UAC and other permission schemes delay progress

Is Vista a step backwards? I don't need all of these UAC controls. For many
years now I have gotten along just fine with few hindrances to efficiency.
Now Vista comes along and I can't get hardly anything done because of this
over-controlling UAC concept and other ridiculous permission junk.

If I want to uninstall or delete something, I don't want the system telling
me no! I am capable of fixing any mistakes I might make.

When I installed XP for the first time, it was a learning experience, and I
had to seek out some new device drivers, but right out of the box I was able
to do good solid computer tasks. Not so with Vista. UAC and other Vista
schemes really, really get in the way. Microsoft should leave it up to the
computer user to set up his/her own protection, There are plenty of great
anti-virus and anti-spyware programs out there, and some of the good ones
are free. So why is UAC needed? It's a wonder that Microsoft didn't build
Norton into Vista!

> Is Vista a step backwards? I don't need all of these UAC controls. For
> many years now I have gotten along just fine with few hindrances to
> efficiency. Now Vista comes along and I can't get hardly anything done
> because of this over-controlling UAC concept and other ridiculous
> permission junk.

So turn it off if you don't like it.

Tom Lake

How many millions of computers are, at this very moment, spewing out
virus's, trojans and worms - not to mention spam email, because Microsoft
had "left it up to the computer user" to secure their system.

I want to thank you very much for ***YOUR*** contribution to the crap that
tries to make it to my inbox, therefore slowing down the entire internet for
everyone who uses it.

Bravo for you!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Retired" <retired@my.hom> wrote in message
news:%23DPtHLjfHHA.4536@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Is Vista a step backwards? I don't need all of these UAC controls. For
> many years now I have gotten along just fine with few hindrances to
> efficiency. Now Vista comes along and I can't get hardly anything done
> because of this over-controlling UAC concept and other ridiculous
> permission junk.
>
> If I want to uninstall or delete something, I don't want the system
> telling me no! I am capable of fixing any mistakes I might make.
>
> When I installed XP for the first time, it was a learning experience, and
> I had to seek out some new device drivers, but right out of the box I was
> able to do good solid computer tasks. Not so with Vista. UAC and other
> Vista schemes really, really get in the way. Microsoft should leave it up
> to the computer user to set up his/her own protection, There are plenty of
> great anti-virus and anti-spyware programs out there, and some of the good
> ones are free. So why is UAC needed? It's a wonder that Microsoft didn't
> build Norton into Vista!
>

"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%23enx$PjfHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Is Vista a step backwards? I don't need all of these UAC controls. For
>> many years now I have gotten along just fine with few hindrances to
>> efficiency. Now Vista comes along and I can't get hardly anything done
>> because of this over-controlling UAC concept and other ridiculous
>> permission junk.
>
> So turn it off if you don't like it.
>
> Tom Lake
>

If you mean turn off UAC, I did. However I still get all kinds of intrusive
Vista messages telling me something about this or that. This is the "other
ridiculous permission junk" items I was referring to in my original post.

Richard Urban wrote:
> How many millions of computers are, at this very moment, spewing out
> virus's, trojans and worms - not to mention spam email, because
> Microsoft had "left it up to the computer user" to secure their system.
>
> I want to thank you very much for ***YOUR*** contribution to the crap
> that tries to make it to my inbox, therefore slowing down the entire
> internet for everyone who uses it.
>
> Bravo for you!
>
Not everything can be blamed on the user. This isn't a condition that
just happened. It has been rampant for years, and much of it was no
fault of the user. It wasn't so long ago that the user was the hapless
victim of the design of the os and didn't have any active role in the
infection of his computer. And instead of leaving it up to the user to
secure the system, perhaps a better choice would have been to secure the
os in the first place. ymmv.
--
norm

Nobody ever "beat up" MS because their OS could not be made secure. They
beat up MS because their OS was not secure as it came, by default,
out-of-the-box. Well... you can thank those folks for the UAC being on by
default.

-Frank

"Retired" <retired@my.hom> wrote in message
news:%23DPtHLjfHHA.4536@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Is Vista a step backwards? I don't need all of these UAC controls. For
> many years now I have gotten along just fine with few hindrances to
> efficiency. Now Vista comes along and I can't get hardly anything done
> because of this over-controlling UAC concept and other ridiculous
> permission junk.
>
> If I want to uninstall or delete something, I don't want the system
> telling me no! I am capable of fixing any mistakes I might make.
>
> When I installed XP for the first time, it was a learning experience, and
> I had to seek out some new device drivers, but right out of the box I was
> able to do good solid computer tasks. Not so with Vista. UAC and other
> Vista schemes really, really get in the way. Microsoft should leave it up
> to the computer user to set up his/her own protection, There are plenty of
> great anti-virus and anti-spyware programs out there, and some of the good
> ones are free. So why is UAC needed? It's a wonder that Microsoft didn't
> build Norton into Vista!
>

You are quite welcome. If you had used something other than your real email
address in newsgroup posts, and maintained your previous XP system properly
(Windows updated regularly, your anti-virus program updated regularly and
run often, and your anti-virus program updated regularly and run often) you
should not have experienced problems from "millions of computers are, at
this very moment, spewing out virus's, trojans and worms - not to mention
spam email".

That sort of precautionary practice is much better and far less intrusive
than having to contend with, as you so quaintly put it, "crap" like Vista's
UAC. With the UAC feature, Vista is crippled.

My XP system has been free from virus attacks for years, and I get very
little in the way of spam. Guess I'll drop Vista altogether - at least as
long as it includes UAC - which I definitely do not need.

By the way, if I had wanted to put my post (or a virus) into your Inbox, it
would have been a piece of cake because you broadcast your e-mail address.
Not a safe thing to do, and UAC won't offer much protection.


> How many millions of computers are, at this very moment, spewing out
> virus's, trojans and worms - not to mention spam email, because Microsoft
> had "left it up to the computer user" to secure their system.
>
> I want to thank you very much for ***YOUR*** contribution to the crap that
> tries to make it to my inbox, therefore slowing down the entire internet
> for everyone who uses it.
>
> Bravo for you!

>
> "Retired" <retired@my.hom> wrote in message
> news:%23DPtHLjfHHA.4536@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Is Vista a step backwards? I don't need all of these UAC controls. For
>> many years now I have gotten along just fine with few hindrances to
>> efficiency. Now Vista comes along and I can't get hardly anything done
>> because of this over-controlling UAC concept and other ridiculous
>> permission junk.
>>
>> If I want to uninstall or delete something, I don't want the system
>> telling me no! I am capable of fixing any mistakes I might make.
>>
>> When I installed XP for the first time, it was a learning experience, and
>> I had to seek out some new device drivers, but right out of the box I was
>> able to do good solid computer tasks. Not so with Vista. UAC and other
>> Vista schemes really, really get in the way. Microsoft should leave it up
>> to the computer user to set up his/her own protection, There are plenty
>> of great anti-virus and anti-spyware programs out there, and some of the
>> good ones are free. So why is UAC needed? It's a wonder that Microsoft
>> didn't build Norton into Vista!
>>
>

You could never get into my system, even having my, very limited and seldom
used, email address. Vista goes a long way to preventing that. And, I never
open attachments or click on links in an email. And BTW, have you ever heard
of throw away addresses?

You say you are clean? I have not worked on one, not one, computer in the
last year that I have not pulled virus's, trojans, worms, rootkits, key
loggers etc. out of. Just because a person "thinks" they don't have any
doesn't mean they are clean. It just means they do not have the tools,
knowledge or experience to detect them.

90% to 95% of computer users do not have much of a clue when it comes to
protecting a system. Anything that Vista does is a step in the right
direction - for the average user.

Your advice stinks.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Retired" <retired@my.hom> wrote in message
news:%235fHkfkfHHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> You are quite welcome. If you had used something other than your real
> email address in newsgroup posts, and maintained your previous XP system
> properly (Windows updated regularly, your anti-virus program updated
> regularly and run often, and your anti-virus program updated regularly and
> run often) you should not have experienced problems from "millions of
> computers are, at this very moment, spewing out virus's, trojans and
> worms - not to mention spam email".
>
> That sort of precautionary practice is much better and far less intrusive
> than having to contend with, as you so quaintly put it, "crap" like
> Vista's UAC. With the UAC feature, Vista is crippled.
>
> My XP system has been free from virus attacks for years, and I get very
> little in the way of spam. Guess I'll drop Vista altogether - at least as
> long as it includes UAC - which I definitely do not need.
>
> By the way, if I had wanted to put my post (or a virus) into your Inbox,
> it would have been a piece of cake because you broadcast your e-mail
> address. Not a safe thing to do, and UAC won't offer much protection.
>
>
>> How many millions of computers are, at this very moment, spewing out
>> virus's, trojans and worms - not to mention spam email, because Microsoft
>> had "left it up to the computer user" to secure their system.
>>
>> I want to thank you very much for ***YOUR*** contribution to the crap
>> that tries to make it to my inbox, therefore slowing down the entire
>> internet for everyone who uses it.
>>
>> Bravo for you!
>
>>
>> "Retired" <retired@my.hom> wrote in message
>> news:%23DPtHLjfHHA.4536@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Is Vista a step backwards? I don't need all of these UAC controls. For
>>> many years now I have gotten along just fine with few hindrances to
>>> efficiency. Now Vista comes along and I can't get hardly anything done
>>> because of this over-controlling UAC concept and other ridiculous
>>> permission junk.
>>>
>>> If I want to uninstall or delete something, I don't want the system
>>> telling me no! I am capable of fixing any mistakes I might make.
>>>
>>> When I installed XP for the first time, it was a learning experience,
>>> and I had to seek out some new device drivers, but right out of the box
>>> I was able to do good solid computer tasks. Not so with Vista. UAC and
>>> other Vista schemes really, really get in the way. Microsoft should
>>> leave it up to the computer user to set up his/her own protection, There
>>> are plenty of great anti-virus and anti-spyware programs out there, and
>>> some of the good ones are free. So why is UAC needed? It's a wonder that
>>> Microsoft didn't build Norton into Vista!
>>>
>>
>
>

UAC can be vanquished, or masked, as you may know. Control Panel|USERS
ACCOUNT,
last link on the page. However, this can lead to problems with legacy apps.

http://www.dcr.net/~w-clayton/Vista/...nformation.htm
http://blog.gerke-preussner.de/index...-in-Vista.html

/Retired/ said:
> You are quite welcome. If you had used something other than your real email
> address in newsgroup posts, and maintained your previous XP system properly
> (Windows updated regularly, your anti-virus program updated regularly and
> run often, and your anti-virus program updated regularly and run often) you
> should not have experienced problems from "millions of computers are, at
> this very moment, spewing out virus's, trojans and worms - not to mention
> spam email".
>
> That sort of precautionary practice is much better and far less intrusive
> than having to contend with, as you so quaintly put it, "crap" like Vista's
> UAC. With the UAC feature, Vista is crippled.
>
> My XP system has been free from virus attacks for years, and I get very
> little in the way of spam. Guess I'll drop Vista altogether - at least as
> long as it includes UAC - which I definitely do not need.
>
> By the way, if I had wanted to put my post (or a virus) into your Inbox, it
> would have been a piece of cake because you broadcast your e-mail address.
> Not a safe thing to do, and UAC won't offer much protection.
>
>
>> How many millions of computers are, at this very moment, spewing out
>> virus's, trojans and worms - not to mention spam email, because Microsoft
>> had "left it up to the computer user" to secure their system.
>>
>> I want to thank you very much for ***YOUR*** contribution to the crap that
>> tries to make it to my inbox, therefore slowing down the entire internet
>> for everyone who uses it.
>>
>> Bravo for you!
>
>> "Retired" <retired@my.hom> wrote in message
>> news:%23DPtHLjfHHA.4536@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Is Vista a step backwards? I don't need all of these UAC controls. For
>>> many years now I have gotten along just fine with few hindrances to
>>> efficiency. Now Vista comes along and I can't get hardly anything done
>>> because of this over-controlling UAC concept and other ridiculous
>>> permission junk.
>>>
>>> If I want to uninstall or delete something, I don't want the system
>>> telling me no! I am capable of fixing any mistakes I might make.
>>>
>>> When I installed XP for the first time, it was a learning experience, and
>>> I had to seek out some new device drivers, but right out of the box I was
>>> able to do good solid computer tasks. Not so with Vista. UAC and other
>>> Vista schemes really, really get in the way. Microsoft should leave it up
>>> to the computer user to set up his/her own protection, There are plenty
>>> of great anti-virus and anti-spyware programs out there, and some of the
>>> good ones are free. So why is UAC needed? It's a wonder that Microsoft
>>> didn't build Norton into Vista!
>>>
>
>

You want to check mine out Richard; it IS clean. I am in business building
and repairing computers, and setting up security on them, and I do not need
microsoft's overboard attitude. Having said that, I know how to set Vista to
the way I want it set; but for customers, NO; they get all the defaults!

Mick Murphy in Australia(QLD)

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> You could never get into my system, even having my, very limited and seldom
> used, email address. Vista goes a long way to preventing that. And, I never
> open attachments or click on links in an email. And BTW, have you ever heard
> of throw away addresses?
>
> You say you are clean? I have not worked on one, not one, computer in the
> last year that I have not pulled virus's, trojans, worms, rootkits, key
> loggers etc. out of. Just because a person "thinks" they don't have any
> doesn't mean they are clean. It just means they do not have the tools,
> knowledge or experience to detect them.
>
> 90% to 95% of computer users do not have much of a clue when it comes to
> protecting a system. Anything that Vista does is a step in the right
> direction - for the average user.
>
> Your advice stinks.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
> "Retired" <retired@my.hom> wrote in message
> news:%235fHkfkfHHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > You are quite welcome. If you had used something other than your real
> > email address in newsgroup posts, and maintained your previous XP system
> > properly (Windows updated regularly, your anti-virus program updated
> > regularly and run often, and your anti-virus program updated regularly and
> > run often) you should not have experienced problems from "millions of
> > computers are, at this very moment, spewing out virus's, trojans and
> > worms - not to mention spam email".
> >
> > That sort of precautionary practice is much better and far less intrusive
> > than having to contend with, as you so quaintly put it, "crap" like
> > Vista's UAC. With the UAC feature, Vista is crippled.
> >
> > My XP system has been free from virus attacks for years, and I get very
> > little in the way of spam. Guess I'll drop Vista altogether - at least as
> > long as it includes UAC - which I definitely do not need.
> >
> > By the way, if I had wanted to put my post (or a virus) into your Inbox,
> > it would have been a piece of cake because you broadcast your e-mail
> > address. Not a safe thing to do, and UAC won't offer much protection.
> >
> >
> >> How many millions of computers are, at this very moment, spewing out
> >> virus's, trojans and worms - not to mention spam email, because Microsoft
> >> had "left it up to the computer user" to secure their system.
> >>
> >> I want to thank you very much for ***YOUR*** contribution to the crap
> >> that tries to make it to my inbox, therefore slowing down the entire
> >> internet for everyone who uses it.
> >>
> >> Bravo for you!
> >
> >>
> >> "Retired" <retired@my.hom> wrote in message
> >> news:%23DPtHLjfHHA.4536@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>> Is Vista a step backwards? I don't need all of these UAC controls. For
> >>> many years now I have gotten along just fine with few hindrances to
> >>> efficiency. Now Vista comes along and I can't get hardly anything done
> >>> because of this over-controlling UAC concept and other ridiculous
> >>> permission junk.
> >>>
> >>> If I want to uninstall or delete something, I don't want the system
> >>> telling me no! I am capable of fixing any mistakes I might make.
> >>>
> >>> When I installed XP for the first time, it was a learning experience,
> >>> and I had to seek out some new device drivers, but right out of the box
> >>> I was able to do good solid computer tasks. Not so with Vista. UAC and
> >>> other Vista schemes really, really get in the way. Microsoft should
> >>> leave it up to the computer user to set up his/her own protection, There
> >>> are plenty of great anti-virus and anti-spyware programs out there, and
> >>> some of the good ones are free. So why is UAC needed? It's a wonder that
> >>> Microsoft didn't build Norton into Vista!
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>