| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Opinion: Suggestion for the Universally Annoying Creation (UAC) | |
|
||
| Time: 11:46 EST/16:46 GMT | News Source: Neowin | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
When installing Vista, the user should be prompted when creating the account "Would you like to disable UAC on your account?" I mean I'm installing it in the first place, I know Windows has been made so easy that anyone can install it, but I do think that UAC should be account specific, that would allow me to have a UAC-free environment and anyone else I choose to allow an account for on my PC might have a UAC protected account. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:12:31 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 9/6/2006 11:23:12 PM |
|
Ok, those of us supporting tens of thousands of laptops and desktops stand up and yell in unison...
HAIL NO! -TL |
| #2 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/7/2006 12:15:29 AM |
|
#1, Yeah, TL you're gonna love this one... even simple deletes from the desktop toss this thing in a user's face. The phone lines to your engineers are going to melt.
For guys that have run some of the *nix for years that are familiar with having issue an SU every few minutes, it's no big deal, but for 300 million Windows users, it's going to be a trip. |
| #3 By 61 (71.251.77.56) at 9/7/2006 12:35:34 AM |
| lketchum, deleting icons off the desktop no longer requires account elevation. |
| #4 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 9/7/2006 12:36:16 AM |
|
lketchum--this is fixed in the latest releases.
I hope folks base this on the final product, not the Beta 2 example. If you've run your company's user accounts as standard users (rather than local admins), this is really no different than that. People may be upset about this, but we've been asking for this for years. People react adversely to just about any kind of change, so it's our duty in this industry to help them adjust to what is a necessary measure, not rally against it along with them. |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/7/2006 6:06:25 AM |
|
3, 4 - thanks. I'm running 5536 and 5600 and whether one is UAC'd depends upon the icon type and in some cases, the way the application [if applicable] was written. I noted this on both 5536 and 5600 as well as BETA2 - though in RC1 [5600], it is much improved.
A disbled by default "true" or root level admin account is a good thing for sure. And the default local machine admin account that one creates upon installtion is fine, too. My concern is for my market - SMB, where business people tend to buy higher end PC's and are used to controlling their systems. Supporting a few hundred such businesses is what is going to be tough - it isn't the same as managing a company with 10,000 systems - there is continuity there and some acceptance of strict GPO. It's still 10,000 PC's and Servers - but owned by folks who, well... "own" them and that makes it different. In small business, people own "stuff" - they expect to control it, so there is going to be a learning curve for them and perhaps a steep one that is going to be costly to support. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/7/2006 11:38:49 AM |
|
#5--Do you have an example for the icon type scenario for deleting icons? I hadn't encountered that yet, so I'm curious what to expect. In previous builds, if the application installed a shortcut to the "All Users" profile Desktop, you'd get the UAC dialog--just as you would be disallowed as a non-admin user on an XP box. I don't think that's true in the RC1 build, though.
I would think your mileage would vary amongst your SMB clients. If you champion the fact that these steps are going to make the systems run much smoother and much less likely to be affected by malware, I think they will quickly adapt to the UAC/privilege elevation concept. This post was edited by bluvg on Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 11:59. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/11/2006 4:03:40 AM |
|
#6, We've been successfully locking systems down from malware for a long time - we've never had an issue with it at any time and we'll use the UAC policies [9 of them] and adjust select among them, to reach a happy medium.
The areas that are really going to suck are how spread out previously simple things were that are now all over creation. Adjusting the display is a good example - they just took out all the tabs in XP and spread them out under a pretty page. STUPID OSX'esque decision. The shortcuts were the default getting help and SW compat tool after upgrading XP Pro to 5536 - UAC and the secure desktop appeared in each case. A fresh install of 5600 did not produce the same results - but 5600 over 5536 did as did 5600 over BETA2. I maintain, have for as long as I can recall, and I assess my customers do as well, do not need, or want Microsoft, or any company to secure my systems, or networks - no more than I want the US Government or local police to protect me - I have and will continue to do that on my own. I just want an environment that I can run my applications - not theirs, or what they decide I should run. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:12:31 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
