From: Mike '/m' 

> In your scenario do you think the average user will blame Firefox
> or curse at the hoops that Vista makes them go through?


Based upon the fact that so many people continue to run as administrator
nowadays because security gets in the way, I doubt that the cascade of
dialog boxes approach, as mentioned in the article, will encourage users to
put up with UAP.  OS-X's architected-in task-based approach seems cleaner
than Microsoft's bolt-on file-operation-based approach.

Microsoft can blame Firefox all they want, but to the user it is Vista that
is putting up those dialog boxes for programs called "File
Operation".

In my discussion with Kodak about the requirement of their EasyShare
software to run with administrator access, they were absolutely adamant
that they would not fix their software so that users don't need admin
access.  I can see my sister now, trying to figure out why she needs to
give the computer permission to do a "File Operation" when all
she wants to do is start up EasyShare and view her photos.

While I feel that Microsoft's attempts in UAP are commendable, I certainly
hope they clean it up a lot more before Vista is released. Based upon what
an experienced (and pro-Microsoft) Windows user said in that article, I
have to wonder if Vista's hurriedly-poor bolt-on implementation of UAP is
going to give added security in an OS a bad name.  Microsoft has already
dramatically lowered the expectations of computer reliability, let's hope
they don't do the same to computer security (if they haven't already).

 /m




On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:37:17 -0400, "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote:

>Just a question. In your scenario do you think the average user will blame
Firefox or curse at the hoops that Vista makes them go through?
>
>
>  "Rich"  wrote in message news:444ab99b{at}w3....
>     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/reviews/vist a_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