Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Safety Dance

View
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

10. Re: No subject Jun 1, 2006, 10:06 Zathrus
 
7 steps to delete a shortcut in Vista Beta 2???

Well, 6 steps really -- that last one was emptying the recycling bin, which is a separate action entirely.

But still... that's absurd. Absolutely and completely absurd. I can understand the logic behind each action, but I can also profer a better solution.

If you're going to run into permission issues (and in any modern OS, you should potentially do so) then you check all that crap first before prompting the user. There should've been exactly one dialog -- a combination of dialogs #4 and #5.

Although, from what I hear, dialog #5 comes up all the damn time. So much for reduced security model. It stuns me that MS couldn't figure out how to do what Unix has been doing for decades and the Mac for years. It's not that goddamn hard.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Ever the innovators... Jun 1, 2006, 08:05 Agrajag
 
"Microsoft launches security for Windows"... Who says these guys don't innovate? I mean SECURITY for WINDOWS? If that's not a unique and original idea that's never been done before, I sure don't know what is! ;-)

 
Avatar 1965
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: No subject Jun 1, 2006, 01:46 Camaro76
 
7 steps to delete a shortcut in Vista Beta 2???

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=151250154&size=o

The next OS may cure cancer but it will also cause insanity.

--------
Blue's StarForce Filter Greasemonkey script:
http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/starforce_filter.user.js
Blue's Punk Buster (Troll-B-Gone) Greasemonkey script:
http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/punkbuster.user.js
 
--------
BOOBIES Filter Greasemonkey script:
http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/BOOBIES_filter.user.js
Punk Buster (Ignore Trolls) Greasemonkey script:
http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/punkbuster.user.js
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: No subject Jun 1, 2006, 01:19 Camaro76
 
They could announce that their next OS actually and demonstratably cures cancer, and you'd whine.

  • It would take Microsoft at least three tries to get it right

  • The cure would be administered by an annoying talking paper clip -- "It looks like you have a malignant tumor. What would you like to do?"

  • Suddenly your weight would shoot up by 100 pounds (though your teeth will become whiter and your bald spot will disappear thanks to those extra "features").


  • Microsoft improves their patching services, you guys whine.

    http://www.windowsonecare.com/faq.aspx

    So I can pay MS $49.95 a year for anti-virus, antispyware, and a firewall. If they were so SERIOUS about security then they'd fix their broken operating system and make all of that shit unnecessary. But hey, my browser only lets me surf porno sites, and the machine sends out millions of viagra spam letters every minute, but don't those window borders look pretty?

    Don't think of it as whining. Think of it as non-constructive criticism.

    --------
    Blue's StarForce Filter Greasemonkey script:
    http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/starforce_filter.user.js
    Blue's Punk Buster (Troll-B-Gone) Greasemonkey script:
    http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/punkbuster.user.js
     
    --------
    BOOBIES Filter Greasemonkey script:
    http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/BOOBIES_filter.user.js
    Punk Buster (Ignore Trolls) Greasemonkey script:
    http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/punkbuster.user.js
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    6. Re: No subject May 31, 2006, 18:39 Jim
     
    This kind of irritates me. So now, Microsoft can keep exploits and holes in their operating system without releasing patches and just rely on their "security" software to prevent any problems. This means anyone that doesn't want to subscribe to their crappy service is going to be out of luck.

    But hey, a radical shift in how MS lets you use their products, they'll let you pirate it onto 3 different PCs for the same price.



     
    Jim
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    5. Re: No subject May 31, 2006, 15:35 Parallax Abstraction
     
    Yes and do you know why that is? Several things:

    1. The product should be properly tested before launch to ensure there are no gaping holes present. Of course there will always be vulnerabilities that are patched (just like in Linux or OSX), but things like the Blaster or Sasser worms should never happen. Don't forget, both of those worms utilized security exploits in Windows XP and 2000 that existed from day one.
    2. Microsoft often lets known vulnerabilities go unaddressed for months or years at a time, even if they are critical. They also threaten web sites that publish severe vulnerabilities before they are published. They don't do this out of public security interest (as if a hacker can learn anything from a dumbed down article generally describing the hole), but to prevent bad PR.
    3. What "massive campaign" are you talking about? I'm aware of no big PR thing that Microsoft has done to encourage people to patch their systems, other than Automatic Updates and telling peopel how much better security will supposedly be in Vista (yeah right.)
    4. Things like spyware (which has created an entire industry based around its removal) was spawned entirely by security holes in Microsoft's operating systems. Some of the first spyware utilized wide open holes in ActiveX and Internet Explorer to spread themselves, most of which still exist as they aren't bugs, but design flaws. To this day, you still have about a 90% greater chance of getting spyware by using Internet Explorer than any other browser out there. 5. Some of the most natorious viruses in recent years you could get just by having a Windows machine plugged into the Internet. Didn't matter if you had anti-virus software (though yes, firewalls did help), you still got the virus. And it took them several days to release a patch to plug this hole. When you can literally get a virus from not doing anything but having your system turned on and online, there's a big problem.

    I don't like Microsoft because of their laughable approach to security and some of the practices they've exhibited in the past such as bullying OEMs. They do a lot of things right and well, there's no question about it. But their approach to security could be much better than it is. Many of us whine "no matter what they do" because rather than fix their problems, they just patch them and put a shiny PR face on it and hope the sheeple won't notice.

    Parallax Abstraction
    Ottawa, Canada
     
    Parallax Abstraction
    Geek Bravado | YouTube (Watch/Rate/Comment on my shows!)
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    4. Re: No subject May 31, 2006, 15:08 War
     
    This means anyone that doesn't want to subscribe to their crappy service
    Microsoft releases a bugged program, you guys whine.

    Microsoft patches the program, you guys whine.

    Microsoft does a massive campaign to push people to get off their lazy butts and patch their programs, you guys whine.

    Microsoft improves their patching services, you guys whine.

    See, this is why I defend Microsoft. It's not that they're perfect. It's not the $500 I get every time I behave like a sock puppet. It's the fact that no matter what they do, Microsoft always "sucks".

    They could announce that their next OS actually and demonstratably cures cancer, and you'd whine.
    This comment was edited on May 31, 15:10.
     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    3. No subject May 31, 2006, 13:28 nightfend
     
    This kind of irritates me. So now, Microsoft can keep exploits and holes in their operating system without releasing patches and just rely on their "security" software to prevent any problems. This means anyone that doesn't want to subscribe to their crappy service is going to be out of luck.

     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    2. Re: ? May 31, 2006, 13:03 Awesome Spume
     
    Wasn't service pack 2 supposed to be... ..'the most secure version of windows ever'?

    It was.

    That just doesn't mean a lot.

    -------------------------------------------------
    our daily interactions with 'real' people are far more scripted than any game. Your behavior at work... every aspect of your life conforms to a social script we all agree to play by.
     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    1. ? May 31, 2006, 12:30 Tigger
     
    Wasn't service pack 2 supposed to be 'better protection' or 'the most secure version of windows ever'?  
    Avatar 7252
     
    --
    Tigger
    Vic Fontaine for President
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
    < Newer [ 1 ] Older >


    footer

    .. .. ..

    Blue's News logo