I turned off UAC

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
>Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
implementation.

 

"tweakvista" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:102607acebb660d25d736c9aff97ce06@nntp-gateway.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> Disabling UAC is not dangerious at all tbh. It is rather annoying and
> unless your a 'newb' i suggest disabling it.
>
> If you know what your doing on your computer the only thing you really
> need is a firewall and not an anti-virus.
>
>
> --
> tweakvista<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I see something of a double standard here. Running Vista without
UAC enabled is a big, "no-no," yet running XP, which has no such
"protection" is perfectly acceptable, although Vista without UAC
is probably still more secure than XP.

 

+Bob+ wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>
> wrote:
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>> users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
> implementation.
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

It's the posts of the ignorant. I would rather have it enabled so that I
am not on the Internet with full admin rights, like the previous
versions of the NT based O/S(s,) which are open by default O/S(s) and
wide-open to attack/compromise by default.

Is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand?

 

Jack the Ripper wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> +Bob+ wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>
>> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>>> users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
>> implementation.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> It's the posts of the ignorant. I would rather have it enabled so that I
> am not on the Internet with full admin rights, like the previous
> versions of the NT based O/S(s,) which are open by default O/S(s) and
> wide-open to attack/compromise by default.
>
> Is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


As long as you're not logged on as admin you should be fine. At most I
keep users at Power User rights.
While I understand running as admin is unsafe, simply having the account
enabled is not a security risk.

 

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
newsdkhp4pt08drct8i7hirihjldtf8r2u2vq@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>
> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>>Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>>users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
> implementation.
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I also turned it off. It was the biggest PIA I every ran across using a
computer.

 

Justin wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Jack the Ripper wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> +Bob+ wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>>>> users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.
>>>
>>> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
>>> implementation.
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> It's the posts of the ignorant. I would rather have it enabled so that
>> I am not on the Internet with full admin rights, like the previous
>> versions of the NT based O/S(s,) which are open by default O/S(s) and
>> wide-open to attack/compromise by default.
>>
>> Is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>
> As long as you're not logged on as admin you should be fine. At most I
> keep users at Power User rights.
> While I understand running as admin is unsafe, simply having the account
> enabled is not a security risk.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I am going to try to explain this again. The out of the box admin
account on Vista that is given to a user or any subsequent admin account
that is created on Vista with UAC enabled is NOT a full-rights-admin
account. It's only a Standard user account, which must be escalated to a
use the full-adminrights token to do anything requiring
admin-full-rights as an administrator.

The escalation is only held for the moment of privileged escalation, and
the user is returned to being a Standard user using the Standard user
token.

It's being explained in the link, read it man read it and understand
what it is telling you.



If one knows what is happening and one knows the context in which
malware will infect the machine, which is based on the context of the
user account rights being used as a logged-in user, then one knows that
with UAC enabled there is very little chance of the machine being
infected if one can recognize the condition based on the UAC prompt.

I have been on a couple of sites where something tried to install itself
on the machine with me being admin user/really only a Standard user that
UAC prompted me for approval, which I was able to kill it based on me
knowing that it was dubious in nature.

You cannot say the same and there is nothing in place on the previous
versions of the NT based O/S to notify of the condition from an O/S
standpoint.

UAC does other things as well to protect the O/S such as using
virtulization on the registry and other protected areas like Program
Files and the Windows/System32 directories.

Now, some users can turn UAC off and play the cowboy role like they were
and are doing with XP, as they have that right to turn UAC off, but I am
not one of the them. And on top of that, turning UAC off even with them
being an admin-user, they are still not an admin with full-admin-rights.

There is only one admin account on Vista that has full-admin-rights and
that account must be activated. And even that account is prohibited from
doing certain things, unless one knows how to come around the restrictions.

<http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/enable-the-hidden-administrator-account-on-windows-vista/>

UAC will remain on. And I don't care what anyone on the negative tip on
UAC has to say about it.

 

"I.C. Greenfields" <none@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:e05BVu$jJHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
> newsdkhp4pt08drct8i7hirihjldtf8r2u2vq@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>
>> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>
>>>Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>>>users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
>> implementation.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I also turned it off. It was the biggest PIA I every ran across using a
> computer.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


Then you obviously mess with it rather than do WORK with it. I get the UAC
prompt probably twice a week if not less.

--
Asking a question?
Please tell us the version of the application you are asking about,
your OS, Service Pack level
and the FULL contents of any error message(s)

 

"Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:etq0xn%23jJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "tweakvista" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
> news:102607acebb660d25d736c9aff97ce06@nntp-gateway.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> Disabling UAC is not dangerious at all tbh. It is rather annoying and
>> unless your a 'newb' i suggest disabling it.
>>
>> If you know what your doing on your computer the only thing you really
>> need is a firewall and not an anti-virus.
>>
>>
>> --
>> tweakvista<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I see something of a double standard here. Running Vista without
> UAC enabled is a big, "no-no," yet running XP, which has no such
> "protection" is perfectly acceptable, although Vista without UAC
> is probably still more secure than XP.
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


XP doesn't have UAC. And yes, XP users should run as a User on a daily basis
rather than an Admin but most people have been too lazy or ignorant to do
so.

--
Asking a question?
Please tell us the version of the application you are asking about,
your OS, Service Pack level
and the FULL contents of any error message(s)

 

"Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>"Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:etq0xn%23jJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> "tweakvista" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
>> news:102607acebb660d25d736c9aff97ce06@nntp-gateway.com...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>
>>> Disabling UAC is not dangerious at all tbh. It is rather annoying and
>>> unless your a 'newb' i suggest disabling it.
>>>
>>> If you know what your doing on your computer the only thing you really
>>> need is a firewall and not an anti-virus.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> tweakvista<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> I see something of a double standard here. Running Vista without
>> UAC enabled is a big, "no-no," yet running XP, which has no such
>> "protection" is perfectly acceptable, although Vista without UAC
>> is probably still more secure than XP.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>
>XP doesn't have UAC. And yes, XP users should run as a User on a daily basis
>rather than an Admin but most people have been too lazy or ignorant to do
>so.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

And have suffered no ill consequences.

 

"Mike Torello" <torellom@chicoplt.com> wrote in message
news:vpaip49igbe9frkq2jj2n3b35d00v7k9sd@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>"Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:etq0xn%23jJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>
>>> "tweakvista" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:102607acebb660d25d736c9aff97ce06@nntp-gateway.com...
>>>>
>>>> Disabling UAC is not dangerious at all tbh. It is rather annoying and
>>>> unless your a 'newb' i suggest disabling it.
>>>>
>>>> If you know what your doing on your computer the only thing you really
>>>> need is a firewall and not an anti-virus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> tweakvista
>>>
>>> I see something of a double standard here. Running Vista without
>>> UAC enabled is a big, "no-no," yet running XP, which has no such
>>> "protection" is perfectly acceptable, although Vista without UAC
>>> is probably still more secure than XP.
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>>
>>XP doesn't have UAC. And yes, XP users should run as a User on a daily
>>basis
>>rather than an Admin but most people have been too lazy or ignorant to do
>>so.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> And have suffered no ill consequences.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


We shall never know that.....

--
Asking a question?
Please tell us the version of the application you are asking about,
your OS, Service Pack level
and the FULL contents of any error message(s)

 

I understand how and why, I just don't like the constant nagging.
If I wanted a Nanny, I would have hired one, not had one snuck in the back
door with a new OS.
Turning it off completely mucks up some other things, so I shut down as many
of the nags as possible.
The problem is, with the constant nagging, you become accustomed to just
clicking through to get the retarded thing off the screen.
I don't really care what happens as long as I don't have to see that stupid
prompt ever again!
That is just one of many reasons Vista will never be on my LAN.
BTW: I enabled the hidden admin account in Vista and use it every day.
I haven't been infected yet.
But I've only used it since early Beta...

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
news:%230SyRa$jJHA.996@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> +Bob+ wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>
>> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>>> users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
>> implementation.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> It's the posts of the ignorant. I would rather have it enabled so that I
> am not on the Internet with full admin rights, like the previous versions
> of the NT based O/S(s,) which are open by default O/S(s) and wide-open to
> attack/compromise by default.
>
> Is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand? <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Mike Torello wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> "Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:etq0xn%23jJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> "tweakvista" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:102607acebb660d25d736c9aff97ce06@nntp-gateway.com...
>>>> Disabling UAC is not dangerious at all tbh. It is rather annoying and
>>>> unless your a 'newb' i suggest disabling it.
>>>>
>>>> If you know what your doing on your computer the only thing you really
>>>> need is a firewall and not an anti-virus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> tweakvista
>>> I see something of a double standard here. Running Vista without
>>> UAC enabled is a big, "no-no," yet running XP, which has no such
>>> "protection" is perfectly acceptable, although Vista without UAC
>>> is probably still more secure than XP.
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> XP doesn't have UAC. And yes, XP users should run as a User on a daily basis
>> rather than an Admin but most people have been too lazy or ignorant to do
>> so.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> And have suffered no ill consequences.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Or they don't know that the machine has been compromised as malware
silently installs and hides itself right in their face, because they run
as admin with full rights on the Internet with the machine, such as XP.

All of those MS botnet machines are not out there by accident, as the
user continually participates in the compromise of the machine, as they
point and click on everything under the Sun as user admin.

 

Not Even Me wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I understand how and why, I just don't like the constant nagging.
> If I wanted a Nanny, I would have hired one, not had one snuck in the back
> door with a new OS.
> Turning it off completely mucks up some other things, so I shut down as many
> of the nags as possible.
> The problem is, with the constant nagging, you become accustomed to just
> clicking through to get the retarded thing off the screen.
> I don't really care what happens as long as I don't have to see that stupid
> prompt ever again!
> That is just one of many reasons Vista will never be on my LAN.
> BTW: I enabled the hidden admin account in Vista and use it every day.
> I haven't been infected yet.
> But I've only used it since early Beta...<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Or you don't know that you have been infected nor do you know how to go
look from time to time to see if the machine has been compromised as the
compromise sits there right in your face or it hides itself.

What? I don't get many UAC prompts to even be concerned about it. And if
I do get a unexpected prompt, then I will know that something dubious
might be happening.

 

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
news:uvizVRCkJHA.5732@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> What? I don't get many UAC prompts to even be concerned about it. And if I
> do get a unexpected prompt, then I will know that something dubious might
> be happening.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Absolutely. I maybe get two or three a WEEK....and then it's me doing
something that needs elevated privileges...



--
Asking a question?
Please tell us the version of the application you are asking about,
your OS, Service Pack level
and the FULL contents of any error message(s)

 

> Or they don't know that the machine has been compromised as malware <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> silently installs and hides itself right in their face, because they run
> as admin with full rights on the Internet with the machine, such as XP.
>
> All of those MS botnet machines are not out there by accident, as the user
> continually participates in the compromise of the machine, as they point
> and click on everything under the Sun as user admin.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


The bottom line is that there are millions of users out there and no one
including yourself can possibly know each and every one's knowledge and
skill level. There are many ignorant computer users, but even more with
more than adequate knowledge and skill sets.

Every safety device including UAC is designed with a good intension, but
when the user demands to return the control power, the basic design idea is
to return the full control power to the user, regardless of whether it's an
ignorant or skillful user.

UAC in Vista demonstrated a lack of basic understanding of providing a
meaningful and useful safety device which also is why for MS changed it with
Windows 7.

Whether you wish to accept it is your choice, but MS have accepted its won
design flaws.



"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
news:Ogp2tNCkJHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Mike Torello wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> "Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> "Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:etq0xn%23jJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> "tweakvista" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:102607acebb660d25d736c9aff97ce06@nntp-gateway.com...
>>>>> Disabling UAC is not dangerious at all tbh. It is rather annoying and
>>>>> unless your a 'newb' i suggest disabling it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you know what your doing on your computer the only thing you really
>>>>> need is a firewall and not an anti-virus.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> tweakvista
>>>> I see something of a double standard here. Running Vista without
>>>> UAC enabled is a big, "no-no," yet running XP, which has no such
>>>> "protection" is perfectly acceptable, although Vista without UAC
>>>> is probably still more secure than XP.
>>>>
>>>
>>> XP doesn't have UAC. And yes, XP users should run as a User on a daily
>>> basis rather than an Admin but most people have been too lazy or
>>> ignorant to do so.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> And have suffered no ill consequences.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Or they don't know that the machine has been compromised as malware
> silently installs and hides itself right in their face, because they run
> as admin with full rights on the Internet with the machine, such as XP.
>
> All of those MS botnet machines are not out there by accident, as the user
> continually participates in the compromise of the machine, as they point
> and click on everything under the Sun as user admin. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

xfile wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Or they don't know that the machine has been compromised as malware
>> silently installs and hides itself right in their face, because they run
>> as admin with full rights on the Internet with the machine, such as XP.
>>
>> All of those MS botnet machines are not out there by accident, as the user
>> continually participates in the compromise of the machine, as they point
>> and click on everything under the Sun as user admin.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>
> The bottom line is that there are millions of users out there and no one
> including yourself can possibly know each and every one's knowledge and
> skill level. There are many ignorant computer users, but even more with
> more than adequate knowledge and skill sets.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Most don't have the skill-set to protect the machine and the O/S, not
really, is the bottom line and they will never have it.<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> Every safety device including UAC is designed with a good intension, but
> when the user demands to return the control power, the basic design idea is
> to return the full control power to the user, regardless of whether it's an
> ignorant or skillful user.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

You can just turn UAC off.<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> UAC in Vista demonstrated a lack of basic understanding of providing a
> meaningful and useful safety device which also is why for MS changed it with
> Windows 7.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
It was made configuable. And it still provides the same protection under
the hood.<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> Whether you wish to accept it is your choice, but MS have accepted its won
> design flaws.
>
>
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

From what I understand, one can turn UAC up to its highest level and
make it verbose, which will be the setting I'll use when I get to
Windows 7.

I must say that you have missed the point altogether about UAC, and the
protection it provides to the machine and the O/S, not the user.

 

> You can just turn UAC off.

The current UAC will have a silent-effect to several applications if it is
being turned off. Admittedly, I didn't test for post SP1 and won't have any
interest for testing it.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I must say that you have missed the point altogether about UAC, and the
> protection it provides to the machine and the O/S, not the user.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I must say that you have missed the whole point about using computers and
OSes; they are just like any other tools, and the only purpose for their
existence is to help and serve the users to accomplish their tasks, not the
other way around, or it's just garbage.



"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
news:%23g7m$7DkJHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> xfile wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Or they don't know that the machine has been compromised as malware
>>> silently installs and hides itself right in their face, because they run
>>> as admin with full rights on the Internet with the machine, such as XP.
>>>
>>> All of those MS botnet machines are not out there by accident, as the
>>> user continually participates in the compromise of the machine, as they
>>> point and click on everything under the Sun as user admin.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>>
>> The bottom line is that there are millions of users out there and no one
>> including yourself can possibly know each and every one's knowledge and
>> skill level. There are many ignorant computer users, but even more with
>> more than adequate knowledge and skill sets.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Most don't have the skill-set to protect the machine and the O/S, not
> really, is the bottom line and they will never have it.<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> Every safety device including UAC is designed with a good intension, but
>> when the user demands to return the control power, the basic design idea
>> is to return the full control power to the user, regardless of whether
>> it's an ignorant or skillful user.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> You can just turn UAC off.<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> UAC in Vista demonstrated a lack of basic understanding of providing a
>> meaningful and useful safety device which also is why for MS changed it
>> with Windows 7.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> It was made configuable. And it still provides the same protection under
> the hood.<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> Whether you wish to accept it is your choice, but MS have accepted its
>> won design flaws.
>>
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> From what I understand, one can turn UAC up to its highest level and make
> it verbose, which will be the setting I'll use when I get to Windows 7.
>
> I must say that you have missed the point altogether about UAC, and the
> protection it provides to the machine and the O/S, not the user.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Feb 15, 12:03 am, Justin <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> For various reasons I turned off UAC.
> Is there a way I can prevent that bubble in the lower right from warning
> me constantly?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I just saw this TweakUAC utility on a nother website. It seems a good
(ish) idea, rather than doing all the other things.

 

xfile wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> You can just turn UAC off.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> The current UAC will have a silent-effect to several applications if it is
> being turned off. Admittedly, I didn't test for post SP1 and won't have any
> interest for testing it.
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I must say that you have missed the point altogether about UAC, and the
>> protection it provides to the machine and the O/S, not the user.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I must say that you have missed the whole point about using computers and
> OSes; they are just like any other tools, and the only purpose for their
> existence is to help and serve the users to accomplish their tasks, not the
> other way around, or it's just garbage.
>
>
>
> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
> news:%23g7m$7DkJHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> xfile wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>> Or they don't know that the machine has been compromised as malware
>>>> silently installs and hides itself right in their face, because they run
>>>> as admin with full rights on the Internet with the machine, such as XP.
>>>>
>>>> All of those MS botnet machines are not out there by accident, as the
>>>> user continually participates in the compromise of the machine, as they
>>>> point and click on everything under the Sun as user admin.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that there are millions of users out there and no one
>>> including yourself can possibly know each and every one's knowledge and
>>> skill level. There are many ignorant computer users, but even more with
>>> more than adequate knowledge and skill sets.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>> Most don't have the skill-set to protect the machine and the O/S, not
>> really, is the bottom line and they will never have it.<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Every safety device including UAC is designed with a good intension, but
>>> when the user demands to return the control power, the basic design idea
>>> is to return the full control power to the user, regardless of whether
>>> it's an ignorant or skillful user.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>> You can just turn UAC off.<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> UAC in Vista demonstrated a lack of basic understanding of providing a
>>> meaningful and useful safety device which also is why for MS changed it
>>> with Windows 7.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>> It was made configuable. And it still provides the same protection under
>> the hood.<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Whether you wish to accept it is your choice, but MS have accepted its
>>> won design flaws.
>>>
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>> From what I understand, one can turn UAC up to its highest level and make
>> it verbose, which will be the setting I'll use when I get to Windows 7.
>>
>> I must say that you have missed the point altogether about UAC, and the
>> protection it provides to the machine and the O/S, not the user.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I have no problems using Vista is the bottom line and so do others that
I know that use the O/S, which are happy with the current set-up of Vista.

If books and other such information was produced about the inner
workings of Vista instead of the cookie and cake features coverage
books, people would have a lot better understanding of Vista, which was
what I told such an Vista book author as I encountered him in a Linux
NG and the issues were discussed.

 

Tweak UAC Utility - put UAC in Quiet Mode or On/OFF easily


Vista Tweaker - UAC too


Disable UAC


User Account Control


TechNet Getting Started with UAC


Windows Vista User Account Control Step by Step Guide


Understanding UAC

"Justin" <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in message
news:uQgoQMzjJHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> For various reasons I turned off UAC.
> Is there a way I can prevent that bubble in the lower right from warning
> me constantly? <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->