A Windows Vista forum. Vista Banter

Welcome to Vista Banter.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support.

Go Back   Home » Vista Banter forum » Microsoft Windows Vista » Windows Vista File Management
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Windows Vista File Management Issues or questions in relation to Vista's file management. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management)

UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 04:21 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Dale M. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

"Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User" wrote in message
...
I am Mike Hall, MS MVP Windows Shell/User, and I AM CANADIAN (well, I hold
a permanent residence card.. for now)..


Draft Doger ! ! !


Just kidding



  #22 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 04:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,887
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

If after the computer is setup you are constantly seeing UAC prompts you are
doing something wrong. I hardly ever see a UAC prompt.

While getting at financial information and identity theft is the goal of
some malware it is not the goal of most current malware. Most current
malware has the goal of extortion (e.g. spysherrif) or the goal of taking
control of your computer to use it as a zombie. The extortion malware is
very obvious when you get it. The trojans that take over your computer for
use as a zombie are not. The fact that many hundreds of thousands of
computers are available for sale as part of a botnet attests to the fact
that you cannot secure XP (or any OS) if you run as an administrator. I see
many computers that have up to date antivirus and antispyware software that
are compromised in this fashion. UAC (or running XP as a standard user)
would have stopped these infections. Turning off UAC may relieve some short
term pain but it won't cure the disease and may have the opposite effect of
helping to spread the disease.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"JD Wohlever" wrote in message
...
I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going
to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.
Example, my mother is your basic Internet User. She just graduated from
AOL to
a normal broadband connection after me telling her for years how much
better broadband would be for her. She bought a PC that had Vista Home
Premium on it.
Suddenly dial-up became a major pain in the butt because Vista is geared
more toward a constant net connection. No problem there, I agree.
However, 2 days later she calls me up and asks me to put Windows XP back
on her computer.
When I ask her why, the response " I'm sick of the computer asking me
questions every 5 seconds. It didn't do it before. I have an anti-virus, a
firewall, and a anti-spyware program running. Why do I have to OK every
single thing I do?"
I tried explaining the benefits, but she would hear none of it. She has
been told by the Norton's and the AdAware's of the world that as long as
she runs their programs and practices safe netting that she is ok. So it
was either turn UAC off or install Windows XP for her, she was that
serious.
And to be honest, I understand how she feels. In 5 years she has never had
a virus, has only had very light malware (Which SpyBot SD quickly
removed), and has nothing of hi-value on her PC for a hacker to have much
interest in other than family photo's of the dog etc.
My point being is that the average user who buys Windows HOME versions are
not going to WANT this elevated security, and as soon as they find a way
to remove it, they will.
MS should have made UAC a Business / Enterprise feature and left the
standard user and admin feature set of XP for the Home licenses of Vista.
I build PC's for a living so I know the problems that John Q Public can
make for their selves on a PC on the net with no protection. But simple
education and running the big 3 (Anti-virus, Anti-spyware and Firewalls)
should be more than enough to protect them. Now if they are stupid enough
to store all their financial information or work related trade secrets and
not have the "the big 3" then they certainly aren't going to tolerate UAC.



--
Thank you,
JD Wohlever

Techware Grafx
techware(dash)grafx(at)hotmail(dot)com

"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
...
There is some pain associated with UAC. Jimmy Brush's post explains it
very well. I'll add a bit of history as to how we got to UAC and why it's
needed.

There were two families of Windows, NT based (Windows NT) and DOS based
(Windows 95). NT was mostly used in business networks and had excellent
security. Everyone ran as a standard user and only used administrator
accounts for things like installing programs, maintenance etc. Win95
really had no security as it was based on DOS and all users had total
control of the system at all times. Windows 95 became very popular and
many programs were written for it. Microsoft published guidelines on how
to program using established APIs and recommended programmers use this
method. Because the hardware at the time was limited, programming through
the documented APIs made for slow programs. Most programmers including
those at Microsoft, ignored the APIs and basically did what they had to
to get their programs running at the speed end users expected. This is
where most current programmers got their start and learned their habits.
As time progressed the DOS based versions of Windows were abandoned and
the NT and DOS world merged in XP which is NT based. All the end users
and programmers from the DOS world didn't change their ways. End users
ran as administrators all the time and programmers bypassed the APIs and
expected the users to be running as administrators. Around this time the
Internet exploded. Malware became a major problem exacerbated by the way
programmers and end users were using Windows. There was no way to secure
XP given this situation. Microsoft decided to write a new more secure OS.
There is a lot of changes under the hood but in the end the best security
is to enforce programmers to use the APIs and not have end users running
as administrators. Unfortunately this would break almost all existing
software. Thus we have UAC. It allows most old programs to do what they
do and tricks them into thinking it worked. It also allows users to run
as an administrator but gives them a warning when those administrator
privileges are going to be used.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"alex" wrote in message
...

Hi Kerry,

Here's the problem with Vistas security as I see it.

I am a long time Windows user with, at best, an intermediate knowledge
of
how programs work and how they're supposed to work with computers.

Whenever Windows prompts me for confirmation regarding a security issue,
to
be honest, at times, I haven't the slightest clue whether I should allow
or
cancel something.

Other than the most obvious "A program is trying to destroy your
hard-drive
and clean out your bank account" message, I'm likely going to let the
program
do what it wants to do.

I minimize my exposure to to malware by not downloading software or
opening
e-mail attachments with which I'm not familiar. But sometimes I visit
CNN.com or MSN or something as seemingly benign and I'm told that an
update
has to be performed and I'm asked if I trust the source.

No, I don't trust the source. But if I'm going want to visit those
sites I
have to allow changes to be made.

The UAC just annoys me and actually puts me in the habit of just
clicking
"continue" without reading what the window says.

Ehhh. Personal preference I guess.

BTW: This reminds me of how Microsoft didn't give the user the ability
to
download attachments in Outlook in Office XP (I think it was XP). What
a
pain-in-the-a@@ that was.


"Kerry Brown" wrote:

Disabling UAC disables much of the improved security in Vista. Once you
have
your computer set up as you want it, it is recommended to turn UAC back
on.
You can do everything you always did with UAC on you just have to do it
in a
new way. UAC actually gives you more control as you now know when a
program
is about to do something that may affect the whole system. This is the
price
of security.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"alex" wrote in message
...
Never mind. I found the UAC options.

"alex" wrote:

How may I disable all the prompts that appear whenever I try to do
something
like uninstall a program or delete a file or directory?

Vista Premium

Thanks,
Alex




  #23 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 04:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 627
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

On my account? How thoughtful of you, Adam.. you really do care..


"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:39:39 -0500, "Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows
Shell/User" wrote:

Adam

No, that is not me.. one can't be a Microsoft employee and MVP status at
the
same time.. sorry to disappoint..


Why I asked if it was you or not. Actually relieved, not disappointed.
Was almost ready to dump my Microsoft stock.



--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/



  #24 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 06:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,887
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

This will take time but as programs are updated for Vista UAC will become
less of a hassle.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"Dustin Harper" wrote in message
...
After the computer is setup and all applications are installed, you should
rarely see a UAC prompt. But how many users buy a new Dell and it has all
the programs (that you WANT) installed on it? I run the firewall as an
added level of security, not as a replacement of other methods of
security.

As a PC tweaker, I am constantly making changes to my PC, registry,
installing new programs, hardware, etc. UAC can be a pain.

Another example... Elderly people that want email and web browser. If they
see 2 UAC prompts, they are annoyed and want XP. UAC may not be as
frequent, but it still happens.

If you do it right, turning off UAC won't help spread the disease, and my
network can still be safe. Although I do see your point in having an
average joe turning off UAC with no other protection, puts in almost as
the same risk as XP. The user will still have a user account, rather than
an administrator account, though.

--
Dustin Harper

http://www.vistarip.com


Kerry Brown wrote:
If after the computer is setup you are constantly seeing UAC prompts you
are doing something wrong. I hardly ever see a UAC prompt.

While getting at financial information and identity theft is the goal of
some malware it is not the goal of most current malware. Most current
malware has the goal of extortion (e.g. spysherrif) or the goal of taking
control of your computer to use it as a zombie. The extortion malware is
very obvious when you get it. The trojans that take over your computer
for use as a zombie are not. The fact that many hundreds of thousands of
computers are available for sale as part of a botnet attests to the fact
that you cannot secure XP (or any OS) if you run as an administrator. I
see many computers that have up to date antivirus and antispyware
software that are compromised in this fashion. UAC (or running XP as a
standard user) would have stopped these infections. Turning off UAC may
relieve some short term pain but it won't cure the disease and may have
the opposite effect of helping to spread the disease.


  #25 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 06:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Adam Albright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,351
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:29:25 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
*a*m wrote:

If after the computer is setup you are constantly seeing UAC prompts you are
doing something wrong. I hardly ever see a UAC prompt.


That's way too broad a generalization. I'm hardly a casual user. I
went against typical "sage" advice and did a install in place as
opposed to a clean install because I got nearly 2 TB worth of stuff. A
nightmare to reinstall and reconfigure obviously. So I gambled (after
making so I had current backup) and it worked, ie no troubles
transferring applications, settings and data files from XP to Vista
with a couple minor hickups.

However once Vista was up and running it drove me crazy. Every couple
minutes it would pop up some moronic UAC window, gray my screen, nag,
nag, nag. If Windows did what it said, mirror my settings and in
effect save my system and only overlayed Vista then is already knows
or should know much of the stuff it keeps nagging about.

What's worse of course if if your move files around a lot, and I do,
it shouldn't nag, nag, nag, that in effect the user that has
administrative rights which has already done the same task repeatedly,
ie move files from Drive E Folder A, to Drive F Folder B needs again,
over and over Ad nauseam to get permission from his operating system,
click yes I want to do this time and time again until you are
literally ready to toss your monitor out the nearest window. That is
what I would call poor design and something no power user would ever
put up with for more than a few minutes which is why many people, even
MVP's turn UAC off.

While getting at financial information and identity theft is the goal of
some malware it is not the goal of most current malware. Most current
malware has the goal of extortion (e.g. spysherrif) or the goal of taking
control of your computer to use it as a zombie. The extortion malware is
very obvious when you get it. The trojans that take over your computer for
use as a zombie are not. The fact that many hundreds of thousands of
computers are available for sale as part of a botnet attests to the fact
that you cannot secure XP (or any OS) if you run as an administrator. I see
many computers that have up to date antivirus and antispyware software that
are compromised in this fashion. UAC (or running XP as a standard user)
would have stopped these infections. Turning off UAC may relieve some short
term pain but it won't cure the disease and may have the opposite effect of
helping to spread the disease.


I think a lot of people would call Windows the biggest and most
pervasive virus to ever infect a computer. giggle

I think most knowledgeable people if being totally honest would admit
no version of Windows is secure or can be made totally secure. So no
matter how much Windows gets "improved" it is really just patches on
top of previous patches.

The bottom line is Microsoft is stuck. It knows better then anybody
the real solution is to start over. From scratch. It won't and can't
really because to do that would blow the world's biggest installed
user base that demands that each new version of Windows be more or
less backward compatible with what hardware and software that ran on
earlier versions of Windows. The old catch 22.

Sure, I have no doubt if Microsoft really wanted to they could deliver
on a very robost Windows or something called something else. To do
that would mean they would have to be willing to give up a sizable
chuck of their users and obviously they don't want to do that and the
irony is way too many users don't want a total new and completely
different OS either because they would have to dump a lot of their
current hardware and software. If they did that, unlikely they would
pick any Microsoft OS as their OS of first choice.


  #26 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 08:55 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,887
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:29:25 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
*a*m wrote:

If after the computer is setup you are constantly seeing UAC prompts you
are
doing something wrong. I hardly ever see a UAC prompt.


That's way too broad a generalization. I'm hardly a casual user. I
went against typical "sage" advice and did a install in place as
opposed to a clean install because I got nearly 2 TB worth of stuff. A
nightmare to reinstall and reconfigure obviously. So I gambled (after
making so I had current backup) and it worked, ie no troubles
transferring applications, settings and data files from XP to Vista
with a couple minor hickups.

However once Vista was up and running it drove me crazy. Every couple
minutes it would pop up some moronic UAC window, gray my screen, nag,
nag, nag. If Windows did what it said, mirror my settings and in
effect save my system and only overlayed Vista then is already knows
or should know much of the stuff it keeps nagging about.

What's worse of course if if your move files around a lot, and I do,
it shouldn't nag, nag, nag, that in effect the user that has
administrative rights which has already done the same task repeatedly,
ie move files from Drive E Folder A, to Drive F Folder B needs again,
over and over Ad nauseam to get permission from his operating system,
click yes I want to do this time and time again until you are
literally ready to toss your monitor out the nearest window. That is
what I would call poor design and something no power user would ever
put up with for more than a few minutes which is why many people, even
MVP's turn UAC off.

While getting at financial information and identity theft is the goal of
some malware it is not the goal of most current malware. Most current
malware has the goal of extortion (e.g. spysherrif) or the goal of taking
control of your computer to use it as a zombie. The extortion malware is
very obvious when you get it. The trojans that take over your computer for
use as a zombie are not. The fact that many hundreds of thousands of
computers are available for sale as part of a botnet attests to the fact
that you cannot secure XP (or any OS) if you run as an administrator. I
see
many computers that have up to date antivirus and antispyware software
that
are compromised in this fashion. UAC (or running XP as a standard user)
would have stopped these infections. Turning off UAC may relieve some
short
term pain but it won't cure the disease and may have the opposite effect
of
helping to spread the disease.


I think a lot of people would call Windows the biggest and most
pervasive virus to ever infect a computer. giggle

I think most knowledgeable people if being totally honest would admit
no version of Windows is secure or can be made totally secure. So no
matter how much Windows gets "improved" it is really just patches on
top of previous patches.

The bottom line is Microsoft is stuck. It knows better then anybody
the real solution is to start over. From scratch. It won't and can't
really because to do that would blow the world's biggest installed
user base that demands that each new version of Windows be more or
less backward compatible with what hardware and software that ran on
earlier versions of Windows. The old catch 22.

Sure, I have no doubt if Microsoft really wanted to they could deliver
on a very robost Windows or something called something else. To do
that would mean they would have to be willing to give up a sizable
chuck of their users and obviously they don't want to do that and the
irony is way too many users don't want a total new and completely
different OS either because they would have to dump a lot of their
current hardware and software. If they did that, unlikely they would
pick any Microsoft OS as their OS of first choice.




If you have that many programs that cause a UAC prompt you should have stuck
with XP until there were Vista compatible versions of them. I move files
around my network all the time and never see a UAC prompt because of moving
files. You may have to change your habits as to where you store your files
but simply moving files around doesn't cause a UAC prompt. You say no
version of Windows can be made secure. I'd extend that to say that no OS can
be made secure. The better ones at security all use some method to stop
normal users from changing system wide settings and changing system files.
I'll make another broad generalization and say that most Vista users who
have considerable experience with OS' than Windows leave UAC on. It's mostly
the long time Windows users and programmers who haven't used other OS' who
are whining the loudest about UAC.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


  #27 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 09:22 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Dustin Harper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,051
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

The only way to fully secure a PC is to unplug it from the network and
turn the power off. No OS is fully secure, even a read only CD based
install (something is running in RAM).

With Windows Vista, they increased the security. But, again, when I do
security it has to be as transparent to the end user as possible yet
being as secure as possible.

--
Dustin Harper

http://www.vistarip.com


Adam Albright wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:29:25 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
*a*m wrote:

If after the computer is setup you are constantly seeing UAC prompts you are
doing something wrong. I hardly ever see a UAC prompt.


That's way too broad a generalization. I'm hardly a casual user. I
went against typical "sage" advice and did a install in place as
opposed to a clean install because I got nearly 2 TB worth of stuff. A
nightmare to reinstall and reconfigure obviously. So I gambled (after
making so I had current backup) and it worked, ie no troubles
transferring applications, settings and data files from XP to Vista
with a couple minor hickups.

However once Vista was up and running it drove me crazy. Every couple
minutes it would pop up some moronic UAC window, gray my screen, nag,
nag, nag. If Windows did what it said, mirror my settings and in
effect save my system and only overlayed Vista then is already knows
or should know much of the stuff it keeps nagging about.

What's worse of course if if your move files around a lot, and I do,
it shouldn't nag, nag, nag, that in effect the user that has
administrative rights which has already done the same task repeatedly,
ie move files from Drive E Folder A, to Drive F Folder B needs again,
over and over Ad nauseam to get permission from his operating system,
click yes I want to do this time and time again until you are
literally ready to toss your monitor out the nearest window. That is
what I would call poor design and something no power user would ever
put up with for more than a few minutes which is why many people, even
MVP's turn UAC off.
While getting at financial information and identity theft is the goal of
some malware it is not the goal of most current malware. Most current
malware has the goal of extortion (e.g. spysherrif) or the goal of taking
control of your computer to use it as a zombie. The extortion malware is
very obvious when you get it. The trojans that take over your computer for
use as a zombie are not. The fact that many hundreds of thousands of
computers are available for sale as part of a botnet attests to the fact
that you cannot secure XP (or any OS) if you run as an administrator. I see
many computers that have up to date antivirus and antispyware software that
are compromised in this fashion. UAC (or running XP as a standard user)
would have stopped these infections. Turning off UAC may relieve some short
term pain but it won't cure the disease and may have the opposite effect of
helping to spread the disease.


I think a lot of people would call Windows the biggest and most
pervasive virus to ever infect a computer. giggle

I think most knowledgeable people if being totally honest would admit
no version of Windows is secure or can be made totally secure. So no
matter how much Windows gets "improved" it is really just patches on
top of previous patches.

The bottom line is Microsoft is stuck. It knows better then anybody
the real solution is to start over. From scratch. It won't and can't
really because to do that would blow the world's biggest installed
user base that demands that each new version of Windows be more or
less backward compatible with what hardware and software that ran on
earlier versions of Windows. The old catch 22.

Sure, I have no doubt if Microsoft really wanted to they could deliver
on a very robost Windows or something called something else. To do
that would mean they would have to be willing to give up a sizable
chuck of their users and obviously they don't want to do that and the
irony is way too many users don't want a total new and completely
different OS either because they would have to dump a lot of their
current hardware and software. If they did that, unlikely they would
pick any Microsoft OS as their OS of first choice.


  #28 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 10:14 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Paul Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,377
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
...

I'll make another broad generalization and say that most Vista users who
have considerable experience with OS' than Windows leave UAC on. It's
mostly the long time Windows users and programmers who haven't used other
OS' who are whining the loudest about UAC.


Good observation.

I've just started the update manager on Linux to download some patches, I
had to supply my password for it to start up. That's just normal.

Running with administrative rights is *bad*.

Sure UAC could do with a few improvements - the system should auto-allow any
prompts from say the Control Panel for x number of minutes once you've
accepted one already. I think that will solve most complaints.

It would also be nice to prompt when something makes a change instead of
when the app launches. Like you can open the Device Manager without being
prompted, and then if you chance something to be prompted. But that will
require a huge amount of work to be done to implement that.

But ultimately we have to let go of running everything with full rights to
the box. It's a bad habit, and its a shame so many developers are slow in
reacting.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*


  #29 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 11:14 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Adam Albright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,351
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:14:53 -0000, "Paul Smith"
wrote:

"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
.. .

I'll make another broad generalization and say that most Vista users who
have considerable experience with OS' than Windows leave UAC on. It's
mostly the long time Windows users and programmers who haven't used other
OS' who are whining the loudest about UAC.


Good observation.

I've just started the update manager on Linux to download some patches, I
had to supply my password for it to start up. That's just normal.

Running with administrative rights is *bad*.


If running with administrative rights is bad (agreed) then why in the
heck does Microsoft under Vista give all installer applications
Administrative rights?

Hint: That means any malicious code can pretend to be a "installer"
too and in effect gain access to anything on your computer including
Windows kernel or YOUR data. It doesn't make much sense to me. Wish
somebody would attempt to explain why UAC as presently configured is
such a great idea. I even see several MVP's saying they turned it off,
now if we could just get them to stop top posting. snicker


  #30 (permalink)  
Old February 24th 07, 11:40 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_passwords,microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management,microsoft.public.windows.vista.games,microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
Richard Urban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,520
Default UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

You had to supply your "root" password - the same as running Windows as
administrator.

All these people complaining, especially the e-zine columnists, have never
before worked with a secure operating system.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!



"Paul Smith" wrote in message
...
"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
...

I'll make another broad generalization and say that most Vista users who
have considerable experience with OS' than Windows leave UAC on. It's
mostly the long time Windows users and programmers who haven't used other
OS' who are whining the loudest about UAC.


Good observation.

I've just started the update manager on Linux to download some patches, I
had to supply my password for it to start up. That's just normal.

Running with administrative rights is *bad*.

Sure UAC could do with a few improvements - the system should auto-allow
any prompts from say the Control Panel for x number of minutes once you've
accepted one already. I think that will solve most complaints.

It would also be nice to prompt when something makes a change instead of
when the app launches. Like you can open the Device Manager without being
prompted, and then if you chance something to be prompted. But that will
require a huge amount of work to be done to implement that.

But ultimately we have to let go of running everything with full rights to
the box. It's a bad habit, and its a shame so many developers are slow in
reacting.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
Copyright ©2004-2024 Vista Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.