KevinN206 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 secpol.msc is not available on Vista Home Basic and Home Premium. I just tried on my laptop with Premium and my desktop with Business. The Business version worked fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPhantm Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Won't ever happen, but built-in torrent support might be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tunafish Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Driver sandboxing. So if you have a driver your not sure about or something, or it's an old driver you can run it in a kind of sandbox, which will interact with the OS. So if the driver is faulty it wont BSOD the pc, it will only kill the sandbox :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAC Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 (edited) locking the desktop because an application wants your attention is very primitive behavior Are you still using Windows Vista beta2 ? :D http://blogs.msdn.com/uac/archive/2006/09/05/741318.aspx Other improvements besides prompt reduction that we've made to Windows Vista RC1 are: UAC prompts will not steal focus from the user's task. If the operating system cannot determine that the prompt was generated from the foreground window the current user is using, we will alert the user with a highlighted operation in the taskbar that an application is requesting elevated privileges. The user can select to elevate at his or her convenience and not be disrupted by an unplanned application elevation. Edited February 2, 2008 by UAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knife Party Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 1. Adopt greater Opensource implementation ... eg... JKfrag for Diskmanagement, Foobar for Audio, VLC for media get either Firefox or Opera and drop IE.....users will find this increasingly more convenient 2. more security....plug all holes...make UAC more effective and to get/partnership with decent AV companies...eg- kaspersky or Eset 3. more basic programs...such as Paint.net for basic editing or remove useless program on MS that practically does nothing and replace them with sounds alternatives. 4. alter network settings to be more aware of their environment 5. beef up or get a new firewall....or possibly sign a partnership with Comodo etc 6. make GUI simpler and not such a mess 7. give users more option when it comes to customizing --> changing msstyles 8. strip system and reduce any useless services and make the system more resource friendly 9. improve on the usage of resources 10. work harder on driver support 11. improve system performance and response 12. better boot and shutdown times 13. better codec support in general of images, audio and video files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Driver sandboxing.So if you have a driver your not sure about or something, or it's an old driver you can run it in a kind of sandbox, which will interact with the OS. So if the driver is faulty it wont BSOD the pc, it will only kill the sandbox :) Vista comes with new user-mode driver frameworks that do exactly that. If they crash, they don't take down the kernel with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vipwoody Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 If Windows 7's kernel is changed and can boot as fast as any Linux OS, and with no startup programs that f#$%s up the booting speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted February 2, 2008 Veteran Share Posted February 2, 2008 Perhaps the Secure Desktop option should be more accessible to users then. Either way, locking the desktop because an application wants your attention is very primitive behavior and shows lack of forethought. It makes users feel like they have lost some control over their windows experience, perhaps just one of a handful of reasons why some customers go back to Windows XP. To me, when an operating systems starts dictating the 'what' and 'when', then annoyance and resentment builds. Seems to me Microsoft would do better listening to it's customers rather than telling them 'by design' or 'working as intended'. Just a thought. Did you even read my post? You have two choices: 1) Display the prompt on the same desktop where all your applications are. This is what happens if you edit that security policy value. The UAC prompts are not "system modal" and thus are obviously less intrusive. But they're vulnerable to all sorts of attacks, making them far less effective. 2) Display the prompt on an isolated, secured desktop. This is the default behavior. Yeah, switching desktops to display a dialog is a noticeable interruption. They try to make it more seamless by copying a screenshot of your desktop to use as the background, so it "feels" like your applications are still there. They even highlight the window that requested the new process to launch, which can be helpful (though it is often too subtle). Nobody prefers this user experience. But when your choices are "easy" and "secure" - and you're in the position Microsoft is in, you often are forced to make the hard call. By doing so, Microsoft is listening to customers. Listening to customers who say they want their OS to be as secure as competing products. Now it is. You're welcome. Oh yeah, there actually is option number 3. You can remove most or all of the need for the Secure Desktop by requiring the user to type their password every time they elevate (like on the Mac). Using secpol.msc (or registry keys, or apps like that TweakUAC thing that just turns on the same keys), you can turn off the Secure Desktop switch and alter it to require a credential prompt instead of a consent prompt. Credential prompts aren't vulnerable to the main set of attacks that consent prompts are. Though they do have a different set of problems (keyloggers, spoofing). Most of those are solved by requiring CTRL+ALT+DEL before typing a password. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNay Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I'd really like to see a 'Virtual Desktop' as well in the new Win7, aside from that tweak UAC or get rid of it, it needs more customization to the users liking, if the user doesn't bother to tweak it to his/her liking then its default values will be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserk87 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 SkiFree............. :rofl: and chips challenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnzoFX Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Someone mentioned that vista doesn't remember what view you to like to view specific folders in (thumbnails, list, etc), even xp has been doing this just fine. Also, I think its funny to ask for what is essentially more applications, which is what all apple does. But then won't people start complaining that MS is forcing its own apps on consumers and not giving them options? blah blah blah... Also, virtual desktop software always felt like a gimmick, it looks cool, but I don't personally see much use out of it. What I want out win 7 is simply a great, revolutionary/evolutionary UI, vista is plenty capable, I want a UI that's intuitive that'll easily slipstream with any appl, be it MS or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphen Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 ...unless it has a retail box :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tunafish Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Vista comes with new user-mode driver frameworks that do exactly that. If they crash, they don't take down the kernel with them. strange as i have a driver in vista for my soundcard and it causes the os to bsod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 strange as i have a driver in vista for my soundcard and it causes the os to bsod. I said it came with the frameworks, not that everyone was using them for everything yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphen Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 ....lower hardware requirements. Bahaha, you'll be stuck with XP :p The entire platform was built in a more flash like factor as is OS X. I think it would run smoother and i dunno.. windows is jus really bloated and i dunnno i just wish it resembled MAc OS x more. oh, so you just want windows with less preinstalled software, like media player, IE, wordpad, and so on? Buy a mac;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 SkiFree............. Helll yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted February 2, 2008 Veteran Share Posted February 2, 2008 Also, virtual desktop software always felt like a gimmick, it looks cool, but I don't personally see much use out of it. What I want out win 7 is simply a great, revolutionary/evolutionary UI, vista is plenty capable, I want a UI that's intuitive that'll easily slipstream with any appl, be it MS or not. Virtual Desktops fall under the category of functionality that is very, very useful to a very, very tiny set of people. When you consider that the average Windows user never has more than 2-3 windows on the taskbar at any given time, it can be hard to argue for that kind of feature to be high on the list of priorities. Even for me, virtual desktops aren't as useful as they used to be. Super high-res monitors (like my 30" Dell at home) and multi-monitor setups (my dual 24" screens at work) make virtual desktops kind of pointless. The only place I might use it would be on my laptop, but the fact is - there are virtual desktop solutions out there and I don't use them. Even when I'm running in Leopard, I never use Spaces. I just don't really do that kind of work on my laptop. Basically, I agree with exactly what you said. In fact, I'd go farther and say that multi-monitor features are more important to me than virtual desktops, and I bet there are more multi-mon users than people who would actually gain value from virtual desktops. That said, multi-mon users still represent a absolutely tiny fraction of the Windows userbase. So arguing for features specific to that configuration isn't really any easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulletRobZ Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 1. Virtual Desktops - Come on, Microsoft! Linux had this feature for years and it has recently been introduced to Mac OS X Leopard, so why not have it in Windows? After all, there isn't a better way to reorganize your programs. 2. Something related to Expos? in Mac OS X - Much more efficient than Alt+Tab'ing between a dozen different windows. 3. Far fewer editions - Do we really need six-plus editions of Windows? Why not have just one and let users customize the install as was the case with earlier versions of Windows (98 and before)? 4. Improved networking with Mac OS X and Linux - Even though I can access shared Mac OS X folders from a Windows box, the networking is still unstable, yet Macs can read Windows folders fine! 5. No more UAC!! - Damn, that feature is annoying from when I experimented with Vista! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnzoFX Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Virtual Desktops still seem like a gimmick, even for people that have open a lot of windows. I've tried virtual desktop software, and It's just not useful, with monitors going bigger and higher res, just as brandon said. But let's say I have a huge desk (with lots of paper work on top of it), demanding for Another desk(s), so that I can organize work on that one, and then juggle several desks. Having stuff all over the place. Maybe it becomes an issue of organization that can simply be solved by an intuitive UI. I for one don't think MS should waste time on a virtual desktop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 1. Virtual Desktops - Come on, Microsoft! Linux had this feature for years and it has recently been introduced to Mac OS X Leopard, so why not have it in Windows? After all, there isn't a better way to reorganize your programs. Sigh. Anything using X had it before Linux saw the light. Basically, I agree with exactly what you said. In fact, I'd go farther and say that multi-monitor features are more important to me than virtual desktops, and I bet there are more multi-mon users than people who would actually gain value from virtual desktops. Usin' multi-mon AND virtual desktops here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Frothy Posted February 3, 2008 Author Share Posted February 3, 2008 Virtual Desktops still seem like a gimmick, even for people that have open a lot of windows. I've tried virtual desktop software, and It's just not useful, with monitors going bigger and higher res, just as brandon said. But let's say I have a huge desk (with lots of paper work on top of it), demanding for Another desk(s), so that I can organize work on that one, and then juggle several desks. Having stuff all over the place. Maybe it becomes an issue of organization that can simply be solved by an intuitive UI. I for one don't think MS should waste time on a virtual desktop. Obviously you're not an information worker, if you were you would understand the value of a well implemented Virtual Desktop feature. So it seems Microsoft is missing the point if they think that a large monitor running at high resolution is all you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I know this may cause a flame war, but I think start again. Build a new OS from the ground up and have an emulator if required to run legacy apps. This way Windows can be solid, secure and reliable with having to support old products. Maybe even jump to 64bit. It can be done, Mac OS did it with the jump to OS X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I know this may cause a flame war, but I think start again. Build a new OS from the ground up and have an emulator if required to run legacy apps. This way Windows can be solid, secure and reliable with having to support old products. Maybe even jump to 64bit. It can be done, Mac OS did it with the jump to OS X. Why? Apple had to make that jump because OS9 had no concept of Protected Memory, didn't have 'real' multiuser support, and it lacked a large number of other features that basically made it useless in the modern world of computing. Windows NT doesn't have those kind of problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathachew Veteran Posted February 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted February 3, 2008 I know this may cause a flame war, but I think start again. Build a new OS from the ground up and have an emulator if required to run legacy apps. This way Windows can be solid, secure and reliable with having to support old products. Maybe even jump to 64bit. It can be done, Mac OS did it with the jump to OS X. As someone has pointed out, not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 It would allow Microsoft to draw a line and gut the Win32 API until it's lean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts