It is better that UAC reside in the OS rather than in the applications. If every application had its own UAC, then we are back to square one for security.
Did it ever occur to you that some of the things that malware does is copy, paste, move, and delete things. What is more annoying, taking a couple of seconds to answer a confirmation prompt, or spending hours cleaning an infected computer?
Somehow I find your claims to be a lecturer at the University level to be hardly credible. You bitched and complained, like so many teenaged girls when they found out that George Michael was gay, about how inconvenient it is to answer some security prompts and them, like some freaking dumbass, turn off UAC and wonder why IE7 does not run in protected mode.
UAC isn't too much of a pain. In my experience it only really happens when
installing things and I am not going to do that every day.
People moaned about Windows security for years and when they get better
security they don't like it. lol
Seriously though you should really use it and get used to it, its there for
a reason and really once you get used to it there it won't impact your daily
computing at all
OK, firstly: BETTER security would be OK and very welcome indeed; but
INVASIVE security measures are annoying and, as history has shown time and
time again, users will dump them sooner or later! Microsoft should have
learned that one by now!
With Vista out of the box installed, UAC is throwing up warning and/or
confirmation windows left, right and centre, even for simple every-day things
like copy, move, paste and delete. Now that level of invasiveness is
downright stupid since it will piss off most users rather sooner than later!
I have turned UAC off simply because I couldn’t find a way to customize it.
The help files are a tad obscure, and on-line help is next to useless. Oh,
before someone shoots his/her mouth off, I’m no dumb-ass newbie if it comes
to OS’s or software or programming, for that matter. In fact I’m lecturing
various IT strands at university level.
Anyway, don’t get me wrong, I do agree that UAC is a right step in the right
direction, but it needs to be far less intrusive than in its present
incarnation – as admitted pretty much by MS (the public release due out at
end of Jan / early Feb apparently will have a less intrusive / modified
implementation of UAC).
Another thing: without more detailed (and easily accessed) explanation,
users will be left wondering what the hell UAC is doing, or good for. Again,
history has shown that users will be far more likely to dump stuff that they
don’t understand, particularly if it gets in the way of every-day work. MS
needs to work a hell of a lot harder on explaining UAC properly and detailed,
and in layman’s terms.
Oh, and BTW, why should I get used to something that forces me to click on
two, sometimes three, extra warning dialogs for even simple tasks such as
copy, move, cut and paste? That’s a downright stupid suggestion and
implementation of an otherwise good idea!
Lastly, and getting back to my initial question in this thread, if
‘Protected Mode’ in IE7 is such a good thing – of which I am as yet not 100%
convinced due to a lack of more detailed information – why pack it together
with UAC instead of implementing it directly into IE7 (where it belongs)?
Again, this present implementation seems more like an afterthought than a
proper initially planned part of the programming structure. Then again,
proper and strategic system analysing has never appeared to be a Redmond
programming hallmark.
It’s a shame really. I DO like Vista and much applaud Microsoft’s belated
approach towards more inbuilt security as well as other measures that are
part of Vista (though it remains a crying shame that so many initially
planned great innovations of Longhorn have simply be dumped, possibly due to
a lack of competence). Still, Vista could be great, and could have been a
true alternative to XP-SP2. However, the more I use Vista, the more it
appears to be a set of great ideas bundled together in a rather odd,
confusing and conflicting manner; rather restricting the user in too many
ways (almost presuming all users are little moron children) than offering an
intuitive interface that allows free workflow without constant interruptions
and restrictions.
This, amongst other issues with the current crop of Vista, will
unfortunately very much delay a broad and rapid market penetration. As it
stands at present, there is very, very little incentive for users who are
running a well configured and secured XP-SP2 setup to take the plunge and
give Vista the chance it should deserve. Many users will wait for Vista SP1 –
even if this will take 12-18 months as presently expected - preferring to sit
on the sidelines to see how this Vista will develop; and how soon software
and driver vendors will recode products to allow for full Vista
compatibility, which even now remains rather limited.
Issues like the badly implemented firewall and UAC will not help sales, nor
inspire the trust in Vista that it should deserve
The claimed out-of-the box and all-secure Vista experience remains elusive,
or at the least crippling the user’s fun experience.
