Live data from Hacker News

Windows Sandbox

techcommunity.microsoft.com

61–70 of 328 posts

Re: Windows Sandbox

#61
post #39

Prerequisite: AMD64. Does that mean it will work with my Ryzen, but no intel chips? That’s a nice win for AMD at the expense of intel if true for corporate environments.

AMD64 = x64 = x86_64 = common names used to describe the 64-bit x86 instruction set that both Intel and AMD CPUs support. It was just first designed by AMD.

Thanks for the clarification!

Re: Windows Sandbox

#63
post #57
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your problem can be solved by not let your parents use Windows.

Like get them to learn a lot of linux command lines?

I'm pretty sure that's not the only alternative... some others include a Chromebook, an iPad, a MacBook, or even installing a Linux distro and setting it up for them such that they don't need to use the CLI to accomplish the things they want to do.

But honestly, my opinion is that Windows 10 is not as fragile as earlier versions of Windows were.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#64
post #2

Please do not make this a Pro / Enterprise feature. I do remote tech support for my parents and would love for them to browse / use apps in a sandbox.

Think of it like giving your parent's a $100 present for Christmas, an upgrade from Win Home to Win Pro and your life will be so much easier.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#65
post #44
post #38

Only Microsoft would come up with a new security feature and then intentionally and arbitrarily limit its availability to the most expensive version of their OS. This is the same company that thinks putting ads in the fucking file explorer is appropriate on an OS they charge hundreds and hundreds of dollars for.

I’d put oracle in that boat too. Actually, I think it would be hard to find an enterprise software vendor who wouldn’t want to include extra functionality in their premium SKUs as a way to further differentiate them and encourage up-sell.

Extra functionality yes, but not a security feature. I'd understand making WSL or PowerShell a >= Pro feature, but something that is designed to secure users from malicious applications. That should be included with even the lowest SKU that can run win32 (its sad that this last qualifier is even required).

Re: Windows Sandbox

#66
post #38

Only Microsoft would come up with a new security feature and then intentionally and arbitrarily limit its availability to the most expensive version of their OS. This is the same company that thinks putting ads in the fucking file explorer is appropriate on an OS they charge hundreds and hundreds of dollars for.

I believe it's because the virtualization support is only limited to those versions. I might be wrong though.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#67
post #57
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your problem can be solved by not let your parents use Windows.

Like get them to learn a lot of linux command lines?

Yeah, because you MUST use command line when running Linux. The Linux command line committee will make sure of that /s.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, it's Pro because it's using Hyper-V.

Then make Hyper-v home. Seriously this is a killer feature needed by everybody. And specially the non-pro users.

A lot (most?) of the hardware Home runs on doesn't support hardware virtualization.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#69
post #44
post #38

Only Microsoft would come up with a new security feature and then intentionally and arbitrarily limit its availability to the most expensive version of their OS. This is the same company that thinks putting ads in the fucking file explorer is appropriate on an OS they charge hundreds and hundreds of dollars for.

I’d put oracle in that boat too. Actually, I think it would be hard to find an enterprise software vendor who wouldn’t want to include extra functionality in their premium SKUs as a way to further differentiate them and encourage up-sell.

That's OK when you put enterprise features in enterprise versions. A regular user doesn't need to be able to run SharePoint, but they might want to get proper sandboxing of regular software.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#70

Nowadays it's almost impossible to uninstall an app completely, because most of them creating files willy nilly. And it's same on all known OSes. The side effect we see is system size growing in time. IMO running an app in a sandbox should be the default option. On Windows, I used to like sandboxie, which virtualized every write into single directory. Uninstall was easy as removing that dir. This MS sandbox doesn't a…

> Nowadays it's almost impossible to uninstall an app completely, because most of them creating files willy nilly.

This has always been the case on Windows. In fact if anything, nowadays it’s better than its ever been because thanks to the UAC and other controls Microsoft have put in place, developers aren’t so free to do whatever they like to the host machine. But that’s remember a time before the UAC when it would often be common practice to reinstall the OS on a semi-regular basis (not something I personally engaged in but a great many of my peers used to).

> And it’s same on all known OSes

It really isn’t. On platforms with a proper package manager you can query what files get installed where. A great many package managers even let you query a file system file and see which package installed it.

Of course you still have the problem of the software writing files during its operation but that should be limited to $HOME (on POSIX systems) or any path that is writable by the owner / group of the user that application runs as (which should be limited even if it’s a system service).

Post reply on HN