backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 130 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Jul 2 at 12:13 PM

Microsoft is looking to learn from its past difficulties and is pushing hardware partners to adopt a more proactive approach

Last week, after months of tight-lipped silence, Microsoft debuted Windows 7 to the press in a keynote at the Californian D6 conference.  The new operating system was clearly explained not to be a new architecture from Windows Vista, but rather an iterative improvement on Windows Server 2008 and Vista code.

The new OS will heavily tout "multi-touch" capabilities, similar to the iPhone.  In its current design, it also features an OS X-like dock, which marks a departure from the standard Windows start bar.  Other changes seemed mainly cosmetic, but Windows is promising even with the rushed product delivery cycle, when Windows 7 is released in 2009, it will provide many new useful services.

As Microsoft's top leaders, Chairman and founder Bill Gates and Chief Executive Steve Ballmer, have publicly committed to moving the release date up from 2010 to 2009, Microsoft has begun an early drive to urge hardware manufacturers to begin developing their drivers and testing them on upcoming beta versions of the OS.

By testing the beta versions of the OS, Microsoft hopes to avoid one of the major problems that plagued Windows Vista's early days, particularly those of the 64-bit version -- driver incompatibility.  Microsoft is adopting a carrot and stick approach for driver testing.  Hardware manufacturers who fail to heed Microsoft's bidding won't qualify for Microsoft's Windows Logo certified compatibility program for Windows 7 or Vista.  In a bulletin (PDF) Microsoft states, "Beginning with the first beta of Windows 7 all Windows Vista submissions must include a complete CPK with tests logs from Windows 7."

When Microsoft mentions CPK, they are talking about the electronics testing process. 

While the exact release date of the first beta has not been announced to the public, it is likely to land within a few months.  This would allow hardware manufacturers forewarning to prepare to do Microsoft's bidding.

While Microsoft’s new stance on hardware may seem a bit harsh or dictatorial, it does promise to help ensure less compatibility issues.  To date, issues persist in Vista.  DailyTech previous reported how certain chipsets are incompatible with Windows Vista Service Pack 1, preventing users from receiving valuable security patches and bugfixes.

It seems clear, though, that while Microsoft doesn't want to toss out the Windows Vista base code, it has learned from some of Vista's most salient mistakes.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 10:02:38 AM , Rating: 3
At least you can't claim MS doesn't listen to their customers. They're taking the long xp to vista gap seriously for sure, though to be honest starting with 2000 I was hoping to see longer gaps between windows releases. It seems like an OS can stay relivent longer these days, heck as much as I like vista you'd have to be a fool to say XP isn't at all relivent in today's world.

I hope that with Windows 7 we see further refinements to the UAC system... Specifically I want to see installers not auto-prompt, I want to see installers run at the users account level and for users to be forced to manually elevate permissions if it is required.




RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 10:19:02 AM , Rating: 4
If UAC didn't prompt for installers then it would allow malicious programs to install without a prompt. Personally UAC doesn't bother me enough to warrant turning it off. I'd rather have the protection there and not need it, than need it and not have it.


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 10:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
Ummmmm.... Ok... But since it prompts it *WILL* allow malicious software to be in with administrator credentials! If it didn't prompt malware couldn't install with any better credentials than what the user runs at. This is a simple change I made to my families old Windows 2000 machine and it went from getting over run with malware with in 3 mo of a reinstall to surviving 3 years with out a single hiccup.


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 11:02:48 AM , Rating: 4
It will only install if people hit continue. Then it is a user error, not an OS error. Do not blame the ignorance of the consumer on Microsoft.


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 11:21:22 AM , Rating: 4
UAC prompts often enough that users will hit continue with out thinking about it, reducing UAC to a security blanket.


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By VashHT on 6/3/2008 1:50:13 PM , Rating: 3
That's a big exaggeration, the only time UAC pops up for me on a daily basis is when I run something set to run in admin mode (pickuplistchecker). Other than that it never comes up with daily use.


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 1:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on your habbits, my computing needs nessesitate a UCA prompt at least once daily since I'm a software developer. Yes I realize that not everyone is a software developers and in many cases users will not run into UAC prompts that often, but still, it's too easy for end users to install malware on to vista. Keeping UAC but having the behaviour match a more traditional elevation scheme would go along way towards making vista more secure (irl) and push for better 3rd party software products.


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By kkwst2 on 6/3/2008 3:41:00 PM , Rating: 3
It's still not clear to me what you're suggesting. Are you just saying that UAC prompts for too many things? For me, it only promps for programs I have to run with administrator access, or on installations.

What specific situations are you suggesting that UAC prompts inappropriately. While I agree that it's annoying, I'm not sure I see that it's prompting excessively.

I also agree that many people (my wife, teenager) will likely just accept all the prompts without thinking/reading. That's why I keep a separate box for myself. I haven't released my Vista box into the wild yet.


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 3:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what isn't clear about what I'm posting but I'll simplify...

There should be no automatic prompting for program installation, this includes the installation of ActiveX components. If such a task requires greater permissions than what your user account offers the installation rutine should FAIL! If a user desires to install an application which requires greater than permissions than what they have access to, they should beforced to run the installer as administrator via right click "Run as administrator" command.

Due to their nature this won't work for activex on the web, there for in this case there should be a "allow UAC prompting" under security which would activate UAC prompts in MSIE allowing activex components which require greater than standard user permissions (like flash) to be installed. But default this security setting should be set to off (which would encourage adobe to rewrite flash).


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 5:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
1. As I said elsewhere, it's obvious you have little awareness or regard for "usability."

2. WTF should Adobe re-write Flash? And what technology, prey tell, would be better than ActiveX? ActiveX is perfect for plug-ins like Flash.

ActiveX is needly maligned by people like you who dream of some alternative implementation that is as small and efficient. So what if ActiveX requires Windows - that's the OS we're all running anyway!


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By daInvincibleGama on 6/3/2008 10:12:27 PM , Rating: 1
Flash doesn't use ActiveX. ActiveX is the most shittily executed design for a web interaction platform that was ever made. There is also an alternative. It's called Java.


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 11:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

1. The Flash player, i.e., "Shockwave Flash Object" is implemented as an ActiveX control (Flash9f.ocx) when used with Internet Explorer.

2. ActiveX was not designed as a "web interaction platform." It was designed as an integration method for Windows software. Later on it was recognized that it could be effectively leveraged by Windows-based machines to deliver a rich interactive experience within web browsers. There are tons of ActiveX controls, and Flash in particular, which is implemented in ActiveX, delivers obviously a very high level of inteactivity and animation. Actually, this is the very reason Flash is so popular, and that wouldn't ever have happened without ActiveX. In fact, nearly all higly interactive web content besides AJAX uses ActiveX.

3. Java. Sorry, Java for web inteactivity, while very feasible, has never been as successful as Flash+ActiveX. In fact, interactive functionality implemented in Java is going the way of the dinosaur on the web. Most computers don't even have a JRE loaded any more. (Javascript is obviously a different story, but that's not the same as Java, as I'm sure you know.)


By Locutus465 on 6/4/2008 12:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
1). You have no concept of security nor usability, UAC as is was more designed to annoy (per microsoft) than anything else. If you're willing to accept a security blanket in the name of not on rare occation having to right click an installer and choose "run as administrator" then you're just plain silly.

2). Options = silverlight, java....

3). WTF are you talking about??? What pray tell are people like me? I happen to be a huge microsoft and in fact Vista supporter!!! I've defended vista and microsoft to the hilt in these forums! The fact is I'm not wearing blindres like some of you, I'm willing to accept that while Windows Vista is an excellent peice of code as a whole that there are, in fact portions of it which could use some refinement. UAC is one of those area's, the basic implementation is solid, but some design aspects need to be tweaked.

Want to know another area of Vista that could use improvement? The DRM system & Media Center. When I performed my motherboard upgrade a while ago these two systems were unable to recover (unlike the rest of the OS). I got DRM working again but not MC... Oh well, in the real world I accept that nothing is absolutly perfect and make my judgments accordingly.

Vista is great, but it's not perfect. Adjusting UAC to be a real security measure would make it better than it is now, but it still wouldn't be absolutly perfect, why? Because nothing in this world is 100% absolutly perfect!!!


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Lerianis on 6/4/2008 12:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, being a self-proclaimed Microsoft 'fanboy'.... I have to agree.

UAC prompts WAY too much sometimes. When a person has specifically ran a program that requires elevation once before, UAC should remember that and automatically run it, as long as it is in the same location on the drive.
If it isn't, then it should prompt again.

I see this all the time with running CCleaner and Tweaknow Registry Cleaner Professional, where I see UAC boxes every single time I run them.... sometimes, I want to SLAP myself or beat my head on the desk where my computer is because of that.


By inighthawki on 6/5/2008 5:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
Just remembering the location of it is not enough. It would have to 'at least' monitor the modification of the file as well, since anyone or any program can go in and replace the executable with a malicious copy at any time. If the malicious code was good enough it would easily be able to run enough code to modify the exe into its own malicious code through normal behavior (not setting off uac, ex web code) or be able to detect these settings from a dual boot OS without protection and in turn take over that as well.

i don't know what u guys are complaining about anyway. Doing many things that require admin privileges, i only see the prompt several times at most, all of which take all of 1-2 seconds to click continue, assuming you're not mentally handicapped...(notice to those who havent figured it out yet, with the execption of starting applications through the run command, the security box always appears right in the middle and you can move your cursor there to click continue as it takes the .01 seconds to load the box.)


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Elementalism on 6/3/2008 11:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
btw you can already do what you want by running with a user level account. It will prompt for administrator credentials instead of the popup asking to continue.


RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 11:20:34 AM , Rating: 3
Except it will still automatically prompt for an installation... This isn't what I want, I want it not to prompt at all and run the installer as your user level. C:\Program Files should not be a protected dir, MS should move system critical software out of this directory and leave it mainly as a "3rd party" applications directory.


<