I think that when Vista first comes out many early adopters will turn off
UAC. I agree this is a shame but it is a reality. As new computers are
purchased by people who are not early adopters but just average consumers
buying a computer this may change. The vast majority of these people will
not be able to figure out how to turn it off. They will phone their OEM
supplier, software comany, or whomever they can find a phone number for for
support when things don't work. Eventually this will cause companies to make
their products work with UAC. It will probably take a few years. This has
been the pattern in the past when new versions of Windows broke old
applications and ways of doing things. It will most likely be the pattern
for the future. There are still many "experts" who insist that Windows XP is
crap, all anyone needs is Windows 98.



--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


Jeff wrote:
> Jimmy,
> Back to the UAC issue.
> As you have been seeing;and as I discussed with you long ago; UAC
> is causing people grief;and their first tendency;in many cases;is to
> turn it off.
> Granted; a nice security feature; but when the initial reaction is
> one of frustration;which then causes users to disable it; it then
> becomes a moot point. UAC is;at that point; irrelevant.
> Sure;what people should do;and what actually happens;can be two
> completely different things.
> As you are aware;from our previous discussions;UAC can be a pain.
> I have heeded your advice; and learned to live with it. In
> fact;ran it for every build;until 5728. One noticeable
> difference;other than the obvious;the annoyance going away; is the
> freeing up of system resources. Running with UAC on/off shows a
> noticeable difference in my system. We shall see; I still think
> UAC will be abandoned;by lots of folks. A good idea;which I fear will go
> the way of XP;as in everyone running
> as admin.
>
> Jeff

> Jimmy,
> Back to the UAC issue.

My favorite

> As you have been seeing;and as I discussed with you long ago; UAC is
> causing people grief;and their first tendency;in many cases;is to turn it
> off.

Agreed.

> Granted; a nice security feature; but when the initial reaction is one of
> frustration;which then causes users to disable it; it then becomes a moot
> point. UAC is;at that point; irrelevant.

I agree that the initial reaction is that of frustration; however, I don't
agree that this causes all such frustrated users to turn it off. I think a
majority of the people that post here regarding UAC are requesting
information about it because they are frustrated by it and do not understand
it... only a (strong, vocal) minority ask how to disable it without wanting
to know anything about it.

I feel this is a good sign ... it means people are seeing that it is more
than just a nag screen, even if they don't really understand how it works.
Hopefully, these people will find the information they need through whatever
source to understand and effectively use UAC.

> Sure;what people should do;and what actually happens;can be two
> completely different things.

Of course; the actions people take will vary through a wide spectrum. I
believe that there will be small chunk of users who immediately turn it off,
a small chunk that immediately understand it and live with, and a large
chunk of users that only understand it to a certain point but don't turn it
off.

I think the challenge Microsoft faces is informing that large chunk of
people what UAC is, how it benefits them, and how they should use it.

> As you are aware;from our previous discussions;UAC can be a pain.
> I have heeded your advice; and learned to live with it. In fact;ran it
> for every build;until 5728. One noticeable difference;other than the
> obvious;the annoyance going away; is the freeing up of system resources.
> Running with UAC on/off shows a noticeable difference in my system.

Fascinating. I wonder why that is.

> We shall see; I still think UAC will be abandoned;by lots of folks.

I think in relation to everyone using Vista, there will only be a small
percentage overall of people who choose to turn it off, and I agree with
Kerry that this percentage will decline and the effectiveness overall of UAC
will increase dramatically as application vendors take advantage of it and
the public becomes more informed about it.

> A good idea;which I fear will go the way of XP;as in everyone running as
> admin.

I certainly hope not. It is a possibility; however, I think compared to
other security initiatives that Microsoft has pushed that have failed to
take hold, this one has a very good chance of success.


--
- JB

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Jimmy,
Back to the UAC issue.
As you have been seeing;and as I discussed with you long ago; UAC is
causing people grief;and their first tendency;in many cases;is to turn it
off.
Granted; a nice security feature; but when the initial reaction is one of
frustration;which then causes users to disable it; it then becomes a moot
point. UAC is;at that point; irrelevant.
Sure;what people should do;and what actually happens;can be two
completely different things.
As you are aware;from our previous discussions;UAC can be a pain.
I have heeded your advice; and learned to live with it. In fact;ran it
for every build;until 5728. One noticeable difference;other than the
obvious;the annoyance going away; is the freeing up of system resources.
Running with UAC on/off shows a noticeable difference in my system.
We shall see; I still think UAC will be abandoned;by lots of folks.
A good idea;which I fear will go the way of XP;as in everyone running as
admin.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:
> Jimmy,
> Back to the UAC issue.
> As you have been seeing;and as I discussed with you long ago; UAC
> is causing people grief;and their first tendency;in many cases;is to
> turn it off.
> Granted; a nice security feature; but when the initial reaction is
> one of frustration;which then causes users to disable it; it then
> becomes a moot point. UAC is;at that point; irrelevant.

Well it's quite poorly implemented in comparison to similar features in
Linux or Mac OSX so you could be right. However, it's nice to see Microsoft
trying to do something, and of course if you turn it off and your PC gets
rooted, they'll be in a good position to shrug and say "told you so".


--
Robert Moir

www.robertmoir.com

<snip>
> Well it's quite poorly implemented in comparison to similar features in
> Linux or Mac OSX

I'm going to have to disagree here ... I think the implementation is
excellent. The problem is that of application compatability, something that
OSX and Linux don't have to worry about.


--
- JB

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Well,
I give ya one thing Jimmy;you're persistent. Gotta like your effort. :-)
Jeff

"Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C37B5F0-B606-429D-9913-CB522E9790AF@microsoft.com...
> <snip>
>> Well it's quite poorly implemented in comparison to similar features in
>> Linux or Mac OSX
>
> I'm going to have to disagree here ... I think the implementation is
> excellent. The problem is that of application compatability, something
> that OSX and Linux don't have to worry about.
>
>
> --
> - JB
>
> Windows Vista Support Faq
> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.


--
- JB

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

And you're the one who started this discussion back up, too


--
- JB

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Umm,
Yup,
I DID, didn't I? LOL
Jeff :-)
"Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF112274-441F-4898-A07B-0663A0E6CE92@microsoft.com...
> And you're the one who started this discussion back up, too
>
>
> --
> - JB
>
> Windows Vista Support Faq
> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Jimmy Brush wrote:
> <snip>
>> Well it's quite poorly implemented in comparison to similar features
>> in Linux or Mac OSX
>
> I'm going to have to disagree here ... I think the implementation is
> excellent.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll have to agree to disagree, if you can agree to that
;-)

> The problem is that of application compatability,
> something that OSX and Linux don't have to worry about.

Hmmm, I'm fairly sure that Mac and Linux users expect their apps to work, in
fact I'm a Mac user some of the time and I'm certain I expect my Mac apps to
run on my Mac laptop. With technologies like Rosetta and the BSD
environment, I'd actually say apple have done a lot of work in that area
actually.

What I'm talking about is UAC as a direct comparison to how OS X and a
modern Linux such as Ubuntu implement the 'sudo' command in the GUI. Much
less intrusive than in Vista in my opinion, especially in OS X. Have you
seen how that does it?
--
Robert Moir

www.robertmoir.com