Vista - RSI foundation to SUE Microsoft over UAC

for those who don't know what RSI is read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury
but if you are a vista user or will become one, you will know very well what
it is "firsthand" no pun intended.

UAC is that horrible idea some retarded person in MS thought of that pops
100 times in your face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
You have to do so many mouse clicks and movments that the RSI foundation
should sue
Microsoft for destroying the health of so many people world wide.

This is NOT taking into account the stress and fustration this "FEATURE"
will introduce to the world.

Perhaps a multi billion law suit will make MS think how to design an OS for
humans.

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:e4y$nPc1GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> for those who don't know what RSI is read here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury
> but if you are a vista user or will become one, you will know very well
> what it is "firsthand" no pun intended.
>
> UAC is that horrible idea some retarded person in MS thought of that pops
> 100 times in your face.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
> You have to do so many mouse clicks and movments that the RSI foundation
> should sue
> Microsoft for destroying the health of so many people world wide.
>
> This is NOT taking into account the stress and fustration this "FEATURE"
> will introduce to the world.
>
> Perhaps a multi billion law suit will make MS think how to design an OS
> for humans.

Oh balls to them. I have Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and its not made worse by
an extra click. If they are seriously that worried by an extra click then
they should not be using computers. Fuxache.

Once a machine is setup your average computer user won't see any UAC
prompts, especially in the work environment.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:e4y$nPc1GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> for those who don't know what RSI is read here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury
> but if you are a vista user or will become one, you will know very well
> what it is "firsthand" no pun intended.
>
> UAC is that horrible idea some retarded person in MS thought of that pops
> 100 times in your face.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
> You have to do so many mouse clicks and movments that the RSI foundation
> should sue
> Microsoft for destroying the health of so many people world wide.
>
> This is NOT taking into account the stress and fustration this "FEATURE"
> will introduce to the world.
>
> Perhaps a multi billion law suit will make MS think how to design an OS
> for humans.
>
>
>

Personally, I find it extremely funny the number of people complaining about
UAC.

This shows just how spoiled (spoilt) Windows users are. Linux/Unix users
are very familiar with having to elevate privileges to make system changes,
and/or installing programs. I'm not a Unix guru, but I'm pretty sure there
is no option in Unix/Linux to turn this behavior off, and for good reason.

The only thing better (in a way) about the way it's done in Linux/Unix is
that it elevates the privileges for the user, not just the application, and
it maintains this state for a set number of minutes, based on the last
application you've used that needs elevated privileges. (IE: You run a
network config, close that and the countdown starts, before the counter
reaches zero you run another system settings app, countdown stops, you
maintain root privileges, close that app, countdown starts again. If no
other app needing root runs, your elevated states ends).

This WOULD NOT work in a Windows system, why?

Easy, there is so much mal-ware out there for Windows (and it seems they can
run on Vista as well) that giving the user total Admin privileges for any
amount of time leaves the entire system exposed. Better to have it on an
application by application basis, so the system stays as secure as possible
all the time.

The downside is, of course, each time you run an application that needs
admin permissions you'll either get a pop up (if the user is an admin) that
you just have to click (big deal), or you get a pop up asking for the admin
password (better for stopping Junior from installing something that you
don't want him too).

There is also no way to run the root user account all the time safely in
Unix/Linux. If you do, sure you don't ever have to type in your password to
do anything you want, but that means anything/one ELSE that gets on your
system can do anything it/they want as well. (Sound familiar?
<cough>XP<cough>) At least with UAC you can run all the time as admin and
all you have to do is click a pop up, you're still pretty well secure and
don't have to type a password in for everything.

People complain, "Windows is so insecure, they need to do something to make
it more secure." and this is true, they do, but because so much damage has
been done already, they can't simply do what they should have done before;
default the system to run each user as a standard user. Since they didn't
with XP, legitimate programmers made use of the fact that most users were
running as admin and were lazy about programming (especially game designers)
and let their programs write to what should have been protected system
folders, at will. Also, with all the mal-ware out there already, the best
thing to do at this point is have the system make sure something that's
trying to install or write to protected folders is something that the user
knows about and wants to install. UAC is the way Microsoft has chosen to do
just this.

Is it practical from a users point of view? Not really, it's a little
inconvenient, but I'd rather have to click a few extra times, and have my
kid call me for the password when he wants to install a game, than to spend
time either cleaning mal-ware off my system, or reinstalling Windows for the
umpteenth time on Junior's machine because he won't listen about downloading
Warez.

I believe that UAC isn't going to help as much as Microsoft thinks though.
People that already click "Yes" at every we page they go to in IE will
simply click "Yes" every time they see the UAC pop up and still get
infected; UNLESS, and people will hate this as well, unless Microsoft makes
it a mandatory read on using UAC properly at first start for each new user.
That won't happen though, and people will have no clue what UAC is (we're
beta testers, this usually means we're computer savvy and are aware of
proper computer security.)
Not bragging, but in 24 years of using/building/administering computers I've
had one mal-ware program infect one of my computers, but I know what I'm
doing, too many average users are clueless about proper security.

In the end, it's the user that has to be smart about their computers and too
many people simply don't think they should have to learn about these things.
I recently went on a job to find out why the customer's daughter's computer
was running like a 386 when it's a P4 . . . it was easy to figure out, there
was so much mal-ware on her machine it was a wonder it started at all, let
alone taking 10 minutes (no joke) to get to the desktop. I wasn't even
going to attempt to clean that system. Backup, format, start all over.

The girl's father is in his 50's, has a degree in electronics but knows
nothing about computers.

Thought Windows was on a chip in the computer.

That is your average user.

Mic

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:e4y$nPc1GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> for those who don't know what RSI is read here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury
> but if you are a vista user or will become one, you will know very well
> what it is "firsthand" no pun intended.
>
> UAC is that horrible idea some retarded person in MS thought of that pops
> 100 times in your face.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
> You have to do so many mouse clicks and movments that the RSI foundation
> should sue
> Microsoft for destroying the health of so many people world wide.
>
> This is NOT taking into account the stress and fustration this "FEATURE"
> will introduce to the world.
>
> Perhaps a multi billion law suit will make MS think how to design an OS
> for humans.
>
>
>

You can turn off UAC if it is that hard on your hands and arms. Now, if MS
made it something that couldn't be turned off, you might have a point.

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:e4y$nPc1GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> for those who don't know what RSI is read here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury
> but if you are a vista user or will become one, you will know very well
> what it is "firsthand" no pun intended.
>
> UAC is that horrible idea some retarded person in MS thought of that pops
> 100 times in your face.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
> You have to do so many mouse clicks and movments that the RSI foundation
> should sue
> Microsoft for destroying the health of so many people world wide.
>
> This is NOT taking into account the stress and fustration this "FEATURE"
> will introduce to the world.
>
> Perhaps a multi billion law suit will make MS think how to design an OS
> for humans.
>
>
>

I have been using linux for many years... and it is far less annoying that
this stupid UAC.

The reasons are that in linux fist of all most applications are preloaded
into the OS right out from
the box... then when you want to install applications you dont install one
at a time.
You go once inside, and select many. You dont have to keep on clicking or
adding passwords.

But even that was annoying, and thats why FreeSpire and Linspire removed
that too...
In windows by the time you have set it up with all your programs you have
clicked it 1000 times!

Will I get paid for clicking? I wouldnt do that even if I was paid! its a
disgrace!

As I have said in a previous post MS ignores how Humans brain works.
If you see a pop up once you read it.. if you see it twice you read it,
if you see it 134829374 times, you never read it and the motion becomes
automatic to click
on the darn STUPID pop up so yo can get your job done. Yes the motion is
automatic,
you never think, never ever remember you clicked on it.

But with this autonomus motion (that is part of human evolution) Microsoft
now had a way to blame OTHERS
for its crappy OS. Now its the USERS fault for pressing the UAC button!

Instead of finding an innovative way to get around the problem they dumped
the problem on the user!
Are they stupid and lazy? YOU BET THEY ARE!

No sorry I dont accept a word you say... MS should have found another way
not stupid pop ups. UAC is uneceptable,
and the main question on the internet floating around will be HOW DO YOU
TURN THIS HELLISH thing off!

If you dont believe me now.... well wait a little bit untill vista is
released and then roam a bit around the newsgroups!


"Michael Palumbo" <PalumboPC@isp.com> wrote in message
news:OvYW1Id1GHA.4772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Personally, I find it extremely funny the number of people complaining
> about UAC.
>
> This shows just how spoiled (spoilt) Windows users are. Linux/Unix users
> are very familiar with having to elevate privileges to make system
> changes, and/or installing programs. I'm not a Unix guru, but I'm pretty
> sure there is no option in Unix/Linux to turn this behavior off, and for
> good reason.
>
> The only thing better (in a way) about the way it's done in Linux/Unix is
> that it elevates the privileges for the user, not just the application,
> and it maintains this state for a set number of minutes, based on the last
> application you've used that needs elevated privileges. (IE: You run a
> network config, close that and the countdown starts, before the counter
> reaches zero you run another system settings app, countdown stops, you
> maintain root privileges, close that app, countdown starts again. If no
> other app needing root runs, your elevated states ends).
>
> This WOULD NOT work in a Windows system, why?
>
> Easy, there is so much mal-ware out there for Windows (and it seems they
> can run on Vista as well) that giving the user total Admin privileges for
> any amount of time leaves the entire system exposed. Better to have it on
> an application by application basis, so the system stays as secure as
> possible all the time.
>
> The downside is, of course, each time you run an application that needs
> admin permissions you'll either get a pop up (if the user is an admin)
> that you just have to click (big deal), or you get a pop up asking for the
> admin password (better for stopping Junior from installing something that
> you don't want him too).
>
> There is also no way to run the root user account all the time safely in
> Unix/Linux. If you do, sure you don't ever have to type in your password
> to do anything you want, but that means anything/one ELSE that gets on
> your system can do anything it/they want as well. (Sound familiar?
> <cough>XP<cough>) At least with UAC you can run all the time as admin and
> all you have to do is click a pop up, you're still pretty well secure and
> don't have to type a password in for everything.
>
> People complain, "Windows is so insecure, they need to do something to
> make it more secure." and this is true, they do, but because so much
> damage has been done already, they can't simply do what they should have
> done before; default the system to run each user as a standard user.
> Since they didn't with XP, legitimate programmers made use of the fact
> that most users were running as admin and were lazy about programming
> (especially game designers) and let their programs write to what should
> have been protected system folders, at will. Also, with all the mal-ware
> out there already, the best thing to do at this point is have the system
> make sure something that's trying to install or write to protected folders
> is something that the user knows about and wants to install. UAC is the
> way Microsoft has chosen to do just this.
>
> Is it practical from a users point of view? Not really, it's a little
> inconvenient, but I'd rather have to click a few extra times, and have my
> kid call me for the password when he wants to install a game, than to
> spend time either cleaning mal-ware off my system, or reinstalling Windows
> for the umpteenth time on Junior's machine because he won't listen about
> downloading Warez.
>
> I believe that UAC isn't going to help as much as Microsoft thinks though.
> People that already click "Yes" at every we page they go to in IE will
> simply click "Yes" every time they see the UAC pop up and still get
> infected; UNLESS, and people will hate this as well, unless Microsoft
> makes it a mandatory read on using UAC properly at first start for each
> new user.
> That won't happen though, and people will have no clue what UAC is (we're
> beta testers, this usually means we're computer savvy and are aware of
> proper computer security.)
> Not bragging, but in 24 years of using/building/administering computers
> I've had one mal-ware program infect one of my computers, but I know what
> I'm doing, too many average users are clueless about proper security.
>
> In the end, it's the user that has to be smart about their computers and
> too many people simply don't think they should have to learn about these
> things. I recently went on a job to find out why the customer's daughter's
> computer was running like a 386 when it's a P4 . . . it was easy to figure
> out, there was so much mal-ware on her machine it was a wonder it started
> at all, let alone taking 10 minutes (no joke) to get to the desktop. I
> wasn't even going to attempt to clean that system. Backup, format, start
> all over.
>
> The girl's father is in his 50's, has a degree in electronics but knows
> nothing about computers.
>
> Thought Windows was on a chip in the computer.
>
> That is your average user.
>
> Mic
>
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:e4y$nPc1GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> for those who don't know what RSI is read here
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury
>> but if you are a vista user or will become one, you will know very well
>> what it is "firsthand" no pun intended.
>>
>> UAC is that horrible idea some retarded person in MS thought of that pops
>> 100 times in your face.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
>> You have to do so many mouse clicks and movments that the RSI foundation
>> should sue
>> Microsoft for destroying the health of so many people world wide.
>>
>> This is NOT taking into account the stress and fustration this "FEATURE"
>> will introduce to the world.
>>
>> Perhaps a multi billion law suit will make MS think how to design an OS
>> for humans.
>>
>>
>>
>

John Jay Smith wrote:

> for those who don't know what RSI is read here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury
> but if you are a vista user or will become one, you will know very well what
> it is "firsthand" no pun intended.
>
> UAC is that horrible idea some retarded person in MS thought of that pops
> 100 times in your face.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
> You have to do so many mouse clicks and movments that the RSI foundation
> should sue
> Microsoft for destroying the health of so many people world wide.
>
> This is NOT taking into account the stress and fustration this "FEATURE"
> will introduce to the world.
>
> Perhaps a multi billion law suit will make MS think how to design an OS for
> humans.
>
>
>
UAC is the very first thing I disable in Vista.
Frank

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:eQ$U31d1GHA.1288@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I have been using linux for many years... and it is far less annoying that
>this stupid UAC.
>
> The reasons are that in linux fist of all most applications are preloaded
> into the OS right out from
> the box... then when you want to install applications you dont install one
> at a time.

Right, this is very true, however, if Microsoft were to include software
like this they would spend the next 10 years in court . . .

> You go once inside, and select many. You dont have to keep on clicking or
> adding passwords.
>
> But even that was annoying, and thats why FreeSpire and Linspire removed
> that too...
> In windows by the time you have set it up with all your programs you have
> clicked it 1000 times!

Granted, but once you've installed all your typical software you'll rarely
see it again, unless you're making a system change, or
installing/un-installing software.

>
> Will I get paid for clicking? I wouldnt do that even if I was paid! its a
> disgrace!

A disgrace? A disgrace was how bad security was in XP, this is just
inconvienient.

>
> As I have said in a previous post MS ignores how Humans brain works.
> If you see a pop up once you read it.. if you see it twice you read it,
> if you see it 134829374 times, you never read it and the motion becomes
> automatic to click
> on the darn STUPID pop up so yo can get your job done. Yes the motion is
> automatic,
> you never think, never ever remember you clicked on it.

I'm pretty sure I already made a point to this effect.

>
> But with this autonomus motion (that is part of human evolution) Microsoft
> now had a way to blame OTHERS
> for its crappy OS. Now its the USERS fault for pressing the UAC button!

Hmm, okay, let's see . . . it seems to work just fine until mal-ware starts
taking the system over the system, Microsoft didn't install this mal-ware
and they've given people a way (though not perfect) of stopping this
software from installing . . . that's the true mark of crappy software, I
guess.
Want the most secure system ever? I have the secret . . . install ANY
operating system on your computer, then don't connect it to the internet and
don't install any software other than what you know is 100% bug free and
mal-ware free . . .

>
> Instead of finding an innovative way to get around the problem they dumped
> the problem on the user!
> Are they stupid and lazy? YOU BET THEY ARE!
>
> No sorry I dont accept a word you say... MS should have found another way
> not stupid pop ups. UAC is uneceptable,
> and the main question on the internet floating around will be HOW DO YOU
> TURN THIS HELLISH thing off!

It's not that hard to turn it off, it's not obvious, but there's a reason
for that.

As far as a better way . . . do you have one? I know I'd like to hear your
idea if you have a better way of doing this. Call me a shill if you like,
but at least they have done something to improve security. They made a mess
of it with XP, now they have to take into account the damage that has been
done by XP and they've come up with what they believe is the best way to
deal with it in Vista.

Is it ideal? Nope, does it work? So far, until as we've both said, the
average user simply starts clicking on the message every time they see it
without bothering to read it . . . and they'll do it even when they aren't
themselves installing a program or making a system change.

Bottom line, you don't like it, turn it off and if your system gets infected
with some form of Mal-ware because you weren't prompted that something was
trying to install, nor given the chance to stop it, then simply deal with it
.. . .

I personally have no issues with it, and many others don't seem to have
issue with it . . . to suggest suing Microsoft because it's going to cause a
RSD, that's just silly. You would have to sue everyone that makes
keyboards, musical instruments, tools, etc.

>
> If you dont believe me now.... well wait a little bit untill vista is
> released and then roam a bit around the newsgroups!
>
>

The average user doesn't even know what a newsgroup is . . .

Mic


> "Michael Palumbo" <PalumboPC@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:OvYW1Id1GHA.4772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Personally, I find it extremely funny the number of people complaining
>> about UAC.
>>
>> This shows just how spoiled (spoilt) Windows users are. Linux/Unix users
>> are very familiar with having to elevate privileges to make system
>> changes, and/or installing programs. I'm not a Unix guru, but I'm pretty
>> sure there is no option in Unix/Linux to turn this behavior off, and for
>> good reason.
>>
>> The only thing better (in a way) about the way it's done in Linux/Unix is
>> that it elevates the privileges for the user, not just the application,
>> and it maintains this state for a set number of minutes, based on the
>> last application you've used that needs elevated privileges. (IE: You
>> run a network config, close that and the countdown starts, before the
>> counter reaches zero you run another system settings app, countdown
>> stops, you maintain root privileges, close that app, countdown starts
>> again. If no other app needing root runs, your elevated states ends).
>>
>> This WOULD NOT work in a Windows system, why?
>>
>> Easy, there is so much mal-ware out there for Windows (and it seems they
>> can run on Vista as well) that giving the user total Admin privileges for
>> any amount of time leaves the entire system exposed. Better to have it
>> on an application by application basis, so the system stays as secure as
>> possible all the time.
>>
>> The downside is, of course, each time you run an application that needs
>> admin permissions you'll either get a pop up (if the user is an admin)
>> that you just have to click (big deal), or you get a pop up asking for
>> the admin password (better for stopping Junior from installing something
>> that you don't want him too).
>>
>> There is also no way to run the root user account all the time safely in
>> Unix/Linux. If you do, sure you don't ever have to type in your password
>> to do anything you want, but that means anything/one ELSE that gets on
>> your system can do anything it/they want as well. (Sound familiar?
>> <cough>XP<cough>) At least with UAC you can run all the time as admin
>> and all you have to do is click a pop up, you're still pretty well secure
>> and don't have to type a password in for everything.
>>
>> People complain, "Windows is so insecure, they need to do something to
>> make it more secure." and this is true, they do, but because so much
>> damage has been done already, they can't simply do what they should have
>> done before; default the system to run each user as a standard user.
>> Since they didn't with XP, legitimate programmers made use of the fact
>> that most users were running as admin and were lazy about programming
>> (especially game designers) and let their programs write to what should
>> have been protected system folders, at will. Also, with all the mal-ware
>> out there already, the best thing to do at this point is have the system
>> make sure something that's trying to install or write to protected
>> folders is something that the user knows about and wants to install. UAC
>> is the way Microsoft has chosen to do just this.
>>
>> Is it practical from a users point of view? Not really, it's a little
>> inconvenient, but I'd rather have to click a few extra times, and have my
>> kid call me for the password when he wants to install a game, than to
>> spend time either cleaning mal-ware off my system, or reinstalling
>> Windows for the umpteenth time on Junior's machine because he won't
>> listen about downloading Warez.
>>
>> I believe that UAC isn't going to help as much as Microsoft thinks
>> though. People that already click "Yes" at every we page they go to in IE
>> will simply click "Yes" every time they see the UAC pop up and still get
>> infected; UNLESS, and people will hate this as well, unless Microsoft
>> makes it a mandatory read on using UAC properly at first start for each
>> new user.
>> That won't happen though, and people will have no clue what UAC is (we're
>> beta testers, this usually means we're computer savvy and are aware of
>> proper computer security.)
>> Not bragging, but in 24 years of using/building/administering computers
>> I've had one mal-ware program infect one of my computers, but I know what
>> I'm doing, too many average users are clueless about proper security.
>>
>> In the end, it's the user that has to be smart about their computers and
>> too many people simply don't think they should have to learn about these
>> things. I recently went on a job to find out why the customer's
>> daughter's computer was running like a 386 when it's a P4 . . . it was
>> easy to figure out, there was so much mal-ware on her machine it was a
>> wonder it started at all, let alone taking 10 minutes (no joke) to get to
>> the desktop. I wasn't even going to attempt to clean that system.
>> Backup, format, start all over.
>>
>> The girl's father is in his 50's, has a degree in electronics but knows
>> nothing about computers.
>>
>> Thought Windows was on a chip in the computer.
>>
>> That is your average user.
>>
>> Mic
>>
>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>> news:e4y$nPc1GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> for those who don't know what RSI is read here
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury
>>> but if you are a vista user or will become one, you will know very well
>>> what it is "firsthand" no pun intended.
>>>
>>> UAC is that horrible idea some retarded person in MS thought of that
>>> pops 100 times in your face.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
>>> You have to do so many mouse clicks and movments that the RSI foundation
>>> should sue
>>> Microsoft for destroying the health of so many people world wide.
>>>
>>> This is NOT taking into account the stress and fustration this "FEATURE"
>>> will introduce to the world.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a multi billion law suit will make MS think how to design an OS
>>> for humans.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>