Interesting Windows Vista Feature

[Pangloss]

Ever postpone updating a driver or patching the OS because you may have to reboot and you're busy doing other things right now?

 

Microsoft is adding something to Windows Vista called "Restart Manager". It runs in the background and monitors system components. When a new driver or update is added and the installer calls for a restart, the Restart Manager is queried to see if that portion of the operating system is "in the clear". If it is, then just that component is restarted without restarting the entire computer.

 

If the component is busy, RM can optionally take a snapshot of the system and reboot it back to its current state (like going into sleep mode and coming back).

 

Pretty cool eh?

 

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1895276,00.asp

[RyanJ]

An interesting feature but I don't like things installing stuff without my knowing. I've tested Windows Vista for a while now and I already hate it (And its not even finished yet...) - if I were not getting paid to keep it here ntill its released I'd happily format my hard drive and put Win98 SE back in.

 

Like I said a good feature but a lot of people don't like having Microcrap installing things behind their backs however good the intentions CAN be.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[5614]

Sounds clever, but another background process in an already system-requirements-demanding OS I think they're going a bit far.

 

I have no intention of getting Vista because as far as I can tell the only thing that is new is the demanding new graphics. In all honesty I'm perfectly happy with the graphics on winXP.

 

There are a few new features on Vista, but each of them are either not worth it on a gain vs. computer useage basis or are just not worth it at all. Now there's probably some exception to that rule, to which I say "yes" but is it worth the price you have to pay for a MS OS?

[RyanJ]

Sounds clever' date=' but another background process in an already system-requirements-demanding OS I think they're going a bit far.

 

I have no intention of getting Vista because as far as I can tell the only thing that is new is the demanding new graphics. In all honesty I'm perfectly happy with the graphics on winXP.

 

There are a few new features on Vista, but each of them are either not worth it on a gain vs. computer useage basis or are just not worth it at all. Now there's probably some exception to that rule, to which I say "yes" but is it worth the price you have to pay for a MS OS?[/quote']

 

Not really when you consider you can get Lunix for free...

 

Eventually some clever person will make it so that the features work in XP as some already have been such as the special window features.

 

The main improvements in Vista are some "securty" ones, not fr the users sake but for theirs to make it so that the software is harder to break - good luck. They are also trying to put in a load of crap that checks what you do and checks program keys are valid - they are going too far, they are evn re-writing the software and OS so it cna only be run on one computer and videos, music are taged so it will not play if its not valid.

 

If anyone uses this OS they are an idiot, seriously they are only doing this because they think they are loosing money - nothing at all to do with innovation but thats what they want you tho think...

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Klaynos]

Ever postpone updating a driver or patching the OS because you may have to reboot and you're busy doing other things right now?

 

 

nope

 

But this is a cool feature, windows has needed something to reduce the number of restarts for a long time now...

[1veedo]

Not to be sardonic, but has anybody ever noticed that new features in Windows are never actually new? I'd like to see something revolution from Microsoft, just once.

 

Btw, isn't the "boot back to current state" already possible in XP with an add-on program? I read something about it on slashdot once, it starts back all the current user processes so your programs start up automatically.

[Pangloss]

I think the horse is out of the barn with regard to background-task-intensive operating systems. (chuckle)

 

An interesting feature but I don't like things installing stuff without my knowing.

 

I'm not totally clear on how this feature would work, but I saw nothing to indicate that it would install something without the user's knowledge, at least to a degree beyond what already happens when you install a program. There's nothing to stop an installer that you execute from overwriting system files *now*, so long as they're not in use, and dumb programers used to do this all the time. And the fact that it doesn't happen much today has to do with better installer programs (and their wizards), not smarter programmers. So I'm not sure I buy that argument.

 

But it's certainly a valid concern.

[RyanJ]

Not to be sardonic' date=' but has anybody ever noticed that new features in Windows are never actually new? I'd like to see something revolution from Microsoft, just once.

 

Btw, isn't the "boot back to current state" already possible in XP with an add-on program? I read something about it on slashdot once, it starts back all the current user processes so your programs start up automatically.[/quote']

 

It is as with many of the other "improvements"...

 

I'm not totally clear on how this feature would work, but I saw nothing to indicate that it would install something without the user's knowledge, at least to a degree beyond what already happens when you install a program. There's nothing to stop an installer that you execute from overwriting system files *now*, so long as they're not in use, and dumb programers used to do this all the time. And the fact that it doesn't happen much today has to do with better installer programs (and their wizards), not smarter programmers. So I'm not sure I buy that argument.

 

Tts not the same, normal installers show you what they do as they do it soemthing like his tends not too. I hate not knowing exactly whats happening on my system and Windows Vista will already never be installed after my testing ti so I don't really care - its horrid. I hated XP and I hate this one even more. This is not the main feature that concerns me but there we go another potential security home they have added....

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Pangloss]

There's nothing about the article that suggests that we'd no longer be using "normal installers". This looks to me like they're just trapping any installer's "please reboot" call to the system. Right now we get a message prompting us to reboot or not. Instead we'd get no message, because the system files in question had already been reset, or we'd get the same old message we've always gotten, because they were in use. As an added side benefit, if the system does have to reboot, and we approve the rebooting, it'll optionally come back to its current state.

 

You do understand, don't you, that in those situations if you don't reboot, your computer is still not in its original state, right? You may be using the original files at that point, but you can't roll back from that state. You have to complete the changeover first (by rebooting). That's always been a tenuous situation and not really desirable, if you think about it. This strikes me as better. It's never really made any sense that you have to reboot because the system files that were replaced MAY be in use.

 

Installers would still have the ability to sneak files into your system directory and replace system DLLs, just as they can do now. Who can follow a list of files flying by at 900mph? What's generally stopped that from happening is (a) recognition by programmers that it's a bad idea, and (b) better installer wizards (such as the one in Visual Studio) that default to the program directory.

 

At any rate I'm keeping an open mind here and I'm definitely going to be watching for issues like the one you raised, but I don't see any indication of it at the moment.

[RyanJ]

You do understand' date=' don't you, that in those situations if you don't reboot, your computer is still not in its original state, right? You may be using the original files at that point, but you can't roll back from that state. You have to complete the changeover first (by rebooting). That's always been a tenuous situation and not really desirable, if you think about it. This strikes me as better. It's never really made any sense that you have to reboot because the system files that were replaced MAY be in use.

[/quote']

 

I'll have to think about that one - after testing Microcrap software for nearly 4 years now I think I do I just said given choiced I'd rather do it myself the good old way.

 

I just hate things that work ithout asking... I hate Vista even more because it already has more known holns than in XP and 200 combied

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[softdragonz]

Installers would still have the ability to sneak files into your system directory and replace system DLLs.

 

 

It is always desirable to buy softwares that have the logo "Designed for Microsoft Windows" attached

 

Any software labelled "Designed for Microsoft Windows" makes sense as such labels are given to only those softwares that don't install or replace your system or windows files...... (the certification is done by Microsoft themselves)

[5614]

Not really when you consider you can get Lunix for free...

Which is exactly why I said a MS OS

 

And yeah I have read a lot about all this extra "security". There's a whole thing about DVDs (I think more specifically HD-DVDs) and the security to stop those being copied, you'll need a special monitor and everything.

 

Yet more background processes, slowing down gaming, checking serial keys and legality (does that word exist!?) of all programs running.

 

I wouldn't consider myself one of those MS haters. I like MS (sometimes) and like winXP (SP1 only!) but why the hell would anyone want Vista???

 

Mind, what I really want is some clever Vista loving person to come along and argue back at me, because I really cannot see the other side of the argument at all.

[RyanJ]

Which is exactly why I said a MS OS

 

And yeah I have read a lot about all this extra "security". There's a whole thing about DVDs (I think more specifically HD-DVDs) and the security to stop those being copied' date=' you'll need a special monitor and everything.

 

Yet more background processes, slowing down gaming, checking serial keys and legality ([i']does that word exist!?)[/i] of all programs running.

 

I wouldn't consider myself one of those MS haters. I like MS (sometimes) and like winXP (SP1 only!) but why the hell would anyone want Vista???

 

Mind, what I really want is some clever Vista loving person to come along and argue back at me, because I really cannot see the other side of the argument at all.

 

Well said, these new security features are useless... Don't worry they'll get leaked and broken before it is even released... I'll release the damn information myself if someone else does not

 

I am also a Microcrap hater, I test for them but I hate their software... Nothing in my contract says I have to like it nor use it after the testing period... Thankfully.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[CanadaAotS]

I know everyone loves to beat up on microsoft, but most of the down-sides come from the fact that they have near-monopoly on OS choice for home computers.

 

I hate when they try to introduce all this crap to stop piracy. As if, 4/5's of my computers hard drive is taken up by piracy anyways... (need a bigger hard drive lol). They will never be able to come up with something 100% anti-hackable, they could get really really close when quantum computers get invented, but thats a whole other topic.

 

I don't like "security features" that slow down my comp. I dont really care, I'll take my chances I just want my comp to work well lol.

[RyanJ]

I don't like "security features" that slow down my comp. I dont really care' date=' I'll take my chances I just want my comp to work well lol.[/quote']

 

Then I'd reccomend you avoid Vista altogether, it has literlally hundreds of them!

 

Ryan Jones

[5614]

It's kinda like all of the CD protection. They're getting damn clever and sophisticated, but they will never be 100% anti-hackable.

 

So for example SafeDisc 4.6, very clever protection, easily overcome by playing with the registries.

 

I can't actually remember which one, maybe SecuROM (a newish version of it), could be tricked by putting the .exe file into compatability mode! OK, so that's a stupid mistake, but still.

 

And when the security firms have quantum computers so will the crackers (or hackers, PLEASE no definition war, you all know what I mean!).

 

I think to summarise my point of view in this thread would be to say, nothing can ever be 100% hacker/cracker proof and I'm very interested in how much Vista will sell. (As in I'm not expecting it to be massive due to people like us who know what we're buying, however we must take into account the general public (ie. dumb people) so it should be interesting.)

[TheGeek]

i feel that people don't know that they have choices. They think that when vista comes out, they have to go with vista 'cause ms came up with it.Any time someone says linux, people think it's too complicated and think that it's all commands and no gui.

 

I just started teaching my dad how to use a computer this week. He finds suse linux much more easier then win xp. It's 10 times faster and no worries about viruses and spyware.

[RyanJ]

Yea, true - I hate Windows XP. Linux is much better in all ways - no CD protection crap that slows it down for one.

 

Linux is much better, my school is supposed to be converting too it soon.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones