Re: some further comments... by Al
Al
Fri Feb 01 15:44:37 CST 2008
"mayayana" <mayaXXyana1a@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
news:%23FO7wJCZIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> While it may seem that XP is in a state of constant crisis, our
>> experience
>> is that when we converted from 98 to XP we got lots of support calls up
>> front because things were different, but they dwindled quickly. We have
>> systems out there that have been in virtual continual use for three or
> four
>> years with no real problems. The number of technician trips to the
>> desktop
>> went way down, and we feel that is because of the stability of our
>> configuration. For one thing, no user is ever given local admin privs.
>
> I'm looking at it from a point of view of someone
> who owns their PC,
Yes, this is obviously a significant distinction.
> which highlights a big issue with
> NT systems that MS has blurred over, and as a result
> gets blurred over in these discussions: Even though
> MS made a "Home" version of XP, all of their versions
> are basically the same thing. They're all network
> workstations.
I have no idea why they bothered with a "home" version of XP, other than
making it an easier sale into that market. Of course, XP home is not
*really* a network workstation, as it cannot actually *join* a domain
> On a network you usually can't trust the person
> sitting at the PC, but you can trust the network itself.
> For home and small office users it's just the opposite:
> The person using the PC generally owns it or is trusted,
> but the Internet is risky.
That is certainly an interesting way to look at it. Unfortunately, however,
since the internet is risky, home users should be as concerned about running
with least privilege - not because they themselves cannot be trusted, but
because the internet cannot be trusted with their privileges.
> It seems that with XP, MS has designed something that's
> better suited as a workstation than Win9x is.
Most definitely...
> (And it's even
> maybe a little safer for home use if people are completely
> non-techie, with it's rudimentary firewall and auto. update.)
> So "in the enterprise" you get a machine that allows you to
> limit user control and is better designed for intranet use, but
> home and small office users get a machine with loads of
> unnecessary, poorly documented, and often risky services
> running. They also get a machine that works against them.
>
> As someone who owns their own PC, my biggest complaint
> with XP (well, after the product activation, bloat and
> spyware :) is that it lies to me. And that adds a lot of wasted
> time and confusion to everything. There's a constant sense
> that MS views the customer as an adversary and has decided
> to appoint themselves as default system administrator for
> anyone who doesn't already have one. For instance, Windows
> File Protection could have been designed to simply show a
> msgbox that says, "You may not delete that file due to file
> security. Click here if you would like to understand and/or adjust
> file security settings." Instead, WFP lets you delete the file,
> then puts it back again from a secret stash! Usually after you've
> closed the folder. No explanation. Little documentation. No
> configuration. The ability to stop WFP altogether is basically a
> "secret tweak".
I wouldn't say that XP lies to you, just that it sometimes makes mistakes in
what it says. error messages almost always describe the error from the
computer's point of view rather than from the user's. While some software
developers know this better than others, it can still be difficult for all
diagnostics to make sense.
On my XP media system, most of these problems come from the unwanted extras
thrown onto the system by the OEM. So my wife logs in and is told that
*something* (even I do not know what it is referring to) is currently being
processed by "Al" - do you want to take this over? First, the answer is
never YES, as whatever the process, her account lacks the privs to do this.
And when I answer YES using another privileged account, well, I still do not
know what is actually happening.
> I think that at the root of these problems is mixed motives
> on the part of MS. They want to make a better, more secure
> OS. They also want to reduce support costs. They also want to
> satisfy corporate customers. They also want to phase out
> 3rd-party access to the API and switch their customers over
> to a services box. They also want to leverage their user base
> to gain some control over the Internet and profit from the
> sale of so-called "art". (Music and films.)
> But they can't be all those things. Some people might want MS
> services, but other people just want a PC that works the way
> they expect. Even MS seems to be getting confused about what
> the product is.
LOL, and just today I heard they were offering tens of billions to purchase
Yahoo! I guess MSDN search never really did catch up with google!
> Apropos of all that, I saw a telling article at the Register the other
> day, where they said that the French police are replacing XP with
> Ubuntu. One of the reasons they gave for the switch is "gaining
> control of the software".
Yes, sometimes it is hard to figure out who is controlling who on your own
PC.
/Al