New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)
in [Laptops]
|
From: BillW50 on 18 Apr 2010 10:43 Bob Eager wrote on 18 Apr 2010 12:48:13 GMT: > On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:52:35 -0500, BillW50 wrote: > >> In news:8305a1Fe1qU1(a)mid.individual.net, Bob Eager typed on 18 Apr 2010 >> 10:30:25 GMT: >>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:13:31 -0500, BillW50 wrote: >>> >>>> And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big waste of >>>> time. >>> Then turn them off. >> Can't turn them all off. > > I don't seem to get any at all. Is that after you disabled the UAC I think it is called? I was just visiting my sister yesterday and I was trying to get her WiFi to work. And when all fails, RTFM right? So I opened up a PDF file and it complained that Adobe Reader 7 was known to have issues with this version of Windows. Well that is great it warns you about this I guess. But I ignored the warning and opened the document anyway. Everything worked fine for me. But isn't it a given if an older version of an application doesn't work well with a newer OS, it is time to check for updates? Why do we need our hand held and to be reminded of this over and over again? >> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your >> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet. >> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore. > > I agree. I use it because I have to. I didn't say it was good. But it's > better than Vista. Well I don't think you will find one to disagree with you there. Even those that dislikes Windows 7 will even admit this. ;-) >>> Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be >>> teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all. >> If you have to use it, then you have to use it. A handful of people are >> forced to use Mac and Linux machines too that really don't want too. >> Fortunately for me, I can use anything I want too. > > Don't use Mac or Linux either! .-) Oh I do, just to mix things up a bit. But I admit that Windows XP does 100% of what I want to do. While Windows 7 does about 95%. And Linux comes in at about 25%. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
From: Bernard Peek on 18 Apr 2010 10:53 On 18/04/10 15:43, BillW50 wrote: > Is that after you disabled the UAC I think it is called? I was just > visiting my sister yesterday and I was trying to get her WiFi to work. > And when all fails, RTFM right? So I opened up a PDF file and it > complained that Adobe Reader 7 was known to have issues with this > version of Windows. Well that is great it warns you about this I guess. > > But I ignored the warning and opened the document anyway. Everything > worked fine for me. But isn't it a given if an older version of an > application doesn't work well with a newer OS, it is time to check for > updates? Why do we need our hand held and to be reminded of this over > and over again? UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are compromised because users do dumb things. If you keep running into UAC under W7 you should rethink how you are using the computer. It's a little too aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that. > >>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your >>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet. >>> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore. That's been true since automated patching was invented. -- Bernard Peek bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: BillW50 on 18 Apr 2010 12:03 Bernard Peek wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:53:06 +0100: > On 18/04/10 15:43, BillW50 wrote: > > >> Is that after you disabled the UAC I think it is called? I was just >> visiting my sister yesterday and I was trying to get her WiFi to work. >> And when all fails, RTFM right? So I opened up a PDF file and it >> complained that Adobe Reader 7 was known to have issues with this >> version of Windows. Well that is great it warns you about this I guess. >> >> But I ignored the warning and opened the document anyway. Everything >> worked fine for me. But isn't it a given if an older version of an >> application doesn't work well with a newer OS, it is time to check for >> updates? Why do we need our hand held and to be reminded of this over >> and over again? > > UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend > disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are compromised > because users do dumb things. If you keep running into UAC under W7 you > should rethink how you are using the computer. It's a little too > aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that. Really? Windows 7 froze up whenever I placed my favorite BattStat v0.98 utility in the startup with UAC enabled. I had to tell it always it was okay to run every time I booted the machine. This is totally unnecessary. AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. It would be very nice if it allowed some programs a free pass and selectable by the user. There were others programs that UAC complained about too, but BattStat was one that bugged me the most. >>>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your >>>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet. >>>> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore. > > That's been true since automated patching was invented. I have some computers that I get almost every update. Although I also have some computers that I never update. And I never had any virus on any of them and I am connected to the Internet all of the time. So I am having some serious concerns whether updates really makes a system more secure or not. The biggest threat are newer viruses. And newer viruses like newer applications require the latest patches to work well. So sometimes at least, unpatched older OS can actually be safer IMHO. And no, I disagree that this has been true since auto patching. As so far, Windows XP and Vista doesn't have this WAT piracy checking system which can downgrade your OS at any time of Microsoft choosing. Where Microsoft is the judge and jury. And where you are guilty until you can prove otherwise. And if you can't to Microsoft's liking, you must pay a fee to get your OS back again. And you are not out of the clear either. As Microsoft could downgrade your OS over and over again to collect more fees any time they feel fit. Just look at the possibilities here. You could say something bad about Microsoft and they could turn around and target your computer for a downgrade. And charge you a ransom to get your OS up and running once again. You know they will if they knew they could get away with it. And knowing how Microsoft operates, I wouldn't hold it passed them. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
From: Barry Watzman on 18 Apr 2010 12:31 The problem is that there are a lot of programs (older programs) that will generate UAC prompts every time you start them, and every time you do certain things within them. Even if you are not even connected to the internet. The best solution may be to configure UAC on a program-by-program basis. This actually is possible, but it's not something that MS intended to support, and, consequently, it's not easy or user friendly. Bernard Peek wrote: > > UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend > disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are compromised > because users do dumb things. If you keep running into UAC under W7 you > should rethink how you are using the computer. It's a little too > aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that. >
From: Barry Watzman on 18 Apr 2010 12:33
See my previous post. It is possible to configure UAC on a program-by-program basis, but it's not user friendly. A web search will find instructions for doing so. Be prepared to do a lot of things manually. BillW50 wrote: > > AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. It would > be very nice if it allowed some programs a free pass and selectable by > the user. There were others programs that UAC complained about too, but > BattStat was one that bugged me the most. > |