MMF2 Build #249 - Beta #3

[Nifflas]

I can't say I see it as a punishment though, I'm quite happy about being informed when software developers does things wrong so I can avoid their software. I guess we look at it from different angles, but I'll refrain from arguing since I have the feeling we'll go way off-topic otherwise!

It would not be my first time to get moderated for getting too involved in a OS/SYSTEM debate on this forum...

[arabelanya]

actually I'm new member to this website!
___________________________________________
where the red fern grows
bsn nutrition

[00J]

Nifflas, I'm forced to agree with you on that one. I've recently gotten the chance to develop on Vista. [smile]

[Bruto]

I agree with Nifflas as well. Solid arguments. Looking forward to the next update... looks like regular build 249 and HWA are just a tiny bit for final release

[00J]

I refuse to be punished with annoying dialogs because someone else isn't capable of designing their software correctly. You know what I stop doing? I stop downloading their software. I guess that's the entire point of what I'm trying to say. Stop downloading stuff UAC feels the need to protect you against, because your computer shouldn't need to babysit you every step of the way.

I've messed with Commercial software that triggers the Dialog. If it doesn't wouldn't that mean you could still plant a virus, you'd just be able to not trigger the dialog. I thought the dialog was supposed to give a peace of mind the end user, by asking their approval? Showing that they know what is going on with their computer. Do you really think a non-developer oriented end user is going to question Vista asking for a click? I'm assuming the end user who is using YOUR software doesn't really know too much about what goes on behind the Windows interface or care for that matter.

Unless your showing your software to a computer science class.

I'm just saying, I think it would be rare for a non-developer to question the prowess of the designer behind software they are using. Now they can and will "compare" applications, but I don't know how far it would go beyond that, and them just saying, "this sucks".

Sure WE question everything software and hardware related but we are actually on the technical wizardry side of everything.

When I first started playing games on the computer I never questioned how the game ran or what it did, I just enjoyed it for what it was and played it. This was before I understood just what went on to make those games work.

[CodeCannon]

I'm running Windows XP SP3, under a limited account of the "users" group, with a software restriction policy. It's probably the SRP that's causing problems.

I added an axception rule:
C:\Documents and Settings\[user]\Local Settings\Temp\mrt*.tmp\

Works. Sorry CT.

[BrandonC]

If the UAC is designed to request permission for software to do stuff it probably shouldn't be doing, then it completely irradiates the point when you have someone who, like you said, doesn't know or care about how the computer works, they just want it to work. This is simply because when you have a dialog that seems to always show up, you're a lot less likely to read it anymore, and just click Yes to get it out of the way and off the screen! Why? Because everytime you click Yes, reguardless of what goes on behind the scenes (because remember, you don't know or care to know), your PC does what you wanted it to do, and is in essence, working. I honestly believe that the UAC is truly a victim of it's own limited success for this very reason.

Alright, the UAC forces developers to make proper software... that's fine and good, I am not arguing that. I'm merely saying that I don't feel I should have to grow so tired of seeing a dialog that dims my whole screen, merely because theres a long wait time between when I got my nice new shiny operating system, and when the morons out there designing improper software, aren't utilizing it the way they should've been from the beginning, and are only just now being given a reason to.

Vista's UAC is an abomination, however having used Windows 7's UAC in both the Beta and RC1 (not that theres really any difference), Microsoft defiantly fixed it up and made it a lot less of an annoyance. I'm far more likely to actually read each dialog now, seeing as they don't occur every time I try to rename an icon on my desktop.

[nivram]

I agree with Nifflas. Also it is a matter of taste. Vista UAC leaver oners and Vista UAC leaver offers. It has nothing to do with yes clickers. Having it on or off does not mean you are right or wrong. UAC has directly little to do with Click products. It has to do with education for all programmers in all products, so actually this portion of the topic on the UAC is mute.

Marv

[Shawn]

I'm far more likely to actually read each dialog now, seeing as they don't occur every time I try to rename an icon on my desktop.

Well, I'm assuming you're exaggerating to make a point, but on the offchance you aren't, I'm using Vista, and I've never had UAC popup for something as simple as that.

[Nifflas]

If the UAC is designed to request permission for software to do stuff it probably shouldn't be doing, then it completely irradiates the point when you have someone who, like you said, doesn't know or care about how the computer works, they just want it to work. This is simply because when you have a dialog that seems to always show up, you're a lot less likely to read it anymore, and just click Yes to get it out of the way and off the screen!

No one can save Yes clickers, not even UAC. That's not that relevant though, this is meant to teach the programmers something at the expense of the users (which is fine by me, because the programmers wouldn't listen otherwise).

...and really, I don't care about any bloody "Yes" clickers, I want the operating system to be secure for me. I just don't trust my operating system, the 73 portable programs on my drive, or the 8 installed programs, or my drivers to not have any security holes, and even if those are safe, perhaps if I download a non-suspicious tool from a legitime website, there's always a chance that the author's computer is infected, and thus their software. UAC protects me from all that, because bad things doesn't only happen to people who go to bad websites.

Think about it, somebody creates a game with a custom level format that unpacks itself onto the hard drive, then somebody opens the packed file in a hex editor finding out that a path string says "tilesets\grasslands.png". (S)he renames that to "\windows\someimportantfile.dll", and uploads to the forum thinking it's really funny that he came up with a custom level that could overwrite an important file on someone's hard drive. This is not unrealistic, when Jamie were working with Directory Packer, we were spending plenty of time testing and discussing that kind of possible exploits, so it shouldn't be possible in Knytt Stories. Still, I doubt every other programmer who creates any kind of unpacker thought of that.

Software is like a sea of possible exploits, and some people think they're safe 'cause they got the antiviruses and the firewalls, and suddenly something completely random like that happens, and at that moment you'll not be very happy that Windows is the only operating system that don't protect the critical areas.

UAC is designed to fix this, however, to have any use for it we must go through the annoying stage first - teaching the programmers to not write to those locations.

Alright, the UAC forces developers to make proper software... that's fine and good, I am not arguing that. I'm merely saying that I don't feel I should have to grow so tired of seeing a dialog that dims my whole screen, merely because theres a long wait time between when I got my nice new shiny operating system, and when the morons out there designing improper software, aren't utilizing it the way they should've been from the beginning, and are only just now being given a reason to.

Well, you disabled UAC, so you found your solution. However, look at it in the long run, not just today's annoyance. Even if many experienced users disables UAC to skip the annoying popups, and if many beginner users just click "Yes" when something malicious shows up and gets infected... It's still annoying enough to force the programmers to learn something.

Then, in a few years, when the programmers have adapted so that the popups doesn't show up, people aren't going to disable UAC any longer, because it's no longer an annoyance, it will be a very relevant warning that informs the users about software wanting to change something int he system, and less people are going to click "Yes" all the time.

When this day comes, when everyone's using UAC, it should become a hundred times harder to spread a virus or trojan on the PC.

It's a hard transistion, because of the backwards compatibility and old software that has to work. Windows Vista isn't that fresh start that OS X was for the Macs, but honestly, what's the alternative? To let Windows remain the most unsecure and vulnerable brand of operating system on the market, when OS X had this feature right from the start, and Linux had it a decade before?

An operating system that runs software with admin rights and full access to all files as the default option... That's like... beyond crazy!