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

141–150 of 328 posts

Re: Windows Sandbox

#141

Post by cutety »

saagarjha wrote: post #87
terhechte wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A macOS app installed from the app store can only write to ~/Library/Containers/name.of.app.bundle. Those are not automatically trashed (as far as I know), but it is much easier to clean than the whole ~/Library. Actually, if all your apps are in /Applications it would be easy to write a small script that deletes everything in Containers that's a: not from Apple and b: doesn't have a app bundle identifier in /Applica…

And there are in fact “app cleaners” that do exactly this.

The app I use to do that is literally called AppCleaner, been using it for years it’s one of the first things I install.

For example, the other day I moved Word to the trash, 5 seconds later I get the AppCleaner pop up letting me know it found an additional 2GB of shit that Word just littered around my machine that wouldn’t have gotten removed by just deleting the app. And unfortunately, that definitely hasn’t even been the worst offender I’ve run into, and at this point I’m very rarely not surprised by the amount of leftover crap that doesn’t get removed when deleting an app.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#142

Post by xoss »

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.

> "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."

What's your point? How is that not a reasonable business model?

Re: Windows Sandbox

#143

Post by createmyaccount »

Nition wrote: post #126
TsomArp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It also has that blank area at the bottom, whereas Apple had to basically invent some insane hardware gymnastics to not have that on theirs. The iPhone X screen bends around backwards at the base.

What do you mean by blank area?

Re: Windows Sandbox

#144

Post by kypro »

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.

They'd probably have to raise the price of their cheaper versions if they didn't do this. Seems like a good compromise for the consumer to me. Offset the cost of all of the fancy tech most people won't want or use to those willing to pay more and potentially use it.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#145

Post by voltagex_ »

Semaphor wrote: post #34
voltagex_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found Defender to be a definite performance hit but what's a better option? I'd rather not have the subscription costs.

Not running a tool that makes your attack surface bigger in exchange for questionable benefits?

Okay, even if I take your comment about attack surface at face value, what are you suggesting? Surely not avoiding AV completely.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#146

Post by regularfry »

kypro wrote: post #144
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.

They'd probably have to raise the price of their cheaper versions if they didn't do this. Seems like a good compromise for the consumer to me. Offset the cost of all of the fancy tech most people won't want or use to those willing to pay more and potentially use it.

Why?

Re: Windows Sandbox

#147

Post by neotek »

meritt wrote: post #99
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.

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?

You misunderstand me, it has nothing to do with Windows being "too expensive", the point is that you've paid for it and they still abuse your privacy and shove ads down your throat at every opportunity.

By way of comparison, I willingly and happily pay more to use Apple hardware and software specifically because that money buys me a hell of a lot more privacy, security, and functionality than the equivalent amount of money would buy me in the Microsoft / PC ecosystem.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#148

Post by Nition »

createmyaccount wrote: post #143
Nition wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also has that blank area at the bottom, whereas Apple had to basically invent some insane hardware gymnastics to not have that on theirs. The iPhone X screen bends around backwards at the base.

What do you mean by blank area?

I don't really know what to call it, although I've seen tech sites call it a "chin". The screen doesn't extend right to the bottom.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#149

Post by neotek »

eertami wrote: post #109
zaksoup wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that no matter what happens two classes of users are going to be created: those that can pay for security and those that cannot. Ultimately Apple's pricing means all their users are first class - hence security as a bread-and-butter feature on their platforms. In MSFT's case they're going to have low and high cost consumers, so they segment those users into the two relevant classes. None of this is goo…

> Ultimately Apple's pricing means all their users are first class - hence security Yeah... Good luck running the latest version of iOS on an older iPhone. (Many are still have a 5/6 and you really don't want to update those if you value a reasonable experience and latency.)

>Yeah... Good luck running the latest version of iOS on an older iPhone. (Many are still have a 5/6 and you really don't want to update those if you value a reasonable experience and latency.)

Spoken like someone who's never actually used a 5 or 6 running iOS 12.

Re: Windows Sandbox

#150

Post by Semaphor »

voltagex_ wrote: post #145
Semaphor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not running a tool that makes your attack surface bigger in exchange for questionable benefits?

Okay, even if I take your comment about attack surface at face value, what are you suggesting? Surely not avoiding AV completely.

> Surely not avoiding AV completely.

Exactly that.

Post reply on HN