0528: "Windows 7"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Magistrates, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby prozacpwerranger » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:13 am UTC

Been playing with Windows 7 for the last few hours... starts much faster than Vista for me

A few notes based on my personal Vista experience:
Annoying automatic view settings (Vista seemed to choose whether to display "Date Modified," "Duration", "Size" etc on its own, and frequently forgot my settings) are less annoying
Cant install SPTD for drive mounting programs
Cant install MATLAB 2008b x86 or x64 (if anyone knows how to fix this plmk!)

Additionally, if you guys are interested you might want to keep your eye on this thread http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1116187
It seems MS is giving out beta copies even to non-MSDN
User avatar
prozacpwerranger
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:57 am UTC
Location: Piscataway, NJ

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby scikidus » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:14 am UTC

I'm loving the ITT thread's response to this comic.
Happy hollandaise!

"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" -Douglas Adams
User avatar
scikidus
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: New York, NY

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Carnildo » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:15 am UTC

VEKrueger wrote:The main things that sold me on Vista were the UAC for added security, the Aero interface, which is gorgeous, and DirectX 10 support, as I am an avid gamer.


Odd. You've just described three of the things that I hate most about Vista:
1) As a user, the visible face of UAC is dialog boxes that pop up when I do certain things. They're either pointless (yes, I do want to move this folder into the Program Files directory) or cryptic (Vista has just asked me if I want to let a program run, but the "details" section is a GUID rather than a path). As a developer, it's a pain in the ass: Microsoft has decreed that installers will run under an authenticated administrator account, and the installer in question a) installs some example documents, and b) runs the installed application after the install completes. UAC in an environment with a separate administrator account (common in computer labs and commercial environments) means that (a) puts the documents in the wrong "my documents" folder, and (b) leaves the application running under the wrong account, so documents the user makes will be saved in the wrong place.

2) The Aero interface raises the hardware requirements, adds clutter, and takes up space without providing any benefits. The drop shadows on OSX and Linux have the effect of making the front window stand out; the frosted-glass effects of Aero make the front window blend in.

3) DirectX 10 means I need to buy a new operating system and a new video card if I want to play games that use it.
Carnildo
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:43 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Exüberance » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:15 am UTC

Out, Vista!

I have had Vista for a while, and I really really really really hate it. It's just all the small things that bug me. Custom cursors not loading on startup, update progress always showing at 0% untill half a femtosecond before it's done installing, not running things as admin by default when you are the one and only administrator, taking out the 'parent folder' button in explorer (though at least Alt+Up still works), etc. etc. And it was just so.. unnecessary. I would have been more happy if they just re-skinned XP. In fact, I probably wouldn't even do that. *sigh*

EDIT: To clarify, I only mean the Windows Vista Updates stay at 0% for the entire download. Everything else works fine as it normally would on any other OS.
Last edited by Exüberance on Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:00 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Exüberance
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:33 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby VEKrueger » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Carnildo wrote:Odd. You've just described three of the things that I hate most about Vista:
1) As a user, the visible face of UAC is dialog boxes that pop up when I do certain things. They're either pointless (yes, I do want to move this folder into the Program Files directory) or cryptic (Vista has just asked me if I want to let a program run, but the "details" section is a GUID rather than a path). As a developer, it's a pain in the ass: Microsoft has decreed that installers will run under an authenticated administrator account, and the installer in question a) installs some example documents, and b) runs the installed application after the install completes. UAC in an environment with a separate administrator account (common in computer labs and commercial environments) means that (a) puts the documents in the wrong "my documents" folder, and (b) leaves the application running under the wrong account, so documents the user makes will be saved in the wrong place.
I'm not sure what your idea of security is, but when it asks you to confirm those actions, it's protecting you. Yes, of course you want to move that folder, but what happens when it prompts you with that and you didn't want it? You click cancel and foil a trojan.

EDIT: In a situation where you're using limited accounts, I wouldn't think you'd want said accounts installing any applications.

2) The Aero interface raises the hardware requirements, adds clutter, and takes up space without providing any benefits. The drop shadows on OSX and Linux have the effect of making the front window stand out; the frosted-glass effects of Aero make the front window blend in.
Aero can be turned off easily and liking it/disliking it is personal preference.

3) DirectX 10 means I need to buy a new operating system and a new video card if I want to play games that use it.

Uh, no, DX10 games are backwards compatible with DX9.

Exüberance wrote:Out, Vista!

I have had Vista for a while, and I really really really really hate it. It's just all the small things that bug me. Custom cursors not loading on startup, update progress always showing at 0% untill half a femtosecond before it's done installing,

These seem to be unrelated software/hardware issues, not an issue with Vista - my progress bars work just fine, and, well, I don't use custom cursors, but that would probably be the result of the skinning program or the cursor file itself.
VEKrueger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:59 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Tael » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:56 am UTC

prozacpwerranger wrote:Cant install SPTD for drive mounting programs
SPTD v1.56 should install fine, I can't vouch for previous versions.
Last edited by Tael on Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:06 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Tael
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:55 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby VEKrueger » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:57 am UTC

Using SPTD on Vista Home Premium x64 SP1 as we speak.
VEKrueger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:59 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Carnildo » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:27 am UTC

VEKrueger wrote:
Carnildo wrote:Odd. You've just described three of the things that I hate most about Vista:
1) As a user, the visible face of UAC is dialog boxes that pop up when I do certain things. They're either pointless (yes, I do want to move this folder into the Program Files directory) or cryptic (Vista has just asked me if I want to let a program run, but the "details" section is a GUID rather than a path). As a developer, it's a pain in the ass: Microsoft has decreed that installers will run under an authenticated administrator account, and the installer in question a) installs some example documents, and b) runs the installed application after the install completes. UAC in an environment with a separate administrator account (common in computer labs and commercial environments) means that (a) puts the documents in the wrong "my documents" folder, and (b) leaves the application running under the wrong account, so documents the user makes will be saved in the wrong place.
I'm not sure what your idea of security is, but when it asks you to confirm those actions, it's protecting you. Yes, of course you want to move that folder, but what happens when it prompts you with that and you didn't want it? You click cancel and foil a trojan.

EDIT: In a situation where you're using limited accounts, I wouldn't think you'd want said accounts installing any applications.


You managed to miss my point three times:

1) If I drag and drop a folder into the "Program Files" directory, odds are that yes, I want to move the folder there. Odds are that no, I'm not a Trojan (horse, student, condom, or ancient).
2) If UAC pops up a dialog saying "Do you want to run Safari Updater?", and the "details" tab gives "{65d9a976-5384-4476-ae5b-0d5012c30d7a}", how do I know if I want to click "yes" or "no"?
3) In many educational and corporate environments, the computer's main user is a limited account. If they want to install software, they call in an administrator and convince him that the software needs to be installed. He then runs the installer and enters the administrator password. When this intersects with older versions of our software, it results in files being installed in the wrong place, documents saved by the user vanishing, and leaves a security hole behind in the form of an application running as administrator -- with no indication that this is the case.

This also brings up a bug in UAC: as a developer, I make extensive use of InstallerVise, a program that makes installers. Whatever magic UAC does to detect installers also considers InstallerVise to be an installer, and requires me to click "Yes" every time I want to run the program.
Carnildo
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:43 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby VEKrueger » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:56 am UTC

Carnildo wrote:You managed to miss my point three times:

1) If I drag and drop a folder into the "Program Files" directory, odds are that yes, I want to move the folder there. Odds are that no, I'm not a Trojan (horse, student, condom, or ancient).
Odds are, yes, but in the one instance when something IS dropping a folder into your Program Files that you did not authorize, the UAC will stop it. You don't have to take off your shoes at the airport because they think you have a bomb in them. You have to take off your shoes at the airport because if it so happens that at one point someone does have a bomb in them, they can stop it from getting to the plane.

2) If UAC pops up a dialog saying "Do you want to run Safari Updater?", and the "details" tab gives "{65d9a976-5384-4476-ae5b-0d5012c30d7a}", how do I know if I want to click "yes" or "no"?
Did you request the update? Did you install Safari? Is Safari set to auto-update, and, if so, did you just start/restart the program to trigger said update?

If you're still unsure, click cancel, and you're right back where you started. If the Safari Updater is giving cryptic information like that then it's the fault of the developers, not the UAC. Vista can't extrapolate information that it isn't given. Hell, most applications don't even need administrator level access; if Firefox is asking for administrator access, then you can guess that something is up.

3) In many educational and corporate environments, the computer's main user is a limited account. If they want to install software, they call in an administrator and convince him that the software needs to be installed. He then runs the installer and enters the administrator password. When this intersects with older versions of our software, it results in files being installed in the wrong place, documents saved by the user vanishing, and leaves a security hole behind in the form of an application running as administrator -- with no indication that this is the case.
I'm not personally a developer, but what you're describing here is confusing. You're saying that some installer is placing files in the wrong location? I would fault that to the installer, not the operating system.
VEKrueger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:59 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Amnesiasoft » Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:01 am UTC

Carnildo wrote:Whatever magic UAC does to detect installers also considers InstallerVise to be an installer, and requires me to click "Yes" every time I want to run the program.

Windows looks through the executables string table and tries to find common words and phrases from installers. You know, like installer. I'd imagine an installer creation program is kind of prone to having those phrases in it somewhere.
User avatar
Amnesiasoft
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby BlackRiven » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:35 am UTC

What's confusing for me about the UAC is that Linux and Mac OS both has a similar mechanism, and yet people who hate UAC often praise one or both of them. What's the deal? Don't the same arguments apply? "I'm the only one who uses this computer, why do I have to type a user name and password (by default) to log in?". "Linux has no trojans/malware, why do I need to insert a password to install a program?" That's not annoying for people?
Calculus ist krieg!!!!!factorialfactorial11
BlackRiven
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:16 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby duane534 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:41 am UTC

BlackRiven wrote:What's confusing for me about the UAC is that Linux and Mac OS both has a similar mechanism, and yet people who hate UAC often praise one or both of them. What's the deal? Don't the same arguments apply? "I'm the only one who uses this computer, why do I have to type a user name and password (by default) to log in?". "Linux has no trojans/malware, why do I need to insert a password to install a program?" That's not annoying for people?


Because, at least for the time-being, it's better executed on Linux and Mac OS/X. The software is designed for it, and the interface handles it very well, especially in MacOS.

For example, in Linux, the apps that require administrative access are traditionally kept in a different place in the UI (different toolbar, different folder under menus...) than those that don't. Also, many of them don't ask for a password until they try to do something administrative. (Granted, this is fixed in Windows 7.) With Windows, especially with legacy software, running as Administrator is something that you do when something doesn't work right, and, even then, it's a guess, and it still may not work right.
duane534
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:26 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Eternal Density » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:59 am UTC

Kazuke wrote:Hitler was a Goa'uld.
FTFY, but otherwise, that was my thought also.
sje46 wrote:How isn't it better than XP? It's newer! Doesn't that mean it would be faster, have more memory, etc?
No, it means it needs a faster processor and uses more memory.
ImagePlay the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?

GAZEBO OINTMENT HARPSICHORD CREDENZA BUNGALOW
User avatar
Eternal Density
 
Posts: 3961
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Location: The Hotdog Cart

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby YoungStudent » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:25 pm UTC

Vista want's confirmation after every action "Are you sure that you want to run this program?" ...i wonder if Windows 7 want's confirmation when i move move pointer to left? "Are you sure that you want to move your cursor to left by one pixel?"
Okay, quote me - We try to explain magic, presence of spirits and supernatural with science, which only explains 'the physical world' that we observe. It's like blind earthworm declaring that there is no light.
YoungStudent
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:14 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby duane534 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:55 pm UTC

YoungStudent wrote:Vista want's confirmation after every action "Are you sure that you want to run this program?" ...i wonder if Windows 7 want's confirmation when i move move pointer to left? "Are you sure that you want to move your cursor to left by one pixel?"


Windows 7's UAC is much more polished then Vista. And, even Vista only wanted authorization for things that cause system-wide changes, i.e. things that would require the root password on Linux or Mac OS/X.
duane534
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:26 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby aido179 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:12 pm UTC

i wouldn't be suprised if somebody discovered a key combo to boot as hitler UI...i mean...youtube did it... 8)
aido179
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:03 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby VEKrueger » Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:27 pm UTC

Eternal Density wrote:No, it means it needs a faster processor and uses more memory.

It does, but just barely.
YoungStudent wrote:Vista want's confirmation after every action "Are you sure that you want to run this program?" ...i wonder if Windows 7 want's confirmation when i move move pointer to left? "Are you sure that you want to move your cursor to left by one pixel?"

hur hur vista asks you stuf a lot huh
VEKrueger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:59 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby BlackRiven » Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:29 pm UTC

duane534 wrote:
BlackRiven wrote:What's confusing for me about the UAC is that Linux and Mac OS both has a similar mechanism, and yet people who hate UAC often praise one or both of them. What's the deal? Don't the same arguments apply? "I'm the only one who uses this computer, why do I have to type a user name and password (by default) to log in?". "Linux has no trojans/malware, why do I need to insert a password to install a program?" That's not annoying for people?


Because, at least for the time-being, it's better executed on Linux and Mac OS/X. The software is designed for it, and the interface handles it very well, especially in MacOS.

For example, in Linux, the apps that require administrative access are traditionally kept in a different place in the UI (different toolbar, different folder under menus...) than those that don't. Also, many of them don't ask for a password until they try to do something administrative. (Granted, this is fixed in Windows 7.) With Windows, especially with legacy software, running as Administrator is something that you do when something doesn't work right, and, even then, it's a guess, and it still may not work right.


I don't agree with this. Vista asks for administrative privileges in exactly the same events as Ubuntu for example- an install, an update, or a program that messes with the system. That's it.
Apps that require administrative privileges are mostly separate from other apps- in the Control Panel folder.

The only thing I see this boil down to is psychology. Many people don't like it when the OS asks them something, and yet when they switch to Ubuntu they are willing to put up with it because they are willing to compromise in order to not return to Vista. So what previously pushed them away is now more acceptable.
I suppose there must be a frequency element to this, but under normal use the UAC shouldn't pop up any more than it does on Linux, and the people who claim it "pops up for every action" are probably still in shock that they now have to respond when the OS asks them something. For many people even the pop up bubbles you get in the bottom right are way out of their comfort zone because it's a case of "the complicated computer which I can never master asks me something I don't understand".
Calculus ist krieg!!!!!factorialfactorial11
BlackRiven
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:16 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby John » Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:18 pm UTC

It could also be a case of how effective UAC is. Under Linux, I have to type in my root password. Under Vista, I simply have to click yet another pop-up.
John
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:20 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby prozacpwerranger » Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:24 pm UTC

Should have been more clear on this, but I meant SPTD and MATLAB do not work in the Windows 7 beta
User avatar
prozacpwerranger
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:57 am UTC
Location: Piscataway, NJ

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby BlackRiven » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:07 pm UTC

John wrote:It could also be a case of how effective UAC is. Under Linux, I have to type in my root password. Under Vista, I simply have to click yet another pop-up.


The fact that in Vista you only press a button doesn't make it less secure. It's not about how easy it is for the user to override, it's about how hard it is for a malicious program to override. (You can set up a password for the UAC on Vista too btw).
Calculus ist krieg!!!!!factorialfactorial11
BlackRiven
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:16 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby VEKrueger » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:13 pm UTC

prozacpwerranger wrote:Should have been more clear on this, but I meant SPTD and MATLAB do not work in the Windows 7 beta

Well, that's a given. It's a beta, it should be no one's primary OS at this point.
VEKrueger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:59 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby phillipsjk » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:34 pm UTC

VEKrueger wrote:Odds are, yes, but in the one instance when something IS dropping a folder into your Program Files that you did not authorize, the UAC will stop it. You don't have to take off your shoes at the airport because they think you have a bomb in them. You have to take off your shoes at the airport because if it so happens that at one point someone does have a bomb in them, they can stop it from getting to the plane.


To be precise, you have to take your shoes off at the airport because one terrorist made a FAILED attempt to bring down a plane with a shoe bomb. Do you seriously think potential terrorists with try to use a method that didn't work the first time? As an aside, the 9/11 terrorists effectively put an end to non-suicidal plane hijackings.

I think what Carnildo was getting at is that in a secure environment, you ONLY log in as an administrator to do system maintenance. Of course, if that is the case, it can be disabled.
Did you get the number on that truck?
User avatar
phillipsjk
 
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby enhazed » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:38 pm UTC

Here's something nice... Doctorow just linked to this comic on BoingBoing.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/01/09/xk ... ler-v.html
He's nice. :)
enhazed
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby VEKrueger » Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:12 pm UTC

phillipsjk wrote:To be precise, you have to take your shoes off at the airport because one terrorist made a FAILED attempt to bring down a plane with a shoe bomb. Do you seriously think potential terrorists with try to use a method that didn't work the first time? As an aside, the 9/11 terrorists effectively put an end to non-suicidal plane hijackings.

Alright, bad analogy. I'm not talking specifically about the shoe part, just that they make us go through security at all, because if there is a weapon, they can stop it. It's annoying, but the one time a deranged man happens to have a knife in his boot, it's all worth it.
VEKrueger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:59 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby duane534 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:24 pm UTC

BlackRiven wrote:Vista asks for administrative privileges in exactly the same events as Ubuntu for example- an install, an update, or a program that messes with the system. That's it.


The difference is WHEN it asks. In Vista, it must be when the program is executed, and there's really no way of telling if it's necessary or not for the app, to Hell with what the user actually intends to do that session. In Ubuntu, most user-space apps will run, show data, and require you to enter "Administrator Mode" to make changes.


BlackRiven wrote:I suppose there must be a frequency element to this, but under normal use the UAC shouldn't pop up any more than it does on Linux, and the people who claim it "pops up for every action" are probably still in shock that they now have to respond when the OS asks them something. For many people even the pop up bubbles you get in the bottom right are way out of their comfort zone because it's a case of "the complicated computer which I can never master asks me something I don't understand".


That's definitely true, though.
duane534
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:26 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby GuitarFreak » Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:52 pm UTC

About the whole using a lot of memory thing:

perf.png
perf.png (58.01 KiB) Viewed 3262 times


The windows 7 beta uses quite a bit less memory than vista in my case. When I'm in vista, with FF, itunes, and steam opened, vista uses close to 2GB of RAM. Now, it's closer to 1GB. On startup, it uses 650-700MB.

Also, if you don't like UAC, disable it. If you have any kind of decent AV program, you don't need it. I turned it off the day I installed vista and I haven't had a single problem.
Image
Cooler than a bose-einstein condensate
Bakemaster wrote:I went to high school with a girl whose middle name was Nguyen and whose last name was Huynh. It was a win-win situation.
User avatar
GuitarFreak
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:30 am UTC
Location: Nanticoke PA

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby VEKrueger » Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:50 am UTC

GuitarFreak wrote:Also, if you don't like UAC, disable it. If you have any kind of decent AV program, you don't need it. I turned it off the day I installed vista and I haven't had a single problem.

I see tons and tons of people suggesting this, but it doesn't make it any less of a good idea.

I mean, sure, we have penicillin, but does that stop us from wearing condoms?
VEKrueger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:59 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Carnildo » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:30 am UTC

VEKrueger wrote:
Carnildo wrote:You managed to miss my point three times:

1) If I drag and drop a folder into the "Program Files" directory, odds are that yes, I want to move the folder there. Odds are that no, I'm not a Trojan (horse, student, condom, or ancient).
Odds are, yes, but in the one instance when something IS dropping a folder into your Program Files that you did not authorize, the UAC will stop it. You don't have to take off your shoes at the airport because they think you have a bomb in them. You have to take off your shoes at the airport because if it so happens that at one point someone does have a bomb in them, they can stop it from getting to the plane.


That's a surprisingly apt analogy. Because one person out of all the billions of air travellers once tried to sneak a shoe bomb on, we inconvenience every air traveller. Likewise, because one trojan horse somewhere installed itself by emulating a drag-and-drop, we ask every user if they're sure they want to drag-and-drop a file.

2) If UAC pops up a dialog saying "Do you want to run Safari Updater?", and the "details" tab gives "{65d9a976-5384-4476-ae5b-0d5012c30d7a}", how do I know if I want to click "yes" or "no"?
Did you request the update? Did you install Safari? Is Safari set to auto-update, and, if so, did you just start/restart the program to trigger said update?

If you're still unsure, click cancel, and you're right back where you started. If the Safari Updater is giving cryptic information like that then it's the fault of the developers, not the UAC. Vista can't extrapolate information that it isn't given.

It's not just Safari's auto-updater. A number of Microsft applications (including, IIRC, Windows Update) show GUIDs rather than paths.

3) In many educational and corporate environments, the computer's main user is a limited account. If they want to install software, they call in an administrator and convince him that the software needs to be installed. He then runs the installer and enters the administrator password. When this intersects with older versions of our software, it results in files being installed in the wrong place, documents saved by the user vanishing, and leaves a security hole behind in the form of an application running as administrator -- with no indication that this is the case.
I'm not personally a developer, but what you're describing here is confusing. You're saying that some installer is placing files in the wrong location? I would fault that to the installer, not the operating system.


Without UAC:
User "A" double-clicks the installer. The installer runs, installs the software in the location the user specifies, installs example documents in "A"'s "My Documents" folder, and runs the application as user "A". User "A" creates a document and saves it in the default location, "A"'s "My Documents" folder. User "A" then exits the application, runs it again, and opens his document.

With UAC:
User "A" double-clicks the installer. Windows asks for an administrator password, which the site administrator (user "B") types. The installer runs, installs the software in the location the user specifies, installs example documents in "B"'s "My Documents" folder, and runs the application as user "B". User "A" creates a document and saves it in the default location, "B"'s "My Documents" folder. User "A" then exits the application, runs it again, and can't find his document.

See the difference? The installer is doing exactly what it should, but becasuse Windows is providing incorrect information, files wind up in the wrong places.
Carnildo
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:43 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Carnildo » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:46 am UTC

BlackRiven wrote:What's confusing for me about the UAC is that Linux and Mac OS both has a similar mechanism, and yet people who hate UAC often praise one or both of them. What's the deal? Don't the same arguments apply? "I'm the only one who uses this computer, why do I have to type a user name and password (by default) to log in?". "Linux has no trojans/malware, why do I need to insert a password to install a program?" That's not annoying for people?


The difference is in the details. For example, on Linux, when you want to switch into administrator mode, you type your password once (if using "sudo") or the administrator password once (if using "su"), and you're set until you stop doing administrator tasks. With UAC, you need to click "confirm" before each administrator action you take.

It helps that Linux and MacOSX have about 40 years of Unix history to draw on in getting the details right and setting expectations, while Windows users have different expectations, and Microsoft has ignored the collective knowlege that *nix has built up.
Carnildo
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:43 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Spuddly » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:27 am UTC

Um, a joke about windows sucking? Isn't that a little... last millennium?
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.
Spuddly
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby SEE » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:56 am UTC

No, Vista doesn't run well on computers near its official hardware specs. And this is new how? Windows 3.0 could nominally run on an 8088 with 640K of RAM. Windows 3.1's official minimums were a 286 and 1 MB of RAM. Windows 95 said a 386 DX with 4 MB of RAM. Windows 98 claimed a 486DX-2/66 with 16 MB would be fine. Windows 2000 was supposed to run on a Pentium 133 with 32 MB. XP said a 233 MHZ processor and 64 MB of RAM. All of them sucked just as hard on those machines as Vista did on a machine with an 800 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and integrated graphics ("Vista Capable" hardware).

Real usability for Windows has always required adherence to the maxim, "Ignore the minimum specs; double the recommended specs." If you remembered that, you were fine. Vista works on 2 GHz processor, 2 GB of RAM free from the demands of the video card, and a video card with 256 MB of RAM — that is, double the "Vista Premium Ready" specs.
User avatar
SEE
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:58 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby John » Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:25 pm UTC

BlackRiven wrote:The fact that in Vista you only press a button doesn't make it less secure.
When users have been trained by previous versions of Windows to click okay on any pop-up that appears, I would say it is less secure. If UAC had appeared without this previously learned habit, I'd say its actually a pretty good idea. Now though, its just perpetuating the previous cycle without achieving any real security.
John
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:20 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby CrunchyFoodstuff » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:07 pm UTC

duane534 wrote:
'; DROP DATABASE;-- wrote: My first Vista box (even pre-SP1, mind you) had far inferior specs than that, and took around 90 seconds to boot to full-usage. I'm talking 2.6 GHZ Pentium D, 1 GB of RAM (some siphoned off for video before boot, even).


Wow, impressive. My lousy old Pentium II 266 MHz takes about 10 seconds less to fully boot up (Win98SE). That's a slow boot IMHO (mostly due to a slow POST...). OWNED. :P

And the PII is likely to be able to do most of the tasks that your machine is capable of doing, except some multimedia tasks...

I don't think such boot times are acceptable on modern day machines. They should be able to boot a lot faster. Now if I look at most PCs running XP, it seems that the actual POST is actually quite fast, but loading the OS takes a ridiculous amount of time, usually a few minutes.

Then there's the point that many PCs still cannot sleep properly - either they don't go to sleep entirely, or they take a lot of time to wake up (or both). How long has M$ had to get this fixed up? 10-15 years? I don't expect Win7 to fix this. Instead of ripping off MacOSX/Linux's graphical interface, M$ could better spend some time on improving such things.
My Macs wake up in less than 10 seconds...


Oh, it's possible to make about any version of Windows run marvelously stable...it just takes way too much hand-fitting to do so.
CrunchyFoodstuff
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:28 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Ells » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:10 pm UTC

I find it quite silly that some people claim that Vista is more secure than XP because of the UAC. It's not like you weren't able to easily create an unprivileged user account since... Win NT 3? But my guess is that this escaped the knowledge of those self-called advanced users.
Ells
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:52 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby VEKrueger » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:23 pm UTC

Ells wrote:I find it quite silly that some people claim that Vista is more secure than XP because of the UAC. It's not like you weren't able to easily create an unprivileged user account since... Win NT 3? But my guess is that this escaped the knowledge of those self-called advanced users.

Hardly the same thing, but thanks for trying
VEKrueger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:59 am UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Ells » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:39 pm UTC

VEKrueger wrote:
Ells wrote:I find it quite silly that some people claim that Vista is more secure than XP because of the UAC. It's not like you weren't able to easily create an unprivileged user account since... Win NT 3? But my guess is that this escaped the knowledge of those self-called advanced users.

Hardly the same thing, but thanks for trying


Actually, the very same thing from a security standpoint: limiting what an application/user can do to admin or user levels.

Vista uses a pseudo-admin mode in which it'll try to guess (sometimes badly) which programs need admin privileges and prompt to provide admin access to those. Otherwise you are running as a limited user.
Prior to Vista you can run as a limited user (which basically gives you the same level of security as if you clicked no to every UAC prompt) and log in as an admin or use runas for everything that you know that should require administrator privileges.

I'm aware that it does more than that, but the registry and application data virtualization are more of a convenience thing than security: it eases the use of applications not designed for multiple users in a multi-user driven OS.
Ells
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:52 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby BlackRiven » Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:58 pm UTC

John wrote:
BlackRiven wrote:The fact that in Vista you only press a button doesn't make it less secure.
When users have been trained by previous versions of Windows to click okay on any pop-up that appears, I would say it is less secure. If UAC had appeared without this previously learned habit, I'd say its actually a pretty good idea. Now though, its just perpetuating the previous cycle without achieving any real security.


Yeah but who's fault is it? Not Microsoft's. Besides, people who tend not to read messages will probably not do it even if prompted for a password, it'll just be a harder to dismiss annoyance.
Calculus ist krieg!!!!!factorialfactorial11
BlackRiven
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:16 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby Dominoes1 » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:20 pm UTC

I would have expected xkcd to make fun of the people who spout 'Vista sucks!', not actually take a shot at Vista. Vista isn't a bad operating system at all, it has a bad reputation because of uninformed news stories and an overactive rumor mill. It's a much better OS than XP.
Dominoes1
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:18 pm UTC

Re: "Windows 7" discussion

Postby John » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:22 pm UTC

BlackRiven wrote:Yeah but who's fault is it? Not Microsoft's.
Actually it is. If they hadn't had their OS throw unnecessary pop-ups at people for years because Windows was so buggy, people wouldn't have gotten into the habit.

Also in copying some files, I have been asked multiple times to grant admin privileges. This just accentuates the bad habits formed by earlier OS's.
John
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:20 am UTC

PreviousNext

Return to Individual XKCD Comic Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChronosDragon, Earthling on Mars, Google [Bot], NoMouse and 29 guests