Slashdot Mirror
20 Things You Won't Like About Vista
feminazi writes "Computerworld's Scot Finnie details 20 things you won't like in Windows Vista, with a visual tour to prove it. He says that MS has favored security over end-user productivity, making the user feel like a rat caught in a maze with all the protect-you-from-yourself password-entry and 'Continue' boxes required by the User Account Controls feature." From the article: "In its supreme state of being, Microsoft knows precisely what's best for you. It knows that because its well-implemented new Sleep mode uses very little electricity and also takes only two or three seconds to either shut down or restart, you want to use this mode to 'turn off' your computer, whether you realize it or not. It wants to teach you about what's best. It wants to make it harder for you to make a mistake."
I don't like the User Account Controls either, but this is coincidentally one of the areas in Vista that has seen most work on it the past few months, and Microsoft claims they understnad it's a problem and will keep trying to reduce the annoyance.
:-)
OK, you may now proceed the bashing for annoying UAC's in this beta.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
According to the first page (site seems to slashdotted -- where's the CC ?), the best new features are the enhanced security and the new "user experience". From my Unix-based vantage point it hard to be excited when the cool new window manager is supposed to be an important reason to buy a new version of an operating system.
Actually, Microsoft was promising a genuine fundamental innovation (WinFS), but could deliver this in Vista. That would be something worth seeing.
A (clean) Windows XP machine, albeit not 3 seconds, is also very quick when starting up: I am more interested in getting a more meaningful figure of the start-up time, eg. a machine which has at least installed a few apps, of which a few will be running in the background.
I was totally with you until I got to the bit about Windows peer networking. If you know the magic button that allows me to get to other computers on the network without a 30-second hang before reporting, "No, I haven't figured out how to get to the computer that's right next to this one", I'd really like to know about it.
It knows that because its well-implemented new Sleep mode uses very little electricity and also takes only two or three seconds to either shut down or restart, you want to use this mode to 'turn off' your computer, whether you realize it or not. It wants to teach you about what's best.
Despite my struggles with the switch to a Mac I have to say that Sleep is one thing that the Powerbook does very, very well. I never used it on my Windows boxes, but can't imagine not having it since living with an Apple.
Three Squirrels
...is decent, but could be summarized even more.
1. I don't like change
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Bah, it's the wrong approach to security. The underlying OS is still wide open if you have appropriate credentials. Note that OS-X and Linux suffer the same problem. Executable code needs to be encapsulated. User programs should not be able to modify the OS or other programs at all. Note that this doesn't preculde programs from interacting. You can still have programs with public interfaces. And regradless of their internal structure, programs should behave as though they were a single file. What Microsoft is doing is a very poor approach to security that doesn't fix the underlying problems, but it does create a confusing hassle for users.
A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:
Which in English means recommended configuration.
+1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.
Not too bad for modern machines, but this is starting to get crazy for just an OS
+1 GB of system memory.
I know a few gamers still running 512 MB and most systems are still coming 256/512 as the default.
+A graphics processor that runs Windows Aero.
+128 MB of graphics memory.
So like 90% of machines that the big three sell will not run Aero? Most still default to 64MB or built-in cards and right now most people do not want/need more.
+40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
This is nearly 10x the install for XP pro. Does anyone else find this a bit crazy?
+DVD-ROM Drive
With a 15GB install, I damn well hope it install off of a DVD and not a CD-ROM or I might die switching out CDs.
This is just plain silly for an OS. And I am supposed to play games on top of all this? I love how more and more system resources are being hogged away by Windows. I have already verbally committed to Windows XP being my last Windows OS. M$ has done enough for me to ensure, despite the headaches it might cause, my relatives whose computers I support will be running Linux when XPs support runs out.
I think many of the features of the OS are over-hyped. Some of them (IE7, WMP11, etc.) will be available to XP anyway. Some of these features are also things that either OS X or Linux (or sometimes both) have had for a while. They eye-candy hardly impresses me either. I have gnome as pretty as I want it, and I have no complaints. I really did not like the XP visual changes that much and a lot of people I know still use the traditional appearance and old-style Start Menu.
While I will commend Microsoft for trying to add security, it is almost too little too late. I also do not like the "cost" of upgrading either. There are two many requirements that make older PCs out of reach for running even a trimmed down version of Vista. It seems like these requirements have grown almost exponentially from 2K->XP->Vista. BTW, my sources for Vista's Requirements and XP's.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Um actually you can have it both ways. Favoring security does not mean a whole lot if they basically destroy any user experience and make it a complete pain in the ass to use. Security and Ease of use are not mutually exclusive. Making something secure does not mean you have to make other areas worse, despite what you have read on slashdot.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Well, I can't get to the article but...
The irony here is that almost every instance of "insecure by design" in Microsoft's products were introduced to put a competitor at a disadvantage. It's not like they made unknowing mistakes or something, and in fact in many cases they were criticized by the minority of people who worried about security all along, even to the point of inventing proof of concept exploits to show the dangers.
Now they are going to "clean up their act", but I bet you at least a part of their problem with bloat is that these security concepts were not designed in earlier. I really feel sorry for my friends who think that they just HAVE to used Windows or Windows based products. They don't, but I don't feel like spending any more time preaching to them.
The numbers are still small, but I think there is a critical mass of people who can get what they need to do done without constant fear of attack (I'm speaking of Linux and OS X users) who will serve as role models for "the masses" to find their way out of the badlands that Microsoft has lead them into.
Oh man I'm having a metaphor Thursday.
The editorial staff at this pub is repeating the usual MS party line:
s ta/page18.html
4 08915
this version will fix that, so buy it.
In 2006 it's "Oh security! Yeah we fixed that."
Well, the facts seem to tell otherwise:
Tom's Harware:
"But Microsoft hasn't taken this principle entirely to heart, either. The first user defined during installation is automatically granted administrative privileges. Worse yet, the reserved account named Administrator is not required to have a password to log into the machine!"
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/31/windows_vi
My exchange with a Microsoftie claiming their admin problems are solved.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186700&cid=15
In conclusion decades of "yeah we fixed that" on top of an OS *never* designed with security as an underlying principal and we've got more of the same.
And the "tipping point" for publications is when the Microsoft advert dollars stop pouring in.
I'll change my tune when they start paying me to say otherwise.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
> So finally, Microsoft sacrificed compatibility for the sake of improved security*,
The problem is that people want a secure and usable system and you can't get there by starting at Windows XP.
The lack of security in Windows isn't because of bugs, it is because of features - features that programs rely on, some of which have been there since Windows was just a GUI front end stuck on top of DOS.
Since then MS have added layers on top and patches underneath to try to give the appearance of modern and secure and usable but underneath it all there are programs that were written as if they are running on MS-DOS 2.11.
Some users, like those of us who live in Florida, need a simple, clear way to turn off our personal machines in the event of a severe thunderstorm (daily during the summer), or other similar event. Why? Because I have in the course of five years blown through three Uninterruptible Power Supplies, two whole networks of gear, and three machines. No matter how good the UPS is, nothing beats pulling the plugs from the wall for stopping a lightning strike.
Even where I work, we have had shutdown calls because the power was too unstable for even our high grade UPSs to handle. It does happen.
And I, for one, want to be absolutely sure that when I tell my computer to power down it does so BEFORE I yank the plugs.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
(It has a 60GB disk and 2GB of RAM. I can't imagine what kind of "resources" it needs, if this isn't enough.)
Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME had a 64 KiB "user" heap and a 64 KiB "GDI" heap shared by all running applications, even if your machine had 512 MiB of RAM. The OS reported the lower of the two heaps' free space values as "free system resources."
The sleep mode gets better with each release of Windows. XP is pretty much as good as the Macs, however because there is a lot of ingrown distrust of Sleep mode in Windows from years of bad experiance with it, many people still instinctivly shut off their machines anyway.
I use the sleep mode on my modern Windows laptop without any trouble.
I read the internet for the articles.
In a business environment like the one I work in a good sleep mode would be helpfull. We require our user's machines to stay on overnight so we can push security updates and other information to the machines. Turning them off isn't an option. There are options for booting via the LAN but they are cumbersome and time consuming if you're going to push and update to several hundred computers and have to wait for them to boot up.
Meanwhile, Apple arrogantly fights their consumers:
Consumers: We want x.
Apple: No, you want y, you just don't know it.
Consumers: No, we really really really want x.
Apple: Well.... here's y. Now, do you really want x?
Consumer: Nope. This is what I wanted all along!
Apple: Told you so.
My employer just pushes them out when we boot - what's wrong with that? It takes a minute or two out of our day but it works just fine.
(I will say it's annoying because we don't always know when updates are being pushed to the machines, so we'll start mail programs and get everything set up only to have "You must now reboot" pop up. But for updates once every few weeks, we cope just fine.)
If you think Windows peer networking is balky, you likely aren't setting something up correctly.
Setting up is soooooo, 90's. Does Vista have ZeroConf yet? You plug into the network and within seconds all the printers show up as options when you print, all the local users show up in your chat program, all the shared streaming music channels and files show up in your mp3 player, all the shared directories show up for filesharing, and all the shared documents for collaborative editing appear. It makes conferences a lot more fun. Configuration is a waste of time.
Maybe it is possible that with some more configuration work you can get all the machines to show up, without any centralized servers, but who the hell is going to go mess with the configuration of every machine to get this to work? It sure isn't set up properly by default since it hasn't worked at so many places I've been. Spotty peering that can be fixed with a configuration work-around is still a problem.
people leaving their systems on overnight for the sake of 20 seconds in the morning are wasting energy and money
If you have your XP system doing a cold boot in 20 seconds, congradulations. Otherwise, you have to compare the cost of electricty needed to keep the ram alive overnight vs. the electrity burned in the morning boot up's CPU and hard drive thrashing. Sounds like something Ars or Tom's Hardware would do. Quickly, to the bat-google!
#include <signature.h>
Funny, when applied to Mac OS X it is the greatest security feature ever. How many posts have you read from Mac users touting how secure Os X is because if you try to do anything important to the system, a box pops up and asks for the root password??
Modded down in 4...3...2...1
"But this one goes to 11!"
That's an interesting viewpoint, but I don't see that it really applies here. What I see is more like:
... ...
Mac users, 1999: We want pre-emptive multitasking! And memory protection! And better performance! And
Apple: OK, here's Mac OS X. It has everything you want, except improved performance. And DVD support.
Mac users: Wow, this is glacial. How about that performance again?
Apple: While you were busy complaining, we fixed the performance issues, andded fast-user-switching, spotlight, rendezvous, expose, filevault, smart folders,
Mac users: Sweet!
OTOH...
PC users, 1984: Macs are way cooler than MS-DOS. Can I get windows for my PC?
Microsoft: Sure! Here's a crappy imitation of the Mac.
PC users, with v1: Um, can we, like, move them?
Microsoft: Picky picky! Maybe in version 2.
PC users, with v2: Um, this "MS Executive" is just like "dir" in a window. Can we have a real file manager?
Microsoft: You guys are never happy! Here's another crappy imitation of the Mac: File Manager! Oh, and a Program Manager, because programs aren't files.
PC users, with v3: What?
...fast forward 15 years...
XP users: Apple customers are making fun of us again. Can we get, like, security, or cool graphics, or power management that doesn't blow goats, or a decent search, or filesystem metadata, or, well, anything that's more than just "Windows 3.51 with a different color scheme and most of the bugs fixed"?
Microsoft: Yep, Longhorn will have more than that, in 2003.
XP users: Yay!
Microsoft: Oops, we meant "less", and "2007".
XP users: What?
I've got all my workstations set to Hibernate rather than use Sleep mode. That way you can tell the machine to hibernate, it stores the current state of everything (Apps, Docs opened within the Apps, etc.) to the hard drive, then turns COMPLETELY off. No power drain while it's hybernating. The restart, while not instantaneous, is just a few seconds (Longest part is the BIOS POST). Bamn, everything's up and ready to fly in usually less than 30 seconds. And all the power is saved during the night.
Sleep sucks. Hibernate is where it's at.
So now Windows is *too* secure? When are you GPL-zealots gonna be happy? I've played with the latest Vista beta, yes, there are lots of pop-ups, mainly when you run an app for the first time, install an app, or an app makes an outbound connection for the first time (like any desktop firewall will do) but for being the most attacked OS on the planet it's really got its guard up. And anytime you install something on OS X it prompts you for an admin password as well. Damned if you're not secure, damned if you're too secure. Perhaps there's a way to still be secure but in a less intrusive way. I'm sure there's a way to turn off the different types of popups and run in a more trusted mode but out of the box Vista is very locked down, like it or not.
I can take the battery out of the machine entirely and it would be dead in six days. As LiIon batteries age, their self-discharge rate increases. The machine isn't using the power at all.
Your watch has a lithium-manganese battery rather than a lithium-ion battery. They sound the same, but they are completely different things. Those batteries are specifically designed to have incredibly low self discharge rates, while laptop batteries are designed for capacity and rapid charging. It's not really fair to compare the two.
- The user is a beginner
- The user is experienced
Why not?Then the user will get the neat-looking desktop with lots of colors, sounds (even the click sound when you click your mouse) and all the other crap like tutorials and "click here"-balloon messages.
This way, Windows will deliver maximum performance (ha ha), turn off those annoying sounds and let you be in charge.