Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vista Casts A Pall On PC Gaming?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the stay-oofff-the-mooooors dept.

Windows 425

simoniker writes "In an opinion piece, casual game publisher WildTangent's CEO Alex St. John (himself a Microsoft veteran and one of the DirectX creators) has sharply criticized some of Windows Vista's features as they related to video game creation, noting: 'We have found many of the security changes planned for Vista alarming and likely to present sweeping challenges for PC gaming, especially for online distributed games. The central change that impacts all downloadable applications in Vista is the introduction of Limited User Accounts. LUA's can already be found in Windows XP, but nobody uses them because of the onerous restrictions they place on usability. In Vista, LUA's are mandatory and inescapable.'" Meanwhile, the word has also come down that games will be on the Zune by Summer of next year.

cancel ×

425 comments

gaming introduced early compromises (5, Interesting)

yagu (721525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529042)

Gaming and computing are two different animals. This is even more true for mult-user computing, a la Unix, OS X, XP, and now Vista. And, some of today's security problems in Microsoft's security model are directly related to and introduced by gaming requirements early on (circa 1992, 1993).

Gaming demands high-end, near-to-the-hardware, unencumbered access. Multi-user computing demands flexibility, equitable distribution of resources, and if properly done, capability of extremely high and granular security.

This puts the two activities at odds in deciding how to implement a "computer" -- probably one of the main reasons hardcore gaming usually is the domain of dedicated consoles and hardware.

In NT's early days (which eventually became Windows 2000 and Windows XP) Microsoft caved to requests for compromised access to "rings" of kernel security to give better (and acceptable) performance for game developers -- most notably there were some passthroughs for video hardware access. I don't know if there were other compromises but I suspect there were. These compromises contributed to security problems (but were not the cause of all of Microsoft's security headaches).

From what I've read, Microsoft has made some tough but I think "correct" choices for security in Vista... it should be very hard for limited users to do much more that use the machine. Unfortunately, gaming typically requires access to the machine that, under the covers, is much more than typical and casual access to the innards. This is probably why Microsoft has gotten into the game console market... they finally have hardware/software dedicated to and around gaming.

It's probably a tough pill to swallow for gamers and developers used to being able to pull it off in XP (and previous generation Windows), but it's probably a better security world on whole for general computing and Vista users.

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (4, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529368)

The problem is consoles do not have high end hardware by the time they make it to the shelves, and sometimes don't even have high end hardware in design, depending on the market the manufacturer is after.

Put another way: Consoles are finally running close to the resolutions that I was on my PC in 1996, because of hardware limitations that they were not able to free themselves from (using a tv instead of a dedicated display, like a computer monitor).

The Cell CPU was great while the PS3 was still on paper. Now its being outdone by mid-range PCs.

Bleeding edge, high end gaming will be the PC for quite a while to come, because PCs are upgradeable without a 5+ year wait for the next "generation" of boxes.

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17529782)

You ran 1920x1080 in 1996!?

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (3, Informative)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530992)

You could run consumer grade graphics at 1600x1200 in 1995 with S3's graphics card.

Commercial graphic houses and CAD designers had 2048x1600 resolution back then.

Not sure what consoles you are referring to. (3, Insightful)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529806)

For example the Xbox 360 has unified architecture graphics processing that is just coming into the market through the gefoce 8800's which cost MORE than an entire 360.

The 360 has 3 cores, 48 unified pipelines, 512 megs of GDDR3 memory and an insane bus speed between them. Hardly "mid range" by any PC standards considering PC's are still fighting to catch up.

The problem with consoles most of the time isn't console power but demand to get games out the door before having a finished product. On pc's they just patch patch patch and eventually get it right - consoles are heading that way now though.

Re:Not sure what consoles you are referring to. (3, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530464)

PC's are not fighting to keep up. They are keeping up just fine if your willing to spend the money.

Re:Not sure what consoles you are referring to. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17530596)

All that "wonderful power" and it all looks like so much shit compared to current PC games.

512 megs of ram? jesus, give the devs some working room.

Re:Not sure what consoles you are referring to. (3, Insightful)

MaineCoon (12585) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530760)

The Cell and the 360's chip threw out important modern processor features to get the clock rate up. Both are outperformed by the lowest end Core 2 Duo.

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (1)

MyOtherUIDis3digits (926429) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531034)

This is exactly why I have a Windows XP system with a virgin ethernet port for playing games, and an Apple PowerBook for email, surfing, downloading, etc.

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (4, Insightful)

tzhuge (1031302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531122)

Why does it matter how 'high end' the hardware your game is running on is? Are PC games are just glorified benchmark demos? This is exactly the reason why I gave up on PC games. I don't want game developers deciding when I should upgrade my PC. Is that new graphics card going to make my wordprocessor process words faster?

Two of the real strengths of PC gaming are online play and user created content. We are going to start seeing that on consoles this generation. That's a far bigger threat to PC gaming than Vista.

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531334)

Oh. I thought consoles were for, you know, gaming, and not hardware benchmarking.

security introduced latter consequences. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17529430)

"It's probably a tough pill to swallow for gamers and developers used to being able to pull it off in XP (and previous generation Windows), but it's probably a better security world on whole for general computing and Vista users."

So does that mean that PC gaming is dead on Vista?

Used to be True.. (4, Informative)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529456)

If game developers stick to OpenGL or DirectX 9 or 10 then thats all they need. Infact game developers should be DROOOLING over the tools available for them under vista.

Direct hardware access is so passe, now its about API's and how fast they can be accelerated between CPU/GPU and Physics accelerations.

Writing games on DOS/4GW and Win32s is a thing of the past. If you want to see a game, check out the DirectX 10 enabled games and then tell me vista isn't a gamers os.

blah

Re:Used to be True.. (2, Insightful)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531144)

So basically the qualty of the game is dependent upon the quality of the API that MS provides under Vista?

No thanks.
I like DirectX fine but this enables mediocrity at the OS level.

If there is a piece of the game that seems glitchy and the programmer spend 2 weeks trying to tweak it and to an avail, he will have to have a work around when in fact the issue is with the DX API.

Looks like vendor lock in deeper than just a simple Win32.

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17529584)

Somehow I doubt that many Vista machines will be truely used as multi-user machines. Some of them may have multiple profiles, used serially. I think Vista is really a plea to the business community to give MS another chance. They are throwing in every security option they can think of in hopes that the business community will buy it and continue to MS products.

I believe they are also pandering to the Religion (save the babies!) and DRM communities with their "security" features. I bet alot of what is in there is directly for these two crowds. I think gamers are on their.... they'll buy it anyways / let em buy an xbox for games ... list.

I bet if they had actually built their system <cough>linux</cough>correctly from the ground up <cough>BSD</cough> in the first place, then they could easily and cleanly provide different faces/whatever that run on top of the core... You want a game machine... more direct/less security, you want to make a child machine... lots of DRM/lock-outs.... A business machine... well... take every security option and turn it on... make the IT guys happy...

Who's Encumbering my Access? (1, Informative)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529616)

Gaming and computing are two different animals. ... Gaming demands high-end, near-to-the-hardware, unencumbered access. ... From what I've read, Microsoft has made some tough but I think "correct" choices for security in Vista.

A reasonable OS makes resources available, without compromising security. You don't have to be able to overwrite system files to gain access to video card functions. There's also no reason to restrict other programs, such as email or browsers when your OS has been designed to perform for customers rather than confuse competitors. The conundrum has been addressed and solved by X, which has had network transparency without significant security risks for decades.

What? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17530016)

A reasonable OS makes resources available, without compromising security. You don't have to be able to overwrite system files to gain access to video card functions. There's also no reason to restrict other programs, such as email or browsers when your OS has been designed to perform for customers rather than confuse competitors. The conundrum has been addressed and solved by X, which has had network transparency without significant security risks for decades.

Absolutely nothing in this paragraph addresses what the OP was talking about. Are you just jumbling together words to do a weird "plug" for X? Or is this a veiled "M$ sux" essay? I don't have anything against X, but anyone with an IQ higher than 70 knows it's not the hottest gaming platform in existence.

Care to try again?

Re:Who's Encumbering my Access? (2, Insightful)

MC68000 (825546) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530266)

Of course the performance allowed by vanilla X is so godawful, that to get any decent performance at all requires "extensions" to X that basically ignore X architecture and are essentially hacks to provide high performance that wasn't even considered in the decade X was invented.

And don't get me started on security in X, the whole thing has to be run suid root.

I think that this is a good read (written by a former developer of Xgl) on how X is currently nothing more than hack after hack:
http://jonsmirl.googlepages.com/graphics.html [googlepages.com]

Re:Who's Encumbering my Access? (2, Interesting)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530584)

Of course the performance allowed by vanilla X is so godawful, that to get any decent performance at all requires "extensions" to X that basically ignore X architecture and are essentially hacks to provide high performance that wasn't even considered in the decade X was invented.

Exactly, and IMHO is primarily why Linux is yet to be taken seriously by anyone but fanboys on the desktop...

Re:Who's Encumbering my Access? (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530928)

I'm fairly sure that most of the people that "don't take Linux seriously" are people who don't even know what it is.

Re:Who's Encumbering my Access? (1)

b1ad3runn3r (896115) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531050)

Which is only about 6sigmas of the population...

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17529666)

Does Linux and BSD have games for them? The performance seems fine to me, and both OS's are secure. It might have been true of early hardware that was slow that you needed lower level acess, but with todays hardware, you really dont need that insecure acess (unless its a console, in which case security shouldent be much of a problem, as your not going to network them ..... thats just leave out those consoles that try to be computers).

I would say much of Windows's problems are with DOS, it provided no real API's to get at hardware, to a point where even basic hardware acess required the drivers to be built into a application, including games, and office apps. I wouldent blame games as much as i would blame DOS (which MS used as the OS backbone of Windows up to 9x) for its lack of API's, if it had them, you could rewrite them so the OS would be more secure (if done very well (unlikely i would think, even for smart software enginers at the time) you could be able to have a OS as secure as Linux/BSD is today, while still having working applications (and as i recall, DOS used interupts to expose API's, so it could have even been binary compatible i think).

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (1)

stair69 (680444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529756)

You're exactly right about the conflict between gaming and multi-user computing, and I think the problem has always been that Windows attempts to do both at once when it doesn't really need to. Few games need to have explorer and all the rest running in the background - what games need is (more or less) exclusive access to hardware.

The Amiga had an answer to this - AmigaOS was a multitasking os with all the nice eye candy etc, but there was a API call ( Forbid() ) that you could use to ask the kernel to suspend multitasking, and pretty much everything else except core kernel functions. From there on you had access to the hardware and you could do what was necessary to get gaming performance. If you were doing this the proper way you'd still use API calls to get memory, use resources etc... As long as you followed the rules and put things back as you found them at the end of your program when you re-established multitasking all the old processes would spring back to life as if nothing had happened.

Obviously you wouldn't want to make these kind of calls on your web server today, so there has to be security around what processes are allowed to do this! Still - might work a bit better than Windows current method of trying to be a multi user server and a games console at the same time.

Stair

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17531114)

Oh dear lord, the Amiga did not invent CLI (clear interrupts)

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (4, Interesting)

ADRA (37398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530050)

If Microsoft was really paranoid about Vista security, they'd make install profiles that could be completely sandboxed into their own zone diasabling everything but needed funations. For games, allow network TCP/UDP sockets, specific pre-determined disk folders for saves, specific pre-determined registry locations, and directx*. Thats it. The game shouldn't be allowed access to my user files, system files, IE configuration, modify my startup files, call any non-whitelisted API entry, installation ActiveX controls, or any other embedded-into-system file.

Once they make this 'Windows Game Profile 1.0' and they say you can do X, Y, and Z, but not A, B and C, we'll be in a lot better place.
It'll mean that games that meet the "Windows Game Profile 1.0" spec don't need to be tested against the riggors of installation, it'll just mean that during runtime, the application binaries are limited in what the system allows it to perform. All in all, this would mean a more stable OS, and a simpler install. The tradeoff is that developers will be restricted from using API's that they probably shouldn't be using anyways. (Anyone not following the spec/profile could just release games as they do today).

Of course, that would mean that Microsoft would have an immutable, simple, straight-forward API to implement games on Windows. Could they not implement this because it means that -alternative- Windows implementations (Wine) would have too easy of a time porting?

Re:gaming introduced early compromises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17530560)

Consoles are crap within 1 year. They're subject to fads in the worst way.

MS probably wants to KILL pc gaming so they dont have to deal with the need for a secure os that does both gaming and secure computing.

Thanks. Another group of marketing geniuses making my decisions for me.

Ok. (5, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529102)

Meanwhile, the word has also come down that games will be on the Zune by Summer of next year.

I'm sure that will make both of those Zune owners [penny-arcade.com] very happy.

Re:Ok. but watch the bridges for jumpers (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529352)

I'm sure that will make both of those Zune owners very happy.

Hope they haven't decided to jump after seeing the iPhone launch videos ...

Re:Ok. (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531180)

Yay, only 548 days left until we catch up to where the iPod was a year ago! I mean where second rate game playing is concerned.

mandatory and inescapable. (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529160)

> In Vista, LUA's are mandatory and inescapable. ..and disablable (which happens to be one of my favourite words).

Re:mandatory and inescapable. (2, Interesting)

pdbaby (609052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529500)

and disablable

...which is the very first change I made in Vista -- it's my computer and I won't have the operating system disallow me from copying a backup of Firefox from the network to my machine when I'm an administrator (you cannot copy from a network share to Program Files. You must copy to your Documents folder and then move from there to Program Files). This and it constantly bringing up another dialog box to confirm that I actually meant "yes" when I clicked "yes" while I tried to delete a few shortcuts in my start menu. I like apple's approach: if necessary, ask for your password again, otherwise just make the damn change

Re:mandatory and inescapable. (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530004)

> confirm that I actually meant "yes" when I clicked "yes"

Is there a `no to all` option? Having to click `no` all the time pisses me off.

Re:mandatory and inescapable. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17530284)

"Do you want to install our useful software?"
    - No
"Please! It does all this neat stuff! Don't you want it installed?"
    - No
"Okay... so, you're saying you DON'T want it installed?"
    - No

"Good! Install progress: 22%..."

Re:mandatory and inescapable. (4, Informative)

ambrosen (176977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530408)

Shift+click on the no. It's very poor UI, but it works.

Maybe... (5, Insightful)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529242)

He's just upset that his company's spyware and crap won't be able to be installed on people's computers without them knowing it anymore? Damn, this might just be an MS Vista advertisement in disguise.

The fucking game industry is one of the main... (2, Insightful)

Hymer (856453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529286)

...reasons for people running unsecure windows.
If WV makes it hard for the gaming industry then I'm all for Vista... and I usually are a MS-hater... If he got a problem he should move to Linux or xBSD, then he could distribute his fucking games as Live-CD's.

Re:The fucking game industry is one of the main... (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529910)

It's not just me that thinks this then. Most (if not all) games I have seen are more bug ridden than ever, probably because downloading patches is so easy now. This means that using the support and troubleshooting pages/section in the manual becomes ever more frequent. The advice given in these support documents is reprehensible, usually they state that not only should the user (who may often not be particularly literate) download the usual patches for graphics and sound, but that if the user still experiences trouble they should disable any firewall and anti-virus software running on the system. I am sorry but no game is important enough for me to turn off my firewall, especially when the game is a MMORG. But that is the advice this industry are giving us and no doubt some unfortunate people are actually taking it before wondering why their computer is working even worse.

Re:The fucking game industry is one of the main... (2, Interesting)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530982)

I'm not feeling your pain. I agree that the advice about turning off firewalls and antivirus is insecure, but the users are either Internet savvy and found the instructions about what ports to open up on their router (there's usually only 1 or 2), or have absolutely no clue what a "port" even is. What secure method for retrieving the patch would you suggest to this illiterate user? Usually a link to the file download is provided. Hopefully the illiterate is able to locate and run the file after they've downloaded it.

Perhaps the key is in your statement "I'm sorry, but no game is important enough...". I'd tend to agree; online gaming should come with a prerequisite of basic networking knowledge. What's an IP address, firewall, router, port, and how does it apply to what I'm playing? Maybe if you can't answer that you should stick to one of the many single-player PC games, or buy a console that comes preconfigured to "just work" online. Let's face it, there's like two current titles left out there that only work on PC that haven't gone to X360 or PS3 yet.

I don't think Vista loses much by not being a first-rate gaming platform. My reading of the features says that it's a corporate OS anyway. What home user wants to deal with the DRM headaches with no obvious benefit to them?

mandelbr0t

Re:The fucking game industry is one of the main... (1)

dshk (838175) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531134)

The advice to turn off anti-virus and firewall may indicate that those "security" products are frequently flawed and difficult to use for a typical casual gamer. I remember a Symantec product modified our html pages on the fly and rendered them completely useless. In that particular case even switching off of these security product didn't help, because the browser cached the modified files.

Have already given up on Vista gaming (1, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529288)

Seriously, I've owned at least one primary home machine that ran MS-DOS or Windows since the first version, and have a WinXP laptop at home, but I've just plain given up on Vista. I'm going to migrate to the Wii and maybe buy a Mac OS/X laptop if I can't get a decent Linux laptop.

My current plan is to buy a WinXP laptop right when they release Vista and the prices drop. Then I'm not going to upgrade - ever.

Been a long time coming, but I've pretty much had it, and with MySQL and Open Office, don't feel the need to fork over even more money to MSFT. Especially when I can get a laptop for $500 by not doing so.

Re:Have already given up on Vista gaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17530894)

My current plan is to buy a WinXP laptop ... don't feel the need to fork over even more money to MSFT


Sad. This guy's plan is to not fork over money to MSFT but buy WinXP?!? There are better alternatives out there; and if it weren't for thinking of buying buggy Windows crap as a corporate donation to the Bill and Melinda foundation, I'd never do it.

Re:Have already given up on Vista gaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17531310)

system76.com if you want a decent linux laptop fyi.

though you could just dualboot or run linux in a vm.

So . . . password required then? (2, Insightful)

Rowan_u (859287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529304)

The only thing LUA is going to change on Vista is the user will have to type in a password for the equivalent of a sudo apt-get. Not a big deal.

Re:So . . . password required then? (2, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530094)

Actually, according to several reviews, you don't even have to type a password. You just click "Ok".

Now that's security, isn't it? It works everywhere else, right? No malicious webpages have installed anything anywhere after those warning dialogs were added to IE...

You're Kidding me? (5, Insightful)

zako234 (968865) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529362)

I think this guy is full of shit. When I go on the internet, if i know i'm going to download something, I'll be fine pressing "yes" as i'll soon be selecting where it goes so i'm ready for a prompt. If something is going to download without me saying it can, then it can very well get the hell out of my computer. The security dialogs in Vista dont require you to put in a username and password every time you try to acess a flash game on the web, and this article clearly is full of it. Wild Tangent games often appear on my computer when i did not ask for them, and i really hope that the vista security will help me keep their crap off my computer in the future.

Re:You're Kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17530362)

Yup, this guy is only upset because he is a spyware/malware producer. His opinion on the matter of security and gaming on Vista do not matter whatsoever, they are not in the least valid. No one in their right mind should listen to him on this subject.

Re:You're Kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17530528)

Well you sir, aren't an idiot are you.

Maybe a little trollish and grumpy, but definately not a idiot.

Oh, if only more people on the Internet were like you!!!

/we can dream, can't we?

Re:You're Kidding me? (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530620)

I think this guy is full of shit.

You're right. WildTangent is malware. No big surprise he'd be against proper security.

You have to add access to try a game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17529374)

The principal user experience problem with LUA's is that when a consumer wants to download and install a game demo off the Internet, they must first click past the IE warning dialogs, and then respond to the security elevation dialog Vista pops up requiring an admin account name and password to enable the software installation

Interesting that you have to increase the security level to try a game. I would imagine it would be better to firewall the game and ask if you want to allow specific actions... This game wants access to the internet... This game wants to read your outlook contact list...

FTA (4, Insightful)

Swimport (1034164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529376)

It's perhaps ironic that I run my own online game publishing company now and have become a dependent customer of the platform and technologies I once worked to create. Some of you might call it "justice" -- if it is, I wish it for my successors working on Vista.

Yep, he helped Microsoft shove Directx down all our throats now hes complaining, and surprised, they're trying to shove something else down our throats.

Insightful? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17531096)

The Clueless pens, "Yep, he helped Microsoft shove Directx down all our throats now hes complaining, and surprised, they're trying to shove something else down our throats."

Remember Windows before DirectX? DirectX saved PC Gaming - It was hardly shoved down our throats.

Before that getting a game to run was almost as much work as writing one...

They just don't want to work with it. (4, Insightful)

Eideewt (603267) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529400)

The two big problems with LUAs have been that there was no way to perform super-user actions without logging out and logging back in, even if you the person have greater privileges than the account you have logged in with. I do believe Vista has fixed this. The other problem is that lazy application developers chronically write software that assumes unnecessary super-user privileges. Now Microsoft has (finally) chosen to curtail their reckless practices, and they would rather complain than get with the program.

Re:They just don't want to work with it. (2, Insightful)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530510)

Moreover, LUAs really hurt WildTangent's business techniques. If it were any other company, I might care, but if WildTangent is having problems with LUAs I can only assume they deserve it.

Re:They just don't want to work with it. (3, Informative)

BinaryCodedDecimal (646968) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530810)

The two big problems with LUAs have been that there was no way to perform super-user actions without logging out and logging back in

Uh, Run As? Been available since Windows 2000.

I've never ran with Admin rights permanently on any Windows box since I had the option of using a LUA. Never caused me any hassle. Any programs that needed admin rights (games, usually) would be given a new shortcut on the start menu to run it as a privileged user.

However, I've come across very few programs that can't be persuaded to run by relaxing filesystem and/or registry permissions. Much better than running with admin rights over everything. In my old job I used to build Windows OS images for a computing department at a university. The OS had to be locked down so that everyone had Guest privileges, but the 200+ pieces of software available still had to run correctly. Great challenge, I loved it. Took up two months of my working year.

Yes, I know it's not a solution for the average user. Just making a point that it's not entirely impossible.

Linux/OSX anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17529466)

As a die-hard gamer, I am ready to buy games on Linux and OSX, and NOT upgrade to Vista.

Of course, I believe Vista is supposed to offer features to help prevent piracy, which makes it more attractive to game companies. Regardless, there is nothing it offers than I can't find on my OSX system, and I'm happy to use Linux as well.

Re:Linux/OSX anyone? (2, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530594)

As a die-hard gamer, I am ready to buy games on Linux and OSX, and NOT upgrade to Vista.

OK...but are the restrictions on Vista's LUAs any more difficult to work with than using root privileges to install a game on Linux, or entering an administrative password to allow installation on OSX?

Hmm... (3, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529498)

Initially I thought this was just a rant, since the implications of limited user accounts have far greater benefits than limitations and users are going to have to enter an admin password to install nearly any software, so I don't see why games should be an exception.

That said, he makes a good point about the Game Explorer widget. Disclaimer: I have not, and probably will not for some time if at all, installed Vista on any of my computers yet. According to this article, though, it would seem that Microsoft is actually blocking games from running via any other means than the Game Explorer. This somewhat reminds me of Apple with iTunes in that using something else to sync an iPod takes more effort than most people would want to put forth. It would also seem to mean that installers will have to create special cases for Vista, which seems pointless to me. Admittedly, Microsoft could argue that limiting execution rights to the Game Explorer interface was necessary to enforce parental controls, but there are many other, less intrusive ways they could have gone about this (off the top of my head: deny execution rights to normal users, detect an attempted execution, if equal to or under parental ratings, run under a special Gaming account automagically, otherwise, ask for an escalation).

The obvious point is that Microsoft would seem to have a conflict of interest here; making PC gaming attractive may draw attention away from the X-box 360, something Microsoft would want to avoid at all costs. Are they making it difficult to run games in order to make the 360 seem much simpler by comparison? Maybe. I suppose I'd have to have both Vista and a 360 to find out, which I don't plan on having together for some time if at all.

Re:Hmm... (2, Informative)

Cap'nPedro (987782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530034)

> It would also seem to mean that installers will have to create special cases for Vista, which seems pointless to me

Installed Halo, now a fairly old game, onto a Vista machine and BAM, straight into the games menu thingy.

OK, so it's published by Microsoft Game Studios, but still, it proves that a special installer may not be required.

Re:Hmm... (2, Insightful)

radish (98371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530058)

According to this article, though, it would seem that Microsoft is actually blocking games from running via any other means than the Game Explorer.
From what I've read in the past, this isn't the case. You will need to use GE to get the "Games for Windows" certification, but just as now, any app can be installed and run however you like. All your XP games for example, will still install and run, but they likely won't be in GE.

It would also seem to mean that installers will have to create special cases for Vista, which seems pointless to me.
Creating installers is a pretty automated process (the installer itself is part of windows, you just give it a set of files and a script). So yes, it will work differently for Vista, but XP vs 95 vs 2000 is already different, vendors are used to this kind of thing, and in most cases it's just setting some flags.

The obvious point is that Microsoft would seem to have a conflict of interest here; making PC gaming attractive may draw attention away from the X-box 360, something Microsoft would want to avoid at all costs. Are they making it difficult to run games in order to make the 360 seem much simpler by comparison?
Not at all. They're currently pushing Windows gaming very hard - look at the whole new "Games for Windows" brand (which now even includes an official magazine), the 360/Vista intagration (announced this week @ CES), and so on. Even all this gaming specific stuff in Vista proves they want people to run games - otherwise why bother?

The guy in this article is complaining that they're going to have to follow some rules now, and that's going to make them need to do a little more work. The end result's going to be better for the user though - better security, easier and neater installation, integration with 360 & Xbox Live, parental controls, etc. So I say to him - suck it up. It's STILL much easier and less "controlled" to develop for Vista than for any console.

Re:Hmm... (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530624)

With the next version of Direct X, microsoft are only releasing support for it on the Vista platform. They don't want you to create 2 installers, they want you to only support Vista.

Or course, if I was tackling the problem of updates, like say the steam platform would require, I'd just install a service when the game is installed by an admin. The user account could download new content into a temporary location, then tell the service to install it.

Re:Hmm... (3, Informative)

Daltorak (122403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530670)

According to this article, though, it would seem that Microsoft is actually blocking games from running via any other means than the Game Explorer.
I assure you, as someone who's played a variety of games on Vista (Civ 4, Heroes of M&M 5, Eve Online, etc. etc.), that there are no such restrictions. I don't even remember the last time I saw Games Explorer... I run games in Vista exactly like I did in XP, and there's no problems other than the typical growing pains you'd expect from beta video drivers.

Where things have changed in Vista, is if you have an account that has Parental Controls applied to it to limit the kinds of games that can be run. Vista knows the ESRB (& other ratings boards) ratings for quite a large number of games, and can block access to them if the parents don't want their kids to play them... but that's not the default setting. You have to go out of your way to set it up.

Sigh (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530860)

This is why you shouldn't make assumptions and then start talking about a product based off of them. Vista does not require you to use the games explorer. I've installed World of Warcraft, it installs normal, is in the start menu and on the desktop normally, etc.

The games explorer is a new feature to help people out and yes, parents can use it for parental control. Vista does NOT mandate your use of it.

An excellent Opportunity (1)

OldGuySythe (745787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529508)

I personally believe that most people underestimate the impact of "PC Gamers" on the OS marketplace and I think that any move by Microsoft that makes it difficult to "Game" on their computer will open up the marketplace for other OS's. Right now the companies that write Games for the PC, target MicroSoft OS because of their dominance in the marketplace. If they are "forced" to choose another OS to write games for, then that OS will become instantly more popular. I do play computer games and don't care for the "console" anywhere near as much. If the majority of PC games were avaliable on a Linux platform, I would instantly switch my Home PC to that Platform. If Wine continues to get better and I find that I can play most/all of my games on Linux, I will at least set up a dual boot on my home system.

Re:An excellent Opportunity (1)

bb5ch39t (786551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529738)

I agree with you. I'm not a gamer, myself. But I have a friend who is. I keep trying to get him on Linux. His response has always been that he can't run his games, easily, on Linux. If he can't run them easily on Vista, then he (1) isn't going to upgrade to it and (2) may be more open to replacing Windows with Linux (if the games get better).

Gamers drive the "high end" hardware. I don't need accelerated 3D graphics in order to write a document or even make a graph in a spreadsheet.

Asta la vista baby! (0)

UED++ (1043486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529572)

We can all be 100% sure which OS "Arnold" is going to stick with.

Wild Tangent? (5, Insightful)

Cheeko (165493) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529612)

I may be wrong, but doesn't Wild Tangent have a rep for being pseudo spyware? It certainly gets fladded on my system constantly. I know it comes bundled with AIM and some other applications, so I don't really consider it nefarious, but I still don't think highly of it.

It doesn't sound surprising to me that a company that sets of security flags as is, would be concerned about new security features. I'd be more interested in what the developers at ID, SOE, or EA have to say about how the features will affect the ability of them to develop games, in particular online offerings.

Re:Wild Tangent? (4, Insightful)

NorbrookC (674063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531330)

I may be wrong, but doesn't Wild Tangent have a rep for being pseudo spyware?

Yes, it does. It's also a bitch to get off a computer once it's on! I don't know how many hours I've spent at various times getting it off of people's computers. That's why I find it particularly ironic that their CEO would be complaining about Vista's restrictions. I have no plans to ever put Vista on any computer I have, and am not a particular fan of Microsoft, but anything they did that prevents Wild Tangent from getting on a computer earns a "thumbs up" from me! Who'd have thought, Microsoft did something right, out of the box?

Chilling effect, my ass. (5, Informative)

CDarklock (869868) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529700)

First, disclosure: I work on Vista at Microsoft.

The "problems" Alex St. John identifies are essentially that his business model doesn't work so great when people have to click a couple extra buttons and type a password, and that he would really prefer it if children could install his products without parental involvement.

Bitch, bitch, bitch.

The real problem here is that the world is changing and WildTangent has to change with it. Yes, that's difficult. Yes, it's inconvenient. Yes, it will cost money they didn't need to spend when they were targeting XP. And yes, they may actually need to give serious consideration to getting ESRB ratings. But these are the natural and normal cost of doing business in the modern world; if you can't evolve and grow and change with the rest of the planet, your business dies, and good riddance.

The whole article is just a bunch of FUD. Alex is basically claiming that Microsoft is trying to kill his business, because he doesn't know how to do business the way he needs to do it on Vista. He's afraid that consumers won't click two more buttons and enter a password to play his game. He's afraid that parents won't let their children play his games. But the answer to this problem isn't to reduce security, it's to make a better and more compelling game! Weren't you already trying to do that ANYWAY?

Don't get me wrong, I think there are still problems - the ESRB needs to better address the needs of casual game developers who produce fifty $10 games and generate about $200K in annual revenue. The current system is too heavily geared toward console and PC developers who have multi-million dollar budgets. But blaming Microsoft for everything is just a tired old excuse that invariably comes trotting out when someone is too damn lazy to read the direction of the wind and rig his sails accordingly.

Comedy gold. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17529814)

because he doesn't know how to do business the way he needs to do it on Vista


Yet another reason to avoid Microsoft's culture of arrogance. "The customer is always right", remember?

The customer is always right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17530038)

Ever work tech support?

Multiple customers at play here (4, Insightful)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530474)

First of all, disclosure ... I also work for MS, but not on Vista.

Yet another reason to avoid Microsoft's culture of arrogance. "The customer is always right", remember?
There are multiple customers at play here. Yes, Wild Tangent (and other developers) are in a sense a customer, since they develop on Windows/Vista/etc. However, don't forget that your end-user consumer is also a customer, and the extra security on Vista is targeted towards them.

I work with a lot of customers who NEED the extra security, because frankly, they don't really know how to properly secure their computer. They're the ones who install every toolbar/screensaver/gadget because it's cool, yet don't understand why their computer is so slow, and why all these windows keep popping up. On one hand, it's tempting to fault them, because they're making bad decisions. On the other hand, the OS can do a better job of hand-holding these consumers and making the right choices for them. (Does Grandma really need to learn how to secure her computer? She just wants to use the Internet to play Hearts and send e-mail to her grandkids)

Unfortunately, catering to one customer base (the enormously large novice user-base), tends to piss off a few others, most notably power users (who already know how to secure our systems, and don't need to be prompted every single time), and developers. Some of these developers, are the evil spyware/adware-writing kind, which are customers that we don't really want in the first place. Other developers do have legitimate needs, but will now need to do some extra work to get their applications to work on Vista in the first place.

I'm fine with that. At MS, our own developers have to conform to the extra security requirements in Vista. Yes, it means more work, but I see that as a good thing. Our hope is that FEWER of our end-user customers will come in with support problems, which are ultimately tied to not our code, but spyware on their machine.

Remember the days when it was dead-easy to get anyone to install an ActiveX control? That was the worst. Similar complaints were lodged against MS when WinXP SP2 came out, since in small ways, it limited how easy it was to install controls.

ESRB + small devs == disaster. (1)

cliffski (65094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529956)

most indie devs I know about consider $200k to be very high end. I know I'm not making that. If a game won't be usable on vista without a costly ESRB rating, then my company is dead in the water and so are most of the small indie developers.
I'm all for supporting higher security, I don't see why any games need administrator rights on a machine (my last 2 certainly run fine without them), but anything that might require all games to have ESRB ratings is just plain stupid. Kiss goodbye to freeware games for starters.

Re:ESRB + small devs == disaster. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530160)

Kiss goodbye to freeware games for starters.

Ya think that's an accident?

KFG

Games work fine without an ESRB rating (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530424)

For that matter Windows doesn't know if something is a game or not unless it's in MS's list. Vista just can find out what a game's ESRB rating is and tell people, and parents can restrict kids accounts to only games of certain ratings.

Really people, spend some time learning about Vista if you are worried about it, or if you want to effectively criticize it. It amazes me the misinformation floating around about it. It's not helpful if you are trying to talk people out of it either. If you say that Vista is evil and will do all this to screw you over and they find out you aren't right, well they aren't very likely to listen to you even if some of what you say is true.

Vista does not stop games from running, it does not stop non trusted software from running, it does not mandate DRM or any of that shit. It will run whatever the user wants just like always. It just has more control options. If the administrator (parent) wants to restrict an account to certain ESRB ratings, they can. If a company wants to DRM up media using a more secure path, they can. However none of this is mandatory. On your PC, feel free to play any game with out a rating, feel free to use DRM free MP3s, feel free to run "evil" utilities like Nmap. There isn't an evil Vista gremlin waiting to fuck you over and lock up your data.

Re:Chilling effect, my ass. (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530124)

The "problems" Alex St. John identifies are essentially that his business model doesn't work so great when people have to click a couple extra buttons and type a password, and that he would really prefer it if children could install his products without parental involvement.

Please promise me that you will never work on a project that has a user interface!

The fact is that by forcing people to "click a couple extra buttons and type a password" you begin to annoy everyone, and people with little understanding of security (read: 90% of users) will likely just get used to "clicking a couple extra buttons and typing a password" and it defeats the purpose of having the extra security.

Games Will Go On (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529804)

Hmph. As long as there's money to be made, games will be made for Vista. I see the limited user account issue as a coding issue more than anything else. Code will have to be written so that the game runs under LUA or ... else. Personally, I find it annoying that a game would need to run under an Administrator account in the first place, especially if it's a kids game (had this happen once).

Someday... (-1, Offtopic)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17529876)

Someday, something will change, and by cosmic accident, nobody will complain about it.

This is a crock (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530010)

Games, by and large, work just fine in Vista. In general I've had better luck with games than with engineering applications in terms of running with Vista. Games may think they need admin, but they usually don't. You don't need admin to access any of DirectX or OpenGL and that's what games do for the most part.

He's just pissed because WildTanget is, essentially, spyware. They sell crappy games through their poor interface and it is going to become harder for them, with IE7 more than with Vista. Normal games like the kind you buy in the store should work just fine for the most part, and devs shouldn't see many things they'll have to change.

Put it this way: If Epic Megagames, iD Software, Electronic Arts and so on start saying Vista is going to screw over PC gaming then be worried (or happy depending on your viewpoint). If it's just WildTangent whining, then ignore it.

Stupid or misquoted? (1)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530030)

Ok, is this guy stupid or is the quote wrong?

Your game, no matter how much I like it, does not need nor deserve unlimited access to my computer. If you think it does, I will take my business elsewhere because you have no idea about coding, obviously.

See, the only stuff that your game should ever need to touch is its own damn data. So as long as whatever restricted account I run your game and/or auto-updater as as write permissions to those files, it should work, right? Even in windos it should be possible to install the game in such a way that this works.

Re:Stupid or misquoted? (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530220)

No, you're just not paying attention. The artical's author was talking about downloading and installing the game requires a lot more hoops to just through in order to function. He never mentions that his applications needed any type of secret sauce thats being held back from him. Why don't you try reading the artical again.

Re:Stupid or misquoted? (2, Insightful)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530796)

No, you're just not paying attention. The artical's author was talking about downloading and installing the game requires a lot more hoops to just through in order to function. He never mentions that his applications needed any type of secret sauce thats being held back from him. Why don't you try reading the artical again.
Let's play a game. Replace "game" with "a program". Now we have this:

The artical's author was talking about downloading and installing a program requires a lot more hoops to just through in order to function.

Gee, that makes sense to me, especially since in the past, a lot of programs (adware/spyware) were somehow able to creep onto people's systems, causing huge amounts of grief.

His own argument works against him. He says that it's not a problem with boxed products, since users will trust them, know what they are, willing to go through the hoops, etc. So, what's the problem with having the same expectation for any downloaded program?

If you make your download product really compelling (including doing the "right things" when it comes to Vista security), then users will "go through hoops" to get it installed as well. If you're offering some crappy toolbar (with bundled spyware) and don't do the right things for security (don't sign your controls, etc.), then the user may not be so interested, which is probably a good thing.

Re:Stupid or misquoted? (1)

yakovlev (210738) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531124)

No, you're just not paying attention. The artical's author was talking about downloading and installing the game requires a lot more hoops to just through in order to function. He never mentions that his applications needed any type of secret sauce thats being held back from him. Why don't you try reading the artical again.

In which case, this is a good thing, as NO application should be installing things into system areas without my EXPLICIT say-so, and this is exacty what LUA was designed to prevent.

This publisher produces a collection of downloadable games that include demos. The problem this publisher is having is that downloading these demos is really installing an application, so LUA makes it a lot less convenient.

There are a few options here:

  1. Live with it. You install an application, you MUST get permission. This is good security policy for your users.
  2. You redesign your demos to install and run in a per-user space (like the desktop), instead of a system space. If Microsoft doesn't allow this, then there is a reasonable objection.
  3. You restructure your applications to run a scripts within a larger application framework, so the user only has to install the framework once. This is similar to the previous item.

The second problem discussed is the games explorer, which really is a bigger problem. For small games, they will undoubtedly be "unrated" content, and will thus be blocked by most parents if they appear in games explorer. However, it's not clear if Microsoft will let them just install as normal applications. This is an overall games industry problem, as there is no clearinghouse to let a small game get a "yup, you're clean, E" rating for a low price from ESRB or some other ratings organization. I can't see a good fix, and I think Microsoft is responding to industry pressure on this one.

Spyware (2)

DimGeo (694000) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530252)

So, a spyware publisher responsible for the crippled state of all new HP machines cries out loud that Vista will be too secure for their crapware to install? Cry me a river, ****heads. On the other hand, I don't think Vista will run games too well and that gamers should stick with XP for now since Vista's likely to break almost all existing games, especially id's OpenGL classics.

Sure... (1, Funny)

vga_init (589198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530394)

It will be a cold day in hell when Windows isn't the best operating system for gaming. It's the only thing that keeps the ignorant masses from switching to Linux, after all. :)

It works on Linux (3, Insightful)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530416)

I can play games on Linux with Cedega perfectly well. Right now I am playing WoW with no issues.

So, if it works on Linux under a limited user account... why isn't it possible on Windows? Perhaps they need to start up some kind of emulation project... they would call it Beer since Cider and Wine are taken ;)

Re:It works on Linux (1)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531020)

WOW works in Windows 2000 in a limited user account*. In fact, most games do. The only exceptions I've seen recently are games that use Punkbuster - but that's a problem with Punkbuster, not the games themselves.

* except a month or two ago, when Blizzard's update changed one of the shortcuts used to launch the game. If you'd installed as administrator, this part of the update failed as the file was read-only.

Re:It works on Linux (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531260)

Right now I am playing WoW with no issues.
Heh. Hear, hear! In fact, I've noticed that the performance in many cases is actually slightly better than under Windows XP. The framerates are identical; the NVIDIA driver is equally performant under XP and Linux. Network latency is better. It's rare that my latency ever goes over 100ms (though I have some help from QoS in the router). Load times are waaaay better. I use software RAID-0 on dual SATA drives as my main disk. I used the Windows VIA SATA-RAID driver to do basically the same thing, but the disks are just so much faster under Linux. I'm usually the first guy to appear when travelling between continents.

So, if it works on Linux under a limited user account... why isn't it possible on Windows?
Well, there's some trickiness at work to make you think that you're not using root privileges. However, X.org needs root, as does the proprietary NVIDIA driver. The LUA is really only providing information via /dev/nvidiactl which then does stuff as root. WoW is the perfect example of how to exploit NVIDIA remotely; a carefully crafted WoW packet could contain 3d information which targets the NVIDIA exploit. If it works, then you just got r00ted. However, the LUA is still a little safer than running as root because file I/O is still restricted to user priviliges, thus ensuring that a patch download gone awry won't overwrite system data (though it can still trash all your documents); and networking is restricted to the user priviliges, thus maintaining the same level of network security.

mandelbr0t

Reminds me of Old DirectX (1)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530448)

Back in the day, when Microsoft wasn't sure what DirectX should be doing let alone how to do it, there was a lot of grief generated each major revision. The nightmares of having a project core change from the DirectX 2 to DirectX 3 was brutual mostly due to the disperate OS support. A similar transition happened from DX5 to DX6 but from there on out it got much smoother with easier to predict changes as well as the backwards compatibility got better. Sometimes we'd wonder what exactly was the difference between various version beyond "no longer supported on Windows XX"...

DirectX 10 however seems to go back an make the old mistakes made those early days where it was supported on one version but not the other, or support was improper due to hardware/driver issues. I can't blame many who do not look fondly at on those days where the QA cycle was spent trying to figure out why one platform has a different set of problems than the other. DirectX 10 seems to be the most radical change to DX in awhile so prepare for a little rocking. In fact I won't be surprised if your game makes specific calls for the DX8 interface it may simply not work right.

Re:Reminds me of Old DirectX (1)

ChronoReverse (858838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531062)

DX9 in Vista is handled by DX9L which translates all the DX9 calls to DX10 calls. Basically, DX10 doesn't run the old code directly.

WildTangent? (1)

DigitalCrackPipe (626884) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530492)

WildTangent isn't really the hallmark of serious pc games. They sell minigames on software that comes pre-installed on new PCs. I uninstalled all of their drivers as soon as I got my new laptop, as they were unwanted gunk in the gears (and at first they looked like spyware).

What sounds like the real problem is that Microsoft has a crappy framework that you can try to squeeze games into, or you can put your game links somewhere else and have people not find them. I suspect WildTangent has a lot of content that relies on being easy to try out, because the user won't seek it out specifically.

I would guess that pc games will continue to succeed in spite of, rather than because of, "help" from Microsoft.

Free auto-updater system will be a help to games (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530544)

If M$ there to come with %100 free to use update system then we may be able have more games that don't need admin.

Wrong (2, Informative)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530548)

"In Vista, LUA's are mandatory and inescapable."

Wrong. Many sites already have instructions for turning off User Access Controls and giving you the ability to do anything you want. Vista sucks big time, but not because of Limuted Use Accounts.

Wait a sec (2)

TwistedSpring (594284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530598)

OK I've clearly not been keeping up-to-date here after playing with the Vista release candidates, but does LUA really prevent you from even running an executable file you downloaded without an admin username and password? Surely LUA is there to stop the executable from doing "bad things" rather than the user from running it, like in pretty much every other multiuser OS.

If I download a game as an executable file, sure I expect to get a warning maybe. Then I expect the exe to run but with reduced privileges so it cannot harm the rest of the system. It should get access to my home directory, read-only access to other non-critical OS files such as libs, and be protected from making unauthorised Internet connections. Obviously a malicious exe may be able to gain elevated privileges by exploiting security flaws, but these holes should be patched regularly by the vendor to prevent other people from using the same exploits. Right?

If LUA requires me to enter an admin pass for every exe I download then that really *is* bad. However, I would expect it to be well designed enough not to. Any system that demands that of a user will ultimately result in the user keeping the admin pass on a sticky note on their screen and just giving every exe they run the keys to their entire system.

Someone educate me here.

Zune games, can't wait! (1)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530630)

> Meanwhile, the word has also come down that
> games will be on the Zune by Summer of next year.

Just in time for nobody to give a crap.

They just dont get it do they - (0, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530736)

we will just not buy anything that even slightly interferes with gaming. Shove your 'copy' protection and 'intellectual property' up your arses.

We need different OSs for different jobs (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17530888)

Let's face it, Vista was not built for games. Games need horsepower, they need every single CPU cycle they can get, every single beat of the clock.

So a "perfect" system would allow you to tune its performance according to your needs. It would allow you to turn on and off security features, features that ensure absolute stability and other tweaks, depending on which task is at hand. If you run a server, you will want stability and security, but you don't need special graphics abilities. If you run games, you usually don't care too much about stability, if you can gain a few more frames per second by turning it off.

For that, though, I guess you'd have to be able to customize your kernel.

Re:We need different OSs for different jobs (1)

plusser (685253) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531192)

A Mainly Games Architecture (AMIGA) is required!

River (1)

Thad Boyd (880932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531136)

As both a gamer and an IT guy, I'm inclined to say "Cry me a fucking river." User accounts without admin privileges have been a basic requirement for security for decades, and if the same extremely basic functionality that makes it harder for spambots to DoS my mail server also makes it harder for people to play World of Warcraft, I guess that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. ...Oh, except that World of Warcraft is probably a bad example, given that the game already runs natively on OSX.

Here's an idea (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17531266)

Don't build games for Vista.
That ought to just about put an end to it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...