I understand there's a way to set up Vista to require an actual password, not just a yes/no choice, but shouldn't that be the default? Administrator accounts just give a yes/no choice (assumedly on the grounds that the user's already entered the admin password to login); standard user accounts require an administrator password to be entered. You can create as many of either type of account as you like; a standard user can elevate using any of the admin accounts that they know the password to.
They're exactly right. I'm tired of people spouting that privelege elevation, in any of its forms (graphical sudo, authenticate, UAC) is "shifting the blame". Neither Canonical, nor Apple, nor Microsoft have the slightest idea whether pr0n.exe is a legitimate program or a trojan, nor do they have any way of knowing. (Incidentally, can you imagine what it would be like if Microsoft did implement some kind of heuristic detection algorithm that tried to guess whether something was legitimate or not? Oh, the lawsuits and gnashing of teeth when it gets it wrong, both false positive and false negative!). The user, on the other hand, does know. More specifically, they know if they're been trying to install a program, or whether they're just browsing dodge websites when an elevation prompt pops up out of the blue, or whether they're just trying to view a picture.jpg.exe. The OS doesn't.
Vista still encourages users to run with higher privileges than necessary "Encourages"? How exactly does it do that? I don't even know how to enable the root account on Vista -- I think it involves gpedit -- it's certainly disabled by default. With the "administrator" account, you're running with a standard user token all the time except when you elevate, which is done on a task-by-task basis. How is this "encourag[ing] users to run with higher privileges than necessary"?
Clearly it is all just about security and nothing to do with lighter faster operating systems tailored to specific purposes. Nobody cares about focused tool sets. Nobody cares about vendor independence. Nobody needs to have a system open enough that you can get at every aspect of the OS because nobody develops software that could possibly need that level of understanding. Nobody cares about a free, open, and stable software development suites... Nobody really cares about precisely tuned servers in clusters... or embedded systems... or monotonic scheduling...
I certainly don't. Not after this study. No sir. I'm making the switch now. Yep. Don't try and talk me out of it. You're right! How dare people do a study comparing the security of different operating systems without, at the same time, making a comprehensive comparison encompassing every possible pro and con of the objects under study, from every possible angle. It's a scandal.
Seriously: don't be retarded. TFA was an article about security. That doesn't mean that security is the only possible metric with which to compare OSes. It doesn't mean security is the only thing that matters. It just means that that was the metric that TFA was studying.
You would think that someone who claims to be used to the Unix way of modulerization, of the philosophy of having a single tool (or, in this case, study) do one job well, would not have such trouble with the concept of a study that only attempts to measure a single metric. After all, such studies only comprise, what, the vast majority of studies out there?
But as far as UAC/Vista goes... anyone who thinks that it actually is worth a d4mn, just go to the command prompt and try to delete that folder that forced UAC authentication. What? It works?? Ummm, no. You get an 'access denied' message. If you're going to make crap up, at least make it credible crap.
computerworld is trolling slashdot with rediculous reasoning to drum up hits and ad revenue [...] DRM does not kill babies. DRM was not responsible for the holocaust Personally, I thought the bit about the Holocaust and the baby-killing was the best part of TFA.
I had decided to leave UAC on on my Vista box; and mostly it just upped the annoyance level a bit without actually being useful -- i.e. I hadn't come across any situations when I'd want to say 'no'. Until last week, when up suddenly popped:
Adobe Update Manager wants to randomly launch, do a load of hard disk churning, and connect to the Adobe updates website. Yes, even though you didn't launch it and were, in fact, perfectly peacefully sipping a cup of tea and browsing Slashdot without the slightest wish to be subjected to an invasive Adobe update install sequence. Cancel or allow? Cancel.
And -- blissful silence. Take that, Acrobat Reader update manager!
If your motherboard goes and you do not replace it with exactly the same motherboard you have to pay Microsoft again for another copy of Vista probably running you another $240.00 Bullshit. Hardware failure is, IIRC, specifically exempt.
Of course, Microsoft will send round a few of Bill Gates' personal SWAT teams to your house after you've reactivated, to confiscate and inspect the motherboard and make sure it really is broken.
And how do I extract that image without windows exactly? A self-extracting exe is just a zip archive bolted on to a small unzipper. Any competent archiving program (e.g. 7-zip) should be perfectly capable of handling them.
I find it absolutely mindboggling that not only has this been advanced as a serious suggestion, but enough people apparently agree with you that you've been modded up to +5 without anyone taking issue with it. Individuals bribing elected representatives is every bit as morally corrupt as companies doing so (and anyone who tried to claim that promising campaign contributions in return for votes on legislation isn't bribery needs to go look up bribery in a dictionary).
Else what the hell's the point of having a representative democracy in the first place? The whole idea of electing a representative to speak and vote on your behalf is rather lost is the representative then goes and votes on the basis who whoever promises them more money on each piece of legislation! Unless you perhaps think we should cut out the middle man, junk the whole democracy idea, and declare a plutocracy, with all legislation decided on the basis of some kind of pecunial referendum?
Your post would be valid if Microsoft actually gave free technical support with their OSes. However, this is not the case People who aren't making things up as they go along would beg to disagree with you. You get 90 days of free support, beginning "from the date you activate the product" for Windows and "from the date you place your first support request" otherwise. After 90 days, support is per-incident. Apple's policy is pretty much identical -- 90 days of free support, per-incident afterwards.
If you Don't buy Vista, who's to say M$ will be around to provide those updates? MS have $50 billion in the bank. Even if no-one ever bought any MS products ever again from this day forward, it'd still take quite a few decades of haemorrhaging money before they went under.
Are there any contracts or legal issues forcing Microsoft into keeping the XP activation servers online? I've no idea whether the Windows EULA is legally enforcable, but MS at least likes to keep up the pretense that it is; and if so, if they refuse to activate you could sue them for violation of it (relevent parts "You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software... [as long as] you supply information required to activate your licensed copy in the manner described during the setup sequence of the Software... [except if] you are not using a licensed copy of the Software".
Even if the MS somehow managed to find an interpretation of the EULA that approximated "you are Microsoft's bitch" and managed to persuade a court of that, I don't know about the US, but in the UK, that would easily fall under the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Failing that, there's a plethora of Sale of Goods Acts that you could sue under -- goods not performing as described, unfit for purpose, etc. Not to mention, the various antitrust bodies seem pretty receptive to complaints about MS's business practices these days.
I really can't see it happening, though. The bad press and added ammo the antitrust cases would have if MS ever did cut off XP come the end of support in 2014 would way, way eclipse any benefit considering tiny number of people still running XP then. Besides, considering the leap in system requirements from XP to Vista, what are the chances that computers running XP in 2014 will be able to run whatever OS Microsoft has out by then...!
You have a point. There is indeed a hint of WTF in this story. I mean, we're not talking about middleware like WMP here -- we're talking about finding files on the user's hard drive. If that's ruled to be no longer a core OS function to the extent that Microsoft are legally obliged to offer alternatives to it with the OS, you have to wonder what's next...
Newswire - 21st June, 2017
Microsoft (Nasdaq:MSFT) has announced they will be bundling the Linux kernel with Windows as an alternative to their own, after a 490-page antitrust complaint was filed by the Linux foundation. "We are extremely pleased with this development", Linux kernel BDFL Linus Torvalds was quoted as saying. "For too long have Microsoft been able to get away with forcefully bundling the NT kernel with their OS, forcing other products out of the market in clear violation of antitrust law as it applies to convicted monopolists. No longer!"
This development is not without precedent. After the original case in 2007 forced Microsoft to offer alternative hard drive search tools with the OS, a ruling in 2009 following an antitrust complaint by Stephen Oberholtzer had them bundling an an alternative to the Windows calculator. By 2014, after the famous Litestep case had Windows presenting the user with a choice of window managers on first boot, some have said this step was inevitable.
Asked whether there was any truth in the rumours that Richard Stallman was secretly preparing a dossier to set out the case that Microsoft had failed to offer enough choice to the consumer with regard to product names that feature recursive acronyms and references to Flanders and Swann, he declined to comment.
Flamebate? Aww, come on, mods. I thought it was quite funny, myself. (If nothing else, points for composing the Windows encircled red X entirely out of forward and backslashes...?)
I suspect I could install Windows 98 and still do everything I do today on XP. You're probably right. In fact, I feel like testing your hypothesis -- I'm now composing this message in Windo--
/\/\ This program has performed an illegal operation \/\/ and will be shut down. If the problem persists, contact the program vendor.
--ws 98, and it seems to be working so far... Albeit with a few --
/\/\ WOWEXEC has caused a General Protection Fault in \/\/ KRNL386.COM at 0000:09F9. WOWEXEC will now close.
--teething problems, but nothing I can't--
The instruction at "0x947B3A9F" referenced memory at "0xFFFFFFFF". The memory could not be "read". Click on "OK" to terminate the program. Click on "Cancel" to debug the program.
--handle... Aaaargh, who am I kidding! Come back XP, come back Ubuntu -- Come back, Vista! All is forgiven...!
Remember, unlike with Win98 and Win2k, you can't just replace the motherboard on a WinXP machine, reinstall and have a fully functioning machine: it'll want a new license. [...] their old PCs break down and they can no longer manage to obtain XP licenses that install properly. Well, I suppose you could buy a new license after you install a new M/B. Or, you could decide to put that money into a timeshare scheme. Or give it to a Nigerian dignitary who needs your help to smuggle several million Nigerian Naira (= a touch over 47p) out of the country. Alternatively, you could decide to ignore the 419 scam, decline the timeshare, and, I don't know, reactivate the machine. Which it will do perfectly happily over the internet without a fuss if it's been over 180 days since your last motherboard replacement (which, by the way, explains your XP license that hadn't been used for a year installing fine on a different computer: 1 year > 180 days). If it's been less than 180 days since last major hardware change, you have to call MS up and tell them you're changing the motherboard. Then they give you the activation code.
On the other hand, a brand new license would come with a new cardboard box, and my box has been getting a touch tattered...
MS Paint, Notepad and Calc NEVER get updated Actually, both Notepad and Calc got updated for XP -- Notepad only slightly (gained replace / replace all / goto); but Calc was completely rewritten: it now does basic operations -- addition, subtraction, multiplication, division -- to infinite precision (i.e. it no longer uses floating point), and things like square roots are now done to 32 bits of precision.
As for Paint, may I recommend the excellent Paint.NET, which was "mentored" by Microsoft (what that means in reality, I have no idea) and released under the open-source MIT license (which I assume is the reason they can't bundle it with Windows).
Running XP as a limited user should give you an accurate idea. Actuall, running XP as a limited user will give you a highly inaccurate idea of what UAC's like. Hell, the two most common reasons for app failure under a limited user in XP were writing to \Program Files\ and writing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE -- neither of which trigger a UAC prompt in Vista.
Well, of course. I don't need to browse someone's livejournal to discover that the city isn't moving over to Vista -- a good proportion of them still haven't moved over to XP. What you're routinely conductioning six-figure transactions, you don't rely on *any* software that's barely 6 months out of RTM, DRM or no DRM.
There have been quite a number of 'reviews' on this thread by people who clearly haven't every used the product they're reviewing, but I think you're the first one of them to actually take positive pride in their ignorance...
1. Have you tried configuring network devices in Vista? How many clicks did it take to get to the TCP/IP settings That seems a rather odd gague of the worth of an OS, but since you ask: Start -> Network -> Network and Sharing Centre -> View Status -> Properties (triggers UAC dialogue) -> "TCP/IPv4" properties, which I make as 7 clicks with UAC on, or 6 with UAC off.
I believe you are incorrect with your assertion that the reason Vista took so long was because they started over from scratch. [...] and there were great plans for a rewrite in the beginning. But part way through, from what I can see, they gave up on the idea and instead hacked some things into XP. Actually, a quick skim of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Window s_Vista suggests you're both wrong. The *original* (2002) plan was for "incremental improvements and updates to Windows XP". Later on, they got more ambitious, and started trying to make big changes. At the same time, XP was getting a substantial polish with SP2, which got even better with Server 2003. So part way through, when they released the big changes were going down like a house on fire, they junked the big-changes-based-on-XP-with-a-bit-of-".NET Server"-thrown-in crap and started again with proven-pretty-solid Windows Server 2003 SP1 codebase, bringing the desktop compositor etc. over from the original codebase and plumping it down on top of Server 2003.
Slashdot Mirror
They're exactly right. I'm tired of people spouting that privelege elevation, in any of its forms (graphical sudo, authenticate, UAC) is "shifting the blame". Neither Canonical, nor Apple, nor Microsoft have the slightest idea whether pr0n.exe is a legitimate program or a trojan, nor do they have any way of knowing. (Incidentally, can you imagine what it would be like if Microsoft did implement some kind of heuristic detection algorithm that tried to guess whether something was legitimate or not? Oh, the lawsuits and gnashing of teeth when it gets it wrong, both false positive and false negative!). The user, on the other hand, does know. More specifically, they know if they're been trying to install a program, or whether they're just browsing dodge websites when an elevation prompt pops up out of the blue, or whether they're just trying to view a picture.jpg.exe. The OS doesn't.
I certainly don't. Not after this study. No sir. I'm making the switch now. Yep. Don't try and talk me out of it. You're right! How dare people do a study comparing the security of different operating systems without, at the same time, making a comprehensive comparison encompassing every possible pro and con of the objects under study, from every possible angle. It's a scandal.
Seriously: don't be retarded. TFA was an article about security. That doesn't mean that security is the only possible metric with which to compare OSes. It doesn't mean security is the only thing that matters. It just means that that was the metric that TFA was studying.
You would think that someone who claims to be used to the Unix way of modulerization, of the philosophy of having a single tool (or, in this case, study) do one job well, would not have such trouble with the concept of a study that only attempts to measure a single metric. After all, such studies only comprise, what, the vast majority of studies out there?
And -- blissful silence. Take that, Acrobat Reader update manager!
Of course, Microsoft will send round a few of Bill Gates' personal SWAT teams to your house after you've reactivated, to confiscate and inspect the motherboard and make sure it really is broken.
Or, possibly, they won't. I really couldn't say.
I find it absolutely mindboggling that not only has this been advanced as a serious suggestion, but enough people apparently agree with you that you've been modded up to +5 without anyone taking issue with it. Individuals bribing elected representatives is every bit as morally corrupt as companies doing so (and anyone who tried to claim that promising campaign contributions in return for votes on legislation isn't bribery needs to go look up bribery in a dictionary).
Else what the hell's the point of having a representative democracy in the first place? The whole idea of electing a representative to speak and vote on your behalf is rather lost is the representative then goes and votes on the basis who whoever promises them more money on each piece of legislation! Unless you perhaps think we should cut out the middle man, junk the whole democracy idea, and declare a plutocracy, with all legislation decided on the basis of some kind of pecunial referendum?
I can't believe no-one's yet pointed out that exactly what you've just described already exists...! It's a Virtual PC image, but that's easy enough to convert to VMWare. Yes, it's free.
Even if the MS somehow managed to find an interpretation of the EULA that approximated "you are Microsoft's bitch" and managed to persuade a court of that, I don't know about the US, but in the UK, that would easily fall under the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Failing that, there's a plethora of Sale of Goods Acts that you could sue under -- goods not performing as described, unfit for purpose, etc. Not to mention, the various antitrust bodies seem pretty receptive to complaints about MS's business practices these days.
I really can't see it happening, though. The bad press and added ammo the antitrust cases would have if MS ever did cut off XP come the end of support in 2014 would way, way eclipse any benefit considering tiny number of people still running XP then. Besides, considering the leap in system requirements from XP to Vista, what are the chances that computers running XP in 2014 will be able to run whatever OS Microsoft has out by then...!
You have a point. There is indeed a hint of WTF in this story. I mean, we're not talking about middleware like WMP here -- we're talking about finding files on the user's hard drive. If that's ruled to be no longer a core OS function to the extent that Microsoft are legally obliged to offer alternatives to it with the OS, you have to wonder what's next...
Newswire - 21st June, 2017
Microsoft (Nasdaq:MSFT) has announced they will be bundling the Linux kernel with Windows as an alternative to their own, after a 490-page antitrust complaint was filed by the Linux foundation. "We are extremely pleased with this development", Linux kernel BDFL Linus Torvalds was quoted as saying. "For too long have Microsoft been able to get away with forcefully bundling the NT kernel with their OS, forcing other products out of the market in clear violation of antitrust law as it applies to convicted monopolists. No longer!"
This development is not without precedent. After the original case in 2007 forced Microsoft to offer alternative hard drive search tools with the OS, a ruling in 2009 following an antitrust complaint by Stephen Oberholtzer had them bundling an an alternative to the Windows calculator. By 2014, after the famous Litestep case had Windows presenting the user with a choice of window managers on first boot, some have said this step was inevitable.
Asked whether there was any truth in the rumours that Richard Stallman was secretly preparing a dossier to set out the case that Microsoft had failed to offer enough choice to the consumer with regard to product names that feature recursive acronyms and references to Flanders and Swann, he declined to comment.
Flamebate? Aww, come on, mods. I thought it was quite funny, myself. (If nothing else, points for composing the Windows encircled red X entirely out of forward and backslashes...?)
On the other hand, a brand new license would come with a new cardboard box, and my box has been getting a touch tattered...
As for Paint, may I recommend the excellent Paint.NET, which was "mentored" by Microsoft (what that means in reality, I have no idea) and released under the open-source MIT license (which I assume is the reason they can't bundle it with Windows).
Well, of course. I don't need to browse someone's livejournal to discover that the city isn't moving over to Vista -- a good proportion of them still haven't moved over to XP. What you're routinely conductioning six-figure transactions, you don't rely on *any* software that's barely 6 months out of RTM, DRM or no DRM.
There have been quite a number of 'reviews' on this thread by people who clearly haven't every used the product they're reviewing, but I think you're the first one of them to actually take positive pride in their ignorance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Wind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_I/O_te