Vista 72 Hour Countdown

[ZPGames 0]

Now in my book this is the straw that broke the camels back for Vista. The story can be found here
Story From ZDNet

Now Windows in the name of your own "safety" is limiting the programs you can install. If you install a program that it thinks is no good it will start a 72 hour countdown till "Limited Functionality". If you read the story all he was installing was 9Dragons from Acclaim. Obviously not a very dangerous program. Microsoft and Windows is trying to take complete and utter control over everything you do on your computer. If you wish to destroy your computer (for some odd reason) you should be able to without Windows intervening. This may sound wierd but rings true in my heart. Picture it now, "This is not a Microsoft Studio game and it is seen as not safe. Going into Minimal Functionality Mode".

I don't know about you but this is the final straw telling me to go with Linux, or just stay with XP. I'm staying away from Vista and Microsoft products in general until they decide that taking over the world's computers is less important then happy customers.

I just wanted to know what everyone's opinion here was.

Edited February 28, 2007 by ZPGames (see edit history)

[MIGUE2k7 0]

Now this is way too much unnecessary security. I think Microsoft just did that because they wanted to let the user know that this new OS is very powerful when it comes security, but the only thing they are doing is annoying the users and make them switch to another platform.I see awesome how they could think in do this, i mean, it should only give you a warning about it, but not to forbide you of using that application

[saga 0]

The 72 hours is more like an inmate in death row. THe question is what is the critiria for a dangerous program or application? It would have been better if the user can choose or can specify the criteria for a program to be dangerous.But what the heck why kill in 72 hours? If its design for monopoly and profit its a great idea. I mean, so that your newly developed application will not belong to the 72 hour death row you should have to call Microsoft and pay them to add you in thier friendly application list and the next online update you are application is off from the death row.

[shigajet 0]

Perhaps for those who made the upgrade, the 72 hour countdown may prove to be too much security. On a related note, that kinda reminds me of that Mac ad where "PC" keeps getting interrupted by the security guard ("...cancel or allow?").

[fffanatics 0]

Alright i have been running vista since it was released to corporate customers in december and i had RC2 before that. I have never had that issue or even seen it. You will get popups about installing programs and whether or not it is what you want to do but it really isnt annoy and they dont really make you wait. Most of the time when you are using your computer you wont really see those. I am an administrator for a corportate network and i still dont see those warnings that often and i use it all day long. You can adjust those settinigs if you understand how to add policies, etc. I have no complaints about vista and i like it much better than XP

[Johnny 1]

Personally, Vista can wait for me. I'm fine with Windows XP.But I can truly say I'll never want to use Mac OS or Linux.

[sportytalk 0]

I don't think Windows Vista is that bad. The warnings are there for the users so the user can confirm he or she wants the computer to do the task. If the warnings get to be a bit of a pain, they can easily be disabled in the Control Panel.Personally, I feel these warnings are a good thing. You can confirm what you want to do. If you choose the wrong option, you don't have to have your computer perform the task. You can simply click on the deny button when the Vista warning appears.

[adriantc 0]

I couldn't believe when I read this... just after reading the article I was finally convinced. Microsoft has done some awful things in the name of security in Vista. Everybody acclaims the user account protection, but I really find it annoying (that's why it is the first thing I deactivate when I install Vista). This heavy protection does not have to be implemented in the OS, but in the minds of the users to educate them not to use dangerous software. For what is worth I didn't have any major problems with Windows Xp even when it didn't have any Service Pack. I have used Linux a while and it has the same account protection system but it's much less annoying. It's ok to implement such a system in a server OS, but in an OS designed for desktop? What is Microsoft thinking?About the new protection... They better deactivate it fast... I haven't had any problems with it (in fact this was the first time I heard about it), but think about being a user who just spend a few hundred dollars on the OS and another few bucks on some software that who simply refuse to work because of this "protection".My programming teacher at school always tells us to design the software as if the user does the stupidest things possible... But it's much easier to tell people not to open weird emails with unknown attachments then implement such an "advanced" security feature which does exactly what a virus is supposed to do... spy on the user and not let him do his job.The guys working on Linux should concentrate on user-friendliness because Vista is a BIG chance given to Linux!

[9block 0]

This would be a perfect time for a new devloper to create a platform similar to windows. Obviously Linux is not for the typical windows user... so either this means alot of users are going to start switching to mac or coders/crackers/hackers are going to heavily modify vista and create a universal mod.