A10 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Do you really need people to tell you if it's a good idea to switch or not?The feature list is there, you've read about the pros and cons, make your own mind up. I have. :) Well said. If I want to run Vista I will run Vista I won't scream bloody murder because something doesn't work sure I can wait 6 to 8 months for a service pack which as far as I can tell is just a big file with patchs rolled into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blade1269 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 hey. with uac all they need to change is to put a check box for already cleared programs in either the propeties or on the box the first time you use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rohdekill Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 SP1 and the removal of an RDM infested OS then, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdCViRus Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 UAC :whistle: just like the one in Doom 3. UAC wanted to do so much good, improve the lives of human kind, yet UAC ****ed up so badly :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted February 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 12, 2007 A "Safe List" would be nice for UAC, I keep having to manually launch Miranda IM and Steam in Administrator mode, even though the shortcut is supposed to do it. What would possibly compel you to run an internet-facing app like Miranda with elevated privileges??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted February 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 12, 2007 What would possibly compel you to run an internet-facing app like Miranda with elevated privileges??? That's what I was wondering, why would anyone want a web facing app to run as an administrator... talk about an easy way to take over a system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPS29070 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 UAC is a good thing but many people are going to turn it off... then complain about Vista when something bad happens. Some games are certainly running slower on VISTA right now, Tomb Raider Legend is one example I am having problems with. The old Tomb Raider for DOS simply will not run in VISTA and there is no full screen DOS emulator mode for Vista. I suspect the fact I am having to use some generic drivers might be the cause of this along with the fact that Vista is a constant drain on a video card. I did discover however if I remove the wallpaper and go back to Classic Windows for Vista, the game runs faster although still slower than XP. It does seem though once Vista is installed for a few hours and it settles down that my most commonly run programs start up much faster in Vista. I don't blame Microsoft for the lack of Vista drivers though, these software companies knew for years what was coming and MS gave them plenty of time to develop drivers for the release of Vista. Apple and iPOD certainly knew BEFORE the release of Vista that their product wasn't going to work but did nothing about. I think Apple did this to undermine Vista and Microsoft myself. I only bought the Vista Basic, I didn't see the need for 70 more dollars for eye candy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 What would possibly compel you to run an internet-facing app like Miranda with elevated privileges??? It's that, or it won't run at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWO_Br0THeRHo0D Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 yes because they should be waay better comp and fixed drivers and more comp hardware for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaidiir Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 UAC :whistle: just like the one in Doom 3. UAC wanted to do so much good, improve the lives of human kind, yet UAC ****ed up so badly :p I still get a laugh out of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavensblade23 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I did discover however if I remove the wallpaper and go back to Classic Windows for Vista, the game runs faster although still slower than XP. That doesn't make much sense considering all the eye candy is turned off while games are running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thagame Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 i find nothing wrong with uac. i actually wonder why xp didnt come with it. a cool little feature though would be the ability to remember you allowed something. like a program or something that asks everytime its run you can set remember my choice and it wont ask for that anymore. kinda like on a firewall when you allow a program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtk Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 SP1 and the removal of an RDM infested OS then, maybe. I think you meant RDF, but that's up to you to get out of. To those suggesting a checkmark to remember, that's the same as the safe list suggestion, and it's a bad idea that will never be implemented. I'm hoping by sp1 or sp2, we won't be able to turn off UAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted February 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 12, 2007 It's that, or it won't run at all. Umm, no. Miranda runs perfectly fine for non-admins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Umm, no. Miranda runs perfectly fine for non-admins. Not for me, I have multiple database files and when the database tool loads it tells me the files are already in use. The only way for me to start up is to either disable UAC or run in Admin mode. And anyway, that really wasn't the point. The fact is there are applications that do run well with UAC. A safe list would fix this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted February 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 12, 2007 Umm, are the files in a directory you don't have access to? And anyway, that really wasn't the point. The fact is there are applications that do run well with UAC. A safe list would fix this. No, all that would do would be to undermine the effectiveness of UAC (by giving malicious apps an attack vector by allowing them to launch elevated apps without user consent). It would also make it easier for people like you to run apps like Miranda with admin privileges, which is a really bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Umm, are the files in a directory you don't have access to? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted February 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 12, 2007 No Well that's really the only explanation for it not working. You probably have data files under Program Files or in some location where your user account (or the Users group) doesn't have access. If you don't know much about permissions and such, moving the data files to your user profile will probably help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
embj Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 One thing that I would like to see is a better way for login scripts to be run. UAC completely messes them up...I'm still trying to figure out how to get a simple mapped network drives script working with administrative approval UAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous_user Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I'm hoping by sp1 or sp2, we won't be able to turn off UAC. why should we not be able to turn it off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 It would also make it easier for people like you to run apps like Miranda with admin privileges, which is a really bad idea. It has never been in issue with XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted February 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 12, 2007 why should we not be able to turn it off? The main reason would be not only to force developers to work with non-admin accounts, but it would remove the burden of testing with UAC both on and off. Plus it would prevent people from turning it off... which no one should be doing. It has never been in issue with XP. Are you trying to be funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Are you trying to be funny? No, I have never once run into a problem running Miranda as an Administrator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted February 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 12, 2007 No, I have never once run into a problem running Miranda as an Administrator. Umm, okay. That still doesn't make it safe. Not when there's absolutely no reason Miranda needs administrator privileges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.M.K Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I have not seen 1 review so far that shows games running faster in Vista then they did in XP. Which games did you find that ran faster? Most of the games I've tried seem faster in Vista. I've played WoW, Company of Heroes, Tiger Woods 2007, NBA Live 2007 and Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts