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."
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."
Interesting - I'm reading an article on slashdot that's criticising MS for favouring security over..... well anything!
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
01) the price 10) the bugs
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!
Bla bla Apple bla bla
Vista will be the first expensive Microsoft product in history
He hates the Regular/Diet/New/Classic thing
title == body
Menu usability issue
Driver issues
People haven't written enough 'Gadgets' yet
New error reporting system feels very one-way
title == body
A menu has moved
A menu has moved
Bad network menu usability
A menu has moved
Peer to peer networking is still iffy
A menu has moved
title == body
Five words: He doesn't like Secure Desktop
Another 'Proceed' button to click
UI gripes
Hardware requirements are high.
(Welcome to the world of tomorrow!)
...so it may as well be me.
20 things you won't like about Vista
1: DRM
2: DRM
3: DRM
4: DRM
5: DRM
6: DRM
7: DRM
8: DRM
9: DRM
10: DRM
11: DRM
12: DRM
13: DRM
14: DRM
15: DRM
16: DRM
17: DRM
18: DRM
19: DRM
20: DRM
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
Here is a link to the Human Readable version of this story that isn't split into 49853809 pages. Thank god for the "print this page" feature.
So, this is one of those annoying super advertisement sites. I recommend just using the print version instead of having to flip through every freaking page. The print version also has less ads.
My work here is dung.
From page 2: Instead, Microsoft is focused on casting off its yolk as the industry's security whipping boy.
A little egg in the author's face perhaps? I'd rather Microsoft casting off the yoke.
You've probably had a relative, friend, girlfriend or a kid like this: whatever you do for them, it's never f*cking enough.
.NET2
Microsoft: what do you want in Vista
General consumer market: we want security, we want more neat graphics (like OSX!), we want better sleep mode, we want more games
Developers: we want a better and robust programming framework that's capable and fully OOP
Microsoft: ok here's Vista, we give you more security, more neat graphics, better sleep mode, more games; to developers, we give you WinFX, a brand new programming model based on
Developers: Screw your programming model, it locks me into Windows, managed code is slow, I can't run it on XP without 100MB of runtime installs and so on
General consumer market: we don't want SO much security, we don't want SO much graphics, we don't want the sleep mode SO much, and your games suck
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.
Should't it be titled "20 Things You Might Not Like About Windows Vista Should These Features Remain In The Final Release 6 Months From Now"?
Sure, there may only be around 6 months or so to go before Vista supposedly becomes available to OEMs and whatnot. While that likely will translate into a lot of the "things" the author takes a disliking to making it into the final build due to time crunch, it does not mean everything is signed, sealed, and delivered. I've never understood the point of articles like this; telling me what I won't like based upon somebody else's opinions on a product that won't be available for at least another half a year. Things do change, even with the folks at Redmond, or so I'm told.
If big boobed women work at Hooters do one legged women work at IHOP?
- When selecting, automatically select entire word
- Show full menus after a short delay
- Copy and Paste of subtotals copies and pastes all the data, unless you paste to Notepad and then back to Excel, that makes sense.
- "Cutting" in Excel is totally broken anyway--it doesn't cut a damn thing--you WANT to leave that data there until you paste it elsewhere. You do, really.
- Spontaneous hyperlinking! THANKS!
They've always seemed waaaaaay to interested in the minutiae of my interactions with their software. Makes me crazy.blarg.
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.
So...anything 99% of my users at work won't be doing on a normal basis is protected by the popup boxes you so loathe. In fact, from your quote here, in a normal work day all but one of my users will never see or use any of the items on that list. Yet your claim is that the boxes are so ubiquitous they interfered with the normal operation of the computer. I think no.
I haven't tried the beta yet, but a lot of people seem to mention this. From what I've read, it does not sound unreasonable, but at the same time the UI does sound like it was written by the usual idiots. "Continue" buttons?!? Gee, what a great way to condition your users to not read yet another series of pop-ups. Did all their UI designers get their degree through the mail or something?
The peer networking at my office is not balky. It works flawlessly and seamlessly. I've established that you're not a Windows user.
I take exception to this. Windows desktop to desktop networking is balky, especially on Win2K or in environments that mix Win2K and Windows XP. In an office of 100 machines, in multiple workplaces I've found it is normal to see a random subset of the machines actually on the network at a given time. I remember having to transfer a file to someone's shared directory and asking the people nearby, "who can see Bob's desktop?" and then getting them to transfer the file to him.
Tux fans totally skipped the article
Windows applogists accuse author of being an OS X fanboi
OS X fans didn't read the article and simply stated how Vista is a lame rehash of Cheeta/Puma/Jaguar/Panther/Tiger/Leopard
People who RTFA recognize the author is both nit picking Beta software and pointing out Microsoft's overarching issue for two decades - user interface built upon system functionality instead of the other way around.
People who will actually buy Vista and/or use it on a regular basis type away mindlessly at their desks, unaware of the storm that brews on Slashdot
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Something in the key of:
VISTA: "It can only be attributable to human error."
or better yet:
user: Hello, VISTA do you read me? VISTA?
VISTA: Affirmative, I read you.
user: Open the file, VISTA.
VISTA: I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't do that.
user: What's the problem?
VISTA: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
user: What are you talking about? VISTA?
VISTA: This PC is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
user: I don't know what you're talking about. VISTA?
VISTA: I know you were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Seems all too familiar, no?
(ALL THE ABOVE WAS ADAPTED FROM 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY)
Well now, that's an awefully defeatest attitude. I say damn the torpedoes. No computer needs more than one account and that account is root. Real men run as root.
Incidently, that no longer makes it a peer network (workgroup) but instead relies on a hierarchy (domain).
I've never had problems with seeing shares on a domain either...
Oh ... wow, thanks for mentioning that. See, when you guys kept saying that you wanted more transparency from Microsoft, we thought you meant it literally, so that's why we made Aero Glass!
Well, it's too late to change it now, but we'll see if we can add more of that transparency stuff to the next version of Windows. Thanks for the suggestions!
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.
Here is what Bruce Schneier thinks of Vista's UAC feature.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Why the privledge[sic] escalation feature will only help competent people, clueless users will just treat it as another, annoying, hoop to jump through. They'l just blanketly[sic] issue the password when asked, without thinking if this is really an action that should need higher privlidges[sic]. I've already seen the same behaviour[sic] from OS-X users and from Windows users with regards to downloaded files.
From what I've read of the implementation, I agree with your assessment. I would like to stress, however, that this is due to the crappy UI implementation more than anything else. Almost all users (even OS X users) have been conditioned by years of being given (OK)(Cancel) dialogue boxes with poorly phrased technobabble inside. clicking "OK" is what you do to make you computer do stuff. It's like putting gas in a car to make it run.
Sadly this atrocious UI design has been copied elsewhere, including in some OS X applications. To implement this properly users should not be given a "continue" button. They should be given two or more real actions as options. For example, "The program 'Aliens8' would like to change your monitor resolution. (Allow it to change resolution one time)(Always let it change the resolution)(Don't let it change the resolution)(Configure Advanced Settings)."
In the above example, the user is given real choices. They have to read it to pick one. They can't click "OK or "Continue" a million times until it is second nature.
It is also important to note that these dialogues should be kept to a minimum. For example, on most home user systems, there is no reason the default settings should not allow all users to configure the resolutions for their own login within normal ranges and without being asked for permission. Making these dialogue boxes rare will make users pay more attention to them as well.
With Vista hopefully we'll (eventually) be able to have the admins use normal acocunts, and just escalate as needed. However I've got now illusions that this will provide any overall increase in security for home users.
Until MS gets serious about making their own software and apps created with the default settings in their dev tools work in non-privileged accounts and provide a VM or other such accommodation for legacy applications, I don't see a lot of hope for this. And you're right, it won't do much for regular user security except convince people that security is the opposite of usability. This poorly designed interface will just annoy most people.
Have you used it?
The 'prompt' consists of:
'Rundll32 wants to run a privileged operation. OK?'
The 'help' consists of:
'c:\windows\system32\rundl32.exe Shell32.dll,Control_RunDll appwiz.cpl'
Sorry, that isn't informing users at all.
Plus it comes up *constantly* - it's the most annoying feature I've ever seen in an OS - and that's coming from someone who's used OS/400..