Recommended Posts

I haven't touched a Vista build in ages (since 5384), so I couldn't tell you first-hand, but from what I'm reading in this thread, users are getting it while deleting from directories in their home folder, therefore not harmful to the system, and making a UAC prompt completely unnecessary.

You're not understanding it. We're talking about programs and functions built-in to Windows that aren't touching administrative areas but are still initiating the UAC prompt.

true... things like:

- Moving a file with -h -r -s attribs from a partition to another.

- Sending a file with -r or -h attribs from your documents folder to the recycle bin.

- Emptying the recycle bin.

- Renaming a folder or file with read-only attributes.

and many more things...

I agree with a good deal of what Paul has said. UAC is quite annoying and if there was a way to create a "god" account, I'd be there right now. Someone said that UAC would give power users better control over their computers. I think it's exactly the opposite. The true power user already knows exactly what he or she is doing to the computer and doesn't need the OS to poke said power user every time he or she feels like doing anything that the OS complains at.

It's sort of reminiscent of the airport security madness going on right now, especially in the US. Ok...fine. We may be a little safer. But in the short run, all it really does is delay us, annoy is and make us take our shoes off for no reason and then put them back on.

I'm over the fact that Vista won't run on my craptacular old video card. That's ok, there's a way around that. But at least let's get to somewhere where it's worth getting around. I want to like Vista. But.....right now it just isn't that likeable.

true... things like:

- Moving a file with -h -r -s attribs from a partition to another.

- Sending a file with -r or -h attribs from your documents folder to the recycle bin.

- Emptying the recycle bin.

- Renaming a folder or file with read-only attributes.

and many more things...

Thats stupid; if the file is owned by the operator who is deleting the file, then 'permission' needn't to be granted as they already have permission to access the said file.

Quite frankly, I can't understand what is so difficult about the idea of simply making everything outside the user directory non-accessible until authorised by prompt; you'd think that Microsoft was deliberately doing the above just to **** people off.

Some answers to the many "whys" here:

- The UAC is not against idiots - thats why it pops up in Admin account too. It is not a barrier- rather a notification system. It is to notify you that some potentially harmfull thing will happen and are you the "parent" of this action.

- To really decide if you should turn it off, or for you to have the correct opinion: please learn what it is for. I'm really feeling sorry for the ones who turn it off instantly or after a few ours. And not just because they open a big security risk on their computer, rather that they weren't informed correcty to make the right decision. They really don't know what are the advantages of UAC. And this is not their fault, but this is not right. At least the power users (as i see there are many here) should check on its real reason to spread the word to the Joe Regulars - if Microsoft was unable to accomplish this.

- Anyone remember the "Computer will shut down in one minute" threat? You didn't have to run any program. Even if you were quite smart, it got you. The UAC is to protect you from all the things happening behind your back.

- When you want to open/move/delete your old (XP) files UAC pops up because you are actually not the same user who created those files, then again: a user wanted to tamper another user's files and OS stopped it. This is truly a nice thing, but we feel it a pain in the *ss bacause all our files were created by another user - if you understand the logic here.

- Photoshop was not coded badly. It was coded for XP and lower, and it is not currently compatible with Vista. It was coded for another OS's security settings. I'm sure they will upgrade (avoided the word "fix") it for normal (read: UAC compatible) Vista usage.

- Paul is a clever guy who likes to be in reflector light. He did a review "how good rc1 is" than later he noticed that it isn't. He could have edit the review but then it would have miss the news - it would have been another "it is good, but have its bad things" type review. A "Vista is cool" review is always a bigger news. So he made a "Muhahaha, there is the evil side" review too, this way no one can judge his first review. As i said: he is clever. He got good points, but he is rather clever.

- Actually Vista UAC is not implemented badly. It does what it should, and you know what: only the implementation is good. It is tweaked, customized, advertised badly. Average Windows users not used to think in "rights, users, permissions, secure desktops". They just want their pictures burnt, movie watched, or gamepad installed. Show me a guy who clicked on "Abort install" at the unsigned driver dialog. We live in a result-orientated world, and noone will realise that something bad could happen just because there is one more dialog. Noone would actually care: "where is the contiue anyway button?".

- I'm not a fanboy. I just hate when uninformed people gets risks (this goes for politics too), and if others thousands of hours work gets demolished. I hate seeing a hard work destroyed.

Some answers to the many "whys" here:

- The UAC is not against idiots - thats why it pops up in Admin account too. It is not a barrier- rather a notification system. It is to notify you that some potentially harmfull thing will happen and are you the "parent" of this action.

- To really decide if you should turn it off, or for you to have the correct opinion: please learn what it is for. I'm really feeling sorry for the ones who turn it off instantly or after a few ours. And not just because they open a big security risk on their computer, rather that they weren't informed correcty to make the right decision. They really don't know what are the advantages of UAC. And this is not their fault, but this is not right. At least the power users (as i see there are many here) should check on its real reason to spread the word to the Joe Regulars - if Microsoft was unable to accomplish this.

- Anyone remember the "Computer will shut down in one minute" threat? You didn't have to run any program. Even if you were quite smart, it got you. The UAC is to protect you from all the things happening behind your back.

- When you want to open/move/delete your old (XP) files UAC pops up because you are actually not the same user who created those files, then again: a user wanted to tamper another user's files and OS stopped it. This is truly a nice thing, but we feel it a pain in the *ss bacause all our files were created by another user - if you understand the logic here.

- Photoshop was not coded badly. It was coded for XP and lower, and it is not currently compatible with Vista. It was coded for another OS's security settings. I'm sure they will upgrade (avoided the word "fix") it for normal (read: UAC compatible) Vista usage.

- Paul is a clever guy who likes to be in reflector light. He did a review "how good rc1 is" than later he noticed that it isn't. He could have edit the review but then it would have miss the news - it would have been another "it is good, but have its bad things" type review. A "Vista is cool" review is always a bigger news. So he made a "Muhahaha, there is the evil side" review too, this way no one can judge his first review. As i said: he is clever. He got good points, but he is rather clever.

- Actually Vista UAC is not implemented badly. It does what it should, and you know what: only the implementation is good. It is tweaked, customized, advertised badly. Average Windows users not used to think in "rights, users, permissions, secure desktops". They just want their pictures burnt, movie watched, or gamepad installed. Show me a guy who clicked on "Abort install" at the unsigned driver dialog. We live in a result-orientated world, and noone will realise that something bad could happen just because there is one more dialog. Noone would actually care: "where is the contiue anyway button?".

- I'm not a fanboy. I just hate when uninformed people gets risks (this goes for politics too), and if others thousands of hours work gets demolished. I hate seeing a hard work destroyed.

No work is being demolished here mate, at least from people with fair sence of critism. I also understand and I get kind of angry when I see people bashing about how "bad" Windows Vista is when they really dont know whats going on under the hood. Vista is extremelly complex I always said that, and most -politics- like Paul himself know this. The problem is, look at yourself as a novice user and try to work around the fact that UAC pops up a window in every corner of the new OS. It gets annoying, literaly, in a short period of time. Don't tell me it doesn't because that is not true.

And it is a fact what you say that not most, ALL current PC software available for Windows, are coded in fact under Windows NT, 2000 (XP) call it however you want, and Vista's code is certaily brand new regarding UAC and System Security; therefore stands the reason why most applications will most likely dislike the way the OS manages security risks and settings thanks to UAC. Though, UAC is a pretty advanced technology but most standard users are hating the drastic change that means switching from a standard not so secured environment that is XP, to such a secured OS as Vista. I understand what you say and I think most of us here would. :)

When i said work demolished i ment no matter how hard some dozen people worked on UAC, it will not be used by many. In that case the hard work was without reason and i hate that. :( And i also hate when some gurus don't understand all the reason behind it. I know they'll be the ones telling to hundreds of people: "why don't you just turn it off?". :no:

I absolutely agree with you that "It gets annoying, literaly, in a short period of time". That makes me more mad. :angry: It's like some scientists would say "walk on your toes, you'll live longer", and you know that not many will do that. (Like the Hitchcock technic in movies: you see that the girl will be killed, you see the knife, the shadows, hear the steps, and the more you see the antecedent the more you get thrilled, because you can't do anything about it...) You just see that this is wrong, but you just can't help it.... Sorry, for deep in offtopic here.

Anyhow i had an idea: New UAC and i'm very intrested in your opinions.

- Photoshop was not coded badly. It was coded for XP and lower, and it is not currently compatible with Vista. It was coded for another OS's security settings. I'm sure they will upgrade (avoided the word "fix") it for normal (read: UAC compatible) Vista usage.

Icorrect, Photoshop IS coded badly in that Adobe KNEW what needed to change, they couold have made it Vista compatible, and it would have made no difference to its Windows XP compatibility status; it would have worked the way a properly written Win32 application is meant to, and accessible and interacted with the system making the assumption that it was in restrictive mode rather than assuming it needed Adminisration privilages.

- Photoshop was not coded badly. It was coded for XP and lower, and it is not currently compatible with Vista. It was coded for another OS's security settings. I'm sure they will upgrade (avoided the word "fix") it for normal (read: UAC compatible) Vista usage.

Icorrect, Photoshop IS coded badly in that Adobe KNEW what needed to change, they couold have made it Vista compatible, and it would have made no difference to its Windows XP compatibility status; it would have worked the way a properly written Win32 application is meant to, and accessible and interacted with the system making the assumption that it was in restrictive mode rather than assuming it needed Adminisration privilages.

Icorrect, Photoshop IS coded badly in that Adobe KNEW what needed to change, they couold have made it Vista compatible, and it would have made no difference to its Windows XP compatibility status; it would have worked the way a properly written Win32 application is meant to, and accessible and interacted with the system making the assumption that it was in restrictive mode rather than assuming it needed Adminisration privilages.

So Adobe can now tell the future? :rolleyes: The latest version of Photoshop (CS2) has been out for quite a while, and I don't see how Adobe could have had any knowledge as to what exact security measures Microsoft was going to put in place.

Icorrect, Photoshop IS coded badly in that Adobe KNEW what needed to change, they couold have made it Vista compatible, and it would have made no difference to its Windows XP compatibility status; it would have worked the way a properly written Win32 application is meant to, and accessible and interacted with the system making the assumption that it was in restrictive mode rather than assuming it needed Adminisration privilages.

I understand your logic, but it doesn't mean it was coded badly. If we want to play the coder nazi, we can say they could have made it better to work with less rights, but then it wasn't needed. People who use Photoshop work on their computer with admin account anyhow - installing scanners, printers, fonts, font managers etc. So why should have they work on better code, when it was not needed?

After Vista ships and they'll have lot of complaints about PS giving errors they will update the code - they might already working on it. They sure don't have to rush on it - designers won't be the first ones to use Vista for work daily. ;)

So Adobe can now tell the future? :rolleyes: The latest version of Photoshop (CS2) has been out for quite a while, and I don't see how Adobe could have had any knowledge as to what exact security measures Microsoft was going to put in place.

Excuse me, restricted mode has been in Windows NT since God was a teenager, and Bill was getting turned down by girls and guys for dates.

There has been nothing stopping Adobe from testing their software with the most stricted mode, and working out the problems with it.

Also, CS2 was released in May/June 2005, LUA/UAC had been out for IIRC over a year, there was nothing stopping them, like I said in the first paragraph, from testing it in the most restrictive mode available in Windows, and thus, getting things right from the beginning.

but which major software developer is going to design a top-end program based upon assumptions? A year ago i was hearing a lot of rumours of things being implemented/changed in Vista, and i think its fair to say the majority of those have changed, if not disappeared entirely. So saying the "restricted mode" in NT was assured to be the same as in Vista is a tad far fetched imo... and not something to take a bet on.

but which major software developer is going to design a top-end program based upon assumptions? A year ago i was hearing a lot of rumours of things being implemented/changed in Vista, and i think its fair to say the majority of those have changed, if not disappeared entirely. So saying the "restricted mode" in NT was assured to be the same as in Vista is a tad far fetched imo... and not something to take a bet on.

Oh pulease, Microsoft had always hinted that the moves made were of compatibility only, and once the majority had jumped onboard, and conformed to the expected quality level, they could start pushing the multi-user paradigm of restricted accounts.

Also, not working on the presumption of a restricted accounts is plain bad coding; I'm sorry, but you NEED to keep the user and base configuration seperate, especially when the computer is going to be used by multie users - restricted mode ensure that you coded your programme properly so that it understood what the requirements were when operating in a multi-user environment.

Microsoft themselves learned it the hardway when they released Terminal Services For Windows NT and found that their Office suite couldn't function because it had gaping problems that caused problems in a multi-user environment and when also being used in a terminal evironment as well.

its about getting it correct NOW so that when later on, changes are made, your application will be ready to take on board those change, be they security, getting accessed from a centralised server with thin clients. Short term pain of good coding methodology for long term cost savings and happy customers.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Last week I was investigating an issue with contacts and tried using the new Outlook. In the real (Classic) Outlook, you can easily go to any Outlook folder and present it in a Table View, then customize the columns to show/sort any field, which was exactly what I needed. But of course, the new Outlook doesn't have this feature at all. I gave up. Oh, and can we possibly stop claiming the new Outlook has PST support? What it really has is the ability to use the real Outlook in the background to pretend to have PST support. There is no PST support without the real Outlook installed.
    • Honestly just before Panos left it started to feel like MS just wasnt interested in them so they were being less innovative with them, and then when he DID leave for Amazon its kind of clear the direction is gone. It felt like Panos had both goals and drive, and a vision, but it felt like no matter what his title/department was the Surface devices never had the full interest of the rest of management and he was just pushing a bolder up a hill that MS was adding dirt to as he went.
    • A roguelike and a 4X strategy game are free to claim on the Epic Games Store by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe The final leg of the Epic Games Store's mystery giveaways promotion just landed, and it brought along two more games to keep. Last week's Lonestar and Calico giveaways have now been replaced with copies of Rogue Waters and Songs of Conquest to claim for PC gamers. As always, the game is yours to add permanently to your Epic Games Store library within the next seven days. Diving into the games, Songs of Conquest is developed by Lavapotion. This is a turn-based 4X strategy experience that has players making tough decisions and participating in tactical combat while also managing their kingdom. "Songs of Conquest is a turn-based strategy game inspired by 90s classics. Lead powerful magicians called Wielders and venture to lands unknown," explains the developer. "Wage battles against armies that dare oppose you, hunt for powerful artifacts and expand your territory. The world is ripe for the taking – seize it." Meanwhile, Rogue Waters comes from developer Ice Code Games. This rogue-lite experience has you taking the role of Captain Cutter as he commands his ship and crew through procedurally generated encounters. You'll be recruiting and training crew, use sea creatures, and battle with other ships and pirates. "Set sail as Captain Cutter, a pirate caught in a deadly struggle for power and vengeance," adds the developer. "Navigate dangerous waters, unleash mythical sea creatures, and outwit enemies as you chase legendary treasure and confront dark secrets." The newly available Rogue Waters and Songs of Conquest giveaways on the Epic Games Store are set to run until June 11, giving PC gamers seven days to claim the latest offer. Once this closes out, a new freebie will take its place on the same day, which is slated to be Warhammer 40K Speed Freeks. Don't forget that mobile gamers can check out the Epic Game Store's weekly giveaways on Android and iOS to grab a freebie there as well.
    • Still using Classic Outlook? Microsoft highlights 15 reasons to switch to New Outlook by Usama Jawad As many of you may know, Microsoft has been trying to get customers to ditch Classic Outlook in favor of New Outlook for quite some time now. To that end, it has added numerous capabilities to the latter, including PST features, and it is working on several more, such as a unified inbox. However, customer response has been a bit lukewarm so far, with many considering the New Outlook to be "hot garbage". Now, Microsoft has highlighted 15 features that users can leverage in New Outlook in yet another attempt to get customers to migrate. Although not all of the 15 capabilities are exclusive to New Outlook, in fact, most of them are available in Classic Outlook as well. But Microsoft hopes that this combination of familiar and fresh features will be able to attract existing users as well as new ones. For ease of readability, we have summarized the 15 features below: Pin an email: This makes it easier to track important emails Snooze an email: You can temporarily snooze an email thread for a specific time frame until it becomes relevant again. This can be very useful in scenarios where you don't feel like actively following a thread or simply want to follow up on a later date Add multiple categories at the same time: You can assign multiple categories to an email through a single, simplified interface Sweep: As the name implies, you can define automated move processes on your inbox to declutter it, rather than cleaning it up manually Schedule send: Does exactly what it says on the tin, and can be useful when accommodating recipients in different timezones Simplified folder sharing: The sharing process has been simplified so permissions are automatically applied on parent folders Follow a meeting: This is an RSVP option that lets people know that you won't be able to join the meeting but would still like to access a recap Save calendar views: You can save different views for the calendar based on different workflows Improved meeting tracking: Organizers have more controls in viewing meeting responses, such as the ability to sort and download them. Typically useful when there is a large audience Meeting recap: The Outlook Calendar surfaces a meeting recap with recordings, transcripts, and shared files Filtered views: Allows you to declutter your Calendar so that it's easier to scan and schedule Change a recurring event: Users can modify future events of a series of meetings while preserving the configuration of previous ones Rename your email account: This labeling makes it easier to identify multiple accounts in Outlook Modern themes: Exactly what the name says, plus Dark Mode Keyboard shortcuts: This facilitates flexible user behavior as customers can choose between Outlook for Windows shortcuts, Outlook for the web, or turn them off completely There you have it. It's a decent list, but it remains to be seen if it will move the needle in a meaningful way for users who are attached to Classic Outlook. Again, a lot of the aforementioned features are already available in Outlook Classic, but for some, native functionality is not present, and people typically resort to workarounds. Microsoft will be hoping that it's primarily those capabilities that get people to finally switch.
    • Please I need help I been trying to find this secure boot on my ColorFul motherboard in the bios But i cant i turned off CSM everything watch every video i cant find it. BATTLE-AX B660M-HD DELUXE V20
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      mobandz earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Apprentice
      fernan99 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • One Month Later
      nothanks earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      478
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      247
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!