UAC/UAP hopes

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by deebs, Oct 6, 2006.

  1. deebs

    deebs Guest

    I think I can understand why limited user accounts in XP Pro may not
    have been popular.

    Recent experience with an all-in-on unit under XP Pro to scan something
    works swimmingly under admin login but under a limited user login the
    same task generates an error and report followed by a prompt closure
    with task not even started.

    I wonder how easy it will be under Vista to work around those sort of
    deebs, Oct 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. deebs

    Jimmy Brush Guest

    Microsoft has spent a lot of time trying to make the new security in vista
    work as well as possible with legacy and poorly written applications;
    however, this time around, security was put first and application
    compatability second. It is ultimately up to the application developers to
    change their ways.

    I suppose Microsoft had to make a decision ... users can either suffer from
    poor security and stability (and blame Microsoft) but have most applications
    work in order to appease application developers, or users can have better
    security and reliability but suffer from poorly written software (and
    probably still blame Microsoft but we all know this is the application
    developers fault).

    Unfortunately, both choices cause suffering... but I think MS made the
    correct decision.
    Jimmy Brush, Oct 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. deebs

    deebs Guest

    Agreed -
    deebs, Oct 6, 2006
  4. deebs

    deebs Guest

    As a late addition:

    i am surprised how many programs do not run under a limited user account in
    Windows XP.

    Given the time that XP has been around one would have expected providers to
    have met a good practice workflow of:
    - install from admin
    - run from limited user

    If one's own experience is anything to go by, and i am not saying it is, it
    seems the majprity of stuff available on XP is limited to running in admin
    deebs, Oct 10, 2006
  5. deebs

    Jimmy Brush Guest

    If one's own experience is anything to go by, and i am not saying it is,
    That's been my experience as well.

    A lot of programs simply expect the user to be admin - primarily because the
    "average user" has always been an admin. In XP it is more complicated to
    develop an application that works as a standard user. The result: Many
    programmers don't take the time to do it right. If it won't be a big deal to
    most of their customers, and it's harder to do right, they simply don't

    Now, the "average user" will always be a limited user, with the minority
    running as admin (disabled UAC).

    This will benefit everyone, even the users who turn off UAC, in the long
    run, as applications will finally be developed in accordance with
    Microsoft's guidelines, since they no longer have a choice if they want the
    "average user" to be able to use thier program.
    Jimmy Brush, Oct 10, 2006
  6. deebs

    Jimmy Brush Guest

    You are correct, this is a real pickle. It would be unsafe to move files
    from their virtualized locations to a new folder during the upgrade process
    (unless you replace them with symlinks or hardlinks), as there may be other
    applications relying on that location.

    Also, if the user has saved a file to a non-standard virtualized location,
    you have no way of finding them, unless your files have a unique extension
    or some other uniquely-identifiable information in them that you can scan
    Yes it does have some nice benefits, but as you have discovered, it is a
    real PITA in more ways than one in many circumstances :)
    Agreed. At best, this will save millions of people from the current
    generation of spywares. At worst, it will make it much easier to clean up.
    Jimmy Brush, Oct 11, 2006
  7. Hi Jimmy:

    I am a developer and I welcome the opportunity to modify my apps so they
    will run as non-admin. In my case, it will be extremely easy (I think)
    and I am mad at myself that I did not do this before.

    The problem comes if people install and run the old version of my apps
    on Vista. They actually will run pretty much correctly, but perhaps with
    virtualization of Program Files (depending on what the user does). If
    the user subsequently updates the program to the Vista-aware version (a
    free upgrade) then the virtualized Program Files can lead to complex
    problems. I know you can disable virtualization using a manifest, but
    then won't some of the user's files seem to disappear? To fix up an app
    whose former version has fallen prey to virtualization seems a
    non-trivial task.

    Personally I think this virtualization has more problems than benefits,
    especially for Program Files. On XP, if you do not have admin rights, an
    attempt to write to Program Files will be denied access. So the user
    will be forced to write somewhere else. Problem solved.

    Writing to the HKLM registry is more complex, because the program may
    just fail silently. But this is something applications REALLY shouldn't
    have been doing.

    David Wilkinson
    David Wilkinson, Oct 11, 2006
  8. deebs

    deebs Guest

    If things can only get better then that will be great for everyone
    deebs, Oct 11, 2006
    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.