On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:44:50 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:44:10 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"

>>The point of all the above is that the way UAC operates may make it
>>impossible to deduce whether the alerted operation was initiated via
>>user interaction, code automation, or network "administration".

>Take it back to the logical conclusion. Microsoft has waved the white
>flag of surrender and now admits all prior versions of Windows were
>major security risks and much of that was due to how Windows was
>written including how many Microsoft developers, including those
>inside Microsoft wrote applications. They further admit by deploying
>UAC, they can't fix Windows to make it safer so they tossed the ball
>in the user's court by flashing a simplistic warning; the UAC nag
>screens.

Not really, no - IOW, the detail's different.

UAC is the consequence of trying to force a complex and inappropriate
security model derived for corporate use (NT) into consumerland, and
having the model largely ignored by users and developers alike.

Users (myself included) weren't interested in pretending to be
different employees with different job descriptions when using the
same PC that they own, and should have full access to.

The way that user accounts were initially presented to consumers in XP
"Gold" was arrogant; if you dropped rights to anything less than Admin
on an account, all settings for that account fell back to MS
duhfaults. The arrogance is expecting us to find these acceptable!

So users just carried on with one Admin user account, and as a result,
developers for this market (who were largely trasitioning to XP from
Win9x, just as wqe users were) saw no reason to bother with all this
"limited user rights" malarky either.

In short, consumerland flat out rejected MS's security model, which
meant that much of what had been designed in as "security" was simply
not operating in consumerland. All those "mitigations" like "a
malware would only have user rights, so if the user wasn't running as
admin, all malware could do would be trash your data" didn't apply


What UAC attempts to do, is bring the notional advantages of not
running as admin, to folks who are in fact ruinning as admin.

The idea is that developers can avoid user-annoying UAC prompts if
they write their software to be compatible with reduced user account
rights. The hops is that this time round, developers will do so,
given they've sat on their ass through 5 solid years of XP, so that at
the start of Vista, we're no better off that we were 5 years ago.

>The real solution would be to rebuild Windows from the grown up, 100%
>redo and make it secure that way.

Those are the dice that Netcape rolled with Gekko, when they decided
to drop the existing code base and start from scratch - and it nearly
killed them. The new netscape was late and buggy, and they've been
eclipsed by Firefox since. If that happens with a stand-alone web
browser, imagine how a full OS would spin out of control?

>That of course would cause a huge chunk of their customers to run
>away screaming since little if any current hardware or software would
>work in such a totally new from the ground up radically different Windows.

Put it this way: If you think that Vista is large, slow, demanding a
high hardware specification, late to market, and beset with
compatibility issues... your approach would blow these out even more.

>So Microsoft was stuck between a rock and a hard place and
>picked UAC as a "solution".

Vista isn't just XP + UAC. UAC is just one particular component of
the solution set, and is actually a part of the compatibility
subsystem - which means it is destined to play a shrinking role in
daily life as the Vista platform matures.

It is a bridging technology, in other words... something like the PnP
wrapper for non-PnP ISA cards that gave PnP so much grief back in the
days of Win95's first release. Do we care whether ISA cards work with
PnP today? No. So should UAC be largely irrelevant by 2010.

>All UAC really does is create the illusion of security in most situtations
>because we all know 9 times out of 10 once a user, any user starts
>out to do something, some nag screen he can click through isn't
>going to stop him from doing what he planned to do in the first place.

They key here is "when the user starts out to do something". UAC is
there to catch things other than the user, that attempt to initiate
actions that the user had no intention of doing.

Yep, it will be Darwin take the hindmost", but no more so than "don't
open attachments even if from 'someone you know' unless certain they
are safe and a human sender really meant to send them".

I see UAC as annoying (especially when trying to clean up the AllUsers
Start Menu) but I welcome any attept to put the user in control of
processes automated by software, web sites, "content", etc. as a step
in the right direction, and a long overdue one at that.

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

<snip>

>>That does make it seem like a nag screen, which is unfortunate (it is not
>>really a nag screen as it is not warning the user about what they are
>>doing,
>>just making sure that they want it to happen).

>
> Like everytime time you turn the water on at your bathroom sink a neon
> sign would flash saying don't forget to use soap then another one that
> said dry hands afterwards and oh... don't forget to hang up the towel
> and another sign over the toilet reminding you to put seat down. ;-)

You still see UAC as a nag screen, as evidented by your analogy.

UAC doesn't care if you "use soap" or not. It only cares that IF YOU DECIDE
to use soap, that YOU are the one wanting to use the soap, and not some
malicious program that is using soap without your knowledge.

And I do very much hate it when malicious programs use soap without my
knowledge!

> That's the biggest design flaw. Prompts get ignored if they happen for
> operations you do constantly. Its like crying wolf, people just ignore
> it after awhile, so it's purpose is severely muted if not outright
> defeated.

Again, I disagree here, for the same reason that I mentioned earlier - when
I am not expecting a UAC prompt to happen (I did not initiate an action), I
notice it and stop it. When I do expect a UAC prompt to happen (I *did*
initiate the action), then I allow it to happen much more quickly and
easily.

This is what UAC is designed to do - to ascertain whether I started an
action or not. Nothing else. So, it works as expected, at least for me .

> Vista should be smart enough to ONLY come up when something unexpected
> happens.

If Vista could do this, then there would be NO POINT of prompting at all.
There would be no prompt.

The very reason that the prompt exists is because this is not possible.

The *only* thing the prompt does is determine whether you want something to
happen or not. It doesn't care (or even know) what exactly you are doing, it
is just making sure that you want it to happen.


--
- JB
Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

> Do you know if UAC does have a learning curve -- after NN accesses it

> will stop asking -- or will it go on flagging forever?

Forever.

UAC picks up on whether you are wanting a certain program to run elevated or
not. That is really the only thing it does, and it has to ask you every time
in order for this to be effective.

> I ask partly because before replying to your message I thought I'd
> better check the wording that comes up and it took me quite a few tries
> on desktop icons that I reckoned predated VISTA and should be flagged as
> non-conformist.
>

>> while I quickly dismiss all the prompts that I expect to happen.

>
> That's what I see as the progression that is inevitable, and so
> defeating the UAC

Again, since UAC is only determining whether *YOU* initiated an
administrative action, I don't see this happening.

If I expect a prompt, it is because I initiated an action. UAC is designed
to determine if I initiated an action, and so this works out.

But, if I do NOT expect a prompt, then I did NOT intiate an action, and so
will analyze the prompt and be much more likely to click cancel.

Now, there is the possibility of a malware throwing up a UAC prompt for
itself when the user is expecting to see one for something else. This DOES
become a problem if the user stops reading UAC prompts for actions that they
expect will throw a UAC prompt, and is something that I worry about.


--
- JB
Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Oh well -- Nobody's perfect <g>

In article <Ofkk2xPdHHA.4872@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, Jimmy Brush wrote:

> UAC doesn't care if you "use soap" or not. It only cares that IF YOU DECIDE*
> to use soap, that YOU are the one wanting to use the soap, and not some*
> malicious program that is using soap without your knowledge.

I'd change your analogy slightly since what you write above is what is
infuriating especially when it also comes up when VISTA prompts you to do
something and then asks you if you want to. (I know it is still playing safe)

> UAC doesn't care if you "use soap" or not. It only cares that IF A DECISION
> IS TAKEN to use soap, that YOU are the one wanting to use the soap, and not
> some*malicious program that is using soap without your knowledge.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 03:56:36 -0400, "Jimmy Brush" <jb@mvps.org> wrote:

>Again, I disagree here, for the same reason that I mentioned earlier - when
>I am not expecting a UAC prompt to happen (I did not initiate an action), I
>notice it and stop it. When I do expect a UAC prompt to happen (I *did*
>initiate the action), then I allow it to happen much more quickly and
>easily.
>
>This is what UAC is designed to do - to ascertain whether I started an
>action or not. Nothing else. So, it works as expected, at least for me .
>

>> Vista should be smart enough to ONLY come up when something unexpected
>> happens.

>
>If Vista could do this, then there would be NO POINT of prompting at all.
>There would be no prompt.

>The very reason that the prompt exists is because this is not possible.
>
>The *only* thing the prompt does is determine whether you want something to
>happen or not. It doesn't care (or even know) what exactly you are doing, it
>is just making sure that you want it to happen.

Then you not only disagree with me, you also disagree with the two
principle Microsoft engineeers that wrote UAC. View their 64 minute
interview on channel 9 and Learn.

That is so true, and help from microsoft does not exist.
A horrible company, makes sense that Apple is doing so well


"unvista" wrote:

> "Kerry Brown" wrote:

> > Given the way Windows works UAC is a compromise between
> > compatibility with old apps and security.
> >

>
> This much I can agree with you on. But I'm not seeing any compelling reasons
> to spend hundreds of dollars for compromises. I'd be more than happy for
> Microsoft to wait another one, two or even five years to release Vista, if
> they would do it right.

The point is :
The user knows what he she wants to do and the opperating system is getting
in the way.

I AM the admintistrator on my stsyem for a frioggin reason - BECAUSE I KNOW
what i want it to do.

The opperating sytem is wasting too much of my time with this and many of
the other useless new features in Vista

I am reading this to find our hos to disable it - which is the point of the
thread at at this point no one provided clear instrustions to disable it.

I guess i will find it but KERRY - your arguements are jsut taking up sapce
in this thread - why not open up a new one called "Vists works" and other
myths.

This is nto spell checked because ia m using exlplorer


--
gus mctavish
web developer
photographer


"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> I have managed Novell, Unix, Xenix, Linux, and Windows servers in production
> environments. I know how the security works in all the various OS'. UAC
> works and secures Windows very well. If anything it's a little too easy to
> turn off. Given the way Windows works UAC is a very good compromise between
> compatibility with old apps and security.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>
> "unvista" <unvista@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news1B52AF0-AEED-4950-ABB6-CE402FE158C5@microsoft.com...

> > "Kerry Brown" wrote:

> >> Disabling UAC disables much of the improved security in Vista.

> >
> > Argh, stop right there. This myth has really started to bug me. As far as
> > I
> > can tell the so called "improved security in Vista" is an OK button you
> > have
> > to press every few seconds. Microsoft doesn't seem to know what improved
> > security means. Trust me, more people are going to either disable UAC in
> > Vista, or they are simply going to get so numb pressing the OK button that
> > they don't even read what it is about when it happens. Seriously, I can
> > already see the poor users:
> >
> > "The game you are installing is trying to make a new folder: " OK
> >
> > "The new Virus checker is attempting to read some files" OK
> >
> > "You are attempting to delete an Icon on the desktop that you don't need"
> > OK
> >
> > "Microsoft wants to rummage through your bank accounts for more money" OK
> >
> > It's like Microsoft studied what other major Operating Systems do about
> > account management, and realized there was a more annoying way to
> > implement
> > it.
> >
> > The only reason the Microsoft guru's accept this abortion called UAC is
> > that
> > they haven't experienced how it is done right elsewhere. Seriously, spend
> > an
> > hour doing heavy duty administrative tasks on most Linux distros, or OS X
> > and
> > you will appreciate how much Microsoft screwed this feature up.
> >
> > Don't trust your system security to an OK button. Think before you install
> > software. Know what you are downloading. Don't open anything that you
> > aren't
> > 100% sure of. If you get something from someone you trust, contact them to
> > make sure they really sent it.
> >
> > A well educated human brain is many times more powerful as a security
> > screen
> > than any OK button, no matter how pretty Microsoft makes it.
> >
> > If you have purchased Vista because of this "improved security" feature.
> > You
> > got taken by Microsoft.

>
>

--
Thanks from C-Swampthing.


"JD Wohlever" wrote:

> I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
> for, is going
> to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.
> Example, my mother is your basic Internet User. She just graduated from AOL
> to
> a normal broadband connection after me telling her for years how much better
> broadband would be for her. She bought a PC that had Vista Home Premium on
> it.
> Suddenly dial-up became a major pain in the butt because Vista is geared
> more toward a constant net connection. No problem there, I agree.
> However, 2 days later she calls me up and asks me to put Windows XP back on
> her computer.
> When I ask her why, the response " I'm sick of the computer asking me
> questions every 5 seconds. It didn't do it before. I have an anti-virus, a
> firewall, and a anti-spyware program running. Why do I have to OK every
> single thing I do?"
> I tried explaining the benefits, but she would hear none of it. She has been
> told by the Norton's and the AdAware's of the world that as long as she runs
> their programs and practices safe netting that she is ok. So it was either
> turn UAC off or install Windows XP for her, she was that serious.
> And to be honest, I understand how she feels. In 5 years she has never had a
> virus, has only had very light malware (Which SpyBot SD quickly removed),
> and has nothing of hi-value on her PC for a hacker to have much interest in
> other than family photo's of the dog etc.
> My point being is that the average user who buys Windows HOME versions are
> not going to WANT this elevated security, and as soon as they find a way to
> remove it, they will.
> MS should have made UAC a Business / Enterprise feature and left the
> standard user and admin feature set of XP for the Home licenses of Vista.
> I build PC's for a living so I know the problems that John Q Public can make
> for their selves on a PC on the net with no protection. But simple education
> and running the big 3 (Anti-virus, Anti-spyware and Firewalls) should be
> more than enough to protect them. Now if they are stupid enough to store all
> their financial information or work related trade secrets and not have the
> "the big 3" then they certainly aren't going to tolerate UAC.
>
>
>
> --
> Thank you,
> JD Wohlever
>
> Techware Grafx
> techware(dash)grafx(at)hotmail(dot)com
>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:uJpS8AuRHHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> > There is some pain associated with UAC. Jimmy Brush's post explains it
> > very well. I'll add a bit of history as to how we got to UAC and why it's
> > needed.
> >
> > There were two families of Windows, NT based (Windows NT) and DOS based
> > (Windows 95). NT was mostly used in business networks and had excellent
> > security. Everyone ran as a standard user and only used administrator
> > accounts for things like installing programs, maintenance etc. Win95
> > really had no security as it was based on DOS and all users had total
> > control of the system at all times. Windows 95 became very popular and
> > many programs were written for it. Microsoft published guidelines on how
> > to program using established APIs and recommended programmers use this
> > method. Because the hardware at the time was limited, programming through
> > the documented APIs made for slow programs. Most programmers including
> > those at Microsoft, ignored the APIs and basically did what they had to to
> > get their programs running at the speed end users expected. This is where
> > most current programmers got their start and learned their habits. As time
> > progressed the DOS based versions of Windows were abandoned and the NT and
> > DOS world merged in XP which is NT based. All the end users and
> > programmers from the DOS world didn't change their ways. End users ran as
> > administrators all the time and programmers bypassed the APIs and expected
> > the users to be running as administrators. Around this time the Internet
> > exploded. Malware became a major problem exacerbated by the way
> > programmers and end users were using Windows. There was no way to secure
> > XP given this situation. Microsoft decided to write a new more secure OS.
> > There is a lot of changes under the hood but in the end the best security
> > is to enforce programmers to use the APIs and not have end users running
> > as administrators. Unfortunately this would break almost all existing
> > software. Thus we have UAC. It allows most old programs to do what they do
> > and tricks them into thinking it worked. It also allows users to run as an
> > administrator but gives them a warning when those administrator privileges
> > are going to be used.
> >
> > --
> > Kerry Brown
> > Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> > http://www.vistahelp.ca
> >
> >
> > "alex" <alex@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:8F96CCFA-A18E-44F7-A41C-286BF0B9EBA4@microsoft.com...

> >>
> >> Hi Kerry,
> >>
> >> Here's the problem with Vistas security as I see it.
> >>
> >> I am a long time Windows user with, at best, an intermediate knowledge of
> >> how programs work and how they're supposed to work with computers.
> >>
> >> Whenever Windows prompts me for confirmation regarding a security issue,
> >> to
> >> be honest, at times, I haven't the slightest clue whether I should allow
> >> or
> >> cancel something.
> >>
> >> Other than the most obvious "A program is trying to destroy your
> >> hard-drive
> >> and clean out your bank account" message, I'm likely going to let the
> >> program
> >> do what it wants to do.
> >>
> >> I minimize my exposure to to malware by not downloading software or
> >> opening
> >> e-mail attachments with which I'm not familiar. But sometimes I visit
> >> CNN.com or MSN or something as seemingly benign and I'm told that an
> >> update
> >> has to be performed and I'm asked if I trust the source.
> >>
> >> No, I don't trust the source. But if I'm going want to visit those sites
> >> I
> >> have to allow changes to be made.
> >>
> >> The UAC just annoys me and actually puts me in the habit of just clicking
> >> "continue" without reading what the window says.
> >>
> >> Ehhh. Personal preference I guess.
> >>
> >> BTW: This reminds me of how Microsoft didn't give the user the ability
> >> to
> >> download attachments in Outlook in Office XP (I think it was XP). What a
> >> pain-in-the-a@@ that was.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Kerry Brown" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Disabling UAC disables much of the improved security in Vista. Once you
> >>> have
> >>> your computer set up as you want it, it is recommended to turn UAC back
> >>> on.
> >>> You can do everything you always did with UAC on you just have to do it
> >>> in a
> >>> new way. UAC actually gives you more control as you now know when a
> >>> program
> >>> is about to do something that may affect the whole system. This is the
> >>> price
> >>> of security.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Kerry Brown
> >>> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> >>> http://www.vistahelp.ca
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "alex" <alex@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:CC64E5E0-3D62-4752-A16B-E22BFE7DD7F8@microsoft.com...
> >>> > Never mind. I found the UAC options.
> >>> >
> >>> > "alex" wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> How may I disable all the prompts that appear whenever I try to do
> >>> >> something
> >>> >> like uninstall a program or delete a file or directory?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Vista Premium
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks,
> >>> >> Alex
> >>>
> >>>

> >

Have you tried TweakUAC. It suppresses the UAC prompts but leave the
underpinnings of the protection UAC provides intact.

"Swampthing" <Swampthing@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:10D46609-FD32-4E08-95DE-9CB57E2C6D5A@microsoft.com...

>
> --
> Thanks from C-Swampthing.
>
>
> "JD Wohlever" wrote:
>

>> I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
>> for, is going
>> to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.
>> Example, my mother is your basic Internet User. She just graduated from
>> AOL
>> to
>> a normal broadband connection after me telling her for years how much
>> better
>> broadband would be for her. She bought a PC that had Vista Home Premium
>> on
>> it.
>> Suddenly dial-up became a major pain in the butt because Vista is geared
>> more toward a constant net connection. No problem there, I agree.
>> However, 2 days later she calls me up and asks me to put Windows XP back
>> on
>> her computer.
>> When I ask her why, the response " I'm sick of the computer asking me
>> questions every 5 seconds. It didn't do it before. I have an anti-virus,
>> a
>> firewall, and a anti-spyware program running. Why do I have to OK every
>> single thing I do?"
>> I tried explaining the benefits, but she would hear none of it. She has
>> been
>> told by the Norton's and the AdAware's of the world that as long as she
>> runs
>> their programs and practices safe netting that she is ok. So it was
>> either
>> turn UAC off or install Windows XP for her, she was that serious.
>> And to be honest, I understand how she feels. In 5 years she has never
>> had a
>> virus, has only had very light malware (Which SpyBot SD quickly removed),
>> and has nothing of hi-value on her PC for a hacker to have much interest
>> in
>> other than family photo's of the dog etc.
>> My point being is that the average user who buys Windows HOME versions
>> are
>> not going to WANT this elevated security, and as soon as they find a way
>> to
>> remove it, they will.
>> MS should have made UAC a Business / Enterprise feature and left the
>> standard user and admin feature set of XP for the Home licenses of Vista.
>> I build PC's for a living so I know the problems that John Q Public can
>> make
>> for their selves on a PC on the net with no protection. But simple
>> education
>> and running the big 3 (Anti-virus, Anti-spyware and Firewalls) should be
>> more than enough to protect them. Now if they are stupid enough to store
>> all
>> their financial information or work related trade secrets and not have
>> the
>> "the big 3" then they certainly aren't going to tolerate UAC.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thank you,
>> JD Wohlever
>>
>> Techware Grafx
>> techware(dash)grafx(at)hotmail(dot)com
>>
>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>> news:uJpS8AuRHHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> > There is some pain associated with UAC. Jimmy Brush's post explains it
>> > very well. I'll add a bit of history as to how we got to UAC and why
>> > it's
>> > needed.
>> >
>> > There were two families of Windows, NT based (Windows NT) and DOS based
>> > (Windows 95). NT was mostly used in business networks and had excellent
>> > security. Everyone ran as a standard user and only used administrator
>> > accounts for things like installing programs, maintenance etc. Win95
>> > really had no security as it was based on DOS and all users had total
>> > control of the system at all times. Windows 95 became very popular and
>> > many programs were written for it. Microsoft published guidelines on
>> > how
>> > to program using established APIs and recommended programmers use this
>> > method. Because the hardware at the time was limited, programming
>> > through
>> > the documented APIs made for slow programs. Most programmers including
>> > those at Microsoft, ignored the APIs and basically did what they had to
>> > to
>> > get their programs running at the speed end users expected. This is
>> > where
>> > most current programmers got their start and learned their habits. As
>> > time
>> > progressed the DOS based versions of Windows were abandoned and the NT
>> > and
>> > DOS world merged in XP which is NT based. All the end users and
>> > programmers from the DOS world didn't change their ways. End users ran
>> > as
>> > administrators all the time and programmers bypassed the APIs and
>> > expected
>> > the users to be running as administrators. Around this time the
>> > Internet
>> > exploded. Malware became a major problem exacerbated by the way
>> > programmers and end users were using Windows. There was no way to
>> > secure
>> > XP given this situation. Microsoft decided to write a new more secure
>> > OS.
>> > There is a lot of changes under the hood but in the end the best
>> > security
>> > is to enforce programmers to use the APIs and not have end users
>> > running
>> > as administrators. Unfortunately this would break almost all existing
>> > software. Thus we have UAC. It allows most old programs to do what they
>> > do
>> > and tricks them into thinking it worked. It also allows users to run as
>> > an
>> > administrator but gives them a warning when those administrator
>> > privileges
>> > are going to be used.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kerry Brown
>> > Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
>> > http://www.vistahelp.ca
>> >
>> >
>> > "alex" <alex@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:8F96CCFA-A18E-44F7-A41C-286BF0B9EBA4@microsoft.com...
>> >>
>> >> Hi Kerry,
>> >>
>> >> Here's the problem with Vistas security as I see it.
>> >>
>> >> I am a long time Windows user with, at best, an intermediate knowledge
>> >> of
>> >> how programs work and how they're supposed to work with computers.
>> >>
>> >> Whenever Windows prompts me for confirmation regarding a security
>> >> issue,
>> >> to
>> >> be honest, at times, I haven't the slightest clue whether I should
>> >> allow
>> >> or
>> >> cancel something.
>> >>
>> >> Other than the most obvious "A program is trying to destroy your
>> >> hard-drive
>> >> and clean out your bank account" message, I'm likely going to let the
>> >> program
>> >> do what it wants to do.
>> >>
>> >> I minimize my exposure to to malware by not downloading software or
>> >> opening
>> >> e-mail attachments with which I'm not familiar. But sometimes I visit
>> >> CNN.com or MSN or something as seemingly benign and I'm told that an
>> >> update
>> >> has to be performed and I'm asked if I trust the source.
>> >>
>> >> No, I don't trust the source. But if I'm going want to visit those
>> >> sites
>> >> I
>> >> have to allow changes to be made.
>> >>
>> >> The UAC just annoys me and actually puts me in the habit of just
>> >> clicking
>> >> "continue" without reading what the window says.
>> >>
>> >> Ehhh. Personal preference I guess.
>> >>
>> >> BTW: This reminds me of how Microsoft didn't give the user the
>> >> ability
>> >> to
>> >> download attachments in Outlook in Office XP (I think it was XP).
>> >> What a
>> >> pain-in-the-a@@ that was.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Kerry Brown" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Disabling UAC disables much of the improved security in Vista. Once
>> >>> you
>> >>> have
>> >>> your computer set up as you want it, it is recommended to turn UAC
>> >>> back
>> >>> on.
>> >>> You can do everything you always did with UAC on you just have to do
>> >>> it
>> >>> in a
>> >>> new way. UAC actually gives you more control as you now know when a
>> >>> program
>> >>> is about to do something that may affect the whole system. This is
>> >>> the
>> >>> price
>> >>> of security.
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Kerry Brown
>> >>> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
>> >>> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "alex" <alex@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:CC64E5E0-3D62-4752-A16B-E22BFE7DD7F8@microsoft.com...
>> >>> > Never mind. I found the UAC options.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > "alex" wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> How may I disable all the prompts that appear whenever I try to do
>> >>> >> something
>> >>> >> like uninstall a program or delete a file or directory?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Vista Premium
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Thanks,
>> >>> >> Alex
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >