I bought a new computer yesterday... it came with VISTA <gasp>!!
jerryeveretts
that all you can buy is a Vista machine now. However, I was pleasantly
suprised by both the price and performance.
I waited for the sale sheets to hit, and bought the Gateway advertised
in Best Buys flyer this week. It is an AMD Athlon64 X2 5000+, with 1
Gig of RAM, 320G SATAII HDD, and all the usuall features. It came with
Vista Home Premium, I really don't know where that falls, I think it
replaced XP Media Center. The Tower alone was on sale for $649.00, I
added another gig of RAM, and bought a new Video card, a Geforce
7900GS which was also on sale, bringing the total price to a hair over
$900.00.
I got it home, and put the memory and video card in before turning it
on. Plugged in my existing Samsung ML-1740 Laser Printer, my Harmon
Kardon Soundsticks (which I bought from the Apple store when I bought
my iMac), my Logitech G-15 Gaming Keyboard (which didn't work on my
iMac), my Logitech wireless Mouse, my 20" Dell widescreen monitor, and
my external WD USB Hard disk.
I hit the button and alive it came, it asked me my user name, and the
regular geographic questions pertaining to timezone, then it seemed to
zone out for about 2 minutes. I was wondering if it locked up, but I
could hear the hard disk running. Then it said something about being
finished setting up my configuration, and there was the desktop. No
activation, no genuineadvantage, no nothing, just up and running, and
suprisingly quick at that.
I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
The only problem I found at all, was it didn't find a driver for my
printer, but I went to Samsungs website and downloaded the driver for
Vista 32 bit, and it installed just fine. I also downloaded the latest
driver for my new video card.
I put on World of Warcraft, and it runs better than it has on any
previous computer I have ever owned. (My previous computer was a Dell
XPS400, Pentium D820, 2GB, Radeon X1900GT, and before that an iMac 20"
Gen1 Intel with 2GB RAM).
I played WOW for a bit last night, then I set up the necessary work
related stuff, VPN, remote desktop connections, ect...
Oh.. and in all fairness, I did have to uninstall a few programs,
Microsoft Office 2007 Trial (this was on my Mac as well), Mcafee
security center, MS Money, MS works, Google desktop.
I also had to install Mozilla, and Office 2003.
But, it all went off without a hitch. And it is really quiet too!
gimme_this...@yahoo.com
Zune marketplace?
Oh wait. You don't own a Zune. Sorry.
Sandman
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
At least? It's less secure and you're happy with that? :)
--
Sandman[.net]
jerryeveretts
> In article <1174916873.657789.252...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "jerryeveretts" <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> > installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> > permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> > have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
>
> At least? It's less secure and you're happy with that? :)
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]
You think typing your password over and over makes you more secure?
jerryeveretts
Nope.. I own a 60G Ipod Video. I have not installed itunes since on
Apples webpage, it states you must have XP or Win2000.
gimme_this...@yahoo.com
jerryeveretts
I really didn't want Vista, I wanted XP, but there are no more PC's
bundled with XP in the stores, and Macs suck at gaming. I was really
ready to scratch the PC and install XP, but I was quite pleasantly
suprised with Vista, and now see that is not necessary.
Edwin
Sandman is not one to let thinking get in his way.
Sandman
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> > > installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> > > permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> > > have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
> >
> > At least? It's less secure and you're happy with that? :)
>
> You think typing your password over and over makes you more secure?
No, I know it does.
--
Sandman[.net]
jerryeveretts
> In article <1174920321.160362.101...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "jerryeveretts" <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> > > > installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> > > > permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> > > > have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
>
> > > At least? It's less secure and you're happy with that? :)
>
> > You think typing your password over and over makes you more secure?
>
> No, I know it does.
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]
You could argue that OSX is more secure, and it may be... but I would
seriously doubt that it has anything to do with you typing your
password in, which could actually open up new security loopholes such
as shoulder surfing or keystroke capturing programs.
Sandman
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> > > > > installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> > > > > permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> > > > > have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
> >
> > > > At least? It's less secure and you're happy with that? :)
> >
> > > You think typing your password over and over makes you more secure?
> >
> > No, I know it does.
>
> You could argue that OSX is more secure, and it may be... but I would
> seriously doubt that it has anything to do with you typing your
> password in, which could actually open up new security loopholes such
> as shoulder surfing or keystroke capturing programs.
Well, that's the problem you see. To install a keystroke capturing
program on your Windows Vista PC, all I need to do is install it when
you're on the toilet, since all it needs is a mouse click. It doesn't
verify that it's *you* that's clicking the button, only that *someone*
clicks it. For it to be installed on my Mac, I need to give it my
password. So you can't do it even if I'm on the John.
As for shoulder surfing - if you have someone malicious as close as
your shoulder, having "security" being only a click is an even smaller
barrier to breach than watching the keyboard for the password.
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Hayes
> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
You're happy with that? Anyone can say "yes"; asking for the password
confirms that the person at the helm is authorised to say "yes".
It's a bit like a cop pulling you over for erratic driving, "Are you
drunk?" "No". "That's all right then, mind how you go."
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
gimme_this...@yahoo.com
sweet.
M$ is probably already copying it.
It's a plug in to Safari and all the other OS X browsers that lets you
use a single password for all your browsing - and you only enter it
once - when you hit your first site.
iPasswd stores all the different passwords actually used by the
browser in your OS X keychain.
Using it makes things more secure because now a password like
waes789wa can be used and you don't have to remember it.
Also, you have several options when it comes to editing your passwords
and seeing what they were after you forget them.
Really nice and really cheap.
For a videocast on what it does and how to use it visit
screencastsonline. You even get 10% off or something like that with
the SCO coupon.
jerryeveretts
> In article <1174926762.389315.287...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
OK... but I contend that "the juice isn't worth the squeeze".
jerryeveretts
Once again... is the juice worth the squeeze? I doubt anybody will be
using my computer other than me. I would rather stop for a click than
to type my password in. The latter hampers MY productivity.
>
> Peter
Sandman
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
Security isn't worth it? Well, ok :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
But we're discussing Vista here, not only your copy of Vista on your
computer. This is an advocacy group, where the OS is discussed, not
how one person uses it. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Hayes
How many times a day does Vista ask your permission? I'd see the point
if you're an IT droid installing the same apps on thousands of machines
each and every day, inputting your password could get extremely annoying
very rapidly. For most end users, password requests don't occur often
enough to hamper productivity and offer a useful layer of protection
especially in a corporate environment. Microsoft are just playing the
fool in this regard.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Dr. zara
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174916873.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Good for you, Jerry. I know that you will enjoy your new computer and
VISTA. Good luck.
PC Guy
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-9F5723.16...@News.Individual.NET...
This was done per feedback from users to Microsoft. Listening to your
customers is a foreign concept to Mac freaks who are used to being force fed
everything by Apple. But if you want to enter your password you have a
couple of choices:
1. Enable it in GP.
2. Log on with an account that is not a member of the administrators group.
Problem solved. But then this advice has already been said, and ignored,
before.
PC Guy
> In article <1174926762.3...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > > I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and
>> > > > > all
>> > > > > installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
>> > > > > permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I
>> > > > > didn't
>> > > > > have to type the administrator password in each time like on my
>> > > > > Mac.
>> >
>> > > > At least? It's less secure and you're happy with that? :)
>> >
>> > > You think typing your password over and over makes you more secure?
>> >
>> > No, I know it does.
>>
>> You could argue that OSX is more secure, and it may be... but I would
>> seriously doubt that it has anything to do with you typing your
>> password in, which could actually open up new security loopholes such
>> as shoulder surfing or keystroke capturing programs.
>
> Well, that's the problem you see. To install a keystroke capturing
> program on your Windows Vista PC, all I need to do is install it when
> you're on the toilet, since all it needs is a mouse click.
Or one could lock their workstation before heading to the toilet. Sounds
like you don't take security seriously as you leave your Mac wide open when
going to the toilet.
PC Guy
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174916873.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Congrats. It's no where near the problem the Mac freaks make it out to be.
MuahMan
Hey retard Sandman, then setup UAC to ask for your PW everytime. I can be
setup like that. I know options confuse mactard but options are good.
MuahMan
bathroom in your own house without getting your computer hacked and your p/w
stolen. LOL
Jim Lee Jr.
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What's wrong, Clyde? Have your hand and/or blow up doll been rejecting
you again lately?
Jim Lee Jr.
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe you should hang otu with better friends if you can't go to the
> bathroom in your own house without getting your computer hacked and your p/w
> stolen. LOL
You misspelled "out."
Jim Lee Jr.
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then chuck your game fetish or get a game console. Game developers are
not obligated to write Mac games. Games are not the raisons d'etre of
computers, regardless of platform.
John
> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
>
> printer, but I went to Samsungs website and downloaded the driver for
> Vista 32 bit, and it installed just fine. I also downloaded the latest
> driver for my new video card.
>
> I put on World of Warcraft, and it runs better than it has on any
> previous computer I have ever owned. (My previous computer was a Dell
> XPS400, Pentium D820, 2GB, Radeon X1900GT, and before that an iMac 20"
> Gen1 Intel with 2GB RAM).
>
> I played WOW for a bit last night, then I set up the necessary work
> related stuff, VPN, remote desktop connections, ect...
>
> Oh.. and in all fairness, I did have to uninstall a few programs,
> Microsoft Office 2007 Trial (this was on my Mac as well), Mcafee
> security center, MS Money, MS works, Google desktop.
>
> I also had to install Mozilla, and Office 2003.
>
> But, it all went off without a hitch. And it is really quiet too!
>
Congratulations on your purchase of a Vista machine. Now you will have the
same features made available on 10.4 and the Mac TWO WHOLE YEARS ago!
Jesus
> In article <1174916873.657789.252...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "jerryeveretts" <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> > permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> > have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
>
>
> Sandman[.net]
Jeez, Sandman... all kinds of people are clamoring that UAC is
annoying because you have to click "Continue" to elevate to
Administrator-level, and you're complaining it's not secure enough
(and as a result, annoying enough)... just can't please everyone, can
you? ;-)
John
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174951147....@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Actually just clicking Continue DOES NOT elevate to Admin level. To do that
one must right click on the setup file pior to running it and select "Run as
administrator" and then click Continue.
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nope. Vista tries to elevate setup files automatically, asking you to
click "continue". I'm not aware of a way to run a file Vista detected
as a setup file (denoted by a Windows Security shield on the icon) as
a non-admin user.
John
You haven't done many program installs ACTUALLY using Vista have you. I
myself have only did 300-400!
John
Try right clicking on a program icon. You'll see "Run as Administrator"
Jesus
Excuse me? Check my message header. I'm on Vista right now. Vista
automatically elevates setup files, making it an unnecessary step to
right-click and pick "Run as Administrator". I was simply pointing
out that you are flat-out wrong about Vista not elevating setup files
unless you tell it to - it automatically detects setup files and puts
a shield next to the icon to say it will ask for elevation credentials
when the icon is double-clicked. Try it. Download a Firefox setup
file and double-click it (don't right-click and pick "Run as
Administrator"). Windows will ask for elevation credentials and will
not even attempt to run the file as a limited user.
Jesus
Irrelevant. Did you read my post?
John
I know what I am talking about. Look at my posts. They are done from
Windows Mail. Applications like the latest Firefox are designed to be
installed without full administrative priviliges so one like yourself with a
very limited knowledge of Vista can install them. Try installing 200-300
old programs and see how far you get!!! You OBVIOUSLY have done few
installs of old programs or you would know this!
Windows only gives you the default priviledges of the user account you are
using. And in Windows Vista even an admin account does not assign full
admin priviledges UNLESS the setup or program icon is right clicked and "Run
as Administrator"
John
No need to read any further. Read a good book like Windows Vista Inside
Out to avoid making a further fool of yourself. I am ending this discussion
with you until you come back more "educated".
Jesus
...no you don't, and you gave yourself away by saying Firefox won't
ask for elevation. Log on to Vista with your admin account, download
Firefox, double-click it (do NOT pick "Run as Administrator), and wait
for the UAC prompt for elevation. Or are you going to try and deny
that you get a UAC prompt? Believe me, I know how UAC works.
John
I DID NOT SAY ANY PROGRAM WOULD NOT ASK FOR ELEVATION!!!! IT IS ALWAYS
ASKED FOR. Please do some reading before further making a fool of
yourself.
Snit
1174951147....@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com on 3/26/07 4:19 PM:
I have not used it enough to say, but I believe the complaint is that it
pops up a dialog far, far too often. This would explain why people wanted
the dialog to be faster to deal with and not have to type in their
passwords... Again, I have not used it enough to say one way or the other...
but there need not be a contradiction.
--
I am currently being "targeted" by a forger.
Check the headers to make sure this is not from Individual.net
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Steve de Mena
> jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
>> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
>> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
>> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
>
> confirms that the person at the helm is authorised to say "yes".
For a regular use account it asks for an
Administrator password.
But I don't think the purpose of the dialog, when
an Administrator is logged in, is to confirm that
the logged in user is an Administrator.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> Yeah, there's an application called iPasswd for OS X that is really
> sweet.
>
> M$ is probably already copying it.
>
> It's a plug in to Safari and all the other OS X browsers that lets you
> use a single password for all your browsing - and you only enter it
> once - when you hit your first site.
>
> iPasswd stores all the different passwords actually used by the
> browser in your OS X keychain.
>
> Using it makes things more secure because now a password like
> waes789wa can be used and you don't have to remember it.
>
> Also, you have several options when it comes to editing your passwords
> and seeing what they were after you forget them.
>
> Really nice and really cheap.
>
> For a videocast on what it does and how to use it visit
> screencastsonline. You even get 10% off or something like that with
> the SCO coupon.
>
There have been hundreds of these kind of programs
available in the Windows world for years.
Steve
Steve de Mena
Or you are the fool for not understanding UAC
(User Access Control) and what its options are?
Steve
jerryeveretts
> Then chuck your game fetish or get a game console. Game developers are
> not obligated to write Mac games. Games are not the raisons d'etre of
> computers, regardless of platform.
Instead of changing the job to fit the tool. I buy the right tool for
the job. And when you game.. the tool is a Windows PC.
John
Especially Vista right? With 25-30% LESS FRAMES PER SECOND THAN XP!!!
Jesus
> "jerryeveretts" <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
With an XDDM driver/DWM turned off? With a good WDDM driver?
Steve de Mena
Bzzzzzzt. That is incorrect.
The reason the "Run as administrator" option is
there is that some applications might just not
run, or not try and do something because you are
not running with the Administrator token. So you
would never see the "Click on Continue" dialog
box. In this case you can start it initially with
the "Run as administrator" option.
Steve
Steve de Mena
That explains it. You must be a lowly IT tech. I
am higher up in the IT food chain and actually
understand the architecture of the OS and UAC.
Steve
Sandman
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> > > installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> > > permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> > > have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
> >
> > At least? It's less secure and you're happy with that? :)
>
> Jeez, Sandman... all kinds of people are clamoring that UAC is
> annoying because you have to click "Continue" to elevate to
> Administrator-level, and you're complaining it's not secure enough
Exactly. It's just annoying, not secure. If it at least were secure,
then I could live with the annoyance.
For the record, I don't think it's annoying, just not necessary. I
think people think it's annoying because they feel it's not useful.
"Why on earth do I have to click that damned button all the time??" as
opposed to "Ah, it wants my password, what of course - it's for
security!" :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know what I am talking about. Look at my posts. They are done from
> > Windows Mail. Applications like the latest Firefox are designed to be
> > installed without full administrative priviliges so one like yourself with a
> > very limited knowledge of Vista can install them. Try installing 200-300
> > old programs and see how far you get!!! You OBVIOUSLY have done few
> > installs of old programs or you would know this!
> >
> > Windows only gives you the default priviledges of the user account you are
> > using. And in Windows Vista even an admin account does not assign full
> > admin priviledges UNLESS the setup or program icon is right clicked and "Run
> > as Administrator"
>
> ...no you don't, and you gave yourself away by saying Firefox won't
> ask for elevation. Log on to Vista with your admin account, download
> Firefox, double-click it (do NOT pick "Run as Administrator), and wait
> for the UAC prompt for elevation. Or are you going to try and deny
> that you get a UAC prompt? Believe me, I know how UAC works.
I think you're beginning to see the reason why I have John killfiled :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<peejster01-FD77B...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Eh? Games is the ONLY reason to get Windows, for instance.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> >> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> >> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> >> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
> >
> > You're happy with that? Anyone can say "yes"; asking for the password
> > confirms that the person at the helm is authorised to say "yes".
>
> For a regular use account it asks for an
> Administrator password.
But that's not the default account type. In an advocacy group,
non-standard settings are just a note, not the target of comparison.
> But I don't think the purpose of the dialog, when
> an Administrator is logged in, is to confirm that
> the logged in user is an Administrator.
To underscore how insecure it is? :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-059A74.08...@News.Individual.NET on 3/27/07 12:29 AM:
> In article <1174951147....@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
>>>> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
>>>> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
>>>> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
>>>
>>> At least? It's less secure and you're happy with that? :)
>>
>> Jeez, Sandman... all kinds of people are clamoring that UAC is
>> annoying because you have to click "Continue" to elevate to
>> Administrator-level, and you're complaining it's not secure enough
>
> Exactly.
I find it a shame, Sandman, that you snipped Jesus's post the way you did...
it was not honorable of you to do so.
--
I am currently being "targeted" by a forger.
Check the headers to make sure this is not from Individual.net
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
You have repeatedly kill filed me - or claimed to - when I have pointed out
your lies and deceptions. You wait a bit, claim that you can see my posts
are better(?!) and then troll me a bit more before you KF me again. The
last time you claimed to KF me was just recently when I pointed out your
dishonest accusations about my playing some game with the capitalization of
names and the time before that was when I pointed out your lies about CSS
and forged documents.
I bring these up because your post makes it sound like you KF people because
of wrong doing on *their* part, but, at least in my case, that is anything
but true. You claim to KF me when you know your lies have backed you into a
corner.
--
I am currently being "targeted" by a forger.
Check the headers to make sure this is not from Individual.net
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Snit
> In article <46088c7a$0$504$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
>>>> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
>>>> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
>>>> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
>>>
>>> You're happy with that? Anyone can say "yes"; asking for the password
>>> confirms that the person at the helm is authorised to say "yes".
>>
>> For a regular use account it asks for an
>> Administrator password.
>
> But that's not the default account type. In an advocacy group,
> non-standard settings are just a note, not the target of comparison.
I do not believe tabs are the default/standard in Safari... does that mean
that IE 7 has better tab support than Safari? The standard on OS X's dock
is to have magnification turned on... shall we discuss the weakness of that
in comparison to the task bar?
>
>> But I don't think the purpose of the dialog, when
>> an Administrator is logged in, is to confirm that
>> the logged in user is an Administrator.
>
> To underscore how insecure it is? :)
The idea is pretty simple: the standard purpose of the dialog is to inform
the user, *not* to check to see if the user is authorized. You can debate
if it should or should make this check or when it should make this check and
there can be reasoned disagreement, but you show little understanding of
what the dialog is even for.
--
I am currently being "targeted" by a forger.
Check the headers to make sure this is not from Individual.net
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Smit
news:C22E0BB8.7BE6F%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
> I do not believe
so obvious that you have a arguement based on your beliefs. dont you have
some better arguement to make?
Peter Hayes
And perhaps thereby informing an unauthorised user that the machine is
running as Administrator.
The real danger with these dialogs is that the user becomes conditioned
to clicking "yes". If a bit of spyware tries to install itself the box
pops up and the user clicks "yes" as a conditioned reflex. Entering a
password offers a significant opportunity for the user to stop and
question why they're being asked for the password.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Peter Hayes
Vista's UAC seems to be too complex for its own good. What hope has Joe
Bloggs got to understand it?
Peter Hayes
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-059A74.08...@News.Individual.NET on 3/27/07 12:29 AM:
>
> > In article <1174951147....@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> >>>> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> >>>> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> >>>> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
> >>>
> >>> At least? It's less secure and you're happy with that? :)
> >>
> >> Jeez, Sandman... all kinds of people are clamoring that UAC is
> >> annoying because you have to click "Continue" to elevate to
> >> Administrator-level, and you're complaining it's not secure enough
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> I find it a shame, Sandman, that you snipped Jesus's post the way you did...
> it was not honorable of you to do so.
There's nothing wrong with the snippage - the whole concept of clicking
this box every time is pointless.
I suspect it's nothing more than a Microsoft gimmick to pretend to the
user that Vista is secure. Secure Vista may be, but this dialog
contributes exactly nothing to that security, indeed it probably has a
negative effect since users will either click as a conditioned reflex or
disable the whole UAC shebang entirely out of annoyance.
jerryeveretts
That might have been the case with the first round of drivers, or with
marginal or sub-par hardware. This is a subject I DO know something
about. My previous Dell was a Pentium D 820, with 2GB of Ram and a
Radeon X1900GT and XP Pro, I would see about 35fps in front of the
Ironforge Auction House. My new box is an Athlon64X2 5000+ with 2GB
Ram, a Geforce 7900GS and Vista Home Premium. I am seeing about 48FPS
in front of the Auctionhouse, these are both at 1680x1050 on a 20"
widescreen. As an example, my 20" iMac at the same resolution would
drop down into the teens at the same place under OSX, and into the
20's with XP.
jerryeveretts
OH... and thought you might be interested...
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6164940/p-3.html
Snit
1hvmnlu.rjehyk1un02kmN%noti...@btinternet.com on 3/27/07 3:34 AM:
True. Even more true if the dialog pops up too often - which by reports it
does.
--
I am currently being "targeted" by a forger.
Check the headers to make sure this is not from Individual.net
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Snit
I have no disagreement with different opinions about the dialog... but
please, let's keep the discussion honest.
If what you said is true then why would MS have a way to set the dialog to
require a password?
--
I am currently being "targeted" by a forger.
Check the headers to make sure this is not from Individual.net
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Peter Hayes
Let's ask the same question the other way round. Why would MS create a
dialog that merely requires someone, anyone, the cleaner, the cat, to
click "ok"? It's conceived more for image than for usefulness.
John
Read some test reports EVERY one has found significantly slower frame rates
as compared to XP for major games.
Jesus
> In article <46088c7a$0$504$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> > >> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> > >> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> > >> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
>
> > > You're happy with that? Anyone can say "yes"; asking for the password
> > > confirms that the person at the helm is authorised to say "yes".
>
> > For a regular use account it asks for an
> > Administrator password.
>
> But that's not the default account type. In an advocacy group,
> non-standard settings are just a note, not the target of comparison.
Actually, it is. "Standard" (previously "Limited") is now the default
account type. It also has stuff all over urging you to make a
"Standard" account, such as a link to help where it explains why
"Standard" accounts are safer.
>
> > But I don't think the purpose of the dialog, when
> > an Administrator is logged in, is to confirm that
> > the logged in user is an Administrator.
>
> To underscore how insecure it is? :)
It's better than the old system where everything ran with
Administrator privileges without confirmation... now if something's
trying to elevate itself in the background (such as a spyware
installer), I can click cancel. Also, if you go with the default
Standard account level, you have to type an Administrator password to
elevate to Admin level, which is similar to OS X's system of requiring
you to type your password (except Vista doesn't remember preferences
being unlocked... it asks to be elevated for each task).
Jesus
Did you read Jerry's link? What do you think that is? I don't see
any significantly-lower results except for machines with 512 MB of
memory, which is not enough for Vista.
Snit
The dialog is there to inform... though I agree that it likely does not
fulfill that function well.
--
I am currently being "targeted" by a forger.
Check the headers to make sure this is not from Individual.net
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Steve de Mena
> Vista's UAC seems to be too complex for its own good. What hope has Joe
> Bloggs got to understand it?
>
He doesn't. The default are set correctly for Joe
Bloggs.
Steve
Steve de Mena
Drivers not tuned up yet probably accounts for a
lot of that. They were much slower coming out of
the gate (new drivers) than I would have expected.
What until the new Vista-only DirectX10 graphics
come out.
Steve
jerryeveretts
> Drivers not tuned up yet probably accounts for a
> lot of that. They were much slower coming out of
> the gate (new drivers) than I would have expected.
>
> What until the new Vista-only DirectX10 graphics
> come out.
>
> Steve
Indeed, bitching about frame rates this early in the life cycle is
very much like bitching about photoshop performance under Rosetta
before the UB version.
However, with that being said, the performance is comparable to XP
today, and drivers and software are getting better every day. I would
fully expect gaming on Vista to surpass that on XP, just like every
version of Windows before it.
Sandman
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> > > >> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> > > >> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> > > >> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
> >
> > > > You're happy with that? Anyone can say "yes"; asking for the password
> > > > confirms that the person at the helm is authorised to say "yes".
> >
> > > For a regular use account it asks for an
> > > Administrator password.
> >
> > But that's not the default account type. In an advocacy group,
> > non-standard settings are just a note, not the target of comparison.
>
> Actually, it is. "Standard" (previously "Limited") is now the default
> account type. It also has stuff all over urging you to make a
> "Standard" account, such as a link to help where it explains why
> "Standard" accounts are safer.
Ok, you're not making sense here. You're saying that a limited account
is the default account type in Vista, and the limited account type
asks for your admin password when escalating privileges, yet we both
know that it doesn't ask for the password, it just asks you to click a
button. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other?
> > > But I don't think the purpose of the dialog, when
> > > an Administrator is logged in, is to confirm that
> > > the logged in user is an Administrator.
> >
> > To underscore how insecure it is? :)
>
> It's better than the old system where everything ran with
> Administrator privileges without confirmation...
Agreed.
> now if something's
> trying to elevate itself in the background (such as a spyware
> installer), I can click cancel.
I.e. just like on a Mac! :-D
> Also, if you go with the default
> Standard account level, you have to type an Administrator password to
> elevate to Admin level
Now you've lost me. I have the standard account on my Vista box right
here. It never ever asks me for my password other than when I'm
logging in.
--
Sandman[.net]
Jesus
> In article <1175030601.329947.30...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> I installed a bunch of legacy programs not written for Vista, and all
> > > > >> installed and ran without a hitch, although it did ask for my
> > > > >> permission at the beginning of each install, but at least I didn't
> > > > >> have to type the administrator password in each time like on my Mac.
>
> > > > > You're happy with that? Anyone can say "yes"; asking for the password
> > > > > confirms that the person at the helm is authorised to say "yes".
>
> > > > For a regular use account it asks for an
> > > > Administrator password.
>
> > > But that's not the default account type. In an advocacy group,
> > > non-standard settings are just a note, not the target of comparison.
>
> > Actually, it is. "Standard" (previously "Limited") is now the default
> > account type. It also has stuff all over urging you to make a
> > "Standard" account, such as a link to help where it explains why
> > "Standard" accounts are safer.
>
> Ok, you're not making sense here. You're saying that a limited account
> is the default account type in Vista, and the limited account type
> asks for your admin password when escalating privileges, yet we both
> know that it doesn't ask for the password, it just asks you to click a
> button. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other?
I think we are. If you're running as an Administrator, you just have
to click "Continue". If you're running as a Standard (formerly
"limited") user, it is impossible to escalate yourself to admin status
without a member of the Administrator group typing their password.
This is different from the behavior in older versions of NT, where
operations that required admin privileges would just fail if you
weren't an Administrator.
>
> > > > But I don't think the purpose of the dialog, when
> > > > an Administrator is logged in, is to confirm that
> > > > the logged in user is an Administrator.
>
> > > To underscore how insecure it is? :)
>
> > It's better than the old system where everything ran with
> > Administrator privileges without confirmation...
>
> Agreed.
>
> > now if something's
> > trying to elevate itself in the background (such as a spyware
> > installer), I can click cancel.
>
> I.e. just like on a Mac! :-D
>
> > Also, if you go with the default
> > Standard account level, you have to type an Administrator password to
> > elevate to Admin level
>
> Now you've lost me. I have the standard account on my Vista box right
> here. It never ever asks me for my password other than when I'm
> logging in.
Your account must be a member of the Administrators group, then. If
you had an Administrator account but then logged on with a separate
Standard account, Vista would require the password for your
Administrator account whenever a program asked to be elevated to
Administrator privileges.
Sandman
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, you're not making sense here. You're saying that a limited account
> > is the default account type in Vista, and the limited account type
> > asks for your admin password when escalating privileges, yet we both
> > know that it doesn't ask for the password, it just asks you to click a
> > button. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other?
>
> I think we are. If you're running as an Administrator, you just have
> to click "Continue".
I'm running as the default account type. I'm assuming, by your words,
that that means I'm running as an Admin.
> If you're running as a Standard (formerly
> "limited") user, it is impossible to escalate yourself to admin status
> without a member of the Administrator group typing their password.
Yeah, just like on a Mac. Well, it's true for both account types, only
if you're an admin, you only have to type your password, not have the
admin come in an type his or hers password :)
> This is different from the behavior in older versions of NT, where
> operations that required admin privileges would just fail if you
> weren't an Administrator.
Ok.
> > Now you've lost me. I have the standard account on my Vista box right
> > here. It never ever asks me for my password other than when I'm
> > logging in.
>
> Your account must be a member of the Administrators group, then.
Which is the default account.
> If you had an Administrator account but then logged on with a separate
> Standard account, Vista would require the password for your
> Administrator account whenever a program asked to be elevated to
> Administrator privileges.
So, I have the default account, which is the admin account (just like
in XP), which makes this from you seem at odds at that:
"Also, if you go with the default Standard account level, you have
to type an Administrator password to elevate to Admin level"
I'm reading that as if you're saying that the default account type is
the limited account type, which my account isn't, and mine is the
default.
Bad wording on your part or misunderstanding on mine? :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Jesus
> In article <1175118186.751952.240...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Bad job of me noting an exception: the first account created during
setup (the account for the person installing Vista) is a member of the
Administrators group. All future accounts are Standard (limited)
accounts by default. if you went to User Accounts now and tried to
create a new user account, Vista would try to prod you into not making
the account a member of the Administrators group.
Sandman
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you had an Administrator account but then logged on with a separate
> > > Standard account, Vista would require the password for your
> > > Administrator account whenever a program asked to be elevated to
> > > Administrator privileges.
> >
> > So, I have the default account, which is the admin account (just like
> > in XP), which makes this from you seem at odds at that:
> >
> > "Also, if you go with the default Standard account level, you have
> > to type an Administrator password to elevate to Admin level"
> >
> > I'm reading that as if you're saying that the default account type is
> > the limited account type, which my account isn't, and mine is the
> > default.
> >
> > Bad wording on your part or misunderstanding on mine? :)
>
> Bad job of me noting an exception: the first account created during
> setup (the account for the person installing Vista) is a member of the
> Administrators group. All future accounts are Standard (limited)
> accounts by default.
Gotcha. So the only difference is that new accounts have limited
checked instead of Admin, as opposed to Windows XP, where new accoutns
have admin preselected.
--
Sandman[.net]