Thanks! Wonder how this is different from the no sandbox switch.
rveguilla
· 10 months ago
You should be able to use Google Chrome on Windows 7 (64-bit) if you disable the sandbox feature by passing the "--no-sandbox" parameter in the shortcut.
leolaporte
· 10 months ago
Works! Thanks.
Looks like I'll have to add this to all my saved application shortcuts, too. Thanks!
rveguilla
· 10 months ago
Sorry about the double post.
Frank
· 10 months ago
better option: turn UAC off
Matt Scott
· 10 months ago
or you could try "–in-process-plugins"
Top
· 10 months ago
Thanks for the tip! I'll be setting up 7 on two of my desktops this weekend (both Vista machines).
Paul William Tenny
· 10 months ago
Leo, what are you going to do when the Win7 beta expires?
Andy
· 10 months ago
Thanks for the tip, I'm loving Windows 7 too, and I was an early Vista adopter and still don't see what's so wrong with Vista, it's really not that bad,7 though is really good!
Mark
· 10 months ago
Thanks for the tip. What, me worry? I'm running 7 in a VM.
chuckiesd
· 10 months ago
i never tested windows 7 beta. But most people are good talk about that. Anyway thanks sharing an info.
Doug Curry
· 10 months ago
I'm curious, Leo, are you running Win7 as a "user" or as an "administrator"? I would think the UAC would still complain about being turned off (or rather would not allow it) if you were not already authenticated as an administrator. Got this from Dwight Silverman, BTW.
Michael
· 10 months ago
I've got two users, a 'user' and an 'administrator'. I run in user mode and then when I try to run an installer, I'm prompted to use my admin account. This, I believe, is the best way to run the system.
Jerry
· 10 months ago
I am sticking with ubuntu! Windows 7 is all hyped for nothing! One of Microsfts marketing strategies!
Marc
· 10 months ago
I went from XP to Vista about a month ago, and while its pretty, it bombs all the time. I setup my MBP to dual-boot OSX and Win7, and so far Win7 has been a champ. Its pretty, it feels simple and fast. It feels like an OSX version of Windows, if that makes sense. I will move to Win7 as soon as its ready, and I would probably even update my main machine with Win7 today if I knew that I could transition to the real version once it was available without having to rebuild my entire machine.
mark
· 10 months ago
Chrome didn't work for me on 64 bit 7 as well.(Fine in 32 bit) I tried a hack on line and it didn't work for me although others posted it had. Turning down UAC on 7 makes it hackable, what did you expect? UAC works fine for me in Vista it's not that much different from running as a limited user on Unix based systems, so I'm surprised people have such a problem with it. The people I personally know who complain about UAC are the ones I could never get to run as limited users with XP, so you can lead the horse to the water but you can't make them drink.
Geckotek
· 10 months ago
Ok, first you hate UAC, so Microsoft tries to turn it down to make it less annoying. The ability to turn it down allows others to turn it down so you suggest turning it back up? Turn it up to the level that you hated?!?! Come on man!! Make up your mind!
Oh, and to the user that wants to turn it completely off, I hope you have a great firewall. UAC being off is just inviting a worm into your system. That was the whole point of UAC. (Hint: a worm does not need you to double click an icon or open some e-mail attachment so be as careful as you like....you can still get infected.)
chrys
· 10 months ago
Did you get the invitation to test IE8 already.
Herb K
· 10 months ago
Vista's best addition was UAC. I feel much more in control and have very few fears of accidently installing malware thanks to UAC. Dumbing down UAC is .. um dumb.
john smith
· 10 months ago
How large a download file is windows 7 beta?
leolaporte
· 10 months ago
It's around 3GB - but get it soon. They say no more downloads after Feb 10.
Joe Maruschek
· 10 months ago
I hate to agree with Micrfosoft, but here's why I don't see this as a security flaw: you aren't getting any new privileges you didn't have before. You explictly tell the system that you don't want to get a warning if you make a change, and even though you made things a little fancier by sending keystrokes from a program, YOU are still making a change, and thus no warning. The program is running as you, it is sending keystrokes as you to signed programs that actually make the change.
Jake
· 10 months ago
Hey Leo,
Love the blog and LOVE TWiT!
However...
You just said that there's a problem, because the UAC settings in Windows 7 are set too low by default. But, when Vista came out, you said the UAC settings were set too high by default - eh?
Maybe, it's just that any version of Windows is just never going to right for a Mac guy?
Dan Overes
· 10 months ago
I have been using Vista since the day it was release to volume license customers. In the early days it had a lot of issues with driver and application compatibility, but once the third-party vendors got on board those problems went away. I ran Vista on my nearly five-year old computer (P4, 3GHz, 1GB RAM) and didn't have performance issues. (I have since upgraded the RAM to 2GB, but not because of Vista.)
Until Windows Vista came along I always ran XP with root access. UAC made it possible to run as a normal user and only elevate my credentials when necessary. This made me much more secure. This has been Vista's best feature IMO and I hate to see Microsoft "tone it down".
No matter what Microsoft does, the Mac and Linux people will hate it because it comes from Microsoft. Hating Microsoft has become the trendy thing to do. For years they complained about Windows users running as administrators, then when Microsoft fixed that issue they complained the OS had become too annoying. Now Microsoft turns UAC down and Windows will become a laughing stock because it isn't secure enough.
When others complained about Vista I would shake my head because I just couldn't understand. Now when I see people rave about Windows 7 I shake my head because since I have started running the Beta I don't see any compelling reason to move from Vista.
Maybe I am just odd -- after all, I even managed to run Windows ME for a year without any issues. :-)
Curt55
· 10 months ago
Win 7 isn't as ready as some think it is, it crashes my system regularly, there are driver issues, my pc is a bit older ( AMD X2 3800 w/ 1 gig RAM ATI 1650 ) than some but the ATI video driver is just minimally functional (doesn't recognize 2 monitors ) . I've only had it installed for a few days and as I said it's crashed at least a couple of times each day (total freezeup, not even a BSOD) now it IS pretty, and the it has promise but I won't be using it full time for a while, and won't buy it until it's been official for some time either.
fred
· 10 months ago
Just so we're clear:
iStartedSomething is running a script as Administrator and is surprised that it can change the Windows default. UAC suppresion is only allowed on admin accounts. ----
The statement that UAC is now more vulnerable is fundamentally wrong. It's based on a misunderstanding of security.
The statement is : "a malware can now change the windows 7.0 settings without warning. "
In fact, a malware that's able to do this can already do everything else.
The article on iStartedSomething even says it could 'easily be done in a C++ EXE, as though C++ apps somehow were limited.
A C++ EXE that is running with those kinds of rights already can do everything on the system; change the registry, wipe the files off the hard drive, download more files from the internet, launch new processes, etc. It has access to all the Win32 API, it can send keyboard strokes, move the mouse, close windows, etc. It has no need to turn off UAC! That would be the least malicious things it can do.
The web of course now assumes that the Microsoft has their heads in the sand with regards to this issue, but UAC does not replace Windows Defender, Virus checker and the Firewall. It does not prevent applications from calling the Windows API arbitrarily, even less so for those running in administrator mode. You couldn't do anything on your computer if it did, you'd be prompted hundreds of times per second (and you wouldn't be more secure).
The bugs to look for are: can a piece of code get privileges it does not already have, and the answer is NO. Apps running as limited user still only have the rights of the limited user.
It would be nice leo if you could mention this on the podcasts. The internet is all too willing to believe that Microsoft is sacrificing security for ease-of-use, but iStartedSomething wrong. Look at their update:
"Update: A reader has kindly asked me to highlight a particular condition for this to work, the user must be in the “Administrative” user group, and not in the “Standard” user group" http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090131/micro...
fred
· 10 months ago
another quick comment, since I'm not a roll. :P
On the lastest Windows Weekly, you mentioned Outlook is not really an option for Mail because of that scary .pst file.
There shouldn't be a use have .pst file if your mail is in the cloud, or in the exchange server. I've never had one on an exchange server, I'm accessing my mail from multiple machines. If you use gmail you mail is on the server, not a personal folder file, unless you explicitly choose to archive your mail in one. You can use Outlook like Windows Live Mail or other light front-end. Why would you want to use it? Well, there's the better spell/grammar checker (this is what I miss the most in Windows Live Mail and Gmail), the tri-pane layout, the grouping by conversation, perhaps rules. bit pricey though!
James Britton
· 10 months ago
Great suggestions Leo. I'm disappointed to learn that Chrome doesn't work with the 64 bit version. I'm downloading Windows 7 now at my university and I'm getting a 1.59 MB/s (yes, that's megaBYTES) transfer rate so it's only taking about 35-40 minutes. I'm going to install it on my MacBook under BootCamp, anything I need to be on the lookout for?
Hey rveguilla, thanks for the Chrome tip, just saw that!
kie
· 10 months ago
Hi Leo! Have to mention the Prism addon for Firefox that does the same thing as you're doing from Chrome (creation of SSB's - Site-Specific Browsers). The SSB's it generates are really small filesize too...unlike ones from Fluid (which is Mac OSX 10.5 only, uses webkit vs. mozilla, but allows for creating a MenuExtra SSB - http://fluidapp.com/).
Just had to pass this on for the good of all...I'm in a phase of being excited over the whole SSB concept!
Paul
· 10 months ago
Just finished the install. Works like a charm.
Kie
· 10 months ago
Leo said: "I don’t really need Chrome, but I use it to turn the Google Calendar, Google Docs, and Gmail (all of which I do need) into desktop icons."
I have recently discovered the Prism addon for Firefox and am loving it. Turns any webpage/webapp into a SSB (Site-Specific Browser), right from within Firefox.
There's Fluid too, for the Mac-only/webkit SSB experience. Its SSBs are much bigger in filesize, though I suspect they are truly standalone, while Prism SSBs are likely dependent on an existing Firefox install (must be, but haven't tested that theory).
W7 is absolutelly awfull, as you might expect from the dinosaur Microsoft. Lots and lots of unnecessary changes (just for the sake of change), endless re-boots, an unusable start-button/menu-system, etc etc.
Really awful.
Jason
· 10 months ago
Carbonite doesn't fully work with Windows 7. I can restore, but when I click on the "Select Files & Folders to Restore" it will launch Windows Explorer but freezes up.
Any suggestions???
Roland
· 10 months ago
I am using Windows 7 and have no problems except for finding beta drivers. It is the best OS ever and is super stable. I have been using since day 1.
Aaa
· 9 months ago
Yeah, wait
Ezas123
· 10 months ago
Windows 7 ? We still need to wait for it, but I saw some amazing features
Monk
· 7 months ago
Try SRWare Iron, which uses the Chrome code but with no ads.
All Comments
1. Right Click on Google Chrome Icon
2. Add –in-process-plugins after chrome.exe in Target field.
3. Apply and load Chrome
I'll have to try this in Windows 7 when I get home tonight, but someone seems to indicate that this works.
C:\Users\****\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe --in-process-plugins
Looks like I'll have to add this to all my saved application shortcuts, too. Thanks!
Turning down UAC on 7 makes it hackable, what did you expect? UAC works fine for me in Vista it's not that much different from running as a limited user on Unix based systems, so I'm surprised people have such a problem with it. The people I personally know who complain about UAC are the ones I could never get to run as limited users with XP, so you can lead the horse to the water but you can't make them drink.
Oh, and to the user that wants to turn it completely off, I hope you have a great firewall. UAC being off is just inviting a worm into your system. That was the whole point of UAC. (Hint: a worm does not need you to double click an icon or open some e-mail attachment so be as careful as you like....you can still get infected.)
Love the blog and LOVE TWiT!
However...
You just said that there's a problem, because the UAC settings in Windows 7 are set too low by default. But, when Vista came out, you said the UAC settings were set too high by default - eh?
Maybe, it's just that any version of Windows is just never going to right for a Mac guy?
Until Windows Vista came along I always ran XP with root access. UAC made it possible to run as a normal user and only elevate my credentials when necessary. This made me much more secure. This has been Vista's best feature IMO and I hate to see Microsoft "tone it down".
No matter what Microsoft does, the Mac and Linux people will hate it because it comes from Microsoft. Hating Microsoft has become the trendy thing to do. For years they complained about Windows users running as administrators, then when Microsoft fixed that issue they complained the OS had become too annoying. Now Microsoft turns UAC down and Windows will become a laughing stock because it isn't secure enough.
When others complained about Vista I would shake my head because I just couldn't understand. Now when I see people rave about Windows 7 I shake my head because since I have started running the Beta I don't see any compelling reason to move from Vista.
Maybe I am just odd -- after all, I even managed to run Windows ME for a year without any issues. :-)
iStartedSomething is running a script as Administrator and is surprised that it can change the Windows default. UAC suppresion is only allowed on admin accounts.
----
The statement that UAC is now more vulnerable is fundamentally wrong. It's based on a misunderstanding of security.
The statement is : "a malware can now change the windows 7.0 settings without warning. "
In fact, a malware that's able to do this can already do everything else.
The article on iStartedSomething even says it could 'easily be done in a C++ EXE, as though C++ apps somehow were limited.
A C++ EXE that is running with those kinds of rights already can do everything on the system; change the registry, wipe the files off the hard drive, download more files from the internet, launch new processes, etc. It has access to all the Win32 API, it can send keyboard strokes, move the mouse, close windows, etc. It has no need to turn off UAC! That would be the least malicious things it can do.
The web of course now assumes that the Microsoft has their heads in the sand with regards to this issue, but UAC does not replace Windows Defender, Virus checker and the Firewall. It does not prevent applications from calling the Windows API arbitrarily, even less so for those running in administrator mode. You couldn't do anything on your computer if it did, you'd be prompted hundreds of times per second (and you wouldn't be more secure).
The bugs to look for are: can a piece of code get privileges it does not already have, and the answer is NO. Apps running as limited user still only have the rights of the limited user.
It would be nice leo if you could mention this on the podcasts. The internet is all too willing to believe that Microsoft is sacrificing security for ease-of-use, but iStartedSomething wrong.
Look at their update:
"Update: A reader has kindly asked me to highlight a particular condition for this to work, the user must be in the “Administrative” user group, and not in the “Standard” user group"
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090131/micro...
On the lastest Windows Weekly, you mentioned Outlook is not really an option for Mail because of that scary .pst file.
There shouldn't be a use have .pst file if your mail is in the cloud, or in the exchange server. I've never had one on an exchange server, I'm accessing my mail from multiple machines. If you use gmail you mail is on the server, not a personal folder file, unless you explicitly choose to archive your mail in one. You can use Outlook like Windows Live Mail or other light front-end. Why would you want to use it? Well, there's the better spell/grammar checker (this is what I miss the most in Windows Live Mail and Gmail), the tri-pane layout, the grouping by conversation, perhaps rules. bit pricey though!
Hey rveguilla, thanks for the Chrome tip, just saw that!
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/...
http://labs.mozilla.com/2008/03/major-update-to...
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2009/01/01/web...
SSB Icons:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/fluid_icons/pool/
http://csi.nfshost.com/goodies/
Just had to pass this on for the good of all...I'm in a phase of being excited over the whole SSB concept!
Works like a charm.
I have recently discovered the Prism addon for Firefox and am loving it. Turns any webpage/webapp into a SSB (Site-Specific Browser), right from within Firefox.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/...
There's Fluid too, for the Mac-only/webkit SSB experience. Its SSBs are much bigger in filesize, though I suspect they are truly standalone, while Prism SSBs are likely dependent on an existing Firefox install (must be, but haven't tested that theory).
http://fluidapp.com/
more related...
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/22/bridging-d...
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2009/01/01/web...
http://www.flickr.com/groups/fluid_icons/
Really awful.
Any suggestions???