WinXP is an improvement ...no, really.

Journal zedmelon's Journal: WinXP is an improvement ...no, really. 5

Journal by zedmelon on Saturday April 24, 2004 @02:54AM

This is from an email I sent my Dad today. I'm really just ranting more than anything.
Venting.

He's not as e-savvy as the average /. reader, but but it was much easier to write this disclaimer than it would have been to edit any of the over-explained content. (Update - 26 April: He told me once that he preferred Windows to UNIX, and I disagreed with his reasons then, but I really disagree now, so I had to whine to him again about it.) Feel free to ignore any or all of it (this entire JE); Dad did.

Dad... Just now, I flashed back to a conversation you and I had about four years ago, when I was first learning to get around in UNIX. I can't recall the first of the conversation--maybe when I was sending you forged emails?--but I remember being surprised that you didn't know much UNIX, and I asked you why. You mentioned that UNIX isn't secure and it's not intuitive. This mail isn't directly about security, so I'll save it for another time after mentioning one thing: A month or two ago, Microsoft's PR department announced that no security holes are ever found in their operating systems until patches are released for the holes found by the Microsoft Developing Team. They're basically claiming that their software is so rock-solid, that only the developers who have created the code can find flaws in it until they announce to the world where the holes are and please fix them on your own boxes. If that's true, then why have so many Internet worms worked so well? Each one that has made headlines attacked holes in MS stuff, and nearly all hit Outlook specifically. Microsoft claims that the only compromised systems have been those whose administrators are slow to apply patches and updates. Bah. There are weaknesses in every OS, but to that, I just say bah. Back to today's subject matter, I'll admit that there are some UNIX commands that don't really seem like they were named well, but I've got to interject--is that possible when the conversation's as old as this?--with three recent concerns of mine. ARTICLE I I'm pretty sure you've seen the new machine I have upstairs. When I built it, I finally broke down and begrudgingly installed Microjunk's latest Oblivious System (c), "WinBlowsXP Professional." Since they say XP is built on NT "technology," and since they also tout XP as the latest and greatest, I would assume that WindowsXP "PROFESSIONAL" would inherit many similarities from both previous OSes, which were allegedly designed with the needs of the business world in mind. The aspect I'm thinking about right now is the option allowing you to lock the screen, denying access while you're away from your desk. It's a horrible security risk for a systems administrator with global privileges on domains or even just servers to leave his system (and its accompanying credentials) unattended. I never saw Joe--the Network Architect you met the day we picked up those cubicles--leave his office without locking his door, at least not until we were closing down the building. An operating system with the word "professional" in the title should be conscious of matters like this. A few nights ago, to stop a certain 18-month-old from thwarting my work efforts (Mouse! random typing, Moon! random dangerous typing, MOUSE!) while I take a break to eat or pee or whatever, I spent 15 minutes researching how to persuade XP to allow me to lock my screen. In NT or Win2k all you have to do is hit <CTRL-ALT-DEL> and then <ENTER>, so I was miffed when that didn't even bring up the option, let alone it be the default. The solution turned out to be--surprise!--disabling a "feature" that is inherently insecure and contradictory to the security policies that cause one to wish to lock one's screen. What I don't understand is why the two "features" couldn't be enabled simultaneously, but that's a question for a coder, and I'll probably never care enough to ask. However, I'm already planning on copying this email and posting it in my journal on /. (that's slash-dot to you retired weenies, and you should read it now and then), so I may get an unsolicited answer anyway. ARTICLE II The Control Panel in XP is by default a list of nine items that's presumably designed to be as functional as the old list of 26. All they've done is split the old list into a collection of big, bubbly icons leading to several lists. You'll find "sound and audio devices" under "sound, speech and audio devices," but the only other item under that heading is "speech." Why is this enough for a separate category? It's not the only header leading to only two items, and some items don't show up at all unless you notice the "other control panel options" in the stupid frame to the left. Three of these headers only lead to ONE item, and one even opens up a submenu to that one solitary item. What the hell was anyone trying to accomplish with this? In some cases, mostly people who aren't very familiar with computers, I can see why a simpler menu would be less intimidating, but this is just clumsy and time consuming. I recall vividly from 6th-grade English class that if you're building an outline and you don't have enough information for part 2, you don't add part 1; instead you incorporate it into the heading: ----------------------------------------------------- INCORRECT: I. Mark Twain was born in 1835 and was really clever 1. He died in 1910 II. George Orwell etc. etc. etc... CORRECT: I. Mark Twain was one clever cat. 1. Born 1835 2. Died 1910 II. George Orwell etc. ALSO CORRECT: I. Mark Twain (b. 1835, d. 1910) was a clever freak. II. George Orwell again. ----------------------------------------------------- ...the only redeeming note is also on the left; "switch to classic view" restores the familiar list. The point of my complaint is if I know "where I want to go today," why shouldn't I be able to click once instead of two or even three times. Why does MS think it's an improvement to complicate a list by converting it into a hierarchy that has less than three times the amount of items as headers? ARTICLE III The first two are recent, but this last watered-down functionality of XP struck me today, and there's nothing "intuitive" about the solution. I wanted to push some files up here from downstairs, but I kept getting "incorrect password or unknown user." Another thing about NT and 2k by default is the administrator shares on each individual drive. A WinNT or Win2k box will share the "C:\" drive as "\\hostname\c$," and all you have to do in order to hit it from elsewhere on the network is type that into the "start --> run" dialog. Then, anyone with administrator privileges on the box you're hitting can gain access to it. Simple. Hasn't changed in eight years, or whatever. Well, I couldn't connect to the filesystem, so I hit the box with VNC, which just lets me tap the display and control the box remotely. After once again dealing with the networking setup completely different from all the other operating systems MS has released, it turns out the admin shares are disabled by default, and when I tried to enable them, it broke my connection, I couldn't reconnect, and I had to come upstairs to finish. I'm not whining about having to move my ass up 13 steps and around a few corners; I'm just pointing out how counterintuitive Winblows can be. I still haven't gotten my admin shares, and now I'm sick of messing with it, so I'll have to just PULL files to this box instead of PUSHING to it. Connecting to the Win2k box downstairs doesn't have this issue, and I had to log in to this box with the same password that wasn't working from down there. I know I'm not mistyping a passwd or something; it's just lame, and it wasted half an hour of my time. Plus even more because I felt the need to type this rant to you. ;) There's a WinXP Home and a WinXP Professional, and I don't know the differences at all, but couldn't someone at MS have spoken up and said, "Hey, if we're gonna call this "professional," shouldn't we set some of the defaults to be useful in a professional environment?" Hell, I'm at HOME, and this is too limited for my tastes. I know things change, but they generally change for the sake of progress, not merely for making your product look more like the paraphernalia marketed to eight-year-old girls on Saturday morning, and that's the basic look of XP to me. They've expended too much effort trying to change the appearance rather than streamline functionality. Anyway, Dad, you're all right, and I think you even gave me some good advice one time, but I started learning UNIX knowing nothing more than, "There's GOTTA be something out there better than Windows." After using MS products regularly for around nine years, Windows is still no more intuitive than anything else. At least in UNIX, if I'm spending time doing research, it's because I haven't DONE it before. Windows frequently makes me wish I was as smart as some of my geek friends on /. and I could run Linux well enough to completely abandon any use of this hellspawn from Redmond. ...not that I'm bitter.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.