OSNews

>"upgrade"from XP.

Not shure that word means what you think it means.

I guarentee you it is the hardware (even if it is the drivers that are causing it).

no other os crashes at all but vista. Its not the hardware. (and drivers are software too, so if its the drivers, no.. its not the hardware)

The only way I got Vista to BSoD was to install an older version of Symantec Anti-Virus that MS, Symantec and Vista all said would not be compatible and would not work.

What's the event log say? Is it a driver?

Why should bad drivers bring down an entire OS? And wasn't this one of the much-touted improvements of Vista, the fact that the entired driver stack had been re-written from graphic to sound card drivers?

I honestly find it amusing the kinds of excuses some of you can come up for the lack of quality assurance and proper design principles in Microsoft products.

Just give the hardware vendors some time to rewrite their drivers. I'm sure every piece of hardware will get tremendous support (just as they do now with windows xp) when the OS is actually released to consumers in January '07

Why should bad drivers bring down an entire OS? And wasn't this one of the much-touted improvements of Vista, the fact that the entired driver stack had been re-written from graphic to sound card drivers?

So maybe it's not a graphic or sound card driver? Honestly, I don't know of any OS that can stand up to shitty drivers. Sure, the entire OS might not go down in all cases, but generally, it has some sort of unpleasent side effects. For example, if the entire screen goes blank and I have to kill the desktop envrioment, that's not a whole lot better than an OS crash, especially when it takes longer to boot back into the DE than it does to reboot the Windows OS.

And for those who are complaining about the price, the problem isn't that it's too expensive - the problem is you can't afford it

Technically, a Microkernel-based operating system should not crash if one server goes down.

However, "Technically" and what actually tends to happen aren't always the same thing.

If you're going to bash the new Windows, bash it. Don't gripe about little things that ALWAYS crop up on a new OS.

By equating free and monetary value, you have completely missed the point of Linux's "freeness."

In fact, commerical versions of Linux cost money, yet they are still free.

Edited 2006-12-04 04:02

"In fact, commerical versions of Linux cost money, yet they are still free."
huh?

Although this thread really should be about Windows (or at least Vista's relationship to Linux), I'll help you out here.

Linux is licensed under the GPL - GNU Public License.

The GPL is basically the guarantee of the following definition:

"The Free Software Definition

We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.

Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
"

You can read it indepth at the GNU website, here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">Free

Edited 2006-12-04 04:14

1) Not everybody that do not totally submit without any question to the magic wonders of mount Vista is a Linux user. Stop getting off on thinking that everyones brainwashed who doesn't use the magic wonders of Vista.

2) Why does most people use Windows ? Because they get it preinstalled. That is also how Vista will enter the marked, preinstalled.

Well it seems like you where born in a Windows bobble, have lived al of your life in a Windows bobble and will end your days in a Windows bobble - with no comprehension of what is going on outside.

"I don't think the price issue is an arguable point. It's definitely expensive. What annoys me is that there are a lot of linux fanboys/windows haters that would still hate windows even if it was $50. It seems like there are quite a few of those types here. Stop getting off on thinking that everyones brainwashed who doesn't use the uber l337 Linux."

That would be me! :-)

These threads usually turn to flaming between windows and linux users so I decided to start it off. my apologies

Ohh... that really makes sense! I'm going to start the flamefest before anyone else! Yeah!

Please keep using Windows, you deserve it.

Now, nice review Thom, it's good to see an objective view from Vista. Last version I tested was Beta 2 and I'm not likely to buy the thing, so it's nice to see a fanboysm-free review.

No, people use Windows because:

(a) They are gamers, and due to market momentum, most games are written for Windows.

(b) They do not know, or do not want to know, or do not want to take the time to know, or do not have the time to learn, about computers and operating systems. Increasingly, being computer savvy is less and less important to have a decent Linux desktop experience, but I wouldn't say that Linux is a drop-in replacement for people who are not computer enthusiasts. Not yet, anyway.

(c) They are convinced that there is no other alternative, or just don't care about their operating system. Or claim not to. Amazing how many people claim to be completely disinterested in their computers but ask me why their system is so slow (spyware and crufted-to-oblivion registry) and ask me to fix it every few months. Or why they're BSOD'ing suddenly, or why their OS has a tendency to "rot."

(d) Windows is installed on the computer when they buy it.

(e) They are forced to use Windows because they use Windows-only software, or their office or educational institution uses it.

You may well feel that Linux is "so terrible that no one cares it's free," but I think you're really just talking about yourself. Most people have no opinion on Linux, because most people haven't ever tried it.

And they haven't tried it, because of the reasons above.

Sorry you had a bad Linux experience. Many of us have been using it for years and wouldn't dream of switching to Windows. You are not alone in your opinion that Linux is terrible, but I doubt that represents the prevalent opinion, or reason, why people do not use Linux. As I said, I doubt most people have any opinion on Linux at all, at least here in the USA where a lot of people haven't even heard of it. If I was going to bash Linux, that's where I'd start.

The same reasons probably hold true for Macs, except that Apple actually does (fairly clever) advertising so people are at least vaguely familiar with Macs even if they've never used one. The success of the iPod and lifestyle branding, as well as the common sentiment about Apples among those who don't use them (mainly positive as far as I can tell) will hopefully lead to increased market share. Apple should really scale up their campaign to get cheap Apples into schools. They've always made inroads into education, and they should ramp this up as an investment.

Because I'm pretty convinced that if junior uses an Apple in school, it will drive computer purchases at home, which will lead to greater corporate presence when junior grows up and can make decisions for his company, IT-wise.

A good percentage of people in my high school had Apple //e's (I hate nouns that can't be pluralized in a reasonable manner, so please forgive the apostrophe) at home, because when I was in high school, that's what most of the school used. Many people's only exposure to programming was via BASIC or LOGO (eek) on an Apple //e. When I was in college at a fairy sizable American university, the core curriculum required an intro to computers course which covered spreadsheets, word processing, and (inexplicably) BASIC programming.

This course was taught on, and required the use of, Macs. Most non-technical students at the University used Macs for the rest of their college days as a result of this. Most of the labs had about 20 Macs for each ill-maintained, lonely, fairly sad looking DOS-based PC.

I was was one of the few people who used the PC (I had one in my apartment, which I bought because I wanted to run DOS-based BBS software at the time; otherwise, I probably would have bought a Mac.) I have to wonder if the prevalence of Macs at my university was a result of my state's preference for Apples in middle schools and high schools.

Linux has no significant capitalization behind it for the desktop market (Novell's promotional efforts thus far do not impress me), and I doubt any company is willing to step forward and provide a lot of discounted hardware running Linux into schools.

This might be an interesting charity project - raise money from Linux users to purchase computer labs running Linux for underfunded school districts here in the USA. In the long run, this can only increase popularity (and hopefully adoption) of Linux on the desktop, while at the same time serving a public good. Win-win scenario, unless you're Microsoft.

Without television advertising, widespread pre-installation on new systems, or extensive use in schools, at least in the United States where I live, I doubt Linux will ever take a significant chunk of the desktop market. The only place I ever see Linux mentioned on TV is in corporate server commercials, such as ones by IBM.

To this day, the cliche that Linux is great on servers but not ready for the desktop persists. Which makes no sense to me based on my own personal experience, but who am I to challenge this Great Law of OS Physics, where Linux must perpetually be "not ready for the desktop?" I am not an anarchist and I certainly do not want to challenge the authority of our dark masters at the Gartner Group, either. Papal infallibility is not something to be trifled with.

I hope to one day eat these words. I understand that much of the rest of the world is more Linux-positive, and I think there's something to be said for Americans to be more familiar with Linux as networks, businesses, and educational institutions become increasingly more international.

As for the "OS ecosystem" of the internet and security concerns related to that, I think it's in everyone's interest to have more hetereogeneity.

And a question for people who solidly identify as Windows users, and I honestly do not know what the answer to this question is - how many of you use Windows because you actively like it, as opposed to disliking or for other reasons not being able to use something else? Have you used Macs and Linux machines at all? Was it frustration with these that make you use Windows or do you just, like, completely dig Windows?

Now, how about Mac and Linux users?

I imagine that most people use Windows grudgingly, because other OSes lack an important feature or compatibility with something they need to do, rather than out of enthusiasm for Microsoft (or because they just hate other operating systems more.) But I could be wrong.

I actively like Linux, and I know that most Mac users actively like Macs and the OS X series of operating systems. Same is true of xBSD users.

Now the Timex Sinclair. Not ready for the desktop. Boy I'll tellya....

So maybe it's not a graphic or sound card driver? Honestly, I don't know of any OS that can stand up to shitty drivers. Sure, the entire OS might not go down in all cases, but generally, it has some sort of unpleasent side effects. For example, if the entire screen goes blank and I have to kill the desktop envrioment, that's not a whole lot better than an OS crash, especially when it takes longer to boot back into the DE than it does to reboot the Windows OS.

Most operating systems do not crash because of poor drivers. A bad driver may mean loss of internet connectivity or no sound or no graphical server, but never a complete lock-up. Claiming that a hard crash where you may lose your data to a corrupted file system or due to unsaved work is in the same ballpark is a very large stretch.

Most people that use a Unix or Linux know that they can restart their session quicly by doing Ctrl+Alt+Backspace or that they can type startx at the screen to get back to a graphical environment. Both of these options take seconds.

If your driver is buggy, you can always turn to Vesa, which is good enough for everything except gaming, which means that you can have a stable operating system while you wait for a better driver.

Please stop making excuses for things that are inexcusable. An operating system should not crash in the XXI century.

An operating system should not crash in the XXI century.

Any monolitic-kernel OS can be crashed by bad driver, because drivers run in kernel space.

Most people that use a Unix or Linux know that they can restart their session quicly by doing Ctrl+Alt+Backspace or that they can type startx at the screen to get back to a graphical environment. Both of these options take seconds.

In reality, with buggy driver you'll receive kernel panic on "Unix or Linux" in same way as on NT4/5 or OSX.

Edited 2006-12-04 20:21

My comment was "Most people that use a Unix or Linux know that they can restart their session quicly by doing Ctrl+Alt+Backspace or that they can type startx at the screen to get back to a graphical environment. Both of these options take seconds."

You said"In reality, with buggy driver you'll receive kernel panic on "Unix or Linux" in same way as on NT4/5 or OSX."

X11/Xorg do not run in kernel space. And while your point is theoretically true, I have never seen a Linux box crash hard on hardware that was functional.

This is helped by the fact that many eyes do indeed make all bugs shallow and the kernel and driver quality is indeed very high.

In windows land, you are at the expense of the driver team do jour working to get a device to market as fast as possible with little concern for the devicer or its drivers six months after it was released. This is one of the reasons why you often have abysmal driver quality or simply forsaken hardware in proprietary operating systems.

One of the main points with a client-server based OS is that no device driver should be able to pull down the OS.

It is a very typical reaction to blame everything on anything but Windows.

If it is an out-of-the-box driver as I suspect, then it also is certified. Should a certified driver behave this way ?

You guarantee it? Only from the rather vague description "BSOD on every boot" you guarantee it's the hardware?

Let me just say... wao.

It's a fairly safe bet (given that he's including drivers in this), but just not a very useful point.

Let's look at it: 90% Windows Vista Installs don't BSOD on boot. Lots of virtual-memory/SFC etc. protection is built in to prevent rogue software from screwing up the install. so it's likely to be one of:
1) faulty ram (hardware)
2) Dodgy driver (driver)
3) File Corruption (hdd = hardware)
4) Dodgy bios (hardware)
5) Hardware with bad Id (hardware)
6) Not enough ram and no pagefile (harware - kinda)

It's not very likely to be a core vista problem directly. It could be attributed to fault-intolerance though I guess.

It's funny how people blame it on hardware or drivers, it can never be the OS right?

If for some reason Windows doesn't shut your computer down properly, most lightly a important system files will corrupt. This happened to me in Vista so you see same old problems. So what's this, OS or filesystem, no lets blame it on the HD since the OS is never to blame is it?

I concur with CPUGuy... almost certainly driver problems.

Additonally, keep the price of Ultimate in perspective.

Barring discounts, the most expensive version of XP (XP Professional) was only $299.00 (barring discounts). This product is analogous to Windows Vista Business which is also $299.00. Ultimate adds a whole slew of new features.

Seems like a fair price to me.

I believe I'm going to end up with "Windows Vista Home Premium" with my upgrade plan. Whatever that means.

I have an extreme distaste for Windows.

That said, this is a brand new Operating System and it is bound to have flaws that need to be fixed here and there. Given the extremely vast amount of 3rd party hardware out there, it is not unusual to have some flaky hardware cause problems.

Not that I'll ever know, I'm already free.

Hey, you know what happens when I call the wrong driver on my system? I get a shell. After a quick 'sudo nano /etc/X11/xorg.conf' I am back up and running in my sweet Gnome world. Know what happens when you use the wrong driver in Vista? BSOD!
j/k I do think that Vista is a massive step forward and I hope that it truly is as stable and secure in the real world as it is on paper.
It is kinda strange though, that in this day & age we don't have more systems that can live through a bad driver and will ultimately result in a BSOD and/or a complete inability to boot the system.

I dont know what he did, but in xp, when you have a bad driver (and maybe an BSOD(not very common) or a reboot loop(this is quite common)) you go into safe mode and just unistalld it.

I dont know what he did, but in xp, when you have a bad driver (and maybe an BSOD(not very common) or a reboot loop(this is quite common)) you go into safe mode and just unistalld it.

Very convenient during online game play :-)

Yep. Sounds like your hardware, or the installation is duff. Did you clean your machine down before installing Vista, or did you install it over XP?

Price is my problem. I won't get Vista until I get a new computer and that's a couple of years down the road at least. I might have upgraded this computer but I can't justify the money.

For a dyed in the wool windows fanboi, you sure don't know your own products very well.

I don't think windows Vista Home is quite the same thing as windows Vista Ultimate e7e37 Hax0r Premium or whatever the hell the $600 windows is called..

I'd like to see notparker put his money where his mouth is and buy that computer for bob. Or at the very least, he should be kind and give bob a Windows Vista Home Edition license if it's sooo cheap.

Edited 2006-12-04 10:46

I'd like to see notparker put his money where his mouth is and buy that computer for bob. Or at the very least, he should be kind and give bob a Windows Vista Home Edition license if it's sooo cheap.

Actually, the system came with Vista Home Premium which comes with all the Media Center stuff. Add a TV Tuner (for 50$) and you have a a Media Center PC too. Excellent bargain to get all that hardware and Vista too.

Edited 2006-12-04 16:34

That's not a bad deal. Personally, I'm waiting for dual-slot quad-core to hit the market and come down a little in price. I almost bought a Intel core duo 6800E with 2 gigs of ram. I got looking around and quad core hitting the market is just around the corner as well as there are working examples of dual-slot quad-core already. I figure if I wait just a couple of years and suffer with this P4 I'm running, I'll get in when the technology is much faster (1 duo core vs 2 quad core) and there will be more software that takes advantage of it.

Also, I build my own, always. I can always beat Dell's or anyone else's price when I build my own. And I don't need their support, I do that myself. The intergration can be nice but that's never sold me.

And I'll probably get Ultimate instead of one of the neutered versions. That's another reason for waiting cause I'll be able to get prices much lower than retail after things settle down. I'm not paying $300-400 dollars on Vista. I might pay $150, but we'll see what the market is like then.

Vista Premium 700.00
Office 2007 400.00
Watching some Jack_ss pay that much to MS
Priceless
Snaker is a happy Ubuntu user

Vista Premium 700.00

I notice that the FOSS have some sort of bidding war to see who can raise the price of Vista well past its real price to try and make an irrelevant point.

Actualy pricing:

Full Version
•Vista Ultimate: $399
•Vista Business: $299
•Vista Home Premium: $239
•Vista Home Basic: $199

Upgrade
•Vista Ultimate: $259
•Vista Business: $199
•Vista Home Premium: $159
•Vista Home Basic: $99

Modded down as Spam/Advertisement.

It wouldn't be because you dislike references that blow away arguments that Vista is too expensive?

No, I modded it down because of OSNews' strict policy against advertisements in comments.

Do I think that Vista is too expensive? Well, comparing to Ubuntu it is, yeah. And I do know for a fact that many people around me are put off by the pricing scheme.

On the other hand, I understand that MS is bleeding money in every division by OS and Office, and that they need to guarantee new revenue streams, so they have to overcharge their products. I also know that as someone who is completely sold to MS (and who may very well be a MS employee), there's now way you could ever agree that Vista is too expensive.

So, the only think we can say *objectively* is that Vista is several orders of magnitude more expensive than Ubuntu, without offering significant advantages over it. The only reason Vista will make money is that people will be obligated to pay for it when they buy a new system...

Now you are being silly. You modded it down because I won't let you bully me

No, I did not. I modded it because it was advertizing. If you think it's unwarranted, ask the OSNews editor to revert it.

I don't need to bully you to prove you wrong. In fact, you give most of the references I need to show that your arguments don't hold water.

Always accusing someone who makes a choice about the OS they run as being a Microsoft employee.

It's not paranoia. I have yet to read a *single* post from you that is heavily pro-MS and anti-Linux.

FYI, I have stated many times that Windows is actually a good OS. I prefer Linux, but I have nothing against those that prefer Windows (which I also use daily). You, on the other hand, have never shown such even-handedness.

You people are weird.

Again with insults and generalizations, and then *you* have the gall to say that I try to bully you (the singular you, by the way: I'm not talking to anyone else here...). Do you really think anyone will be gullible enough to fall for such a blatant trick?

Out of curiousity, what features require the other OS's to play catch up to Vista?

I was/am under the impression this release is about Microsoft catching up to the rest of the industry.

Wow.

Suddently if something is deemed "too expensive" then the people who buy that something are labeled fanboys. lol

I was sooo wondering when the Waaahhhgon was gonna arrive.

I wasn't calling everybody that will buy it a fanboy, just the ones that will pay anything to get it.

Truth hurts, huh?

1) Microsoft are entitled to use whatever license they want. After all its their software.

My problem is how they enforce their licensing in Vista and XP. Activation and WGA makes you dependent on Microsoft even after money have changed hands. This means that the customer ends up in a hostage situation.

What if Microsoft are no longer there for you to get a new activation key when you have replaced a faulty mother board not that I find it very likely that MS should go out of business, but it could happen.

After all who expected the fall of Soviet Union even in the late 1980s, who expected Great Britain to be at war with Argentina over the Falklands. Speaking international conflicts, there may be situations where you may be prohibited from getting a new keys due to such conflicts. At least non US governments should consider these kind of things. The world is not as safe as it used to be.

It may also be a problem for future digital archeology, i.e. how to restore and use data from since long abandoned platforms. If you talk to a Microsoft salesperson he will probably assure you that Microsoft will provide keys forever, but can we be sure that really happens. As far as I know there is nothing EUALA that grants the user the right to that kind of service. Even if they will provide such services, it be free or will you have to sign up for some extended software support agreement (assuming you originally payed for the OS). Paying a little extra money for some to get some old file you really need may be acceptable for a company, but what about a public library or sombody having genealogy as a hobby. This may lead to losses of cultural values in the long run.

Even if you can live with the minimal risk of being cut of from Microsoft, the new volume activation schemes in Vista will increase the software management costs in business.


2) Yes, I agree, it sounds a bit expensive. This will put very high pressure on hardware prices. People will expect to pay the same amount of money or less for a computer that they do today.

This may force small and medium sized hardware vendors out of business. Fewer hardware companies will mean less competition and higher prices.

There is of course the chance that hardware vendors that find Vista too expensive will ship their boxes with some alternative OS such as Linux, but the problem is that Linux will not run the programs people are used to and this will limit their market.

"What if Microsoft are no longer there for you to get a new activation key when you have replaced a faulty mother board not that I find it very likely that MS should go out of business, but it could happen. "

Or worse yet, what if Windows decides that it doesn't like the look of your mp3 collection... and locks up your data until your pay restitution to the RIAA.

what if Windows decides that it doesn't like the look of your mp3 collection... and locks up your data until your pay restitution to the RIAA.

What if space aliens come down and eat our brains? Our precious brains!

We can all make up entirely inane "what if?" scenarios with no basis in reality; it's sad that this is all the closed-source/Vista/Microsoft-bashers have to offer. It's sadder that such scenarios are being modded up while the voices of reason are being modded down.

But that's what OSNews is all about these days.

Both cases are possible.
You shouldn't simply discount them as inane just because you feel safe right now.
Like the other poster said, nobody ever imagined the fall of the Soviet Union or Britain going to war with Argentina.
But the fact is that anything can happen at some point in time.
So hold your fingers crossed that it doesn't happen at the point in YOUR LIFETIME.
But don't warry, your "precious brain" will be one of the last ones being munched on

I agree, it is highly unlikely that RIAA and Microsoft will turn against their customers, that would not be good for business in the long run.

However, situations where you got locked out from your data due to DRM is not that unlikely. E.g. the DRM security system would be a fun target for black hats.

DRM systems are constructed to make unauthorized use impossible. It will probably be quite hard to break them in a way that allows you to get to the data, without paying for it. However, they are most likely not designed to be safe against tampering, if all you want to achieve is denial of service, leaving the field open for malware writers distributing their software as viruses or trojans.

My apologies to all the fanboys who can overlook that stuff.

Yeah, it's the fanboys who don't have problems with a license or with getting Vista pre-installed. Jeez.

Most people don't have problems with the eula because they don't read it and have no idea whats in it. Imagine their surprise when they find out they can no longer play their music or watch a movie because someone else decided they wanted to be paid again for it.

The fanboys know what's in it yet are willing to use it anyway, despite the limitations it places on the ability to use their own computers.

What animiations? There aren't any animations that are actually new to Vista.

Just the new flip 3D task switcher and moving light flare in the Control Panel backdrop.

Nothing spectacular.

Actually WinXP has fast desktop search too. Turn on the Indexing Service in Windows.

And in the search box: Use the freetext search field, and when searching for general terms put an ! in front of the term, like !hotbaby or if you search for files @filename mkv to search for all matroska videofiles. It's not as fancy or as easy as the Vista experience, but at least it's fast. You can create more complex queries of course, but these will do in most cases.

You can do this in Vista, but you must do it for each folder type (Documents, Pictures and Video, etc.). This is because you may want different views depending on the type of data (e.g., details for files, large thumbnails for pictures, etc.).

IIRC, you can apply the same settings accross all folder types at the same time by going to your %userprofile% folder (the folder with your name), modify this folder to your preference, right-click in an empty space in the folder, choose "Customise this folder", choose the "All Items" template and click the checkbox to apply the template to all subfolders.

Yes, it's switching back to Aero basic. I wonder why more work didn't go into resolving this problem at Microsoft, now it's the problem of other software companies and they will have to do the work.

Every 6 months is a huge year for Linux.

2007 is especially big. We will get to see how Microsoft's newest OS shapes thier competitors offerings.

Edited 2006-12-04 04:15

For me it is.

For me XP is a lot more stable than MacOSX. I've yet to have a single crash with my XP installation, whilst OSX occasionally hangs or refuses to wake up from sleep.

You're quite right about the schedular - many operating systems features a better schedular.

But most of the problems that you mentions, I suspect is based on single threaded applications. Multithreading is not widely used in Windows applications.

I believe it is, I use both, and I have not had any problems with either, but I know how to build a good Windows box, it's the same with anything, quality components

Well if that's not the most sensationalist title ever...

Audio system in Windows sucks because of one thing, high latency when processing sound. Without special drivers and software it's somewhere around 60-80ms which is totally unacceptable to most musicians. Windows still has a long way to go while solutions like CoreAudio in OSX and Jack/PulseAudio in Linux are already here and ready to work. It's amazing that alternatives to Windows have much better technical background yet all the high-end audio software is released for Windows and sometimes OSX if Mac users are lucky :|

I think you suck more than audio on windows, because you are trying to misinform others around here without doing any research. Here you go (taken from Wikipedia):

Windows Audio Session API - Very low level API for rendering audio, render/capture audio streams, adjust volume etc. This API also provides extremely low latency for audio professionals.

Explanation: it was introduced in Vista. You can find more info in MSDN and MS blogs. You can easily get audio latencies below 10ms FYI.

My bad, it wasn't mentioned in any review I've read (/me gives a long stare at reviewers, maybe it's time to describe something more than look, Control Panel maybe?) and I was too lazy to read Wikipedia entry. It's good that Windows did catch up but it's a bit late though, I've already managed to run my Windows-only audio apps as VST plugins on Linux

//Windows still has a long way to go while solutions like CoreAudio in OSX and Jack/PulseAudio in Linux are already here and ready to work. //

Actually, I believe that Vista does catch up in this area.

Indeed there's more than being able to set a separate volume level for different apps.As a musician i would probably be more concerned about realtime performance than a msn messenger kicking in with high volume.

"I knew what he meant when he talked about free as in money and I know what you meant when you talked about freedom in a society. I don't find it difficult to partition the two as you seem to."

It doesn't sound like it.

Again, you also COMPLETELY miss the point.

Wasting time = Money.

It's all relative.

If a secretary has to do some work the developer hasn't done she could be wasting her time.

The developer who designs the spreadsheet the same secretary is using in the personnel department isn't wasting time,crawling true config files and code is part of his job.

Well you pay one way or the other. The thing is that I don't want to waste my time struggling to get something to work that should have worked right to begin with.

Yes somebody else has gone through it for you,nothing wrong with that.MS makes money with perceived convenience.In FOSS most of the times someone has find a solution to a problem you have and shares it most of the times via irc,mailing lists for free.

//MS makes money with perceived convenience.//

It does. The problem is, the convenience is only perceived.

//In FOSS most of the times someone has find a solution to a problem you have and shares it most of the times via irc,mailing lists for free.//

This is a correct statement, but it does not apply only to FOSS as you imply. More things "just work out of the box" for Linux than they do for Windows. If you ever tried to install both (especially on older hardware), you would know this. Many times it takes many, many days and dozens of reboots to get something working on Windows. If the box was made circa 1999 or before, it may well be that a Windows NT/2K/XP class driver simply does not exist, and you will never get it working.

"This is a correct statement, but it does not apply only to FOSS as you imply. More things "just work out of the box" for Linux than they do for Windows. "

In some cases true, others not. For example I have a computer that uses software raid. That support was removed from the Linux kernel for this particular vendor. Where an older distribution does work, a new distribution does not. So does that mean I am stuck in the dark ages with a kernel because the kernel devs saw fit to discontinue a critical piece for me anyway? Yes, I can use it without using raid, but then I don't get my redundancy. As for configuration time, with all my software loaded, takes me about 2 hours for either OS. The time difference used to be much greater before Windows XP however, that I will grant.

In some cases true, others not. For example..

True,take for example XP.My motherboard drivers came on CD which i think is very common.However during the install of XP you can only load additional drivers from a floppy if you press F6.But you need to install XP first to make the flop and so forth.Yes i could use just the SATA HD's as regular HD´s instead of RAID0 but then i get a performance penalty.And don't forget the time to reboot and change CD's download manually all patches,updates with different interfaces.Internet explorer for windows update,asusup2date for the chipsetdrivers,another gui for the graphics card..
Calling the activation helpdesk because the hardware had changed.Well i ran the same XP as vmware client and not as host.

Edited 2006-12-04 19:00

//Wasting time = Money.

Getting something to work on Windows or Mac is a lot easier than having to struggle, hack something together, making excuses and just plain wasting time. //

The problem is, you have got this the wrong way around.

For example, start with one Windows system with a working OS but no Office suite installed, and another system which is a Linux system also with no Office suite installed.

If you were to install OpenOffice on both systems, the Linux system would take less time (using a package manager as opposed to downloading an installation package).

If you were to install MS Office on the Windows system and OpenOffice on the Linux system, it would take a lot less time on the Linux system. On the Windows system, first you have to obtain a physical copy from somehwere (you cannot download MS Office), then you have to install it then you have to enter CD keys and whatnot then you have to activate it and register it and so on.

//Wasting time = Money. Getting something to work on Windows or Mac is a lot easier//

On a Mac, maybe. On Linux, dead easy, probably the easiest of the three. On Windows ... it could take days.

"If you were to install OpenOffice on both systems, the Linux system would take less time (using a package manager as opposed to downloading an installation package). "

Except in the case of some Linux distributions, such as Gentoo. Then you need to downlaod the source, and compile it. Either way, you have to download both times so whether using a package manager or not, it still takes the download time.

"If you were to install MS Office on the Windows system and OpenOffice on the Linux system, it would take a lot less time on the Linux system. On the Windows system, first you have to obtain a physical copy from somehwere (you cannot download MS Office), then you have to install it then you have to enter CD keys and whatnot then you have to activate it and register it and so on."

The physical copy would already be on hand in 99% of the cases, as the business would have made the decision to use MS Office, so would have it through Volume Licensing. The entering of a CD Key and Activation is trivial taking only seconds. The install of Office in this manner with activation would most likely be quicker then the install of OpenOffice. You are supposed to register OpenOffice as well, so they can count you as a user. I take it you skip that part and don't want to be counted as supporting Open Source.

You are supposed to register OpenOffice as well, so they can count you as a user. I take it you skip that part and don't want to be counted as supporting Open Source.

Only once you register OpenOffice.

"Only once you register OpenOffice."

As it is once you register MS Office as well, with any support that might bring by registering. Either way registration is not required for either, that mainly being my point.

It sounds like you're talking about getting Windows applications to work on other systems.

How easy is it to get their applications to run on Windows ?

The total cost of ownership is mostly not calculated correctly. You have to include consequential upgrades that one upgrade requires. Then you have to include additional hardware. Then you have to include the cost of locked in proprietary formats which keep you in this treadmill.

If you add it all up, and if you are say a charity where all expenses come off the amount you can use for your purpose, there is no doubt which way you should go. Free as in FOSS turns out to mean freedom from extortion...

So yes, UAC is annoying when you are used to Ubuntu or OSX.

I am used to Ubuntu and OSX, and I do not find it annoying.

In Ubuntu, when I want to edit a system directory, I am forced to 'sudo nautilus [location]' in a terminal. When I want to edit a system file (which includes anything residing outside of your home dir, incl. menu files), I need to 'sudo gedit [file]'. When I want to install a package, I need to enter the root password. Etc.

Same for Vista, with the difference that Vista does not require a terminal for any of those actions, as Vista will present you with a nice dialog. Ubuntu (and GNOME) requires 3rd party scripts in order to allow you to edit system files/directories straigt from a user-initiated Nautilus instance. Extremely annoying and primitive.

Edited 2006-12-04 09:48

//Same for Vista, with the difference that Vista does not require a terminal for any of those actions, as Vista will present you with a nice dialog. Ubuntu (and gNOME) requires 3rd party scripts in order to allow you to edit system files/directories straigth from a user-initiated Nautilus instance. Extremely annoying and primitive.//

Any KDE installation, including Kubuntu, will give you a menu entry something like this: "Menu -> Applications -> File tools -> File manager - Super user mode".

From that isntance of the GUI file manager, you can navigate anywhere and launch an editor on any file. As the root user.

No need for the command line whatsoever.

Also, if you use Krusader, then even from the normal user there is a menu entry: "Commands -> Start root mode Krusader", and this menu entry has a keyboard shortcut "Alt-K".

Again, no need for the command line. In both cases, KDE "will present you with a nice dialog". You need enter the root password only once, and you can then do multiple actions from your instance of the file manager running as root.

"KDE does not require a terminal for any of those actions" ... GUI all the way if you like. Extremely convenient and user-friendly.

If you are going to review something, please be even-handed.

Edited 2006-12-04 10:05

I don't recall me saying anything about Kubuntu or KDE... The parent post was specifically referring to Ubuntu, which uses GNOME, and also happens to be the most popular version of the distro.

//I don't recall me saying anything about Kubuntu or KDE... The parent post was specifically referring to Ubuntu, which uses GNOME, and also happens to be the most popular version of the distro.//

I am sure I recall something similar (run file manager as root) on Ubuntu GNOME menus. I would be extremely surprised if this were not already provided on the default menus.

If it is not, it is a trivial task to use the menu editor and add a "gksu nautilis" entry to do the exact equivalent. There is simply no way that you are "forced to 'sudo nautilus [location]' in a terminal".

Edited 2006-12-04 10:12

I am sure I recall something similar (run file manager as root) on Ubuntu GNOME menus. I would be extremely surprised if this were not already provided on the default menus.

It is not, and it is besides the point as well. When I navigate to a certain dir as a standard user, I want to be able to open any file in there, prompting me for a password. I do NOT want to open special instances and navigate all over again. It is primitive, should not be necessary, and interrupts the workflow.

If it is not, it is not at all difficult to use the menu editor and add a "gksu nautilis" entry to do the exact equivalent.

Of course, I am not stupid. However, stuff like this should be taken care of by default. Defaults matter.

Edited 2006-12-04 10:12

How do you reconcile:

"forced to 'sudo nautilus [location]' in a terminal"

... with

"Of course, I am not stupid. ... (When I navigate to a certain dir as a standard user, I want to be able to open any file in there, prompting me for a password. I do NOT want to open special instances and navigate all over again. It is primitive, should not be necessary, and interrupts the workflow.) "

If you were not stupid, you could just add an alias to your bashrc so that "rfh" == "gksu nautilis ." where rfh then becomes a shorthand for "root filemanager here".

I take it then you are just biased, but not stupid?

Edited 2006-12-04 10:29

If you were not stupid, you could just add an alias to your bashrc so that "rfh" == "gksu nautilis ." where rfh then becomes a shorthand for "root filemanager here".

*sigh*

I look at things like from the perspective of *shock gasp horror* the ordinary user. You know, the one that knows and wants to know fcuk all about computers. System A has everything taken care of by default, system B requires manually editing files to do so. Which of the two is easier?

Can you *please* get it in your head that we technical crowd are utterly irrelevant? 95% of the world knows nothing about computers, and hence mainstream systems (or systems that aspire to be mainstream) need to cater to *those* people.

Is it really that hard to understand?

"In Ubuntu, when I want to edit a system directory, I am forced to 'sudo nautilus [location]' in a terminal. When I want to edit a system file (which includes anything residing outside of your home dir, incl. menu files), I need to 'sudo gedit [file]'. When I want to install a package, I need to enter the root password. Etc. "

I'm a little surprised by this, I haven't used Ubuntu, and probably never will, but I suspect very strongly that you could simply assign yourself to a group that allows you to install packages...and to other actions that that user is capable of doing responsibly. If thats the case I suspect that you should stick to talking about how pretty windows looks in everything but the home version.

I'm a little surprised by this, I haven't used Ubuntu, and probably never will, but I suspect very strongly that you could simply assign yourself to a group that allows you to install packages...and to other actions that that user is capable of doing responsibly.

Yeah now that is very user friendly. And of course it is VERY unsafe to do so.

If thats the case I suspect that you should stick to talking about how pretty windows looks in everything but the home version.

Ah you just needed an excuse to troll. My bad, I fell for it.

Why are you editing system directories? I think that's supposed to be difficult...

They won't (in any significant numbers) replace their current PC's with Linux. They'll replace them with Vista.

A lot of companies "still" run on w2k/xp why would they upgrade other than the update entitlement comes to an end.Perhaps their current software doesn't run on Vista and they think aero is butt ugly anyway.

ReactOS might be the perfect solution for you in 1-2 years.

www.reactos.org

I understand Java 6 also brings a whole slew of improvements. I REALLY hope that Java apps (which severa lcommercial apps are) run well on Vista, since it's a virtual guarantee that *eventually* most offices will end up running Vista.

Sounds like problems with his drivers, no XPs fault, but Creative's

>hope firefox guys do something similar.

Extensions to do this type stuff have been available for years now....gezz.

Well, if you reply me,don't give half the information, give some names so we can try these magic extensions.

Here you go:

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1457/
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1937/
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1810/

Similar but different:

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2134/
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2174/

"I lost all respect for this review after reading these two quotes... on paper & practice Vista is light years beyond XP and OS X in BOTH stability and security...

anyone who knows anything about Vista, knows that the improvements made to the kernel are way beyond anything OS X or XP has done... to say it's on-par is pure B.S.

it's already estimated that by removing the graphics from the kernel, Vista improves stability by 20-30% (over XP) and decreases the risk of driver related BSOD's.

including the advancements to user rights means no more buffer overflow security vunerabilities from Internet Explorer..."


Dude, its just a review. No reason to get hostile So you like Windows...I like Macs and Linux. We've all got our OS's of choice.

I lost all respect for this review after reading these two quotes... on paper & practice Vista is light years beyond XP and OS X in BOTH stability and security...

Really?!
What's the uptime of your Vista production system?
Has it been up for weeks, months, years?

Please, recall this post when you see your first BSOD, if you haven't already.
And I guarantee you will because the only way Microsoft can produce a stable OS is if they take one of the *nix's, slap a Windows logo on it and release it as Windows.

If opening a terminal and becoming root* to manipulate a file the user has no rights to is too hard for the user in question, i wonder what's the user's business to manipulate this file in the first place?

Thats what many of say ... the person has no business using Linux. Its not friendly for the average home or corporate user. And we can't let them all run as Admin all the time.

Thats what UAC is for ... and Active Directory and Group Policy and a lot more.

Thats what UAC is for ... and Active Directory and Group Policy and a lot more.

Active Directory has nothing todo with local admin access.I can pull out the utp cable and still login and gain admin access locally.

Thats what many of say ... the person has no business using Linux.

No you're twisting what has been said earlier.Often admin access shouldn't be necessary which is something completely different.

And we can't let them all run as Admin all the time.

Untill recently that is the case i'm glad you mentioned it.Otherwise XP home,windows200,w95/86,3.11.. all ran with admin or system rights.

Active Directory has nothing todo with local admin access.I can pull out the utp cable and still login and gain admin access locally.

My organization, and most others, do not give out the local admin account to normal users. That would defeat the purpose of having them log in with reduced privledges.

Untill recently that is the case i'm glad you mentioned it.Otherwise XP home,windows200,w95/86,3.11.. all ran with admin or system rights.

Not in my organization. When we rolled out XP, they were all made "Power Users" and none were given local admin access.

Not in my organization. When we rolled out XP, they were all made "Power Users" and none were given local admin access.

Many it-shops did and do hand out to local admin access developers.Not everybody can justify the double amount of money which the professional version costs.

NotParker:
Thats what many of say ... the person has no business using Linux. Its not friendly for the average home or corporate user. And we can't let them all run as Admin all the time.

Thats what UAC is for ... and Active Directory and Group Policy and a lot more.


That's not what i said. I said that a user who doesn't know how to access off-limits files has probably no business to manipulate them. This holds for any operating system, regardless if it's MS Windows or GNU/Linux.

With that being clarified, i understand the convenience argument for home users, who by default are their own administrators. Since convenient access is often a trade-off for security, witness MS Windows XP, the actual goal shouldn't be to make escalating rights easier but less frequent. All operating systems i know that are targeted at home users have much to do on this front, including MS Vista. But i digress.

They've said that for years. It still won't be true.

Active Directory? Group Policy?

I don't know much about managing servers and user groups yet (will learn in college soon enough), so found these on Google.

Active Directory:
Linbox directory server, eDirectory, open source directory server, Sun Java System Directory server, Fedora/RedHat Directory Server, so on.

Group Policy:
DirectControl for Linux/Unix. Others?

You mean you never noticed RunAs in Windows? Its been there forever.

Since Windows 2000 right? Unix had a more intuitive implementation for decades. GUI versions have been around nearly as long.

As for widgets, didn't Apple steal that from Konfabulator?

http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1007900.html

Interesting. Microsoft took the idea from Apple's implementation though.

.36%. Among 400 distros. Each one has no more than .05% of the market.

Marketshare is irrelevent when both are used by companies and tested by power users through dual-booting and virtualization.

Usage is different:

3.3 percent according to w3schools.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

And it will matter.

Wrong! It has never stopped GNU/Linux from being a good operating system and never will.

I don't know much about managing servers and user groups yet (will learn in college soon enough), so found these on Google.

Active Directory:
Linbox directory server, eDirectory, open source directory server, Sun Java System Directory server, Fedora/RedHat Directory Server, so on.

RedHat is too expensive. As for the others, Microsoft AD and GP work real well for us. We have no reason to change.

[/i]Group Policy:
DirectControl for Linux/Unix[/i]

You need AD for that product.

"The Centrify DirectControl suite enables a secure, connected computing environment by seamlessly integrating your non-Microsoft systems, web applications, databases and ERP apps, and storage systems with Microsoft Active Directory."

I think, just from the discussion, I realize that GNU/Linux distros are as different from each other as Microsoft is different from them.

Such fragmentation ... and millions of ways of ding things. No. I'll stick with Microsoft. Cheaper TCO.

RedHat is too expensive. As for the others, Microsoft AD and GP work real well for us. We have no reason to change.

RedHat/Fedora Directory Server is free and works on non-RedHat distributions as well.

You need AD for that product.

Another idea using KDE, Kiosktool and eDirectory:

http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/1640.html

Such fragmentation ... and millions of ways of ding things. No. I'll stick with Microsoft. Cheaper TCO.

There is no fragmentation because companies choose one Linux distribution to deploy throughout.

Different studies have shown that TCO and ROI go both ways in different scenerios. All you examine are the studies sponsored by Microsoft.

How Typical.

http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf

Edited 2006-12-04 19:24

RedHat/Fedora Directory Server is free and works on non-RedHat distributions as well.

You need AD for that product.

Another idea using KDE, Kiosktool and eDirectory:

I don't think any of that is a replacement for AD and Group Policy.

I think Windows does it best.

There is no fragmentation because companies choose one Linux distribution to deploy throughout.

COmpanies merge. Get bought up. etc.

And then they have to rip out Novell because it offended a bunch of people. No thanks.

Someone wrote: "Another idea using KDE, Kiosktool and eDirectory:"

NotParkerI don't think any of that is a replacement for AD and Group Policy.

Sorry to be so blunt, but then you have no idea what eDirectory is.

Sorry to be so blunt, but then you have no idea what eDirectory is.

Tell me about how eDirectory can replace Active Directory and Group Policy on Linux machines.

I do understand that I could use eDirectory to manage Windows machines, but does Linux have Group Policy equivalents?

I've used Novell products before. But I didn't like them.

No. I'll stick with Microsoft. Cheaper TCO.

Independent studies disagree with you.

.36%. Among 400 distros. Each one has no more than .05% of the market.

2.5%, mostly around 5 distros.

My stat is as good as yours, and we already know from previous thread that you have a known disposition for dishonesty, claiming that I was "attacking you for preferring Windows" when I was simply pointing where you misinterpreted data, and where you insulted those you disagree with by calling them "cultists."

2.5%, mostly around 5 distros.

My stat is as good as yours, and we already know from previous thread that you have a known disposition for dishonesty

Which stat? How many users?

I've posted mine ... millions of hits.

Onestat, HitsLink/Netapplications etc etc. The largest web analytics firms in the world disagree with you.

I believe that when YOU say dishonest you mean that my refernces make your look silly.

http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox46-operating-systems-ma...

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

Onestat, HitsLink/Netapplications etc etc. The largest web analytics firms in the world disagree with you.

I've stated the multiple reasons before why webstats is *not* an accurate representation of market share, to which you failed to present any counter-arguments. In fact, some webstats firm even *acknowledged* that using their numbers to garner OS market share is a bad idea. Google Zeitgeist even removed this stat for that very reason.

If getting OS market share was that simply, why do you think companies would pay thousands of dollars to independent market research firms?

And when I say dishonest, I mean dishonest, like how you misrepresented the Honeynet results.

Oh, I believe they were quite legitimate. They must have been, because you didn't actually provide counter arguments to none of them but one (Default User Agents for Firefox).

In any case, ask any searious market researcher (like the folks at Gartner or IDC) if that's a good way to find out about an OS' market share, and you'll see what they have to say.

Edited 2006-12-04 20:57

Oh, I believe they were quite legitimate. They must have been, because you didn't actually provide counter arguments to none of them but one (Default User Agents for Firefox).

You didn't provide any valid arguments.

In any case, ask any searious market researcher (like the folks at Gartner or IDC) if that's a good way to find out about an OS' market share, and you'll see what they have to say.

I was sure you and your FOSS friends hate Gartner and IDC because they show Linux Server growth to be approaching zero after years of double digit growth.

Shkaba:Thom, I believe you refered in one of your posts to how useful default settings are, and that is a good thing for average Joe. I, and most of IT people STRONGLY disagree with such a statement. Every OEM installed XP had a blank password for administrator account and never prompted the end user to change it. This is one the worst blunders security wise. Furthermore during the initial configuration of an OEM installed XP every new account BY DEFAULT is created as an administrator account. This, too, is big no no.

I'm sorry to say, but despite being an IT guy, i have to disagree with you on this one and i'm pretty sure most developers in my company would too.

Defaults are a good thing, a very good thing. Just because Microsoft was boneheaded enough to choose bad defaults doesn't mean that defaults per se are bad. Quite to the contrary, they are very important to roll out software that needs to be working out of the box.

Probably my mistake for not narrowing the context in my previous post. As a general concept default values are very valuable, but one has to be very careful as to where to use them. I believe that I've presented two gross missuses of default values, and Microsoft had other such cases (IIS prior to version 6 etc). As for things that need to be working out of the box, I would only add the following: things need to be secure out of the box (or at least prompt for user action to make them secure).
Why has microsoft neglected this issue in Windows XP is beyond me. I am sure that it is very easy to modify this behaviour, and I know that it has been requested by many.

markoweb:Someone here complained about UAC under the administrator account?!
I'm guessing that person had mistaken the first account created under vista to be an administrator account. The truth is Vista doesn't have a true "administrator" account any more per'se (well it's still there, but can only be accessed in like safe mode or something).
In Vista, the first account created belongs to the administrator group and the rest to the regular users group (by default). Both groups get UAC prompts.
The only reason the first account is still getting UAC prompts is to protect that user. Because most people will end up using that account anyhow. Probably due to the fact that people don't want to keep inserting a password every 5 minutes if they are installing a new app and stuff...

You'd best read more about UAC do get a better picture of why & how.

That guy was probably me. I find your input interesting, but it raises a few questions, such as why is the administrator account still called and marked as an administrator account if it is not an administrator account? If the administrator is not the administrator but by name, who is the real administrator on my machine? How do i get into this "safe mode"? Do i have to reboot for that? Or can i open a window, a prompt or whatever with real admin power?

And on a more funny note, who, my eyes, installs new apps all day? Why, if Microsoft assumes that most will use the first account on the computer, is the first account a pseudo-administrator account? Why not repeat the MS Windows XP Pro approach, create an administrator account by default and a first user account that shows up as the first and only account?

About reading up this stuff, you're probably right.

That guy was probably me. I find your input interesting, but it raises a few questions, such as why is the administrator account still called and marked as an administrator account if it is not an administrator account? If the administrator is not the administrator but by name, who is the real administrator on my machine? How do i get into this "safe mode"? Do i have to reboot for that? Or can i open a window, a prompt or whatever with real admin power?

And on a more funny note, who, my eyes, installs new apps all day? Why, if Microsoft assumes that most will use the first account on the computer, is the first account a pseudo-administrator account? Why not repeat the MS Windows XP Pro approach, create an administrator account by default and a first user account that shows up as the first and only account?

About reading up this stuff, you're probably right.

I guess the first user is called an administrator account only because that account has the privileges to add users and parental controls and stuff, thus being the adminsitrator of the machine. But administrators them selves need protection too, right? Say you go looking for a crack on the internet, 99% of the crack sites want to install spyware and trojans to your machines so UAC should come in handy...
MS did preserve the XP analogy of user accounts (not introduce the Linux standard) where the first user is also a member of the administrator group, the only difference beeing that now, in Vista, all the users get protected, including admins.
You might have a strimmed down version of Vista which is only for 1 user, I know XP had such versions (for MSDN and MSDNAA) - you can't create users in such XP versions, you login as THE ADMINISTRATOR (username is Administrator). Maybe it works similarly with Vista, haven't checked.

To get into safemode, you need to reboot and hit F5 or was it F8 during bootup before the "little green bar" starts moving. Best way to do so is to just hit f5 and f8 repeatedly during reboot until a menu pop's up from where you can select safe mode.
During safemode you should be able to hit ctrl+alt+del at the login screen from where you can enter the username = Administrator, password = blank. That should give you the true and pure administrator account, which is only ment for Windows repairs (that's why you're in safe mode anyhow). Haven't tried this yet though.

Channel9 did have a video aboud this new user group stuff we are talkting about, you should check it out, it will give a clearer idea of things, although it won't answer all the questions...


My take of UAC is that it's quite in place. Doesn't get in the way at all. When you first install Vista and the necesary apps, you'll probably need to do like 20 extra clicks to get through all the UAC prompts, but after that it's pretty much clear sailing. At least it has been for me.
The only thing I hate and think will be the downfall of UAC is that it don't show why it popped up.
It does say for instance - file operation. But what is that going to tell me, huh?!?
I'd like it to say - process setup.exe (Windows Live Messenger) want's write access to c:\\program files\\MSNmessenger. Then I could know for sure that I'm giving admin access to process that I can trust 99% of the time. Other wise I might download a MSNmessenger setup.exe which I then want to install, I get a UAC to which I say ok, but the setup.exe ends up beeing malware writing all sorts of weired stuff to my desktop and the sytem32 folder, etc.

Edited 2006-12-04 21:25

Say you go looking for a crack on the internet, 99% of the crack sites want to install spyware and trojans to your machines so UAC should come in handy...

That's not a very good example...personally, I think that people who go look for cracks on warez site deserve whatever they get.

I get your point, though. I myself prefer the Sudo way on some Linux distribution, but I'll admit that UAC does make Vista more secure than XP.

You contradict yourself when you first write:"I'm guessing that person had mistaken the first account created under vista to be an administrator account.".

while later on you write:"In Vista, the first account created belongs to the administrator group and the rest to the regular users group (by default).".

I assume the first account is the one of the installer.Otherwise when the OS automatically creates an admin account and then the installer account comes 2nd,what's the password of the first account?

You contradict yourself when you first write:"I'm guessing that person had mistaken the first account created under vista to be an administrator account.".

while later on you write:"In Vista, the first account created belongs to the administrator group and the rest to the regular users group (by default).".

I assume the first account is the one of the installer.Otherwise when the OS automatically creates an admin account and then the installer account comes 2nd,what's the password of the first account?

I think you have absolutely no idea the way accounts and gorups are handled in XP and VISTA.
But let me try to clarify things.

The first account created, in XP and VISTA allways belongs to the administrators GROUP. Thus meaning that account has the right to add users, install software, change settings etc. You can change that accounts username to your likeing, for instance your name.

In XP you also have an administrator ACCOUNT, which password can be set during install. That is the true "administrator", it's user name = administrator and that name can't be changed (I think).
That account doesn't show up by default in the Welcome screen. In order to login as THE administrator, press ctl+alt+del twice at the login screen. Then you should get the classic login window. Enter the username as Administrator and the password which was set during install (most likely a blank password) and wo'ila.
Inorder to see the Administrator account in the Welcome screen of XP you have to move all users to the Users group. You can do so by right clicking My Computer and selecting Manage. From there you can select "local users and groups" and modify the required settings/parameters. Then the administrator account will appear in the Welcome screen, because there allways has to be at least one account which belongs to the administrators group.


To the best of my knowlodge, in VISTA the true administrator account is pretty much deprecated - only accessible in safe mode.
That account should not be accessible during normal bootup as the password can't be set during install.
I don't know how VISTA handles things if you try to move all users to the users group or if it is even possible. I'm guessing that VISTA will just give you a notification that you can't move the last account which belongs to the admins group to the users gorup, because there has to be at least one admin on the machine.
If VISTA does behave differently than described, please do correct me, because I haven't yet tried all the mentioned situations under Vista (I have done them in XP though).

I didn't contradict myself before, even the two sentences you pulled out don't suggest that.
Janssen didn't seem to understand why he was getting UAC prompts while beeing logged in as an administrator.
I think, Janssen was logged in with the account he created during install thinking that it was the true administrators account, obviously that would have not been the case.
So I explained that the first account created belongs to the administrators GROUP and is not THE administrator account.

To sum things up:
VISTA has a built in ADMINISTRATOR account which password can't be set during install. That account should not be accessible during normal bootup, and if you do login with that account in safemode (password should be blank) then that account should not get UAC pop-up's.
During the VISTA install you create a user account which automatically belongs to the administrators GROUP. That user will get UAC prompts, only that it is not neccessary for that user to (re)enter his password, because he allready has adminstrative credentials, he just has to approve the action.

Edited 2006-12-05 08:00

But for the priviledge of paying less, you aren't allowed to move that copy to a new machine ever.