UAC controversy part 132

The ball is rolling now:

http://www.osnews.com/comments/21499

I am betting that this will develop soon into an awesome FUD avalanche, and then Microsoft can kiss goodbye to a positive Windows 7 image.

Oh wait, it isn't really FUD since.. all this criticism is valid!

Awesome, we just can't have enough threads about Windows 7's UAC issues.

Yes, and we all who post here can say someday: Yes, we were there!

Read the comments at the osnews thread, this is exactly how the Vista hate started.
But this time, they have a real case.

It begins: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=win7_uac_whitelist2.html&aq=f&oq

Well, no one can say MS wasn't warned.

I hate to say we told them so. But we did.

I would just like to see a way in Windows 7 to have prompts for all elevation requests, but to have those prompts not bring up the secure desktop. It was just a group policy change in Vista, but there's no such option in 7.

matthews said:

I would just like to see a way in Windows 7 to have prompts for all elevation requests, but to have those prompts not bring up the secure desktop. It was just a group policy change in Vista, but there's no such option in 7.

What do you mean? That group policy setting is still there in 7.

Sven Groot said:

matthews said:

*snip*

What do you mean? That group policy setting is still there in 7.

Re-read what he said. He wants a NEW setting that turns off secure desktop for verified applications.

While I disagree that such a setting should exist, I understand his point.

No, the secure desktop is needed, otherwise a bit of sendkey magic nullifies the whole concept. You can't have security without a certain annoyance, you eat the cake and want to keep it at the same time. This is an extreme form of greed and avarice (and laziness).

I WANT IT ALL! I WANT SECURITY WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST THINKING PROCESS ON MY PART! AND WITHOUT ANY VISIBLE SECURITY MECHANISM TOO! I AM A SPOILED CLICKMONKEY WHO WANTS TO BE SPOON FED. GIVE ME! GIVE ME!!!

I WANT!

IN SHORT I WANT A:

If only everyone in the world was as gifted with computers as you. I had my uncle call me yesterday and he was having problem with a message relating to debugging wenever he opened up AOL. This issue was abaot to make him re-install windows.

I know he would hate Vista's UAC and the less intrusion for the general user the better. This UAC issue is similar to the having file extensions switched off by default thread.

Children, grannies, girlfriends husbands and wives all use Windows. Not technically clued up IT types like you.

Yes, you are correct in saying "you can't have it all", but the Microsoft have a far greater general computer user base, than a power user like you. Hopefully in time people will be educated better about security, and more intrusive UAC isn't a problem

vesuvius said:

If only everyone in the world was as gifted with computers as you. I had my uncle call me yesterday and he was having problem with a message relating to debugging wenever he opened up AOL. This issue was abaot to make him re-install windows.

I know he would hate Vista's UAC and the less intrusion for the general user the better. This UAC issue is similar to the having file extensions switched off by default thread.

Children, grannies, girlfriends husbands and wives all use Windows. Not technically clued up IT types like you.

Yes, you are correct in saying "you can't have it all", but the Microsoft have a far greater general computer user base, than a power user like you. Hopefully in time people will be educated better about security, and more intrusive UAC isn't a problem

"Yes, you are correct in saying "you can't have it all", but the Microsoft have a far greater general computer user base"

--------------------------------------

And what do you propose? The point still persists, you can't have it all. It would be damn awesome if every human being on this planet would be a billionaire and without any sickness. Well, but it's not possible. Unless you're God. Are you God?

If not, then you must accept the fact that the same rule applies to computer security. It's not possible to have security without annoyance or restrictions, end of story. NOT POSSIBLE. At least with the current computer architecture. And even slightly relaxing the rule, leads to mess. Like we see with the whole new UAC catastrophe.

Either you have annoying security, or you have holes all over the place. Pick what you want. If you picked security, deal with passwords and prompts and security desktops and shut up. If you picked lazy security, don't whine about viruses and spyware. As this new UAC problems show, there is NO middle ground.

wastingtimewithforums said:

vesuvius said:

*snip*

"Yes, you are correct in saying "you can't have it all", but the Microsoft have a far greater general computer user base"

--------------------------------------

 

And what do you propose? The point still persists, you can't have it all. It would be damn awesome if every human being on this planet would be a billionaire and without any sickness. Well, but it's not possible. Unless you're God. Are you God?

If not, then you must accept the fact that the same rule applies to computer security. It's not possible to have security without annoyance or restrictions, end of story. NOT POSSIBLE. At least with the current computer architecture. And even slightly relaxing the rule, leads to mess. Like we see with the whole new UAC catastrophe.

Either you have annoying security, or you have holes all over the place. Pick what you want. If you picked security, deal with passwords and prompts and security desktops and shut up. If you picked lazy security, don't whine about viruses and spyware. As this new UAC problems show, there is NO middle ground.

I'd prefer they switched UAC off instead of this... At least with UAC off you know you aren't secure, this just leaves you with a false sense of security while offering nothing.

Modules will be on sale before 7 ships just to bypass UAC, if they aren't already.

I am on your side by the way. Its just that with the problem Vista had (or XP running as admin for that matter) is people tend to love insecurity. They would prefer to run as admin with no prompts and use anti-virus. That is your typical user. That is how they understand security.

Education is the only way to move forward, rather than complaining time and time again, start a blog and start writing stuff that will educate people why UAC prompts are a good thing. Not having to run anti-virus for example is a good thing, and does not slow your machine down.

The problem Microsoft have here, is one of poor education of their user base. If they foist things their volatile users see as annoyances, when like medicine it is actually good for them, then they will end up with no-one buying the OS. A kid is more likely to take medicine if there is the prospect of candy afterwards.

It is better to sell 1 billion Win 7 licenses to malinformed people, and then educate then gradually, than sell 100 million licenses and have 900 million people annoyed with your OS and unwilliing to use it. 

vesuvius said:

I am on your side by the way. Its just that with the problem Vista had (or XP running as admin for that matter) is people tend to love insecurity. They would prefer to run as admin with no prompts and use anti-virus. That is your typical user. That is how they understand security.

Education is the only way to move forward, rather than complaining time and time again, start a blog and start writing stuff that will educate people why UAC prompts are a good thing. Not having to run anti-virus for example is a good thing, and does not slow your machine down.

The problem Microsoft have here, is one of poor education of their user base. If they foist things their volatile users see as annoyances, when like medicine it is actually good for them, then they will end up with no-one buying the OS. A kid is more likely to take medicine if there is the prospect of candy afterwards.

It is better to sell 1 billion Win 7 licenses to malinformed people, and then educate then gradually, than sell 100 million licenses and have 900 million people annoyed with your OS and unwilliing to use it. 

You're right ... unfortunately.

But the thing that MS seems to have forgotten is that normal users don't spend all day installing and de-installing applications. What would folk prefer? A few minutes of tedious button clicking, or a compromised system two weeks later?

"rather than complaining time and time again, start a blog and start writing stuff that will educate people why UAC prompts are a good thing"

-----------

It wouldn't be such a bad idea, IF MICROSOFT DIDN'T TRASH IT THEMSELVES.

People (vista users) seemed to accept UAC lately, (very) slowly but surely, but now comes Win7 and it's totaly broken by default. What's the point now? Most people don't change default settings, and if Win7 does indeed ship with that setting, then f*ck it.

I have no idea how MS wants to come out of this mess. UAC is crippled AND the standard user is still an administrator. This will not encourage software vendors to write software that runs in a standard account. It's a regress. It slows down the windows plattform security wise for several years. Will the they even "fix it" in the next version? Or is that really the goal for future versions - a user model like in the dos days? A few months ago, I would have thought such reasoning as absurd.. BUT... their ridiculous insistence not that change the standard behavior of UAC back to Vista levels seems to indicate that this is indeed the goal. How absurd this might be.

wastingtimewithforums said:

"rather than complaining time and time again, start a blog and start writing stuff that will educate people why UAC prompts are a good thing"

-----------

It wouldn't be such a bad idea, IF MICROSOFT DIDN'T TRASH IT THEMSELVES.

People (vista users) seemed to accept UAC lately, (very) slowly but surely, but now comes Win7 and it's totaly broken by default. What's the point now? Most people don't change default settings, and if Win7 does indeed ship with that setting, then f*ck it.

I have no idea how MS wants to come out of this mess. UAC is crippled AND the standard user is still an administrator. This will not encourage software vendors to write software that runs in a standard account. It's a regress. It slows down the windows plattform security wise for several years. Will the they even "fix it" in the next version? Or is that really the goal for future versions - a user model like in the dos days? A few months ago, I would have thought such reasoning as absurd.. BUT... their ridiculous insistence not that change the standard behavior of UAC back to Vista levels seems to indicate that this is indeed the goal. How absurd this might be.

You're missing the point.

Microsoft will sell more copies of windows, not less because of this

....

vesuvius said:

wastingtimewithforums said:

*snip*

You're missing the point.

Microsoft will sell more copies of windows, not less because of this

I think most people dedicated enough time to communicating the problem to Microsoft. They're perfectly capable of acting on their own

If all hell breaks lose when Windows 7 is launched, at least some people can say "we tried to warn you".

I'd like to see an option during install asking if I'd like more secure or less secure settings configured by the install process. Or at least a prompt on first boot to configure a more secure setting, like they do for the Windows Update service.