Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista - Not So Bad?
Shantyman writes "ZDNet has a counterpoint to the negative impressions of Vista's Beta 2 going around. Entitled Vista Beta 2, up close and personal, Ed Bott writes: 'I've spent the last three months running beta versions of Windows Vista on the PCs I use for everyday work. February and March were exasperating. April's release was noticeably better, and the Beta 2 preview - Build 5381, released to testers in early May - has been running flawlessly on my notebook for nearly three weeks.'"
From the very first paragraph of the article:
Wasn't there a slashdot reference to an article in the last week where Microsoft "was considering" removing admin access from their employees? That doesn't sound like "eating their own dogfood". As long as they're all running Windows with the highest access levels (admin), they're potentially missing serious security problems.
Since Lowest User Access (LUA) is a huge issue around tightening Windows security, running Vista within Microsoft means little around testing security. And, unless they're shipping Vista with defaults of non-admin user accounts, the beta testing world isn't likely to bang on that code hard enough.
It's not clear from the article, nor do I know enough about the Vista beta (not about to try it on any of my machines...) whether the LUA concept is in play. Any beta testers out there care to weigh in?
Wow it runs on at least one computer. Excellent! Good job Microsoft.
Anyone one else got it working yet? Maybe you can get your story posted to Slashdot too.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
MS's checks from april and may cleared.
There's no article here. It's a collection of screenshots with a little blurb at the top. He's excited that you can change Vista's theme to one of eight different colors. This is not news for nerds.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
April's release was noticeably better, and the Beta 2 preview - Build 5381, released to testers in early May - has been running flawlessly on my notebook for nearly three weeks.
I haven't tried b2 yet, but from my experience with b1, I didn't so much have a problem with "stability" as the fact that it had nothing new that I wanted.
Not to say it doesn't have PLENTY of new ways to waste CPU and memory, as well as DRM-to-the-core, but I can't really say I consider those a reason to upgrade.
Rearranging the clicky-widgets doesn't make it "new", and taking away the user's rights on their own machine doesn't make it "improved". Making it harder to pirate doesn't make it "secure". Throwing in an SQL server turned on by default might make it "biger", but not in a good way.
I have to agree with this post. I ran the April and May release quite a bit, and was extremely impressed. Simply put, Vista is eye candy. In the early betas Vista was almost identical to XP, it just looked a new skin and the same old OS, but the latest releases have really turned my head. It's easy to bash something new from MS and write bad reviews about how it won't install right on your Lenovo and such, but after I actually gave it a chance, I was thoroughly impressed by the performance and usability. I can't wait to see the final product.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?page_id=65&page=19
At least Microsoft has given us a way to prove how unstable our systems are... whenever Windows Vista is finally released.
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
Java doesn't work. We run it on a machine with a projector in our conference room. It was looking good till we tried to join an online conference :)
Can't necessarily blame MS for Java though. Although I can blame them for trying to change the spec and the whole Sun-MS lawsuit fiasco.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Many reviewers wrote fawningly over Windows 95 back in the day. Their usage didn't happen to strike its biggest problems very hard. The test for Vista is when hundreds of millions of people are using it, not a few reviewers on their desktop and an odd laptop
Me and some of my coworkers have been running vista build 5308 and I just installed build 5381 on those machines and they have been running very well. The install was improved and the interface is running a lot smoother and the new ati beta drivers are working good too. It's also running directx 10 now compared to 9L in the last build. We also have Office 2007 Beta 2 running on it and that too is working very well, We have both machines on a 2003 active directory network with exchange. The UAC does get annoying when it keeps asking you if your sure you want to do things, but a quick skim through the local security policy solved that :-) All in all I'd say Beta 2 has improved greatly over the past few releases. The memory usage at least is way down. It was using about 750mbs on our machines. I am upset that an Athlon X2 4200, with 4 gigs of ddr-400, a sata2 80 gig drive, and an atix1300 with 265mb on the card only gets a 3 out of 5 on the stupid rating system. Especially when everything works smooth, including the 3d page flip. I do feel that the "minimum requirements" that microsoft posted are of course a joke but that's nothing new.
I was just thinking "i know i like it better, but really, what do i like better about it?"
Then something occured to me.
Right now, i am copying 4GB of files off a usb disk to a network share. The shell file copy stuff has been completely re-worked (shell file operations has always been something that i have hated)
In vista, you get an expand/collapse pane to get details of what it is doing, and it seems to happen in its own thread. The copy dialog window shows up as its own window that you can minimize/restore/whatever, and best of all, it doesn't hang/slow down the shell in any way.
Note that XP and OS X (as of 10.3) get this badly wrong - the file copy dialog in both tends to be slow to repaint itself or to respond to window messages, and if you use a separate explorer/finder window to try and access the destination you're copying to, the window lurches slowly to try and redraw.
Not so with Vista.
So there you go - here is something that was so annoying to me in XP that I had just stopped using the shell to do any sort of large file operation - i'd break out cmd.exe and xcopy. Vista has fixed at least some of the file copy problems very admirably.
There are a lot of cool "small" things that I see, but maybe you have to be kind of nerdy to apprecate them? The task manager has some cool features on the build I am running. The eventviewer (eventvwr) is a completely new animal and is way cooler than the old one
A nice use of the pervasive desktop search integrated into the explorer windows is in Control Panel. We're pretty good about changing control panel wildly between releases, and I never remember which menu your system environment variables or enabling remote desktop or changing it so that the "Explorer:Start Navigation" sound is (none). Now i just hit "start->control panel", click in the search box for something like "sound" and i get search-as-i-type results that are pretty accurate and take me right to the control panel i want to go to.
Is any of that a big deal? No. Does it make me love Vista when i think about how much i hated doing that stuff on XP?
Yes
Apparently, there are a lot of "big" changes under the hood of Vista, but you don't always see them in a big way.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Windows 2K brought stability to the windows platform. Windows Vista should bring enhanced security through its pseudo sudo strategy.
Although win 2k and xp had limited user accounts it did nothing to enforce their usage because it would alienate novice users who wanted to install their shinny new Easy Birthday Card Creator software. Now the process that grants admin rights will be simpler to use but I can bet that many people will complain about the extra "hassle" that they will encounter when installing software.
Of course, you can only do so much to secure an operating system that is geared towards users. It is only a matter of time before Joe User decides that it is a good idea to provide the admin password to install the latest malware ridden "Fun Emoticon" package.
The best strategy that MS could do to improve security would be to bundle an intro into the OS that explained the basics of its new security features.
I partially agree with you, and because of my unix background, I am running vista as a non-priviledged user.
:)
There are two aspects of this. The first is that, if you truly are running as a low-priv user, you need to get elevation prompts at the correct times to be able to live life. This works pretty well, although I keep a cmd.exe window running as local admin sitting around sometimes.
The other aspect of this, however, is that in the real world, a lot of people just dont run as admin, and a lot of apps just can't. So a bunch of work has gone into making admins "virtual admins", so to speak, where operations that actually require priviledge use still involve user interaction/confirmation.
In that sense, people running "as admin" are getting the customer experience - and internally, the way the "did you really want to do this, Mr. Admin?" stuff works is passionately debated
My opinion is that people are complaining about the wrong problem - as we continue to eliminate things that require priviledge use, the amount that we have to care about putting up with a just-in-time priviledge escalation model goes down.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
"Buy Windows Vista - It's not so bad!"
;)
I wonder when Slashdot get's their creative fee?
ZDNet confirms it: Windows Vista is "not that bad". By attaining the coveted "not that bad" status, Microsoft has created the greatest operating system of their entire history.
Windows Vista "Not so bad"
Windows Vista "Almost as good as XP"
Windows Vista "Several new themes"
I think microsoft has a winner here
I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Microsoft employees running as admin means two things. Of course it means that they don't have to worry about programs that require admin (or have bugs if not used in admin mode). But even in this case, your hostility is misdirected. MS produces some of the programs most capable of performing correctly in limited user situations I've ever seen (in fact, I can't think of any notable bugs in MS programs when running as limited user, apart from obviously administrative programs, like chkdsk or defrag). That's why I was completely indifferent to the news that MS employees might have to run as limited users: they already know how to play nicely in the limited user situation. What REALLY needs to happen is that third-party developers who write these steaming pile of shit programs need to be forced to use limited user mode. There's absolutely no reason some of these programs (Intuit's It'sDeductable comes readily to mind) need to be admin.
:P
However, running as admin opens them up to all the nasty exploits and viruses (especially if they're using IE), those being probably the biggest blunder on Microsoft's part. As a limited user, a virus can delete your MP3s and porn. As admin, a virus can reformat your entire hard drive, install a rootkit, etc. If that isn't eating your own dog food, I don't know what is.
Sorry this post is a bit scatterbrained. I'm in a pretty big hurry
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
+1 fashionably cynical
Ever wonder how MS get their media coverage? Here is a classic example, we are potentially TWELVE MONTHS away from widespread release on a product thats been in development for FOUR YEARS and people are "impressed" that a SECOND beta is relatively stable. And this is considered a news story.
Talk about generating buzz around a product to make people want it, and to cover up the yet more slipped release dates and the reduced functionality over what was promised. And it all comes down to a new look and feel and a bit of threading and the su command.
WOW FIVE YEARS DEVELOPMENT to get this into production.
I live in awe at Microsoft's ability to generate positive news.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Why? Some people need proprietary OSes and software in order to do their jobs. Some people need it because the best tools are available only in Windows or OS X. Some people use proprietary software simply because they like it better than the FOSS alternatives (provided that they know about the alternatives).
I'm a user of proprietary software every day (although I'm also a FreeBSD user). People aren't going to switch to FOSS software for everything until it does everything that the best closed source software does (plus more)., and very easily too.
My problem with recent Microsoft operating systems has nothing to do with how well they run. I have to admit that they have been progresively better about that. My problem is how intrusive they are. How much control do I have over what my computer (my property that I paid for with my money) will and won't do.
Technoli
My computer is 4 years old almost (3 years, 10 months). It wasn't top of the line when I got it, though it was pretty good. It's gotten a RAM upgrade, but as far as internals go that's it.
/. a little bit ago had only one complaint -- the amount of hard drive space I have. And if I changed around my partitions a bit so that C: wasn't only 12 GB, it wouldn't complain about that.
The Vista hardware evaluation wizard thingy they had posted to
The hardware requirements to run Vista, even Aero, I think are vastly overplayed.
No, there's a significant difference here. Modifications I make to *my* car cannot be instantly and trivially copied to yours. Modifications I make to my copy of a piece of software *can* be instantly and trivially copied to yours.
The overriding benefit of free software is not that you *personally* can modify your copy if you wish, but that you can benefit from the aggregation of the modifications of others.
Slashdot might not as well cover how good or bad Vista is because in Vista and OSX are closed source OSes. Users have no say in how good or bad a proprietary OS is. So we might as well not deal with it.
Umm, I have no say in how well made most of my car is, does that mean I should spend half of every day walking to and from work, and take several month long sabbaticals when I want to visit my family?
People are going to use both Windows and OS X because they are the tools most suited to them, or because they are required to by their employer. Given that fact, it is very useful to have more information on what to expect. Further, it is a good idea to see what each OS on the market is doing for reasons of compatibility and because they might have good ideas that can be adopted.
I Personally wish that people would stop consuming, and giving creed to closed OSes, and no, OSX is not an Open OS. I don't care how like BSD it is.
It all depends upon why you use a computer. If your purpose is to promote an open source model, then you've chosen wisely. For me, my purpose is to get work done, to communicate, to create. To me, being open source is a feature. It is nice, and useful, and provides security going forward, but it is by no means the only feature or the most important one.
If you don't want Slashdot to cover other OS's, you can just flip a few toggles and you won't see them anymore. Problem solved. For the rest of us, this is certainly useful and welcome news and discussion.
None, Vista uses GPU aceleration and video memory for their UI.
Also, even though Apple came out with a better looking 3D looking OS, you can't patent/trademark the idea of making something look like glass in an interface. If you started that, then Linux, Apple, and Microsoft would simply get into a circular cycle of suing the hell out of each other because each has HEAVILY borrowed UI concepts from each other quite liberally. And honestly, Vista does a better job because they are actually making a glass like transparency which slightly diffuses the underling graphics whereas Apple just uses an alpha blend. Also, Aqua has been reduced to glass buttons and scroll bars in Apple, Microsoft doesn't use glass buttons, just a glass frame which surrounds a window, Apple doesn't even do this. So technically, there is no copyright/trademark/patent conflicts. Only people completely ignorant of Vista assumes it looks like OSX.
But honestly, when do you fully need to utilize 100% CPU cycles with a 4ghz CPU? For the most part, even compiling software all day, I rarely hit 100% CPU utilization for more then a few moments. If my windows borders take a few percentage of my CPU cycles, you won't notice it. By the time you enter a game, your running it full screen so the Vista UI isn't around to consume any clock cycles.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I couldn't help noticing the slip up with "We're pretty good about changing control panel wildly between releases"
We?
following the link to your webpage, and sure enough - MattEvans, MS employee.
hmm. Is that a sales pitch I hear?
A news site owned by Microsoft claims that Vista beta wasn't too good and everyone is falling all over it even claiming it is fud. Right.
You can't have fud on your own fucking product. Geez.
And can we get a slighly better rebutal of how good it is then the ancient "well it didn't crash for me so your insane" line?
Then again this one ain't as hilarious as all the MS shills suddenly saying it ain't MS fault if hardware makers don't have drivers ready while the constant line against linux is that it doesn't have drivers for every piece of shit hardware.
Make up your mind already okay?
The simple fact is that this was trying a beta. Now a beta is not the finished product BUT it is supposed to be as good as finished. Beta is when you say, okay I am done with the design and building and now lets test it to see if it works. Since this is Beta 2 they should be getting very close.
Build (no chance of working on any machine) Alpha (it sometimes works on the coders machine) Beta (Well it works in the development lab, lets see about the outside) Gold (We are fed up and don't give a shit anymore if it works or not just get it out the door already)
Vista Beta 2 should be near gold and then for it not to work easily on a big name laptop is not to good. If a linux distro failed to run properly all the MS shills would be all over it. When Vista fails, oh the user is an idiot.
Reminds me of the old rule of web design. If the site fails under mozilla it is mozilla's fault. If the site fails under IE it is the sites fault.
MS apologists taking the stupid to new heights. There is one clear sample of proof the Vista Beta 2 ain't nowwhere ready. The fact that it currently may and MS itself claims that it won't launch to at least january and possibly later. That could easily mean a full year till launch. If Vista Beta 2 was ready, they wouldn't need so much time to work on it. Not when they got so much riding on it (not just the holidays and saving face but that whole software assurance plan they sold to companies)
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The way the market is evolving Vista will probably end up being installed on more laptops than desktops.
The rate Vista is evolving, it will be installed on Bio-neural gel packs ...
Move Sig. For great justice.
Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I have to attribute Microsoft's success to lemmings. Bear with me here for a moment. Yes, I know that Disney herded a bunch of them off a cliff for its movie, and that the entire notion of "lemmings" is just a myth, I only mean to use it as a metaphor.
:-)
Why do people upgrade their copies of Windows? Because everybody else is. And sooner or later, people no longer support the old versions. You can't read the new Word documents, you can't get drivers, when security vulnerabilities come out, you're just hosed (or pwn3d, as the case may be).
So basically, the reason Microsoft is still successful is that, like Disney did, it hurds all of the poor consumers off of the cliff with every new release, away from something with flaws they'd almost worked around, compensated for, or at least gotten used to, and off into a huge sea of new, buggy, insecure code.
It's not so unlike Lemmings, the video game. I still remember making all those poor little guys blow up for fun
The Microsoft employee has deliberately misstated Apple's functionality.
Send me a check for USD$100,000 and I'll deliberately lie to promote Longwait over all other operating systems for 12 months.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
This would be Windows XP Pro on a stand-alone computer (my home computer), running Office 2003 and Visual Studio 2005 (I use those for all my university stuff, as well as my own amusement). Seriously, I've NEVER had to use runas to run a non-admin Microsoft program because it won't work properly on a limited user (yes, I'm defining installing new programs as admin stuff); ever. Though I must admit I've only tried running as a limited user on XP within the last couple years, and it could also help that I make sure I install the features of things like Office 2003 I need the first time around. Perhaps you could give some specific examples of major problems you've had.
Though I'll definitely admit that file permissions can be a bitch to deal with if you want to share stuff between different users/computers, or (heaven forbid) try to recover files from a physically damaged drive (I had the joyous experience of doing that; that's why I've only had this current installation of XP for six months or so). Or if you like to use naughty little programs like World of Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights, or WinAmp (had to deal with this problem a while back; dunno if they fixed it by now) which assume they can write to their directory in Program Files whenever they want.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
I just installed the latest version of Vista available to TechNet subscribers, build 5308. While it's not as bad as was described here, it hasnt been completely smooth running either.
It seems to do some thing well. Dual booting with XP works great. maybe better than with win2k and XP. All the visual effects run fine, even on my integrated graphics (GeForce 6150, admittedly higher end for integraded graphics). Normal operation is a little sluggish, and sometimes it gets really bad. I've had it lock up completely at least 3 times, doing completely different things. One time it was just trying to open Freecell (which, by the way, they have updated).
I saw a post from a guy who works for microsoft, who said he's been running Vista for a few months, and doing all his work on it. From what i've seen of the build i'm running, I don't see myself being as productive on it as I am with my current XP setup, just becuase of some of these problems. on the other hand, it looks like once they get these things straightened out, it should be fine.
How about some evidence for your claim that Office doesn't run in a limited user account, buddy? Before you get too far ahead of yourself. I have it on 250 computers, all running as a limited user account (and no, no domain-- we're Netware), and I've never encountered any problems related to permissions.
I'll see your 250 computers with no domain and raise you 10,000+ 2000 SP4 and XP Pro SP2 machines on a domain with non-admin users running Office 2000 and 2003 with no issues related to the lack of admin rights.
GGP is correct - MS is *very* good at making sure their modern apps follow the guidelines for working for non-admins. Almost every other "enterprise" software company is not.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Three weeks?
Be still, my heart.
I've got an old Linux box here that has nearly three years
uptime...
A ZDNet article praising a Microsoft product is like a pro-military speech from George Bush. I've been dealing with ZD's pro-MS propaganda every since my OS/2 days.
I'm not saying Vista beta 2 is as bad as the other story said, just that we shouldn't be trusting this particular source when they said it isn't.
I have been involved in computer security longer than Microsoft has been shipping an OS with any security at all. That includes Xenix. I've been watching this train wreck called the Microsoft HTML control for a decade now, and every time I point out how horrible it is some Microsoft apologist comes up and tells me I'm trolling, and that Micrsoft has got it right this time.
.NET, honest".
So far they have never been correct.
If you had bothered to read almost anything about Vista from the last year, you'd know that they are much bigger on the non-admin roles.
Windows maze of interlocking privileges means that this doesn't matter. There's so many ways to boost privilieges that almost any combination of non-frustrating privileges is going to end up equivalent to root.
The first time I used WIndows NT, I tried out several obvious attacks on the privilege model, and succeeded more often than I failed. I was even able to boost Power User to Local System, which actually has more privileges than Administrator.
If you had done some more reading (say, some of the comments posted earlier on this story), you'd see that even if you are running as administrator you still don't have full root priviledges, and have to confirm certain changes.
"You have to cofirm certain changes" says absolutely nothing about the privileges you have.
Nothing.
Confirmation and approval dialogs are almost worthless from a security standpoint. They operate at the application level, and the component that generates them has to have the privileges they're allegedly protecting, since Windows doesn't use UNIX's far more flexible and secure "setuid" mechanism. This means that not only do they they provide little protection for accidents by users, they provide NO protection from exploit code.
None.
Zip.
Layered security is wonderful.
Unfortunately, Microsoft has yet to implement it.
One of the principles of layered security s that you design each layer as if it had to perform the whole of the security protection, then you implement the next layer *anyway*, and you design it under the assumption that the first layer will provide no protection.
Microsoft designs each layer so that it's only as secure as they feel convenient, in the naive belief that the other layers will be used and will cover for them.
Other operating systems allow you to bind services to unique ports and interfaces, so that local firewalls are an additional layer of security. Microsoft needs firewalls to prevent people from attacking insecure local services because they have no other way to limit them to listening only at localhost.
Other browsers treat untrusted documents as untrusted, and assume that if their security fails the whole system is broken. Microsoft has the browser trust the HTML control to do the job, and doesn't give the HTML control enough information to do the job, and rather than GET RID OF the whole pile of ActiveX and "Security Zones" and "trusted sites" they're now pushing people to use "we got it right this time in
If I were to tell you exactly what I thought of this approach to "layered security" I'd be banned from slashdot for abusive language.
Troll, forsooth, for nothing less than the simple truth.
Vatsa matta you? Hey!
u tuppayoufacelyrics.html
Gotta no respect. Hey!
Vista not so bad.
Vista nicea face, ah shudduppa your face.
I fear only the Aussies will understand the reference. It won't be as funny if it has to be explained but the following song made it to number one many moons ago here in Aus:
http://www.lyricsondemand.com/j/joedolcelyrics/sh
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Do you similarly think chroot (and other equivalents) implies everything else runs as root ?
[...] (b) they've given up on keeping IE from being a slutty little spyware freak, and assume that no matter what they do it's gonna get infected.
The primary purpose of a web browser is to download, parse and display data from untrusted, unverifiable sources. They are inherently insecure applications. I'd say bundling the web browser up into its own little isolated pocket of permissions is a damn good idea. Expect to see OS X and "user friendly" Linux distros follow suit within 12 months.
Everytime I've got one of the desktops I support running something that requires a dip into admin priveleges for the apps that can't run in the user space, the OS is going to ask for verification.
Given this will be *very* annoying, I'm guessing there's a little checkbox to "remember" this decision. Lo and behold! The system is running in Admin!
So let me see if I understand this: You are discussing a "problem" with an approach that you are speculating might work a certain way, on a feature and operating system you haven't ever used?
There has been a lot of work to improve the admin problem in Vista, and there's probably more that you don't see than what you do. Please don't make up your mind on what the drawbacks of the approaches we've taken until you've at least tried - and maybe understand - them.
turn the PC into a DRM'd set-top box.
No rational person thinks this, but suppose anyway that that is our secret plan, and that we're going to come up with some scheme whereby apps can't run unless they're magically signed or some other scheme.
Guess what - we already have that, in a few forms even (i.e. SAFER, SRP, etc), and the majority of people don't use it, and don't want to, and even if we did have it, there will still need to be a box that says "run anyway". So "turning the PC into a DRM set-top box" doesn't even solve the problem you're suggesting exists (which, in reality, doesn't exist, fyi)
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.