• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Broken Features and Annoyances in Vista

Recommended Posts

Ambroos    801

Same as XP... When you close your notebook it does what you have set in energy options for closing it... Regardless of what's running...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution    16

It'll only sleep when in the shutting down progress if you close the lid the second you are shutting down instead of a few seconds during the process.

One of the annoying bug that I've found when running without Aero Glass is that sometimes the hint windows will permanently stay on the screen, particularly ones from the start menu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nevets    0
Every bug that popped up in XP was subsequently fixed or recode and the base matured into Windows 2003 Server. This design philosophy is probably preferable to the average system administrator who prefers having a stable product upon release but it comes at the expense of the desktop user who basically gets to extensively beta test the release candidate until SP1 is released.

I belive they are doing it again. Using the public and paying customers to test Vista till they patch it up and release the longhorn server. At least XP wasn't so full of obvious bugs, other than the fact that XP security was like cheesecloth.

Vista's security isn't all that either. I took a brand new OEM laptop (before i reinstalled it) and updated and used the AV. Went online, and installed an active X that was suppose let me see a online cam. The virus totally got through and nothing, system restore, Norton could repair IE.

If I were evil, I just need to make a family site and tell people to install the activeX. :devil: so much for vista security. A little social trickery and your screwed.

Whatever happened to IE virtualization they talked about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zhangm    1,345

Were you prompted to install the ActiveX control? Was there any warning that it could have been harmful to the computer? Or did you just browse to the website, and it installed itself automatically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nevets    0
Same as XP... When you close your notebook it does what you have set in energy options for closing it... Regardless of what's running...

If that was the case, the code is flawed in both xp and vista. Shutdown should take priority over sleep or other power options.

I set my laptop to "do nothing" for the lid. Unlike apples who vents heat from the keyboard area.

Don't ever set the physical power button to hibernate or shutdown.. because Vista/XP lags in booting back from sleep/stanby and hibernate sometimes giving you a long blank screen... and I bet people will hit the power button again... so when windows back up it goes right back to shutdown (default action) or hibernate. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nevets    0
Were you prompted to install the ActiveX control? Was there any warning that it could have been harmful to the computer? Or did you just browse to the website, and it installed itself automatically?

ActiveX has never install automatically (that would be :devil: ), But I was just testing to see what windows will do.

My point is that there are countless sites out there with activex, and the prompt for warning are the same.

The warning prompt doesn't tell you what it's really installing. I don't see why all the security prompts are not linked to windows defender to tell you what is actually going to be installed. Users can't even make an informed decision. It's just like a stranger warning you, don't go there.. "might be dangerous"... and you ask "why?"... and the only answer is "because it can be dangerous"... That's such a BS warning. Same goes for the UAC prompt. Installation history should be right there in from of the user so they can get rid of something they just installed and found bad.

Like I mentioned earlier, a virus write can easily make a friendly legit site or just hack a real legit site and put the virus/malware in the activeX. Let's say it was a site for live cam of some scenery... or watch some music videos. They should do something about this ActiveX. It has the skeleton key to you OS.

Making matters worse, the virus caused IE to start up constantly, but the worse part is that Vista's IE error and "restart or not" prompt blocks user from doing anything else... even trying to get to the AV or system restore. They should fix that. Poor average joe would have gone nuts b/c every attempt to fix was getting canceled by the IE prompt. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawliet    0
If that was the case, the code is flawed in both xp and vista. Shutdown should take priority over sleep or other power options.

I set my laptop to "do nothing" for the lid. Unlike apples who vents heat from the keyboard area.

Don't ever set the physical power button to hibernate or shutdown.. because Vista/XP lags in booting back from sleep/stanby and hibernate sometimes giving you a long blank screen... and I bet people will hit the power button again... so when windows back up it goes right back to shutdown (default action) or hibernate. :laugh:

I wished I could set it to do nothing but apparently, there's something wrong with this in Vista: When I close my lid and reopen it, I can't get a display at all. Nothing helps except for restarting the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrCobra    0
I belive they are doing it again. Using the public and paying customers to test Vista till they patch it up and release the longhorn server. At least XP wasn't so full of obvious bugs, other than the fact that XP security was like cheesecloth.

I feel the same.

They should do something about this ActiveX. It has the skeleton key to you OS.

ActiveX (OLE; Object Linking & Embedding) was actually a nice feature when it was for inter-application messaging (embedding Excel worksheets in Word documents for example), but (IMO) it becaome a big thorn in the user's side when it was tied in to IE for web apps.

Historically Windows was never intended for multiple users or online connectivity of any kind. All of the features of Windows over the years were just features piled on top of feature on top of features without any regard for security. I think a better solution for that would be to do a version of Windows completely from scratch and building in road blocks and safeguards from the beginning. There has not been a "new" version of Windows since 1.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nevets    0
I wished I could set it to do nothing but apparently, there's something wrong with this in Vista: When I close my lid and reopen it, I can't get a display at all. Nothing helps except for restarting the system.

What kind of system do you have? I've set it to do nothing on closing lid for all my customers and haven't had any issues in vista (so far :p ). Closing lid just turns off the display backlight.

The only time it happens was on dell laptops (specifically the 6000 series) on xp mce05 before I install graphics drivers. I has something to do with the bios since other similar chipset/video systems don't do that.

My guess is an updated bios or graphics drivers should fix it for you (even though it's vista).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin    225
Historically Windows was never intended for multiple users or online connectivity of any kind. All of the features of Windows over the years were just features piled on top of feature on top of features without any regard for security. I think a better solution for that would be to do a version of Windows completely from scratch and building in road blocks and safeguards from the beginning. There has not been a "new" version of Windows since 1.0.

Well, that's not really true. NT was separate from 1.0/2.0/3.1/95/98/ME.

Wasn't NT designed to be multi user from early on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raskren    0
Well, that's not really true. NT was separate from 1.0/2.0/3.1/95/98/ME.

Wasn't NT designed to be multi user from early on?

Yep. NT was a new codebase despite being labeled "Windows NT 3.1"

NT was built from the ground up for multitasking, networking, protected memory management, and separation of kernel and user processes. The NT kernel was a revolutionary step in computing and was extremely robust and stable thanks to the aforementioned features. The networking stack is what was really important here. Windows doesn't care if packets are coming from the other side of the world or the other side of your desk. Saying that Windows wasn't designed for online connectivity of any kind is patently false.

MrCobra, prepare to wait another 10 years for a brand new Windows codebase with fewer features than what is available in Vista. If you read about the "Longhorn Reset" maybe you'll come to understand the code untangling and secure coding that occurred from 2003 onward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nevets    0
I feel the same.

ActiveX (OLE; Object Linking & Embedding) was actually a nice feature when it was for inter-application messaging (embedding Excel worksheets in Word documents for example), but (IMO) it becaome a big thorn in the user's side when it was tied in to IE for web apps.

Historically Windows was never intended for multiple users or online connectivity of any kind. All of the features of Windows over the years were just features piled on top of feature on top of features without any regard for security. I think a better solution for that would be to do a version of Windows completely from scratch and building in road blocks and safeguards from the beginning. There has not been a "new" version of Windows since 1.0.

ActiveX on IE should not be run initially under elevated rights. It's just so hypocritical that MS is pushing developers to code for user permission when their flawed ActiveX runs in admin right after the prompt. I got an prompt to install ActiveX, but didn't get any warning when it installed some "anti-spyware" software and totaly screw up system. Should run under user permissions unless it doesn't work, the user can option again for higher permission. At least if it's anything funky, it would show in the initial install under user permission.

In fact, windows should have a "i think it's suspicious" prompt and run it in a "sandbox".

At least MS admitted that they didn't really redesign the OS from ground up. I just found something funny again, the regedit export is still XP style, which is hell of a lot easier to use than the new Vista one. I think whoever came up with the new save window should be shot! It never defaults to showing what's in the folder your saving to! I have to click browse folder and resize the window all the time. Everything all squished together! THAT, annoys the hell out of me. :crazy:

I'll be adding that to my OP list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preppy    33
ActiveX on IE should not be run initially under elevated rights. It's just so hypocritical that MS is pushing developers to code for user permission when their flawed ActiveX runs in admin right after the prompt. I got an prompt to install ActiveX, but didn't get any warning when it installed some "anti-spyware" software and totaly screw up system. Should run under user permissions unless it doesn't work, the user can option again for higher permission. At least if it's anything funky, it would show in the initial install under user permission.
Wait - you're talking about the INSTALLER, right? Because unless the control/app/etc explicitly manifests for Admin privs to run, they run at current user rights (which in the case of Vista is Limited by default).

Unless I'm missing something, you're just saying that when you click on a strange link on the Internet and get asked if you want to give full Administrator privileges to that random app - that's potentially going to be bad. But you should know that, right? How is Windows supposed to defend against you running arbitrary applications? VeriSign and other tools do help to some extent here, but it's still a guessing game.

Anyways, as far as I can tell, DropMyRights and Vista LUA 'defang' the ActiveX concerns you have. Your remaining concern is that installers in Vista can get Administrator rights when the user clicks to allow that, and that's a whole 'nother issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nevets    0
NT was built from the ground up for multitasking, networking, protected memory management, and separation of kernel and user processes. The NT kernel was a revolutionary step in computing and was extremely robust and stable thanks to the aforementioned features. The networking stack is what was really important here.

NT was revolutionary for windows. I appreciated the simplicity of win2k, they should have stuck with working with more robust security. Vista is just overkill in the UI, and not enough real work on security.

Windows doesn't care if packets are coming from the other side of the world or the other side of your desk.

Maybe they should have. That's why there is need of such things as firewalls, vpn, ssl and tunneling through internet. Windows treated the internet like an internal network... like living in a big city in a open shack. It's a wild and crazy world out there in the internet... it was pretty naive [/i]

MrCobra, prepare to wait another 10 years for a brand new Windows codebase with fewer features than what is available in Vista. If you read about the "Longhorn Reset" maybe you'll come to understand the code untangling and secure coding that occurred from 2003 onward.

Sounds familiar. Just "show me the money". :sleep:

Sure they are trying, but I don't care, why should I. A teacher cares if a student is trying... A costumer wants a working product.

Fewer features, Gooood! Just get security done it right. There's plenty of other places to get software. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freak_power    0

MSI installer let's you to run only one process at the time. The bottom line is that MSI installer sucks.

As far as I know nothing works right with Vista. As for me Windows XP X64 Edition SP2 is the best OS on the market right now...nothing can match it and i really enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raskren    0
MSI installer let's you to run only one process at the time. The bottom line is that MSI installer sucks.

As far as I know nothing works right with Vista. As for me Windows XP X64 Edition SP2 is the best OS on the market right now...nothing can match it and i really enjoy it.

The fact that you can only install one piece of software at a time is a flaw? Are you kidding me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raskren    0
NT was revolutionary for windows. I appreciated the simplicity of win2k, they should have stuck with working with more robust security. Vista is just overkill in the UI, and not enough real work on security.

They did real work on real security. See "UAC" and "virtualization."

Maybe they should have. That's why there is need of such things as firewalls, vpn, ssl and tunneling through internet. Windows treated the internet like an internal network... like living in a big city in a open shack. It's a wild and crazy world out there in the internet... it was pretty naive [/i]
I was talking about the TCP/IP stack level not the browser or firewall level which is where security should come into play.
Sure they are trying, but I don't care, why should I. A teacher cares if a student is trying... A costumer wants a working product.

Fewer features, Gooood! Just get security done it right. There's plenty of other places to get software. ;)

This is where my opinion differs from a lot of people here. I like value added software that is installed out of the box. When Joe Blow installs Vista or buys a new PC, he expects a minimum level of functionality like calendaring, email, and other productivity applications. These features make the product a better value in the long-run versus something like Windows 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freak_power    0
The fact that you can only install one piece of software at a time is a flaw? Are you kidding me?

It is limitation...serious limitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raskren    0
It is limitation...serious limitation.

How is it limiting your use of the computer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution    16

By only allowing one installation at a time, you're preventing possible conflicts and there might even be a security angle to it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin    225
By only allowing one installation at a time, you're preventing possible conflicts and there might even be a security angle to it :)

Plus, it's likely that the installer would be using all the resources available to it. Installing two things at a time might actually slow down overall install time, as random seeking would occur much more often...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattrobs    1

But your killing the option to multi-task by installing two apps at the same time. Forcing users to install one app at a time is not a security angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
ActiveX on IE should not be run initially under elevated rights. It's just so hypocritical that MS is pushing developers to code for user permission when their flawed ActiveX runs in admin right after the prompt. I got an prompt to install ActiveX, but didn't get any warning when it installed some "anti-spyware" software and totaly screw up system. Should run under user permissions unless it doesn't work, the user can option again for higher permission. At least if it's anything funky, it would show in the initial install under user permission.

In fact, windows should have a "i think it's suspicious" prompt and run it in a "sandbox".

Umm, that's exactly what Vista does. ActiveX controls (and anything in IE) run with LOWER than user privileges, hence the name "Protected Mode IE." Unless you've disabled UAC or something stupid like that, which obviously leaves Windows with no mechanism to start processes at lower privilege levels in the same session.

If you actually launched a seperate executable outside of IE, then that's something entirely different than an embedded ActiveX control. You'll be prompted for elevation if the executable is marked to require admin privileges, and if you don't know exactly what it is and trust it - you should absolutely say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nevets    0

Wait - you're talking about the INSTALLER, right? Because unless the control/app/etc explicitly manifests for Admin privs to run, they run at current user rights (which in the case of Vista is Limited by default).

Once passed the activeX prompt, I didn't even get an installer prompt, but a "anti-spyware" software installed into system that system restore couldn't even recover from. I'm not sure if it was under user right, but certainly even if it was, it still just killed IE totally. So something needs to be fixed there.

Unless I'm missing something, you're just saying that when you click on a strange link on the Internet and get asked if you want to give full Administrator privileges to that random app - that's potentially going to be bad. But you should know that, right?

If a user knows, and find is suspicious then it can be blamed on user, but you can't assume the user think it's a strange website. There are plenty of sites that look legit... and can easily look so. It's already a fact that people still click on these sites because they just don't know. People do need to be better informed than simply "this MIGHT be harmful".

The prompt for ActiveX installation is the same in every site. Installing enough activex from legit sites, one would not think much about the warning when installing it from any other site, because they are all classified as "MIGHT be harmful".

How is Windows supposed to defend against you running arbitrary applications? VeriSign and other tools do help to some extent here, but it's still a guessing game.

How about simply using windows defender to provide the following extra information:

  • click on legit site: [in green]site is known but activex might be harmful
  • click on flagged site: [in bold red] site is know to be harmful and activex risk is high
  • click on unknown site: [in yellow] windows does not have record of this site, but activex might be harmful

even better if they could check the activex function b4 it executes. like " the following software will be installed...etc"

should also be integrated to UAC function too.

Maybe I'm expecting too much. But it's 2007, MS is not a young software company, and windows got more feedback than any other operating system in the world. It's certainly not because of lack of budget. MS really needs to put more social engineering into this. Hire some real consultants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
But your killing the option to multi-task by installing two apps at the same time. Forcing users to install one app at a time is not a security angle.

Installing more than one application at the same time is just a terrible idea. Many installers take a system restore snapshot before installing, so that you can rollback easily even if the installer is broken. That would totally mess them up as they'd be taking a snapshot of the system while some other app is halfway installed. Yuck.

Plus it's a nightmare for dependency tracking and file access/retention issues (especially since most installers aren't using transactional accesses). Installer A starts its dependency assessment and realizes you don't have XYZ requirement installed, so it marks it to be installed or downloaded during the install process. Meanwhile you install XYZ dependency, or Installer B which includes XYZ dependency. It could get really messy very fast.

Lets not also forget all the message broadcasts that frequently occur, Restart Manager restarting Explorer or other similar tasks, and so on. Your installer could be in the middle of setting things up when another app suddenly restarts the system or the shell? Yuck yuck.

It's pretty clearly not a customer issue and the people complaining about it are really grasping at straws.

Edited by Brandon Live

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.