Speedup Vista to the Max !


Recommended Posts

I will agree that UAC is not a speed tweak but the annoyance it may bring way be what could save you,Windows XP has been criticized for its susceptibility to malware, viruses, trojan horses, and worms. Security issues are compounded by the fact that users, by default, receive an administrator account that provides unrestricted access to the underpinnings of the system. If the administrator's account is broken into, there is no limit to the control that can be asserted over the compromised PC.

Windows, with its large market share, has historically been a tempting target for virus creators. Security holes are often invisible until they are exploited, making preemptive action difficult. Microsoft has stated that the release of patches to fix security holes is often what causes the spread of exploits against those very same holes, as crackers figured out what problems the patches fixed, and then launch attacks against unpatched systems. Microsoft recommends that all systems have automatic updates turned on to prevent a system from being attacked by an unpatched bug, but some business IT departments need to test updates before deployment across systems to predict compatibility issues with custom software and infrastructure. This deployment turn-around time also lengthens the time that systems are left unsecure in the event of a released software exploit. asking for permission allows you to decide if you trust what is allowed to run.once you get used to UAC you will like it. malware is worse now than when xp was released.

To be honest, with a decent AV (I use NOD32) and a good Firewall (comodo, personally), I've managed to avoid a serious virus issue to where I've had my main desktop running Vista for almost 2 1/2 years now, and have yet to run into issues. It's all in regular maintenance and day to day care. I defragment once a month, I scan each day, and I clean out the registry once a week.

I don't need UAC, and have never needed it. Which is why it is always disabled on every computer I use. I consider myself and advanced user, and I really do not see the benefit of it. Perhaps you devs may find it useful/need it on, but I certainly don't. If I ever badly needed something running and the fact UAC is shut off is the problem, I will not turn it on. I'll just run it in my Virtual XP machine. Not that difficult, especially when you have a bidirectional clipboard. :/

If it's all about permissions, I don't mind right-clicking and running as an admin.

And I'm not sure what you mean about it automatically controlling elevated privileges, whenever I've disabled UAC, I've never had a permission issue or an elevation issue. When i did have an issue, it was almost never solved by running as administrator or whatnot.

Were you responding to me? If so, I'm not really sure what you mean.

If you disable UAC, you are running as an administrator with full and unrestricted access to the entire system. This means that any software you run is free to make any changes it want to the whole system. If said software happens to be malware, the whole system is compromised (because the software can make completely undetectable changes to the OS) and has to be reinstalled.

With UAC enabled, you are running as a standard user (even though your user is actually set as an administrator), except when you are prompted by UAC in which case the action it is asking approval for will run as administrator. In this case, malware won't have automatic access to the whole system unless you explicitly allow it when prompted. This means that a virus/malware scan of just the files your user has write access to is enough to save the system. It also keeps files that belong to other users safe and lessens the risk of spreading the infection. It doesn't keep your files and any personal information like passwords safe though, for that you need antivirus software.

The third option is to actually use a standard user, in which case you will have to supply full credentials (like a username and password) whenever you want to do something that requires administrator access. This is the most secure option, but not as user friendly.

Not advisable for noobs, yes.

You obviously are a noob since you don't seem capable of understanding UAC's benefits as opposed to the very minor annoyance of taking a half-second to click Allow. After your system is configured properly, you should RARELY see a UAC prompt.

You obviously are a noob since you don't seem capable of understanding UAC's benefits as opposed to the very minor annoyance of taking a half-second to click Allow. After your system is configured properly, you should RARELY see a UAC prompt.

Errr.

With a good firewall, Sandboxie, and a decent AV, I can do everything I want and still say I'm secure. Most people, like me, don't have much faith in Window's built-in security tools. we are the ones who know what freeware tools exist out there, and what they're capable of vs. Windows own security measures.

If I want to be annoyed by my computer, I'll ask it to annoy me.

And there's just one thing you people don't seem to understand: What happens when you click Allow and the program really is some sort of malicious code that executes the moment it is fully running?

Like I said, I understand what these "benefits" are, but you lose them ALL the moment you click allow. Just another confirmation dialog asking you if you're sure. Arguably, it makes you somewhat safer, but only marginally so.

Once again, if you use a decent AV and a firewall, and you test all new executables in a Sandbox first, you'll be just fine. To those of us who are longtime Windows users, that's definitely worth the effort to keep a clean PC.

Why should anyone take the original poster seriously? 3 posts in total - it sounds like little more than a hyperventilating fanboy seeking attention.

Leave the damn settings the way they are. They are like that for a reason - and shock bloody horror, Microsoft programmers are smarter than you. If you were of the same level of intelligence you too would be working at Microsoft.

I've never hacked with my Windows or Mac OS X installations and don't suffer even 1% of the possible problems I see others face. Maybe less diddling around and more using your computer for something productive.

Hi,

anyone has tried changing their Vista settings via the Ultimate Windows Vista Tweaker?

I found it on an article at ARSTechnica and have recommended it ever since:

http://www.winvistaclub.com/Ultimate_Windows_Tweaker.html

Instead of disabling UAC at all, what I do is disable it when I login as Admin and keep its defaults behavior when I log in as my day to day user.

The "quick boot" option is there as well, which leads to the question: "why would anyone want a slow boot?" :D

check it out, there's plenty of tweaks being added all the time.

Nplima, the man with the refurbished Compaq Presario.

  • 8 months later...
The master control panel is for 32bit systems only. It will cause endless explorer.exe crashes if it is used on a 64 bit machine. Especially if it's placed on the desktop.

Sorry for a somewhat epic revive folks.

I recently saw this same Master Control Panel posted on a forum I frequent although it said it was for Windows 7, So I quickly checked google to see if it was compatible, however I failed to notice that it said it wasn't compatible with 64 bit. So of course I tried it and ran into endless explorer.exe crashes, after googling, neds post was the only result I could find.

I was wondering if anyone knows how to resolve this problem?

Sorry for a somewhat epic revive folks.

I recently saw this same Master Control Panel posted on a forum I frequent although it said it was for Windows 7, So I quickly checked google to see if it was compatible, however I failed to notice that it said it wasn't compatible with 64 bit. So of course I tried it and ran into endless explorer.exe crashes, after googling, neds post was the only result I could find.

I was wondering if anyone knows how to resolve this problem?

%windir%\explorer.exe shell:::{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C} as a shortcut works perfectly fine on 7 x64 for me. Maybe something else is wrong?

To say this nicely. Anyone who disables UAC is not very smart.

To be nice: Albeit I think if you need UAC to babysit you, you aren't very technologically inclined

I didnt need UAC to protect me in Windows 95/98/ME/2000 or XP what makes you think I need it now?

Yes I scan on a regular basis with anti spy/malware and antivirus and have yet to be infected..

Also Sandboxie is great

SPEEDUP BOOT

UAC DISABLED? SPEEDUP BOOT

If you choose to disable UAC then you might have noticed [ or not ] bit of slowdown in your boot time , this is because the UAC driver is still loaded during startup ,which is unnecessary and can be disable by doing this

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\luafv] 
"Start"=dword:00000004

How do you do the above manually, this is what I see in RegEdit:

25z3qls.png

To put this nicely. Anyone who disables UAC is not very smart.

That's actually a pretty stupid assumption to make...

Many people who disable it are aware of what's going on at all times and are in fact smarter than the average joe.

UAC is there for to look after people to keep them from making mistakes.

I personally know what I'm doing and find it really annoying, so I disable it. I've never had a single thing go wrong.

So does this make me not very smart? I think not...

warwagon: i partialy agree with you on UAC but the part i disagree with is if the user is stupid to disable UAC, if someone chooses to Disable UAC then they must live with that,, err a choice. i would never call someone stupid if they Even Disabled There User account or anything as they have that choice to do but the person must realize that it may not be the right one.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
    • I had a feeling this was coming. Picked up my first Mac ever last Saturday. Glad I did.
    • In a major surprise there is actually some good deals for the first time in years. At least for me.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      419
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!