Vista and Windows 7 - reactions

[aidanjt]

It would seem that by Microsoft making Win7's UAC prompting less frequent, have managed to render it useless:
http://www.insidetech.com/news/artic..._nlet_20090203

They should just force the principle of least privilage and stop this pretend sudo'ing. At least that way it will force software developers to correctly develop their software.

[Barry]

For anyone else that wants the old style quick launch back, you can do it this way http://www.tweakwin7.com/articles/39...aunch-toolbar/

[TAKTAK]

One thing i am finding quite useful is where you shake the windows and it minimizes all other windows.

[format]

Works both ways too, shake the same window, and all the rest re-pop up again.

[magneticman]

ok I've used 7 a bit more, and I can't help but feel really disappointed.

The first issue is I've noticed is no difference in performance, I'm not sure if it's people comparing a seasoned vista/xp install to a fresh 7 one, but personally I've found it to be exactly the same as Vista.

Then all the major changes seem to be mainly aesthetic, which they can easily implement into Vista, such as the new version of Paint, Wordpad etc.

I'm sure there are numerous under the hood changes which may be crucial (I'm not knowledgeable in this field whatsoever though), but it looks to me nothing has really changed at all - other than the new less annoying UAC. Although there's already proof that the newer UAC doesn't work as well as Vista's anyway, I'm inclined to agree with people calling it a Vista update because, well, frankly that's what it really looks like.

I'm actually expecting for someone to tear me a new one and explain how it's so much better . But like the old saying goes, he who asks a question is a fool for 5 minutes, he who doesn't is a fool forever

[Emirzan]

Are you running it on the system in your 'my system' spec? If so it's not too surprising that you haven't seen much of a performance difference since it's a very powerful machine!

I've got it running on a much older machine that slowed a lot with vista. Win 7 seems to be faster and more streamlined, more like XP. A lot of the changes (as far as I can tell) are cosmetic so in my opinion it's not quite the great revelation that some are making it out to be. That said I'm impressed and think it's a good operating system, better than vista. NOT that I'm saying vista is bad, it's a very capable OS as many will atest to.

[aidanjt]

Win7/UAC security hole Mk.II.

Now malware can silently self-elevate their privilages without disabling UAC at all.

[Splash]

Win7/UAC security hole Mk.II.

Now malware can silently self-elevate their privilages without disabling UAC at all.

I gotta say it... in bowing to the whining about UAC in Vista rather than educating people as to why it's for their own good Microsoft have screwed this pretty badly, but it's easy enough to fix by making the default setting the most restrictive and throwing up a warning when you lower that threshold. As I've said elsewhere, UAC is one of the biggest things Windows has been needing since NT.

By all means, give people the ability to turn it off, tune it down or whatever (so people don't whine that they're having control of their machine removed), but make the default behaviour the most restrictive in the same way you would with a firewall.

[aidanjt]

The thing is, UAC wouldn't even be nessecery if they would just set sane default privilages.

[Splash]

not sure I follow you there Aidanjt... care to elaborate?

[aidanjt]

not sure I follow you there Aidanjt... care to elaborate?

Have the installing user set an Administrator password, hide the Administrator user behind the login screen (not disable it!). Have the installing user to set their default *standard* user account, when the computer starts they should log into their standard user account. The only time the user should need to elevate their privilages is when installing something, or adjusting a system wide setting, but those should be clearly defined as system-wide, and both scenareos should be engagable by right clicking on something and opting "Run As Administrator", which requires the Administrators password to be entered.

[Splash]

Ah I see what you mean. Problem with that being that most Windows users would find that even more confusing than the current UAC situation.

But I agree with you, and this is the 3rd time in 4 years now.

[aidanjt]

Ah I see what you mean. Problem with that being that most Windows users would find that even more confusing than the current UAC situation.

True, but I'd wager it's less confusing than "My computer is being weird!.. it just restarts all by itself! I didn't do anything!". I think the initial temporary confusion is more desireable than long term randomness. Of course, it would have helped a massive deal if Microsoft just did this way back with XP.

But I agree with you, and this is the 3rd time in 4 years now.

It's becoming a dangerous habbit.

[WannaPiEcE]

I realise it's dangerously offtopic, but you're wrong. UAC was one of the best features of Vista but it was badly received because too many peopel have been used to the security model which they have used for years where all users and apps run with root level privileges. Yes, it's Microsoft's fault that they allowed this practise to go on as long as they did but finally they do something about it and people turn it off? Now *that's* progress, people.

Seriously, running stuff under the model of least privilege is the way to do it.

Well, just to show that I know you are wrong.

I have been using Vista with UAC disabled for 2 years, and have never had any reason to enable it. No viruses, no spyware, no malware, never had anything other than a tracking cookie in the 2+ years of surfing with Vista.

And just to add a greater point that your wrong:
Vista UAC asks you so many times [Ok],[Cancel] that the average user gets so used to hitting Ok after every single little thing they do (deleting a quick launch icon for example) that they often do not read the prompt at all and hit Ok for every single thing that they inevitably one time let a virus or whatever come through and do its thing.

When you get used to hitting Ok for everything you do on Vista when something actually does happen you let it go through due to repetitiveness.

[synaesthesia]

ok I've used 7 a bit more, and I can't help but feel really disappointed.

The first issue is I've noticed is no difference in performance, I'm not sure if it's people comparing a seasoned vista/xp install to a fresh 7 one, but personally I've found it to be exactly the same as Vista.

Then all the major changes seem to be mainly aesthetic, which they can easily implement into Vista, such as the new version of Paint, Wordpad etc.

I'm sure there are numerous under the hood changes which may be crucial (I'm not knowledgeable in this field whatsoever though), but it looks to me nothing has really changed at all - other than the new less annoying UAC. Although there's already proof that the newer UAC doesn't work as well as Vista's anyway, I'm inclined to agree with people calling it a Vista update because, well, frankly that's what it really looks like.

I'm actually expecting for someone to tear me a new one and explain how it's so much better . But like the old saying goes, he who asks a question is a fool for 5 minutes, he who doesn't is a fool forever

I'd agree about implementing most the changed into Vista. However re the performance I was comparing like for like first in a VM with a freshly installed and updated XP, Vista and 7, and 7 was clearly out front in performance terms in some lower end game (tested with Quake 3, this is a VM!) and application performance (Photochop)
Then again the same on a testbed PC, on separate yet identical 80gb hard drives, the same 3 OS's, fully updated and the difference was even more noticeable. I took the opportunity to try some slightly more powerful apps - photoshop CS4 and FarCry 2 being used as the benchmarks. Oddly enough Vista came out on top in FC2 but that may be a graphics driver thing - then again I dont trust nVidia's coding as far as I can throw it. Both Vista and 7 were ahead of XP in performance in both basic app and gaming tests. I could try using PC Mark/3D mark but im not sure if penis length has much effect on the OS you use.

There's gonna be pro's and cons to each, but I'm absolutely adamant there are performance benefits in 7 that are more than noticeable even to the untrained users. BUT, and the big BUT is, I don't want to make that judgement until 7 is released and the full thing is running as intended, otherwise it's merely speculation.

[Splash]

Well, just to show that I know you are wrong.

I have been using Vista with UAC disabled for 2 years, and have never had any reason to enable it. No viruses, no spyware, no malware, never had anything other than a tracking cookie in the 2+ years of surfing with Vista.

To counterpoint that... I've had to clean up 3 laptops in the past fortnight with junk installed that UAC *would* have prevented. In each and every case UAC had been disabled because they'd read on an IT forum that it just "gets in the way"

And just to add a greater point that your wrong:
Vista UAC asks you so many times [Ok],[Cancel] that the average user gets so used to hitting Ok after every single little thing they do (deleting a quick launch icon for example) that they often do not read the prompt at all and hit Ok for every single thing that they inevitably one time let a virus or whatever come through and do its thing.

When you get used to hitting Ok for everything you do on Vista when something actually does happen you let it go through due to repetitiveness.

It's there as an extra layer. It can't save someone from their own stupidity. Let me give you a "for example".

Jimmy is installing an application with UAC active. He gets prompted and because he knows that he needs to make system level changes in order to install this application he accepts that the change is authorised. The application installs, and Jimmy continues about his business.

Billy is surfing the internets. He only ever uses trusted sites, because he read that trawling for pr0n and warez could land him in trouble, especially as he's at work. He was told by Dave in Accounts that UAC is nothing more than an annoyance, so he turned it off. He visits www.hexus.net and immediately doesn't receive a UAC prompt. What he doesn't know is that the adservers have been compromised, and one of the banners has silently installed malware on his machine. As he's not aware of it, he continues about his business only to find that a few days later his bank has been cleared out/his machine is part of a massive spam-spewing botnet/make up your own scenario.




Now I'm not saying that Hexus' adservers have been compromised, I'm using it as an example of a trusted site that serves ad banners from a third party server (at least I'm guessing that intellitxt.com is a 3rd party - it could well be owned by DR, but it serves the purpose as an example) over which they have little to no control. A UAC prompt, 5 seconds of thought is all it takes to decide if a change is authorised. If you'd prefer not to be made aware that a change is taking place and given the opportunity to stop it that's your choice, my (educated) choice is to keep UAC enabled.