Console Wars IV

[Felch]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
It shouldn't come up as often as it does because until Vista's release, most software for Windows was NOT designed properly. Have you ever tried to install software from a regular (non-admin) account on XP? It's a nightmare.

UAC is designed, in part, to BE annoying but not limit what you can do (like it was in XP). The idea was to change how applications were designed, and it's worked in that respect. If you install modern applications, it'll ask you if it's just for this user or for all users. If you select "just this user". you don't get any UAC prompt -- if you select "for all users", you get the UAC prompt.

As Windows computers become more and more multi-user, this becomes more important to have this kind of sandboxing and user account control.

As I've said, if you don't like it and don't want to change how you use your computer, you're free to disable it. UAC was never supposed to be a feature people liked, but it's what's called a necessary evil to shape both industry practice and user's practices from ad hoc, unsecure methods to systematic, secure methods. Mac OS 9 users had the same *****es when they moved to OS X. Once applications and users both get used to it, everyone is better off.

All I've said on the matter is that I don't like the UAC. If you're openly admitting that it's a "feature" which is designed to piss me off, then we are in agreement.

[Asher]

Marketshare has no bearing on this.

The DS' features are supplemental, so even if they were a "failure" the device can still be used as before.
The Wii's features replace and limit what can be done with traditional gaming, and thus if the new features bombed there is no use for it.

I don't care what the marketshare is when evaluating which was a bigger risk. Though I will readily admit your argument is also another one that supports my claim that the reason the Wii exists as it is now is because Nintendo has nothing to lose except by trying to get new gamers, something MS and Sony don't need to do.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch


All I've said on the matter is that I don't like the UAC. If you're openly admitting that it's a "feature" which is designed to piss me off, then we are in agreement.

Not so much you, but developers.

If you'd like to learn more about what it is and why it exists (and it's not just to piss you off), feel free to learn something new: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control

[DrSpike]

I suspect that if the Wii had UAC Asher would decry it as a useless customer-hating underpowered sham of a security system.

[Asher]

I would agree with you, as there's no reason for the Wii to have such a system?

[DrSpike]

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles


Not so much you, but developers.

If you'd like to learn more about what it is and why it exists (and it's not just to piss you off), feel free to learn something new: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control

It is almost pathetic how you cannot admit what a failure UAC is. It is draconian and the most visible example of how botched Vista has been, and you are just saying "Well, so what if it pisses you off, it's meant to piss off developers, so that makes it ok!!"

It's sad. You are not a stupid person, but you are completely deluded. It's like talking to the Joker or the Mad Hatter.

[Asher]

Perhaps I see the purpose of the device and all you see is your stubborness to doing stupid things in stupid ways?

UAC and its equivalents in Linux (sudo) and MacOS X (admin prompting) are necessary evils for secure desktop environments. There is bound to be a pain period as people get over their bad habits (both users and developers) and get their mind around using the system as it was designed to be used. This isn't because the OS developers are stubborn and just want you to do things their way, there's very real, very serious security implications to how old versions of Windows handled application and file domains.

A lot of people just can't accept that, and that's fine, you can disable it. But there's no way you can convince me UAC and its equivalents on all other modern OSes is stupid unless you dig into the computer science theory behind it -- why do you think the concept is stupid and not a risk, when the real world and hundreds of thousands of instances of malware disagree with that assertion?

You can **** right off, Wiglaf, unless you want to debate the meat of the matter here. I'm not interested in your superficial whining about how you find it annoying just because you can't comprehend the purpose and its necessity. If you find it annoying, turn it off and shut the **** up.

[Wiglaf]

re: douchebag

This isn't because the OS developers are stubborn and just want you to do things their way, there's very real, very serious security implications to how old versions of Windows handled application and file domains.

And there's very real security implications to pissing users off and crying wolf whenever they move files from one folder to another or install ANYTHING.

The implication is people turn off or ignore UAC, which is counterintuitive. They can find better ways to keep the computer secure. Windows Defender and antivirus are far more effective than UAC anyway.

A lot of people just can't accept that, and that's fine, you can disable it.

Not without disabling more security features, an argument you repeatedly ignore...

You can **** right off, Wiglaf, unless you want to debate the meat of the matter here. I'm not interested in your superficial whining about how you find it annoying just because you can't comprehend the purpose and its necessity. If you find it annoying, turn it off and shut the **** up.

The purpose isn't in dispute, just the necessity.

[Asher]

Re: re: douchebag

Originally posted by Wiglaf
And there's very real security implications to pissing users off and crying wolf whenever they move files from one folder to another or install ANYTHING.

But if you actually understood WHY it's crying wolf you'd see why it's NECESSARY.

You have yet to understand WHY. Are you proposing a method where Windows randomly ignore certain types of requests which exceed the permission level of the current user just to reduce the number of requests for ill-designed software and/or retarded users?

The implication is people turn off or ignore UAC, which is counterintuitive. They can find better ways to keep the computer secure. Windows Defender and antivirus are far more effective than UAC anyway.

ARE YOU TRYING TO PISS ME OFF WIGLAF.

Windows Defender and Antivirus DO NOT REPLACE UAC. They all COMPLEMENT EACHOTHER.

Defender and Antivirus only defend against the known. They're increasingly ineffective against more advanced viruses and malware, which I'm sure you know all about.

Not without disabling more security features, an argument you repeatedly ignore...

I didn't ignore it, I addressed it. You're disabling UAC (a genuine, honest to God, FEATURE that goes a LONG way to keeping a PC secure) and *****ing about lacking little popup boxes that tell you when your Antivirus definitions are out of date, when such things should be done from your antivirus program itself in the first place.

If you're turning off UAC, there's no point in even having the other Security Center features -- it castrates them. When you turn off UAC all applications have full permission to do full damage to your computer. When you turn on UAC it sandboxes the program unless you give it explicit permission to run wild on the computer.

You are also GROSSLY overstating how often UAC comes up. I have to use it on my work PC and the only time I ever see it, EVER, is when I install something system-wide which I very rarely do -- most apps I install just for me. If it comes up more than that, consider changing your use of the computer to match how the computer was designed to be used. This isn't hard.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles

The average Xbox gamer is 28 years old (or something very similar to that number, last I checked). If you knew anything about marketing or demographics, the 18-35 market that the 360 dominates is the most lucrative demographic there is.

The kind of gamer who buys games for the Xbox 360 (Halo, Gears of War, Madden, GTA, NHL, COD4, etc) is demonstrably different from the people buying games like Wii Fit for the Wii. I'm not sure why you consider that sour grapes when it really should be obvious?

Nintendo found a market that most companies had disregarded as not being worthwhile. Make no mistake -- the only reason they did this was because they'd completely lost their foothold in the traditional video gaming market, something MS and Sony are both doing quite well in. Nintendo had impetus to make that gamble that MS and Sony did not have. So far, it's worked out wonderfully for them.

But I have very real concerns that the "traditional video gaming" market is going to be harmed by the shovelware, gimmicky games that have been all over the Wii as MS and Sony now try to do a half-assed "me too".

IIUC theres been shovelware on consoles (and PC's)for a long time, and on every platform. If not so consistently gimmicky.

I hope they continue to ignore the Wii market segment and let the Wii own the "fit girlfriend" (you obviously have seen different people buying Wii Fits than I have, most of them are ugly as sin and overweight)

Such snarkiness is snuggly, and I rather suspect you dont like such comments about "hard core gamers"

demographic as that is one I'd be happy to see zero future MS/Sony resources go into unlocking. Give me video games as I know them, not weight loss tools.

Some kinds of games that many of us here like, and that you don't care so much for, have lost market position. Times change. I dont see, though, why a weight loss tool on the 360 would necessarily mean fewer shooters.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Not sure how Vista is a console wars issue.

i think it started with the relevant business issue of whethe MS profits in its profitable lines, such as office apps and OS'es are sufficient to sustain investments in the Xbox line and (perhaps) in the internet search market. Somehow we got from the business success of Vista, to the technological properties of Vista, which is probably not surprising considering that one of our esteemed poseurs seems to despise "marketing droids" and "uber-capitalists". Thats not something you'll ever see in an MS press release, I will grant you that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Some kinds of games that many of us here like, and that you don't care so much for, have lost market position. Times change. I dont see, though, why a weight loss tool on the 360 would necessarily mean fewer shooters.

Perhaps some day I will explain to you the dilemma of limited resources, then. I don't know how you survived in this world without comprehending scarcity of resources.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


i think it started with the relevant business issue of whethe MS profits in its profitable lines, such as office apps and OS'es are sufficient to sustain investments in the Xbox line and (perhaps) in the internet search market. Somehow we got from the business success of Vista, to the technological properties of Vista, which is probably not surprising considering that one of our esteemed poseurs seems to despise "marketing droids" and "uber-capitalists". Thats not something you'll ever see in an MS press release, I will grant you that.

Vista brought MS record revenues and profits and Agathon is painting it like MS is dying. Somebody needs to bring in a dose of reality for the rest of you folk.

[Wiglaf]

Re: Re: re: douchebag

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Mr Snuggles

But if you actually understood WHY it's crying wolf you'd see why it's NECESSARY.

You have yet to understand WHY. Are you proposing a method where Windows randomly ignore certain types of requests which exceed the permission level of the current user just to reduce the number of requests for ill-designed software and/or retarded users?

Works fine in XP without all the prompts. Since the first XP service pack and an antivirus and Windows defender, I've never had any problems. Why is it suddenly necessary?

ARE YOU TRYING TO PISS ME OFF WIGLAF.

Windows Defender and Antivirus DO NOT REPLACE UAC. They all COMPLEMENT EACHOTHER.

Defender and Antivirus only defend against the known. They're increasingly ineffective against more advanced viruses and malware, which I'm sure you know all about.

They can actually defend against unknown threats as well. I am amazed at your advanced stage of paranoia. Despite the fact that XP has been the target of every hacker in the universe for the past 8 years, I've only had a few viruses, and all of them were detected on the spot. They were also user error.

I didn't ignore it, I addressed it. You're disabling UAC (a genuine, honest to God, FEATURE that goes a LONG way to keeping a PC secure) and *****ing about lacking little popup boxes that tell you when your Antivirus definitions are out of date, when such things should be done from your antivirus program itself in the first place.

If you're turning off UAC, there's no point in even having the other Security Center features -- it castrates them. When you turn off UAC all applications have full permission to do full damage to your computer. When you turn on UAC it sandboxes the program unless you give it explicit permission to run wild on the computer.

So there's no point in a firewall, antivirus software, antispyware software, windows update, etc without UAC? What world do you live on?

You are also GROSSLY overstating how often UAC comes up. I have to use it on my work PC and the only time I ever see it, EVER, is when I install something system-wide which I very rarely do -- most apps I install just for me. If it comes up more than that, consider changing your use of the computer to match how the computer was designed to be used. This isn't hard.

It comes up whenever I install anything, and I cannot make this up, it occasionally prompts me twice when dragging and dropping files from folder to folder. It is a complete embarrassment, and I am not the only one annoyed by it. Just google UAC for christ's sake.