Windows Vista Beta 2

[Sid]

Downloaded the 32-bit version of Vista Beta 2 last night and gave it a shot this morning. It's gonna take a bit of getting used to but it's looking good.

Here's a screeny:

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7995/vistascreeny8bn.th.jpg (http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vistascreeny8bn.jpg)

[DAve]

Looks really sweet.

My initial reaction was:
"OMG, he's running a 1240*2048 desktop" and started drooling about monitor sizes.

Then realised it was two screenshots.

Have you noticed any major problems (drivers, crashes?), or is there anything really super sweet about the Vista? I heard the alt-tab has had a serious 3D upgrade :)

[Sid]

My initial reaction was:
"OMG, he's running a 1240*2048 desktop" and started drooling about monitor sizes.

Then realised it was two screenshots.

It's a dual monitor setup @ 1240*2048.

Have you noticed any major problems (drivers, crashes?), or is there anything really super sweet about the Vista? I heard the alt-tab has had a serious 3D upgrade :)

The new "User Account Control" thing was annoying me insanely. Apparently it makes the OS 80% more secure by giving you an annoying slow prompt every time you're doing something "major" such as deleting a folder or installing an application. If you're not logged in as an admin account, this prompt requires the admin to enter their username and password. However, I found a way to disable UAC.

I haven't noticed any bugs, as yet, which surprises me slightly. Although I've only been using it a few hours. Vista seems to have included a lot of updated drivers in the installation and after installing the XP driver for my wireless PCI card, for example, windows update detected a Vista driver online for it, and downloaded it.

Alt-tabbing provides lots of real-time small thumbnail displays of each open window, similar to the ones you get when you hover your mouse over a taskbar item. I can't seem to take a screenshot while holding Alt, however.

Edit: Just after posting I got a Blue Screen of death. It also won't automatically connect to my wireless network on startup, which is annoying - but I'm sure there'll be a way round.

[Sideshow]

The new "User Account Control" thing was annoying me insanely. Apparently it makes the OS 80% more secure by giving you an annoying slow prompt every time you're doing something "major" such as deleting a folder or installing an application. If you're not logged in as an admin account, this prompt requires the admin to enter their username and password. However, I found a way to disable UAC.

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

[Sid]

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

Yeah, I can vouch for that not being an exaggeration in the slightest. It's actually quite amusing until you have to use it.

[Phizz]

I'm sure that'll be reduced after the Beta. People will not stand for that much stupidity.

[Sideshow]

I'm sure that'll be reduced after the Beta. People will not stand for that much stupidity.

:roll:

[Bluepixie]

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

Yeah, I can vouch for that not being an exaggeration in the slightest. It's actually quite amusing until you have to use it.

That is insane. Why even both coding that?

[Sideshow]

The idea behind it is to embace a simpler, better privledge model, like unix has had since day one. In current windows a typical home machine uses three priviledge levels, Standard User (can't really do anything), Power User (can do practically anything) and Administrator (can do anything). It's fairly impossible to use a current windows system as a Standard User, and hardly anyone does. Most people operate as power or admin, which is a terrible thing security wise: any virus or trojan you catch can do whatever it wants to your system. In Vista there are only two - Users and Admins, and Vista extends the Run As... capability of XP/2000 to be the defacto standard - you should never need to log in as admin, except when setting up the system. After that, any program which needs Admin priviledges asks for them, and a dialog is presented to the user (presumably with some kind of password entry) asking whether they want to grant it. In effect, it's like a nice, graphical version of SU.

The other thing is that a lot of current software requires admin priviledges to install, not because it actually requires them, just becaus the programmers were lazy/stupid/ignorant. With Vista, MS is publishing programmer guidelines, similar to Apples UI guidelines, which programmers should adhere to (and I think can gain a certificate for).

Things such as putting stored settings for your program in %user_profile%\application data instead of dumping it in C:\windows. The install dir of a piece of software should never actually need to be writeable to, and is where most of the admin requirement stumbling blocks come in - WinAmp, for instance, writes to it's install dir.

Oops, tangenital: to return to the main point: these multiple confirm dialogs are a sympton of this incomplete conversion to a new sandbox security interface; MS hasn't ironned out how a GUI for such a system should work. I notice a lot of them have a 'never ask me this again' checkbox, which may or may not be useful in suppressing the annoyance level, depending on exactly how this suppression works. Anyway, I'm fairly hopeful that in the final release of Vista the interface will be a lot cleaner, and also that new software will be written correctly, which will minimise the need for these popups.

Desktop icons being installed by SYSTEM, on the other hand, is fairly repulsive. Fucking IE.

[YegaDoyai]

the question you have to ask is, on a single user system with a user that is competant and aware of the risks, is another login, other than admin, really required? On the whole I'd say no, but then I don't like the idea of the OS hiding as much as it already does from me. But for your average user I doubt there will be much difference. As for the guidelines and certification, this will drive up costs (ok it won't but I bet someone will play that card in the near future) and delay releases.

[Sideshow]

That, my friend, is hubris. What you should be asking is, is an admin account necessary for the day-to-day use of a system, and the answer to that is no.
I do run as admin, as I imagine almost everyone does, but that is due to window's crapness at handling user accounts causing grief which outweighs the security risk of an, as you call it, competant user's use. On a linux system I wouldn't dream of logging in as admin. Regardless of how careful you are, you will become the victim of a security risk sooner or later, if only because you are let down by a software flaw outwith your control. Much better to have that happen when the flaw cannot be exploited, than when it can.