f



Windows 7, another Windows Vista?

I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the geek culture and 
first adopters being over the ears about it (here in csma, for example), but 
when released it really sunk  into the mud when gamers, business and avergae 
users wouldn't touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to offer 
a downgrade option to Windows XP.

I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in how Vista 
screwed these people over. How is it winning people back? I haven't tried 
Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a light 
on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22317)
10/13/2009 9:43:54 AM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

43 Replies
502 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 19

On Oct 13, 12:43=A0pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the geek cultu=
re and
> first adopters being over the ears about it (here in csma, for example), =
but
> when released it really sunk =A0into the mud when gamers, business and av=
ergae
> users wouldn't touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs t=
o offer
> a downgrade option to Windows XP.
>
> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in how Vista
> screwed these people over. How is it winning people back? I haven't tried
> Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a =
light
> on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.
>
Most obviously (well, it's a sheer speculation on my part) after a
disaster such as vista
some heads rolled and someone was forced to clean up the crap (lots of
money
in hollywood is made on this).

One of our sysadmins at work is satisfied with 7 even though he's a
mac affictionado.

XP has one serious drawback by now: it does not support newer versions
of direct x
and as the new gpus show up this will become more and more of a
problem for
xp users who want to take advantage of geometry shader and other new
features of dx10+.
OpenGL on 7 must be a joke by now judging by what they did in vista.

Speaking of which: I don't see a geometery shaders coming to gles
anytime soon.
Muftab must be busy fixing bugs in the sw rasterizer of iphone
simulator.
Suits that fat ugly prick just right. lol.

Next step for apple: ditch opengl/gles and bet on the winning horse.
0
isquat (163)
10/13/2009 11:42:49 AM
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in message 
news:mr-0A5FBB.11435413102009@News.Individual.NET...
>I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the geek culture 
>and
> first adopters being over the ears about it (here in csma, for example), 
> but
> when released it really sunk  into the mud when gamers, business and 
> avergae
> users wouldn't touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to 
> offer
> a downgrade option to Windows XP.
>
> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in how Vista
> screwed these people over. How is it winning people back? I haven't tried
> Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a 
> light
> on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.

VISTA 19.5% world market share with 200,000,000 users.

How many people use OSX again? 


0
Vvincent (474)
10/13/2009 2:58:22 PM
In article <fA0Bm.3182$Ku5.2943@newsfe04.iad>, Zara <failed_troll@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> > Sandman:
> > I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the
> > geek culture  and first adopters being over the ears about it
> > (here in csma, for example),  but when released it really sunk 
> > into the mud when gamers, business and  avergae users wouldn't
> > touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to  offer
> > a downgrade option to Windows XP.
> > 
> > I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in
> > how Vista screwed these people over. How is it winning people
> > back? I haven't tried Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but
> > perhaps someone here can shed a  light on why Windows 7 will work
> > where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.

> Zara:
> VISTA 19.5% world market share with 200,000,000 users.
> 
> How many people use OSX again?

100% of Mac users. You were saying?

Apple hasn't quite managed to get its customers to downgrade to an eight year 
old operating system in the same way MS has. 

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22317)
10/13/2009 4:23:55 PM
In article <mr-0A5FBB.11435413102009@News.Individual.NET>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the geek 
> culture and first adopters being over the ears about it (here in 
> csma, for example), but when released it really sunk  into the mud 
> when gamers, business and avergae users wouldn't touch it with a 
> stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to offer a downgrade option 
> to Windows XP.
> 
> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in how 
> Vista screwed these people over. How is it winning people back? I 
> haven't tried Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but perhaps 
> someone here can shed a light on why Windows 7 will work where Vista 
> failed and Windows XP prevailed.

If nothing else, Windows 7 will do better than Vista just because stuff 
that works with Vista shouldn't have many new problems with Windows 7 
and, three years on from Vista's release, more old hardware has been 
retired and more devices and software have been updated.

But Microsoft does have a bit of a long term problem with this sort of 
thing. Their customer base is primarily interested in "good enough". 
People who are interested in "better" have selected other platforms. 
Microsoft finally got to "good enough" with XP, so it's unsurprising its 
customers mostly aren't upgrading. While Microsoft will get most people 
off of XP eventually, with the "good enough" mentality prevailing, I 
predict Windows users will tend to upgrade sluggishly from here on out.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
10/13/2009 5:20:35 PM
Sandman stated in post mr-B3E950.18235513102009@News.Individual.NET on
10/13/09 9:23 AM:

> In article <fA0Bm.3182$Ku5.2943@newsfe04.iad>, Zara <failed_troll@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>> Sandman:
>>> I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the
>>> geek culture  and first adopters being over the ears about it
>>> (here in csma, for example),  but when released it really sunk
>>> into the mud when gamers, business and  avergae users wouldn't
>>> touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to  offer
>>> a downgrade option to Windows XP.
>>> 
>>> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in
>>> how Vista screwed these people over. How is it winning people
>>> back? I haven't tried Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but
>>> perhaps someone here can shed a  light on why Windows 7 will work
>>> where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.
> 
>> Zara:
>> VISTA 19.5% world market share with 200,000,000 users.
>> 
>> How many people use OSX again?
> 
> 100% of Mac users. You were saying?

Close to it, I am sure... but not quite 100%. Some people use Macs with
other OSx.

> Apple hasn't quite managed to get its customers to downgrade to an eight year
> old operating system in the same way MS has.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
10/13/2009 6:02:13 PM
Sandman stated in post mr-0A5FBB.11435413102009@News.Individual.NET on
10/13/09 2:43 AM:

> I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the geek culture
> and 
> first adopters being over the ears about it (here in csma, for example), but
> when released it really sunk  into the mud when gamers, business and avergae
> users wouldn't touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to
> offer 
> a downgrade option to Windows XP.
> 
> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in how Vista
> screwed these people over. How is it winning people back? I haven't tried
> Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a light
> on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.

A few things:

* The UI is much improved.  Still has massive amounts of gratuitous
transparency that, if any, hurts usability... but its more Mac-like dock is
a clear UI benefit.. in some ways ahead of OS X.  Its windows snapping
feature is pretty cool.

* The hardware and most software has now caught up with Vista... so the
initial pain Vista users went through should be minimized with Win 7

* The security model is now less annoying by default.

* The sidebar is gone.

* Some ancient programs, such as Paint and WordPad, got some much needed
updating.

* The code has been cleaned up...


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
10/13/2009 6:07:00 PM
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in message 
news:mr-B3E950.18235513102009@News.Individual.NET...
> In article <fA0Bm.3182$Ku5.2943@newsfe04.iad>, Zara 
> <failed_troll@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > Sandman:
>> > I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the
>> > geek culture  and first adopters being over the ears about it
>> > (here in csma, for example),  but when released it really sunk
>> > into the mud when gamers, business and  avergae users wouldn't
>> > touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to  offer
>> > a downgrade option to Windows XP.
>> >
>> > I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in
>> > how Vista screwed these people over. How is it winning people
>> > back? I haven't tried Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but
>> > perhaps someone here can shed a  light on why Windows 7 will work
>> > where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.
>
>> Zara:
>> VISTA 19.5% world market share with 200,000,000 users.
>>
>> How many people use OSX again?
>
> 100% of Mac users. You were saying?

You mean 3% of the worlds computer users?


> Apple hasn't quite managed to get its customers to downgrade to an eight 
> year
> old operating system in the same way MS has.

They don't have to, they already have a nine year old OS, and getting older 
by the minute. Any news on OSXI?  No - I guess not.


0
Vvincent (474)
10/13/2009 9:06:04 PM
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
news:C6FA0FD4.4DA5C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in how Vista
>> screwed these people over. How is it winning people back? I haven't tried
>> Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a 
>> light
>> on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.

The main thing is the new name, in my opinion. But will that allow it to 
shake the FUD campaign?

> A few things:
>
> * The UI is much improved.  Still has massive amounts of gratuitous
> transparency that, if any, hurts usability... but its more Mac-like dock 
> is
> a clear UI benefit.. in some ways ahead of OS X.  Its windows snapping
> feature is pretty cool.

I'm torn. It's a much, much smaller UI overhaul than Vista was. But Vista 
was rather singular.

It's a bigger UI change than Snow Leopard was, perhaps bigger than Tiger 
was. But once you start actually running an app, it's pretty much the same 
UI as Vista. They've done a lot with the shell, but not a lot with the basic 
UI widgetry.

> * The hardware and most software has now caught up with Vista... so the
> initial pain Vista users went through should be minimized with Win 7

This, too, is a big deal. The compatibility problems- a real beef with 
Vista- should be reduced because of this. XP Mode may help too in some 
extreme cases.

> * The security model is now less annoying by default.

I'm a bit disappointed in MS here. It is less annoying but also less secure: 
it is almost security theater, like OS X does. It's better only in that you 
can 'turn it up', and there's protected mode IE.

MS is being very cynical about this. They won't admit forthrightly that they 
reduced security (by default) to satisfy the whiners. Naturally, this just 
got them a new set of whiners. Like me. :D

The decision to prompt for UAC settings changes is particularly telling. 
Critics demanded this, and MS did it, but it's completely useless. If you 
can bypass UAC, you don't need to care about the settings.

> * The sidebar is gone.

In a sense. There's no longer a gradient there; you still have 'gadgets' and 
you can still 'dock' them to the side. There's just no visual indicator of 
this in Windows 7.

I don't really miss it, though. That gradient wasn't very attractive.

> * Some ancient programs, such as Paint and WordPad, got some much needed
> updating.

Though, to be honest, I wonder if any of those get half of the use Notepad 
sees. :D

> * The code has been cleaned up...

What does this mean?
 

0
10/13/2009 10:01:34 PM
Dan Johnson stated in post HPSdnVjSXuwiZUnXnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@supernews.com on
10/13/09 3:01 PM:

> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6FA0FD4.4DA5C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in how Vista
>>> screwed these people over. How is it winning people back? I haven't tried
>>> Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a
>>> light
>>> on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.
> 
> The main thing is the new name, in my opinion. But will that allow it to
> shake the FUD campaign?

Much of the problems with Vista - it not working with the hardware it
shipped with - has likely been resolved.  But that did leave a very bad
taste in people's mouth.  And, as I note below, there are some differences
in the two.

>> A few things:
>> 
>> * The UI is much improved.  Still has massive amounts of gratuitous
>> transparency that, if any, hurts usability... but its more Mac-like dock is a
>> clear UI benefit.. in some ways ahead of OS X.  Its windows snapping feature
>> is pretty cool.
> 
> I'm torn. It's a much, much smaller UI overhaul than Vista was. But Vista
> was rather singular.
> 
> It's a bigger UI change than Snow Leopard was, perhaps bigger than Tiger
> was. But once you start actually running an app, it's pretty much the same
> UI as Vista. They've done a lot with the shell, but not a lot with the basic
> UI widgetry.

The task switching is done better... as is application launching.  Those
things matter.  They will also take some getting used to by many.

>> * The hardware and most software has now caught up with Vista... so the
>> initial pain Vista users went through should be minimized with Win 7
> 
> This, too, is a big deal. The compatibility problems- a real beef with
> Vista- should be reduced because of this. XP Mode may help too in some
> extreme cases.

Agreed.

>> * The security model is now less annoying by default.
> 
> I'm a bit disappointed in MS here. It is less annoying but also less secure:
> it is almost security theater, like OS X does. It's better only in that you
> can 'turn it up', and there's protected mode IE.
> 
> MS is being very cynical about this. They won't admit forthrightly that they
> reduced security (by default) to satisfy the whiners. Naturally, this just
> got them a new set of whiners. Like me. :D
> 
> The decision to prompt for UAC settings changes is particularly telling.
> Critics demanded this, and MS did it, but it's completely useless. If you
> can bypass UAC, you don't need to care about the settings.

Security, for a general desktop, is not made better by tossing so many
dialogs at a user they learn to ignore them.  Pretty much that is what Vista
did... as if MS just wanted to be able to say it is not their fault because
the user clicked a button.

>> * The sidebar is gone.
> 
> In a sense. There's no longer a gradient there; you still have 'gadgets' and
> you can still 'dock' them to the side. There's just no visual indicator of
> this in Windows 7.
> 
> I don't really miss it, though. That gradient wasn't very attractive.

Seems to be done better on Win 7... but might not rise to the level I did by
putting it on this list.  I can accept that.

>> * Some ancient programs, such as Paint and WordPad, got some much needed
>> updating.
> 
> Though, to be honest, I wonder if any of those get half of the use Notepad
> sees. :D

I think Notepad was updated, too.

>> * The code has been cleaned up...
> 
> What does this mean?

Faster app launches and the like... at least in theory.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
10/13/2009 10:11:59 PM
Sandman wrote:
> I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the geek culture and 
> first adopters being over the ears about it (here in csma, for example), but 
> when released it really sunk  into the mud when gamers, business and avergae 
> users wouldn't touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to offer 
> a downgrade option to Windows XP.
> 
> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in how Vista 
> screwed these people over. How is it winning people back? I haven't tried 
> Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a light 
> on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.
> 

Right off the top from the CNET news articles that I've read, it appears 
that M$ has put
some efforts into a lot of multi-core programming.  They did note that 
the older programs
won't be able to take advantage of this without the vendors doing a 
makeover of their
programs.  Of course it seems to parallel what Apple has done to snow 
leopard.
So I suspect that a lot of drivers, like say for HP printers, will have 
to be rewritten for both oses.

-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
0
cumulus (7752)
10/13/2009 10:14:42 PM
In article <7Z5Bm.56918$bP1.40103@newsfe24.iad>, Zara <failed_troll@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the
> > > > geek culture  and first adopters being over the ears about it
> > > > (here in csma, for example),  but when released it really sunk
> > > > into the mud when gamers, business and  avergae users wouldn't
> > > > touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to 
> > > > offer a downgrade option to Windows XP.
> > > > 
> > > > I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different
> > > > in how Vista screwed these people over. How is it winning
> > > > people back? I haven't tried Windows 7 at all, so I have no
> > > > idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a  light on why
> > > > Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP
> > > > prevailed.

> > > Zara:
> > > VISTA 19.5% world market share with 200,000,000 users.
> > > 
> > > How many people use OSX again?

> > Sandman:
> > 100% of Mac users. You were saying?

> Zara:
> You mean 3% of the worlds computer users?

No, I mean 100%, like I said.

> > Sandman:
> > Apple hasn't quite managed to get its customers to downgrade to an
> > eight  year old operating system in the same way MS has.

> Zara:
> They don't have to, they already have a nine year old OS, and
> getting older  by the minute. Any news on OSXI?  No - I guess not.

Why do you feel that five year old trolls that were failures then is any better 
now?


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22317)
10/14/2009 5:57:42 AM
In article <b5GdnU5uq4AkZknXnZ2dnUVZ_uVi4p2d@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud 
<cumulus@mist.com> wrote:

> > Sandman:
> > I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the
> > geek culture and  first adopters being over the ears about it
> > (here in csma, for example), but  when released it really sunk 
> > into the mud when gamers, business and avergae  users wouldn't
> > touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to offer 
> > a downgrade option to Windows XP.
> > 
> > I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in
> > how Vista  screwed these people over. How is it winning people
> > back? I haven't tried  Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but
> > perhaps someone here can shed a light  on why Windows 7 will work
> > where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.

> GreyCloud:
> Right off the top from the CNET news articles that I've read, it
> appears  that M$ has put some efforts into a lot of multi-core
> programming.  They did note that  the older programs won't be able
> to take advantage of this without the vendors doing a  makeover of
> their programs.

That's a technical difference, which I'm sure there are many. But to the end 
user, how is W7 different than VIsta to a XP user?

> Of course it seems to parallel what Apple has done to snow  leopard. So I 
> suspect that a lot of drivers, like say for HP printers, will have  to be 
> rewritten for both oses.

Sounds like MS :)


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22317)
10/14/2009 6:54:14 AM
Dan Johnson wrote:
> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
> news:C6FA0FD4.4DA5C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in how 
>>> Vista
>>> screwed these people over. How is it winning people back? I haven't 
>>> tried
>>> Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can 
>>> shed a light
>>> on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.
> 
> The main thing is the new name, in my opinion. But will that allow it to 
> shake the FUD campaign?
> 
>> A few things:
>>
>> * The UI is much improved.  Still has massive amounts of gratuitous
>> transparency that, if any, hurts usability... but its more Mac-like 
>> dock is
>> a clear UI benefit.. in some ways ahead of OS X.  Its windows snapping
>> feature is pretty cool.
> 
> I'm torn. It's a much, much smaller UI overhaul than Vista was. But 
> Vista was rather singular.
> 
> It's a bigger UI change than Snow Leopard was, perhaps bigger than Tiger 
> was. But once you start actually running an app, it's pretty much the 
> same UI as Vista. They've done a lot with the shell, but not a lot with 
> the basic UI widgetry.
> 
>> * The hardware and most software has now caught up with Vista... so the
>> initial pain Vista users went through should be minimized with Win 7
> 
> This, too, is a big deal. The compatibility problems- a real beef with 
> Vista- should be reduced because of this. XP Mode may help too in some 
> extreme cases.
> 
>> * The security model is now less annoying by default.
> 
> I'm a bit disappointed in MS here. It is less annoying but also less 
> secure: it is almost security theater, like OS X does. It's better only 
> in that you can 'turn it up', and there's protected mode IE.
> 
> MS is being very cynical about this. They won't admit forthrightly that 
> they reduced security (by default) to satisfy the whiners. Naturally, 
> this just got them a new set of whiners. Like me. :D
> 
> The decision to prompt for UAC settings changes is particularly telling. 
> Critics demanded this, and MS did it, but it's completely useless. If 
> you can bypass UAC, you don't need to care about the settings.
> 
>> * The sidebar is gone.
> 
> In a sense. There's no longer a gradient there; you still have 'gadgets' 
> and you can still 'dock' them to the side. There's just no visual 
> indicator of this in Windows 7.
> 
> I don't really miss it, though. That gradient wasn't very attractive.
> 
>> * Some ancient programs, such as Paint and WordPad, got some much needed
>> updating.
> 
> Though, to be honest, I wonder if any of those get half of the use 
> Notepad sees. :D
> 
>> * The code has been cleaned up...
> 
> What does this mean?
> 
> 

I thought that MS squeezed out some of the code bloat in win7.


-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
0
cumulus (7752)
10/15/2009 5:38:41 PM
Sandman wrote:
> In article <b5GdnU5uq4AkZknXnZ2dnUVZ_uVi4p2d@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud 
> <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Sandman:
>>> I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the
>>> geek culture and  first adopters being over the ears about it
>>> (here in csma, for example), but  when released it really sunk 
>>> into the mud when gamers, business and avergae  users wouldn't
>>> touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and OEMs to offer 
>>> a downgrade option to Windows XP.
>>>
>>> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different in
>>> how Vista  screwed these people over. How is it winning people
>>> back? I haven't tried  Windows 7 at all, so I have no idea, but
>>> perhaps someone here can shed a light  on why Windows 7 will work
>>> where Vista failed and Windows XP prevailed.
> 
>> GreyCloud:
>> Right off the top from the CNET news articles that I've read, it
>> appears  that M$ has put some efforts into a lot of multi-core
>> programming.  They did note that  the older programs won't be able
>> to take advantage of this without the vendors doing a  makeover of
>> their programs.
> 
> That's a technical difference, which I'm sure there are many. But to the end 
> user, how is W7 different than VIsta to a XP user?
> 

 From what I've read, it is quite minor.

>> Of course it seems to parallel what Apple has done to snow  leopard. So I 
>> suspect that a lot of drivers, like say for HP printers, will have  to be 
>> rewritten for both oses.
> 
> Sounds like MS :)
> 
> 

True, but some time, they will have to make a break from legacy apps if 
they really want to improve their os.
This is in regards to backward compatibility.  And their Marketing Dept. 
will have a big campaign on their hands
to convince people that it really is better.


-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
0
cumulus (7752)
10/15/2009 5:41:46 PM
In article <I_udnYwvWtJcw0rXnZ2dnUVZ_gli4p2d@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud 
<cumulus@mist.com> wrote:

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the
> > > > geek culture and  first adopters being over the ears about it
> > > > (here in csma, for example), but  when released it really sunk
> > > > into the mud when gamers, business and avergae  users
> > > > wouldn't touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and
> > > > OEMs to offer  a downgrade option to Windows XP.
> > > > 
> > > > I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different
> > > > in how Vista  screwed these people over. How is it winning
> > > > people back? I haven't tried  Windows 7 at all, so I have no
> > > > idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a light  on why
> > > > Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP
> > > > prevailed.

> > > GreyCloud:
> > > Right off the top from the CNET news articles that I've read, it
> > > appears  that M$ has put some efforts into a lot of multi-core
> > > programming.  They did note that  the older programs won't be
> > > able to take advantage of this without the vendors doing a 
> > > makeover of their programs.

> > Sandman:
> > That's a technical difference, which I'm sure there are many. But
> > to the end  user, how is W7 different than VIsta to a XP user?

> GreyCloud:
> From what I've read, it is quite minor.

So the reasons to get Windows 7 for a XP user is... minor?

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22317)
10/15/2009 9:14:42 PM
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
news:C6FA493F.4DAF9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Dan Johnson stated in post HPSdnVjSXuwiZUnXnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@supernews.com 
> on
> 10/13/09 3:01 PM:
>> The main thing is the new name, in my opinion. But will that allow it to
>> shake the FUD campaign?
>
> Much of the problems with Vista - it not working with the hardware it
> shipped with - has likely been resolved.  But that did leave a very bad
> taste in people's mouth.  And, as I note below, there are some differences
> in the two.

If I recall, you've claimed that Vista was shipped pre-installed on 
computers that had hardware for which no Vista-compatible driver then 
existed.

If an OEM was dumb enough to do that, then presumably Windows 7 won't make 
them any smarter. :/

[snip]
>> It's a bigger UI change than Snow Leopard was, perhaps bigger than Tiger
>> was. But once you start actually running an app, it's pretty much the 
>> same
>> UI as Vista. They've done a lot with the shell, but not a lot with the 
>> basic
>> UI widgetry.
>
> The task switching is done better... as is application launching.  Those
> things matter.  They will also take some getting used to by many.

They matter, but it's still just the shell. And even tiny changes take some 
getting used to "by many". :D

[snip]
>> I'm a bit disappointed in MS here. It is less annoying but also less 
>> secure:
>> it is almost security theater, like OS X does. It's better only in that 
>> you
>> can 'turn it up', and there's protected mode IE.
>>
>> MS is being very cynical about this. They won't admit forthrightly that 
>> they
>> reduced security (by default) to satisfy the whiners. Naturally, this 
>> just
>> got them a new set of whiners. Like me. :D
>>
>> The decision to prompt for UAC settings changes is particularly telling.
>> Critics demanded this, and MS did it, but it's completely useless. If you
>> can bypass UAC, you don't need to care about the settings.
>
> Security, for a general desktop, is not made better by tossing so many
> dialogs at a user they learn to ignore them.

I do not think it is an improvement to throw enough dialogs that users 
*think* they are protected, when in fact they aren't protected (at least in 
that way).

But I suppose you can say this for it: it may prevent people from turning 
UAC off. The prompts may be security theater, but Protected Mode isn't, and 
it's a good thing that application developers are not requiring 
administrator access so much. The default UAC settings in 7 do preserve 
these benefits.

But my beef is this: MS isn't saying any of that. They are pretending that 
their new, more friendly UAC comes at no security cost.

>  Pretty much that is what Vista
> did... as if MS just wanted to be able to say it is not their fault 
> because
> the user clicked a button.

I do not think MS ever actually used that excuse, to be fair.

[snip]
>>> * Some ancient programs, such as Paint and WordPad, got some much needed
>>> updating.
>>
>> Though, to be honest, I wonder if any of those get half of the use 
>> Notepad
>> sees. :D
>
> I think Notepad was updated, too.

I had not noticed. But that's been known to happen.

>>> * The code has been cleaned up...
>>
>> What does this mean?
>
> Faster app launches and the like... at least in theory.

I believe this was not done by code cleanup, but by tweaks in other areas. I 
recall a Channel 9 video where (if I recall correctly) they went through all 
the services that start at OS launch, and made all they could launch on 
first use. That sort of thing.

Code "cleanup" would typically make things slower, really. Highly optimized 
code is usually the less maintainable for it.
 

0
10/15/2009 10:15:10 PM
Sandman wrote:
> In article <I_udnYwvWtJcw0rXnZ2dnUVZ_gli4p2d@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud 
> <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and the
>>>>> geek culture and  first adopters being over the ears about it
>>>>> (here in csma, for example), but  when released it really sunk
>>>>> into the mud when gamers, business and avergae  users
>>>>> wouldn't touch it with a stick and forced both Microsoft and
>>>>> OEMs to offer  a downgrade option to Windows XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is different
>>>>> in how Vista  screwed these people over. How is it winning
>>>>> people back? I haven't tried  Windows 7 at all, so I have no
>>>>> idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a light  on why
>>>>> Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and Windows XP
>>>>> prevailed.
> 
>>>> GreyCloud:
>>>> Right off the top from the CNET news articles that I've read, it
>>>> appears  that M$ has put some efforts into a lot of multi-core
>>>> programming.  They did note that  the older programs won't be
>>>> able to take advantage of this without the vendors doing a 
>>>> makeover of their programs.
> 
>>> Sandman:
>>> That's a technical difference, which I'm sure there are many. But
>>> to the end  user, how is W7 different than VIsta to a XP user?
> 
>> GreyCloud:
>> From what I've read, it is quite minor.
> 
> So the reasons to get Windows 7 for a XP user is... minor?
> 

 From a certain point of view, yes.  From the pov of a vista user, yes.
A new vista user won't care about XP anyway.  From my pov, yes, in that 
I don't use windows.
I'm only noting what I have been finding on Cnet news of what win7 will 
bring to new users
and older windows users wanting to upgrade.  I very well could have it 
all wrong anyways, since I
don't use windows.


-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
0
cumulus (7752)
10/15/2009 10:57:07 PM
Dan Johnson stated in post WpSdnX7Q_aNwA0rXnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@supernews.com on
10/15/09 3:15 PM:


>>> The main thing is the new name, in my opinion. But will that allow it to
>>> shake the FUD campaign?
>>> 
>> Much of the problems with Vista - it not working with the hardware it shipped
>> with - has likely been resolved.  But that did leave a very bad taste in
>> people's mouth.  And, as I note below, there are some differences in the two.
>> 
> If I recall, you've claimed that Vista was shipped pre-installed on computers
> that had hardware for which no Vista-compatible driver then existed.
> 
> If an OEM was dumb enough to do that, then presumably Windows 7 won't make
> them any smarter. :/

Not any smarter - but harder to find the incompatible hardware.  But, sure,
that was one of the reasons Vista was, at the time of release, an utter
disaster for many.

> 
> [snip]
>>> It's a bigger UI change than Snow Leopard was, perhaps bigger than Tiger
>>> was. But once you start actually running an app, it's pretty much the same
>>> UI as Vista. They've done a lot with the shell, but not a lot with the basic
>>> UI widgetry.
>>> 
>> The task switching is done better... as is application launching.  Those
>> things matter.  They will also take some getting used to by many.
>> 
> They matter, but it's still just the shell. And even tiny changes take some
> getting used to "by many". :D

"Just the shell"?  The shell is very much tied to the user experience, and
the user experience is the *only* thing that matters to the user (which is
not to say many things do not go into the user experience).
> 
> [snip]
>>> I'm a bit disappointed in MS here. It is less annoying but also less secure:
>>> it is almost security theater, like OS X does. It's better only in that you
>>> can 'turn it up', and there's protected mode IE.
>>> 
>>> MS is being very cynical about this. They won't admit forthrightly that they
>>> reduced security (by default) to satisfy the whiners. Naturally, this just
>>> got them a new set of whiners. Like me. :D
>>> 
>>> The decision to prompt for UAC settings changes is particularly telling.
>>> Critics demanded this, and MS did it, but it's completely useless. If you
>>> can bypass UAC, you don't need to care about the settings.
>>> 
>> Security, for a general desktop, is not made better by tossing so many
>> dialogs at a user they learn to ignore them.
>> 
> I do not think it is an improvement to throw enough dialogs that users *think*
> they are protected, when in fact they aren't protected (at least in that way).
> 
> But I suppose you can say this for it: it may prevent people from turning
> UAC off. The prompts may be security theater, but Protected Mode isn't, and
> it's a good thing that application developers are not requiring
> administrator access so much. The default UAC settings in 7 do preserve
> these benefits.
> 
> But my beef is this: MS isn't saying any of that. They are pretending that
> their new, more friendly UAC comes at no security cost.

Can you give an example of some of this "cost"?   Fewer and better thought
out dialogs would lead to better security... but I do not know enough about
Win 7's security dialogs to know if Win 7 has moved this way.

>> Pretty much that is what Vista did... as if MS just wanted to be able to say
>> it is not their fault because the user clicked a button.
>> 
> I do not think MS ever actually used that excuse, to be fair.

I do not think they did directly, but I have heard many a tech say that to
users.  

> [snip]
>>>> * Some ancient programs, such as Paint and WordPad, got some much needed
>>>> updating.
>>>> 
>>> Though, to be honest, I wonder if any of those get half of the use Notepad
>>> sees. :D
>>> 
>> I think Notepad was updated, too.
>> 
> I had not noticed. But that's been known to happen.

Did not boot it to check, but according to the Internets it was updated.
And the Interents are never wrong.

>>>> * The code has been cleaned up...
>>> 
>>> What does this mean?
>> 
>> Faster app launches and the like... at least in theory.
> 
> I believe this was not done by code cleanup, but by tweaks in other areas. I
> recall a Channel 9 video where (if I recall correctly) they went through all
> the services that start at OS launch, and made all they could launch on
> first use. That sort of thing.
> 
> Code "cleanup" would typically make things slower, really. Highly optimized
> code is usually the less maintainable for it.
>  
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
10/16/2009 1:25:06 AM
In article <hqGdnZ9709I0NUrXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud 
<cumulus@mist.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > > I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and
> > > > > > the geek culture and  first adopters being over the ears
> > > > > > about it (here in csma, for example), but  when released
> > > > > > it really sunk into the mud when gamers, business and
> > > > > > avergae  users wouldn't touch it with a stick and forced
> > > > > > both Microsoft and OEMs to offer  a downgrade option to
> > > > > > Windows XP.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is
> > > > > > different in how Vista  screwed these people over. How is
> > > > > > it winning people back? I haven't tried  Windows 7 at all,
> > > > > > so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a
> > > > > > light  on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and
> > > > > > Windows XP prevailed.

<snip>

> > Sandman:
> > So the reasons to get Windows 7 for a XP user is... minor?

> GreyCloud:
> From a certain point of view, yes.  From the pov of a vista user,
> yes. A new vista user won't care about XP anyway.

Right, but for a XP user, or rather, a user that is disliking Vista (of which 
there seem to be many), why is Windows 7 a better choice than Vista? What has 
been improved?

Hmmm

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22317)
10/16/2009 6:02:48 AM
Sandman wrote:
> In article <hqGdnZ9709I0NUrXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud 
> <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>>>> I remember the reviews of Vista being very optimistic, and
>>>>>>> the geek culture and  first adopters being over the ears
>>>>>>> about it (here in csma, for example), but  when released
>>>>>>> it really sunk into the mud when gamers, business and
>>>>>>> avergae  users wouldn't touch it with a stick and forced
>>>>>>> both Microsoft and OEMs to offer  a downgrade option to
>>>>>>> Windows XP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am curious what has changed in Windows 7 that is
>>>>>>> different in how Vista  screwed these people over. How is
>>>>>>> it winning people back? I haven't tried  Windows 7 at all,
>>>>>>> so I have no idea, but perhaps someone here can shed a
>>>>>>> light  on why Windows 7 will work where Vista failed and
>>>>>>> Windows XP prevailed.
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> Sandman:
>>> So the reasons to get Windows 7 for a XP user is... minor?
> 
>> GreyCloud:
>> From a certain point of view, yes.  From the pov of a vista user,
>> yes. A new vista user won't care about XP anyway.
> 
> Right, but for a XP user, or rather, a user that is disliking Vista (of which 
> there seem to be many), why is Windows 7 a better choice than Vista? What has 
> been improved?
> 
> Hmmm
> 

Hehe... nothing from the visual screen.  Both Vista and win7 look the 
same on the outside.
This may put the kybosh on win7 sales for some.  And then some remember 
the upgrade from win98se
to win98me.  Then the claim was new and improved, but the opposite held 
true.  Under the hood
M$ got rid of some security annoyances, as they say, but then reports 
are now saying that
security has been sacrificed for this.  I'm not sure about it, but that 
is the general murmur.
For the programmer it may very well be an improvement... but that 
depends on how well M$
does on making VS10 understandable and bug free.


-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
0
cumulus (7752)
10/16/2009 8:08:38 PM
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
news:C6FD1982.4E0A4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Dan Johnson stated in post WpSdnX7Q_aNwA0rXnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@supernews.com 
> on
> 10/15/09 3:15 PM:
>
[snip- boring ole' FUD]
>> They matter, but it's still just the shell. And even tiny changes take 
>> some
>> getting used to "by many". :D
>
> "Just the shell"?

Just, as I said, the shell.

>  The shell is very much tied to the user experience, and
> the user experience is the *only* thing that matters to the user (which is
> not to say many things do not go into the user experience).

The shell is part of the user experience, but most of the time you are using 
applications, not the shell.

[snip]
>> But my beef is this: MS isn't saying any of that. They are pretending 
>> that
>> their new, more friendly UAC comes at no security cost.
>
> Can you give an example of some of this "cost"?   Fewer and better thought
> out dialogs would lead to better security... but I do not know enough 
> about
> Win 7's security dialogs to know if Win 7 has moved this way.

Win 7 does not, by default, prompt for elevation when a OS component, like 
Explorer, wants to elevate to admin. Only when other programs do, like 
installers.

This makes it like OS X: malware can get to admin without a prompt. You just 
need to use the right tricks.

From what I have read, for Win 7, the key trick appears to be injecting code 
into Windows Explorer, or some other program like that. It's essentially the 
same trick that lets you bypass Keychain's protections in OS X, only in Win 
7 you get admin access, not passwords.

[snip]
 

0
10/16/2009 9:54:27 PM
Dan Johnson stated in post r5GdnUhjsY0OdkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@supernews.com on
10/16/09 2:54 PM:

....
>>> They matter, but it's still just the shell. And even tiny changes take some
>>> getting used to "by many". :D
>>> 
>> "Just the shell"?
>> 
> Just, as I said, the shell.

That is like saying it is just the primary part of what matters to most
people.

>> The shell is very much tied to the user experience, and the user experience
>> is the *only* thing that matters to the user (which is not to say many things
>> do not go into the user experience).
>> 
> The shell is part of the user experience, but most of the time you are using
> applications, not the shell.

Well, the shell is visible and usable even in other applications... but the
OS is not going to change the applications.  When talking about the OS it is
a given that apps are not going to be changed automatically - other than in
terms of shared resources such as color selectors, file selectors, and the
like.

> [snip]
>>> But my beef is this: MS isn't saying any of that. They are pretending that
>>> their new, more friendly UAC comes at no security cost.
>>> 
>> Can you give an example of some of this "cost"?   Fewer and better thought
>> out dialogs would lead to better security... but I do not know enough about
>> Win 7's security dialogs to know if Win 7 has moved this way.
>> 
> Win 7 does not, by default, prompt for elevation when a OS component, like
> Explorer, wants to elevate to admin. Only when other programs do, like
> installers.
> 
> This makes it like OS X: malware can get to admin without a prompt. You just
> need to use the right tricks.

How often has this happened on OS X?  On Windows?

> From what I have read, for Win 7, the key trick appears to be injecting code
> into Windows Explorer, or some other program like that. It's essentially the
> same trick that lets you bypass Keychain's protections in OS X, only in Win
> 7 you get admin access, not passwords.

Are there things to prevent code injection?  From what I understand (which
is admittedly not much), Snow Leopard makes this harder than it was in
Leopard.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
10/16/2009 10:06:58 PM
ZnU wrote:

> But Microsoft does have a bit of a long term problem with this sort of 
> thing. Their customer base is primarily interested in "good enough". 
> People who are interested in "better" have selected other platforms. 

Nonsense.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
10/17/2009 10:15:33 AM
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
news:C6FE3C92.4E29F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Dan Johnson stated in post r5GdnUhjsY0OdkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@supernews.com 
> on
> 10/16/09 2:54 PM:
>> The shell is part of the user experience, but most of the time you are 
>> using
>> applications, not the shell.
>
> Well, the shell is visible and usable even in other applications... but 
> the
> OS is not going to change the applications.

Windows 7 is not. But Vista did: remember how apps used to have "menu bars"? 
:D

>  When talking about the OS it is
> a given that apps are not going to be changed automatically - other than 
> in
> terms of shared resources such as color selectors, file selectors, and the
> like.

True, apps mostly do not change automatically. But the OS does promulgate a 
UI standard, and apps by and large to try to adhere to it. Windows 7 doesn't 
really differ noticeably from Vista in this area. It's "Vista but more so", 
if anything.

[snip]
>> Win 7 does not, by default, prompt for elevation when a OS component, 
>> like
>> Explorer, wants to elevate to admin. Only when other programs do, like
>> installers.
>>
>> This makes it like OS X: malware can get to admin without a prompt. You 
>> just
>> need to use the right tricks.
>
> How often has this happened on OS X?  On Windows?

I dunno.

But I expect it *will* happen on Windows, once Windows 7 is sufficiently 
common to be worth targeting with elaborate techniques.

>> From what I have read, for Win 7, the key trick appears to be injecting 
>> code
>> into Windows Explorer, or some other program like that. It's essentially 
>> the
>> same trick that lets you bypass Keychain's protections in OS X, only in 
>> Win
>> 7 you get admin access, not passwords.
>
> Are there things to prevent code injection?

Yes, but not enough. You cannot code inject into a process that has 
*already* elevated, but you *can* into one that hasn't yet, but has the 
magic signature that allows silent elevation.

It will still only silently elevate its own COM objects, and only a signed 
process can elevate them silently. But if you inject your own code into 
Explorer, you get to use these COM objects, which will then silently elevate 
for you. And then you RULE THE WORLD!

It's very like setuid-root, really: the only difference is that you need to 
inject into a signed application to use them. But nothing stops you doing 
just that if you are an admin, so it's just not much better than what OS X 
has in the end.

>  From what I understand (which
> is admittedly not much), Snow Leopard makes this harder than it was in
> Leopard.

A bit: they've tightened up their input-managers. Those were one of the long 
standing and very easy paths to elevation. There is still setuid-root stuff, 
though. In a week I shan't be able to credibly bash it for that one.

And I still have no references to indicate that MOAB-15 was ever fixed. No 
fancy-pants code injection required for that one.
 

0
10/17/2009 11:06:55 AM
Dan Johnson stated in post dP2dnUw85a_TOETXnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@supernews.com on
10/17/09 4:06 AM:

> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6FE3C92.4E29F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Dan Johnson stated in post r5GdnUhjsY0OdkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@supernews.com
>> on
>> 10/16/09 2:54 PM:
>>> The shell is part of the user experience, but most of the time you are
>>> using
>>> applications, not the shell.
>> 
>> Well, the shell is visible and usable even in other applications... but
>> the
>> OS is not going to change the applications.
> 
> Windows 7 is not. But Vista did: remember how apps used to have "menu bars"?
> :D

Windows 7 does not remove menu bars from apps - though many of the apps that
come with Windows 7 fit its new paradigm.  Other companies are beginning to
move to it, too.  Pretty cool, really.
 
>> When talking about the OS it is a given that apps are not going to be changed
>> automatically - other than in terms of shared resources such as color
>> selectors, file selectors, and the like.
>> 
> True, apps mostly do not change automatically. But the OS does promulgate a UI
> standard, and apps by and large to try to adhere to it. Windows 7 doesn't
> really differ noticeably from Vista in this area. It's "Vista but more so", if
> anything.

Even with Vista, the ribbon was seen with some 3rd party apps.

> [snip]
>>> Win 7 does not, by default, prompt for elevation when a OS component, like
>>> Explorer, wants to elevate to admin. Only when other programs do, like
>>> installers.
>>> 
>>> This makes it like OS X: malware can get to admin without a prompt. You just
>>> need to use the right tricks.
>>> 
>> How often has this happened on OS X?  On Windows?
>> 
> I dunno.
> 
> But I expect it *will* happen on Windows, once Windows 7 is sufficiently
> common to be worth targeting with elaborate techniques.

We shall see.  What did XP and Vista really do to stop this?

>>> From what I have read, for Win 7, the key trick appears to be injecting code
>>> into Windows Explorer, or some other program like that. It's essentially the
>>> same trick that lets you bypass Keychain's protections in OS X, only in Win
>>> 7 you get admin access, not passwords.
>>> 
>> Are there things to prevent code injection?
>> 
> Yes, but not enough. You cannot code inject into a process that has *already*
> elevated, but you *can* into one that hasn't yet, but has the magic signature
> that allows silent elevation.
> 
> It will still only silently elevate its own COM objects, and only a signed
> process can elevate them silently. But if you inject your own code into
> Explorer, you get to use these COM objects, which will then silently elevate
> for you. And then you RULE THE WORLD!
> 
> It's very like setuid-root, really: the only difference is that you need to
> inject into a signed application to use them. But nothing stops you doing
> just that if you are an admin, so it's just not much better than what OS X
> has in the end.

What did Vista do to stop this?  Have yet another dialog people generally
did not understand?

>>  From what I understand (which
>> is admittedly not much), Snow Leopard makes this harder than it was in
>> Leopard.
> 
> A bit: they've tightened up their input-managers. Those were one of the long
> standing and very easy paths to elevation. There is still setuid-root stuff,
> though. In a week I shan't be able to credibly bash it for that one.
> 
> And I still have no references to indicate that MOAB-15 was ever fixed. No
> fancy-pants code injection required for that one.
>  
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
10/17/2009 1:40:53 PM
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:15:33 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote
(in article <zbudnUmpXtXYBETXnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews.com>):

> ZnU wrote:
> 
>> But Microsoft does have a bit of a long term problem with this sort of 
>> thing. Their customer base is primarily interested in "good enough". 
>> People who are interested in "better" have selected other platforms. 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Steve

Not nonsense, but fact.

0
fa-groon (1448)
10/17/2009 6:07:22 PM
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:15:33 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> 
>> But Microsoft does have a bit of a long term problem with this sort of 
>> thing. Their customer base is primarily interested in "good enough". 
>> People who are interested in "better" have selected other platforms. 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 

Then why switch? Did all switchers do so because of the cool factor?

0
no-spam2 (6831)
10/17/2009 6:55:44 PM
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
news:C6FF1775.4E43D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Dan Johnson stated in post dP2dnUw85a_TOETXnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@supernews.com 
> on
> 10/17/09 4:06 AM:
>> But I expect it *will* happen on Windows, once Windows 7 is sufficiently
>> common to be worth targeting with elaborate techniques.
>
> We shall see.  What did XP and Vista really do to stop this?

XP had no 'elevation'; you were an admin, or not. If not, you couldn't gain 
admin access.

Vista had elevation, but prompted before doing it. Even if malware took 
control of Explorer or something, still it could not perform admin 
operations without a prompt.

[snip]
>> It's very like setuid-root, really: the only difference is that you need 
>> to
>> inject into a signed application to use them. But nothing stops you doing
>> just that if you are an admin, so it's just not much better than what OS 
>> X
>> has in the end.
>
> What did Vista do to stop this?  Have yet another dialog people generally
> did not understand?

Vista did not, by default, elevate silently.

But it could be configured to do so! If so, it elevated *everything* that 
wants to be elevated, not just OS components. There are just no prompts, 
unless a password is needed.

This configuration, still available in 7 if you want it, is better than the 
default: it is even more convenient and prompt-free, plus there's no 
'security theater'. It doesn't pretend to be controlling the programs admins 
run.

I must say it's kind of strange that I'm bashing UAC and you're defending 
it. Did we get beamed into the mirror universe in a tragic transporter 
accident or something? :/

[snip]
 

0
10/17/2009 7:28:03 PM
Dan Johnson stated in post ZJqdneT_mcVYh0fXnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@supernews.com on
10/17/09 12:28 PM:

> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6FF1775.4E43D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Dan Johnson stated in post dP2dnUw85a_TOETXnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@supernews.com
>> on
>> 10/17/09 4:06 AM:
>>> But I expect it *will* happen on Windows, once Windows 7 is sufficiently
>>> common to be worth targeting with elaborate techniques.
>> 
>> We shall see.  What did XP and Vista really do to stop this?
> 
> XP had no 'elevation'; you were an admin, or not. If not, you couldn't gain
> admin access.
> 
> Vista had elevation, but prompted before doing it. Even if malware took
> control of Explorer or something, still it could not perform admin
> operations without a prompt.

But there were so many prompts they become essentially useless.

> [snip]
>>> It's very like setuid-root, really: the only difference is that you need to
>>> inject into a signed application to use them. But nothing stops you doing
>>> just that if you are an admin, so it's just not much better than what OS X
>>> has in the end.
>>> 
>> What did Vista do to stop this?  Have yet another dialog people generally did
>> not understand?
>> 
> Vista did not, by default, elevate silently.
> 
> But it could be configured to do so! If so, it elevated *everything* that
> wants to be elevated, not just OS components. There are just no prompts,
> unless a password is needed.
> 
> This configuration, still available in 7 if you want it, is better than the
> default: it is even more convenient and prompt-free, plus there's no
> 'security theater'. It doesn't pretend to be controlling the programs admins
> run.
> 
> I must say it's kind of strange that I'm bashing UAC and you're defending
> it. Did we get beamed into the mirror universe in a tragic transporter
> accident or something? :/

Could be.  Would not be the first time.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
10/17/2009 7:40:48 PM
In article <0001HW.C6FF55EA0006FC21F01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:15:33 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote
> (in article <zbudnUmpXtXYBETXnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
> 
> > ZnU wrote:
> > 
> >> But Microsoft does have a bit of a long term problem with this sort of 
> >> thing. Their customer base is primarily interested in "good enough". 
> >> People who are interested in "better" have selected other platforms. 
> > 
> > Nonsense.
> > 
> > Steve
> 
> Not nonsense, but fact.
> 

No kidding -- Microsoft has explicitly defined itself by this over
almost all of its history.
Didn't they even make such a statement in a stockholder report (which
was meant to reassure!)?
0
wetpixel (811)
10/17/2009 8:26:51 PM
In article <dP2dnUw85a_TOETXnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@supernews.com>,
 "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson2@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
> news:C6FE3C92.4E29F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...

[snip]

> > From what I understand (which
> > is admittedly not much), Snow Leopard makes this harder than it was in
> > Leopard.
> 
> A bit: they've tightened up their input-managers. Those were one of the long 
> standing and very easy paths to elevation. There is still setuid-root stuff, 
> though. In a week I shan't be able to credibly bash it for that one.
> 
> And I still have no references to indicate that MOAB-15 was ever fixed. No 
> fancy-pants code injection required for that one.

In Snow Leopard, Repair Permissions no longer changes permissions on 
modified SUID files, instead generating an error like:

SUID file "/path/to/whatever" has been modified and will not be repaired.

This would seem to close that hole.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
10/17/2009 8:44:41 PM
In article <171020091026519864%wetpixel@news.news>,
 wetpixel <wetpixel@news.news> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C6FF55EA0006FC21F01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
> Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:15:33 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote
> > (in article <zbudnUmpXtXYBETXnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
> > 
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > 
> > >> But Microsoft does have a bit of a long term problem with this sort of 
> > >> thing. Their customer base is primarily interested in "good enough". 
> > >> People who are interested in "better" have selected other platforms. 
> > > 
> > > Nonsense.
> > > 
> > > Steve
> > 
> > Not nonsense, but fact.
> > 
> 
> No kidding -- Microsoft has explicitly defined itself by this over
> almost all of its history.
> Didn't they even make such a statement in a stockholder report (which
> was meant to reassure!)?

MS' empire was built on how bad it was, generating robust support, 
service, and training industries who in turn recommended Windoze, etc.  
It was a profitable feedback loop.   Not sure if that business model 
will continue to fly as well though.  I think people are somewhat better 
informed nowadays.

L
0
logic (42)
10/17/2009 9:53:14 PM
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
news:C6FF6BD0.4E4BB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Dan Johnson stated in post ZJqdneT_mcVYh0fXnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@supernews.com 
> on
> 10/17/09 12:28 PM:
>> XP had no 'elevation'; you were an admin, or not. If not, you couldn't 
>> gain
>> admin access.
>>
>> Vista had elevation, but prompted before doing it. Even if malware took
>> control of Explorer or something, still it could not perform admin
>> operations without a prompt.
>
> But there were so many prompts they become essentially useless.

The problem with these prompts is not how many there are, but whether the 
user is equipped to answer the question being asked. Many users are very 
ignorant and can't do that.

However, prompting them more often doesn't make them more ignorant.

And some of us *can* answer these questions.

[snip]
 

0
10/17/2009 10:02:17 PM
Dan Johnson stated in post dridnV4EnaN2o0fXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@supernews.com on
10/17/09 3:02 PM:

> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6FF6BD0.4E4BB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Dan Johnson stated in post ZJqdneT_mcVYh0fXnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@supernews.com
>> on
>> 10/17/09 12:28 PM:
>>> XP had no 'elevation'; you were an admin, or not. If not, you couldn't
>>> gain
>>> admin access.
>>> 
>>> Vista had elevation, but prompted before doing it. Even if malware took
>>> control of Explorer or something, still it could not perform admin
>>> operations without a prompt.
>> 
>> But there were so many prompts they become essentially useless.
> 
> The problem with these prompts is not how many there are, but whether the
> user is equipped to answer the question being asked. Many users are very
> ignorant and can't do that.
> 
> However, prompting them more often doesn't make them more ignorant.
> 
> And some of us *can* answer these questions.

When people are inundated with dialogs, they tend to tune them out.  Look at
how often I post and, um... forget the example I was going for there.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
10/17/2009 10:10:17 PM
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:53:14 -0700, Logic wrote
(in article <logic-3705F9.17531417102009@freenews.netfront.net>):

> In article <171020091026519864%wetpixel@news.news>,
>  wetpixel <wetpixel@news.news> wrote:
> 
>> In article <0001HW.C6FF55EA0006FC21F01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
>> Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:15:33 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote
>>> (in article <zbudnUmpXtXYBETXnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
>>> 
>>>> ZnU wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> But Microsoft does have a bit of a long term problem with this sort of 
>>>>> thing. Their customer base is primarily interested in "good enough". 
>>>>> People who are interested in "better" have selected other platforms. 
>>>> 
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> 
>>>> Steve
>>> 
>>> Not nonsense, but fact.
>>> 
>> 
>> No kidding -- Microsoft has explicitly defined itself by this over
>> almost all of its history.
>> Didn't they even make such a statement in a stockholder report (which
>> was meant to reassure!)?
> 
> MS' empire was built on how bad it was, generating robust support, 
> service, and training industries who in turn recommended Windoze, etc.  
> It was a profitable feedback loop.   Not sure if that business model 
> will continue to fly as well though.  I think people are somewhat better 
> informed nowadays.
> 
> L

Only slightly. If they were truly better informed, the market share of Mac 
and Linux would be growing at a prodigious rate, and while both alternative 
OSes ARE growing in usage, it's at a relatively sedate pace. The problem is 
that most computer users still see only Windows as a viable computer system. 
Many (most?) don't really like it, and I hear lots of people, from all walks 
of life wonder, verbally, why MS never seems to fix the OS's most glaring 
problems. The reasons, of course, are as you outline above. Windows is 
purposely poor to generate and maintain a huge support industry, who, after 
having gone to all the trouble to learn how to deal with the system's 
problematical and illogical infrastructure, don't want all that training and 
experience to go to waste. Therefore, the pressure from THOSE users to never 
change Windows very much keeps the system old-fashioned and poorly designed, 
while heaping layer after layer of added complexity on top of it as more and 
more capability is required to support new technologies. At some point (and 
this may have happened already) The Windows GUI, designed, as it was in the 
mid 1990's will no longer be able to cope. It will be interesting to see what 
Microsoft does then - if anything.

0
fa-groon (1448)
10/18/2009 12:33:17 AM
In article <znu-0C8A3E.16444117102009@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <dP2dnUw85a_TOETXnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>  "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson2@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
> > news:C6FE3C92.4E29F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > From what I understand (which is admittedly not much), Snow 
> > > Leopard makes this harder than it was in Leopard.
> > 
> > A bit: they've tightened up their input-managers. Those were one of 
> > the long standing and very easy paths to elevation. There is still 
> > setuid-root stuff, though. In a week I shan't be able to credibly 
> > bash it for that one.
> > 
> > And I still have no references to indicate that MOAB-15 was ever 
> > fixed. No fancy-pants code injection required for that one.
> 
> In Snow Leopard, Repair Permissions no longer changes permissions on 
> modified SUID files, instead generating an error like:
> 
> SUID file "/path/to/whatever" has been modified and will not be 
> repaired.
> 
> This would seem to close that hole.

Plus, of the three specific SUID file permissions issues mentioned in 
the vulnerability warning with respect to this issue, two of the files 
no longer exist in a standard Snow Leopard installation and the third 
is no longer writable by the admin group. So Apple solved this one from 
both sides, it looks like.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
10/18/2009 5:54:10 AM
In article <dridnV4EnaN2o0fXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
 "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson2@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
> news:C6FF6BD0.4E4BB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> > Dan Johnson stated in post ZJqdneT_mcVYh0fXnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@supernews.com 
> > on
> > 10/17/09 12:28 PM:
> >> XP had no 'elevation'; you were an admin, or not. If not, you couldn't 
> >> gain
> >> admin access.
> >>
> >> Vista had elevation, but prompted before doing it. Even if malware took
> >> control of Explorer or something, still it could not perform admin
> >> operations without a prompt.
> >
> > But there were so many prompts they become essentially useless.
> 
> The problem with these prompts is not how many there are, but whether the 
> user is equipped to answer the question being asked. Many users are very 
> ignorant and can't do that.

Unfortunately, there's essentially no solution to this problem without a 
major overhaul of the security models of desktop operating systems that 
would break huge quantities of existing software.

> However, prompting them more often doesn't make them more ignorant.

No, it just makes them more likely to click "Allow" without actually 
paying attention to what's asking.

> And some of us *can* answer these questions.

I wonder if that's really the case, or if it's just something savvy 
users like to think.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
10/18/2009 5:58:54 AM
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:58:54 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately, there's essentially no solution to this problem without a 
> major overhaul of the security models of desktop operating systems that 
> would break huge quantities of existing software.

Bu you will never break the model of the user. When the software asks "will 
you allow me to do this?" and let the user answer, I see nothing you can do 
to fix that.

0
no-spam2 (6831)
10/21/2009 2:43:22 AM
In article <0001HW.C703ED8A0001C343F0407648@nntp.charter.net>,
 Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:58:54 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> > 
> > Unfortunately, there's essentially no solution to this problem without a 
> > major overhaul of the security models of desktop operating systems that 
> > would break huge quantities of existing software.
> 
> Bu you will never break the model of the user. When the software asks "will 
> you allow me to do this?" and let the user answer, I see nothing you can do 
> to fix that.

There are hypothetical security models that largely solve that problem. 
You just can't get there from here without breaking a lot of stuff.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
10/21/2009 3:20:24 PM
In article <WpSdnX7Q_aNwA0rXnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@supernews.com>, Dan
Johnson <danieljohnson2@verizon.net> wrote:


> If I recall, you've claimed that Vista was shipped pre-installed on 
> computers that had hardware for which no Vista-compatible driver then 
> existed.
> 
> If an OEM was dumb enough to do that, then presumably Windows 7 won't make 
> them any smarter. :/
No, but I don't think the range of products has gotten larger.
I suspect they actually have to offer less than they did; lots of
brands and models simply don't seem to be around (in the US) any more.


> > Security, for a general desktop, is not made better by tossing so many
> > dialogs at a user they learn to ignore them.
> 
> I do not think it is an improvement to throw enough dialogs that users 
> *think* they are protected, when in fact they aren't protected (at least in 
> that way).
> 
> But I suppose you can say this for it: it may prevent people from turning 
> UAC off. The prompts may be security theater, but Protected Mode isn't, and 
> it's a good thing that application developers are not requiring 
> administrator access so much. The default UAC settings in 7 do preserve 
> these benefits.
> 
> But my beef is this: MS isn't saying any of that. They are pretending that 
> their new, more friendly UAC comes at no security cost.
Yes; they seem more comfortable keeping the user ignorant of the real
issue. or avoiding it entirely. Or recategorizing the issue so that
people can only talk about it an wait-and-see about their new strategy.

> >  Pretty much that is what Vista
> > did... as if MS just wanted to be able to say it is not their fault 
> > because the user clicked a button.
> 
> I do not think MS ever actually used that excuse, to be fair.
No, but that's because MS ignores those issues. Not because they won't
make excuses, but because they won't acknowledge the problem.
heck, do you recall some of the execs in direct interviews? Ballmer
made it sound like they licked every malware issue and matched features
and grace of Mac OS X back in XP!
0
wetpixel (811)
10/23/2009 9:58:17 PM
In article <dP2dnUw85a_TOETXnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@supernews.com>, Dan
Johnson <danieljohnson2@verizon.net> wrote:


> > How often has this happened on OS X?  On Windows?
> 
> I dunno.
> 
> But I expect it *will* happen on Windows, once Windows 7 is sufficiently 
> common to be worth targeting with elaborate techniques.
But this is clearly a wrong assumption:
malware does not target by market share; if it did, malware numbers
would reflect market share.
Besides, there is a little notoriety in being first to break in, so
many had probably been working on that for months.

Hackers would love to come up with Mac malware that propagates, and can
then infect other Macs. That, after all, is the major threat that
people know from Windows and OE.

> >> From what I have read, for Win 7, the key trick appears to be injecting 
> >> code
> >> into Windows Explorer, or some other program like that. It's essentially 
> >> the
> >> same trick that lets you bypass Keychain's protections in OS X, only in 
> >> Win
> >> 7 you get admin access, not passwords.
> >
> > Are there things to prevent code injection?
> 
> Yes, but not enough. You cannot code inject into a process that has 
> *already* elevated, but you *can* into one that hasn't yet, but has the 
> magic signature that allows silent elevation.
> 
> It will still only silently elevate its own COM objects, and only a signed 
> process can elevate them silently. But if you inject your own code into 
> Explorer, you get to use these COM objects, which will then silently elevate 
> for you. And then you RULE THE WORLD!
> 
> It's very like setuid-root, really: the only difference is that you need to 
> inject into a signed application to use them. But nothing stops you doing 
> just that if you are an admin, so it's just not much better than what OS X 
> has in the end.
But, on the Mac at least, doesn't that require direct access?
I mean, that was the situation that was proven in that 'challenge' that
trolls love to mention so loudly, wasn't it?

> >  From what I understand (which
> > is admittedly not much), Snow Leopard makes this harder than it was in
> > Leopard.
> 
> A bit: they've tightened up their input-managers. Those were one of the long 
> standing and very easy paths to elevation. There is still setuid-root stuff, 
> though. In a week I shan't be able to credibly bash it for that one.
> 
> And I still have no references to indicate that MOAB-15 was ever fixed. No 
> fancy-pants code injection required for that one.
>  
>
0
wetpixel (811)
10/23/2009 10:10:06 PM
In article <znu-D1B64D.01585418102009@Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
<znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <dridnV4EnaN2o0fXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>  "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson2@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
> > news:C6FF6BD0.4E4BB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> > > Dan Johnson stated in post ZJqdneT_mcVYh0fXnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@supernews.com 
> > > on
> > > 10/17/09 12:28 PM:
> > >> XP had no 'elevation'; you were an admin, or not. If not, you couldn't 
> > >> gain
> > >> admin access.
> > >>
> > >> Vista had elevation, but prompted before doing it. Even if malware took
> > >> control of Explorer or something, still it could not perform admin
> > >> operations without a prompt.
> > >
> > > But there were so many prompts they become essentially useless.
> > 
> > The problem with these prompts is not how many there are, but whether the 
> > user is equipped to answer the question being asked. Many users are very 
> > ignorant and can't do that.
> 
> Unfortunately, there's essentially no solution to this problem without a 
> major overhaul of the security models of desktop operating systems that 
> would break huge quantities of existing software.

So what?
Windows users may still insist they have to have long-term legacy
support, but there are damn few who _actually_ need it.

Look at how often they insist they need the newest software -- if you
have the new version, you definitely don't need the previous, let alone
one from years before.
0
wetpixel (811)
10/23/2009 10:21:31 PM
wetpixel wrote:

> Windows users may still insist they have to have long-term legacy
> support, but there are damn few who _actually_ need it.

So many of your posts are filled with these supposed "facts" that are 
basically your opinion, backed up by not an ounce of evidence.   It 
seems to be a recurring theme.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
10/25/2009 12:20:18 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

[News] [Rival] Windows 7 Just Another Windows Vista+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Windows 7 Will Be A Lightly Tweaked Windows Vista ,----[ Quote ] | Last week, Microsoft gave a teeny, tiny bit of information about the | successor to Windows Vista, currently named Windows 7. There wasn't a lot of | real meaty data in its disclosures, but it said enough to reset any | expectations you might have that Windows 7 would be a radical departure from | Windows Vista. `---- http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/06/windows_7_will.html Days ago: Is Microsoft Repeating Vista Mistakes with Windows 7? ,----...

WANTED: DELL WINDOWS 7 PRO Disks, DELL WINDOWS XP PRO & VISTA BUSINESS
WANTED: DELL WINDOWS 7 PRO Disks, DELL WINDOWS XP PRO & VISTA BUSINESS - We are buying in large quantities We are wanting to buy large quantities of Dell Windows 7 Pro Disks. We are also looking to buy Dell Windows XP Pro and possibly some Vista Business as well. We also buy Microsoft, Dell, HP and other Office software packages 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2012 all versions. We like to buy in quantity. We also buy the below. We buy old and new versions of Microsoft Office, Server, Windows & others. Adobe Acrobat 9 and X and others titles. Symantec Norton Antivirus, NIS and 360. We are emailing you because we are Looking to buy software from you in larger quantities. If you are looking to sell Quantities 10-20 or more email us! However we will buy Server packages in quantities of 1-3 or more. Email me directly at craig.softnet@gmail.com We buy old and new versions of Microsoft Office, Server, Windows & others. Adobe Acrobat 9 and X and others titles. Symantec Norton Antivirus, NIS and 360. I am looking to BUY large quantities of Microsoft Office PKC medialess license kits 2007, 2010, 2012 MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 PRO, WINDOWS XP PRO, VISTA, WINDOWS 7 SOFTWARE MICROSOFT OFFICE 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2012. XP, SBE, STANDARD AND PRO & OTHERS MICROSOFT SERVER 2003, 2008, 2010 Standard, Premium, Enterprise SQL & OTHER PACKAGES We BUY Microsoft, Corel, Adobe, Macromedia, Symantec, Veritas and others. Email directly: craig.soft...

WANTED: DELL WINDOWS 7 PRO Disks, DELL WINDOWS XP PRO & VISTA BUSINESS
WANTED: DELL WINDOWS 7 PRO Disks, DELL WINDOWS XP PRO & VISTA BUSINESS - We are buying in large quantities We are wanting to buy large quantities of Dell Windows 7 Pro Disks. We are also looking to buy Dell Windows XP Pro and possibly some Vista Business as well. We also buy Microsoft, Dell, HP and other Office software packages 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2012 all versions. We like to buy in quantity. We also buy the below. We buy old and new versions of Microsoft Office, Server, Windows & others. Adobe Acrobat 9 and X and others titles. Symantec Norton Antivirus, NIS a...

WANTED: DELL WINDOWS 7 PRO Disks, DELL WINDOWS XP PRO & VISTA BUSINESS
WANTED: DELL WINDOWS 7 PRO Disks, DELL WINDOWS XP PRO & VISTA BUSINESS - We are buying in large quantities We are wanting to buy large quantities of Dell Windows 7 Pro Disks. We are also looking to buy Dell Windows XP Pro and possibly some Vista Business as well. We also buy Microsoft, Dell, HP and other Office software packages 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2012 all versions. We like to buy in quantity. We also buy the below. We buy old and new versions of Microsoft Office, Server, Windows & others. Adobe Acrobat 9 and X and others titles. Symantec Norton Antivirus, NIS and 360. We are emailing you because we are Looking to buy software from you in larger quantities. If you are looking to sell Quantities 10-20 or more email us! However we will buy Server packages in quantities of 1-3 or more. Email me directly at craig.softnet@gmail.com We buy old and new versions of Microsoft Office, Server, Windows & others. Adobe Acrobat 9 and X and others titles. Symantec Norton Antivirus, NIS and 360. I am looking to BUY large quantities of Microsoft Office PKC medialess license kits 2007, 2010, 2012 MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 PRO, WINDOWS XP PRO, VISTA, WINDOWS 7 SOFTWARE MICROSOFT OFFICE 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2012. XP, SBE, STANDARD AND PRO & OTHERS MICROSOFT SERVER 2003, 2008, 2010 Standard, Premium, Enterprise SQL & OTHER PACKAGES We BUY Microsoft, Corel, Adobe, Macromedia, Symantec, Veritas and others. Email directly: craig.soft...

[News] [Rival] Windows Vista Sales + Windows Vista Upgrades = Windows XP
Vista downgrading: What are your rights? ,----[ Quote ] | Talk about a catch 22. Did you know that in order to be allowed to downgrade | Vista to XP on a new computer, Microsoft expects you to have one of the more | expensive editions of Windows Vista that most OEMs don’t even put on their | machines. It’s true. Have a look at this official Microsoft one-sheet | explaining the intricacies of downgrading from Vista that’s come bundled with | a new PC. | | You’d have to add $180 to the price of a Dell Inspiron 530 in order to have | the right to use XP instead of Vista. `---- http...

Matlab version for Windows Vista and Windows 7
Which version of the Matlab is installable in Vista environment? Win7 environment? Thanks for the info in advance. Lee CC "CC Lee" <e2718282@gmail.com> wrote in message news:i195np$9sk$1@fred.mathworks.com... > Which version of the Matlab is installable in Vista environment? Win7 > environment? > > Thanks for the info in advance. The list of system requirements for versions of MATLAB as far back as release R11 is available on the support website in the Installation, Activation, and Startup box: http://www.mathworks.com/support/ -- Steve Lord slord...

Rexx failure from windows vista to windows 7
Hello I recently bought a pc running windows7 I copied my rexx scripts from a machine running windows vista I have scripts to logon to a few sites but have run into problems. My script contains the following instuction passing my name myIE~document~getElementById("name")~Value = nam I receive the following error in Windows 7 error 97 running C:\users.....rex line 31 Object method not found Error 97.1: Object "The Nil object" does not understand message "Value=" I am running oorexx 4.0.1 Thanks I upgraded to ooRexx-4.1.0-windows.x86_64 and still get the same error. On 03/01/2013 06:43, globaloney wrote: > myIE~document~getElementById("name")~Value = nam Depending upon what sort of object "myIE" is, you will probably have to load the corresponding "handler" file. For example, my programs that handle Media Player objects includes: Player=.OLEObject~New("WMPlayer.OCX.7") I migrated from XP to Win7, and I probably had to copy over WMPlayer.OCX.7 before my programs would work under Win7. This happened back in September, so there is no chance of my remembering what I did. I can't even find wmplayer.ocx* on my system right now, so that's a bit of a mystery. -- Steve Swift http://www.swiftys.org.uk/ On 03/01/2013 08:01, Swifty wrote: > I can'...

[News] [Rival] Another Set of New Windows Vista Screwups, Windows Vista Brought to Court (Class Action)
Vista SP1: The hits just keep coming ,----[ Quote ] | Microsoft officials have maintained that the company had no plans to push SP1 | via Windows Update until Microsoft was able to resolve driver compatibility | problems discovered during the SP1 beta-testing process. `---- http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1212 Microsoft 64-bit Vista SP1 early release snafu ,----[ Quoet ] | Users of the 64-bit version of Vista may have noticed something strange over | the last couple of days – a notification that Vista SP1 has downloaded to | their computers and is ready for installation, despite ...

Windows 7 = Windows Vista = Piece of Sh*t
http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/free-windows-7-end-early-shutdowns-685 Want to know why Microsoft is ready to release Windows 7 so soon after the release of Vista? BECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME THING! And it sucks just as bad as Vista, maybe an infitesemal amount less, but it's close. Windows 7, I HATE IT ALREADY!!! ...

Windows 7 TCP/IP slower than Windows Vista ?
Hi, We have an interesting observation. We noticed that the network throughput on Windows 7 is lower than that of Windows Vista when some graphical activity is going on. We have a setup where 3 PCs running Windows 7, Windows Vista and Windows XP resp. are connected to a Ethernet HUB. The Windows XP PC generates some network traffic which is captured on both Windows 7 and Windows Vista PCs using Wireshark network capture tool. The configurations of all 3 PCs (motherboard, RAM etc) are identical. We observed that intermittenetly the packets are received with a delay on Win 7 pc, ...

[News] Another Windows Guy Fears Windows Vista
Why I Can't Recommend Friends and Family Upgrade to Windows Vista ,----[ Quote ] | If you're one of the readers of this blog who has ever asked me for | technical advice, then this post is for you. Microsoft, next month, | is releasing Vista, the next version of its operating system series, | Windows. Vista has been touted as the next big thing from Microsoft. | Its big already. Its a rhinoceros. Its horned, its blind, and its | dumb - and it wants to take over your computer. After doing some | reading and some research I can?t recommend anyone upgrade from | Windows 2000 or Win...

[News] [Rival] Vista 7 is Just Another Vista, Windows Called "Dead End"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Microsoft Partners Kicking Dirt On Vista's Grave ,----[ Quote ] | But this week at its Professional Developer Conference, Microsoft started | talking about Windows 7, the successor to Vista, in a way that suggests it | may be scaling back efforts to defend Vista's honor. Microsoft's recent | launch of Windows 7-related blogs, and its removal of the word 'Vista' from | the Windows Vista Team blog, also support the notion that Microsoft wants to | put the Vista experience behind it. `---- http://www.crn.com/software/...

[News] [Rival] Another 'Development Collapse': Windows 7 Just Another ME2 (Vista)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Windows 7 Server to be 'minor release' ,----[ Quote ] | Microsoft said on Monday in the US that the server version of Windows 7 would | not be a major release and will bear the name Windows Server 2008 R2. `---- http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Windows-7-Server-to-be-minor-release-/0,130061733,339291343,00.htm?omnRef=1337 So it's just a rename. What about the promises? The vapourware... it's fraud. Recent: Bill Gates: Windows 7 - Amazing Things - But no clue as to what they actually are ,----[ Quote ] | But with M...

Some Arabic letters fail in Windows Vista & Windows 7
My observation refers to Windows Vista and Windows 7, but not to other operating systems. The Urdu letter U+06BB =DA=BB=DA=BB=DA=BB does not join in Courier New. http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/unicode/unidata06.html#x06BB The Pashto letter U+06D0 =DB=90=DB=90=DB=90 does not join in Courier New and not in Times New Roman. http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/unicode/unidata06.html#x06D0 The display of both letters in Arial and Tahoma is correct. Choose Arial or Tahoma or Times New Roman as your Western Latin typeface in your browser. I'm aski...

[News] [Rival] Microsoft Puppet (Microsoft Nick) Says Microsoft Buries Vista, Another Puppet (IDC) Says Vista 7 is Last Windows
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Microsoft`s Windows 7 Tried to Vanquish Vista Memories in 2009 http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Microsofts-Windows-7-Tried-to-Vanquish-Vista-Memories-in-2009-701116/ Mozilla Claims Browser Will Run All Future Apps ,----[ Quote ] | Mozilla is claiming that its new mobile web | browser, currently dubbed Fennec, will spell | the end of application stores for mobile | phones because once developers start writing | for it, apps will run on any platform and can | bypass platform specific app stores. Yes, | that's right, the old "write ...

Windows 7 is the same as Windows 95
So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA. OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>, "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote: > So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA. > > OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40 years old, because it contains UNIX code. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from th...

Open a window in another window
I would like to open all the GUI of my application in a space of a main GUI, and not that every GUI is an indipendent window. It is possible in Matlab ? how ? http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/11546 -qooroo "qooroo " <qoorooAT@gmailDOT.comREMOVECAPS> wrote in message <h8ag4j$c6b$1@fred.mathworks.com>... > http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/11546 > > -qooroo There is some documentation about how to use it. I don't understand how to use the 2 m-file in my application. I've never actually used it myself, but it looked...

Windows Vista two windows
Hello, Is there any way to avoid a second black window when using emacs under Windows Vista? Thanks, Andr=E9 Luiz AndreLTR <andreltramos@gmail.com> writes: > Is there any way to avoid a second black window when using emacs under > Windows Vista? What version of Emacs are you using and where from? I downloaded the one linked from the GNU Emacs FAQ and when running "runemacs.exe" it works fine for me without window. - Jerome Hello, It works this way thanks! Sorry for the double post. Sincerely, Andr=E9 Luiz On 28 dez, 17:11, Jerome Baum <em...@jeromebaum.co...

detecting a window from another window
Hi, I would like to find a better way of doing the following. I have a window (call it Win) that creates a new window (call it Win2). It detects if the window already exists and brings it to the front if it does (else it just creates it). Please study and try the code below to try it and then read on. The problem occurs when I reload window Win and hit the create-window button. The Win2 window is reset and reloads from scratch. I want it to just be brought to the top. In my work what I do is have the Order button bring up an order form from an item page. Then going to another item page hi...

Uniface 7 and Windows 7/VISTA
Has anyone gotten Uniface 7 to run on Window 7 or VISTA? This is on a client machine. We've mapped the client's K: drive to a share on a Windows 2003 server that hosts UNIFACE, so all they would be running is k:UNIFACE.EXE. Thanks in advance for your help, I had tested it on Windows Vista when Vista first came out. It was running in Windows 95 compatibility mode. I had more trouble getting Solid (version 2.3, I believe) to run on Vista, but got it working eventually. But, it was a bit hit and miss, and I eventually downgraded to XP to eliminate the issues. J...

Steve Ballmer's Windows 7 dance party---Hopping on the grave of Windows Vista
<Quote> October 22 has arrived, which means Microsoft can stop defending Windows Vista and start pretending it never happened. Eyes have now turned to Windows 7, while Windows Vista joins Microsoft Bob and Windows Me in the annals of underachievers past. Well, except for all those people who are still stuck with the thing. </Quote> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/22/windows_7_launch_party/ nessuno wrote: > <Quote> > October 22 has arrived, which means Microsoft can stop defending > Windows Vista and start pretending it never happened. Eyes have now > turned...

Microsoft Forces Windows 10 Downloads Onto Windows 7 And Windows 8
The saga continues. Following news that Windows 10 automatically downloads onto Windows 7 and Windows 8 for users who choose to upgrade, Microsoft MSFT +0.00% has now confirmed it has taken things one serious step further: Windows 10 will now download on computers even when users chose NOT to upgrade. This somewhat shocking development was discovered by The Inquirer when a reader reported Windows 10 had been downloaded onto their computer despite the fact they expressly declined the opportunity to upgrade: �The symptoms are repeated failed �Upgrade to Windows 10' in the WU update history and a huge 3.5GB to 6GB hidden folder labelled �$Windows.~BT�,� the reader explained. �I thought Microsoft [said] this �upgrade� was optional. If so, why is it being pushed out to so many computers where it wasn�t reserved, and why does it try to install over and over again? He continued: �I know of two instances where people on metered connections went over their data cap for August because of this unwanted download. My own internet (slow DSL) was crawling for a week or so until I discovered this problem. In fact, that�s what led me to it. Not only does it download, it tries to install every time the computer is booted.� Microsoft Confirms New Policy Astonishingly this is not a one-off error. Speaking to The Inquirer, Microsoft confirmed this is now something they are doing to all computers running Windows 7 and Windows 8: �For i...

Random compile errors under WIndows (32 bit Windows Vista and Windows 10)
I have earlier noticed random stray compile errors when building DJGPP port of gcc under Windows Vista Business. Running make again compiled some file without problems. Such errors where extremely rare for DJGPP CVS from CVS (also 2.04 before bumping version to 2.05). I usually did not get them at all for 2.04 or 2.05. The situation was noticeably worse for 2.03p2. Building GCC was still possible but I had to restart build often enough. I have 64-bit Windows 10 (earlier Windows 7) on desktop computer and dual boot with Linux (currently Fedora 22 x86_64). So there no DJGPP testing pos...

Mac Sys 7.x Appletalk/Windows XP Printer
Does anyone know of a printer that has the following characteristics: 1. Has an Appletalk port that prints to Mac System 7.x; and 2. Has a USB or parallel port that prints to Windows XP; and 3. Is currently on the market? Thanks. << 1. Has an Appletalk port that prints to Mac System 7.x; and 2. Has a USB or parallel port that prints to Windows XP; and 3. Is currently on the market? Thanks. >> It's not on the current market but the Epson Stylus Color 740 has USB parallel and Mac serial ports. They are available on E-bay. hth Ron ...

Web resources about - Windows 7, another Windows Vista? - comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Window - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the part of a building. For the Microsoft operating system, see Microsoft Windows . For other uses, see Window (disambiguation) ...

Microsoft Windows Information, Solutions, Tools - Windows IT Pro
Microsoft Windows information and solutions for IT pros. Topics include cloud computing, Windows Server, Exchange, Outlook, PowerShell, virtualization, ...

The Windows Blog
The Windows Blog is Microsoft's Official Blog for the Windows Operating System.

Windows File Analyzer is a versatile PC forensics tool
... happened since they were installed, too, of course not much use if you’re trying to find out what’s been happening in the past few days. Windows ...

Today’s teenagers can’t believe we ever used Windows 95
It's hard to believe now, but there was a time when Windows 95 was incredibly exciting. While Microsoft has something of a stodgy reputation ...

Microsoft is trying to bring back the eighties with its Windows 10 strategy
... Microsoft kept the rights in lieu of royalties from IBM. DOS put Microsoft the very center of the PC revolution, even through the era of Windows, ...

'It's prehistoric!' Today's teens react to Windows 95
Teens give Windows 95 a spin and learn about a time when dial-up Internet and patience were required to run a desktop computer.

Microsoft doesn’t need Windows anymore
When you think of Microsoft, what product first comes to mind? Windows, you say? How quaint. Yes, you’re probably reading this on a Windows-based ...

Super Meat Boy Wii U release window, port studio confirmed
Team Meat legend Tommy Refenes took to Twitter to spread the news that Super Meat Boy would be hitting the Wii U in the near future, as confirmed ...

Instagram beta arrives for Windows 10 mobile devices
Instagram first arrived on Windows mobile devices in beta form back in 2013. Today, the photographic social app is available for Windows 10 handsets, ...

Resources last updated: 3/7/2016 11:23:57 PM