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
news:...
> 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
> news:8F96CCFA-A18E-44F7-A41C-...
>>
>> 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
>>> news:CC64E5E0-3D62-4752-A16B-...
>>> > 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
>>>
>>>
>