I Think Windows 7 RC Looks Disappointing - Do You Too?

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: DasFox

Users need to start learning to use Windows as a user not the Root and yet during the install of Windows 7 you make a root account and most non-experienced users are just going to stick with using it and now realize this downfall...

Sounds all fine and well, but when everyday programs require root privileges to simply run, it becomes a chore putting the password every time you want to launch it.

 

[yinan]

Everyday software should not need root access to run. The program was designed wrong and is writing to places it really shouldnt need to.

 

[EndGame]

I Think Windows 7 RC Looks Disappointing - Do You Too?

No, I like it a lot and have run it on everything from a laptop with 512MB ram to a desktop with 8GB ram. Performs very nicely on everything.

See these posts every time a new OS is introduced though so........

 

[Pigbristle]

Well I agree with the OP, after coming from xp (thats like 7-8 years old now?) I too am very disappointed with win7.

I gave Vista a miss because of all the bad publicity it got, but thought I needed to make the change to keep up with the new hardware that maybe xp won't recognize in the future (4gig ram & such).

But I got to say, overall I'm sad that it didn't give me the buzz that xp gave me, when I upgraded from 98se.

Also, when you see people (& you see a few) telling us win7 is as fast as xp.
I wonder how many people did a new install of xp, at the time they did a fresh installing of win7?

Maybe they should run w7 for a while, install a load of programs & then do a fresh install of xp & then tell us if there is a difference in speed.

Sorry if I sound a bit cranky, must be my age ;o)

 

[Cogman]

So the argument starts out that the OP hates win 7 because of UAC, and functionality differences, then "I can't select each and every program I want to install!", then it moves towards "It LOOKS TOO MUCH LIKE VISTA!!!!" and all the sudden, win 7 sucks hard (and then the op adds the message that we are only discussing the looks here, even though half of his arguments where based on the way things worked.). Yeah, not following the logical path. Heck, did he forget about 95/98/ME/2000? The argument might as well been made that 2000 sucks because it looks too much like ME. Or XP sucks because it can be made to look like ME.

In fact, the whole premise that "Vista sucks, win 7 looks like vista, win 7 sucks" Is erroneous on many different levels. AFAIK vista had the following problems (most of which have been corrected)

1. Manufactures put out crappy drivers. Heck, half of all the crashes of Vista where caused by the retarded drivers that Nvidia released. nVidia had so long to correct and develop good drivers, but they didn't.
2. UAC was more intrusive then people wanted it to be. Well you can forgo the security and turn it off, no problem.
3. It was made by Microsoft. And hating the man is cool (unless the man is google).

Other then that, Vista is a stellar OS. It feels a whole heck of a lot more responsive then XP ever did and I have had far fewer problems with it from start to finish then any other OS (Linux, many different flavors, former versions of windows ect).

At very least, Win7 seems to be getting better press coverage then Vista did. I think a large part of that is due to the MS open beta program. With enough people able to try Win7 the press isn't going to be able to get away with rampant MS bashing without a large group of people saying "BS, I tried it and it worked great!".

Every time I hear someone bash Vista I want to beat them over the head with an alternator sized piece of frozen beef. It is just ignorance spawning more ignorance.

(Funny side note. I overheard one guy talking to another about Win 7. His claim was that "Windows 7 is really based off of windows XP, since windows Vista was such a huge bust. So the windows vista line is now finished...." Yeah, a part of me want to beat him)

 

[Mem]

At very least, Win7 seems to be getting better press coverage then Vista did. I think a large part of that is due to the MS open beta program. With enough people able to try Win7 the press isn't going to be able to get away with rampant MS bashing without a large group of people saying "BS, I tried it and it worked great!".

One thing I have learned is don't listen to press, try something yourself for quite awhile, anyway I'm glad I did since Vista has been very good to me over the last two years and its a very good OS ,lot of the FUD was unjustified in my books, even now I know some people that are scared to try it because of FUD, ie they think their PC will blow up or something, those that have tried it have said to me its actually good.

Win7 builds on Vista in some areas like better for older/slower systems and added some new features,as a gamer and beta games tester I'm looking forward to DX11 etc..I have tried lots of different builds with Win7 and 7000 build was a pain for me,however latest builds are running fine,its not a big jump or upgrade over Vista IMHO however its a very good OS in its own right and I'm for one am glad its based on Vista.

UAC was never an issue for me and I always find it funny when some people moan about it,its actually one thing I like in Vista and Win7.
I'm looking forward to Win8 down the road too.

1. Manufactures put out crappy drivers. Heck, half of all the crashes of Vista where caused by the retarded drivers that Nvidia released. nVidia had so long to correct and develop good drivers, but they didn't.
2. UAC was more intrusive then people wanted it to be. Well you can forgo the security and turn it off, no problem.
3. It was made by Microsoft. And hating the man is cool (unless the man is google).

Its probably 99% true that most software issues with any OS are drivers or incompatible software,its always easier to blame the OS or Bill Gates for some people, not to meantion troubleshooting is too time consuming for those people too.

 

[yinan]

Only thing I dont like about 7 is that my Thinapp packages dont work. I hate installing software

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: Pigbristle
Well I agree with the OP, after coming from xp (thats like 7-8 years old now?) I too am very disappointed with win7.

I gave Vista a miss because of all the bad publicity it got, but thought I needed to make the change to keep up with the new hardware that maybe xp won't recognize in the future (4gig ram & such).

But I got to say, overall I'm sad that it didn't give me the buzz that xp gave me, when I upgraded from 98se.

What were you expecting? I am genuinely curious. I am in the minority here, I'm sure. I never ran Win 95 or Win 98 as main OSes. I started on DOS/Win 3.1 and moved straight on to Windows NT. I was part of the NT 3.1 beta program back in 1992 and I ran the Win95 beta(Chicago), but stuck with the NT family from 3.1 to 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, Win2000, and finally XP. So for me, what I'm seeing is a steady progression.

Also, when you see people (& you see a few) telling us win7 is as fast as xp.
I wonder how many people did a new install of xp, at the time they did a fresh installing of win7?

Actually, I had to do a clean install of XP on one of my laptops in order to update the firmware. This laptop was going to get Win 7, but the firmware software was designed for XP and I didn't want to brick my laptop. I am 99% certain Win 7 would have been fine, but the 1% was enough to get me to load XP, so I grabbed my XP-SP3 disk and loaded it up on the laptop. The laptop was a T7200 processor (2.0 gHz Core 2) with 2 GB RAM and an aTI x1600 video card. Since I went through the hassle of loading XP, I ran a couple of quick tests, like installing Office 2000 running Word, Excel and powerpoint documents through, installing handbrake to convert a DVD to MP4(idiocracy), and compiling an inventory program I wrote for my wife's bar. The Office 2000 test was on a whim. Someone in another forum was wondering if Win 7 would load Office 2000, and I was curious, also, so I did. On that laptop, Office 2000 was pretty fast. Handbrake took too long, so I noted the average framerate after about 45 minutes of conversion and canceled the run. The compiling of the software was with Visual Studio 2008 SP1. These are real world software packages I use regularly (except Office, I ususally run 2007). I then overwrote the partion and reformatted. I loaded up Win 7 on the laptop and installed and ran all the software again. There was no difference in compiling or using handbrake. framerates were withing .3 fps (from a total of 13fps).

Office 2000 seemed to run even faster in Win 7. It was really more of a gut feeling, as there wasn't really anything to benchmark, but Win 7 was nowhere slower than XP. Given that this is still not release software, that's pretty darn good.

Maybe they should run w7 for a while, install a load of programs & then do a fresh install of xp & then tell us if there is a difference in speed.

Sorry if I sound a bit cranky, must be my age ;o)

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: DasFox

Originally posted by: Andrmgic
built-in admin account is disabled by default in Windows 7 and as others have said, the admin account doesn't operate at true admin level.. hence the security prompts. They can do more than a standard user, like access regedit and the control panel, but still require elevation to install software

So what are we saying? Both the built in Admin account and the one you create BOTH don't operate at TRUE admin level?

That is correct. When you log in as an admin you get a standard user access token. When you need to do an admin task you are granted a second token with higher rights. This happens when the UAC prompt occurs. This is the same process that occurs when you are signed in as a standard user except you are required to enter a valid admin password. The elevation process is exactly the same either way.

If that is so, then they are the same correct? So again what's the point of even creating an Admin account when the built in one does the same thing? This is what I'm saying, just create a password for it during the install and login as a standard user.

Under Vista, this was the original plan, but, it was such a fundamental change people didn't like it so they compromised with the current implementation.

What are we saying now that the Standard user account isn't a more secure account to be running the OS under?

The standard user account is more secure in that you are required to enter a password to elevate rites. It's not more secure in that applications can't automatically escalate without your permission.

If that is so then what's the point in havin it, it's suppose to be a more secure way to use the system and that is the way any true OS should be run as a user. Admin/Root access should only be there for making changes. You shouldn't even use a desktop as an admin, under an admin account.

What's the point? To make running a higher security model easy to manage for consumers and stand alone installs while giving corporate and domain admins the ability to lock down the system for business networks. While It's perfectly acceptable to allow a consumer to have an easy to manage system, it's not acceptable to allow the average corporate user full admin access to the local system.

So the only difference from Admin to User is the User needs to put in a password for the UAC?

If that's true, look at the Unix/Linux world where you run an OS as a user and you always put in a password for Admin rights. WHY? Because if someone gained access under the user account they'd need the password for root access. Now you're running Win7 as an example under this Admin account and someone gains access to it, well then all they are going to need to do is just click UAC when it comes up and they have full access to everything, but then again if they gain access while you're under the Admin account they are going to be able to do what they pretty much want. This is my point here, to always use an OS as a user even if you have to type the password because anyone trying to get into the system is only going to be able to gain user access and if they want access past it, they'll need that password. Now is this concept not true to Windows either? That's why I think it's foolish for a user to run an OS as an Admin in Windows.

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: DasFox

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: DasFox

Originally posted by: Andrmgic
built-in admin account is disabled by default in Windows 7 and as others have said, the admin account doesn't operate at true admin level.. hence the security prompts. They can do more than a standard user, like access regedit and the control panel, but still require elevation to install software

So what are we saying? Both the built in Admin account and the one you create BOTH don't operate at TRUE admin level?

That is correct. When you log in as an admin you get a standard user access token. When you need to do an admin task you are granted a second token with higher rights. This happens when the UAC prompt occurs. This is the same process that occurs when you are signed in as a standard user except you are required to enter a valid admin password. The elevation process is exactly the same either way.

If that is so, then they are the same correct? So again what's the point of even creating an Admin account when the built in one does the same thing? This is what I'm saying, just create a password for it during the install and login as a standard user.

Under Vista, this was the original plan, but, it was such a fundamental change people didn't like it so they compromised with the current implementation.

What are we saying now that the Standard user account isn't a more secure account to be running the OS under?

The standard user account is more secure in that you are required to enter a password to elevate rites. It's not more secure in that applications can't automatically escalate without your permission.

If that is so then what's the point in havin it, it's suppose to be a more secure way to use the system and that is the way any true OS should be run as a user. Admin/Root access should only be there for making changes. You shouldn't even use a desktop as an admin, under an admin account.

What's the point? To make running a higher security model easy to manage for consumers and stand alone installs while giving corporate and domain admins the ability to lock down the system for business networks. While It's perfectly acceptable to allow a consumer to have an easy to manage system, it's not acceptable to allow the average corporate user full admin access to the local system.

So the only difference from Admin to User is the User needs to put in a password for the UAC?

If that's true, look at the Unix/Linux world where you run an OS as a user and you always put in a password for Admin rights. WHY? Because if someone gained access under the user account they'd need the password for root access. Now you're running Win7 as an example under this Admin account and someone gains access to it, well then all they are going to need to do is just click UAC when it comes up and they have full access to everything, but then again if they gain access while you're under the Admin account they are going to be able to do what they pretty much want. This is my point here, to always use an OS as a user even if you have to type the password because anyone trying to get into the system is only going to be able to gain user access and if they want access past it, they'll need that password. Now is this concept not true to Windows either? That's why I think it's foolish for a user to run an OS as an Admin in Windows.

Are you assuming that the bad guy has physical access to the box? If that's the case, you're screwed anyway. However, if you are talking about a remote exploit, if UAC is triggered, the Secure Screen pops up and requires user interaction. The button cannot be pushed programatically. Have you used Vista at all? If you haven't then you should know that when UAC triggers, the screen fades and a image of the faded screen is placed on the monitor and the UAC modal dialog box, which requires a keyboard enrty pops up. It is quite jarring, and cannot be ignored.

PhreePhly

Edit: Ended with just "Have you used Vista at all?" which just sounded really snarky. My apologies. Added some clarification.

 

[Analogsoul]

DasFox:

Since Windows is marketed to both consumers and companies (network environment) the only way any type of user restriction can work with very little headaches for the consumer is through the UAC system. If Microsoft decided to use a SUDO type authentication, then there would be tons of consumers complaining about needing to enter their password all the time. There is a reason why Linux isn't a mainstream OS yet, and ease of use is one of them (although with each new release/distribution, linux is making strides in this area). Microsoft left it up to the consumer/IT dept to decide if they want to have people logged in with the Admin account or not. You're right that a user can blindly click the UAC warning window to continue, but that's better than not having a warning at all. It's a compromise Microsoft decided to make.

 

[Pigbristle]

Originally posted by: PhreePhly
Win 7 was nowhere slower than XP.[/b]
Q]

Nobody said that it was slower then xp, just most people around the forums are stating it's a lot quicker

Originally posted by: PhreePhly
Given that this is still not release software, that's pretty darn good.[/b]
Q]

Could this not be a double edged sword? the fact that it is still not a release, just means they could add more bloat to it before finalizing it, slowing it down even more.

And what they really gave us Beta testers, was a cutdown/slim version to try, so as to tell the world just howquick it is?

ps, just had to install another third party media player so i can get to play all my vids (yet another dissapointment)

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: Pigbristle

Originally posted by: PhreePhly
Win 7 was nowhere slower than XP.[/b]
Q]

Nobody said that it was slower then xp, just most people around the forums are stating it's a lot quicker

Originally posted by: PhreePhly
Given that this is still not release software, that's pretty darn good.[/b]
Q]

Could this not be a double edged sword? the fact that it is still not a release, just means they could add more bloat to it before finalizing it, slowing it down even more.

And what they really gave us Beta testers, was a cutdown/slim version to try, so as to tell the world just howquick it is?

ps, just had to install another third party media player so i can get to play all my vids (yet another dissapointment)

Sounds as if you're having quite a few problems that most people aren't. I'm on my system most of the day 5 - 6 days a week and on it some the other day every week also. I have found very, very few programs which will not run on Win 7 and even fewer problems with included apps.. I would never even consider going back to XP.

Everything changes and matures, including OS's. You either grow with them and adapt or continue with what you cling to until it becomes futile to continue and then finally move forward.

Not a "dig" on you as such, just something I've found applicable through the years. Doesn't apply only to computers and technical ideals either.....

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: Pigbristle

Originally posted by: PhreePhly
Win 7 was nowhere slower than XP.[/b]
Q]

Nobody said that it was slower then xp, just most people around the forums are stating it's a lot quicker

Originally posted by: PhreePhly
Given that this is still not release software, that's pretty darn good.[/b]
Q]

Could this not be a double edged sword? the fact that it is still not a release, just means they could add more bloat to it before finalizing it, slowing it down even more.

And what they really gave us Beta testers, was a cutdown/slim version to try, so as to tell the world just howquick it is?

ps, just had to install another third party media player so i can get to play all my vids (yet another dissapointment)

Overall, Win 7 seems much "snappier" than XP. I know that that is a pretty vague unit of measure , but that's what sells.

As far has the double-edged sword, I doubt it. Beta code and RC code typically has not been compiled for optimization. We are at the stage that features will probably not be added, only bugs fixed and refinements to existing code, so I doubt that speed will drop.

What kind s of vids? There is a codec pack out for Win 7, although I haven't needed it it, yet. My avis, MP4s, wmps and movs now play natively. Of course DVDs and mpeg 1 and 2 work also. While I know tons of other formats exist, to think that MS would support every one is naive.

PhreePhly

 

[Pigbristle]

Well this tread was started asking who was disappointed with it & i'm just letting my thoughts be heard.

You said yourself you had to download codecs to get your vids working.
People will just end up downloading another Media Player rather then looking round for codecs, so that makes WMedia Player a waste.

Does win7 burn vobs? no! so we have to go & download third party burning software, so that makes win7 iso burner a waste of space.

Maybe I was just expecting to much!

Peace!

 

[DasFox]

Well, yes I'm talking if someone was to hack into the system and gain root access while you're running under this Admin account. Ok so they have to click the UAC, let's say they realize you are not at the keyboard, for an example you had to walk away and they are able to have mouse control to remotely use it and when UAC opens they simply click it.

But if a user was using the account under a standard user account and someone gained remote access hacking in and then tried to do something they would then have to put in a password.

Hacking into a computer and gaining access is a real threat everyday, so I don't see why Microsoft wouldn't be pushing to consumers to run their system as a user and put in a password all the time, especially if we are talking about a business computer being used for as a very critical workstation, or anyone that wants to maintain max security for any reasons.

I don't know I guess this my Unix/Linux background thinking here, but I think it's silly to use an OS under a root/admin account of any kind, especially if you are concerned about security.

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: Pigbristle
Well this tread was started asking who was disappointed with it & i'm just letting my thoughts be heard.

You said yourself you had to download codecs to get your vids working.
People will just end up downloading another Media Player rather then looking round for codecs, so that makes WMedia Player a waste.

Does win7 burn vobs? no! so we have to go & download third party burning software, so that makes win7 iso burner a waste of space.

Maybe I was just expecting to much!

Peace!

Well, I have not downloaded any codecs, I just know that they are available. All of the formats I mentioned play natively in WMP. I'm pretty sure Movie Maker will burn vobs, and that is a free download as part of Live essentials.

PhreePhly

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: DasFox
Well, yes I'm talking if someone was to hack into the system and gain root access while you're running under this Admin account. Ok so they have to click the UAC, let's say they realize you are not at the keyboard, for an example you had to walk away and they are able to have mouse control to remotely use it and when UAC opens they simply click it.

They can't programatically control the mouse when in the secure screen. They must physically be at the computer. The screen will not go away until the button is pressed. The button cannot be pressed remotely.

But if a user was using the account under a standard user account and someone gained remote access hacking in and then tried to do something they would then have to put in a password.

Hacking into a computer and gaining access is a real threat everyday, so I don't see why Microsoft wouldn't be pushing to consumers to run their system as a user and put in a password all the time, especially if we are talking about a business computer being used for as a very critical workstation, or anyone that wants to maintain max security for any reasons.

I don't know I guess this my Unix/Linux background thinking here, but I think it's silly to use an OS under a root/admin account of any kind, especially if you are concerned about security.

When using the computer as a user with administrative rights, you DO NOT run with administrative elevation. If you must do something that requires elevation, UAC will request elevation. You must be physically in front of the computer to acknowledge the UAC screen. This cannot be done remotely. How is this a problem? This is just like SUDO. With your Unix/Linux background you should understand this. What MS did was add the secure screen to eliminate the possiblity of a program remotely acknowledging the UAC prompt.

Please use the technology, or at least have a better grasp of it before you criticize it.

PhreePhly

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: DasFox


Hacking into a computer and gaining access is a real threat everyday, so I don't see why Microsoft wouldn't be pushing to consumers to run their system as a user and put in a password all the time, especially if we are talking about a business computer being used for as a very critical workstation, or anyone that wants to maintain max security for any reasons.

I don't know I guess this my Unix/Linux background thinking here, but I think it's silly to use an OS under a root/admin account of any kind, especially if you are concerned about security.

Paranoid much ?
MS doesn't push consumers into anything. It is actually quite balanced at install in regards to security and functionality. If you were using the OS in a business or a critical workstation you wouldn't use it with just the default install, you would customize it after install.

Security in regards to windows 7 has more to do with making sure the computer illiterate does not render the computer useless than it does stopping someone from breaking into the system.

The people that truly have something to protect already know how to configure to protect those systems.

 

[DasFox]

UAC is not helping much at all, BECAUSE when the computer illiterate don't know what they are doing and click ok, guess what? They are still infecting their system.

I had a client yesterday bring me his laptop that was hosed from a rogue app masquerading as a legitiamte application from Microsoft and he fell for it and installed it, did UAC help? NO!

PhreePhly what are you talking about when you saying, 'User' account? An actual TRUE user account? I know what user acconts are, but the truth of the matter is this limited Admin account still has more access to it then the standard user account does.

What we need here is real user account security, so that a user has the same level rights as a user in Unix does and also when a user installs something it would only exists then in that users account, sort of like sandboxed only into a user area, without access to the system level, but the way Windows is designed this might be hard to do...

P.S. Put it this way, MS doesn't start improving the security and the malware continues, people over time are going to dump Windows. UAC will not stop a user that doesn't know what he is doing. UAC is giving users a false sense of security...

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: DasFox
UAC is not helping much at all, BECAUSE when the computer illiterate don't know what they are doing and click ok, guess what? They are still infecting their system.

I had a client yesterday bring me his laptop that was hosed from a rogue app masquerading as a legitiamte application from Microsoft and he fell for it and installed it, did UAC help? NO!

PhreePhly what are you talking about when you saying, 'User' account? An actual TRUE user account? I know what user acconts are, but the truth of the matter is this limited Admin account still has more access to it then the standard user account does.

What we need here is real user account security, so that a user has the same level rights as a user in Unix does and also when a user installs something it would only exists then in that users account, sort of like sandboxed only into a user area, without access to the system level, but the way Windows is designed this might be hard to do...

Sounds to me like what you probably need to do is move completely to Linux/Unix and stop worrying yourself about Windows based OS's. Sure, you may have to work on them, I work on all three plus Mac OS but I can see the good in each for what it's designed for and the bad in each as far as security, useability, etc. Thing is, I don't allow it to bother me and take each in stride!

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: DasFox
UAC is not helping much at all, BECAUSE when the computer illiterate don't know what they are doing and click ok, guess what? They are still infecting their system.

I had a client yesterday bring me his laptop that was hosed from a rogue app masquerading as a legitiamte application from Microsoft and he fell for it and installed it, did UAC help? NO!

PhreePhly what are you talking about when you saying, 'User' account? An actual TRUE user account? I know what user acconts are, but the truth of the matter is this limited Admin account still has more access to it then the standard user account does.

What we need here is real user account security, so that a user has the same level rights as a user in Unix does and also when a user installs something it would only exists then in that users account, sort of like sandboxed only into a user area, without access to the system level, but the way Windows is designed this might be hard to do...

P.S. Put it this way, MS doesn't start improving the security and the malware continues, people over time are going to dump Windows. UAC will not stop a user that doesn't know what he is doing. UAC is giving users a false sense of security...

Think about this very carefully. How is this going to work for the general public? You buy a new PC with Windows pre-installed on it. You bring it home and turn it on. Windows asks you to create a admin account with a password, and them asks you to create a limited user account. How many calls do you think MS will get from people who forgot their admin account password. What's MS going to say, "sorry reinstall"? That's not how the real world works.

MS has improved the security of Windows. Take a look at the infestation rate between XP and Vista. However, the only way security will get better is when users learn how to be secure. That will happen when pigs fly. You say the users will dump windows if it doesn't get better, where are they going to go? OSX? What do you think will happen as soon as Apple gets any real marketshare? The malware will move to OSX. It has more security problems than Windows, but it doesn't have the same amount of attacks.

Do you think they'll move to Linux in droves. Sorry but the hassle to keep it secure is too much for the general user. Someone will dummy down a distro to the point of easy, but that will open a security hole.

Face it, the security problem isn't the OS, it's the users. Oh and UAC does not give a false sense of security, it does only one thing, notify the user that a program requires elevated privilages, how the user uses that information will determine their chances of becoming infected.

PhreePhly

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: DasFox
UAC is not helping much at all, BECAUSE when the computer illiterate don't know what they are doing and click ok, guess what? They are still infecting their system.

Congratulations, you've reinvented the Dancing Pigs Problem. So long as users can install software, you can't stop them from installing malware. Vista, Linux, Mac OS X, BSD, Solaris, etc all have this quirk. The only secure system is one where the power cable has been cut. In the mean time, all you can do is give the user all the tools and education in the world, and hope they make the right choice.

I should also note that *nix requiring a password for authenticated GUI actions is not by design. sudo was originally created for multi-user terminal systems where a password was the only choice; GUI implementations of that all extend sudo and hence have the same requirement. Requiring a password is solely due to inertia, there is no security consideration involved.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: DasFox
After Vista came I started to really care less, but hey I'm a geek and I love to play around so I wanted to install Windows 7 and have a look.

How do you like what you see so far, let us know your gripes too.

My list:

1. Vista was a flop so why even make Windows 7 even remotely look alike, big mistake, Windows 7 should have it's own look.

2. UAC jumping in my face again, you mean this all over again, oh well time to disable.

3. Speaking of looks, terrible looking icons, all icons should have a fresh new look, something more modern and 3D looking. Hasn't the GUI department of Microsoft been looking at OS X lately? I guess not...

4. Options during installation. Whatever happened to those days when users had choices during the install? Users should have a choice of what software they want installed and not. Can I see a vote of hands to at least let us remove Windows Defender? I hate having no choices and getting stuck with what I'm forced with. Do we wear the same cloths, drive the same cars, date the same girls? LOL, well I don't want everything installed that you want either!

5. Still to much fluff going on. Sure I like eyecandy like the next geek, but at least some NEW eyecandy, not just something that feels like a Vista service pack update.

6. They said performance was going to be faster, well I'm running 75% less services on a laptop I've installed Windows 7 on then with Vista coming presinstalled on and it uses more memory. And the performance on Windows 7 rated Aero slower on my Geforce 8200M then in Vista.

Overall, all I can say is I'm disappointed. With Vista being such a flop, you'd think they had the brains to give Windows 7 a complete cosmetic makeover, new look.

Sure under the hood there are differences, but don't you get sick of looking at the same thing over and over again? Sure there are going to be people that could careless what it looks like as long as it gets the job done, there is going to be that crowd. I want performance too, don't get me wrong, but I like to have something that looks new too.

If I have to sit and stare at it all day I'd like to be able to look at something different to break up the monotony. If you sat in front of a computer 60 hours a week don't tell me you don't get sick of looking at the same thing all the time and if you do, wow I feel sorry for the BLAND in your life. Maybe time to spice it up a bit?

I never really liked the look of Vista that much and I can't say I like what's going on here either, afterall it's just Vista Part 2 in my book... YUCK :disgust:


P.S. Performance aside, the point of the topic are looks, making Windows 7 look like something new. Overall I think the performance aspects are better, I'm not disputing that, I'm just not fond of the Vista wannabe look alike is all...

Geez, at least have a decent critique. Almost all of your problems are related to how it looks. Get a theme or something.

1. It looks like Vista
2. UAC
3. The icons look bad
4. Options during install
5. Eyecandy?
6. Performanc/memory

3 of your points are really the same point. You don't like how it looks. Wow.

Point 2 is well, whatever... just disable it if you don't like it.

Point 4 - you DO have options during install. Actually, they're before install. You choose either starter, home basic, home premium...

And your last point - you WANT your computer to use your RAM. Would you rather have all that stuff sitting in your pagefile for slow access? Why bother buying 8GB of RAM if you're going to constantly be sitting there with a memory cleaner wiping it all so you only use 800 MB? How does that do anything for you?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: DasFox
3. Speaking of looks, terrible looking icons, all icons should have a fresh new look, something more modern and 3D looking. Hasn't the GUI department of Microsoft been looking at OS X lately? I guess not...

Right, they should be following the lead of the guys with 2% market share!