Post by mayayanaPost by Al DunbarWhile 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
Post by Al Dunbaryears 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.
Post by mayayanawhich 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
Post by mayayanaOn a network you usually can't trust the person
sitting at the PC, but you can trust the network itself.
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.
Post by mayayanaIt seems that with XP, MS has designed something that's
better suited as a workstation than Win9x is.
Most definitely...
Post by mayayana(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.
Post by mayayanaI 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!
Post by mayayanaApropos 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