I don't see any other way to eventually get rid of the always-run-as-administrator Windows paradigm than to make it a little painful and painfully obvious when things need administrator privileges, even when ostensibly running as Administrator.

Once this is a way of life the people that develop software (who have always run as Administrator) will see clearly when they are making mistakes and work to remediate those problems in the future. The majority of cases where software purports to require admin rights shouldn't or doesn't actually require those rights.

Hopefully Windows.next or Windows.next.next will remove the need for these prompts by actually making everybody run as a standard user. Hopefully software will have caught up and will no longer require admin rights where it shouldn't.

I think most people will find that the frequency of UAC prompts goes down pretty quickly once the system is up and running.

All of that being said, Microsoft is still looking pretty lackluster these days. It will be their biggest test yet in the next 12-18 months to see whether than can change and adapt quickly enough to stop the slide (whether it's only in perceptions or execution, I personally think it's both).

If they could only get more of their platform(s) into managed code I think they would probably realize a lot more flexibility and efficiency in their development.

An inconvenient truth, eh? How about the inconvenience of Apples iTunes software that if you install it under Vista and connect your iPod, it will completely hose your hardware (goodbye iPod, end of story)?

As to the security of iTunes, the latest version requires that XP remote desktop be turned ON. I have absolutely no idea what a third party utility is doing with respect to remote desktop, but there is nothing good, security wise, that comes from requiring OS security to be relaxed in order to download music files.

When it come to the quality and security of software, Apple is the last company that I would pay any attention to.

Tim

I agree that UAC is onerous in its execution. I liked the "idea" behind it but after a few days with RC1, I turned it off and have never looked back.

It's the little things that get me....deleting a shortcut on the desktop, moving certain items to the recycled bin. I understand that malicious software might do these things and the UAC is therefore protecting me from malevolent programs, but it should be "smart" enough to know that a user is initiating these activities and then *not* display the UAC confirmation.

There's got to be a better way to skin this cat than UAC....

--Jason

Please don't forget that the "chatty" or "noisy" behavior is the default configuration and can be disabled to meet the needs of the user in just a few clicks. Personally, I consider the prompts intrusive, but I leave them on because I feel that system operations need to be watched by something. Things I do infrequently like changing my network settings are not performed enough to make disabling the UAC prompts worth it. I've been programming full-time on vista since business release in November... I might get a UAC prompt at most once every three days. The negative feedback on UAC is way over-stated in my opinion. From my experience real-world UAC comes up very infrequently.

I find that if I switch off UAC while installing my PC and when done after building it, I have very problems with UAC at all. While building the box, it is annonying, but after that, UAC really is a good thing.

*I* think that the ad is 100% on target.

And it really TWISTS the knife after sticking it in, too :D

Microsoft more secure? HAH, What are you smokin? Just ask any university network admin. Mac and Linux both are far more secure by design. Microsoft is a marketing company.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-6690672-1.html

Vista is the deathknell of Microsoft. The anchor that drags the ship under. If 5 years of the best and the brightest can only muster this lackluster effort than the patient is dying. I wonder at what could have been and gaze at Vista and Zune and realize the empire is crumbling. I don't use a Mac, though friends do, so I know what they're about. I've used Linux and Unix and a few variants. I've seen fast and used fast co-operative operating systems with smart easy to use software. Windows has never been one of them. It's always been a fight to accomplish anything on a Windows Box and god knows I've nursemaided enough of them in my lifetime. I've probably lost about 2 years of my life just waiting for Windows to boot (and reboot and reboot etc.)
The Mac commercials are brilliant in their reverse anthromorphism, where people behave as machines, much as I expect people do on the Microsoft campus, but I've never been there. I find it interesting how clueless Bill Gates is when he tries to criticize these commercials, he sounds positively adolescent and total geek overload. If I was his mum I would of drowned him, but thats another story.

Bla Bla Bla Macs are great. Linux is even better.
This is getting ridiculous. Every single article about Vista turns into a debate how the Mac OS and Linux is soooo much better. What, Apple owns 5% of the market and Linux even less. Don't you think there is a reason for that? If macs and Linux is so great it would be the other way around. I think people just hate the ones who are always on top and making money.

This is coming from a guy who uses Macs at work and school. I also have used Linux at home; not that great.

Come back 2 years from now with your market numbers.

Linux owns the server room.

Mac will own the living room.

Its not people saying Apple or Linux is better as much as facing reality that Microsoft has not produced anything worthwhile in years.

GCRaya,

Have you ever used anything else? I admit that Macs aren't perfect and Linux still has a ways to go for most users (mostly because it can't cope with DRMed multimedia), but with the bar so low, it's really hard for Vista usees to avoid tripping on it.

I used to manage IT support for a fairly large company (15000+ users). Over a three-year period, the company went from being 80% Windows/15% Mac/5% other to 70% Mac/10% Windows/20% other. Why? We were spending over 8 times as much to support a Windows seat as we were to support a Mac, and surveys told us we had half the user satisfaction and productivity with Windows as we did with the others. It suddenly became rather difficult to justify getting a Windows PC; you had to have a business need for an app that just didn't exist on any other platform, and too many of those requests (for a specific app) got the wheels turning to find or commission a replacement. Now that Macs are built on top of an industry-standard OS known for its security (BSD Unix) and the hardware is based on Intel hardware (that could, at need, run XP or Linux), I'm told that it's becoming even harder to get Windows in the door. Oh - not having to worry about malware, and not having to burn out Windows support techs with 60-hour weeks on end (the Mac support people are contractually limited to 37.5-hour weeks; no OT for them in the last 5 years) doesn't hurt either.

If you make your decisions based on facts, you get one answer. If you use emotions or FUD, the marketroids make bloody well sure you get something else. We LIKE having control of our business processes.

While 95% of the world happily goes about their business, Mac fans spend half their existence trying to convince everyone else how great their little toy is, despite the fact that everyone seems to prefer a bigger player. The problem is, deep down they know their toy only satisfies 5% of the market. Now that Apple shifts away from Computers and into even smaller toys, Mac fans are becoming angry at their toy's lack of performance.

Meanwhile, Windows users just keep on loving their computers and being creative and productive with them. You will rarely ever hear from them, but we are The Silent Majority.

UAC is a great new feature. I am sooo glad it is there. Security is a huge concern for everyone and me. There is nothing more inconvenient than a virus, worm or trojan. I have had to format systems several times because of exploits. MS is doing the right thing with UAC. If people want to turn off UAC they should go ahead, then they should shut up when they have a problem too. but they won't shut up becuase in general people are stupid.

Amrita Saroye
Well said !
One other thing I would to that is ... if Apple Macs used to have "their own" CPU now they are starting to use "Intel".
I would ask ... "If PC's are so bad ... are you using a PC CPU ???"

Sorry I left out a few important words !
I will state it again "If PC's are so bad ...why are Apple MACS now using a PC CPU ???".

Amrita Saroye
I actually do not know of any Mac people who are spending any time trying to convert anyone to Mac. Now if we are asked, then this may be a different story.

Neil
To the best of my knowledge, Intel will sell their chips to anyone, but this, I think, really shows where the thinking is. Mac has been willing to make changes to the OS and the hardware, while Windows keeps chugging along. Yes, Windows has the largest market share, but with the way Windows is going this may not last. By the way Neil, it is not the Hardware, but the OS that is bad. At one time the PPC chip was the top, but it was passed by Intel, who also had a roadmap, and Apple changed. Companies change suppliers all the time, why is this even an issue.

Both OS'es: Windows and Mac have their own issues.
Their number and gravity are proportional I would say with the market share.
Don't you think that if Mac would be the leader, having 80% of the market all the guns will start to point at it; all the efort of the spam, viruses, trojans, spyware, addware ... will be concentrated towards Macs and Mac users?
Now, about the commercial:
If you Mac lovers say that the Windows OS is to blame and not the hardware why all the effort to discredit the PC. PC is not the OS.
The notion of the PC as in "PC and IBM compatibles" is a system that is or originates in the initial x86 or x80 architecture that IBM used. PC doesn't imply automatically Windows.
So let's face it your Mac is in fact a PC. The commercial is in fact about a son that makes fun of his father, a son who bites the hand that raised him.
It would be nice in a way to see two giants like HP and Dell (and others if possible) hand in hand making a set of commercials to combat these petty MAC commercials. But it's better they don't do it because this way they appear to have decency.

Anyway, everybody should know that it's because of the PC (and somebody at IBM) that most of us have a personal computer.

MAC's are good and it's always good to have competition but those commercials are so disgusting.

Amrita,

While 95% of the world happily goes about their business, Mac fans spend half their existence trying to convince everyone else how great their little toy is, despite the fact that everyone seems to prefer a bigger player. The problem is, deep down they know their toy only satisfies 5% of the market.

Saying that Macintosh is inferior to Windows because more people use Windows is like saying that all restaurants are inferior to McDonalds.

(Borrowed, copied, plagiarized, whatever (yeah, I can think of what to say on my own, but I couldn't have said this one any better myself)):

When referring to the masses (not the techie wireheads), they are afraid of Macs because they have problems with Windows.

They do HEAR that Macs are simpler (mixed with lots of FUD). However, they KNOW first hand that computers are a pain. What they KNOW matters most. So if computers they are familiar with (meaning Windows) are a pain, then an UNKNOWN computer would be worse! They think a Mac WOULD cause them problems because they don't understand that using a computer doesn't have to be as bad as their experience.

Two supporting reasons: fear of the unknown (and of learning something new (not all that different, but that's the fear)), and herd mentality: they don't know WHY everyone uses Windows, but they figure there must be SOME reason, so better stick with the crowd "just because."

And they're not all that conscious of their own reasons. They line up to buy another Windows machine without even considering that anything else is worth a look. (In this regard, the Mac ads on TV may be very useful.)

Meanwhile, Windows users just keep on loving their computers and being creative and productive with them. You will rarely ever hear from them, but we are The Silent Majority.

The reason we rarely hear from them is that there are only about... what...? 50 Windows users who really love the OS?

I *love* the Mac ads! They're brilliant and funny! They should convince a LOT of Windows users to switch, but not enough to make much difference in marketshare.

To GCRaya and Amrita Saroye, the reason why Windows is able to maintain its 95% marketshare is because of 1) fear of the unknown; 2) existing infrastructure investment; and 3) consumer harmony with the IT workplace.

1) is about being afraid to try something new, about ignorance and inertia. The Mac ads are attempting to convince people to give Mac a try. 2) is about the cost of switching and giving up their present investment in Windows apps. 3) is about being compatible with what they use at work. NONE of these things speak to the quality of Windows. People do not stick with Windows for the positive user experience. They simply resist having to incur the cost of learning something new.

To TheTruth, you are *technically* correct but broadly off-base. The PC started off being a hardware architecture married to MS-DOS. But in the mid-1990s, it became synonymous with Windows. To say that the PC is not the OS is just plain wrong. Today, when we think PC, we automatically think Windows.

The Mac ads are clever and witty. Most people like them. That you don't is completely immaterial.

However, your point about guns being trained on the market leader is well-taken. I agree with you, but the fact remains that Windows is much more problematic in the security arena. Switching to Mac is safer, precisely because Mac will never achieve Windows' marketshare!

1. UAC is not a security feature, it is a behavioural correction mechanism, mainly intended for developers. We just finished logo certification of our application and most of the work we had to do was undo unsafe operations (writing to system folders, Local Machine registry etc.) so that the UAC wont come up. Pressure from users will force most developers to follow safe practices.

2. While the commercials from MAC is extrememly well designed and persuasive, they are fraught with blatant misrepresentation. For e.g
a. Security - According to Symantec, MAC is only the third most secure OS and Windows is the most.(http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201)
b. Talking about hardware upgrading for Vista, they claim Mac doesnt need hardware upgrades. Their last major release is 100% incomplatible with previous versions (non-intel) mac machines
c. They try to equate Windows to PC hardware. One can always build a PC that is more stable and performs better than a MAC in their garage. Many niche companies are making quite impressive PC incarnations. One can argue that the extreme closeness of Apple by definition has limited talent pool.
3. Security is not absolute, not in IT, not in real life. The best way to be secure is to be pro-active. I will take MS instead of MAC anyday just by looking at the response time for any issues, in which (as pointed out earlier) MAC is way behind.

With automatic updates turned on, it seemed that Windows XP was installing IE 7 without asking? Or am I wrong?

Salim:

"a. Security - According to Symantec, MAC is only the third most secure OS and Windows is the most.(http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201)"

RIDICULOUS. if that's so, then why are there ZERO viruses, trojans and worms in the wild for Mac OS X despite it's being out for 6 or 7 years now, and over a HUNDRED THOUSAND for Windows. But that's what you get for believing the MARKETING arm of Symantec, who makes a living selling anti-virus software. Because that's what their security "rating" is. Marketing of their security product. If it's not, then I dare them to stop selling anti-virus software for Windows. What? Not going to happen? There you go, then. Proof that I am right. As if it was necesary, anyway. Windows is the MOST insecure operating system, not the least. The Mac may or may not be the most secure, that's certainly debatable. But Windows being the MOST insecure is NOT debatable. All you have to do is wake up and look around you.

"b. Talking about hardware upgrading for Vista, they claim Mac doesnt need hardware upgrades. Their last major release is 100% incomplatible with previous versions (non-intel) mac machines"

WRONG. I switched from a PowerBook G4 (PowerPC chip) to a MacBook Pro (Intel Core Duo Chip). I had to replace NONE of my hardware or software. It all continues to run exactly as before, including Microsoft Office, etc. I didn't have to do a thing. As the saying go "It Just Works".

"c. They try to equate Windows to PC hardware. One can always build a PC that is more stable and performs better than a MAC in their garage. Many niche companies are making quite impressive PC incarnations. One can argue that the extreme closeness of Apple by definition has limited talent pool."

BLARNEY: 99% of people do not build their own PC. They buy a Dell or an HP or other off the shelf PC.

I haven't had a crash or other problem on my Mac in years. NONE on my current MacBook Pro. My PC at work, however.....lots of 'em. And we have a huge corporate infrastructure devoted to keeping them running, too. Hundreds of people.