UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by SG, Apr 12, 2008.

  1. SG

    SG Guest

    "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm
    serious," said Cross"

    http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-feature-designed-to-annoy-users/2100-1016_3-6237191.html


    I've read this article several times and I'm still not sure what Cross means
    by forcing independent software vendors (ISVs) to make their code more
    secure. Is he saying by annoying user that we are to put pressure on these
    vendors?
    Opinions welcome....

    --
    All the best,
    SG

    Is your computer system ready for Vista?
    https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
     
    SG, Apr 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Fact. Quickbooks demanded admin rights.

    Fact. Vista by the very nature of how it's coded ensures that vendors
    like Intuit can't get away with that anymore.

    I never see UAC unless I am updating a piece of software.

    But QB 2007 and 2008 now support running without admin rights.
     
    Susan Bradley, Apr 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. SG

    SG Guest

    Hi Susan,

    Thanks for the reply.
    I'm well aware of UAC and the forcing of (ISVs) to comply, but I don't
    understand why Cross stated that how annoying users will force these (ISVs)
    to do so. What part does the users have to do with making vendors comply?.
    Maybe I'm just not reading this article correctly.

    --
    All the best,
    SG

    Is your computer system ready for Vista?
    https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
     
    SG, Apr 12, 2008
    #3
  4. I'm a user and I complained to Intuit to make Quickbooks run without
    admin rights.
     
    Susan Bradley, Apr 12, 2008
    #4
  5. SG

    Jim Kay Guest

    OTOH, as discussed in another thread (started by me) Microsoft is one of the
    vendors whose software (Visual-Studio 2005 and 2008) does not play correctly
    with UAC. In fact, in order to have Visual Studio installed on my Vista
    machine, I am FORCED to turn UAC off and LEAVE IT OFF! Even uninstalling
    Visual Studio does not fix the problems. Only a fresh install of Vista will
    fix it. <argh!>
     
    Jim Kay, Apr 12, 2008
    #5
  6. It is annoying when independent software vendors don't
    write their software with the "least privilege" concept.

    UAC just sort of pressures them to get in line with what
    is already a standard security measure. People will want
    software that works without the 'surprise' prompts. The
    vendors will want people to use their software.

    It's sort of a 'if you build it, they will come' mindset.
     
    FromTheRafters, Apr 12, 2008
    #6
  7. SG

    Allan Guest

    I am glad you mention this fact, so I will know not to install VC++ 2008 in
    case I get a Vista machine. I will have to keep an XP machine or just dump
    VC++ 2008 and stick to GCC. I guess you could cross-compile for Vista on an
    XP machine.
     
    Allan, Apr 12, 2008
    #7
  8. SG

    Mikep Guest

    Not sure what you mean - I'm running Visual Studio 2005 and 2008 on a vista
    box with no problems. With UAC on. I usually run them as administrator so I
    can attach to a service for debugging. Moving to sp1 didn't cause any
    difficulties either.

    M
     
    Mikep, Apr 13, 2008
    #8
  9. SG

    Gary Mount Guest

    I have installed Visual Studio 2008 a few times already and have not had any
    problems with it. I did not have to turn off UAC, and I never have turned it
    off. You do not have to read about one instance of a person having to turn
    UAC off and conclude that you should not touch Vistual Studio 2008.
     
    Gary Mount, Apr 13, 2008
    #9
  10. SG

    Rojo Habe Guest

    Well done, you!

    Most users, however, neither know or care what admin rights are. They just
    see this annoying box thing pop up and wonder why Microsoft chose to annoy
    them like that.

    Most people, in fact, won't even distinguish between Microsoft and other
    vendors. They just see that Vista (which includes all the software on the
    computer) is harder to use than XP was.

    The point SG is making is this: why slap the user round the head for
    something they are neither responsible for, nor reasonably expected to
    understand.
     
    Rojo Habe, Apr 25, 2008
    #10
  11. SG

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> "Rojo
    Yeah. Damn car, complaining it needs oil, it should just maintain
    itself.

    Why is it that users demand the ability to do whatever they want on a
    computer, but don't take responsibility when they do something stupid?
     
    DevilsPGD, Apr 27, 2008
    #11
  12. SG

    SG Guest

    Nothing we do wrong or stupid is our responsibility or at least the News
    Media, Lawyers or Psychologist have us believe :>)

    --
    All the best,
    SG

    Is your computer system ready for Vista?
    https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
     
    SG, Apr 27, 2008
    #12
  13. Complaining about a click or two is trivial when you consider how
    much effort it took to run a program in the olden days. Switches,
    patch cables, and shoeboxes of IBM keypunch cards. Now it's
    sooo easy to do - people complain about UAC prompts.
     
    FromTheRafters, Apr 27, 2008
    #13
  14. SG

    Rojo Habe Guest

    Yes, but back then you needed to know how to use a computer. Nowadays
    people get them for Christmas; we're all told how easy it is and how it's
    impossible to break them (yeah, right) and When XP was released it came
    complete with a Fischer Price visual style to encourage everybody that it
    really is easy.

    We have a whole new generation of computer users who've been brought up to
    treat them like consumer goods. Your TV set doesn't start asking you if
    you're REALLY sure you want to change channels.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily having a go at Vista. UAC doesn't
    actually bother me that much. It just seems a weird that they've attracted
    hordes of non-computer-savvy users and then put the onus on them to complain
    to software vendors when the Windows Logo requirements are breached.

    Oh, and if pushed, I could probably name loads of people who don't know
    where the oil goes in their car.
     
    Rojo Habe, May 2, 2008
    #14
  15. No, but it is generally acceptable to be asked if you really want to
    delete something after you pressed the delete button. Nobody said
    a word about how annoying it was - and deleting is not really as
    important a consideration as running foriegn code is.
    This paradigm has been looming on the horizon for years if not decades. The
    vendors should have been prepared for this - it is they who annoy the users
    by not writing 'least privilege' code in the first place. It was a good idea
    long
    before Vista made it more of a necessity.
    It goes everywhere, even on your clothes - you can even smell it from a
    distance. :eek:)
     
    FromTheRafters, May 2, 2008
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.