@cbae: Desktop. Wow. Now I understand the magnitude of how stupid you really think I am.
@Bas: My fear is that the answer is going to be to have multiple logins on one W8 box. I currently do that now but it's pretty useless for things like the W8 messaging app and other notifications. We live in a mixed world between work and personal and with the up-tick in BYOD that's going to be even more of a problem.
Don't get me wrong; I like the tie-in of login to Windows account but there are certain apps where I'd like to override or add an additional Microsoft account to.
I'd file a complaint with the skydrive team if I were you. My guess is that they didn't think of your specific use-case. The bug site is here:
Going to have to make a trip to Costco first. My industrial vat of Vaseline is out from all of the butt hurt W8 has caused already.
After all of the nice things I had to say about SkyDrive today I am greeted by this error on my W8 boxes:
SkyDrive has detected a Microsoft account has been connected to this PC
Click "Ok" to sign in to SkyDrive with the Microsoft account you're using on this PC.
My only options are to "Exit SkyDrive" or "Ok"
Backstory: I have two Microsoft accounts, one for work related and one for personal. The files I want to sync are on my personal account. At work I login with my work account (linked to my work related Microsoft account) and want SkyDrive to sync my personal account's files.
Previously this has not been a problem as the SkyDrive client for Windows lets you sign-in and sync with an account different than the Microsoft account that is linked with your PC login. Now it seems that they want to force you to use only the account that is linked to your PC login.
I want my settings, favorites, metro apps, etc. to sync between the PC logins that I have linked to the related Microsoft account but files to be sync'd between all of my logins using one of my Microsoft accounts. I know my use case is probably rare but c'mon it was working just fine up until whatever they changed in the last 24 hours.
BTW, I don't have this problem on my W7 box where I also have the same account linking going on along with the SkyDrive login mismatch.
I guess it's time to look at g-drive again...
@DeathByVisualStudio: The entire point of blocking it in the first place is to avoid accidental execution of something a user didn't realise was executable. Prompting when doing something innocuous like unzipping a file invokes the "stupid Windows" response that leads to the user always clicking unblock.
So you are saying that all of the prompting IE (for downloads) and Windows does (like with UAC) is a total waste of time? Make it obscure so the user just gives up; that makes sense.
So all of the other prompts I get from IE about suspicious downloads or other warnings from the OS that something is being blocked because it is suspicious is now an attack vector? Sounds like Microsoft's got their work cut out for them in securing W8 (and W7 for that matter). All I'm suggesting is that when a user goes to open or extract files from a blocked zip that they are warned and asked if they want to unblock it. Hey if people are too dumb to read and respond to a prompt then UAC was a big waste of time too.
@DeathByVisualStudio: I know what you mean, as it's bitten me a few times on Windows 7 in the past. However, I guess it's rare enough that providing a confusing prompt for the 99% of users would result in them accidentally unblocking files they shouldn't. And for the zipped executables they do need to use, they normally double click them (which does give a prompt) so in this case I think the decision is probably right, if occasionally annoying.
99% of the users wouldn't get a prompt because they wouldn't get a zip with a .js file. I don't know if you noticed but W8 makes a point of getting in your face with prompts so if prompting is problematic then they went the wrong direction with W8. Frankly I'd rather know why something isn't working directly rather than having to guess my way through it.
I assume that the difference between W8 and W7 is whether .js files are considered executable and they really should be.
Quite how this would be a problem for Joe User is beyond me, what realistic scenario do you have in mind that is best served by sending your average user a .js file?
I didn't assume the scope of the change was just .js files (hence the question of what changed) but if that's it then no problem because that scenario will be uncommon for Joe six-pack. In any case they could improve the usability for us lowly devs by prompting if we want to unblock upon unzip rather than having to dig into the properties of the file.
@cbae: "Unreliable" is just semantically incorrect. It's poorly implemented and makes it a pain to walk Joe-six-pack user though unzipping a file he downloaded from your website.
The only question here is did Microsoft up the anti in W8 when it comes to downloaded zip files and blocking them? Like I said I don't have this problem on my W7 box.