to turn it off I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visual Basic.Net

You see that its worth to use huge resources to provide somethings like "searchable Start menu", while I don't.

---

It doesn't require huge resources, just a bit more (which is to be expected for a new OS version).

As I said earlier I'm using an old computer (about 5 years old, and it wasn't a great machine back then) and I don't have problems.

While at times it can be slower than XP on the same computer, it isn't a dramatic difference - and it doesn't happen often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visual Basic.Net

By the way, you didn't vote, what do you prefer?

---

I'm still trying to work out what flexibility you think has been lost!

So far you haven't actually explained it, you've only given vague hints at best.

All I've managed to work out so far is that you don't like UAC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atheist

But is not that flexibility in itself? Being able to turn it off I mean.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

It doesn't require huge resources, as I said earlier I'm using an old computer and don't have problems.
I'm still trying to work out what flexibility you think has been lost!

---

I already wrote my opinions: like [if UAC can be disabled, thats dosn't eliminate "Bad Design"].

the problem is that you trying to proving me wrong :D
The vote is not about "flexibility I think has been lost!", no! thats just was some explanation of my opinions.
The question is: if microsoft asked you what you would prefer, Flexibility or Security. Don't care about rightness of my opinions! I know you have a different view about Vista.

Quote:

---

if microsoft asked you what you would prefer, Flexibility or Security. Don't care about rightness of my opinions! I know you have a different view about Vista.

---

I'd say show me both.

We'll have to understand what you mean by flexibility to be able to answer the question. Like Si said you have just brought up personal annoyances with Vista, but not really defined flexibility in this case.

Now that I've finally been able to get Vista working properly (VPC 2007 w/ Sp1 on XP w/ SP3 allows Vista to work right) I don't have nearly as much against Vista as I used to. The things that annoy me is #1 the UAC (which I turned off anyways) and I hate the way every thing's been renamed in the Control Panel, I also hate how they split all of the Display Properties into their own windows when they used to be all in one window with nice tabs at the top, they kept the tabs, but each window only has the one tab... very dumb of them the split it up like that.

If I really had to choose one over the other I guess I'd take security any day, hands down. In an ideal world I should be able to trade off a bit of one for some of the other, depending on the circumstances.

But that isn't really the point, is it? It's Vista we're talking about here. Although I don't see in the marketplace how can Vista be considered a success, I think that it's possible to have both flexibility and security using it. However, the issue here is how one defines flexibility. I'm definitely not a Vista fan (far from it), but I respectfully declare that the UAC adds both flexibility in security.

I already defined what I meant by Flexibility, read post#14
http://www.vbforums.com/showpost.php...0&postcount=14

Thank's for sharing your opinions...

I cant see anywhere in that post where you define what you mean by flexibility.

I understand if its hard to give a definition of what you mean by flexibility, but could you atleast give us some good examples of where Vista sacrifices flexibility for higher security so we have a clue of what we're voting about?

I agree with Atheist. Wikipedia says the following about flexibility:

Quote:

---

In the field of engineering systems design, it refers to designs that can adapt when external changes occur.

---

But also notes:

Quote:

---

Flexibility has been defined differently in many fields of engineering, architecture, biology, economics, etc.

---

Generally speaking, I'm not a stickler for definitions. However, I've found that they are sometimes necessary especially for ideas that translate very differently to various people. For example, my boss might think that the workforce (that means me) should have flexible working habits - meaning that I should be available to work anytime, anywhere and for as long as it is needed without additional pay. I, on the other hand, may tend to think that the company should have a more flexible compensation scheme - meaning that I like being paid more for doing extra work and going to god-knows-where to do that work.

1. OK, everyone listen to me. It's OSs or OSes. It's not OS's. I will not tire of repeating this. :)

2. I agree that the definition of flexibility has not been properly described by the OP. The quote is "So flexibility in the users perspectives is the overall performance of the OS compared with its requirements and convenient of use" isn't about flexibility, but seems to be more about usability and performance. To me, flexibility is being able to tweak things. To you, it may be something else. To Atheist, it will be the ability to right click and left click on things, because he's not very imaginative. :afrog:

3. Most corporations give about 1.5GB+ of RAM. If you're getting less... then you won't be using Vista anyways.

4. If MS asked me "flexibility or security" I'd not answer unless I could choose both. Nobody's holding a gun to my head :p

5. Remember - OSs and OSes. Not OS's. Don't use apostrophes to pluralize your acronyms, mmkay? :)

Microsoft has improved a lot with their operating system compared to those of say five years ago. WinME in the eyes of many was a huge flaw in the works, it wasn't very flexible and crashed often. However, as the years went by with the release of 2000, WinXP, Server 2003, etc a lot of the security and flexibility issues have been improved on. However, there are still areas that need to be improved.

Here we go again, with Me this time.

All I really see so far is something that amonts to "I don't like Vista (Me)." Or maybe at best "I learned by copy and paste how to do a few things in Win95 and then they moved my cheese" (I hate that book, BTW).

I don't like change for its own sake either, but there are some tides too big for me to hold back myself, or even with a group of friends.

well, i have been using Win XP Professional close to a decade now, even when i got a new machine(Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo) which originally came with Vista, i drove it back to XP.

then i met this script kid who told me i shouldn't have, according to him its like destroying my new machine because i won't be able to unlock its full power(that's his opinion).

but the reason why i refuse to use Vista is because i keep having compatibility issues(which is not what i need ATM).

as for the poll question, i think they both go hand in hand;

i wouldn't want to give up my security to have a flexible life.
i also wouldn't want to have "over-security" that takes away my flexibility(am human).

but priority: i'll go for security first, then flexibility.

Thank You

So maybe in this context "flexibility" means "letting me mess with things that might make my computer less secure?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Here we go again, with Me this time.

---

What? I'm not saying I am one of the people who hates Windows ME. Despite all the problems people seem to say it had I didn't upgrade to WinXP for a while after it was released.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightwalker83

Microsoft has improved a lot with their operating system compared to those of say five years ago. WinME in the eyes of many was a huge flaw in the works, it wasn't very flexible and crashed often. However, as the years went by with the release of 2000, WinXP, Server 2003, etc a lot of the security and flexibility issues have been improved on. However, there are still areas that need to be improved.

---

One of the biggest reasons ME failed was because they shoved the windows 2000 nt kernel into the win98 kernel without putting much work into making them very compatible. Heck winME was only released 7 months after win2000. I'm glad MS scrapped the wimME approach altogether and started upping the win2000 code for XP, as you can see by XP's success it was a very good approach at the time.

Although ME was the first MS OS to try and get away from the classes win95/98, nt 2-4 GUI and "spiff" it up. I just wish they'd made not only the classic windows theme but they also made a winME theme for XP, I really dislike how most of the themes gives you a reall fat title bar that just wastes screen screen space.

Vista's default theme is pretty slick, and still looks good with AeroGlass turned off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha

One of the biggest reasons ME failed was because they shoved the windows 2000 nt kernel into the win98 kernel without putting much work into making them very compatible. Heck winME was only released 7 months after win2000. I'm glad MS scrapped the wimME approach altogether and started upping the win2000 code for XP, as you can see by XP's success it was a very good approach at the time.

---

ME sounds like it was a bit of a rush job! Not enough time put in to design, planning, etc. It was like M$ said "lets try this and see what happens!" not a serious approach at creating an operating system.

Quote:

---

Although ME was the first MS OS to try and get away from the classes win95/98, nt 2-4 GUI and "spiff" it up. I just wish they'd made not only the classic windows theme but they also made a winME theme for XP, I really dislike how most of the themes gives you a reall fat title bar that just wastes screen screen space.

---

Yeah, some of the WinME themes were cool! I wish M$ had included them with the other operating systems.

Quote:

---

Vista's default theme is pretty slick, and still looks good with AeroGlass turned off.

---

I am using the Vista Default theme at the moment and it looks cool! I haven't even thought about changing it.