470,819 Members | 1,568 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 470,819 developers. It's quick & easy.

Drop your pants and grab your ankles..its VISTA!

I haven't delved into the beast that is Vista from a programming standpoint
yet. But, if the blog at http://west-wind.com/WebLog/posts/4983.aspx is any
indication of what we're in for.....I say we all refuse to deploy this
monstrosity and make Redmond get it right.

There is NO WAY people are going to go for a system this locked down.
Never....ever........ever!


Oct 9 '06 #1
8 1428
>I haven't delved into the beast that is Vista from a programming standpoint
>yet. But, if the blog at http://west-wind.com/WebLog/posts/4983.aspx is
any indication of what we're in for.....I say we all refuse to deploy this
monstrosity and make Redmond get it right.

There is NO WAY people are going to go for a system this locked down.
Never....ever........ever!
You are absolutely right.
Let's drop windows everywhere, install linux and spend billions of euros
porting applications, based on 1 blog post with information about a product
that has not even been released yet, only to discover that linux is locked
down even tighter by default.

The issues mentioned there are mostly due to earlier bad design. Users
having RW access to program files is considered OK?
After years of bad press, Microsoft are finally locking down the OS, and lo
and behold: OMG my applications that were not developed for an OS that has
not yet been released have compatibility problems. Sue!! Bring out the
pitchforks!! It is a conspiracy!!!

Well Boohoo.

Of course there will be compat problems.
And most of them are caused by bad design, and will have to be fixed by the
app devs themselves.
Some are caused by bugs in Vista, and will have to be fixed before Vista
goes gold, which is still over 4 months away.

--

Kind regards,
Bruno van Dooren
br**********************@hotmail.com
Remove only "_nos_pam"
Oct 9 '06 #2
Try it by yourself.

AFAIK having restricted permissions on Program files is already there in XP
(or is this just how our workstations are installed ?)

--
Patrice

"smerf" <sm***@shroom.coma écrit dans le message de news:
fk*******************@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>I haven't delved into the beast that is Vista from a programming standpoint
yet. But, if the blog at http://west-wind.com/WebLog/posts/4983.aspx is
any indication of what we're in for.....I say we all refuse to deploy this
monstrosity and make Redmond get it right.

There is NO WAY people are going to go for a system this locked down.
Never....ever........ever!


Oct 9 '06 #3
AFAIK having restricted permissions on Program files is already there in XP
(or is this just how our workstations are installed ?)
Thats just your workstation.
Login as admin and delete all folders in System32 that start with the
word "Group" or have the word "Policy" in them... these might be hidden
files also.

Oct 9 '06 #4
Steven Nagy schrieb/wrote:
>AFAIK having restricted permissions on Program files is already there in XP
(or is this just how our workstations are installed ?)

Thats just your workstation.
Under XP, a member of the "Users" group has no write access to the
"Program files" directory.
Oct 9 '06 #5

"Bruno van Dooren [MVP VC++]" <br**********************@hotmail.comwrote
in message news:OD**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| >I haven't delved into the beast that is Vista from a programming
standpoint
| >yet. But, if the blog at http://west-wind.com/WebLog/posts/4983.aspx is
| >any indication of what we're in for.....I say we all refuse to deploy
this
| >monstrosity and make Redmond get it right.
| >
| There is NO WAY people are going to go for a system this locked down.
| Never....ever........ever!
|
| You are absolutely right.
| Let's drop windows everywhere, install linux and spend billions of euros
| porting applications, based on 1 blog post with information about a
product
| that has not even been released yet, only to discover that linux is locked
| down even tighter by default.
|
| The issues mentioned there are mostly due to earlier bad design. Users
| having RW access to program files is considered OK?
| After years of bad press, Microsoft are finally locking down the OS, and
lo
| and behold: OMG my applications that were not developed for an OS that has
| not yet been released have compatibility problems. Sue!! Bring out the
| pitchforks!! It is a conspiracy!!!
|
| Well Boohoo.
|
| Of course there will be compat problems.
| And most of them are caused by bad design, and will have to be fixed by
the
| app devs themselves.
| Some are caused by bugs in Vista, and will have to be fixed before Vista
| goes gold, which is still over 4 months away.
|
| --

Funny that the Blog concludes with "the OS being crappy" while in fact it's
the application being crappy (10 years old FoxPro?) probably designed for a
'crappy?' OS called W9X having administrative dependencies.
Such legacy applications can indicate that they want to perform 'legitimate'
administrative operations by implementing an application manifest.

The issue with writing to a config file is not valid either, Vista uses
something called virtualization which redirect writes to a per-user location
when the account is restricted.
Another point he is missing is that it's still possible to run as local
administrator (which is disabled by default), something he obviously does
when running on XP because "users" don't have write access privileges on
"Program Files". But that doesn't change the issue, it's Foxpro which is to
blame not the OS (Vista or XP).
Developers should carefully read all they can about UAC (something the blog
poster failed to do) and run the "Microsoft Standard User Analyzer" in order
to identify the administrative dependencies of their applications, this will
allow them to take some corrective measures, or at least to provide a
manifest for their applications.

Willy.


Oct 9 '06 #6
smerf wrote:
I haven't delved into the beast that is Vista from a programming standpoint
yet. But, if the blog at http://west-wind.com/WebLog/posts/4983.aspx is any
indication of what we're in for.....I say we all refuse to deploy this
monstrosity and make Redmond get it right.

There is NO WAY people are going to go for a system this locked down.
Never....ever........ever!

smerf:

I disagree. UAC is a good thing, and has made me realize that my
applications were not correctly written with regard to users who are not
administrators (though they did run, unlike some of the apps mentioned
in the article).

The real problem with Vista is that it is full of bugs.

David Wilkinson
Oct 9 '06 #7
Patrice wrote:
Try it by yourself.

AFAIK having restricted permissions on Program files is already there in XP
(or is this just how our workstations are installed ?)
Patrice:

Why do you think this is OT in developer groups? Very relevant I would say.

However I disagree with the OP that UAC is a bad thing. Rather the
problem with Vista is that it is full of bugs, many of which are related
to installation and uninstallation of applications.

David Wilkinson
Oct 9 '06 #8
IMO it would rather belong to a security group such as
microsoft.public.windows.vista.security or perhaps
microsoft.public.dotnet.security.

Though group frequentation is a factor, I thought that if the thread still
continues here it could be good to mention that it doesn't discuss a
particular csharp, vb or vc language issue.

For those interested :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvis...tml/wvduac.asp

--
Patrice

"David Wilkinson" <no******@effisols.coma écrit dans le message de news:
u2**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Patrice wrote:
>Try it by yourself.

AFAIK having restricted permissions on Program files is already there in
XP (or is this just how our workstations are installed ?)

Patrice:

Why do you think this is OT in developer groups? Very relevant I would
say.

However I disagree with the OP that UAC is a bad thing. Rather the problem
with Vista is that it is full of bugs, many of which are related to
installation and uninstallation of applications.

David Wilkinson

Oct 9 '06 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.