Re: turn off user account control

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@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uxhLWDGlJHA.4404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark H wrote:
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.

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).


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

Well, they had better figure out whats going on, because ignorance is
not bliss.

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.

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.


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.

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.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CreateVssBackupComponents access denied ?
    ... it's impossible to run as a standard user on Vista. ... You can read this artical in codeproject "Making Your Application UAC Aware" ... "Mark Beiley" wrote: ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: Vista protection cost?
    ... If Vista respects your fair use rights, I see no reason for anybody to ... DRM in all forms is bad for the consumer ... Because the DVD they just bought won't play on their high definition TV. ... standard, then it isn't really a DVD. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Vista "complaints"
    ... Recent misconceptions about Vista and UAC posted to the Focus-Apple group, ... administrator, and combined with the many configuration options Vista ... that Win XP gave her the ability to add permissions to her normal ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)
  • RE: out-of-proc activex and UAC
    ... manifest embedded within my EXE. ... As I do need to run at a High Integrity ... When I launch the web site in Windows XP, or Windows Vista with UAC ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.atl)
  • RE: out-of-proc activex and UAC
    ... When I launch the web site in Windows XP, or Windows Vista with UAC ... the COM server is started with Integrity ... reports an error "The requested operation requires elevation" in the ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.atl)
Quantcast