PDA

View Full Version : Ballmer on Windows 8 innovation



viralmeme
November 17th, 2010, 04:52 PM
"One of the features suggested for Windows 8 is a kind of reset switch that would allow a PC to be restored to its factory configuration but without wiping out stored data or desirable applications"

"there's a kind of sense that they're [Apple] working together, because they want to get you locked in to their ecosystem, end-to-end", AT

"Nice thought; I don't think customers get locked in", SB

"if you want to type a book report you're going to venture outside the Apple ecosystem", SB

"I don't think Apple does want developers", AT

SB: "We welcome them. We welcome them to our open ecosystem"

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/11/ars-talks-to-steve-ballmer.ars

Lancro
November 17th, 2010, 05:27 PM
So you reset windows, without wiping out aplications?, that makes no sense, normaly when you restore windows to factory defaults, its to have a clean install, with no bugged registry, if you keep the apps, then you keep the registry, so whats the point of this?, dont lose data, ok, your mp3 are safe, as always, but keep old windows as windows.old for rescuing data and then deleting it, so you have a real clean installation, If not, you will not gain the advantages of a clean install.

MasterNetra
November 17th, 2010, 05:47 PM
so you reset windows, without wiping out aplications?, that makes no sense, normaly when you restore windows to factory defaults, its to have a clean install, with no bugged registry, if you keep the apps, then you keep the registry, so whats the point of this?, dont lose data, ok, your mp3 are safe, as always, but keep old windows as windows.old for rescuing data and then deleting it, so you have a real clean installation, if not, you will not gain the advantages of a clean install.

+1

KiwiNZ
November 17th, 2010, 06:07 PM
There is a similar regime available in OSX and it works very well. Non destructive restore is a good idea.

HangukMiguk
November 17th, 2010, 06:50 PM
There is a similar regime available in OSX and it works very well. Non destructive restore is a good idea.

...in the Appleverse. A good idea for OSX.

Microsoft however, is where good ideas go to get raped and die. Microsoft's new system restore will probably be the antithesis to Apple's.

I say probably because I WOULD like to be proven wrong.

KiwiNZ
November 17th, 2010, 06:53 PM
...in the Appleverse. A good idea for OSX.

Microsoft however, is where good ideas go to get raped and die. Microsoft's new system restore will probably be the antithesis to Apple's.

I say probably because I WOULD like to be proven wrong.

Non destructive restores are already used on windows , refer HP's restore regime.

czr114
November 17th, 2010, 06:57 PM
What a screwy type of feature. It's like setting a brush fire to remove a few ants.

Windows users need to think long and hard about why such a feature is even needed to begin with. The destabilizing apps and burrowing malware are the root problem. Microsoft needs to be addressing those, not giving users a new way to keep fighting the same annoying battle.

Repeatedly torching the system to clear out the problems is no way to design an OS. It's business-as-usual in a world of ever escalating kludges. As soon as the malware learns to shelter, or to throw the reset switch to fry its competition, it's back to normal for the users, albeit with more annoying maintenance tasks and heartier malware in the ecosystem.

KiwiNZ
November 17th, 2010, 07:01 PM
It is a good ideas , the system becomes unstable, instead of nuking it reinstalling the OS and then reinstalling all your Applications and Data from backup you simply do a non-destructive restore to installation state. That is a sensible and time saving move.

And just as a foot note the blame for malware is with the basement dwellers that write it not Microsoft.

3Miro
November 17th, 2010, 07:04 PM
If this feature doesn't clean apps and registry, what does it clean? It is not like Windows comes with a whole bunch of pre-installed stuff. At best, this will clean the drivers and customizations for the DE, nothing more.

I don't see the point.

KiwiNZ
November 17th, 2010, 07:08 PM
If this feature doesn't clean apps and registry, what does it clean? It is not like Windows comes with a whole bunch of pre-installed stuff. At best, this will clean the drivers and customizations for the DE, nothing more.

I don't see the point.

As its not done yet or released, no one knows except the developers at Microsoft , but the knockers will feast on that which that they know not.

The idea is well worth an "open minded" look and fair review when released.

czr114
November 17th, 2010, 07:09 PM
It's a kludge, not a solution. The solution is increased OS compartmentalization and self-diagnosis so that the installation of one buggy app with limited scope can't hose the entire thing, nor can malware hook in low and completely take over.

Why should a routine backup-and-scuttle cycle be necessary?

The reset switch is normalizing the problem by building functionality on the assumption that a routine backup, slash, and burn is necessary to continued operation. A scheduled cleanup implies a recurring problem.

This "innovation" merely continues the paradigm where problems are normal, OSes act against their own health, and the endless loop of creation->degradation->destruction is to be expected.

The OS should not be routinely hosed by anything.

KiwiNZ
November 17th, 2010, 07:12 PM
It's a kludge, not a solution. The solution is increased OS compartmentalization and self-diagnosis so that the installation of one buggy app with limited scope can't hose the entire thing, nor can malware hook in low and completely take over.

Why should a routine backup-and-scuttle cycle be necessary?

The reset switch is normalizing the problem by building functionality on the assumption that a routine backup, slash, and burn is necessary to continued operation. A scheduled cleanup implies a recurring problem.

This "innovation" merely continues the paradigm where problems are normal, OSes act against their own health, and the endless loop of creation->degradation->destruction is to be expected.

The OS should not be routinely hosed by anything.

Cars shouldn't break down, humans should,t get the Flu , Linux shouldn't get kernel panics but it happens, that is the real world.

HangukMiguk
November 17th, 2010, 07:14 PM
Non destructive restores are already used on windows , refer HP's restore regime.

Manufacturer's system restore features and one designed by Microsoft are different beasts.

I don't know about HP's system restore feature. I know it never worked right on Windows ME, but then, what DID work right on Windows ME?

All I expect is that when Microsoft makes a system restore, and mimics any other system restore function, it will end up butchered and disenchanted users will end up continuing the pattern of system wipes and making sure they have an external HD on hand for storing files on for those wipes. Or geek squad will continue to make obscene amounts of money for these relatively straightforward procedures.

czr114
November 17th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Cars shouldn't break down, humans should,t get the Flu , Linux shouldn't get kernel panics but it happens, that is the real world.
The problem with that analogy is that everything you listed is an example of something being degraded by an external, uncontrollable environment.

Buggy software and malware cause the OS to destroy itself by calling its logic in a way which isn't healthy for the system. If a malicious script does a sector wipe of /boot, it's the OS actually writing those nulls, on suggestion of the malware. The root problem there is an OS unaware of its own health, with quite limited means of blocking destruction, such as through embargoes on specific techniques from the wild.

Microsoft may have come up with a better way to repair the damage (compared to a tech with a flash drive and restore disc), but they're still on the old paradigm of the self-defeating, non-compartmentalized OS.

We've already created operating systems impervious to degradation. To see one, install VirtualBox from the repos, install your favorite guest OS, then try to hose the base OS from the guest OS - it can't be done, because everything in the guest is confined to the guest, and the guest can't issue an instruction to the host to damage the host.

The idea isn't that new, either. Lenten's reborn cards have been doing this for years. They came out of environments in which the users were assumed to be destructive or malicious, and a full reset at boot was the only solution. At least with a reborn card it can be said that each user is being given a conceptually clean slate in volatile memory, whereas Microsoft's "solution" expects breakage to persist from one session to another.

Now begin merging that way of thinking with the standard desktop experience.

Admittedly, this is much easier to do with open source, because developers have full knowledge of the behavior of open source software.

KiwiNZ
November 17th, 2010, 07:53 PM
The problem with that analogy is that everything you listed is an example of something being degraded by an external, uncontrollable environment.

Buggy software and malware cause the OS to destroy itself by calling its logic in a way which isn't healthy for the system. If a malicious script does a sector wipe of /boot, it's the OS actually writing those nulls, on suggestion of the malware. The root problem there is an OS unaware of its own health, with quite limited means of blocking destruction, such as through embargoes on specific techniques from the wild.

Microsoft may have come up with a better way to repair the damage (compared to a tech with a flash drive and restore disc), but they're still on the old paradigm of the self-defeating, non-compartmentalized OS.

We've already created operating systems impervious to degradation. To see one, install VirtualBox from the repos, install your favorite guest OS, then try to hose the base OS from the guest OS - it can't be done, because everything in the guest is confined to the guest, and the guest can't issue an instruction to the host to damage the host.

The idea isn't that new, either. Lenten's reborn cards have been doing this for years. They came out of environments in which the users were assumed to be destructive or malicious, and a full reset at boot was the only solution. At least with a reborn card it can be said that each user is being given a conceptually clean slate in volatile memory, whereas Microsoft's "solution" expects breakage to persist from one session to another.

Now begin merging that way of thinking with the standard desktop experience.

Admittedly, this is much easier to do with open source, because developers have full knowledge of the behavior of open source software.

And malware isn't external ? and by your reckoning Microsoft has control of the Malware writers. hmmm interesting:rolleyes:

There is NO such thing as an OS impervious to degradation.

czr114
November 17th, 2010, 08:01 PM
And malware isn't external ? and by your reckoning Microsoft has control of the Malware writers. hmmm interesting:rolleyes:

There is NO such thing as an OS impervious to degradation.
Malware passes harmful instructions to the OS which executes said malicious code against it's own self-interest. Modern OSes will still happily self-destruct with no attempt to intervene, whether a user passes a malicious executable or types in 'sudo rm -rf /'.

I have you an example of an OS impervious to degradation - the host OS running virtualized systems. No amount of malice or programmer stupidity executing in a guest OS will hose the host OS.

This isn't solely limited to Microsoft, so there is no agenda. OSX and Linux also suffer similar defects, although they're less pronounced, less aggravated by the user base, and less important as Windows takes the heat as the world's foremost digital petri dish.

As long as we're finding different ways to clean up the same problems, we're thinking like it was 20 years ago. We can virtualize the execution of an entire OS to confine the fallout - now that needs to merge with the desktop experience.

I've used VMWare and Sandboxie to defuse suspected malware found in client email. That stopped any blowback to the host OS - now extend a similar concept to the average user's desktop session.

That would be an example of a new way of thinking. Microsoft is merely pioneering new levels of one-upmanship fighting the same old problem.

Nightstrike2009
November 17th, 2010, 08:02 PM
Personally I thought "borrowing" Linux's root access user permission idea to install software was supposed to help stop malware, with Vista and Win7, guess what works for us doesn't work for them eh?

Maybe its just me but I find a little paranoia is heathly, Back up important files and nuke to OS has always worked for me and made me confident the problem has been removed.

If you run something like ClamAV (on Linux) on your download folder before you transfer them to another folder you should be (ultra) safe.

I find the problem is not fully the OS itself but the amount of "Appliance Users" It suffers from a PC is more like a car, it needs to be serviced, parts replacing, and new programs added from time to time. A lot of their users treat it like a toaster or a TV that "Just works", that is not reality at all.

Nothing good comes easily, or without some effort especially in the world of PC's, has most Linux users know all too well. The main problem is the level of ignorance displayed by some (Windows) users, expecting to be safe without AntiVirus and anti-malware software on a Windows PC is just reckless and insane (Not to mention a major threat to other more savvy Windows Users, not to mention the ID Fraud threat to themselves)

In my own opinion it is user ignorance and intolerance to gain more knowledge about there own PC's that to blame for most of Microsoft's problems. (granted buggy software doesn't help) :-(

Basically I feel its the lack of good (PC) Education that's to blame, you wouldn't use a car without good knowledge and a license.

All to many people use PC's without the knowledge required to use them properly.

PS: I don't intend this to offend those who are willing to learn but just starting out and are keen to learn more, I mean the others who expect it to "Just Work" after years / decades of owning a PC and learning little more about it but how to turn it on!, seriously wake up guys (and Gals)!

czr114
November 17th, 2010, 08:07 PM
Personally I thought "borrowing" Linux root access user permission to install software was supposed to help stop malware, with Vista and Win7, guess what works for us doesn't work for them eh?

It hinders the spread and execution of malware, but that's all. If a clueless user happily elevates the malware, it still ravages the system. Security elevation stops drive-by malware or attacks by limited users, but at the end of the day, superuser access still thrashes the system. The lack of distinct levels between the two perpetuates the problem of trojan horses.

In the end, modern OSes still happily behave as confused deputies in too many situations. A paradigm shift would lie in eliminating the confusion, not streamlining the cleanup.

Starks
November 17th, 2010, 08:12 PM
So you reset windows, without wiping out aplications?, that makes no sense, normaly when you restore windows to factory defaults, its to have a clean install, with no bugged registry, if you keep the apps, then you keep the registry, so whats the point of this?, dont lose data, ok, your mp3 are safe, as always, but keep old windows as windows.old for rescuing data and then deleting it, so you have a real clean installation, If not, you will not gain the advantages of a clean install.

I take it you've never done a root reinstall of Ubuntu while keeping your app data safe on a /home partition.

HermanAB
November 17th, 2010, 08:13 PM
Windows had the Repair Install for about 10 years already. It even worked most of the time.

Nightstrike2009
November 17th, 2010, 08:14 PM
By Myself:Nothing good comes easily, or without some effort especially in the world of PC's, has most Linux users know all too well. The main problem is the level of ignorance displayed by some (Windows) users, expecting to be safe without AntiVirus and anti-malware software on a Windows PC is just reckless and insane (Not to mention a major threat to other more savvy Windows Users, not to mention the ID Fraud threat to themselves)

I did try to point that out in my original post, I still believe education its user's to be more cautious and savvy would have a greater effect than Windows adding new "Gimmicks".

czr114
November 17th, 2010, 08:24 PM
I've never run anti-virus or anti-malware on my PCs since upgrading to Windows 2000, and not once have I ever caught anything. Common sense and limited rights go much farther than signature matching of previously identified threats. It isn't unusual for other power users to do the same.

This goes to the heart of the current paradigm. Our machines only block previously identified threat patterns, whereas the human mind can anticipate risky situations and apply discretion accordingly. The human mind, properly utilized, can separate out the malware from safe software.

Nightstrike2009
November 17th, 2010, 08:26 PM
Well in that case if thats true and you have never been virused, your a better person than me czr114, hats off to you, you sound like a true expert :-)

I am cautious of compressed files and use a virus checker on them has all too often the payload is dangerous on windows, but I wouldn't risk a Windows PC without anti-virus/malware software.

That said I don't run windows any more my PC is Linux only and I do use it frequently without any software protection other than the OS itself (I have ClamTK/ClamAV on standby but that's about it)

czr114
November 17th, 2010, 08:37 PM
It's not that difficult, but it does require discipline. The user must avoid risky behavior, engage in vector reduction, and adhere to threat containment. Those who adhere to that way of thinking are safer than those clicking anything they want, loading up on plugins, ignoring updates, letting ads and spam through, running without firewalls, and neglecting to drop permissions, then letting Norton supposedly take care of the rest. It won't.

Those who install an AV so they can continue business as usual will likely be hosed again, eventually, whereas those who practice safe computing have a good chance of staying safe, forever.

nlsthzn
November 17th, 2010, 08:49 PM
I've never run anti-virus or anti-malware on my PCs since upgrading to Windows 2000, and not once have I ever caught anything. Common sense and limited rights go much farther than signature matching of previously identified threats. It isn't unusual for other power users to do the same.

This goes to the heart of the current paradigm. Our machines only block previously identified threat patterns, whereas the human mind can anticipate risky situations and apply discretion accordingly. The human mind, properly utilized, can separate out the malware from safe software.

And how exactly are you planning on catching anything without an anti-virus or anti-malware to catch it?

czr114
November 17th, 2010, 09:11 PM
And how exactly are you planning on catching anything without an anti-virus or anti-malware to catch it?
How exactly does anti-virus/anti-malware software catch infection?

The vast majority of malicious software causes symptoms, which much of the infection-adjusted install base being explicitly designed to produce symptoms. Signature identification is one symptom, but infections also cause other symptoms, such as resource usage, instability, network calls, system file replacement, hooks in deep internals, spawning of popups, browser hijacking, etc.

The security software is sifting for evidence the same as a human would do, even though it operates on different evidence. It doesn't prove infection, nor can it be relied upon for a 100% detection rate.

Compound that with malware designed to obliterate security software, or hide from it through appropriate hooks, and the case for classifying it as a reliable detector wanes further.

How am I clean? Occam's razor. The chance of having been infected for years with the slim portion of malware which is fully invisible and perfectly asymptomatic is simply too small. If that were the case, then security software probably wouldn't catch it anyway.

A more esoteric question might ask if a system is perfectly asymptomatic, can the infection really be considered malicious?

Lancro
November 17th, 2010, 09:41 PM
I take it you've never done a root reinstall of Ubuntu while keeping your app data safe on a /home partition.

No, Ive never done it, but we are talking about windows, not linux.

KiwiNZ
November 17th, 2010, 11:19 PM
How exactly does anti-virus/anti-malware software catch infection?

The vast majority of malicious software causes symptoms, which much of the infection-adjusted install base being explicitly designed to produce symptoms. Signature identification is one symptom, but infections also cause other symptoms, such as resource usage, instability, network calls, system file replacement, hooks in deep internals, spawning of popups, browser hijacking, etc.

The security software is sifting for evidence the same as a human would do, even though it operates on different evidence. It doesn't prove infection, nor can it be relied upon for a 100% detection rate.

Compound that with malware designed to obliterate security software, or hide from it through appropriate hooks, and the case for classifying it as a reliable detector wanes further.

How am I clean? Occam's razor. The chance of having been infected for years with the slim portion of malware which is fully invisible and perfectly asymptomatic is simply too small. If that were the case, then security software probably wouldn't catch it anyway.

A more esoteric question might ask if a system is perfectly asymptomatic, can the infection really be considered malicious?

An answer that more closely fits Occams' Razor in your case is "pride goeth before a fall" ;)

czr114
November 17th, 2010, 11:28 PM
An answer that more closely fits Occams' Razor in your case is "pride goeth before a fall" ;)
I've played the numbers game for years, doing much like the rest of the power users who run cleaner systems than newbies loaded to the gills with security software.

A properly run Windows system, with common sense use, aggressive vector control, and privilege restriction, is not as insecure as most people would claim.

That also says something about Linux that, while the security model is superior, much of its infection-resistance is attributed to its users being resistant to attacks and opportunities for attack. As desktop Linux comes of age, distros will need to pay more attention to security. It's one reason why I find the UI efforts to be a bit overplayed, as GNOME 2.x is useful and fine, when we really need expanded AppArmor and things like that.

Windows users are now the greatest security flaw on a Windows system, which is why Ubuntu will have to give them attention if it is to encourage more migration.

Lucradia
November 17th, 2010, 11:29 PM
so you reset windows, without wiping out aplications?, that makes no sense, normaly when you restore windows to factory defaults, its to have a clean install, with no bugged registry, if you keep the apps, then you keep the registry, so whats the point of this?, dont lose data, ok, your mp3 are safe, as always, but keep old windows as windows.old for rescuing data and then deleting it, so you have a real clean installation, if not, you will not gain the advantages of a clean install.

+1

KiwiNZ
November 17th, 2010, 11:38 PM
I've played the numbers game for years, doing much like the rest of the power users who run cleaner systems than newbies loaded to the gills with security software.

A properly run Windows system, with common sense use, aggressive vector control, and privilege restriction, is not as insecure as most people would claim.

That also says something about Linux that, while the security model is superior, much of its infection-resistance is attributed to its users being resistant to attacks and opportunities for attack. As desktop Linux comes of age, distros will need to pay more attention to security. It's one reason why I find the UI efforts to be a bit overplayed, as GNOME 2.x is useful and fine, when we really need expanded AppArmor and things like that.

Windows users are now the greatest security flaw on a Windows system, which is why Ubuntu will have to give them attention if it is to encourage more migration.

Ubuntu is no more secure than Windows. It has different vulnerabilities but it is no more secure

pwnst*r
November 17th, 2010, 11:56 PM
Hey, look at the trail of haters.