I turned off UAC

Saucy wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Not Even Me" <cargod01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uNylAgOkJHA.5732@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
>> news:eUh6F1LkJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Justin wrote:
>>>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>>>> Justin wrote:
>>>>>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>>>>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I get it.
>>>> I don't need any escalation to admin. The problem is, what if
>>>> there's some malware. Some malware named "winenhancer." The user
>>>> sees the UAC prompt "Winenhancer must access the internet!" and the
>>>> user clicks on yes.
>>>> So UAC only works when the user knows everything about the PC, which
>>>> is unrealistic for a standard dumb user whose job is to type out
>>>> proposals and reports.
>>>
>>> Oh, I get it. It's not the responsibility of the dumb user to know
>>> what he or she is dumbly clicking on as they point and click. It's
>>> their responsibly to know the situation, but they don't and most
>>> never will.
>>>
>>> However, network admins take that responsibly for this type of
>>> worker by using a network proxy that only allows the users to go to
>>> approved sites closing the attack vector and mitigating such damage,
>>> as its their responsibility to protect company's interest and not
>>> some office clerk, lock them down.
>>>
>>> Just like with Linux which has the same kind of an approval process
>>> within its O/S, they point, click, approve and it's all bets are off.
>>> But with UAC enabled when one does this, the damages are mitigated to
>>> a certain degree as UAC protects critical areas and also not allowing
>>> the malware to continuously run under the context of the user-admin
>>> full-rights access token, to spread damage.
>>>
>>> But rather with UAC enabled, the compromise runs under the context
>>> of the admin's Standard user token, because admin user on Vista is
>>> returned to using that token upon privileged escalation completion,
>>> and it's a limit rights token, which mitigates/limits damage.
>>>
>>> Like I said, nothing is bulletproof not even god's O/S Linux, but UAC
>>> on the MS platform is better than have nothing at all, which is the
>>> case in fact with the previous versions of the NT based O/S platform,
>>> open by default O/S(s), to help protect the O/S.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Real time scanning by (even free) third party programs provides (in
>> many cases) superior protection with less annoyance.
>> So why put something in the OS that just pisses many people off and is
>> (by MS admission) made irritating on purpose?
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>
> Didn't he just explain it to you? Re-read his post:
>
> "But rather with UAC enabled, the compromise runs under the context of
> the admin's Standard user token, because admin user on Vista is returned
> to using that token upon privileged escalation completion, and it's a
> limit rights token, which mitigates/limits damage."
>
> Combining secutity features such as UAC and real time scanning makes
> systems more difficult to compromise both directly and indirectly [say,
> by social engineering].
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

EXCELLENT!

 

I have turned off UAC - because I had too.

I have a couple of systems which must access a website that must
download a TIF image of a map to the local drive. I tried a number of
things to get this to work - but so far the only thing that has worked
is turning off UAC.

I can download files and save images from other websites - but for some
reason this one particular website does not work with UAC on.

Not that I am convinced that UAC is the panacea that some claim - and I
know from direct experience what a hassle virus infection can be - but
in my case - unless there is a way to get that website to work properly
with UAC on - I will have to leave it off.

I'd give you the URL - but it is a subscription only - real estate
website - so you would not be able to access the site.

The weird thing is that the site saves the file - or so it claims - and
even asks if you want to overwrite it if you save again - and a browser
can see the file but then errors when trying to open it - but windows
explorer and even command line simply do not see the file even with
hidden files turned on.

I tried saving to other locations - and checked folder permissions -
etc - tried it on a Vista 64 bit and a Vista 32 bit system - no luck on
either until UAC was turned off - on XP it works fine.

I do think the biggest problem with UAC is the boy who cried wolf
syndrome - along with no real information in the warning - if the
warning at least included the file name that was being modified or
something that might make it more useful. But for most users it seems to
me that the habit of simply ignoring that message will lead to ignoring
the one time a year that a real problem arises (maybe more often for
some users).


--
lilgto64
Posted via

 

"lilgto64" <lilgto64.3yi7se@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com> wrote in message
news:lilgto64.3yi7se@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> I have turned off UAC - because I had too.
>
> I have a couple of systems which must access a website that must
> download a TIF image of a map to the local drive. I tried a number of
> things to get this to work - but so far the only thing that has worked
> is turning off UAC.
>
> I can download files and save images from other websites - but for some
> reason this one particular website does not work with UAC on.
>
> Not that I am convinced that UAC is the panacea that some claim - and I
> know from direct experience what a hassle virus infection can be - but
> in my case - unless there is a way to get that website to work properly
> with UAC on - I will have to leave it off.
>
> I'd give you the URL - but it is a subscription only - real estate
> website - so you would not be able to access the site.
>
> I tried saving to other locations - and checked folder permissions -
> etc - tried it on a Vista 64 bit and a Vista 32 bit system - no luck on
> either until UAC was turned off - on XP it works fine.
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

How about trying the problematic website with UAC back on but with
IE in non-protected mode.
In IE, Tools > Internet Options > Security.
Clear the 'Enable Protected Mode' box.
If it works you could just disable it when you visit this one website.
(With UAC turned off you are running IE in non-protected mode permanently.)

 

lilgto64 wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I have turned off UAC - because I had too.
>
> I have a couple of systems which must access a website that must
> download a TIF image of a map to the local drive. I tried a number of
> things to get this to work - but so far the only thing that has worked
> is turning off UAC.
>
> I can download files and save images from other websites - but for some
> reason this one particular website does not work with UAC on.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
<snip><!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> I'd give you the URL - but it is a subscription only - real estate
> website - so you would not be able to access the site.
>
> The weird thing is that the site saves the file - or so it claims - and
> even asks if you want to overwrite it if you save again - and a browser
> can see the file but then errors when trying to open it - but windows
> explorer and even command line simply do not see the file even with
> hidden files turned on.
>
> I tried saving to other locations - and checked folder permissions -
> etc - tried it on a Vista 64 bit and a Vista 32 bit system - no luck on
> either until UAC was turned off - on XP it works fine.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
<snip>

As you stated, obviously, the problem isn't with UAC but with that
private website. You need to take it up with them. Simply downloading
an image does not require UAC action!

Under normal circumstances, UAC works just fine, but most die-hard
old-schoolers resist change and are put off by a little extra click for
security. If the UAC is being triggered, and you can't find the saved
file, something more is going on than just an image.

 

Right - or if the website is trusted, put it in the Trusted Zone which does
not run in Protected Mode (at least no by default).

Saucy



"Dave-UK" <Here@home> wrote in message
news:#0BhZ6TNKHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "lilgto64" <lilgto64.3yi7se@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com> wrote in message
> news:lilgto64.3yi7se@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> I have turned off UAC - because I had too.
>>
>> I have a couple of systems which must access a website that must
>> download a TIF image of a map to the local drive. I tried a number of
>> things to get this to work - but so far the only thing that has worked
>> is turning off UAC.
>>
>> I can download files and save images from other websites - but for some
>> reason this one particular website does not work with UAC on.
>>
>> Not that I am convinced that UAC is the panacea that some claim - and I
>> know from direct experience what a hassle virus infection can be - but
>> in my case - unless there is a way to get that website to work properly
>> with UAC on - I will have to leave it off.
>>
>> I'd give you the URL - but it is a subscription only - real estate
>> website - so you would not be able to access the site.
>>
>> I tried saving to other locations - and checked folder permissions -
>> etc - tried it on a Vista 64 bit and a Vista 32 bit system - no luck on
>> either until UAC was turned off - on XP it works fine.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> How about trying the problematic website with UAC back on but with
> IE in non-protected mode.
> In IE, Tools > Internet Options > Security.
> Clear the 'Enable Protected Mode' box.
> If it works you could just disable it when you visit this one website.
> (With UAC turned off you are running IE in non-protected mode
> permanently.)
>
>
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

I tried using trusted zone - and protected mode is off - I have not
tried turing that setting off entirely.

The image viewer that the website uses looks like it is very old -
possibly even 16 bit running in some sort of citrix portal type thing -
it allows annotation and modification of the image prior to download -
so I suspect the app is writing the TIFF in a way that is not quite the
same as simply downloading a static image file.

It is making me regret getting a 64 bit system - I had four major apps
that required upgrades and a few other items which are just not
compatible with either Vista or 64bit. Still - if I can get through
these troubles - a quad core 4GB RAM 64bit Vista system (which I think
includes free upgrade to Windows 7) should work for many years to come.



Saucy;1559025 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Right - or if the website is trusted, put it in the Trusted Zone which
> does
> not run in Protected Mode (at least no by default).
>
> Saucy
>
>
>
> "Dave-UK" <Here@home> wrote in message
> news:#0BhZ6TNKHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> >
> > "lilgto64" <lilgto64.3yi7se@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com> wrote in<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> message<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > news:lilgto64.3yi7se@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >>
> >> I have turned off UAC - because I had too.
> >>
> >> I have a couple of systems which must access a website that must
> >> download a TIF image of a map to the local drive. I tried a number<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> of<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> things to get this to work - but so far the only thing that has<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> worked<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> is turning off UAC.
> >>
> >> I can download files and save images from other websites - but for<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> some<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> reason this one particular website does not work with UAC on.
> >>
> >> Not that I am convinced that UAC is the panacea that some claim -<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> and I<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> know from direct experience what a hassle virus infection can be -<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> but<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> in my case - unless there is a way to get that website to work<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> properly<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> with UAC on - I will have to leave it off.
> >>
> >> I'd give you the URL - but it is a subscription only - real estate
> >> website - so you would not be able to access the site.
> >>
> >> I tried saving to other locations - and checked folder permissions<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> -<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> etc - tried it on a Vista 64 bit and a Vista 32 bit system - no luck<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> on<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> either until UAC was turned off - on XP it works fine.
> >><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> >
> > How about trying the problematic website with UAC back on but with
> > IE in non-protected mode.
> > In IE, Tools > Internet Options > Security.
> > Clear the 'Enable Protected Mode' box.
> > If it works you could just disable it when you visit this one<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> website.<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > (With UAC turned off you are running IE in non-protected mode
> > permanently.)
> >
> >
> >
> ><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


--
lilgto64
Posted via

 

With the site added to the trusted one and with protected mode off - the
site will not even load to the point where I can try the image download.


lilgto64;1559034 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I tried using trusted zone - and protected mode is off - I have not
> tried turing that setting off entirely.
>
> The image viewer that the website uses looks like it is very old -
> possibly even 16 bit running in some sort of citrix portal type thing -
> it allows annotation and modification of the image prior to download -
> so I suspect the app is writing the TIFF in a way that is not quite the
> same as simply downloading a static image file.
>
> It is making me regret getting a 64 bit system - I had four major apps
> that required upgrades and a few other items which are just not
> compatible with either Vista or 64bit. Still - if I can get through
> these troubles - a quad core 4GB RAM 64bit Vista system (which I think
> includes free upgrade to Windows 7) should work for many years to come.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


--
lilgto64
Posted via

 

"lilgto64" <lilgto64.3yihk0@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com> wrote in message
news:lilgto64.3yihk0@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> With the site added to the trusted one and with protected mode off - the
> site will not even load to the point where I can try the image download.
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Perhaps you need to contact the website, see what they say about it.

 

"kristlebawl" wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Under normal circumstances, UAC works just fine<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

The problem is that there are too many "non-normal" circumstances in Vista.
This was one of those "good intentions, bad implementation" things.
Why would they change it in Win 7 if it worked well?
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> but most die-hard old-schoolers resist change and are put off by a little
> extra click for security.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

That's a BS argument.
Good change is good.
Bad change is bad.

Why is it that when I am in the _admin_ acct I get asked to approve
something that takes admin permission?

 

who;1559157 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "kristlebawl" wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > Under normal circumstances, UAC works just fine<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> The problem is that there are too many "non-normal" circumstances in
> Vista.
> This was one of those "good intentions, bad implementation" things.
> Why would they change it in Win 7 if it worked well?
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > but most die-hard old-schoolers resist change and are put off by a<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> little<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > extra click for security.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> That's a BS argument.
> Good change is good.
> Bad change is bad.
>
> Why is it that when I am in the _admin_ acct I get asked to approve
> something that takes admin permission?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Windows 7 has a few more options that UAC on/off - but I tried the
problematic website for me with Windows 7 and no difference. I also
tried changing the map viewer plugin to have full permissions to no
effect.


--
lilgto64
Posted via

 

who wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "kristlebawl" wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Under normal circumstances, UAC works just fine<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> The problem is that there are too many "non-normal" circumstances in
> Vista. This was one of those "good intentions, bad implementation"
> things. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I agree, normal and real life are not always compatible. I prefer the
added security, but I haven't had any problems at the particular sites I
frequent. The real issue is compatibility and security. You have a
right to choose on your own computer.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Why would they change it in Win 7 if it worked well?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Because too many people complained so much that it was too hard to use
or too hard to get used to or too annoying, etc. Real power users do
not need it, but many regular home users do.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Why is it that when I am in the _admin_ acct I get asked to approve
> something that takes admin permission?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Is it a custom full admin account you created yourself, or the default
limited admin account that is preset?

I'm the only user of my computer and my network is limited to shared
DSL, so I never bothered to setup either a user account or a real admin,
and I never have to login. It works for me because I'm not enough of a
power user to need higher powers.

The UAC prevents hidden malware from installing itself while we download
images, video clips, email and other innocent files, even before such
things are identified and included in the next AV update. On that
basis, it's a success, but at the cost of annoying visuals and extra clicks.

Personally, I like the added security, flaws included.

 

lilgto64 wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I have turned off UAC - because I had too.
>
> I have a couple of systems which must access a website that must
> download a TIF image of a map to the local drive. I tried a number of
> things to get this to work - but so far the only thing that has worked
> is turning off UAC.
>
> I can download files and save images from other websites - but for some
> reason this one particular website does not work with UAC on.
>
> Not that I am convinced that UAC is the panacea that some claim - and I
> know from direct experience what a hassle virus infection can be - but
> in my case - unless there is a way to get that website to work properly
> with UAC on - I will have to leave it off.
>
> I'd give you the URL - but it is a subscription only - real estate
> website - so you would not be able to access the site.
>
> The weird thing is that the site saves the file - or so it claims - and
> even asks if you want to overwrite it if you save again - and a browser
> can see the file but then errors when trying to open it - but windows
> explorer and even command line simply do not see the file even with
> hidden files turned on.
>
> I tried saving to other locations - and checked folder permissions -
> etc - tried it on a Vista 64 bit and a Vista 32 bit system - no luck on
> either until UAC was turned off - on XP it works fine.
>
> I do think the biggest problem with UAC is the boy who cried wolf
> syndrome - along with no real information in the warning - if the
> warning at least included the file name that was being modified or
> something that might make it more useful. But for most users it seems to
> me that the habit of simply ignoring that message will lead to ignoring
> the one time a year that a real problem arises (maybe more often for
> some users).
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
I turned off UAC almost immediately after I bought my Vista computer a
year ago. With a decent firewall and anti-virus program it's not needed.

Bill

 

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:27:37 -0700, Bill Sharpe
<wfsnopam@adelphia.net> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>I turned off UAC almost immediately after I bought my Vista computer a
>year ago. With a decent firewall and anti-virus program it's not needed.
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Agreed.

It's a poorly designed band-aid solution designed to mask major
architectural security flaws in MS-Windows. It's beyond annoying and
makes it difficult for anyone but a novice to get any work done. It's
akin to their moronic file protection scheme of "bar the user from
everything except c:\users\account". More band-aids.

 

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
news:5e1ua5lqptlt4106n11qliea4o4vqgomu8@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:27:37 -0700, Bill Sharpe
> <wfsnopam@adelphia.net> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>I turned off UAC almost immediately after I bought my Vista computer a
>>year ago. With a decent firewall and anti-virus program it's not needed.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Agreed.
>
> It's a poorly designed band-aid solution designed to mask major
> architectural security flaws in MS-Windows. It's beyond annoying and
> makes it difficult for anyone but a novice to get any work done. It's
> akin to their moronic file protection scheme of "bar the user from
> everything except c:usersaccount". More band-aids.
>
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

But even in Linux, which as far more secure than Windows by design, the User
STILL has to provide credentials to perform system tasks....and no-one
complains about THAT...

 

Right - UNIX and clones (which includes Linux and Mac SOX) are to all
intents and purposes the very same, i.e. they have accounts with user level
privileges and administrator level privileges. TO make configuration changes
on a computer running Linux, one has to log in as "root".

UAC, especially as implemented by Windows 7, is very good solution (perhaps
so far the best solution) to the major problem of desktop computing where
the user needs admin rights occasionally.

Saucy


"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OeHtQ9cNKHA.5128@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
> news:5e1ua5lqptlt4106n11qliea4o4vqgomu8@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:27:37 -0700, Bill Sharpe
>> <wfsnopam@adelphia.net> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I turned off UAC almost immediately after I bought my Vista computer a
>>>year ago. With a decent firewall and anti-virus program it's not needed.
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> It's a poorly designed band-aid solution designed to mask major
>> architectural security flaws in MS-Windows. It's beyond annoying and
>> makes it difficult for anyone but a novice to get any work done. It's
>> akin to their moronic file protection scheme of "bar the user from
>> everything except c:usersaccount". More band-aids.
>>
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> But even in Linux, which as far more secure than Windows by design, the
> User STILL has to provide credentials to perform system tasks....and
> no-one complains about THAT... <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Gordon;1170618 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
>
>
> 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)<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

In my case - I am the sys admin - so when I "mess with it" that is work
- installing updates - patches - new apps - routine maintenance - break
fix - etc. The posts that I made to this particular thread though are
related to a specific web app that simply does not work with UAC on -
the exported file becomes a ghost which cannot be seen. It does appear
to me that the app - or rather the browser plugin - that is doing the
file export - is likely very old code - written before Vista and UAC and
64bit etc - just occurred to me that so far I have only tried this with
IE8 - I might give it a try with Safari or other browser to see what
happens. I prefer Safari for most things that I do myself - but many of
my users and some of the sites that I need to use simply don't work as
well in other browsers as they do in IE.


--
lilgto64
Posted via

 

lilgto64 wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Gordon;1170618 Wrote: <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Then you obviously mess with it rather than do WORK with it. I get the
>> UAC
>> prompt probably twice a week if not less.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> In my case - I am the sys admin - so when I "mess with it" that is work
> - installing updates - patches - new apps - routine maintenance - break
> fix - etc. The posts that I made to this particular thread though are
> related to a specific web app that simply does not work with UAC on -
> the exported file becomes a ghost which cannot be seen. It does appear
> to me that the app - or rather the browser plugin - that is doing the
> file export - is likely very old code - written before Vista and UAC and
> 64bit etc - just occurred to me that so far I have only tried this with
> IE8 - I might give it a try with Safari or other browser to see what
> happens. I prefer Safari for most things that I do myself - but many of
> my users and some of the sites that I need to use simply don't work as
> well in other browsers as they do in IE.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

There really should be an easier way for SysAdmins to toggle the UAC off
when they need to and back on for the user. Right now, you'd have to
navigate through the Control Panel to the almost hidden checkbox.

In this way, too, UAC is definitely *not* designed for knowledgeable
power users and admins. The only people that really need UAC are the
*average* home and office users, less experienced and more likely to
click "ok" on the wrong popups.

 

"KristleBawl" <KristleBawl@some.email> wrote in message
news:#Nz38MuNKHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> lilgto64 wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Gordon;1170618 Wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Then you obviously mess with it rather than do WORK with it. I get the
>>> UAC
>>> prompt probably twice a week if not less.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> In my case - I am the sys admin - so when I "mess with it" that is work
>> - installing updates - patches - new apps - routine maintenance - break
>> fix - etc. The posts that I made to this particular thread though are
>> related to a specific web app that simply does not work with UAC on -
>> the exported file becomes a ghost which cannot be seen. It does appear
>> to me that the app - or rather the browser plugin - that is doing the
>> file export - is likely very old code - written before Vista and UAC and
>> 64bit etc - just occurred to me that so far I have only tried this with
>> IE8 - I might give it a try with Safari or other browser to see what
>> happens. I prefer Safari for most things that I do myself - but many of
>> my users and some of the sites that I need to use simply don't work as
>> well in other browsers as they do in IE.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> There really should be an easier way for SysAdmins to toggle the UAC off
> when they need to and back on for the user. Right now, you'd have to
> navigate through the Control Panel to the almost hidden checkbox.
>
> In this way, too, UAC is definitely *not* designed for knowledgeable power
> users and admins. The only people that really need UAC are the *average*
> home and office users, less experienced and more likely to click "ok" on
> the wrong popups.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I'm sorry, HOW much "admin" does one workstation take? In my humble
experience as a Systems Accountant in fairly large organisations - very
little! Once the machine is set up, there's not a lot to do.

 

On Sep 16, 8:55 am, "Gordon" <gordonbpar...@yahoo.com> wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "KristleBawl" <KristleB...@some.email> wrote in message
>
> news:#Nz38MuNKHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
>
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > lilgto64 wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> Gordon;1170618 Wrote:
> >>> Then you obviously mess with it rather than do WORK with it. I get the
> >>> UAC
> >>> prompt probably twice a week if not less.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> In my case - I am the sys admin - so when I "mess with it" that is work
> >> - installing updates - patches - new apps - routine maintenance - break
> >> fix - etc. The posts that I made to this particular thread though are
> >> related to a specific web app that simply does not work with UAC on -
> >> the exported file becomes a ghost which cannot be seen. It does appear
> >> to me that the app - or rather the browser plugin - that is doing the
> >> file export - is likely very old code - written before Vista and UAC and
> >> 64bit etc - just occurred to me that so far I have only tried this with
> >> IE8 - I might give it a try with Safari or other browser to see what
> >> happens. I prefer Safari for most things that I do myself - but many of
> >> my users and some of the sites that I need to use simply don't work as
> >> well in other browsers as they do in IE.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > There really should be an easier way for SysAdmins to toggle the UAC off
> > when they need to and back on for the user.  Right now, you'd have to
> > navigate through the Control Panel to the almost hidden checkbox.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > In this way, too, UAC is definitely *not* designed for knowledgeable power
> > users and admins.  The only people that really need UAC are the *average*
> > home and office users, less experienced and more likely to click "ok" on
> > the wrong popups.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I'm sorry, HOW much "admin" does one workstation take? In my humble
> experience as a Systems Accountant in fairly large organisations - very
> little! Once the machine is set up, there's not a lot to do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Err - One Work Station Takes Err Lots Of Admin. Err. <sigh>

Err.

 

"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
>"KristleBawl" <KristleBawl@some.email> wrote in message
>news:#Nz38MuNKHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> lilgto64 wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Gordon;1170618 Wrote:
>>>> Then you obviously mess with it rather than do WORK with it. I get the
>>>> UAC
>>>> prompt probably twice a week if not less.
>>>
>>> In my case - I am the sys admin - so when I "mess with it" that is work
>>> - installing updates - patches - new apps - routine maintenance - break
>>> fix - etc. The posts that I made to this particular thread though are
>>> related to a specific web app that simply does not work with UAC on -
>>> the exported file becomes a ghost which cannot be seen. It does appear
>>> to me that the app - or rather the browser plugin - that is doing the
>>> file export - is likely very old code - written before Vista and UAC and
>>> 64bit etc - just occurred to me that so far I have only tried this with
>>> IE8 - I might give it a try with Safari or other browser to see what
>>> happens. I prefer Safari for most things that I do myself - but many of
>>> my users and some of the sites that I need to use simply don't work as
>>> well in other browsers as they do in IE.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> There really should be an easier way for SysAdmins to toggle the UAC off
>> when they need to and back on for the user. Right now, you'd have to
>> navigate through the Control Panel to the almost hidden checkbox.
>>
>> In this way, too, UAC is definitely *not* designed for knowledgeable power
>> users and admins. The only people that really need UAC are the *average*
>> home and office users, less experienced and more likely to click "ok" on
>> the wrong popups.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>I'm sorry, HOW much "admin" does one workstation take? In my humble
>experience as a Systems Accountant in fairly large organisations - very
>little! Once the machine is set up, there's not a lot to do. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

You may have a hard time understanding this, Gordon: some folks just
want to have it THEIR way.

I am one of them, and MY way was to shut it off when I first started
setting up this machine with Vista and MY way was to LEAVE it off when
I was finished with the initial setup.

That was 18 months ago.