Why do Windows users put up with this crap?

[LTC8K6]

If the user installs crap, and surfs the net as an admin, why is it Window's fault?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yes, the Windows ecosystem for free software has declined dramatically.

For those promoting Stores--bad idea. Linux repos are not the same as app stores. App stores give Company X central control, a new field of promotion questions, etc. In practice, they promote discovery of those apps that play by their rules (including the 30% cut).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

How quickly people forget. One of the reasons Windows Vista "failed" was because in it's initial release they locked it down a lot tighter with strict User Account Control and it just p***ed people off.

I don't see the relevance. These things are installed during the normal software install, so it is not like they would get an extra warning, I would think?

 

[Blue Mountain]

You're not that naive. It's a problem in Windows and Macs because their the most used. If Linux was more popular it to would be targeted. Remember when Macs never got viruses?

Yes. Both Macs and Linux are more resistant to viruses because they have a smaller installed base and, probably, more savvy users.

However, computer viruses has been infecting Macs for over 30 years.

But isn't your plan also asking the cars manufacturer to make it so the stickers wont stick?

I would say yes. But I add that a bad-acting garage is a local entity that can be dealt with by local officials and local legislation.When I take my car in for maintenance or repair it's not like the garage ships the car off to Romania to be worked on by persons unknown and delivered back to me.

With a computer, however, I can get software from anywhere in the world. That means a better point of control is at the OS level because every computer runs its OS locally. That's why I'm thinking there could be ways for Microsoft to improve its installer to prevent drive-by installs. But as you hinted above ("You're not that naive"), rogue programs could get around that simply by bypassing the MSI Installer. Grr. Then we're back to square one: unwanted programs getting installed by other programs.

 

[Blue Mountain]

How quickly people forget. One of the reasons Windows Vista "failed" was because in it's initial release they locked it down a lot tighter with strict User Account Control and it just p***ed people off.

Excellent point. When faced with a choice between convenience and security, most people choose convenience. It's possible a lot of Linux users (like me) have made the opposite choice, which could be one reason for the extremely low number of people using it as their primary desktop OS.

 

[Blue Mountain]

If the user installs crap,

That's not necessarily the problem. The crap is often installed by updates to legitimate programs that users asked for in the first place, or were even preinstalled on the computer when the user bought it.

and surfs the net as an admin,

See my previous post in response to icerat:.people choose to do their every day work as an admin user because it's more convenient.

why is it Window's fault?

So far people are doing a good job showing me it's not Windows' fault. It's coming down to:

• A vast majority of people using the internet are not computer-savvy
• Unscrupulous people take advantage of this ignorance to put crap on to the systems run by these non-savvy users
• People prefer convenience over security, and thus remain at higher risk for alware

My proposed OS based solution is looking less and less feasible.

 

[Daald]

The problem is that any suggestion you make can easily be circumvented. The installer can easily spawn off another process to install the second program. It can put it to start when the system is reloaded. It can sign it as its own program and have it install together. Basically as soon as you get the original maker to collude there is no OS in the world that can stop it as it becomes an impossible computer science problem.

Also for the software you mention I have noticed lately (especially with flash) that you have to select the proper program before you download the installer. There are basically some installers that do not give the opt out at all but you should have seen it when you were selecting your download. A lot of people that look at the install windows miss that the opt out was at the download stage.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I installed Avast myself on those computers be cause at the time I was a fan of it. I do not recall agreeing to an installation of Chrome. But later, when Avast updated itself, it (probably) asked the user slyly if she wanted Chrome with it, and so gave it to her.

That sounds unlikely to me. I've had Avast for years, and I've never had Chrome installed.

Yes, my post waffled between blaming Microsoft and blaming the providers that supply the software that runs on Windows. In my opinion, Windows can help out by alerting users when it's installing a sub-package from a different provider than the main package. That should be easier now that a lot of providers are getting digital signatures for their software.

Any decent anti-virus (or even firewall these days) with real-time protection should do that.

Note that clicking OK without selecting the checkbox would cause the installation to be bypassed, which would help resolve the issue of user blindly clicking OK.

That would just lead to people half-installing software and then complaining that it was broken.

 

[Leftus]

Now, imagine if MS had run an app store ever since the days of, say Windows 2000 or XP. People going to the store would know that you'd be getting the proper package for your version of Windows, as close as possible to the original supplier as you could get without actually downloading it from the supplier's site yourself. (In fact, the site itself need not actually supply the app; it could link to the installer at official download site.) That would pretty much eliminate the problem I've just described.

So at the same time they were facing an antitrust lawsuit from the DOJ, you would have them attempt to effectively corner the software market? I can imagine it. I just can't imagine it to be a good thing.

 

[BazBear]

Anything Microsoft does to make its software foolproof will result in the Universe providing bigger and better fools. It's a freaking arms race.

This!!

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Nothing extra? You mean like the ads for firstime firefox users.

Where are you getting Firefox from? I've been using Firefox since it was in alpha (and called "Mozilla"), and I've never, ever seen ads in it. Are you talking about that short message on user rights? If so, you have an incredibly broad definition of "ads".

Excellent point. When faced with a choice between convenience and security, most people choose convenience. It's possible a lot of Linux users (like me) have made the opposite choice, which could be one reason for the extremely low number of people using it as their primary desktop OS.

Possibly. I agree with the Free Software Foundation's philosophy, but I didn't even know its existence when I got into Linux. What pulled me in was the fun and eye candy. But I could just be weird.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Where are you getting Firefox from? I've been using Firefox since it was in alpha (and called "Mozilla"), and I've never, ever seen ads in it. Are you talking about that short message on user rights? If so, you have an incredibly broad definition of "ads".

New thing. For the new tab that populates with shortcuts to your most visited sites, there will be "promoted websites" until you have enough history. This is because they get the vast majority of their funding from Google, and since there is Chrome this deal will be ending.

 

[Warmer1]

I downloaded a free file synchronization app and got hit with Websteroids, a new toolbar and some other garbage which wasted too much time to get rid of. It was a P.I.T.A. but it was the first time that I had been hit with so much useless bloatware with a free app.

Things change and we just have to adapt and watch the agreements more carefully. The app had good reviews and maybe it's time that bloatware warnings should be added to reviews. I was surprised when McAfee was installed with Adobe Acrobat, requiring removal.

Eset's regular retail protection suite has served me well and was recommended by a network engineer. You can also purchase Eset protection that locks the ports on your computer and/ or servers for the ultimate in protection. When a person is away from their normal work area they have to call in passwords to gain access to ports on servers or computers.

CCleaner is also an excellent free program for getting rid of needless files that slow down Windows 7.

Just have to keep evolving as the threats and programs change. Posts like this are helpful.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

New thing. For the new tab that populates with shortcuts to your most visited sites, there will be "promoted websites" until you have enough history.

Oh, okay. Whenever I install Firefox for the first time on a computer, there's always some site I'm thinking of going to, so I just skip right past that.

This is because they get the vast majority of their funding from Google, and since there is Chrome this deal will be ending.

Chrome's been out for 5 years now. If they're going to end that deal, they're sure dragging their feet on it.
Google and Mozilla are technically competitors in the browser market, but Google's must be making enough money off of their Firefox placement to continue doing it. Also, they're making money off of Chrome in other ways (like ChromeOS). I'll bet somebody did a cost/benefit analysis and saw that the Mozilla deal is helping them more than hurting them.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Yes. Both Macs and Linux are more resistant to viruses because they have a smaller installed base and, probably, more savvy users.

Ha! ha! Ha!

I'll give you Linux having more savvy users but there's a reason Macs were described as 'Fisher-Price toys for people who can't handle real computers' . The main selling feature* of Macs is that they're more intuitive and less techie than other computers (see also iOS versus Android) and suit 'creative' types. Apple kit and OS are specifically locked down to prevent fiddling, with all software tightly controlled by a central point and are the polar opposite of Linux, with Windows somewhere between (and trying to move closer to Apple).

Tend to agree with you on the pain of bundled but unasked for toolbars, extra software etc. It can catch out even experienced users (I've been caught - only once but I still got caught and I've been an IT professional for 25 years). It does seem to be the price you pay for free software though and due diligence does avoid it.

*ETA - actually the main selling feature now is that 'everyone' has them and 'aren't they lovely!'

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I question those who say this is inevitable. Free Windows software wasn't this bad until a few years ago, and free software in other OS ecosystems has never approached this level.

 

[Cayvmann]

Or you could get software that is free (as in price) and free (as in freedom) and get nothing bundled extra.



Microsoft could have repositories containing vetted software, so that users wouldn't have to worry about it so much. Android and iOS have app stores, Linux has used software repositories for, what...over a decade now? Why can't MS do this?

And still people load "flappy birds" onto their androids and iphones and get clones that apparently call premium numbers while you are playing...

I admit to having to be more careful on Windows, and I use Linux at work, but I don't generally have these problems, though I spend a bit of time unloading crap from my daughter's computer...

 

[Cayvmann]

Yes. Both Macs and Linux are more resistant to viruses because they have a smaller installed base and, probably, more savvy users.

In my experience Mac users only consider themselves more savvy. They feel this way because they don't have the same problems on their Macs as users of Windows. Macs tend to insulate them from their own stupidity. The only reason they don't have these problems, in general, is because their system doesn't allow them to get them. ( that can be good or bad depending on where you sit on the subject of 'freedom' of use ). Honestly I would suggest a Mac to the less sophisticated users, just for that reason. Or maybe Mint Linux.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Ha! ha! Ha!

I'll give you Linux having more savvy users but there's a reason Macs were described as 'Fisher-Price toys for people who can't handle real computers' . The main selling feature* of Macs is that they're more intuitive and less techie than other computers (see also iOS versus Android) and suit 'creative' types.

How does that work with having UNIX tools on the Mac now? Don't those allow you to do a lot more with the system than you could before?

 

[Dancing David]

Yesterday I assisted a friend clean up yet another infestation of malware / adware on her computer. Somehow--she has no idea how--within the space of a few minutes the following software installed itself on her computer:

• Conduit Search Bar (no idea where this came from)
• Internet Updater (via Conduit)
• Install Converter (probably via Conduit; no idea what it does)
• McAfee Security Scan Plus (probably via Adobe Reader update)
• AVG AntiVirus Free Edition (no idea where it came from)
• Websteroids (no idea where it came from)

It cost her 1 hour of my time (I bill people for this work to keep the number of requests manageable.)

What the ... ? Suppose you went to a restaurant and the waiter put buns(with butter) on the table and two cups of coffee, then after the dinner gave you ice cream. But when you get the bill you discover you've been charged extra for the buns and the butter, the coffee and the ice cream, because the waiter didn't tell you these were not complimentary but instead items you'd be charged for if you consumed them! Would you eat there again? Would you recommend the restaurant to your friends?

With two other friends, the Avast! antivirus software decided the user would like to have Chrome browser and made it their default browser.

Why is it that Windows users the world over put up with this sort of crap without raising holy hell with (first) Microsoft for not more diligently trying to distinguish between user-requested software installs vs drive-by installs, and (second) the software vendors for sending thsi sort of crap along with their software? Why is it that every time a user want to add a program to their system they have to run a gauntlet of onerous licensing agreements and check diligently to ensure only the software they want installed gets installed?

This is a huge reason why I run Linux. I've never has a piece of software on Linux up and decide I wanted to get another program as well. I realise that could well change if Linux ever became really popular. But Apple has long been a strong competitor to Microsoft and I've not heard many Apple OS users complaining about drive-by installs. Why does it seem only Windows has this problem, and why have its users put up with this?

Why is it Windows problem when people agree to download software?

Conduit usually needs an active participant to the download.

Might not have happened in this case.

Now McAfee is a dragalong with many other software installs , like Flash and Java

But to answer your question, yes linux plays great with networks if the users are savvy, and for some kinds of access even if they aren't. Apple does not.

Active Directory despite its flaws makes for easy network management and administration, even by not savvy enough to use linux people. (Or for those who just want a GUI to administer the network)


Now should MS remove teh IE layers in the OS, you bet.