convince me of vista?

[AbJ32]

Here, I just saw an article I didn't really enjoy that much and just couldn't help but make a comment.
http://news.cnet.com/8618-13506_3-1...Id=2017&blogId=17&messageId=5072798&tag=mncol

A lot of the things I covered in my comment should help convince you that Vista isn't as bad everybody says it is.

 

[XOR != OR]

It's a good concept, especially for people who are not familiar with computer so much. But before I will enable it, it has to be a little smarter so what things I at least do I don't have to confirm.

I'd argue that it's horrible for people not familiar with a computer; it trains them to just click whatever is necessary to get what they want.

A lot of the things I covered in my comment should help convince you that Vista isn't as bad everybody says it is.

It's never as bad as people say it is, but is it good enough to warrant getting used to a new OS?

For me, that's a no ( which is meaningless; I had to learn it because I'm going to support it ). There are simply no compelling features in Vista.

 

[AbJ32]

I'd argue that it's horrible for people not familiar with a computer; it trains them to just click whatever is necessary to get what they want. It's never as bad as people say it is, but is it good enough to warrant getting used to a new OS?

For me, that's a no ( which is meaningless; I had to learn it because I'm going to support it ). There are simply no compelling features in Vista.

Learning/getting used to the new OS will probably take most people a day to a week. It's not a big task.

 

[TechieSooner]

Plus as a developer it will block some stuff from happening while debugging, and will make your code appear to not work because you won't recieve the stupid super annoying "Did you move your mouse just now?" dialog box.

Well then, as a developer you should know good and well that UAC will only prompt if you're making system-level changes.
And as a developer you should know that you wouldn't be getting prompted if your program wasn't writing to places it shouldn't.

 

[sdotbrucato]

Well then, as a developer you should know good and well that UAC will only prompt if you're making system-level changes.
And as a developer you should know that you wouldn't be getting prompted if your program wasn't writing to places it shouldn't.

QFTMFT

 

[devil22]

I'd argue that it's horrible for people not familiar with a computer; it trains them to just click whatever is necessary to get what they want.

The alternative is to let any program do whatever it wants, or to ask for a password and therefore "train users to just enter whatever is necessary to get what they want." The argument that users are going to think more about enterring a password is wrong, you have no data to support it you (and your kind) just pull arguments out of your a$$ and assert them like they are univeral truths. Besides that, users have the option of making UAC ask for a password. Prompting for a yes/no encourages users not to turn off uac, I know, I ran with uac in password mode for a while and it drove me nuts to enter my password for every configuration change, etc. Running with just a yes/no prompt is SO much better. People are just mad that OS X didn't invent it and it's better.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Learning/getting used to the new OS will probably take most people a day to a week. It's not a big task.

I strongly disagree with this. The majority of users get accustomed to a certain user interface and become proficient in using it. When a new user interface comes out, those people have to relearn a lot of things which becomes very frustrating very quickly for people who are not really computer literate. These are the people who buy computers for a certain purpose and train themselves or are trained to do what they need to do. A new UI completely tosses the previous training out of the window and have to be trained yet again. Remember, training is nothing more than going through the motions whereas learning is being taught something and building upon it. This will more than likely mean the trained people (vast majority of computer users) will have a much harder time with a new UI than those who actually learned to begin with. If you've trained someone to use a computer and taught someone to use a computer, you'd know the difference between them in the long run; the trained person keeps bugging you about anything new whereas the taught person figures things out on their own.

For the OP: my Vista experience is mostly with desktop systems. My personal experience indicates that Vista in many cases isn't worth the extra money if you already have another OS at your fingertips unless you know there is something in Vista that is "must have" for you. DirectX 10 obviously will not benefit you as your video card while DX10 capable would be useless for games plus the fact that you don't game much and the games you play aren't even DX10 capable anyway. The only way the 2 gig Readyboost cache would help is if it does keep the hard drive from spinning up as often. I doubt it would actually help much in your case as you already have 4 gig of RAM. Truthfully, unless you have a desire to learn Vista right now and have some money to blow on the OS, I wouldn't mess with it.

The following is for the Vista fanboys who like to scream about people not recommending Vista: I'm currently running Vista on the machine in the sig and have been since around May or June I believe. I've had plenty of experience with it regarding compatibility problems with some software, supposed speed increases and everything else. I do not find the OS worth the money and am currently running it only because of one program that works better with Vista than XP or Linux. I'd say at least 6 straight months of usage qualifies me to speak about advantages or disadvantage of the OS.

 

[flylow]

I have only been using Vista a couple of months. A relative of mine works for Microsoft and I got Vista Ultimate for a very good price so I figured what the heck and decided to do a dual boot setup. No matter what anyone else says the only way to find out if you like any OS or APP is to try it for yourself and see if it fits your needs. Just a couple of applications I run would not work without pressing F8 at startup until I learned how to self sign the drivers and run Vista in test mode. I do boot to winxp once in awhile just to do updates. I do not think I would have bought Vista if I would have not gotten it for a very reasonable price as win7 should be out next year. All that said, Vista is not near as bad as some say nor is it near as great as others say but I honestly cannot see myself going back to winxp.

Edit:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33920573 for info on test signing drivers

 

[harsaphes]

Switched to Vista a few months ago. Both my desktops have it and my netbook. I also have my HP server in the mix. The funny thing is i never think anymore that I'm using Vista, I'm just using my computer.

 

[AbJ32]

I strongly disagree with this. The majority of users get accustomed to a certain user interface and become proficient in using it. When a new user interface comes out, those people have to relearn a lot of things which becomes very frustrating very quickly for people who are not really computer literate. These are the people who buy computers for a certain purpose and train themselves or are trained to do what they need to do. A new UI completely tosses the previous training out of the window and have to be trained yet again. Remember, training is nothing more than going through the motions whereas learning is being taught something and building upon it. This will more than likely mean the trained people (vast majority of computer users) will have a much harder time with a new UI than those who actually learned to begin with. If you've trained someone to use a computer and taught someone to use a computer, you'd know the difference between them in the long run; the trained person keeps bugging you about anything new whereas the taught person figures things out on their own.

Which would be true about making a switch from Windows XP to GNOME, or IceWN or Java Desktop System, or anything else significantly different. In the case of Windows Vista, almost all the majority of things can be found where they were on XP. The only things that have really changed are the obscure options that the majority of users aren't going to use anyways.

 

[JoNo216]

Well then, as a developer you should know good and well that UAC will only prompt if you're making system-level changes.
And as a developer you should know that you wouldn't be getting prompted if your program wasn't writing to places it shouldn't.

I can't help it if my company is just now looking into Vista with myself having only just touched it. A lot of our old poorly coded programs do stupid things (read and write from C:\) which is where I discovered the problem.

but whatever....

 

[Valnar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_Vista

A lot of these are nitpicking, but some do break compatibility with a lot of programs.

 

[TechieSooner]

Which would be true about making a switch from Windows XP to GNOME, or IceWN or Java Desktop System, or anything else significantly different. In the case of Windows Vista, almost all the majority of things can be found where they were on XP. The only things that have really changed are the obscure options that the majority of users aren't going to use anyways.

My thoughts exactly.
Vista didn't change near as much as what some fanatics seem to make it out to be. They changed the start button to a "pearl"... Other than that, everything else looks about the same, just with a new theme to it.

And as AbJ32 says, the places where it's changed the most, users don't go into (Control Panel).

To Valnar... I really am not going to read through all that, because as you say it's mostly just nitpicking. I would like to know, however, what in that long list breaks compatibility with programs? Most of these are just FEATURES.
UAC no doubt does. However, Microsoft has a good opt-out on that one. Those developers that actually followed Microsoft's recommended programming guidelines had little and most of the time no trouble during the switch to UAC.

 

[greyeyezz]

You don't need todays hardware to run Vista adequately nor do you need 4 gig of ram. I'm running Vista Ult on a single core Athlon 64 3000, X800GTO, with 2G ram, full aero, and it's just as fast as XP on my other drive, and in some instances faster as in launching programs (PS CS3, Office, etc.). If you optimize your system you don't need high powered hardware.

 

[Valnar]

To Valnar... I really am not going to read through all that, because as you say it's mostly just nitpicking. I would like to know, however, what in that long list breaks compatibility with programs?

Most are in the Networking and Multimedia sections, and therefore, programs which are written for 2000/XP that don't recognize Vista's changes. Some packet capture applications, promiscuous drivers, some VPN clients (because IPSEC is tied to the kernel). There are others that I've come across, but it only takes one big one to prevent the move to Vista. If your livelihood was audio production for instance (mine is not, just example) and your core audio-editing program didn't work with Vista because of their multimedia changes, that alone would be enough reason to avoid it. There are many people in that exact same scenario.

I fully agree that this is not all (necessarily) Microsoft's fault. Programs from Win98 didn't all work with NT4 or Win2K. Vista to XP is another big jump, and more than the zealots are willing to admit. It's not a simple GUI change. And compared to 10 years ago, a lot more people are using computers now which makes the differences more visible.

 

[TechieSooner]

You don't need todays hardware to run Vista adequately nor do you need 4 gig of ram.

Yes and no.
Yes, you don't need anything fancy.
But no, you still do need lots of RAM. Maybe not 4GB, but a minimal 2GB will suffice.

I've got an 6 year old (or so) computer with a P4 in it. Ran Vista like crap. Bumped the ram to 2.5GB and it runs it just as well as any C2D machine. That is, unless you start doing CPU usage intensive programs like encoding a video
But Vista itself runs just fine. The more RAM you've got, the more efficiently it runs via Superfetch.

If your livelihood was audio production for instance (mine is not, just example) and your core audio-editing program didn't work with Vista because of their multimedia changes,

I had forgotten about the audio revamp Vista underwent...
If you use that stuff, you've got a legitimate gripe with Vista.

 

[RadiationBoy]

well this has been an interesting thread. seems like one of those never ending topics, but i definitely appreciate the input. considering i've never run vista, i might just install it to check it out and see what i think, which is really the only way i'll decide if i should run it.

i like the idea of superfetch, seems like if i'm going to have a computer with 4gigs of ram it should be put to use and not just sit there. curious about how well vista implements the idea.

-rad

 

[SmokeRngs]

Which would be true about making a switch from Windows XP to GNOME, or IceWN or Java Desktop System, or anything else significantly different. In the case of Windows Vista, almost all the majority of things can be found where they were on XP. The only things that have really changed are the obscure options that the majority of users aren't going to use anyways.

Spoken like someone who does not and has not dealt with end users.

 

[TechieSooner]

Spoken like someone who does not and has not dealt with end users.

No, actually, he's right. Unless you head over to the Control Panel or something, not much has changed. Yes, it's a new theme, but everything is pretty much where it is.

And if it's moved, I've found 9/10 it's in a more logical place for the end-user.

i like the idea of superfetch, seems like if i'm going to have a computer with 4gigs of ram it should be put to use and not just sit there.

Holy crap. I'm in shock. Someone actually grasps that concept???

Wow.

 

[RadiationBoy]

Well for some reason i never thought I would do it but I decided on a 64bit vista Vista install. I'm currently going through the process of installing drivers. I decided against running 32bit XP because it just seemed like I should at least use an operating system that has the potential of using my current hardware fully (just hope it implements it well). I figure if I tweak vista enough I should be happy especially now that SP1 is out (has been for a while i realize). Anyway if I don't like it I can always go back. Thank you all for your input.

-rad

 

[Joe Average]

Well for some reason i never thought I would do it but I decided on a 64bit vista Vista install. I'm currently going through the process of installing drivers. I decided against running 32bit XP because it just seemed like I should at least use an operating system that has the potential of using my current hardware fully (just hope it implements it well). I figure if I tweak vista enough I should be happy especially now that SP1 is out (has been for a while i realize). Anyway if I don't like it I can always go back. Thank you all for your input.

-rad

Wrong, wrong, wrong. That's the improper attitude, my good man (or woman, as the case may be). The proper attitude is:

Leave it alone.

Vista can take care of itself, and does, as long as you leave it alone. It's not like previous versions of Windows (any of them, regardless), and it will self-tune over time to learn your patterns of usage and behaviors. It self-defrags, it self-optimizes, and it works BEST when you leave it alone - let me make that more abundantly clear:

Vista works the very best when you leave it alone. Seriously. No shit. Totally. Absolutely. Positively. Proven over time no BS 100% Grade A "I Can't Believe It's Getting Faster" kind of stuff.

You want fast, wait till Windows 7 hits. Now that's fast, from a daily usage and GUI perspective. Ridiculously fast... like fuckin' ludicrously fast...

 

[RadiationBoy]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. That's the improper attitude, my good man (or woman, as the case may be). The proper attitude is:

Leave it alone.

Vista can take care of itself, and does, as long as you leave it alone. It's not like previous versions of Windows (any of them, regardless), and it will self-tune over time to learn your patterns of usage and behaviors. It self-defrags, it self-optimizes, and it works BEST when you leave it alone - let me make that more abundantly clear:

Vista works the very best when you leave it alone. Seriously. No shit. Totally. Absolutely. Positively. Proven over time no BS 100% Grade A "I Can't Believe It's Getting Faster" kind of stuff.

You want fast, wait till Windows 7 hits. Now that's fast, from a daily usage and GUI perspective. Ridiculously fast... like fuckin' ludicrously fast...

perhaps i should of been more clear in my post, I didnt mean to say I wanted to tweak vista performance, if that is what your post is referring too. I only meant that I tend to be a little taken back by all the features in vista in there default mode but you can allways change them a bit and thats all I meant by tweak.

i did try windows 7 for a bit, i realize its just in beta but it certainly didn't like my machine at all must of crashed that thing at least 20 times before deciding i didn't feel like dealing with it. but thats another story for another thread i'm sure.

word

 

[Droc]

After years of being convinced Vista wasnt the way to go, I loaded it up and have to say its stable and enjoyable. Does everything I want, plays the games I want. No errors, problems or issues of any kind.

 

[cditty]

I'm a vista fan too. 64 bit on the laptop and desktop. I am dual booting with Windows 7 Beta on the laptop. I'm quite fond of it as well. I don't get crashes. Although a few non critical things on the laptop don't work. IE8 on the other hand locks up alot. I installed Firefox and Chrome on 7... Both work great.

If you have to pay for Vista... Wait the 6 months for 7. If you already have it (Vista), install it by all means.

 

[XOR != OR]

The alternative is to let any program do whatever it wants, or to ask for a password and therefore "train users to just enter whatever is necessary to get what they want." The argument that users are going to think more about enterring a password is wrong, you have no data to support it you (and your kind) just pull arguments out of your a$$ and assert them like they are univeral truths. Besides that, users have the option of making UAC ask for a password. Prompting for a yes/no encourages users not to turn off uac, I know, I ran with uac in password mode for a while and it drove me nuts to enter my password for every configuration change, etc. Running with just a yes/no prompt is SO much better. People are just mad that OS X didn't invent it and it's better.

Well, that's certainly an interesting perspective.

Mine is based on my experiences. I know my users. I know how they think. They will learn just enough to know how to get their apps to open faster. If the interface keeps getting in the way of this, they'll learn how to get it out of the way pretty quickly.

I have received many an error report ( from friends and family ) which started off like, "Well, I was prompted for something, but then the window went away" only to find something installed that they didn't want installed.

You are absolutely right, however; I have no hard data. Never cared enough to look it up. I know for my friends, family and users however, this is the truth; all UAC does is trains them to accept dialog boxes. This is counter intuitive to security. If MS were serious about their security, they'd have developed a way for vendors to be legitimized in vista; their software would be signed by a trusted CA and could run ( and install ) as a limited user ( configurable of course ). This would give the protection of UAC without the limitations.

 

[requiemnoise]

You are absolutely right, however; I have no hard data. Never cared enough to look it up. I know for my friends, family and users however, this is the truth; all UAC does is trains them to accept dialog boxes. This is counter intuitive to security. If MS were serious about their security, they'd have developed a way for vendors to be legitimized in vista; their software would be signed by a trusted CA and could run ( and install ) as a limited user ( configurable of course ). This would give the protection of UAC without the limitations.

Right. It would easier for admins to just deal with the policy manager or build better or easier ways to manage network policies. Less work users do, less work admins work. The policy manager needs a serious upgrade. The tool has been so minimal. Also, they need a new remote software installation program. Many admins asked for a remote firewall tool based on a signed certificate. Where are all these things admins have been asking for? Many things admins asked for weren't addressed with Vista or Windows 7. Most average Windows users don't care for the glitters. They only care if things are going to be easier.

 

[TechieSooner]

So what happens when that CA gets compromised? Or each variation of the software? You'd have to authorize every single update, which nobody would want to do.

And again, bank webpages with flash get compromised. Either it's an all or nothing approach. Period.

And you're sticking a means to bypass UAC into the system. I guarantee you someone could figure out how to trick it.

 

[requiemnoise]

Why would you need to trust every ip address in the world? LAN workstations have to be authenticated and policy will be rolled down to the workstation. It would require authentications of passphrase and public and private keys and trust only few ip addresses. Just like how you would create a rule set to manage a firewall in the local LAN.

 

[Surly73]

My impressions when I switched to Vista in late summer/early fall...

- it's prettier, and fresher looking, but ergonomics suffered. The left side "context menus" always changed items and were in no logical order. I felt that XP was generally easier for me to figure out, even though Vista should be the opposite as computing becomes more and more mainstream even among seniors.

- There are some good things - Start menu search being one of them - hit left window key and type a reasonable facsimile or partial name of the program you want and it runs. x64 support is better than I saw with XP x64 when I considered using it, although x64 still causes more problems than x86.

- XP is "snappier" for me (despite all the Vista folks telling me otherwise), but Vista has lower load times for larger applications. This will be Superfetch at work I'm sure.

- Vista is always doing stuff - it never stops. In XP I could figure out what automated background task was pounding away on the disk. In Vista it says everything's idle, nothing's doing anything, but my software install is grinding the disk into the ground or my DVD burn is bouncing off of the drive's buffer. The low priority IO doesn't seem to work as well as many report. I'm using SATA2 w/ NCQ. It isn't literally ALWAYS doing something, but much more often than XP, and I have trouble figuring out what it is.

- Vista seems really oriented to the "Web 2.0" generation who grew up/are growing up with the Internet and cell phones as a mainstream tool that every average Joe has, not just the geeks. If I were back in University with Wireless access everywhere, my laptop always on me, and all my friends were in Live, Facebook etc... Vista would be nirvana with all the sidebar apps and the like. Since you have a notebook, think about it...


I upgraded both to go x64, and to check out Vista. More drivers are out for Vista x64 than XP x64, although the quality still varies. If I wasn't going x64, I probably wouldn't have bothered. I still have XP available on dual boot, but I never use it. That being said my lighter weight portable computers (single core) get XP.

 

[TechieSooner]

Why would you need to trust every ip address in the world?

Unless you're talking about only Microsoft stuff, you'd have to, because there's more software companies that just Microsoft.

This poses a few problems.

1) Obviously, letting folks self-sign their own stuff is bad. Malware creators can just self-sign as well.
2) If you concede that #1 isn't viable, the only solution is to have Microsoft approve everything. I don't think anyone wants that, and there'd be so much complaining that Microsoft is picking favorites... it's not something Microsoft would want to get into.
3) Software updates. Updates could introduce malware. Microsoft would have to certify everything, which would mean they have a HUGE department testing this crap out all the time. Windows is already pricey, this would make it very much so.
4) Internet connectivity of current applications is another issue. So you can sign something and put your stamp of approval on it, but sources from the internet could infect it once it runs, and guess what? It'll then start running each time that app runs.

Trying to sign something like that is majorly flawed. My original comment still stands here, and to-date there is no solution that proves otherwise: It is either an all or nothing approach.

LAN workstations have to be authenticated

And who is the governing body that would do that? People complain enough with Microsoft's simple activation of Windows, much less continually.

policy will be rolled down to the workstation.

Again, people complain enough with Microsoft pushing updates to their own product. Guess what will happen if Microsoft starts pushing policies to control how the machines are operated? It lacks any and all business sense for Microsoft to get into a legal struggle like that.

It would require authentications of passphrase and public and private keys and trust only few ip addresses.

Both of which can be spoofed. When you start talking about centralized CAs, all it takes is one rogue employee to screw it up for everyone, malware writers to then start authenticating their stuff via those "secure" passphrases.

Majorly flawed, that's all there is to it.

In Vista it says everything's idle, nothing's doing anything, but my software install is grinding the disk into the ground or my DVD burn is bouncing off of the drive's buffer.

That's because, unless I'm mistaken, Vista's built in self tuning features all run under the idle process. If you weren't doing anything to fully use all resources, of course it'll start working on something. Why is that a fault of low priority IO? That only comes into play if the user needs to use something that the system is using.

 

[requiemnoise]

1) Obviously, letting folks self-sign their own stuff is bad. Malware creators can just self-sign as well.

Before I start! I don't dig flame wars. I am way too busy. Now, let's start. I am strictly speaking in the perspective of an administrator. I don't think you understand how private and public key works. It isn't hard to set it up, so machines in 192.168.1.x only trust 192.168.1.5 server. Also, there are private and public key. These keys must match. Malware writers have to break into 192.168.1.5 and steal the private key. Long as you have a strong firewall, it would be difficult to enter into to the NAT network if 192.168.1.5 ports aren't exposed to the net.

2) If you concede that #1 isn't viable, the only solution is to have Microsoft approve everything. I don't think anyone wants that, and there'd be so much complaining that Microsoft is picking favorites... it's not something Microsoft would want to get into.

Why would MS get involved? I'm strictly talking about the professional edition. Give the admins tools to manage their workstations in the LAN. Let us decided how it should work. MS doesn't talk to our users. We do.

3) Software updates. Updates could introduce malware. Microsoft would have to certify everything, which would mean they have a HUGE department testing this crap out all the time. Windows is already pricey, this would make it very much so.

Hello? Most admins already install the patches themselves. Patches have to be tested. In the corporate environment, we don't care about the Windows update application. Do you know many times in the past, Windows updates crippled so many corporations? We usually remove that feature and update the patches ourselves through login scripts to policy managers.

4) Internet connectivity of current applications is another issue. So you can sign something and put your stamp of approval on it, but sources from the internet could infect it once it runs, and guess what? It'll then start running each time that app runs.

Why? We are talking about LAN or tunnel through VPN.

Trying to sign something like that is majorly flawed. My original comment still stands here, and to-date there is no solution that proves otherwise: It is either an all or nothing approach.

Why? SSL is still broken? People still use it everyday.

And who is the governing body that would do that? People complain enough with Microsoft's simple activation of Windows, much less continually.

Right! That is why it is better for admins to deal with the issue. Give us the tools. Give us the control, so we can make users feel better.

Again, people complain enough with Microsoft pushing updates to their own product. Guess what will happen if Microsoft starts pushing policies to control how the machines are operated? It lacks any and all business sense for Microsoft to get into a legal struggle like that.

Hmm... Have you looked into Policy Manager since NT 4.0?

Both of which can be spoofed. When you start talking about centralized CAs, all it takes is one rogue employee to screw it up for everyone, malware writers to then start authenticating their stuff via those "secure" passphrases.

WHAT???? Whatever you say. What is the definition of spoof to you?

 

[note235]

try windows 7?

try it instead of vista or dual boot it and xp
and yes i do know win7 has uac-its less apparent

 

[TechieSooner]

try windows 7?

Windows 7 doesn't actually cause UAC to "bug you less". It just decreases its power. Which is actually kindof dangerous because if you decrease it in one area, it can then let crap in the door to infect other areas. Still the best way to do it is leave it all the way on.

Why would MS get involved?

Because we're talking about END-USERS, not Enterprise solutions where Administrators are involved. We're talking about UAC, which is a Windows-wide thing, not a pick and chosen thing.

I guess we need to be on the same page. Refresher quote from what started this:

If MS were serious about their security, they'd have developed a way for vendors to be legitimized in vista; their software would be signed by a trusted CA and could run ( and install ) as a limited user ( configurable of course ). This would give the protection of UAC without the limitations.

If you're talking about something else, then I guess it's a moot point, but I'm addressing the above, "Give the protection of UAC without the limitations".

Hello? Most admins already install the patches themselves. Patches have to be tested. In the corporate environment, we don't care about the Windows update application.

1) We're talking about UAC as a whole, which shockingly, includes the rest of the world and not just enterprise users.
2) Users don't ever test patches.
3) Even if they did test patches, but testing a malicious patch they'd be screwed anyway because they don't have test machines.
4) I'm not just talking about Windows patches.

Why? We are talking about LAN or tunnel through VPN.

How many people that you know run their multiplayer games, chat clients, email applications, etc all through an encrypted VPN??

Good stuff can get compromised. You may be playing a trusted multiplayer game online that you've "authenticated", but guess what? Since you've already authenticated it to go online, crap can get pushed down to the PC and infect the rest of the game. Everytime your "authenticated" application runs, you'd be running the malware.

Right! That is why it is better for admins to deal with the issue. Give us the tools. Give us the control, so we can make users feel better.

Once again, UAC also includes the rest of the world, not just corporations.

Hmm... Have you looked into Policy Manager since NT 4.0?

How many consumers actually dictate their own policy?

WHAT???? Whatever you say. What is the definition of spoof to you?

It happens all the time. A Texas A&M kid awhile back hacked the school's VPN. They aren't bulletproof.

Also, like I said, you can use technology all you want but all it would take is a single person at the "controlling" CA to get pissed off, quit, and then sell the keys to some malware creator somewhere.

 

[requiemnoise]

Windows 7 doesn't actually cause UAC to "bug you less". It just decreases its power. Which is actually kindof dangerous because if you decrease it in one area, it can then let crap in the door to infect other areas. Still the best way to do it is leave it all the way on.

Because we're talking about END-USERS, not Enterprise solutions where Administrators are involved. We're talking about UAC, which is a Windows-wide thing, not a pick and chosen thing.

Dude... you need to relax and read people's posts. What is MS Policy Manager? Who uses the policy manager? Admin? Right? I'm sure it isn't a guest. The better Policy Manager will make users feel better than UAC in the ENTERPRISE. There is a reason why we have home and pro versions, because needs are different. It can't be only to make extra bucks. When did the Policy Manager was a feature in the Home edition? Dude... about spoofing...I really don't want to discuss about security 101 here. I'm sure most LAN AD servers aren't attached to DMZ. How would you access a machine if ports can't be reached? How would you run vulnerability scanners if no ports can be reached or negotiated? Sure... Guy can break in and figure out how to fish an administrator in the LAN... If you ask a very knowledgeable administrator, many security related things are very overblown. Most vulnerabilities can be avoided with a very good network policies and proper training to all tech supports. Avoiding security errors are more to do with the strategies in psychology.

 

[TechieSooner]

Dude... you need to relax and read people's posts. What is MS Policy Manager? Who uses the policy manager? Admin? Right?

That's great. But you were the one who brought that up

DudeThere is a reason why we have home and pro versions, because needs are different.

In case you haven't noticed, there's not.
Only thing that comes close to a Pro version is Enterprise, and not all businesses are even at the level to buy stuff like that.

I really don't want to discuss about security 101 here.

Let me get this straight. We're in a discussion about UAC, and we aren't talking about security?
You fail.

 

[requiemnoise]

That's great. But you were the one who brought that up

In case you haven't noticed, there's not.
Only thing that comes close to a Pro version is Enterprise, and not all businesses are even at the level to buy stuff like that.

Let me get this straight. We're in a discussion about UAC, and we aren't talking about security?
You fail.

Hey kid relax... No need to get upset like that. FYI: Home and Pro editions are different. If you go to Ms site, it will describe the difference. I guess that is where the confusion got started. The enterprise needs are different than home users. However, MS seems constantly package the enterprise needs like home networks. The definite difference and features need to branch out more.

PRO=ENTERPRISE
NT: used the name PRO
XP: used the name PRO
Vista: used the name Enterprise
7: going to use the name PRO.

By the way, why did I failed? UAC: User Account Control (UAC) is a technology and security infrastructure introduced with Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system
I think I should BE re-graded by your Admin. You make a bad substitute teacher.

 

[TechieSooner]

Windows Vista Enterprise is the premium edition of Windows Vista for businesses and is available exclusively to Microsoft Software Assurance customers.

XP Pro != Vista Enterprise for this reason.

By the way, why did I failed?

This is why. I'll even use both of your quotes to show you.

I really don't want to discuss about security 101 here

UAC: User Account Control (UAC) is a technology and security infrastructure

 

[requiemnoise]

You got some anger issues, son. Now, you are making stuff up. Now, it is at the point, no one understands what you are replying. I just asked a person next to me if he understands your relies. He is lost just like me. Let's drop this and be a happy Hardforum family. Admins think differently than users, because we have to mange 1000s of machines, not just one.

 

[TechieSooner]

Sorry. I just thought folks that deal with this everyday would know what I meant without me having to spell it out...


Due to the reason I quoted (right there on Vista Enterprise's homepage), which is why XP Pro is not comparable to Vista Enterprise. Most of your businesses aren't on SA. Those are generally your larger companies, and there's a ton more SMBs than large corporations around.

If you're just talking about changing this for Vista Enterprise, you should have stated so originally. However, as I also attempted to mention, the original CA discussion was about eliminating UAC for end users. This includes home users as well. Nobody but you brought Enterprise-only into the equation.

Also, the other quote was you saying you didn't want to talk about security.
When we're talking about UAC, VPNs, Public and Private Keys... What the hell do you think is associated with that?

 

[requiemnoise]

Sorry. I just thought folks that deal with this everyday would know what I meant without me having to spell it out...

Due to the reason I quoted (right there on Vista Enterprise's homepage), which is why XP Pro is not comparable to Vista Enterprise. Most of your businesses aren't on SA. Those are generally your larger companies, and there's a ton more SMBs than large corporations around.

If you're just talking about changing this for Vista Enterprise, you should have stated so originally. However, as I also attempted to mention, the original CA discussion was about eliminating UAC for end users. This includes home users as well. Nobody but you brought Enterprise-only into the equation.

Also, the other quote was you saying you didn't want to talk about security.
When we're talking about UAC, VPNs, Public and Private Keys... What the hell do you think is associated with that?

Hey.... count to 3 before replying. I was thinking discussing the real security might be over your head. I don't mean that by any negative way. The security is a very complex creature. It is a lot more than home routers and personal firewalls. Most admins look at security in the programming level. No need to get all bend out for it. Also, I don't think you actually talk to people at MS about purchasing a bulk licensing. Don't worry about it. It is the net.