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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-10
The problem with worrying about user accounts in windows is its easy to look back in history and say... gosh... how could they design this crap. However, back when it was being designed, it probably made sense. The improvements they made on it and backwards compatibility probably made sense too. Heck, their changes and move to Vista UAC is also evolutionary and make sense.
The best example we have to day is the WWW. It started out as HTML the simple markup language. Then it morphed into some screwed up web applications using AJAX. Toss in some screwed up ActiveX and other attempts in there as well. Looking back now, the whole AJAX/HTML structure is mentally ill. No one would design something like that. If you were going to design it today, you would probably think of something like MS Silverlight or Adobe Flash. Yet, can we just throw out the entire WWW and demand everything be redone in Silverlight or Flash? No. So we deal with it.
It's the nature of development. It's a jungle out there and always will be. Somehow we get by with all the hiccups.
Member since:2005-08-18
As a former Windows software developer (no, it's not something I want to do again. Ever) I have to say something here.
They dont do it joyfully, they do it out of cluelessness. Face it, up until very recently the majority of Windows developers did not understand or care about security concerns. Although some of this blame must go to framework and toolkit developers too, they didnt care or understand much either.
This is painfully illustrated by the many, many games who for, God knows what reason, don't work unless you're an Administrator.
That's not how DLL's work. If a dev told you that he was either lying or didn't know how to do the task properly.
That's no excuse.
Member since:2006-03-18
"Just blaming developers is far too easy."
It's where the blame lies. MS provides simple and easy methods for installing and running apps that do not need Administrative rights. If developers can't figure out how to use them, it's not Microsoft's fault.
" 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 have no idea what you are saying "There are normally good reasons for harming the field of application of your own app" doesn't make any sense.
"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)."
You don't need Admin rights to load a DLL.
"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)."
Most of the problem is the result of installing in privileged locations, or writing files/registry settings to privileged locations. Are you telling me that changing a few file paths and registry locations is just to difficult for the average developer? If so - what do you suggest MS do to correct the problem?
"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"
Guess I will just have to take your word for that - have no idea what it has to do with the topic at hand.
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 ..