UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users

"The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm
serious," said Cross"

http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-...3-6237191.html


I've read this article several times and I'm still not sure what Cross means
by forcing independent software vendors (ISVs) to make their code more
secure. Is he saying by annoying user that we are to put pressure on these
vendors?
Opinions welcome....

--
All the best,
SG

Is your computer system ready for Vista?
https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/

SG wrote: Fact. Quickbooks demanded admin rights.

Fact. Vista by the very nature of how it's coded ensures that vendors
like Intuit can't get away with that anymore.

I never see UAC unless I am updating a piece of software.

But QB 2007 and 2008 now support running without admin rights.

Hi Susan,

Thanks for the reply.
I'm well aware of UAC and the forcing of (ISVs) to comply, but I don't
understand why Cross stated that how annoying users will force these (ISVs)
to do so. What part does the users have to do with making vendors comply?.
Maybe I'm just not reading this article correctly.

--
All the best,
SG

Is your computer system ready for Vista?
https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/

"Susan Bradley" <sbradcpa@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uZgALbFnIHA.3940@xxxxxx

SG wrote: I'm a user and I complained to Intuit to make Quickbooks run without
admin rights.

OTOH, as discussed in another thread (started by me) Microsoft is one of the
vendors whose software (Visual-Studio 2005 and 2008) does not play correctly
with UAC. In fact, in order to have Visual Studio installed on my Vista
machine, I am FORCED to turn UAC off and LEAVE IT OFF! Even uninstalling
Visual Studio does not fix the problems. Only a fresh install of Vista will
fix it. <argh!>

"SG" <sorry@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eIpHibEnIHA.748@xxxxxx

It is annoying when independent software vendors don't
write their software with the "least privilege" concept.

UAC just sort of pressures them to get in line with what
is already a standard security measure. People will want
software that works without the 'surprise' prompts. The
vendors will want people to use their software.

It's sort of a 'if you build it, they will come' mindset.

"SG" <sorry@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eIpHibEnIHA.748@xxxxxx

"Jim Kay" <joschka@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:044124D9-0511-486F-89FA-50DB475BE6B5@xxxxxx I am glad you mention this fact, so I will know not to install VC++ 2008 in
case I get a Vista machine. I will have to keep an XP machine or just dump
VC++ 2008 and stick to GCC. I guess you could cross-compile for Vista on an
XP machine.

--
Allan

"Jim Kay" <joschka@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:044124D9-0511-486F-89FA-50DB475BE6B5@xxxxxx Not sure what you mean - I'm running Visual Studio 2005 and 2008 on a vista
box with no problems. With UAC on. I usually run them as administrator so I
can attach to a service for debugging. Moving to sp1 didn't cause any
difficulties either.

M

I have installed Visual Studio 2008 a few times already and have not had any
problems with it. I did not have to turn off UAC, and I never have turned it
off. You do not have to read about one instance of a person having to turn
UAC off and conclude that you should not touch Vistual Studio 2008.

"Allan" <mu8ja0i@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OFqy$fOnIHA.1204@xxxxxx

"Susan Bradley" <sbradcpa@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eEm0DOGnIHA.2268@xxxxxx Well done, you!

Most users, however, neither know or care what admin rights are. They just
see this annoying box thing pop up and wonder why Microsoft chose to annoy
them like that.

Most people, in fact, won't even distinguish between Microsoft and other
vendors. They just see that Vista (which includes all the software on the
computer) is harder to use than XP was.

The point SG is making is this: why slap the user round the head for
something they are neither responsible for, nor reasonably expected to
understand.