Why Vista sucks
-
Maybe something is wrong with me. But I really like Vista. ( I might be the only one ) For example. My dad got Vista on his new computer he got last year and it have saved ME a lot of work trying to fix the system. Since he is a click on everything guy. So when he is trying to delete\move files that he should not delete or change something he should not. He will now be presented with a UAC dialog but since he is running a standard user he can't just click "Okey". He needs to enter a password and he know that if he needs to enter that, Then he done something bad. And the "Previous Version" feature have saved him a lot of times because he often opens an old document and use it as a template when writing a new one and often he forget to do "save as" and he overwrites his old document. But now he can retrieve it fast with doing "previous version" on the folder. But I have to admit that It took me a day to show him how all the new stuff worked, And now when he been using it for some month and got used to it, I get less support calls from him then when he was running XP. But not everything is good with Vista. For example the new explorer was not my friend for a while. It took some time to get used to. ------ A satisfied Vista user.
That reminds me of the time my dad sent an email to his sons asking what all those files were in System32 and if he could just delete them. You don't know how tempted the four of us were to say "yes" and then change our phone numbers.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Bram van Kampen wrote:
In Europe, bar a few Notable exceptions, a company having 50 computers would be very large indeed.
A few exceptions? I wouldn't call a medium sized business of 100-400 staff "very large indeed". I've dealt with quite a few companies of that size in the past few years, and believe me they are pretty commonplace in the UK.
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
Yes, But there are far more companies with less than 20 employees. Not every Employee has of nescessity a Computer. Our Core business has 9 Employees (Most Part Time) We have 3 Computers, Most are shared between employees. That gives no conflicts, because no computer is personalised. After an employee physically completes a Task, he or she goes to a free terminal, and signs on (No, Not in the MS Windows Sense, God forbid, All Terminals run in Administrator Mode), and fill in on a form, the work they've just completed. All I'm trying to say is that the Windows Security model seems to revolve around a particular business model, i.e.of Sales Reps diving in and out of Office Suites. Not every business works like that. Our business for instance, has No sales Reps, and absolutely No Need for this virtualised efford. Actually, it poses a security risk to us, as a suitably informed individual (Manager) could set up his own enterprise within our business, and take home 'His' Takings. I think a proper resolution of this problem would be if one could 'Exclude' at the point of installation of Vista, the possibility of Multiple Users.
Bram van Kampen
-
Bram van Kampen wrote:
What's wrong with an Option in Vista like 'Works Like XP'
It's to expensive. (That doesn#t mean I don't want to have it, too! :D)
Bram van Kampen wrote:
If it had that option for most of us in Europe who have no need for the useless new security features,
How is Europe different in that respect?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
It's to expensive. (That doesn#t mean I don't want to have it, too!
Don't Accept that Its part of Customer Service when you provide an Upgrade. Apart from that, WindowsXP was the Very First OS issued by MS which actually worked as advertised
peterchen wrote:
How is Europe different in that respect?
Well, The Windows Security model was Designed in the USA, for All I can tell, Probably by the Military, and the CIA. Business Models are Different in Europe. I've Yet to find a computer here that does not run in Administrator Mode. The fundamental problem is that it seems to centre arount the issue, of Which individual has access to What File, without considering the reasons. The Concept that Access should be granted on the basis of what someone was going to do with the data, was never accepted,or incorporated in the Security Model. i.e. A Bank Teller should have access to a Customers account in order to carry out a Counter Lodgment or Withdrawl. The same teller should not nescesarily have access to print out a list of All Customers, their Details and Balances. This sort of Access Control is not available under the Windows Security Model, so, the Banking Application Software has to implement it's own security, and everybody is logged on as Administrator. What happens now with the 'Additional' protections under Vista is that it stops Software from working, Money will have to be spent to find a Work Around, but it Won't give any aditional security.
Bram van Kampen
-
I bought it by choice and it works 10 times better than XP.
I may be Green, but at least I'm environmentally friendly.
Youre Lucky
Bram van Kampen
-
And this thinking is one reason why I will never understand either the mindset of the EU or Lawyers :) You paid for Vista, not XP. They were separate development efforts with separate budgets and separate profit statements no doubt. You cannot buy one and then feel justified that there was no financial loss from not paying the other. If that was the case you would be free to grab a hacked copy of any new version of office as long as you had purchased Office 97 years ago. MS made their money off of you already right? As far as your point #3, I think in the grad scheme of things they ultimately introduced the concept of 'do what we told you to do years ago' and then they put things in place to enforce it. Why? Because PEOPLE bashed them for having insecure software when sometimes it was not their fault, it was the fault of application developers using things in a way that exposed holes in the underlying code. If my garage door does not come with a lock built in and I tell you that and recommend that you add a lock or put a gate at the end of your driveway and you choose as a home builder not to do that then whose fault is it is stuff gets stolen form the garage? Mine or the builders? Now all of a sudden I get tired of being blamed for it and I start building my garage doors with locks in them, but they are locks that automatically lock behind you so that you can't NOT lock them but people get pissed off because many of them leave their keys in the garage and get locked out whose fault is it again? Sorry folks... To me the answer is simple. You don't like it? Vote with your wallet and use Linux. YOU can try to teach your grandparents how to use all the freeware opens source crap that tries to fill the void between Windows and Linux and YOU can try explaining to them how to do this and that when Windows used to just do it for you. I know it is not politically correct in business to do so but sometimes you need to just say 'if you don;t like it go somewhere else' and get it over with. If I had been running the Vista show I would have said you know what? This is new. This is the start of the next wave of how things are going to be and we need to treat it like it is. NO more backwards compatibility. NO more crap. NO more this and that... Vista is NEW. End of story. It was NOT MS as a whole that messed it up. It was the Marketing department that did it. THEY wanted to try to make everyone able to run it when that was clearly NOT it's intent form the start. It was such a major shift that it should have nev
Ray Cassick wrote:
And this thinking is one reason why I will never understand either the mindset of the EU or Lawyers You paid for Vista, not XP. They were separate development efforts with separate budgets and separate profit statements no doubt. You cannot buy one and then feel justified that there was no financial loss from not paying the other. If that was the case you would be free to grab a hacked copy of any new version of office as long as you had purchased Office 97 years ago. MS made their money off of you already right?
No, Not the Case. You can Downgrade, Not Upgrade, if you bought a supposedly superior newer copy which does nor work. If you buy and pay for a copy of Office 2005, it does not work on your computer for any reason, but you find a copy of Office 97, which does work, you would be entitled to run Office 97 under the Licence of Office 2005, on the grounds that Office 97 is an Ancestor of Office 2005, which works on your system, and you accept that Office 97 may have fewer features, and that Office 97 may have issues of any kind which were resolved by the time Office 2005 came about. You can NEVER use a Licence for say Office 97, to legitimately run a Hacked Copy of Office 2005. By the same token, It would be legal here to buy a machine with Vista installed, wipe the Vista, and install Win98 instead. Microsoft would not be required to give me support in doing so, Any Driver issues would be My problem, in conclusion, I would be out on my Own. About the Legality of it all, In Europe this would be perfectly legal. I Frankly do not understand why this would be illegal in the US. I think if you investigate it a bit further, it may be legal there too Regards,
Bram van Kampen
-
You do know you can turn a lot of the "Vista" stuff off, right? I freely admit that Microsoft should have provided a big "run like XP" button. (If Office 2007, they should have added a "give me the Office 2003 menus and toolbars" button.) I don't think Vista is quite there yet, and I really like XP, but to assert that "XP was ideal" is crazy talk. I curse it all the time for some of its dumbness. You ever notice how many crap services it starts by default? And why can't Microsoft kill Netbeui dead once and for all?
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
but to assert that "XP was ideal" is crazy talk. I curse it all the time for some of its dumbness. You ever notice how many crap services it starts by default? And why can't Microsoft kill Netbeui dead once and for all?
Well, It worked without major issues. As for unwanted Services, it is not that difficult to switch them off. Just have to do that. Most are running to make it easier for the public at large to install, and to ensure that things will work. It is for the more Sophisticated users like you and me to go through the services like a physic, and decide what we do or do not want. What's wrong with Netbeui? it works on small networks, and autoconfigures amazingly well. Why get Rid of it.
Bram van Kampen
-
Another reason is sucks is that the Vista Windows Explorer can't work with directories that have a couple of thousand files in them without crashing the whole system! :mad:
“Cannot find REALITY.SYS...Universe Halted.” ~ God on phone with Microsoft Customer Support
Well, I've no experience with folders with several thousand files in them. Seems Daft to me. By the way, was XP in a position to open these folders successfully. Regards
Bram van Kampen
-
Vista has a more professional business style UI. They did that to get rid of the cartoonish XP. However, there really has never been a user friendly OS for the under-educated. When you were a teenager learning to drive you took a class to help. There are tutorials for all new OS that come out to help with the change. Unless there is a profound change in the actual computer itself and how it operates then this will continue to be the case and people will rant and rave until the old OS goes away for good (as did win 95,98,ME, etc.)
I may be Green, but at least I'm environmentally friendly.
justfunnin wrote:
However, there really has never been a user friendly OS for the under-educated. When you were a teenager learning to drive you took a class to help.
This forum has nothing to do with the Over or Under Educated We just All write Code, for better or worse. The worst possible innovation would be an Interface that changed according to your level of 'Under Education'
justfunnin wrote:
Vista has a more professional business style UI. They did that to get rid of the cartoonish XP
Total Crap! Its just Different, Not Better, nor worse. At our level we're not too interested about what it looks like, but more about what you can do with it. You seem to be a far fro under educated guy, with from what I can gather the best of genuine principles in mind! Please sit back and Think Again. Regards
Bram van Kampen
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
but to assert that "XP was ideal" is crazy talk. I curse it all the time for some of its dumbness. You ever notice how many crap services it starts by default? And why can't Microsoft kill Netbeui dead once and for all?
Well, It worked without major issues. As for unwanted Services, it is not that difficult to switch them off. Just have to do that. Most are running to make it easier for the public at large to install, and to ensure that things will work. It is for the more Sophisticated users like you and me to go through the services like a physic, and decide what we do or do not want. What's wrong with Netbeui? it works on small networks, and autoconfigures amazingly well. Why get Rid of it.
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen wrote:
As for unwanted Services, it is not that difficult to switch them off.
Do not your arguments apply to Vista as well? Frankly, the only reason I don't use Vista is I don't currently have the horsepower that I'm a lazy cheap ass (I do have a free copy of Home Ultimate on the way. I may use that as an excuse to upgrade my computer.) For first time users with new systems, though, I think it's a pretty good way to go.
Bram van Kampen wrote:
What's wrong with Netbeui? it works on small networks, and autoconfigures amazingly well. Why get Rid of it.
Because TCP/IP can do the job better with a higher level of compatibility.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
peterchen wrote:
It's to expensive. (That doesn#t mean I don't want to have it, too!
Don't Accept that Its part of Customer Service when you provide an Upgrade. Apart from that, WindowsXP was the Very First OS issued by MS which actually worked as advertised
peterchen wrote:
How is Europe different in that respect?
Well, The Windows Security model was Designed in the USA, for All I can tell, Probably by the Military, and the CIA. Business Models are Different in Europe. I've Yet to find a computer here that does not run in Administrator Mode. The fundamental problem is that it seems to centre arount the issue, of Which individual has access to What File, without considering the reasons. The Concept that Access should be granted on the basis of what someone was going to do with the data, was never accepted,or incorporated in the Security Model. i.e. A Bank Teller should have access to a Customers account in order to carry out a Counter Lodgment or Withdrawl. The same teller should not nescesarily have access to print out a list of All Customers, their Details and Balances. This sort of Access Control is not available under the Windows Security Model, so, the Banking Application Software has to implement it's own security, and everybody is logged on as Administrator. What happens now with the 'Additional' protections under Vista is that it stops Software from working, Money will have to be spent to find a Work Around, but it Won't give any aditional security.
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen wrote:
Apart from that, WindowsXP was the Very First OS issued by MS which actually worked as advertised
I know I waited long time before upgra´ding from Windows 2000... (Which worked perfectly well for me - It#s just some usability gimmicks and the faster boot that convinced me)
Bram van Kampen wrote:
Business Models are Different in Europe.
[...] Well, it would be certainly interesting if these thoughts stand up to statistics. I can imagine you are right, but not instantly believe it :) I'd imagine the line of separation is between larg and small businesses, as soon as you can afford administration and cannot trust all your employees anymore you WILL run as non-admins.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Yes, But there are far more companies with less than 20 employees. Not every Employee has of nescessity a Computer. Our Core business has 9 Employees (Most Part Time) We have 3 Computers, Most are shared between employees. That gives no conflicts, because no computer is personalised. After an employee physically completes a Task, he or she goes to a free terminal, and signs on (No, Not in the MS Windows Sense, God forbid, All Terminals run in Administrator Mode), and fill in on a form, the work they've just completed. All I'm trying to say is that the Windows Security model seems to revolve around a particular business model, i.e.of Sales Reps diving in and out of Office Suites. Not every business works like that. Our business for instance, has No sales Reps, and absolutely No Need for this virtualised efford. Actually, it poses a security risk to us, as a suitably informed individual (Manager) could set up his own enterprise within our business, and take home 'His' Takings. I think a proper resolution of this problem would be if one could 'Exclude' at the point of installation of Vista, the possibility of Multiple Users.
Bram van Kampen
I wasn't querying any of that - merely the statement ("In Europe, bar a few Notable exceptions, a company having 50 computers would be very large indeed."), which is patently untrue. As for the rest of, I generally agree - although we (Riverblade) find virtualisation and multiple users very useful. I'd hate to work in an environment where nothing was personalised, myself. :rose:
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
Great in theory, and this is exactly how Microsoft wants it to be used. But it's not how Vista Home Premium came setup on his HP. He's running as the only user on the machine and he has admin rights. UAC pops up and he clicks 'OK' like he's been trained to click OK to everything 'Allow a cookie to be saved?' OK 'Allow this application to run?' OK 'Allow this installer to install a rootkit, key word logger, spamware, mallware, mail forwarder full spam zombie setup and worm factory?' *click* OK.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Too many prompts really irritate any user. Thinking that they are making the environment secure, they have actually made it like a shareware/nagware.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson -
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
Once you switch the eye candy and the security nanny off, what's left in Vista that you don't have in XP?
Um, drivers that don't support EXISTING equipment?
Gary
ghle wrote:
drivers that don't support EXISTING equipment
Quite interestingly, this week's CP survey is about drivers and support lifecycle: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Surveys/Results.aspx?srvid=776[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson -
justfunnin wrote:
works like it's supposed to
So my father in law's HP computer with Vista - not working with his HP camera or HP printer - that's his fault, because Vista is working like it is supposed to? Give me a break. This is a desktop personal computer, not some corporate IT-supported mainframe, and it's a piece of crap! I saw no requirement for installing Forefront Security Client - never heard of it before.
justfunnin wrote:
Hello people, new OS and old technology never work well, you must constantly update and upgrade and patch etc, etc
Yeah, the HP camera was 2 months old. Throw it away and get a new one? BS. I now have DSL internet service and my 20 year old push-button phone still works. My 25 year old TV still works even though I have new cable that wasn't even available when the TV was built! Is justfunnin actually Bill Gates in disguise?
Gary
ghle wrote:
So my father in law's HP computer with Vista - not working with his HP camera or HP printer - that's his fault, because Vista is working like it is supposed to?
Uh, nooo, that would be HP's fault.
I may be Green, but at least I'm environmentally friendly.
-
ghle wrote:
So my father in law's HP computer with Vista - not working with his HP camera or HP printer - that's his fault, because Vista is working like it is supposed to?
Uh, nooo, that would be HP's fault.
I may be Green, but at least I'm environmentally friendly.
-
Ray Cassick wrote:
And this thinking is one reason why I will never understand either the mindset of the EU or Lawyers You paid for Vista, not XP. They were separate development efforts with separate budgets and separate profit statements no doubt. You cannot buy one and then feel justified that there was no financial loss from not paying the other. If that was the case you would be free to grab a hacked copy of any new version of office as long as you had purchased Office 97 years ago. MS made their money off of you already right?
No, Not the Case. You can Downgrade, Not Upgrade, if you bought a supposedly superior newer copy which does nor work. If you buy and pay for a copy of Office 2005, it does not work on your computer for any reason, but you find a copy of Office 97, which does work, you would be entitled to run Office 97 under the Licence of Office 2005, on the grounds that Office 97 is an Ancestor of Office 2005, which works on your system, and you accept that Office 97 may have fewer features, and that Office 97 may have issues of any kind which were resolved by the time Office 2005 came about. You can NEVER use a Licence for say Office 97, to legitimately run a Hacked Copy of Office 2005. By the same token, It would be legal here to buy a machine with Vista installed, wipe the Vista, and install Win98 instead. Microsoft would not be required to give me support in doing so, Any Driver issues would be My problem, in conclusion, I would be out on my Own. About the Legality of it all, In Europe this would be perfectly legal. I Frankly do not understand why this would be illegal in the US. I think if you investigate it a bit further, it may be legal there too Regards,
Bram van Kampen
The retail boxed versions of XpPro VistaBusiness and VistaUltimate do allow downgrades. Corporate site licensing allowed downgrades. The system builder (equivalent to OEM for DIY builders) licenses do not. I'm not sure where oem volume licensing stands.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
I honestly cannot see anything that is going to force me to move to Vista in the next 18-24 months, the timeframe for Windows 7. I'm buying a Mac for home and will be running parallels so if Microsoft brings out a 'Oh My God I Must Have That" application I'll run it under parallels. And if Windows 7 is just too plain horrible for words, or is a mess, or there's something way better than Windows 7 out there that the industry is moving to because of increased productivity, usefulness, or just a "It's time for a change" then I'll be flexible and move along too. I truly do hope, though,that before Windows 7 gets too far along Microsoft goes into the room of mirrors, sits down, and has a good, hard look.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
I honestly cannot see anything that is going to force me to move to Vista in the next 18-24 months, the timeframe for Windows 7.
Do you have a legitimate citation for this? It showed up on /. a few months ago (IIRC January), a few days later an MS blog post said they were just starting a 3y dev cycle for windows 7.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
I wasn't querying any of that - merely the statement ("In Europe, bar a few Notable exceptions, a company having 50 computers would be very large indeed."), which is patently untrue. As for the rest of, I generally agree - although we (Riverblade) find virtualisation and multiple users very useful. I'd hate to work in an environment where nothing was personalised, myself. :rose:
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
Unfortunately, if the Computer acts as a Sales Terminal in a shop, Personalisation is an invitation for Fraud. A Skilled floor manager (and Security Camera's) should be able to see from 30 feet distance what someone is at. This becomes more difficult if people are allowed to 'Personalise' their screen. Mind you, we allow some form of Personalisation, but that is driven by the Logon at App Level, not the Windows Level User. As far as Windows is Concerned, there is only one User, signed in as Administrator. Again, because of the nature of the App, All file actions (Opening, Closing Reading and Saving) happen in the background, Fully automatically, and the User has no choice in the matter. In this type of system, you're not trying to protect against skilled and honed hackers on remote sites. Our system runs on LAN's with 5 or six machines max, not connected to the Internet. The staff employed would not normally have any serious computer skills, they have been trained to operate a sales terminal. I know of none who would be able to open MSWord, and write and print a letter to their mother on the computer they work on, and frankly that's the way I want to keep it. Staff is employed on the basis of how good and how fast they are at ironing a shirt. You simply cannot allow a Second Cashregister program, with a Second (Personalised)Record System to run on the Same Computer. For starters. It would create Havoc, and the business would soon be bled dry. You would be amazed in how quick computer illiterate staff would gain computer skills, when it was discovered that they could start their own till, take the Contents home at night, and No way for Management to trace. Now, I'm not saying that the way Vista proposes to run the system is a bad idea in general. I can see it's uses, and may even have some uses for it myself. The problem is that there is No easy Opt out for those of us for which the enforced method of operation causes a genuine security risk, and other problems. We would like an Advanced Setup Option for Vista, which from the Outset kills Fast Userswitching Stone Dead in the Water, and which as a consequence does not need all this virtualisation, and leaves me with a machine where I can access and modify entries at will, without Bill Gates second guessing my decissions, in order to implement a feature which I need to debar in the first place. By the way Anna, Her's a belated dozen Roses for St Patricks Day. :rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose: (Could not find Gre
-
The retail boxed versions of XpPro VistaBusiness and VistaUltimate do allow downgrades. Corporate site licensing allowed downgrades. The system builder (equivalent to OEM for DIY builders) licenses do not. I'm not sure where oem volume licensing stands.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
Well, I obtained legal advice in Northern Ireland, and was told that Downgrading is an option which automatically exists under European Law. Regards,
Bram van Kampen
-
Unfortunately, if the Computer acts as a Sales Terminal in a shop, Personalisation is an invitation for Fraud. A Skilled floor manager (and Security Camera's) should be able to see from 30 feet distance what someone is at. This becomes more difficult if people are allowed to 'Personalise' their screen. Mind you, we allow some form of Personalisation, but that is driven by the Logon at App Level, not the Windows Level User. As far as Windows is Concerned, there is only one User, signed in as Administrator. Again, because of the nature of the App, All file actions (Opening, Closing Reading and Saving) happen in the background, Fully automatically, and the User has no choice in the matter. In this type of system, you're not trying to protect against skilled and honed hackers on remote sites. Our system runs on LAN's with 5 or six machines max, not connected to the Internet. The staff employed would not normally have any serious computer skills, they have been trained to operate a sales terminal. I know of none who would be able to open MSWord, and write and print a letter to their mother on the computer they work on, and frankly that's the way I want to keep it. Staff is employed on the basis of how good and how fast they are at ironing a shirt. You simply cannot allow a Second Cashregister program, with a Second (Personalised)Record System to run on the Same Computer. For starters. It would create Havoc, and the business would soon be bled dry. You would be amazed in how quick computer illiterate staff would gain computer skills, when it was discovered that they could start their own till, take the Contents home at night, and No way for Management to trace. Now, I'm not saying that the way Vista proposes to run the system is a bad idea in general. I can see it's uses, and may even have some uses for it myself. The problem is that there is No easy Opt out for those of us for which the enforced method of operation causes a genuine security risk, and other problems. We would like an Advanced Setup Option for Vista, which from the Outset kills Fast Userswitching Stone Dead in the Water, and which as a consequence does not need all this virtualisation, and leaves me with a machine where I can access and modify entries at will, without Bill Gates second guessing my decissions, in order to implement a feature which I need to debar in the first place. By the way Anna, Her's a belated dozen Roses for St Patricks Day. :rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose: (Could not find Gre
Bram van Kampen wrote:
Unfortunately, if the Computer acts as a Sales Terminal in a shop, Personalisation is an invitation for Fraud. A Skilled floor manager (and Security Camera's) should be able to see from 30 feet distance what someone is at. This becomes more difficult if people are allowed to 'Personalise' their screen. Mind you, we allow some form of Personalisation, but that is driven by the Logon at App Level, not the Windows Level User. As far as Windows is Concerned, there is only one User, signed in as Administrator. Again, because of the nature of the App, All file actions (Opening, Closing Reading and Saving) happen in the background, Fully automatically, and the User has no choice in the matter.
In that environment, I'd do exactly the same thing. What you are describing is effectively an embedded environment, and as such it needs to be locked down to just the capabilities and applications you need. By contrast, our end-users are developers, so we have a whole pile of different issues to deal with! Isn't fast user switching disabled if you join the machine to a domain, BTW? I'm pretty sure there's also a group policy option to lock it out (though in truth Beth knows this stuff better than I do). We're about to join a Vista box to our church's domain tomorrow, so we'll see what happens... :evil grin:
Bram van Kampen wrote:
By the way Anna, Her's a belated dozen Roses for St Patricks Day.
Thank you! I can still see the Guiness truck in the distance...:beer:
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
