UAC popup

I have Windows Vista Home Premium as my OS.
I have a program that I use daily.
To get it to work correctly I had to check 'run as administrator'.
How do I now get the program to be a 'known' and 'trusted' program?

TIA.

Regards,
Sam Holbrook

Unless it was written for Vista, you can't without tutning UAC (The Nanny)
off.
MS wants to save you from yourself....

"Sam Holbrook" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have Windows Vista Home Premium as my OS.
> I have a program that I use daily.
> To get it to work correctly I had to check 'run as administrator'.
> How do I now get the program to be a 'known' and 'trusted' program?
>
> TIA.
>
> Regards,
> Sam Holbrook

"Sam Holbrook" <> wrote:

>I have Windows Vista Home Premium as my OS.
>I have a program that I use daily.
>To get it to work correctly I had to check 'run as administrator'.
>How do I now get the program to be a 'known' and 'trusted' program?

Try this and report back, please:

http://www.nortonlabs.com/inthelab/uac.php

Hi,

Contact the program distributor for a Vista-compatible version. This happens
because the program is not following the guidelines established for running
within the user environment instead of the system environment. It's trying
to write to a protected system folder during operation and this is not
allowed in a Vista system.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"Sam Holbrook" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have Windows Vista Home Premium as my OS.
> I have a program that I use daily.
> To get it to work correctly I had to check 'run as administrator'.
> How do I now get the program to be a 'known' and 'trusted' program?
>
> TIA.
>
> Regards,
> Sam Holbrook
>

What you have found flies in the face of the reality that others have found.

--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"mb group" <> wrote in message
news:499faecd$...
> Rick Rogers wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Contact the program distributor for a Vista-compatible version. This
>> happens because the program is not following the guidelines established
>> for running within the user environment instead of the system
>> environment. It's trying to write to a protected system folder during
>> operation and this is not allowed in a Vista system.
>>
>
> I have found just as many viruses and malware on vista as on XP systems...
>
> the method is simple, they put them inside files you think are legit
> and you click ok on UAC... and presto.
>
> But now MS has a way to blame it on the user... right?
>
> In fact Vista+malware is far slower than XP+Malware. Why? Well vista has
> to drag its big fat ass along with all the malware.. lol
>
> You say but why put malware into the equation?
>
> ANSWER: Greetings alien from a distant galaxy. Here on earth 99% of
> WINDOWS computers are infected by malware. So you have to put it into the
> equation!
>
> Sony was correct in calling windows an "outdated dinosaur" when Microsoft
> proposed to put it as the OS for the sony playstation!
>
>
>

I haven't found that Vista gets any more or less than XP, but Vista runs
like it has malware even when it doesn't.
The more I use Vista, the more I think it IS Malware...

"mb group" <> wrote in message
news:499faecd$...
> Rick Rogers wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Contact the program distributor for a Vista-compatible version. This
>> happens because the program is not following the guidelines established
>> for running within the user environment instead of the system
>> environment. It's trying to write to a protected system folder during
>> operation and this is not allowed in a Vista system.
>>
>
> I have found just as many viruses and malware on vista as on XP systems...
>
> the method is simple, they put them inside files you think are legit
> and you click ok on UAC... and presto.
>
> But now MS has a way to blame it on the user... right?
>
> In fact Vista+malware is far slower than XP+Malware. Why? Well vista has
> to drag its big fat ass along with all the malware.. lol
>
> You say but why put malware into the equation?
>
> ANSWER: Greetings alien from a distant galaxy. Here on earth 99% of
> WINDOWS computers are infected by malware. So you have to put it into the
> equation!
>
> Sony was correct in calling windows an "outdated dinosaur" when Microsoft
> proposed to put it as the OS for the sony playstation!
>
>
>

> I have found just as many viruses and malware on vista as on XP systems...

Yep, me too. Has nothing to do with this thread though.

> the method is simple, they put them inside files you think are legit
> and you click ok on UAC... and presto.

Same method as was used in every previous version of Windows, this is
nothing new.

> But now MS has a way to blame it on the user... right?

Why would you say that? The blame is still on the purveyors of malware. What
MS has done with UAC is give the user a fighting chance by making them aware
that something is trying to execute silently on their system. Prior to this,
the user had no chance at all with many infections. UAC isn't a perfect
solution by any means, it's not meant to be. It's really there to get
software makers to get out of the habit of writing to protected system
folders. By keeping to the user environment, damage is limited to the
account, not the entire system.

> In fact Vista+malware is far slower than XP+Malware. Why? Well vista has
> to drag its big fat ass along with all the malware.. lol

Sorry, but I'll disagree with you there. Vista on hardware made for it is
far smoother than XP was on the hardware available at its release time. XP
on today's hardware is faster than Vista due to less overhead, but lets
compare apples to apples, not oranges. If you want to use your analogy, then
we'd all be going at near the speed of light by loading Win98 on a modern
machine.

> You say but why put malware into the equation?

Because malware writers target that which will give them the most notoriety.
There's no kudos for infecting linux or mac users, you simply aren't
targeting enough users. Let one of them become the most-used OS and I do
believe you will see a shift in targets as well.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"mb group" <> wrote in message
news:499faecd$...
>
>
>

> Sorry, but I'll disagree with you there. Vista on hardware made for it is
> far smoother than XP was on the hardware available at its release time. XP
> on today's hardware is faster than Vista due to less overhead, but lets
> compare apples to apples, not oranges. If you want to use your analogy,
> then we'd all be going at near the speed of light by loading Win98 on a
> modern machine.

Sorry, I rarely disagree with you as you normally would only provide
solutions, but your analogy is incorrect.

You don't compare today's solution with those released in early days, which
will be like to compare today's cars with Ford's Model T and that makes
every car is great, which is not the case.

You should compare the newly released products with the one(s) that is
currently being used (with all improvements have been done), and in this
case, that will be the current state of Windows XP with hardware designed
for it. In other words, when one is going to purchase a new car, it is to
replace the one that is currently being used, not to replace Model T.

Also, if one compares the newest product with the old ones at its time, it
literally means that all those years of improvements and learning are
wasted.

That is what we call compare apples to apples.


"Rick Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:...
>> I have found just as many viruses and malware on vista as on XP
>> systems...
>
> Yep, me too. Has nothing to do with this thread though.
>
>> the method is simple, they put them inside files you think are legit
>> and you click ok on UAC... and presto.
>
> Same method as was used in every previous version of Windows, this is
> nothing new.
>
>> But now MS has a way to blame it on the user... right?
>
> Why would you say that? The blame is still on the purveyors of malware.
> What MS has done with UAC is give the user a fighting chance by making
> them aware that something is trying to execute silently on their system.
> Prior to this, the user had no chance at all with many infections. UAC
> isn't a perfect solution by any means, it's not meant to be. It's really
> there to get software makers to get out of the habit of writing to
> protected system folders. By keeping to the user environment, damage is
> limited to the account, not the entire system.
>
>> In fact Vista+malware is far slower than XP+Malware. Why? Well vista has
>> to drag its big fat ass along with all the malware.. lol
>
> Sorry, but I'll disagree with you there. Vista on hardware made for it is
> far smoother than XP was on the hardware available at its release time. XP
> on today's hardware is faster than Vista due to less overhead, but lets
> compare apples to apples, not oranges. If you want to use your analogy,
> then we'd all be going at near the speed of light by loading Win98 on a
> modern machine.
>
>> You say but why put malware into the equation?
>
> Because malware writers target that which will give them the most
> notoriety. There's no kudos for infecting linux or mac users, you simply
> aren't targeting enough users. Let one of them become the most-used OS and
> I do believe you will see a shift in targets as well.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
>
> "mb group" <> wrote in message
> news:499faecd$...
>>
>>
>>
>

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:43:29 -0500, "Rick Rogers" <>
wrote:

> UAC isn't a perfect
>solution by any means, it's not meant to be. It's really there to get
>software makers to get out of the habit of writing to protected system
>folders. By keeping to the user environment, damage is limited to the
>account, not the entire system.

UAC might be a useable solution if MS had made the other necessary
changes. Instead, they simply declared the whole directory structure
EXCEPT for specific USER folders off limits. They made no attempt to
correct the horribly deficient system structure they've allowed to
develop (one example: letting applications install files in SYSTEM
folders). In addition, they made no provision for accommodate programs
such as the one this user is having trouble with.

I'll let all the side effects of UAC ride for now. MS's strategy
isn't that bad, but their tactics are terrible.

>Sorry, but I'll disagree with you there. Vista on hardware made for it is
>far smoother than XP was on the hardware available at its release time. XP
>on today's hardware is faster than Vista due to less overhead, but lets
>compare apples to apples, not oranges. If you want to use your analogy, then
>we'd all be going at near the speed of light by loading Win98 on a modern
>machine.

See xfile's post first. That noted, your point is well taken, but from
the opposite direction. Why can't they give us Win2K's level of
performance with Vista? It's not like there are any major feature
improvements and in many ways it's a downgrade. The only things that
come to mind are the ability to handle CD/DVD's without added software
and VPN. Vista is a bloated pig.

Sam Holbrook wrote:
> I have Windows Vista Home Premium as my OS.
> I have a program that I use daily.
> To get it to work correctly I had to check 'run as administrator'.
> How do I now get the program to be a 'known' and 'trusted' program?
>

What program is it? How are you starting the program? Can the program be
placed in the Start-up folder and started without you manually starting it?