Computer Cart: Various PCs are plagued with cryptic error messages like "Fatal Error" and error "692".
Surgery: PC explains he might need some surgery (upgrades) in order to run Vista and is worried about it.
Both of these are just flat-out hypocrisy. OS X is *full* of error messages which are similarly worthless and it took Apple a couple of *years* after releasing OS X before _any_ Mac could run it with anything approaching reasonable performance.
How is it not? They have roughly equivalent hardware.
Because when you're buying a laptop, "roughly equivalent hardware" is a relatively minor issue.
If you're considering the design and feel of the product, that's another matter, and much more subjective.
I'm not, I'm talking about things like build quality (the Inspirons are crap, like pretty much all Dell's non-business-oriented hardware) and physical dimensions (the MBP is only a bit more than half the volume of the Inspiron 1720 and weighs about a pound less). To say nothing of other niceties like a DVI out.
I am not arguing that Macs aren't expensive - they are - but try and keep the comparison at least close to sane. A MBP is an expensive laptop, but as a _value_ proposition it's quite good. You need to be looking to a Latitude or Precision laptop from Dell for a reasonable comparison.
Then I patched in an Ethernet cable to the local network which had unfiltered access to the internet (pretty much what the average cable user, or the average DSL user has after dialup).
The average DSL user, at least, is sitting behind a device which at the very least does NAT and probably has a firewall enabled as well.
It's been some time since I had a cable connection and modem, but I'd be surprised if they weren't the same, these days.
I don't play WoW. I do, however, run Zonealarm. Now, a fresh Zonealarm install will tell you that loads of Windows services are asking to open ports on to the big bad internet. All of these are open by default on the Mickey Mouse Microsoft firewall, because "they're Microsoft services and none of them could possibly be a security risk".
No, they're not. A default Windows XP SP2 install doesn't even respond to pings.
Is it a problem if you need 4 minutes to install all windows patches and updates?
It's not a problem at all if you just turn on the firewall that comes with every version of XP, or in pretty much every consumer-level cable/ADSL modem/router.
It would be interesting to see how long default, unpatched installs of OSes like RH7 and Solaris 8 last as well.
These sorts of articles are just flamebait. Pretty much any version of Windows XP acquired since 2004 has SP2 integrated, and this the firewall enabled by default. The vast majority of consumers sit behind NAT routers (at the very least) and firewalls (also common). A completely exposed Windows XP box - much like a completely exposed box running any OS - is a rarity, today.
I'm not saying Microsoft is at fault for the end-user's ignorance, but inundating them with Continue/Cancel dialogs at every turn is a nearly guaranteed way to both upset them and defeat the security you are trying to implement.
Firstly, UAC's "problems" aren't "fundamental", they're a matter of UI refinement. Further, most of them are completely outside of Microsoft's control, the result of poorly coded third-party applications. While I have seen a few UAC prompts that "shouldn't" have appeared, I have yet to see one that didn't appear without a valid reason (that is to say, elevated privileges were actually required, even though they shouldn't have been).
Secondly, the "fundamental problem" with UAC is the same as its (functionally, essentially identical) equivalents on OS X on Linux - typical end users are ill-equipped to make educated security-related decisions.
This is neither Microsoft's fault, nor anything they can fix. No amount of dialog box content is going to educate a typical end user sufficiently to make full-informed decisions - assuming (big assumption) that they want to be educated in the first place.
At some point - despite contemporary society's "it wasn't my fault" attitudes - responsibility has to fall to the person actually sitting in front of the machine to not do something stupid. Given that [general purpose] computers are - inescapably - complex devices, built to complete complex tasks and "stupid" tends to be extremely relative, most users simply aren't able to make intelligent decisions, nor are they ever likely to be.
The simple fact is what most people need is a computer that - most of the time - is like their microwave or games console.
Good grief, that's been a problem for years and they still have not fixed it.
As this is something I've experienced on every single platform I've ever used, at some point, I'm willing to cut Microsoft a bit of slack. Clearly it's a problem not easily fixed.
From the perspective of Windows functionality, DRM is either irrelevant (you have no DRM-encumbered media) or useful (it lets you access your DRM-encumbered media that you otherwise wouldn't be able to).
A big chunk of their market wants openness and transparency. They want formats that can be moved to other platforms, and protocols that can talk with anyone.
Perhaps we should look at the reason why we switched to Macs or to Linux. Lack of innovation and high prices. If MS can make a secure product, that is innovative, and affordable, I might buy it, or at least not wipe my OEM install of it. The fact though is, I don't think that MS can innovate, which is really sad.
Neither Linux nor OS X are any more (or less) "innovative" than Windows.
Further, Windows for the vast majority of consumers is not expensive. Indeed, it's "free".
Then I removed the 4GB USB flash drive I use for ReadyBoost, and repeated the test. The boot time dropped to a minute 42 seconds. Interesting. ReadyBoost is definitely slowing it down. I wonder why that is.
What happens when you leave the drive in but don't use it for ReadyBoost ?
People laugh at this, but it was OS X moving to a Unix kernel that helped it really take off.
No, it was OSX moving to something that _wasn't_ MacOS Classic (there was even a while when building OS on top of Windows NT was considered by Apple).
Anyone remember the older versions of Apple's OSes? The inability to multitask? The complete lack of memory protection, causing every segfault to be a fatal error? Yeah.
Vista has not accomplished one tenth of what 95 did, which is a ridiculous truth.
It's easy to make massive and obvious improvements, when there are massive and obvious improvements to make.
I am concerned with the possibility of suffering through another 98 and ME before Microsoft realizes that they need to address fundamental issues with Vista.
And as I've always said, WTF needs a database/metadata layer? Cut out the middle man and throw all the data in the database. Those who think this can't be done haven't worked on IBM mainframe OSes.
I'm confused. You seem to be asking "WTF" it's for, then suggesting it should be done.
The list only needs to be one item long: Make windows secure.
It is "secure". It's just not used securely.
The first thing any corporate user of Windows does on a new machine is to install anti-virus software. Make Windows secure enough that anti-virus software isn't needed.
You seem to misunderstand the fundamental point, objective, and reason for anti-virus software.
Why not do it like Apple (and the rest of Unix) The APPLICATION has permissions, and those are LESS than the users permission level.
What the heck are you talking about ? In the traditional UNIX permissions systems, applications execute with the privilege level of the user.
If applications can't cross communicate without user initiated actions, and can't run in the background without going through rigorous, kernel controlled, proper steps, then applications can't place the user at any real risk. If an app needs to do something it doesn't have permission to do, then it should request it, and tell the user SPECIFICALLY what its requesting, and that should only grant an elevated permission on THAT SPECIFIC cross-application permission. This can be further enhaced through application signing, eliminating these requests for applications that have been cleared through a central authority, but they should still bow to user imposed locks.
Ah, yes, just what we need, more "are you sure" popups. After all, they've done a great job thus far.
Yah, too bad that 0.01% of the people are the ones that are making the decision to either deploy Windows or to switch to Linux/Mac.
No, they're not.
Think about it this way, huge corporation A is looking at buying 1,000 new workstations, they have all the apps they need on any platform (Linux, Windows, Mac) because they are web based but most of the employees are used to Windows. They also don't want to spend much money on these 1,000 computers and want something minimal to just access the web apps. So if they can get a $300 computer that works the same with Linux and Windows 7, because the employees are more familiar with Windows they may choose Windows and get a small price increase because it is as customizable as Linux. Otherwise MS can kiss the 1,000 licenses they may get from it goodbye.
You don't appear to have experience with how "huge corporations" prioritise computer purchases. Your scenario is not realistic. Windows is more than customisable enough for any mainstream (ie: "huge corporation") needs.
Really though, the killer app of Linux is. Customization. For MS to get more marketshare, you need to be able to customize everything on it. From the kernel to the GUI.
I'm pretty sure they're willing to let the 0.01% of people who care about this sort of thing, slide.
Sure it would be a hell of a lot of work to the kernel to have it compatible with existing binaries and drivers, but I would imagine that Windows 7 kernel development is too. I mean it seems like a crazy idea, but doesn't it have a smidgen of merit to it?
No. It would be a massive, massive amount of work and net them no meaningful benefits.
To say nothing of the potential "viral GPL" problems.
Speaking of which - how would WinFS and ZFS compare?
Much like chalk and cheese. WinFS is(/was) *not* a filesystem, it's a database/metadata layer that sits between the filesystem (NTFS) and the applications.
Seriously, I'm anything but "fit", but I do use my bike for as much as I can. Yeah, I've lost a few pounds, but I'm still well over 250 pounds.
Don't assume that just because you're fat, you're (proportionally) unfit.
I'm 6'2" and 220 pounds - well and truly overweight - but I can handle a lot more physical activity than several people I know who are _much_ skinnier.
I wouldn't say I'm fit - certainly not like I was back in school - but compared to my peers I'm not _unfit_.
Slashdot Mirror
Computer Cart: Various PCs are plagued with cryptic error messages like "Fatal Error" and error "692".
Surgery: PC explains he might need some surgery (upgrades) in order to run Vista and is worried about it.
Both of these are just flat-out hypocrisy. OS X is *full* of error messages which are similarly worthless and it took Apple a couple of *years* after releasing OS X before _any_ Mac could run it with anything approaching reasonable performance.
How is it not? They have roughly equivalent hardware.
Because when you're buying a laptop, "roughly equivalent hardware" is a relatively minor issue.
If you're considering the design and feel of the product, that's another matter, and much more subjective.
I'm not, I'm talking about things like build quality (the Inspirons are crap, like pretty much all Dell's non-business-oriented hardware) and physical dimensions (the MBP is only a bit more than half the volume of the Inspiron 1720 and weighs about a pound less). To say nothing of other niceties like a DVI out.
I am not arguing that Macs aren't expensive - they are - but try and keep the comparison at least close to sane. A MBP is an expensive laptop, but as a _value_ proposition it's quite good. You need to be looking to a Latitude or Precision laptop from Dell for a reasonable comparison.
The OS should have a better mechanism to protect itself from the users by design.
What would you suggest ?
UAC hardly solve anything.
UAC solves exactly the same problem its equivalents on other OSes do - only elevating privileges on demand.
Alright, let's look at one example, I'll compare a 17" Dell Inspiron to the 17" default MacBook Pro on Apple's site:
An Inspiron is not a reasonable comparison to a MacBook Pro. You only need to hold them both in your hands to figure that out.
Then I patched in an Ethernet cable to the local network which had unfiltered access to the internet (pretty much what the average cable user, or the average DSL user has after dialup).
The average DSL user, at least, is sitting behind a device which at the very least does NAT and probably has a firewall enabled as well.
It's been some time since I had a cable connection and modem, but I'd be surprised if they weren't the same, these days.
I don't play WoW. I do, however, run Zonealarm. Now, a fresh Zonealarm install will tell you that loads of Windows services are asking to open ports on to the big bad internet. All of these are open by default on the Mickey Mouse Microsoft firewall, because "they're Microsoft services and none of them could possibly be a security risk".
No, they're not. A default Windows XP SP2 install doesn't even respond to pings.
Is it a problem if you need 4 minutes to install all windows patches and updates?
It's not a problem at all if you just turn on the firewall that comes with every version of XP, or in pretty much every consumer-level cable/ADSL modem/router.
It would be interesting to see how long default, unpatched installs of OSes like RH7 and Solaris 8 last as well.
These sorts of articles are just flamebait. Pretty much any version of Windows XP acquired since 2004 has SP2 integrated, and this the firewall enabled by default. The vast majority of consumers sit behind NAT routers (at the very least) and firewalls (also common). A completely exposed Windows XP box - much like a completely exposed box running any OS - is a rarity, today.
I'm not saying Microsoft is at fault for the end-user's ignorance, but inundating them with Continue/Cancel dialogs at every turn is a nearly guaranteed way to both upset them and defeat the security you are trying to implement.
Firstly, UAC's "problems" aren't "fundamental", they're a matter of UI refinement. Further, most of them are completely outside of Microsoft's control, the result of poorly coded third-party applications. While I have seen a few UAC prompts that "shouldn't" have appeared, I have yet to see one that didn't appear without a valid reason (that is to say, elevated privileges were actually required, even though they shouldn't have been).
Secondly, the "fundamental problem" with UAC is the same as its (functionally, essentially identical) equivalents on OS X on Linux - typical end users are ill-equipped to make educated security-related decisions.
This is neither Microsoft's fault, nor anything they can fix. No amount of dialog box content is going to educate a typical end user sufficiently to make full-informed decisions - assuming (big assumption) that they want to be educated in the first place.
At some point - despite contemporary society's "it wasn't my fault" attitudes - responsibility has to fall to the person actually sitting in front of the machine to not do something stupid. Given that [general purpose] computers are - inescapably - complex devices, built to complete complex tasks and "stupid" tends to be extremely relative, most users simply aren't able to make intelligent decisions, nor are they ever likely to be.
The simple fact is what most people need is a computer that - most of the time - is like their microwave or games console.
Good grief, that's been a problem for years and they still have not fixed it.
As this is something I've experienced on every single platform I've ever used, at some point, I'm willing to cut Microsoft a bit of slack. Clearly it's a problem not easily fixed.
D R M ... To name one
From the perspective of Windows functionality, DRM is either irrelevant (you have no DRM-encumbered media) or useful (it lets you access your DRM-encumbered media that you otherwise wouldn't be able to).
Windows Server and Desktop *are* very different.
No, they're not. For example, Windows 2008 and Vista SP1 are basically the same (eg: same kernel).
A big chunk of their market wants openness and transparency. They want formats that can be moved to other platforms, and protocols that can talk with anyone.
Evidence ?
Perhaps we should look at the reason why we switched to Macs or to Linux. Lack of innovation and high prices. If MS can make a secure product, that is innovative, and affordable, I might buy it, or at least not wipe my OEM install of it. The fact though is, I don't think that MS can innovate, which is really sad.
Neither Linux nor OS X are any more (or less) "innovative" than Windows.
Further, Windows for the vast majority of consumers is not expensive. Indeed, it's "free".
Then I removed the 4GB USB flash drive I use for ReadyBoost, and repeated the test. The boot time dropped to a minute 42 seconds. Interesting. ReadyBoost is definitely slowing it down. I wonder why that is.
What happens when you leave the drive in but don't use it for ReadyBoost ?
People laugh at this, but it was OS X moving to a Unix kernel that helped it really take off.
No, it was OSX moving to something that _wasn't_ MacOS Classic (there was even a while when building OS on top of Windows NT was considered by Apple).
Anyone remember the older versions of Apple's OSes? The inability to multitask? The complete lack of memory protection, causing every segfault to be a fatal error? Yeah.
Yes, and Windows suffers none of these problems.
Vista has not accomplished one tenth of what 95 did, which is a ridiculous truth.
It's easy to make massive and obvious improvements, when there are massive and obvious improvements to make.
I am concerned with the possibility of suffering through another 98 and ME before Microsoft realizes that they need to address fundamental issues with Vista.
Fundamental issues like what ?
And as I've always said, WTF needs a database/metadata layer? Cut out the middle man and throw all the data in the database. Those who think this can't be done haven't worked on IBM mainframe OSes.
I'm confused. You seem to be asking "WTF" it's for, then suggesting it should be done.
The list only needs to be one item long: Make windows secure.
It is "secure". It's just not used securely.
The first thing any corporate user of Windows does on a new machine is to install anti-virus software. Make Windows secure enough that anti-virus software isn't needed.
You seem to misunderstand the fundamental point, objective, and reason for anti-virus software.
That's a mighty impressive disconnection from reality you have there.
Why not do it like Apple (and the rest of Unix) The APPLICATION has permissions, and those are LESS than the users permission level.
What the heck are you talking about ? In the traditional UNIX permissions systems, applications execute with the privilege level of the user.
If applications can't cross communicate without user initiated actions, and can't run in the background without going through rigorous, kernel controlled, proper steps, then applications can't place the user at any real risk. If an app needs to do something it doesn't have permission to do, then it should request it, and tell the user SPECIFICALLY what its requesting, and that should only grant an elevated permission on THAT SPECIFIC cross-application permission. This can be further enhaced through application signing, eliminating these requests for applications that have been cleared through a central authority, but they should still bow to user imposed locks.
Ah, yes, just what we need, more "are you sure" popups. After all, they've done a great job thus far.
Yah, too bad that 0.01% of the people are the ones that are making the decision to either deploy Windows or to switch to Linux/Mac.
No, they're not.
Think about it this way, huge corporation A is looking at buying 1,000 new workstations, they have all the apps they need on any platform (Linux, Windows, Mac) because they are web based but most of the employees are used to Windows. They also don't want to spend much money on these 1,000 computers and want something minimal to just access the web apps. So if they can get a $300 computer that works the same with Linux and Windows 7, because the employees are more familiar with Windows they may choose Windows and get a small price increase because it is as customizable as Linux. Otherwise MS can kiss the 1,000 licenses they may get from it goodbye.
You don't appear to have experience with how "huge corporations" prioritise computer purchases. Your scenario is not realistic. Windows is more than customisable enough for any mainstream (ie: "huge corporation") needs.
Really though, the killer app of Linux is. Customization. For MS to get more marketshare, you need to be able to customize everything on it. From the kernel to the GUI.
I'm pretty sure they're willing to let the 0.01% of people who care about this sort of thing, slide.
Sure it would be a hell of a lot of work to the kernel to have it compatible with existing binaries and drivers, but I would imagine that Windows 7 kernel development is too. I mean it seems like a crazy idea, but doesn't it have a smidgen of merit to it?
No. It would be a massive, massive amount of work and net them no meaningful benefits.
To say nothing of the potential "viral GPL" problems.
Speaking of which - how would WinFS and ZFS compare?
Much like chalk and cheese. WinFS is(/was) *not* a filesystem, it's a database/metadata layer that sits between the filesystem (NTFS) and the applications.
How many couples are there in a shitload?
Is that a metric shitload or an imperial shitload ?
Seriously, I'm anything but "fit", but I do use my bike for as much as I can. Yeah, I've lost a few pounds, but I'm still well over 250 pounds.
Don't assume that just because you're fat, you're (proportionally) unfit.
I'm 6'2" and 220 pounds - well and truly overweight - but I can handle a lot more physical activity than several people I know who are _much_ skinnier.
I wouldn't say I'm fit - certainly not like I was back in school - but compared to my peers I'm not _unfit_.