RE: ANS: "What's the deal with UAC (Windows Needs Your Permission scre

[Robert Koechl]

Re: ANS: "What's the deal with UAC (Windows Needs Your Permissionscre

Re: ANS: "What's the deal with UAC (Windows Needs Your Permissionscre

Hello,

I don't think one should turn off UAC, on the contrary, I think it
should be left on. What I was referring to was to specifically grant
normal users write access to DVDs - You can do that using the policy
editor - however, as I have never done that I am not sure if this would
solve Adams problem. The real solution to his problem, however, is to
get a new version of the program which works with user rights and
doesn't need admin rights.
Robert

Marjay wrote:
> BTW, if you use gpedit to turn off UAC, doesn't it leave a security
> icon in your notification area and bug you about turning it back on
> all the time??
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:54:03 +0100, Robert Koechl
> <year.2001@xx__rexymove__xxyz.web.de> wrote:
>
>>> I'm the ONLY user. In that context administrator has no meaning. I'm
>>> willing to bet that describes the vast majority of Windows users.
>> The concept of having user rights has principally nothing to do with
>> having multiple users on one machine. The purpose of having two classes
>> of users is to protect your computer during every day usage. Badly
>> written software can in a worst case scenario bring down your computer,
>> even to a degree that you have to reinstall everything, and I am not
>> even taking about viruses or any other malware.
>> If you insist on running your computer as an administrator install XP,
>> however, be even more sure than with Vista that you do not forget to
>> make regular backups.
>>
>> By the way, in another post you mentioned that the software has been
>> written by Sony. Just because Sony has written your software and just
>> because it is used by many people doesn't mean that it has been
>> programmed well. Just my opinion...
>>
>> By the way, did you try what I suggested in my other post (gpedit).
>> Robert

 

[GP]

Re: ANS: "What's the deal with UAC (Windows Needs Your Permission scre

Re: ANS: "What's the deal with UAC (Windows Needs Your Permission scre

I'd agree, but I dont care for security and I dont want to see it at all -
after all it's MY computer and no one else is working on it. Yes, I want to
have a firewall to give me security against those bad boys from the www. But
Vista's paranoic way to deal with ANY user - including admins - is
ridiculous! Nag screens everywhere, idiotic and sometimes absolutely wrong
error messages. Switching UAC off will result in warnings which will come up
every now and then. No way to say: I don't want UAC and please, Big Brother,
accept that and don't ask me anymore, just forget it! I'm still at loss to
see my Vista PC from any of the XP PCs at home, there's no way to copy ANY
file from XP to Vista, I managed to get it working from Vista to XP. Copying
a file from another computer in the network to a Vista folder is an
endeavour, deleting or overwriting exe files is most times possible only
with UAC off. It's no wonder that users are going back to XP by the
thousands. No one can understand that an admin + installer with all rights
to the computer and to a certain folder - I can SEE that, Vista shows it! -
gets a blah-window denying the deletion of exactly that folder. Sick. I'll
recommend to all of my customers to stay with XP and not to touch that weird
piece of ... Richard




"Robert Koechl" <year.2001@xx__rexymove__xxyz.web.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:46a4fd05$0$31715$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>> The main problem with UAC is it is a clueless nag that doesn't learn.
>> Case in point take one of my applications, that's not seven years old,
>> but just a few years old, copyrighted in 2004 written by a MAJOR
>> software house.
>>
>
> Adam, there is something seriously, seriously wrong with your application
> if it requires admin rights. Programs which require admin rights are an
> absolute disaster from a security standpoint. Obviously I am assuming now
> that the software you are talking about isn't any "systems software" (so
> to speak). Coming from a UNIX background it is unthinkable for me to run
> any software, designed for endusers, with root permissions.
> Robert

 

[Lew]

Re: ANS: "What's the deal with UAC (Windows Needs Your Permission scre

Re: ANS: "What's the deal with UAC (Windows Needs Your Permission scre

Ihave severial folder set-up as shared and co-owner and I can swap files all
day long

"GP" <gpredl@syspredl.at> wrote in message
news:46a8e458$0$7086$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
> I'd agree, but I dont care for security and I dont want to see it at all -
> after all it's MY computer and no one else is working on it. Yes, I want
> to have a firewall to give me security against those bad boys from the
> www. But Vista's paranoic way to deal with ANY user - including admins -
> is ridiculous! Nag screens everywhere, idiotic and sometimes absolutely
> wrong error messages. Switching UAC off will result in warnings which will
> come up every now and then. No way to say: I don't want UAC and please,
> Big Brother, accept that and don't ask me anymore, just forget it! I'm
> still at loss to see my Vista PC from any of the XP PCs at home, there's
> no way to copy ANY file from XP to Vista, I managed to get it working from
> Vista to XP. Copying a file from another computer in the network to a
> Vista folder is an endeavour, deleting or overwriting exe files is most
> times possible only with UAC off. It's no wonder that users are going back
> to XP by the thousands. No one can understand that an admin + installer
> with all rights to the computer and to a certain folder - I can SEE that,
> Vista shows it! - gets a blah-window denying the deletion of exactly that
> folder. Sick. I'll recommend to all of my customers to stay with XP and
> not to touch that weird piece of ... Richard
>
>
>
>
> "Robert Koechl" <year.2001@xx__rexymove__xxyz.web.de> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:46a4fd05$0$31715$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>> The main problem with UAC is it is a clueless nag that doesn't learn.
>>> Case in point take one of my applications, that's not seven years old,
>>> but just a few years old, copyrighted in 2004 written by a MAJOR
>>> software house.
>>>
>>
>> Adam, there is something seriously, seriously wrong with your application
>> if it requires admin rights. Programs which require admin rights are an
>> absolute disaster from a security standpoint. Obviously I am assuming now
>> that the software you are talking about isn't any "systems software" (so
>> to speak). Coming from a UNIX background it is unthinkable for me to run
>> any software, designed for endusers, with root permissions.
>> Robert
>
>