The File Association Web Service does not send the whole list. that wouldn't make sense. All it sends is the EXTENSION of the file you are looking for a program for.
The Games data is used to download info and covers, especially for old games.
Parental Controls, I believe you have to opt-in for this. It sends URLs to check Allow/Block lists. Nothing serious.
The PNRP data is sent only when you USE PNRP. It's just like (and as necessary as) sending data to a BitTorrent tracker, only you wouldn't send pirated data over it.
The tone of TFA/S isn't what it should be
on
Vista is Watching You
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The things that get transmitted are: 1. Activation info. Well, duh. 2. Windows Update. -do- 3. Auto Root Update. Updates the list of trusted certificate authorities. You know, Verisign etc. 4. Windows Media DRM. Not an issue if you don't use DRM files, and no, information isn't transmitted every time you play the song. 5. Windows Media Player. To download album art/track names. Again, no different from other players. Easy to disable completely. 6. Malicious Software Removal. What's the problem if info is transmitted to Microsoft that you had an infection and it was cleaned? Non-issue. You can choose not to use it at all. 7. Network Connectivity Status Icon. This doesn't TRANSMIT anything except the HTTP request. It just downloads a small page to check if the Internet connection is working. Easy to disable, no problem. 8. Windows Time Service. Syncs time. Again, what's the problem? It's easy to disable if you really have a problem. 9. Problem reports. It asks you very clearly if data is to be sent to Microsoft, and asks you again if you want to send personal data. And reporting problems is good. 10. Games. Come on, it downloads fucking info and covers. 11. Event Viewer. Data is sent only when you specifically REQUEST for more online help. http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/libr ary/28cd5e13-e955-4941-91d9-fec2525e96c71033.mspx? mfr=true 12. Customer Experience Improvement Program. Microsoft *SPECIFICALLY ASKS YOU* if you want to opt-in. Once you say no, it never asks you again.
- etc -
The paranoia claims are really ridiculous. The operating system uses Internet resources to improve your experience, like telling you when you are connected to the Internet. Please take your tinfoil hat off for a minute and look at this objectively.
With IE (or Firefox, or any web browser), the work is trivial. All the browser has to do is to form an HTTP request and send it. The result page can be highlighted with the keywords if the browser supports it (Maxthon, and I presume an extension to Firefox, do the job).
The work with desktop search is non-trivial, however. The options aren't the same, the results aren't presented in the same way. GDS uses a web interface, MS search uses an Explorer interface. Sure, it *can* possibly be done, but I can't see any justification for bringing anti-trust into this -- or even why it *should* be done. It would involve a hell of a lot of work, for one.
Next we'll have a company requesting that the TCP/IP stack be replaceable, another saying that the audio stack should be replaceable, and finally a request for the entire kernel to be replaceable. All of these *can*, very theoretically, be done.
So, how would you explain that on this computer, the indexing service is disabled, and there is no index AT ALL? Anywhere? How would you explain that when I type in a couple of letters into the search box in Explorer, it actually searches the directories instead of the index, and tells me that indexing is off, and to turn on the index for faster searches?
First: that MS indexing can't be turned off in Vista.
Debunked. At least 3 ways to do so.
Second: that the search box does not show Google results even when MS search is turned off. (It reverts to an XP-like slow search instead.)
No shit. I would expect MS results if I'm using MS's search program. If I wanted to use GDS I would use Google's program.
Now: that Vista search gets a performance boost.
Hereby debunked. Vista search runs at a low priority -- both CPU and I/O. So if GDS doesn't use low priority, GDS will get a performance boost compared to MS indexing.
I quickly discovered that searching it automatically called up MSIE
I have no idea why that happens. I don't have GDS (no need for it), but I tried to set Firefox as the default and EVERYTHING passed to Firefox. Search results from the Start menu, URLs in emails, HTML files, EVERYTHING. The problems actually does seem to be GDS.
Why yes. If you're going to use Microsoft Windows Explorer, you ARE going to get Microsoft search results.
Do you (and Google) really want GDS results to be displayed here in that window instead?
Sorry, but "anti-trust" doesn't stick here. Finding files in the most efficient manner possible is a fundamental function of an OS. It will be a sad day for the legal system if MS is by order compelled to remove it from their OS.
Well, the installer for GDS could do it for them. You know, just execute a command. On uninstall, ask if the service should be started, and execute the net start command. The whole case is just stupid.
An FAQ could be posted on the web site telling them how to use the Services panel, or net start.
The whole case is ridiculous. It seems like google now wants its results to be displayed when something is searched using the Explorer box. Argh.
It most certainly does disable it for all of Vista. It's disabled on the computer I'm using right now. With it disabled, the box reverts to an XP-like slow search.
If you're so concerned about the API, you don't have to use it. Just use net stop.
NO, NO, NO. Don't you see! You approve an app, and some malware later hooks into it. Or the database of whitelisted apps is compromised somehow, using this. UAC fundamentally cannot be trained as you describe it -- it defeats the very purpose. Like it or not, until apps are written properly, using as few privileges as possible (like on *nix/BSD), I don't think a better solution than UAC can be made.
As for a sudo-like "saving" of admin access for 5 minutes: malware can very easily attack in this window.
Again, your app sucks. Pressure the manufacturer to release an updated version.
About UIs: A good, attractive (but not flashy) UI can sometimes make all the difference. Who doesn't like nice stuff?
As for performance. Vista is indeed more demanding than XP -- I don't think anyone doubts that. It's the price to be paid for a hardware-accelerated desktop, an instant search feature, better diagnostics and so on. However, the amount by which it is more demanding is highly exaggerated, due, in part, to the incompetence of XP's task manager (no, XP's manager does not report memory usage accurately).
And before anyone starts on DRM: NO. It isn't the price to be paid for DRM! DRM is totally inactive when you play non-DRM files. Take your crap elsewhere.
Vista isn't free of bugs or perfect, of course: there's the annoying failure of UAC to sometimes delete files, the problem of 4 UAC prompts when a folder in a protected dir is created, the slow file copy bug (seems like disabling Remote Differential Compression in Windows Features solved it for me), and several others. The UI is also sometimes annoyingly inconsistent.
Hardware problems: so many have been fixed by driver/BIOS updates. That's the point: there is no "fundamental" problem in Vista. Also, Vista actually runs well on 3-4 year old hardware with a suitable RAM upgrade to 1GB. If you disable Aero, indexing, diagnostics etc, Vista can run pretty well on 512MB or (gasp) even less.
I wasn't accusing you or anything... it's just that groupthink does no one good.
Hmm. They introduced file and registry virtualization and redirected any writes to Program Files or HKLM to separate per-user locations. This isn't recommended, of course, but kept for compatibility reasons.
WPF is capable of producing beautiful, beautiful hardware accelerated programs. When apps start using I/O prioritization, you will be able to, say, defrag or copy with a low priority while still maintaining responsiveness. Plenty of audio effects like dynamic space filling on newer devices. Things like SuperFetch which use all your memory as a cache are undeniably good. The new network stack has better speeds. http://www.istartedsomething.com/20060925/vista-ma ke-torrents-faster/
Come on. Vista is *factually* better than XP. The perception in the slashdot groupthink is different, though.
* Changes to files in %SystemRoot% or %ProgramFiles%
* Installing and uninstalling applications
* Installing device drivers
* Installing ActiveX controls
* Installing Windows Updates
* Changing settings for Windows Firewall
* Changing UAC settings
* Configuring Windows Update
* Adding or removing user accounts
* Changing a user's account type
* Configuring Parental Controls
* Running Task Scheduler
* Restoring backed-up system files
* Viewing or changing another user's folders and files
Exactly WHAT is wrong with UAC triggering these things? UAC will *not*, I repeat *not* trigger in normal usage. If it DOES trigger with say your RSS reader, your app is needlessly asking for admin permissions. In short, your app sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
The File Association Web Service does not send the whole list. that wouldn't make sense. All it sends is the EXTENSION of the file you are looking for a program for.
t artm_detail.mspx
The Games data is used to download info and covers, especially for old games.
Parental Controls, I believe you have to opt-in for this. It sends URLs to check Allow/Block lists. Nothing serious.
The PNRP data is sent only when you USE PNRP. It's just like (and as necessary as) sending data to a BitTorrent tracker, only you wouldn't send pirated data over it.
Source: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/vis
Oh, the article is just plain old FUD.
The things that get transmitted are:r ary/28cd5e13-e955-4941-91d9-fec2525e96c71033.mspx? mfr=true
1. Activation info. Well, duh.
2. Windows Update. -do-
3. Auto Root Update. Updates the list of trusted certificate authorities. You know, Verisign etc.
4. Windows Media DRM. Not an issue if you don't use DRM files, and no, information isn't transmitted every time you play the song.
5. Windows Media Player. To download album art/track names. Again, no different from other players. Easy to disable completely.
6. Malicious Software Removal. What's the problem if info is transmitted to Microsoft that you had an infection and it was cleaned? Non-issue. You can choose not to use it at all.
7. Network Connectivity Status Icon. This doesn't TRANSMIT anything except the HTTP request. It just downloads a small page to check if the Internet connection is working. Easy to disable, no problem.
8. Windows Time Service. Syncs time. Again, what's the problem? It's easy to disable if you really have a problem.
9. Problem reports. It asks you very clearly if data is to be sent to Microsoft, and asks you again if you want to send personal data. And reporting problems is good.
10. Games. Come on, it downloads fucking info and covers.
11. Event Viewer. Data is sent only when you specifically REQUEST for more online help. http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/lib
12. Customer Experience Improvement Program. Microsoft *SPECIFICALLY ASKS YOU* if you want to opt-in. Once you say no, it never asks you again.
- etc -
The paranoia claims are really ridiculous. The operating system uses Internet resources to improve your experience, like telling you when you are connected to the Internet. Please take your tinfoil hat off for a minute and look at this objectively.
and both deserve to be derided.
You know, that seemed like a direct ripoff of Vista too. Innumerable builds of Vista have carried similar grass/leaves/take your green pick images.
the app thinks its writing to the registry but it isn't
Whaddya know. That is EXACTLY what it does for HKLM!
Windows Vista has the BSD stack!... oh wait, it doesn't.
With IE (or Firefox, or any web browser), the work is trivial. All the browser has to do is to form an HTTP request and send it. The result page can be highlighted with the keywords if the browser supports it (Maxthon, and I presume an extension to Firefox, do the job).
The work with desktop search is non-trivial, however. The options aren't the same, the results aren't presented in the same way. GDS uses a web interface, MS search uses an Explorer interface. Sure, it *can* possibly be done, but I can't see any justification for bringing anti-trust into this -- or even why it *should* be done. It would involve a hell of a lot of work, for one.
Next we'll have a company requesting that the TCP/IP stack be replaceable, another saying that the audio stack should be replaceable, and finally a request for the entire kernel to be replaceable. All of these *can*, very theoretically, be done.
So, how would you explain that on this computer, the indexing service is disabled, and there is no index AT ALL? Anywhere? How would you explain that when I type in a couple of letters into the search box in Explorer, it actually searches the directories instead of the index, and tells me that indexing is off, and to turn on the index for faster searches?
You can. If the index is turned off, an XP-like slow, non-indexed search is done when you type something in the search box. The index is OFF, period.
What's so hard to understand? I'll repeat it: The index is OFF, period. The index is OFF, period. The index is OFF, period.
You want GDS to run at a low priority? Tell that to Google.
First: that MS indexing can't be turned off in Vista.
Debunked. At least 3 ways to do so.
Second: that the search box does not show Google results even when MS search is turned off. (It reverts to an XP-like slow search instead.)
No shit. I would expect MS results if I'm using MS's search program. If I wanted to use GDS I would use Google's program.
Now: that Vista search gets a performance boost.
Hereby debunked. Vista search runs at a low priority -- both CPU and I/O. So if GDS doesn't use low priority, GDS will get a performance boost compared to MS indexing.
Next?
why hasn't it been nuked out of Windows since then?
It has. Vista uses a separate app for downloading updates.
you can't turn it off
YOU CAN.
I quickly discovered that searching it automatically called up MSIE
I have no idea why that happens. I don't have GDS (no need for it), but I tried to set Firefox as the default and EVERYTHING passed to Firefox. Search results from the Start menu, URLs in emails, HTML files, EVERYTHING. The problems actually does seem to be GDS.
The search had been as it is for at least a year before release.
I'm quickly losing respect for Google.
Why yes. If you're going to use Microsoft Windows Explorer, you ARE going to get Microsoft search results.
Do you (and Google) really want GDS results to be displayed here in that window instead?
Sorry, but "anti-trust" doesn't stick here. Finding files in the most efficient manner possible is a fundamental function of an OS. It will be a sad day for the legal system if MS is by order compelled to remove it from their OS.
Well, the installer for GDS could do it for them. You know, just execute a command. On uninstall, ask if the service should be started, and execute the net start command. The whole case is just stupid.
An FAQ could be posted on the web site telling them how to use the Services panel, or net start.
The whole case is ridiculous. It seems like google now wants its results to be displayed when something is searched using the Explorer box. Argh.
It most certainly does disable it for all of Vista. It's disabled on the computer I'm using right now. With it disabled, the box reverts to an XP-like slow search.
If you're so concerned about the API, you don't have to use it. Just use net stop.
The issue with your post is the statement:
The issue here is that Microsoft does not include a way to turn off its own desktop search
It does. It includes *several* ways to do so. Disable the service, use net stop, use the API.
Very funny, you knew what I meant.
NO, NO, NO. Don't you see! You approve an app, and some malware later hooks into it. Or the database of whitelisted apps is compromised somehow, using this. UAC fundamentally cannot be trained as you describe it -- it defeats the very purpose. Like it or not, until apps are written properly, using as few privileges as possible (like on *nix/BSD), I don't think a better solution than UAC can be made.
As for a sudo-like "saving" of admin access for 5 minutes: malware can very easily attack in this window.
Again, your app sucks. Pressure the manufacturer to release an updated version.
About UIs: A good, attractive (but not flashy) UI can sometimes make all the difference. Who doesn't like nice stuff?
As for performance. Vista is indeed more demanding than XP -- I don't think anyone doubts that. It's the price to be paid for a hardware-accelerated desktop, an instant search feature, better diagnostics and so on. However, the amount by which it is more demanding is highly exaggerated, due, in part, to the incompetence of XP's task manager (no, XP's manager does not report memory usage accurately).
And before anyone starts on DRM: NO. It isn't the price to be paid for DRM! DRM is totally inactive when you play non-DRM files. Take your crap elsewhere.
Vista isn't free of bugs or perfect, of course: there's the annoying failure of UAC to sometimes delete files, the problem of 4 UAC prompts when a folder in a protected dir is created, the slow file copy bug (seems like disabling Remote Differential Compression in Windows Features solved it for me), and several others. The UI is also sometimes annoyingly inconsistent.
Hardware problems: so many have been fixed by driver/BIOS updates. That's the point: there is no "fundamental" problem in Vista. Also, Vista actually runs well on 3-4 year old hardware with a suitable RAM upgrade to 1GB. If you disable Aero, indexing, diagnostics etc, Vista can run pretty well on 512MB or (gasp) even less.
I wasn't accusing you or anything... it's just that groupthink does no one good.
Hmm. They introduced file and registry virtualization and redirected any writes to Program Files or HKLM to separate per-user locations. This isn't recommended, of course, but kept for compatibility reasons.
Running XP as a limited user should give you an accurate idea. Really, UAC is limited user mode for admins.
Why, it isn't just that.
a ke-torrents-faster/
WPF is capable of producing beautiful, beautiful hardware accelerated programs.
When apps start using I/O prioritization, you will be able to, say, defrag or copy with a low priority while still maintaining responsiveness.
Plenty of audio effects like dynamic space filling on newer devices.
Things like SuperFetch which use all your memory as a cache are undeniably good.
The new network stack has better speeds. http://www.istartedsomething.com/20060925/vista-m
Come on. Vista is *factually* better than XP. The perception in the slashdot groupthink is different, though.
Are you aware of when UAC triggers? (wiki)
* Changes to files in %SystemRoot% or %ProgramFiles%
* Installing and uninstalling applications
* Installing device drivers
* Installing ActiveX controls
* Installing Windows Updates
* Changing settings for Windows Firewall
* Changing UAC settings
* Configuring Windows Update
* Adding or removing user accounts
* Changing a user's account type
* Configuring Parental Controls
* Running Task Scheduler
* Restoring backed-up system files
* Viewing or changing another user's folders and files
Exactly WHAT is wrong with UAC triggering these things? UAC will *not*, I repeat *not* trigger in normal usage. If it DOES trigger with say your RSS reader, your app is needlessly asking for admin permissions. In short, your app sucks.
F? Check.
U? Check.
D? Check.
Any music file that ran on XP will run on Vista.
Any video file that ran on XP will run on Vista.