Most features included in Windows XP are essential for a useful operating environment. Other features, such as firewall, built in CD-RW support, and DVD playback in WMP 8 are either very basic or require third party software to work (The integrated firewall is only good for very, very basic protection, third party burning progs are much better than the built in burning, WMP 8 can’t play DVD’s without third party software being installed).
I do agree that Linux is much more stable than any 9x OS. However, 2000 closes the gap quite nicely. Also, I found that I needed to do a lot more work to get Linux to do what I wanted it to do.
capacitor:
No they didn’t. I’ve run several legacy games, and a few apps from Win 3x/Dos. It requires some setting up for the programs to work right, but it can be done.
So far, this has been a very interesting thread. I’m going to reread a lot of it and see what else I want to input.
Yeah, I was thinking of the Full Raw Sockets as well, and I can see the point about the security issues by including it in the Home Edition of Windows XP (It is presumably not a huge risk in Professional edition because it is assumed ‘professionals’ know security precautions).
However, why does it become a flaw in Windows XP when Full Raw Sockets are also supported in UNIX/Linux and MacOS?
I was going to respond, but I see SDP already did an amazing job of summarizing the complex issues in a nutshell.
Exactly. Microsoft can do great work when they’re trying to catch up with an existing leader in a new market, but once they dominate the market and squash out the competition, it’s nothing but resting on their laurels.
“The security features built into all other raw socket capable operating systems (Windows 2000, Unix, Linux, etc.) deliberately restrict raw socket access to applications running with full ‘root’ privilege. However, the Home Edition of Windows XP executes all applications with full administrative (‘root’) privilege. Thus, Windows XP eliminates the raw socket safety restrictions imposed by all other operating systems.”
– from one of the pages on ultrafilter’s link.
In laymen’s terms, other operating systems limit access to raw sockets only to programs and users who have the highest authority on the system. XP, however, gves any and all programs this blessed privilege – whether they deserve/require such authority or not – and thus allows access to the raw sockets from any program running on the system. It’s like having handguns in a house; there’s a big difference between keeping handguns locked in a cabinet where only Dad has the keys, versus leaving them out in the open on the coffee table.
Thanks, rjung, I hadn’t read about the removed security. I’m going to do a little research on it. (I’m really wondering why XP removes those precautions, since it’s based on the 2000 kernel).
The other problem with including full raw sockets in winXP is the sheer number of winXP boxes that are going to be out there. The full raw sockets in Mac, Unix, and Linux aren’t that big a deal because not that many people use Mac, Unix, or Linux.
FWIW, I don’t think that it’s going to be as bad as Gibson says, but it is a real problem, and something needs to be done about it.
UGH. I disagree STRONGLY. I hate when programs don’t have easy keyboard control.
I despise using the mouse, and wading through menus when a simple keyboard combination would do the same thing is, IMO, a waste of space. I mean, you can have your menus, but I want my CTRL X (and so on).
ultrafilter: Yeah, I’ve been seeing a few people disagreeing with what Gibson says. I don’t know who to believe is right, and no one will know until XP has been out for a while.
For me? Hasn’t crashed yet. A good eight months of rigorous use, and not a single crash in Windows 98. Everything that HAS crashed has been third-party software or games… but Windows always remained stable.
I think it’s a combination of proper maintenance (I run Scandisk and Disk Defragger religiously) and eliminating unnecessary background programs.
I cannot stand Steve Gibson. Or, in Gibson-speak: I cannot STAND STEVE GIBSON!!! The guy is a media whore, and will say anything to get attention. Yeah, he’s obviously a slick programmer and hacker. I respect him for that. I don’t respect his hysterics and prophecies of doom and gloom – and the worst part is, the media does not treat them like the ravings of a deranged lunatic, but rather as Truth spoken from a “renowned expert.” I would not believe a word out of his mouth unless it were corroborated by many other (and better) sources. Just read The Register’s dealings with this madman:
He predicted that Code Red would result in the demise of the Internet As We Know It. Um, we’re all here. Looks to me like we came out of it fine. Read all about it here and here. He’s been pulling these stunts since 1992.
He’s not insane. He just got beaten up every single day in high school for talking that way, and since finding the Internet, he now has a venue where the bullies can’t get him.
Well, unless you’re a 13 year old bully who knows how to ping-flood.
God, imagine him speaking the way he writes, except with a cracking voice.
I don’t mind CTRL-C, CTRL-X, and Ctrl-Y, but if every friggin CTRL-Letter combo does something it becomes a pain. I just looked in Word and there are over 40 CTRL and ALT combos. At least make it the default to have them off. I mean is it really necessary to make CTRL-Q remove the paragraph format. How often do you do that?
Here are the “common” shortcuts:
CTRL+SHIFT+SPACEBAR Create a nonbreaking space
CTRL+HYPHEN Create a nonbreaking hyphen
CTRL+B Make letters bold
CTRL+I Make letters italic
CTRL+U Make letters underline
CTRL+SHIFT+< Decrease font size
CTRL+SHIFT+> Increase font size
CTRL+Q Remove paragraph formatting
CTRL+SPACEBAR Remove character formatting
CTRL+C Copy the selected text or object
CTRL+X Cut the selected text or object
CTRL+V Paste text or an object
CTRL+Z Undo the last action
CTRL+Y Redo the last action
Let me jump in here again for a moment. When designing a user interface for a program of some complexity, the more options a a user has for completing a task, ultimately, the easier it will be to perform that task. Good UI design allows for growth and learning in the user. At first, you may not need to deal with parapgraph formatting. It might be so rare, that you never use it at all. When you do have occasion to use that functionality, you will probably look to the menu first with it’s tabbed dialog boxes or wizards. As you repeat these tasks and become more experienced with various aspects of the program, those menu items and dialogs will become less and less helpful. You will be motivated to learn some obscure key combination because it will make that task more efficient. Look at how many menu items have associated key combinations. That’s not by accident.
In general, a user’s involvement with a new program starts out at the basic beginner level. At this stage, wizards, assistants, and tutorials are most useful in learning and using the program. Some users never progress beyond this level. A majority move on. After growing familiarity with the program, users look for ways to do more complex tasks. Wizards and tutorials are still helpful if the task is rare, or brand new, but common tasks are accomplished using menu items, toolbar buttons, and some shortcuts useful to their area of interest - perhaps one or two aspects of the program that the user becomes intimately familiar with. Context-sensitive also help serve to unobtrusively remind the user of things they may have forgotten between instances of the program. In Word, it might be table generation or the HTML editor. The user will develop proficiency with these modules to the exclusion of others, learning the keyboard shortcuts necessary to do the job without aid from the program’s help system, menus, or wizards/tutorials except where absolutely necessary. A small minority become power users learning more of the intricacies of the various shortcuts and menu optionns, but very few leverage ALL available interfaces.
They key point to remember is that a thoughtfully designed UI incorporates functionality that will appeal to many levels of expertise within the user community. Programs by Microsoft, like Office, make decent efforts to accommodate a user’s learning curve. It’s unfortunate that more win app developers don’t pay attention to these things.
One of my main gripes with Macintosh computers early on was the apparent desire on the part of the developers to treat me like a new user, every time I used the machine. The UI was (or is) very inflexible to growth in the end user. (I have not used a Mac in 5 or more years, so this may have changed).
I get the whole idea of designing a UI that is easy for novices and powerful for experts. I have been developing SW for 25 years and using Word for 10. The problem is that typos happen, and if when you hit CTRL-Q rather than SHIFT-Q some totally unexpected thing occurs it is really annoying. I don’t know how many times family members have called me up saying something like “I don’t know what happened, all of a sudden my text just disappeared.” A lot of the keyboard shortcuts date back to the pre-mouse days, and are not well thought out additions to the UI.
I have seen other approaches to short cuts that I prefer. For example, the ability to create macros and bind them to a key combination of your choosing. To me, that is a much better solution for experts.
The menu bar problem is similar. It is just too easy to be off by one pixel when you grab the border to move a window. It is really disconcerting when the menu detatches from the window. It’s like having the handle come off a door when you are opening it. In real life door handles are detatchable, but it takes a concious effort to get out a screwdriver to accomplish it.
Of course, this is an error on the part of the User. If a software company tried to anticipate every typo that its millions of users might make… well… computers would never have advanced past punchcards.
And after all, you type shift+Q so often :rolleyes:
Sorry, but this part of your argument doesn’t fly. Typos are typos, and if you do something unexpected, you just undo and move on. No lasting harm, no foul.
This is a nice solution for macros, but a rather poor one for experts. If the user is trying to make your program behave like a similar program that they already have muscle-memory for, then this can be useful. But that really only applies if you are the number 2 bestselling program in the category.
Plus it puts and additional burden on the user, (they must create bindings before they can use them). And when you sit down at someone else’s machine, you are just SOL because they aren’t going to have the same bindings.
Now, THAT is a genuine screw up on the part of MS. There is simply NO good reason to allow menus to tear off, and several good reasons why they shouldn’t. Luckily, that behaviour can be disabled. As near as I can tell, some programmer at MS made menu’s tear off for no other reason than because they COULD. [sub]morons[/sub]
I was thinking about your post when it clicked. Generally, when you type the wrong letter you just use the Backspace or Delete keys to correct the problem. If you make a mistake with a “command” (either from a menu or shortcut) you use Undo.
I think what confuses novices (and occasionaly frustrates me) is when you think you are entering text and instead some action occurs. Your (mine anyway) mind wants to think “oh, I typed the wrong key, lets just backup and try again.” Instead you have to realize that you typed CTRL-ALT-Left Elbow by mistake and use Undo.
That’s certainly true. Still, certain aspects of Microsoft UI design are much more difficult to excuse. The inconsistent drag-and-drop behavior of the Windows 9x UI, for example. (Dragging and dropping a file has different effects, depending on whether the file in question is executable or not, and whether its destination is on the same drive as the source.) Also, the tendency of Windows to instantly divert your input from one window to another, without warning, is both annoying and potentially dangerous.