RSSTop 10 Windows 7 features #1: Action Center
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published June 11, 2009, 4:41 PM
(continued from previous page)
How Action Center can succeed, and how it can fail
The opportunity for parties other than Microsoft to become involved in this new scheme of things is so strong that Betanews made third-party troubleshooting #8 on our Top 10 list. If the user can perceive everyone as involved in the maintenance process, then when problems do arise, he may at the very least take a few moments before blaming Microsoft in his mind, and fuming over the unreliability of Windows.
But getting everyone involved -- making Symantec and Sophos and ZoneAlarm just as much a part of everyday maintenance as Microsoft -- may very well have been Vista's biggest single uncompleted task. Way back in early 2004, Windows XP's engineers first proposed inviting partners and third parties into the security process so that their brands were featured as part of Security Center, originally planned for XP Service Pack 2. This way, if users chose brands other than Microsoft, Windows would be perceived as cooperating with, and accepting, those choices.
Enabling that cooperation required vendors to subscribe to a kind of interoperability protocol: the Security Center API. Rather than the olive branch XP's engineers originally hoped it would be, the API became a political football when leading security vendors Symantec and McAfee claimed it was withholding information from them, specifically by delivering an incomplete API that didn't open up access to such features as PatchGuard for 64-bit Vista -- features that made older security software for 32-bit computers either inoperative or irrelevant.
Those complaints led the European Commission to investigate whether Microsoft was in fact revealing "the entire API," when in fact, the Security Center API was meant to be a way for anti-malware packages to reveal themselves to the user, not to access the operating system. That's how Microsoft explained it to Betanews at that time. Unsatisfied with Microsoft's responses to the EC saying that its API was complete, and adding documentation in an effort to prove it, in early 2007, Symantec took the unprecedented step of publishing a white paper claiming to reveal deficiencies in PatchGuard and demonstrating how the system could be bypassed. If only the API would enable security software companies to bypass security measures without using stealth, their argument went, they could thwart efforts by malware to bypass those same measures using stealth.
It was a hail-Mary pass, and as an argument against Microsoft's API, it failed. But the white paper was the crack in the dam, the beginning of the feeling that spread throughout the user community that Vista was unstable. The argument against Vista mutated into something like this: The fact that Microsoft would go to such lengths to reinforce its security is an indication that something is insecure at the core.
The response to this argument, which Microsoft representatives and engineers both shared with Betanews years ago, would begin with a systematic rethinking of the Security Center API. If it worked, users would never notice it. Beginning with Vista Service Pack 1, Security Center would begin to recognize an expanded dialog with third-party software, a way for it to present a kind of manifest using an XML-derivative language so that Windows would recognize it for the tasks that it performed, and make those tasks explicitly available to users through a unified console. For its own benefit, this expanded API would enable Microsoft to trailblaze a bit, if you will, creating new classes of maintenance and troubleshooting facilities that it could introduce, while allowing competitors to follow along.
Again, if it works, the user won't notice it that much. Everything will continue to flow smoothly, and some users will think that Action Center is merely a renamed Security Center. It's not. It's the nucleus of a major restructuring of how the Windows client is maintained, which could yield tremendous benefits for the once suffering utility software business. Security software vendors knew this was going to happen since the release of Vista SP1 in March 2008. They were notified that SP1 would recognize both the old Vista and the new Windows 7 versions of the API. But Windows 7 would only recognize the new version, and vendors had until September 2009 to make improvements.
If anyone had bothered to read that memo last year, they would have known when Win7 was to have been released, plus or minus a month or so.
For vendors that didn't get the memo, as Windows 7 Senior Director Paul Cooke blogged last month, their software will hoist a red flag in Windows 7: "We have removed the old API from the Windows 7 RC. Users who are running security software that does not use the newer API will see the 'non-compatible' message…from the new Action Center, which instructs customers to contact their security software provider."
The message in question may say that the older anti-virus software, for instance, "is on but is reporting its status to Windows Security Center in a format that is no longer supported. Use the program's automatic updating feature, or contact the program manufacturer for an updated version." Windows users do not like red flags, and they tend to blame Microsoft for them before anyone else. So the possibility exists that the new Action Center API, as it may yet come to be known, could become the next political football. Vendors could complain once again, waiting until the last minute to do so like they did before. It's difficult to imagine Microsoft not seeing this possibility on the horizon.
So quite conceivably, the entire success of Windows 7 -- whether it's adopted early and willingly by consumers, whether businesses invest in it, whether it prompts those businesses to install Windows Server 2008 R2 to take advantage of it, whether it drives new rounds of software purchases -- depends on the reception given to this one single feature. Will it give consumers the feeling of power and control over their computers? Will it give them a sense of security without over-emphasizing the threats? And will it deflect efforts from competitors to make Windows seem insecure in order to drive sales in their direction?
Regardless of the probability that the Windows client will remain the market share leader throughout Win7's lifetime, billions of dollars in revenue, and the health and well-being of Microsoft in an economy that has already swallowed up General Motors and Chrysler, hinge on the success or failure of this one little flag in the corner of the taskbar. Hopefully the fact that the flag is white won't be a bad sign.
Download Windows 7 Release Candidate 64-bit from Fileforum now.
FOLLOW THE WINDOWS 7 TOP 10 COUNTDOWN:
- #10: Homegroup networking
- #9: Native PowerShell 2.0
- #8: Automated third-party troubleshooting
- #7: 'Play To' streaming media, courtesy of DLNA
- #6: DirectX 11
- #5: Multitouch
- #4: A worthwhile Windows Explorer
- #3: XP Mode
- #2: Device Stage
WiFi connectivity is becoming a huge problem with 7. The TechNet forums are filling up with people having problems with old Vista drivers that don't work with 7. Atheros and Broadcom, HP/Compaq, Dell, the two largest WiFi card makers and computer sellers have yet to release a 7 compatible driver for their WiFi cards. The only drivers that are out there are at least a year old now.
Score: 0
|Wow, how much is Microsoft paying Betanews for these stories?
"n the past few months, Microsoft's marketing campaign has cleverly (and finally) diverted attention away from Vista"
Huh? Sure in their minds, but not in the public's mind. Vista is a horribly broken OS; why else is XP still around? People want it as it works better. Granted it is totally insecure and unreliable, but that is what people expect from Microsoft.
"Spend $1,500 or less and you're going to get twice the memory, twice the storage, and much better graphics."
Huh? Again, more Microsoft marketing BS.
"Apple's strongest argument in its favor -- that Mac OS is lovable"
Huh? Apple's strongest argument in its favor is its OS works! It's OS is more secure. It's overall value is higher. Get an Apple. Get OSX which is faster, more secure and more reliable than Windows. Upgrade your OS for $29. Get a higher specced machine. Sure you can buy some cheapo crap cloner and think you are getting a good deal, but then you find out it is slower, has a lesser display, needs 4GB to run the bloated Microsoft operating system...anything less and Microsoft's OS with accompanying anti-malware suite would render your machine useless, lacks key software like what comes with iLife for free.
How much is that "upgrade" (really a patch to fix the broken Vista which Microsoft charges people for) going to cost? How much does the Anti-Virus, Anti-spyware, Intrusion Detection, etc... software cost? How much does taking your computer to Geek Squad to get it "fixed" because it is infested with malware due to the insecure Microsoft software?
Scott, how about running a series on the top features in Snow Leopard? Apple isn't paying you, so i guess you won't huh?
Score: -5
|and you're an idiot. i'm always very critical of betanews, but this, and the rest of the Windows 7 articles, is excellent.
the newest ad compaign for Vista is really an ad campaign for PCs. vista is never mentioned and the idea of getting more hardware for your money vs Apple is absolutely conveyed. i still think those ads are stupid and anyone with any PC knowledge sees right through them, but it works for the mindless, and many of the points made are valid.
FYI Vista is a LOT better than it was at release. im not going to sit here and defend an operating system b/c that's just stupid, but i will defend common sense and criticize stupid people; that's never stupid. Apples are cool. i like the aluminum macbooks a lot. really. im not going to bash Apple, and im not going to defend MS, but your blind hatred of MS is fking retarded. after a year of mediocre performance and annoyances, it's now not a dog and even runs games extremely well. stop drinking the kool-aid...
Score: 1
|*laughing*
Was wondering when the Mactards would show up and start spilling their BS all over the place.
Score: -1
|I don't know what the scientific term for someone who is so obsessed/fanatical with "the man", "the government", etc etc that they totally are unable to enjoy and appreciate what they have? Not just conspiracy theorists, but people who literally are obsessed with jealousy or bitterness toward others.
But that description is what I think of when I think of Apple fanatics. Maybe we should call then Ranting, Raving Mabbits. But what can you expect, when every.single.piece of mac-related crap they read can't put out a sentence without trash talking windows and the people who choose to use it.
Score: 0
|* laughing *
I was wondering how long the Microsoft fanbois would take to come here and brand anyone who points out the facts of the situation as a Mac Fanboy.
Vista = horribly broken OS. Slow. Expensive. Vendors have gone back to XP. Sounds pretty factual to me.
XP / Vista / Windows 7 = arbitrarily stripped down versions which nickel and dime users for features Apple includes in its OS; Apple includes everything in a single version
Vista / Windows 7 = requires anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-malware, etc.... which drives up cost to deal with all the bloat. Not to mention the continuous cleaning of machines after they have been infested with said spyware, trojans, etc... due to the major design flaws in all versions of Windows. Care to argue with that?
Windows ads = fantasy of buying a cheapo under-specced clone box which equals the performance/features of a more expensive, higher specced Mac. Funny thing is Microsoft does not even talk about their OS. Does not talk about software at all. Wonder why? Why no mention of the hundreds of dollars for all the software you need to even approach what comes with a new mac out of the box, let alone all the anti-malware and firewall software people need to have any sort of "security" with Windows.
Score: -2
|My roommate bought a new laptop, an HP, with Vista. After some initial tweaking (something necessary with EVERY new computer) he found it to be not as bad as he expected. Interestingly enough, it didn't have the slightest bit of trouble accessing my Time Capsule or the three other Macs in the apartment.
Score: -1
|Facts?
*rolling on the floor*
You??
Bwaaahahhahaha!!
Let's take a look at your "facts"...shall we?
"
Vista = horribly broken OS. Slow. Expensive. Vendors have gone back to XP. Sounds pretty factual to me."
Wrong. Vista was at launch. It is no longer. It performs on par or better than XP now according to benchmarks and is the same price for equivalent versions as XP was at launch. Vendors sell *far* more Vista than they do XP. These are facts. You should try using them sometime...
"XP / Vista / Windows 7 = arbitrarily stripped down versions which nickel and dime users for features Apple includes in its OS; Apple includes everything in a single version"
Opinion. Others would say Microsoft offers cheaper versions for those who don't require *everything*, whereas Apple gives you all or nothing. Opinion != fact.
"Vista / Windows 7 = requires anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-malware, etc.... which drives up cost to deal with all the bloat. Not to mention the continuous cleaning of machines after they have been infested with said spyware, trojans, etc... due to the major design flaws in all versions of Windows. Care to argue with that?"
Argue? Would you expect any less? No version of Windows *requires* either. They are optional. For example: I use none. I test my system weekly using a portable AV. Oh, and I'd love to see your examples of "serious design flaws" that Windows has an Mac OSX does not... That should be entertaining. So...another failure...you can't seem to tell "fact" from "BS"...who'd have guessed?
"Windows ads = fantasy of buying a cheapo under-specced clone box which equals the performance/features of a more expensive, higher specced Mac."
No, genius. The ads portray the *fact* that you can buy a system that matches your performance and feature needs without have to spend extra for more CPU/RAM/GPU "power" than you intend to use. Who needs a "top of the line" for document editing, browsing and emailing? Riiiight...Mac fanboys.
"Funny thing is Microsoft does not even talk about their OS. Does not talk about software at all. Wonder why?"
Funny...I thought Windows *was* software. You meant he OS name? Funny...I haven't seena single commercial from Apple mentioning "Leopard". Wonder why..
"Why no mention of the hundreds of dollars for all the software you need to even approach what comes with a new mac out of the box, let alone all the anti-malware and firewall software people need to have any sort of "security" with Windows."
Hmmm..because you can get everything you need for free? Anti-malware costs nothing. Spyware and firewall come *with* the OS, and there are *plenty* of options for document editing that do not cost a penny.
I am curios if you even know what a Fact is, since you don't seem to be able to offer any...
Score: 0
|* ROFL *
I don't have time to point out the all the nonsense you are spewing...so i will give you proof of my first point....look at dell's site at their Mini 10: "Operating System
Genuine Windows® XP Home Edition SP3". Funny how they went back to XP and do not sell Vista on that new computer. But, i am lying, right?
http://www.dell.com/us/e...-10&s=dhs&cs=19
Keep on posting your BS though...everyone reading the forums laughs at your stupidity.
Score: 1
|Heh...
The *only* one you could come up with is a netbook?
Seriously??
Look, we *all* know Vista doesn't run on netbooks. Thanks for pointing out the glaringly obvious.
One product out of literally *thousands* "proves" that vendors have gone back to XP? Seriously?
Man, I couldn't have come up with a more lame "proof" if I tried...congrats!
Love that you "couldn't be bothered" to back up any of your other BS though. It's so cute when a troll thinks he doesn't have to prove anything "because anyone who argues with them is an idiot". How incredibly convenient....and oh so typical of you.
Score: 1
|Action center and #1 feature...give me a break!!
Score: 1
|HUH !?!!!??
Score: 0
|Unfortunatly the masses usualy don't follow the reasonable path. To tell you the truth the major issue with Windows Vista was that they had to ditch a lot of legacy stuff and make the transition to a lot of new stuff. The hurdles that most people had with Windows Vista were due to not yet available drivers, some incompatible old programs a new interfance (many people simply resist change even if it is for the better). Having worked with Vista almost since release both as a home OS and at work I find it to be quite a stable system. SP1 improved even more on that. Most home users won't find much of a problem running Vista. In businesses the rule remains the same. Never install a software on critial enviroments on release.
Regarding Windows 7 I think its going to be one hell of a sucess. Why? Perception. Windows Vista was perceived as a really bad OS. Windows 7 press and overall coments are creating good hype towards Windows 7. Word of mouth is already spreading that the beta is very stable. That there are some really nice features in the OS. And that most "stuff" works well out of the box in Windows 7. Funny thing is all this "stuff" is simply the result of Windows Vista becoming more mature as manufacters release drivers to support it.
Score: 1
|An ambiguous slider isn't what windows needs to solve it's issues.
Score: -1
|Meh..
I disagree with the advertising bit. They're doing just fine with the "PC running Windows" thing as far as I am concerned. Frankly, I feel that getting specific about a particular "version" takes away from the "Windows" brand as a whole. As you said, the "PC running Windows" is accurate and seems to be offering them far greater potential in their marketing.
Re: Action Center...another Meh. I can't really get excited about it. I've grown so used to having *all* of my icons display (keep turning off "hide tray icons"), but I do have to admit, having *all* of the notifications in one "app" is probably a better idea. It would have been nice, however, if they'd made it more modular and given it a better name. Mac got it right with "Growl".
I'd also like to see errors, warnings, and "information" pop-up's relegated to that app.
By modular, I mean make it something people can *download* and use in *any* Windows-based OS. Not only would this allow more folks to get "used to it", it would provide more incentive for developers to adapt their applications to utilize it (people would start getting annoyed by apps that didn't use it).
"and the health and well-being of Microsoft in an economy that has already swallowed up General Motors and Chrysler, hinge on the success or failure of this one little flag in the corner of the taskbar."
Wow. Scott, your Drama Queen is showing. :p Action Center alone will have almost *zero* influence on the success or failure of Win7. I think the performance, compatibility, security and stability will be *far* more relevant to the success or failure of Win7. Hell, for that matter I don't really believe that Microsoft hinges on the success or failure of Win7. Most of the "Market Share" reports pandered about lately have included such ridiculous "competitiors" as Symbian, Andriod, the iPhone OS... none of which could ever possibly be considered replacements for the desktop OS on *real* computers.
Don't believe everything you read...(or publish) ;)
Score: -1
|Don't forget the even more ridiculous OS that are fully featured but run better than Windows.
lol
The Mac, Linux, Unix operating systems.
(If you hadn't noticed I was being ironic.)
Score: 0
|Performance, compatibility, security, and stability of the OS. Those are the four items you mentioned. And how will the status of those four states be reinforced for the general, everyday Windows user?
Action Center. It won't be important because Windows 7 users say, "Wow, Action Center's so great!" It'll be important because Windows 7 users will say, "I feel more in control of Windows 7 than I do of Vista." _Or_...they will say, "What the hell? All this anti-malware stuff is freaking me out! Incompatible resources? Microsoft is just trying to take over my computer again! When will they ever learn??" And the reason for that, should that occur? Action Center.
-SF "Let's All Hoist a White Flag for Action Center!" 3
Score: 0
|*shrug*
Well, yet another issue we differ on. (Shocked, aren't you?)
Action center will, for the most part, at least in my opinion, be as completely ignored as the Security Center/system tray is today. I disable all messages from it upon installation of Win7 and have a feeling it will be the norm, especially in business settings (Where most folks believe the OS lives or dies).
Amazingly enough, it doesn't seem to have affected the performance, stability, reliability or security of any of the test-systems or my personal systems. ;)
Score: 0
|