Isn't this article about.NET running on Android? Is there going to be a Java or even C/C++ based stock exchange running on people's phones soon? It seems fairly clear that the OP was suggesting quality software of any scale could not be written in.NET.
I am well aware that the London Stock Exchange crash. You must be new to this article. I am not comparing desktop or UI software to a stock exchange. I mention desktop and UI software because the article is about running.NET code on Android and the OP asked if anyone could write stable fast software on.NET. I would say it is fairly safe to say we won't be seeing any stock exchanges running on an Android device any time really soon, in.NET or otherwise, so I assume he wasn't suggesting that since the London Stock Exchange failed, nothing of that scale could be capably achieved on Android in.NET.
These guys for one. Or these folks. And these people. This is supposed to be very good. Also, these guys. Seriously, you could have just said you don't know anything about the capabilities of.NET in the first place. Or you could have just said nothing at all.
I am a developer and I would never want production access and cannot understand why any sane developer would. I do not want there to be any chance that the script I run to clean out the Customers table on the development database could ever be accidentally run on production. Forgetting if it encourages sloppy practices, even if your development practices are excellent, any sane developer would always want to be able to say with absolute certainty that they did nothing to hose production, even mistakenly, because they simply do not have access. It must be the sysads fault.
I don't think the prototypical Microsoft developer has little interest Ruby or Python because of some social stigma. I think Microsoft developers, like most other developers, tend to gravitate towards imperative languages with a C-style syntax as that is the paradigm and syntax with which most developers are familiar.
If there is any confusion, you are adding to it. Microsoft is not going to "give up developing.NET," they are simply trimming the teams that were developing CLR implementations of Ruby and Python for the.NET Framework. This probably means the end of the Microsoft implementations for those languages, but that is all. It is foolish to think that if those languages are no longer supported by Microsoft for the.NET Framework that Microsoft will just give up on.NET Framework entirely.
I can't make that comparison because I don't have another phone, other then a cheap Motorola pay-as-you-go phone on AT&T, which the iPhone 3GS always did better then, and the iPhone 4 does even better in comparison to it, but that's not really helping the discussion much. Neither is having you and others saying that the iPhone 4 is a colossal failure when you haven't used one, certainly not on a daily basis.
Was that directed at me? I never once mentioned that the iPhone 4 is a colossal failure or anything like that. I simply deduced that a device that you concede has a flaw is, wait for it, flawed. This hardly seems to me to be a controversial conclusion to draw.
I don't know about you, but I think I'm just a slight bit more qualified then you to comment on how my iPhone 4 performs in the real world for me. But then I suppose you must feel that you are more qualified, because you sure like to go on and on about it.
Again, not quite sure to whom you are directing that comment, but it appears to be me. I've never once offered an opinion on what your experience with the device has been versus an older device, just pointed out that it is completely irrelevant to whether the device is flawed or not. If you can't manage to conceive of why it is irrelevant, just think of how "miraculous" your experience has been with the iPhone 4 with the antenna flaw and sit agape in awe at all of the SuperMiracles that would occur in your use if the device did not have the antenna flaw.
I did read what you wrote. Did you read what I wrote? I don't care how the iPhone 4 compares to an iPhone 3GS or a ham sandwich. Your anecdotal evidence of the miracles you have witnessed is great but a more apt comparison would be to other phones of the same generation, in any case.
The problem seems to be with your definition of "flawed." flawed - characterized by flaws; having imperfections. You are conceding a flaw and questioning whether or not the device is flawed. I have an answer: it is. That it works better than other things does not mean it works as well as intended or should be expected.
Well Steve, sounds like you know how to hold it correctly.
Seriously though. You concede that there is an issue with the antenna but wonder if it is flawed? I am sure that the iPhone 4 also has better reception than a ham sandwich, but does that mean it it working as it was intended or should be expected?
Make that 1,000 iPhones per day. Still a significant amount. Also, that is just for the first month, to date, with more than 5 billion downloads from the App Store, I would bet they make quite a bit more.
Actually, to date that revenue does not seem to be very significant at all. Apple hasn't been making very much on apps as far as anyone can tell and Steve Jobs went so far as to tell shareholders the model was to run the App store at slightly more than break even as a way to promote sales of iPhones. As for ad revenue, time will tell, but again I don't think Apple is planning on it being a big revenue stream compared to the piles of cash they make selling iPhones.
This statement seems to have no basis in reality. Apple made $300k (30% of $1 million) per day in the first month of the App Store's existence alone. I am pretty sure that is over the break even point. I am pretty sure that is also a significant amount of revenue, equal to the gross sales total for around 100,000 iPhones per day. As for advertisements, I feel relatively certain that iAds were not developed and released to simply break even and improve end user experience or out of some feeling of benevolence, but rather to do quite a bit better than break even.
How do you read "remove MS's lock-in" as "commoditize the operating system market"? That simply does not follow. Apple uses their OS as a differentiator, but they build it mostly on open standards for file and protocol interoperability. As a smaller player in the market, that makes them more money. The idea that breaking MS's lock-in in the OS market by supporting standardized Web technologies makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain your reasoning.
Microsoft has no lock-in on iOS devices, for one thing. To remove Microsoft lock-in would be remove the tethering between applications and the Microsoft Windows operating system with HTML5 applications. These applications developed in HTML5 would be available on any platform with an HTML5 compliant browser. Regardless of whatever strategy you prefer to believe Apple is taking, Windows and also other operating systems would become a commodity (hint: this includes Apple's operating systems), i.e. any operating system with a HTML5 compliant browser would do. It's just my opinion, but I doubt very seriously that Apple, or any other profit maximizing firm would prefer that.
No, but the fact that they've been promoting it for many years, have developed tools to let users do just that, have committed to projects like PhoneGap, etc. does indicate it is highly likely. Do you have any evidence that they're changing direction
As I said, what I am doing is speculation. Just as you would speculate they will not change direction. All I have to suggest it is possible is how they transitioned from suggesting web apps as the way to develop for the iPhone originally, which was then supplanted by the iPhone SDK. That, and the fact that they could increase revenue by creating a simple environment for developing iOS applications. Whether that increase in revenue and the less tangible mindshare is worth the investment of time they would have to outlay for it is, again, speculation.
You make it sound as though their actions were insulated from one another. You could just as easily say Apple will ditch all the open source projects they contribute to, since those don't directly make them money. The thing is, having better dev tools and more apps and lowering costs for developers sell iPhones, and Apple is really, really in the business of selling iPhones right now. They're not about to try to gain a small amount of revenue from developers now, while risking long term sales of devices. That would be idiotic. That's the reason why their developer program was so cheap in the first place.
I really don't know where to begin with this. I am not saying their actions are insulated from one another, you are just inferring it. I am saying their motive is singular, to maximize profit, just like every other firm. The second bit seems to be som
Developer licensing and sales of Macs to developers that don't have them don't even show up in Apple's bottom line in any meaningful way. Sales of iPhones, however, are a huge part of their profit. Apple is about making money, but they're not idiots that want to nickel and dime people in ways that will lose them larger amounts of money in the long run.
But I didn't mention only the SDK fee and computers. There is also the bit about the revenues generated from the application in terms of Apple's cut of the sale price of the applications and/or any cut they get from integrated ads in those applications. That revenue is significant. Again, as a profit maximizing firm, there is little compelling reason for them to turn away that revenue.
Apple makes a lot of money selling Macs as well as phones. By promoting HTML5 (which you can compile into an app in the iPhone store, by the way) they push Web standards that helps their Mac business greatly by decreasing the amount of lock-in and the number of users tied to Microsoft.
I doubt very seriously that Apple intends to commoditize the operating system when the exclusivity of that operating system is a major selling point of the hardware with which they make the bulk of their money. Joel Spolsky did a write up of how this strategy wound up being a problem for Sun's hardware sales with Java. But recall that prior to the release of the iPhone SDK, HTML was presented as the way to develop applications for the iPhone. Just because they promote HTML5 now does not mean they intend for that to be the preferred way to develop simple applications in the future.
Of course, guessing the intentions of Apple and what their future plans are is just speculation, but since there is lost revenue at stake in terms of the App Store and advertising, the possibility of commoditizing their operating systems, and a specifically relevant history of changing the recommended development path from HTML and to their own development ecosystem, I see little incentive for them to continue pushing HTML5 as the development platform of choice from simple but useful applications. Also, since HTML5 cannot interact with the device specifically (e.g. sensors, contacts, etc.) in any meaningful way, some useful but simple applications requiring that level of interaction will not otherwise be created. But that is just my speculation.
I think Apple's thinking is that for simpler development, you can use HTML5.
Why would they think that? I cannot imagine that Apple would want to turn away the $99 SDK fee, the sale of a Macintosh computer and any additional revenues generated by the sale and/or use of a simple application for any reason. But, just as importantly, I cannot imagine a single advantage to them foregoing having that application exclusive to the App Store and available to any device with an HTML5-compliant browser. Simplified development does not imply useless output applications, so why would they want to push any useful but simple tool to being available on any other device?
I think the error here is in the misleading summary. Just because Apple turned down the pitch from revMobile does not mean they have no intentions of allowing simplified development tools for iOS. My guess would be that if they have any intention of allowing such tools, they would much prefer to actually create them.
Congrats, you've just proven you don't know what you are talking about either. Your description of a monopoly is incorrect by omission. Everything said above is accurate, but you have neglected to mention that a firm is a monopoly only if there are no close substitutes to the good they provide. This is different than not having a "true replacement." As there are clearly a few close substitutes to the operating systems Microsoft sells provided, the operating systems market is probably best defined as an oligopoly if you want to stick to actual economic definitions.
Eh, that's an overly simplified argument based on incorrect facts. The trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (the man convicted of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing) was held in the Netherlands, albeit under Scot's Law, a compromise reached based on the lack of an extradition agreement. However, the package containing the bomb which caused the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 was initially routed into the baggage system in Malta and passed through Frankfurt. So, in that case, the crime was not tried under German or Maltese law where the bomb was initially routed, but under the law of the country in which it exploded. This seems to not help your argument and appears to have been prosecuted in a manner that is the exact opposite of what you propose.
Incidentally, for anyone wondering whatever happened to that dude (I know I was), after being released on compassionate grounds of having three months to live or less, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is still alive.
As someone else mentioned, C# does in fact include constraints on generic type parameters. The syntax is slightly different, of course. But it also provides, necessarily, an additional constraint where the Type specified by T must also have a default constructor, which is really handy as well as constraints requiring T to be either a reference or value type:
public class GenericContainer<T> where T : IContents, new(), class { public T GetNewContent() { return new T(); } }
Yeah, this is a pretty fair and common criticism of UAC. I wouldn't call it crap, but I certainly think that many users find it to be a nuisance. The UAC mechanism itself is not completely unlike those provided by other operating systems. Applications run by default with user privileges and the OS alerts you in the event that an escalation of privileges is needed. If you want to install software, someone with the Administrator credentials needs to approve of the installation. In this way, I don't think end users would find, say, a linux installation any less frustrating to install software on. The trouble is that once installed, far too many Windows applications still want to run with Administrator privileges.
Oops! Looks like spoke WAY too soon. I am dead wrong. It doesn't work with the UAC setting all the way up, but it DOES in fact work, at least on the Windows 7 x64 I am running, with the default Windows 7 UAC level. So, my bad. I am absolutely incorrect.
OK, sorry for the mix up, I meant the article I had linked. The article I linked does in fact mention all those things. It does mention that new installs by default have the Administrator account disabled. It mentions that User Account Control is on by default. It mentions that even if you are running as a built-in Administrator, the security token used for applications is a filtered one. The point is, they don't even need to know about them, they are on by default. As for whether or not I am lying about what you said let's look at your initial assertion:
It wouldn't be such a problem if MS would have something like Linux where you have to jump through a hoop to run the box as 'root' AKA 'Admin' and if the OEMs would put a user account on their machines by default.
This seems like you are saying that Microsoft should have some sort of User Account Control to limit access to the Administrator account. Conjunctively, you seemed to hope that OEMs would not leave the Administrator on as the only user. The first part seems to be a complaint about the lack of existence of such User Account Controls. The second part seems to be a complaint about the default behavior of New Installations. I hope that the relevant sections of the article that I linked and mentioned ("Built-in Administrator Account is Disabled by Default on New Installations", "All Subsequent User Accounts are Created as Standard Users", "UAC is Enabled by Default", "Access Token Changes") can illustrate to you how your initial assertion was in fact incorrect, particularly the last section which details how even if you are running as a built-in Administrator, the security token used for applications is a filtered, i.e. less privileged one.
In short: I did not lie. I am not messing with you. I was hoping to inform you that your initial assertion was incorrect. I do hope you mind, however, that you were so completely incorrect about something about which you seem to have a strong opinion. Having a strong and wrong opinion may rhyme nicely, it's just not very helpful.
It should be noted this code does not actually work on the actual Windows 7 release versions. It was proof-of-concept code targeting an early RC build.
So, did you read the linked article, like, at all?
With most Windows installs the Admin account is the default logon and most users don't know what risks they're taking because of it.*
* - bold emphasis mine
In the article, which dates to the introduction of Vista and carries through 7, you might find the section entitled "Built-in Administrator Account is Disabled by Default on New Installations" to be of some interest. Now once you look into that, another section that may be helpful is "All Subsequent User Accounts are Created as Standard Users." Now while the users may not be aware of UAC, the section "UAC is Enabled by Default" might also provide some insight for you. By reading further into "Access Token Changes" you'll discover that even when logged in as a built-in Administrator, applications still run with a filtered, i.e. limited access, security token by default.
Seriously, I understand that User Account Control is not necessarily without it it's flaws and detractors. Namely, amny users find it nagging and a general PITA. But to contend that Windows has no such mechanism is either being dishonest or really to not know what you are talking about.
Whoa! Microsoft should create something to make people jump through hoops to get Admin privileges? Great idea! Maybe they could call it something like User Account Control. Man, if only those dudes in Redmond read/.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this article about .NET running on Android? Is there going to be a Java or even C/C++ based stock exchange running on people's phones soon? It seems fairly clear that the OP was suggesting quality software of any scale could not be written in .NET.
I am well aware that the London Stock Exchange crash. You must be new to this article. I am not comparing desktop or UI software to a stock exchange. I mention desktop and UI software because the article is about running .NET code on Android and the OP asked if anyone could write stable fast software on .NET. I would say it is fairly safe to say we won't be seeing any stock exchanges running on an Android device any time really soon, in .NET or otherwise, so I assume he wasn't suggesting that since the London Stock Exchange failed, nothing of that scale could be capably achieved on Android in .NET.
These guys for one. Or these folks. And these people. This is supposed to be very good. Also, these guys. Seriously, you could have just said you don't know anything about the capabilities of .NET in the first place. Or you could have just said nothing at all.
I am a developer and I would never want production access and cannot understand why any sane developer would. I do not want there to be any chance that the script I run to clean out the Customers table on the development database could ever be accidentally run on production. Forgetting if it encourages sloppy practices, even if your development practices are excellent, any sane developer would always want to be able to say with absolute certainty that they did nothing to hose production, even mistakenly, because they simply do not have access. It must be the sysads fault.
Um. You're wrong. Even if I didn't distinctly remember it and you don't trust the wiki, other sources say the same.
He certainly sounds incompetent, but he's in jail because hes a jerk- and thats _wrong_.
It sure would be wrong if he was in jail because he is a jerk. But he isn't. He is in jail because he was found guilty of felony network tampering.
I don't think the prototypical Microsoft developer has little interest Ruby or Python because of some social stigma. I think Microsoft developers, like most other developers, tend to gravitate towards imperative languages with a C-style syntax as that is the paradigm and syntax with which most developers are familiar.
If there is any confusion, you are adding to it. Microsoft is not going to "give up developing .NET," they are simply trimming the teams that were developing CLR implementations of Ruby and Python for the .NET Framework. This probably means the end of the Microsoft implementations for those languages, but that is all. It is foolish to think that if those languages are no longer supported by Microsoft for the .NET Framework that Microsoft will just give up on .NET Framework entirely.
I can't make that comparison because I don't have another phone, other then a cheap Motorola pay-as-you-go phone on AT&T, which the iPhone 3GS always did better then, and the iPhone 4 does even better in comparison to it, but that's not really helping the discussion much. Neither is having you and others saying that the iPhone 4 is a colossal failure when you haven't used one, certainly not on a daily basis.
Was that directed at me? I never once mentioned that the iPhone 4 is a colossal failure or anything like that. I simply deduced that a device that you concede has a flaw is, wait for it, flawed. This hardly seems to me to be a controversial conclusion to draw.
I don't know about you, but I think I'm just a slight bit more qualified then you to comment on how my iPhone 4 performs in the real world for me. But then I suppose you must feel that you are more qualified, because you sure like to go on and on about it.
Again, not quite sure to whom you are directing that comment, but it appears to be me. I've never once offered an opinion on what your experience with the device has been versus an older device, just pointed out that it is completely irrelevant to whether the device is flawed or not. If you can't manage to conceive of why it is irrelevant, just think of how "miraculous" your experience has been with the iPhone 4 with the antenna flaw and sit agape in awe at all of the SuperMiracles that would occur in your use if the device did not have the antenna flaw.
I did read what you wrote. Did you read what I wrote? I don't care how the iPhone 4 compares to an iPhone 3GS or a ham sandwich. Your anecdotal evidence of the miracles you have witnessed is great but a more apt comparison would be to other phones of the same generation, in any case.
The problem seems to be with your definition of "flawed." flawed - characterized by flaws; having imperfections. You are conceding a flaw and questioning whether or not the device is flawed. I have an answer: it is. That it works better than other things does not mean it works as well as intended or should be expected.
Well Steve, sounds like you know how to hold it correctly.
Seriously though. You concede that there is an issue with the antenna but wonder if it is flawed? I am sure that the iPhone 4 also has better reception than a ham sandwich, but does that mean it it working as it was intended or should be expected?
Make that 1,000 iPhones per day. Still a significant amount. Also, that is just for the first month, to date, with more than 5 billion downloads from the App Store, I would bet they make quite a bit more.
Actually, to date that revenue does not seem to be very significant at all. Apple hasn't been making very much on apps as far as anyone can tell and Steve Jobs went so far as to tell shareholders the model was to run the App store at slightly more than break even as a way to promote sales of iPhones. As for ad revenue, time will tell, but again I don't think Apple is planning on it being a big revenue stream compared to the piles of cash they make selling iPhones.
This statement seems to have no basis in reality. Apple made $300k (30% of $1 million) per day in the first month of the App Store's existence alone. I am pretty sure that is over the break even point. I am pretty sure that is also a significant amount of revenue, equal to the gross sales total for around 100,000 iPhones per day. As for advertisements, I feel relatively certain that iAds were not developed and released to simply break even and improve end user experience or out of some feeling of benevolence, but rather to do quite a bit better than break even.
How do you read "remove MS's lock-in" as "commoditize the operating system market"? That simply does not follow. Apple uses their OS as a differentiator, but they build it mostly on open standards for file and protocol interoperability. As a smaller player in the market, that makes them more money. The idea that breaking MS's lock-in in the OS market by supporting standardized Web technologies makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain your reasoning.
Microsoft has no lock-in on iOS devices, for one thing. To remove Microsoft lock-in would be remove the tethering between applications and the Microsoft Windows operating system with HTML5 applications. These applications developed in HTML5 would be available on any platform with an HTML5 compliant browser. Regardless of whatever strategy you prefer to believe Apple is taking, Windows and also other operating systems would become a commodity (hint: this includes Apple's operating systems), i.e. any operating system with a HTML5 compliant browser would do. It's just my opinion, but I doubt very seriously that Apple, or any other profit maximizing firm would prefer that.
No, but the fact that they've been promoting it for many years, have developed tools to let users do just that, have committed to projects like PhoneGap, etc. does indicate it is highly likely. Do you have any evidence that they're changing direction
As I said, what I am doing is speculation. Just as you would speculate they will not change direction. All I have to suggest it is possible is how they transitioned from suggesting web apps as the way to develop for the iPhone originally, which was then supplanted by the iPhone SDK. That, and the fact that they could increase revenue by creating a simple environment for developing iOS applications. Whether that increase in revenue and the less tangible mindshare is worth the investment of time they would have to outlay for it is, again, speculation.
You make it sound as though their actions were insulated from one another. You could just as easily say Apple will ditch all the open source projects they contribute to, since those don't directly make them money. The thing is, having better dev tools and more apps and lowering costs for developers sell iPhones, and Apple is really, really in the business of selling iPhones right now. They're not about to try to gain a small amount of revenue from developers now, while risking long term sales of devices. That would be idiotic. That's the reason why their developer program was so cheap in the first place.
I really don't know where to begin with this. I am not saying their actions are insulated from one another, you are just inferring it. I am saying their motive is singular, to maximize profit, just like every other firm. The second bit seems to be som
Developer licensing and sales of Macs to developers that don't have them don't even show up in Apple's bottom line in any meaningful way. Sales of iPhones, however, are a huge part of their profit. Apple is about making money, but they're not idiots that want to nickel and dime people in ways that will lose them larger amounts of money in the long run.
But I didn't mention only the SDK fee and computers. There is also the bit about the revenues generated from the application in terms of Apple's cut of the sale price of the applications and/or any cut they get from integrated ads in those applications. That revenue is significant. Again, as a profit maximizing firm, there is little compelling reason for them to turn away that revenue.
Apple makes a lot of money selling Macs as well as phones. By promoting HTML5 (which you can compile into an app in the iPhone store, by the way) they push Web standards that helps their Mac business greatly by decreasing the amount of lock-in and the number of users tied to Microsoft.
I doubt very seriously that Apple intends to commoditize the operating system when the exclusivity of that operating system is a major selling point of the hardware with which they make the bulk of their money. Joel Spolsky did a write up of how this strategy wound up being a problem for Sun's hardware sales with Java. But recall that prior to the release of the iPhone SDK, HTML was presented as the way to develop applications for the iPhone. Just because they promote HTML5 now does not mean they intend for that to be the preferred way to develop simple applications in the future.
Of course, guessing the intentions of Apple and what their future plans are is just speculation, but since there is lost revenue at stake in terms of the App Store and advertising, the possibility of commoditizing their operating systems, and a specifically relevant history of changing the recommended development path from HTML and to their own development ecosystem, I see little incentive for them to continue pushing HTML5 as the development platform of choice from simple but useful applications. Also, since HTML5 cannot interact with the device specifically (e.g. sensors, contacts, etc.) in any meaningful way, some useful but simple applications requiring that level of interaction will not otherwise be created. But that is just my speculation.
I think Apple's thinking is that for simpler development, you can use HTML5.
Why would they think that? I cannot imagine that Apple would want to turn away the $99 SDK fee, the sale of a Macintosh computer and any additional revenues generated by the sale and/or use of a simple application for any reason. But, just as importantly, I cannot imagine a single advantage to them foregoing having that application exclusive to the App Store and available to any device with an HTML5-compliant browser. Simplified development does not imply useless output applications, so why would they want to push any useful but simple tool to being available on any other device?
I think the error here is in the misleading summary. Just because Apple turned down the pitch from revMobile does not mean they have no intentions of allowing simplified development tools for iOS. My guess would be that if they have any intention of allowing such tools, they would much prefer to actually create them.
Congrats, you've just proven you don't know what you are talking about either. Your description of a monopoly is incorrect by omission. Everything said above is accurate, but you have neglected to mention that a firm is a monopoly only if there are no close substitutes to the good they provide. This is different than not having a "true replacement." As there are clearly a few close substitutes to the operating systems Microsoft sells provided, the operating systems market is probably best defined as an oligopoly if you want to stick to actual economic definitions.
Eh, that's an overly simplified argument based on incorrect facts. The trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (the man convicted of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing) was held in the Netherlands, albeit under Scot's Law, a compromise reached based on the lack of an extradition agreement. However, the package containing the bomb which caused the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 was initially routed into the baggage system in Malta and passed through Frankfurt. So, in that case, the crime was not tried under German or Maltese law where the bomb was initially routed, but under the law of the country in which it exploded. This seems to not help your argument and appears to have been prosecuted in a manner that is the exact opposite of what you propose.
Incidentally, for anyone wondering whatever happened to that dude (I know I was), after being released on compassionate grounds of having three months to live or less, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is still alive.
Will this bill do what the administration claims to do, or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says?
Or perhaps it will do neither.
Yeah, this is a pretty fair and common criticism of UAC. I wouldn't call it crap, but I certainly think that many users find it to be a nuisance. The UAC mechanism itself is not completely unlike those provided by other operating systems. Applications run by default with user privileges and the OS alerts you in the event that an escalation of privileges is needed. If you want to install software, someone with the Administrator credentials needs to approve of the installation. In this way, I don't think end users would find, say, a linux installation any less frustrating to install software on. The trouble is that once installed, far too many Windows applications still want to run with Administrator privileges.
Oops! Looks like spoke WAY too soon. I am dead wrong. It doesn't work with the UAC setting all the way up, but it DOES in fact work, at least on the Windows 7 x64 I am running, with the default Windows 7 UAC level. So, my bad. I am absolutely incorrect.
It wouldn't be such a problem if MS would have something like Linux where you have to jump through a hoop to run the box as 'root' AKA 'Admin' and if the OEMs would put a user account on their machines by default.
This seems like you are saying that Microsoft should have some sort of User Account Control to limit access to the Administrator account. Conjunctively, you seemed to hope that OEMs would not leave the Administrator on as the only user. The first part seems to be a complaint about the lack of existence of such User Account Controls. The second part seems to be a complaint about the default behavior of New Installations. I hope that the relevant sections of the article that I linked and mentioned ("Built-in Administrator Account is Disabled by Default on New Installations", "All Subsequent User Accounts are Created as Standard Users", "UAC is Enabled by Default", "Access Token Changes") can illustrate to you how your initial assertion was in fact incorrect, particularly the last section which details how even if you are running as a built-in Administrator, the security token used for applications is a filtered, i.e. less privileged one.
In short: I did not lie. I am not messing with you. I was hoping to inform you that your initial assertion was incorrect. I do hope you mind, however, that you were so completely incorrect about something about which you seem to have a strong opinion. Having a strong and wrong opinion may rhyme nicely, it's just not very helpful.
It should be noted this code does not actually work on the actual Windows 7 release versions. It was proof-of-concept code targeting an early RC build.
With most Windows installs the Admin account is the default logon and most users don't know what risks they're taking because of it. *
* - bold emphasis mine
In the article, which dates to the introduction of Vista and carries through 7, you might find the section entitled "Built-in Administrator Account is Disabled by Default on New Installations" to be of some interest. Now once you look into that, another section that may be helpful is "All Subsequent User Accounts are Created as Standard Users." Now while the users may not be aware of UAC, the section "UAC is Enabled by Default" might also provide some insight for you. By reading further into "Access Token Changes" you'll discover that even when logged in as a built-in Administrator, applications still run with a filtered, i.e. limited access, security token by default.
Seriously, I understand that User Account Control is not necessarily without it it's flaws and detractors. Namely, amny users find it nagging and a general PITA. But to contend that Windows has no such mechanism is either being dishonest or really to not know what you are talking about.
Whoa! Microsoft should create something to make people jump through hoops to get Admin privileges? Great idea! Maybe they could call it something like User Account Control. Man, if only those dudes in Redmond read /.