I disagree with Belazor on the subject of compressed settings files. I'd say alot of "average" users have a friend who fixes their computers for them, and plain text configuration files help these friends and thus the average user. I'm not saying let's all abandon the Control Panel and go back to command prompt INI files, but someone who knows what they are doing ought to be able to fix these things easily when the GUI breaks down. Gconf is basically the Windows Registry implemented over plain-text XML files, so it's the best of both worlds.
That's a fair enough point - I don't know if this is the same point the previous poster was trying to convey, at any rate I get it now =P
Still, I'm not quite convinced that it's needed to go into the registry all that often - especially not considering anti-spyware programs can get rid of most of the stuff the bad folk put in there ;p
Oh and PS: you stoeled ma userbase! (SavedInstances) ;)
Since my mod is extremely simple, I doubt there's any code in it you might want to use. But if there is, feel free to :) You seem to be actively maintaining your mod, whereas I only wrote mine because a former friend in a previous guild wanted me to ;D
UAC, being as annoying as it is for the average user pretty much gets turned off because it presents itself at the drop of a hat on the most mundane tasks that should not even require privileges to be checked. The end result is the user effectively running in administrator mode.
Has been changed in Windows 7. By default, you're no longer notified when you're performing changes to system settings (thus making it less annoying than Linux' security measures), and can be silenced but not turned off.
But I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part, and not just you burning yourself.
File systems, the benefit of having multiple file systems available is that you can choose the one suited for the task, if you read about the various methods of file allocation between Resier and Ext3 for example you being to see that they are for two different tasks, NTFS however is still too much like FAT which was designed for linear storage.
We're talking about a desktop OS here, not servers. I don't give a ferret's anus if Ext3 is better for a server than ReiserFS (again, I'm going to assume it was an oversight on your part that you spelled it incorrectly).
So you're going to have to explain exactly why my mother (or myself, as a gamer/web developer) needs to care that I can't choose a different file system than NTFS for my desktop OS.
Binary blobs are a nightmare when it coems to disaster recovery policies, ascii files are far easier to recover than a compressed binary blob. It has been my experience that given a comparable search for any key value through regedit compared to gconf, I always find that because gconf is a collection of xml files the search result is instantanous, where as regedit is still thinking about whether i can be bothered waiting for an answer.
So in other words, for a normal desktop user, the difference is ...zero?
Is it just me, or is this burning yourself bit starting to become a habit?
You seem to be especially slow here, when an benile feature such as the taskbar is touted as being the best thing about the system...and when you see that the said awesome feature is really just a skinned version of the old one....what can one assume about the rest of the system?
Ah yes, the old "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, so I'm going to add even more personal insults because that will start a flamewar thus take attention away from the fact that I'm a blithering idiot" approach.
Listen, do both of us a favour and read up on the "Superbar" before you embarrass yourself further, ok?
When people who are less biased than yourself claim the "Superbar" is better than the OS X "Dock" (with only the "dancing buttons" as the plus for the Dock, IIRC), and Linux only having "Virtual Desktops" as its improvement in the taskbar area since its inception, I think you should re-think your arguments.
You at least have an understanding of the limitations that a virus(if it were even able to execute) can achieve on linux, however(See my section above your quote) you seem to be under the illusion that microsoft have fixed all their bugs and security holes and/or are very apt to provide zero day bug/security fixes.
And you seem to be under the impression that Linux is some form of rock-solid wall that nothing can ever penetrate.
All OSes have exploits, and Microsoft may not be the quickest to patch them, but that doesn't change the fact that the biggest security hole in an OS is sitting on the chair.
Lastly, it's interesting to see that you were fired up enough to di-sect my post and try to turn it round on me. It's a shame you were unable to create any solid concrete facts to counter my claims.
So after you blatantly ignored over half my post and took the insults to a personal level instead of keeping them aimed towards the actual content of the posts, you feel in the right to make such a statement?
I'll make it easier for you, and sum up my questions to you in an easy-to-read (and answer) fashion, and let's see what your next post brings.
1. Why should my mother (or me, as a gamer/web developer) care about the differences between 4-5 file systems? 2. For a normal desktop user (thereby not caring about DRPs), exactly what benefit is having system settings spread over multiple files in multiple locations? 3. Exactly why is it wrong for users to be enjoying a new feature (keyword "a", since it's one of many) in an OS, and why are you thinking it's nothing but a re-skin of the old taskbar? 4. Why are you ignoring the fact (and I do dare say it's a fact) that the biggest security hole in an OS is the user?
In closing, I would just like to say that Linux is the superior server OS. Why? Because it has the choices of file systems. It has easier to back up settings. It's open source and bugs get fixed faster. It runs smooth as hell when paid professionals manage it. It has better file permissions managing. The crontab system is hella easier to work with than Scheduled Tasks.
All of these things matter for exactly sod all on the desktop market, which is what this topic is all about. This is about Windows 7, not Windows Server 2008 R2.
And since it is becoming apparent that microsoft have no wish to create an authentication system that can rival sudo....I wont be touching this POS anytime this lifetime.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Please explain to me the difference between running as a standard user and being asked for your password every time an application wants to make changes to your computer, and running as a standard user and having to use command line to enter your password every time you want an application to make changes to your computer.
AND THE BIGGEST FAIL
still susceptable to viruses.....need I say more?
Windows Vista and above is no more or less susceptible to viruses than OS X or Linux, if it's ran as a standard user with UAC enabled.
This is of course not counting OS exploits, which no software is immune from.
In Linux, all a virus could do was mess about with files in your home area, same as Vista. Unless you explicitly gave it permissions to mess about with the rest of your computer.
You, sir, are a gigantic failure at arguing your points.
Vista's new 'security' *cough*DRM*cough* requirements forbid the usage of anymore unified drivers so now all those so called unified drivers are really just the drivers for every single hardware version bundled together and the installer picks the correct one. So you can perty much throw away any graphics cards older than 2 or 3 years since you have no hope of anybody actually spending time to update the specific drivers for them.
I wonder when you're going to stop spewing bullshit in this thread...
Or perhaps you would like to back up your claim? You know, with actual facts and not just FUD articles you completely fail at reading with context (or no article at all, in this instance)?
You see if Windows was made by a company that just made operating systems and wasn't so tied into the other companies by stuff like Xbox Live Marketplace, Zune, being a game publisher, being an ISP, and countless other ways that Microsoft is forced to be a puppet of the entertainment industries, they could have just told them to all fuck off and said no to DRM and still would have been able to play everything on Windows just because its the most popular operating system and the consumers would have demanded it from the entertainment industries.
Do you honestly believe this?
Because if you seriously believe that the entertainment industry would give a ferret's anus if people have to watch their content via a player rather than on their computer, then I just don't know what to say to you.
The DRM doesn't even run unless the file requests it to. And considering the fact that thus far, the only people who believe that digital downloads are the future are pirates, I think it's fairly safe to say that the complaints that Blu-Ray players for the PC could not play HDCP-flagged content would fall on deaf ears.
And who the hell records off cable anyway? ... I've been internet-only for a few years now, and I've been so much happier for it.
The DRM is meant to shut down/downscale the content being played back if it detects that you're trying to record the output from the video card.
The idea is that if all links to the monitor (including even the monitor) is a "trusted module", then it can simply check for any unknown links and then whine about it.
Yes, it's the most consumer-unfriendly thing in the history of the internet, but what people are completely ignorant about are the following facts:
It doesn't run for non-HDCP flagged content.
Even if you don't have HDCP-compliant hardware:
Your old files will continue to play.
Your non-HDCP files will continue to play.
Your Blu-Rays that are non-HDCP will continue to play.
They might never activate this flag on their content.
Thus far, I don't know of any Blu-Ray movies that have this flag enabled, mainly because I think even they realise that people aren't willing to pay $5k just to watch their shit.
I could be wrong on this statement, but I do know that this is a per-movie optional flag that movie studios can enable.
Without support for it, it would still be there.
Okay, PC is a major entertainment device in the home. But I dare say that a larger percentage of your average home cinema enthusiast has a 52" plasma with a surround sound setup independent of their PCs, than those who have said setup connected to a PC running Media Center.
What does that leave? That's right, players. Blu-Ray players, to be more specific.
You think they don't have HDCP support? Of course they do.
Would the entertainment industry give a shit if you had to buy an additional player instead of just connecting your TV to your PC? Hell no! They make more money, they are lulled into a sense of security about their content. Win-win as far as they're concerned.
Unless someone can dispute these points, I'd like to ask people to stop blindly believing in FUD.
I'm using it as my main OS atm, it's been working near flawlessly. The only problem I had was that they didn't bundle my Attansic/Aetheros NIC drivers.
Laptop + USB stick = Win.
Windows Update had the drivers, but it's sort of hard to get to WU without internets XD
Other than that, I've ran into some folder view problems in the Libraries. Nothing major, just that when browsing a folder via Libraries, it ignores folder view settings you made outside said function. Also, if you change the view for one folder it changes it for ALL folders in this Library.
Sleep Mode isn't working right either, it wouldn't shut down properly so I had to hold my power button down to get the computer to quiet up.
Feedback was sent on all these problems.
Beyond that, it's been working great. It's way faster than Vista in all areas, and I'm really glad I took the plunge :)