New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)
in [Laptops]
|
From: BillW50 on 19 Apr 2010 14:08 In news:4bcb3be6$0$2533$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk, Bernard Peek typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:05:42 +0100: > On 18/04/10 17:31, Barry Watzman wrote: >> 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. > > Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to the > data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may have other > unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from companies > like that. Wow really? Why is the folder called Data if you are not supposed to store data in them? Is this the same folder as Application Data found in Windows XP? If so, I have lots of applications that stores stuff in these folders which are highly respectable programs. Heck I see Microsoft using the Application Data folder too. That is where the address book is stored for one. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)
From: Bernard Peek on 19 Apr 2010 14:20 On 19/04/10 19:08, BillW50 wrote: > In news:4bcb3be6$0$2533$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk, > Bernard Peek typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:05:42 +0100: >> On 18/04/10 17:31, Barry Watzman wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to the >> data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may have other >> unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from companies >> like that. > > Wow really? Why is the folder called Data if you are not supposed to > store data in them? My mistake. I should have said program folder. -- Bernard Peek bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: BillW50 on 19 Apr 2010 15:14 In news:4bcb3a34$0$2533$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk, Bernard Peek typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:58:28 +0100: > On 18/04/10 17:03, BillW50 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. >> >> 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. > > Well yess. You really shouldn't be using programs that trigger UAC. Really? If it wasn't for BattStat, I wouldn't know the wear percentage of my batteries, my CPU and HD temps, the amount of watts going in or out of the battery, etc. Why in the world would I want to stop using this program for? There is nothing else out there to replace it. That is like asking somebody to pull out their dash gauges out of their automobile. I believe another one that triggers it is my Palm software from '99. Here is another one that there isn't a replacement for and it works just fine as is. Why should I stop using it? And did you know that UAC protection is worthless anyway? All it does is give somebody a false sense of security anyway. As malware can bypass it anyway by design. http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/01/30/malware-can-turn-off-uac-in-windows-7-by-design-says-microsoft/ >> 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. > > That wouldn't be very nice for the rest of us that have to cope with > spam sent by compromised systems. You forget, some of us don't run compromised systems. And we don't need or want crappy protection that clueless people think they need. As malware can bypass it anyway. So what is the point? > 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. > > In the Windows world it's possible to check whether a computer has > been properly patched and deny it access to the network if it fails > the test. Unfortunately any ISP who tried to do that would go out of > business. Why would anybody want that? What's next? Outlaw any computer older than two years old? I am sure Microsoft would love that one. >> 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. > > You've got that backwards. Viruses are often created by > reverse-engineering the latest patches, but they then only affect > unpatched systems. That's why there's a danger period starting about > two days after a new patch is released. That's why running unpatched > systems on the Internet is irresponsible and if I was emperor of the > universe it wouldn't be permitted. That is the claim, but I find old viruses die off very quickly in the wild. Even those who don't update their anti-virus stops those. Look, your anti-virus application monitors every thing that is opened, coming in from the Internet, etc. So your computer doesn't have all of the holes plugged, thus who cares? You never have all of the security holes plugged even if you install every single security update anyway. As there are always going to be new holes found all of the time. Now and in the future. Thus if you have one hole or zillions, your anti-virus will see it before it gets a chance to install itself and it will stop it right there. This is what anti-virus real-time scanning programs do. And this is what these people get paid for. To stop any malware from entering your system. Just keep it up-to-date and all you have to worry about is 0 day malware. And security patches wouldn't help you there anyway. So why bother? >> 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. > > Microsoft has made that patch optional but there is nothing stopping > them from dropping that restriction at any time they choose. I know and that is scary. And who knows what else they have already installed without our knowledge. I wouldn't doubt for a second that under the umbrella of national security they already have government approval to have plenty of backdoors in the OS already. >> 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. > > This is absolutely true. And has been true since automatic patching > was invented. There is a way around this. Just don't accept updates. As you don't need them anyway. >> 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. > > They have had the capability to do that for years but have never used > it. The same is true of the Mac and for those Linux users that can't > rebuild the kernel from source. Oh I am sure they have used it. I remember when Microsoft first opened their knowledgebase back in the 90's. You had to register back then to get in there. And they asked for my name and address. When I submitted my information I was shocked at the next screen. It said are you so and so who works at such and such place. And is your bosses name so and so and is this your bosses phone number? Hell what kind of database does Microsoft have there? What else do they know about me that they didn't tell me? The make and model of my vehicle and plate number? How much I earn a year? When I leave for work and come home? Where I shop at? What time I go to bed? I never ever gave Microsoft any of this information except my name and address. Why on Earth does Microsoft need to know all of this information for anyway? And if Microsoft knows it, who else knows all of this? -- Bill Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)
From: Barry Watzman on 19 Apr 2010 15:43 In the most common cases, the problem is caused by using software for older hardware. Two examples, both happen to be scannes, an HP 5490C's HP Precision Scan Pro, and a Nikon LS-2000's Nikon Scan. There is nothing wrong with the programs, they were written at a time when the way that they were written was perfectly fine. But the only alternative is to replace the HARDWARE. And that is not feasible. Nikon has stopped making film scanners, no one else ever made comparable 35mm film scanners, and even the later Nikon scanners that they did make don't scan 35mm NEGATIVES as well as the LS-2000. As for the HP scanner (this is a conventional flatbed document scanner with ADF), I have never found a scanner/software combination as good as the HP 5470/5490 series and HP Precision Scan Pro [the SOFTWARE base that HP began using after HP Precision Scan Pro is what I call "toy scanning software" and is junk]. Bernard Peek wrote: > On 18/04/10 17:31, Barry Watzman wrote: >> 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. > > Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to the > data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may have other > unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from companies like > that. > >
From: Barry Watzman on 19 Apr 2010 15:45
Re: "Of course, I better make a backup of this on my hard drive just in case those brain cells start to misbehave. ;-)" Bill, the misbehaving started long, long ago. :-) BillW50 wrote: > In news:hqfc83$f1u$3(a)news.eternal-september.org, > Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:33:06 -0400: >> 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. > > Okay. I filed it away in my brain cells in case I ever need it in the > future and it is good to know that this can be done. Of course, I better > make a backup of this on my hard drive just in case those brain cells > start to misbehave. ;-) > |