smashedbug.com, tech music and geek news

It has been quite a while since I wrote my last entry …. quite a few of you have been asking me about Vista and I have not (until today) even touched Vista. While I have read about it in passing (particularly articles discussing how feature after feature was being axed), I never got involved in the beta testing nor waited out infront of the retailers when it was released … Infact, the only reason why I am toying with it is job related (had to buy and configure some new computers.. they only shipped with Vista..).

So here’s my day one thoughts….. I worked with it on two systems, a Dell Inspiron Core Duo laptop and a Dell Dimension AMD 64 desktop. Both systems were running Windows Vista Business so I got to experience the Aero interface and all of that umm.. eye candy. First boot to the desktop took about 20 minutes.. while the intial question and EULA section was rather streamlined, both systems spent a significant amount of time just churning the hard drive… not quite sure what was going on there….

Perhaps this is a Dell thing (though I doubt it) but I absolutely *HATE* booting up a new system and having a ba-zillion different programs popping up dialogs vying for my attention. Registration pop-ups, security update pop-ups, EULA pop-ups, tutorial pop-ups, you name it, there was probably a pop-up that fit the cateogry on my first boot into Vista. The “sidebar” seemed worthless as well .. why do I need a huge analog clock taking up 25% of my desktop? I turned it off….

So shortly after booting into Vista, in its infinate wisdom, it had me reboot due to downloading and installing *nine* security updates in the background.. Microsoft *Really* needs to take a note of how *nix systems umm.. DON’T have to reboot for minor updates. I have Linux and FreeBSD systems running well over a year without reboot and still maintaining full security updates.

IT was rather humerous .. on the boot back into Vista, it noted that the sidebar failed to start and it was going to search online to resolve the problem … HAHAHA. I TOLD IT NOT TO START UP. That totally cracked me up … infact, it happened on BOTH systems which made me chuckle.

After getting back into Vista, I took a look at the membry usage and noticed it was up around 760MB on first boot without loading any additional apps .. YIKES. So I turned my attention to uninstalling pre-installed Dell trialware and other assorted crap…….. like with Windows XP and the versions before it, this process took yet quite a bit more time (another 30 minutes?) … The biggest difference is every time I wanted to uninstall or do anything remotely “administrative”, the UAC (user access control) greyed the screen and prompted me to hit “continue” or “allow” or some other assorted non-sense — I wonder if there is something like Sudo or Su in Vista (in *nix, this will escalate your privleges for a certain period of time). At the end of this exercise, Windows only (!) took 460MB .. From what I have read, it sounds like Vista pre-caches frequently used applications, perhaps this accounts for some of the memory usage?

After all of this intial fun, I got to start using Vista .. The start button is no longer, simply replaced with a Windows logo (that has a helper tag “start”) — the menu got an overhaul in design .. one thing that is nice is the ability to type in and do searches right within the start menu .. so you could type in “excel” and bring up Microsoft Excel or type in the name of a document and it would appear (and open in the associated application) — that is pretty nice and similar to the “run command” feature in KDE which I use extensively (I hardly use the standard applications menu in KDE.. I’d probably use Vista in a similar fashion..)

One thing I found particularly annoying was the level of inconsistency across the entire interface. The standard explorer (My Computer) window defaults without a menu bar displayed, however other applications have the menu bar by default … some apps will use the “aqua” look with larger icons while others will use Windows 2000/XPish looking grey backgrounds and small 16×16 icons (ie Paint, Wordpad, etc..) .. some apps will have their own interface (Media Player and Movie Maker) and others will use their own color schemes irregardless of chosen colors for the overall desktop appearance.

On top of this, different apps use different dialogs (ie save and open) which I find very odd…. I seem to remember back in the early 90’s, the idea was to have as many similarities between apps so learning curves are reduced… I believe KDE and Gnome mastered this level of consistency (which is rather odd considering for YEARS may people said the Linux desktop NEEDED consistency to be taken serious..) while Mac OS X and Windows Vista has shunned it… I don’t understand. Why do different types of apps need different widgets and interface guidelines???

Overall I do think there are some interesting applications of technology … for example the ability to create a search for particular items and create a virtual folder (when you open the folder, the contents are based on your search criteria).. This is a feature that has found its way into various applications (KDE’s Amarok music player, Mozilla’s Thunderbird, etc..) and it seems rather useful at the operating system level. The search in the start menu is also a nice touch for keyboard entusiasts such as myself — navigating the start menu in XP was awful.

Installing printers was also a relatively easy task. Vista found my HP JetDirect interfaces and allowed me to install very easily .. with XP I’ve always had to go through a print server (or install a lot of HP specific crap) so it was a breath of fresh air to see it “just work”.

So far I haven’t been impressed with the use of the interface. I find the interface work done by Apple as well as the Open Source community to be far superior to the few uses I have found with Windows Vista. Personally I think the development work being done with Beryl on Linux is going to set the standard in meshing 3D accessibility and usefulness with a 2D desktop environment.

Granted, as mentioned, this is day one for me so as I dig deeper, I *hope* to find more to like about Vista.. It just seems that so far, so much of what I have seen with Vista has been a “been there, done that” scenario with a big dose of “yes vista does that, but not as fast” — the fact I was working on a Core 2 Duo processor with 2GB of RAM and wishing I was on my 3.5 year old AMD Athlon machine running FreeBSD because it was more responsive is a HUGE problem. Granted, its not horrible slow, but I just expect faster (boot times, general app launching responsiveness, etc..) considering its a fresh install…

Pros — quick search, virtual folders, nifty search in the start menu, ability to change card design in Solitaire without it redealing..
Cons — inconsistent interface, intial defaults attempt to try too hard to make the operating system the “star” (the apps should be the star..), rebooting, UAC pop-ups, general pile-o-trialware that OEMs bundle, DRM, resource footprint, overall slowness, poor use of “3d” features …

There has been a lot of news recently of upcoming operating system releases — particular Microsoft Windows Vista and user interface changes.

Way back in the pre-Macintosh era for Apple and the DOS era for PC’s, there largely was no definition for a standard user interface. Learning new applications required a significant time simply understanding key mappings, location of similar functionality and so forth. Even simple things like printing required learning new dialogs and configurations.

The Macintosh defined a very consistent UI. Items such as drop down menus, icons, common keyboard shortcuts, windows, etc were commonplace among many applications. As a result, learning a new application did not necessarily equate to learning a new interface but simply the added functionality the new software provided.

In part, many of the design decisions were due to hardware restrictions. Limited sized icons, limited number of widgets and so forth resulted in smaller memory footprint and less user interface processing requirements.

Starting about 6-7 years ago, a divergence from this consistency occured. With Mac OS X, Apple elected to break with rigorious consistency and applications started utilizing various widgets.  For example, some applications utilized a brushed steel look while others used an Aqua look.

With the upcoming Windows Vista release, it appears that Microsoft is attempting to perhaps downplay consistency and develop interfaces around individual applications.

Base functionality within the operating system renders their windows differently. Some have window titles, others do not. Some have help buttons, some do not .. others might have a help button located in a different location. Icons and buttons are different in shape and appearance. Things like menu bars might be available while other applications might do away with menu bars in favor of “ribbons”, shortcut bars, interface clutter and so forth. To top it all off, the colors and layout of the Windows can vary considerably.

Is interface consistency irrelevant? Should interfaces be designed on the whim of the software development team without consideration of the user interfaces of other applications? Does developing rich graphical  system-inconsistent interfaces enhance usability of the system?

It will be interesting. Some people noted that web pages are largely inconsistent and it hasn’t impedded usability — but is this truly accurate? I don’t think so. First, a given user will view webpages in one or perhaps two browsers. The browser provides a consisent interface for navigation, printing, bookmarks and so forth. In addition, well designed sites take into consideration accessibility. Text to speech synthesis, screen resolution, visually impaired visitors, etc. There are still many sites that are simply unusable for a large percentage of users.

It will be interesting to see how this works out. I’m personally under the impression that a single, well defined user interface with as much standardization as possible is a good thing. Standardized dialogs, standardized keyboard shortcuts, standardized menu layouts, etc provide an interface that minimizes the learning curve and allows many development teams to provide input that ultimately can enhance ALL applications utilizing that interface.

Lots of great stuff coming out of microsoft this past week..

1. Several seriously critical extremely major Internet Explorer security exploits were uncovered. Once again, these same bugs impact not only Internet Explorer 6 but the up and coming Internet Explorer 7. Hahah.. So much for an “extreme focus on security” that Microsoft has been touting for the upcoming IE7 and Vista (yes, IE7 comes with Vista).
2. Talking about Vista.. it has been delayed… again. Microsoft was touting a 2nd half 2006 release for Vista, but now they will not meet the holiday season and it is now scheduled for release in Jaunary 2007 (though I wouldn’t bet on that..). For an OS that was suppose to be out early 2004 and has since been cut down singificantly from the original design specs, it simply amazes me. The fact that exploits to Windows XP and Internet Explorer are impacting Vista and Internet Explorer 7 puts a smile on my face.
3. Talking about security…. Did you know that Microsoft highly touted .NET platform (the platform that allows for the “ability to quickly build, deploy, manage, and use connected, security-enhanced solutions”) is virtually non-existant for the tools and applications that SHIP with Vista? The claim is .NET is not designed for operating system programming — however, I don’t think I really expect Microsoft Paint, Calculator, etc “Operating system” level components. Don’t you think Microsoft would elect to reprogram most of these non-os level aspects to minimize security issues?
4. In anycase, Microsoft appears to believe they are the expert on security never-the-less.. The Microsoft security team felt compelled to school Apple on security. I’m taking a wild guess that the security team at Microsoft got fed up with MS not paying attention so they felt their services might be recieved better by the competition? hah..
5. Going back to Internet Explorer, apparently Bill Gates decided that it didn’t need to be “tied to the OS” and Internet Explorer would be released on a more frequent basis (atleast once per year). Honestly, can’t we pull up some the EU and DOJ trial records that stated Windows and IE cannot be unbundled and get some justice? I am glad to see Firefox is making a difference, but this “now its bundled, now its not” crap is insane.
6. Ahh.. so if that wasn’t fun enough, Microsoft’s Licensing is a joke as well. According to Microsoft in 2001, 80% of volume licensees would have the same price or reduction in price by moving to a new “Software Assurance” licensing scheme. In 2004, only 40% agreed.. while it rose in 2005 to 62%, it was neverless an indication that the new licensing played in favor to Microsoft. In addition, with the massive product delays from Microsoft, much of the promised software upgrades promised under the agreements will go unfullfilled. The entire licensing issue has gotten way out of hand. I agree. Ever check out the licensing pages on the Microsoft site? Its uhh.. fun.
7. My prediction. According to Microsoft, Vista will fix the spyware issue that plagued Windows XP (and later XP2 which apparently was designed to fix the problem, but didn’t..). The parasite companies that sell all the software for cleaning XP are upset that they will run out of business (yes, without a host, the parasite dies) — however, I’ll shed some light for those parasites — Vista won’t be the dead-blow to spyware. The parasites will survive and Vista will continue to be infested. How do I know? History.

Well if you haven’t heard yet, its 2006 and Microsoft already has a MAJOR KNOWN unpatched security exploit in ALL VERSIONS OF WINDOWS (yes, even including the Windows 2003 Server, Windows XP SP 2 and Windows Vista betas..).

The problem started out about a week ago and over the New Year’s Day weekend, picked up significant traction when the exploit code was posted and dozens of variants were released in the wild.

The issue is simple — the WMF (Windows Meta File) image format contains the ability to execute code (why? I have no idea). In anycase, it is possible via a buffer overflow to run malicious code at an administrative level and take control of a computer. Unlike many historic security issues where a user had to run an application, this issue only requires the VIEWING of an image .. let it be in an email, on the computer, via an application, on a website.. doesn’t matter.

Given the “extremely criticial” rating of this issue and the fact the exploit can not be easily filtered at the border (ie firewall, intrusion detection system, etc..), a software engineer posted an unofficial patch that was endorsed by several security firms, including SANS ISC and F-Secure. This was released on New Years day which would give IT departments a head-start to get this deployed on their networks before workers came back on Monday or Tuesday.

Microsoft’s response? “Don’t use the patch.. it is insecure code that might be vulnerable .. we have a patch but won’t release it for a week..”.

Hahah.. I find that hmm.. INSANE. Here is *MICROSOFT* code that IS KNOWN vulnerable and exploiting this hole is escalating by the minute… a patch is developed, source code released and endorsed by security experts in the industry and Microsoft *DECLINES* to review and make it an official patch…. even worse, they claim to have a patch but will leave MILLIONS of computers vulnerable for 10 DAYS longer..

So if you follow Microsoft’s advise, to minimize the risk, your ONLY ACCEPTABLE OPTION is to NOT use your computer until next TUESDAY once the patch comes out (and hopefully works for all the variants of this issue). hah.. no internet, no email, no viewing of images.

Its kinda like Russian Roulette .. every day that passes, there is another bullet added to the gun.. you feeling lucky enough to use Windows today?

After reviewing my morning email system reports, I noticed I didn’t receive a backup report from a Windows server. Upon closer inspection, I noticed the backup software was not running. I attempted to start it without luck.. after a few minutes, the application just hung without any error message.

Check out this solution!

Apparently, my backup software REQUIRES Outlook to be made the default mail client for it to run. We are talking about an ENTERPRISE LEVEL backup software FAILING because of a change in default setting. No matter that Outlook is installed and fully accessible.

What a change from a UNIX system. I have *NEVER* had a system service on UNIX not start due to a USER preference. I’ve *NEVER* had a system service on UNIX not start without providing some detailed information on *WHY* it wouldn’t start (generally if the logs it generates is not adequate, you can easily enable debug or verbosity and it will spit out a lot of useful information)

Needless to say, I found it quite funny that an “enterprise level” network backup solution for Windows will not start or provide logging information when Outlook is not set as the default mail client. So umm.. keep that in mind if it ever happens to you!! *Pffft*