Prompts, prompts, and more prompts...jeez

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

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

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:
>

"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.

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:

>
> 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.

"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.

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...

>
>

<snip>

> 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.

Personally, I think this class of user is going to be the most
confused/frustrated with UAC; I think beginners and experts will be the ones
that have a better time with it.

UAC's job is to confirm that you initiated some action that should require
complete control over your computer.

You don't need to know anything technical about what's going on; you just
need to know that the thing you just tried to do is wanting complete control
over your computer, and if you aren't ok with that or you didn't try to do
anything a prompt just appeared out of nowhere, then you know you should
stop it.

You also should know that the ONLY WAY a program can get complete control
(admin power) over your computer is by showing that prompt.

As long as you understand these concepts, the security in UAC is working
flawlessly .

It's your computer, after all. UAC acknowledges this by putting the power
over it in your hands. If you want to allow MSNBC to install something on
your computer but not <insert here>.com, cool beans - that's not a flaw in
UAC, that's how it works.

The reason Windows has to ask this via a UAC prompt is because right now
that is the only way the OS can know for sure that you are intending to let
a program have full control over your computer.

Hopefully this will become less obtrusive as time goes on .

--
- JB
Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User

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

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:
>

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...

>