Guest SG Posted April 12, 2008 Posted April 12, 2008 "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm serious," said Cross" http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._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/ Quote
Guest Susan Bradley Posted April 12, 2008 Posted April 12, 2008 SG wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm > serious," said Cross" > > http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._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.... > </span> 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. Quote
Guest SG Posted April 12, 2008 Posted April 12, 2008 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/ "Susan Bradley" <sbradcpa@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:uZgALbFnIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > SG wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm >> serious," said Cross" >> >> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._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.... >></span> > 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. </span> Quote
Guest Susan Bradley Posted April 12, 2008 Posted April 12, 2008 SG wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > 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. > </span> I'm a user and I complained to Intuit to make Quickbooks run without admin rights. Quote
Guest Jim Kay Posted April 12, 2008 Posted April 12, 2008 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!> "SG" <sorry@nomail.com> wrote in message news:eIpHibEnIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm > serious," said Cross" > > http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._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/ > </span> Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted April 12, 2008 Posted April 12, 2008 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. "SG" <sorry@nomail.com> wrote in message news:eIpHibEnIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm > serious," said Cross" > > http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._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/ > </span> Quote
Guest Allan Posted April 12, 2008 Posted April 12, 2008 "Jim Kay" <joschka@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message news:044124D9-0511-486F-89FA-50DB475BE6B5@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > 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!></span> 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 Quote
Guest Mikep Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 "Jim Kay" <joschka@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message news:044124D9-0511-486F-89FA-50DB475BE6B5@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > 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!></span> 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 <span style="color:blue"> > "SG" <sorry@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:eIpHibEnIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm >> serious," said Cross" >> >> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._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/ >></span> > </span> Quote
Guest Gary Mount Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 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. "Allan" <mu8ja0i@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:OFqy$fOnIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > > "Jim Kay" <joschka@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message > news:044124D9-0511-486F-89FA-50DB475BE6B5@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green"> >> 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!></span> > 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 </span> Quote
Guest Rojo Habe Posted April 25, 2008 Posted April 25, 2008 "Susan Bradley" <sbradcpa@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:eEm0DOGnIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >></span> > > I'm a user and I complained to Intuit to make Quickbooks run without admin > rights. ></span> 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. Quote
Guest DevilsPGD Posted April 27, 2008 Posted April 27, 2008 In message <BBD56A54-D01D-40FE-A99D-F811BA190083@microsoft.com> "Rojo Habe" <noem@ailaddress.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >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. </span> 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? Quote
Guest SG Posted April 27, 2008 Posted April 27, 2008 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/ "DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message news:g5t514dd6oohqhiavfi0kl5jh4qpccqrtk@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"> > In message <BBD56A54-D01D-40FE-A99D-F811BA190083@microsoft.com> "Rojo > Habe" <noem@ailaddress.com> wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >>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.</span> > > 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? </span> Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted April 27, 2008 Posted April 27, 2008 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. "DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message news:g5t514dd6oohqhiavfi0kl5jh4qpccqrtk@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"> > In message <BBD56A54-D01D-40FE-A99D-F811BA190083@microsoft.com> "Rojo > Habe" <noem@ailaddress.com> wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >>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.</span> > > 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? </span> Quote
Guest Rojo Habe Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 "FromTheRafters" <Erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message news:uCGIXUKqIHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > 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. ></span> 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. Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 "Rojo Habe" <noem@ailaddress.com> wrote in message news:43A4CD93-A310-4188-A423-F49593622C8D@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > "FromTheRafters" <Erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote in message > news:uCGIXUKqIHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> 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. >></span> > > 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.</span> style_emoticons/) <span style="color:blue"> > 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.</span> 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. <span style="color:blue"> > 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.</span> 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. <span style="color:blue"> > Oh, and if pushed, I could probably name loads of people who don't know > where the oil goes in their car.</span> It goes everywhere, even on your clothes - you can even smell it from a distance. style_emoticons/) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.