Evil Microsoft

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by Horrortaxi
For crying out loud! My point was that a lot of people's jobs depend on Microsoft dropping the ball. Because Windows has so many problems a lot of people outside of Microsoft make a lot of money. It's just an interesting thing I realized. Nobody has given a rebuttal to that. I've conceded the hard drive thing already, but the RAM voodoo is valid. Sure a system will benefit from as much RAM as you can give it, but feeding it RAM when it starts to slow down doing the same things it's always done is voodoo and it's very common. It may work for a while, until the registry bloats up some more. I've done my research, unfortunately, as a Windows user from 3.1 to XP. I know what I'm talking about. This is all out of context now though.

Wow sorry, I didn't realize that Windows user since 3.1 = RAM Utilization expert. Silly me.

I've been using Windows since 3.0 when I got my 386 25Mhz from CompuADD. I'm a network admin in a school with computers ranging from Windows ME - XP and OS 9.2 - 10.2.6. So I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to getting the most performance boost while still fitting it in your budget.

More ram to a point always helps. There are limits to what an OS can utilize, 98 was around 512, OS 9 was 999mb per app.

There are reasons it works too, often as users use their computer more and more they begin multitasking. I've never seen anybody sit down for the first time at a computer and be working on 3 apps at a time. In fact I just sat with a teacher yesterday to introduce her to OS X and she was going nuts because she realized she could have Safari and Word open at the same time and switch back and forth. As they begin multitasking, they need more ram, thus their computer starts "slowing down". You add more ram, presto, it works faster.

Another reason that the registry gets bloated is because of all the crappy applications that a end user installs from the internet and the cd that comes in your box of cheerios. They are poorly written applications that either install uncleanly or uninstall uncleanly, leaving behind junk in the registry. I can tell you here at this school where only network admins can install anything on windows computers, we don't have this problem of things "slowing down" or the registry bloating. In fact I have computers in some classrooms that have been running 2k for 2+ years without having to be restored once. They haven't slowed down a bit.

I'll agree with SiliconAddict that most of our problems don't arise from OS things. They are from third party apps, if you take out all of the "How do I do this" calls, we don't have many problems. In fact the only time that I've had people complain the computers were slow is when we've upgraded the iMac 333s that we have to 10.2 when they were running 9.2 before that. But thats ok, hopefully we'll get the funding to get a G5 lab by the end of this school year

I find it insulting that people believe that IT people don't do their job to the best just so they can make more work for themselves. I find that once a servers/network stuff/disk images are setup and installed that most of the problems come from idiotic end users who don't know how to do something rather than problems with the software. These people then turn around and blame the IT people because they cannot use their equipment correctly. Ok this is kind of a rant but here is a quick story.

I had a teacher complain to everybody....I mean everybody that her computers weren't working. She managed to tell everybody except the IT people so we could fix it. So parents are coming in and are like "how come the computers don't work". All of us are like, what are you talking about? So we go look at these computers and we can't find anything wrong with them. What it comes down to is that her speakers weren't working. Why weren't they working? She had the headphones plugged in. Not a big deal, but the reputation of my department's quality of work has jumped down a few notches because of one stupid end user. Ok end rant.

 

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
I'll agree with SiliconAddict that most of our problems don't arise from OS things. They are from third party apps,

If you couple that with your registry comments, wouldn't you say that if you purchase a machine you should be able to use it?

As in, I don't really want to turn on my PC every day just to use Microsofts pre-installed applications. I want to see what's on that cheerios CD.

If applications can do that to a system, surely the system is at fault.

AppleMatt

 

[ColdZero]

So if I write some crappy application I should expect the system to make it work like it should then? I didn't know an operating system could rewrite code.

What I'm saying is that a lot of applications are badly written. They don't follow the OS design guidelines like they should. There are a few programs we use here which do not follow Apple's guidelines on how to be a MacManager friendly application. Or even how to be a good OS 9 application. They store their preferences or whatever in some file in some random folder rather than in the preferences folder where it can be managed. Should I blame Apple for that program being written incorrectly? No. If somebody makes a windows program that installs a whole bunch of stuff to the registry in random places under random names, and then when you uninstall it it doesn't remove any of that, should I blame Microsoft? No.

You can use your computer to do whatever you want, but if you install crappy things to it or do crazy things with it, don't blame the system if its getting slow when it is not it's fault.

 

[themadchemist]

A few years back, Microsoft released Windows 98. Sometime later, it released Windows 98 SE.

Those are two evil things right off the bat. I'll let you know if I think of more.

 

[AppleMatt]

ColdZero,

Not entirely what I was getting at. I was more talking about the fact that, as an example, Windows will allow applications to overwrite DLLs in the system folder.

I'm not saying that it's right they do, I'm saying that it fundamentally shouldn't be possible. Also there is no segregation between system and user within the registry.

AppleMatt

 

[ColdZero]

There is lots of segregation in the registry. It is all 1 registry, but there are different parts of it. There is HKEY_currentuser, HKEY_users, HKEY_local_machine etc etc. Each refers to different things, the names are pretty self explanitory.

Any operating system will allow you to rewrite DLLs or system files if you have the correct permissions. Its not something you can really take out of an OS, at some point you need to be able to write, delete or add to those files, in any OS. What you can do is create proper user permissions for everybody else that will be using the computer to prevent such things from happening.

 

[Horrortaxi]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Wow sorry, I didn't realize that Windows user since 3.1 = RAM Utilization expert. Silly me.

Who said I was a "ram utilization expert?" It sure wasn't me. I said I've seen people throw memory at their computer when it slows down, and I've seen that not work--a lot.

 

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
What you can do is create proper user permissions for everybody else that will be using the computer to prevent such things from happening.

I understand the registry, I've spent enough time fiddling around with it.

What does Windows not do...
Obviously system files have to be updated, with Windows regularly and Mac OS frequently. But allowing a user to delete/modify etc system files is very weak, as highlighted by the fake virus alerts that have people deleting system files. If they don't know any better, they're gonna follow the advice.

Windows XP comes a little closer to this in protecting around 1000 system files, but it's far from perfect. If you damage a key part of IE, you can make Explorer.exe unusable.

AppleMatt

 

[ColdZero]

This is true if you user an account with administrative access for day to day use. Any Linux person will tell you that once you have your system installed you create an account for yourself for day to day business that does not have administrative access. This way you can't accidentally delete or screw things up.

If I login to the admin account on my mac, I can go delete whatever I want and the system won't stop me. A few rm -rf and I would have a very messed up system. On the windows computers in my house, there is an admin account and a lower account for everybody in the house. The admin account doesn't get used unless it is needed, and things don't get slow or screw up.

Tell me how does OS X protect system files? Or linux or unix? I don't understand what you mean by protect system files. If you have the permissions to delete or modify the files, there is nothing the system will do to stop it because you are supposed to be able to do that.

 

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Tell me how does OS X protect system files? Or linux or unix? I don't understand what you mean by protect system files. If you have the permissions to delete or modify the files, there is nothing the system will do to stop it because you are supposed to be able to do that.

I never said OS X protects system files

Also I haven't said anything about Windows slowing down.

But you've said what I was trying to get at. You can destroy a Mac OS X system with the rm command (but thankfully not trash the entire root drive as in UNIX), but how many 'home' (average) users know that command? Now on Windows, take it the 'home' user gets an email saying "importantsystemfile.dll" is actually a virus, they don't check the Symantec website (what average user does), they delete the file and continue their work. Next restart, poof.

Eitherway, my original point was that, IMO, you should be able to use a computer if you buy it. I know about the Windows registry because I have to. I know about Mac OS X terminal commands because I want to. I have no qualms installing programs on my Macs (3), but on my Windows machines (7), I really think twice. I have been known to create an image of my HDD before an install because of previous experience.

AppleMatt

 

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by AppleMatt
Now on Windows, take it the 'home' user gets an email saying "importantsystemfile.dll" is actually a virus, they don't check the Symantec website (what average user does), they delete the file and continue their work. Next restart, poof.

Thats not the OS's fault, thats an uninformed user. If there was the same thing saying to a Mac user /System/Library/CoreServices/SystemUIServer contains a virus. I'm sure there are some Mac users who will realize its a gag, but then the "average home user" won't and would delete it as well. And seeing that when you register OS X, the account that is created has admin privledges, they would be able to delete it as well.

I never said OS X protects system files

I ment that as a question not as a remark. You said that Windows does not do this, I'd like you to tell me how other OS's do.

I have no problems installing good apps on either of my computers, but will think twice if its some freeware app, free cd, or some app that has been ported. Because often these things don't work correctly or work with limitations.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Thats not the OS's fault, thats an uninformed user. If there was the same thing saying to a Mac user /System/Library/CoreServices/SystemUIServer contains a virus. I'm sure there are some Mac users who will realize its a gag, but then the "average home user" won't and would delete it as well. And seeing that when you register OS X, the account that is created has admin privledges, they would be able to delete it as well.
...

Not through the Finder, you can't. Even admin level users only have read access to the System directory and its contents.

Only root-level access via CLI can delete those files, meaning an "average home user" is not very likely to delete them.

 

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
I ment that as a question not as a remark. You said that Windows does not do this, I'd like you to tell me how other OS's do.

On the contrary, I said Windows XP does it to an extent. However I see replacing something after it's broke not as (hard to find correct word) intelligent as preventing them deleting it in the first place.

As for other OS's, as I and Rower said, Mac OS X prevents it *to an extent*, but I'm not getting into a who-has-the-most-OS-knowledge/who-has-all-the-answers debate.

AppleMatt

 

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Not through the Finder, you can't. Even admin level users only have read access to the System directory and its contents.

Only root-level access via CLI can delete those files, meaning an "average home user" is not very likely to delete them.

When you install something and it asks you for your authrization, its using that password you enter to read and write to those directories.

So I go and write a little program that goes: Virus found (insert favorite path to critical file here) would you like to delete it? Yes. No. Click Yes, please enter your admin password. Done.

As for other OS's, as I and Rower said, Mac OS X prevents it *to an extent*, but I'm not getting into a who-has-the-most-OS-knowledge/who-has-all-the-answers debate.

Neither am I, but what I'm trying to point out is that most OSs to an extent work perfectly fine the way they are. Most vulnarabilities are because of user intervention. The vast majority of problems come from people not understanding something or not reading everything completly. Or like you said, not looking at the Symantec database.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ColdZero
When you install something and it asks you for your authrization, its using that password you enter to read and write to those directories.

So I go and write a little program that goes: Virus found (insert favorite path to critical file here) would you like to delete it? Yes. No. Click Yes, please enter your admin password. Done.

True, but that's not the example you gave. If we're comparing Windows Explorer allowing a user to manually delete a file or Finder doing the same, Finder is more protective of the System files.

 

[ColdZero]

Ugh, fine, that was a response to the email example AppleMatt gave. Ok one for you. I have a regular user account in XP, I go to try and delete system files, it doesn't work. Why? Because the system privledges are setup correctly. Its all about permissions, its not about what Finder or Explorer does. The reason you can't delete things in finder is not because it protects them, its because apple has set the permissions on the file system level for those files to root r/w and readable by all. So in effect what apple has done is make your admin acount not really an admin account.

Edit:

Try this go change the permissions for those system directories from root r/w and all read to all r/w. Then go back to finder and try to delete them. Its not so protective now is it?

 

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Ugh, fine, that was a response to the email example AppleMatt gave. Ok one for you. I have a regular user account in XP, I go to try and delete system files, it doesn't work. Why? Because the system privledges are setup correctly. Its all about permissions, its not about what Finder or Explorer does. The reason you can't delete things in finder is not because it protects them, its because apple has set the permissions on the file system level for those files to root r/w and readable by all. So in effect what apple has done is make your admin acount not really an admin account.

My email example did not include a program, it was a direct example of the emails that spread a while back advising users to delete system files. No programs involved, just step-by-steps. Examples;

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/hoax.html

If we talk about Windows XP, it only protects (restores after alteration) around 1000 system files, but if we assume it protected all of them...it's still possible to obliterate usage by crippling IE (I say usage as in, once again our friend the average home user, who would not know how to restore functionality without a re-install).
If we're talking about previous versions of Windows, there's no protection.

The admin account in OS X is just that, an admin account. It requires authorisation to modify system files. So...

AppleMatt

edit: Just to clear up, I'm not refuting any comments about privileges.

 

[ColdZero]

Ok, now I'm all confused. By protect do you mean backup? Or do you mean prevent the user from modifying. Because you said restores the last 1000 or whatever, which implies a backup, not protecting. But then its said that you can't trash the files is protecting. Which one is it? Automatic backups of critical files? Protecting with permissions? Big Burley man going "don't even think about deleting that"? What?

And it requires authorization to modify system files in XP as well. On both OSs you need an admin account or password.

 

[AppleMatt]

Exactly. In Windows XP the protection isn't protection at all, it's restoring the file after it has been deleted/modified etc with a copy of the original. This is done (almost) silently.

As for;

Originally posted by ColdZero

By protect do you mean backup? Or do you mean prevent the user from modifying. Because you said restores the last 1000 or whatever, which implies a backup, not protecting. But then its said that you can't trash the files is protecting. Which one is it?"

it would be nice if you bothered to read my posts, I extend the same courtesy to you.

AppleMatt

 

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by AppleMatt
Exactly. In Windows XP the protection isn't protection at all, it's restoring the file after it has been deleted/modified etc with a copy of the original. This is done (almost) silently.

As for;


it would be nice if you bothered to read my posts, I extend the same courtesy to you.

AppleMatt

I've read your posts forwards and backwards trying to figure out what you are trying to say. I still can't figure it out. First your talking about protection, they resotrations, then protection again. Can you please in the next post just type out what you are talking about. You've made this so convoluted I don't even know what this damed thread is about anymore.

OS X does not protect files, Windows does not protect files. I've never said either does. They work on permissions models. If you have access to write a file, you can write it, its simple as that. If it is a system file, so be it.

Any percieved "protection" that you are getting from Finder or OS X or anything else is just that....percieved. OSs work on permissions when it comes to file access. Thats it.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ColdZero
...
Try this go change the permissions for those system directories from root r/w and all read to all r/w. Then go back to finder and try to delete them. Its not so protective now is it?

Can you change those permissions through the Finder?

 

[ColdZero]

Yep.... Bring up the information on an item. Then click ownership so it opens up, then change permissions as you want. If it is changing them on something you don't own, you need the admin password.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Yep.... Bring up the information on an item. Then click ownership so it opens up, then change permissions as you want. If it is changing them on something you don't own, you need the admin password.

OK, but you still need to authenticate.

I agree with what you said about permissions schemes and OS-level protection earlier. OS X's Unix-based scheme appears to be much more protective of system files. Finder is nothing more than a means of "finding" and using files on your hard drive. Luckily, it has the benefit of the permissions settings handed down to it.

 

[mim]

Originally posted by ColdZero

Can anybody name one large company in size range such as Microsoft that is nice?

That's the point.

You don't get to be a company the size of MS without being evil.

People often try to say to be that they're big because they have good products and they are savvy business people.

Well, no to both. In each case it has been shown in courts and proven beyond appeal that they have benifitted massivley from stolen technology, and that they activley persue strategies to shut down and lock out competition.

We don't all drive Fords because the roads were all built so that only Fords could be driven on them.....the computer (and OS) industry *should* be no different. And with a common stratgey of using OSS as a base to build from, there is no reason it can't be.

 

[AppleMatt]

ColdZero,

I quoted a comment from you about using applications on Windows, and the problems they can cause. My question was don't you think if you purchase a machine, you should be able to use it without worrying of the consequences.

My reasoning was, if on my Macs I can install applications and remove them at will, surely there is a fundamental problem in Windows if installing and removing apps can cripple the system (which I have done numerous times). I know there are bad programmers out there, of course there are, but that affects every platform.

So if I write a Mac application, it sticks a preference file in it's own folder. So what? There's a file taking up one block of HDD space on the hard-drive, sloppy? Yes, dangerous? No. However if I write a Windows program, which overwrites a system file during the install. It could be newer and create no issues, but at the same time it could well be older, and create problems. Also, what happens if my un-install removes that DLL file? (admittedly they usually just leave it there).

To which you said any OS allows you to write system files at some point, it has to, the possibility of which lays with permissions. I completely agree, of course it does, however on my Windows machines, I can happily delete/move a load of system files until I get bored. Should I receive an email telling me a system files is a virus, wahay I delete it. Now if I try and do that on my Macs, I get lots of errors telling me even with my admin account I don't have the correct permissions, it's owned by root etc etc. but...

...I didn't want it to look like I was completely bashing Windows, I use it every day and enjoy it. So I pointed out that XP protects 1000 of (what Microsoft considers) the most important system files. If an application/user over-writes or deletes them, it silently replaces them with the original. Your system keeps on going without a hitch. However it is only 1000 files, and as an example, you can delete parts of IE and make Explorer unusable. Also the protection in Windows is different to the protection in Mac. The Mac doesn't allow you to delete the file in the first place, Windows does, but it replaces it afterwards.

I am assuming of course, both machines were taken out of the box, ie, they both have admin accounts, and that these are 'regular home users'. Obviously no system is perfect, and obviously there are always ways around every system put in place to stop damage (or else how would we tweak our systems to get the most performance ). I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say, my original point being that we should be able to use systems that we buy.

AppleMatt