• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

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

Sign in to follow this  

Disabling UAC

Recommended Posts

Guest xiphi   

*unsubscribes from this thread*

Wish someone would close this thread. My IQ lowers everytime WindowsOnIMac replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
Ok. Therein lies the problem. Thinking you're "no idiot when it comes to computers", therefore, you don't need UAC is completely the wrong idea. UAC is not about preventing you from doing dumb things to your computer, or second guessing your actions (Though it does help every now and then when you do attempt to do dumb things....call it an added bonus.). UAC is about giving running applications the least access to your computer that they need to function.

That said, I have no idea why it's doing what its doing, I just felt you should be aware that turning off UAC is a spectacular way to shoot yourself in the foot with Vista.

If I'm not mistaken, having UAC off makes Limited accounts more of a PITA to use, so it's much more likely to assume that they're not using a limitted account if they have it off.

And herein lies the REAL problem: YOU and Microsoft both think (at least in your own minds) yourselves to be infallible, know every heart and mind, and know all men's motives.

So YOU say that "UAC is about making sure programs ONLY have the MINIMUM control they need to work."

What if UAC FAILS to give them the necessary control? What if they need COMPLETE control (I personally cannot think of such a scenerio, but we live in a Quantum Universe. ANY thing which can happen WILL.)

I and others, on the other hand, believe programs should have ALL the control over a machine THE USER thinks THEY need. WE don't WANT Microsoft making this decision for us. It's not theirs to make. PERIOD.

All of which leads me to the conclusion that you are wise in your OWN estimation, but not His.

Perhaps YOU are the one who shouldn't be allowed to instruct anyone.

Donald McDaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joel    26
What if they need COMPLETE control (I personally cannot think of such a scenerio, but we live in a Quantum Universe. ANY thing which can happen WILL.)

Right here you just proved that you just like to argue. What if a meteor slammed into your PC, destroying it and thus rendering the conversation moot? That has just as much merit as your ridiculous statement of, "anything could happen" when, right now, this is the best protection UNTIL that "anything" happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Leddy    0

If you don't like UAC, turn it off. It's that simple. If you think you don't need the protection that it offers, get rid of it! No need to start a 10-page thread complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
So YOU say that "UAC is about making sure programs ONLY have the MINIMUM control they need to work."

What if UAC FAILS to give them the necessary control? What if they need COMPLETE control (I personally cannot think of such a scenerio, but we live in a Quantum Universe. ANY thing which can happen WILL.)

Then they elevate, and they are running with the full Admin token just as if UAC were disabled (or just like on XP), with no virtualization. That's what the prompt is for.

I and others, on the other hand, believe programs should have ALL the control over a machine THE USER thinks THEY need. WE don't WANT Microsoft making this decision for us. It's not theirs to make. PERIOD.

Exactly. UAC gives you more control than you had in XP. In XP you were not given control over what privileges individual programs would be run with. Now you are. And somehow, you are complaining about it.

All of which leads me to the conclusion that you are wise in your OWN estimation, but not His.

Perhaps YOU are the one who shouldn't be allowed to instruct anyone.

Please keep your religious exhortation and paranoid raving seperate, so that those more rational minds from who might enlighten you on this subject may garner some clue as to what, exactly, you're on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaisinCain    0

Brandon... you WORK for Microsoft. How are any of your points/arguements valid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FATILA    4

If you hate UAC, hate superfetch, hate the shiny "fisher price" gui, PLEASE don't use Vista and leave the rest of US/WE to enjoy it, cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
Actually, Joel, it's NOT "protection", it's the first steps toward complete control of our machines by someone NOT ourselves (supposedly Microsoft's rationale for it in the first place"). If it is "protection", WE DON'T WANT it. We are completely capable of "protecting" our computers the way WE want to do it. UAC was UNNECESSARY.

That it may or may not be "effective" in what it does is irrelevant. It takes control away from us against our wills. PERIOD.

THAT sir, is the EVIL in it. And it needs to be excised, like the "cancer" it is.

Okay seriously... you can't be for real.

But I'll take one last crack at this...

UAC is a convenience, making it easier for users to experience the benefits of a Least Privilege Access security model while at the same time maintaining most of the compatibility and ease-of-use they're used to with full Administrator accounts.

UAC provides these conveniences:

1) Distinct privilege levels within the same User account. This allows users to run applications with limited privileges whilst also maintaining ownership over objects they manipulate when running with full privileges.

2) Elevate applications, allowing them the use of their account's full privileges, without entering credentials.

The second does have a security advantage in that there is no risk of spoofing. However it was definitely chosen as the default to make things convenient for the user. If security were to completely trump convenience here, you would have to press CTRL+ALT+DEL and then enter your username and password, for every elevation attempt.

UAC also comes along with several related security features and benefits, such as:

  • UIPI - allows, for the first time, seperate windows on the same desktop to be isolated based on privilege level.
  • Virtualizaton - allows most applications that were written only for Admin accounts to run for standard users or non-elevated admins
  • Split tokens / Multiple integrity levels - This functionality, at the heart of how UAC works, allows processes like Internet Explorer (protected mode), prevhost.exe, SearchFilterHost.exe, and others to operate with reduced privileges when dealing with untrusted content.

None of these security features are about not trusting the user. All of them are about not trusting content (particularly, from the internet), or not trusting applications to be secure.

Finally, I am incredulous as to how you could rant against Windows Defender. UAC does add clicks to certain tasks and can take some getting used to... but Windows Defender? You never even see it, unless it has found something bad. I can't for the life of me imagine why someone would turn it off, unless they prefer to install an alternative in its place. You certainly won't find a less intrusive alternative. I have run Vista for over a year on dozens of machines and never once, ever, seen Windows Defender do... anything. If you do see it, then either you're downloading software with malware/spyware embedded, or your machine has been exploited and something bad was forced onto it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen    98
What if they need COMPLETE control (I personally cannot think of such a scenerio, but we live in a Quantum Universe. ANY thing which can happen WILL.)
Right here you just proved that you just like to argue. What if a meteor slammed into your PC, destroying it and thus rendering the conversation moot? That has just as much merit as your ridiculous statement of, "anything could happen" when, right now, this is the best protection UNTIL that "anything" happens.
While I don't subscribe to WindowsOnIMac's certainty that something will happen, I ought to point out that Microsoft's EULA (at least XP, not familiar with Vista) specifically gives Microsoft permission to install anything on your computer that they wish to, without the user's permission. To me, it shows who the real admin is.

You don't need crazy "what if" situations to see who has reserved the power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
Brandon... you WORK for Microsoft. How are any of your points/arguements valid?

You are implying that they are not? On what basis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
Well, not disabling it is a good place to start.

Any particular reason you need it to be disabled?

How can "not disabling it" show him "how to disable it"? Man, you give "help" which is no help at all.

His reasons for wanting it disabled are actually not relevant, nor are they your or Microsoft's business.

He believes he needs it disabled. If you won't help him, maybe a worse person will. If he wants it disabled enough, he will probably go to someone who will. What if that person is a hacker or script-kiddie? His machine will wind up even worse than disabling UAC "might" conceivably make it. And it will be YOUR fault, for not giving him the help HE thinks he needs.

I do advise you to stop being condescending toward everyone you don't agree with, friend. It's "bad form", and shows you to be the control-freak you might be.

Right now, Microsoft needs all the adults they can get, since their customers no longer trust them. Help Microsoft out. Stop trying to play "demigod", and come down here where the "little people" are. Additionally, it is a dead giveaway that you are nothing but a "Microsoft fanboi", since it seems to be a quality all "fanbois", of whatever stripe, possess. I never listen to "fanbois". And we are always fighting as a result. Because I think for myself, and refuse to let some bully tell me how to think.

The day of the 'Microsoft fanboi" is over (thank God). Microsoft, as well as its supporters, MUST start LISTENING to those with opposing views, instead of trotting out "Microsoft is SO great. They ALWAYS have OUR needs in mind, even when we don't believe or know it". To which I say "Only God is completely unselfish toward His children, sir". Last I looked, it wasn't Microsoft sitting on His Throne.

Donald McDaniel

Edited by WindowsOnIMac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
How can "not disabling it" show him "how to disable it"? Man, you give "help" which is no help at all.

...

The original poster already solved his problem, and then came back and said he'd been convinced to re-enable UAC, saying that he realized the benefits outweighed the annoyance factor caused by his legacy programs which require elevation to run. Given that outcome, I think the responses he got were warranted and successful (both in fixing his issue, and convincing him that disabling UAC is a bad idea).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    10,425
So YOU and others want UAC. That's great. WE don't. Understand? If you do understand this, there is hope for you yet.

Of course I don't understand that because it defies the conventions of the English language - the "WE don't" statement doesn't have any context. You statement is simply broken.

I stopped being influenced by Microsoft Propaganda long ago

Then I assume you don't use Windows? If so then why are you posting here? Go away. Don't come in here preaching end-of-the-world scenarios and expect people to treat you with any respect. You have shown no indication of being reasonable and open-minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
Right here you just proved that you just like to argue. What if a meteor slammed into your PC, destroying it and thus rendering the conversation moot? That has just as much merit as your ridiculous statement of, "anything could happen" when, right now, this is the best protection UNTIL that "anything" happens.While I don't subscribe to WindowsOnIMac's certainty that something will happen, I ought to point out that Microsoft's EULA (at least XP, not familiar with Vista) specifically gives Microsoft permission to install anything on your computer that they wish to, without the user's permission. To me, it shows who the real admin is.

You don't need crazy "what if" situations to see who has reserved the power.

Actually, I zapped off that post without reviewing it. I probably meant to write "Anything which can happen might.", rather than "will". While anything can happen, there is no guarantee that it will, since the Father is in ultimate control of even this Quantum Universe, and if He decides that any "something" is not going to happen, and it simply WON'T.

BTW, I am instructed that "as iron sharpens iron, so brother sharpens brother." It is GOOD to hear conflicting opinions, and hash them out together. It is a little painful, but won't kill us. So I do not apologize for appearing to be an argumentative person. If I argue with someone, it is for a reason: Because I disagree. I have that right. We all have that right. The thing to do is keep our arguments from turning into recriminations and accusations.

This is a matter which is being discussed in MANY forums right now. It's NOT happening just because a few "gloomy-gusses" are "argumentative Microsoft haters".

Something is intrinsically "wrong" about the level of control it removes from the user, and we all know it. If not consciously, then unconsciously. Stop trying to sweep the argument under the rug, and stop trying to apologize for Microsoft. They can apologize for themselves, if necessary.

WE all felt the same way when Microsoft released ME. And the SAME apologists/propagandists were trying to tell us what we needed, what we feel, and how to think, just as they do today. They were also calling anyone who felt ME was a disaster for Microsoft "argumentative". Don't expect them to act any differently with Vista. As their condescending remarks in this thread prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billyea    198

I think this discussion has gone a bit awry from UAC, which is what this topic is about, and more about Microsoft being condescending and taking control in other circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
Then they elevate, and they are running with the full Admin token just as if UAC were disabled (or just like on XP), with no virtualization. That's what the prompt is for.

Exactly. UAC gives you more control than you had in XP. In XP you were not given control over what privileges individual programs would be run with. Now you are. And somehow, you are complaining about it.

Please keep your religious exhortation and paranoid raving seperate, so that those more rational minds from who might enlighten you on this subject may garner some clue as to what, exactly, you're on about.

Ok, Brandon, let's "get to the core", as it were:

I am "going on" about a very elemental HUMAN RIGHT: The right to control his OWN destiny. Microsoft (and you) are attempting to get us to let Microsoft control our destinies. It is the "little foxes which spoil the vineyard", not the bears and wolves. Loss of control ALWAYS comes when SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE (doesn't matter who) decides that we can't (or won't)protect ourselves, so THEY must take it upon themselves to "protect" us. That's a form of condescension, sir.

Autocracy ALWAYS starts out as a "little control", then builds to "absolute" control.

Now, I really don't care WHAT you want to call this.

"Don't tread on me" was the slogan of our Fathers. it should still be ours.

Donald McDaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter McGrath    0
If you knew what you were doing, you would leave it on. Only novices who don't understand how their computers work turn it off.

I don't understand why some people think UAC is a good thing.

I'm at even more of a loss why some people think anyone who wants to be able to actually USE their computer without it popping up stupid messages all the time doesn't know what they are doing.

The very first thing I did with vista was turn off UAC. According to your definition that make me a novice.

Let me tell you I have been using computers for 30 years, and I have learned a thing or two about them over that time. I was also on the beta team for testing Windows Vista.

From my perspective UAC is one of the most useless things is Vista. Windows Defender is the second most useless thing in Vista - that was the second thing I uninstalled.

Bill Gates had it right when he was running Microsoft. Computers have to be EASY to use for them to appeal to the masses. What Microsoft are doing at the moment is listening to a few people with no clue about usability, who think they are "experts" in security and that "security" is the most important thing about a computer.

Windows Vista is a giant step backwards in so many ways its not funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
Ok, Brandon, let's "get to the core", as it were:

I am "going on" about a very elemental HUMAN RIGHT: The right to control his OWN destiny. Microsoft (and you) are attempting to get us to let Microsoft control our destinies. It is the "little foxes which spoil the vineyard", not the bears and wolves. Loss of control ALWAYS comes when SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE (doesn't matter who) decides that we can't (or won't)protect ourselves, so THEY must take it upon themselves to "protect" us. That's a form of condescension, sir.

Autocracy ALWAYS starts out as a "little control", then builds to "absolute" control.

Now, I really don't care WHAT you want to call this.

"Don't tread on me" was the slogan of our Fathers. it should still be ours.

Please tell me how UAC has anything at all to do with how much control you have over your destiny, much less your computer. UAC gives you the option - allow this program to run with your privileges, or make it run in a sandbox so it can't do harm if compromised.

Absolutely nothing that you could do in XP has been "taken away." That said, this is Microsoft's product, not yours. If you don't like the way it works, you have the right to not buy it. If you don't like Microsoft providing features that users have asked for in order to protect themselves, then maybe Vista isn't for you.

We work very very hard to provide users what they want, to help them get the most out of their computing experiences. I know that some people will disagree with the trade-offs being made between security and convenience or compatibility. That's bound to happen - everyone has different priorities and perspectives. However, I think we've done a good job providing a balanced default experience and adequate options for tailoring your Windows experience in either direction (on one end, disabling UAC. On the other, enabling credentials for admin elevation and only elevating signed executables).

If you feel that giving you more control over applications on your machine is somehow making you less in control of your destiny (if it is your destiny to be hacked, perhaps?)... well, I really can't account for that sort of backward thinking. I don't think any rational person can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joel    26
Actually, Joel, it's NOT "protection", it's the first steps toward complete control of our machines by someone NOT ourselves (supposedly Microsoft's rationale for it in the first place"). If it is "protection", WE DON'T WANT it. We are completely capable of "protecting" our computers the way WE want to do it. UAC was UNNECESSARY.

That it may or may not be "effective" in what it does is irrelevant. It takes control away from us against our wills. PERIOD.

THAT sir, is the EVIL in it. And it needs to be excised, like the "cancer" it is.

Donald McDaniel

What control have you lost (on your PC. I'm already aware of other "control" you've lost)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    10,425
I don't understand why some people think UAC is a good thing.

Then what's the point of this discussion? If you can see why some people "might" consider UAC a good thing then you obviously have no place in this topic. You might despise UAC, think it is the worst invention ever AND think Microsoft will use it to control all the computers running Vista when the times comes BUT if you can't accept that it might have a "possible" use in helping protect a computer from malware then your opinion doesn't matter and you are just being unreasonable.

You are a troll. Plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StevoJD    0

At first, like mostly everyone, I thought UAC was useless, nagging and just downright stupid. I researched UAC, saw some Channel 9 videos, and to me UAC is a worthy feature in Vista. I think it gives users more control over their PC. From what I understand, a rootkit/virus needs administrator privileges to make changes to a program/system file. What UAC does is add protection. If a rootkit were to install, UAC could to stop it right in it's tracks. Taking a few seconds to click "Allow/Deny" is much better than spending hours doing virus/spyware scans on a system. Also if I'm not mistaken Ubuntu and OS X have something similar to UAC. Sorry if something of what I said is inaccurate, but as a Windows user that's what I understand it to be, and I appreciate Microsoft's efforts. It takes some time to get used to, but UAC could end up saving you a reinstall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER85    248
I don't understand why some people think UAC is a good thing.

I'm at even more of a loss why some people think anyone who wants to be able to actually USE their computer without it popping up stupid messages all the time doesn't know what they are doing.

The very first thing I did with vista was turn off UAC. According to your definition that make me a novice.

Let me tell you I have been using computers for 30 years, and I have learned a thing or two about them over that time. I was also on the beta team for testing Windows Vista.

From my perspective UAC is one of the most useless things is Vista. Windows Defender is the second most useless thing in Vista - that was the second thing I uninstalled.

Bill Gates had it right when he was running Microsoft. Computers have to be EASY to use for them to appeal to the masses. What Microsoft are doing at the moment is listening to a few people with no clue about usability, who think they are "experts" in security and that "security" is the most important thing about a computer.

Windows Vista is a giant step backwards in so many ways its not funny.

From reading this post, it sounds like you're still using a computer from 1977. Either that, or you're 12 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odw    0

I have the popcorn .... waiting for the next reply :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter McGrath    0
From reading this post, it sounds like you're still using a computer from 1977. Either that, or you're 12 years old.

Seems there are a number of people here who just want to try and discredit anyone who has an opinion different from themselves. The term "fanbois" comes to mind.

It's pretty obvious I'm not a 12 year old if I've been using computers for over 30 years, although I might ask the same about yourself.

Likewise for your information I'm using a Dual Core Intel Centrino PC running Vista, so I am perfectly qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

You are a troll. Plain and simple.

I'm not a troll, although I suspect you are an idiot.

You strike me as an linux sysadmin type who thinks anything to do with Windows is evil and you must tell everyone who dares to use Windows the way you think it should be used.

I suggest you grow up.

I have the popcorn .... waiting for the next reply :p

lol - enjoy the entertainment :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FATILA    4

411_preaching_m1.jpg

I have the answer to yourrr payersz-ah!!!! We can exorcise this demon ma bruthers and sist-ahz!!

Salvation awaits

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.