The Dark Side of Windows Vista RC1

[Jazket]

I haven't touched a Vista build in ages (since 5384), so I couldn't tell you first-hand, but from what I'm reading in this thread, users are getting it while deleting from directories in their home folder, therefore not harmful to the system, and making a UAC prompt completely unnecessary.

You're not understanding it. We're talking about programs and functions built-in to Windows that aren't touching administrative areas but are still initiating the UAC prompt.

true... things like:

- Moving a file with -h -r -s attribs from a partition to another.

- Sending a file with -r or -h attribs from your documents folder to the recycle bin.

- Emptying the recycle bin.

- Renaming a folder or file with read-only attributes.

and many more things...

[Kaidiir]

I agree with a good deal of what Paul has said. UAC is quite annoying and if there was a way to create a "god" account, I'd be there right now. Someone said that UAC would give power users better control over their computers. I think it's exactly the opposite. The true power user already knows exactly what he or she is doing to the computer and doesn't need the OS to poke said power user every time he or she feels like doing anything that the OS complains at.

It's sort of reminiscent of the airport security madness going on right now, especially in the US. Ok...fine. We may be a little safer. But in the short run, all it really does is delay us, annoy is and make us take our shoes off for no reason and then put them back on.

I'm over the fact that Vista won't run on my craptacular old video card. That's ok, there's a way around that. But at least let's get to somewhere where it's worth getting around. I want to like Vista. But.....right now it just isn't that likeable.

[kaiwai]

true... things like:

- Moving a file with -h -r -s attribs from a partition to another.

- Sending a file with -r or -h attribs from your documents folder to the recycle bin.

- Emptying the recycle bin.

- Renaming a folder or file with read-only attributes.

and many more things...

Thats stupid; if the file is owned by the operator who is deleting the file, then 'permission' needn't to be granted as they already have permission to access the said file.

Quite frankly, I can't understand what is so difficult about the idea of simply making everything outside the user directory non-accessible until authorised by prompt; you'd think that Microsoft was deliberately doing the above just to **** people off.

[Symphony]

Some answers to the many "whys" here:

- The UAC is not against idiots - thats why it pops up in Admin account too. It is not a barrier- rather a notification system. It is to notify you that some potentially harmfull thing will happen and are you the "parent" of this action.

- To really decide if you should turn it off, or for you to have the correct opinion: please learn what it is for. I'm really feeling sorry for the ones who turn it off instantly or after a few ours. And not just because they open a big security risk on their computer, rather that they weren't informed correcty to make the right decision. They really don't know what are the advantages of UAC. And this is not their fault, but this is not right. At least the power users (as i see there are many here) should check on its real reason to spread the word to the Joe Regulars - if Microsoft was unable to accomplish this.

- Anyone remember the "Computer will shut down in one minute" threat? You didn't have to run any program. Even if you were quite smart, it got you. The UAC is to protect you from all the things happening behind your back.

- When you want to open/move/delete your old (XP) files UAC pops up because you are actually not the same user who created those files, then again: a user wanted to tamper another user's files and OS stopped it. This is truly a nice thing, but we feel it a pain in the *ss bacause all our files were created by another user - if you understand the logic here.

- Photoshop was not coded badly. It was coded for XP and lower, and it is not currently compatible with Vista. It was coded for another OS's security settings. I'm sure they will upgrade (avoided the word "fix") it for normal (read: UAC compatible) Vista usage.

- Paul is a clever guy who likes to be in reflector light. He did a review "how good rc1 is" than later he noticed that it isn't. He could have edit the review but then it would have miss the news - it would have been another "it is good, but have its bad things" type review. A "Vista is cool" review is always a bigger news. So he made a "Muhahaha, there is the evil side" review too, this way no one can judge his first review. As i said: he is clever. He got good points, but he is rather clever.

- Actually Vista UAC is not implemented badly. It does what it should, and you know what: only the implementation is good. It is tweaked, customized, advertised badly. Average Windows users not used to think in "rights, users, permissions, secure desktops". They just want their pictures burnt, movie watched, or gamepad installed. Show me a guy who clicked on "Abort install" at the unsigned driver dialog. We live in a result-orientated world, and noone will realise that something bad could happen just because there is one more dialog. Noone would actually care: "where is the contiue anyway button?".

- I'm not a fanboy. I just hate when uninformed people gets risks (this goes for politics too), and if others thousands of hours work gets demolished. I hate seeing a hard work destroyed.

[LiGhTfast]

Well after reading that i want to turn it off even more

[Jazket]

Some answers to the many "whys" here:

- The UAC is not against idiots - thats why it pops up in Admin account too. It is not a barrier- rather a notification system. It is to notify you that some potentially harmfull thing will happen and are you the "parent" of this action.

- To really decide if you should turn it off, or for you to have the correct opinion: please learn what it is for. I'm really feeling sorry for the ones who turn it off instantly or after a few ours. And not just because they open a big security risk on their computer, rather that they weren't informed correcty to make the right decision. They really don't know what are the advantages of UAC. And this is not their fault, but this is not right. At least the power users (as i see there are many here) should check on its real reason to spread the word to the Joe Regulars - if Microsoft was unable to accomplish this.

- Anyone remember the "Computer will shut down in one minute" threat? You didn't have to run any program. Even if you were quite smart, it got you. The UAC is to protect you from all the things happening behind your back.

- When you want to open/move/delete your old (XP) files UAC pops up because you are actually not the same user who created those files, then again: a user wanted to tamper another user's files and OS stopped it. This is truly a nice thing, but we feel it a pain in the *ss bacause all our files were created by another user - if you understand the logic here.

- Photoshop was not coded badly. It was coded for XP and lower, and it is not currently compatible with Vista. It was coded for another OS's security settings. I'm sure they will upgrade (avoided the word "fix") it for normal (read: UAC compatible) Vista usage.

- Paul is a clever guy who likes to be in reflector light. He did a review "how good rc1 is" than later he noticed that it isn't. He could have edit the review but then it would have miss the news - it would have been another "it is good, but have its bad things" type review. A "Vista is cool" review is always a bigger news. So he made a "Muhahaha, there is the evil side" review too, this way no one can judge his first review. As i said: he is clever. He got good points, but he is rather clever.

- Actually Vista UAC is not implemented badly. It does what it should, and you know what: only the implementation is good. It is tweaked, customized, advertised badly. Average Windows users not used to think in "rights, users, permissions, secure desktops". They just want their pictures burnt, movie watched, or gamepad installed. Show me a guy who clicked on "Abort install" at the unsigned driver dialog. We live in a result-orientated world, and noone will realise that something bad could happen just because there is one more dialog. Noone would actually care: "where is the contiue anyway button?".

- I'm not a fanboy. I just hate when uninformed people gets risks (this goes for politics too), and if others thousands of hours work gets demolished. I hate seeing a hard work destroyed.

No work is being demolished here mate, at least from people with fair sence of critism. I also understand and I get kind of angry when I see people bashing about how "bad" Windows Vista is when they really dont know whats going on under the hood. Vista is extremelly complex I always said that, and most -politics- like Paul himself know this. The problem is, look at yourself as a novice user and try to work around the fact that UAC pops up a window in every corner of the new OS. It gets annoying, literaly, in a short period of time. Don't tell me it doesn't because that is not true.

And it is a fact what you say that not most, ALL current PC software available for Windows, are coded in fact under Windows NT, 2000 (XP) call it however you want, and Vista's code is certaily brand new regarding UAC and System Security; therefore stands the reason why most applications will most likely dislike the way the OS manages security risks and settings thanks to UAC. Though, UAC is a pretty advanced technology but most standard users are hating the drastic change that means switching from a standard not so secured environment that is XP, to such a secured OS as Vista. I understand what you say and I think most of us here would. :)

[Symphony]

When i said work demolished i ment no matter how hard some dozen people worked on UAC, it will not be used by many. In that case the hard work was without reason and i hate that. :( And i also hate when some gurus don't understand all the reason behind it. I know they'll be the ones telling to hundreds of people: "why don't you just turn it off?". :no:

I absolutely agree with you that "It gets annoying, literaly, in a short period of time". That makes me more mad. :angry: It's like some scientists would say "walk on your toes, you'll live longer", and you know that not many will do that. (Like the Hitchcock technic in movies: you see that the girl will be killed, you see the knife, the shadows, hear the steps, and the more you see the antecedent the more you get thrilled, because you can't do anything about it...) You just see that this is wrong, but you just can't help it.... Sorry, for deep in offtopic here.

Anyhow i had an idea: New UAC and i'm very intrested in your opinions.

[kaiwai]

- Photoshop was not coded badly. It was coded for XP and lower, and it is not currently compatible with Vista. It was coded for another OS's security settings. I'm sure they will upgrade (avoided the word "fix") it for normal (read: UAC compatible) Vista usage.

Icorrect, Photoshop IS coded badly in that Adobe KNEW what needed to change, they couold have made it Vista compatible, and it would have made no difference to its Windows XP compatibility status; it would have worked the way a properly written Win32 application is meant to, and accessible and interacted with the system making the assumption that it was in restrictive mode rather than assuming it needed Adminisration privilages.

- Photoshop was not coded badly. It was coded for XP and lower, and it is not currently compatible with Vista. It was coded for another OS's security settings. I'm sure they will upgrade (avoided the word "fix") it for normal (read: UAC compatible) Vista usage.

Icorrect, Photoshop IS coded badly in that Adobe KNEW what needed to change, they couold have made it Vista compatible, and it would have made no difference to its Windows XP compatibility status; it would have worked the way a properly written Win32 application is meant to, and accessible and interacted with the system making the assumption that it was in restrictive mode rather than assuming it needed Adminisration privilages.

[gigapixels Veteran]

Icorrect, Photoshop IS coded badly in that Adobe KNEW what needed to change, they couold have made it Vista compatible, and it would have made no difference to its Windows XP compatibility status; it would have worked the way a properly written Win32 application is meant to, and accessible and interacted with the system making the assumption that it was in restrictive mode rather than assuming it needed Adminisration privilages.

So Adobe can now tell the future? :rolleyes: The latest version of Photoshop (CS2) has been out for quite a while, and I don't see how Adobe could have had any knowledge as to what exact security measures Microsoft was going to put in place.

[Symphony]

Icorrect, Photoshop IS coded badly in that Adobe KNEW what needed to change, they couold have made it Vista compatible, and it would have made no difference to its Windows XP compatibility status; it would have worked the way a properly written Win32 application is meant to, and accessible and interacted with the system making the assumption that it was in restrictive mode rather than assuming it needed Adminisration privilages.

I understand your logic, but it doesn't mean it was coded badly. If we want to play the coder nazi, we can say they could have made it better to work with less rights, but then it wasn't needed. People who use Photoshop work on their computer with admin account anyhow - installing scanners, printers, fonts, font managers etc. So why should have they work on better code, when it was not needed?

After Vista ships and they'll have lot of complaints about PS giving errors they will update the code - they might already working on it. They sure don't have to rush on it - designers won't be the first ones to use Vista for work daily. ;)

[kaiwai]

So Adobe can now tell the future? :rolleyes: The latest version of Photoshop (CS2) has been out for quite a while, and I don't see how Adobe could have had any knowledge as to what exact security measures Microsoft was going to put in place.

Excuse me, restricted mode has been in Windows NT since God was a teenager, and Bill was getting turned down by girls and guys for dates.

There has been nothing stopping Adobe from testing their software with the most stricted mode, and working out the problems with it.

Also, CS2 was released in May/June 2005, LUA/UAC had been out for IIRC over a year, there was nothing stopping them, like I said in the first paragraph, from testing it in the most restrictive mode available in Windows, and thus, getting things right from the beginning.

[Condeh]

but which major software developer is going to design a top-end program based upon assumptions? A year ago i was hearing a lot of rumours of things being implemented/changed in Vista, and i think its fair to say the majority of those have changed, if not disappeared entirely. So saying the "restricted mode" in NT was assured to be the same as in Vista is a tad far fetched imo... and not something to take a bet on.

[kaiwai]

but which major software developer is going to design a top-end program based upon assumptions? A year ago i was hearing a lot of rumours of things being implemented/changed in Vista, and i think its fair to say the majority of those have changed, if not disappeared entirely. So saying the "restricted mode" in NT was assured to be the same as in Vista is a tad far fetched imo... and not something to take a bet on.

Oh pulease, Microsoft had always hinted that the moves made were of compatibility only, and once the majority had jumped onboard, and conformed to the expected quality level, they could start pushing the multi-user paradigm of restricted accounts.

Also, not working on the presumption of a restricted accounts is plain bad coding; I'm sorry, but you NEED to keep the user and base configuration seperate, especially when the computer is going to be used by multie users - restricted mode ensure that you coded your programme properly so that it understood what the requirements were when operating in a multi-user environment.

Microsoft themselves learned it the hardway when they released Terminal Services For Windows NT and found that their Office suite couldn't function because it had gaping problems that caused problems in a multi-user environment and when also being used in a terminal evironment as well.

its about getting it correct NOW so that when later on, changes are made, your application will be ready to take on board those change, be they security, getting accessed from a centralised server with thin clients. Short term pain of good coding methodology for long term cost savings and happy customers.