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?
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.'"
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.
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.
Turns out the guy didn't really get it working, he just had this taped to his laptop.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
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.
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!
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
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.
Better yet, he claims it has been running flawlessly for three weeks, but the screenshot he posted:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?page_id=65&page=19
indicates a system crash on 5/21.
Life is short: void the warranty.
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.