![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Welcome to Windows Vista Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find solutions with any problems, errors or issues you are experiencing with Windows Vista. The Vista forum also covers news and updates and has an extensive Windows Vista tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks. |
| |||||||
![]() |
| |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| | On the UAC...leave it alone! My experience with the Vista UAC, despite all of the complaints and suggestions to turn it off entirely has been good. I find that once i'm finished with the initial set up of the machine and i've moved on to a normal workload, it almost never appears and when it does, it tells me that i'm doing something that could potentially have an adverse impact on the computer. It's not as intrusive as the Mac ads and the internet at large seem to think. I'd suggest that, unless you are doing system-altering tasks on a daily basis, leave it as is and don't disable it. The need to hit one extra button is nothing compared to the number of times in the past that i've inadvertantly managed to mess something up. -- schatenjager Posted via http://www.vistaheads.com |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| | Re: On the UAC...leave it alone! How to disable UAC prompts and retain UAC security: Run Regedit and navigate to [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System] Change the value of ConsentPromptBehaviorAdmin from "2" to "0". "schatenjager" <schatenjager.34he42@xxxxxx-mx.forums.vistaheads.com> wrote in message news:schatenjager.34he42@xxxxxx-mx.forums.vistaheads.com... Quote: > > My experience with the Vista UAC, despite all of the complaints and > suggestions to turn it off entirely has been good. I find that once i'm > finished with the initial set up of the machine and i've moved on to a > normal workload, it almost never appears and when it does, it tells me > that i'm doing something that could potentially have an adverse impact > on the computer. It's not as intrusive as the Mac ads and the internet > at large seem to think. I'd suggest that, unless you are doing > system-altering tasks on a daily basis, leave it as is and don't disable > it. The need to hit one extra button is nothing compared to the number > of times in the past that i've inadvertantly managed to mess something > up. > > > -- > schatenjager > Posted via http://www.vistaheads.com > |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| | Re: On the UAC...leave it alone! > How to disable UAC prompts and retain UAC security: A contradiction in terms. As I understand it from reading the MS White Papers on UAC, in effect each UAC prompt is silently answered with a "Yes" with this setting. This removes one of the key advantages of UAC: the computer no longer warns you when something with security implications is about to happen. Suppose you are happily typing away in Word, and suddenly a UAC prompt appears. You can be damn sure it's because of some malware and can say "No". With UAC prompts disabled it gets a "Yes" automatically, and the malware goes away happy. Unless I've misunderstood the situation. Does anyone know better? I agree with the OP: UAC is such a tiny annoyance after the initial set up period that I don't mind it at all. I'm rather glad I get a warning when something with security implications is about to happen. Any why do Mac users mock it? The Mac (like virtually all Unix variants) uses elevation prompts in much the same way as Vista uses UAC prompts. What's the difference? SteveT |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| | Re: On the UAC...leave it alone! I think this will interest you. http://4sysops.com/archives/why-and-...top-prompting/ "Steve Thackery" <nobody@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:%231Q5cUraIHA.4712@xxxxxx Quote: Quote: >> How to disable UAC prompts and retain UAC security: > A contradiction in terms. As I understand it from reading the MS White > Papers on UAC, in effect each UAC prompt is silently answered with a "Yes" > with this setting. This removes one of the key advantages of UAC: the > computer no longer warns you when something with security implications is > about to happen. > > Suppose you are happily typing away in Word, and suddenly a UAC prompt > appears. You can be damn sure it's because of some malware and can say > "No". With UAC prompts disabled it gets a "Yes" automatically, and the > malware goes away happy. > > Unless I've misunderstood the situation. Does anyone know better? > > I agree with the OP: UAC is such a tiny annoyance after the initial set up > period that I don't mind it at all. I'm rather glad I get a warning when > something with security implications is about to happen. > > Any why do Mac users mock it? The Mac (like virtually all Unix variants) > uses elevation prompts in much the same way as Vista uses UAC prompts. > What's the difference? > > SteveT |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #5 (permalink) |
| | Re: On the UAC...leave it alone! In message <e2uO2yvaIHA.5400@xxxxxx> Man-wai Chang ToDie <toylet.toylet@xxxxxx> wrote: Quote: Quote: >> A contradiction in terms. As I understand it from reading the MS White >> Papers on UAC, in effect each UAC prompt is silently answered with a >> "Yes" with this setting. This removes one of the key advantages of UAC: >> the computer no longer warns you when something with security >> implications is about to happen. >This brings up a question: can we change the way the UAC prompt us? > >Could we change the prompt to ask for a password regardless of my >current privilege? there are actually several different options available. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #6 (permalink) |
| | Re: On the UAC...leave it alone! "Man-wai Chang ToDie" <toylet.toylet@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:%23jehI24aIHA.5784@xxxxxx Quote: > Bob wrote: Quote: >> You don't need to do something just because Vista "wants" you to, it's >> your computer. > Micro$oft security means doing things they believe to be correct. I don't > think Window$ was designed and coded to support user-definable security. > ![]() my company that defines the security and how it is applied on computers, not Microsoft. They publish guidelines of how they think things should be configured in different environments (like the EC security profile, SSLF, etc...) but it is up to individuals on how they will implement and which settings they will use and how they will configure them. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #7 (permalink) |
| | Re: On the UAC...leave it alone! "Man-wai Chang ToDie" <toylet.toylet@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:O%236s%2345aIHA.4180@xxxxxx Quote: Quote: >> They publish guidelines of how they think things should be configured in >> different environments (like the EC security profile, SSLF, etc...) but >> it is up to individuals on how they will implement and which settings >> they will use and how they will configure them. > So could Vi$ta security framework(?) do what you really want to do > overall? requires a lot of work learning all that is in there. We're still working on our GPOs, fine tuning them and such to find a balance between tight security and application compatibility and minimize feature shock to the end users. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #8 (permalink) |
| | Re: On the UAC...leave it alone! Unfortunately, you need to determine what it is you want it to do and stick with it. Vista remembers what settings were used at the time programs are installed or updated. If you elect to change those settings after installation, your programs may have problems running correctly. IMO Microsoft turned on way too much security for the average home user. I did not have all these "bells and whistles" with prior versions of Windows and _never_ had a problem. Now, I feel like the user in the Mac OS commercial. After months of answering this stupid prompt several times a day (Yes, daily. I install and test software written in-house.) So, I turned UAC off. Initially, there were no problems. But, slowly I started finding more and more problems. (Probably due to automatic updates for those programs.) When I finally determined UAC was the issue, I turned it back on. Then, the problems got worse. Turning the prompts off may always answer "yes" to the hidden questions, but think of it as more of a "limited yes." I basically had to reformat and start over. I don't care how you set up your security, but decide on a path and stick with it. "Seth" <seth_lerman@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:FBDADE75-DDC8-43DF-9D92-FBA44DD75063@xxxxxx Quote: > > "Man-wai Chang ToDie" <toylet.toylet@xxxxxx> wrote in message > news:O%236s%2345aIHA.4180@xxxxxx Quote: Quote: > >> They publish guidelines of how they think things should be configured Quote: Quote: Quote: > >> different environments (like the EC security profile, SSLF, etc...) but > >> it is up to individuals on how they will implement and which settings > >> they will use and how they will configure them. > > So could Vi$ta security framework(?) do what you really want to do > > overall? > That all depends on what it is you want it to do. It is very flexible, Quote: > requires a lot of work learning all that is in there. > > We're still working on our GPOs, fine tuning them and such to find a Quote: > between tight security and application compatibility and minimize feature > shock to the end users. > |
My System Specs![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Leave your gonk on or off? | General Discussion | |||
| Leave Messages on Server | Vista mail | |||
| Help! None of my messages will leave the outbox | Vista mail | |||
| Can you leave XP installed | Vista General | |||
| Can you leave XP installed | Vista General | |||