Better than XP, yes. I never said otherwise .
Better than XP, yes. I never said otherwise .
>> That's just not true. Lots of apps under XP requires admin (includes games!) to run properly.
I'm skeptical. Most of you who have this problem probably either -
a) aren't paying attention during install
b) haven't made an effort to drag a new shortcut onto all users' desktop
I've never had issues with a program running in a limited setting. This doesn't conclude that my programs avoid promoting themselves, but I don't get errors and so forth.
Call of Duty 4 works. I only play games in Windows... so... .Which never worked for me. Yay for Vista.
Vista used to have a bug were you were forced to right click and select run as admin. It was not correctly detecting your default admin settings and thus would run every app as a non-admin unless told to do so - even if you were an admin.
I'm not sure if it was fixed or not.
Besides Vista is not better than XP and Microsoft has basically admitted that the Vista release flopped. I'm not sure this has been released publicly or in any news but it's true and to protect certain individuals and because I'm not an official representative of the company I won't mention the source. Regardless perhaps this will lead them back in the right direction and away from the ways of Vista.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 07-19-2008 at 01:37 PM.
Well that's fine and all, but then they could do the right thing and remove OEM restrictions to Windows XP.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Well, Vista runs everything as non-admin, even in an admin account because usually you do run with your admin account and not your limited account, do you not?
It's a security practice and it's really the applications' faults for not being designed correctly (do you know how many apps actually assume you have access to say, C:\?).
Vista doesn't run everything as non-admin. What it does is elevate to admin certain applications when they request it (this is a common feature in games designed for Vista, for instance). As I understand, the user is asked if they allow this to happen. Or so I hope, because otherwise the whole admin thing is yet again defeated.
As for blaming software.... certain software does deserve an ear pull. But many software, especially when designed to be used by multiple users on the same machine (a common occurrence on business environments) cannot just ignore windows facilities specifically built to handle these cases, without having to come up with their own system. Budget-wise and time-wise this is not practical on many circumstances. Blame instead windows own implementation of the Documents and Settings folder.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
> do you know how many apps actually assume you have access to say, C:\?
Or that it even exists... One of the most annoying problems when I had windows installed on an extended partition
Ah, that too.
I also get annoyed with programs that assumes that Windows is at X and start-menu is at Y.
They don't use APIs to get them - instead they copy to pre-programmed paths - often english ones which fails on non-english operating systems or if you changed program paths...
Or even worse - when things put stuff on the desktop without permission -_-