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

In article <>, Jimmy Brush wrote:

> UAC doesn't care if you "use soap" or not. It only cares that IF YOU DECIDE*
> to use soap, that YOU are the one wanting to use the soap, and not some*
> malicious program that is using soap without your knowledge.

I'd change your analogy slightly since what you write above is what is
infuriating especially when it also comes up when VISTA prompts you to do
something and then asks you if you want to. (I know it is still playing safe)

> UAC doesn't care if you "use soap" or not. It only cares that IF A DECISION
> IS TAKEN to use soap, that YOU are the one wanting to use the soap, and not
> some*malicious program that is using soap without your knowledge.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 03:56:36 -0400, "Jimmy Brush" <> wrote:


>Again, I disagree here, for the same reason that I mentioned earlier - when
>I am not expecting a UAC prompt to happen (I did not initiate an action), I
>notice it and stop it. When I do expect a UAC prompt to happen (I *did*
>initiate the action), then I allow it to happen much more quickly and
>easily.
>
>This is what UAC is designed to do - to ascertain whether I started an
>action or not. Nothing else. So, it works as expected, at least for me .
>
>> Vista should be smart enough to ONLY come up when something unexpected
>> happens.
>
>If Vista could do this, then there would be NO POINT of prompting at all.
>There would be no prompt.

>The very reason that the prompt exists is because this is not possible.
>
>The *only* thing the prompt does is determine whether you want something to
>happen or not. It doesn't care (or even know) what exactly you are doing, it
>is just making sure that you want it to happen.

Then you not only disagree with me, you also disagree with the two
principle Microsoft engineeers that wrote UAC. View their 64 minute
interview on channel 9 and Learn.

--
Thanks from C-Swampthing.


"JD Wohlever" wrote:

> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >

Have you tried TweakUAC. It suppresses the UAC prompts but leave the
underpinnings of the protection UAC provides intact.

"Swampthing" <> wrote in message
news:10D46609-FD32-4E08-95DE-...
>
> --
> Thanks from C-Swampthing.
>
>
> "JD Wohlever" wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >

Actually, UAC elevation is explicitly discouraged for Business and
Enterprise settings. Only home users should really be mixing up admin and
standard user tasks, with the majority of their daily work done as a
standard user. Businesses should have most of their users always running as
Standard Users and only have special admin accounts have admin rights.

Most of the pain of UAC goes away when applications are updated to work
correctly without demanding full admin rights (which they really do not need
99% of the time, and the 1% they do need can be done other ways). This is
obviously a long-term investment, but until UAC was on by default most
application writers would continue to ignore the inherent security risks and
not support the more secure mode (see Windows XP LUA). The Windows logo
programs are pushing vendors and applications to get updated, and over time
more of them will be. UAC elevation is still around to get old stuff to work
as needed.

There are things that can be done to the Windows shell experience to make
UAC easier, some of which were done in SP1, but mostly it's user habit and
lack of understanding that would cause a UAC elevation prompt to come up
"every 5 seconds". That's not to say teaching non-technical people technical
skills isn't difficult.

--
-Chuck Walbourn
SDE, XNA Developer Connection

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warrenties, and confers no rights.

Chuck Walbourn [MSFT] wrote:
> Actually, UAC elevation is explicitly discouraged for Business and
> Enterprise settings. Only home users should really be mixing up admin
> and standard user tasks, with the majority of their daily work done as a
> standard user. Businesses should have most of their users always running
> as Standard Users and only have special admin accounts have admin rights.
>
> Most of the pain of UAC goes away when applications are updated to work
> correctly without demanding full admin rights (which they really do not
> need 99% of the time, and the 1% they do need can be done other ways).
> This is obviously a long-term investment, but until UAC was on by
> default most application writers would continue to ignore the inherent
> security risks and not support the more secure mode (see Windows XP
> LUA). The Windows logo programs are pushing vendors and applications to
> get updated, and over time more of them will be. UAC elevation is still
> around to get old stuff to work as needed.
>
> There are things that can be done to the Windows shell experience to
> make UAC easier, some of which were done in SP1, but mostly it's user
> habit and lack of understanding that would cause a UAC elevation prompt
> to come up "every 5 seconds". That's not to say teaching non-technical
> people technical skills isn't difficult.
>
My sentiments exactly. However there are still some
applications that require admin rights to register, winamp
and some burn stack software, ms office, publishers. These
then will work fine after the registration process on a
standard account.
Winamp, in addition , needs to sign the program modules, so
the nag about unsigned software will vanish.


--
Visit Family Radio Today
http://www.familyradio.com/

>>>Have you tried TweakUAC. It suppresses the UAC prompts but leave the
underpinnings of the protection UAC provides intact.<<<

David,

TweakUAC is misleading and your reply isn't exactly true.
It's best described by Ronnie Vernon MS-MVP and wish I had written this :>)

Quote:
This is a fallacy! If UAC cannot notify the user that a program is trying to
gain global access to the system, then it is effectively 'disabled'. This so
called 'quite mode' setting just changes a UAC registry setting to
'automatically elevate everything without prompting'. This means that when
you click to open a file, it is 'assumed' that you already know that the
file will have unrestricted access to your computer.

The main thing that UAC does is to detect when a program or application
tries to access restricted parts of the system or registry that requires
administrator privileges. When a program does this, UAC will prompt the user
for administrative elevation. Without this prompt, UAC cannot warn the user,
which means that it is effectively disabled.

Some people will tell you that using "quiet mode" will still let IE run in
protected mode, but this just isn't true. Without the UAC prompt, a
malicious file that runs from a website can run, without restrictions, and
silently.

Another issue is that with UAC prompt disabled, some legitimate procedures
will just silently fail to work properly, with no notification, if you are
logged on with a Standard User account, since the application cannot notify
you that administrative privileges are required.

Even the developer of the TweakUAC utility includes this statement about his
product.
"if you are an experienced user and have some understanding of how to manage
your Windows settings properly, you can safely use the quiet mode of UAC."
In my opinion, if you are an experienced user, the last thing you would want
to do is turn off the UAC notification.

If you 'are' an experienced user, then you would already know how to
temporarily bypass the UAC prompt to perform just about any procedure in
Vista, such as running programs from an elevated command prompt, or using an
elevated instance of windows explorer.

The last problem I have with this so-called 'quiet mode' is that it
dissuades developers from programming their applications to run in a least
user privilege environment.
End Quote

--
All the best,
SG

Is your computer system ready for Vista?
https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/

"David P." <> wrote in message
news:enmsl%...
> Have you tried TweakUAC. It suppresses the UAC prompts but leave the
> underpinnings of the protection UAC provides intact.
>
> "Swampthing" <> wrote in message
> news:10D46609-FD32-4E08-95DE-...
>>
>> --
>> Thanks from C-Swampthing.
>>
SNIPPED

Thanks for taking the time to post this! I will take it under advisement.

"SG" <> wrote in message
news:#...
>>>>Have you tried TweakUAC. It suppresses the UAC prompts but leave the
> underpinnings of the protection UAC provides intact.<<<
>
> David,
>
> TweakUAC is misleading and your reply isn't exactly true.
> It's best described by Ronnie Vernon MS-MVP and wish I had written this
> :>)
>
> Quote:
> This is a fallacy! If UAC cannot notify the user that a program is trying
> to
> gain global access to the system, then it is effectively 'disabled'. This
> so
> called 'quite mode' setting just changes a UAC registry setting to
> 'automatically elevate everything without prompting'. This means that when
> you click to open a file, it is 'assumed' that you already know that the
> file will have unrestricted access to your computer.
>
> The main thing that UAC does is to detect when a program or application
> tries to access restricted parts of the system or registry that requires
> administrator privileges. When a program does this, UAC will prompt the
> user
> for administrative elevation. Without this prompt, UAC cannot warn the
> user,
> which means that it is effectively disabled.
>
> Some people will tell you that using "quiet mode" will still let IE run in
> protected mode, but this just isn't true. Without the UAC prompt, a
> malicious file that runs from a website can run, without restrictions, and
> silently.
>
> Another issue is that with UAC prompt disabled, some legitimate procedures
> will just silently fail to work properly, with no notification, if you are
> logged on with a Standard User account, since the application cannot
> notify
> you that administrative privileges are required.
>
> Even the developer of the TweakUAC utility includes this statement about
> his
> product.
> "if you are an experienced user and have some understanding of how to
> manage
> your Windows settings properly, you can safely use the quiet mode of UAC."
> In my opinion, if you are an experienced user, the last thing you would
> want
> to do is turn off the UAC notification.
>
> If you 'are' an experienced user, then you would already know how to
> temporarily bypass the UAC prompt to perform just about any procedure in
> Vista, such as running programs from an elevated command prompt, or using
> an
> elevated instance of windows explorer.
>
> The last problem I have with this so-called 'quiet mode' is that it
> dissuades developers from programming their applications to run in a least
> user privilege environment.
> End Quote
>
> --
> All the best,
> SG
>
> Is your computer system ready for Vista?
> https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
>
> "David P." <> wrote in message
> news:enmsl%...
>> Have you tried TweakUAC. It suppresses the UAC prompts but leave the
>> underpinnings of the protection UAC provides intact.
>>
>> "Swampthing" <> wrote in message
>> news:10D46609-FD32-4E08-95DE-...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks from C-Swampthing.
>>>
> SNIPPED

Althoug mentioned in SG's post - for "home users" the most important feature
of UAC is IE7 "Protected Mode" (Indicated lower right corner when active).

When downloading any item from the Internet which may affect system or
registry files, proteced mode creates "virtual systen and registry"
locations to first evaluate actions of downloaded items - if UAC consider
them safe then it provides access to the "real" system file locations.



"SG" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>>>>Have you tried TweakUAC. It suppresses the UAC prompts but leave the
> underpinnings of the protection UAC provides intact.<<<
>
> David,
>
> TweakUAC is misleading and your reply isn't exactly true.
> It's best described by Ronnie Vernon MS-MVP and wish I had written this
> :>)
>
> Quote:
> This is a fallacy! If UAC cannot notify the user that a program is trying
> to
> gain global access to the system, then it is effectively 'disabled'. This
> so
> called 'quite mode' setting just changes a UAC registry setting to
> 'automatically elevate everything without prompting'. This means that when
> you click to open a file, it is 'assumed' that you already know that the
> file will have unrestricted access to your computer.
>
> The main thing that UAC does is to detect when a program or application
> tries to access restricted parts of the system or registry that requires
> administrator privileges. When a program does this, UAC will prompt the
> user
> for administrative elevation. Without this prompt, UAC cannot warn the
> user,
> which means that it is effectively disabled.
>
> Some people will tell you that using "quiet mode" will still let IE run in
> protected mode, but this just isn't true. Without the UAC prompt, a
> malicious file that runs from a website can run, without restrictions, and
> silently.
>
> Another issue is that with UAC prompt disabled, some legitimate procedures
> will just silently fail to work properly, with no notification, if you are
> logged on with a Standard User account, since the application cannot
> notify
> you that administrative privileges are required.
>
> Even the developer of the TweakUAC utility includes this statement about
> his
> product.
> "if you are an experienced user and have some understanding of how to
> manage
> your Windows settings properly, you can safely use the quiet mode of UAC."
> In my opinion, if you are an experienced user, the last thing you would
> want
> to do is turn off the UAC notification.
>
> If you 'are' an experienced user, then you would already know how to
> temporarily bypass the UAC prompt to perform just about any procedure in
> Vista, such as running programs from an elevated command prompt, or using
> an
> elevated instance of windows explorer.
>
> The last problem I have with this so-called 'quiet mode' is that it
> dissuades developers from programming their applications to run in a least
> user privilege environment.
> End Quote
>
> --
> All the best,
> SG
>
> Is your computer system ready for Vista?
> https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
>
> "David P." <> wrote in message
> news:enmsl%...
>> Have you tried TweakUAC. It suppresses the UAC prompts but leave the
>> underpinnings of the protection UAC provides intact.
>>
>> "Swampthing" <> wrote in message
>> news:10D46609-FD32-4E08-95DE-...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks from C-Swampthing.
>>>
> SNIPPED

=?Utf-8?B?U3dhbXB0aGluZw==?= <> wrote
in news:10D46609-FD32-4E08-95DE-:

>

I tell everyone that buys a Windows Vista PC that when they get the UAC
prompt that's because something is about to happen that's going to change
your system. If you are installing a program then hit Continue, but if it
comes up and you're not sure, err on the side of caution and hit cancel.

I think UAC is a huge help, espically for home users, but that's just my
opinion.

--
-A.