Vista - VISTA - Microsoft's Edsel

I agree. There are folks in here who are simply Windows shoppers and want a
quick and dirty look at the new toy. These have unwarrented expectations of
what a beta toy is like.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:u2qj3jJrGHA.4692@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Dennis;
> That seems to be a more common theme as Vista gets more public.
>
> People need to remember Vista is Beta.
> I usually suggest to others.
> Do not install Beta anything unless you are prepared for total data loss
> and a Clean Installation of the operating system to resolve any issues.
> I realize that is extreme, but it covers the nature of Beta, not just
> Microsoft or operating systems, but Beta anything from any source.
> Anyone not prepared for those terms, is probably not ready to have a Beta
> on their computer.
> That is how I look at any Beta before installing.
> That is why Vista is on a computer with nothing of value, or at least not
> otherwise stored.
> Currently I do not trust Vista enough to use it as my main OS.
>
> It is possible the OP has a hardware configuration incapable of supporting
> Vista.
> But more than likely, if the proper details were provided to this
> newsgroup, someone could have helped resolve any issues or at least help
> determine the precise cause.
> But to do any of that, details are necessary, details not provided.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2" <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:01730691-D391-4B43-8D6C-61DED605EDC2@microsoft.com...
>> Jupiter:
>> It looks like another one that expected everything to work out of
>> the box and expects full fixes without giving any specifications or
>> patterns.
>
>

Kerry Brown wrote:

>> Jonah
>
> Wasn't there much the same complaints about XP before and just after it was
> released? Only time will make it clear if Vista is a good OS or not.
> Personally I like the new security. If you run as a standard user and use
> "Run as administrator" when needed it works very much like most Linux
> distros. It's only when you run as the crippled, fake administrator/user
> account and expect it to operate as XP did that Vista becomes frustrating.

Yep, there were. And they were warranted too, unfortunately. XP "won"
the market mostly because MS forced it down our throats by not releasing
rather vital functionality for Win2000 any more (for example Windows
2003 Administrative Tools, newest Media player etc. etc.)

I've been using Vista since Beta 2 (now at 5472), and although I'm
fairly impressed with the general "feel" of the operating system, I have
a feeling that MS has gone overboard in some departments. UAC is an
obvious candidate (I don't need to get asked *EVERY TIME* i start
Firefox if I'm sure I *REALLY* want to do that), the restrictive, almost
non-functional driver model for audio is another pain point. So are the
new explorer windows. It's a neat idea - but they are, at the moment,
overly complex.

On another note - UAC is painful because of the way Windows is
designed. Why should I need systemwide privileges to install a program
that only I will use, and not the rest of my family? Linux/Unix has an
idea of "contained" environments for every user that Microsoft simply
has never grasped, unfortunately. Thus UAC becomes almost harassing in
its persistence - since pretty much every single thing you do
maintenance-wise requires elevated privileges.


Regards,
Henning Kilset

While I'm with you about the annoyance of UAC, I accept it.

Each request relates to an attack surface being blocked and I just don't see
how you can be halfway in this regard. Only asking 50% (for example) of the
time makes the computer 100% vulnerable overall because it only takes one
successful attack. I'll bet this has been the Great Argument at MS over the
last several years.

"Henning Kilset Pedersen" <henningp@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uguk%236PrGHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>>> Jonah
>>
>> Wasn't there much the same complaints about XP before and just after it
>> was released? Only time will make it clear if Vista is a good OS or not.
>> Personally I like the new security. If you run as a standard user and use
>> "Run as administrator" when needed it works very much like most Linux
>> distros. It's only when you run as the crippled, fake administrator/user
>> account and expect it to operate as XP did that Vista becomes
>> frustrating.
>
> Yep, there were. And they were warranted too, unfortunately. XP "won" the
> market mostly because MS forced it down our throats by not releasing
> rather vital functionality for Win2000 any more (for example Windows 2003
> Administrative Tools, newest Media player etc. etc.)
>
> I've been using Vista since Beta 2 (now at 5472), and although I'm fairly
> impressed with the general "feel" of the operating system, I have a
> feeling that MS has gone overboard in some departments. UAC is an obvious
> candidate (I don't need to get asked *EVERY TIME* i start Firefox if I'm
> sure I *REALLY* want to do that), the restrictive, almost non-functional
> driver model for audio is another pain point. So are the new explorer
> windows. It's a neat idea - but they are, at the moment, overly complex.
>
> On another note - UAC is painful because of the way Windows is designed.
> Why should I need systemwide privileges to install a program that only I
> will use, and not the rest of my family? Linux/Unix has an idea of
> "contained" environments for every user that Microsoft simply has never
> grasped, unfortunately. Thus UAC becomes almost harassing in its
> persistence - since pretty much every single thing you do maintenance-wise
> requires elevated privileges.
>
>
> Regards,
> Henning Kilset

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:49:08 +0200, Henning Kilset Pedersen
<henningp@gmail.com> wrote:

snip
>
>On another note - UAC is painful because of the way Windows is
>designed. Why should I need systemwide privileges to install a program
>that only I will use, and not the rest of my family? Linux/Unix has an
>idea of "contained" environments for every user that Microsoft simply
>has never grasped, unfortunately. Thus UAC becomes almost harassing in
>its persistence - since pretty much every single thing you do
>maintenance-wise requires elevated privileges.
>
>
>Regards,
>Henning Kilset

Agreed, I think by trying to preserve ease of use and improve security
they have not got the balance correct, but this is a very difficult
thing to get right as easy and secure are not very harmonious. What
they have in UAC and the half baked fake admin account is just not
right, its a badly implemented compromise.

I don't know what the answer is, either its secure or its easy to use
but since its impossible to make any OS totally secure without pulling
the plug and never actually using the thing I think MSFT should stick
to what they are good at, user friendly, simple OSs for everybody.

I use a Linux box anyway for surfing and downloading, I use XP to get
actual work done. Vista trying to be a bit of both is just not going
to work.

Having said that I am pretty sure Vista will be a great OS by the time
SP2 comes out but right now it has improved, just not enough.

I await RC1.

Jonah

If you really hate UAC that much, disable it. It's not the cure-all, but it
helps if you don't like it. Just don't forget to turn off the security center
notifications, otherwise that will bug you too.

Just don't forget that turning these features off make you open to attack.
That's why I still use UAC.
--
Robert Firth





"jonah" wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:49:08 +0200, Henning Kilset Pedersen
> <henningp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> >On another note - UAC is painful because of the way Windows is
> >designed. Why should I need systemwide privileges to install a program
> >that only I will use, and not the rest of my family? Linux/Unix has an
> >idea of "contained" environments for every user that Microsoft simply
> >has never grasped, unfortunately. Thus UAC becomes almost harassing in
> >its persistence - since pretty much every single thing you do
> >maintenance-wise requires elevated privileges.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Henning Kilset
>
> Agreed, I think by trying to preserve ease of use and improve security
> they have not got the balance correct, but this is a very difficult
> thing to get right as easy and secure are not very harmonious. What
> they have in UAC and the half baked fake admin account is just not
> right, its a badly implemented compromise.
>
> I don't know what the answer is, either its secure or its easy to use
> but since its impossible to make any OS totally secure without pulling
> the plug and never actually using the thing I think MSFT should stick
> to what they are good at, user friendly, simple OSs for everybody.
>
> I use a Linux box anyway for surfing and downloading, I use XP to get
> actual work done. Vista trying to be a bit of both is just not going
> to work.
>
> Having said that I am pretty sure Vista will be a great OS by the time
> SP2 comes out but right now it has improved, just not enough.
>
> I await RC1.
>
> Jonah
>

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:14:28 +0100, jonah wrote:

> I don't know what the answer is, either its secure or its easy to
> use

So why not a bloody big dialog box on first run after install with a
choice between the two?

--
Chris Game

That would work for me.

Chris Game wrote:

>
> So why not a bloody big dialog box on first run after install with a
> choice between the two?
>

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:52:01 -0700, firth
<firth@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>If you really hate UAC that much, disable it. It's not the cure-all, but it
>helps if you don't like it. Just don't forget to turn off the security center
>notifications, otherwise that will bug you too.
>
>Just don't forget that turning these features off make you open to attack.
>That's why I still use UAC.



Turning off the UAC does not make you open to attack.

The UAC was turned off on my system after about the third time it
asked me if I wanted to run such and such program. Hell Yes I want to
run that program. I double clicked on its shortcut didn't I???

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:52:01 -0700, firth
<firth@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>If you really hate UAC that much, disable it. It's not the cure-all, but it
>helps if you don't like it. Just don't forget to turn off the security center
>notifications, otherwise that will bug you too.
>
>Just don't forget that turning these features off make you open to attack.
>That's why I still use UAC.

First thing I did, second thing was firewall off, third auto updates
off, fourth got rid of the annoying security centre and alerts then i
installed a full admin account and a AV client. I use the user account
to check things out in standard mode but most of the time I experiment
with full admin.

Point is as has been said, all this stuff could be made optional on
installation with suitable but dire warnings during the process, those
in the know will be able to get rid of it and run as they wish,
inexperienced users will leave it alone mostly. Everybody is then
catered for and happy.

Jonah

UAC does make you open to attack, because all programs from that point on
will run with full admin powers (assuming you are an administrator).

UAC empowers you by letting you know when administrative programs are being
ran. Nothing can run with admin powers without your permission.

Giving up such powers will allow any program to take over your machine
without your knowledge. Might as well turn off your firewall as well. Or
maybe you don't have one?

- JB

Vista Support FAQ
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/