Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx
The primary difference between UAC and *nix security is that in *nix, once you enter the user space, you can install, uninstall, do whatever at the user application level, only if you need access to a root function does the prompt appear. UAC does that, but it also pops up within what should be purely user space application requests. Either change that or allow some sort of knob/list panel where programs can be added that are deemed "okay" and that complaint vanishes. Microsoft has a long history of having poor understanding of the impacts of not isolating/decoupling different layers of the software rings and it frequently bites them in the ass thanks to tireless teams of bored crackers.
|
Oh yeah, about that, there are a number of options for UAC in the 7000 Build at least. For example, while every setting that UAC is applied to still has the UAC shield, the default setting MS has now is the second highest, where it doesn't notify you about changes you make in Windows settings. Not sure if it applies but remember when Vista always nags you when you check the Resource monitor? At the current UAC level, 7 no longer pops up the UAC warning when you check the Resource monitor. There are 4 settings in total, but that setting is ok for me (Full UAC, Default UAC, Light UAC -which also doesn't dim the desktop, but MS says it might allow programs to interfere with UAC, and Disabled UAC). I'm against creating lists with trusted 3rd party programs. I mean, UAC is already pretty lenient in that. It only activates when programs install, modify the system or run as administrator. I had anti-malware programs that were a total pain. Sure they made it safe, but reporting every possible registry change and every DLL possible injection (even legitimate) was really getting on my nerves to the point I no longer have programs like that.
I'm a user, too, as are a number of people who liked Vista and like 7 more. That means that I had no real problem with the old interface, I just like the new one better. The real issue is whether people who want the old interface outnumber the rest or not, and how high is whatever difference is there. If even 50% prefer the old interface, MS would have to make it more readily accessible. If however they're far less than 50%, I don't see a real point with MS doing more than what they're already doing. It's all a matter of numbers in that case. I'd find my way either way though, but seeing the new desktop means that should I get the old one in the final release, I'll just go and tweak it if I can. I mean I doubt they made the Superbar functionality to erase it completely.
Well, to tell the truth I can only judge from my dad's small business, I have no other real experience, save some other occassions. The PCs there use XP, they are quite old, in fact I seriously don't believe they could run Vista. Right now there's no real money to upgrade, and even if it was, the PCs use certain software that are essential to work, and before I'd even consider installing Vista or 7 after an upgrade, we'd consult the software company, whether the support is as good as with the last OS, otherwise I wouldn't risk it. Then, there's the licensing cost that's prohibiting, since it offers no real gain. So for my dad's business, chances are I wouldn't even bother changing the system unless I was somehow forced to. But not because Vista or 7 have any other inherent flaws.