Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows Sandbox

techcommunity.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 328 posts

Re: Windows Sandbox

#111

Post by alkonaut »

neotek wrote: 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.

> come up with a new security feature and

While they sell this as something that protects against downloaded malware, I think this is going to be used a lot in software testing. We have lots of manual tests of desktop software that neads clean environments which is painful when e.g. comparing several versions side by side etc. This is great compared to running multiple full VM's side by side.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#112

Post by euph0ria »

I wish they would have added the option to have the data persist. I have a bunch of software that I run only a few times per year, but I don't want to go through the hassle of re-installing it every time I need to run it. It would have been so much more useful if the data could persist.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#113

Post by TsomArp »

shanehoban wrote: post #108
meritt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your statement is reasonable, it's interesting seeing a Mac user complain about things being too expensive. Is it fundamentally worse to overcharge for software over the hardware?

I totally agree, Apple's markup on products must be astronomically high. Am I the only one who doesn't see where the roughly $1000 price gap between the Honor Play and the newest(?) iPhone XS Max?. Their brand is really not worth that much to me anyhow. "iPhone: About 1250 EUR, Honor Play: About 320 EUR" [1] [1] https://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?&idPhone2=9230&idPhone...

For sure apple has a markup, but there is no way the Honor Play compares to the iPhone XS Max. Starting with the camera.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#114

Post by [deleted] »

neotek wrote: 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.

[deleted]

Re: Windows Sandbox

#115

Post by [deleted] »

shanehoban wrote: post #108
meritt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your statement is reasonable, it's interesting seeing a Mac user complain about things being too expensive. Is it fundamentally worse to overcharge for software over the hardware?

I totally agree, Apple's markup on products must be astronomically high. Am I the only one who doesn't see where the roughly $1000 price gap between the Honor Play and the newest(?) iPhone XS Max?. Their brand is really not worth that much to me anyhow. "iPhone: About 1250 EUR, Honor Play: About 320 EUR" [1] [1] https://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?&idPhone2=9230&idPhone...

[deleted]

Re: Windows Sandbox

#116

Post by MarkMc »

lionpixel wrote: post #56
neotek wrote: 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 paid 13€ for an Microsoft Windows 10 Pro OEM key. I thought everyone is doing this as well?

Where did you buy such a cheap copy of Windows 10 Pro?

Re: Windows Sandbox

#117

Post by lkdjjdjjjdskjd »

neotek wrote: 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.

Disk encryption is also only available with Pro upwards.

It's not helping against the notion that Windows is insecure to use...

Re: Windows Sandbox

#118

Post by Jyaif »

lionpixel wrote: post #56
neotek wrote: 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 paid 13€ for an Microsoft Windows 10 Pro OEM key. I thought everyone is doing this as well?

Where did you get such a deal?

Re: Windows Sandbox

#119

Post by noselasd »

laumars wrote: post #70
finchisko wrote: post #52

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…

You're contradicting yourself in your first and second paragraph...

Those proper package managers still rely on the packager doing things correctly - just as it would creating a windows .msi.

There's plenty of linux packages that creates files during operation in their designated /var/log/xxx /var/db/xxx /etc/xxx /home/xxx/ directories that you're not able to query using the package manager.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#120

Post by gshrikant »

revanx_ wrote: post #36

This is not a sandbox. All this does is launch windows in hyper-v virtual machine and configures the virtual environment automatically for you. You could achieve all of this yourself manually and you still wouldn't call it a sandbox, you would call it VM.

I agree, it is not the same sandbox as for example, browser sandboxes which restrict capabilities for multiple tabs to a given set of resources. However, its closer to KVM or Docker than to VirtualBox. The host and the 'guest' appear to be much more tightly integrated than in a full virtualized environment.
Post reply on HN