Vista Accounts issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Greg Rozelle said:
Actually it is possible. Linux provides tools for just that.
There is a root account, super user account and you can have lower
user accounts as well. If one account get infected. You can just
delete that account and recreate it. You can set permission for almost
everything in Linux. I think you can do that in mac system as well.

I use windows 98se. (Yes, I know I am reading a Window Vista group
and I did have xp at one time) and puppy Linux. I am going to
either save up to a get a new computer, but from reading all the
problems with Vista. I am leaning more towards a mac or Linux
system.

From reading about Vista, Vista is trying to copy some of Linux
attributes.


I use Linux as well. I don't think Vista is trying to copy Linux so much as
user account based security measures act similarly. With Security Groups and
NTFS permissions you can do pretty much the same in Vista as Linux. You
could in XP as well. Very few people did.

Go to some mac or Linux newsgroups and you will see much the same thing as
you see here. people tend to complain when they have problems. The vast
majority of problems with Vista, XP, OS X, and Linux are the user doesn't
understand what is happening or how to do something.
 
davey_griffo said:
Interesting point there, Kerry. The Icon's I was moving around were for
Microsofts own OS programs, & the games. Rude & lazy? MS? surely not ;-)


You're right. Microsoft is just as guilty of this as many other developers.
 
Go to some mac or Linux newsgroups and you will see much the same thing as
you see here. people tend to complain when they have problems. The vast
majority of problems with Vista, XP, OS X, and Linux are the user doesn't
understand what is happening or how to do something.


I know you can set Linux up so it will not ask permission to move an
icon. (Some Linux systems are harder to do that others)

They have ways to allow root access without always having to type a
password or click yes or no prompt without going into the root
account.


My other reason for not getting vista if you must know. Is the DMCA.
I am not talking about copying. I read there is a hidden folder that
only Microsoft and some third party can access. Which is were
viruses, maleware and other things could hide. That could be
what causing some of the activation & Wga problems.

I would say something is very wrong if the U.S. government does not
want Vista on any computers. Read this from a newspaper article
online awhile back


Greg Rozelle




========Signature Line=========
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?certegy
 
Greg Rozelle said:
I know you can set Linux up so it will not ask permission to move an
icon. (Some Linux systems are harder to do that others)

They have ways to allow root access without always having to type a
password or click yes or no prompt without going into the root
account.

Are you talking about the suid/sgid bits in Linux? This is one of the major
security holes in Linux. A competent Linux admin doesn't use it and monitors
for files that may have it set as they are possible signs the computer has
been hacked.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=linux+suid+bit+exploit&meta=

Take a look at chapter 3 in the following link for ways to use the suid/guid
bits to hack a unix system.

http://www.ouah.org/newbiefaq.html
My other reason for not getting vista if you must know. Is the DMCA.
I am not talking about copying. I read there is a hidden folder that
only Microsoft and some third party can access. Which is were
viruses, maleware and other things could hide. That could be
what causing some of the activation & Wga problems.

I think you are being paranoid about DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright
Act). Did you mean to say DRM (Digital Rights Management). There is a lot of
misinformation on both sides of the DRM argument. I do think if there were
hidden folders that it would be public knowledge with definitive proof by
now. There are many very knowledgeable people in the blackhat world who
would like nothing better than to prove this. So far no one has. In
principle I am opposed to DRM and WGA. I can understand why it exists but
this doesn't mean I like it. So far for me it hasn't become inconvenient
enough to persuade me to not use Microsoft products. For some, possibly
including yourself, it has. That's fine there are good alternatives in
Linux, BSD, OS X and more. Currently though if the ICT flag is set on HD
content Vista is the only computer operating system that has a chance of
legally viewing the content. It's all moot any way as so far none of the
content providers has used the ICT flag. I'll save you some time and post
some links relevant to the DRM argument so you can make up your own mind.

Here's the link most often posted by the people who think Vista is somehow
crippled by enabling DRM

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Here's a well reasoned response

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284

I agree WGA is intrusive. I don't like it and wish it would go away. I don't
think it will. Pirating and counterfeiting is a very big business.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5744
I would say something is very wrong if the U.S. government does not
want Vista on any computers. Read this from a newspaper article
online awhile back

You didn't post the link but I think I'm familiar with the article. It's
been posted a number of times in the vista.general newsgroup by the
Linux/Mac trolls. If you had actually read the article you'd know that the
agency in question was merely following normal practices for large networks.
Nobody with a very large network upgrades the client OS' without a lot of
testing and planning. Many very large networks are still using Windows 2000
clients. On those networks Windows XP is banned.
 
Yes, I may have DRM and DMCA confused.

I am trying to avoid being like Alias and Frank. I do not want to be
down at their level. I will to try complain constructively

Here are the bad things I have read and heard about Vista.
I know some of these may not be true.

Volume license require activation every six months.
Not good from a business perspective. I am surprise the OEM agreed
to this requirement,

Hidden folder/partition only Microsoft or third party can access.
Where viruses or other things can hide. This is yet to be
determined.

Home user having activation problem from pre-installed system or when
they use the restore cd. Telling them to contact the OEM for
activation problems, then the OEM telling them to contact Microsoft.

Wga causing problems as well for legit system. (See Windows Vista
Group).

WGA and activation some people have claimed that is spyware.

Limiting the number of activation for home user to 3 unless they make
a phone call.

A lot of programs or drivers have cause the activation to pop up again
and will not go through and sometime even by phone.

People use USB plug-in hardware, as cause problem with requesting
activation as well. That how people share data sometime, like
using a flash or jump drive.


I have compared the problems with xp originally came out. There
sure is a lot more post in the Vista General, then in the Windows Xp
group.

You need to have a Internet connection for your computer to continue
to work. This is the one that really bugs me. Not every computer
is connected to the Internet.


What really bad for Vista from what I actually read awhile back.

U.S. Government has banned Vista from being installed on all
computers.

Greg Rozelle


========Signature Line=========
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?certegy
 
Answered inline

Greg Rozelle said:
Yes, I may have DRM and DMCA confused.

I am trying to avoid being like Alias and Frank. I do not want to be
down at their level. I will to try complain constructively

Thank you. There's nothing wrong with asking questions or criticising Vista.
Rude, obnoxious people like the two you mention don't help anyone to get
answers. They also try to stifle debate on Vista.
Here are the bad things I have read and heard about Vista.
I know some of these may not be true.

Volume license require activation every six months.
Not good from a business perspective. I am surprise the OEM agreed
to this requirement,

The way volume licenses work has changed with Vista. Volume licenses in XP
were abused. I personally see at least 10 computers a month with stolen
volume license keys that have failed WGAN. In Vista there are two types of
keys for a volume license. One has to contact Microsoft to activate. Each
volume license key is only good for so many activations. After that the
licensee would have to contact Microsoft for more activations. Once a
computer is activated it acts like any other Vista computer and only needs
reactivation if Vista is reinstalled or the hardware changes. The other has
to contact a server set up by the owner of the volume license every so
often. I agree this makes it harder and thus more expensive for a company to
administer but given the frequency that volumes keys are leaked and abused
something had to be done.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/resources/vol/default.mspx
Hidden folder/partition only Microsoft or third party can access.
Where viruses or other things can hide. This is yet to be
determined.

I don't believe this to be true but it's possible. I think if it was true
someone would have definitive proof by now. It's a simple matter to install
Vista, remove the drive, and inspect it at the bit level.
Home user having activation problem from pre-installed system or when
they use the restore cd. Telling them to contact the OEM for
activation problems, then the OEM telling them to contact Microsoft.

Wga causing problems as well for legit system. (See Windows Vista
Group).

I agree this is a big problem. Microsoft has been very agressive with WGA
and WGAN in Vista. I think they have been too agressive. The current problem
this weekend will cause a lot of well deserved criticism. They need to back
off a bit on what causes an activation.
WGA and activation some people have claimed that is spyware.

I don't believe it's spyware. It's pretty easy to use a network sniffer to
examine the traffic between a Vista computer and Microsoft. If personal
information was being passed the press would be all over it.
Limiting the number of activation for home user to 3 unless they make
a phone call.

I'm neutral on this one.
A lot of programs or drivers have cause the activation to pop up again
and will not go through and sometime even by phone.

I haven't seen this and I've activated and support a lot of computers
running Vista. It has been reported often enough that it obviously happens
to some people. Again, I agree that Microsoft has been too agressive with
WGA and WGAN. It was much less intrusive in XP.
People use USB plug-in hardware, as cause problem with requesting
activation as well. That how people share data sometime, like
using a flash or jump drive.

I haven't seen this and it doesn't get posted in newsgroups and forums as
often as other things that cause an activation. I'm not convinced this isn't
user error or defective hardware. Personally I've got three USB hard drives
and six USB flash drives that I've used on many different Vista computers.
I've never had to reactivate because of pluggng one in.
I have compared the problems with xp originally came out. There
sure is a lot more post in the Vista General, then in the Windows Xp
group.

I disagree with this. I have been building and selling computers since
before Windows 1.0. XP had more more problems than Vista when it was first
released. This is only my opinion. I haven't seen any statistics I would
trust.
You need to have a Internet connection for your computer to continue
to work. This is the one that really bugs me. Not every computer
is connected to the Internet.

There is no need to ever connect a Vista computer to the Internet.
What really bad for Vista from what I actually read awhile back.

U.S. Government has banned Vista from being installed on all
computers.

I covered this in my last post. This is normal for large organisations with
large networks. What other software is banned from their network? Many large
organisations ban XP because they are still using Windows 2000. They may
also ban Linux because it can't be centrally managed from their Windows
servers. They may ban Macs for the same reason. They may ban Open Office
because they have standardised on Microsoft Office. The reason why it was
banned is the important thing. It was banned because they are not ready to
support it yet. I haven't installed Vista on any of my customer's networks
yet. I have recommended they wait until they need it. I think with Vista's
much better security and group policy management it will be much better than
XP on a corporate network. Business' can't afford to be guinea pigs. Let
someone else work out the bugs and problems. I took the very same approach
when XP was released. It was out for over a year before I recommended it to
my business customers.
 
Greg

You cannot configure UAC to allow selected items and not others. UAC works
the same on every version of Vista.

The thing that you may be referring to is that you can configure certain
options in UAC, such as the prompt for administrator privileges when logged
on with an administrator account. In Vista Business, Enterprise and Ultimate
this can be done with the Group Policy Editor. The GPEdit is not included in
either Home Basic or Home Premium, but you can still use registry tweaks to
accomplish the same thing. These changes to UAC are global and cannot be set
for individual programs or procedures.
 
Long thread. I think Vista wins.

John


Ronnie Vernon MVP said:
Greg

You cannot configure UAC to allow selected items and not others. UAC works
the same on every version of Vista.

The thing that you may be referring to is that you can configure certain
options in UAC, such as the prompt for administrator privileges when
logged on with an administrator account. In Vista Business, Enterprise and
Ultimate this can be done with the Group Policy Editor. The GPEdit is not
included in either Home Basic or Home Premium, but you can still use
registry tweaks to accomplish the same thing. These changes to UAC are
global and cannot be set for individual programs or procedures.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User
 
Hello,
I do not wish to turn off the UAC or comprimise security in any way, So from
all this chatter that I read, there is still no way that Vista can
selectively recognize a program? Every single time I log on I need to allow
my "Logitec" wireless mouse that I personally installed to continue? Those
TV commercials were right, it's very annoying and what is even sadder is
that it has not yet been fixed? Please advise if I am wrong.
Thanks,
Dan
 
Same problem here.
Upset in BC said:
Hello,
I do not wish to turn off the UAC or comprimise security in any way, So
from
all this chatter that I read, there is still no way that Vista can
selectively recognize a program? Every single time I log on I need to
allow
my "Logitec" wireless mouse that I personally installed to continue?
Those
TV commercials were right, it's very annoying and what is even sadder is
that it has not yet been fixed? Please advise if I am wrong.
Thanks,
Dan
 
Similar problem with a nice little routine that is used by myself only, does
not care if logon is via Admin or via nominal user name, it does exactly
what you mention. informing the programme wishes to be allowed access and
reposting that information at the most un-real times, like when you are
processing videos or a film track.
Real bugger that hopefully Service Pack 13e-z or 25s-u 'AS Per Microsoft
Nominal Action', actually refers to and fixes. I just assign the programme
as allowed at each and every boot then monitor it's action and results.
Bloody pain in the dariere IMHO! But again this os is from Microsoft, a
second rate Software Company?? Right?? FWIW!
BTW beyond this FUNAFU; modes operational 'As Per Design!! BSOD'
ocassionally, Needed to Reload Ultimate at least once, Etc. Shades of Dos
Ver 4.0!! All over again.
 
Back
Top