Wow, so basically Vista SP1 will lie to people. Or is withholding accurate information technically not a lie? I think I'll just smile and nod if someone asks me what's up.
It's not a lie at all, just a less useful but more easily understood metric.
"The architecture of a 32-bit OS only allows it to use 3.2gb of RAM, but the BIOS and system can utilize the rest for other things" is much more difficult to explain than "Your system has 4gb installed".
I guess it doesn't really matter for most people, but I'd hate to run into a situation where someone was sold a computer with 8 gigs installed, and less than half of it accessible. I guess 64-bit Vista might come into vogue in stores soon enough though.
One would certainly hope so. It seems driver support for 64 is nearly as good as 32 (vastly better than XP 64), so maybe we'll finally see a drive forward.
• SP1 reduces the number of UAC (User Account Control) prompts from 4 to 1 when creating or renaming a folder at a protected location.
Nice! Though I don't understand why there should be one...
You seriously don't understand why there should be a UAC dialog when messing with files/folders in a protected location?
Renaming? I'm not a tech guy. Is that something a virus might do to fuck with core folders or files?
edit: And why are shortcuts in the Start menu a protected location?
1. Yes.
2. Common malware technique to trick you into using their software.
Ok, fair enough.
Morskittar on
0
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
In an actual secure OS you would have to type your root password to even SEE inside a "protected" (i.e. important, system-critical) folder, much less read, move, copy, or rename files. Unfortuantly, everything in Windows is set up so that installing even the simplest software or doing some mundane tasks requires rifling through the Windows folder and the Registry, so unix-style permissions would break everything.
Thus, UAC.
Heck, the desktop line of Windows wasn't even properly multiuser until XP.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
In an actual secure OS you would have to type your root password to even SEE inside a "protected" (i.e. important, system-critical) folder, much less read, move, copy, or rename files. Unfortuantly, everything in Windows is set up so that installing even the simplest software or doing some mundane tasks requires rifling through the Windows folder and the Registry, so unix-style permissions would break everything.
Abwah? Unless you've got an Administrator account I didn't think you ccould go about reading, writing, or executing from a system folder. It has been a while since I've run as anything less than an Admin though, so I could be wrong. Also, I don't even remember the last time I had to muck about in %SystemRoot% or the registry to install software or complete what I would consider a "mundane" task.
Also, I don't even remember the last time I had to muck about in %SystemRoot% or the registry to install software or complete what I would consider a "mundane" task.
The user might not, but the installer sure as hell does.
Also, I don't even remember the last time I had to muck about in %SystemRoot% or the registry to install software or complete what I would consider a "mundane" task.
The user might not, but the installer sure as hell does.
If the installer has to touch the SystemRoot, it's doing something special. The registry can be manipulated without needing Administrator access, that's what HKEY_CURRENT_USER is for.
In an actual secure OS you would have to type your root password to even SEE inside a "protected" (i.e. important, system-critical) folder, much less read, move, copy, or rename files.Unfortuantly, everything in Windows is set up so that installing even the simplest software or doing some mundane tasks requires rifling through the Windows folder and the Registry, so unix-style permissions would break everything.
Thus, UAC.
Heck, the desktop line of Windows wasn't even properly multiuser until XP.
That's wrong, actually. UAC is the Windows equivalent of sudo (or really gksudo). The problem is if your program doesn't do things the "Windows Way" (which is really the same best practices as most modern OSes) you'll end up probably needing to see dialog boxes. The rules haven't changed with Vista, but now they are enforced. So programs that used their own directories for data storage rather than the user/system specific directories (which made backups a pain anyway) or programs that mucked about with system wide rather than user specific settings/files are suddenly forced to inconvenience their users.
Windows wasn't "set up" that way, the best practices and guidelines have been laid out for developers for years, with Microsoft saying, "If you don't follow these rules, your applications *are not* guaranteed to work the same way in the future."
For the record, I am a developer and Windows is one of my platforms.
jonxp on
Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576 PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
The problem with UAC is far too many basic operations were put outside of a normal user's default sandbox. The user ends up seeing UAC dialogs asking to perform even seemingly unobtrusive things like deleting items off the desktop or changing network settings. This simply leads to users ignoring the actual contents of UAC dialogs and clicking buttons until they go away. Bruce Schneier wrote an appropriate article for this particular failing.
Besides the sheer number of UAC warnings they only provide a marginal level of security. If a malicious bit of code behaves according to Vista's UAP policies it can run entirely in user space and load at startup. From there it can create an outbound connection to some server (IRC network, etc.) rather than having to trick a user into allowing it to open an inbound connection. After a bit of UAC bad behavior training malicious apps will be able to do whatever they please as users will become tired on being interrupted by the UAC while they're trying to do other things. No security policy is foolproof (far from it) but UAC is worse in many ways than others (gksudo et al) because it requires too little interaction to dismiss and displays far too frequently.
bash on
0
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
Start menu - I've never been a fan of the start menu, it's just a hierarchal folder view with a bunch of submenus for subfolders. Not only is this a completely broken UI concept it is maddeningly unfriendly. Trying to show my grandmother how to launch Spider Solitaire was great fun. Click the Windows bauble, then click "Programs", then click "Games" (why did the menu change?), then click Spider Solitaire. I ended up making a shortcut on the desktop because the start menu is ridiculously complicated anymore.
OBJECTION!!
All you have to do is click Start, then type Spider Solitaire in the search box right above the start button!
If you think that requiring users to make use of a text based Search function in order to find the program they want to load is good UI design you need to stop posting on the Internet because you're fucking dumbing it up.
I'm not even kidding. Seriously. Just fucking stop while you're behind.
I know this is massively necro-posting but this post really hurts my feelings.
Yes command lines are more complex and harder to learn. Once you learn them though they are phenomenly faster.
Building both side by side and having the option of using either is however a superior option.
Below is a picture of what I use day to day in AutoCAD 2008 I use most of these functions often enough that I keep all these toolbars up (and for reference there are around another 20 or 30 at least with more options for different users) But despite having a button right there to draw a circle it's far faster just to press 'c' then 'space' and then specify your centre rather than move the mouse to the button then move it back again.
Most are intuitively done for super common comands only one letter is needed less common is 2 letters and it expands out from there.
Yes GUI's are easier to intially understand, but I really do disagree with that they are faster. One of my biggest pet peeves with Inventor is that they threw away the command line interface completely and mapped several functions to letters that have nothing in common with the function.
The problem with UAC is far too many basic operations were put outside of a normal user's default sandbox. The user ends up seeing UAC dialogs asking to perform even seemingly unobtrusive things like deleting items off the desktop or changing network settings. This simply leads to users ignoring the actual contents of UAC dialogs and clicking buttons until they go away. Bruce Schneier wrote an appropriate article for this particular failing.
Besides the sheer number of UAC warnings they only provide a marginal level of security. If a malicious bit of code behaves according to Vista's UAP policies it can run entirely in user space and load at startup. From there it can create an outbound connection to some server (IRC network, etc.) rather than having to trick a user into allowing it to open an inbound connection. After a bit of UAC bad behavior training malicious apps will be able to do whatever they please as users will become tired on being interrupted by the UAC while they're trying to do other things. No security policy is foolproof (far from it) but UAC is worse in many ways than others (gksudo et al) because it requires too little interaction to dismiss and displays far too frequently.
Deleting files and folders from the desktop does not trigger UAC. Believe me, this is coming from someone that deletes lots of files the desktop (Firefox saves everything I download in the desktop; if I don't specify a location).
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
The problem with UAC is far too many basic operations were put outside of a normal user's default sandbox. The user ends up seeing UAC dialogs asking to perform even seemingly unobtrusive things like deleting items off the desktop or changing network settings. This simply leads to users ignoring the actual contents of UAC dialogs and clicking buttons until they go away. Bruce Schneier wrote an appropriate article for this particular failing.
Besides the sheer number of UAC warnings they only provide a marginal level of security. If a malicious bit of code behaves according to Vista's UAP policies it can run entirely in user space and load at startup. From there it can create an outbound connection to some server (IRC network, etc.) rather than having to trick a user into allowing it to open an inbound connection. After a bit of UAC bad behavior training malicious apps will be able to do whatever they please as users will become tired on being interrupted by the UAC while they're trying to do other things. No security policy is foolproof (far from it) but UAC is worse in many ways than others (gksudo et al) because it requires too little interaction to dismiss and displays far too frequently.
Deleting files and folders from the desktop does not trigger UAC. Believe me, this is coming from someone that deletes lots of files the desktop (Firefox saves everything I download in the desktop; if I don't specify a location).
Indeed. UAC is almost exactly like gksudo. The only reason people see it so much right now is because of poorly coded applications. I don't know where some of these "omg UAC" myths come from, but doing something in user space generally won't trigger a dialog.
And true, if you write your malware right, it won't trigger any UAC dialogs. However its usability will be limited, and that's *not* the kind of malware UAC is designed to prevent against. You can write the same stuff on any OS and never pop up a warning dialog. Does that mean that they are inherently flawed as well?
EDIT: After reading the article again, I realize where this particular case of omg UAC comes from...Vista Beta 1. It has change a *little* bit since then.
jonxp on
Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576 PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
Start menu - I've never been a fan of the start menu, it's just a hierarchal folder view with a bunch of submenus for subfolders. Not only is this a completely broken UI concept it is maddeningly unfriendly. Trying to show my grandmother how to launch Spider Solitaire was great fun. Click the Windows bauble, then click "Programs", then click "Games" (why did the menu change?), then click Spider Solitaire. I ended up making a shortcut on the desktop because the start menu is ridiculously complicated anymore.
OBJECTION!!
All you have to do is click Start, then type Spider Solitaire in the search box right above the start button!
If you think that requiring users to make use of a text based Search function in order to find the program they want to load is good UI design you need to stop posting on the Internet because you're fucking dumbing it up.
I'm not even kidding. Seriously. Just fucking stop while you're behind.
I know this is massively necro-posting but this post really hurts my feelings.
Yes command lines are more complex and harder to learn. Once you learn them though they are phenomenly faster.
Building both side by side and having the option of using either is however a superior option.
Below is a picture of what I use day to day in AutoCAD 2008 I use most of these functions often enough that I keep all these toolbars up (and for reference there are around another 20 or 30 at least with more options for different users) But despite having a button right there to draw a circle it's far faster just to press 'c' then 'space' and then specify your centre rather than move the mouse to the button then move it back again.
Most are intuitively done for super common comands only one letter is needed less common is 2 letters and it expands out from there.
Yes GUI's are easier to intially understand, but I really do disagree with that they are faster. One of my biggest pet peeves with Inventor is that they threw away the command line interface completely and mapped several functions to letters that have nothing in common with the function.
My biggest problem with this post is that you're trying to compare using an operating system that millions of people will come into contact with to using an extremely specialized piece of software designed for a very niche cross section of the population.
I can agree that command line is faster when you get used to it, but it also involves remembering commands, which your average user won't do.
I also don't think that utilizing the Search box in Vista's start menu or Spotlight is akin to using the command line, thus making this whole comparison moot, so I'll stop now.
I would argue that the vista search menu is ridiculously faster than clicking through a bunch of folders.
Whenever I want to run a program I just hit the win key, type the first few letters of it's name and punch enter. Boom. Done. Fast and easy.
It's not inherintly easy.
It's why I brought up the comparison to the command line, I mean theoretically the command line is easy. You type in commands and off you go. The thing is though that there needs to be a large amount of base knowledge to really use it correctly (although the search menu is simpler in the fact that it is mostly used now to open programs) you still need some knowledge as opposed to tooling round and clicking on various folders.
I would argue that the vista search menu is ridiculously faster than clicking through a bunch of folders.
Really depends on how fast your PC is. On my PC at work its actually faster for me to navigate to the app I want to launch. The search is pathetically slow.
I would argue that the vista search menu is ridiculously faster than clicking through a bunch of folders.
Whenever I want to run a program I just hit the win key, type the first few letters of it's name and punch enter. Boom. Done. Fast and easy.
It's not inherintly easy.
It's why I brought up the comparison to the command line, I mean theoretically the command line is easy. You type in commands and off you go. The thing is though that there needs to be a large amount of base knowledge to really use it correctly (although the search menu is simpler in the fact that it is mostly used now to open programs) you still need some knowledge as opposed to tooling round and clicking on various folders.
No, theoretically, the command line is hard. Commands in the command line are often cryptic, unrelated or abbreviated, making them difficult to figure out without reference for a new user. Search in any major OS is in plain English. You want solitaire? Type 'soli' and it'll populate itself. Completely different, and not comparable in the least.
Edit: the difference is that command line is exact, and search is approximate. Approximate is much more powerful for Joe User.
This comparison is completely useless, as they're totally different. One is a method for completely operating a computer, the other is a tool a novice can use to find something.
I would argue that the vista search menu is ridiculously faster than clicking through a bunch of folders.
Whenever I want to run a program I just hit the win key, type the first few letters of it's name and punch enter. Boom. Done. Fast and easy.
It's not inherintly easy.
It's why I brought up the comparison to the command line, I mean theoretically the command line is easy. You type in commands and off you go. The thing is though that there needs to be a large amount of base knowledge to really use it correctly (although the search menu is simpler in the fact that it is mostly used now to open programs) you still need some knowledge as opposed to tooling round and clicking on various folders.
No, theoretically, the command line is hard. Commands in the command line are often cryptic, unrelated or abbreviated, making them difficult to figure out without reference for a new user. Search in any major OS is in plain English. You want solitaire? Type 'soli' and it'll populate itself. Completely different, and not comparable in the least.
Edit: the difference is that command line is exact, and search is approximate. Approximate is much more powerful for Joe User.
This comparison is completely useless, as they're totally different. One is a method for completely operating a computer, the other is a tool a novice can use to find something.
Rumor has it that Microsoft is trying to incorporate a pervasive "command line" interface in Windows 7 where you can just type (or speak) commands verbally, with only a cursory regard to syntax. I wholeheartedly support this.
Command lines are sort of analogous to DVORAK, they aren't necessarily harder to learn, everyone's just already used to the alternative, and if we switched things would be better.
I know the analogy is tenuous at best, but still.
Sushisource on
Some drugee on Kavinsky's 1986
0
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
So any word on WINFS these days? I heard it was canceled, and than I heard it was back in for Vista SP1 and than I heard it was put on the back burner for a wile. I would jump at the opportunity to get a filing system that includes journaling for faster system access.
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
0
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Internally, NTFS uses B+ trees to index file system data. Although complex to implement, this allows faster file look up times in most cases. A file system journal is used to guarantee the integrity of the file system—but not individual files' content. Systems using NTFS are known to have improved reliability compared to FAT file systems.
In a nutshell the journaling only applies to the file system, not the files themselves. OS X uses a more robust journaling system along with HSF Catalog. What I am getting at is NTFS is getting old and is due for an update.
Rumor has it that Microsoft is trying to incorporate a pervasive "command line" interface in Windows 7 where you can just type (or speak) commands verbally, with only a cursory regard to syntax. I wholeheartedly support this.
That reminds me of a joke I saw on some cartoon or other where the guy was talking his commands in and it wrote in "destroy all data, execute.". MS's voice recognition software has gotten better, but it is still nowhere near good enough for this to be true.
Internally, NTFS uses B+ trees to index file system data. Although complex to implement, this allows faster file look up times in most cases. A file system journal is used to guarantee the integrity of the file system—but not individual files' content. Systems using NTFS are known to have improved reliability compared to FAT file systems.
In a nutshell the journaling only applies to the file system, not the files themselves. OS X uses a more robust journaling system along with HSF Catalog. What I am getting at is NTFS is getting old and is due for an update.
I don't think NTFS has really proven that antiquated yet, but I do think the old WinFS videos were cool, and I'm betting it sees some form of release before 2010.
Command lines are sort of analogous to DVORAK, they aren't necessarily harder to learn, everyone's just already used to the alternative, and if we switched things would be better.
I know the analogy is tenuous at best, but still.
Well... I mean... but... well, here:
Put a new user down in front of a keyboard in QWERTY configuration, and they're sitting in front of a keyboard. Put that same user in front of a DVORAK keyboard, and they're still sitting in front of a keyboard, the letters are just in different places. If the person isn't trained to use either, they can still pick out each letter one at a time. There's no training involved in using it a keyboard in either configuration, just using it well.
Put a new user in front of a GUI, and they have visual cues to guide their way through the operating system. Put that same user in front of a command line and they have.... nothing. No reference, no hint that the keyboard even does anything other than a blinking cursor.
As for a pervasive command line, how does it differ from the current offerings in modern operating systems (aside from being more accurate by virtue of existing in the future)? You could just keep a CMD prompt or Terminal open, or take advantage of Windows Vista and Mac OSX's voice command systems.
I would argue that the vista search menu is ridiculously faster than clicking through a bunch of folders.
Whenever I want to run a program I just hit the win key, type the first few letters of it's name and punch enter. Boom. Done. Fast and easy.
It's not inherintly easy.
It's why I brought up the comparison to the command line, I mean theoretically the command line is easy. You type in commands and off you go. The thing is though that there needs to be a large amount of base knowledge to really use it correctly (although the search menu is simpler in the fact that it is mostly used now to open programs) you still need some knowledge as opposed to tooling round and clicking on various folders.
not really. the search menu is REALLY simple. Sure, it can be used as a command line, but 99% of it's function has nothing to do with the command line at all. the only similarities it really has is that it's a line where you put text in.
All you need is the name of the software, you don't need any commands, you don't need to know anything. If I go into the start menu, and type in word, Microsoft word comes up. if I type in "live" all my windows live apps show up.
my 73 year old grandmother wants to upgrade to vista for the search alone(don't worry all you people, I'm not letting her. Although the search is almost enough to upgrade her, it's not quite enough.). This is after trying Windows Desktop Search for XP(which she hates) She sat down at my computer, I showed her how to use it, and she was using it more efficiently than she has ever used windows XP.
I would argue that the vista search menu is ridiculously faster than clicking through a bunch of folders.
Whenever I want to run a program I just hit the win key, type the first few letters of it's name and punch enter. Boom. Done. Fast and easy.
It's not inherintly easy.
It's why I brought up the comparison to the command line, I mean theoretically the command line is easy. You type in commands and off you go. The thing is though that there needs to be a large amount of base knowledge to really use it correctly (although the search menu is simpler in the fact that it is mostly used now to open programs) you still need some knowledge as opposed to tooling round and clicking on various folders.
No, theoretically, the command line is hard. Commands in the command line are often cryptic, unrelated or abbreviated, making them difficult to figure out without reference for a new user. Search in any major OS is in plain English. You want solitaire? Type 'soli' and it'll populate itself. Completely different, and not comparable in the least.
Edit: the difference is that command line is exact, and search is approximate. Approximate is much more powerful for Joe User.
This comparison is completely useless, as they're totally different. One is a method for completely operating a computer, the other is a tool a novice can use to find something.
Rumor has it that Microsoft is trying to incorporate a pervasive "command line" interface in Windows 7 where you can just type (or speak) commands verbally, with only a cursory regard to syntax. I wholeheartedly support this.
On a side note, I spent a few days playing with Vista's Speech Recognition. It surprised me how far it's come along, though it is still rather rudimentary and slower than doing shit manually.
not really. the search menu is REALLY simple. Sure, it can be used as a command line, but 99% of it's function has nothing to do with the command line at all. the only similarities it really has is that it's a line where you put text in.
All you need is the name of the software, you don't need any commands, you don't need to know anything. If I go into the start menu, and type in word, Microsoft word comes up. if I type in "live" all my windows live apps show up.
my 73 year old grandmother wants to upgrade to vista for the search alone(don't worry all you people, I'm not letting her. Although the search is almost enough to upgrade her, it's not quite enough.). This is after trying Windows Desktop Search for XP(which she hates) She sat down at my computer, I showed her how to use it, and she was using it more efficiently than she has ever used windows XP.
Okay... I don't really get what you're trying to say. You initially said tha tthe search menu is really simple, but you won't let your grandmother upgrade (yes, I'm serious) to Vista.
not really. the search menu is REALLY simple. Sure, it can be used as a command line, but 99% of it's function has nothing to do with the command line at all. the only similarities it really has is that it's a line where you put text in.
All you need is the name of the software, you don't need any commands, you don't need to know anything. If I go into the start menu, and type in word, Microsoft word comes up. if I type in "live" all my windows live apps show up.
my 73 year old grandmother wants to upgrade to vista for the search alone(don't worry all you people, I'm not letting her. Although the search is almost enough to upgrade her, it's not quite enough.). This is after trying Windows Desktop Search for XP(which she hates) She sat down at my computer, I showed her how to use it, and she was using it more efficiently than she has ever used windows XP.
Okay... I don't really get what you're trying to say. You initially said tha tthe search menu is really simple, but you won't let your grandmother upgrade (yes, I'm serious) to Vista.
if I may... the kind of computer a grandma is likely to have probably has the kind of hardware inside of it that doesn't play nice with Vista (sound device most likely)
Only very advanced users should run an upgrade over a perfectly good XP install.
Command lines are sort of analogous to DVORAK, they aren't necessarily harder to learn, everyone's just already used to the alternative, and if we switched things would be better.
I know the analogy is tenuous at best, but still.
Well... I mean... but... well, here:
Put a new user down in front of a keyboard in QWERTY configuration, and they're sitting in front of a keyboard. Put that same user in front of a DVORAK keyboard, and they're still sitting in front of a keyboard, the letters are just in different places. If the person isn't trained to use either, they can still pick out each letter one at a time. There's no training involved in using it a keyboard in either configuration, just using it well.
Put a new user in front of a GUI, and they have visual cues to guide their way through the operating system. Put that same user in front of a command line and they have.... nothing. No reference, no hint that the keyboard even does anything other than a blinking cursor.
As for a pervasive command line, how does it differ from the current offerings in modern operating systems (aside from being more accurate by virtue of existing in the future)? You could just keep a CMD prompt or Terminal open, or take advantage of Windows Vista and Mac OSX's voice command systems.
Not a command line in the traditional sense. The idea is there would be a text box at the bottom of the screen and you could just click there and start punching in what you want it to do. Plug in a camera and type "download photos" in the box, and through a combination of context sensitivity and language recognition, it would interpret this as a command to start Photo Gallery and import all the files from the camera you just hooked up. The basic thrust of this is a method of simply telling your computer, in plain English, what you want it to do. No commands or syntax to remember; as long as you tell it what to do in a verbose, contextual manner it would just parse sentences into commands.
Basically Bill Gates has had a hard-on for language recognition ever since he saw it on Star Trek, and modern technology may soon put this sort of interface within our grasp.
Not a command line in the traditional sense. The idea is there would be a text box at the bottom of the screen and you could just click there and start punching in what you want it to do. Plug in a camera and type "download photos" in the box, and through a combination of context sensitivity and language recognition, it would interpret this as a command to start Photo Gallery and import all the files from the camera you just hooked up. The basic thrust of this is a method of simply telling your computer, in plain English, what you want it to do. No commands or syntax to remember; as long as you tell it what to do in a verbose, contextual manner it would just parse sentences into commands.
Basically Bill Gates has had a hard-on for language recognition ever since he saw it on Star Trek, and modern technology may soon put this sort of interface within our grasp.
That's cool, I'm sure we'll get there eventually. You can get similar functionality with OSX's voice commands, right down to assigning a trigger word to tell the computer when to listen to commands (obviously, it should be "Computer!"). Everybody gets a kick out of "Tell me a joke" the first time I show it to them on my Mac Mini in the living room.
I haven't played around with the voice commands in Vista, though, so I don't know how they compare. I haven't tried it in Leopard, now that I think about it. I should see if it's improved at all.
not really. the search menu is REALLY simple. Sure, it can be used as a command line, but 99% of it's function has nothing to do with the command line at all. the only similarities it really has is that it's a line where you put text in.
All you need is the name of the software, you don't need any commands, you don't need to know anything. If I go into the start menu, and type in word, Microsoft word comes up. if I type in "live" all my windows live apps show up.
my 73 year old grandmother wants to upgrade to vista for the search alone(don't worry all you people, I'm not letting her. Although the search is almost enough to upgrade her, it's not quite enough.). This is after trying Windows Desktop Search for XP(which she hates) She sat down at my computer, I showed her how to use it, and she was using it more efficiently than she has ever used windows XP.
Okay... I don't really get what you're trying to say. You initially said tha tthe search menu is really simple, but you won't let your grandmother upgrade (yes, I'm serious) to Vista.
if I may... the kind of computer a grandma is likely to have probably has the kind of hardware inside of it that doesn't play nice with Vista (sound device most likely)
Only very advanced users should run an upgrade over a perfectly good XP install.
This, exactly.
If she was buying a new PC, it would be vista hands down. But, she can't afford it(her rent has gone up 50% in the past 2 years, and she's on a fixed income), and her computer has 512MB ram and integrated graphics(not aero capable). My uncle wanted to get her Vista for Christmas because of how much she talks about it, but I shot that down very quickly, being the family's unnoficial tech support.
I'd love to get her vista. She is far more proficient with Vista than she is with XP, but it's just not in the cards.
The utility of a command driven interface (text or speech) is directly proportional to its intelligence. Having the computer recognize words is not the hard part anymore, it's teaching them what they mean when they're strung together in sentences. For instance with the above example of "download photos" the system needs to know what context the word "download" is used and that command needs to be included in Photo Gallery's list of accepted commands. Internet Explorer might also claim ownership of the "download" verb and the "photos" noun might also be owned by IE since photos are a synonym for "images" and images and downloading both fall within the function domain of IE. Anymore the computational complexity of speech recognition is no longer an issue, instead it's one of designing machine knowledge. This is obviously a basic example and there are apparent workarounds like having the system ask you what you meant by your last command (like Vista's current SR does). At higher orders of complexity commands are not so simple for a machine to parse and understand, let alone respond meaningfully.
That all being said I don't think it is a problem that can't be solved in a reasonable time scale (<10 years) but one that is misapplied to consumer computer technology. I don't want to say "go to porn website" and have everyone within hearing distance turn and look awkwardly at me, especially in public. I also don't want a computer guessing at what I want it to do. For any function of an app that isn't well mapped out with metadata to describe its function to the command UI you would be in for a lot of trial and error. I especially don't want the computer guessing its way through potentially destructive operations (file management, file editing, etc).
The previous comment about Bill Gates having a hard-on for speech interfaces is completely true. He's been obsessing over them for a really long time. He's expounded on some voice activated technology in every version of Windows that has been released since 95.
Posts
One would certainly hope so. It seems driver support for 64 is nearly as good as 32 (vastly better than XP 64), so maybe we'll finally see a drive forward.
Ah, thanks for the info! I'll try that ipconfig command next time my internet freezes. Thanks!
Just put "Vista" in every thread title that involves something negative (regardless of content), and you're set.
You'll be a good troll yet!
You seriously don't understand why there should be a UAC dialog when messing with files/folders in a protected location?
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
Renaming? I'm not a tech guy. Is that something a virus might do to fuck with core folders or files?
edit: And why are shortcuts in the Start menu a protected location?
1. Yes.
2. Common malware technique to trick you into using their software.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
Ok, fair enough.
Thus, UAC.
Heck, the desktop line of Windows wasn't even properly multiuser until XP.
This however, is sady, sadly true.
The user might not, but the installer sure as hell does.
That's wrong, actually. UAC is the Windows equivalent of sudo (or really gksudo). The problem is if your program doesn't do things the "Windows Way" (which is really the same best practices as most modern OSes) you'll end up probably needing to see dialog boxes. The rules haven't changed with Vista, but now they are enforced. So programs that used their own directories for data storage rather than the user/system specific directories (which made backups a pain anyway) or programs that mucked about with system wide rather than user specific settings/files are suddenly forced to inconvenience their users.
Windows wasn't "set up" that way, the best practices and guidelines have been laid out for developers for years, with Microsoft saying, "If you don't follow these rules, your applications *are not* guaranteed to work the same way in the future."
For the record, I am a developer and Windows is one of my platforms.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
Besides the sheer number of UAC warnings they only provide a marginal level of security. If a malicious bit of code behaves according to Vista's UAP policies it can run entirely in user space and load at startup. From there it can create an outbound connection to some server (IRC network, etc.) rather than having to trick a user into allowing it to open an inbound connection. After a bit of UAC bad behavior training malicious apps will be able to do whatever they please as users will become tired on being interrupted by the UAC while they're trying to do other things. No security policy is foolproof (far from it) but UAC is worse in many ways than others (gksudo et al) because it requires too little interaction to dismiss and displays far too frequently.
I know this is massively necro-posting but this post really hurts my feelings.
Yes command lines are more complex and harder to learn. Once you learn them though they are phenomenly faster.
Building both side by side and having the option of using either is however a superior option.
Below is a picture of what I use day to day in AutoCAD 2008 I use most of these functions often enough that I keep all these toolbars up (and for reference there are around another 20 or 30 at least with more options for different users) But despite having a button right there to draw a circle it's far faster just to press 'c' then 'space' and then specify your centre rather than move the mouse to the button then move it back again.
Most are intuitively done for super common comands only one letter is needed less common is 2 letters and it expands out from there.
Yes GUI's are easier to intially understand, but I really do disagree with that they are faster. One of my biggest pet peeves with Inventor is that they threw away the command line interface completely and mapped several functions to letters that have nothing in common with the function.
Satans..... hints.....
Deleting files and folders from the desktop does not trigger UAC. Believe me, this is coming from someone that deletes lots of files the desktop (Firefox saves everything I download in the desktop; if I don't specify a location).
Indeed. UAC is almost exactly like gksudo. The only reason people see it so much right now is because of poorly coded applications. I don't know where some of these "omg UAC" myths come from, but doing something in user space generally won't trigger a dialog.
And true, if you write your malware right, it won't trigger any UAC dialogs. However its usability will be limited, and that's *not* the kind of malware UAC is designed to prevent against. You can write the same stuff on any OS and never pop up a warning dialog. Does that mean that they are inherently flawed as well?
EDIT: After reading the article again, I realize where this particular case of omg UAC comes from...Vista Beta 1. It has change a *little* bit since then.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
My biggest problem with this post is that you're trying to compare using an operating system that millions of people will come into contact with to using an extremely specialized piece of software designed for a very niche cross section of the population.
I can agree that command line is faster when you get used to it, but it also involves remembering commands, which your average user won't do.
I also don't think that utilizing the Search box in Vista's start menu or Spotlight is akin to using the command line, thus making this whole comparison moot, so I'll stop now.
or Brawl. 4854.6102.3895 Name: NU..
Whenever I want to run a program I just hit the win key, type the first few letters of it's name and punch enter. Boom. Done. Fast and easy.
It's not inherintly easy.
It's why I brought up the comparison to the command line, I mean theoretically the command line is easy. You type in commands and off you go. The thing is though that there needs to be a large amount of base knowledge to really use it correctly (although the search menu is simpler in the fact that it is mostly used now to open programs) you still need some knowledge as opposed to tooling round and clicking on various folders.
Satans..... hints.....
Really depends on how fast your PC is. On my PC at work its actually faster for me to navigate to the app I want to launch. The search is pathetically slow.
No, theoretically, the command line is hard. Commands in the command line are often cryptic, unrelated or abbreviated, making them difficult to figure out without reference for a new user. Search in any major OS is in plain English. You want solitaire? Type 'soli' and it'll populate itself. Completely different, and not comparable in the least.
Edit: the difference is that command line is exact, and search is approximate. Approximate is much more powerful for Joe User.
This comparison is completely useless, as they're totally different. One is a method for completely operating a computer, the other is a tool a novice can use to find something.
or Brawl. 4854.6102.3895 Name: NU..
Command lines are sort of analogous to DVORAK, they aren't necessarily harder to learn, everyone's just already used to the alternative, and if we switched things would be better.
I know the analogy is tenuous at best, but still.
In a nutshell the journaling only applies to the file system, not the files themselves. OS X uses a more robust journaling system along with HSF Catalog. What I am getting at is NTFS is getting old and is due for an update.
That reminds me of a joke I saw on some cartoon or other where the guy was talking his commands in and it wrote in "destroy all data, execute.". MS's voice recognition software has gotten better, but it is still nowhere near good enough for this to be true.
Well... I mean... but... well, here:
Put a new user down in front of a keyboard in QWERTY configuration, and they're sitting in front of a keyboard. Put that same user in front of a DVORAK keyboard, and they're still sitting in front of a keyboard, the letters are just in different places. If the person isn't trained to use either, they can still pick out each letter one at a time. There's no training involved in using it a keyboard in either configuration, just using it well.
Put a new user in front of a GUI, and they have visual cues to guide their way through the operating system. Put that same user in front of a command line and they have.... nothing. No reference, no hint that the keyboard even does anything other than a blinking cursor.
As for a pervasive command line, how does it differ from the current offerings in modern operating systems (aside from being more accurate by virtue of existing in the future)? You could just keep a CMD prompt or Terminal open, or take advantage of Windows Vista and Mac OSX's voice command systems.
or Brawl. 4854.6102.3895 Name: NU..
not really. the search menu is REALLY simple. Sure, it can be used as a command line, but 99% of it's function has nothing to do with the command line at all. the only similarities it really has is that it's a line where you put text in.
All you need is the name of the software, you don't need any commands, you don't need to know anything. If I go into the start menu, and type in word, Microsoft word comes up. if I type in "live" all my windows live apps show up.
my 73 year old grandmother wants to upgrade to vista for the search alone(don't worry all you people, I'm not letting her. Although the search is almost enough to upgrade her, it's not quite enough.). This is after trying Windows Desktop Search for XP(which she hates) She sat down at my computer, I showed her how to use it, and she was using it more efficiently than she has ever used windows XP.
On a side note, I spent a few days playing with Vista's Speech Recognition. It surprised me how far it's come along, though it is still rather rudimentary and slower than doing shit manually.
Okay... I don't really get what you're trying to say. You initially said tha tthe search menu is really simple, but you won't let your grandmother upgrade (yes, I'm serious) to Vista.
if I may... the kind of computer a grandma is likely to have probably has the kind of hardware inside of it that doesn't play nice with Vista (sound device most likely)
Only very advanced users should run an upgrade over a perfectly good XP install.
Basically Bill Gates has had a hard-on for language recognition ever since he saw it on Star Trek, and modern technology may soon put this sort of interface within our grasp.
That's cool, I'm sure we'll get there eventually. You can get similar functionality with OSX's voice commands, right down to assigning a trigger word to tell the computer when to listen to commands (obviously, it should be "Computer!"). Everybody gets a kick out of "Tell me a joke" the first time I show it to them on my Mac Mini in the living room.
I haven't played around with the voice commands in Vista, though, so I don't know how they compare. I haven't tried it in Leopard, now that I think about it. I should see if it's improved at all.
or Brawl. 4854.6102.3895 Name: NU..
This, exactly.
If she was buying a new PC, it would be vista hands down. But, she can't afford it(her rent has gone up 50% in the past 2 years, and she's on a fixed income), and her computer has 512MB ram and integrated graphics(not aero capable). My uncle wanted to get her Vista for Christmas because of how much she talks about it, but I shot that down very quickly, being the family's unnoficial tech support.
I'd love to get her vista. She is far more proficient with Vista than she is with XP, but it's just not in the cards.
That all being said I don't think it is a problem that can't be solved in a reasonable time scale (<10 years) but one that is misapplied to consumer computer technology. I don't want to say "go to porn website" and have everyone within hearing distance turn and look awkwardly at me, especially in public. I also don't want a computer guessing at what I want it to do. For any function of an app that isn't well mapped out with metadata to describe its function to the command UI you would be in for a lot of trial and error. I especially don't want the computer guessing its way through potentially destructive operations (file management, file editing, etc).
The previous comment about Bill Gates having a hard-on for speech interfaces is completely true. He's been obsessing over them for a really long time. He's expounded on some voice activated technology in every version of Windows that has been released since 95.
Why are you looking at porn in public?
or Brawl. 4854.6102.3895 Name: NU..