User Account Control

[Guest AlanP]

Currently when faced with loss of security or the UAC prompt I go for loss

of security.

 

I think UAC has some real merits if it could learn what a user of a PC wants

to do on a regular basis. I think everyone, except MVPs supporting the

Microsoft community, agree it's very annoying to have the interrupt on

running non Microsoft products. If UAC were modified to interrupt the first

time a specific user runs a program (direct or by association) and during

that interrupt ask for permission to switch the interrupt off for that

specific program version, then not so many of us would scrap (turn off

permanently) the UAC prompt.

AlanP

[Guest Dustin Harper]

Although UAC is annoying, and in my opinion not ready for prime time (as you

say, has potential if it knows what the user wants), it was able to stop all

the root kits from installing when these guys were testing anti-virus

products. So, it's not all a loss. I do think that UAC needs a lot of work

to be less intrusive, as well as be application specific and "learn" what is

good and what is not.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/arti...tests_find.html

 

--

 

Dustin Harper

dharper@vistarip.com

http://www.vistarip.com | Vista Resource & Information Page

 

Was this helpful? Then click the Ratings button. Voting helps the web

interface.

http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales/help/...teAPostAsAnswer

 

 

 

 

"AlanP" <alanpereira@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

news:%23uAWF9NwIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> Currently when faced with loss of security or the UAC prompt I go for loss

> of security.

>

> I think UAC has some real merits if it could learn what a user of a PC

> wants

> to do on a regular basis. I think everyone, except MVPs supporting the

> Microsoft community, agree it's very annoying to have the interrupt on

> running non Microsoft products. If UAC were modified to interrupt the

> first

> time a specific user runs a program (direct or by association) and during

> that interrupt ask for permission to switch the interrupt off for that

> specific program version, then not so many of us would scrap (turn off

> permanently) the UAC prompt.

> AlanP

> </span>

[Guest Bender]

A lot of older programs do not have to be run as administrator, however they

were written that way anyway. The programmer should have designed the

application in the first place to be able to run as a standard user.

UAC will help older programs to be updated to run under a standard user

because of complaints by users. Complain to the makers of your applications

so they do the right thing and release an update.

 

Its not because the application is not a Microsoft product, its because the

maker of the application didn't follow guidelines available years ago or do

not want to bother updating their applications to follow the guidelines on

security.

 

"AlanP" <alanpereira@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

news:#uAWF9NwIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> Currently when faced with loss of security or the UAC prompt I go for loss

> of security.

>

> I think UAC has some real merits if it could learn what a user of a PC

> wants

> to do on a regular basis. I think everyone, except MVPs supporting the

> Microsoft community, agree it's very annoying to have the interrupt on

> running non Microsoft products. If UAC were modified to interrupt the

> first

> time a specific user runs a program (direct or by association) and during

> that interrupt ask for permission to switch the interrupt off for that

> specific program version, then not so many of us would scrap (turn off

> permanently) the UAC prompt.

> AlanP

> </span>

[Guest AlanP]

Most of the non Microsoft programs written before Vista was launched have

this problem with UAC, the software world at large will not go back and

rewrite their programs to suit Vista, they will only do this when they

upgrade their own software. If people are happy with their existing programs

they will not pay for upgrades just to overcome UAC - hence my opening

remarks.

 

"Bender" <imnotgivingmynametoa@machine.net> wrote in message

news:uiWY0nXwIHA.5124@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

A lot of older programs do not have to be run as administrator, however they

were written that way anyway. The programmer should have designed the

application in the first place to be able to run as a standard user.

UAC will help older programs to be updated to run under a standard user

because of complaints by users. Complain to the makers of your applications

so they do the right thing and release an update.

 

Its not because the application is not a Microsoft product, its because the

maker of the application didn't follow guidelines available years ago or do

not want to bother updating their applications to follow the guidelines on

security.

 

"AlanP" <alanpereira@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

news:#uAWF9NwIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> Currently when faced with loss of security or the UAC prompt I go for loss

> of security.

>

> I think UAC has some real merits if it could learn what a user of a PC

> wants

> to do on a regular basis. I think everyone, except MVPs supporting the

> Microsoft community, agree it's very annoying to have the interrupt on

> running non Microsoft products. If UAC were modified to interrupt the

> first

> time a specific user runs a program (direct or by association) and during

> that interrupt ask for permission to switch the interrupt off for that

> specific program version, then not so many of us would scrap (turn off

> permanently) the UAC prompt.

> AlanP

> </span>