DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => General Software Discussion => Topic started by: tranglos on November 29, 2009, 04:51 PM
-
Last week I built a new machine for my wife and installed Windows 7 Home Premium on it. My experience so far is limited to installing the system, drivers and some favorite shareware, and tweaking the knobs a bit. I've never used Vista, so this has been my first exposure to Aero, UAC and the redesigned Start Menu / taskbar controls.
Installation went flawlessly. The first hitch was when Windows would not find drivers for the TP-Link wi-fi adapter, and would not accept the *.inf file downloaded from the vendor site. (On the other hand, all I had to do for wired access was plug in the cable.) Turns out the on-disk version of Windows 7 must be a bit flaky in the driver department, since after Windows Update ran its course twice, the system decided it liked the vendor's wi-fi drivers after all. All other drivers (printer, scanner etc) were downloaded and installed automatically as soon as I connected the devices. Nice.
What's truly impressive is how snappy the system is. My wife's machine is mid-range, with a Core 2 Duo just like mine and a less amped up, though newer, motherboard - but everything starts and runs much, much faster than on my 2 years' old XP machine (which was pretty highly specced at the time). Granted, the new system hasn't yet amassed all the crud my XP machine has, but I'm still surprised, impressed and envious. Firefox starts up just like that, snap your fingers, no waiting. Word 2007 likewise. Is it the 8 MB of CPU cache instead of my 4? Is a new WD Caviar Black so much faster than my WD Raptor (I doubt that)? Are new DDR2 Patriot memory chips snappier than same from 2 years ago? Or has Windows really become more efficient on its own?
Now, for the newbie shock and some gripes.
Whoever still says UAC is a good idea... I just cannot see what you see. Roughly half the shareware apps I use raise the UAC warning on launch - a huge annoyance. But that's nothing. You can't even rename a desktop icon without an "As administrator" confirmation, even though the logged-in user *is* an administrator. Jeez! I *will* absolutely turn UAC off. It has no value. It pops up so often, after a short while you instinctively click Yes. That's worse than having no protection at all and having to actually think of what you're doing.
The Start menu - I understand MS tried to avoid the sub-sub-subfolder navigation ugliness, but after installing a number of apps, the menu becomes a steaming pile of cr*p anyway. But arranging the menu manually, say by trimming the number of folders, grouping related apps together, becomes a UAC nightmare. Why can't an admin user rename or move a Start menu item without those stupid prompts? *Deleting* a whole non-empty Start menu subfolder doesn't cause a warning, though. Figure that!
And for all the UAC paranoia, the Explorer option to hide extensions of known files still defaults to enabled! What's possibly the single most harmful setting in Windows, which gave rise to trojans masquerading as documents or images, is still there, unchanged. How can that be excused?
And while I'm at it, what happened to the system tray? Everything is hidden by default there. It may look nicer that way, but is less useful, because tray icons often indicate program state, and it's also harmful, because it makes it easier for vendors to cram your system with autostart applications that run in the tray, and now most users won't even see them, ever. All the stupid, ugly, useless, non-standard applications that install with hardware drivers, all the "start Java faster", "Adobe cr*p updater" little pieces of trash you want to disable as soon as you can, will now run unobstructed on most computers.
(The built in command-line in the Start menu is nice to have, though hardly impressive to this FARR aficionado. And I immediately turned taskbar captions back on; icons are often not distinctive enough.)
In general, it's getting harder to find things. Ive managed to open the Device Manager a couple of times, but I still can't remember where it is. And am I the only one enraged by the Control Panel design? By default, it shows the most common tasks, but a lot of important stuff isn't there, like user accounts. It took me a while to figure I had to change the view from categories to big or small icons, to display all the goodies. Now, a "view" is supposed to be a different presentation of the same data, right? It is not logical and it is not intuitive to show only a few items in the default view, and name the other views in a way that does not suggest you will see more when you choose them. Why not a "More" button, or an "Advanced" option? UI Hall of Shame, meet the Control Panel. I mean it!
In "Default programs", all the file associations grabbed by Windows Media Player are grayed out and can't be changed (to the VLC player, say). The workaround seems to be to manually change association for each individual file extension, which is somewhat arduous. I hope this is a bug.
I like the clickable breadcrumbs in Explorer windows (it took MS how many years to "invent" those?), but where is the "Up" button? No "Up" button, so now the most common navigational operation requires at least two careful clicks, instead of just one - unless there's some other way I haven't noticed.
Oh, I like the gadgets. This is the first sidebar I've seen that sticks to the desktop and does not force maximized windows to be resized to a smaller area. Programs just cover the gadgets, and that's good. That's a sidebar I can use.
All that said, my subjective perception of how fast and snappy 7 is has just about convinced me to switch my own machine too... eventually. Right now, it's too expensive to buy another copy on a whim.
-
Excellent comments and observations. I think I echo almost every one of your complaints and criticisms. Overall I'm reasonably happy with Win7, but it's pretty hard to believe, with all the changes made, that fundamental things that have been wrong for a long time still go unchanged, or worse yet the unchangeable "improvements" like system tray behavior (which I happen to agree is a usability sacrifice in favor of aesthetics, which is ultimately in the service of neither amateur nor professional user). That UAC exists and is so obtrusive, yet "known" extensions are still hidden by default is such a glaring conflict that it's hard to believe.
- Oshyan
-
Am I the only user who is NOT annoyed by UAC? Heck, even my wife uses her vista laptop and has not complained about UAC. She has even said UAC is helpful in that it can help prevent accidental deletion of a file she didn't intend to touch. UAC in Windows 7 is far from intrusive, in my opinion. Vista was overbearing at times with UAC but this was greatly improved in 7. The problem with UAC is that most application developers, even after a few years with Vista, have not realized what is throwing these UAC prompts and have not updated their applications. I have a feeling this will change with Win7, but one can only wonder why it hasn't happened sooner.
</rant>
-
I put a shortcut to the control panel on the desktop. "System" in control panel is where youwill find 'device manager'., among other places I suppose.
And yes I turned off UAC. It won't stop malware and the like imo, since that crap is usually hidden in other programs. Get Malwarebytes for $25 it works full time. And a good antivirus and maybe a firewall.
-
Please note: UAC is not DESIGNED to stop malware, much to the dismay of kaspersky and their latest report that states the fact that UAC does not stop malware.
And yes, I always switch control panel to classic view in every windows installation I use.
-
I agree that UAC is much better in Win7 but I still find it popping up a lot more than I'd like and seemingly unnecessarily (or at least the reason why is not *made* clear, as it should be). I haven't turned it off yet though, as I did in Vista, so maybe that says something...
For Device Manager and a lot more a 'trick' (not really, but surprisingly not everyone knows about this) I learned back in the Win2k days serves well here:
Right-Click on Computer and go to "Manage".
This gives you not only Device Manager, but Disk Managemenet, Event Log Viewers (lots more options in Win7 than before - nice!), System Services, and a lot more. In Win7 the Management Application has actually been further expanded and it's an extremely useful tool. I recommend checking it out it you don't already use it.
- Oshyan
-
Or just memorize the msc shortcuts :) I simply hit the winkey, type devmgmt.msc and launch device manager :) But I am very keyboard savvy.
-
Right now, it's too expensive to buy another copy on a whim. -tranglos
Would it not have been better to spring for the US$149.99 Family Pack (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/offers/windows-7-family-pack.aspx) and get W7HP for 3 machines?
As an aside, the greedy b*ggers are selling this in Australia starting tomorrow at AU$249.99, (~US$227).
-
Whoever still says UAC is a good idea... I just cannot see what you see. Roughly half the shareware apps I use raise the UAC warning on launch - a huge annoyance.-tranglos
Then you need to upgrade roughly half of the shareware apps you use. Properly written apps should not bring forth a UAC prompt unless they are a system utility (spyware scanner, defragger, etc.). I have UAC set on high and rarely see UAC prompts.
But that's nothing. You can't even rename a desktop icon without an "As administrator" confirmation, even though the logged-in user *is* an administrator.
I don't experience that on my machine, but maybe it's because I have the desktop pointing to my D: drive.
And while I'm at it, what happened to the system tray? Everything is hidden by default there. It may look nicer that way, but is less useful, because tray icons often indicate program state, and it's also harmful, because it makes it easier for vendors to cram your system with autostart applications that run in the tray, and now most users won't even see them, ever.
You have the power to customize which system tray icons are shown all the time and which ones are hidden all the time. It's a great feature.
All the stupid, ugly, useless, non-standard applications that install with hardware drivers, all the "start Java faster", "Adobe cr*p updater" little pieces of trash you want to disable as soon as you can, will now run unobstructed on most computers.
It's been my experience that with most computer users it doesn't matter if the little pieces of trash are hidden or not. They run obstructed whether they are visible or not.
Ive managed to open the Device Manager a couple of times, but I still can't remember where it is. And am I the only one enraged by the Control Panel design?
Do what I do and configure the Control Panel to show as a menu rather than a link on the start menu & all the confusion will melt away.
In "Default programs", all the file associations grabbed by Windows Media Player are grayed out and can't be changed (to the VLC player, say). The workaround seems to be to manually change association for each individual file extension, which is somewhat arduous. I hope this is a bug.
If you use the file association method inside VLC you'll accomplish your task a lot easier.
I like the clickable breadcrumbs in Explorer windows (it took MS how many years to "invent" those?), but where is the "Up" button? No "Up" button, so now the most common navigational operation requires at least two careful clicks, instead of just one - unless there's some other way I haven't noticed.
Hit Backspace.
-
I think the customizable systray is a good thing, I just think A: stuff shouldn't be hidden by default and B: like the new "Jump menus" they implemented (and the less customized right-click menus before), all systray icons should have standard functions like close, including "don't show this icon anymore" or some such. It would be more convenient and intuitive to do that than have to go into a special settings window to do the same thing as we have to now.
Does backspace go *up* or "back"?
- Oshyan
-
I've been using Win7 for a couple of weeks now. Switching from XP to win7 just blows my mind. It's great to look at it and still has the software equivalent of the "new car smell" :D
A lot of the gripes mentioned here can be fixed by changing the default behavior. I'm still getting used to the fact that Win7 has more clickable areas (breadcrumbs cutting out the 'Up' button, links cutting out control panel icons and so forth). I also like the new start bar, but I won't have a fair assessment till I start working on win7 (still use XP for work, but switching gradually).
UAC does piss me off though, it would have been awesome if you could add exceptions to it. UAC gives me warnings everytime my system starts up because I have Everything search as a startup item. I'm probably going to have to turn it off. Other than that, everything is hunky dory
@JavaJones
backspace goes 'back' (which can sometimes be 'back' depending on the path you took). If you want to go 'up' just use the breadcrumb.
-
Right, exactly - backspace is "back" and there's a button for that. An "up" button would still be nice, even though I know the breadcrumbs serve the same (and even greater) purpose.
- Oshyan
-
The reason stuff starts faster on Win7 than XP is probably SuperFetch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfetch#SuperFetch), which is pretty nifty :)
Not being able to rename start menu entries or desktop icons without UAC prompt is that you've installed apps "for all users" instead of "just for me".
-
UAC does piss me off though, it would have been awesome if you could add exceptions to it. UAC gives me warnings everytime my system starts up because I have Everything search as a startup item. I'm probably going to have to turn it off. Other than that, everything is hunky dory
-jomanlk
There are two workarounds for running applications that need admin rights during start up:
1) Simplest - turn off UAC (not really recommended but a simple option).
2) Instead of running the application via the normal startup option set up a scheduled task to start the program at login and give the task admin rights. See http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=616 for details on how to do it it Vista - the same appraoch works in Windows 7.
-
Would it not have been better to spring for the US$149.99 Family Pack (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/offers/windows-7-family-pack.aspx) and get W7HP for 3 machines?
-4wd
It would indeed be better, if only Microsoft were selling 3-packs in Poland. They aren't. They used to sell XP in 3-packs, which was how I originally bought it, but Vista and now 7 are only sold in ones. I guess "greedy b*ggers" is right :)
-
Poland is now in the EU so why not simply buy it from another EU country? Under the single market I can't see that Microsoft is legally able to restrict sales within regions of Europe.
I suppose it might be difficult to find a Polish version in the UK (especially if they don't actually produce the Polish Family Pack) but if you can cope with English or another EU language where the three pack is available you should be able to buy it and activate it without any issues.
For example: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-Windows-Premium-Upgrade-Family/dp/B002MT21N6
-
Please note: UAC is not DESIGNED to stop malware, much to the dismay of kaspersky and their latest report that states the fact that UAC does not stop malware.
-Josh
I seriously don't think I understand what it *is* designed to do, other than to annoy and confuse. The problem seems to be that Windows can't tell the difference between a user-initiated action and an action that's possibly unauthorized.
If I just double-clicked a shortcut, what's the point of asking for confirmation? I'll confirm it, why wouldn't I? If the shortcut leads to a virus, this is a task for AV software to detect it.
-
Poland is now in the EU so why not simply buy it from another EU country? Under the single market I can't see that Microsoft is legally able to restrict sales within regions of Europe.
-Carol Haynes
Legally they can't restrict sales, but everyone does it anyway - from MS to Amazon to Embarcadero (you can only buy Delphi from a local reseller, at really aggravating prices and no added value).
For example: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-Windows-Premium-Upgrade-Family/dp/B002MT21N6
-Carol Haynes
Amazon won't ship this outside of the UK - at least this has been my experience with software, I haven't tried this specific item. I'd normally be happy with an English version of Windows, but having the PL version is a must for my work, since I often need to check the UI to keep my translations consistent. There are glossaries, but they often lag behind what's actually shown on screen.
I'm not complaining about not being able to jump on 7 right away though. My wife's computer is confusing both her and myself. In a Save As dialog box, how do you navigate quickly to the physical folder structure? It takes too many clicks to go via Desktop -> Computer -> drive -> find your folder. I'll have to spend some time with it to find a quicker way or find how to tweak the locations displayed by default.
(And, unrelated to Windows 7, we just tried to scan a page into a Word 2007 doc and couldn't find out how. There's no intuitive path such as Insert -> (Image -> ) From Scanner. The actual procedure is here (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/924462), check it out. This is the first time ever I've had to google to find out how to do something in Word! And now that I know how to do it, I curse whoever came up with the idea that scanner image acquisition has anything to do with clip art. I must be getting old! :) )
-
Actually, in Win7, it can distinguish between user-initiated actions. You have to remember, however, that certain actions WILL throw a prompt making sure its something you want to do (Launching regedit or certain MMC Snapins).
And the reason it can ask for confirmations is if that application is compromised (which is why no white-lists are made for UAC) and it tries to do something admin level, it will alert you. Remember, this is not designed for the techie, its designed for the home user who launches an application and it provides them a warning in case.
UAC is DESIGNED to give you warnings to potential hazardous applications or programs.
-
I think the customizable systray is a good thing, I just think A: stuff shouldn't be hidden by default
-JavaJones
Precisely. Just like hiding known file extensions - the default setting is wrong.
and B: like the new "Jump menus"
-JavaJones
I don't think I've discovered the jump menus yet, though now I recall having read about them. What are they?
Does backspace go *up* or "back"?
-JavaJones
I think it goes back in Explorer. It goes up in TC and DOpus.
-
Actually, in Win7, it can distinguish between user-initiated actions. You have to remember, however, that certain actions WILL throw a prompt making sure its something you want to do (Launching regedit or certain MMC Snapins).
-Josh
Since it's pretty much impossible to launch regedit or a snapin accidentally, the prompt seems redundant.
And the reason it can ask for confirmations is if that application is compromised (which is why no white-lists are made for UAC) and it tries to do something admin level, it will alert you.
-Josh
Then it should alert when a process tries to do somtehing fishy, not simply when the process starts. It's impossible to know beforehand whether an app has been compromised or not. Again, this is what AV/antispyware software is there to detect.
UAC is DESIGNED to give you warnings to potential hazardous applications or programs.
-Josh
Like Tune-Up Utilities 2010 :) I installed it, I launch it, I don't need to click through another prompt - it just makes no sense. What is anyone supposed to do - say Oh noes, I bought this really dangerous software, maybe I should listen to Windows and not use it after all? It's crazy.
At the same time, there are no prompts when TuneUp installer registers its services, which is where a malware app could do some real harm.
I just can't see a scenario where I should be prompted before I knowingly execute a known application. It serves no purpose if the app is fine, and it serves no purpose if the app is a trojan, because I cannot know that. At the very least there should be an option like "Do not prompt for this application again".
-
Amazon won't ship this outside of the UK - at least this has been my experience with software, I haven't tried this specific item. I'd normally be happy with an English version of Windows, but having the PL version is a must for my work, since I often need to check the UI to keep my translations consistent. There are glossaries, but they often lag behind what's actually shown on screen.
-tranglos
If that is the case you should contact Amazon since they are in violation of EU trading law. The whole point of the single market as it was set up was to remove trade barriers in Europe.
If you want a copy from the UK and can't get it any other way contact me via PM and we can arrange something!
-
Then you need to upgrade roughly half of the shareware apps you use. Properly written apps should not bring forth a UAC prompt unless they are a system utility (spyware scanner, defragger, etc.). I have UAC set on high and rarely see UAC prompts.
-Innuendo
Why should there be a prompt to run a spyware scanner? How is it useful? Potentially, how many people will get spooked by the warning and decide not to run the scanner after all?
But that's nothing. You can't even rename a desktop icon without an "As administrator" confirmation, even though the logged-in user *is* an administrator.
I don't experience that on my machine, but maybe it's because I have the desktop pointing to my D: drive.
-Innuendo
That may well be. I still don't get why deleting items does not require admin rights, but renaming does.
In "Default programs", all the file associations grabbed by Windows Media Player are grayed out and can't be changed (to the VLC player, say). The workaround seems to be to manually change association for each individual file extension, which is somewhat arduous. I hope this is a bug.
If you use the file association method inside VLC you'll accomplish your task a lot easier.
-Innuendo
I did that of course, and Media Player was still launching. I've had to select individual file extensions and remap them one by one. Like I said, this could be unintended.
-
Why should there be a prompt to run a spyware scanner? How is it useful?-tranglos
All Windows knows is that something (your spyware scanner) is trying to get direct access to your hard drive & registry. Windows does know that lots of malicious programs try to do the same thing. Windows, unfortunately, cannot differentiate between good programs and bad programs. It's near impossible to do.
However, Norton was working on a UAC white-list app that would allow one to okay a UAC prompt once & then have the system remember that app as being okay & never prompting again. I haven't heard anything about that program lately, though.
I did that of course, and Media Player was still launching. I've had to select individual file extensions and remap them one by one. Like I said, this could be unintended.
Lots of programs had this problem when Vista first came out, but the problem went away once the programs were updated to change the file associations the right way. Are you using the latest version of VLC? You may need to upgrade.
-
For Device Manager and a lot more a 'trick' (not really, but surprisingly not everyone knows about this) I learned back in the Win2k days serves well here:
Right-Click on Computer and go to "Manage".
- Oshyan
-JavaJones
Ironically, that is the only way I knew how to open the device manager for a while. (Still is the way I open it too)
-
However, Norton was working on a UAC white-list app that would allow one to okay a UAC prompt once & then have the system remember that app as being okay & never prompting again. I haven't heard anything about that program lately, though.-Innuendo
Here's one but only works with Windows 2000/2003/XP/Vista but it does NOT support 64bit :down: & I have not tried it as I only got 64bit
http://www.replaceuac.com/
-
I seriously don't think I understand what it *is* designed to do, other than to annoy and confuse. The problem seems to be that Windows can't tell the difference between a user-initiated action and an action that's possibly unauthorized.-tranglos
If Windows tried to differentiate between user-launched and not, malware would simply send keystrokes/mouse-movements...
Since it's pretty much impossible to launch regedit or a snapin accidentally, the prompt seems redundant.-tranglos
Double-clicking (or malware doing ShellExecute on) a .reg file...
Then it should alert when a process tries to do somtehing fishy, not simply when the process starts. It's impossible to know beforehand whether an app has been compromised or not. Again, this is what AV/antispyware software is there to detect.-tranglos
Full HIPS style protection is outside the scope of UAC... IMHO what UAC does and protects again is perfectly fine for what it was designed for - only thing that really bothers me about UAC is the developer side of the story (not properly documented, no clean/supported way to drop rights).
At the same time, there are no prompts when TuneUp installer registers its services, which is where a malware app could do some real harm.-tranglos
That's because you're already running the installer with admin privileges, to have write access to %ProgramFiles%.
I just can't see a scenario where I should be prompted before I knowingly execute a known application. It serves no purpose if the app is fine, and it serves no purpose if the app is a trojan, because I cannot know that. At the very least there should be an option like "Do not prompt for this application again".-tranglos
Keep in midn that the main benefit of UAC is protecting you from stuff that happens behind your back, combined with the fact that Windows can't (and shouldn't!) try to differentiate between user-initiated actions and programmatic actions.
Why should there be a prompt to run a spyware scanner? How is it useful? Potentially, how many people will get spooked by the warning and decide not to run the scanner after all?-tranglos
There shouldn't be a prompt. The programmers of the spyware scanner should have programmed properly, following the age-old design guidelines that's been available since NT4... move the privileged code to a service, let the GUI run as normal user code. Presto, problem solved. Yes, it's more work for the programmers, but it's the proper way to do things, and it's been for like fifteen years.
Shame on Microsoft for not dumping the 9x line sooner, and shame on them for making the default user on NT have admin privileges until Vista.
That may well be. I still don't get why deleting items does not require admin rights, but renaming does.-tranglos
Probably because there's some (registry setting?) to "hide" items from AllUsers on *your* user account - while renaming would try to rename registry keys / .lnk files from AllUsers.
However, Norton was working on a UAC white-list app that would allow one to okay a UAC prompt once & then have the system remember that app as being okay & never prompting again. I haven't heard anything about that program lately, though.-Innuendo
Convenient, but a bad idea anyway. It was covered in another thread (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=15279.0).
-
Jump Lists:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/features/jump-lists
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=16143
Another "Ooo, shiny and new, only available in Win7!" feature that was actually available all the way back to WinXP and maybe even Win2k, although at that time it required more work on the part of the developer (see Winamp for example). Still a cool feature though, and much more powerful and flexible in Win7 in any case.
- Oshyan
-
If Windows tried to differentiate between user-launched and not, malware would simply send keystrokes/mouse-movements...
-f0dder
Sure, but then what's the point of prompting in the first place? If I'm about to start a virus, UAC doesn't know about it and neither do I. Only my AV software will. and if I'm starting a benign app, UAC serves no purpose.
Since it's pretty much impossible to launch regedit or a snapin accidentally, the prompt seems redundant.-tranglos
Double-clicking (or malware doing ShellExecute on) a .reg file...
-f0dder
There has always been a prompt for double-clicking a .reg file, and that's good. On the other hand, starting regedit without any command-line parameters is not in itself harmful. I would sooner understand a prompt before regedit tries to write to the registry. I can't accept a prompt just for starting regedit.
Maybe this is a character issue, f0dder :) None of the UAC annoyances are present on XP, of course, but there is a distant hint of the same. XP creates a folder called "System Volume Information" on every drive. If my understanding is correct, this folder is used to keep the System Restore snapshots. These folders are inaccessible to admin users - you can't see what's inside, you can't read the contents nothing. Since the folders are locked out, I don't know if defraggers or apps that show disk usage by folder can even do their work properly. Maybe, maybe not. I turn System Restore off first thing after installing XP, because I don't like black boxes on my system that take up who knows what amount of space and can't be managed by the admin. Do I trust System Restore will work when needed? Not at all.
UAC, and the other new Vista/7 "security" features are in the same league. They lock me out of things on my own system I may want to look at and know about, and I don't like that.
Keep in mind that the main benefit of UAC is protecting you from stuff that happens behind your back, combined with the fact that Windows can't (and shouldn't!) try to differentiate between user-initiated actions and programmatic actions.
-f0dder
So far it's only trying to protect me from starting applications I want to start. It serves no purpose on a properly maintained system. Thankfully I can turn it off :)
-
Jump Lists:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/features/jump-lists
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=16143
Another "Ooo, shiny and new, only available in Win7!" feature that was actually available all the way back to WinXP and maybe even Win2k, although at that time it required more work on the part of the developer (see Winamp for example). Still a cool feature though, and much more powerful and flexible in Win7 in any case.
- Oshyan
-JavaJones
I like 7stacks (http://www.alastria.com/index.php?p=software-7s). But after using it for awhile I seemed to remember these little gizmos for the OS/2 Taskbar where you click it and a whole "drawer" full of icons extends(kind of like how the equalizer pops out on a Winamp skin.) Of course 7stacks using glass which makes it more fun. But it's essentially the same salt shaker only transparent.
-
I haven't used Win7 much in the vm I have setup for it under Linux, but my first impression was similar to others': Why the heck did they bury select pieces of the Control Panel and Device Manager? Yet I do think it's the best Windows ever.
-
Edited: I forgot the initial line:
"I am on Vista, and doesn't yet have Win 7"
---
Does UAC on Win 7 not have a "quiet mode", like Vista has?
Snap from WinAbility:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
I don't believe UAC ever was invented to help the user. UAC is exactly like the EULA; it is there so that in case there ever will be a trial, they can claim, "oh, but we told you so!" And that is of course all the UAC as well is for. It was solely invented so Microsoft can keep their back in the clear no matter what ugliness gets into your computer: "Oh, but we told you so!". I have not seen the UAC pop-up since the day I installed the TweakUAC™, and I never looked back. Of course, I then have other programs to do the necessary job, but they also do it much better than I could do it. Because as it was said earlier in this thread, after a while, with UAC, you just confirm without reading what it is you are confirming.
I don't know if any of these UAC tweakers are ready for Win 7.
---
Regarding the Control Panel. It is a good idea to have it show up as a menu, rather than as a shortcut. My Vista was installed by a third party company, which, if you will forgive me the hight, gave me this quite awesome control panel menu (in Danish):
378x4169 pixels:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
-
- oh, I forgot:
Theory versus Real Life:
Theory: UAC is a good idea.
Real Life:
Curt to girl friend: "Did you install the security program I gave you?"
Girl friend: "No, Windows the computer said it was dangerous"
That is Real Life!
-
Am I the only user who is NOT annoyed by UAC? Heck, even my wife uses her vista laptop and has not complained about UAC. She has even said UAC is helpful in that it can help prevent accidental deletion of a file she didn't intend to touch. UAC in Windows 7 is far from intrusive, in my opinion. Vista was overbearing at times with UAC but this was greatly improved in 7. The problem with UAC is that most application developers, even after a few years with Vista, have not realized what is throwing these UAC prompts and have not updated their applications. I have a feeling this will change with Win7, but one can only wonder why it hasn't happened sooner.
</rant>
-Josh
Nope - doesn't bother me, either. I have not had an issue with it under Vista 32 bit, Vista 64 bit and now Windows 7.
-
2) Instead of running the application via the normal startup option set up a scheduled task to start the program at login and give the task admin rights. See http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=616 for details on how to do it it Vista - the same appraoch works in Windows 7.
-Carol Haynes
Yes - this is what I have done and I no longer suffer UAC prompts on system start for SpellChecker or for Acronis something or other :-[
-
Convenient, but a bad idea anyway. It was covered in another thread (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=15279.0).-f0dder
Agreed, but I don't use that Norton program nor am I one of those people who think UAC is bad. First thing I do after installing Windows 7 is go to the Control Panel & crank UAC up to max.
Now *there* is a setting that has the wrong default value.
-
I put a shortcut to the control panel on the desktop. "System" in control panel is where youwill find 'device manager'., among other places I suppose.
-cmpm
One thing I like about RocketDock is by default it has buttons for Computer, Network, Documents, Control Panel and Recycle Bin. It seems like the settings get shuffled around every few Windows releases. RocketDock makes a nice common denominator across XP, Vista, Windows7.
-
Sure, but then what's the point of prompting in the first place? If I'm about to start a virus, UAC doesn't know about it and neither do I. Only my AV software will. and if I'm starting a benign app, UAC serves no purpose.-tranglos
If you get an UAC prompt by something that isn't an installer, you should be very suspicious. And it adds an extra barrier, your antivirus app might not have the latest-and-greates trojan in it's database.
There has always been a prompt for double-clicking a .reg file, and that's good. On the other hand, starting regedit without any command-line parameters is not in itself harmful. I would sooner understand a prompt before regedit tries to write to the registry. I can't accept a prompt just for starting regedit.-tranglos
There's a command-line option to silently import .reg files to the registry... unfortunately, because of the way UAC is implemented, elevation is only available while starting a process - you can't temporarily gain/drop admin privilege in-process. How often do you need to start regedit anyway?
None of the UAC annoyances are present on XP, of course, but there is a distant hint of the same.-tranglos
Not if you run it in the standard & unsafe admin-user way. If you do it properly with a limited user account, there's more annoyance than Vista with UAC.
These folders are inaccessible to admin users - you can't see what's inside, you can't read the contents nothing.-tranglos
You don't need to poke around there, just like you don't need to delete system files. You can give yourself access with cacls.exe anyway.
It serves no purpose on a properly maintained system.-tranglos
Sure it does, it keeps bad stuff out. I'll rather be using UAC and not suffer the performance penalty of antivirus software... (not something I'd suggest for other people though). And I like how Vista is finally forcing developers to program correctly. Again, too bad it didn't happen 10+ years ago.
Agreed, but I don't use that Norton program nor am I one of those people who think UAC is bad. First thing I do after installing Windows 7 is go to the Control Panel & crank UAC up to max.
Now *there* is a setting that has the wrong default value.
-Innuendo
AMEN to that! :up:
-
Poland is now in the EU so why not simply buy it from another EU country? Under the single market I can't see that Microsoft is legally able to restrict sales within regions of Europe.
-Carol Haynes
Legally they can't restrict sales, but everyone does it anyway - from MS to Amazon to Embarcadero (you can only buy Delphi from a local reseller, at really aggravating prices and no added value). -tranglos
I've ordered W7HP Family Pack from the USA via a intermediary here in Australia, (who will post to other countries if you're interested :) ). At the time, the Family Pack wasn't available in Australia and now that it is, it'll still work out cheaper to get it from the USA.
-
All those people annoyed by uAC should give linux a try. sudo su is all it takes to have a shell in which to be admin, while the rest of the system is user-owned. I couldn't find a way to do this the time I was on windows.
-
All those people annoyed by uAC should give linux a try. sudo su is all it takes to have a shell in which to be admin, while the rest of the system is user-owned. I couldn't find a way to do this the time I was on windows.
-urlwolf
There was a user-written port of it that I used on NT 4 Server. I don't know if the author kept up with it. Could be the same version would work. It used sockets and the listening part of the code would only accept connection from 127.0.0.1(the local machine.) The fellow even had a way to create elevated shortcuts for a particular task by encrypting the password similar to how Linux login does it.
Google and ye may find. :)
-
All those people annoyed by uAC should give linux a try. sudo su is all it takes to have a shell in which to be admin, while the rest of the system is user-owned. I couldn't find a way to do this the time I was on windows.
-urlwolf
You can do that same in Windows. Set your user account to be none admin and then use "Run as Administrator" on CMD.COM
-
All those people annoyed by uAC should give linux a try. sudo su is all it takes to have a shell in which to be admin, while the rest of the system is user-owned. I couldn't find a way to do this the time I was on windows.
-urlwolf
Simply start cmd.exe with administrative privileges - on Vista and Win7, open the start menu, type cmd, and hit ctrl+shift+enter. Same goes for recent versions of FARR :) - and the trick can be used for other apps than just cmd.exe . Notice that it won't work for explorer, though, because of the way explorer.exe handles multiple instances and your desktop.
-
The su port will work from a non-administrative user group. As I say, you can set up shortcuts with an included encrypted password to use it from accounts with lower privileges.
-
You can do that in Windows too - just right click on the shortcut and click on the Advanced button and you can choose to run it with a different user credentials - so you could run with an Admin account if you want.
-
You can do that in Windows too - just right click on the shortcut and click on the Advanced button and you can choose to run it with a different user credentials - so you could run with an Admin account if you want.
-Carol Haynes
Yup. I think the only advantage would be the encrypted password in the shortcut. I 'spose you could always use a macro to get around typing in a pw but it would kind of defeat the securty.
That and the fact that it likely works on about 1/2 flavors of windows.
-
Yup. I think the only advantage would be the encrypted password in the shortcut. I 'spose you could always use a macro to get around typing in a pw but it would kind of defeat the securty.-MilesAhead
Encryption doesn't help a lot when it's automated...
-
Yup. I think the only advantage would be the encrypted password in the shortcut. I 'spose you could always use a macro to get around typing in a pw but it would kind of defeat the securty.-MilesAhead
Encryption doesn't help a lot when it's automated...
-f0dder
I think I made that point already. With the su port you put your password through an encryption tool so that the clear text password isn't in the shortcut. Once you have the shortcut set up it saves you from typing it in every time your run a common house-keeping chore. Just double-click.
-
Microsoft mucks up Windows 7 licensing
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/091203#story1
-
MilesAhead: you might not be able to directly read the password in plaintext, but since it's an automated method, what stops you from simply copying the encrypted password and using the sudo tool to launch other stuff?
And since it's automated, it's not going to be very hard to get the plaintext password... memory dump of the sudo process, or knowledge of the encryption method and simply decrypting it yourself.
Of course it's not something that's going to be exploited by malware because it's not a widespread tool, and it's probably only meant for single-user environments. I'd still call it a gaping security hole though :)
-
MilesAhead: you might not be able to directly read the password in plaintext, but since it's an automated method, what stops you from simply copying the encrypted password and using the sudo tool to launch other stuff?
-f0dder
What stops you is the algorithm isn't that simple. Your password as well as the program/batch commands executed are calculated into a string that's unique for each shortcut created(unless perhaps you created identical shortcuts.) The server decrypts the password and the info about the command and matches them up. If you made a batch file with "del c:\windows\temp\*.tmp" and then used the password string generated with a shortcut that used the command "del c:\windows\system32\*.dll" it would not work.
The author said it's not bullet-proof but it's something. If we really want to get into it, typing in the password by hand you could have a key logger or even a listener for electronic noise that would know which keys are pressed. Depends how paranoid you are. Don't use the automated method for anything really critical. It's just a convenience. Back then there weren't a lot of utilities such as CCleaner as I recall. You pretty much did it manually. There's exponentially more freeware available these days.
Anyway, I'm just going from memory back in the 1990s. I think the programmer gave up on it around 2005 or so. On most machines the gaping whole in security is the computer case. Rip it open. Take HD. Info gone.
-
Ah, hashing the command and using that as part of the encryption key at least makes the very-trivial attack impossible - at least that's something.
-
Ah, hashing the command and using that as part of the encryption key at least makes the very-trivial attack impossible - at least that's something.
-f0dder
Like I said, it's a convenience for taking out the trash. Not something to connect to your bank account. :)
-
OK - only three days on Windows 7 and already I am turning UAC off. It does NOT only pop when an installer is started; it pops every time I open Everything, and many times again when I simply try to maximize Everything from the system tray. Same thing for Chameleon Startup Manager, and a few others. I tried setting them as opening with admin rights, didn't help w/the popups.
There is no reason for me to be irritated in this way. Sorry folks, I've read about as much as I can on UAC, but it's getting the fourth option here.
Jim
-
OK - only three days on Windows 7 and already I am turning UAC off.-J-Mac
Wow, you really stuck it out....it lasted all of 60 minutes on my machine.
And it's extremely annoying how things just do not want to work under Win7, whereas they work fine under XP with a minimum of fuss.
eg. I have a G15 keyboard, I run LCDMisc, (Run As Admin), to provide feedback as to what a daemon is doing on another machine on the LAN - it also uses the multimedia keys to control the daemon. Works fine under XP, push a key the daemon stops, push it again it resumes.
On W7 it just happily ignores the keys, I don't use the default firewall and LCDMisc has full access through Outpost - I'm sure this will turn out to be something really simple under W7, I just have to have the patience and time to work out what but in the meantime it's just really annoying.
-
Annoying it is!
I think I might have to reinstall the damn thing. Not sure which app did this, though I suspect one of two - CloneCD from Slysoft or, believe it or not, Thunderbird 3 - but one of them borked the system something awful. Had to go into safe mode and ended up restoring a System Restore point. Decided it was probably CloneCD so I went ahead and installed T-Bird 3 again and got the same problems. Basically the system, after restarting, wouldn't go any further. Couldn't access the taskbar or anything else. Spinning thing stayed forever, and no activity according to the lights on the case. Tried bringing up the Task Manager and the screen goes dark. So, started in safe mode again, uninstalled T-Bird 3, and restarted yet again. All seemed OK except the resolution was not quite restored correctly. All icons smaller, text in all programs way too small. Resolution values are correct: 1920 x 12xx (forget exactly), but text/icons off, and I cannot get them back like they were before all this, which was just the damn default that Win7 set up. Setting text size is a percentage. I have it set at what is the claimed default, 125%, but it is still too small, and that's after logging out/in, restarting... Just can't seem to make it like it was. Damn it!
BTW, during all that stuff above, Windows performed a system repair after the first time in safe mode - that's actually when the text size got screwed up. If it were XP I'd have it sorted by now, but Win7 doesn't have everything in the same place, plus it doesn't want to let me do much of anything on my own. F**king presumptive bastards!
Do I sound a little, tiny bit pissed? >:(
Jim
-
It just occurred to me why some people are having such battles with UAC while I have none. It may be that I have removed one of UAC's most annoying traits when launching apps. In the world of UAC the C: drive, and especially the C:\Program Files\ directory, are sacred areas of the hard drive as far as UAC is concerned and it's more hyper-vigilant monitoring your C: drive (and C:\Program Files and C:\Windows) than it is when monitoring other drives and directories.
I've always (even back in the days of Windows 95) installed everything to D:\Program Files. Tons of programs that will throw up a UAC prompt when installed to C:\Program Files won't utter a peep when installed to a different hard drive.
-
You might be on to something there - I usually install to D:\Program Files when an installer gives the option and I am not plagued by UAC prompts either.
-
Yes, Program Files has proper NTFS permissions set, which is why UAC pops up when poorly programmed applications try to write to their install folder :)
As for Everything popping up an UAC prompt, that's quite natural as well: it reads the MFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS#Metafiles) directly, which isn't something you want just any application to do... if Everything had been properly designed, it would consist of a service backend and a GUI frontend.
-
Exactly! Do not blame UAC for poor application programming. Any modifiable files should be stored in the %appdata% folder of the users profile. Writing to program files is a poor habit spawned by years of Win9X/ME and running as an admin profile in XP/Vista/7/2K
-
I had to go into Control Panel to check ... I get prompts so seldom I keep forgetting UAC is on.
-
f0dder, Josh:
I can't seem to use the "quote" button here now - tells me it cannot complete verification, so anyway this is on reply to your most recent posts above:
I don't give a flying **** if those two apps are "poorly programmed" as you two call them. Chameleon Startup Manager and Everything have worked flawlessly for me since I first discovered them - here on DC as a matter of fact! They perform their respective functions exactly as promised, and are exactly what I wish to use. And the two of you are going to tell me that I'm using crapware? Bullshit!
What have they programmed so poorly? Their apps work very well. Is it that they did not add in code to satisfy the UAC program? If that is all they have done so poorly, then I can live with that. If one or both suddenly - after all the use I have given them - rip up my system, well then it's on me. I paid for this damn OS, I paid for the computer and all associated hardware connected to it. And I'll damn well run whatever I please on it, Microsoft be damned... and worse if need be! What do you suggest? That I look around and find something that might be able to replicate what those two apps can do but also made a point to go get their Microsoft Logo Certs? Not me.
Hey, I run only licensed software, I pay for every damn app I use regularly - whether by price or by donation (and I'll match my total donations to independent developers, and not just here at DC, against anyone here) - and I run my machines with licensed Anti-Virus, Anti-Spyware, plenty of diagnostics and system monitors, and I try to practice smart and safe computer usage. I usually customize my systems, but only within my capabilities; I don't download a lot of crap from torrent sites and cross my fingers that they aren't so dirty that they infect my refrigerator, TV, and washer and dryer, too ( ;D ). But I will not abandon the use of some of my favorite utilities and go buy certified ones because they fail in only one single aspect - getting by Microsoft's admitted "annoyance" alert program UAC. Ain't happening!!
And dat's da truth... :P :P :P
XXOO
Jim ;)
-
I use Everything on all my computers (XP, Vista, 7) and never see a UAC prompt (and yes it is enabled).
You just have to setup how the app starts via the task manager (as already mentioned). ANd yes the only reason you have to do this is becuase Everything uses none standard methods to access the filing system and MS quite rightly wanrs you of this if you aren't running in purley admin mode.
At the end of the day the choice is there - if you don't like UAC turn it off. Going back to Windows XP because it is isritating is plain stupid - there is no UAC in XP, so you may as well have no UAC in Vista/7 - at least then you get a better firewall.
-
The Edsil was a fine car...but you can't buy one today because they failed to keep up with the changing times. Much so with software. The secure computing environment has changed radically in the past 5 years, and some folks have just spent too much time dragging their feet. They seem to be coding like they're hoping the good ol' Win9x security-less days will return ... and they will not. This is neither good, nor bad, it simply is.
UAC was designed has a half-step to ease people out of the (extreemly dangerous) habit of doing everyday tasks with administrative rights. Many (if not most) of the apps that trigger UAC repeatedly will be just as ill behaved if run in a standard user account.
Hell it took me 5 years to get T-Clock to behave the way I wanted it to, but it had to be done if I was going to be able to continue using it on the newer more security oriented OSs.
-
Carol, Stoic: I didn't say I was going back to XP!! Nothing that drastic. And I am using the user account that was automatically setup for me by the system. I believe that has admin privileges when needed to elevate an app but most of the time does not use them. And I think that is indeed a great idea. About three PCs ago - which would be five or six years I guess - I was using the Administrator account. At the time I didn't realize how dangerous it was. The system - either HP Pavilion or Dell Dimension, can't remember which specifically, was preset-up that way and I didn't know enough to change it. When I did learn I started to change it but do you know how hard it is to set up a new user and then actually use it? Clean desktop, none of my apps available to me. All would need to be uninstalled/reinstalled according to their support people, so I left it like it was for another six months till I got a new 'puter.
I prefer it like it is now, though I am certain there are people who still prefer to use Admin account. Their loss, if you ask me. Inexperienced users wouldn't know how to switch and use the Admin account for the most part. UAC is supposedly aimed at such inexperienced users. Anyway, mine is now off. :)
Jim
-
In my field I frequently run into vertical market software that is exorbitantly priced, slapped together, and rushed to market (prime offenders for permissions headaches). (Client needs security but can't afford update...) So for simplicity's sake I have reset the NTFS permissions on only the program's install directory, which leaves the rest of the system's security intact but lets the program run for users with out making the Admins. Surgical strike as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Just a thought ;)
-
And then there are some developers who are apparently trying but it simply isn't working. I use - or use to use up till a few days ago - ACDSee Photo Manager 2009. Worked fine on XP and Vista, but won't work for many on Windows 7. For months ACD Systems was totally silent on the problems but recently they finally posted a warning that the program isn't working for "some users" on Windows 7. However it is certified as Windows 7 compatible by Microsoft. If you had looked at the Windows 7 Compatibility page for ACDSee just a few days ago it showed ACDSee Photo Manager 2009 as fully compatible. Yet some were claiming that the number of users who could not use it on Win7 exceeded 50%, though I don't know of any valid statistics on that. Suffice it to say that the ACDSee forums and other image software-related forums have a heck of a lot of posts about it. It seems that after installation the software runs fine the first time. Then it never runs or runs poorly and usually crashes the system every time after that. Something to do with the file locations and permissions that it uses. Microsoft says it "should" work, and indeed it does for many. But it crashes a lot of folks also.
Anyway that program stayed on the compatible list for months and was just removed yesterday or the day before. Now it shows ACDSee 10 as "Coming soon". Which means I guess that they are not going to fix whatever is causing problems in the current version. And that isn't he only developer with issues like this. So ACDSee gets by UAC because it is officially pronounced as OK, while others, mostly from private developers who can probably least afford the additional programming, get honked by UAC every time. It needs work. No one should need to either install all programs to a different drive than C:\, nor set up programs to start as scheduled tasks to get around this "annoyance (http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-Vista-feature-designed-to-annoy-users/2100-1016_3-6237191.html?tag=cd.lede)".
Jim
-
All a developer has to say to a customer is 'cheange the permission in the shortcut that starts the app'. You can easily set any app to avoid UAC if you need to.
Personally I think it is a good idea that MS have put an obstacle in the way of sloppy software writers. At least the user knows that poorly coded software needs elevated privileges to run properly and have the choice of saying 'yes I trust them' or 'no I don't' on older systems the user is blissfully unaware.
Having said that I presume MS certified that ACDSee was Win 7 compatible because ACDSystems are big enough to cough up for the certification. I don't know how much test MS do on software to get into their list but I bet it isn't much more than run the installer and see if it works.
What I don't understand is why MS didn't simply make the choice of making all new user accounts default to user level security (and they could have done that back from Windows XP). Most of these issues would have been ironed out long ago. Seems to me that they are too lily livered to do the write thing so they introduce UAC as a kludge to fix something that isn't basically broken - just a bad choice.
-
Poorly programmed isn't the same as crapware. In this case, it's about not following design guidelines that have been around since, oh I dunno, NT4 or so. It's not about "satisfying the UAC program", stuff throwing UAC prompts simply wouldn't have worked on XP (or win200 or NT4 or anything non-Win9x) when not running with an account with administrative privileges.
And for the case of Everything, it's perfectly fixable: as mentioned before, the program needs to be split into a service running with admin privileges that have access to the MFT, and a GUI frontend that runs privilege-less and communicates with the service. Presto, problem solved. It's been the proper way to handle this kind of thing at least NT4 (I don't have experience with pre-NT4.)
ACDSee breaking probably has nothing to do with UAC but everything to do with poor programming practices... hardcoding locations, doing tings in nonstandard ways, whatever.
What I don't understand is why MS didn't simply make the choice of making all new user accounts default to user level security (and they could have done that back from Windows XP). Most of these issues would have been ironed out long ago. Seems to me that they are too lily livered to do the write thing so they introduce UAC as a kludge to fix something that isn't basically broken - just a bad choice.
-Carol Haynes
I agree fully that MS should have made the default user non-admin a long time ago - preferably at the time of Win2000, and definitely no later than WinXP when people really started migrating from Win9x. Also, WinMe should never have seen the light of day, Win98 should have been the last 9x Windows.
I find UAC to be a pretty nice system, though - the alternative would be having to run applications in admin mode and always supplying an admin password in order to be able to do so...
-
I find UAC to be a pretty nice system, though - the alternative would be having to run applications in admin mode and always supplying an admin password in order to be able to do so...
-f0dder
UAC is just a poorly designed fix - it is slightly less poorly designed in 7 than Vista but nevertheless it is and always will be an excuse for not doing the right thing.
Few, if any, user level applications NEED admin rights to run and if they do they can be written properly so that the relevant parts can be elevated to admin status during setup.
How about having a system similar to secure layer certificates for website so that any application requiring elevated privileges has to have a certificate (not necessarily from MS) so that you can clearly identify the source of the software. If SSL cert providers broadened their scope to include this kind of cert then it wouldn't cost developers much to certify their apps and it would be a real incentive to get the apps correct in the first place. Multiple certs for different applications from the same developer could be very cheap because the initial identification would go through with the first registration.
There could be an exception (UAC style) just for installation so you don't have to log out and login as an admin user to do that. But then the installers would need to be certified to run at that level.
-
UAC is just a poorly designed fix - it is slightly less poorly designed in 7 than Vista but nevertheless it is and always will be an excuse for not doing the right thing.-Carol Haynes
I don't agree fully with that - it has some problems at the API side, but IMHO it's basically A Good Thing. Even if all poorly written software was fixed to follow the Windows coding guidelines, there'd still be a bunch of applications legitimately requiring admin privileges... requiring every such application to be split into a service and an end-user UI is overkill.
Few, if any, user level applications NEED admin rights to run and if they do they can be written properly so that the relevant parts can be elevated to admin status during setup.-Carol Haynes
Yep, apart from installation, most user level applications shouldn't ever need admin privs.
How about having a system similar to secure layer certificates for website so that any application requiring elevated privileges has to have a certificate (not necessarily from MS) so that you can clearly identify the source of the software. If SSL cert providers broadened their scope to include this kind of cert then it wouldn't cost developers much to certify their apps and it would be a real incentive to get the apps correct in the first place. Multiple certs for different applications from the same developer could be very cheap because the initial identification would go through with the first registration.-Carol Haynes
Interesting idea, and applications have had AuthentiCode signing for quite a while now (though usually you only see it for installers and ActiveX objects). I'm not a super big fan of whitelisting in this context, though... it would definitely have some good uses, but there'd be the risk of opening up backdoors, and crappy software vendors would just require an UAC exception to be added, rather than fixing their software.
-
in XP I always was running in admin mode
still got a prompt to allow an install
but not of drivers within the install like W7
now with UAC turned off
I still get the driver prompt/warning
which is good
I never had a problem with programs trying to install without me clicking install. XP or W7.
I wonder if UAC would catch opencandy.
That would be a good test I think.
But I won't try it.
-
How about having a system similar to secure layer certificates for website so that any application requiring elevated privileges has to have a certificate (not necessarily from MS) so that you can clearly identify the source of the software. If SSL cert providers broadened their scope to include this kind of cert then it wouldn't cost developers much to certify their apps and it would be a real incentive to get the apps correct in the first place. Multiple certs for different applications from the same developer could be very cheap because the initial identification would go through with the first registration.-Carol Haynes
Interesting idea, and applications have had AuthentiCode signing for quite a while now (though usually you only see it for installers and ActiveX objects). I'm not a super big fan of whitelisting in this context, though... it would definitely have some good uses, but there'd be the risk of opening up backdoors, and crappy software vendors would just require an UAC exception to be added, rather than fixing their software.
-f0dder
I wasn't thinking white listing so much but rather accountability. If something similar to SSL certs were required it would force developers to identify who they are and how to contact them. If they are identifiable then it will cut down on the crapware and malware that wants admin access level to be malicious. The good thing about SSL certs is that they are only issued when you provide concrete proof of who you are and where you are - that way if any problems arrive the license can be revoked and for malware pedlars they can be prosecuted.
-
Carol, AuthentiCode (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms537359%28VS.85%29.aspx) already lets one do that - afaik it's the same process as SSL certs (plus a bit more?), CAs are definitely involved.
-
Yes you can do that but what I am suggesting is that it beo=come mandatory and that only applications with such a certificate be allowed to install if they require admin access level. Either that or a massive warning pops up warning users that they are installing or running something that requires admin rights but it comes from an untrusted source.
Anything really to force the hand of developers to sort out the issues people are encountering and to stop everyone blaming the operating system for developers poor coding practices.
-
Poorly programmed isn't the same as crapware. -f0dder
True, but when the apps I mentioned were called "poorly designed", I usually associate that with a similar term that I wanted to avoid - "sh*tware"... so I hedged! :-[
Jim :)
-
And then there are some developers who are apparently trying but it simply isn't working. I use - or use to use up till a few days ago - ACDSee Photo Manager 2009. Worked fine on XP and Vista, but won't work for many on Windows 7.-J-Mac
I'm not doubting your words. However, I have personal knowledge of 8 installs of ACDSee Photo Manager 2009 on Windows 7-based computers & laptops of varying ages and none of them have anything to report other than smooth sailing.
This problem must be a very tricky one indeed to track down. I'd be lost without my ACDSee. I started using it way back in the v2.x days and the ACDSee way of doing things is too ingrained in my being to ever switch picture viewers. Every attempt to check out others results in me missing the ACDSee workflow.
-
You might be on to something there - I usually install to D:\Program Files when an installer gives the option and I am not plagued by UAC prompts either.-Carol Haynes
When Vista was released a lot of older games wouldn't work unless you installed them somewhere other than C:\Program Files.
(The following is not addressed to Carol, but just general discussion to carry on the thread)
I'm sure the state of development that UAC is in now is not the end of the road. There'll be enhancements and tweaks going forward. I'm sure MS is just easing everyone into this kind of OS security, developers and users alike. I wouldn't be surprised if one day MS released an OS where UAC could not be adjusted or turned off.
People pining for the days of how things worked in XP and before just need to get over it. Running as super-admin/root all the time is never a good idea under any circumstances. Before someone pipes up and tries to point one out...the answer is no. You're wrong. What you think might be a valid circumstance is just software that needs to be re-written to do things the right way.
Fifteen years from now we'll all be looking back at how quaint XP was for running users as root all the time much like we look back at Windows 3.1 and think how quaint it was.
-
And then there are some developers who are apparently trying but it simply isn't working. I use - or use to use up till a few days ago - ACDSee Photo Manager 2009. Worked fine on XP and Vista, but won't work for many on Windows 7.-J-Mac
I'm not doubting your words. However, I have personal knowledge of 8 installs of ACDSee Photo Manager 2009 on Windows 7-based computers & laptops of varying ages and none of them have anything to report other than smooth sailing.
This problem must be a very tricky one indeed to track down. I'd be lost without my ACDSee. I started using it way back in the v2.x days and the ACDSee way of doing things is too ingrained in my being to ever switch picture viewers. Every attempt to check out others results in me missing the ACDSee workflow.
-Innuendo
It's not everyone, but check their forum to see that it's a lot. Just in case you didn't see this:
This used to show Windows 7 as a compatible OS.
[attachthumb=#1][/attachthumb]
And this is from the knowledge base.
[attachthumb=#2][/attachthumb]
Jim
-
It's not everyone, but check their forum to see that it's a lot. Just in case you didn't see this:
-J-Mac
Like I said, I am not doubting you at all. As a matter of fact, the official word from the ACD Systems reps in the forums is that ACDSee 2009 isn't Windows 7 certified. However, they are saying that its problems are limited to having trouble with Libraries & large DPI settings.
And yeah...their solution is probably going to be to just shovel out ACDSee Photo Manager 2010 and ignore 2009's problems. :(
-
Not probably - they have already told me that. Though I had to call them and hold a long time to get that tidbit.
Jim
-
Writing lousy code - a great excuse for charging customers for a new upgrade :-*
-
It is the standard approach of ACDSystems - if you report bugs they will always 'be fixed in the next version'.
-
It is the standard approach of ACDSystems - if you report bugs they will always 'be fixed in the next version'.-Carol Haynes
Was just getting ready to post that. This has been their policy ever since the beginning. Although during the v4-v7 stretch they were particularly bad about it. It took an act of God to get a vX.01 release.
-
My first purchase was, I think, ACDSee 7. I had registration/activation problems and couldn't reach their support. Eventually after much difficulty I managed to reach someone on the phone - it took finding an employee and getting an internal number from him. Their excuse for no support response? While the company is located in Canada, their server with support info was in Miami, FL and they claimed a hurricane had knocked out their server there. (However I lived in Miami for 8 years and still have a lot of friends there - no such damaging hurricane during that time frame)
They had no support available for almost 7 months after that. I knew I was in for a real treat then.
Thank you.
Jim
-
It is the standard approach of ACDSystems - if you report bugs they will always 'be fixed in the next version'.
-Carol Haynes
A little bit off-topic:
Carol, Since I am looking for a new photo manager/organizer that does work on Win7 I remembered Zoner Studio. I purchased all of Zoner's products back a couple years ago when you recommended them and they were having a 90% off sale. Never used them much though since I was using ACDSee for organization and PaintShop Pro X for editing. Now I'm looking for both a photo organizer and editor, since ACDSee 2009 isn't running on my box and PSP X isn't Win7 compatible. I might just pick up the latest PSP but that's only good for editing; PSP doesn't have an organizer. They used to offer PaintShop Photo Album but it was truly terrible.
Are you using Zoner at all? I would give Lightroom a try but that will have to wait for a while; personal budget restraints.
Thanks!
Jim
-
Haven't been using Zoner for a while. I am using Adobe Photoshop LightRoom 2 now.
-
Haven't been using Zoner for a while. I am using Adobe Photoshop LightRoom 2 now.
-Carol Haynes
I'm sure I'll g3et that at some point, but not in the cards right now.
Thanks Carol.
Jim