I'm taking a poll - Are you running with UAC or have you disabled UAC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joseph Geretz
  • Start date Start date
Thanks Conor.
Anything which makes system changes or requires elevated permissions to
run.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly; Anything which requires elevated priviledges will
require elevation.

Is that from the Miscrosoft spec?

- Joseph Geretz -
 
I usually keep it enabled.
I disabled it in order to join a SBS 2003 Domain; unless UAC is disabled the
new user is not created and the settings are put in a "Temporary folder".
Not too much annoying... after a while.
Regards
Stefano C.
 
Larry said:
Disabled, and glad of it.

-- Larry Maturo
Click to expand...
And here is MickeyMouse trying to make Vista more secure than previous
versions of Windoze by adding UAC and all these Wintards turn it off. So we
can all look forward to more compromised Windoze zombie boxes attacking the
Net. Thanks fellas.

Cheers.
 
NoStop said:
Larry Maturo wrote:
And here is MickeyMouse trying to make Vista more secure than previous
versions of Windoze by adding UAC and all these Wintards turn it off. So
we
can all look forward to more compromised Windoze zombie boxes attacking
the
Net. Thanks fellas.
Click to expand...
Ahhh you learned all those old hackneyed, cutsy buzz words and managed to
work them all in the same post. How clever and how very original. The only
one you missed was M$
 
I disabled it in early builds, but once I learned to work with it easily I
don't give a thought to disabling it.

I've become use to the screen darkens when I do a file or folder move, and
once in a while using a dual boot I have to take permissions of a folder to
do what I want but UAC hardly is in the way that I preceived it was when I
first worked with it in Vista.

CH
 
And I went one better, and FORMATTED and started over with XP. When I
get the cash, I plan on throwing the entire PC in the trash and buying
something with Mac OS.
 
I disabled it in early builds, but once I learned to work with it easily I
don't give a thought to disabling it.

I've become use to the screen darkens when I do a file or folder move, and
once in a while using a dual boot I have to take permissions of a folder to
do what I want but UAC hardly is in the way that I preceived it was when I
first worked with it in Vista.
Click to expand...

Then you probably don't get much work done. I'm a POWER USER, look up
the phase in a dictionary and you'll see my picture. I move many tens
of GB's of files around my system's 6 large hard dives all day long
spanning hundreds of folders. I don't have TIME to play games with a
clumsy "feature" who's main feature seems to be limited to nagging and
darkening your screen and constantly getting in your way. A operating
system is SUPPOSE TO serve YOU, not the other way around.
 
Enabled.
Once the installation and setup of programs and drivers finished, I rarely
see UAC.
Click to expand...

Strange, I run into it several times a day.
Unfortunately UAC got a largely unfair reputation from the beta days.
"But it is a Beta" very much applies when it comes to UAC in the Vista Beta.
UAC continuously got better as the Beta progressed.
Earlier UAC was always coming up it seems for almost anything.
Now with RTM, UAC is far more refined, able to work properly and only shows
itself at appropriate times.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I get a dual dose of it as a user. It's really designed
for ignorant users that do everything as an administrator.

Microsoft yet again perpetrates a bad security model, but in a
different way. UAC is contrary to every other OS I'm aware of.

All they need is a simple Admin account and User accounts. And in
order for a user to do anything requiring admin privileges s/he has to
enter the admin (or user in some cases) password.

It has the same effect as UAC. And in fact it works now, but then
it's FOLLOWED by REDUNDANT UAC.
UAC behavior in any of the Betas is not a reasonable view of Vista.
If you have not tried UAC enabled with RTM or after you finished customizing
the computer, try it and see the difference.
Click to expand...

I ran Beta, 2, RC1 and RC2 and now I've got Ultimate x64 retail.

If thre's any difference between UAC now and 6 months ago, I'll be
damned if I know what it is.

--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
 
I like UAC and internet explorer's protected mode. It gives me a warm, cozy
feeling inside.
Click to expand...

Well allrighty then....
--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
 
jim said:
And I went one better, and FORMATTED and started over with XP. When I
get the cash, I plan on throwing the entire PC in the trash and buying
something with Mac OS.
Click to expand...

I think the new security features of Vista (especially UAC) are the only
things that M$ has done in the last decade that are worth paying good
money for.

I'm sad that so many seem to feel outraged that M$ has finally stepped
up to the plate and done what they should have done many years ago.

I congratulate them for their good work and wish Vista much success in
the marketplace. The internet will be a much safer place to visit if
Vista succeeds.
 
I think the new security features of Vista (especially UAC) are the only
things that M$ has done in the last decade that are worth paying good
money for.
Click to expand...

Well the problem is HOW it was implemented. Everybody is for better
security, but UAC is clumsy at best. Sadly, it really provides no real
security from hacker attacks or malicous software. That's illusion. It
does succeed in interferring with what YOU want do do on YOUR
computer.

The key to having real security is really fixing the many security
holes that have plauged Windows from the beginning. Simply switching
from the previous Microsoft mindset of turning every feature
automatically on to doing a 180 and now trying to keep everything off
until you can "prove" you have a right to do what you told the OS to
do seems doomed to fail and will surely raise much resistance from the
typical user, especially those running Windows in a home or small
business setting.
I'm sad that so many seem to feel outraged that M$ has finally stepped
up to the plate and done what they should have done many years ago.
Click to expand...

The trouble is Microsoft hasn't fixed what really needs fixing. The
fix would be too painful. What's really needed is rebuilding Windows
from the ground up instead of another round of patching and just
putting a pretty face on the end result. They haven't and won't. UAC
at best is a bandaid that most will pick off and toss away because it
is poorly explained, badly implemented and as welcome as your
mother-in-law spending the weekend unannounced. My guess a couple
months from now if not sooner Microsoft will be issuing several
critical updates to patch holes hackers have poked in Vista.
 
I think the new security features of Vista (especially UAC) are the only
things that M$ has done in the last decade that are worth paying good
money for.

I'm sad that so many seem to feel outraged that M$ has finally stepped
up to the plate and done what they should have done many years ago.
Click to expand...

Right idea, wrong execution.

Sudo is what they should have done.

--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
 
Scott said:
Strange, I run into it several times a day.

I disagree. I get a dual dose of it as a user. It's really designed
for ignorant users that do everything as an administrator.

Microsoft yet again perpetrates a bad security model, but in a
different way. UAC is contrary to every other OS I'm aware of.

All they need is a simple Admin account and User accounts. And in
order for a user to do anything requiring admin privileges s/he has to
enter the admin (or user in some cases) password.

It has the same effect as UAC. And in fact it works now, but then
it's FOLLOWED by REDUNDANT UAC.


I ran Beta, 2, RC1 and RC2 and now I've got Ultimate x64 retail.
Click to expand...
If thre's any difference between UAC now and 6 months ago, I'll be
damned if I know what it is.
Click to expand...

There really isn't much difference, Scott. I tried to live with UAC, I can not.
I agree with your assessment, also. Microsoft has spent a lot of time on
this security feature, and unfortunately, many users will simply turn it off.


-Michael
 
Back
Top