F
FromTheRafters
Guest
Re: How can I optimise UAC on Vista 64?
"Flight" <jPUNTvoorbeeld@gmailPUNTcom> wrote in message
news:eTMOALEAJHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[snip]
> You know, many users would not even think of disabling UAC if it had one
> extra option: to remember what was accepted. Just like the way good
> firewalls do.
Yeah, that is a common complaint.
> But now, if you have to use an application that has to be checked by the
> UAC, and you have to use it many times a day, then you have to tell the
> UAC every time again that it is OK. That's the ONLY reason that users wish
> to disable the UAC.
Not the only reason, but it is high on the list.
> You can state that this would be less secure but then I ask: what's worse,
> using UAC with such a function, of not using UAC at all?
Almost equivalent in the long run.
> Here I see a tendency that I found in other cases too: Microsoft seems to
> think that all users are stupid idiots. The simplest things are "secured"
> with questions like: are you sure you want that? I always think then:
> yeah, I am not an idiot, stupid! Now you get the situation that users
> click Yes without even reading it, because it is overused.
That is a stupid idiotic thing to do, so it seems Microsoft was right
in the assessment you attributed to them.
)
> That's why I started to use Buzoff (basta computing) to have it
> automatically done in cases where this question is simply too stupid to
> think about.
What an ugly hat (whoops) ... looks good on you though./
> If Microsoft would start to look at users as normal behaving people, the
> real security issues would be much more accepted.
They tried that with previous versions, and what a mess it created.
Now they make a more secure OS (default settings) and people
complain - actually Vista can be made nearly equivalent to XP by
user configurable settings.
If you really don't need "hand holding" then by all means shut the
feature off. The up side is that the newbies will be more secure
and most of them won't have issues with UAC anyway.
"Flight" <jPUNTvoorbeeld@gmailPUNTcom> wrote in message
news:eTMOALEAJHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[snip]
> You know, many users would not even think of disabling UAC if it had one
> extra option: to remember what was accepted. Just like the way good
> firewalls do.
Yeah, that is a common complaint.
> But now, if you have to use an application that has to be checked by the
> UAC, and you have to use it many times a day, then you have to tell the
> UAC every time again that it is OK. That's the ONLY reason that users wish
> to disable the UAC.
Not the only reason, but it is high on the list.
> You can state that this would be less secure but then I ask: what's worse,
> using UAC with such a function, of not using UAC at all?
Almost equivalent in the long run.
> Here I see a tendency that I found in other cases too: Microsoft seems to
> think that all users are stupid idiots. The simplest things are "secured"
> with questions like: are you sure you want that? I always think then:
> yeah, I am not an idiot, stupid! Now you get the situation that users
> click Yes without even reading it, because it is overused.
That is a stupid idiotic thing to do, so it seems Microsoft was right
in the assessment you attributed to them.
)> That's why I started to use Buzoff (basta computing) to have it
> automatically done in cases where this question is simply too stupid to
> think about.
What an ugly hat (whoops) ... looks good on you though.
/> If Microsoft would start to look at users as normal behaving people, the
> real security issues would be much more accepted.
They tried that with previous versions, and what a mess it created.
Now they make a more secure OS (default settings) and people
complain - actually Vista can be made nearly equivalent to XP by
user configurable settings.
If you really don't need "hand holding" then by all means shut the
feature off. The up side is that the newbies will be more secure
and most of them won't have issues with UAC anyway.