Tired of all the vista promps? Read this

http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx

 

A couple of things.

1. gpedit.msc and secpol.msc are only available in Business and Ultimate flavors, which means other methods must be employed for other flavors. http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php/TweakUAC_d5623.html

2. You just thumbed your nose at a good chunk of Vista security. Now when/if a virus gets in and wants to play, it will do so silently, instead of throwing up a secure desktop priompt, which would alert a user to a problem. Sure, some aspects of UAC will still be there, such as IE Protected Mode, but its not near as effective as the whole package. For some users, that means that they should expect some more frequent visits to our malware forum.

I run full UAC, and once I configured everything and installed what I needed..hmmm, been a while since I've seen a UAC prompt. Usually when i do see it, its because I am opening regedit so I can assist others here with a resolution. IMO, if you are seeing too many UAC prompts too often, stop configuring, and start computing!

But hey, to each their own.

 

Let me clarify, I do not reccomend disabling uac, this is just an option to consider, some users of vista, this is one of the most common complaints, next to incompatable software. ed

 

I am quite happy to see lots of prompts from my system as it means that security is working as configured

 

All them prompts ask is do you want to continue or allow, how many times have you denied? ed

 

The only thing I'm worried about is that people will get into the habit of clicking away before reading. I'd rather spend a second or two clicking the prompt than spend hours trying to recover. If I have a lot to do, I disconnect the 'net and then turn UAC off.

 

How do you deny prompts you don't see?

Oh and to answer your question, a couple. Helped stop the accidental uninstall of the wrong application and unintentional install of another.

 

ya rly!

 

You call that security? Is it secrectly running in the back ground. No prompts= no security. I guess it still boils down to user habits. ed

 

Exactly.

No prompts= no security.

As for in my case, I've had one virus since Windows 95 came out. I've had one piece of malware in as many years. I do not do regular virus scans, nor do I run active malware scanners.

I understand Safe Computing. I understand how, and where to avoid baddies. If in doubt, I use Linux to go to said sites if I am concerned with my well being. I know how to keep myself safe.

So does UAC apply to me, security wise? No, its not what I use it for. I use it for the OTHER users on my machine.

To answer your question. Yes, I call UAC security. Did I say it was security in the example I used?

Nopers.

 

Sadly, users don't want to adapt, no matter how flawed their methods may be.

You can lead them to water....

 

Agreed Mada.

People don't realize that user friendliness and security are mutually exclusive.

To be more secure, you lose a certain degree of friendliness, and visa versa.

 

I only wanna deactivate the UAC for one program. Until I am able to do that, I will live with the constant questions. It's no different than Ubuntu.

 

Also agreed. Nix has the same permissions, except, on some, it just denies your noob butt, instead of giving you an annoying OK/continue box

Funny that you should mention that, BM. People tout how awesome ubuntu is and it is a contender for Windows (even XP), but you don't see them sobbing over the need to give permission to do a lot of stuff. When Vista does it...look out, thats unreasonable.

 

Exactly right. And Ubuntu takes it even further into the annoying in that you have to give a password every time too. So not only do you have to ok everything, but you have to supply the password too. And no one complains about that.

 

And what's worse is the Ubuntu prompts are more cumbersome last I was using that OS. You actually had to enter a password.

 

My favorite with a lot of distros is how they don't even tell you that you need elevated permissions, sometimes.

The command just simply does not exist to users with lower permissions.

I can't tell you how many times I've run into that, Ubuntu included.

 

yeah, that gets really tiresome


"I KNOW THAT COMMAND EXISTS!!!!" tears hair out:cry

 

hehehe... took me awhile to figure out why I would have access to the ifconfig man pages, but not to the command. :confused

 

LOL.

You can read about it, but it doesn't exist!