Possible UAC Improvement

Posted: 07-13-2008, 11:48 PM
If I use a virus scanner Ex: McAfee, Firewalls ( windows or otherwise) and
malware detectors, These types of programs "remember" they have permission to
run certain apps. In order to take advantage of what UAC was intended for
without it being a "nag" it should actaully be capable of the same thing. Is
It?
or do we need to disable it like most posts suggest?

Possible UAC Improvement


Responses to "Possible UAC Improvement"

Nonny
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Possible UAC Improvement
Posted: 07-14-2008, 12:02 AM
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:03 -0700, Jim Selinsky
<jselin@comcast.net.(donotspam)> wrote:
>If I use a virus scanner Ex: McAfee, Firewalls ( windows or otherwise) and
>malware detectors, These types of programs "remember" they have permission to
>run certain apps.
I think it's more than that. I think it's because they have been
written so as to NOT trigger the UAC nags. MS claims that those nags
are there partly to get software writers to write Vista-compliant
programs.
>In order to take advantage of what UAC was intended for
>without it being a "nag" it should actaully be capable of the same thing. Is
>It?
>or do we need to disable it like most posts suggest?
Steve Thackery
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Possible UAC Improvement
Posted: 07-14-2008, 07:57 AM
> In order to take advantage of what UAC was intended for
> without it being a "nag" it should actaully be capable of the same thing.
Apparently Microsoft said it would undermine the purpose of UAC - it would
be too easy for malware to put itself onto the "don't prompt" list.
> or do we need to disable it like most posts suggest?
Absolutely not. Nobody "needs" to disable it. If you're using programs
that generate UAC prompts they are BADLY WRITTEN and fail to comply with the
XP programming guidelines (yes, I said XP, not Vista). The only exception
is software which is designed to perform system administrative tasks, in
which case you really should log on as an administrator anyway (and then you
just get the confirmation prompt - a single mouse-click or left-arrow,
Enter).

If you are using day-to-day applications which generate UAC prompts it's
probably time to update them.

SteveT

Nonny
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Possible UAC Improvement
Posted: 07-14-2008, 09:41 AM
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:57:02 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>If you are using day-to-day applications which generate UAC prompts it's
>probably time to update them.
Bullshit. Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the
job done?
Root Kit
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Possible UAC Improvement
Posted: 07-14-2008, 01:34 PM
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:41:39 -0500, Nonny <nonnymoose@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Bullshit. Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the
>job done?
That's for oneself to decide. Then just don't whine about UAC.

However, what you *should* do is demand that the vendor fixes his
broken software for free.
Nonny
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Possible UAC Improvement
Posted: 07-14-2008, 02:07 PM
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:36 +0200, Root Kit <b__nice@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:41:39 -0500, Nonny <nonnymoose@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Bullshit. Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the
>>job done?
>
>That's for oneself to decide. Then just don't whine about UAC.
Who's whining? Not this guy. I partially disabled UAC (using Tweak
UAC) less than a week after I installed Vista on this machine. Two
weeks later I totally disabled it.
>However, what you *should* do is demand that the vendor fixes his
>broken software for free.
It's not broken, doofus, it's out-dated.
Paul Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Possible UAC Improvement
Posted: 07-14-2008, 03:44 PM

"Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s8nm74dvuhml0qtmbc4ou7a2uehahc2lbe@4ax.com...
> It's not broken, doofus, it's out-dated.
I take it the software was written after say 1999/2000. In that case it is
broken, and not outdated, there's no excuse for applications written after
2000 to assume they have administrative rights.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*


Michael D. Ober
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Possible UAC Improvement
Posted: 07-15-2008, 03:26 AM
"Paul Smith" <Paul@nospam.windowsresource.net> wrote in message
news:6356D132-E287-4A53-93DE-0E004B9103D7@microsoft.com...
>
> "Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:s8nm74dvuhml0qtmbc4ou7a2uehahc2lbe@4ax.com...
>
>> It's not broken, doofus, it's out-dated.
>
> I take it the software was written after say 1999/2000. In that case it
> is broken, and not outdated, there's no excuse for applications written
> after 2000 to assume they have administrative rights.
>
> --
> Paul Smith,
> Yeovil, UK.
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
> http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/
> http://www.windowsresource.net/
>
> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
>
Assuming you are correct, Office XP, which was released after 2000, assumes
it has Administrator rights. It's EULA flag is in the HKLM registry hive
and not in the individual user hives. You must accept the Office XP EULA
running as an Administrator. MS never fixed this - instead they charged you
to upgrade to Office 2003.

Mike.



Steve Thackery
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Possible UAC Improvement
Posted: 07-15-2008, 01:16 PM

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CPU utilization improvement Yash Windows Vista Performance & Maintenance 1 10-12-2007 09:42 AM
2GB to 4GB, how much of an improvement? Alfred Kaufmann Windows Vista Hardware & Devices 25 09-27-2007 07:28 PM
SyncToy 1.4 Needed Improvement John K Windows XP Photos 0 02-28-2007 05:01 PM
No Improvement in RC1 since Beta 2 PimpTwzt Windows Vista 13 09-09-2006 10:57 AM
Improvement and SMP AlexBlais Windows XP Basics 1 10-22-2003 01:33 AM