Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
management doesn't give a fsck when the admin tells them that the application is utter garbage
One of the main things that makes me like my present job as much as I do is that when I tell our principal that crap is crap, he believes me and doesn't buy it.
-
So Diablo III was annoying you with UAC prompts because you went out of your way to ensure it would prompt.
Yes, but we had to go out of our way because DiabloIII didn't go out of its own way to do it for us, since it was for some reason required to run in Administrator mode to make the game work on her PC.
-
is it possible to use a tinier, more unreadable font?
Hold down the Ctrl key, spin the mouse wheel, and you can make it as tiny and unreadable as your little heart desires.
-
Bullshit. Bugs are bugs. Shitty software is shitty software. The only difference between now and then is the OS will say "hey, this software's doing something shitty" and back then it just silently did it.
Plenty of games didn't run on pre-2000 NT for reasons that aren't really bugs. Per Wikipedia, NT 4 was the first to support DirectX and Windows 2000 was the first to officially support Direct3D. In many cases, saying "your game doesn't run on NT 4 because it doesn't respect user permissions" is putting the cart before the horse, because even if it was written properly it still wouldn't have run.Unless your position that using DirectX was a bug.
Games have always been buggy pieces of shit. Probably because people like you give them a complete pass.
I'd argue that they deserve somewhat of pass. Or at least deserved. I think with lots of online, multiplayer, micropayments stuff, the pass I'm giving modern games has been nearly eliminated.(The more important the program, the more important it is for it to be well-written. For a very long time, games fell into a "quite unimportant." They're also usually run on single-user or family computers, as opposed to in an office environment that actually uses multiple user accounts. If you only have one user, who cares if the game can write to any user's data?)
So the Linux system is better because invisible magical fairies ensure it works.
Because the programmers know it won't work if they don't do it right. As opposed to Windows, where it did work in practice pre-Vista.
-
Yes, but we had to go out of our way because DiabloIII didn't go out of its own way to do it for us, since it was for some reason required to run in Administrator mode to make the game work on her PC.
I don't believe you.
-
required to run in Administrator mode to make the game work on her PC
which of course goes back to the original hypothesis, that the launcher for the game was poorly written. leading back to my original complaint, why the fuck can't I whitelist that application so it can do what it wants, because currently I'm basically whitelisting it by forcing it to run in administrator mode 100% of the time, but it requires that stupid popup to do it....
-
why the fuck can't I whitelist that application so it can do what it wants
Because UAC is less configurable than sudo.
But there's a workaround. Create a scheduled task to run the app, set its schedule to "on demand", check the box for "run with highest privileges", and stick a shortcut to the task on your desktop.
-
Plenty of games didn't run on pre-2000 NT for reasons that aren't really bugs. Per Wikipedia, NT 4 was the first to support DirectX and Windows 2000 was the first to officially support Direct3D. In many cases, saying "your game doesn't run on NT 4 because it doesn't respect user permissions" is putting the cart before the horse, because even if it was written properly it still wouldn't have run.
Unless your position that using DirectX was a bug.
Windows 9X still had named folders, and application developers were still required to use them.
NT4 introduced permissions, but any applications that followed the Windows 9X named folders system correctly run fine in NT4, 2000, Windows 8, whatever. It hasn't changed at all.
The DirectX thing is completely unrelated. Windows 9X programs that didn't use named folders (yes, including games) were buggy.
which of course goes back to the original hypothesis, that the launcher for the game was poorly written. leading back to my original complaint, why the fuck can't I whitelist that application so it can do what it wants, because currently I'm basically whitelisting it by forcing it to run in administrator mode 100% of the time, but it requires that stupid popup to do it....
We already covered this. You can. Again: look at your "steamapps" folder in your Steam install.
You just need to have a tiny bit of knowledge of how Windows permissions works. There's just no trivially-easy GUI for it.
-
But there's a workaround. Create a scheduled task to run the app, set its schedule to "on demand", check the box for "run with highest privileges", and stick a shortcut to the task on your desktop.
yeah that's the thing described in the article I linked earlier.
-
You just need to have a tiny bit of knowledge of how Windows permissions works. There's just no trivially-easy GUI for it.
This from the man that complains that every gui-less application ever is terrible?
-
This from the man that complains that every gui-less application ever is terrible?
There is a GUI for it (and all permissions-type operations in Windows.) There's not a trivially-easy GUI for it.
Your troll doesn't even work, you have to actually read the thing you're replying to.
-
I'm the only one allowed
For all intensive purposes, reigning in this kind of thing is one of the tenants of a happy marriage.
-
It's even simpler than that...
UAC doesn't even block anything, it just lets stuff in.
For example, attempting to do this:
C:\Users\[redacted]>mkdir C:\Windows\System32\foo
results in this:
Access is denied.To fix that, you run it as administrator, but throwing up an "access denied" doesn't trigger UAC...
So there's really no way it could feasibly "guess" what your application is trying to do, because it's only told that [application name] wants admin access.
@darkmatter: I'm pretty sure that in the case of Diablo III, it's not even UAC-ing because it got an access denied, it's UAC-ing because that's how the game is programmed. It's trying to get admin access (which really is doing it wrong...) and to do that, it needs UAC...
mkdir is a cmd.exe internal command. It likely does a permission check first instead of blindly tries to create the directory (which would bring up a UAC prompt. Remember, cmd.exe is old and, as @blakeyrat pointed out, deprecated.
Having said that, you can launch cmd.exe as a privileged shell by finding Command Prompt, right-clicking its icon, and choosing Run As Administrator... which will trigger a UAC prompt.
Incidentally, the
runascommand may or may not work for mkdir... it's hard to say.
-
-
-
For all intensive purposes
AAAAAGH. I may be fine with begging the question wrong, but this is horrible.
-
-
In a world where dictionaries accept a word's antonym as its definition, I'm sure you're right. But that doesn't mean we should be happy about teh stoopid winning.
You might find this relevant and interesting:
People have been complaining about teh stoopid winning for decades.
-
troll doesn't even work
troll appears to have worked great, there you are clarifying yourself.
"no trivially-easy gui" could mean either No GUI at all (because if there was a GUI, that would be trivially-easy), or No GUI that is easy (which it turns out is apparently what you really meant); it is an ambiguous wording.
-
-
-
It gets even weirder. Japanese people call 'traffic light green' a shade of blue. There's a massive cultural element to it.
-
Right; but technicalities aside, what this really comes down to is that avatar is pink and also RaceProUK is a woman.
-
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.
... or possibly Slashdot's leaking again, since it's a very Slashdot-esque screed.
But either way, we're not trying to scare you off, Dookdook.
-
"oh yeah! UAC! such a pain!" without realizing how far away from the mainstream he's drifted in the last 10 years or so.
This is true - the closest thing to support he got was me, and I just had a single specific complaint relating to a single poorly designed application that was fixed in newer versions of windows anyway (I run diabloIII with no problem on my W8 PC).
-
@RaceProUK said:
... I'm a dude
Then don't use a pink avatar. This ain't rocket science.
-
You might find this relevant and interesting:
...added it to my GoodReads.
People have been complaining about teh stoopid winning for decades.
Probably a lot longer. I thought it was funny that people thought the bit in the opening of Idiocracy was a new phenomenon.
-
A badly written script might fail because it erroneously invokes sudo when, say, it's intended to be run automatically
The point of sudo is to allow scripts to do exactly that in a safe and controlled way, by setting up the sudoers file in such a way that all users authorized to run the script in question get permission to use the specific sudo command line required by the script without needing to supply a password.
The traditional Windows approach to the same kind of use case has generally involved baking passwords into the scripts, with varying degrees of obfuscation. This is of course Wrong From The Start.
-
-
-
And I know the devs of the source of your avatar say it isn't a ripoff of that one, and I know that the voices are no worse than is to be expected for an american 'japanese-looking' game, but I still cannot quite approve. Though it does seem to actually put effort into bossfights, which is refreshing these days.
-
that's a bubblegum pink. you've got a dark pink going on.
-
But either way, we're not trying to scare you off, Dookdook.
Speak for yourself. OP is clearly TRWTF.
-
this seems apropos:
-
Probably a lot longer. I thought it was funny that people thought the bit in the opening of Idiocracy was a new phenomenon.
If you want to get really depressed, read the driving anti-patterns thread and consider that the vast majority of them can vote.
-
If you want to get really depressed, read the driving anti-patterns thread and consider that the vast majority of them can vote.
Honestly, I look at it the other way. Look at the way so many people vote and realize that you're surrounded by those crazies. Works no matter which sort of crazy you happen to be.
-
Raindrop-ear has a darker background and lighting. Other than that it's the same color.
... also the more I look at it, the more disturbing it gets. What's that "thing" coming out of her forehead? Is that supposed to be hair? It's like translucent, but there's this weird line crossing it, like it's cracked? Maybe it's like a glass tumor?
-
Well, the character is supposed to be a dragon or something, but because they wanted more "Japanese flavor" they decided to add hair. Seeing eyes through hair is common enough in Japanese stuff, because it's simpler than trying to draw each individual hair in a thinly-packed cluster which would normally be possible to see through. Still, what kind of dragon has a tuft of skin-colored hair coming out of the middle of its forehead?
(Though I agree that it's purple, actually.)
-
-
Well, the character is supposed to be a dragon or something, but because they wanted more "Japanese flavor" they decided to add hair.
I'm with you on the "hair" interpretation, but what's with the line going across it in the middle? Why is it outlined in cyan?
Still, what kind of dragon has a tuft of skin-colored hair coming out of the middle of its forehead?
Seriously. Or maybe it's all really tightly matted fur.
This discussion reminds me of that stupid live-action Sonic fan film they made a few years back, where the guy doing the CGI didn't "get" the Sonic character design at all and added spines TO HIS SPINES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUj80JdwBXA&feature=youtu.be&t=11m40s
-
I'm with you on the "hair" interpretation, but what's with the line going across it in the middle? Why is it outlined in cyan?
The 'line' is her eyelash. No idea why the artist did cyan highlighting though, unless it was for some sort of lighting effect to emphasise the fact she's a water dragon.
I'm somewhat interested to hear what you think about a cream dog with ginger hair and green chevrons on her ears now:
-
"Hey, baby. I'm a homicidal A.I. controlling a secret moon base. Wanna get dinner or something?"
Seriously, though, are these from the same game? How come they did "hair over the eyes" for pink dragon, but for the dog-rabbit-thing they just stopped the hair when it hits her eyebrows? I mean I'm not a fan of this art style, but you'd at least expect it to be consistent.
-
She is not a water dragon, she is a purple imp thing.
Reading this thread, I noticed I still have my UAC disabled from back when I first got Windows 7.
I'll enable it back and - if I either get less than 5 prompts in 10 days, or have cause to cancel at least one of the prompts in the 10 days - keep it enabled.(EDIT: Updated the rules above. Super important)
-
@created_just_to_disl said:
if I will click on Cancel rather than Ok for at least 1 out of the 10 first prompts
In the years since Windows 7, I think I've canceled exactly 1 time, and that was because a simple app that I had downloaded wanted admin access and I wasn't prepared to allow it.
If you only have trusted applications installed, chances are you'll never cancel a UAC popup (at least not intentionally, you'll probably accidentally cancel a few times and then realize what it was and curse about it).
-
No, I don't have only trusted applications installed, unless you stretch out the definition of 'trusted' areally thin.
But if I need an application enough, and reasonably trust it, an extra UAC prompt or two that doesn't tell me any details about what's happening isn't likely to change my mind. Should it?
-
UAC prompts should only happen in the following situations:
- the program was explicitly invoked to run elevated (i.e. Run as Administrator)
- the program's manifest explicitly says that it should run elevated
- the program lacks a manifest, and a heuristic has classified the program as an installer that likely needs to run elevated (generally for stuff like "setup.exe")
- the program lacks a manifest and is flagged as requiring elevation for compatibility (e.g. you ran it, it didn't work, you closed it, then you accepted the Program Compatibility Assistant's recommendation to rerun it elevated)
If a program runs unelevated and it tries to do something that isn't allowed, it will not display a UAC prompt - it will fail to do whatever it was attempting to do. In any case, if the prompt DOES appear, then the only thing Windows knows is "the program wants to run with increased privileges"; it doesn't know why.
There is one notable exception, though - if a program tries to write to its own installation folder (or a registry key in HKLM), then Windows filesystem/registry virtualization kicks in and redirects it to a user-specific location so it won't actually require elevation (and subsequent read attempts will give it a combined view of the install folder and your user-specific changes). Of course, this doesn't apply if your program is manifested as UAC-aware, in which case the operation will simply fail (and you should've also manifested it to require elevation).
-
It also includes a guy who is sometimes a duck and turtle at the same time, and a green anthropomorphic cat.
-
How come they did "hair over the eyes" for [s]pink[/s] purple dragon, but for the dog-rabbit-thing they just stopped the hair when it hits her eyebrows?
Different hairstyles ;)I should also point out that my Lilac avatar wasn't drawn by the same person as the one who drew Milla, so there's bound to be differences in art style.
-
Are they all from some new Sonic the Hedgehog game, then?
-
Amazon.com
