Guest Mark H Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Your assumption is that Vista is the dominant, or only OS out there. It is not. There is no reason to be Vista compliant if the majority of users are still on XP or 2K. As a result, a larger portion of the less branded software, and company specific software, is still written to other standards. I don't really care if they are, or are not, Vista compliant. I test what the consumer's experience will be when installing, using and removing a product. What issues or distracters arise from the various platform specifics. On that basis, UAC may work to prevent alteration of Vista, but it is an unnecessary burden to the consumer based on the response of the other operating systems ability to install, operate and remove the same products. The typical home consumer (Note: This is not an employee workstation viewpoint.) either lives with the prompts by duly ignoring them to install the garbage they are sure they want, or they restrict themselves to Vista-compliant software, thereby promoting the idea of UAC as a viable tool. There was life before UAC and it worked just fine for the home user. You have a different perspective as a member of the IT community supporting protected networks with standardized software installations. I appreciate that, but it is not a home consumer's view. The typical consumer wants a computer that operates without nagging them. They don't understand the difference between "super-admin", "limited-admin" and standard user accounts. And, they just click Continue when prompted three times to install the garbage they are sure they want to install. They paid for it and expect that it will work. All those prompts lead the consumer to believe their product is riddled with problems and that is seldom the case. After only a couple of these experiences, they come to believe it's a problem with Vista they will just have to live with and learn to just click Continue. But, don't worry about it. It will all be better when everyone shifts to Windows 7. Why would MS be altering the user's ability to profoundly change the UAC experience if the prompt's were not an issue and "everyone" was going to Vista-compliant software? Yes, the consumer needs to be better educated on the importance of UAC. But, that is not going to happen. As the older OS's die out, UAC will finally go quiet and work as it should: unnoticed, without modification. "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message news:O%23e4SzBlJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message >> news:ufyvTt9kJHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> >>> They are NOT false positive responses. Whatever you are trying to do >>> requires escalated privileges to use the user-admin account's full- >>> rights access token to perform the task or allow a program to run that >>> needs full-admin-rights to execute, with UAC enabled.</span> >> >> Another possibility is that the developers might not be using the least >> privileges that their software needs and instead required Administrator >> privileges.</span> > > Then it's not Vista compliant software. And mostly, what is requiring > admin rights to run is old legacy COM solutions. > > http://www.developer.com/net/net/article.php/3695651 > > One of the requirements of Vista compliant software is that it only needs > Standard user rights to execute. </span> Quote
Guest Jack the Ripper Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Mark H wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > Your assumption is that Vista is the dominant, or only OS out there. It > is not. There is no reason to be Vista compliant if the majority of > users are still on XP or 2K. As a result, a larger portion of the less > branded software, and company specific software, is still written to > other standards.</span> Well, your assumption of my assumption is wrong. MS had given software vendors plenty of notification that they were going have to come into compliance on the MS O/S platform and their software with Vista. It was not going to business as usual on Vista, like it was on the previous versions of the open by default NT based O/S(s), which they didn't even follow the MS standards for developing software for those O/S(s). <span style="color:blue"> > > I don't really care if they are, or are not, Vista compliant. I test > what the consumer's experience will be when installing, using and > removing a product. What issues or distracters arise from the various > platform specifics. On that basis, UAC may work to prevent alteration of > Vista, but it is an unnecessary burden to the consumer based on the > response of the other operating systems ability to install, operate and > remove the same products.</span> That's the 3rd party software vendor's fault, and their in ability to comply. Some 3rd party software vendors have complied and more are complying as they have to develop solutions for the Vista and Win-7 O/S(s), as there is no turning back the clock. <span style="color:blue"> > > The typical home consumer (Note: This is not an employee workstation > viewpoint.) either lives with the prompts by duly ignoring them to > install the garbage they are sure they want, or they restrict themselves > to Vista-compliant software, thereby promoting the idea of UAC as a > viable tool. There was life before UAC and it worked just fine for the > home user.</span> And before Vista and UAC, those users were getting hammered and are being hammered by malware as they run with full-admin-rights 100% of the time, and any malware running under the context of those rights have full access to every aspect of the O/S and everything else running with the O/S, because they are open by default O/S(s). That's not so with Vista and UAC enabled, because UAC midigates/limits the damage, even if they point, click and install it, which is due to admin-user on Vista with UAC enabled is returned to using that Standard-user access token once the privileged escalation has been completed. And yet, when those same users are moving over to Linux, they are forced to deal with the same type of setup and learn how to use the O/S, one doesn't hear a peep out of them about the approval process to escalate rights to root-admin. <span style="color:blue"> > > You have a different perspective as a member of the IT community > supporting protected networks with standardized software installations. > I appreciate that, but it is not a home consumer's view. The typical > consumer wants a computer that operates without nagging them. </span> What the home consumer wants is a protected O/S that is not so easily attackable. What MS wants is that not every home user computer being used by the home user can be easily turned into a bot machine that leads to that machine attacking other machines on the Internet and on the LAN. <span style="color:blue"> > They don't > understand the difference between "super-admin", "limited-admin" and > standard user accounts. And, they just click Continue when prompted > three times to install the garbage they are sure they want to install. </span> Well, they had better figure out whats going on, because ignorance is not bliss. <span style="color:blue"> > They paid for it and expect that it will work. All those prompts lead > the consumer to believe their product is riddled with problems and that > is seldom the case. After only a couple of these experiences, they come > to believe it's a problem with Vista they will just have to live with > and learn to just click Continue.</span> Well, I guess you have heard about UAC on Win-7 where the verbosity of UAC can be controlled by the user. It's not going to happen on Vista, so if anyone goes to Vista, they either run with UAC or they run with it off, opening the machine to be attacked more easily. <span style="color:blue"> > > But, don't worry about it. It will all be better when everyone shifts to > Windows 7. Why would MS be altering the user's ability to profoundly > change the UAC experience if the prompt's were not an issue and > "everyone" was going to Vista-compliant software? Yes, the consumer > needs to be better educated on the importance of UAC. But, that is not > going to happen. As the older OS's die out, UAC will finally go quiet > and work as it should: unnoticed, without modification.</span> Tell me something that I don't know. And UAC on Win-7 on mya machine will be on high verbosity. I'll still be using Vista even when I get a machine running Win-7. What I won't be doing is ever going backwards to any of the previous wide-open-to-attack versions on the NT based O/S for the workstation platforms. And that same compliance for software vendors to make the software Win-7 compliant is just a carry-over from Vista, nothing has changed in that regard. Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message news:ufyvTt9kJHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... <span style="color:blue"> > As far as your testing, you do know about the hidden-full-admin-rights > at all times admin account? You can use that account to test with, > leave UAC enabled, and you will not get any UAC prompts, because it's > already escalated to full-admin-rights. And yes, it's that same > account that's on the previous versions of the NT based O/S(s).</span> If you use that account, would a launch of IE make use of "protected mode"? Just wondering... Quote
Guest Jack the Ripper Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 FromTheRafters wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message > news:ufyvTt9kJHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > <span style="color:green"> >> As far as your testing, you do know about the hidden-full-admin-rights >> at all times admin account? You can use that account to test with, >> leave UAC enabled, and you will not get any UAC prompts, because it's >> already escalated to full-admin-rights. And yes, it's that same >> account that's on the previous versions of the NT based O/S(s).</span> > > If you use that account, would a launch of IE make use of "protected > mode"? > > Just wondering... > </span> Yes, I just tried it, and yes Protected mode is enabled. I also have found out that with UAC enabled, you still get prompted. That's what was said at a blog I read that UAC wouldn't prompt super-admin with UAC enabled. It seems that is not the case. However, in communications with another developer about making registry changes during software installation on Vista, he told me that with UAC enabled using the non-super-admin account for administration, the install was successful with UAC escalated privileges. However, with UAC disabled and using the same admin-account, the install blew because the registry changes couldn't be made. So, I guess that is where super-admin would be applied, with UAC disabled. You know, MS is closing things down with IE7 protect mode, ASLR and other type of solutions, but most people only look at UI eye-candy and what's happening in their face. <http://www.securitypronews.com/news/securitynews/spn-45-20060601ASLRJoinsVistasBagOfTricks.html> I myself, I am pleased with the implementation of closing Vista down O/S security wise, which will carry over to Win-7, just get rid of virtulization as that seems to be too locked-down. Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message news:umVsjEIlJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > FromTheRafters wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message >> news:ufyvTt9kJHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> As far as your testing, you do know about the >>> hidden-full-admin-rights at all times admin account? You can use >>> that account to test with, leave UAC enabled, and you will not get >>> any UAC prompts, because it's already escalated to >>> full-admin-rights. And yes, it's that same account that's on the >>> previous versions of the NT based O/S(s).</span> >> >> If you use that account, would a launch of IE make use of "protected >> mode"? >> >> Just wondering...</span> > > Yes, I just tried it, and yes Protected mode is enabled. I also have > found out that with UAC enabled, you still get prompted. That's what > was said at a blog I read that UAC wouldn't prompt super-admin with > UAC enabled. It seems that is not the case.</span> Funny, they say that running IE "elevated" defeats protected mode IE. They also say that Administrator doesn't have a split token and so can't invoke UAC. Sometimes I wonder if they even know how the final release works. style_emoticons/) For people that want the closest equivalent to XP's admin, maybe using "Administrator" and UAC off is the answer. <span style="color:blue"> > However, in communications with another developer about making > registry changes during software installation on Vista, he told me > that with UAC enabled using the non-super-admin account for > administration, the install was successful with UAC escalated > privileges. > > However, with UAC disabled and using the same admin-account, the > install blew because the registry changes couldn't be made. So, I > guess that is where super-admin would be applied, with UAC disabled.</span> Probably, sort of the point I was trying to get to - UAC and MIC are involved, and what you call 'super admin' may still be restricted by MIC unless you turn UAC (or at least MIC) off. <span style="color:blue"> > You know, MS is closing things down with IE7 protect mode, ASLR and > other type of solutions, but most people only look at UI eye-candy and > what's happening in their face.</span> Yeah, it's like evolution driven by "fitness factor" natural selection is being overridden by social (sexual) artificial selection. Sure it's insecure, but I really like the new skins. Peacock feathers - disadvantageous as far as predation goes, but the peahens like them so.... <span style="color:blue"> > <http://www.securitypronews.com/news/securitynews/spn-45-20060601ASLRJoinsVistasBagOfTricks.html></span> I'll have a look - thanks. <span style="color:blue"> > I myself, I am pleased with the implementation of closing Vista down > O/S security wise, which will carry over to Win-7, just get rid of > virtulization as that seems to be too locked-down.</span> Indeed, another thing a read somewhere is that the next (Windows 7?) OS will not 'virtualize' to support legacy programs. So it will be even less forgiving about poorly written (or non Vista standards compliant) programs. ....maybe that's wrong too. Quote
Guest Sam Hobbs Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message news:O%23e4SzBlJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message >> news:ufyvTt9kJHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> >>> They are NOT false positive responses. Whatever you are trying to do >>> requires escalated privileges to use the user-admin account's full- >>> rights access token to perform the task or allow a program to run that >>> needs full-admin-rights to execute, with UAC enabled.</span> >> >> Another possibility is that the developers might not be using the least >> privileges that their software needs and instead required Administrator >> privileges.</span> > > Then it's not Vista compliant software. And mostly, what is requiring > admin rights to run is old legacy COM solutions. > > http://www.developer.com/net/net/article.php/3695651 > > One of the requirements of Vista compliant software is that it only needs > Standard user rights to execute.</span> Where does the article say that? What if a COM object truly does need Administrator privileges, your statement is saying that it cannot be done in a COM object. That article even says "There will still be circumstances when an application needs administrative privileges to carry out certain processes, especially if the application is written for administrator use.". Quote
Guest Jack the Ripper Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message > news:O%23e4SzBlJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:darkred"> >>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message >>> news:ufyvTt9kJHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>> >>>> They are NOT false positive responses. Whatever you are trying to do >>>> requires escalated privileges to use the user-admin account's full- >>>> rights access token to perform the task or allow a program to run >>>> that needs full-admin-rights to execute, with UAC enabled. >>> >>> Another possibility is that the developers might not be using the >>> least privileges that their software needs and instead required >>> Administrator privileges.</span> >> >> Then it's not Vista compliant software. And mostly, what is requiring >> admin rights to run is old legacy COM solutions. >> >> http://www.developer.com/net/net/article.php/3695651 >> >> One of the requirements of Vista compliant software is that it only >> needs Standard user rights to execute.</span> > > Where does the article say that? What if a COM object truly does need > Administrator privileges, your statement is saying that it cannot be > done in a COM object. That article even says "There will still be > circumstances when an application needs administrative privileges to > carry out certain processes, especially if the application is written > for administrator use.".</span> I did not say that it cannot be done with a COM object. I am saying that in order for the COM legacy solution application to execute, a COM object execution is on a given process/thread and it may need privileged escalation to execute. Even a .NET solution may need its rights escalated if the solution is doing administrative tasks, like making registry changes as an example. But the bottom line is to make the application run with only requiring Standard user rights or least privilege, which most software developers bluntly disregard and everything runs with full-admin-rights when 9 times out of 10 it is not required. But that was also due to Limited account rights on XP solutions not being able to run properly, so it became full-rights execution for just about everything written on the XP platform. For Vista and Win-7, if it calls for the application to be leveraged to use Standard user rights only on a rewrite of code, then so be it. One thing that is happening is more and more code for the MS platform are being written in .NET, which is managed code using the CLI/CLR. And they are looking at code intent to prevent things if hostile or dubious intent is determined with in the code, before it is executed and stop the execution. However, that can be circumvented by a COM object code being called in the solution that is not manageable by the CLI/CLR. And therefore, the push is being made to eliminate/eradicate COM off the MS O/S platform. Of course, not everyone will be going to .NET, and if it's not broke them don't fix it, legacy COM solutions. <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb530410.aspx> <copied> How Do I Determine If My Application Has Administrative Dependencies? To assist developers, ISVs, and organizations in evaluating their applications, Microsoft provides the Microsoft Standard User Analyzer. The Standard User Analyzer can be used to help identity non-UAC–compliant behavior of an application. Microsoft recommends that developers run this tool to identify issues with running the application under a standard user account. These tests should be performed, even if the application already installs and runs properly under a standard user account on Windows XP. The application may perform operations, such as attempting to write to system registry locations, and make decisions based on the system's behavior, such as looking for an error response. Windows Vista may behave differently than earlier versions of the Windows operating system due to the addition of new application compatibility support. Therefore, it is recommended that all applications be tested with the new version of the Standard User Analyzer. The Standard User Analyzer will record all administrative operations encountered by an application, including registry/file system access and elevated API calls. This data is stored in a log file and is displayed within the tool. The Standard User Analyzer identifies the following common dependencies, in addition to many others: <copied> Quote
Guest Gordon Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 "Mark H" <jmhonzell@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message news:7A61EC36-A034-4BD5-96DE-B72A35E531DB@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > Your assumption is that Vista is the dominant, or only OS out there. It is > not. There is no reason to be Vista compliant if the majority of users are > still on XP or 2K. As a result, a larger portion of the less branded > software, and company specific software, is still written to other > standards.</span> Yes - the "standard" which REQUIRES users to run as Admin - that's no standard at all and is the result of lazy and incompetent programming by the software developers. -- Asking a question? Please tell us the version of the application you are asking about, your OS, Service Pack level and the FULL contents of any error message(s) Quote
Guest Mark H Posted February 23, 2009 Posted February 23, 2009 So we go from garbage, to stinking garbage: http://nudel.kelbv.com/W7E_VID_INT/W7E_VID_INT.htm Doesn't stop a thing. Programmers still ignore the standard. Consumers pay the price. "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message news:uxhLWDGlJHA.4404@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > Mark H wrote:<span style="color:green"> > > Your assumption is that Vista is the dominant, or only OS out there. It > > is not. There is no reason to be Vista compliant if the majority of > > users are still on XP or 2K. As a result, a larger portion of the less > > branded software, and company specific software, is still written to > > other standards.</span> > > Well, your assumption of my assumption is wrong. MS had given software > vendors plenty of notification that they were going have to come into > compliance on the MS O/S platform and their software with Vista. It was > not going to business as usual on Vista, like it was on the previous > versions of the open by default NT based O/S(s), which they didn't even > follow the MS standards for developing software for those O/S(s). ><span style="color:green"> > > > > I don't really care if they are, or are not, Vista compliant. I test > > what the consumer's experience will be when installing, using and > > removing a product. What issues or distracters arise from the various > > platform specifics. On that basis, UAC may work to prevent alteration of > > Vista, but it is an unnecessary burden to the consumer based on the > > response of the other operating systems ability to install, operate and > > remove the same products.</span> > > That's the 3rd party software vendor's fault, and their in ability to > comply. Some 3rd party software vendors have complied and more are > complying as they have to develop solutions for the Vista and Win-7 > O/S(s), as there is no turning back the clock. ><span style="color:green"> > > > > The typical home consumer (Note: This is not an employee workstation > > viewpoint.) either lives with the prompts by duly ignoring them to > > install the garbage they are sure they want, or they restrict themselves > > to Vista-compliant software, thereby promoting the idea of UAC as a > > viable tool. There was life before UAC and it worked just fine for the > > home user.</span> > > And before Vista and UAC, those users were getting hammered and are > being hammered by malware as they run with full-admin-rights 100% of the > time, and any malware running under the context of those rights have > full access to every aspect of the O/S and everything else running with > the O/S, because they are open by default O/S(s). That's not so with > Vista and UAC enabled, because UAC midigates/limits the damage, even if > they point, click and install it, which is due to admin-user on Vista > with UAC enabled is returned to using that Standard-user access token > once the privileged escalation has been completed. > > And yet, when those same users are moving over to Linux, they are > forced to deal with the same type of setup and learn how to use the O/S, > one doesn't hear a peep out of them about the approval process to > escalate rights to root-admin. ><span style="color:green"> > > > > You have a different perspective as a member of the IT community > > supporting protected networks with standardized software installations. > > I appreciate that, but it is not a home consumer's view. The typical > > consumer wants a computer that operates without nagging them.</span> > > What the home consumer wants is a protected O/S that is not so easily > attackable. What MS wants is that not every home user computer being > used by the home user can be easily turned into a bot machine that leads > to that machine attacking other machines on the Internet and on the LAN. ><span style="color:green"> > > They don't > > understand the difference between "super-admin", "limited-admin" and > > standard user accounts. And, they just click Continue when prompted > > three times to install the garbage they are sure they want to install.</span> > > Well, they had better figure out whats going on, because ignorance is > not bliss. ><span style="color:green"> > > They paid for it and expect that it will work. All those prompts lead > > the consumer to believe their product is riddled with problems and that > > is seldom the case. After only a couple of these experiences, they come > > to believe it's a problem with Vista they will just have to live with > > and learn to just click Continue.</span> > > Well, I guess you have heard about UAC on Win-7 where the verbosity of > UAC can be controlled by the user. It's not going to happen on Vista, so > if anyone goes to Vista, they either run with UAC or they run with it > off, opening the machine to be attacked more easily. ><span style="color:green"> > > > > But, don't worry about it. It will all be better when everyone shifts to > > Windows 7. Why would MS be altering the user's ability to profoundly > > change the UAC experience if the prompt's were not an issue and > > "everyone" was going to Vista-compliant software? Yes, the consumer > > needs to be better educated on the importance of UAC. But, that is not > > going to happen. As the older OS's die out, UAC will finally go quiet > > and work as it should: unnoticed, without modification.</span> > > Tell me something that I don't know. And UAC on Win-7 on mya machine > will be on high verbosity. I'll still be using Vista even when I get a > machine running Win-7. What I won't be doing is ever going backwards to > any of the previous wide-open-to-attack versions on the NT based O/S > for the workstation platforms. > > And that same compliance for software vendors to make the software Win-7 > compliant is just a carry-over from Vista, nothing has changed in that > regard. ></span> Quote
Guest Jack the Ripper Posted February 23, 2009 Posted February 23, 2009 Mark H wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > So we go from garbage, to stinking garbage: > http://nudel.kelbv.com/W7E_VID_INT/W7E_VID_INT.htm > > Doesn't stop a thing. Programmers still ignore the standard. Consumers pay > the price.</span> I don't have respect for a person that's always in whine mode. Quote
Guest Mark H Posted February 23, 2009 Posted February 23, 2009 Nor for those always right when they only understand the view from their own throne. "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message news:OJhBy6elJHA.4252@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > Mark H wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> So we go from garbage, to stinking garbage: >> http://nudel.kelbv.com/W7E_VID_INT/W7E_VID_INT.htm >> >> Doesn't stop a thing. Programmers still ignore the standard. Consumers >> pay >> the price.</span> > > I don't have respect for a person that's always in whine mode. </span> Quote
Guest Jack the Ripper Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 Mark H wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > Nor for those always right when they only understand the view from their > own throne.</span> You had better take a look at yourself on the pot. <span style="color:blue"> > > "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message > news:OJhBy6elJHA.4252@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> Mark H wrote:<span style="color:darkred"> >>> So we go from garbage, to stinking garbage: >>> http://nudel.kelbv.com/W7E_VID_INT/W7E_VID_INT.htm >>> >>> Doesn't stop a thing. Programmers still ignore the standard. >>> Consumers pay >>> the price.</span> >> >> I don't have respect for a person that's always in whine mode. </span> > </span> Quote
Guest Paul Smith Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Instead of simply turning UAC off like so many have recommended, I'd suggest leaving it on, but have it auto-elevate whenever you get a prompt you can do this by going to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System and changing ConsentPromptBehaviorAdmin to 0 (the default is 2). You can also perform this by using secpol.msc if you're using Business or Ultimate (I don't believe its present in Home Basic or Premium). More details: http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2008/10/23/w...ver-disable-uac -- Paul Smith, Yeovil, UK. Microsoft MVP Windows Desktop Experience. http://www.dasmirnov.net/ "John A Grandy" <johnagrandy@g-mail-dot-com> wrote in message news:#kL9158jJHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > How to turn off User Account Control ? > The endless prompts are driving me batty ... </span> 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.