From: Mike '/m' 


I'll choose not to join you in the gutter, Rich.

But I thought you might also appreciate this opinion.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14412

===
Why I Am Indifferent About Vista

... However, a more important security measure is what is known as User
Account Control, which allows such modern and fresh (sarcasm, boys and
girls) features such as allowing non-admin users to perform admin duties
(prompting said users with a password dialog) and asking admin users for
conformation each time they perform an admin duty (those dialogs get
annoying really fast)....
===

(note to Rich: when I quote an article like that, it means that I am
quoting an article.)


"those dialogs get annoying really fast"   hmmmm... where have I seen
that before?

Here's some more:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=annoying+prompts+vista

  :)


 /m


On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:42:56 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

>   The only one looking stupid here is you mike.  Again, you should strive for
honest and avoid making comments about things with which you have no
experience and appear not to understand.  Your dishonesty for the sole
purpose of making disparaging comments comes through loud and clear.
>
>Rich
>
>  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
news:r9pn4255bibgt5i8f1sn959rdatiqgrk9e{at}4ax.com...
>
>
>  Ummm, OK, Rich.   It was the person in the article, not I who mentioned
>  the ambiguity and lack of clarity in the message.   He's been using
>  Vista, and has been quite pro-Windows on his site.
>  http://www.winsupersite.com/
>
>
>  I just hope calling a "File Operation" a
"Program" is fixed before the
>  release, otherwise Microsoft would look even more stupid that they do by
>  not being able to get their main product out the door.
>
>  One thing, though, while you're into the ad hominem attacks - you forgot
>  to use your tactic of changing the thread title to something disparaging
>  of me.  You're slipping.
>
>   /m
>
>  On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:53:05 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:
>
>  >   It follows the user's request to elevate in the dialog I referenced.  If
you can't remember the context from one moment to the next you have more
serious problems then your lack of honesty and insistence to cast
aspersions at something you have never used based on someone else's
comments you do not understand.
>  >
>  >Rich
>  >
>  >  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
news:nndn42l664bqa8qmin54oeocd9term9gaj{at}4ax.com...
>  >
>  >  I looked at this dialog here:
>  >  http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_01.jpg
>  >
>  >  Not the epitome of clarity, eh?  In actuality, I think it's rather
>  >  telling that a dialog *that* badly worded is still present this far into
>  >  the Vista release cycle.
>  >
>  >  So, the question remains, will Microsoft fix this mess before they
>  >  release Vista to consumers?  Or will Microsoft turn off consumers to the
>  >  concept of UAP because the bolt-on after-the-fact implementation of UAP
>  >  in Vista is so bad?
>  >
>  >    /m
>  >
>  >
>  >  On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:31:10 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:
>  >
>  >  >   Accept responsibility for your own words and stop lying.
>  >  >
>  >  >   If you wish to see how clearly worded the dialog is look at it.  I
included the link and so have you yet you would fail to or pretend to fail
to look and instead lie about it.
>  >  >
>  >  >Rich
>  >  >
>  >  >  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
news:67um42ddv89viigs3am7abtht4oj6p4bvf{at}4ax.com...
>  >  >
>  >  >  >Instead of keeping quiet or acknowledging that you don't
>  >  >  > understand you make up bullshit and post it as your own.
>  >  >
>  >  >  > In the future mike, you might want to try at least to
>  >  >  > present the appearence of honesty by avoiding making
>  >  >  > statements on topics about which you have no experience
>  >  >  > or knowledge.
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  When I say, "From the article" it means that I
am quoting from the
>  >  >  article.
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  btw, you comment:
>  >  >
>  >  >  >On Vista, the user doesn't have administrator access
so the operation
fails.  The article shows a picture of the clearly worded dialog at
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_00.jpg.  The
user has a choice how to proceed.  One of which is to elevate to
administrator and continue the operation.
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  I notice you left out one of the the other "clearly
worded" dialogs:
>  >  >
>  >  >  http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_01.jpg
>  >  >  From the article, "Here, you need to give your
permission to continue
>  >  >  something opaquely called a 'File Operation.'"
>  >  >
>  >  >  (note to Rich, the preceeding was taken from the article, I am not
>  >  >  making this up))
>  >  >
>  >  >  My opinion is that he was being kind.  Permission is
needed to use a
>  >  >  *program* called "File Operation"?  What is the
executable for that
>  >  >  program called?  File Operation?
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  Here's another comment from the article:
>  >  >  (note to Rich, I am quoting the article, I am not making this up.)
>  >  >
>  >  >  ===
>  >  >  One of the most highly-touted features of Windows Vista is glass
>  >  >  windows, a part of the Windows Aero user interface. It
sounds like a
>  >  >  great idea, and heck, let's give Microsoft a bit of credit for the
>  >  >  ingenuity of taking the windows metaphor to its logical conclusion.
>  >  >  Maybe Apple can add stained glass windows to the next
version of Mac
OS
>  >  >  X in response.
>  >  >
>  >  >  Anyway, the reality of glass windows is that they stink.
The windows
>  >  >  themselves are translucent, meaning you can see through them
partially.
>  >  >  But the visual difference between the topmost window (that is, the
>  >  >  window with which you are currently interacting, or what we might
>  >  >  describe as the window with focus) and any other windows
(i.e. those
>  >  >  windows that are visually located "under" the
topmost window) is
subtle
>  >  >  at best. More to the point, you can't tell topmost
windows from other
>  >  >  windows at all. And don't pretend you can.
>  >  >
>  >  >  Let's look at an example. Here are two windows in Windows Vista,
viewed
>  >  >  side-by-side. Quick: Which one is the top-most window?
You have a 50
>  >  >  percent chance of getting it right, so don't pat yourself
on the back
if
>  >  >  you chose the right one quite yet. The truth is, neither one is
>  >  >  particularly differentiated from the other....
>  >  >
>  >  >  Glass windows sound like a great idea, until you actually use them.
>  >  >  Surely Microsoft can do better than this....
>  >  >  ===
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  Yup, surely Microsoft *could* do better.  They, after all, hire the
best
>  >  >  and the brightest.  The question is why don't they do better than
this?
>  >  >
>  >  >  (note to Rich, the preceeding paragraph was my comment,
and not from
the
>  >  >  article.)
>  >  >
>  >  >    /m
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:17:14 -0700, "Rich"
 wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >  >   Again you demonstrate that your personal honesty
isn't important
to you.  Not only have you not used Vista you don't understand what the
article is describing.  Instead of keeping quiet or acknowledging that you
don't understand you make up bullshit and post it as your own.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >   For anyone reading this that cares about what is
going on, the
previous description is very relevant
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  Once Firefox is installed, there are two icons on
my Desktop I'd
like to remove: The Setup application itself and a shortcut to Firefox. So
I select both icons and drag them to the Recycle Bin. Simple, right?
>  >  >  >  Wrong. Here's what you have to go through to
actually delete those
files in Windows Vista. First, you get a File Access Denied dialog (Figure)
explaining that you don't, in fact, have permission to delete a ...
shortcut?? To an application you just installed??? Seriously?
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >His annoyance is understandable.  Firefox's installer is poorly
behaved.  Instead of adding a shortcut to the desktop of existing users and
the default profile for new users it adds it to the single administrator
restricted all users profile.  This is an unfriendly choice on Windows XP
and earlier releases too.  Why?  Because individual users have no choice. 
The icon must be removed by an administrator only from all desktops or
none.  On Vista, the user doesn't have administrator access so the
operation fails.  The article shows a picture of the clearly worded dialog
at http://www.winsupersite.com/images/revi ews/vista_5342_rev5_00.jpg.  The
user has a choice how to proceed.  One of which is to elevate to
administrator and continue the operation.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >   In the future mike, you might want to try at least
to present the
appearence of honesty by avoiding making statements on topics about which
you have no experience or knowledge.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >Rich
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  "Mike '/m'"  wrote
in message
news:lq3l42hccq0251d92p74gstoovk3sospcn{at}4ax.com...
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  From the article:
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  ===
>  >  >  >  What if you're doing something a bit more
complicated? Well, lucky
you,
>  >  >  >  the dialogs stack right up, one after the other, in
a seemingly
>  >  >  >  never-ending display of stupidity. Indeed,
sometimes you'll find
>  >  >  >  yourself unable to do certain things for no good
reason, and you
click
>  >  >  >  Allow buttons until you're blue in the face. It
will never stop
>  >  >  >  bothering you, unless you agree to stop your
silliness and leave
that
>  >  >  >  file on the desktop where it belongs. Mark my
words, this will
happen to
>  >  >  >  you. And you will hate it.
>  >  >  >  ===
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >   /m
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:15:36 -0700,
"Rich"  wrote:
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >   I read the article before you felt compelled
to quote negative
excerpts from it and am capable of distinguishing between that and your
personal bullshit.  Aren't you?
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >   Vista does not prompt for elevation multiple
times for a single
task and the article didn't claim it did.  Given that you have never used
Vista why would you personally make false claims?  Isn't personal honesty
an issue for you?
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >   I have no doubt you see what you want to
see.  If we are to
judge by the propaganda you post here, it clearly shows that you are blind
to anything that doesn't take a negative position that you would like to
agree with.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >Rich
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  "Mike '/m'" 
wrote in message
news:eo6k42h77i0u1eq3mf192tgi0k3im39ib6{at}4ax.com...
>  >  >  >  >  On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:51:46 -0700,
"Rich"  wrote:
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  > Bullshit!  I suspect you haven't used
Vista or Vista with
>  >  >  >  >  > UAP so your comments are plucked from your ass.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  Partially correct.  I have not used Vista. 
However, the
comments I
>  >  >  >  >  posted were taken from an article written by
someone who had
been using
>  >  >  >  >  Vista, someone who has been very pro-Windows.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  > OS X prompting is very similarly.  I
haven't played with
>  >  >  >  >  > OS X much but from what I did see it is
identical in the
>  >  >  >  >  > model for when to prompt.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  Sorry, Rich, OS-X does prompt once for each
Administrative task,
not
>  >  >  >  >  several times throughout the task as the
article I quoted
indicates
>  >  >  >  >  about Vista.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  In the rush to get Vista out the door
eventually, it is looking
like
>  >  >  >  >  many short cuts have been taken and are
continuing to be taken;
>  >  >  >  >  resulting in, among other things, the
annoying behavior of
endless
>  >  >  >  >  prompts cited in the article I quoted.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  The comments I have been seeing from Windows
cheerleaders about
Vista's
>  >  >  >  >  shortcomings and unmet promises are growing
in number and
volume.  If
>  >  >  >  >  you don't like that, then you perhaps you
should listen to what
they are
>  >  >  >  >  saying and get your employer to fix the
problem.  Unfortuantely
that may
>  >  >  >  >  mean even more delays for Vista which so far
has had the
gestation
>  >  >  >  >  period of an elephant.  Vista will probably
be as bulky with it
is
>  >  >  >  >  finally born.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >   /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5