Possible UAC Improvement

> 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

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?

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.

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.

"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broken, and not outdated, there's no excuse for applications written after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*