• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Do You UAC?

Do You UAC?  

462 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

stockwiz    7

I switched... I had it off and voted off but now it's on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phot0nic    5
Why can't it be smarter, why can't Windows track that there is cursor movement from the mouse device and therefore a person not a rogue program is doing an action that must therefore be correct.

Do you have ANY idea how easy it would be for a hacker to make a program fake that?

I personally feel that most Windows users are annoyed because it's different, and they hate change. I've been dual booting Linux for a while now, and yes at first, security promts were annoying. Then, I got used to them, and understood the level of security that they provided. I also kind of missing that level of security and control on my Windows installation, and I'm thrilled that it's included in Vista. These complaints will subside once users get used to it, and get off of the "I hate Vista" bandwagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
In my opinion, a very simple way to make UAC suck less would be to add some type of "Safe Applications" list...There is no reason why I need to authorize the EXACT same application EVERY single time I want to open it. That is ridiculous.

A good example is CCleaner, EVERY single f***ing time I want to open it UAC will make sure I really mean to...that is unacceptable. :no:

I've tried it, I've tried to "get used to it", but it is just a terrible implementation of a great idea. Fix it and I'll use it, but right now it is broken.

Actually, that would defeat the purpose of the UAC prompts.

If you had a "safe list" or the ability to "bless" programs to always run elevated, you've opened up the possibility that a malicious program could run one of those programs and then manipulate it in such a way as to launch itself with elevated privileges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xxdesmus    0

I understand what you mean, and you're right (obviously). It would just create an avenue for bypassing UAC.

To be completely honest, and I hope not to be rude, but in its current incarnation...it's pretty much irritating to the point of being useless. I say useless because it will annoy so many people into turning it off that it won't be very effective.

I understand the purpose of it, I really do (and I love the idea), but it is just such an obtrusive implementation of it right now.

Don't get me wrong, I like just about everything else about Vista and I think you guys did an incredible job, but couldn't you guys (Microsoft, and the UI team) look at the way user privilege escalation is done in Linux and in OSX and...well, do it like that. Both of those systems found an excellent balance of effectively escalating privileges only when necessary, but also doing it in a way that isn't so moronic at times (deleting items in the start menu? Are you serious?).

I don't know how likely this is, but I would love to see significant refinement of UAC now that the initial product (Vista) is out the door. Perhaps Microsoft was rushed, and that would explain the current state of UAC, but ... please, we would love to see some "spit and polish" on this otherwise great technology.

Oh, and Brandon, can I email you about something (I won't mention what here in public), if so drop me a PM with your email address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UncleSpellbinder    17
I understand what you mean, and you're right (obviously). It would just create an avenue for bypassing UAC.

To be completely honest, and I hope not to be rude, but in its current incarnation...it's pretty much irritating to the point of being useless. I say useless because it will annoy so many people into turning it off that it won't be very effective.

I understand the purpose of it, I really do (and I love the idea), but it is just such an obtrusive implementation of it right now.

Don't get me wrong, I like just about everything else about Vista and I think you guys did an incredible job, but couldn't you guys (Microsoft, and the UI team) look at the way user privilege escalation is done in Linux and in OSX and...well, do it like that. Both of those systems found an excellent balance of effectively escalating privileges only when necessary, but also doing it in a way that isn't so moronic at times (deleting items in the start menu? Are you serious?).

I don't know how likely this is, but I would love to see significant refinement of UAC now that the initial product (Vista) is out the door. Perhaps Microsoft was rushed, and that would explain the current state of UAC, but ... please, we would love to see some "spit and polish" on this otherwise great technology.

Oh, and Brandon, can I email you about something (I won't mention what here in public), if so drop me a PM with your email address.

I do have UAC turned on. Having said that, the above post is 100% correct, in my view. The average Windows XP user will be extremely turned off by UAC's intrusiveness. Nine people at work have upgraded to Vista Home premium or Ultimate. All of them, after a bit of explanation, says they will leave UAC on. They are not happy at all about being asked for authorization time after time for mundane tasks and/or installing programs. UAC, the good idea that it is, if FAR too intrusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawliet    0

Yes, after I've finished setting up everything, of course. Somehow, I feel safer knowing that malicious applications can't do much without my permission.

Though I have to admit, it does annoy me sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xxdesmus    0

The start menu one I find really funny... :whistle:

Delete an icon in the start menu? UAC.

Move an icon in the start menu? UAC.

Add an icon to the start menu? UAC.

And yet, (and this one still amazes me), using shift+delete to permanently delete a file (bypassing the recycle bin) doesn't require UAC ... there is just no rhyme or reason to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution    16
The start menu one I find really funny... :whistle:

Delete an icon in the start menu? UAC.

Move an icon in the start menu? UAC.

Add an icon to the start menu? UAC.

And yet, (and this one still amazes me), using shift+delete to permanently delete a file (bypassing the recycle bin) doesn't require UAC ... there is just no rhyme or reason to it.

The start menu requires UAC since for some reason Microsoft decided to place the folder outside the user folder :/ Shift+Del does not bypass UAC... If you delete a file from the desktop or anywhere in your personal folder it does not require UAC.... however if you press delete, the recycle bin will prompt you to confirm... unless you press shift+delete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Menge    33
The start menu one I find really funny... :whistle:

Delete an icon in the start menu? UAC.

Move an icon in the start menu? UAC.

Add an icon to the start menu? UAC.

And yet, (and this one still amazes me), using shift+delete to permanently delete a file (bypassing the recycle bin) doesn't require UAC ... there is just no rhyme or reason to it.

there is rhyme and reason for most of it:

The start menu is a common area. it's located in the All Users folder, which affects (duh) all users. hence you have to be an admin to change that (that's why UAC is called... you need to elevate).

you can however, add it to the start menu folder in your user profile folder. it'll "merge" with the regular one.

and if you shift+delete a file you HAVE permission to delete, why should it ask you? it's YOURS :p

i don't see why people are so annoyed about UAC. my only annoyance with it is that it's just too much prompts. Microsoft should've included more corner cases where you shouldn't have to click continue. but most of the prompts are pretty valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DELTETHISACCOUNT    0

I don't find it bothersome at all. I'll know I'll benefit from it in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quantumboredom    0
The start menu one I find really funny... :whistle:

Delete an icon in the start menu? UAC.

Move an icon in the start menu? UAC.

Add an icon to the start menu? UAC.

And yet, (and this one still amazes me), using shift+delete to permanently delete a file (bypassing the recycle bin) doesn't require UAC ... there is just no rhyme or reason to it.

Can't you simply give the "users" group modify rights to the start menu folder? That way UAC will no longer be required, since admin priviliges are not needed. The same goes for any file operations that are annoying; simply give the users group control. It sure beats disabling UAC just because you can't modify the structure of the start menu programs folder :p

And I can't understand what you mean by the shift+delete thing. It seems to behave just like it should here. Any file that requires admin priviliges to modify will give me a UAC prompt, no matter if I just press delete or shift+delete.

BTW: UAC is awesome. Not annoying at all IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrp04    379

I actually just reenabled it. It is not so bad when you have your computer set up the way you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.