Windows Vista

I've had zero problems with my ipod and itunes using Vista. As for the Gadgets/Widgets thing, there's a good difference between them in the functionality department. On OSX, the widgets are like a whole other desktop unto themselves, you actually have to hit a button or click on something to bring them up. In Vista, the chill on the desktop as a sidebar and are always visible/accessable depending on how you organize your windows. Another interesting thing about Vista is that you can now alt-tab to your desktop, so you can get access to them pretty easily with other applications fullscreened. I agree that it takes some getting used to, but so did the change from 98 to XP (for people who didn't use NT4 or NT5/2k). So far I haven't seen much that I haven't liked about it, except for that it defaults to asking for my permission every time a new application wants to take controll of the processor. Nice for security, annoying for trying to install something (where you basically have to say "yes, I want to install it, fucker" about 3-4 times to even begin installing something). Honestly, using both on a daily basis, I would hesitate to say Vista is an OSX knockoff, or that they're terribly similar. There are a couple similar things, the Gadgets/Widgets thing and the live search/spotlight thing. That's really all I've noticed so far.

What does it mean to "take control of the processor"? And, if you update a program (ie copy a new EXE on top of the old one), does it prompt again?

Unless Windows Vista is anything as complex as Windows XP Professional then I might possibly buy it. But if it turns out to be even worse then that retched thing called "Windows XP Home" then I'm not touching it. I've grown up knowing alot about computer technology and have always hated Macintosh in the fact that you can't get into the "nitty gritty" as you can in Windows with things like DOS or other programs that many people will call archaic. If you know the inner workings of your computer, it's bound to last you a long time with the occasional upgrade. Besides, what's the point of memorizing DOS commands if I can never use them!

Runatsu, these days Macs use a BSD-based Unix-like operating system with a REAL command shell (not anywhere as poor as cmd.exe).

Vista's confirmation for installing things is not the least bit a security feature. It may make people think they're safer, but generally speaking that dialog comes up so often that people will just start ignoring it, or turn it off. Security through obnoxiousness is worse than security through obscurity. And the worst thing of all is that it's pointless -- it doesn't ask for your password or anything, so it does nothing to prevent a kid or a visitor or your stupid girl/boyfriend from installing something that will fsck up your PC.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grantref
Vista's confirmation for installing things is ... pointless -- it doesn't ask for your password or anything, so it does nothing to prevent a kid or a visitor or your stupid girl/boyfriend from installing something that will fsck up your PC.

---

It doesn't?? I heard that it did. Or does it not ask if you're already running as administrator?

If you're on as a user with administrative privileges, you just get a 'did you really mean to do this?' box. As a regular user, you get prompted for admin credentials.

I'd bet that most home users will end up just seeing the confirmation box. It looks like Vista disables the 'Administrator' account by default, but the user created during install is automatically set up with administrator privileges. I don't imagine that most home users will create a separate admin account and then lock down their main one.

*roll*

Yeah. That box would get disabled pretty quickly.

One thing I'd very much like to know, though, is - What constitutes "installing a program"? Many programs don't need any sort of installer (eg RosMud - just unzip it and run it - or some of the programs from grc.com - don't even need to unzip).

Is the prompt on:
* Opening for writing a file with extension "exe"? (ie when you copy/extract the program)
* Making a new directory under "Program Files"?
* Writing a new key to the registry?

Is it possible to bypass that prompt in any way? For example, copying a file "foobar.png" and then renaming it to "foobar.exe", to foil the detection? Believe you me, if there is a way, someone will find it - probably within the month.

Here's a relevant snippet from a TechNet article on User Account Control

Quote:

---

Installer Detection only applies to:

1. 32 bit executables

2. Applications without a requestedExecutionLevel

3. Interactive processes running as a Standard User with LUA enabled

Before a 32 bit process is created, the following attributes are checked to determine whether it is an installer:

• Filename includes keywords like "install," "setup," "update," etc.
• Keywords in the following Versioning Resource fields: Vendor, Company Name, Product Name, File Description, Original Filename, Internal Name, and Export Name.
• Keywords in the side-by-side manifest embedded in the executable.
• Keywords in specific StringTable entries linked in the executable.
• Key attributes in the RC data linked in the executable.
• Targeted sequences of bytes within the executable.

---

It's worth noting that Installer Detection and other aspects of UAC are configurable via group policies.

And Ros, you're right. There will be a way around this, and many people will find it (maybe even simultaneously!). The ultimate frustration will be when someone is jumping through a load of hoops in the name of security, while an intruder bypasses the 'protection' without breaking a sweat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Talsek
The ultimate frustration will be when someone is jumping through a load of hoops in the name of security, while an intruder bypasses the 'protection' without breaking a sweat.

---

Sounds like the last time I went on a plane in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Talsek
Here's a relevant snippet from a TechNet article on User Account Control
(chomp)

---

*jaw drops*

Unless the "targeted sequences of bytes" are incredibly well crafted, this is EASY to dodge. I could write a custom install program, call it "scan.exe", purport it to be a simple malware scanner or whatever, and have it Trojanically install whatever I want it to install. Okay, a lot of people won't run some random malware scanner, but the same applies to almost anything.

Thanks for that article Talsek. I'll read it in more detail at home.