BD under Windows 7? - Page 2

Andybaby · 04-28-2009, 08:38 PM

it doesn't really matter anyway now, cause the RC, and the RTM of windows 7 will have a windows xp emulator in it (in the pro and ultimate versions)

the stuff with the OCX errors in BD is already documented in the Wiki and the BD thread. if you read them I'm sure no error is insurmountable. I did a few books the other day on my windows 7 computer

HarryT · 04-30-2009, 05:49 AM

I've just been reading that Windows 7 is going to have a "Virtual XP Mode", running as a virtual machine within Windows 7. That is excellent news, and should solve any compatibility issues.

JSWolf · 04-30-2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've just been reading that Windows 7 is going to have a "Virtual XP Mode", running as a virtual machine within Windows 7. That is excellent news, and should solve any compatibility issues.

Microsoft should have scrapped Vista and started from XP. That way it would have full compatibility yet not need this VM XP mode. Vista was garbage from the day it was released. There is no reason not to start over and do it right instead of build upon what is considered garbage.

HarryT · 04-30-2009, 08:27 AM

I'm afraid that I can't agree with you, Jon. Vista is secure, and it's not Microsoft's fault that so many programmers "broke the rules" when coding Windows applications, causing them to fail under Vista. Correctly-written applications work perfectly under Vista.

tompe · 04-30-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that I can't agree with you, Jon. Vista is secure, and it's not Microsoft's fault that so many programmers "broke the rules" when coding Windows applications, causing them to fail under Vista. Correctly-written applications work perfectly under Vista.

Of course it is Microsoft's fault that they have rules that a lot of people feel they have to break or break them by not knowing better. You have to design security rules so they are followed.

JSWolf · 04-30-2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that I can't agree with you, Jon. Vista is secure, and it's not Microsoft's fault that so many programmers "broke the rules" when coding Windows applications, causing them to fail under Vista. Correctly-written applications work perfectly under Vista.

They made Vista so secure you cannot do all the things you want to do because the frigging POS blocks you from doing it. And then they go and change things that didn't need to be changed so they don't work well. Then there is the fact that Vista is slow.

What it really is is that Vista made new rules. And then there is the issue of drivers. MS decided to change that and now moving to Vista means that a lot of perfectly good hardware is just totally useless. Thank you MS for f*cking us over with Vista. We didn't ask for it. We didn't need it.

HarryT · 04-30-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course it is Microsoft's fault that they have rules that a lot of people feel they have to break or break them by not knowing better. You have to design security rules so they are followed.

No, it shows that there are a lot of lazy programmers out there. One very simple example: Microsoft have always said "don't write files to the application installation directory", but many people chose to ignore that. In Vista, the application directory is read-only, so you can't write to it, hence the app fails.

The software which I originally wrote for Windows 95, and which follows the rules, works perfectly under Vista. I'm a professional programmer - I follow the rules.

JSWolf · 04-30-2009, 09:09 AM

Well Book Designer does write to the application directory and it does run better under Windows 7 then it does under Vista. UAC is a bunch of nonsense. We have a laptop with Vista and I've turned UAC off because I do not want Vista telling me what I can and cannot do on my computer.

HarryT · 04-30-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Well Book Designer does write to the application directory and it does run better under Windows 7 then it does under Vista. UAC is a bunch of nonsense. We have a laptop with Vista and I've turned UAC off because I do not want Vista telling me what I can and cannot do on my computer.

But my point is, Jon, that if the programmer of BD had written the application correctly, there wouldn't have been any issues, and you wouldn't have need to turn off UAC. The rules have always been clearly stated; it's the programmer's responsibility to follow them. Follow them, and your application is "future proof". It's part of being "professional" to do it right, and sloppy not to.

tompe · 04-30-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it shows that there are a lot of lazy programmers out there.

I totally disagree. If you are designing security rules you are designing them for real human beings and you have to take into consideration how they usually behave. If you do not do that your security rules are broken.

HarryT · 04-30-2009, 11:30 AM

I'm afraid we must agree to differ, Tommy. I have been writing Windows applications since before Windows 3 came out, and I know how to do it "right". If you don't follow the programming guidelines laid out by the o/s manufacturer, then sooner or later you will run into trouble. The documentation is there for everybody to read if they wish to do so.

tompe · 04-30-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid we must agree to differ, Tommy. I have been writing Windows applications since before Windows 3 came out, and I know how to do it "right". If you don't follow the programming guidelines laid out by the o/s manufacturer, then sooner or later you will run into trouble. The documentation is there for everybody to read if they wish to do so.

You do not seem to understand my point or how to make an operating system secure.

ilovejedd · 04-30-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

I totally disagree. If you are designing security rules you are designing them for real human beings and you have to take into consideration how they usually behave. If you do not do that your security rules are broken.

Funny how people are saying how Windows is inferior to *nix based systems (e.g. Linux and Mac) in terms of security but when Microsoft adopts *nix-like security (Vista), everyone's complaining.

HarryT is correct. A lot of the problems with UAC is not due to Vista per se. While these "rules" might be new to Windows, similar rules have existed in Linux and MacOS for a long time. Linux and MacOS programmers have been trained to abide by these rules, while Windows programmers are just beginning to get used to it. From the earliest Windows up to XP, programmers have been writing directly to the application installation folder and it's hard to change those habits. Besides, can you imagine how difficult it would be to modify pages upon pages of existing source code?

I think the main complaint against UAC is it makes things more difficult than people are used to. Unfortunately, convenience and security don't exactly go hand in hand. Sure, you can leave your house unlocked so it's easy for you to enter - no need to fumble for keys or anything. However, it'll also make it easier for robbers to steal your things.

tompe · 04-30-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Funny how people are saying how Windows is inferior to *nix based systems (e.g. Linux and Mac) in terms of security but when Microsoft adopts *nix-like security (Vista), everyone's complaining.

My point was that if you try to get better security by introducing a system that people then do not respect and work around then you have failed in getting better security. And the fault is yours.

Letting users approve running programs is also an extremely bad system. All people I know that are not experts in Vista just answer yes to all questions if a program should be allowed to run.

ilovejedd · 04-30-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

My point was that if you try to get better security by introducing a system that people then do not respect and work around then you have failed in getting better security. And the fault is yours.

Letting users approve running programs is also an extremely bad system. All people I know that are not experts in Vista just answer yes to all questions if a program should be allowed to run.

Exactly what HarryT was trying to point out. The current problem is a number of regular Windows apps currently require elevated permissions just to run because programmers were taking the easy way out by writing to system/application directories. Once that bad habit is beaten out of them, though, users won't need to run apps in administrator mode and UAC would actually become a practical approach to security. Similar systems already exist in both Linux (sudo) and MacOS. Users need elevated permissions in order to make critical system changes.

Microsoft needed to introduce this system to improve security. Now, it's just up to the programmers to catch up.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PRS-600 Windows 7	SeanSligo	Sony Reader	8	12-30-2009 09:44 AM
Hack Windows XP Home into Windows XP Pro	Colin Dunstan	Lounge	1	06-01-2005 03:23 PM

04-28-2009, 08:38 PM	#16
Andybaby Wizard Posts: 1,279 Karma: 1002683 Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: New York Device: PRS-700	it doesn't really matter anyway now, cause the RC, and the RTM of windows 7 will have a windows xp emulator in it (in the pro and ultimate versions) the stuff with the OCX errors in BD is already documented in the Wiki and the BD thread. if you read them I'm sure no error is insurmountable. I did a few books the other day on my windows 7 computer

04-30-2009, 05:49 AM	#17
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I've just been reading that Windows 7 is going to have a "Virtual XP Mode", running as a virtual machine within Windows 7. That is excellent news, and should solve any compatibility issues.

04-30-2009, 08:27 AM	#19
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I'm afraid that I can't agree with you, Jon. Vista is secure, and it's not Microsoft's fault that so many programmers "broke the rules" when coding Windows applications, causing them to fail under Vista. Correctly-written applications work perfectly under Vista.

04-30-2009, 09:09 AM	#23
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 73,975 Karma: 128903378 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	Well Book Designer does write to the application directory and it does run better under Windows 7 then it does under Vista. UAC is a bunch of nonsense. We have a laptop with Vista and I've turned UAC off because I do not want Vista telling me what I can and cannot do on my computer.

04-30-2009, 11:30 AM	#26
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I'm afraid we must agree to differ, Tommy. I have been writing Windows applications since before Windows 3 came out, and I know how to do it "right". If you don't follow the programming guidelines laid out by the o/s manufacturer, then sooner or later you will run into trouble. The documentation is there for everybody to read if they wish to do so.

Advert

Advert