Windows Vista - on the positive side
-
Well, kinda positive. But I'm yet to find a single reason though why I would want to upgrade. A single killer "you should upgrade because of X" reason. If someone can give me a killer reason I promise I will upgrade as soon as it's released. That is, if VS 2005 and SQL Server run OK on it. Personally I would have been happy with them releasing XP 2005 that had GDI# - an upgrade to GDI+ that used whatever cheap and nasty 3D graphics card you had to make things nicer - and WinFS.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Well, kinda positive. But I'm yet to find a single reason though why I would want to upgrade. A single killer "you should upgrade because of X" reason. If someone can give me a killer reason I promise I will upgrade as soon as it's released. That is, if VS 2005 and SQL Server run OK on it. Personally I would have been happy with them releasing XP 2005 that had GDI# - an upgrade to GDI+ that used whatever cheap and nasty 3D graphics card you had to make things nicer - and WinFS.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I can think of a few "killer reasons", but they're mainly limited to specific markets. For home users with elaborate entertainment setups, the HD and media center additions to the operating system are certainly worth looking into. Some of us in the Lounge are still a bit cautious about the amount of DRM that was forced into the system. :sigh: For business users, Network Access Protection[^] can help secure corporate networks, something that IT staff will likely welcome with open arms. Of course, having worked with NAP in the past, I'm somewhat biased. :) Now that I've finished being an apologist, I have to admit that there is no true killer reason for the average consumer. But I also don't think that this is a bad thing. Rather, it's more that the combination of enhancements and additions will benefit most users more than any single new feature could. Consider the user experience improvements in the operating system. It is through the *combination* of WPF, DirectX 10, the rewritten window manager, a modified graphics API, a rich API for accepting input from multiple devices, etc., that this presents itself as an overall improvement. Now for a slight digression.. And what of security? Even the strictest MS foe would admit that the security of Vista has improved considerably. This is due to the harmony of user privilege separation, partial kernel lockdown (no thanks to McAfee and Symantec!), UAC, and a host of other elements. Yes, I just used the words "harmony" and "UAC" in the same sentence. I have had enough experience with UAC to know that it works fairly well and it not obtrusive at all *as long as* the applications running under Vista follow MS secure coding practices and don't do silly things like writing user-specific information to the registry or Program Files directory. Getting back to the point, here would be a wonderful killer reason: UAC that works from an end-user perspective! Presently users are bombarded with UAC prompts, and almost all of these are due to legacy applications trying to accomplish user tasks by using system privileges rather than user privileges. Deleting an icon from the desktop results in a UAC prompt only if the icon is in the All Users desktop rather than the local user's desktop, but applications being installed for a single user shouldn't have put an icon for every user in the first place. So what do we do? Disable UAC system-
-
I can think of a few "killer reasons", but they're mainly limited to specific markets. For home users with elaborate entertainment setups, the HD and media center additions to the operating system are certainly worth looking into. Some of us in the Lounge are still a bit cautious about the amount of DRM that was forced into the system. :sigh: For business users, Network Access Protection[^] can help secure corporate networks, something that IT staff will likely welcome with open arms. Of course, having worked with NAP in the past, I'm somewhat biased. :) Now that I've finished being an apologist, I have to admit that there is no true killer reason for the average consumer. But I also don't think that this is a bad thing. Rather, it's more that the combination of enhancements and additions will benefit most users more than any single new feature could. Consider the user experience improvements in the operating system. It is through the *combination* of WPF, DirectX 10, the rewritten window manager, a modified graphics API, a rich API for accepting input from multiple devices, etc., that this presents itself as an overall improvement. Now for a slight digression.. And what of security? Even the strictest MS foe would admit that the security of Vista has improved considerably. This is due to the harmony of user privilege separation, partial kernel lockdown (no thanks to McAfee and Symantec!), UAC, and a host of other elements. Yes, I just used the words "harmony" and "UAC" in the same sentence. I have had enough experience with UAC to know that it works fairly well and it not obtrusive at all *as long as* the applications running under Vista follow MS secure coding practices and don't do silly things like writing user-specific information to the registry or Program Files directory. Getting back to the point, here would be a wonderful killer reason: UAC that works from an end-user perspective! Presently users are bombarded with UAC prompts, and almost all of these are due to legacy applications trying to accomplish user tasks by using system privileges rather than user privileges. Deleting an icon from the desktop results in a UAC prompt only if the icon is in the All Users desktop rather than the local user's desktop, but applications being installed for a single user shouldn't have put an icon for every user in the first place. So what do we do? Disable UAC system-
IMO the reaction to UAC had been too extreme. Sure you'll get a lot of prompts on a clean machine, because you're installing a lot of stuff. After 1-2 days, you'll hardly get any (mostly from power-user toys like regedit). (BTW Vega, you don't get any UAC prompts when an app tries to write to Program Files. Virtualization kicks in there and does its job silently.) I don't mind geeks turning UAC off, but what is very, very bad is geeks advising everyone to turn UAC off. Normal (non-geek) users running XP as admin is a Bad Thing. Normal users running in the more-restrictive UAC environment (even if they're just running IE) is a Good Thing. Telling those same people to turn off UAC reverts the situation back to the XP scenario and nullifies one the main improvements of Vista. :sigh:
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
-
Well, kinda positive. But I'm yet to find a single reason though why I would want to upgrade. A single killer "you should upgrade because of X" reason. If someone can give me a killer reason I promise I will upgrade as soon as it's released. That is, if VS 2005 and SQL Server run OK on it. Personally I would have been happy with them releasing XP 2005 that had GDI# - an upgrade to GDI+ that used whatever cheap and nasty 3D graphics card you had to make things nicer - and WinFS.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Dude! C'mon Chris! It's time to catch up with the times. Steve Jobs farts and people want to buy it in a jar. Put iFart on it and well, yet another quality product coming from Apple. You only need that newsletter from the All Chins guy to know that's all you need to know to flock out and buy Vista. Put it on that 64 bit laptop and then sit back and enjoy the ... uh ... well. I guess it does look kind of cool and ummm, the well... So... I heard it snowed in Australia. Must have been quite the craze. Everyone rushed out and bough snow shoes right?:rolleyes:
-
IMO the reaction to UAC had been too extreme. Sure you'll get a lot of prompts on a clean machine, because you're installing a lot of stuff. After 1-2 days, you'll hardly get any (mostly from power-user toys like regedit). (BTW Vega, you don't get any UAC prompts when an app tries to write to Program Files. Virtualization kicks in there and does its job silently.) I don't mind geeks turning UAC off, but what is very, very bad is geeks advising everyone to turn UAC off. Normal (non-geek) users running XP as admin is a Bad Thing. Normal users running in the more-restrictive UAC environment (even if they're just running IE) is a Good Thing. Telling those same people to turn off UAC reverts the situation back to the XP scenario and nullifies one the main improvements of Vista. :sigh:
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
It's the same as the "geeks" who wrote "XP Antispy" - it was really popular when XP was new, everyone prevented Microsoft from spying on them by letting the tool disable automatic updates. Now Microsoft couldn't spy on your data, but every script kiddie could! And I see the same happening with UAC. It will have one "positive" effect, though: if nearly no-one is using UAC, malware writers will continue to target users with full admin rights and those of us who are using UAC will stay safe. :sigh:
-
Well, kinda positive. But I'm yet to find a single reason though why I would want to upgrade. A single killer "you should upgrade because of X" reason. If someone can give me a killer reason I promise I will upgrade as soon as it's released. That is, if VS 2005 and SQL Server run OK on it. Personally I would have been happy with them releasing XP 2005 that had GDI# - an upgrade to GDI+ that used whatever cheap and nasty 3D graphics card you had to make things nicer - and WinFS.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
From what I can see this is like the 3G phone problem back in 2001 - they need a new revenue stream. In the case of 3G phones a lot of money was spent developing the network systems and companies pinned their future on it only to discover the phones were a couple of years away because of integration and power consumption issues and this was a major trigger for the dot com collapse.
-
Well, kinda positive. But I'm yet to find a single reason though why I would want to upgrade. A single killer "you should upgrade because of X" reason. If someone can give me a killer reason I promise I will upgrade as soon as it's released. That is, if VS 2005 and SQL Server run OK on it. Personally I would have been happy with them releasing XP 2005 that had GDI# - an upgrade to GDI+ that used whatever cheap and nasty 3D graphics card you had to make things nicer - and WinFS.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
If someone can give me a killer reason I promise I will upgrade as soon as it's released
You can skip indivdual problems during a file copy/move/delete instead of it automatically cancelling out. How many times a day would that help you? I cn count them on both hands, which is mre than I can say abut my typing sklls. The default click/hit Start then search by typing is a killer too. Control Panel -- what's that? I haven't used it for weeks now because of that search feature. I have found the new user profiles a bit nicer to work with too. It is dead easy to redirect folders compared to the hoops you had to jump through in Windows XP, and in general it is easier to find things on the first try. That said, you really need to test it out extensively for a week or so before you could consider switching fulltime. There will be little annoyances and overcoming those will be what makes or breaks it for you.
Chris Maunder wrote:
That is, if VS 2005 and SQL Server run OK on it.
I have them both working fine with their respective SP1s. I havent installed the VS2005 Vista update though because it is beta and a nagging little voice keeps reminding me how hard it is to clean those up properly. :rolleyes:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Chris Maunder wrote:
If someone can give me a killer reason I promise I will upgrade as soon as it's released
You can skip indivdual problems during a file copy/move/delete instead of it automatically cancelling out. How many times a day would that help you? I cn count them on both hands, which is mre than I can say abut my typing sklls. The default click/hit Start then search by typing is a killer too. Control Panel -- what's that? I haven't used it for weeks now because of that search feature. I have found the new user profiles a bit nicer to work with too. It is dead easy to redirect folders compared to the hoops you had to jump through in Windows XP, and in general it is easier to find things on the first try. That said, you really need to test it out extensively for a week or so before you could consider switching fulltime. There will be little annoyances and overcoming those will be what makes or breaks it for you.
Chris Maunder wrote:
That is, if VS 2005 and SQL Server run OK on it.
I have them both working fine with their respective SP1s. I havent installed the VS2005 Vista update though because it is beta and a nagging little voice keeps reminding me how hard it is to clean those up properly. :rolleyes:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
You can skip indivdual problems during a file copy/move/delete instead of it automatically cancelling out
No. Way. OK, I'm upgrading.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
David Wulff wrote:
You can skip indivdual problems during a file copy/move/delete instead of it automatically cancelling out
No. Way. OK, I'm upgrading.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Of course I am unable to reproduce it when I am trying to replicate a problem*, but I think there is even a 'Skip all' button too. * standard developer excuse number 2, after 'But it works on my machine!'
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
I can think of a few "killer reasons", but they're mainly limited to specific markets. For home users with elaborate entertainment setups, the HD and media center additions to the operating system are certainly worth looking into. Some of us in the Lounge are still a bit cautious about the amount of DRM that was forced into the system. :sigh: For business users, Network Access Protection[^] can help secure corporate networks, something that IT staff will likely welcome with open arms. Of course, having worked with NAP in the past, I'm somewhat biased. :) Now that I've finished being an apologist, I have to admit that there is no true killer reason for the average consumer. But I also don't think that this is a bad thing. Rather, it's more that the combination of enhancements and additions will benefit most users more than any single new feature could. Consider the user experience improvements in the operating system. It is through the *combination* of WPF, DirectX 10, the rewritten window manager, a modified graphics API, a rich API for accepting input from multiple devices, etc., that this presents itself as an overall improvement. Now for a slight digression.. And what of security? Even the strictest MS foe would admit that the security of Vista has improved considerably. This is due to the harmony of user privilege separation, partial kernel lockdown (no thanks to McAfee and Symantec!), UAC, and a host of other elements. Yes, I just used the words "harmony" and "UAC" in the same sentence. I have had enough experience with UAC to know that it works fairly well and it not obtrusive at all *as long as* the applications running under Vista follow MS secure coding practices and don't do silly things like writing user-specific information to the registry or Program Files directory. Getting back to the point, here would be a wonderful killer reason: UAC that works from an end-user perspective! Presently users are bombarded with UAC prompts, and almost all of these are due to legacy applications trying to accomplish user tasks by using system privileges rather than user privileges. Deleting an icon from the desktop results in a UAC prompt only if the icon is in the All Users desktop rather than the local user's desktop, but applications being installed for a single user shouldn't have put an icon for every user in the first place. So what do we do? Disable UAC system-
> For home users with elaborate entertainment setups, the HD and > media center additions to the operating system are certainly > worth looking into. Especially for this user group it's far better to stay with XP or a Mac or Linux because DRM included in Vista is pure catastrophe. Ever tried to plug in a good video card and use a very good monitor like you can do with XP? Give it a try and tell us what happens, please.
-
David Wulff wrote:
You can skip indivdual problems during a file copy/move/delete instead of it automatically cancelling out
No. Way. OK, I'm upgrading.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
> For home users with elaborate entertainment setups, the HD and > media center additions to the operating system are certainly > worth looking into. Especially for this user group it's far better to stay with XP or a Mac or Linux because DRM included in Vista is pure catastrophe. Ever tried to plug in a good video card and use a very good monitor like you can do with XP? Give it a try and tell us what happens, please.
diriproject wrote:
Especially for this user group it's far better to stay with XP or a Mac or Linux because DRM included in Vista is pure catastrophe.
I already mentioned this, but you're right about the DRM. The amount of DRM forced into the system sucks. But the media industries have mandated that if you want to enjoy HD content, these are the hoops that you have to jump through. I'd bet that future versions of Mac OSX will also have these blocks built in, unfortunately. :((
diriproject wrote:
Ever tried to plug in a good video card and use a very good monitor like you can do with XP?
It works perfectly, from what I've seen. Every combination that I've thrown at it works, with the exception of a particular Nvidia card[^]. Some of my coworkers are running 7-monitor setups, and it's flawless. Were you referring to HDMI, perhaps? This would go back to the DRM aspect of the problem.
-
IMO the reaction to UAC had been too extreme. Sure you'll get a lot of prompts on a clean machine, because you're installing a lot of stuff. After 1-2 days, you'll hardly get any (mostly from power-user toys like regedit). (BTW Vega, you don't get any UAC prompts when an app tries to write to Program Files. Virtualization kicks in there and does its job silently.) I don't mind geeks turning UAC off, but what is very, very bad is geeks advising everyone to turn UAC off. Normal (non-geek) users running XP as admin is a Bad Thing. Normal users running in the more-restrictive UAC environment (even if they're just running IE) is a Good Thing. Telling those same people to turn off UAC reverts the situation back to the XP scenario and nullifies one the main improvements of Vista. :sigh:
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
Michael Dunn wrote:
I don't mind geeks turning UAC off, but what is very, very bad is geeks advising everyone to turn UAC off. Normal (non-geek) users running XP as admin is a Bad Thing. Normal users running in the more-restrictive UAC environment (even if they're just running IE) is a Good Thing. Telling those same people to turn off UAC reverts the situation back to the XP scenario and nullifies one the main improvements of Vista.
Absolutely correct. I guess what I was really trying to say is that a good security model is a killer feature of any operating system. Support for this would have to be built into the applications, though, not just the OS. Otherwise it can get very aggravating to the end user - geek and novice alike.
-
> For home users with elaborate entertainment setups, the HD and > media center additions to the operating system are certainly > worth looking into. Especially for this user group it's far better to stay with XP or a Mac or Linux because DRM included in Vista is pure catastrophe. Ever tried to plug in a good video card and use a very good monitor like you can do with XP? Give it a try and tell us what happens, please.
diriproject wrote:
Ever tried to plug in a good video card and use a very good monitor like you can do with XP?
Yeah, I'm doing that right now. My video card gets 5.9/5.6 on WEI, and the monitor is a nice Sony 19x12. What problems do you think would occur?
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
-
IMO the reaction to UAC had been too extreme. Sure you'll get a lot of prompts on a clean machine, because you're installing a lot of stuff. After 1-2 days, you'll hardly get any (mostly from power-user toys like regedit). (BTW Vega, you don't get any UAC prompts when an app tries to write to Program Files. Virtualization kicks in there and does its job silently.) I don't mind geeks turning UAC off, but what is very, very bad is geeks advising everyone to turn UAC off. Normal (non-geek) users running XP as admin is a Bad Thing. Normal users running in the more-restrictive UAC environment (even if they're just running IE) is a Good Thing. Telling those same people to turn off UAC reverts the situation back to the XP scenario and nullifies one the main improvements of Vista. :sigh:
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
Michael Dunn wrote:
I don't mind geeks turning UAC off, but what is very, very bad is geeks advising everyone to turn UAC off. Normal (non-geek) users running XP as admin is a Bad Thing. Normal users running in the more-restrictive UAC environment (even if they're just running IE) is a Good Thing. Telling those same people to turn off UAC reverts the situation back to the XP scenario and nullifies one the main improvements of Vista.
I'm curious, is UAC strictly all or nothing, or can it be done on a per app basis like a firewall?
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
I don't mind geeks turning UAC off, but what is very, very bad is geeks advising everyone to turn UAC off. Normal (non-geek) users running XP as admin is a Bad Thing. Normal users running in the more-restrictive UAC environment (even if they're just running IE) is a Good Thing. Telling those same people to turn off UAC reverts the situation back to the XP scenario and nullifies one the main improvements of Vista.
I'm curious, is UAC strictly all or nothing, or can it be done on a per app basis like a firewall?
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
It's a restriction applied to a process when the process is created, so UAC is always on. Letting some apps bypass UAC would make it pointless (think viruses/malware).
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
-
It's a restriction applied to a process when the process is created, so UAC is always on. Letting some apps bypass UAC would make it pointless (think viruses/malware).
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
Michael Dunn wrote:
It's a restriction applied to a process when the process is created, so UAC is always on. Letting some apps bypass UAC would make it pointless (think viruses/malware).
Setting it at process creation wouldn't be an issue for what I'm thinking. "UAC Warning: Allow Deny Always_Allow Always_Deny". I'm not suggesting that doggy software should be allowed to disable UAC on itself. One popstormming app will probably be sufficient to drive the average user into permanently disabling UAC if no upgrade is immediately available, and having it completely off is much more vulnerable to malware than trying to con a user into clicking AllowAlways once.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
Well, kinda positive. But I'm yet to find a single reason though why I would want to upgrade. A single killer "you should upgrade because of X" reason. If someone can give me a killer reason I promise I will upgrade as soon as it's released. That is, if VS 2005 and SQL Server run OK on it. Personally I would have been happy with them releasing XP 2005 that had GDI# - an upgrade to GDI+ that used whatever cheap and nasty 3D graphics card you had to make things nicer - and WinFS.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
All of the newer games will be targeting DirectX10 which will only be available on Vista. And we're talking about leaves blowing, nose hairs wiggling, and real water and cloud effects. But that's only if you're into that. I'm still gonna wait til I can't stand it anymore.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
diriproject wrote:
Especially for this user group it's far better to stay with XP or a Mac or Linux because DRM included in Vista is pure catastrophe.
I already mentioned this, but you're right about the DRM. The amount of DRM forced into the system sucks. But the media industries have mandated that if you want to enjoy HD content, these are the hoops that you have to jump through. I'd bet that future versions of Mac OSX will also have these blocks built in, unfortunately. :((
diriproject wrote:
Ever tried to plug in a good video card and use a very good monitor like you can do with XP?
It works perfectly, from what I've seen. Every combination that I've thrown at it works, with the exception of a particular Nvidia card[^]. Some of my coworkers are running 7-monitor setups, and it's flawless. Were you referring to HDMI, perhaps? This would go back to the DRM aspect of the problem.
Vega02 wrote:
diriproject wrote: Especially for this user group it's far better to stay with XP or a Mac or Linux because DRM included in Vista is pure catastrophe. I already mentioned this, but you're right about the DRM. The amount of DRM forced into the system sucks. But the media industries have mandated that if you want to enjoy HD content, these are the hoops that you have to jump through. I'd bet that future versions of Mac OSX will also have these blocks built in, unfortunately.
You are right in relation to MacOS. Even Linux will need to support DRM because there will be no hardware available without it. And it does not only meet HD content. Even stupid CD / DVD drives are met: You can change region code only five times, activation of device is first change of setting. I only know few people met by this restrictions (engineers having to work all around the world for longer time) but, this is simply illegal. It's like buying a car and only be allowed to drive specific streets x times.
Vega02 wrote:
Were you referring to HDMI, perhaps?
Yes, I do. High quality output is not permitted as long as there is nothing to fullfill requirenments of most strict set of rules of DRM. Manufacturers of addons for computers will have no real chance further on without pushing prices up. Such "marketing" is nothing than a way to get a monopol. I doubt it being legal even in U.S.A.. I know it is illegal in several european countries at least but, who cares? :mad:
-
diriproject wrote:
Ever tried to plug in a good video card and use a very good monitor like you can do with XP?
Yeah, I'm doing that right now. My video card gets 5.9/5.6 on WEI, and the monitor is a nice Sony 19x12. What problems do you think would occur?
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
You are using a digital or an analog connector to your monitor?