backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 219 comment(s) - last by LexGoyle.. on Jul 30 at 4:06 PM

The PC/Mac ads from Apple have become a pop culture image well known across the country, even creating acting careers for the two actors. They portray PC, with his Windows Vista as porcine and gauche, while portraying Mac as young and suave. Microsoft hopes to destroy this image with a new campaign.  (Source: Apple)
Microsoft is fighting back against certain pesky unnamed competitors with ads and a creative app to pass the blame

Apple enjoys a rather fortunate position in the computer business and operating system business in some respects.  On the one hand it has such small OS and hardware marketshare that large leaders like Microsoft are unlikely to take it too seriously, allowing it to wage a clever campaign of attack ads, swaying public opinion.  On the other hand, its marketing campaign allows it to vigorously grow without substantially changing its offerings, which it hopes will catapult it to the status of a serious competitor.

Leading the attack are Apple's “Mac Guy, PC Guy" ads which depict Windows/PC as a chubby overweight maladroit businessman, while OS X/Mac is a hip, suave younger man.  The ads offer up criticism of Windows -- be it real or made up -- fueling popular criticism of Windows Vista.  The ads have lead to public misconceptions such as Windows being less secure, when in fact most security experts believe Macs to be far easier to hack, due to poor patching.

Microsoft has long sat and watched these attacks with a sort of resigned indignation.  Bill Gates once remarked, "I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?"

Now Microsoft is fed up enough that it is vowing not to take Apple's tongue-lashing anymore.  Brad Brooks, Corporate Vice President of Windows Consumer Product at Microsoft’s Worldwide Partner Conference in Houston announced during his keynote address July 8 that Microsoft is launching a $300M USD advertising counteroffensive against certain unnamed competitors.

He stated, "We know our story is very different from what our competitors want us to think.  Today we are drawing a line and are going to start telling the real story (about Vista)."

Mr. Brooks decline to specifically call Apple out, instead alluding to a "pretty noisy competitor out there".  He says, however, that Microsoft will strike back at noise makers with a pricey ad campaign being designed by marketing gurus Crispin Porter +Bogusky.

The problems with Windows Vista, Mr. Brooks accuses were due to hardware manufacturers negligently expecting Windows Vista not to be delivered on time, and then being left unprepared when it was.  He did acknowledge that security changes and other changes broke numerous hardware and software apps.  However, he says Microsoft fixed virtually all these problems and continues to hone Vista.

Warnings to hardware partners to prepare for Windows 7, previously delivered by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, were reiterated by Mr. Brooks.  If partners don't act, they risk losing support from Microsoft according to Ballmer's previous remarks.  Windows 7 is the successor to Windows Vista, due in 2009 by latest reports.

In an attempt to tout how compatible Vista has become, Mr. Brooks unveiled the new portal site "Windows Vista Compatibility Center".  The site currently lists 9,000 devices and software products (3,500 apps and 5,500 devices) compatible with Vista.  Microsoft hopes to up this list soon based on feedback.

Microsoft is also preparing a secret weapon; it has developed a new system tool called Windows Advisor, which some are calling the "Don't Blame Vista" tool.  The new tool assesses system problems and tries to convince users that they are not Vista's fault.  It assigns blame to everything from user impatience to virus and spyware.

Also announced by Mr. Brooks was a new business ad campaign titled "Move to Windows Vista with Confidence".  Vista adoption by businesses has been painfully poor, with even longtime "Wintel" partner Intel forsaking the OS, deigning it not worth the costs.  The new campaign is aimed mainly at small businesses, a possible growth area.

In its campaign Microsoft states, "Risks are a part of every small business. Making the move to Windows Vista isn’t one of them. Buy a new PC with genuine Windows Vista Business or Windows Vista Ultimate and receive free coaching and support from Microsoft to help you get the most out of Windows."

Microsoft will offer goodies to participants -- free phone support; tips and tricks via a new Vista Small Business Assurance Web site; and access to existing online tools and guidance.

Mr. Brooks concluded his pro-Windows rally stating, "Windows Vista is a good product.  The quiet majority of millions and millions of Windows Vista users out there are going to have a great experience.  The message is ‘Move to Vista. The time of worry is over.’"

It should be interesting how Microsoft's new more aggressive methods pan out.  Will they help repair Vista's tarnished consumer image, which has become somewhat of a pop culture humor piece?  Will they convince some stubborn users to finally move from XP?  Only time will tell, but it’s definitely a new tactic from Microsoft.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Make Window Look Exciting.
By BladeVenom on 7/9/2008 1:11:00 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe they should show that Windows is the more exciting OS because of gaming. Oh wait, they've given PC gamers the shaft in favor of the Xbox.




RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By SeanMI on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Kefner on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By BladeVenom on 7/9/2008 1:36:06 PM , Rating: 5
Look at their Vista exclusive, Halo 2. A three year old game for a five year old DX7 console. That's the best they could do for all their loyal Windows gamers who bought Vista.

In case you hadn't noticed they've gotten many of their Xbox exclusives from PC game developers. They bought Bungie Studios, and they've also made deals to get what would have been PC exclusive to be Xbox exclusives. More games for the Xbox has ended up meaning less games for Windows, and Xbox ports instead of PC exclusives. Not to mention completely dropping PC franchises like Mechwarrior, Combat Flight Simulator, etc.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By SeanMI on 7/9/2008 2:54:11 PM , Rating: 1
Alright, I'll give you that. MS is dedicating less to the development of PC games than it did previously. Ultimately though, this doesn't detract from the PC as a platform for gaming. I would argue that they are still putting just as much into the development of the PC as a gaming platform than ever. A lot of this is because of the ability to port the successes over to the next xbox console.

Let's face it, Windows is THE platform for gaming if you want something other than a console. Would you prefer gaming on a Mac? No? I didn't think so.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Alexstarfire on 7/9/2008 3:03:52 PM , Rating: 5
MechWarrior was one of the best, if not THE best, series that Microsoft ever had. MechCommander was pretty close to the top as well.

Why would they kill off such a great series?


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By DASQ on 7/10/2008 10:36:44 AM , Rating: 3
I heard something about how they tossed around a few ideas, but ultimately felt they weren't bringing anything new to the series.

Which is a load of crap, because even a brand new engine for MechWarrior 4 would make it a fantastic game. I'd buy it again.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By leexgx on 7/10/2008 9:03:21 PM , Rating: 1
thay turnd the last MechWarrior 4 into doom 1
trees that are 2d and turn on the spot when you get close to them, and you be in one of the big mecs and an simple bush would stop the mec dead, one way to send an game out with an bang


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By omnicronx on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Nik00117 on 7/9/2008 4:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
Upgrading every 6 months? IDK PC gaming means more to me then just fragging out. It means me building a computer the way I want it. And quite frankly I enjoy it. I also don't "upgrade my PC every 6 months" In fact I intend on going 2 years without upgradding. Currently running a E6600, 8800GTS, 4 GIGs ram, ASUS P5B MOBO. I can play mass effect, COD4, AOC, all on fairly high settings and i imagine I could play next gen titles close to that as well. My next PC upgrade will prob be a GPU upgrade costing me 250 bucks or so and go into a 10 series GPU.

Now I do buy HDDs every 3-4 months, this because i'm a movie fanaic, and music as well and after a few months I fill up a HDD and need another one. But i don't consider that an upgrade.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By StevoLincolnite on 7/9/2008 11:07:30 PM , Rating: 1
I only upgrade once every several years, heck my desktop machine is Still an Athlon XP 2600+ @2.4ghz, 2gb of DDR400 ram, and a Radeon x800GTO modded into an X850XT PE, and it runs crysis on Medium Quality just fine. (And everyone worries about it running on there Geforce 8800?)


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By EricMartello on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By EricMartello on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By FaceMaster on 7/10/2008 5:45:29 AM , Rating: 3
No, no... you THINK it runs okay, in which case, well done! You've saved some money. Just don't watch it on a Geforce 8800 because... ohh... I don't know, you could, like, DIE from the shock of how AMAZING it looks.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By BladeVenom on 7/9/2008 4:34:11 PM , Rating: 5
You don't need to upgrade every six months unless you're overcompensating for something. My 9700 Pro played every game that came out for more than 3 years.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By SlyNine on 7/9/2008 8:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
And still plays alot of games. I've played Gears of war on a 9700 pro at meduim to low settings at 800x600.

The myth that every thing needs to be turned on to very high is complexing to me.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Jedi2155 on 7/10/2008 12:34:25 AM , Rating: 4
Well call me Mr. Complex then :).

But honestly I think it has to do that people like eye candy. When they see the possibility of running at better looking settings then they will try to.

If we didn't appreciate or want such things then many things in life would stop making sense.

Better graphics in Crysis is like having a hotter girlfriend/wife. You know you want it, and you know want it badly. But in the end we all can't afford and for those of us who do, wishes they didn't blow all that cash for a one night stand.....not talking about personal experience or anything....


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Masked on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By ZaethDekar on 7/9/2008 5:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
I spend maybe 400 every 2-3 years to upgrade my computer.
I usually spend more on the MB, CPU, and memory then I spend on the GPU. Its not top of the line... but I can still play Crysis perfectly fine haha.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By SlyNine on 7/9/2008 8:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
And you have stat of the art graphics every other year at least, and you never fall that far behind.

If you built a computer with a 800XT you can play any game out except BIOSHOCK, witch is a shame.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Cheapshot on 7/10/2008 1:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't rate you any higher so...

Here Here!


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Schadenfroh on 7/9/2008 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
They give PC gamers the shaft by not releasing many of their 1st / 2nd party titles on the PC at the same time as the 360.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By jvillaro on 7/9/2008 7:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure it's Microsoft's fault or the 1st/2nd party's fault?


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By jajig on 7/9/2008 8:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
Who's at fault?

quote:
In the video game industry, a first-party developer is a developer who is part of a company that actually manufactures a video game console. First-party developers may either use the name of the company itself (like Nintendo), or have a specific division name (like Sony's Polyphony Digital). Unlike second-party developers, however, the first-party developer is considered part of the manufacturer, not a separate entity, and is fully owned by the console manufacturer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-party_developer

quote:
In the video game industry, a second-party developer is a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacturer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-party_develope...


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Chris Simmo on 7/10/2008 1:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, Well done.
Its not 100% fair to go crook about games on the Xbox instead though. I mean looking at it from a business point of view, it makes you buy a console. With most people also having a computer, why not get on both sides through selling an OS as well! Besides that, consoles are a locked configuration for years, PC's change every 6 months or so. Even the developers of Crysis have said they won't just develop for the PC next time. Sorry I don't have a sight to refer you to. Its just alot harder to keep people happy on a PC over a console


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Targon on 7/10/2008 11:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
Computers do NOT change every six months. There are newer faster components that come out, but the overall platform does not change. Just because new faster/better parts become available does not mean that everyone is forced to upgrade.

Having the option to upgrade has always been a strength of the PC market, and it is one thing that Microsoft could really push, that you have choices on a PC/Windows platform, where an Apple based system is a clone of every other Apple based system. Make all the Mac people look like a bunch of clones or lemmings that follow their leader off a cliff or something. Or compare them to people in the Church of Scientology if you want to upset some people.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Chris Simmo on 7/11/2008 12:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to get technical, 32bit X86 CPU's have been around for a long time, and the current CPU is an evolution of that. A hell of a lot faster these days, but still using the same basic technology deep inside.

What I meant is that an Xbox 360 runs at 3.2GHz from the day it comes out, through the 7 years or so of its life time, till the day it dies. If you already have a game engine for it, you just base your games on it. Nothing changes. Development tools will still be the same, games will play with 5.1 sound and 1080P graphics. Who know exactly what a pc will be able to do in 5 years time, and how many times you will have to make big modifications to your engine, or even replace it. I won't argue of a pc's capabilities. They far exceed a consoles. Hell I sell and build computers. I even have a AU$9500 PC sitting on the bench I just built for a customer running SLI 280GTX amongst other things. As much fun as it was to build and test it, I would prefer a nice 60' plasma, my Xbox 360 and a 2000W RMS sound system, and I think that it will still do games just as well for the next 5 years! Actually I have all those things (TVs only 42' though).


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Polynikes on 7/9/2008 1:33:38 PM , Rating: 1
First Halo was stolen from us, and ever since MS has done nothing to tout Windows gaming. Their Games for Windows "campaign" has done nothing to help bolster PC gaming.

They should have an ad that shows all the awesome games on Windows, then show that the only good games coming out on Mac for the rest of forever are Blizzard games. Which are also gonna be on PC, of course.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By ZaethDekar on 7/9/2008 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 3
Actually Bungie was planning to release Halo on Mac before PC....

quote:
Bungie remains a legend for many Mac gamers for their development of Marathon, a first person shooter franchise that appeared on the Mac first (though Marathon itself was preceded by another Bungie FPS, Pathways Into Darkness). Their equal-handed treatment of the Mac through the Marathon games and later with their strategy game series Myth solidified in many gamers’ minds Bungie’s position as a premier developer of Mac games — especially after Bungie introduced its monster hit first person shooter game Halo on the keynote stage with Steve Jobs at Macworld Expo in New York.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Polynikes on 7/9/2008 7:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
At the time MS bought Bungie, it was a PC game as well. Which is the timeframe I was talking about.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Parhel on 7/9/2008 1:41:43 PM , Rating: 3
Two words - Mass Effect.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By jvillaro on 7/9/2008 8:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Two more... Dragon Age

Mass effect was always a console project and dragon age is for pc (first at least). If there are ports it's fine in my book, just if they do them right


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Screwballl on 7/9/2008 1:53:57 PM , Rating: 3
MS isn't the only one... look at EA... exclusive contracts with the NFL and NASCAR and then they don't even bring their next offerings to the PC...


By Alexstarfire on 7/9/2008 3:06:41 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I think part of that stems from the fact they know they wouldn't get away with bringing out a "new" game that's little more than an updated roster every year and expecting people to pay full price. The consolians might take that, but we PC gamers sure as hell won't.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Polynikes on 7/9/2008 7:03:11 PM , Rating: 3
That's understandable, but EA only makes games. Part of the reason MS is so successful is because the PC has always been such a great gaming platform. For them to now give PC gamers the cold shoulder and focus so much on the XBox is unfair.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By silversound on 7/9/2008 3:19:21 PM , Rating: 3
The reason for increasing demand for Macs are because of the poplarity of iPods and the ability of Mac computer to install windows OS, so now Macs take advantage of using both OS while regular PC cannot.

Therefor play game is no problem for Macs


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By TennesseeTony on 7/9/2008 4:14:23 PM , Rating: 1
"Therefor play game is no problem for Macs"

Oh really? You consider a Radeon 2400XT, or a Radeon HD2600 gaming cards? LOL. Oh, stop the press, the top of the line iMac comes with a Nvidia 8800GS!!! Not TOO bad, but not too good either.

Therefor, play game is problem for Macs.


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By Chris Peredun on 7/9/2008 4:39:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Therefor, play game is problem for Macs

I can't help but picture the Heavy from Team Fortress 2 when I read this.

"Engineer is credit to team!"


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By walk2k on 7/9/2008 7:08:33 PM , Rating: 5
but gaming on the Mac is so simple! because there's only like 6 games! and you know which ones are good, because all your friends with PCs played them 2 years ago!


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By rudolphna on 7/9/2008 10:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
while for the hardcore gamer a 2600XT will not be good- For the average, mainstream gamer a 2600 will do fine. I have one, i can play WoW, FEAR, FSX, Bioshock, and NFS on high (except for bioshock) at 1280x1024 with very playable framerates.


By xxsk8er101xx on 7/9/2008 7:48:27 PM , Rating: 1
Bad bad statement. Borderline ignorant.

Most games out today are DX 10 OR DX 9. If you have windows xp you won't get the dx 10 option. If you don't have dx 10 video card it doesn't show the option. There have been patches to add dx10 to certain MMO's and games too.

If you don't have a dx 10 video card or you have windows xp wtf are you complaining about it in the first place?


RE: Make Window Look Exciting.
By slickr on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By aguilpa1 on 7/9/2008 1:25:10 PM , Rating: 5
Considering that goofy nerd Mac guy (not suave or cool) spouts nothing but outright lies.




RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By PhreakyMike on 7/9/2008 1:37:51 PM , Rating: 5
Yea I find it the opposite. The PC guy's the successful business man with a nice suit, and the young hippie looks like he has no fashion sense, needs a hair cut, and lives with his mom at 32.

Well done Apple....well done.


By MonkeyPaw on 7/9/2008 5:54:16 PM , Rating: 4
MS should just make a commercial where the Mac guy gets kicked in the groin. Sure, that would say nothing about which platform is better for your needs, but it's not like the commercials do that now anyway.


By EntreHoras on 7/9/2008 1:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is that you and I know that those are lies. For the average TV viewer, is valuable info presented in a ingenious way.


RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By michael2k on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By blaster5k on 7/9/2008 2:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, the junkware is a manufacturer thing and not all PC makers do it.


RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By michael2k on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By mezman on 7/9/2008 5:59:03 PM , Rating: 3
But Microsoft doesn't install that crap, and that's the point. If Apple had third party manufacturers building computers with MacOS on them, they'd have just as many POS programs installed too.


RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By michael2k on 7/9/2008 6:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
Still, from an end user's perspective, if you walk out of Best Buy with a Dell, you get crapware. If you walk out of Best Buy with a Mac, you don't.

Maybe Microsoft could cut a deal, save $10 in license fees if an OEM doesn't install crapware. Regardless, to an end user evaluating boxed OEM systems, the Apple system wins.


By kelmon on 7/10/2008 3:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
DING! You, sir, win a cookie!

When it comes to crapware, Microsoft has almost no control over what it is that the customers buy. In fact, they don't have much control at all over what the customer buys because it is the individual hardware manufacturer that decides what hardware/software is provided - Windows is just another application in the box. What this means is that Microsoft can't really fight the "Mac vs. PC" adverts because they are not in control of the PC. As they have already demonstrated, they can make a perfectly fine OS but that can be completely buggered in the market if the dependencies fail. The only way to really combat this is for something like "Mac vs. HP" where HP demonstrates how their product is superior to a Mac because this is what the customer will actually go home with.

The only alternative to this is that Microsoft makes changes to the license agreement that gives them control over the hardware and software that is sold to the customer in the box. At that point Microsoft practically turns into Apple and I don't think people will like that.


By rollakid on 7/15/2008 8:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
And it will cost less.


RE: Shouldn't be to hard to counter...
By Pottervilla on 7/9/2008 5:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why do three of the four things you mention depend on Microsoft? :)


By MonkeyPaw on 7/9/2008 6:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think that's where the Bill Gates comment "What are they trying to say?" comes from. Apple attacks Vista, but really most of their actual "issues" come from non-MS problems, be it poor drivers, crappy apps, or OEM bloatware.

Apple just wants people to be confused about buying a "PC," even though the only things that keep OSX "safe and secure" are its obscurity and lack of hardware and software variety. With PCs, you have options; with Apple, you get one option--Apple's. Naturally, they have to make you feel good about that one choice, since it's the only choice you get from then on. From there, you're gouged for every bit of decent software and hardware out there.

I owned a Dual G5 at one point. It was an okay experience, except when it would BSOD (black screen of death) or get the spinning beach ball of death. The fans would start to scream, and all I could do was unplug and reboot. I wasn't even doing anything stressful, it would just crash at random, and a fresh OSX install didn't help. After a while, I ditched the machine and have gone "PC guy" ever since.


By therealnickdanger on 7/9/2008 1:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
I was in the same crowd that waited until XP SP2 to upgrade from 2K. I shouted XP's praise from the height of the mountains. I tweaked the crap out of my OSs, scrapping for every last bit of performance. But you know what? I tried the Vista Beta and was hooked immediately. There was an initial learning curve to find some things, sure, but Vista Beta even had drivers for my older laptop that XP never got correct on its own. Now I'm running Vista Ultimate and a few copies of Home Premium. My systems are more stable, operate quicker, and look better than they ever did with XP without really doing anything else to them.

The only flaw that Vista has isn't a flaw of Vista, but a flaw by system builders that load up bloatware. I've bought a couple $400 laptops (y'know, the ones on sale) and the performance was atrocious - but a clean install later and they are snappy and smooth operaters. The same problem existed with XP years ago.

Let's not even start with UAC... sheesh, just turn it off if you can't handle two extra mouse-clicks.




RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By Locutus465 on 7/9/2008 1:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
I'm split on UCA... I love the idea of running users at a lower level and only elevating when required, but Vista kind of blankets certain tasks for elevation when it really shouldn't... Software installs for instance, that shouldn't be a blanket elevation IMHO, I think that should stricktly run at your user level unless you tell it to elevate, the reason? This would actually guard users against "browse by" installs of malware and email viruses.

Since you run Vista with UCA, do you know if you can run at "User Level" and still allow for useres at this level to right click and execute an installer as admin only when absolutly required? If that's the case I might toy with "disabling" UAC as a possiblit solution to get what I want.


RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By Spivonious on 7/9/2008 1:43:45 PM , Rating: 5
Vista only elevates when the application requires it. If the software wants to write things into the system area, that's not Vista's fault, nor can they alter the code of the software to work in the user space instead.


By Locutus465 on 7/9/2008 1:45:11 PM , Rating: 3
Nope, any and all installer will elevate period basically... This is due in part to the fact that writing to Program Files requires elevation.


RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By TomZ on 7/9/2008 1:49:37 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, and on a related subject, some software publishers need to get their act together an update their software to get rid of these sorts of bad behavior:

1. By default, installing to a new directory in the root of C:\

2. Refusing to install to a user-specified path that contains a space (like C:\Program Files\...)

3. Storing their configuration data within their installation directory

I mean, geez, these practices have been discouraged for probably 10 years now, but some companies don't seem to have got the memo.


RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By djdjohnson on 7/9/2008 9:15:41 PM , Rating: 3
I agree that files shouldn't be stored in those locations, but MS hasn't really given developers a proper alternative.

Sometimes developers (like myself) want users with standard permissions to be able to configure some global settings. There just isn't anywhere in Windows that that can be done. The All Users\Application Data (C:\ProgramData under Vista) folder doesn't have permissions setup properly to allow any user to modify/delete files (though they can create them, go figure...), and writing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE is totally off limits for standard users too. In the past most users run as administrators, and Program Files is therefore writable, so that is what has gotten used.

In addition, older versions of Windows don't really have an equivalent of All Users\Application Data, so if you're trying to write an app that targets multiple versions of Windows and you need a central place to store files, Program Files or a folder in the root was about your only option.

I couldn't even begin to describe all of the problems my users have had with configuration/log files in the "proper" folders on XP/Vista. Things like "a configuration file was created under the admin account, and isn't readable or writable by any other user." I can kind of understand why developers haven't followed MS' recommendations for file locations.


By TomZ on 7/10/2008 7:47:40 AM , Rating: 1
I don't see what the problem is. The underlying principle, which is achieved by the existing design, is that is a user wants to change the state of the machine in a way that affects other potential users of the machine, then admin privileges are required.

Therefore, your app, if it requires a normal user to adjust settings for all users, should cause an elevation request (UAC prompt) to the user. This ensures that the user (a) is aware they are affecting other potential users of the machine, and (b) that they actually have the security rights to do so.

As far as the specific examples I gave, I can't think of any good reason to not follow Microsoft's recommendations. I think this is completely separate from the issue you describe.


By Spivonious on 7/10/2008 10:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
User config options should be stored in their user folder/appdata, or in the registry under HKCU.

Why do you want one user to control options for the entire machine?


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 2:18:04 PM , Rating: 3
It's based on the installer. I noticed most older applications required elevation to install properly (or at all in some cases). But several newer applications will install and update without any elevation whatsoever.

quote:
Since you run Vista with UCA, do you know if you can run at "User Level" and still allow for useres at this level to right click and execute an installer as admin only when absolutly required?

You should check this link out http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/libr... It outlines what you can do with UAC in a domain environment. It's pretty flexible. I can have it allow "signed" applications that are listed as "allowed" and deny anything that isn't. (Software compliancy here we come).


RE: Seriously... people are just such b*tches.
By Locutus465 on 7/9/2008 2:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link, bookmarked... Hopefully there's a way to make UAC simulate a more *INX like elevation policy... IMHO that's all UAC needs to be "perfect".


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 4:16:33 PM , Rating: 1
I haven't tested too much of it in my test domain yet, still doing application testing and verrification, heh. We did decide to lock out installation from removeable media, and of course the ability to mount removeable media (Flash drives, etc..)


By Icepick on 7/9/2008 1:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. I run Vista Home Premium 64bit on both my desktop PC (2GB RAM) and my Lenovo laptop (1GB RAM). Both are clean installs and I have not had any problems whatsoever. I've had no problems finding 64 bit drivers for any of my hardware including a three year old printer.

I upgraded from XP Pro after I realized that I liked the built-in media features and the looks of it. I also appreciate the security features because it makes it less likely that my less technical wife will allow spyware or malware to infect it. The included Internet access control list is nice too because now I can easily set up an account for the kids and strictly control their Internet access.


By fic2 on 7/9/2008 9:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a flaw by system builders that load up bloatware


http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/home


Windows has advantages, but...
By jbizzler on 7/9/2008 2:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
Windows has it's advantages, but not the kind that you can target on a commercial.

- If you're a bargain hunter, getting a new PC can be much cheaper than a Mac.
- People can build their own PCs from scratch.
- More hardware/software options.
- Games! Though this has been slow lately, it's still far times greater than Mac games.

But how could any of those make the general public want a PC? Most people buy an over-priced computer filled with bloatware from Dell or Gateway. They don't bargain hunt. They don't build their own machines. They rarely buy new hardware and software (if they do, it's usually a poor buying decision). And today, most gamers are on consoles.

Macs are better for average users. PCs are better more informed home users.

But, the more research I do, the more I realize that Macs are great for especially advanced users. Mac OS X's UNIX roots, well-defined standards, increasingly powerful Mac Pro, and finally, the option to run Windows, make it a great platform for software developers, system administrators, and scientists.

I like Windows. I like building my own computers. But that has gotten boring. My next machine will be a Mac simply because I'm bored of the PC world.




RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Screwballl on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By kelmon on 7/10/2008 4:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
When Linux gets a competitor to Apple's Aperture application, let me know.

I'd also disagree with the statement that a Mac is easier to crack than XP, Vista or Linux. We all know which event you are referring to, but bare in mind that the Mac was cracked by a Mac specialist who'd discovered the flaw months in advance. If the Mac was easier to crack in reality then I'd expect more threats to be "in the wild" than there are today, not least because Mac users are all supposed to be idiots and have too much money anyway. The "security through obscurity" argument is just bunk - it's widely publicised that the Mac market share is approaching 10% in the US and they certainly have more than 10% of the mindshare. The Mac cannot be considered obscure.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By paulpod on 7/9/2008 3:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
Therein lies the massive frustration and disapointment with Vista. It dramatically reduces the advantages you have listed.

Because management and configuration is completely different and key operations are obfuscated by several layers of unecessary fluff, building your own PC is no longer fun or economically feasible. When you learned how to do something in XP, you could easily remember it years later. With Vista, simple tasks are hard to reproduce the next day.

The built-in bloatware also makes it hard to get the PC to spend CPU cycles on what YOU want the PC to do.

Most importantly, however, is the death of: "more hardware/software options". My ATI USB TV tuners do not work at all on Vista and even if they did, the only control software would be the pathetic 10-ft Media Center interface. The concept of low cost and freeware DirectShow plugins is dead. Vista requires $120 of buggy, unmanageable Cyberlink bloatware to do what the $14 nVidia PureVideo decoder did for me in XP (on ATI cards!).

Fusion HDTV tuners come with a Vista software version but you have to DISABLE most UAC type protections to get it to work properly. Since all power users will come across the same type of incomplete software port, new security measures in Vista are useless to us.

Software choice in Vista seems to be dramatically reduced by the increased development complexity and overhead.

And most disgusting is that the response from MS provides no indication that they see and will fix the problems. Marketing has taken over the company. They spec'ed out a crappy OS from the start and now want to use marketing spin to hide that fact.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 3:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
So things are not located in the same place. On a MAC they wouldn't be located in the same place as Windows either but the learning curve would be less on a PC.

I fresh installed and there is no bloatware like AOL junk on my machine. Blame whomever sold you the PC or the government for their you must include competitor junk. Security layers are not bloatware although initially they could have made them less visible however I find UAC helpful and only requires you answer a few questions. I did find a few applications I did not know contacted outside my system.

My ATI Radeon HDTV tuner might not have a Vista driver on the websit but the XP drivers work perfectly fine. A quick google will even find you a patch to use analog and digital seperately. You need to try the XP drivers. By the way there are drivers to use the ATI remote on Vista Media Center too.
http://www.hdtvtunerinfo.com/vistahdtvinstall.html

You probably want to follow these instructions:
http://doteverything.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-me...

My scanner works using the XP drivers on Vista also something HP probably wouldn't want to admit and would prefer to sell me a new scanner.

Microsoft didn't made the hardware but its nice to see that Vista will support using XP drivers in a lot of cases.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Screwballl on 7/9/2008 4:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
How many computer buyers actually know enough to remove that junk? Maybe 10-20%? The typical user thinks or says "I don't use it so it is harmless down there" in the taskbar... but as the computer ages and they continue this line of thought, before you know it they have all their own junk and tempoorary files and cookies and spyware and viruses ON TOP of the pre-installed bloatware.. and thats what fuels the computer sales on the consumer side... Microsoft is trying to make the computer a replaceable object rather than an upgradeable or fixable object...
but it is this very ideal is what is causing more waste and good parts going to the trash sites... plus this is how Dell can sell their system for $300 instead of $600... they get money everytime someone pays for Norton or AOL or the bloatware thats on there.


By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 5:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
In general they don't however most are smart enough to buy and install an application that can do this for them. Norton products for the newbs and CCleaner/AntiGen/Spybot for the more advanced if they dont do it themselves or know better not to double click on files from people they don't know. I would dare to say that OneCare is halfway decent for a newb and offers a lot of these cleanup and maintenance items.

Not that you saif it but what makes anyone think using linux or a Mac would be any easier for an computer illiterate user? As if installing linux out of the box makes the PC impervious to exploits or buying a Mac means never getting a virus and both will solve their incompetent abilities. They messed up Windows surely they will mess up a MAC or well they wont be able to mess up Linux because I doubt most of them could figure out how to install anything beyond the OS.

On the front end the Mac might have a good front end but it lacks applications and if your a gamer forget it. Mac's crash but everyone doesn't use a MAC so you don't hear about it often. What is amazing is I know one person with a MAC and while they don't run leopard I hear about the nightmares people have with the OS.

Then there is the Linux side. The average user who doesn't know how to clear temp files or do add remove programs surely wont have a clue on how to secure a Linux box much less even get a Linux program installed if they didn't do it initially. If you want to torture a clueless Windows person make their life even worse by installing Linux. Linux is for people who want to know about their PC. Most people dont want to they just want it to work. Linux requires work and securing it for the average user is not an option.

If these people are clueless about how to uninstall a program on windows there is no hope for them on any OS. Give them an etch a sketch or throw a ball and watch them chase after it.

When people order thier PC they should tell the company they buy it from if I see an AOL icon on the machine anywhere I am returning it! Don't install spam on my machine!


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By jbizzler on 7/9/2008 5:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
I never looked at it that way...

Few things in life piss me off. But when a relative tells me their new computer is so much faster than their old one, I want to kill someone somewhere. I know it's actually faster, but all they do is browse the web! They don't even realize that their computer has slowed down over time.

My cousin wanted to THROW AWAY her laptop because something was messed up and she couldn't log in to any secure websites. She paid GeekSquad $100+ and they couldn't fix it. Took me 5 minutes to realize she had two antivirus programs running. She said she though it made her machine more secure! Even if it were an impossible to repair problem, it's cleary software-only, and the hardware was fine.

Windows and PCs don't suck. Bloatware sucks. Since Windows has the market share, crappy software companies target it. Only good software companies have the resources and PR to extend their products to Macs.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By mikefarinha on 7/9/2008 5:56:18 PM , Rating: 3
This is a battle that MS really needs to fight. It can never compete with Apple in this regard because Apple owns their customers experience from cradle to grave.

PC builders insist on attacking their customers with crap-ware in the hopes of getting a few extra bucks pushing this junk.

Unfortunately if MS ever tried to do what Apple does they'd be sued into oblivion... and that would just be from the EU!


By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 8:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
I would vote you up for that.

I certainly feel more consumers need to demand that machines come with nothing more than the OS and its appropriate drivers or you will return it. Your not paying for thier spam any more.

If they try to claim well that's how we keep costs low because they are paying for a potion tell them you will find someone else who is willing to sell a PC withouth the crapware on it.

Simply put your should be able to opt-out of a manufacturers spam/bloat/crapware.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 3:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
- PC with a stack of software showing which one gives you more then flash the price being the same. You can get a MAC or your can get a PC with all this software for the same price.

- Lan party with excited people gaming and the MAC guy playing Photoshop.

- Stack of hardware compatible for the PC and a iPod for the Mac. 5,500 devices supported on PC compared to 1. To add insult to injury show that the iPod works on the PC too.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 4:21:33 PM , Rating: 1
Can you imagine the utter failure the iPod would have been if it was restricted to Mac only? Apple knew they had to make iTunes and the iPod work on Windows or it wouldn't sell.


By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 5:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yup that would limit your market share.

Are iPods/iPhones still hot? Seems like consumers should be past the hype by now?

I might bet the next big portable audio/video device will be a portable gaming console as long as they go with an open standard and don't force anyone to use alternative third party stuff to play a video or music file.


RE: Windows has advantages, but...
By kelmon on 7/10/2008 4:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
A more interesting question, frankly, is how much of an utter failure would the Mac be today if the iPod had been restricted to Mac only? Put another way, how much of an impact has the "iPod halo effect" had in reality?


Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 6:08:24 PM , Rating: 4
Arent the MAC commercials just modern day smear campaigns like the politicians use?

If I say your horrible in a commercial somehow that makes me better? The commercial only appeals to those who are problem Windows users to begin with. To which I say go ahead get a MAC. This is good because Apple is basically volunteering to take all the PC illiterate users out there for themselves. This makes supporting PC's easier without the problem people.

What the commercials fail to do is show how a MAC is actually superior. We don't see that. The consumer isnt even presented with the desktop of the OS doing anything at all. All we see is Apple down talk Windows yet we never see why or what makes the MAC a better choice? Isn't this the same as political smear campaigns?




RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By michael2k on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2008 6:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Macs are immune to PC spyware/malware


lmao. Funny.


RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By michael2k on 7/10/2008 1:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
Name a PC spyware/malware program that runs on a Mac then and I'll laugh at myself.


By MatthiasF on 7/14/2008 12:22:29 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By Joz on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2008 8:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, because a smear campaign attacks your opponent's reputation. Are you suggesting that Microsoft's reputation is damaged by Apple?


You dont feel trying to belittle Vista is not belittling Microsoft in the process?

quote:
Macs are immune to PC spyware/malware


Really?
Let us not forget how long it took a hacker to comprimise the MAC, iPhone, and Safari.

Mac owned on 2nd day of Pwn2Own hack contest
http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/03/mac-owned-on-2nd...

A brand-new MacBook Air running a fully patched version of Leopard was the first to fall in a contest that pitted the security of machines running OS X, Vista and Linux. The exploit took less than two minutes to pull off.

'I' Caramba! iPhone Hacked Already
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/24/iphone-unlocked...
It took a couple of days to finally get the iPhone service activated. But as soon at they got it working, it took researchers at Errata Security only a few minutes to find multiple security vulnerabilities in the iPhone.

Safari for Windows Hacked in Two Hours
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/06/safari_for_w...

Welcome to the real world sorry you cant hang.


RE: Apple Smear Campaign Commercials?
By michael2k on 7/10/2008 1:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me? Name a PC malware that runs on the Mac?

All the Mac vulnerabilities in the world mean nothing because PC malware cannot run in Mac OS X, unless you have both Parallels AND Windows XP installed.

I never said Macs are invulnerable, I said they were immune to PC spyware/malware.