| 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 |
 |
Ballmer: Microsoft never recovered from Vista blow | |
|
||
| Time: 10:42 EST/15:42 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
As Microsoft prepares for the release of Windows 7, CEO Steve Ballmer admits that the company’s reputation has never recovered from the launch of Vista. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:34:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 17855 (205.167.180.132) at 10/7/2009 3:23:05 PM |
| I will just say anytime you force people to give up bad habits they will not give you a favorable review. It forced people to excercise safe computing practices, many for the first time. IMHO, Vista had to happen. |
| #2 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at 10/7/2009 3:59:43 PM |
| #1: The initial arrogance of the hard line MS took concerning UAC was what was pathetic. Norton UAC showed that UAC implementation did not have to make users suffer for running programs that predated Vista. |
| #3 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at 10/7/2009 4:06:08 PM |
| Microsoft setting 512-MB as an acceptable amount of memory for running Vista was just plain stupid. Too many early adopters bought cheap machines that made Vista torturous to use, unless more RAM was added. |
| #4 By 17855 (205.167.180.132) at 10/7/2009 4:36:06 PM |
| I don't disagree with your points. The Windows ecosystem treated Vista poorly. With OEMs and theyr crapware solutions to enhance the OS, driver support and Microsoft not adaquately communicating the true hardware requirements really set up the OS for a fall. When installed on a PC with proper hardware it's truly a premium OS. I personally find Vista's interface much more elegant than Windows 7, but Windows 7 is much more functional. It will be interesting to see what is said about Windows 7 a year from now... |
| #5 By 89249 (70.177.103.110) at 10/7/2009 9:21:08 PM |
|
#2 It was exactly what the community was literally screaming to have implemented. Of course Norton's was better... they listened to all the whining and implemented their own. Always easier to improve someone elses idea than come up with the first one. Hell look how Microsoft expands into markets... they rarely are first to show and most likely will buy a decent competitor already there.
#3 512mb works fine. Worked fine back then. Users got pissed they couldn't run a bajillion applications at once. And tbh any idiot who buys a $300 e-machines and complains it's slow gets laughed at by me. I sure as hell don't blame MS. #4 Vista put a magnifying glass on the entire market. Horrible software vendors. Horrible hardware/driver vendors. Horrible admins. Horrible Users. Even today there are admins who allow their users to run as power users or admins. Even today there are households with useres running as admin by default. Vista was the pill that was hard to swallow but needed to be taken. Hopefully Win7 will be able to thrive in the adjusted market it created. |
| #6 By 39852 (70.31.226.11) at 10/7/2009 9:32:39 PM |
| #5 It's not like other OS's didn't implement something similar to UAC in a much more user friendly manner. MS's simply didn't measure up in its initial implementation. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 10/7/2009 10:57:39 PM |
|
All, actually UAC is really quite unique and was designed as it is to support bad devs, admins and naive users and allow them to continue to develop for, run and use computers in ridiculously unsafe ways.
UAC allows devs to continue to implement "worst practices" and remain sloppy, fat and lazy and while UAC is not a security boundary, it does prevent exposed processes from allowing undesired software to alter protected files. Working in conjuntion with the secure desktop, that isolates the process in question (which is a true boundary) UAC evaluates and communicates on behalf of the user and system where the systerm is represented by a brokering agent (UIPI) and the user is represented by his/her own judgment. UAC attempts to unerstand and even predict where on the screen the process under review is located. It works to position its presence above, or at least near where the process is evident to the user. In many ways that are not easy to spot, Vista/Windows 7 UAC is superior to any other seemingly similar implementation and 30 years ahead of simple read, write, execute permissions models. I continue to elevate to its highest level, UAC settings in Windows 7 and run as a standard user - providing Admin Approval Mode user credentials when necessary. I do not recommend users at any skill level run any differently. |
| #8 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at 10/8/2009 7:32:16 AM |
| #5- 512-MB may work for you and people that are careful to maintain their machines. There are many families with kids that set up their own accounts. Try having multiple user accounts logged on at the same time, each collecting e-mail, and watch Vista crawl. With 3-GB the same machine became quick. I tweaked many Vista machines and enjoyed doing so as it helped pay the bills. I do not anticipate the same issues with cheap 7 machines as 3-GB is common on a sub $500 notebook today. The same machine also feeds 1080p streaming video superbly. After getting rid of annoyances, customers grew to like Vista. No matter what any group or person says if the customer is unhappy, there is a problem. MS and many Partners were arrogant about early customer Vista concerns in a "let them eat cake" fashion. That was then. Now, things are good. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/8/2009 8:37:25 AM |
|
#5: they listened to all the whining and implemented their own.
Seriously, "whining"? Tell me, is everyone who has a complaint about Windows a whiner? Or is it just those who had an issue with MS's horrible initial UAC implementation? You may call them whiners; I'd call them customers. Always easier to improve someone elses idea than come up with the first one. Really? Considering Unix/Linux have had root prompts for upteen years, how did MS manage to bungle UAC so thoroughly? And then, it takes Symantec to fix it for them. Simply amazing. Horrible hardware/driver vendors. Horrible admins. Horrible Users. Microsoft spent 20 years cultivating their ecosystem and grooming OEMs, partners and users to do things the Microsoft way and everything was just peachy. Then Vista comes along and suddenly everyone (except Microsoft, of course) is horrible? How can you be so enamoured with Microsoft, yet do contemptuous of everything around them? #7: Leave it to you to put the MS spin on it. UAC was not unique and was initially a hamfisted attempt to duplicate Unix root prompts. What was the best example? 4 UAC prompts to rename a folder under \Program Files? Pure genius. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 10/8/2009 9:33:18 AM |
|
duplicate Unix root prompts
Bunk. The objective for UAC was to support existing devs and users of poorly written software - software that was written in violation of well known and published guidelines. User access level permissions? As opposed to policy and object based? and Unix is more secure? Oh do tell that to the NSA who dumped the former for the latter for precisely the reasons I've listed. The only way to secure a Unices is to shut the dang thing off and disconnect it from any network. Go ahead, run one and leave the dev tools on it like most do and know up front that as soon as it is discovered it'll be owned and entirely by some very bad guys that are a lot smarter than you and I combined. The root level account isn't even enabled by default on Windows Vista and Windows 7. It isn't even a factor. UAC exists to allow poorly developed and used software to easily run on modern Windows systems. |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/8/2009 12:17:42 PM |
|
#10: Bunk. The objective for UAC was to support existing devs and users of poorly written software - software that was written in violation of well known and published guidelines.
Really? That doesn't seem to jibe with what MS has been telling everyone for years about what UAC is for. When you enter Control Panel, some of the widgets require a UAC prompt. Most things in Administrative Tools require a UAC prompt. Funny that MS would ship such poorly-written software with their flagship OS release, eh? Oh do tell that to the NSA who dumped the former for the latter for precisely the reasons I've listed. News to me. Link? Go ahead, run one and leave the dev tools on it like most do and know up front that as soon as it is discovered it'll be owned and entirely by some very bad guys that are a lot smarter than you and I combined. As opposed to Windows, where they don't even need dev tools installed to own the box... The root level account isn't even enabled by default on Windows Vista and Windows 7. It isn't even a factor. You're being disingenuous again. The default account has admin-level permissions and a simple button click on a UAC prompt allows any game-over scenario. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/8/2009 3:46:25 PM |
|
Speaking of Windows security, perhaps the NSA hasn't heard that this month's patch load includes 1 critical fix for Win7, 5 for Vista and 6 for XP. MS defines a critical hole as "a vulnerability whose exploitation could allow the propagation of an Internet worm without user action."
The only link between the NSA and Windows is the long-suspected backdoor MS put in for them. |
| #13 By 23275 (75.146.73.217) at 10/9/2009 8:55:29 PM |
|
#11, Utter nonsense - ALL accounts, standard users and admin approval mode users are STANDARD users.
The root admin account is disabled as is guest. Admin Approval Mode is just that, a Mode where no password is required and such an account IS required for certain actions - like modifying the HAL. In nearly all other cases, a standard user may use the password of an Admin Approval Mode User to admin the machine. This is how I run all machines I use. I am not being 'disingenuous' in any way - this is exactly how Windows Vista and 7 run and they are the defaults. I do elevate UAC to its highest setting - the so called "Vista Level" on Windows 7 systems. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:34:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
