I'm sure you're all still (sadly) familiar with the recent 'debate' I had with InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy, which detailed a lot of silly things. The seed of that discussion was planted with Kennedy's first article which, among other things, claimed that Windows 7 performed similarly to Windows Vista (meaning, slower than XP). Leaving the thread count discussion behind, Kennedy did include a benchmark which showed that Windows 7 performed similar to Windows Vista. There's a new benchmark out now, comparing a slightly more recent build of Windows 7 to Vista RTM/SP1 and XP SP3, and in these tests, Windows 7 blows all of those out of the water.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-03-18
"I find it amazing how Microsoft can spend millions on an Operating System that cannot allow a 'regular user account' to run programs without administrator or power user rights. "
I stopped reading your comment right there, as this statement alone demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Windows, since NT, has supported programs that install and run under a non-admin user account. There have, and always will be certain actions that require higher authorization to execute. It is up to the makers of Windows programs to avoid taking those actions unless absolutely necessary for their program's functioning.
The problems with Windows programs that require admin access for no apparent reason was a problem with the writers of those programs, lazily installing in places that require admin access, or lazily storing settings in the wrong registry locations.
RE[2]: Microsoft Windows and User accounts
Member since:2005-07-12
The problems with Windows programs that require admin access for no apparent reason was a problem with the writers of those programs, lazily installing in places that require admin access, or lazily storing settings in the wrong registry locations.
The problem with such statements is that you are most probably not a software developer for Windows (neither am I).
Just blaming developers is far too easy. As a software architect, I can assure you that developers are not joyfully going to restrict their own apps with installation requirement like "Admin Rights Needed": There are normally good reasons for harming the field of application of your own app (spending 20% of your time / budget or so just to make the software run under restrictions is a good reason, believe it or not!).
I knew of a case where "no apparent reason" was the dependency on a certain MS system DLL (needed because of bugs in other versions).
I guess that MS (once again) harmed one of the golden rules of software framework APIs "Make simple things simple and hard things possible" (developing for restricted accounts should be "simple" but seems to be so "hard" that developers don't do it unless forced to).
And talking about sloppy programming: Just have a look at a default Windows installation (preferably a non-English one) to see what sloppy programming means. It's not that MS itself is a good example ..
Member since:2005-10-15
is it now. maby there are bad devs that follows bad habits but microsoft do sent try very hard to discourage this behavior.
if they did they would go the osx wqay and just say this is our new secure api use that and make new applications, oh you whish to use our old and un secure api well the you will be run in a secure vm sandbox
Member since:2006-04-14
I have 3 Windows XP computers, and all user accounts are non-administrators one. There is absolutely nothing preventing me, my wife or my children using these computers every day without being administrators (except to install programs or do administrative tasks...).
Same goes with the XP station I'm using at work.
You are being mistaken between OS and application. An application not doing administrative tasks but still requiring Admin account is a badly coded one. You can't blame the OS for that.
Member since:2005-07-24
You can blame the OS, I've seen it done many times. It just doesn't make you right :-)
Windows COULD make it possible to install apps without admin rights, restricting access to local effects only.
It COULD do what it SHOULD do, and ask for an admin password in order to install the app ( like Linux ), rather than requiring a round-a-bout method - but there is something to be said for the Windows method as well.
What Windows MUST do, is require an Administrator password. Simple. All accounts with admin rights should also require passwords.
What Windows SHOULD do, as well, is completely segregate the registry entries for each application. Store a file for any entry an app makes, so that uninstalling that app will uninstall that registry hive. Make it MORE work to effect the registry globally, and simple to effect the app's own store.
The only global entry an app would get free is its installation entry, which it could not manipulate. That would fix an incredible amount of problems, and even stop many viruses and spyware.
But, the most vital thing Windows NEEDS to do is to stop permitting root-kits to be installed. This requires a redesign.
Another thing of note, is that the UI can be made to respond differently based upon the threat level of what is happening. Users rarely read anything other than the bold text - or maybe look at the icon. A warning about not having a CD in the tray looks nearly identical to one about a program trying to modify the kernel directly.
Of course, I could go on, but I'm on my third glass of wine and I think my current torrent is done... maybe I'll reboot to Windows Vista ( gotta know all OSes, y'know ) and play some Crysis...
--The loon
-- and relating more so the article:
A 'jump' of .7% is hardly worth writing home about, but is a start. Thing is, though, that Vista requires more hardware to get what Windows XP gets from it, while it can do more with the RAM it has. Windows 7 hasn't corrected enough to merit placement as an 'improvement' in terms of performance. Maybe a jump of 2-2% would merit the lowest entry of 'improvement' without specifying 'minor.' Whereas, 5-6% would be safely called a 'good improvement' and 2000% would be in line with what Microsoft typically tries to convince has been accomplished.
In any event, my upgraded system does run Vista better than XP in *some* cases. BUT, BeOS, Haiku, & Ubuntu all have - at the minimum - a 50% performance benefit ( BeOS about 5000% ) in the most important metric - perceived performance.
Edited 2008-12-13 04:38 UTC
Member since:2006-09-22
Sorry, but you're wrong.
The entire operating system has the same inherit flaws from rehash to rehash. Plus, they seem to break compatibility with software, yet 16bit legacy code is still in the kernel from the NT days.
I'm not denying this but, are there any proof of this? That'd be pushing backwards compatibility a bit too much.
In my opinion it would be better for Microsoft to scrap this code base and develop an OS that a regular user can use it without fighting with the OS to run a program without special rights. This is a fundamental flaw in which this piece is broken. The core part of this is viruses/malware/spyware installs effortlessly with users running as administrator.
Another fact, Windows Server is not a multi-user operating system they can repackage it as much they like it still does not have true multi-user unix/linux distro's have that are inherit. Plus the fact of cost of Anti-Virus, Spyware/Malware and lacking of a real firewall. When you add up the cost of Windows including problems with viruses/malware it is expensive to say the least.
The user rights issue is a fundamental flaw of your critique, just drop it. And we both know that you can't make an OS from scratch just like this. There are many, many things to keep in mind regarding that kind of decision. Technical details being the least important.
I would rather maintain CentOS desktops any day of the week than the time spent to clean up Windows boxes. I do not see Windows coming out with these new releases every other year being consumed as they were in the past. Even big mega corps have passed on Vista and Windows 7 is going to be a bigger mess with lack of compatibility and monster hardware requirements.
A Linux distro offers more security, remote management, office suite, email, and functionality Windows just does not offer that is able to maintain code reliability without major headaches. Anyways, just my rant and the famous quotes from a marketing machine that dribbles the same rehash that this version of Windows is the best, so fast you can't even see it boot and secure. This is why Microsoft is plagued with the same viruses people change up and send out over and over...
This we agree, my only complaint would be Red Hat-based distros, but that's just a minor detail ;-)
Not impressed, will not use it or will never purchase it and one day Microsoft will be like GM with time.
Neither will I, that's the good thing about free countries.
Now, is there any reason to read this kind of comment over and over again every time a Windows 7-related article gets published? Get a pet or something!
Member since:2005-07-06
"The entire operating system has the same inherit flaws from rehash to rehash. Plus, they seem to break compatibility with software, yet 16bit legacy code is still in the kernel from the NT days.
I'm not denying this but, are there any proof of this? That'd be pushing backwards compatibility a bit too much. "
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it was a faulty assumption, based on the ability of NT-based OSes to run 16-bit Windows software. Which, as most of us know, is handled by the Windows on Windows subsystem, not by 16-bit code in the NT kernel.
Member since:2006-12-05
I agree with you, but I figured you would be modded to hell for your post (surely mine will be too, but whatever, who cares). I gave up trying to fight XP to allow proper (ie., flawless) use under a *NON*-administrator account a while ago, and that was one of the last straws that pushed me from the OS. Not to mention what Windows' future looked like (containing barely anything I *did* want, and mostly everything I *didn't* want), plus Microsoft's insistence to brutally kill XP ASAP with whatever means it takes (in other words: *forcing* the next version on people like never before).
Honestly, I don't even want to *think* of all the braindead-stupid things I've came across just trying to install XP from the ground up with a decently-secure setup (main "Administrator" account active on the login screen and one limited user account). The OS just wasn't designed that way (at least, the way it was released).
Edited 2008-12-13 11:28 UTC
Member since:2007-02-27
Member since:2006-12-05
UAC in Vista does it. Have you ever tried Vista? "
It's probably been argued to death as to whether UAC actually does anything at all. I'm on the side of those who believe that it doesn't. It's nothing more than a false sense of security in my view; a band-aid in typical Microsoft fashion to alleviate a boo-boo instead of actually tearing it apart and fixing the underlying problem. Not to mention that it just trains users to click "OK" (which they're likely already used to from previous Windows versions).
Edited 2008-12-13 16:18 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
What are you talking about? Just from personal experience, I was doing exactly that (running as a regular user most of the time) as far back as Win2k.
I think the word you're looking for is "inherent." And how is Windows Server not a multi-user system? That's one of the most bizarre claims I've read since David K. Every's assertions that NT has "DOS underpinnings."
In conclusion? There are more than enough real reasons to hate Windows - you don't have go inventing imaginary ones.
Member since:
2008-11-16
I find it amazing how Microsoft can spend millions on an Operating System that cannot allow a 'regular user account' to run programs without administrator or power user rights.
The entire operating system has the same inherit flaws from rehash to rehash. Plus, they seem to break compatibility with software, yet 16bit legacy code is still in the kernel from the NT days.
In my opinion it would be better for Microsoft to scrap this code base and develop an OS that a regular user can use it without fighting with the OS to run a program without special rights. This is a fundamental flaw in which this piece is broken. The core part of this is viruses/malware/spyware installs effortlessly with users running as administrator.
Another fact, Windows Server is not a multi-user operating system they can repackage it as much they like it still does not have true multi-user unix/linux distro's have that are inherit. Plus the fact of cost of Anti-Virus, Spyware/Malware and lacking of a real firewall. When you add up the cost of Windows including problems with viruses/malware it is expensive to say the least.
I would rather maintain CentOS desktops any day of the week than the time spent to clean up Windows boxes. I do not see Windows coming out with these new releases every other year being consumed as they were in the past. Even big mega corps have passed on Vista and Windows 7 is going to be a bigger mess with lack of compatibility and monster hardware requirements.
A Linux distro offers more security, remote management, office suite, email, and functionality Windows just does not offer that is able to maintain code reliability without major headaches. Anyways, just my rant and the famous quotes from a marketing machine that dribbles the same rehash that this version of Windows is the best, so fast you can't even see it boot and secure. This is why Microsoft is plagued with the same viruses people change up and send out over and over...
Not impressed, will not use it or will never purchase it and one day Microsoft will be like GM with time.