Win7 features revealed: customizable UAC and integrated Accelerators

[HawkMan]

nothing wrong with NTFS, but you dont think they could make it more optimized?

They are continually optimizing NTFS, that's why it has version numbers

[7Dash8]

They are continually optimizing NTFS, that's why it has version numbers

The guy is trying to parrot the usual criticisms of Windows Vista and Win 7 by saying things like there's no WinFS and you guys keep ruining it for him by pointing out facts! Stop it, just let him make up stuff to put down Windows for the love of god!

[Berserk87]

They are continually optimizing NTFS, that's why it has version numbers

also realize that :p

i guess they havnt hit a point were they look at it and something clicks were something clicks and they realize they could get a large performance boost that can get by recoding the majority of the File system . :)

[Daedalus]

i bet my 2 cents that those dialogs will still look like that in the final stages of win7

any reasons why they should'nt ?

Here's a few reasons: inconsistency, poor aesthetics and badly worded messages.

[MMaster23]

You guys do know these UAC "customization" options have been in Windows Vista from the very start huh?

Nearly every IT-pro / admin that uses Vista knew that.

However this is more of a consumer friendly UI. I think this is kinda a bad move as this will not turn off UAC but simply not show it anymore. This could lead to some very akward situations where older software won't raise UAC on it's own but there is no way of telling.

(* In case you didn't know: These options are found in the Group Policy and ultimately in the registry. You can set UAC raise requests for admins / non-admin. This way normal users get UAC (or not and they have to fill in an admin user/pass on the fly, BEST. OPTION. EVER.) but your enterprise admins won't have to worry about something nagging you when doing administrative work. This however does require your admins to have the dicipline to only use admin accounts when really really needed. Most don't.)

[zhangm Supervisor]

i guess they havnt hit a point were they look at it and something clicks were something clicks and they realize they could get a large performance boost that can get by recoding the majority of the File system . :)

I don't understand your reasoning here - you claim that recoding the file system => faster. I'm not exactly sure how that follows.

[zaidgs]

I think UAC's design choices are very lame, both in Vista and the supposed enhanced version. I actually have three suggestions to make UAC better. The first one is 'Remember my choice' option - Just like how using firewalls and similar security tools, you just need to authorize the program the FIRST time you run it, NOT every time!!

The second suggestion is that there should be some pre-defined allowed programs, also similar to those firewalls that automatically authorize well-known programs.

The third suggestion, which is a bit more tech savvy, is that the dialog should provide more information about what the program is trying to do. I mean, the message "a program needs your permission to continue" is really uninformative... Permission to do what exactly?! It needs not to be annoying as Host-based Intrusion Prevention Systems (HIPS - like COMODO Defense+, for example), but it should be more informative.

I understand that my third suggestion is a bit overboard for Microsoft, but I don't see any reason why my first two suggestions are not implemented. That way, UAC would be a lot less annoying (since less prompts), and a lot more useful (since less prompts mean that people are more likely to read the messages), and without compromising security the way the new UAC does!

[Belazor]

The first one is 'Remember my choice' option - Just like how using firewalls and similar security tools, you just need to authorize the program the FIRST time you run it, NOT every time!!

So all virus makers had to do was fake a name? A hash? An icon?

The second suggestion is that there should be some pre-defined allowed programs, also similar to those firewalls that automatically authorize well-known programs.

See above.

The third suggestion, which is a bit more tech savvy, is that the dialog should provide more information about what the program is trying to do. I mean, the message "a program needs your permission to continue" is really uninformative... Permission to do what exactly?! It needs not to be annoying as Host-based Intrusion Prevention Systems (HIPS - like COMODO Defense+, for example), but it should be more informative.

Fixed in Win7. It now says what exactly it is that's happening (wants to install a program, etc).

[hagjohn]

bloat... :no:

[zaidgs]

So all virus makers had to do was fake a name? A hash? An icon?

No offense, but it seems that you have no knowledge about secure hashes. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate a secure hash using a fake file, a virus or whatever!! Respectable security softwares use hashes and digital signatures, and that is indeed a secure setup. You make it sound simple!

And I am glad they made more informative prompts in Win7, thats good news.

Edited September 28, 2008 by zaidgs

[Angel Blue01]

I like how you can customize UAC, can be done through the registry now but this is better.

[Adrian0E]

Looking good now... Well se what you will have to say after release! Will be a big "fss" as Vista!

[HawkMan]

bloat... :no:

what ...... ?

[+Elі Subscriber²]

Looking good, I like the changes made so far.

[Linkinfamous]

also realize that :p

i guess they havnt hit a point were they look at it and something clicks were something clicks and they realize they could get a large performance boost that can get by recoding the majority of the File system . :)

If you want a performance boost, you should not be looking for them to reimplement WinFS. There's are reasons they abandoned it, and the massive overhead of the whole system was one of them.

[majortom1981]

I think UAC's design choices are very lame, both in Vista and the supposed enhanced version. I actually have three suggestions to make UAC better. The first one is 'Remember my choice' option - Just like how using firewalls and similar security tools, you just need to authorize the program the FIRST time you run it, NOT every time!!

The second suggestion is that there should be some pre-defined allowed programs, also similar to those firewalls that automatically authorize well-known programs.

The third suggestion, which is a bit more tech savvy, is that the dialog should provide more information about what the program is trying to do. I mean, the message "a program needs your permission to continue" is really uninformative... Permission to do what exactly?! It needs not to be annoying as Host-based Intrusion Prevention Systems (HIPS - like COMODO Defense+, for example), but it should be more informative.

I understand that my third suggestion is a bit overboard for Microsoft, but I don't see any reason why my first two suggestions are not implemented. That way, UAC would be a lot less annoying (since less prompts), and a lot more useful (since less prompts mean that people are more likely to read the messages), and without compromising security the way the new UAC does!

IFn the program was done right then it would only have the uac prompt come up once.

You are just like everybody else. BAshing microsoft for something that isnt their fault. Blame all the lazy coders who don't want to program their stuff the right way.

[Xerxes]

The new UAC should be made as an update for Vista...

yes, the new UAC will be part of Vista SP2, for sure!

Anyway I will keep the UAC to the max security level, so I don't really need this update.

Not going to happen, SPs are not meant to add features to an OS. If you want the new features, get Win7 when it comes out that is how it works. If MS just ported all the good stuff from Win7 to Vista, what is the incentive to buy Win7? MS are a business out to make money after all ;)

EDIT: UAC is actually perfectly fine how it is, I hardly see a UAC dialog box (primarily only comes up installing a new app or changing a system setting), all it really needed was a "don't show this dialog again for this app" check box.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Xerxes

[franzon]

"a program needs your permission to continue" is really uninformative... Permission to do what exactly?!

it's almost impossible to know what a program WILL do in the future. For example, a program starts to write in c:\program files so the UAC prompt appears, then this program will also change the firewall settings (the program is able to do that because it's already elevated). What message would be displayed to the user?

A message like "do you want authorize a write in c:\program files?" is wrong, because the programm also changes the firewall settings.

A message like "do you want authorize a write in c:\program files and a change in firewall settings?" is not possible because it's impossible to predict a future activity (i.e. changing the firewall settings)

Edited September 28, 2008 by franzon

[what]

Not going to happen, SPs are not meant to add features to an OS. If you want the new features, get Win7 when it comes out that is how it works. If MS just ported all the good stuff from Win7 to Vista, what is the incentive to buy Win7? MS are a business out to make money after all ;)

Microsoft is trying to make money? Nowai :o So yeah, thanks for pointing out the obvious. I know it's not going to happen, which is why I made it quite clear that I thought it's what should happen. If, as someone said above, this customisable UAC feature has always existed in Vista and only needed a GUI, then it should definitely just be released as a free update. While UAC is a good feature in concept, how it works is one of the biggest problems Vista, so changing it now would be far better for PR than making people pay for the upgrade to Seven for what boils down to a little slider.

[Ayepecks]

I love the idea of UAC customization.

...but I hate accelerators. I see no point to them, personally. I hope there's an option to disable them.

[Typhon]

Love the looks of it good work.

[Linkinfamous]

it's almost impossible to know what a program WILL do in the future. For example, a program starts to write in c:\program files so the UAC prompt appears, once this program gets elevation it will also change the firewall settings. So, what message would be shown to the user?

A message like "do you want authorize a write in c:\program files?" is wrong, because the programm also changes the firewall settings.

A message like "do you want authorize a write in c:\program files and a change in firewall settings?" is not possible because it's impossible to predict a future activity (i.e. changing the firewall settings)

That is not how UAC works. UAC does not prompt you when a process goes to write in %programfiles%. If a process was launched with insufficient privileges to do so, when it tries to write there, it will simply get an access denied error.

Instead, UAC controls the privileges that the process gets at process launch. You are correct that after this point, it's impossible to know what the process is going to do, because it has simply been given Admin privileges, not permission to perform any one 'action'.

[mad_onion]

I love the idea of UAC customization.

...but I hate accelerators. I see no point to them, personally. I hope there's an option to disable them.

well based on the screenshot in the OP it would seem as though it has to be actively started and so is off by default

and MioTheGreat can you explain the whole notify thing in those UAC screenshots is about. what use could notifing users have when the process as already been elevated. i don't understand why those options exist surely just the top one and the bottom one are needed.

[Eric Veteran]

so....NTFS for another 10 years?

or is there a chance they've been working on a new File system that hasnt been announced yet?

WinFS wasn't a file system... look it up.

bloat... :no:

Try a laxative or anti-gas remedy...

IFn the program was done right then it would only have the uac prompt come up once.

You are just like everybody else. BAshing microsoft for something that isnt their fault. Blame all the lazy coders who don't want to program their stuff the right way.

City of Heroes is an excellent example of this. There is NO reason it needs admin privileges to download game patches.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Accelerators sound like a waste of time to me. The UAC changes look logical, particularly when many just disable the feature altogether currently. It's hardly surprising, as Microsoft admitted that UAC was designed in Vista to change the way developers worked instead of just taking the lazy option - unfortunately it was consumers that had to bear the brunt of it.