Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
The weird part is that ZUN won't copyright his characters, so there are indie spinoffs of 'official' indie games. Including my favorite fighter.
-
They also have a shut-in crisis, where a large portion of young people stay in their rooms and are terrified of personal interaction. It's a weird place. The crossover is probably large.
-
Also spare us the "I'm a programmer, and UAC makes it hard to work" What a load of bullshit that is. I'm a programmer myself (for a living) but the only reason I can see UAC making programming difficult is if you don't understand the basic design principles behind it and how applications should deal with it. (You want admin? prompt for it. You need admin for something? show the icon, and when it's pressed, prompt and re-elevate).
I'm not writing applications that prompt for admin priv. I had an old PC that was migrated to Vista or W7 or something, and basically every file seemed to get clusterfcked by UAC. I couldn't edit ANYTHING. There was a secondary problem as well - where I worked, they weren't going to allow you to be an admin on your own machine. So if you had files in locations that new Windows decided you can no longer access without admin privileges... well sucks to be you.
Now This probably isn't even a problem if you had a fresh install where you had no old crap in unsafe locations. But still, in my experience, UAC turned a perfectly functional OS in windows XP into an unusable nightmare in Vista.
I have a fresh install of Windows 8 on my PC at home, and I have had zero problems. So I'm not against UAC.
-
Because UAC is the reason why developers ignored good practices all through the life of Windows 1.0 to XP?
-
So if you had files in locations that new Windows decided you can no longer access without admin privileges... well sucks to be you.
This is where you undergo a white mutiny. "I can't do my job because I can't edit this file due to permissions." They'll generally either give you more rights or fix the permissions.
-
IT IS NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FUCKING INI FILE THAT WAS JUST A RANDOM GUESS I MADE BECAUSE UAC WONT FUCKING TELL ME.
This may have been addressed already (since I'm only at post 30/205 and I'm to fucking lazy to read ahead before jumping in!)
Writing to an INI file in the PF directory will not invoke UAC. It will "just work". Just not how you think. Magic redirection - you now have your own local copy. (Which means User2 won't see those changes) If UAC is happening, it's because the FUCKING PROGRAM ASKED FOR IT!
And you can reset directory permissions. I did that with a stupid program that kept it's DBASE files in there. (They "fixed" it by making the default install directory "C:\MyCompany\whatever")
-
I had an old PC that was migrated [...] and basically every [thing] seemed to get clusterfcked
I'd say this is true more often than not.
-
I have no idea what you're trying to communicate to me here.
That I can't really English on low caffeine...
-
Possibly the best photo ever published in a major newspaper.
-
darkmatter:
I had an old PC that was migrated [...] and basically every [thing] seemed to get clusterfckedI'd say this is true more often than not.
Yeah, in retrospect, you should probably never upgrade Windows, but wipe + reinstall.
-
As a side-note, I almost feel sorry for Dookdook who probably came here expecting everybody to commiserate and go, "oh yeah! UAC! such a pain!" without realizing how far away from the mainstream he's drifted in the last 10 years or so.
Nah, I'm still the mainstream. You guys are just nazis.
Seriously though, this is a personal laptop is only used by me. No one else even has physical access to it. There are a huge number of people in the same situation, and they have no use for user accounts with non-admin privileges.
There needs to be a checkbox buried somewhere in the Control Panel that says "I am the one and only God of this computer, you are a nothing but a technological slave to me and will carry out my orders and the orders of any programs I authorize silently and without question. In return, I promise not to whine to Microsoft if my shit gets fucked up with malware, I have to wipe the entire machine and reinstall everything from recovery disks, and russian hackers empty my bank account."
Not that any of that has much to do with my original Java/Firefox issues...
-
I never seem to ever hear anybody say: "it's my own car damnit, and if I want to drive in reverse along I5 at 45 MPH I'll do it!"
I think the State Patrol would provide you with a rather costly disincentive to doing that.
-
There needs to be a checkbox buried somewhere in the Control Panel
There is. It's in the User control panel, where you convert your account to an administrator. It's always been there.
-
-
There is. It's in the User control panel, where you convert your account to an administrator. It's always been there.
Hmm, I swear I did that already.
Not actually near the laptop at the moment, I'll double check later.
-
-
This is where you undergo a white mutiny. "I can't do my job because I can't edit this file due to permissions." They'll generally either give you more rights or fix the permissions.
Basically that's what happened. I got admin in the end because they didn't want to get called every time I needed to change a setting. A lot of people did not get admin for a long time though and still had problems setting up certain things (like overriding dns in the hosts file?) without having to call central to get it worked out for them. I think in the end, central caved and made all the devs admins by default so they wouldn't get called for all those config things.
-
For all intensive purposes, reigning in this kind of thing is one of the tenants of a happy marriage.
I find it amusing that both @darkmatter and @Magus responded, apparently seriously, to this by each pointing out a different misused word. Nobody picked up on the third misused word. Three glaringly misused words in a single sentence by a normally articulate poster; if that's not an obvious troll, I don't know what is.
+2 points to @flabdablet
-
if that's not an obvious troll, I don't know what is.
And that's why nobody flagged his post.
Well, that and there's no badge for what he did.
-
Other than that it's the same color.
Close, but not quite. From a spot on the forehead that's pretty close: #e6a5f8 vs. #fea7dc, or more clearly, HSV 287 [0 .. 359], 33, 97 vs. 323, 34, 100. Saturation and value of that particular spot pretty darn close, but the hue is quite noticeably different. The purple one is definitely more purple than the pink one.
-
A musing may be but sets a bad president
-
Whoooooosh!
-
@dookdook said:
If I had to go re-unlock the front door every time I wanted to access a household appliance, I'd probably consider it.
Which [s]begs[/s] prompts the question of why you're locking the appliances behind the door in the first place.
Seriously, if you don't want to be prompted a million times to update a file, don't put the file in a secure location. Put it somewhere you have full access, like your user folder. That's why it's called the user folder: it's there to be used by the user.
This is not a fair response.
The appliances are electronically monitored by the door (Operating System doorway) which is why he has to freakin' unlock the door every time he runs the appliance. THIS is the analogy he was going for.
To use your analogy, we WANT to keep our appliances inside the house so we don't have to unlock the door. WINDOWS WON'T LET US.
For the record, all my Win7's have UAC on by default. Under protest because I still don't consider it working properly, only as designed.
2 edits because DISSSSCCOOUURRSSEEE keeps messing up my quoting...
-
... what the fuck decade are you time-podding from? Even Oracle's given up on Java Applets.
But Cisco hasn't...
-
2) .ini files have been deprecated since like 1994 what the fuck is WRONG with game devs!
+1 This. A thousand times this.
UAC doesn't know.
If true, that's lame since it's doing the blocking.
UAC doesn't tell you what it's blocking because it doesn't know. All it knows is that a permission denied was thrown somewhere. It doesn't even know whether it's in a file or code object.
Oh. Interesting. Wonder why they couldn't write somewhere what threw the flag?
Yeah, knowing it's modifying foo.ini as opposed to, say, trying to write to user32.dll is useful as a clue that something is really wrong as opposed to just doing it wrong.
+1
Quite. And the argument that users don't understand this stuff so there's no point telling them anything is bullshit. Because when users don't understand something, they call somebody like me who does - and having to work in complete darkness pisses me off.
Another +1k. Been here way too often to count...
-
-
The problem is shitty application developers who don't know anything about how the OS they've chosen to develop in works, and also don't give a shit about shipping software with huge bugs.
This reminds me of someone...something about a forum software...?
-
Begs takes an optional parameter.
def begs(this, the_question=this)
-
I see two major problems if whitelisting were allowed for this model:
...
2. whatever UI there is to whitelist software instantly becomes a massive attack vector, since if any malware becomes able to set an application as whitelisted it then has complete administrative access to your system, or can effectively turn UAC off by whitelisting everything.+1
Because a like isn't enough.
Those problems exist anyway. Once you've given anything a UAC green light even once, it can arrange to have anything it wants done silently thereafter, by installing a system service. This is how silent updaters work.
And this is where I realize I need to STFU because I'm too tired to think things through. Good night. ;-)
-
Begs takes an optional parameter.
def begs(this, the_question=this)begs("Mr. Bumble", "some more")
-
Clearly you've never been a sysadmin. This happens all the time. Salesweasels sell to management, not techs, and management doesn't give a fsck when the admin tells them that the application is utter garbage.
This is what led to the demise of Novell, IIRC.
-
โโMr. Bumble?โ That just begs the question: some more?โ
Great now how would you say that in Go?
-
-
-
And as for โcould care lessโ, it's just a straightforward evolution of โI suppose I could care less, but that seems like too much effortโ that packs twice the disdain for grammatically pedantic care-bears into half the characters.
-
First response i got was actually about the battle.net launcher, on blizzard's forums, where they admitted there was a bug.
Yep - turns out we can now disable admin mode overrides on her PC for DiabloIII and it works fine, so they fixed whatever it was. Although when it tries to update, it will still give the UAC prompt, but that's expected. And that happens sparingly enough to not be a hassle.
Probably got fixed when they patched with the new battle.net thing. Don't care anymore, happy enough because it just works, like it should.
-
I could care less about [insert important issue].
-
Yep - turns out we can now disable admin mode overrides on her PC for DiabloIII and it works fine, so they fixed whatever it was.
You fixed the "it always worked fine since day one". Good man.
-
Oh yay, someone else who'd rather blame Microsoft than the developers of broken software...
-
soon Chrome won't support Java any more
Chrome does not support Java for several months already.
Actually I don't care about Java, but I miss okular PDF reader via kpartsplugin (and anything else via kpartsplugin, really). The crappy Chrome one is currently uninstallable and the crappy javascript one is, well, crappy.
-
Interestingly, the only time I've had issues developing was when I disabled UAC. It actually made zero sense. It was a .NET application that wanted to compile a script while setting itself as an available reference to that script. With UAC enabled, it worked fine. If UAC was disabled, apparently the Compiler's attempt to open the executable failed (the old "File is in use by another process" thing). It makes no sense because that also doesn't happen on XP or Earlier. For whatever reason trying to open a running EXE when UAC is disabled always results in access denied. Not sure what was happening there. I worked around it with an interface library but it was still weird.
One of the issues I see is that many people figure that the feature is to protect the user from themselves, when really, it's to protect the user from those sneaky programs. Arguably it's of dubious utility to the vast majority of people, but I appreciate that programs need to at least get my consent to elevate to admin permissions. If I'm installing software, I expect it. if I'm running a utility that has no reason to have admin access, I will pause.
In the case of UAC, there are three types of applications. Applications that aren't aware of UAC at all, Applications that are aware of UAC and work properly, and Applications that claim to be aware of UAC but are otherwise identical to the first set.
The first set of programs works fine. For those programs, access to the otherwise restricted folders (Program files, Windows, etc) get's virtualized to your user data instead.
The second set of programs work fine also; for example, an updater program might start as a local user to allow even non-admin users to view the installed updates for a suite of programs, but in order to download/update, it needs administrator permissions, so pressing "download" will relaunch, via the "runas" verb, the updater with a command line passing relevant data to the new instance.
The third set of programs are the ones causing problems. These are basically programs written that expect admin permissions (and should be in the first set) but where somebody decided to tag the program as being UAC Aware in the application manifest. So Windows goes "ahh, good, I don't have to coddle you, you know what you are doing, as you were then" Then the program turns around and tries to do something write INI files in the program files folder and Windows correctly gives permission denied. if the program had not claimed to be UAC aware, Windows would have been all "oh don't worry it's on mr program you can totally write there no permission issues at all -to file redirector- For the love of god redirect their accesses to this other folder What? Oh, just talking to myself, carry on program" and just redirect all the attempts to write to restricted files elsewhere. (same story in fact for Registry access in the Local Machine hive- get's redirected for programs in the first category).
The situation when upgrading from an older OS I don't know. the last OS "upgrade" I performed like that was when I installed Windows 3.1 and upgraded from 3.0. I can see that causing issues.
What kind of files were you trying to edit and where were they? What kind of files did you need write access to that you couldn't? I imagine you can't remember.
In the "upgrade" case I would expect you to be using programs in the first category, so when you use them and they say save their ini file in the same directory, it actually get's saved elsewhere, in the Local Application Data folder in "Virtual Store\Program Files" (for example) rather than the actual location. You can edit or create say INI files there and the program in question will find them and use them. For editing files that are restricted (eg hosts or configuration files somewhere or system settings) I usually just run my text editor as admin and open it that way. In the case of not having local administrator permissions not letting you change system configuration, that's kind of how it's supposed to work. One cannot blame the OS vendor or an OS feature when IT staff misunderstand and poorly implement it on the network. But then again, too many "IT departments" are just a bunch of people who write kix batch files and don't know what Active Directory or Group Policy editor is. In that situation they ought to have rolled out changes such that users in say a Developers usergroup were also local administrators on their systems.
-
I think the State Patrol would provide you with a rather costly disincentive to doing that.
To be fair, the attitude of many users is more like โI'll store sand in the engine bay of my sports car and it'll like it.โ Not just doing it wrong, but really making things worse for themselves in the process.
-
As long as we don't do something really stupid like adding a bunch of 'u's to words.
Flagged.
-
Pflaugghed.
-
Flagged.
Why? The problem started when the 'u's started getting removed to begin with...
-
A musing may be but sets a bad president
The bad president is the principal of the thing.
-
Why? The problem started when the 'u's started getting removed to begin with...
I took his comment as a personal jab at the Queen, and hence flagged him for treason. He might try to use the loophole that he's not technically a member of the nation in order to undermine my flag, but don't listen to him.
-
Considering
- it doesn't fall under the auspices of anything that legally could be considered treasonous (unless the U concerned is the unmarried eldest daughter of the monarch and he's committing adultery with her{1}), and
- they got rid of the death penalty aspect of the crime in 1998,
it seems a little pointless....
{1} I'm sure that's not quite right, but that's what Wikipedia says:
Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne;
-
unless the U concerned is the unmarried eldest daughter of the monarch and he's committing adultery with her{1}
Yes, this.
they got rid of the death penalty aspect of the crime in 1998
I wasn't going for the death penalty. Do you think I'm some sort of monster?
If anything, I was trying to get him a treason badge, and perhaps a harshly worded PM from you about respecting our glorious empire.
-
- it doesn't fall under the auspices of anything that legally could be considered treasonous (unless the U concerned is the unmarried eldest daughter of the monarch and he's committing adultery with her
That is weirdly specific; I cannot fathom why it'd only be with the eldest daughter. Or any daughter for that matter.
@Keith said:Do you think I'm some sort of monster?
We could throw it open to a vote?
