Vista #1 biggest tech disappointment of 2007

[KingKrool]

Installing Apps,Running some apps,changing any minor system setting (network etc.),copying files at times etc. etc.Its a PITA! I have no doubt that disabling UAC is the first thing most home users would be doing on Vista!

Hold on - so according to you anyone should be allowed to install s/w on a computer, whether they are admin or not? Then you cry about spyware. I have no respect for that complaint, especially since half of the people who say that then say Ubuntu is wonderful (UAC is pretty much like sudo for the most part, and apt-get requires sudo).

Copying files - only if to restricted locations. Once again, this prevents malware from overwriting your boot sector and/or system files. SP1 now fixes the one (and very big) problem that was there - that of multiple prompts for the same action.

Running some apps - here I partly agree with you. However, I argue that only a badly written app requires system privileges for the most part, or a system utility. System utlities SHOULD require admin passwords (and they always have - if you ran as a non-admin in XP, try shutting down your antivirus and see if you can manage that). Other apps should not require system privileges - for example, when I first installed Vista, WinRAR used to throw UAC prompts - now it doesn't. I don't know what got fixed (Vista and/or WinRAR) but everything is fine now.

And most home users are not going to be disabling UAC. Largely because they have no idea what UAC is (even if it does throw prompts at them) and because they wouldn't know how. It is more likely that some false geek goes and does it for them.

UAC does have a problem, and that is a security issue in which it wrongly identifies programs as being trusted - and IIRC, STILL asks you for a password (which is still a fallback, though seeing the "trusted" rating you may go ahead and give it the password when you shouldn't).

I love the fact that UAC finally allows proper non-admin running. I tried that on XP - too many apps didn't work. Vista does a better job of that (perhaps thanks to file and registry virtualization), and UAC means that you don't have to switch to an admin account when you want to install something (run as admin didn't always work in XP, it does now). This is very useful - I know longer have to worry about my parents infecting the machine by downloading something by mistake or visiting the wrong webpage. The moment they see a password prompt they press cancel. They only proceed with the password prompt if I tell them to - and I tell them to do that if I need them to install some app or the other. Makes my life as a remote admin with non-login access much easier. My previous XP computer was full of spyware once I left the house because my cousin downloaded all sorts of crap (smileys!!!!!). Now she has her own account, and it is non-privileged...

I actually did have what I think is a genuine problem with UAC - I was writing an app that required access to performance counters and it didn't run unless it was run as administrator. I think that is silly. It is much too restrictive, and sometimes I think I should send that complaint in..

 

[Pat]

Im sorta neutral towards it,,,but there r a lot of prompts..if u just google u might get some examples..i remember onw with 8-9 prompts for just deleting a file...
Still once u get used to it, no real prob..

Copy Paste sorted...just download sp1..
U have prob changing network settings??As in where??
All they did was add more functionality, nothing removed..Come on man just take a slow look n u'l understand... It rather simple than xp,,most of the time autoconfigures..

Please read the posts carefully.I did not say I had a problem changing network settings.My post was in reply of Krool's post who wanted to know when UAC prompts show up!

 

[Pat]

Hold on - so according to you anyone should be allowed to install s/w on a computer, whether they are admin or not? Then you cry about spyware. I have no respect for that complaint, especially since half of the people who say that then say Ubuntu is wonderful (UAC is pretty much like sudo for the most part, and apt-get requires sudo).
Copying files - only if to restricted locations. Once again, this prevents malware from overwriting your boot sector and/or system files. SP1 now fixes the one (and very big) problem that was there - that of multiple prompts for the same action.
Running some apps - here I partly agree with you. However, I argue that only a badly written app requires system privileges for the most part, or a system utility. System utlities SHOULD require admin passwords (and they always have - if you ran as a non-admin in XP, try shutting down your antivirus and see if you can manage that). Other apps should not require system privileges - for example, when I first installed Vista, WinRAR used to throw UAC prompts - now it doesn't. I don't know what got fixed (Vista and/or WinRAR) but everything is fine now.

And most home users are not going to be disabling UAC. Largely because they have no idea what UAC is (even if it does throw prompts at them) and because they wouldn't know how. It is more likely that some false geek goes and does it for them.
UAC does have a problem, and that is a security issue in which it wrongly identifies programs as being trusted - and IIRC, STILL asks you for a password (which is still a fallback, though seeing the "trusted" rating you may go ahead and give it the password when you shouldn't).

I love the fact that UAC finally allows proper non-admin running. I tried that on XP - too many apps didn't work. Vista does a better job of that (perhaps thanks to file and registry virtualization), and UAC means that you don't have to switch to an admin account when you want to install something (run as admin didn't always work in XP, it does now). This is very useful - I know longer have to worry about my parents infecting the machine by downloading something by mistake or visiting the wrong webpage. The moment they see a password prompt they press cancel. They only proceed with the password prompt if I tell them to - and I tell them to do that if I need them to install some app or the other. Makes my life as a remote admin with non-login access much easier. My previous XP computer was full of spyware once I left the house because my cousin downloaded all sorts of crap (smileys!!!!!). Now she has her own account, and it is non-privileged...

I actually did have what I think is a genuine problem with UAC - I was writing an app that required access to performance counters and it didn't run unless it was run as administrator. I think that is silly. It is much too restrictive, and sometimes I think I should send that complaint in..

You are not getting the point..Its not that anyone should be allowed to install software.Dammit,I am the admin and I know what I am doing! If it was a ordinary user and a prompt came up,that was ok but not for an admin!

Copy to restricted locations ? What does that mean ? I have had prompts when I was copying data from one drive to another!

You yourself mentioned,WinRAR threw prompts earlier but not later! What does this prove ? It proves that UAC is shitty,behaves randomly and nothing else!

Running apps ? Oh crap,I know what app I am running! If it was a prompt only on first run,thats ok! But not every single bloody time I run it!

 

[Udit]

took a little while getting used to but now i just love uac as it asks me before any installer auto runs thus i can cancel anytime needed

 

[KingKrool]

^^ Do you even have any idea what you are talking about? Merely running as admin SHOULD NOT allow you to do privileged stuff. That is why root shells in Linux are now strongly discouraged - they are major security holes. You are running as an admin. Next thing you know someone takes over your computer via a hold in your browser and does "format C:". Case closed.

As for copying files, again, if you are copying to/from a restricted location, it needs to check! Check where you were copying to, see who the owner on those files was!

As for WinRAR - it was fixed AFTER an update to WinRAR. I don't know what fixed it, but that was what I noticed. It hardly proves anything against UAC.

In computer security there is a notion of capabilities (explaining them in full is far beyond the scope of this discussion). But one of the basic principles of capabilities is that to perform an action you need to name the capability you are using. UAC is sort of an attempt in that direction (though not really, since you are still using ACLs), though no one would ever claim UAC has anything to do with capabilities. But the idea of explicit naming does make sense.

 

[Pat]

Ya lets kick some ***...
kiddin..

No, not really yar...Ya there is a small trade off, but not really,, todays normal processor, 1gb ram,,,u wont even notice the difference..:hap2:

You speak like a true MS Fan boy! While people try to overclock and extract every bit of juice possible from their machines,why would anyone want to trade-off performance? What are you getting in return ? Anything other than the eye-candy ? Dont say its secure blah blah! Windows XP with SP3 will be as secure as Vista.Period.

Now u cant blame vista for bad memory management by firefox...Ps-latest firefox build seems to address that issue...hyeah:

It is what I call Software Compatibility issues (this is not a big problem as its getting sorted out quickly)

Ya lets begin..This time its balanced..
Vendors stopped support cause of the clients...Besides it was wrong on their part to bring out vista as soon as it was released..People didnt get time to adjust..And vendors just wanted to cash in on the initial hoopla...So paid for it..:cool2:

So it is now vendors fault that clients began complaining about vista ? And for your kind information it was not only vendors who wanted to cash-in on the initial hoopla,it was M$ itself who was,in a way,forcing new customers to purchase vista!

U must be joking...i neednt say more..Cause hunting for drivers,for applications havin atleast even half the functionality of windows software, isnt my idea of FuN...:no:

Lol! I can see you MS-Fanboyishness in that post! Finding applications in Linux is as easy as doing it on Windows..Driver issues are getting overcomed by the day..If people have to adjust to vista, why not try and adjust to Linux?

Do u expect new games to work better and better on old hardware??? Then why expect the same from new OS ???
Newer technologies need faster hardware..its been like this since the age of DOS...Did u go abt crapping xp and promoting win 98 when xp was launched???

Now what sort of Comparison is that ?? I have Game A running on my hardware at 65 fps! I would definitely not waste my money on another OS which runs the same game on the same hardware at 55 fps!

 

[w1nD]

yare yare !!! ppl have started debate :S n even writing essays :ashamed: over dis topic :rofl:

 

[Pat]

^^ Do you even have any idea what you are talking about? Merely running as admin SHOULD NOT allow you to do privileged stuff. That is why root shells in Linux are now strongly discouraged - they are major security holes. You are running as an admin. Next thing you know someone takes over your computer via a hold in your browser and does "format C:". Case closed.
As for copying files, again, if you are copying to/from a restricted location, it needs to check! Check where you were copying to, see who the owner on those files was!
As for WinRAR - it was fixed AFTER an update to WinRAR. I don't know what fixed it, but that was what I noticed. It hardly proves anything against UAC.
In computer security there is a notion of capabilities (explaining them in full is far beyond the scope of this discussion). But one of the basic principles of capabilities is that to perform an action you need to name the capability you are using. UAC is sort of an attempt in that direction (though not really, since you are still using ACLs), though no one would ever claim UAC has anything to do with capabilities. But the idea of explicit naming does make sense.

There are no other users on my system! Theres only one user and thats me.Yet I have prompts when I copy stuff from one drive to another!

Via the default UAC admin approval mode, all members of the local administrators group run with standard privileges. However, when users or applications attempt to introduce changes to the system settings and files in System Root or Program File, Vista's UAC will ask for administrator confirmation.

Common tasks such as installing or uninstalling applications will prompt the user for elevated privileges. Deploying Windows Updates, ActiveX controls and device drivers will lead to the same result. The same thing also goes for simply configuring Windows Update.

When users will attempt to modify Windows Firewall settings, managing the accounts in Windows Vista, or accessing content of the other users, they will also be prompted by the UAC asking to run the processes with elevated privileges. You will additionally need to configure Parental Controls or to run Task Scheduler with administrator privileges. Restoring backed-up system files will also trigger a UAC prompt.

Thanks,but no thanks.I know how to manage my system! I am one of those people who dont ever compain about viruses/spware etc. because I know how to handle them! So better give me a break!

 

[Udit]

^^ Do you even have any idea what you are talking about? Merely running as admin SHOULD NOT allow you to do privileged stuff. That is why root shells in Linux are now strongly discouraged - they are major security holes. You are running as an admin. Next thing you know someone takes over your computer via a hold in your browser and does "format C:". Case closed.

that was for me or Pat :S

 

[Pat]

that was for me or Pat :S

Lol! That was for me hyeah:

 

[KingKrool]

Dude, it doesn't matter whether you (Pat, the statement was for Pat) are the only user or not? Consider this scenario. You are the admin, the one and only user. You go online. Next thing you know, someone hijacks your browser/flash player/jpeg codec and downloads a bunch of code that can now run with root privilege.

In *nix, they have a saying "do not take the name of root in vain". The same applies in Windows, which is why UAC exists. Even when you run as admin, you really aren't unless you specifically answer the prompt.

The problem you have with copying is specifically because you are the only user, yet when you normally run, you don't really run as admin. Even so, I think with appropriate permissions (allow full permissions to all, big security whole, but you don't really mind) you can manage without UAC.

I did fix that on my PC though. E: now allows full access to my non admin account. So copying to the root of E:\ doesn't cause problems. C:\ of course, I keep secure.

If your computer is completely isolated, you don't need UAC. If you log on to the internet, you sure as hell do.

 

[Party Monger]

You speak like a true MS Fan boy! While people try to overclock and extract every bit of juice possible from their machines,why would anyone want to trade-off performance? What are you getting in return ? Anything other than the eye-candy ? Dont say its secure blah blah! Windows XP with SP3 will be as secure as Vista.Period.

Abt 1% or even lesser users overclock...:bleh:
What im getting in return ??
"A MORE COMPLETE OS"hyeah:
Windows xp with sp3...secure as vista??right..u evidently dont know what Xp sp3 includes...

Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) includes all previously released Windows XP updates, including security updates and hotfixes. It also includes select out-of-band releases, and a small number of new enhancements, which do not significantly change customers’ experience with the operating system.

Microsoft's official explanation...The only thing in terms of security that sp3 brings is Network Access Protection (NAP). Which is used for server 2008...So get ur facts straight before throwing sensational statements..

It is what I call Software Compatibility issues

Hahaha...its a prob on xp also...jus not as bad...so its developers fault not vista..

So it is now vendors fault that clients began complaining about vista ? And for your kind information it was not only vendors who wanted to cash-in on the initial hoopla,it was M$ itself who was,in a way,forcing new customers to purchase vista!

What i meant was that they should hav let vista sink in...Let the techies get their verdict out and the try new feature...but it went otherwise..Yeah microsofts fault too..:no:

Lol! I can see you MS-Fanboyishness in that post! Finding applications in Linux is as easy as doing it on Windows..Driver issues are getting overcomed by the day..If people have to adjust to vista, why not try and adjust to Linux?

Im no fanboy...If i find something good i stick by it...And i've used linux a lot too..and if u say that finding apps is as easy..den evidently ur jus arguing for the sake of argument...Every one here gives in and agree to the fact that windows has an incomparable software library...

Now what sort of Comparison is that ?? I have Game A running on my hardware at 65 fps! I would definitely not waste my money on another OS which runs the same game on the same hardware at 55 fps!

Ofcourse a game made and optimised for Xp, will work much better Xp than in any other os..So depends which game ur talking abt.. And well obviously there will be a tradeoff when u shift to newer technologies, i dont see u complaining abt the better looking Dx10 games??? When u need better graphics u WILL need to upgrade both in terms of hardware and software...And thats wat most people do..:tongue:

 

[Balkazzaar]

man :S :S :S :O :O :O i didn't know one post by me on this topic wud yield over 50 post replies and its an all out war going on........since all u guys have given ur views let me give mine as well...i haven't tried Vista...but as majority of the world goes by XP i too am for XP (for now atleast) till Vista Matures and stabilizes itself as an acceptable OS in the Market for high end, low end as well as mid end users...till then i m all for XP...:hap2: :clap:

XP su*** now for me it just feels like crap xp lacks dual core support

so i used 2 xpirience lots of probs while playin cs 1.6 :S 1.6 n other games also run far smoothly on vista :clap: just like they did on XP.

also no hang problems in vista !!! not even once hyeah: xp hangs like hell

So vista roxx.

n may b vendors defer frm givin vista coz its costly than xp n not many ppl kno bout it :tongue:

VISTA VISTA VISTA

As for u Kenpachi, do some digging on the net and u will find that MS has already released a hotfix or a patch for Dual core processors for better performance of XP and other OSes.... here's the link Computers that are running Windows XP Service Pack 2 and that are equipped with multiple processors that support processor power management features may experience decreased performance (hope all u guys using XP on Dual core processors find this useful) and like Switch said be soft and sweet with ur words other wise u'll have to eat them.......... peace to all of u and wishing u Belated X'Mas and New and prosperous 2008:clap: :hap2:

 

[Quad Master]

Newer technologies need faster hardware..its been like this since the age of DOS...Did u go abt crapping xp and promoting win 98 when xp was launched???

Its like this for every facet of like...In school..."u dont come first in class, the topper seems like an idiot worthless pig.."

"In college u dont get a good girlfriend The one who does seems like an ass":rofl:

(jus the general idea..)

We criticise some thing sooo badly,,,but end up using it..

XP was more stable than Win98 and i made my switch to XP , after trying it out one or twice.

Also the NTFS filesystem was better than FAT32 , i have had many bsod's on my win98 but after XP came i hardly had trouble and SP2 made it more better.

There is nothing so special about vista that it wud make me say bye bye to XP. hyeah:

 

[Party Monger]

XP was more stable than Win98 and i made my switch to XP , after trying it out one or twice.
Also the NTFS filesystem was better than FAT32 , i have had many bsod's on my win98 but after XP came i hardly had trouble and SP2 made it more better.
There is nothing so special about vista that it wud make me say bye bye to XP. hyeah:

Wel then i'l put it this way...There was nothin special in xp to make me hold on it...:tongue:

Each man to his own...TruCe..hyeah:

 

[tracerbullet]

Do u expect new games to work better and better on old hardware??? Then why expect the same from new OS ???
Newer technologies need faster hardware..its been like this since the age of DOS...Did u go abt crapping xp and promoting win 98 when xp was launched???

Its just that no one want to give it a fair chance...Of all the hype i've seen abt OSX, Leopard seems sooo shitty...and is also slower than tiger...then??

Dude, you just don't stop talking crap, do you? Comparing a game to an operating system is the most idiotic comparison I've seen in years.

If and when I buy a new game, it costs 20-30$ or approximately 1,000 bucks. If and when I buy a new operating system like Windows Vista it costs 200-400$ i.e. approximately 10,000-15,000 rupees.

Now, finding out that the 1000-buck game you just purchased runs like a b**ch on two-year-old hardware is quite expected. After all, games are meant on run on newer hardware. If yours doesn't make the cut, don't cry about it. 3D animators and developers don't spend years designing models with 1 million polygons so that they can be run on a 400MHz GPU with 8 non-programmable shader processors.

But finding out that the ~10,000-buck operating system (which Microsoft has been touting for years and apparently "streamlining on older hardware") runs like a mangy flea-ridden rabid dog on a two-year-old system is a major setback and a thing that cannot be forgiven.

When Windows XP entered the market, I gleefully changed over from Windows 98 and missed nothing. I didn't have a high-end system at that time and I had changed over within a few months of the OS's launch. I pretty much did the same with Vista and well, what can I say, things were rather different.

About Mac OS X Leopard, dude please stop talking through your arse. Have you tried Leopard on a mac? If you haven't, then refrain from the BS. If yes then which mac? From what I've seen, you've only used a half-assed pirated and hacked Windows version. Leopard works at least just as fast as Tiger, if not faster. If anything, the developers might have reasons to shout about (Like Lord Nemesis and KK and I thank them for bringing that to light) but as a home user, I have no issues with it. Note that I'm curently running Leopard on my three-year-old Powerbook G4 and not an Intel-based Mac. It's almost wondrous then how well it performs.

If you have anything sensible and relevant to say, then please reply. After all, I'd love to hear at least the littlest bit of sense from you before this debate is done. If you don't however, and end up pointlessly dissecting my post line by line with stupid smileys and one-liners, then you win, if that makes you happy.

 

[Pat]

The problem you have with copying is specifically because you are the only user, yet when you normally run, you don't really run as admin.

Oh..So now I need admin priveleges to copy stuff from one drive to another ? hyeah:

I did fix that on my PC though. E: now allows full access to my non admin account. So copying to the root of E:\ doesn't cause problems. C:\ of course, I keep secure.

That is not the point..It can be fixed I know..Everything can be fixed, but it shouldnt prompt me OTB.

And kindly keep comparisons to su/sudo on *nix out of the topic as their implementation is quite different from that of UAC!

 

[rushabht]

Dude, you just don't stop talking crap, do you? Comparing a game to an operating system is the most idiotic comparison I've seen in years.

If and when I buy a new game, it costs 20-30$ or approximately 1,000 bucks. If and when I buy a new operating system like Windows Vista it costs 200-400$ i.e. approximately 10,000-15,000 rupees.

Now, finding out that the 1000-buck game you just purchased runs like a b**ch on two-year-old hardware is quite expected. After all, games are meant on run on newer hardware. If yours doesn't make the cut, don't cry about it. 3D animators and developers don't spend years designing models with 1 million polygons so that they can be run on a 400MHz GPU with 8 non-programmable shader processors.

But finding out that the ~10,000-buck operating system (which Microsoft has been touting for years and apparently "streamlining on older hardware") runs like a mangy flea-ridden rabid dog on a two-year-old system is a major setback and a thing that cannot be forgiven.

When Windows XP entered the market, I gleefully changed over from Windows 98 and missed nothing. I didn't have a high-end system at that time and I had changed over within a few months of the OS's launch. I pretty much did the same with Vista and well, what can I say, things were rather different.

About Mac OS X Leopard, dude please stop talking through your arse. Have you tried Leopard on a mac? If you haven't, then refrain from the BS. If yes then which mac? From what I've seen, you've only used a half-assed pirated and hacked Windows version. Leopard works at least just as fast as Tiger, if not faster. If anything, the developers might have reasons to shout about (Like Lord Nemesis and KK and I thank them for bringing that to light) but as a home user, I have no issues with it. Note that I'm curently running Leopard on my three-year-old Powerbook G4 and not an Intel-based Mac. It's almost wondrous then how well it performs.

If you have anything sensible and relevant to say, then please reply. After all, I'd love to hear at least the littlest bit of sense from you before this debate is done. If you don't however, and end up pointlessly dissecting my post line by line with stupid smileys and one-liners, then you win, if that makes you happy.

owned. 6 chars

 

[Balkazzaar]

Dude, you just don't stop talking crap, do you? Comparing a game to an operating system is the most idiotic comparison I've seen in years.

If and when I buy a new game, it costs 20-30$ or approximately 1,000 bucks. If and when I buy a new operating system like Windows Vista it costs 200-400$ i.e. approximately 10,000-15,000 rupees.

Now, finding out that the 1000-buck game you just purchased runs like a b**ch on two-year-old hardware is quite expected. After all, games are meant on run on newer hardware. If yours doesn't make the cut, don't cry about it. 3D animators and developers don't spend years designing models with 1 million polygons so that they can be run on a 400MHz GPU with 8 non-programmable shader processors.

But finding out that the ~10,000-buck operating system (which Microsoft has been touting for years and apparently "streamlining on older hardware") runs like a mangy flea-ridden rabid dog on a two-year-old system is a major setback and a thing that cannot be forgiven.

When Windows XP entered the market, I gleefully changed over from Windows 98 and missed nothing. I didn't have a high-end system at that time and I had changed over within a few months of the OS's launch. I pretty much did the same with Vista and well, what can I say, things were rather different.

About Mac OS X Leopard, dude please stop talking through your arse. Have you tried Leopard on a mac? If you haven't, then refrain from the BS. If yes then which mac? From what I've seen, you've only used a half-assed pirated and hacked Windows version. Leopard works at least just as fast as Tiger, if not faster. If anything, the developers might have reasons to shout about (Like Lord Nemesis and KK and I thank them for bringing that to light) but as a home user, I have no issues with it. Note that I'm curently running Leopard on my three-year-old Powerbook G4 and not an Intel-based Mac. It's almost wondrous then how well it performs.

If you have anything sensible and relevant to say, then please reply. After all, I'd love to hear at least the littlest bit of sense from you before this debate is done. If you don't however, and end up pointlessly dissecting my post line by line with stupid smileys and one-liners, then you win, if that makes you happy.

Man, i m impressed with u yaar..........that's some knowledge u got...honestly speaking...:cool2: and that's very good of u man..........absolutely rite....the only thing i have seen frm party monger is a lot of one liners but no technical sense, *not that i know more than u* (i really don't mean to offend u party monger but u shud carefully go thru wot u have written bfore u posts it...:no: )

bfore criticising something.......

 

[KingKrool]

And kindly keep comparisons to su/sudo on *nix out of the topic as their implementation is quite different from that of UAC!

Oh? Why do you say that?. Obviously there are differences, but what is so substantial in

a) their purpose

b) the principle

c) the use cases

I can assure you, for the most part, they exist for the same reason, and they act the same way. Don't say su - su is basically like running as an admin on XP, while sudo is like running as an admin on Vista. In ubuntu, even if you run as a user in sudoers, you still need to do the actual sudo to be able to do anything remotely admin like. And that is how it should be.

EDIT: The one substantial difference is they often allow you to continue doing admin actions when you do a sudo. I personally consider that somewhat of a security bug, but since you still run with low privileges most of the time, I guess that can be forgiven.