Windows Vista - Not So Bad? 378
Shantyman writes "ZDNet has a counterpoint to the negative impressions of Vista's Beta 2 going around. Entitled Vista Beta 2, up close and personal, Ed Bott writes: 'I've spent the last three months running beta versions of Windows Vista on the PCs I use for everyday work. February and March were exasperating. April's release was noticeably better, and the Beta 2 preview - Build 5381, released to testers in early May - has been running flawlessly on my notebook for nearly three weeks.'"
Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the very first paragraph of the article:
Wasn't there a slashdot reference to an article in the last week where Microsoft "was considering" removing admin access from their employees? That doesn't sound like "eating their own dogfood". As long as they're all running Windows with the highest access levels (admin), they're potentially missing serious security problems.
Since Lowest User Access (LUA) is a huge issue around tightening Windows security, running Vista within Microsoft means little around testing security. And, unless they're shipping Vista with defaults of non-admin user accounts, the beta testing world isn't likely to bang on that code hard enough.
It's not clear from the article, nor do I know enough about the Vista beta (not about to try it on any of my machines...) whether the LUA concept is in play. Any beta testers out there care to weigh in?
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case... (Score:3, Funny)
Three weeks?
Be still, my heart.
I've got an old Linux box here that has nearly three years
uptime...
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:3, Insightful)
But here's the thing.
I don't really care all the much about the operating system. Probably not a ton of people do. I cdo are about the applications. Firefox on Linux, Firefox on Windows. Cool. Open Office on Windows. Open Office on Windows. Cool.
If I need to put another Gig of RAM into my computer and soup up the CPU to run the exact same applications that I run now, then I feel that the OS has gone from being an OS to being an application.
Right now I can do
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:3, Funny)
Just two things to say about dogfood:
1) Food is what goes into a dog, not what comes out of a dog. (Corollary: That which comes out of a dog isn't food.)
2) It's coming out of the end of the dog into which food doesn't go. (Corollary: Unless you're into that sort of thing, in which case, we don't wanna know.)
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:3, Funny)
Just two things to say about dogfood:
1) Food is what goes into a dog, not what comes out of a dog. (Corollary: That which comes out of a dog isn't food.)
2) It's coming out of the end of the dog into which food doesn't go. (Corollary: Unless you're into that sort of thing, in which case, we don't wanna know.)
If you remain uncertain about point 2, a simple test will suffice.
Put your finger into the dog's mouth. If you cannot feel any teeth, then that isn't the mouth.
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:4, Insightful)
MS employees apparently really do believe in the dogfood thing (from what I hear from an employee) so I find it reasonable to think that at least many of them usually run as LUA.
The news from the other day would remove the option and force them to run as LUA, which very well may make things worse from this point of view because then there won't also be a lot of people running as admin.
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume with a limited account, you would have a similar experience, but would need to type in an admin password to continue.
The point is that programs do NOT automatically have permission to do admin operations. Admin or not, the user experience will be quite similar, forcing programs to work without elevated permissions.
Yep (Score:5, Informative)
There are two aspects of this. The first is that, if you truly are running as a low-priv user, you need to get elevation prompts at the correct times to be able to live life. This works pretty well, although I keep a cmd.exe window running as local admin sitting around sometimes.
The other aspect of this, however, is that in the real world, a lot of people just dont run as admin, and a lot of apps just can't. So a bunch of work has gone into making admins "virtual admins", so to speak, where operations that actually require priviledge use still involve user interaction/confirmation.
In that sense, people running "as admin" are getting the customer experience - and internally, the way the "did you really want to do this, Mr. Admin?" stuff works is passionately debated
My opinion is that people are complaining about the wrong problem - as we continue to eliminate things that require priviledge use, the amount that we have to care about putting up with a just-in-time priviledge escalation model goes down.
Re: Mod MS Employee Down (again) (Score:5, Insightful)
Everytime I've got one of the desktops I support running something that requires a dip into admin priveleges for the apps that can't run in the user space, the OS is going to ask for verification.
Given this will be *very* annoying, I'm guessing there's a little checkbox to "remember" this decision. Lo and behold! The system is running in Admin!
So let me see if I understand this: You are discussing a "problem" with an approach that you are speculating might work a certain way, on a feature and operating system you haven't ever used?
There has been a lot of work to improve the admin problem in Vista, and there's probably more that you don't see than what you do. Please don't make up your mind on what the drawbacks of the approaches we've taken until you've at least tried - and maybe understand - them.
turn the PC into a DRM'd set-top box.
No rational person thinks this, but suppose anyway that that is our secret plan, and that we're going to come up with some scheme whereby apps can't run unless they're magically signed or some other scheme.
Guess what - we already have that, in a few forms even (i.e. SAFER, SRP, etc), and the majority of people don't use it, and don't want to, and even if we did have it, there will still need to be a box that says "run anyway". So "turning the PC into a DRM set-top box" doesn't even solve the problem you're suggesting exists (which, in reality, doesn't exist, fyi)
Microsoft IS Eating Their Own Dogfood (Score:5, Informative)
However, running as admin opens them up to all the nasty exploits and viruses (especially if they're using IE), those being probably the biggest blunder on Microsoft's part. As a limited user, a virus can delete your MP3s and porn. As admin, a virus can reformat your entire hard drive, install a rootkit, etc. If that isn't eating your own dog food, I don't know what is.
Sorry this post is a bit scatterbrained. I'm in a pretty big hurry
Re: Gross Distortion of Reality (Score:4, Insightful)
Though I'll definitely admit that file permissions can be a bitch to deal with if you want to share stuff between different users/computers, or (heaven forbid) try to recover files from a physically damaged drive (I had the joyous experience of doing that; that's why I've only had this current installation of XP for six months or so). Or if you like to use naughty little programs like World of Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights, or WinAmp (had to deal with this problem a while back; dunno if they fixed it by now) which assume they can write to their directory in Program Files whenever they want.
Re: Gross Distortion of Reality (Score:4, Informative)
I'll see your 250 computers with no domain and raise you 10,000+ 2000 SP4 and XP Pro SP2 machines on a domain with non-admin users running Office 2000 and 2003 with no issues related to the lack of admin rights.
GGP is correct - MS is *very* good at making sure their modern apps follow the guidelines for working for non-admins. Almost every other "enterprise" software company is not.
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:2)
They're not all running with admin access, as I understood the story, just the developers. The whole thing sounds like the usual struggle between programmers and engineers wanting everything exactly the way they want it the moment they want it, and the sysadmins who want to keep them from breaking things. You get that on Macs, Unix, VMS, or anything else.
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:4, Informative)
I really don't want to debate this, and I think this is kind of trivial.
With that said, what you are referring to about allowing employees to have 'admin' rights on their systems is not a big issue up until this point, as the UAP system in Vista wasn't even close to a final stage until a month or two ago, and is still being tweaked to accomodate applications that were written by 3rd parties with the Win9x mindset.
What MS has been doing currently is NOT running their employees at Admin level in the sense I think you are refering to either. They have been running the computers in the new Vista Admin mode, which is like a 'default' user on OSX. Understand?
It is not the Root Admin level like previous versions of Windows. Even the actual administrator account on Vista doesn't get the conceptual 'root' access level.
What the other article was talking about was forcing MS users to not even get the 'admin' rights to make changes to their systems, which would include installing software, etc. This would be more like a hybrid between a User and Power User in the old Windows Security Groups.
Microsoft is turning down their employee 'admin' rights to ensure older applications that try to run with user credentials that never cared about NT security before still run properly in the restricted level of access.
There is no big story on this, nor a big story on lack of security. Vista is bring the abstraction between administrator and root security, to a point that even exceeds most *nix environments, while still not making it too tough on users. Think of it like a combination of the way *nixes do security with a combination of having NO Root account whatsoever to ensure people will NEVER be running with higher priveledges than they should.
Re:Microsoft eating their own dogfood? (Score:2)
Runs flawlessly (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone one else got it working yet? Maybe you can get your story posted to Slashdot too.
Re:Runs flawlessly (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone one else got it working yet? Maybe you can get your story posted to Slashdot too.
Works fine here.
Well, you did ask...
Re:Runs flawlessly (Score:5, Funny)
A great accomplishment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Runs flawlessly (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone one else got it working yet? Maybe you can get your story posted to Slashdot too.
Well we have it running of several 'different' computers.
So I guess that proves they are even out doing Apple and OSX which only runs on about 6 different computers, right?
(Smile, it is a joke.)
Re:Runs flawlessly (Score:2)
Because you know, every time a program works as intended, it deserves a Slashdot story.
Re:Runs flawlessly (Score:5, Informative)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?page_id=65&page=19
indicates a system crash on 5/21.
Re:Runs flawlessly (Score:3, Insightful)
Upon further investigation, it appears that Beta 2 is based on 5381, but not 5381 itself; 5381 is a pre-beta 2 release.
So my original point stands that the screenshot is of an old version. However, there is a new problem that destroys the overall point that I was trying to make. The problem is that Beta 2 itself has only been out for two days.
So what we can conclude from this is:
1) He hasn't been running beta 2 for three weeks flawlessly
2) He has probably been ru
Or, to put it more accurately (Score:5, Funny)
Article is really a collection of screenshots (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no article here. It's a collection of screenshots with a little blurb at the top. He's excited that you can change Vista's theme to one of eight different colors. This is not news for nerds.
Re:Article is really a collection of screenshots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Article is really a collection of screenshots (Score:2)
The only difference is that it is highly unlikely that there was any payment received for the reviews(to be a touch cynical).
Re:Article is really a collection of screenshots (Score:2, Flamebait)
OK, as designated "shillboy", let me offer this advice to all -- If this article is pissing you off, you better just unplug the Internet for the next six months, because you head is going to fucking explode by the time Windows comes out.
Re:Article is really a collection of screenshots (Score:2)
This 'article' doesn't offer anything I haven't seen before. New GUI? Yep. That annoying security account thingy? Nothing new. Someone trying to make Vista seem better? Yes, still there.
Re:Article is really a collection of screenshots (Score:2)
Well, this is apparenlty the first real beta version, it came out yesterday, and I hadn't seen any thing more than some trival stuff before this. So it's interesting to me. FWIW, I also like Linux screenshots
Re:Article is really a collection of screenshots (Score:2)
the new Reliability Monitor, which sifts through event
Re:Article is really a collection of screenshots (Score:2)
Re:Article is really a collection of screenshots (Score:3, Funny)
So you're saying that I can choose any colour?
Does "not too bad" count as a good reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't tried b2 yet, but from my experience with b1, I didn't so much have a problem with "stability" as the fact that it had nothing new that I wanted.
Not to say it doesn't have PLENTY of new ways to waste CPU and memory, as well as DRM-to-the-core, but I can't really say I consider those a reason to upgrade.
Rearranging the clicky-widgets doesn't make it "new", and taking away the user's rights on their own machine doesn't make it "improved". Making it harder to pirate doesn't make it "secure". Throwing in an SQL server turned on by default might make it "biger", but not in a good way.
Re:Does "not too bad" count as a good reason? (Score:2, Insightful)
I could quote literally hundreds of Slashdot posts in almost any past thread about Windows criticising Microsoft for *giving* user's all (i.e. admin) rights on their own machines, in contrast with Linux, MacOS etc. Finally Microsoft agree and take them away (not an easy move considering that, since it'll be installed on the computers of people who have no idea how to use a computer, transparent ease of use has to be near
Re:Does "not too bad" count as a good reason? (Score:2)
Re:Does "not too bad" count as a good reason? (Score:2)
You could quote my own posts on that topic back to me as well.
But I didn't mean that to refer to Vista (possibly) making users run as non-admin by default - I meant to refer to the entire Secure-Foo-Path nonsense (aka DRM) that Microsoft has seemingly chosen to embrace, thoroughly against the wishes of just about everyone exc
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I agree (Score:2)
Re:I agree (Score:2)
Running smoothly? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?page_id=65&page=19 [zdnet.com]
At least Microsoft has given us a way to prove how unstable our systems are... whenever Windows Vista is finally released.
Re:Running smoothly? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Running smoothly? (Score:2)
Re:Running smoothly? (Score:5, Funny)
"Stability Index" is going to become the new "Uptime".
Re:Running smoothly? (Score:2, Insightful)
Again, that is me jumping to a conclusion based on a picture so I can be wrong as well but I do know if the memory got logged then the system wasn't that bad off. The scenarios surrounding it are com
Re:Running smoothly? (Score:2)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?page_id=65&page=19 [zdnet.com]
From the link: "Note: This screen is from build 5381, although the application looks identical in Beta 2.)" Since the article and uptime comments were about Beta 2... I don't think you have a valid point. Good (almost) catch, though.
Re:Running smoothly? (Score:2)
Re:Running smoothly? (Score:2)
"(Note: This screen is from build 5381, although the application looks identical in Beta 2.) "
Re:Running smoothly? (Score:2)
From the comment above the image:
(Note: This screen is from build 5381, although the application looks identical in Beta 2.)
Java is broke (Score:2, Informative)
Can't necessarily blame MS for Java though. Although I can blame them for trying to change the spec and the whole Sun-MS lawsuit fiasco.
Re:Java is broke (Score:2)
The proof is in the pudding (Score:2, Insightful)
The pudding and the vermin... (Score:2)
That and how Vista measures up when the malware designers go to work on it.
The way the market is evolving Vista will probably end up being installed on more laptops than desktops.
Vista works (Score:4, Interesting)
DX10, Uh no (Score:2)
Re:Vista works (Score:2)
And that rating thing, don't they show you where your system is getting 'dinged'? If not, it sounds like it'll take some huge machine to get a 4 or 5 rating.
Re:Vista works (Score:2)
Don't worry about the rating you have, it will change.
The performance rating system is something that is still a work in progress. It is also something many have
Re:Vista works (Score:3, Insightful)
They (Microsoft) ought to implem
I'm running it to post this! :) (Score:2, Interesting)
Then something occured to me.
Right now, i am copying 4GB of files off a usb disk to a network share. The shell file copy stuff has been completely re-worked (shell file operations has always been something that i have hated)
In vista, you get an expand/collapse pane to get details of what it is doing, and it seems to happen in its own thread. The copy dialog window shows up as its own window that you can minimize/rest
Re:I'm running it to post this! :) (Score:2)
Re:I'm running it to post this! :) (Score:2)
Another feature stolen from OS X; specifically 10.4 Tiger.
.. says the Microsoft employee (Score:3, Informative)
We?
following the link to your webpage, and sure enough - MattEvans, MS employee.
hmm. Is that a sales pitch I hear?
Re:I'm running it to post this! :) (Score:2)
A nice use of the pervasive desktop search integrated into the explorer windows is in Control Panel. We're pretty good about changing control panel wildly between releases, and I never remember which menu your system environment variables or enabling remote desktop or changing it so that the "Explorer:Start Navigation" sound is (none). Now i just hit "start->control panel", click in the search box for something like "sound" and i get search-as-i-type results that are pretty accurate and take me right to
Re:I'm running it to post this! :) (Score:4, Informative)
Not especially fast, but no screen paint issues. None of the three windows (source, target, or copy window) are showing any issues with updates. No lurches.
This is on 10.4.6 on an Intel Macbook Pro 15". I'm attached to the network via switched 100bT. I have OO.o with 5 documents (via X11) running, TextMate with two large Perl scripts, Lotus Notes, CotVNC, FireFox, Safari, iTunes, and two screens running. Also listening to music currently.
Now to be fair, I'm on pretty current hardware, but come on. That was a total troll... I want Vista to be awesome as much as the next guy (maybe more - this is slashdot) but still - that was a random unsubstantiated complaint there.
I also tried doing this copying a 4 GB DMG to my local disk - same results.
-WS
Re:I'm running it to post this! :) (Score:3, Informative)
Tell me about it. BITD I downloaded the 2.11 CSD on my 14.4k modem to update my 2.1 install on my 8mb 486.
I loved OS/2 until I realized that I was never going to find decent modem / bbs software for it, and thus, all of my modem usage would be running under a virtual dos box. As you surely recall, DOS mode serial port usage _crushed_ OS/2.
Once I realized that there were no apps for OS/2 anyway, but that I didn't
Begginers will complain about the added security.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Although win 2k and xp had limited user accounts it did nothing to enforce their usage because it would alienate novice users who wanted to install their shinny new Easy Birthday Card Creator software. Now the process that grants admin rights will be simpler to use but I can bet that many people will complain about the extra "hassle" that they will encounter when installing software.
Of course, you can only do so much to secure an operating system that is geared towards users. It is only a matter of time before Joe User decides that it is a good idea to provide the admin password to install the latest malware ridden "Fun Emoticon" package.
The best strategy that MS could do to improve security would be to bundle an intro into the OS that explained the basics of its new security features.
Re:Begginers will complain about the added securit (Score:2)
Then I upgraded to XP home, when I bought a new box. XP doesn't have ACLs. Sorry, back to user accounts with Admin privs. I feel so dirty.
Retarded User Accounts (Score:2)
I think the real news would be.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not trying to troll here, but ferchrissake! If I have to upgrade at a cost of hundreds of dollars just to run it, I don't want to know, I don't care, and I know its not going to run on that $100 laptop. While it might work for some, and perhaps many, it still looks like a very fancy gun for MS to shoot their own feet with. Testing stories so far don't seem to allude to any magical improvements, or reasons th
Re:I think the real news would be.... (Score:3, Informative)
The Vista hardware evaluation wizard thingy they had posted to
The hardware requirements to run Vista, even Aero, I think are vastly
Vista *looks* better, but ... (Score:2)
Still -- it does look better, I'll begrudgingly admit.
But that being said, Microsoft continues to neglect the more important although subtle useabil
Well, that's their marketing sorted (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder when Slashdot get's their creative fee?
that sounds like a selling point (Score:5, Funny)
Windows Vista "Almost as good as XP"
Windows Vista "Several new themes"
I think microsoft has a winner here
and in other news (Score:2, Funny)
Amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about generating buzz around a product to make people want it, and to cover up the yet more slipped release dates and the reduced functionality over what was promised. And it all comes down to a new look and feel and a bit of threading and the su command.
WOW FIVE YEARS DEVELOPMENT to get this into production.
I live in awe at Microsoft's ability to generate positive news.
My problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry Microsoft, but I'll never buy (or even *use*) that kind of crap.
suse + kde (Score:2)
sum.zero
This is awesome! (Score:2)
Three weeks? that's amazing... (Score:2)
Let me know when it runs 366 days straight, even through patches.
People need to learn abuot program maturity. The industry is aware of it, but conviently hides it away so they can make more money.
I don't ahve a lot of hope for a product thats 4 years behind schedule. Sure it will be released, but the bloat is going to be tremendous.
For the recrd, I hope I am wrong.
Microsoft pays (Score:2)
I'm ok with working with Microsoft
Problem Reports and Solutions (Score:2)
I like the look of this [zdnet.com]:
Mac OSX has a problem reporter too, but it's like the man said WRT XP. You have an application dump core on you; you fill in a description and submit it, and it disappears into a black hole somewhere inside Apple. To be able to get a list of the a
Windows Vista - Not So Good either (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to do some thing well. Dual booting with XP works great. maybe better than with win2k and XP. All the visual effects run fine, even on my integrated graphics (GeForce 6150, admittedly higher end for integraded graphics). Normal operation is a little sluggish, and sometimes it gets really bad. I've had it lock up completely at least 3 times, doing completely different things. One time it was just trying to open Freecell (which, by the way, they have updated).
I saw a post from a guy who works for microsoft, who said he's been running Vista for a few months, and doing all his work on it. From what i've seen of the build i'm running, I don't see myself being as productive on it as I am with my current XP setup, just becuase of some of these problems. on the other hand, it looks like once they get these things straightened out, it should be fine.
Vista not so bad, ah shuddupayourface (Score:3, Funny)
Gotta no respect. Hey!
Vista not so bad.
Vista nicea face, ah shudduppa your face.
I fear only the Aussies will understand the reference. It won't be as funny if it has to be explained but the following song made it to number one many moons ago here in Aus:
http://www.lyricsondemand.com/j/joedolcelyrics/sh
Re:Vista and MS is for CS noobs (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Some people need proprietary OSes and software in order to do their jobs. Some people need it because the best tools are available only in Windows or OS X. Some people use proprietary software simply because they like it better than the FOSS alternatives (provided that they know about the alternatives).
I'm a user of proprietary software every day (although I'm also a FreeBSD user). People aren't going to switch t
Re:It doesn't matter. (Score:2)
There are many things that I don't like of the three operating systems. In theory, I could modify Ubuntu and SuSE to my liking. The reality is that I couldn't do that if I tried, and if I tried, I wouldn't have the time to achieve anything significant.
The idea that Open Source software is needed because it allows the end user to modify its own system is utopic at best. Most people can't use a command line to change a configura
Re:It doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there's a significant difference here. Modifications I make to *my* car cannot be instantly and trivially copied to yours. Modifications I make to my copy of a piece of software *can* be instantly and trivially copied to yours.
The overriding benefit of free software is not that you *personally* can modify your copy if you wish, but that you can benefit from the aggregation o
Re:It doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot might not as well cover how good or bad Vista is because in Vista and OSX are closed source OSes. Users have no say in how good or bad a proprietary OS is. So we might as well not deal with it.
Umm, I have no say in how well made most of my car is, does that mean I should spend half of every day walking to and from work, and take several month long sabbaticals when I want to visit my family?
People are going to use both Windows and OS X because they are the tools most suited to them, or because they are required to by their employer. Given that fact, it is very useful to have more information on what to expect. Further, it is a good idea to see what each OS on the market is doing for reasons of compatibility and because they might have good ideas that can be adopted.
I Personally wish that people would stop consuming, and giving creed to closed OSes, and no, OSX is not an Open OS. I don't care how like BSD it is.
It all depends upon why you use a computer. If your purpose is to promote an open source model, then you've chosen wisely. For me, my purpose is to get work done, to communicate, to create. To me, being open source is a feature. It is nice, and useful, and provides security going forward, but it is by no means the only feature or the most important one.
If you don't want Slashdot to cover other OS's, you can just flip a few toggles and you won't see them anymore. Problem solved. For the rest of us, this is certainly useful and welcome news and discussion.
"Not so bad" isn't good enough (Score:2)
However, you have to do a lot better than "not so bad" to convince people to buy your product when they have choices. Would you go eat at a place that was described as "not so bad"? Win98 was the last release of windows where most customers could see
Re:Not So Bad (Score:2)
Or does doing development on it not count as real world use?
Re:I see Aqua! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, even though Apple came out with a better looking 3D looking OS, you can't patent/trademark the idea of making something look like glass in an interface. If you started that, then Linux, Apple, and Microsoft would simply get into a circular cycle of suing the hell out of each other because each has HEAVILY borrowed UI concepts from each other quite liberally. And honestly, Vista does a better job because they are actually making a glass like transparency which slightly diffuses the underling graphics whereas Apple just uses an alpha blend. Also, Aqua has been reduced to glass buttons and scroll bars in Apple, Microsoft doesn't use glass buttons, just a glass frame which surrounds a window, Apple doesn't even do this. So technically, there is no copyright/trademark/patent conflicts. Only people completely ignorant of Vista assumes it looks like OSX.
But honestly, when do you fully need to utilize 100% CPU cycles with a 4ghz CPU? For the most part, even compiling software all day, I rarely hit 100% CPU utilization for more then a few moments. If my windows borders take a few percentage of my CPU cycles, you won't notice it. By the time you enter a game, your running it full screen so the Vista UI isn't around to consume any clock cycles.
Re:This is probably paid advertisement (Score:2)
Sure reads like an MS Lemming wrote it that's for sure.
LoB
Re:They haven't fixed the real security problems. (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you similarly think chroot (and other equivalents) implies everything else runs as root ?
[...] (b) they've given up on keeping IE from being a slutty little spyware freak, and assume that no matter what they do it's gonna get infected.
The primary purpose of a web browser is to download, parse and display data from untrusted, unverifiable sources. They are
Re:They haven't fixed the real security problems. (Score:4, Interesting)
So far they have never been correct.
If you had bothered to read almost anything about Vista from the last year, you'd know that they are much bigger on the non-admin roles.
Windows maze of interlocking privileges means that this doesn't matter. There's so many ways to boost privilieges that almost any combination of non-frustrating privileges is going to end up equivalent to root.
The first time I used WIndows NT, I tried out several obvious attacks on the privilege model, and succeeded more often than I failed. I was even able to boost Power User to Local System, which actually has more privileges than Administrator.
If you had done some more reading (say, some of the comments posted earlier on this story), you'd see that even if you are running as administrator you still don't have full root priviledges, and have to confirm certain changes.
"You have to cofirm certain changes" says absolutely nothing about the privileges you have.
Nothing.
Confirmation and approval dialogs are almost worthless from a security standpoint. They operate at the application level, and the component that generates them has to have the privileges they're allegedly protecting, since Windows doesn't use UNIX's far more flexible and secure "setuid" mechanism. This means that not only do they they provide little protection for accidents by users, they provide NO protection from exploit code.
None.
Zip.
Layered security is wonderful.
Unfortunately, Microsoft has yet to implement it.
One of the principles of layered security s that you design each layer as if it had to perform the whole of the security protection, then you implement the next layer *anyway*, and you design it under the assumption that the first layer will provide no protection.
Microsoft designs each layer so that it's only as secure as they feel convenient, in the naive belief that the other layers will be used and will cover for them.
Other operating systems allow you to bind services to unique ports and interfaces, so that local firewalls are an additional layer of security. Microsoft needs firewalls to prevent people from attacking insecure local services because they have no other way to limit them to listening only at localhost.
Other browsers treat untrusted documents as untrusted, and assume that if their security fails the whole system is broken. Microsoft has the browser trust the HTML control to do the job, and doesn't give the HTML control enough information to do the job, and rather than GET RID OF the whole pile of ActiveX and "Security Zones" and "trusted sites" they're now pushing people to use "we got it right this time in
If I were to tell you exactly what I thought of this approach to "layered security" I'd be banned from slashdot for abusive language.
Troll, forsooth, for nothing less than the simple truth.