The Great UAC Debate!

[Wommers]

sorry, should've explained i'm using that workaround. but you shouldn't need to be using ts in the 1st place for something like this. imo...

[KevinN206]

So it did not work for you? I am not sure why really since that is how I get RM CPU Clock and Battery Status (both require elevated privileges) to run without getting blocked.

I think MS chose not to provide an exclusion. I don't remember what their defense was, but it was by design. Unfortunately, that makes it rather annoying having to click three times just to run the blocked program. Since you've two, it would take you six clicks total just to get them started.

Did you put a check box on "Run with highest privileges"?

Make sure to disable the program's built-in autostart within its settings or preferences. For example, my RM CPU Clock program has the option to "Run at Windows startup". This box is unchecked to prevent conflict. Maybe it's starting from some start key rather than using the Task Scheduler.

Edited February 7, 2008 by KevinN206

[KeeperOfThePizza]

Disabled + Nod32 = Smooth.

[Deihmos]

UAC is by far the best feature of Vista. i honestly don't understand why anyone would have a problem with it. i guess they don't like to be in control.

[Wommers]

I think MS chose not to provide an exclusion. I don't remember what their defense was, but it was by design. .

sorry kevin, i should have stated in my last post that using task scheduler DOES fix the 'problem'. those screenies in first post are before workaround with ts. i just don't agree with having to resort to a 'workaround' to have a valid program open on boot. i understand why they have implemented it. but if ms would just add a tick box to 'remember choice' for each new program loading at boot so you wouldn't have to click 3 times to start OR use task scheduler i'd be happy. :) i'll have to google their defense.

[Linkinfamous]

sorry kevin, i should have stated in my last post that using task scheduler DOES fix the 'problem'. those screenies in first post are before workaround with ts. i just don't agree with having to resort to a 'workaround' to have a valid program open on boot. i understand why they have implemented it. but if ms would just add a tick box to 'remember choice' for each new program loading at boot so you wouldn't have to click 3 times to start OR use task scheduler i'd be happy. :) i'll have to google their defense.

Having a 'remember' option could leave systems open to vulnerability. If any app you set to 'remember' so much as uses a file open dialog, you've just made a pretty big privilege escallation exploit.

[Wommers]

forgive my ignorance, but why then aren't all startup programs blocked? :huh:

[Linkinfamous]

forgive my ignorance, but why then aren't all startup programs blocked? :huh:

Because they don't run with Admin privileges. There's no risk of system-wide access with them.

[Deihmos]

forgive my ignorance, but why then aren't all startup programs blocked? :huh:

It only blocks start up items that require admin privileges. WHen a program has admin rights it can make changes to yoru PC without you knowing.

[conan_2000]

UAC is by far the best feature of Vista. i honestly don't understand why anyone would have a problem with it. i guess they don't like to be in control.

For me I feel leaving UAC enabled is jsut being paranoid, I know enough about what to run and what not to run to keep my system safe, without the annoyance of UAC popping up and forcing me to respond. I run Nod32, plus Windows Defender is running, and a firewall on my router. ANything more than that for me is overkill.

Without UAC I have been running Vista smoothly for about 6 months, with no issues. So I really don't see the point for users, who are already 'in control' of their system.

[Gally]

^^ true, + if i didn't need it in XP, don't need it now.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

For me I feel leaving UAC enabled is jsut being paranoid, I know enough about what to run and what not to run to keep my system safe, without the annoyance of UAC popping up and forcing me to respond. I run Nod32, plus Windows Defender is running, and a firewall on my router. ANything more than that for me is overkill.

Without UAC I have been running Vista smoothly for about 6 months, with no issues. So I really don't see the point for users, who are already 'in control' of their system.

I don't mean for this to sound demeaning in any way but you do realise that "Nod32, plus Windows Defender is running, and a firewall on my router" can't protect you from what UAC does?

[Ayepecks]

Won't happen.

If users (and I mean a statistically significant number, not Neowin members) wanted those options, we'd build them. We don't build them becuause nobody wants them, and there are better things to be building that people do want. Perhaps you misread my statement?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If users wanted a less-intrusive UAC, then you'd build those options? Given from a lot of the reviews of Vista that I've read and the fact that Apple specifically made an ad about UAC being annoying, I'm going to say it's a big issue.

Will people defect to OSX and all? Not in large numbers, but if you stop listening to your customers, you're doomed. People don't like UAC because it's annoying. Shouldn't be too hard to think of a way to fix... in fact, a third-party ap did it. If you think it's so vital that people keep it on, you all should have made something like that the default.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

People don't like UAC because it's annoying.

Speak for yourself my friend - because a vast majority of people don't switch off UAC - I can imagine that lots of people don't even know you can.

As for Apple and the FUD they spread in their adverts - well only a complete mug will believe marketing speak....

[Athernar]

For me I feel leaving UAC enabled is jsut being paranoid, I know enough about what to run and what not to run to keep my system safe, without the annoyance of UAC popping up and forcing me to respond. I run Nod32, plus Windows Defender is running, and a firewall on my router. ANything more than that for me is overkill.

Without UAC I have been running Vista smoothly for about 6 months, with no issues. So I really don't see the point for users, who are already 'in control' of their system.

Zero-day vunerabilities.

[Ayepecks]

Speak for yourself my friend - because a vast majority of people don't switch off UAC - I can imagine that lots of people don't even know you can.

As for Apple and the FUD they spread in their adverts - well only a complete mug will believe marketing speak....

I said "People." I never said "everyone." I was giving a reason why people don't like it.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

I said "People." I never said "everyone." I was giving a reason why people don't like it.

Ok - so by "People" did you mean the majority or the minority?

[Deihmos]

For me I feel leaving UAC enabled is jsut being paranoid, I know enough about what to run and what not to run to keep my system safe, without the annoyance of UAC popping up and forcing me to respond. I run Nod32, plus Windows Defender is running, and a firewall on my router. ANything more than that for me is overkill.

Without UAC I have been running Vista smoothly for about 6 months, with no issues. So I really don't see the point for users, who are already 'in control' of their system.

A virus protector will only catch known threat is considered a virus. For eg. some key loggers would not be caught as a virus or threat even by Nod32. There are web sites that can run scripts in the background and you will never know since all programs have admin rights.

I have not had a virus in years so should I decide not to use a virus protector?

Edited February 8, 2008 by Deihmos

[Ayepecks]

Ok - so by "People" did you mean the majority or the minority?

I didn't imply either. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't know if it's a majority or minority and never even pretended to know as much. :rolleyes:

[+Fahim S. MVC]

I didn't imply either. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't know if it's a majority or minority and never even pretended to know as much. :rolleyes:

So you are asking Microsoft to fix UAC problem which only the minority of users may be complaining about ?

And TweakUAC doesn't fix UAC and make it less intrusive - it actually makes it pointless as processes which request elevation at startup are granted it at automatically - even if the code is malicious.

[Linkinfamous]

So you are asking Microsoft to fix UAC problem which only the minority of users may be complaining about ?

And TweakUAC doesn't fix UAC and make it less intrusive - it actually makes it pointless as processes which request elevation at startup are granted it at automatically - even if the code is malicious.

It still manages to prevent a process from running amok without spawning another one that requests the privileges explicity first. It's better than nothing, I guess.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Will be useful for many new computer users, but for me, it's a royal pain the ass.

All you need to do is turn it off though, no need to fire bullets at MS.

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

Will be useful for many new computer users, but for me, it's a royal pain the ass.

All you need to do is turn it off though, no need to fire bullets at MS.

(Y).

[Mythex]

If Vista ever made UAC unable to be turned off, I'd leave Vista forever. That's how frustrated I get from the relentless, stubborn messages asking me to confirm an action I just committed.

Being a programmer, I move files around a lot, copy them to different folders, and delete what I don't need anymore. UAC bugged me until I finally did a Google search to read on how to disable it.

[Evolution]

Well for your case, then it would probably be best to have a programmer UAC off account + standard account for other users.