Disabling UAC

[simm_isengard]

Not a big fan of UAC, don't have it active atm. But I do see what benefits it has. But I can take care of myself when it comes to my computer, if I lose my data then its MY data I lose my data. Why should anybody else care?

I didn't even notice, I only have 182 posts and been a member longer than most everybody in this thread. Aside from Joel that is. :)

[QuietStorm21A]

I will admit at first UAC was very annoying when first setting up my pc for the first time but I notice as time went on that I got use to it and saw the benefits of it. There would probably be a few adjustments I would like to see done to UAC such as having it remember elevations for certain programs I use a lot that need it, but other than that I am satisfied. :D

[Mordkanin]

such as having it remember elevations for certain programs I use a lot that need it

That's something you'll probably never see. It'd just add a huge gaping hole for vulnerabilities.

[WindowsOnIMac]

It has nothing to do if Microsoft trusts you or not, in fact the only iffy point about if they trust you or not is WGA, but that's irrelevant at the moment. It is simply providing you with a way where the dialog provided is one YOU can trust.

And it does do it for the same programs because programs can CHANGE. Outlook for example, may become corrupted by a malicious email you downloaded.

Having a vulnerable machine will, eventually, compromise other machines that this one has contact to, because viruses spread, thus making it those people's prerogatives as well.

Then apple's method is inherently insecure.

They are completely unnecessary until you get a malicious program that tries to fake a UAC dialog. I don't know if they exist yet, but they certainly will. It's Microsoft's job to make sure that you can trust their OS to prevent these kinds of things.

You seem to not be able to understand what I write. Haven't you read anything else I've posted in this thread?

If you haven't, I will give you a small synopsis:

1) I don't want Microsoft having its clammy hands all over my property.

2) I am more than capable of taking care of my OWN security.

3) I do love Windows (basically). However, they are encroaching into MY space more and more, and usurping my prerogatives more and more. This is not acceptable.

4) I have been a PUBLIC defender of Microsoft for many, many years. Not so much any more.

5) The ONLY time my computer has EVER been compromised I KNEW it would happen BEFORE I took the steps necessary for it to happen.

4) I despise UAC.

5) You are dead wrong about the way Apple presents an elevation dialog. Proof is that Apples simply DON'T become compromised, while other brands of PCs do. You may or may not claim this is because of the number of Mac owners as compared with other PC owners. I myself used this rationalization for my dislike of OS X for years. Now, I'm not so sure.

Basically, my dispute is with neither Microsoft or Apple, per se. It IS with the fanatics who seem to rule all conversation about the two platforms on the Web. They need to hear a conflicting opinion, and LEARN to accept that not all Microsoft or Apple users agree with their fanatical beliefs about their machines. They also need to learn that even they are human beings, and need to be taken down a few notches from time to time.

Now, if these people were reasonable, and willing to actually consider that they might be wrong, we would all get along much better.

BTW, please accept my apologies for snapping at you yesterday. I have come to the opinion that while you seem to approve of UAC, at least it is from a good heart, rather than an evil one, like the fanatics. I should have followed the thread closer. I was just reacting to the crappy attitude these people seem to have.

Calling me a "child" over and over was proof enough for me that they have no good intentions toward those they disagree with.

The fact is, this subject (UAC) is all over the Web right now. People are sincerely concerned about Microsoft's attitude toward its customers because of this. Fanatical replies will only cause them to be MORE concerned.

If you want to see the Mac fanbois in action, open a Usenet client, and navigate on over to comp.sys.mac.com.

I do warn you,however: unless you have a thick skin, they will tear you to shreds the minute you even write the word "Microsoft" and cast it in a good light. These guys are dedicated to destroying any Windows apologist who enters their little kingdom.

Go there before deciding I am not a Microsoft supporter, OK?

Eventually, you might see what I am struggling against. But keep an open mind, friend. In my opinion, the very fact that Microsoft added UAC to Vista is more evil that the control it removes from the average user. Which is the point I've been trying to make.

Truth-speakers will always be persecuted by his friends as well as his enemies, so I really don't expect anything else.

Donald McDaniel

Donald McDaniel

[WindowsOnIMac]

It has nothing to do if Microsoft trusts you or not, in fact the only iffy point about if they trust you or not is WGA, but that's irrelevant at the moment. It is simply providing you with a way where the dialog provided is one YOU can trust.

And it does do it for the same programs because programs can CHANGE. Outlook for example, may become corrupted by a malicious email you downloaded.

Having a vulnerable machine will, eventually, compromise other machines that this one has contact to, because viruses spread, thus making it those people's prerogatives as well.

Then apple's method is inherently insecure.

They are completely unnecessary until you get a malicious program that tries to fake a UAC dialog. I don't know if they exist yet, but they certainly will. It's Microsoft's job to make sure that you can trust their OS to prevent these kinds of things.

You seem to not be able to understand what I write. Haven't you read anything else I've posted in this thread?

If you haven't, I will give you a small synopsis:

1) I don't want Microsoft having its clammy hands all over my property.

2) I am more than capable of taking care of my OWN security.

3) I do love Windows (basically). However, they are encroaching into MY space more and more, and usurping my prerogatives more and more. This is not acceptable.

4) I have been a PUBLIC defender of Microsoft for many, many years. Not so much any more.

5) The ONLY time my computer has EVER been compromised I KNEW it would happen BEFORE I took the steps necessary for it to happen.

4) I despise UAC.

5) You are dead wrong about the way Apple presents an elevation dialog. Proof is that Apples simply DON'T become compromised, while other brands of PCs do. You may or may not claim this is because of the number of Mac owners as compared with other PC owners. I myself used this rationalization for my dislike of OS X for years. Now, I'm not so sure.

I do trust the elevation dialog which OS X presents. I DON'T trust ANYTHING Microsoft says or does anymore. I used to. But too many incursions by Microsoft into my liberties have slowly been eroding that trust.

Now, If Microsoft were to remove the darkening of my screen when presenting an elevation request, and stopped trying to take control of my Desktop, this would all be a moot point. Apple's method is perfectly safe, since OS X is intrinsically safer than Windows. If this is not so, WHY is Microsoft JUST NOW starting to be come "concerned" with our safety. Did they suddenly have an epiphany, and realize ho little they were listening to their customers all those years before Vista? I kind of doubt their "epiphany" came any other source than the form of a US court action against their POCKETBOOK, as well as the EU's huge fines.

Face it, friend: The people are MAD AS HENS who've been disturbed while sitting on their eggs. Microsoft is grabbing at straws right now to "fix it". And CONTINUING to make the same mistakes over and over.

Basically, my dispute is with neither Windows Vista nor OS X, per se. It IS with the fanatics who seem to rule all conversation about the two platforms on the Web. They need to hear a conflicting opinion, and LEARN to accept that not all Microsoft or Apple users agree with their fanatical beliefs about their machines/OSes. They also need to learn that even they are human beings, and need to be taken down a few notches from time to time.

Now, if these people were reasonable, and willing to actually consider that they might be wrong, we would all get along much better.

BTW, please accept my apologies for snapping at you yesterday. I have come to the opinion that while you seem to approve of UAC, at least it is from a good heart, rather than an evil one, like the fanatics. I should have followed the thread closer. I was just reacting to the crappy attitude these people seem to have.

Calling me a "child" over and over was proof enough for me that they have no good intentions toward those they disagree with. Making fun of my Christianity clenched it for me. Constantly calling me (and every other UAC detractor) an ignorant nubie only made it worse.

The fact is, this subject (UAC) is all over the Web right now. People are sincerely concerned about Microsoft's attitude toward its customers because of this. Fanatical replies will only cause them to be MORE concerned. Even Microsoft can see something is wrong with Vista. Which is exactly why they keep extending the deadline for the sale of XP OEM. Their corporate customers are not being convinced. Oh, a few here and there have upgraded. Enough, apparently, for Microsoft to loudly proclaim how corporations are upgrading. But for the most part, corporations are snubbing Microsoft Vista in favor of earlier OSes (or non-Microsoft OSes).

BTW, if you want to see the Mac fanbois in action, open a Usenet client, and navigate on over to comp.sys.mac.com.

I do warn you,however: unless you have a thick skin, they will tear you to shreds the minute you even write the word "Microsoft" and cast it in a good light. These guys are dedicated to destroying any Windows apologist who enters their little kingdom. And apparently, those fanbois in this forum seem to be willing to act the same way toward Microsoft detractors. Fanbois of whatever stripe are basically the same everywhere. Fanaticism is destroying the world our Creator put us in charge of. Fanaticism is just as bad as murder, since it's basis is hatred without a good reason. All fanatics try to raise themselves up to God's throne, against HIS will. Of course, they are not aware of this, since they are consumed by their hatred.

Go there before deciding I am not a Microsoft supporter, OK?

Eventually, you might see what I am struggling against. But keep an open mind, friend. In my opinion, the very fact that Microsoft added UAC to Vista is more evil that the control it removes from the average user. Which is the point I've been trying to make.

Truth-speakers will always be persecuted by their friends as well as their enemies, so I really don't expect anything else. You will always hear the truth from me, even if it leads to my hurt.

Donald McDaniel

Edited October 1, 2007 by WindowsOnIMac

[NEVER85]

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.

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.

lol - enjoy the entertainment :)

It's blatantly obvious by your posts that either you don't use Vista at all, or you're simply a novice with computers. UAC does not pop up all the time as you've stated. Sure, when you do a clean install and are re-installing all your applications, you'll see it a lot, but after that, it's a rare occurance. The only time you'll see it is if you absolutely need to do something that requires elevated privileges, which shouldn't be very often. I use Vista day in and day out and rarely see a UAC prompt. If I do, it takes me all of a second and a half to click "Allow". Quit your bitching and take your own advice. Grow up.

[piehouserat]

yet another load of bickering between the morons that love to force UAC upon you and those that simply wish to have it turned off for personal reasons...

MioTheGreat obviously doesn't have anything more interesting to do with his time then defend UAC, pity.

[NEVER85]

You seem to not be able to understand what I write. Haven't you read anything else I've posted in this thread?

If you haven't, I will give you a small synopsis:

1) I don't want Microsoft having its clammy hands all over my property.

It isn't your property, it's theirs. Microsoft can do whatever they want to their operating system. All you did was purchase a license.

2) I am more than capable of taking care of my OWN security.

Remember that the next time a 0-day vulnerability that isn't stopped by AV and firewall software is exploited on your system.

Most people here are "more than capable" of taking care of their own security, but they see the benefits of UAC. It takes all of 1 second to click "Allow" in the rare instances you'll see UAC, and I highly doubt your time is so precious that you can't afford to

take that one extra second to do so.

3) I do love Windows (basically). However, they are encroaching into MY space more and more, and usurping my prerogatives more and more. This is not acceptable.

You can't do anything about it, so stop using Windows if it gets your panties in a knot.

4) I have been a PUBLIC defender of Microsoft for many, many years. Not so much any more.

Good for you, see answer 3.

5) The ONLY time my computer has EVER been compromised I KNEW it would happen BEFORE I took the steps necessary for it to happen.

O...kay?

4) I despise UAC.

Shouldn't this be 6? Anyways, it's a good feature, so quit your bitching and go back to XP if it bothers you so much.

5) You are dead wrong about the way Apple presents an elevation dialog. Proof is that Apples simply DON'T become compromised, while other brands of PCs do.

And when does Vista become compromised?

[Guest]

Two thing to disable. UAC and DEP. A lot of games would not even start because of DEP who was causing unexpected failure when you run a game. After you disable DEP, everything works like a charm.

Both features are totally useless from my point of view. Some people don't like Windows Defender. I actually do cause it does job OK.

Security wise the best protection is Hardware Firewall/Router + AVG + Windows Defender + Windows Firewall. You don't need anything more then that. I wish Microsoft gave us an option to remove bunch of annoying useless application such as Error Reporting, Solution, etc...

Windows Search is ok for corporate environment. For home users is useless...old search was good enough.

Superfetch...what a crap...

Afterall I have nothing against Vista only if Microsoft gave us big custom list of options where we can decide what to install and what not to like let's say for UAC, Windows Defender...pretty much every App in Vista.

Microsoft was never intuitive about anything. There is a simple example. When you install Windows Vista on the system equipped with 8800GTX card; Vista doesn't have drivers for it so after the installation process is done you get the option to set security settings and you pick Recommended which means that Windows Update will kick in by starting downloading and installing updates and one of them will be your video adapter drivers?

Usually the version on Windows Update is old and pretty much bull****. Not knowing that you reboot and you see crappy video drivers there, so you're force to uninstall that **** and install the version you downloaded from Nvidia web site.

I can make a huge list of the things where it makes you think WTF they were thinking...

Edited October 1, 2007 by red_star

[Brandon Live Veteran]

You seem to not be able to understand what I write. Haven't you read anything else I've posted in this thread?

If you haven't, I will give you a small synopsis:

1) I don't want Microsoft having its clammy hands all over my property.

You do not own Windows, it is the property of Microsoft. Microsoft wrote Windows, so our "clammy hands" are all over it. Just like Apple's are all over their property, OS X.

2) I am more than capable of taking care of my OWN security.

Clearly not, or you would be grateful for the power UAC gives you.

4) I despise UAC.

That much is obvious. As is the fact that you haven't a clue what UAC is or how it works.

5) You are dead wrong about the way Apple presents an elevation dialog. Proof is that Apples simply DON'T become compromised, while other brands of PCs do. You may or may not claim this is because of the number of Mac owners as compared with other PC owners. I myself used this rationalization for my dislike of OS X for years. Now, I'm not so sure.

Apple's elevation dialogs are just like the Windows dialogs for standard (non-admin) users. No difference at all. Well, except that the Windows version is shown on the Secure Desktop by default for added security.

For admin users, Apple still presents credential dialogs. Windows has an easier option called a "consent" dialog for Admin users. This is made possible by advancements in Vista and the Secure Desktop. Apple cannot offer this option, or clearly they would.

Apple is also not at all concerned about security, as demonstrated by their poor security track record and a myriad of comments from their developers and partners. For now, security isn't a big deal since businesses don't use Macs and the Mac OS is rarely targetted by attackers because essentially nobody uses it. As their marketshare increases, this will hurt them.

Basically, my dispute is with neither Microsoft or Apple, per se. It IS with the fanatics who seem to rule all conversation about the two platforms on the Web. They need to hear a conflicting opinion, and LEARN to accept that not all Microsoft or Apple users agree with their fanatical beliefs about their machines. They also need to learn that even they are human beings, and need to be taken down a few notches from time to time.

You've demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are just the kind of fanatic you have described. You refuse to acknowledge facts or make any rational argument to justify your opinion. You repeat phrases describing UAC as "evil" and asserting that it takes control away from you as the owner of your computer. And yet, you haven't offered one iota of evidence to support that absurd claim. When I described the functionality that describes UAC, and made it clear that no control has been taken away versus Windows XP, you ignored that post.

Now, if these people were reasonable, and willing to actually consider that they might be wrong, we would all get along much better.

I can only assume this comment was meant to be ironic.

BTW, please accept my apologies for snapping at you yesterday. I have come to the opinion that while you seem to approve of UAC, at least it is from a good heart, rather than an evil one, like the fanatics. I should have followed the thread closer. I was just reacting to the crappy attitude these people seem to have.

Yeah, all those evil fanatics... destroying the world with their sound technical advice. Give me a break.

The fact is, this subject (UAC) is all over the Web right now. People are sincerely concerned about Microsoft's attitude toward its customers because of this. Fanatical replies will only cause them to be MORE concerned.

No one on the web is concerned that UAC is indicative of a poor attitude towards Microsoft's customers. Not anyone who understands it, anyway. There are plenty who think WGA is indicative of that, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Eventually, you might see what I am struggling against. But keep an open mind, friend. In my opinion, the very fact that Microsoft added UAC to Vista is more evil that the control it removes from the average user. Which is the point I've been trying to make.

What. The. Hell. UAC isn't evil. It doesn't take away control from the average user. It gives them more control. Both standard users and admins, in fact. On XP if a program didn't support running as non-admin, you were out of luck. Now you have hope that Reg/FS virtualization will make the program work, or you can elevate with an admin password.

Truth-speakers will always be persecuted by his friends as well as his enemies, so I really don't expect anything else.

I think you haven't any friends nor enemies here. You haven't spoken a word of truth, either. Just hyperbole and fanatical disdain.

This is likely the last response you'll get from me. Come back with an actual argument, or a single reason why UAC "takes away control" and perhaps I'll respond with an answer.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Two thing to disable. UAC and DEP. A lot of games would not even start because of DEP who was causing unexpected failure when you run a game. After you disable DEP, everything works like a charm.

There isn't a single game that fails because of DEP. DEP only affects programs compiled for DEP. Turning it off is a mind-numbingly obtuse thing to do. Occassionally DEP will cause (DEP-enabled) apps to crash sooner, whereas without it they'll simply be corrupting memory and crash very soon later. But DEP will never ever close an application unless it is about to crash anyway.

I didn't even think we let you turn it off. That's like asking to turn off protected memory. Or checksum validation. Positively absurd.

Both features are totally useless from my point of view.

That would be the point of view from which you don't understand either feature?

Security wise the best protection is Hardware Firewall/Router + AVG + Windows Defender + Windows Firewall.

That's a very naive claim, I hope that you don't work in IT. None of those would stop the WMF vulnerability or the .ANI vulnerability from a couple months ago. None of them would stop the various Flash vulnerabilities (like the one that Microsoft had to help Adobe with, it was so bad). UAC would, and in some cases (several Flash bugs), DEP would as well.

You don't need anything more then that. I wish Microsoft gave us an option to remove bunch of annoying useless application such as Error Reporting, Solution, etc...

Those Error Reports are invaluable to us. Please, please send them. Without them, we often can't fix those crashes. Those reports tell us exactly where in the code to find the problem, and they also tell us how many people are having the same problem. It's a massive, brilliant system and I still can't get over just how well executed it is (I had no idea until I started working with it).

In Vista, the Solutions stuff is new and also really great. It will tell you when a specific update will fix a crash or problem you've had. How could you possibly not want that?

Windows Search is ok for corporate environment. For home users is useless...old search was good enough.

Right, because home users don't deserve fast access to their data, or advanced sorting/filtering/grouping options, or cool programs built on top of the index platform.

Superfetch...what a crap...

The solution to everyone's biggest complaints about memory management in XP (and other OSes) and you call it crap? I mean... who wants a faster computer anyway.

crosoft was never intuitive about anything. There is a simple example. When you install Windows Vista on the system equipped with 8800GTX card; Vista doesn't have drivers for it so after the installation process is done you get the option to set security settings and you pick Recommended which means that Windows Update will kick in by starting downloading and installing updates and one of them will be your video adapter drivers?

Usually the version on Windows Update is old and pretty much bull****. Not knowing that you reboot and you see crappy video drivers there, so you're force to uninstall that **** and install the version you downloaded from Nvidia web site.

I can make a huge list of the things where it makes you think WTF they were thinking...

I can tell you exactly WTF we were thinking. The average user doesn't have a clue who made their video card. Most users will never go to Nvidia.com and install a driver. Heck, doing so would void their OEM warranty - so why would they? At best they might download a driver from Dell or Toshiba, which is probably leftover from 2001.

I have never heard a user complaint about that feature before. Even the most hardcore gamers and ethusiasts I know love the fact that Vista finds drivers for pretty much everything, and they're usually very much up-to-date. You'd rather have to go download a driver for every component in device manager? Are you serious?

[raskren]

Wow, the close-mindedness and ignorance in this thread is just disgusting.

All you so called "Windows enthusiasts" need to take a page from the Linux/UNIX handbook and learn why it is not a good idea to run as "root" all the time. Pay close attention to the chaper "How UAC helps you, the user, regardless of experience." It's between "Why ignorance is a bad thing" and "Exploits, explained."

[kouhii00]

Stupidity is a ****ing blisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[WindowsOnIMac]

It has nothing to do if Microsoft trusts you or not, in fact the only iffy point about if they trust you or not is WGA, but that's irrelevant at the moment. It is simply providing you with a way where the dialog provided is one YOU can trust.

And it does do it for the same programs because programs can CHANGE. Outlook for example, may become corrupted by a malicious email you downloaded.

Having a vulnerable machine will, eventually, compromise other machines that this one has contact to, because viruses spread, thus making it those people's prerogatives as well.

Then apple's method is inherently insecure.

They are completely unnecessary until you get a malicious program that tries to fake a UAC dialog. I don't know if they exist yet, but they certainly will. It's microsoft's job to make sure that you can trust their OS to prevent these kinds of things.

1) Whether I trust Microsoft or not is entirely up to them. UAC removed any trust I formerly had for them.

2) Your first point is a valid one. I do believe Microsoft wants us to trust them. It has been hard to do in the past, and UAC has only made it worse. But, all abusers want their victims to trust them. It makes it easier for them to continue their abuse, and even elevate it.

3) I use other forms of Email security -- non-Microsoft security tools. They have years of experience, as well as public acceptance. For these reasons, I CAN trust them. Because Microsoft is a nubie itself in the matter of security, it will take 10 or 20 more years for me to gain back the lost trust. I simply do not trust Microsoft's brute force methods at this present time. And I am certainly not alone.

4) I feel sure that the various security companies will work with Microsoft to ensure that their products (their bread and butter, after all) keep their customers safe. Microsoft made it VERY HARD for them to do this, however. How are WE to take this? It appears to us that Microsoft is attempting to destroy third-party utilities. Of course, that really depends on how they continue acting toward those companies. If they continue to attempt to invalidate them, there will certainly be a further court action against them for misusing their monopoly position in the Market to put their competitors out of business.

4) The ONLY way Microsoft can EVER gain our trust back is by STOPPING their actions to make us trust them. All they are succeeding in doing is making us LESS desirous of trusting them. Their attempts to "protect us" make us feel like they want to OWN us.

5) I neither need, nor want, Microsoft's "protection". I am more than capable of protecting myself.

6) If Microsoft wants me to continue being their customer, they are going to HAVE to take their hands OFF MY machine, and allow ME to protect myself. Removing UAC would be a good first step, and possible proof of their change in attitude toward their customers.

It is going to take a few years, friend. It won't happen over night.

DONALD MCDANIEL

[raskren]

Dear DONALD MCDANIEL,

You should try using Linux, Solaris, or Mac OS X. Most countries have a form of free market whereby you are free to purchase or download any operating system you choose.

Also, please quit posting in the "Disabling UAC" thread. You are talking, but not saying anything important, interesting, or relevant to the topic.

Sincerely,

NEOWIN.NET

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Just stop. Please. Such an onslaught of proud ignorance is just too much to handle this early in the morning.

[WindowsOnIMac]

Just stop. Please. Such an onslaught of proud ignorance is just too much to handle this early in the morning.

Perhaps we feel the same way about you, sir.

BTW, your comment about "the bad security track record of OS X" was the straw that broke the camel's back.

It shows me just how evil you are.

Now, whether you, as a Microsoft employee, REALLY believe this obvious lie is irrelevant. You, who are supposedly on Vista's development team, as you appear to claim, should know better than to trot out an easily-refuted lie like that. Tell it to a REAL Apple fanatic and see what happens.

It really shows me how hateful you are. You certainly belong on Microsoft's campus, because you fit right in with the philosophy of Microsoft, which is "Lie, if you must. But do your best to ensure that Windows sells."

Sir, I would have been content to let well-enough alone, if you had not shown yourself for what you really are.

Now, I believe NOTHING you have to say. Hopefully, others will eventually see through your deception.

You will hear nothing more from me, sir. I'm finished with you. I have nothing in common with liars.

Donald McDaniel

[RaisinCain]

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

Are you saying that you would actually talk smack about your employer on a public forum? :p

[raskren]

You have me in stitches now! Lies, evil doers, Internet drama!!!

You will hear nothing more from me, sir. I'm finished with you. I have nothing in common with liars.

Oh thank goodness.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Are you saying that you would actually talk smack about your employer on a public forum? :p

I have, and do :)

[Mark Schieldrop]

Someone firewall this troll please.

Brandon, you're too smart to get dragged into this. He might be a better troll than some of the others recently, but he's still pretty skillless.

[Sethos]

So to sum up the thread:

Do you wanna use UAC or not is entirely up to each user.

Mkay? Let's move on.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Perhaps we feel the same way about you, sir.

BTW, your comment about "the bad security track record of OS X" was the straw that broke the camel's back.

It shows me just how evil you are.

Evil? Come now, surely you aren't judging me based on one internet forum disagreement. If you were a Christian I'd have to call you quite the hypocrite.

OS X has a shoddy security record, that isn't news to anybody. They're pretty much never exploited, but the vulnerabilities exist. They have nothing like DEP / NX, ASLR, service isolation, etc. No signing requirements. They don't employ security-focused development practices like SDL. They have unending buffer overflow vulnerabilities even though nobody is really looking for them. This will become a problem for them, if they don't change their ways.

Now, whether you, as a Microsoft employee, REALLY believe this obvious lie is irrelevant. You, who are supposedly on Vista's development team, as you appear to claim, should know better than to trot out an easily-refuted lie like that. Tell it to a REAL Apple fanatic and see what happens.

As opposed to a poser Apple fanatic like yourself? Calling my point a "lie" isn't an argument. You have yet to back up a single one of your ignorant opinions in this thread, so stop attacking me and everyone that disagrees with you. Either make a point or get out.

It really shows me how hateful you are. You certainly belong on Microsoft's campus, because you fit right in with the philosophy of Microsoft, which is "Lie, if you must. But do your best to ensure that Windows sells."

I don't need you to tell me what my philosophy or that of my company is. I work very hard, as do all of us, to deliver cool software that makes people's lives better. I come here to help people, answer questions, discuss interesting topics, and sometimes to kill time when I need a break.

As for you... why are you here? What are you trying to accomplish? To convince people that Microsoft is evil and somehow trying to steal all your freedoms by giving you more control over the security of your Windows systems? What, exactly, have you done with your life that makes you feel justified in judging others and forcing your unsolicited "wisdom" upon them?

Not much, I'd guess, from the display of immaturity I've seen here.

Mark, I agree. This thread needs to die.

[Panacik]

Wow, all this over UAC :s

It wasnt there in XP and people got on just fine.

If you like it, leave it on, if you dont, then turn it off.

Quite simple really.

[HawkMan]

Well it's actually quite funny to read Donald McDaniel's insane ramblings and how he completeley ignoes what anyone else writes , or the factual parts that proves the points anyway :)

I find it more sad that this person may have friends, and probably ha family somewhere in the real world... and he may actually be giving them computer advice...

oh well, at least there's a lot of good info on UAC int his thread.

Brandon you ought to compile a nice page/Blog with all of this UAC info nice and compiled, I'd love to be abl to link it to people, a lot :) and this thread wouldn't be the best place to link anyone to :)