Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 06:55:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 09/10/2008 06:56:43 Shocking news at 11? It's a bit lengthy.
Does it actually appear that Microsoft is going to make it easier to use the operating system while actually still doing something to protect the computer? Even more shockingly, are they essentially admitting that UAC was crap in it's initial implementation?
|
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 06:55:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 09/10/2008 06:56:43 Shocking news at 11? It's a bit lengthy.
Does it actually appear that Microsoft is going to make it easier to use the operating system while actually still doing something to protect the computer? Even more shockingly, are they essentially admitting that UAC was crap in it's initial implementation?
|
Brock Nelson
Caldari Flux Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:05:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Brock Nelson on 09/10/2008 07:04:56 Holy wall of text
tl;dr
Wanna sum it up for us?
Drones | Rigs | Ships BPO and BPC |
Brock Nelson
Caldari Flux Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:05:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Brock Nelson on 09/10/2008 07:04:56 Holy wall of text
tl;dr
Wanna sum it up for us?
Drones | Rigs | Ships BPO and BPC |
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:17:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Brock Nelson Edited by: Brock Nelson on 09/10/2008 07:04:56 Holy wall of text
tl;dr
Wanna sum it up for us?
I'll give it a shot. It's still long though. :p
They made UAC to make it easier to keep a system secure. The idea is that you can't install bad software or make potentially damaging changes to the operating system without permission, geared especially at system administrators which have to manage dozens of users and stop them from installing software you don't want.
However, 73% of Vista boxes only have one account. Because of the changes in design, the number of unique applications that request administration privileges has decreased from over 800,000 to around 150,000, resulting in greater system security.
MS says that UAC ****es people off because there are too many menus to click through, especially the double or even triple popups from making downloads in Internet Explorer, and when making changes to windows folders.
ôI do not like to be continuously asked if I want to do what I just told the computer to do.ö
Microsoft wants to condense those extra popups into just one, and get people to understand what the hell they're for.
Net results:
- Fewer applications asking unnecessary permissions
- Fewer UAC windows
- Tighter system security
- More control over the OS
- More control over UAC?
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:31:00 -
[6]
As a computer professional and the only user on my PC, the first thing I did was turn off UAC. The next thing was to enable access to all areas including program files etc.
I found it intensely annoying to have to validate my actions before I could proceed and this should have been an option in the install. An easy "I know what I'm doing" option would spare those of us who have a good knowledge of computers instead of M$ just assuming ignorance.
Preventing us from acessing program files was about the most stupid thing M$ could have done. It then prevents anyone from looking in the folder to see if any malware etc has been installed without consent or knowledge. Some spyware programs don't detect them and it's always wise to look for anything that shouldn't be there.
In addition, some of the folders that were inacessible after an install included the "my documents" folder which is crazy. I feel that M$ should never do anything that prevents the PC's owner looking at any file on their computer. If I sold you a house and locked some of the rooms, making it impossible for you to enter them, wouldn't you sue me for it? How can M$ get away with that? The files belong to you not microsoft and they should be accessible by you without any difficulty. If a user deletes or screws around with files that mess up the OS, that's user error and the users own fault, M$ has no right to prevent it happening.
M$ still can't get it right anyway, I still get told on some files that I need administrative rights to do certain things. I AM a freaking administrator, I set those privileges for my account from the admins account. It seems, Vista can't tell the difference between a user and a user with administrative rights.
-- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. |
Kyrall
A Few Killers
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 08:26:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Kyrall on 09/10/2008 08:26:47
Originally by: Dantes Revenge Longish post, removed for ease of forum use!
I'm just checking here, but do you know what UAC was actually designed to do? Isn't the idea that NOTHING can access those areas without permission, so that you don't NEED to access them to check for nasty stuff, as there can't be anything there? If you really want to access them, which you shouldn't have to very often, you can. You just have to double check with UAC first. Kind of like how you'd expect a security guard to stop and check passes for anyone trying to enter a guarded building, even if they look like you, it's just safer that way.
Or are you saying that UAC prevents your access but malware can still get through? This is something I've yet to find out: does UAC actually work or is it just being intensely annoying for no security gain?
Another thing I want to know: does the Comodo Defense+ thing do as good a job as UAC? I have this on XP, and as far as I can tell it's trying to do the same job, but I have no idea how effective it is. I do know however that it is much less annoying!
Edit: I actually do know what OS I use... _____ Originally by: Ryysa,Pwett Why would you play Single Player when you have todays internet connectivity at your disposal? Pretty much the same reason why I don't play chess at a day-care.
|
DTson Gauur
Caldari Underground-Operators
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 08:45:00 -
[8]
While I was testing the first public Vista Beta I had UAC on for about 5 minutes after install, in that time it made me regret ever trying to use Vista and to find how to disable it totally. After that the OS was actually usable.
And yes, I'm an IT-worker who really doesn't give a damn about "increased security."
|
P'uck
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 08:48:00 -
[9]
I guess you could call an everlasting quest for more money and power "caring"
|
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 08:56:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Alexeph Stoekai on 09/10/2008 08:56:14
Originally by: Evelgrivion
They made UAC to make it easier to keep a system secure. The idea is that you can't install bad software or make potentially damaging changes to the operating system without permission, geared especially at system administrators which have to manage dozens of users and stop them from installing software you don't want.
Any admin with the slightest of skills could do this in XP.
|
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 10:28:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Kyrall Or are you saying that UAC prevents your access but malware can still get through? This is something I've yet to find out: does UAC actually work or is it just being intensely annoying for no security gain?
Malware still gets through, even when, like me, you know what you're doing. My version of Spybot caught two attempted changes to the registry that were not caught by UAC before I turned it off. The biggest problem with M$ is that they try to make the OS do everything which only results in it doing nothing with any dgree of expertise. If they left the security to the third party software companies who have been doing it far longer than M$, we would all be much better off.
A quote that sums up Vista and all of Microsofts OS's since DOS. "Jack of all trades, master of none".
Bring back GEM, it was small, fast, reliable and simple to use. For a gamer, it was ideal since it took hardly any resources for itself except only those used for graphics and sound drivers.
|
P'uck
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 10:57:00 -
[12]
Edited by: P''uck on 09/10/2008 10:57:27
Originally by: Dantes Revenge Bring back GEM, it was small, fast, reliable and simple to use. For a gamer, it was ideal since it took hardly any resources for itself except only those used for graphics and sound drivers.
Isn't that basically what EVERYBODY should want from an OS?
I really don't see any GOOD reason why OSes these days seem to come with a lot of crap you don't want/need in the first place... edit; i mean there's a reason why it's called operating system and not "Blob of random software for everyday needs"
|
zomfgcoffee
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 17:15:00 -
[13]
i use vista but i set it to run for best performance, classic start menu etc etc, uac off...it's almost like xp except worse when certain programs dont run
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 18:30:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 09/10/2008 18:31:53
Microsoft is in trouble. Customers are fed up with paying license fees for new versions without getting any more productivity out of it.
And Microsoft doesnt listen to the customers, it listens to the industry who wants to make it harder to play pirated movies and games. Of course customers dont want to buy it when there are other choices.
I have several of my friends who have been amazed by the Mac lately. I havent tested them, but apparently they have become pretty uber.
If you could play every game on Linux and Mac, then Windows sales would decline rapidly... its the one thing they have left.
History books will probably say that Microsoft played a big role, but that they finally got too big and bloated, not listening to what people really wanted or realizing why people switch to Linux in the first place.
---
Originally by: Roguehalo Can you nano Titans?
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 18:53:00 -
[15]
Originally by: P'uck edit: it just occured to me... we could call it "Blob of random software causing head traumata". The abbreviation would be BORSCHT. [insert "in soviet russia," joke]
You can always find me in other forums. My sig line is usually: "My idea of an OS is one that Operates the System, not a complete package of every piece of software ever written."
I've had that sig since Windows 95.
The big problem with Windows is that every new generation takes up so much more resources. Games that should fly on a 2ghz machine are slowed to a crawl by all the background tasks that are added with each new generation of Windows. Now you need processor/graphics that is 10 times more powerful that the game actually needs to run on just to make it close to playable. If the OS was more like GEM, we would probaly need half the processing power, less than 1gig of memory and only a series 5 Geforce card to run the most advanced modern games.
To check this, I played Doom3 recently. Now, I have a faster processor, more memory and a better graphics card, it actually ran 10% slower in Vista with lower graphics settings than it did under XP when I first got it. Original XP: Med graphics, 1gig Ram, 2700+ AMD and 6200 Geforce = 32FPS Now Vista: Low to Med graphics, 4gig Ram, 3200+ Dual core AMD, 7600 Geforce = 28FPS
-- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. |
Feilamya
Minmatar 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 22:31:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Feilamya on 09/10/2008 22:32:30 They should finally throw away the Kernel and replace it with Linux or another Unix variant. That would solve a lot of problems.
Ever tried something as simple as setting access rights for a directory in Windows? User account management in Windows is hell ... and so are many more very basic features of the OS.
|
Sydonis
Caldari Freelance Intelligence Agency
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 22:42:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai Edited by: Alexeph Stoekai on 09/10/2008 08:56:14
Originally by: Evelgrivion
They made UAC to make it easier to keep a system secure. The idea is that you can't install bad software or make potentially damaging changes to the operating system without permission, geared especially at system administrators which have to manage dozens of users and stop them from installing software you don't want.
Any admin with the slightest of skills could do this in XP.
Highlighted this to point out where you may have missed the point - most Windows users are not skilled administrators and a good number tend to download and install programs they don't know about. Being able to stop your kids from, for example, installing a crack for a game or a cool utility for EVE or another online game (both known high-risk program types) would potentially save you from all kinds of problems. If they need to go through you to install stuff, it will be easier to keep system integrity.
I would like to see a "turn off UAC" option on a user-by-user basis, so you can allow users with decent knowledge to do as they wish.
|
Kyrall
A Few Killers
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 00:20:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sydonis installing a crack for a game
Except that these are generally more trustworthy than the DRM measures they circumvent... _____ Originally by: Ryysa,Pwett Why would you play Single Player when you have todays internet connectivity at your disposal? Pretty much the same reason why I don't play chess at a day-care.
|
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 01:24:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Sydonis
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai Edited by: Alexeph Stoekai on 09/10/2008 08:56:14
Originally by: Evelgrivion
They made UAC to make it easier to keep a system secure. The idea is that you can't install bad software or make potentially damaging changes to the operating system without permission, geared especially at system administrators which have to manage dozens of users and stop them from installing software you don't want.
Any admin with the slightest of skills could do this in XP.
Highlighted this to point out where you may have missed the point - most Windows users are not skilled administrators and a good number tend to download and install programs they don't know about. Being able to stop your kids from, for example, installing a crack for a game or a cool utility for EVE or another online game (both known high-risk program types) would potentially save you from all kinds of problems. If they need to go through you to install stuff, it will be easier to keep system integrity.
I wasn't talking about most Windows users, I was talking about system administrators - which the paragraph I quoted suggested UAC had been (in part) made for. I then commented that this was stupid, because XP can be fashioned into a bloody prison cell if an admin feels like it. I couldn't care less what some soccer mom or script kiddie does to their Dell.
|
Paramite Pies
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 04:53:00 -
[20]
Have you not seen the Bill Gates video of him pretty much saying that Vista was fail?
The UAC wasn't crap, they added an option to turn it off, the real crap feature was the notifier telling you it was off!! __________________ Subscription ends: 10/13/08 Donations for a shiny new GTC? |
|
Sydonis
Caldari Freelance Intelligence Agency
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 09:28:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai
Originally by: Sydonis
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai Edited by: Alexeph Stoekai on 09/10/2008 08:56:14
Originally by: Evelgrivion
They made UAC to make it easier to keep a system secure. The idea is that you can't install bad software or make potentially damaging changes to the operating system without permission, geared especially at system administrators which have to manage dozens of users and stop them from installing software you don't want.
Any admin with the slightest of skills could do this in XP.
Highlighted this to point out where you may have missed the point - most Windows users are not skilled administrators and a good number tend to download and install programs they don't know about. Being able to stop your kids from, for example, installing a crack for a game or a cool utility for EVE or another online game (both known high-risk program types) would potentially save you from all kinds of problems. If they need to go through you to install stuff, it will be easier to keep system integrity.
I wasn't talking about most Windows users, I was talking about system administrators - which the paragraph I quoted suggested UAC had been (in part) made for. I then commented that this was stupid, because XP can be fashioned into a bloody prison cell if an admin feels like it. I couldn't care less what some soccer mom or script kiddie does to their Dell.
Ah ok. I agree in the most part, but just pointing out that a good number of computers are home-based and shared (and hence should be set up with more than one user, which the graph obviously shows isn't happening).
As for cracks for games: historically, they're a known source of viruses and trojans since the people who download them can tend to be kids or adults who don't know so much about security. It's not the only way, I know, but one that has been exploited by some virus makers. Nor are all cracks infected, I know, but it's probably one of the more common threats to a family PC. Just because one parent knows about PCs, doesn't mean the whole family does.
And yeah, I should have read it more - I blame the late hour, so I apologise.
Personally, I always assumed that UAC was intended more for the home environment to make securing a multi-user PC more easy, to be honest. If they wanted to make a business environment PC safer, surely a function to allow an admin to easily upload a security profile from a network location or a disk would be more convenient for an admin - let them make up a standard set of profiles for users and (easily) upload for each user class, so making it quicker to define user classes. Or does this happen anyhow with the network installs? I'm IT trained, but that was some years back and still looking for work...
And yeah, anyone buying a Dell deserves anything they get...
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |