New Fire Fox Update

[Heather]

TWIT!! Yes, I will remove it shortly along with other bits and pieces.
Still not back on Planet Earth yet. And I did get your email and will
answer it and I did make GMail the default for you.....damn you had a
lot of different addies!!

Double Kissies.....half from the Wonder Cat!!

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23VGZq$myHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> LOL!! Willy is 6' 4 and gruff and from the Congo.....you think this
>> 5' 3" sweet-talkin' little old white lady is going to argue with
>> him??
>>
>> Well, yes I do. I boss him around something fierce usually. He told
>> me he put it on and thought I was having a brain-f**t and has
>> forgotten to put it on. I gave him HELL!! He really is a good guy,
>> honest.
>> Any tricks to taking it off?? I told PA Bear and he gave me some
>> links, one of which was Sandi's, and it seemed to be more bother than
>> leaving it alone.
>>
>
> Yes <vbg> well the trick I use is highlighting it in Add/Remove
> Programs then clicking *Remove*! <vbga>
>
> Well, I don't know if you've got Home or Pro. I hope to Godzilla it
> isn't an option *only* available in Pro! But even if you've got Home,
> I'm sure Sandi and Paw do use Pro, so if they don't see
> it...well...Paw Rugg is getting on, I guess, he was on when I was
> little, along with Squiddley Diddley iirc! But I didn't think Sandi
> was quite in her mairsey dotage...
>
> How about...it's because it's not called Internet Explorer anymore,
> it's called Windows Internet Explorer? Maybe it's *that* simple and
> they - or no-one else - is looking *other* than under Microsoft! Well,
> I for one will have a riot if that's the case - I'm already grinning
> so much I expect a midwife to snip my tongue any moment!
>
>
>
>> Kissies....Figgs
>>
>>>
>
>
> Send us another e-mail Figgs! One day I'll work out how I keep
> overwriting current addys with old ones and stop doing it! I really
> *really* need to delete my old wabs before installing yet another
> Windows! I should print them out and burn them.
>
> Anyway, I've done it once again and the only way I know which the
> current ones are is by seeing the most recent e-mails from you guys
> that thankfully Google retains! However, if ever there was anyone as
> fickle as me with their e-mail accounts, it's you! As I'm sure you'll
> readily 'fess to!
>
>
> Kissies yerself! Goddamn!
>
> Shane
>

 

[jeanette]

> Did you remove the old one and replace it with this one? I usually do.
> Don't trust laying one over top of the other.
>
> Cheers....Figgs


It has been popping up on my screen for nearly two weeks, but I keep
refusing it by clicking 'later'.
I do this because it states it will not support my Star Downloader, and it
took me forever to find this downloadmanager that is free.......... and
works like a charm too.
Seems like a communication breakdown twixt Mozilla and Star programers
just wish they would see the big picture.
In this case, it seems that Mozilla is the guilty party, especially as they
have
pointed out via their update that Star wont work........ in other words,
they
could have easily worked it into the new version due to prior knowledge.

just two bobs.

J

J

 

[Shane]

jeanette wrote:
>> Did you remove the old one and replace it with this one? I usually
>> do. Don't trust laying one over top of the other.
>>
>> Cheers....Figgs
>
>
> It has been popping up on my screen for nearly two weeks, but I keep
> refusing it by clicking 'later'.
> I do this because it states it will not support my Star Downloader,
> and it took me forever to find this downloadmanager that is
> free.......... and works like a charm too.
> Seems like a communication breakdown twixt Mozilla and Star programers
> just wish they would see the big picture.
> In this case, it seems that Mozilla is the guilty party, especially
> as they have
> pointed out via their update that Star wont work........ in other
> words, they
> could have easily worked it into the new version due to prior
> knowledge.
>
> just two bobs.
>

Hi, Jeanette,

Yes, that frequently happens, basically because the extensions aren't
written by Mozilla and it's up to the extension writers to update them. As
there are new test builds of Firefox released most, if not every, night, it
is down to the extension writers to update for the latest which is likely to
become the official new, stable build eventually. Given that Firefox is free
and Open Source, you can't really blame the FF team for anything re
extensions or themes. That's done by enthusiasts (you or I could have a go
at writing one if we wanted!) or by software suppliers who want to use FF as
a platform for their product.

Download reminders repeatedly popping up: apart from the fact new builds
*are* security fixes - where Microsoft release a patch (though not for IE in
Win ME anymore), Mozilla release a complete new build - but one that you can
(usually) update requiring only a small part rather than the whole of the
total download - I and doubtless many others prefer to disable update
checking nonetheless. We check regularly enough anyway plus someone always
posts of new builds in places like this, so it's not really any sort of
threat.

To disable automatic checking, go to Tools\Options\Advanced\Update and
uncheck the three (or just the top one) boxes on the subject. But if you
don't come to places like this regularly, and forget to manually check, you
could end up with something seriously compromised like Heather!

<vbg - probably in the 'evil' category>

But as for extensions, generally, when they don't work in a new build of FF
it's because it's written by someone doing it in their spare time and it
isn't *that* much of a priority. And usually it gets corrected quite
quickly. My own feeling on your experience is that the writers of Star
Downloader can't yet appreciate the popularity of FF and so have not been in
any sort of hurry to upgrade (?). I use MetaProducts Mass Downloader (not
free) and that happened to me several builds back. I got the idea the Mass
Downloader plugin was written by someone unconnected with MetaProducts.
Except that it *is* available directly from them (always, it seems, as a
beta). Anyhow the forums are sufficiently exercised on the subject that I
think they dismissed FF as a pretender for a while but that is never going
to happen again. Though I still don't know if MD actually write the plugin.

Shane

 

[Joan Archer]

Have you tried Maxthon Shane ? I use that, OK it's a shell that runs on
the IE engine but has lots of features going for it. I do have IE7 but
with the Maxthon shell and have no problems even going to Windows Updates
with it <g>
Joan



Shane wrote:
>
> I wouldn't be at all happy if he did that without consulting you,
> Figgs. What, does he think it's *his* computer?
>
> Get used to it? I grew to hate it - but then found Pro's Group Policy
> allows a few adjustments that I never found elsewhere, that enable me
> to make it look a *little* more like I want my browser to look,
> peform a little more like I want one to perform. But after a few
> weeks - it is small potatoes. I thought for a moment there I might
> place it on level footing with Firefox, but it's still not in the
> same league. There are one or two things Internet Explorer does
> better - like the way it gives saved pages a friendly name as opposed
> to the meaningless cipher FF gives them, but that's hardly a basis on
> which to choose!
> I have all three now. I also had Opera but can't get on with that one
> at all - it ranks with Avast! for me cosmetically and I think its
> performance is similarly reminiscent. And I have a copy of Firebird -
> which I wish they hadn't renamed - it was about the only nice unit
> BSA!
> But basically I run Firefox, IE6 and IE7. And that's the order I rank
> them in (again!). Who knows what IE6sp2/IE7 would be like without the
> stupid security warnig barrage! What M$ are doing since XP SP2, is
> turning the whole of Windows into the OS for the AOL-grade schoolers.
> I guess that's why they've persisted with the CDO! I dunno, its
> almost the OS you'd get if you listened to the Mental Minority (I
> guess they're still around, seeing as how their man and pal of Uncle
> Charlie's still in the White House).
> Unless Willy is really trying to wrest control of your machine from
> you, Figgs, you can uninstall IE7 and automatically go back to 6. As
> with all M$ installations in the IE7 ballpark, you get warned that
> every prog you've installed since *might not work*! but I've never
> known that happen, and even if it did in all likelihood all you'd
> have to do is run the setup again. Or sue Willy. Jeez. Not like you
> to take that kind of noive, Figgs! I'd tread on his knackers.
>
>
> Shane
>

 

[Shane]

Joan Archer wrote:
> Have you tried Maxthon Shane ? I use that, OK it's a shell that runs
> on the IE engine but has lots of features going for it. I do have IE7
> but with the Maxthon shell and have no problems even going to Windows
> Updates with it <g>

No. No need, Joan. Firefox does me just fine. And when it gets down to it,
though I would be interested in IE getting better, I know it'll never beat
FF because M$ is virtually spyware these days and just layer after layer of
double talk and confidence trickery. Even with Maxthon (I remember using
something along those lines years ago but don't remember what it was
called - but I do know in the end I thought no matter what you add to IE,
the problem is it takes nothing away! <vbg>).

Here's what I've just been reading - not specifically IE-related, but it is
to do with Windows and internet access. It's more the direction they're
going as exemplified by Vista:
http://www.tweak-uac.com/am-i-at-risk-if-i-disable-uac/

They are turning home computing into an absolutely awful experience! I have
spent half my time with XP learning how to disable so-called 'Security
Prompts' - and now it much worse!

The only way M$ can want what they're doing and be rational is if what they
want is to further the aim of a world population of sheep! There. Haven't
mentioned *those* in a long time!


Shane


>
> Shane wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't be at all happy if he did that without consulting you,
>> Figgs. What, does he think it's *his* computer?
>>
>> Get used to it? I grew to hate it - but then found Pro's Group Policy
>> allows a few adjustments that I never found elsewhere, that enable me
>> to make it look a *little* more like I want my browser to look,
>> peform a little more like I want one to perform. But after a few
>> weeks - it is small potatoes. I thought for a moment there I might
>> place it on level footing with Firefox, but it's still not in the
>> same league. There are one or two things Internet Explorer does
>> better - like the way it gives saved pages a friendly name as opposed
>> to the meaningless cipher FF gives them, but that's hardly a basis on
>> which to choose!
>> I have all three now. I also had Opera but can't get on with that one
>> at all - it ranks with Avast! for me cosmetically and I think its
>> performance is similarly reminiscent. And I have a copy of Firebird -
>> which I wish they hadn't renamed - it was about the only nice unit
>> BSA!
>> But basically I run Firefox, IE6 and IE7. And that's the order I rank
>> them in (again!). Who knows what IE6sp2/IE7 would be like without the
>> stupid security warnig barrage! What M$ are doing since XP SP2, is
>> turning the whole of Windows into the OS for the AOL-grade schoolers.
>> I guess that's why they've persisted with the CDO! I dunno, its
>> almost the OS you'd get if you listened to the Mental Minority (I
>> guess they're still around, seeing as how their man and pal of Uncle
>> Charlie's still in the White House).
>> Unless Willy is really trying to wrest control of your machine from
>> you, Figgs, you can uninstall IE7 and automatically go back to 6. As
>> with all M$ installations in the IE7 ballpark, you get warned that
>> every prog you've installed since *might not work*! but I've never
>> known that happen, and even if it did in all likelihood all you'd
>> have to do is run the setup again. Or sue Willy. Jeez. Not like you
>> to take that kind of noive, Figgs! I'd tread on his knackers.
>>
>>
>> Shane

 

[Shane]

Incidentally, Joan. I don't know if you read Viz or not, but I fear there's
been a case of identity theft (don't worry - not yours!). There's a letter
on the letters page from an Arthur Sixpence. Personally I don't think that's
likely at all!


Shane


Joan Archer wrote:
> Have you tried Maxthon Shane ? I use that, OK it's a shell that runs
> on the IE engine but has lots of features going for it. I do have IE7
> but with the Maxthon shell and have no problems even going to Windows
> Updates with it <g>
> Joan
>
>
>
> Shane wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't be at all happy if he did that without consulting you,
>> Figgs. What, does he think it's *his* computer?
>>
>> Get used to it? I grew to hate it - but then found Pro's Group Policy
>> allows a few adjustments that I never found elsewhere, that enable me
>> to make it look a *little* more like I want my browser to look,
>> peform a little more like I want one to perform. But after a few
>> weeks - it is small potatoes. I thought for a moment there I might
>> place it on level footing with Firefox, but it's still not in the
>> same league. There are one or two things Internet Explorer does
>> better - like the way it gives saved pages a friendly name as opposed
>> to the meaningless cipher FF gives them, but that's hardly a basis on
>> which to choose!
>> I have all three now. I also had Opera but can't get on with that one
>> at all - it ranks with Avast! for me cosmetically and I think its
>> performance is similarly reminiscent. And I have a copy of Firebird -
>> which I wish they hadn't renamed - it was about the only nice unit
>> BSA!
>> But basically I run Firefox, IE6 and IE7. And that's the order I rank
>> them in (again!). Who knows what IE6sp2/IE7 would be like without the
>> stupid security warnig barrage! What M$ are doing since XP SP2, is
>> turning the whole of Windows into the OS for the AOL-grade schoolers.
>> I guess that's why they've persisted with the CDO! I dunno, its
>> almost the OS you'd get if you listened to the Mental Minority (I
>> guess they're still around, seeing as how their man and pal of Uncle
>> Charlie's still in the White House).
>> Unless Willy is really trying to wrest control of your machine from
>> you, Figgs, you can uninstall IE7 and automatically go back to 6. As
>> with all M$ installations in the IE7 ballpark, you get warned that
>> every prog you've installed since *might not work*! but I've never
>> known that happen, and even if it did in all likelihood all you'd
>> have to do is run the setup again. Or sue Willy. Jeez. Not like you
>> to take that kind of noive, Figgs! I'd tread on his knackers.
>>
>>
>> Shane

 

[Joan Archer]

I have seen the odd thing about UAC and a few peoples thoughts on it. I
haven't really gone into it much but my way of thinking was that Microsoft
were trying to make a more secure OS with Vista, after all there are a lot
of baddies out there in cyber-space <g> I suppose also thinking about how
many people will be using a machine and trying to protect it from stroppy
teenagers or the like <g>

Anyway I'll have to hold off on any thoughts about Vista until I actually
see a machine running it, then I can give an opinion <g>
Joan


Shane wrote:
>snip>
> Here's what I've just been reading - not specifically IE-related, but
> it is to do with Windows and internet access. It's more the direction
> they're going as exemplified by Vista:
> http://www.tweak-uac.com/am-i-at-risk-if-i-disable-uac/
>
> They are turning home computing into an absolutely awful experience!
> I have spent half my time with XP learning how to disable so-called
> 'Security Prompts' - and now it much worse!
>
> The only way M$ can want what they're doing and be rational is if
> what they want is to further the aim of a world population of sheep!
> There. Haven't mentioned *those* in a long time!
>
>
> Shane

 

[Joan Archer]

No I don't do you have an URL for it.
Joan

Shane wrote:
> Incidentally, Joan. I don't know if you read Viz or not, but I fear
> there's been a case of identity theft (don't worry - not yours!).
> There's a letter on the letters page from an Arthur Sixpence.
> Personally I don't think that's likely at all!
>
>
> Shane

 

[Shane]

Joan Archer wrote:
> I have seen the odd thing about UAC and a few peoples thoughts on it.
> I haven't really gone into it much but my way of thinking was that
> Microsoft were trying to make a more secure OS with Vista, after all
> there are a lot of baddies out there in cyber-space <g> I suppose
> also thinking about how many people will be using a machine and
> trying to protect it from stroppy teenagers or the like <g>
>

The indisputable truths of what he says in that piece are 1. that asking if
you really *really* want to run that, for everything remotely system-related
you click on, over and over and over - which rapidly becomes extremely
annoying to anyone who knows how to use a computer and wants to use the one
they paid a lot of money for, not have a nanny forced upon them by
Microsoft - is not remotely how you combat viruses and hackers.

To stop viruses and hackers you keep them from getting into the machine in
the first place, and if you can't do that, the damage has already been
done - the horse has already bolted.

And 2., that it doesn't protect your data files, ie what you value, it
protects the operating system, which can be re-installed and be none the
worse for it and is essentially valueless.

How does any of that amount to protection from baddies? Firewalls, anti
virus, anti spyware, these are what protect both you and the system - and
nothing more than those are required. How can Microsoft make a reliable
system for stopping viruses running progams if they can't stop them being
installed in the first place? It makes no sense at all.

Unless the real purpose is to remove control from the owner.

Are they so stupid that they can't see the lunacy of a protection system
that protects the system but *not* your personal files? The only rational
explanation I can think of - since I don't believe they're stupid - is that
the web service provider they want the personal computer to become, needs to
continue running, needs to retain an internet connection to be that (have
you been to that awful Windows Catalog? Well, it does belong in a world in
which the government gave permission for the Post Office to deliver junk
mail to us twice a day - didn't it used to be three times? Or possibly
thrice?)

Microsoft already disregard US copyright law and have an active campaign of
the propagation of barefaced lies what that law does say. And while there
are some genuinely-deranged souls out there who think people shouldn't say
things like that about them on a Microsoft-sponsored newsgroup, I'm not
slavering and swinging from the light-fittings, I'm calmly and rationally
inviting them to sue me if I'm not telling the truth. Perhaps one of those
who thinks I'm being sacriligeous should tell them what I've said so's they
can do something about it! I don't want snitches anywhere near me anyway -
I'm perfectly capable of informing on myself!

And I see Carey is *still* at it, on the VPC group! *Still* an MVP!

At best UAC is just for show but actually its because they don't want to
continue selling operating systems that *we* can maintain (which they have
planned openly - and is reminiscent of type approval of automobiles, where
we're not allowed to alter them in any way - and leads eventually,
inevitably to our no longer having any control over anything in our lives,
we just do what we're allowed to do and what we're told to do).

> Anyway I'll have to hold off on any thoughts about Vista until I
> actually see a machine running it, then I can give an opinion <g>

Yes, well you do that, Joan! I'm sure you'll see it for what it is.

And I'll tell you what it is! (<g> just sort-of kidding!)

It's aimed at the generation presently under construction that speaks in
text-speak and you can't have a quiet moment in public anymore because at
least one of them has tinny music coming through their head phones. The
generation those devices have and are being aimed at, are who Vista is aimed
at - the ones who don't understand what the problem is about spyware - so
long as they get a ringtone or some cool cursors. Sheep. Pliable consumers.
M$ is for business, not you and me.

I'd better eat some chips after that!


Shane

 

[Alias]

Shane wrote:

<snip>

> Unless the real purpose is to remove control from the owner.

Bingo!

<snip>

>
> And I see Carey is *still* at it, on the VPC group! *Still* an MVP!

Ye Olde Copy and Paste Himself! He sure is quick on recommending full
retail isn't he?

> It's aimed at the generation presently under construction that speaks in
> text-speak and you can't have a quiet moment in public anymore because at
> least one of them has tinny music coming through their head phones. The
> generation those devices have and are being aimed at, are who Vista is aimed
> at - the ones who don't understand what the problem is about spyware - so
> long as they get a ringtone or some cool cursors. Sheep. Pliable consumers.
> M$ is for business, not you and me.

Then why is my 18 year old bugging me to put Ubuntu on a dual boot with
XP and hates cell phones, XBox, PlayStation and Wii? My evil influence?

> I'd better eat some chips after that!
>
>
> Shane
>

I'm gonna have a bowl and play Devil May Cry 3 -) It's about all I use
XP for nowadays.

Alias

 

[Shane]

First I must stress that I'm not going back on what I've been saying for
years! Firewall, AV and AS are all the *software* required. Safe Hex is
still essential!

>
>> It's aimed at the generation presently under construction that
>> speaks in text-speak and you can't have a quiet moment in public
>> anymore because at least one of them has tinny music coming through
>> their head phones. The generation those devices have and are being
>> aimed at, are who Vista is aimed at - the ones who don't understand
>> what the problem is about spyware - so long as they get a ringtone
>> or some cool cursors. Sheep. Pliable consumers. M$ is for business,
>> not you and me.
>
> Then why is my 18 year old bugging me to put Ubuntu on a dual boot
> with XP and hates cell phones, XBox, PlayStation and Wii? My evil
> influence?

Undoubtedly.


>> I'd better eat some chips after that!
>>
>>
>> Shane
>>
>
> I'm gonna have a bowl and play Devil May Cry 3 -) It's about all I
> use XP for nowadays.
>

I bet he does, too, now that ol' Mr Portals himself and his sidekick Steve
Balls-ache are edging him out!

 

[Joan Archer]

Very interesting read Shane but as I said I will hold of giving my opinion
until I see it <g>

It's no use talking to me about text talk I don't understand it half the
time and always use the predictive text on my phone to spell out the full
words <g> it drives Kelly mad if she has to use my phone as she's one of
the text kids <g>

I agree with you with regards safe hex, all I have on here is
SpywareBlaster, Zone Alarm Pro, Ad-Aware 2007 and NOD32 plus of course my
fingers on the mouse and keyboard telling everything where to go <g>
Joan


Shane wrote:
>
> The indisputable truths of what he says in that piece are 1. that
> asking if you really *really* want to run that, for everything
> remotely system-related you click on, over and over and over - which
> rapidly becomes extremely annoying to anyone who knows how to use a
> computer and wants to use the one they paid a lot of money for, not
> have a nanny forced upon them by Microsoft - is not remotely how you
> combat viruses and hackers.

>snip>

 

[Shane]

'Predictive text' sounds like that ruddy business where you hit one key and
three letters come up - that drives me round the bend when I try to send a
text message! On account of I've got my mum's old phone (I stopped using
them after Devon - but when I was going back and forth with my dad's
troubles she thought it'd be a good idea - and I agree. It's what they're
for!). But I don't see where in hell you're supposed to turn it back to just
straight forward typing!

So that's what it's called is it?

Or are you just guessing? <ha ha!>

Shane


Joan Archer wrote:
> Very interesting read Shane but as I said I will hold of giving my
> opinion until I see it <g>
>
> It's no use talking to me about text talk I don't understand it half
> the time and always use the predictive text on my phone to spell out
> the full words <g> it drives Kelly mad if she has to use my phone as
> she's one of the text kids <g>
>
> I agree with you with regards safe hex, all I have on here is
> SpywareBlaster, Zone Alarm Pro, Ad-Aware 2007 and NOD32 plus of
> course my fingers on the mouse and keyboard telling everything where
> to go <g> Joan
>
>
> Shane wrote:
>>
>> The indisputable truths of what he says in that piece are 1. that
>> asking if you really *really* want to run that, for everything
>> remotely system-related you click on, over and over and over - which
>> rapidly becomes extremely annoying to anyone who knows how to use a
>> computer and wants to use the one they paid a lot of money for, not
>> have a nanny forced upon them by Microsoft - is not remotely how you
>> combat viruses and hackers.
>
>> snip>

 

[Shane]

No, it doesn't seem to be in the online version.

In fact I get the idea they don't want us to be able to read the whole comic
without paying for it! Basters!


Shane


Joan Archer wrote:
> No I don't do you have an URL for it.
> Joan
>
> Shane wrote:
>> Incidentally, Joan. I don't know if you read Viz or not, but I fear
>> there's been a case of identity theft (don't worry - not yours!).
>> There's a letter on the letters page from an Arthur Sixpence.
>> Personally I don't think that's likely at all!
>>
>>
>> Shane

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:10:11 +0100, "Shane" wrote:
>Joan Archer wrote:

>> I have seen the odd thing about UAC and a few peoples thoughts on it.
>> Microsoft were trying to make a more secure OS with Vista, after all
>> there are a lot of baddies out there in cyber-space

>To stop viruses and hackers you keep them from getting into the machine in
>the first place, and if you can't do that, the damage has already been
>done - the horse has already bolted.

Welcome to the real world - you're as much of an ostrich as MS, there.

The world's largest, cheapest and most powerful mail servers are
botnets of infected PCs. It's pointless being prissy, pretending that
prevention of infection is all everyone will ever need to do.

>And 2., that it doesn't protect your data files, ie what you value, it
>protects the operating system, which can be re-installed and be none the
>worse for it and is essentially valueless.

Two things:

1) Yes, I agree with you

User permissions and UAC have NOTHING to do with protecting your data,
because even the most limited user rights still have the right to edit
(and thus trash) data. At best, they may present a speedbump to
stealing the data, if the account is so locked down that it has no
ability to sent anything to Internet or removable drives.

The whole user account thing is an exercise in "vendor vision", i.e.
it reduces MS and OEM support responsibilities.

As long as anything running in the user's contexts has the same power
as the user, this will always be the case. UAC is a welcome change in
that for the first time, the user at the keyboard has control elevated
over scripts and automation that (it is at last acknowledged) may not
be running and acting with the user's intent.

2) No, I disagree with you

Re-installing the OS is NOT a painful process the side-effects can be
catastrophic if you have the Dubious Advantage of an OEM wipe-only
"recovery disk" (vendor-vision again... what exactly does this disk
"recover"?). Even if you did get a proper OS disk and know how to use
it, you will still revert to an older and more exploitable code base,
and lose many protective settings etc. you may have applied.

And after all that, it's prolly not going to kill the malware anyway,
or the malware will be restored with your "data" backups, or however
it got in the last time, it will do so again - because by not bothing
to detect and assess what happened, you've learned NOTHING.

>How does any of that amount to protection from baddies? Firewalls, anti
>virus, anti spyware, these are what protect both you and the system - and
>nothing more than those are required.

That's why infected PCs are so rare, right?

>Are they so stupid that they can't see the lunacy of a protection system
>that protects the system but *not* your personal files?

Yes - that's not stupidity, that's policy, and standard across the
industry. A support dude in a call center has to handle X calls per
hour, and spending time helping users with things that are not the
vendor's responsibility is often a firing offence.

Anyone here found great support techs at a company, only to find they
are "no longer with us" when you go back a few months later?

This vendor-vision fits the corporate world, too, where the model is:
- everything we need is on the server anyway
- so the desktop is a disposable chew-toy

When you speak of "just" re-installing the OS, you are fitting in with
that mindset that's how professional IT "maintains" desktop PCs.

One reason there are so many malware'd PCs is because the owners
didn't do everything they could have done to prevent getting infected,
and perhaps ostriches like MS assume this is the only reason.

Another reason is because even if you do all the right things at the
best of your ability, you can still get malware'd anyway. Do I claim
I'm not malware'd? No, because I'm not in a position to distinguish
between being malware-free and being malware'd by something smart
enough to hide itself from me.

But a third reason is that if the only choice is between staying
malware'd and "just" wiping and rebuilding the PC (again), some folks
will just shrug and stay malware'd.

>At best UAC is just for show

It's actually developed as a transitional technology, much like ISA
PnP support from the Win95 era.

It's possible to code apps that won't pop up UAC at all, and it is
expected that as sware vendors catch up (and perhaps the only slugs
slower than sware vendors are telcos) so we will have a system that
transparently works better, just as PnP has become today.

In fact, UAC is itself a catch-up technology.

You've heard *NIX folks claiming their model is more secure, and a big
part of that goes about escalation prompts to "authenticate as root".

Same thing in MacOS certain things require extra authentication or at
least an "are you sre?" dialog to click through.

And 3rd-party sware has offered this as an add-on feature in Windows
personal firewalls and then tools like PrevX and All-Seeing-Eye that
prompt you for internal matters, just as UAC does.

>M$ is for business, not you and me.

That, unfortunately, has been my conclusion as well.

I've written about that in other posts, but part of the problem is
that we are assumed to be a "done deal".

In the big business sector, Linux is now what mini-computers, Netware
and UNIX were before a credible competitor that has to be wrestled
with for market share.

But Linux is comparitively useless for consumers, and Apple are too
timid to compete head-on, preferring to play the lock-in game. After
all, why support many millions of users at a low margin, if you can
make as much money with 1% of that user base by gouging on price?

So all MS has to do is keep the big OEMs sweet, and we're in the bag.
In effect, MS and OEMs gang up as a closed cartel to feast on you.

>I'd better eat some chips after that!

And I'm off to make some tea



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
To one who only has a hammer,
everything looks like a nail
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

 

[Shane]

I'll look at the rest later, Chris, but for now point out that I'm talking
about from the point of view of users who know how to operate the computer,
that the point is it is entirely set for novice mode now and unless you're a
novice, is an awful experience. But that M$ only want novice customers and
want them to remain novices.


Shane


cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:10:11 +0100, "Shane" wrote:
>> Joan Archer wrote:
>
>>> I have seen the odd thing about UAC and a few peoples thoughts on
>>> it. Microsoft were trying to make a more secure OS with Vista,
>>> after all there are a lot of baddies out there in cyber-space
>
>> To stop viruses and hackers you keep them from getting into the
>> machine in the first place, and if you can't do that, the damage has
>> already been done - the horse has already bolted.
>
> Welcome to the real world - you're as much of an ostrich as MS, there.
>
> The world's largest, cheapest and most powerful mail servers are
> botnets of infected PCs. It's pointless being prissy, pretending that
> prevention of infection is all everyone will ever need to do.
>
>> And 2., that it doesn't protect your data files, ie what you value,
>> it protects the operating system, which can be re-installed and be
>> none the worse for it and is essentially valueless.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1) Yes, I agree with you
>
> User permissions and UAC have NOTHING to do with protecting your data,
> because even the most limited user rights still have the right to edit
> (and thus trash) data. At best, they may present a speedbump to
> stealing the data, if the account is so locked down that it has no
> ability to sent anything to Internet or removable drives.
>
> The whole user account thing is an exercise in "vendor vision", i.e.
> it reduces MS and OEM support responsibilities.
>
> As long as anything running in the user's contexts has the same power
> as the user, this will always be the case. UAC is a welcome change in
> that for the first time, the user at the keyboard has control elevated
> over scripts and automation that (it is at last acknowledged) may not
> be running and acting with the user's intent.
>
> 2) No, I disagree with you
>
> Re-installing the OS is NOT a painful process the side-effects can be
> catastrophic if you have the Dubious Advantage of an OEM wipe-only
> "recovery disk" (vendor-vision again... what exactly does this disk
> "recover"?). Even if you did get a proper OS disk and know how to use
> it, you will still revert to an older and more exploitable code base,
> and lose many protective settings etc. you may have applied.
>
> And after all that, it's prolly not going to kill the malware anyway,
> or the malware will be restored with your "data" backups, or however
> it got in the last time, it will do so again - because by not bothing
> to detect and assess what happened, you've learned NOTHING.
>
>> How does any of that amount to protection from baddies? Firewalls,
>> anti virus, anti spyware, these are what protect both you and the
>> system - and nothing more than those are required.
>
> That's why infected PCs are so rare, right?
>
>> Are they so stupid that they can't see the lunacy of a protection
>> system that protects the system but *not* your personal files?
>
> Yes - that's not stupidity, that's policy, and standard across the
> industry. A support dude in a call center has to handle X calls per
> hour, and spending time helping users with things that are not the
> vendor's responsibility is often a firing offence.
>
> Anyone here found great support techs at a company, only to find they
> are "no longer with us" when you go back a few months later?
>
> This vendor-vision fits the corporate world, too, where the model is:
> - everything we need is on the server anyway
> - so the desktop is a disposable chew-toy
>
> When you speak of "just" re-installing the OS, you are fitting in with
> that mindset that's how professional IT "maintains" desktop PCs.
>
> One reason there are so many malware'd PCs is because the owners
> didn't do everything they could have done to prevent getting infected,
> and perhaps ostriches like MS assume this is the only reason.
>
> Another reason is because even if you do all the right things at the
> best of your ability, you can still get malware'd anyway. Do I claim
> I'm not malware'd? No, because I'm not in a position to distinguish
> between being malware-free and being malware'd by something smart
> enough to hide itself from me.
>
> But a third reason is that if the only choice is between staying
> malware'd and "just" wiping and rebuilding the PC (again), some folks
> will just shrug and stay malware'd.
>
>> At best UAC is just for show
>
> It's actually developed as a transitional technology, much like ISA
> PnP support from the Win95 era.
>
> It's possible to code apps that won't pop up UAC at all, and it is
> expected that as sware vendors catch up (and perhaps the only slugs
> slower than sware vendors are telcos) so we will have a system that
> transparently works better, just as PnP has become today.
>
> In fact, UAC is itself a catch-up technology.
>
> You've heard *NIX folks claiming their model is more secure, and a big
> part of that goes about escalation prompts to "authenticate as root".
>
> Same thing in MacOS certain things require extra authentication or at
> least an "are you sre?" dialog to click through.
>
> And 3rd-party sware has offered this as an add-on feature in Windows
> personal firewalls and then tools like PrevX and All-Seeing-Eye that
> prompt you for internal matters, just as UAC does.
>
>> M$ is for business, not you and me.
>
> That, unfortunately, has been my conclusion as well.
>
> I've written about that in other posts, but part of the problem is
> that we are assumed to be a "done deal".
>
> In the big business sector, Linux is now what mini-computers, Netware
> and UNIX were before a credible competitor that has to be wrestled
> with for market share.
>
> But Linux is comparitively useless for consumers, and Apple are too
> timid to compete head-on, preferring to play the lock-in game. After
> all, why support many millions of users at a low margin, if you can
> make as much money with 1% of that user base by gouging on price?
>
> So all MS has to do is keep the big OEMs sweet, and we're in the bag.
> In effect, MS and OEMs gang up as a closed cartel to feast on you.
>
>> I'd better eat some chips after that!
>
> And I'm off to make some tea
>
>
>
>> --------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> To one who only has a hammer,
> everything looks like a nail
>> --------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:45:32 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>

>I'll look at the rest later, Chris, but for now point out that I'm talking
>about from the point of view of users who know how to operate the computer,
>that the point is it is entirely set for novice mode now and unless you're a
>novice, is an awful experience. But that M$ only want novice customers and
>want them to remain novices.

Here's the maths:

Skills needed to use the PC
-
Skills needed to use the PC safely
=
Safety gap

Malware thrives in the Safety Gap.

It is a disservice to newbies to pretend they do not have to know the
difference between "run code" and "view data", or to know where their
PC ends and where the Internet begins.

We need a safer UI. Without that, it won't only be total newbies that
get shot to pieces... it's not enough to secure access to authorised
users if the consequences of what these users do are far beyond the
effects they might have intended.

And as to "newbies" in the workplace...

"I'm sorry, but you appear to have mis-represented your skill set at
your job interview, on the basis of which you were hired. This
invalidates your hired status - goodbye."



>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
Things should be made as simple as possible,
but no simpler - attrib. Albert Einstein
>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

 

[Eric]

2.0.0.5 just came out? It's 2007!

I'm a bit behind the times, running 1.5.0.6.
It has this weird issue, where clicking the drop down for typed urls makes
the list appear and disappear, just the first time for the session.

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:%23r0AB6UyHHA.1776@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Heather wrote:
>> Nope....I have 2.0.0.4....is that the one?? Came out a week or two ago.
>>
>> Figgs, older and faster, grin.
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
>> news:%23bjoyjTyHHA.4640@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Alias
>>
>>
>
> Yep, I have version 2.0.0.5. Came out today, both in English and in
> Spanish. Open Fire Fox. Help/Check for Updates.
>
> Alias

 

[Shane]

I do intend dealing with this thoroughly - but what with the conditions
here, I really do have better things to do. For now I shall observe that you
appear to have based the bulk of your argument and abuse on failing to have
read the follow-up post (to Alias) made 10 hours earlier. It seems barely
credible that you would put so much effort into a rebuttal yet not read a
post made by the person you are seeking to contradict, 10 hours earlier.
Anyway, I shall deal with that later.


Shane

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:45:32 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>
>
>> I'll look at the rest later, Chris, but for now point out that I'm
>> talking about from the point of view of users who know how to
>> operate the computer, that the point is it is entirely set for
>> novice mode now and unless you're a novice, is an awful experience.
>> But that M$ only want novice customers and want them to remain
>> novices.
>
> Here's the maths:
>
> Skills needed to use the PC
> -
> Skills needed to use the PC safely
> =
> Safety gap
>
> Malware thrives in the Safety Gap.
>
> It is a disservice to newbies to pretend they do not have to know the
> difference between "run code" and "view data", or to know where their
> PC ends and where the Internet begins.
>
> We need a safer UI. Without that, it won't only be total newbies that
> get shot to pieces... it's not enough to secure access to authorised
> users if the consequences of what these users do are far beyond the
> effects they might have intended.
>
> And as to "newbies" in the workplace...
>
> "I'm sorry, but you appear to have mis-represented your skill set at
> your job interview, on the basis of which you were hired. This
> invalidates your hired status - goodbye."
>
>
>
>> ------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
> Things should be made as simple as possible,
> but no simpler - attrib. Albert Einstein
>> ------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:29:59 +0100, "Shane" wrote:

>I shall observe that you appear to have based the bulk of your
>argument and abuse on failing to have read the follow-up post
>(to Alias) made 10 hours earlier.

I don't see all posts in every thread, for various reasons... <shrug>

But I am puzzled as to why you think I'm "arguing" or "abusing" the
material I replied to - if anything, I thought I was re-inforcing the
points made. My point is that MS dumbs things down so far that folks
can easily get themselves into trouble... like handguns for toddlers.

>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:45:32 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>

>>> I'll look at the rest later, Chris

Maybe you're replying to an earlier (no snipped) post?

>>> I'm talking about from the point of view of users who know how to
>>> operate the computer, that the point is it is entirely set for novice
>>> mode now and unless you're a novice, is an awful experience.

IKWYM. There's too much stuff that "does things for you" often
hi-risk things, or things that can mess you up with no undo.

>>> But that M$ only want novice customers and want them to remain
>>> novices.

MS understands the pro-IT world, which is made up of folks speaking
the same language (usually from MS's own certifications etc.).

MS reckon they understand the consumer better than we do, and sales
would appear to prove them right - but those sales may go more about
historical market dominance and OEM relations than folks making a
conscious choice. Linux rarely comes pre-installed, MacOS forces you
to pay "Apple Tax", and most visible software needs Windows.

But in between pitching to newbies (are there any left, by now?
Aren't most PC buyers, repeat buyers?) and the pro-IT in-club, they
don't seem to know what's going on at all.

They treat consumers as if they had no recourse to tech support better
than the "try wiping and re-installing, if that fails well test the
hardware" nadir of volume OEMs. The pits become the standard.



>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -