Print - Microsoft Hits Snooze to Google "Wake-Up Call"

Yesterday, Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie described the software giant's most recent Internet-based competitor, Google, as a "wake-up call." Ozzie, who made the comments during a Goldman Sachs investor conference in Las Vegas, has been Microsoft's biggest proponent of its recent online initiatives.

The success of Google--which somehow managed to turn its Internet search service into a revenue-generating engine based on tiny, textual advertisements on Web pages--has caused Microsoft to reevaluate its competitive strategies, Ozzie said. "This very clearly caused an inflection point within our industry and within Microsoft of understanding advertising as an economic engine."

Despite Ozzie's internal efforts, Microsoft has floundered in the online space since Google's rise. Part of the reason is Microsoft's corporate inertia: The company's biggest businesses--Windows, Microsoft Office, and Windows Server--are traditional software products whose internal supporters have only recently realized the threat of Web-based software services. Microsoft fears that it will have to cannibalize its most successful products to effectively compete with companies such as Google.

"The services opportunity is ... really more than just taking what's on the PC and putting it up on the Web," Ozzie said yesterday, also noting the "tremendous business opportunities" of Web-based services. Publicly, Microsoft has pushed a complementary approach, continuing to offer its traditional cash cows, such as Windows Vista and the Office 2007 system, alongside new online services such as Windows Live and Microsoft Office Live. However, these initiatives have largely failed in the marketplace, despite often being superior to similar Google services.

Why that's so could be fodder for an interesting debate. One thing is pretty clear: A decade ago, Microsoft was willing to do whatever it took to take down Netscape, including bundling Microsoft Internet Explorer with Windows despite protestations about the technical and moral problems of such an approach. Stung by the innumerable antitrust battles that followed, today's Microsoft seems unwilling to change as dramatically. And the company's current complementary approach, from what I can see, has failed. Put simply, Microsoft might have gotten a wake-up call, but it's been punching the snooze button ever since.

"A decade ago, Microsoft was willing to do whatever it took to take down Netscape, including the ill-advised bundling of its Web browser into Windows, despite internal protestations about the technical and moral problems with such an approach." I still find the windows/explorer bundling to be artificial and annoying.

I think everyone overreacts to this. Can anyone think of a corporation that would have its engineering and financial documents flowing outside its firewalls and security systems and stored on google's servers? Maybe for small companies or self-run stores, but still...

Microsoft is clearly on its way out. Vista sales are in the dump (a whopping 60% less than what XP's were), the Wii is kicking the 360's butt, and they continue to lose engineers everyday who flock to Google and Apple to escape the sinking ship. I love watching Microsoft attempt to compete in markets it doesn't belong, like consoles and the web. It's so obviously going to fail that it's just going to be a big waste of money and resources, furthering the downward spiral. Microsoft can't rely on old 90s tricks anymore. When the company actually has to compete, we see it has nothing to offer. It's more proof that they simply got lucky in the 80s with an IBM operating system contract and subsequently rode the wave of commodity PCs. Nobody ever chose Windows. It was simply the third-rate MacOS clone that came on their new computers.

Excellent analysis, Paul. Your "snooze button" analogy is perfect. Google's success should come as a surprise to no one. I use their search engine, their news reader and their blogging tools daily. I've been very happy with the results of the advertising I've placed with them, and I even use (and like) GMail. Google designs simple, effective, CROSS PLATFORM solutions that just work. I think people are somewhat sick of Microsoft's Windows-centric view of the universe, and are justifiably gunshy of Microsoft based on the past attempts by the Software Giant™ to hijack the web. Google may not be perfect, but they're damn good at what they do. Microsoft hasn't yet realized that the world has changed, and while they're in no danger of being supplanted any time soon, they ARE in danger of being somewhat irrelevant in key areas. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-)

"Can anyone think of a corporation that would have its engineering and financial documents flowing outside its firewalls and security systems and stored on google's servers?" You know I sat down and thought about this, then something made me shudder. 30 years ago, would anyone have though that banks/businesses have put all of their important documentation on digital storage, even though a crazy man with a hammer could destroy all of it in one fail swoop? (pun intended) Scary as it may be (I'm certainly no proponent of it), it may not be that far-fetched that more people start looking into Google for their data storage. I still don't believe that globalized storage will work in the present day configuration, because it is not at the commodity level. Give things 10 years.

"Can anyone think of a corporation that would have its engineering and financial documents flowing outside its firewalls and security systems and stored on google's servers?" Riddle me this, Batman...why are Microsoft servers a better solution? Would you trust your CRM data to Microsoft? From Business Week: "Microsoft said it would launch an online version of its technology for helping companies keep in touch with clients. Microsoft Dynamics CRM Live will be available as an Internet service, hosted on Microsoft's own servers. It's scheduled to launch by mid-2007." I wouldn't trust ANY mission-critical data to "Microsoft's own servers" *shudder*

lotsamystuff, I don't think corporate users would go for anything outside their control for their intelectual property and financial databases. Microsoft, Google, or otherwise. I think this would be more attractive to home users.

@lotsa "I wouldn't trust ANY mission-critical data to "Microsoft's own servers"" I agree...as stated in the article from earlier this week...mom and pos's...maybe. But, will84 makes a good point as well. We may well see something that works well in the next decade or so. I am not against innovation, so lets see how Google and MS and others do with this. --tayme

@will84 The difference between your analogy of paper vs digital and storing it in-house rather than on another companie's servers fails when considering the control the company has over the documents. The companies have complete control over their confidential documents whether they are stored as physical objects (like paper) or digital. By storing it on a different company's server, they are relinquishing control of those documents. With the the change between paper and digital, the companies did not lose any control. I don't trust any of my personal confidentaial documents to *any* company's server, I back them up on my personal server at home. I doubt the attitude of corporations will change; I know the company I work for will *never* store their documents on Google's servers, unless the management drastically changes. They don't even have web access to *any* part of *any* of their databases. Everything is locked down tight. I can't imagine them making a decision to suddenly bypass their firewall and transfer the documents to a server somewhere in one of Google's datacenters.

"Riddle me this, Batman...why are Microsoft servers a better solution? Would you trust your CRM data to Microsoft?" You tell me why Google's servers are a better solution. Both companies are equally ambitious and focused on world domination.

"You tell me why Google's servers are a better solution." Unless, of course, you're like the bonch who'd happily side with Osama if he knew he was anti-MS (which, I think, he is).

@NateB2 - "I doubt the attitude of corporations will change" Its not so much the attitude of the company as it is Sarbanes-Oxely, HIPPA, and other regulations that would not look at this as being compliant. Of course, that could change at any time as technology grows. I would bet that it would be at least a decade before anything like that would be considered compliant. --tayme

@lotsa "I wouldn't trust ANY mission-critical data to 'Microsoft's own servers'" Coming back to that statement, you actually think most companies think like you when they don't. Microsoft actually has an amazing presence in the corporate world. Most companies use several MS products - Windows, Office, Exchange, maybe SQL Server, Dynamics etc. The only Google product that they probably use is the search engine.My point being that if you had been in charge of IT decisions, you probably would have chosen Macs and Google Apps, but you're not. If they had to choose between the two, my guess is that they'd go with MS.

"You tell me why Google's servers are a better solution." they aren't. the difference is in the pudding - each company's Privacy Policy. XP

"I don't think corporate users would go for anything outside their control for their intelectual property and financial databases. Microsoft, Google, or otherwise." Probably not, but a lot of corporate folks seem to trust Microsoft for some reason. The fact that MS is even considering such a product tells me that their market research indicates there's a need (either that or it's a "me too" product like the Zune). "I think this would be more attractive to home users." I agree, insofar as the Google offering is concerned. However, very few home users have a need for CRM software. "" I usually reserve that for "Waethorn/PC-Bonch", mainly because he flouts his disrespect for proper grammar with every post. The only time he capitalizes the first letter of a sentnce is when it stars with "Microsoft". :-)

"You tell me why Google's servers are a better solution." I can't, so I won't. Personally, I wouldn't trust either one of them with mission-critical data. Given the history of the two companies, Google would probably sell the data to advertisers, and Microsoft would steal it (then mysteriously "lose" the evidence). Bleh. Still, I don't see the MicroZealots up in arms over Microsoft's plans the way they are over Google's. Come to think of it, that probably gives MS a strategic advantage when they finally decide to stop hitting that "snooze" button and snap into action. "the difference is in the pudding " What kind of bastardized usage is that? The correct phrase is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

OT: Now HERE is a Microsoft web-based initiative I can get behind: http://tinyurl.com/ysjzu8 Bravo, Microsoft! (Legitimate link, not spam, no snark either.)

"My point being that if you had been in charge of IT decisions, you probably would have chosen Macs and Google Apps, but you're not. " As I said, smarta$$, I wouldn't trust my critical data to either of them. Google Apps is fine, I suppose, as a Microsoft Publisher replacement to make a flyer for your lemonade stand or Canadian PC Shop, but I can't see any large enterprise taking it seriously. You're right, however, that I would choose Macs for situations where a Microsoft "solution" is not required. The productivity savings from malware avoidance alone make them worthy of serious consideration.

@lotsa: "Still, I don't see the MicroZealots up in arms over Microsoft's plans the way they are over Google's. Come to think of it, that probably gives MS a strategic advantage when they finally decide to stop hitting that "snooze" button and snap into action." I don't know that I was up in arms about Google's solution. But I treat both Google and MS's entries into this space with skepticism (sp? - too lazy to look). I currently don't see the market beyond individuals and very small businesses. However, it is smart for MS to begin work in this space so they are ready should it catch on. How long did MS deny the existance of the Internet?

lotsamystuff, You seem to be arguing microsoft's web solutions vs google's web solutions. What some of us are saying is companys use microsoft's servers in-house and microsoft's client software in-house.

"What some of us are saying is companys use microsoft's servers in-house and microsoft's client software in-house." Which is germane to this conversation how? We're all well aware that "companys" [sic] use Microsoft servers and software...this conversation is about trusting your data to an off-site server managed by (in this case) Microsoft or Google--neither of which have a history of being particularly ethical corporate citizens.

""" I usually reserve that for "Waethorn/PC-Bonch", mainly because he flouts his disrespect for proper grammar with every post. The only time he capitalizes the first letter of a sentnce is when it stars with "Microsoft". :-)" So dugbug is Waethorn? Enough with the sic[k] nonsense. It's annoying, and only serves to decrease your credibility.

One thing to think about as well, most 'mission-critical' information caches such as databases, require low latency and high throughput. Having to go through a company's DMZ (2 DMZ's is not a rare thing either) along with sharing corporate internet access would most likely be too costly in terms of resources. Right now most databases are linked over dual-channel 1Gbit fibre... Do you know how much a dedicated internet link at that speed (up and downstream) costs? Not to mention Google has to promise they can support it with their servers.

"http://tinyurl.com/ysjzu8" they've been working on that for a long time. Tablet PC's were introduced in many areas of the healthcare market several years ago, actually. this is just another software interoperability measure that's specific to healthcare. "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" sorry, but i wasn't referencing some ancient proverb. you can try to find mistakes, but sorry, that's just not the case. too bad - no ego trip for you this time! ""companys" [sic]" "he flouts his disrespect for proper grammar with every post" you should really learn to use that. [sic] is meant to be used for improper word use where it can be interpreted as a play on words, not just for technical errors....[sp] is the common markup for spelling mistakes. for someone that seems to tout his grammatical prowess, you sure need to learn a few things. "The only time he capitalizes the first letter of a sentnce [sp] is when it stars [sic] with "Microsoft"." losta, i only capitalize the start of a sentence when it starts with a proper name. see, your OSX grammar and spell checker is wrong, twice in one sentence. ;) XP

"Which is germane to this conversation how?" Its pretty obvious that it speaks to the market available to Microsoft vs Google (assuming google's is online only). " "companys" [sic]" Yes, my bad

Has anyone here every used PayPal? Has anyone here ever bought something online and used typed their credit card number into the web page? Has anyone here ever looked at their bank statement online? And you're worried about 'engineering and financial documents flowing outside its firewalls'? I think they already are...

No, corporations, Taul_Phurrot. IBM, Ford, GE, etc. do not keep finance data on pay pal :) The vast amount of office use takes place in the enterprise market. Home users may go for google apps (or openoffice.org which I use).

"Yes, my bad" actually, that was in response to losta - he didn't correct it properly. XP

Yeah, like IBM, Ford and GE are going to be using Google Docs. I'm sure that's exactly who Google is targeting with the service too...

Off topic: There's nothing exceptional about this article: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=429# We all knew the DRM issue in Vista is simply FUD, didn't we? What's funny is this: " [Update 4:25 PM - The researcher who Bruce Schneier cites who in turn is widely cited in the media as an expert on why Vista DRM is so evil actually admits to never actually even touching Windows Vista. That's the level of "research" he did.] "

MS had a separate project for an on-line Office, that they shut down. Perhaps if they need, they can revive it in the future. Also MS had as a vision of "web services", and "software as a service" with .net. I think they have changed their approach since then. Myself, I do not like this approach because I think that a decentralised environment is more immune to problems, like the provider goes off line for some reason, companies and people around the world can't do business and other operations.

"see, your OSX grammar and spell checker is wrong, twice in one sentence. ;)" Touché. That's what happens when I post from the PC...

"losta, i only capitalize the start of a sentence when it starts with a proper name." That makes you wrong every time you adhere to that unconventional affectation.

@lotsa - "That makes you wrong every time you adhere to that unconventional affectation." lotsa - Quit being such a pompous a$$hole on a site that is meant to discuss IT. I would wager that most of us don't mind when you rant about Apple vs. Microsoft - even though we doubt that you have a clue about enterprise IT. But, you come across as more of an idiot than Waethorn when you correct every spelling, grammar, and typo error on his posts. Give us all a break and go back to the anti-Microsoft rants. --tayme

"... like the provider goes off line for some reason, companies and people around the world can't do business and other operations." Yeah, it doesn't matter much for home users but even for home users, in my opinion, Open Office is a superior offering to Google Apps.

"The researcher who Bruce Schneier cites who in turn is widely cited in the media as an expert on why Vista DRM is so evil actually admits to never actually even touching Windows Vista. That's the level of "research" he did" the "level of research" was probably looking up stories (read: fiction) from BadVista.org XP

@sharky There is so much FUD about Vista flying around it is disgusting. I can't count the number of times I have had to educate people who think they know something about Vista (i.e. "I hear that you have to have a supercomputer to run it!", or "The DRM will cause Vista to crash and to become unstable!", or "Vista is just XP with extra eyecandy"). I have read countless articles in newspapers explaining why Vista is no better than XP. I have read countless online reviews of Vista that spread FUD. I'm glad that at least *some* reviewers who *actually spent time* with Vista are now writing some objective articles. I switched my mom to Vista (after she was having issues with XP and was threatening to switch to a Mac), and now she has had 0 major issues with it (She loves the parental control features and uses them for my younger siblings). One day she told me that she figured out how to change her password. She never did anything of the sort with XP. My seven-year-old brother (we have *large* age gaps in our family) has had fun experimenting with the different gadgets and desktop backgrounds. Since he is on a standard account, my mom doesn't have to worry about him accidentally messing up the computer (like I did with Windows 3.1 :-). I hope the more people use Vista, the more they will realize all the flying FUD is false.

hey nate! here's a good link that puts to rest the FUD on the crappy BadVista.org about DRM in Vista: http://www.twit.tv/sn77 ;) XP

I listen to a number of TWIT netcasts- I especially enjoyed that episode. Finally someone standing up against all that FUD. On another note, I got the latest nVidia drivers 100.65 installed on my laptop and to my surprise I found that every game that I have installed works faster in Vista than XP. I can now run Oblivion at 1920 X 1200 *smoother* than XP at 1650 X 1080.

"There is so much FUD about Vista flying around it is disgusting. " OT Re: Vista FUD. Here's an actual conversation ovheard at lunch today between two good friends: Him: "I bought Vista this weekend. It's just like that commercial: 'Are you sure you want to do this? Are you sure you want to do that?' It asks permission for everything. The guys down at ***** **** (the largest independent PC shop in the area) are telling people to stick with XP". Her: "So I'm buying a new computer...do you think I should stay with XP, then?" Him: "I would. Vista's annoying. I wish I'd never upgraded". I kept my mouth shut, believe it or not.

Well, he may be right - initially, there are more UAC prompts because you're usually installing/ uninstalling programs on the new computer. It would be good to turn off UAC during this period. What it also means is that the Mac ads are not having their desired effect. "It's just like THAT commercial...", "So I'm buying a new computer...do you think I should stay with XP, then?", "I would. Vista's annoying. I wish I'd never upgraded".

@lotsa I'm 100% sure you are talking about B*st B*y. They are notorious for FUD spewing. Yes, the UAC prompts are annoying. Guess what? *nix systems have had similar situations for *years.* It is only annoying because it is now being exposed to the vast majority of users. I have UAC on, and while it was an annoyance at first, I am now used to it, and when I work on XP, I am slightly startled when I don't see it. I would *much* rather be in control of what is installed/changed on my system. One time I was browsing the Internet using IE7 when one of those UAC prompts came up. I had no clue what was trying to install, so I clicked "cancel." When I advise people to upgrade to Vista, I make sure to tell them about this feature and why it is useful. If you don't know what it is doing or how it protects you, then I can see how it can be annoying.

"I'm 100% sure you are talking about B*st B*y." No, this is an independent store; they have two locations, both in my town. I imagine they're a local equivalent of "Waethorn/PC-Bonch's" shop. Staffed by knowledgeable geeks that love to tinker and build, they're very good builders, offer excellent support, and I send people to them all the time (they'll fix anything--and they take on stuff no one else wants). If I were to buy another PC, I'd go to them in a heartbeat. "If you don't know what it is doing or how it protects you, then I can see how it can be annoying." Oh, that would be an interesting conversation: "Billy, aallow me to explain why these constant interruptions protect you. Without these UAC prompts, using Windows is like leaving your front door open and unlocked." "Really? Wow, I find it much less annoying now! Thanks, Mr. PC Guy!" "What it also means is that the Mac ads are not having their desired effect." You may be right about that one.

@lotsa - "Oh, that would be an interesting conversation: "Billy, aallow[sic] me to explain why these constant interruptions protect you." Stop with the FUD. It is no different than in OS X. Whenever I download patches for the OS or iTunes or anything else; or I install something using the installer that iPeople denies even existing(common bonchism - You just drag it to the applications folder), I get a popup asking me to put in the administrator username and password, even if I'm logged on as that user...would you explain that in the same way that you just did above? I would bet not...because you only post your FUD to make MS look bad and Apple look good. You don't have a clue what you are posting in most cases - except when it comes to the grammatical!!! No, wait...not even then...you just want us to think you do. You have ZERO credibility. --tayme

Maybe it's the number of times the UAC prompt appears. For example, in Ubuntu, when you open the Synaptic Program Manager, you're asked for the administrator password. You can install as many programs as you won't and the prompt won't appear again until you close Synaptic and reopen it. In Windows, every program has to be installed separately and independently, which means that each time you try to install a program, the UAC prompt pops up. Maybe that's the thing. I don't know

I can't think of why else Apple would use this in their 'Get a Mac' ads. Especially if it works the same way in a Mac. Of course, I'm assuming that they're honest and straightforward.

The Mac ads may or may not be working. The FUD campaign by the iPeople definitely is. So many of my friends were under the impression that DRM restrictions in Windows prevent one from playing unDRMd music. Nate is right. Only when people start using Vista they'll realize that this is all FUD created by a bunch of jobless iPeople (redundancy).

Yes, Vista does present a few extra prompts. I can think of one off-hand: ActiveX prompts. In order to install an ActiveX control, like Flash, I have to go through the following steps: 1. Click on the information bar and click "install." 2. Wait for IE to reload the page. 3. click "OK" on the prompt that asks me to disable IE's protected mode for the program. 4. I then am asked again if I *really* want to install the ActiveX control,. warning me about the dangers of malicious plugins, blah, blah, blah. 5.Finally, I have to click "continue" on the UAC prompt. MS could clean it up to display only the information bar and then the UAC prompt, explaining the dangers of running the ActiveX prompt *in* the UAC prompt. I'm sure MS will work this out in the next service pack or version of Windows. Again, let me state that after using Vista for months, I no longer am annoyed by the UAC prompt. I have now come to expect it. Now, I present a completely unbiased, objective video comparing Beryl to Aero. Which one looks like something you could use to get work done (Mute the volume, the music is atrocious): http://www.metacafe.com/watch/434675/windows_vista_aero_vs_linux_ubuntu_beryl/ There is obviously some benefit to hiring experienced graphic designers...

"I can't think of why else Apple would use this in their 'Get a Mac' ads. Especially if it works the same way in a Mac." Simple...it doesn't. ----- "Stop with the FUD. It is no different than in OS X." Not even close, and you know it. Your FUD spreader is working well, I see. ----- "Again, let me state that after using Vista for months, I no longer am annoyed by the UAC prompt. I have now come to expect it." Which, of course, completely diminishes its effectiveness.

What about making the user account to belong to the Administrators group in Vista? Or isn't it possible, I don't know. I know many will consider this a security issue, probably it is a bad habbit indeed, in my OS I am logging in as a root. Probably a bad Windows habbit, that I can't get rid of. :-) In any case, if someone installs programs all the time, he/she can log in as Administrator or as a user in the Administrators group. So if this is possible in Vista (I assume it is), anyone can choose one way or the other. Or disable UAC if it is possible.

"Simple...it doesn't." of course it doesn't! it asks for an Administrator password for privilege escalation even if you're logged in thusly. XP

@lotsa I am used to the UAC *when I request it.* I do not click "continue" on every prompt - if I am doing something that requires elevated privileges, I expect to see that dialog. If it suddenly pops up when I am not doing something, I click "cancel." @gnu-user I would strongly advise you *not* to log in as root. There is a *huge* security risk if you do that. Vista has 3 user permissions levels- Administrator (root), limited administrator (the normal mode for the first user in Vista), and standard (any accounts made after the initial one will default to this). The Administrator doesn't get any prompts, the limited administrator gets a dialog with "continue" or "cancel", and the standard user gets a dialog which prompts for an administrator password. Yes, you can disable that, but again, you could be at risk.

@lotsa - "Not even close, and you know it." Then let me hear from a Mac power user how it works for you? Read the rest of my post and tell me if I am worng or right. I see the popup in OS X at the times I described. No FUD there...just facts. --tayme

@tayme: Yes, when you install something on a Mac from an installer program (which is fairly rare--most of them don't require an installer; as much as it pains me to admit it, bonch is right for once), or run a system-level software update, you will be asked for authentication in OS X. That is NOTHING compared to the frequency of UAC prompts in Vista, and you damn well know it. I think Information Week is a pretty good source (and they make an EXCELLENT point about "authenticating" versus "approving"): "That illustrates the three worst aspects of UAC and why I think it's going to be called "User Annoyance Control." You get what is essentially an "OK/Cancel" dialog that most users will hit "OK" for without thinking, you may or may not get useful information as to what is going on, and you get locked out of your system until you deal with this. I have a problem with seeing how annoying people is enhancing security. When I say "annoyance" I really mean "infuriate," because you get UAC dialogs all over the place, and you're never sure when or why you're going to get them. "But even when I've taken actions where Vista is telling me "You will have to authenticate," I still only have to click the correct button in a dialog. That's not authenticating anything, it's just approving. There's no way that UAC is going to enhance security, in fact, it's probably going to have the opposite effect, because people are going to just hit OK/Continue even more automatically than they do now. If, as everyone knows, Apple and Microsoft borrow/steal from each other liberally, I really wish Microsoft would have done a better job with regard to UAC. Adding "Annoyance +20" to the OS is not the right answer here." http://tinyurl.com/ycw4jg

losta, that point is absolutely wrong! the OSX user account with even administrative privileges requires authentication to get by prompts which is the real annoyance, whereas with Windows Vista, an administrator account is already assumed to have the necessary privileges to change system and multi-user options. standard Windows Vista users, on the other hand, are in the same league as Mac OSX users, regardless of whether OSX users are administrators or not - they need to authenticate or get permission to authenticate from an administrator. also, the review lacks of any real objectivity, since it starts off with quite snarky remarks that i would've thought had come your keyboard. XP

"losta, that point is absolutely wrong!" Take it up with the editors of InfoWorld, not me. I didn't write the article, I just quoted it. And they have a lot more experience with Enterprise-level IT than you and I put together.

"Take it up with the editors of InfoWorld, not me. I didn't write the article, I just quoted it." that tone makes you sound like you don't even believe them. wasn't it tayme who even said the exact same thing i did (in fact, i'm only repeating his original comment)? "And they have a lot more experience with Enterprise-level IT" one only wonders with a story like that. XP

@NateB2: "I would strongly advise you *not* to log in as root. There is a *huge* security risk if you do that. Vista has 3 user permissions levels- Administrator (root), limited administrator (the normal mode for the first user in Vista), and standard (any accounts made after the initial one will default to this). The Administrator doesn't get any prompts, the limited administrator gets a dialog with "continue" or "cancel", and the standard user gets a dialog which prompts for an administrator password. Yes, you can disable that, but again, you could be at risk." You are right, but I will state some facts: Being used to "log in" as administrator by default, since DOS 3.30, it obviously has become a very strong bad habbit, that I have to get rid of. :-) I am planning to log in as a normal user, after I have read some book on GNU/Linux administration, scripting etc. Regarding Windows, even in XP Pro I was logging as Administrator (with a password), although it was creating a new user account (belonging to Administrators group if I recall well) during setup. I had the new user account as a backup account, in case something happened. Anyway XP was about the same, as Windows before, we could say. Regarding UAC, I recall I read in WinInfo that an MS employee said that UAC isn't a security feature and that it is employed above an insecure infrastructure and can be bypassed. So if it is not a security feature, what exactly is it? In any case, we should try to be as secure as possible, so disabling UAC should be avoided (unless it is much irritating, I haven't checked Vista RTM).

"So if it is not a security feature, what exactly is it?" it is and it isn't. for standard users it is because it requires an admin's login and password, but for users that choose to assign themselves as "Administrator" (again, Microsoft recommends AGAINST this for regular users doing day-to-day operations) without knowing the consequences, it only warns them that the activity could affect other users on the system because they are global settings. XP

@Waethorn: If I recall well, in a WinInfo article one MS employee said something like, it isn't a security feature and if it gets bypassed, it will not be a security break. I can imagine what MS recommends (not logging in as an Admin), and it makes sense. However up to XP the default was an Administrators account and the default NTFS file permissions were access for Everyone. I don't know if things changed that dramatically in Vista though (and I don't care so far).

"However up to XP the default was an Administrators account and the default NTFS file permissions were access for Everyone." actually that's not true. when you create user accounts in XP Pro on first boot, only the username in the first slot is an admin by default. all other users below that (slots 2-5) are standard by default. at the time, home users were not considered to be a security threat, but also at that time, spyware and system hijacker software was not prevelant. "I don't know if things changed that dramatically in Vista though (and I don't care so far)." spoken like true ignoramous. cheers! XP