SunsriseXP in Vista

[Bob Russell]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

What happens if you use Firefox as your default browser? (The only thing IE7 is used for here is occasional visits to the Windows Update site.)

Thanks Dennis! It seems to work now.

Actually, Firefox IS my default browser. I had assumed that the cookies were passed from IE, so never logged in with Firefox.

One article still showed no login, which was odd, but I chalk that up to the fact that I'm using a shared bugmenot login. If it persists, I'll try another or create a personal login.

Thanks again! This is really neat.

P.S. I got a new Lenovo Thinkpad with Vista on it last year. So I'm moving from an ancient desktop to that Thinkpad. I like Vista, even if there are some odd issues that seem to creep in and lots of incompatibilities. My main problems seem to come from programs that act like they are the admin acct owner that gave install privs or did the install. One side effect is that programs like Palm Desktop and Hotsync and others tend to look in the admin acct file structure for user and app data files. I could probably understand and solve that better if I actually read something about Vista, but so far I've just been "following my nose" and it seems to work out pretty well. Just wish it wasn't such a resource hog. If I get everything off the old desktop, it will probably become a n Ubuntu box...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Bob Russell

Thanks Dennis! It seems to work now.

Actually, Firefox IS my default browser. I had assumed that the cookies were passed from IE, so never logged in with Firefox.

How could they be? Since you don't use IE as your browser, IE doesn't create the cookies, and has nothing to do with passing them. IE and FF store such things in different locations. Both use Windows network settings, but that's a different matter.

One article still showed no login, which was odd, but I chalk that up to the fact that I'm using a shared bugmenot login. If it persists, I'll try another or create a personal login.

I created an ID on the NYTimes site a long time ago. I've never had an issue because of it.

Thanks again! This is really neat.

P.S. I got a new Lenovo Thinkpad with Vista on it last year. So I'm moving from an ancient desktop to that Thinkpad. I like Vista, even if there are some odd issues that seem to creep in and lots of incompatibilities. My main problems seem to come from programs that act like they are the admin acct owner that gave install privs or did the install. One side effect is that programs like Palm Desktop and Hotsync and others tend to look in the admin acct file structure for user and app data files. I could probably understand and solve that better if I actually read something about Vista, but so far I've just been "following my nose" and it seems to work out pretty well. Just wish it wasn't such a resource hog. If I get everything off the old desktop, it will probably become a n Ubuntu box...

The problem with Vista is that it's trying to be more secure.

Previous versions of Windows used a permissions model that had been in place since the MS-DOS days. The user was assumed to be administrator, with all power to do anything. Indeed, MS-DOS had no choice about that: the FAT file system provides no place to store permissions info. Win 3.X and 95 were essentially multitasking shells on top of DOS. Win9X used DOS as a real mode loader for the actual protected mode OS, and DOS was out of the picture once 98 was loaded and active.

WinNT/2K/XP/Vista are full 32 bit protected mode OSes, and add the NTFS file system. NTFS has the concept of multiple users with different permissions, and it's possible to define different levels of access. Under NT/2K/XP, it was possible to define a restricted user id (Power User, who can run programs but not install them), but the default is to create IDs with full admin rights.

In Vista, the default is not to give IDs admin rights. This is a lot more secure, as various exploits aimed at Windows use admin rights to do the dirty work, and fail if the userid in use doesn't have them. But various programs need admin rights to function as intended, and must be installed by the Administrator ID and set to Run As Administrator when executed by a normal user. Most of the problems I've heard of on Vista trace to programs not being installed to Run As Admionistrator.
______
Dennis

[Bob Russell]

Wrt IE, I did create the cookies first in IE. My thought was that Windows always used IE cookies by default. Apparently they do honor the setting for the default browser, which is good. Maybe due to the lawsuits?

Can an already installed program in Vista be set to run automatically as administrator afterwards? I know I can right click and choose "Run as administrator", but can it happen always no matter how I launch it?

Hopefully over time the security issues will be greatly reduced as programs start to match the Vista paradigm. But until XP goes away, there's really not much incentive.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Bob Russell

Wrt IE, I did create the cookies first in IE. My thought was that Windows always used IE cookies by default. Apparently they do honor the setting for the default browser, which is good. Maybe due to the lawsuits?

Possibly. It's been years since it was a real problem. There are a few annoying programs hard-wired to launch IE when they need to spawn a browser to go online, but that's a nuisance more than anything else.

Can an already installed program in Vista be set to run automatically as administrator afterwards? I know I can right click and choose "Run as administrator", but can it happen always no matter how I launch it?

I believe that's possible. I don't run Vista here -- I'm still on XP Pro -- but you should be able to modify the properties of the shortcut pointing to it to specify that.

Hopefully over time the security issues will be greatly reduced as programs start to match the Vista paradigm. But until XP goes away, there's really not much incentive.

I don't expect XP to go away for some time. Microsoft has already had to extend the date at which XP would be unsupported, and had to modify their forecasts of the amount of revenue from XP upward. Lots of folks (like me) have no plans to move until there is no choice. (And when I do move, it might be Linux.)
______
Dennis

[doogie68]

I'm excited to hear that others have had success with NY Times Cookies. I'd given up on them some time ago and have lately had success with http://mobile.nytimes.com, link depth 2. It's actually been pretty good this way, though it isn't technically the full-blown web site.

When I last tried, I'd been using both IE7 and Firefox2 and still wasn't getting the cookies registered. May have to try again.