20 things you'll hate about vista Options

[Seeker]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...ticleId=9000829

[prefix]

Anyone that just lumps linux together as a pile below XP and level with 2000 doesn't know a damn thing about operating systems. You can't even put redhat and slackware into the same category.

[prefix]

Microsoft's second additional authentication protection in Vista was to go through every process to gauge whether to assign it User Account Controls. This protected list is extremely long in Vista Beta 2, including Control Panels for Windows Firewall, Scanners and Cameras, Parental Controls, iSCSI Initiator, Device Manager, BitLocker drive encryption and Add Hardware. Numerous functions accessed in the System Control Panel (and many others) also cause the User Account Control confirmation dialogs. So many things are, in fact, protected by requiring your OK that it'll drive you batty. And there's no way to say "never ask me this again about this item." If you disliked Windows XP Service Pack 2's version of Internet Explorer 6 because of its many security nag screens, you would absolutely hate Windows Vista Beta 2.

Yea, those things should be locked to an administrator. WTF is wrong with that. They bitch about windows getting all this malware and shit yet they bitch when they start to setup account limitation, PICK WHICH ONE YOU LIKE THE DON'T BITCH ABOUT THE OTHER!

This article gets a score of -50000000000. This guy's just fucking retarded. He doesn't want to learn how anything new works he just wants to sit around and bitch because not everything looks or acts like windows 98. I mean that seems like what he wants, everything he doesn't like such as getting to the control panel he liked better the way it did it in 98 or 2000.

[Dogmeat]

Anyone that just lumps linux together as a pile below XP and level with 2000 doesn't know a damn thing about operating systems. You can't even put redhat and slackware into the same category.

boy isn't that the truth ...

[zetec]

vista sucks. gotcha.

i give impala 2 days to ghey up the thread before i have to lock it.

and prefix: yeah, they pop up under everything but the administrator account. what windows has taught you is that "if you don't suck at computers, ALWAYS use the admin account". unfortunately, that's NOT the case. As with linux, they reccommend that you NEVER run root unless you absolutely have to. It's the most functional, but it's also the least secure. (as a direct result of that) The problem is, the windows boxes are popping up for damn near EVERYTHING you try to do, and there's no quick way to login or auth (and stay authed; think su or sudo in linux.) It's fairly obvious that rather than rewrite everything from the ground up, microsoft has decided to nag the users to death so that if/when the pc is afflicted with some sort of malware, they can blame it more or less on the user. "well, you SAID it was okay!" In the end, users are just going to use the admin account for day-to-day activities, and then we'll be right back at square one with the pc's being just as vulnerable as before, although now we won't even be able to use user-class priveleges. (think GPO's)

[impala454]

vista sucks. gotcha.

i give impala 2 days to ghey up the thread before i have to lock it.

This just goes to show that you don't bother looking at anything I say with an objective point of view.

and prefix: yeah, they pop up under everything but the administrator account. what windows has taught you is that "if you don't suck at computers, ALWAYS use the admin account". unfortunately, that's NOT the case. As with linux, they reccommend that you NEVER run root unless you absolutely have to. It's the most functional, but it's also the least secure. (as a direct result of that) The problem is, the windows boxes are popping up for damn near EVERYTHING you try to do, and there's no quick way to login or auth (and stay authed; think su or sudo in linux.)

CTRL-Right Click any exe in windows and click "run as". Not too difficult if you ask me.

It's fairly obvious that rather than rewrite everything from the ground up, microsoft has decided to nag the users to death so that if/when the pc is afflicted with some sort of malware, they can blame it more or less on the user. "well, you SAID it was okay!" In the end, users are just going to use the admin account for day-to-day activities, and then we'll be right back at square one with the pc's being just as vulnerable as before, although now we won't even be able to use user-class priveleges. (think GPO's)

It more or less is the user's fault most of the time anyways. "Click here to win a PS3!!!" and shit like that. At least w/the user not having admin access will help protect them somewhat. Besides, you're only as secure as your neighborhood. I.e. if you live in the projects with a armored house and bars on the windows you're still less safe than living in a avg house in the suburbs. If you still haven't got the analogy, a vast majority of people in the world using a PC use windows, so it makes the most sense to develop viruses & malware for that OS. Your precious Linux and/or OSX or whatever else is out there feels more secure to you because people don't want to waste their time attempting to attack like 2% of the PC Users out there.

[zetec]

This just goes to show that you don't bother looking at anything I say with an objective point of view.


CTRL-Right Click any exe in windows and click "run as". Not too difficult if you ask me.


It more or less is the user's fault most of the time anyways. "Click here to win a PS3!!!" and shit like that. At least w/the user not having admin access will help protect them somewhat. Besides, you're only as secure as your neighborhood. I.e. if you live in the projects with a armored house and bars on the windows you're still less safe than living in a avg house in the suburbs. If you still haven't got the analogy, a vast majority of people in the world using a PC use windows, so it makes the most sense to develop viruses & malware for that OS. Your precious Linux and/or OSX or whatever else is out there feels more secure to you because people don't want to waste their time attempting to attack like 2% of the PC Users out there.

stop ressurecting threads just to be a whiny microsoft whore.

[impala454]

i hadn't even seen the thread yet bitch

[prefix]

Your precious Linux and/or OSX or whatever else is out there feels more secure to you because people don't want to waste their time attempting to attack like 2% of the PC Users out there.

That's not a valid arguement at all. If anyone was going to make viruses they'd rather make them for linux because linux has more than 60% of the server market. That's where all valuable information is stored, not on someone's home computer. Good luck finding someone that still runs web services under root though, might work out if this was like 1995.

[impala454]

That's not a valid arguement at all.  If anyone was going to make viruses they'd rather make them for linux because linux has more than 60% of the server market.  That's where all valuable information is stored, not on someone's home computer.  Good luck finding someone that still runs web services under root though, might work out if this was like 1995.

We're not talking about hacking into a single server. We're talking about viruses & malware. The whole point of losers making viruses and malware is so they get to see them spread and cause people problems. Sure some may harvest information along the way but they're generally just a nuissance that causes computer illiterate peopl's computers to crash. And although I seriously doubt 60% of the servers out there are "linux", even if they were, that means the other 40% are something else (most likely windows). Anyhow, how do you come up with 60%? Does some dude run around asking every company what OS they're using? I'm sure any company out there would be happy to reveal details of software running on their servers

[Hartmann]

Anyhow, how do you come up with 60%?  Does some dude run around asking every company what OS they're using?  I'm sure any company out there would be happy to reveal details of software running on their servers

That's public information (at least for public servers). Any server that hosts a publicly accessible website discloses their server software because the server's handshake turns that info over to the client. Solution: Run a simple bot that crawls public servers.

[impala454]

That's public information (at least for public servers). Any server that hosts a publicly accessible website discloses their server software because the server's handshake turns that info over to the client. Solution: Run a simple bot that crawls public servers.

So then I guess the statement should be... 60% of publicly available web servers. Not "60% of the server market"

[Hartmann]

So then I guess the statement should be... 60% of publicly available web servers. Not "60% of the server market"

Well, you could always look at server sales as well

[impala454]

But how many companies order their servers with an OS pre-loaded? If it's going to be linux their going to want to load it themselves, if it's windows they'll have either a site license or a limited # of licenses for server 2003 and also want to load it themselves.

[Hartmann]

But how many companies order their servers with an OS pre-loaded? If it's going to be linux their going to want to load it themselves, if it's windows they'll have either a site license or a limited # of licenses for server 2003 and also want to load it themselves.

I would say a decent amount do.

Survey companies also do surveys to try and get an idea of the market.

Most large companies that use Linux have some sort of support agreement with a Linux company, so those numbers are disclosed as well. Just like Windows Servers license numbers sold are disclosed.