| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
10 Things I Warned Microsoft About Windows Vista | |
|
||
| Time: 00:42 EST/05:42 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Watch | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Joe Wilcox: I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs asked for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen? The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason enough to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an operating system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule. Oh, yeah, the channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:21:55 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 3/18/2008 7:16:52 AM |
| "I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs asked for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen?" What an ego this guy has. Many companies hire analysts and consultants to reinforce what they already believe. How many executives act on advice that is contrary to their own desires? None that I know. |
| #2 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/18/2008 7:27:11 AM |
| I agree with many of these points except for the comparison to Windows ME and the trashing of UAC. Vista has an elegant interface albeit a tad bit slow at times and UAC is hardly the albatross the author suggests. With all of the complaints over UAC, I have yet to see anyone suggest a viable alternative. MS gets ripped constantly for a poor security legacy that is largely based on history prior to 5 years ago. Yes, MS has had its share of exploits in the last 5 years, but considering the number of software products and the sheer volume of code, I believe their Secure Computing Initiative has been a huge success. Could it have been better? Sure! And UAC was the next logical step to address some of the nagging issues in the Windows security model. If anyone can suggest something better, let’s hear it. |
| #3 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/18/2008 11:16:51 AM |
|
#2: With all of the complaints over UAC, I have yet to see anyone suggest a viable alternative.
Why is it that people need to use this corrupt piece of drivel to censor negative opinions about things? Why must a person be smart enough to have a better idea before criticizing the current one? Can I not be allowed to dislike something without having to know how to do it better? That is one of the most ridiculous statements frequently used to counter an argument. I guess by that argument I shouldn't have a problem with the poor environmental records of most western countries, since I don't know the best way to deal with all the pollution. And I guess I should like all the wars and disputes in the Middle East, since I don't have a solution in hand to make instant peace in the region. Sorry for the rant, but that particular argument really annoys me. |
| #4 By 88850 (221.128.181.77) at 3/18/2008 12:07:04 PM |
| Yuk! People still read Joe Foolcox's articles on microsoft-watch.com! |
| #5 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at 3/18/2008 12:14:27 PM |
|
#3
I think the main problem is that the Internet has made everyone a so called expert on just about every topic. It isn't that you need to have a viable alternative but you do need to have some background in what you are posting about or discussing. This is sadly not the case in most instances. I mean I have never walked up and started discussing surgical techniques with a bunch of cardiac surgeons just because i read an article on it on wikipedia. But strangely in forums people will spend their whole day discussing something that they don't have first hand knowledge of. Normally , the reasons for discussion and examination is to try to work out solutions or better way to do things. That is that nature of everything we do. Coming into a forum just to yammer on about stuff because you think it is crap is not the point of rational discussion. Then again no one ever said forums were rational. |
| #6 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 3/18/2008 12:38:21 PM |
|
#3 "Why must a person be smart enough to have a better idea before criticizing the current one?"
You and Latch are living proof that ignorant people do spend their time criticizing things for which they have zero better ideas. But seriously .... you remind of a person who rants on and on about how annoying it is for the security alarm to go off when they forget to disarm it. UAC can be turned off. Turn if off if you don't want the protection. Have sex without a condom. Go skydiving without a reserve chute. They are all your choices to make. Ranting about something that can be turned off without offering an alternative is really, really stupid. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 12:43. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/18/2008 12:58:13 PM |
|
#2: UAC in itself is a good idea, but the implementation was poor. UAC was too obtrusive, and MS supposedly adjusted UAC to be less annoying. Time will tell.
#3: Word. #5: That's the nature of opinion. Everyone has one, but some are more informed than others. Debating in forums like this exposes others to info, ideas, and points of view that they may not have considered before. Nobody know it all. #6: Not sure why I'm bothering, but... You and Latch are living proof that ignorant people do spend their time criticizing things for which they have zero better ideas. You criticize everything except Microsoft all the time. Where are your better ideas? UAC can be turned off. Sure, but then you lose the protection it offers. People who complain about the obtrusiveness of UAC want the protection without the annoyance. Root prompts in Ubuntu are infrequent, as opposed to UAC that seems to bring up an Allow/Deny prompt every time you move your mouse. Go skydiving without a reserve chute. If MS made the reserve chute, you'd have to pull the ripcord 8 times to deploy it. For some bizarre reason, some people see everything in black & white. If you aren't happy with UAC, turn it off, they say. What a stupid idea. Here's a better one; Hello Microsoft? How about you make UAC less annoying? And, apparently, MS listened and did just that. |
| #8 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/18/2008 1:13:13 PM |
|
#5: Then again no one ever said forums were rational.
Never were truer words ever written. :-) #6: You and Latch are living proof that ignorant people do spend their time criticizing things for which they have zero better ideas. Ahh, the pot arrived to call the kettle black, which seems to be all you are good for these days. I forgive you, as you are obviously not swift enough to actually comprehend what I said, and simply rail against what you think I might possibly maybe have said, in some other unrelated context of your own invention. You might even be able to get under my skin on occasion, if I didn't pity you so much. You must be happy in your black and white, ignorance is bliss, all days are sunny days, Microsoft good, everyone else bad, kind of IT world view. Try re-reading my post. Here is a hint. It had nothing to do with UAC itself. |
| #9 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 3/18/2008 1:54:33 PM |
|
# 7 For a non-user of Vista, you sure tell a lot of ignorant lies about Vista.
"Root prompts in Ubuntu are infrequent, as opposed to UAC that seems to bring up an Allow/Deny prompt every time you move your mouse." Thats a total lie. But what else is new. Unless of course you mean when you are downloading porn from infected porn sites. Yes, in that case every mouse move might bring up a UAC prompt. #8 Idiot. And after rereading .... moron. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 13:56. |
| #10 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/18/2008 2:08:08 PM |
| #9: What's the matter? Not enough monosyllabic words? |
| #11 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at 3/18/2008 2:10:37 PM |
|
#7
I have to disagree with you here. While I feel that UAC prompts are annoying, and that SP1 fixes some of the most glaring examples of them, most day to day users will just not see that many prompts. The same goes for ubuntu. I dual boot ubuntu on my laptop and can be prompted for the password quite often depending on what I am doing. But I am a power user tinkering with the system, changing settings, etc. The average user who is just browsing the internet and checking email will just not see a password prompt that often. The same goes for UAC. I think the main problem with UAC is that people get their first taste of it when loading Vista or setting up their system for the first time. The get so annoyed that they disable it. This is doubly true for an XP user who is not used to these kinds of security checks. Just for fun I renabled UAC on my laptop that has Vista SP1 and you really are not confronted that often by prompts once you are in normal day to day use mode. I am sure that UAC could be done better and that as Vista progresses to Windows 7 you will see the system get better and less intrusive. This post was edited by kaikara on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 14:11. |
| #12 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/18/2008 2:34:53 PM |
|
As mentioned here a few weeks ago -
http://www.tweak-uac.com/download/ This little app disables UAC for the admin account only. So you can configure your system as you see fit with no UAC prompts. However, standard users still get the UAC prompts. This post was edited by rxcall on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 16:13. |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/18/2008 2:49:06 PM |
|
#11: The example of bad UAC I remember best (pre-SP1) was how it supposedly took something like 4 UACs for a non-admin user to rename a folder under \Program Files. 4 prompts is ridiculous. This post was edited by Latch on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 14:49. |
| #14 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 3/18/2008 3:39:50 PM |
|
#13 Renaming a folder under program files would break installed programs.
How often does anyone do this? It should be almost never. How often should a non-admin do it? Never. How does this relate to your claim "UAC that seems to bring up an Allow/Deny prompt every time you move your mouse. " It just proves you are a liar. |
| #15 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at 3/18/2008 4:12:35 PM |
|
#14: I think we all know that Latch was exaggerating for effect with his statement "UAC that seems to bring up an Allow/Deny prompt every time you move your mouse."
#3: "Why must a person be smart enough to have a better idea before criticizing the current one? Can I not be allowed to dislike something without having to know how to do it better?" Thanks for pointing out that you know nothing about UAC. This post was edited by rxcall on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 16:19. |
| #16 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/19/2008 10:54:19 AM |
|
#15: Thanks for pointing out that you know nothing about UAC.
Thanks for proving that, like NotParkerToo, you cannot read a simple paragraph and grok its meaning. If you think it was about whether or not UAC is perfect in every way, which you and NPT seem to infer frequently, then you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. Since NPT proved that asking to re-read something is a pointless exercise, here is a different bit of advice. Don't bother re-reading it at all. Forget it even exists. If you didn't understand it the first time, you won't understand it the second either. So don't bother even trying. |
| #17 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/19/2008 12:20:02 PM |
| #16: Thanks for playing... |
| #18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/19/2008 12:48:47 PM |
| #17: I'm sure he's already tired of playing the "Get Through The Thick Skulls" game by now. His post had nothing to do with UAC so I'm not quite sure about your statement regarding his lack of UAC knowledge. |
| #19 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/19/2008 2:07:04 PM |
|
#18: Sentinel quoted my comment about UAC in his post, then proceeded to go on a tired old rant from his high school debate team about not having to know anything about a subject to complain about it. Fine! I get it!
I just assumed that since he purports to work in IT that maybe, just maybe, he would have something of value to add to the discussion. After all, this is allegedly a 'Tech' forum, where we come to exchange ideas and experiences. Since he chose not to, I can only assume he knows nothing about it or that he was trying to hijack the discussion for some other dark purpose. Even you managed to add something of value in this thread between your constant barbs with Parker. This post was edited by rxcall on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 14:07. |
| #20 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/19/2008 2:34:27 PM |
|
#19: What he added, and it was the only thing he wanted to add, was a rant about your fallacious argument. It all boiled down to "I may not know art, but I know what I like."
Honestly, did you actually believe what you wrote in #2 or was it just a defensive reaction? |
| #21 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/19/2008 2:47:17 PM |
| #20: Defensive reaction to what??? You should know by now, that I call them as I see them. Many times I'm in Microsoft's corner, sometimes I agree with you, but at all times I try to keep it real. |
| #22 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/19/2008 3:59:19 PM |
|
#21: No, I meant the concept of criticism being invalid if you have no alternate solution. When you look at that idea objectively, it's absurd in theory and impossible in practice.
|
| #23 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at 3/19/2008 4:51:42 PM |
|
#22: I was merely trying to evoke some give and take on the topic. Humans tend to do that, but Sentinel comes in with his silly ass word games instead of offering something of value on the topic. Parker did the same thing to you earlier in this thread.
Here, let me repost so there is no confusion: I agree with many of these points except for the comparison to Windows ME and the trashing of UAC. Vista has an elegant interface albeit a tad bit slow at times and UAC is hardly the albatross the author suggests. With all of the complaints over UAC, <preschoolversion>I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for improvements or alternatives.</preschoolversion>. MS gets ripped constantly for a poor security legacy that is largely based on history prior to 5 years ago. Yes, MS has had its share of exploits in the last 5 years, but considering the number of software products and the sheer volume of code, I believe their Secure Computing Initiative has been a huge success. Could it have been better? Sure! And UAC was the next logical step to address some of the nagging issues in the Windows security model. <sugarcoatedversion>I would love to hear anyone else’s suggestions for UAC improvement or experiences with alternative solutions.</sugarcoatedversion>. This post was edited by rxcall on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 16:59. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:21:55 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
