Vista - How do I disable the Security Center notice about my UAC being off

You're not alone, but then 193,000 out of millions is not exactly a
significant number. I'm with you 100% and think MS simply decided the only
way to get vendors to fix how they do things was to piss off the user enough
to complain to them. Personally, I don't work for MS and think I paid way
more than this product was worth to have to now do their work for them at my
own expense and frustration.

Common sense goes a long way and with it, you need almost no protection.
(How did we ever survive before UAC?) But, you will not convince the
majority who become alarmist when you turn off the mandated or perceived
need for lots of protection. For some reason, they seem to think that
clicking a button stating Continue is protecting them from harm. Do they
understand the warning? If they've decided to Continue after the first
warning, do they need to read the same warning when it pops up for the third
or fourth time for the same program start? Better yet, do they even read the
message anymore? The only thing accomplished by UAC is the absolution of MS
from damaging your computer... ...MS tried to warn you before krzpqtz.exe at
0x8007700b executed and YOU pressed Continue anyway.

It's your computer. Do what you want. If you lose files because you
formatted C:, restore them. If you lose files because of a virus, restore
them. If you're worried about identity theft, zombie computers, or loss of
sensitive data... ...why are you on the Web? The protection out there is no
better than a condom. Making the condom thicker, glow in the dark and
putting it on with glue (UAC) doesn't make it work better.

To those who seem to never run into UAC... good for you.

As always, there is a distinct difference between the home user and
business. UAC and the Standard User are highly encouraged in business use.
If you mix home and business on your computer, you deserve the outcome.

I fully recommend the use of Windows Firewall and Defender. Install a
free Anti-virus that you never have to interact with other than installation
and when a virus is found. If you are on broadband, get a router with
built-in firewall. If you must send or answer chain e-mails, have the
decency to cut and paste the text to a new letter so everyone else's e-mail
address is removed.

"rowanc88" <rowanc88@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:60E8831C-2D0C-4242-9DEC-5BB65BE748D4@xxxxxxuptool,commonSo

193,000 out of millions is a significant number really, because those 193,000
have posted on the internet about their complaints, and have used the word
annoying, and have also used the word UAC. You can't say that everyone who's
annoyed at it has posted in a forum about it.



"Mark H" wrote:

I think you missed the line in my post where "I'm 100% with you on UAC."
I've barked up this tree to no avail.
Even so...

193,000 is approximately 0.2 million. (And if googled, 50% of these are
repeats from "copy" sites.)
With over 100 million licenses sold, 0.2 million is 0.2%.

That means 99.8% are not complaining about UAC.
In statistics, 0.2% is insignificant and as a businessman, I wouldn't
touch my product based on 0.2% complaints.

Some will tell you that those who complain in writing (internet) make up
about 5% of the real situation. That means that there are actually about 2%
to 4% of all licensed users complaining about UAC. Still insignificant in
statistics even though it indicates about 3 million users worldwide.

The roar may be loud if you stand amongst the 193,000, but standing a
little ways back, it's dead silent.
(Tree in the forest thing.)


"rowanc88" <rowanc88@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:805AFFF3-FFA8-4A1C-8B47-C4344823EB5E@xxxxxx193,000who'sonlyenoughwayat my

....
I never argued against you about UAC being annoying,
I'm just saying it's very short sighted to assume that the 193,000 people
who have posted on the internet with the keywords 'annoying' and 'UAC' are
the only ones pissed off at the UAC.

I also think it's wrong to assume that 100 million people use Vista. If one
person owns one Vista license at home, one at work, and even a few for their
kids, they won't write in a complaint with the keywords 'annoying' and 'UAC'
five times, one for each license. Their first port of call would probably be
to ring up their computer retailer.

"Mark H" wrote:

Hello rowance,
This is t-4-2 again. Here is another link whose purpose is to elevate your previledges to higher level in order to avoid the annoyance of UAC . It's a compromise whereby Uac is still on but won't bother you as long as you are on admin.account. Read the tutorial, it explains better than I can.

User Account Control (UAC) - Elevate Privilege Level

Quote from Ronnie Vernon Microsoft MVP whom IMO best explains the drawbacks
of doing as this website suggest as well as any other Tweak program or
Registry hack that runs UAC in quiet mode.

Quote:
This is a fallacy! If UAC cannot notify the user that a program is trying to
gain global access to the system, then it is effectively 'disabled'. This so
called 'quite mode' setting just changes a UAC registry setting to
'automatically elevate everything without prompting'. This means that when
you click to open a file, it is 'assumed' that you already know that the
file will have unrestricted access to your computer.

The main thing that UAC does is to detect when a program or application
tries to access restricted parts of the system or registry that requires
administrator privileges. When a program does this, UAC will prompt the user
for administrative elevation. Without this prompt, UAC cannot warn the user,
which means that it is effectively disabled.

Some people will tell you that using "quiet mode" will still let IE run in
protected mode, but this just isn't true. Without the UAC prompt, a
malicious file that runs from a website can run, without restrictions, and
silently.

Another issue is that with UAC prompt disabled, some legitimate procedures
will just silently fail to work properly, with no notification, if you are
logged on with a Standard User account, since the application cannot notify
you that administrative privileges are required.

Even the developer of the TweakUAC utility includes this statement about his
product.
"if you are an experienced user and have some understanding of how to manage
your Windows settings properly, you can safely use the quiet mode of UAC."
In my opinion, if you are an experienced user, the last thing you would want
to do is turn off the UAC notification.

If you 'are' an experienced user, then you would already know how to
temporarily bypass the UAC prompt to perform just about any procedure in
Vista, such as running programs from an elevated command prompt, or using an
elevated instance of windows explorer.

The last problem I have with this so-called 'quiet mode' is that it
dissuades developers from programming their applications to run in a least
user privilege environment.
End Quote

--
All the best,
SG

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

"t-4-2" <t-4-2.3833k1@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:t-4-2.3833k1@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...

On Apr 19, 2:40 pm, "SG" <so...@xxxxxx> wrote:Personally I think there should be more of an annoyance for people who
turn UAC off like it should change their wallpaper to bright red or
something every time they boot windows.

There is never a good reason to turn off UAC on a system that you use
day to day.

The only excuses I hear are as follows:

* Oh the pop-up is so annoying so i turned it off.
A: Sorry stop being lazy. It is 2008 time to take responsibility for
your own security.

* I am a power user so I don't need this kind of protection.
A: This one always cracks me up. By turning off UAC you are proving
you are actually a less experienced computer user then you think. UAC
is not just an annoying pop-up. If anything it actually makes using
your system easier. Without UAC you would have to right click
executables and select run as then enter your admin account
credentials. Would you rather doing that? Other option is to run
everything as an Administrator but only inexperienced users do that.

* I never had that problem before in XP why change now.
A: Sure you never had problems before, doesn't make it any less stupid
to do though. It is like saying I put a blind fold on and ran across a
road and haven't been hit by a car yet. Sure you haven't had a problem
yet, doesn't make it any less stupid though.

The whole UAC thing is a perception. Most people think oh its an
annoying dialogue, when yes it can be annoying but you should be
thinking ok why does this program need admin rights. If you think it
doesn't need them then click Deny then email the program vendor and
tell them to fix their buggy program. If the program actually does
need admin rights then click allow.

Hi Rowanc88,

I do not know if you solved your problem or not, but this tutorial will show you how to turn off that Security Center alert notification for you.

Security Center Alert Warning Notification

Shawn

As I said before...
Common sense goes a long way and with it, you need almost no protection.
(How did we ever survive before UAC?)
But, you will not convince the majority who become alarmist when you turn
off the mandated or perceived need for lots of protection. For some reason,
they seem to think that clicking a button stating Continue is protecting
them from harm. Do they understand the warning? If they've decided to
Continue after the first warning, do they need to read the same warning when
it pops up for the third or fourth time for the same program start? Better
yet, do they even read the message anymore? The only thing accomplished by
UAC is the absolution of MS from damaging your computer... ...MS tried to
warn you before krzpqtz.exe at 0x8007700b executed and YOU pressed Continue
anyway.

Enjoy your sense of security. Press Continue to end message.


"Wil" <wilfridtaylor@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ecbf7184-a660-4d9a-91e5-5b5d9cd361b4@xxxxxx

A second post by Ronnie Vernon MS MVP to Bob

Quote:"Bob" <bob@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8MOdnY5hI8aWaHvanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@xxxxxxIt's only annoying until you run into something unexpected. Right after
Vista was first released, we went through all of the debates about users
getting to the point where clicking on the prompt became an 'automatic'
response.

One user told us about a utility that he downloaded and installed and he got
the expected 'security warning' about the file not having a digital
signature. He clicked to run the file anyway and the utility installed. He
then got a message to 'click here' to configure your personal settings. He
then received this prompt.

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...UACPrompt2.jpg

Without UAC, he never would have been aware of the second file being
installed, since he had already permitted the program to run. Needless to
say, he decided that he would leave UAC on.

Only in specific instances, such as an installation file that does not have
a digital signature attached. The security warning does nothing to protect
against 'drive-by' downloads that run automatically. Most of the smaller
software developers will not bother with a digital signature, simply because
it is time consuming and expensive for them.
It's not about you deciding to run a program, it's about 'isolation', it's
about 'integrity levels', it's about what background actions the program
will take when you do run it. Have you ever wondered why an application,
that does nothing more than make images look better, needs full and
unrestricted access to every part of your computer?
This is the whole point of UAC. The only way that a malicious program can be
installed is if the user gets complacent and stops paying attention to what
they are doing.

When Vista is first installed, a user will typically see a ton of UAC
prompts as they install all of their software programs and utilities, but
these will gradually become more rare. Windows has to overcome almost twenty
years of being a 'push button' operating system before it will attain any
semblance of a 'secure' operating system. The education of users as well as
developers will take some time. UAC and other security 'hardening'
procedures are not going to 'go away'.

When the majority of developers see the benefits, and start following the
Microsoft developer guidelines for coding their programs and applications to
run in a 'least user privilege' environment, UAC will become a prompt that
is rarely seen. The vast majority of windows software should not even need
to initiate a UAC prompt.

Take a few minutes to read the following article. It will give you a better
understanding, and show you the underlying reasons and goals of UAC.

The Long-Term Impact of User Account Control:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc137811.aspx
EndQuote

--
All the best,
SG

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

"Mark" <jmhonzell@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B66A217C-BC8D-4B5A-9A68-DF729C6A43EE@xxxxxx