Print 134 comment(s) - last by kayronjm.. on Apr 17 at 5:26 PM

The truth comes out about User Account Control

Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system has been lambasted ever since it was launched for consumers in January 2007. Diehard Windows users balked at the steep system requirements, sometimes sluggish performance, inadequate driver support, and varying products SKUs at multiple price points.

One feature that has caused quite a bit of controversy with consumers has been the User Account Control (UAC) that is included in Windows Vista. UAC prompts nag users for simple operations such as going to device manager, emptying the recycle bin, or installing/uninstalling an application.

David Cross, a product manager responsible for designing UAC, gave the real reason for UAC at the RSA 2008 conference in San Francisco yesterday. "The reason we put UAC into the platform was to annoy users. I'm serious," remarked Cross.

Cross added that Microsoft's unorthodox method to stop users from wreaking havoc with their systems and to stop software makers from making applications that delved too far into the Windows subsystem was a necessary move.

"We needed to change the ecosystem, and we needed a heavy hammer to do it," Cross added. Cross went on to say that although UAC may be seen as an annoyance to some, but its lasting implications are far more beneficial to Vista users. "Most users, on a daily basis, actually have zero UAC prompts."

Many would say that many users have zero UAC prompts on a daily basis because they have already disabled UAC -- not so says Microsoft. According to Cross, 88% of Vista users have UAC enabled and 66% of Windows sessions do not encounter UAC prompts.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sluggish Performance
By UppityMatt on 4/11/2008 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 4
This is just my thoughts here so don't go crazy down rating me or anything. Does anyone else get the impression that the more our hardware advances the less programmers worry about actually shrinking and making code more effective. I have taken several programming classes in college and the professors would always mark us down if we used a double instead of an INT when we were suppose to. It almost seems like alot of programmers that actually do it for a living just get the job done and don't worry about optimizing. Vista to me seems to fit this bill, i know they crammed alot into it but i think they could have easily worked more on optimizing.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Chris Peredun on 4/11/2008 11:25:25 AM , Rating: 5
Does anyone else get the impression that the more our hardware advances the less programmers worry about actually shrinking and making code more effective?

Yes, especially in the learning environment. XNA isn't helping that matter much - from my strolling around the XNA Developers forum, far too many people seem content to use horrifically inefficient methods and letting the PC/360 grind its way through them.

Though I would love to see their heads explode if you asked them to code something for an ARM platform without floating-point; say, the Nintendo DS.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Mitch101 on 4/11/2008 3:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
Any of you played the game Transportation Tycoon when it was a DOS based game? In its game format back in the dos days? Chris Sawyer should have taken a shot at making the game into an OS. Multitasking in that game was excellent and having the many windows open tracking various items. It took a lot to slow that game down and that was in the 66Mhz cpu days. Plus the game never crashed. I think the original game fit on a floppy too.

That game had me amazed at how well he had programmed that game.

The game did in the end have a bug that he must have not used double for the cash amount because you could exceed the cash limit late in the game. It didn't crash but your money would turn from positive to negative billions. Just one bit!. Still awesome programming at its best.

Most code is a mess today. Calling the same objects multiple times instead of once just kills me. Why didn't he get all the elements the first time he connected to the database? Why so many calls? Grrr!

RE: Sluggish Performance
By smitty3268 on 4/11/2008 10:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
No need to use a double, just a long. Or at least an unsigned int which would have doubled the limit and caused the overflow to go back to a more reasonable 0 rather than -2 billion.

Was just reading this blog which was also talking about repeating the same code over and over again.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By BladeVenom on 4/11/2008 7:29:14 PM , Rating: 5
What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By leidegre on 4/12/2008 5:55:23 AM , Rating: 4
I'll have to disagree, there are great talented people out there, but the bar is not as high as it used to be.

Yet, I can not just ignore the fact that people seem to waste computational power, a lot. As a developer myself I'm very picky about a particular software. I expect optimal performance and if that is not the case, I go otherwise.

The worst lie of them all is that we seem to have so much computational power that it doesn't matter any more. That's just out right stupid.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Funksultan on 4/14/2008 7:45:13 AM , Rating: 4
Well, there is a ripple effect that becomes important here...

The purpose of marking you down is so that you truly understand the difference between int and long, not because it is going to effect the performance of your immediate program, but because it's important for you to know. An easy analogy is ebonics. Yes, we all can understand slang, but if we use ti to the point where we forget the use/spelling of the proper words, we lose something.

In the same way... yes, my quad-core is gonna chew up any code I write for it, pretty much no matter how sloppy I am, so I suppose I don't have to worry about long vs int. I might go years not caring, and eventually forget about ints all together.

What happens when I'm an OS programmer? Or what happens when I've trained 2 generations of junior programmers, and nobody uses ints anymore? Now, instead of a few occurances, the problem starts to magnify.

A coder who knows how things work vs. one who doesn't is like the difference between an architect, and someone nailing boards together. (yes, a Costanza moment)

RE: Sluggish Performance
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 11:31:57 AM , Rating: 5
I would have to agree with you there. People that learned in a lower level language where they had to manually manage all of their memory allocations (C, Assembly) tend to use the smallest they need. People that learned something like Visual Basic in school tend to just assign the biggest they can so they don't have to worry about size.

I did a lot of embedded/C type stuff in my undergrad and learned good memory management practices then. It really seems the focus on current development for general purpose systems is just get it coded as fast as possible, memory footprint doesn't matter.

I like Vista and don't mind the memory requirements at all, it's not like 2gb is expensive. I do worry about where this trend is going though.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By murphyslabrat on 4/11/2008 12:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
I like Vista and don't mind the memory requirements at all, it's not like 2gb is expensive. I do worry about where this trend is going though.

You have Vista to thank for that, you know. ^_^

You can get a 2GB S0-DIMM now for $35 at the egg.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/2008 3:41:52 PM , Rating: 3
2x2Gb is actually cheaper per GB than 2x1GB (it wasn't always that way). I say bargain bin A-Data 2x2GB for $50 after a $10ish rebate.

Who needs to pay 200$ for 2GB of DDR3 when $50 can get you similar performance and double the capacity?

It wasn't always this way, but Vista is certainly becoming manageable with current prices.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By mindless1 on 4/11/2008 9:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are missing the point, which is not memory cost but that at any given memory bandwidth it still takes longer to shuffle that code around. We're effectively cancelling performance gains and user productivity, the truth is people can't do the most common things on a PC any faster than they could 10 years ago (assuming certain things abandoned like floppy discs, dialup internet access) while in any other activity the user would certianly be faster after years of practice and using equipment potentially > 10X as fast.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By goku on 4/12/2008 5:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By boogle on 4/11/2008 11:46:59 AM , Rating: 5
Using physically smaller datatypes is rarely a performance optimisation, its a memory optimisation. For example if the CPU reads in 32bit chunks (like all 32bit Intel CPUs), then using a 16bit short will not improve performance whatsoever. Storing 2 shorts in a single int would give a nice boost though (reading in two variables at once). Also floats (I know, I know, not a double) are just as fast as ints - it's the conversion process to/from int that is slow.

The performance issues aren't trivial like this, they arrise from the various utilities and libraries in use. For example rather than storing the result of a library call, it is called multiple times from within the very same method. Or using a generic object instead of a specific datatype (which in .NET/Java results in LOADS of boxing/unboxing), and so on.

The answer is to realise the cost of every method call, and program accordingly. .NET especially allows you to either write code almost as fast as C++, or write code that takes an eternity. This is what seperates a good programmer from a bad one - but given the current shortage of developers, bad programmers are all over the place. Want easy money? Graduate and program .NET.

But either way, genuine optimisation is an extremely complex subject. Deadlines are short. To say 'optimise' is significantly easier said than done. If we went back to 'real' programming, Windows NT would be a pipe dream and Windows 3 would only just be finishing development.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 11:56:42 AM , Rating: 3
Actually quite the oppisit... Useing data types smaller (or wider) than the bit width of the processor will in many cases result in a preformance hit beleive it or not.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By boogle on 4/11/2008 12:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually quite the oppisit... Useing data types smaller (or wider) than the bit width of the processor will in many cases result in a preformance hit beleive it or not.

No no, I completely agree. However, you can get great speed improvements by putting lots of values into a single large stream (aka. using MMX/SSE) and working on them all at once.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 12:35:50 PM , Rating: 4
that takes a lot of optimisation (fortunetly compilers do a lot of the heavy lifting these days for normal folk), and honestly for an OS I'm not so sure you would even see a difference. Addtionally you only get a gain if you're performing the same operation on all data values. It terms of Window's "bloated" state, I wouldn't look to carelessness being the reason why their OSs are getting heavier. Probably more a desier to increase the number of built in features (and running a good portion of them by default) as to being the reason why Windows OS code is getting heavier.

Just think, vista has:

Automated defragmetation
Pretty 3d ui
Media center (home prem+)
Tablet PC functions
Extended networking featuers
and a host of other features you either had to get third party or buy a specialized version of windows to get.

By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/11/2008 12:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
He's right.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 11:53:24 AM , Rating: 3
The answer in general commercial software, particularly with web based systems is yes... One would hope that Microsoft is designing their systems more efficiently though (if not packing with thousands of new features)... I'm guessing the quality of Microsoft's code is good since the last time Windows OS code was leaked into the open it was met with very good reviews (Windows 2000).

RE: Sluggish Performance
By PAPutzback on 4/11/2008 11:59:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are comparing different types of coders. I imagine on a new release there is quite a bit of code that wasn't optimized in order to get the product out the door with the plan for the service packs to supply the optimizations.

And a lot of the programmers who do it for a living like myself have so many pending requests you have to spit out code so fast to keep up or find a different living.

A lot of the time your managers might not have coded a day in their life so they have no clue what goes into program. I have had reports take longer to program to get what the user is expecting than a large SSIS package.

And then you have MS spitting out a new platform every six months implemented only half way. They gave us VS 2008 and it doesn't work with reporting services so now you have to maintain two VS installs or run a VMC.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 1:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Hows the stability of 2008? I've been hesitent to even consider giving it a try considering how flaky 2005 is. VS.Net was my all time fav environment in the 2002/2003 days, starting with 2005 I'd have to say it still integrates all the tools better than anything else I've used, but daaaaaaaaaamn does it sacrafice reliability.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 2:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
I've been using 2008 since a bit before launch. I'm really not all that happy with the stability at all. It loves to lock up, especially when using one of the new features split screen code/web view.

If you haven't migrated your code and don't plan on using LINQ, I'd probably stay with 2005. LINQ looks really interesting, but I haven't actually gotten a chance to use it in any work yet.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By jvillaro on 4/11/2008 3:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I've had a really good experience with it. I've been using it for a while now and even though I'm currently using it on a 1.4 ghz celeron with 768mb of ram the only problem I've had is the expected slowness of this configuration. Specialy because right now I'm working with WPF.

LINQ is not the only reason to change, if you intend to use WCF, WPF and/or WF it's a necesity.

You will have to be carefull when migrating projects with web services or WCF services created on VS2005 so back up just in case and if posible start out with both installed just in case.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 4:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
Just out of curiosity (and completely off topic), do you do primary or forms development?

I do ASP.Net work for one project I'm on and I've run into the locks quite a bit when switching from source / view /split on both my primary dev systems. I'm running fairly high end systems (Q6600 desktop and T9300 laptop, both 4gb) and have the issue with both. It does get really annoying after a while.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By jvillaro on 4/11/2008 4:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well that could be the difference in our experiences with VS2008. I primary do win forms, wpf forms, services and such. I haven't done anything ASP.NET on VS2008, a partner of mine is starting something and doing some tests but hasn't commented anything. Maybe if we start a full proyect with ASP.NET we could get the problems your talking about.
In WPF the split views are heavy, but again I think it's the machine.
It's not perfect I must admit, but it has worked for me. I remember the same partner say a couple of times VS2008 has locked up on him (although not while using ASP) but VS2005 has done it too so I can't say it's better or worse.

PD: I'm using Windows XP right now if it helps to know. Next week I'll upgrade to a T5550 laptop with 4gb and Vista (all will be running in 64bit) so maybe I'll have an update about all this

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 4:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, well my company primarly develops a web app (and a few supporting windows apps). So I guess we'll have to be careful with this... Primarly I would like to see us switch to .Net 3.0 so we can take advantage of some OOXML tools in the new framework, but we're doing a huge UI overhaul so it's not the time to be changing out frame works. We'll see what happens, right now the big '05 annoyance is the compiler just getting hung up mid compile, still haven't figured out what's up but it feels like a race condition of some sort.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Chadder007 on 4/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sluggish Performance
By fic2 on 4/11/2008 4:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they were pushed to downgrade the graphics card requirments so that Intel's embedded crappy graphics would work.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Captain Orgazmo on 4/11/2008 1:23:09 PM , Rating: 1
Funny I made the same comment on another post, and got downrated, and some guy responds saying that if I want fast performance with a computer, boot DOS on a Core 2, and he gets rated to 5.

As I said in the aforementioned comment, for most users, common tasks such as word processing, databases and spreadsheets have, if anything, slowed down in the last few years, especially with Vista. I'm no linux geek or IT pro, but I know that there are fully functional linux builds that reside in 1/5th or less the memory of Vista.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By pauldovi on 4/11/2008 1:41:08 PM , Rating: 5
That would be all well and good if those Linux distro's offered the same functionality as Vista. Vista doesn't use that much memory just because it is bloated. It uses the memory to store the most common programs to these launch faster. Why let the excess memory sit around and do nothing?

By the way... I have seen a spyware laden slow Vista PC boot 5 times faster than a linux kernel.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By sprockkets on 4/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sluggish Performance
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 4:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
You do if you move up to 4GB memory and start seeing load times for your frequently used apps drop to astonishingly low times.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By goku on 4/12/2008 5:20:53 AM , Rating: 2
blah blah blah. The good ole' "it's superfetch at work, that's why it consumes 4X the memory" excuse at work once again. If you disable superfetch, you'll see that vista uses at a minimum 4X the memory of windows XP, and XP isn't exactly "lean".

RE: Sluggish Performance
By swizeus on 4/11/2008 1:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
well, from me, someone who just know how to read task manager and reading status from my laptop, program these days stressing too much harddrive with swaps and these programs just taking too much memory from what i see they should take. Just to add things worst, these program don't clean up their mess, so windows have to reorganize itself when other program wants to run...

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Screwballl on 4/11/2008 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
hopefully they step away from the vista path and go a different route as it appears they MIGHT be with Windows 7/Vienna

A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7. The MinWin development efforts are aimed towards componentizing the Windows kernel and reducing the dependencies with a view to carving out the minimal set of components required to build a self-contained kernel as well as reducing the disk footprint and memory usage. MinWin takes up about 25 MB on disk and has a working set (memory usage) of 40 MB. It lacks a graphical user interface and is interfaced using a full-screen command line interface. It includes the I/O and networking subsystems.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By goku on 4/12/2008 5:23:24 AM , Rating: 2
Hardly minimalistic, 40MB is a lot of memory to use when you don't even have a gui.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By pauldovi on 4/11/2008 1:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
In those software classes they teach you it is far cheaper to double your computer power than to double your software efficiency.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By TheOneStorm on 4/11/2008 2:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
Not to downplay Yahoo, but this entails YUI. We use it at my work, and sure, it gets the work done quickly and allows many of our developers who aren't good at JS to make something fancy. It just sucks the browser to no end and gives us very bad feedback on our website. I hear it every day from fellow co-workers and consumers.

Luckily for me (yes, I'd rather people be concerned about speed), browsers are still not as "advanced" at using all of the CPU to run JavaScript (unlike .NET). Web developers who are good with memory management and code performance actually have very slick, fast web sites.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By AlexWade on 4/11/2008 2:08:28 PM , Rating: 1
I think poor performance has more to do with the compiler than anything else. A good compiler can make a ton of difference. But with CPU's getting more powerful and memory getting cheaper, programmers might not be using good compilers.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 2:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
As microsoft uses Visual Studio.Net (should be obvious), I would say this is not a case of Vista being compiled with a compiler that outputs inefficient binaries.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Ammohunt on 4/11/2008 3:37:58 PM , Rating: 1
I would have a greed with you before i setup and installed Windows 2008 Server. It has a 512mb memory footprint base build. Of course server doesn't have aero and all the other eye candy Vista has enabled(1.3GB footprint on my Vista Ultimate install) While i am sure Miscrosoft could tighten the code alot i feel that they have produced the best version of windows yet with the Vista Code base.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By wetwareinterface on 4/11/2008 3:42:52 PM , Rating: 3
there's an old it joke it goes like this...

2 programmers one from the linux community one from the microsoft campus are at a security convention. the linux guy turns to the microsoft guy and asks what they use in-house to do speed optimization. the microsoft guy responds "speed optimization? it's intel's job to make the code run faster.". and then the microsoft employee asks the linux dev what tools there are on the linux platform to ensure they don't break the tree. the linux dev responds "we use green procesors like transmeta, why?" if you don't know what a code tree is the joke isn't funny, so here it is a code tree is a conglomerate of the different dev teams output and if you introduce something that causes a fault either in your own code or somewhere else it's called breaking the tree.

and this is the problem in software, there are 2 distinct types of coders one type has no development schedule to adhere to and puts what features they want to include ala small independant dev or government or other in-house corporate type it developer. the other type is on a schedule and has a list of features they need to integrate with and add to their own code ala big software house.

one side has the design goal of more efficient code and gets to work against a set system that doesn't change.
the other has the design goal of interoperability and feature compatibility and hiding of features that will break the code module they are working on.

neither side is right or wrong. it's just how it is. making code more efficient isn't the primary goal of an os developer, exposing and hiding features that will make or break the code base is.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By fic2 on 4/11/2008 4:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, several years ago I worked on an embedded system that had a windows gui interface. The idiot windows programmer "designed" the interface that I was supposed to send info to him. It was so big it forced them to use a larger heap. I spent six months trying to talk them into using a much simpler and smaller interface (only sent the data you asked for instead of everything everytime). During my discussions with the gui people one of my arguments was that it was slow. Their response - buy a faster computer. I told them they would never make it in the embedded world where if you want a new cpu it will cost you at least $250M in respinning the board.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Some1ne on 4/11/2008 7:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
I have taken several programming classes in college and the professors would always mark us down if we used a double instead of an INT when we were suppose to.

As well they should, and not because you weren't using the most size-efficient approach. Floating point values are imprecise, and should really only be used when your code requires floating-point arithmetic. In all other cases an int/long is better.

If, however, you also get marked down for using a double where a float would have sufficed, or for using a long where and int would have sufficed, then you are getting marked down to space-efficiency reasons.

And also, yes, I believe your general point is correct. Programmers generally do not waste a whole lot of time optimizing the space-complexity of their code, now that machines with gigabytes of RAM have become common. Optimizing for time-complexity is still fairly common however, and generally speaking doing so entails some sort of tradeoff in space-complexity. You could, for example, process all the data in a file by reading only one byte of data into memory at any given time (assuming that there are no interdependencies between the bytes of whatever thing it is you are processing), but it would be much more efficient, in terms of execution time, to allocate a buffer of several KB's or so and periodically read the file data into that. It would use more than 1000 times as much memory, but it also wouldn't take all day to execute.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By RedStar on 4/12/2008 5:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
Iremember when CD-roms were about to come out. At the time, there were a few huge games topping 14 meg!

At the time, some people worried that the advent of the the cd-rom would cause game sizes to explode.

Well guess what.... they did! =P

RE: Sluggish Performance
By theeq on 4/12/2008 4:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
Don't suppose you saw Will Wright's keynote speech a few years back?
He was talking about the procedural code in Spore (then still news) and he talked about how coders are relying more on stored data than on algorithms and space savers.
Just imagine if the old mindset of "make it as small and efficient as possible" still reigned? How much faster would things be going, I wonder (if it was noticeable).

RE: Sluggish Performance
By otispunkmeyer on 4/12/2008 8:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
i know exactly what you mean

i have been writing a small program for my engineering project. is nothing fancy and nothing even the most meager of computers couldnt handle so it almost doesnt matter how bad the coding is but....

i found myself doing exactly as you described. in the interests of getting it done asap (and not having too much of a clue what i was doing) i just used doubles for everything, my code was all over the shop, i had loads of functions to call etc etc

now im not a software guy, im a mech eng guy so programming is certainly not my forte but even i know that what i did was terrible

i thought, i have a 2.4ghz core 2 duo, 4 gigs of ram and a very very lean xp install. it doesnt matter if the code is crummy.... brute force will see me through

RE: Sluggish Performance
By The0ne on 4/13/2008 2:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yes a lot of programmers slack off from making the code more efficient and effective but it's really not their fault. I've been around for 15years now and from my experience the programming is as it is due to demands placed on them by their boss or company. It is always crunch time. Quality, one of my expertise, is no different. You weight the risk and go with what you think is the most sensible. I have friends working in MS and they want to write better code but schedule does not allow that. Just a small view from my side.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Mike Acker on 4/13/2008 8:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
the concept that "people are more important than computers" was promoted by IBM from the '60s. Of course they wanted you to trade your Model 50 for a Model 65, but, after all, they were a marketing organization, mainly.

the attitude remains pervasive today: if my program runs slowly the problem is YOUR computer, certainly not my program

how do you change the mindset of a culture? you take advantage of their foolishness and beat them in sales.

RE: Sluggish Performance
By lco45 on 4/14/2008 4:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
As a programmer myself I see a lot of poorly written code, but I think people can be too fussy about making code perfect.

When I see a ROM for donkey kong that has a whole game written in 3000 bytes I have take my hat off to the guy who thought that out, but what most people don't realise is that code is not supposed to be masterpiece everytime.

When you're give 3 weeks to write a program, and you get it done in 3 weeks and it's fast enough for the users, you have done a good thing. It doesn't matter if that code is 10 times slower than it needs to be, so long as it is fit for purpose, and you can get on with your next job.

The other thing to remember is that there's a helluva lot off code to be written out there, and there's not that many really good programmers. For every programmer who knows how to allocate memory and use integers rather than doubles for their short loops there's 10 programmers who are barely stopping their brains from exploding as they gaze at the requirements doc...

SO IN SUMMARY! The human body isn't perfect, but it's good enough to cap out a couple of children and raise them before it gives out, and crappy code is usually good enough to do the trick, and will be replaced in a couple of years anyway...

RE: Sluggish Performance
By Major HooHaa on 4/17/2008 11:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
I have not taken the Vista plunge yet, I am still using Windows XP on my single core 2.6GHz Athlon 64. This runs games such as Team Fortress 2 just fine.

I take the view that XP has had time to mature, while Vista is the next brand new thing and is a bit of a mess and a resources hog.

My brother has upgraded and got Vista though, using a quad core processor and 4 GB's RAM. With the changing of the way sound works between XP and Vista, he eventually gave up on his Creative X-Fi sound card. He sold his Creative card and bought something else from another manufacturer.

I get the feeling that programmers have it easy in some ways today, with all that memory and processing power at their disposal. I wonder what would happen if a modern programmer tried to code a game for the old Atari VCS\2600 games console?

Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By Ryanz on 4/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 11:25:34 AM , Rating: 5
UAC only is a constant annoyance for power users. I left it enabled permanentely on my laptop just to see how often it shows up and I see it maybe 2-3 times a week (pretty much only when installing something).

I had it disabled on my PC, but turned it on after my last clean build to see how often I see it. On my PC, it was much more agrivating since I'm running speciality tools like process viewer, core temp, etc. Those are things most people will never use, very few people actually run programs that need a UAC prompt.

What UAC was designed for is people that don't have a clue and it works great in that regard! My wife just does basic internet browsing and some casual gaming and asks me when she gets a prompt if she should continue. Those are the people it was designed for! At most, she gets maybe 2-3 per month, which I think is probably typical for your average joe user.

RE: Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By callmeroy on 4/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By FITCamaro on 4/11/2008 12:57:31 PM , Rating: 3
Who the hell is Microsoft to tell a paying customer for their product how they should use their system?

The company who provides the product? They made it so they can do whatever they want with it.

And they'd rather it annoy people than have tons of people calling in saying,
"Yeah my computer doesn't work anymore....What was the last thing I did?.....I went to this web page..."

UAC stops programs from changing things without the user knowing it. If a virus tries to install itself you'll know it because UAC will be like "This process is trying to make itself a startup program. Did you want this to happen?"

For people like my dad its invaluable.

RE: Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By callmeroy on 4/11/2008 4:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
The company who provides the product? They made it so they can do whatever they want with it.

So? Its my computer and more importantly its my money that paid them for the product so where's my choices of whether to have this annoy me or not. Without the money they have no product to make. Them being the makers of it or not its rather arrogant to force such annoyance / hindrance on a user of their product by default. See my post elsewhere on this though - if I'm just being ignorant and its VERY easy to disable UAC (I mean for say grandmom , not power users) then I'll concede I'm talking out my ass. However, as of right now with the little playing I did with Vista I only noticed doing this by the command line.

RE: Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By JustTom on 4/12/2008 3:32:38 AM , Rating: 2
Open up Control Panel, and type in "UAC" into the search box. You'll see a link for "Turn User Account Control (UAC) on or off":

By theapparition on 4/12/2008 1:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
then I'll concede I'm talking out my ass.

Where's your concession?

It's so easy to turn off, but I would highly advise against it for your "grandmom". That's exactly who UAC was meant for.
And let me get this don't even use Vista, just played with it and saw UAC over someone's shoulder? Try using it and you'll find it almost is never intrusive. The only time it pops up is if you are installing programs (for most not a daily or weekly event) or trying to do some system level configuration. I hardly ever see it, and to be quite honest.......I like it when it pops up, gives me a feeling that the protection is doing something.

RE: Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By stonemetal on 4/11/2008 1:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your brother installs software every time he turns his computer on? I would call him crazy or fickle, maybe a power user depending on the software.

RE: Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By callmeroy on 4/11/2008 4:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
Brother -in-law and if you knew how we get along at times you'd know why I'm stickler for sighting his isn't my brother.

But anyway, obviously the point is you can turn it off. And it prompted more than just installing software, even on updates we applied it prompted which is ridiculous.

Because I (remember though I use XP) have some add-ons for games that require updates as frequently as once or twice a week, I'd hate to think if I used Vista it would prompt me each and every update.

I still stand by more - UAC is overboard. And while my own ignorance on the OS may shine here (and if that's the case I'll take the scorn) the only way I know how to disable UAC is from the command prompt.

If it was VERY simple to do this I'd have less a problem with it (I really think UAC should be disabled by default and then on first use -- the famous OOBE (out of box experience) it asks the user if it would like the feature enabled or not).

Now again, being that I have only little Vista experience if it already does what I just said -- then I'll bow to myself being ignorant.

RE: Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By Hoser McMoose on 4/11/2008 7:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'd hate to think if I used Vista it would prompt me each and every update.

Only if the software is designed very poorly. So yes, you probably would get prompted every time since a LOT of software for Windows is quite poorly designed. A shockingly large quantity of Windows software is written as if we were still all running Win95 (ie every user is an admin and no file permissions anywhere).

the only way I know how to disable UAC is from the command prompt.

Control Panel -> User Accounts and Family Safety -> User Accounts -> Turn User Account Control On or Off

RE: Hmmmmmm, dear Mr. Cross...
By ajdavis on 4/11/2008 10:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
You have no idea, do you? A program update in most cases updates executable code. Microsoft does not allow you to write to the program files directory without elevating priveleges. How then would you suggest a person design around that fact?

My sarcasm detector needs batteries..
By Demon-Xanth on 4/11/2008 11:05:05 AM , Rating: 4
Seriously, I can't tell if this is parody or not!

RE: My sarcasm detector needs batteries..
By mmntech on 4/11/2008 11:12:49 AM , Rating: 1
People seem to have a tough time sarcasm. Seems people have struck a nerve with Microsoft over UAC.

Apple went a different approach with Leopard. It only asks for confirmation if the program was downloaded from the internet. Even I find that annoying at times. I think you can be too intrusive with these warnings but I will say that there are a lot of dumb users out there who need them. UAC has never been my primary criticism of Vista.

RE: My sarcasm detector needs batteries..
By Oroka on 4/11/2008 12:03:14 PM , Rating: 5
I think you can be too intrusive with these warnings but I will say that there are a lot of dumb users out there who need them.

You hit the nail right on the head there. Most people here are power users, and UAC is not really needed, but it wasnt intended for power users, but for Grandma Jane who just clicks OK OK OK OK NEXT OK OK NEXT OK FINISH and dosent read anything that happens. I left UAC on to see what would happen over time, and the only time I see it is when I am doing a power user task that could screw something up.

By FITCamaro on 4/11/2008 12:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It's made for idiots. And thats what the majority of people using computers are when it comes to their computer.

I set up Vista Home Premium for my parents and upon initial setup you get a lot of UAC popups. After that though you don't really. I left it on for them so when they're making an important change, they'll know it. They haven't complained about UAC at all. More about things that weren't Vista's fault (memory went bad).

About the only thing that Vista was responsible for was the difficulty in trying share the printer hooked to the Vista machine with an XP box in another room.

By murphyslabrat on 4/11/2008 12:37:31 PM , Rating: 1
"Most users, on a daily basis, actually have zero UAC prompts."

and 66% of Windows sessions do not encounter UAC prompts

Yep, Two-thirds counts as most in Congress.

By jvillaro on 4/11/2008 3:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's true. And although it did annoy me alot (I just turned it off) I considered it to be, as in many features in Vista, a necessary evil.
There had to be a point where they started to revamp many things including security, even if it meant annoying users and companys like Symantec. I would have even preferred they released only x64 versions (eventualy it will have to happen) but all the fuzz would have been even worse.
I think Vista will not me remembered like a great or popular OS (altough I like it alot and haven't had any real problem), but it is a step in the correct direction and the things that will come from it will be very important.

I like it
By Bioniccrackmonk on 4/11/2008 11:42:18 AM , Rating: 5
One feature that has caused quite a bit of controversy with consumers has been the User Account Control (UAC) that is included in Windows Vista. UAC prompts nag users for simple operations such as going to device manager, emptying the recycle bin, or installing/uninstalling an application.

I am the IT guy for my family and it has saved me many hours of undoing because my (brother/sister/mom/dad) asked me first before installing some useless item a friend referred them to.

Another way to look at this; think of all the stupid people you have encountered in your lifetime. Now think how much more pleasent that experience would be if they had a prompt everytime they were going to do something stupid to stop them from doing it. One can only hope.

RE: I like it
By PAPutzback on 4/11/2008 12:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think you hit the nail on the head. Now if I could just set up their UAC to send me an email with what was installed so when they call me ten minutes later I can say. "Oh really, did you happen to be on MySpace today and install a theme". Or did you send someone to be rickrolled.

RE: I like it
By walk2k on 4/11/2008 12:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
the danger is that if you annoy people too often they will just blindly click OK OK OK!!! without even paying attention to what they are clicking on. you are training people to ignore your warnings.

RE: I like it
By rdeegvainl on 4/11/2008 2:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
They are already trained that way, to click ok and next and finish every time they see it.

UAC is a good thing
By 306maxi on 4/11/2008 12:07:30 PM , Rating: 3
Firstly you can switch it off as it is intensely annoying to power users who know what they're doing. So net impact on power users is nil unless they are into sadomasochism.

Then it helps to stop the twits who just install anything and at least gives them one more stage at which they can save themselves from harm.

Personally I can't stand UAC myself and the first thing I did on my PC and my g/f's PC when I built them was turn it off. I also think it's a good thing that turning UAC off isn't done with the click of an obvious button as that would mean more people would turn it off and the safety advantages would be negated.

The biggest security flaw with a Windows machine has and will always be the idiot in the chair in front of the machine.

RE: UAC is a good thing
By akugami on 4/11/2008 3:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
Problem In Chair, Not In Computer

RE: UAC is a good thing
By 306maxi on 4/12/2008 12:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
Back where I used to work we used to say PEBKAC as in Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. But I'll have to remember PICNIC!

By walk2k on 4/11/2008 12:45:27 PM , Rating: 5



(hey someone had to do it)

Is it just me.........
By RjBass on 4/11/2008 11:36:17 AM , Rating: 5
or is the Vista bashing getting a bit old?

Ya it had some issues, but most of those issues have been worked out. The launch of Vista was no worse then the initial launch of XP. I was an initial beta tester of Vista, and even in it's RC-1 days, it still wasn't THAT bad. Recently I actually had a very enjoyable Vista experience. So enjoyable was it that I documented it here

RE: Is it just me.........
By kretzj on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
HOW do they know? Hmm...
By kretzj on 4/11/2008 12:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
Many would say that many users have zero UAC prompts on a daily basis because they have already disabled UAC -- not so says Microsoft. According to Cross, 88% of Vista users have UAC enabled and 66% of Windows sessions do not encounter UAC prompts.

Isn't anyone else a bit nervous about how MS knows these facts? I have never fully trusted MS and Vista because of the whole "fact gathering" question. I can understand them having facts about Nvidia drivers causing xx % of crashes, etc. because you have a crash event that can report it... but how does MS know that a certain percentage of people have UAC disabled? This makes me as nervous as UAC in principle.

Also, them saying they need to change the ecosystem really does show their arrogance... they're going to TELL the market what it really needs / wants. I'm not a Linux Fanboi (don't have it installed) nor do I own a Mac... XP will be re-installed on my hardware until I can't get drivers anymore, even if that means I stop buying sexy new hardware every few weeks. (HEAR THAT HW OEM's?)

RE: HOW do they know? Hmm...
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 12:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
I guessing this might either be from useablilty research or those people that signed up for the "track everything I do and get free software program".

Of course, that didn't stop me from thinking about it either.

By mercilessming on 4/11/2008 12:07:00 PM , Rating: 3
This debate could go on forever but UAC is good. We all know <sarcasm> linux/unix is the greatest thing since slice bread and how Linux/Unix does things is the best way</sarcasm>. However Microsoft couldn't just go and create the the dead end, if application isn't right then it can't install but, with UAC prompting for common users they will scream and cause applications to be written right for windows new model and eventually Windows will have the "only" install under a given user and not affect outside of user. And Power User like most of US, know how to cut UAC off and no install suspicious applications. I have run Vista 64 installed once over a year ago and no one single problem performance or otherwise. 4600+ X2 CPU with 4gigs of ram.

By DeepBlue1975 on 4/11/2008 1:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
A couple of days ago I stopped the UAC because I'm trying to fine tune my overclocking, and in that situation it is really a pain in the neck.

For startup items I had it solved without disabling the UAC: I simply added those items to the task scheduler, giving the tasks high privileges to not bother me asking, and there you go: coretemp, rivatuner, and some others all starting up without asking anything.

My highest complaint about the UAC is that it should be able to remember, once you give a specific program approval to run, that it should not ask again if you want to run it.
Specially when talking about the device manager, which I use quite often.

Nevertheless, I have it disabled now and don't think I'm gonna turn it back again anytime soon.

Now I'm onto a little annoyance: my vista machine is takeing more than a whole minute to let me use it (about 30 secs to show the desktop), which is abysmal for me.

I tried "resetting" the prefetch and turning it on only for startup processes, ran defrag, but still the same. The only thing I didn't try yet is bootvis... Once started up, it runs great though.

By jcherrybon on 4/11/2008 1:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure how Microsoft gathers those statistics.

Excellent way to reduce sales!
By cubby1223 on 4/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Excellent way to reduce sales!
By VashHT on 4/11/2008 3:06:06 PM , Rating: 1
I hope you enjoy using XP or whatever then for the rest of your life. If you're too scared to learn anything new then I feel sorry for you.

By cubby1223 on 4/11/2008 4:09:05 PM , Rating: 1
Someone took my comment way too seriously. Chill out.

UAC is disabled
By viperpa on 4/11/2008 2:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
I disabled the UAC on both my laptops. People will say that's a bad idea but I haven't had any problems. UAC has been disabled close to year on 1 laptop. I see it more as a scare tactic when people tell you to keep it enabled. I don't click on everything I see so I guess that's why I don't have problems.

Mac vs. PC
By Polynikes on 4/11/2008 3:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
So, it seems both sides are gluttons for punishment. Mac users take in in the wallet, we PC users take it in the form of awesome design choices like this.

I hope Linux becomes mainstream someday, or at least manages a way to make gaming more ubiquitous for the platform. Gaming is really the only thing holding me to Windows. Who knows, though, maybe in the future virtualization will be good enough so I can have a Windows VM on my Linux box without a huge performance hit.

It might just be me...
By TejTrescent on 4/11/2008 3:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
... but I've never gotten a prompt for emptying the Recycle Bin.

And going into the device manager might be simple, but, it's not something the average person has even heard of, much less uses. They should probably be notified via a prompt.

Most of the prompts (at least an overwhelming majority) make sense. I'm more of a "power user" I suppose, but I still only get 1-2 a week.

One frustrated user
By dgxhubbard on 4/11/2008 4:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
I loved UAC on Vista. I cannot imagine a better way to spend my time than trying to run an application and having the OS asked me everytime "are you sure". I loved UAC so much that I uninstalled Vista and have never installed it since. This comes from an avid microsoft fan. I have always installed and used beta and new release OSs from microsoft. But thank you for annoying me so much in the next version maybe you will see fit not to annoy me so I can actually get work done.

By MikeMurphy on 4/11/2008 7:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
UAC is a symbol of Microsoft’s inability to engineer an appropriate operating system.

I have much respect for Microsoft and what they have accomplished however since bundling winsock with Windows 95 their operating systems have always suffered from the same problems associated with intrusive junkware. While it is inexcusable to still experience the effects of intrusive software and OS decay, it’s a profitable venture for both Intel and Microsoft to sell the same OEM products to the same people more than once.

I hate UAC
By cidman2001 on 4/12/2008 4:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
On the one hand I agree that there are a lot of idiots out there that make UAC a necessary evil. On the other hand, I do a lot of computer repair and a large amount of my customers are the idiots that click yes on every box that pops up in front of them. Microsoft is cutting in on my business with all this UAC crap!
All kidding aside, I have seen just as many Vista systems come my way all messed up with "idiot" related problems. The root of this is that many people simply don't read (or perhaps undrestand)what these pop-ups are trying to tell them. Or maybe they are just annoyed and click whatever they have to to finish the task they were trying to accomplish. Whatever the reason, it simply doesn't work. Idiots will always be idiots and people who are more experienced users will always be annoyed at pop ups asking them if "they're sure". If I wasn't sure, I probably wouldn't have started in the first place....

All About The Business...
By Krioni on 4/12/2008 8:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I couldn't take the time to read ALL of the posts because there are a LOT on this thread. So I apologize in advance if my point has already been made.

Please humor me for just a second for some background info...
I work in the financial services industry. The primary system on which I work does some pretty hefty recursive insurance and tax compliance calculations. Me and a few others (one of which is a highly educated and very intelligent actuary) originally wrote our engine in C++ and have since converted it to C#. We spent a substantial amount of time optimizing that code because our system must return results of millions of calculations in less than 1/10th of a second. Rather than accepting conventional wisdom on what constructs and data types were most efficient, we wrote hundreds of tests to see which worked best for *our* problems. It ends up that was justified and many best practices just didn't work out in practice for us.

There is a lot of talk of optimization, and I agree that developers should be mindful of that. BUT....

It's all about the BUSINESS... you know, those people that pay our salary. In many situations, it is far more valuable for a system to be DELIVERED quickly than to RUN quickly. My business customers really don't give a rip if I'm using a double or a float or an int.. they just care that our products get out the door on time to meet the market demands. The flip side I guess is that they WOULD care if we were taking 2 or 3 seconds to do our calculations.

I guess the point is that there's always a balancing act between performance optimizations and delivering the end product.

For something like a 3D game engine, you can bet the farm that optimizations matter entirely because a poor performing engine means fewer people can run it, which means fewer sales, etc.

So, in a purely acedemic setting, sure, we should all get our code optimized perfectly. In the real world, you simply don't have the time or resources to do that because someone is paying for you to deliver systems/components/code.

UAC / Security
By Mike Acker on 4/13/2008 8:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
of course UAC is a component of Computer Security. and I think it is a very good thing that the issue has been brought to the fore-front by the creation of UAC

the concept that "going to device manager, or installing/uninstalling an application" are "simple operations" that "users don't need to be "nagged" for" is a monster flaw in today's thinking. That installing programs over the net can happen without user authorization is how un-authorized programming gets into computers

I'm reading Zero Day Threat at this time, by Byron Acohido and Jon Swartz which is very informative, and interesting, scary, and disgusting. Previously I went through Gary Rice's Geekonomics

Bruce Schneier has noted that "complexity is the enemy of security" and I agree with him on that. There should be one way and one way only to install programming on a Windows computer and that is by using the official SETUP program.

If you want to install something, great, but you'll need to download it first, check the digital signatures, and then proceed to run the install. What's so hard about that?

UAC is indeed annoying..
By kayronjm on 4/17/2008 5:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
Windows Vista's UAC is indeed the most annoying thing I've ever experienced in an OS. I don't know what the hell they're talking about when they say that users don't tend to encounter prompts from UAC because as soon as I start navigating through the computer to manage drivers and such (after a fresh install), UAC tries to make my life impossible. Disabling UAC has become the very, very first thing I do after I first boot into Windows Vista after a fresh install.

UAC to annoy, or Vista to annoy?
By superkdogg on 4/11/2008 11:42:00 AM , Rating: 1
This thread is funny to me because Vista itself seems to have been designed to annoy users to working the way MS wants them to.

UAC is not a standalone annoyance, it's a piece of the larger annoyance. All the things listed at the beginning of the article are annoying and preventable, so UAC doesn't seem to stand outside the the rest of them to me.

Good thing is that they are all correctable. I waited to get Vista (drivers), got in on a laptop with a legit Vista license for same price as XP (multiple sku's/price points), and used a registry hack to allow me all the freedom of XP/2K admin.

For me, it amounts to the same user experience, with some new features. The indexed search would be great if I didn't know how to file my stuff to begin with, the explorer is a little smoother, etc. Little things. The whole experience needed to be thought out and researched, but Vista annoyances are real and can also really be eliminated.

By StevoLincolnite on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By Chemtype on 4/11/2008 11:03:50 AM , Rating: 5
Completely wrong, UAC only prompts when sensitive resources are being accessed, and learns users behavior to cut down on prompts from known software.

Power users may hate UAC, but its a godsend for the other 90% of PC users.

RE: Huh?
By ChronoReverse on 4/11/2008 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the software I use daily (Visual Studio 2008, Virtual PC 2007, Office 2007) don't ever trigger UAC. For those that do there's the Vista Software Compatibility Toolkit.

RE: Huh?
By UNCjigga on 4/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 12:21:08 PM , Rating: 3
Non-MS software wouldn't trigger it either if it was coded properly. Software apps should not need admin/power user rights just to execute. It's not MS's fault that some software dev's (hiya Intuit, I'm looking at you) take the easy road and code in a way that requires admin privileges.

RE: Huh?
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 12:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
*Should be "most" software apps should not need admin/power user rights.

Stuff that interacts directly with hardware or the kernal is a different story.

RE: Huh?
By majorpain on 4/11/2008 11:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
are those only MS appz or is it just me?

RE: Huh?
By tekzor on 4/11/2008 11:05:50 AM , Rating: 2
I googled "UAC off" as soon as I first saw it in vista ;).

RE: Huh?
By archcommus on 4/11/2008 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, no, Vista does not display a UAC prompt every time you open a program. You must not have used it for more than 2 minutes.

RE: Huh?
By therealnickdanger on 4/11/2008 11:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
I rarely ever see the UAC prompt. After I got everything in my system setup how I wanted it, it doesn't interupt day to day operation. Even on the machine downstairs which has multiple user accounts on it (non-administrator level) doesn't trigger the UAC.

Much ado about nothing.

RE: Huh?
By imperator3733 on 4/11/2008 12:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
The only time that I regularly have a UAC prompt come up is that whenever I start up my computer, I need to allow Clean Access Agent to run (a stupid program that my school uses to make sure the computers are updated). It's a little annoying, but not bad.

The only other times that I see UAC prompts are when I open some Windows utility that normal people wouldn't use anyway.

RE: Huh?
By Lastfreethinker on 4/11/2008 11:27:22 AM , Rating: 5
I love it. I am the IT guy for my family. They call me into the room to ask if they should continue and I usually tell them yes but there have been times where it has stopped installing programs that would implant spy-ware. I have it enabled on my computer because even the best of us can make mistakes, and I hardly ever get a prompt, as do my family members.

RE: Huh?
By majorpain on 4/11/2008 11:47:51 AM , Rating: 1
Get linux! pretty sure you will ever make any mistake :D
Installed kubuntu on my daughters box, and she never called me to help.
And btw, shes 12.

RE: Huh?
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 12:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yah I've tried that one, I'm sure your 12 year old isn't out trying to buy software too.

Granny doesn't understand that all that pretty software sold at Wally world won't run on Linux.

RE: Huh?
By majorpain on 4/11/2008 1:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
NOT buying software was the main point right??
Theres tons of free and Linux capable apps and games, so i really dont get it M$ fanboy...
And if you ever tried it, you should know about wine...

RE: Huh?
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
I know about Wine, it doesn't work nearly reliably enough to set it up at a relatives house 500 miles away and hope it works with whatever software they buy. Regadless of what the free software fanatics push, most people do BUY their software and you can't get every kind of software for free. My grandma happens to love game show based games, sure their might be knock offs available for free on Linux, but if you want the real thing you'll be paying for it and it will be a Windows product!

I have multiple Linux distros setup on my virtual lab, I don't claim to be an Linux expert, but I do use it on a nearly daily basis and it is not something I'd every install for a typical user.

RE: Huh?
By anonymo on 4/11/2008 11:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. I really do not see what the big problem is. Power users will turn it off on their machines and be thankful it is on on their users' machines.

UAC has literally saved me countless hours on my mother's laptop due to her calling me every time it pops up (9/10 it is spy/malware) as opposed to me backtracking when whatever she installed causes a problem.

Even for powerusers, if you had spent enough time with Vista when you first got it you really shouldn't see it much unless you're constantly adding apps etc. in which case you probably turned it off from the get-go.

Zero Click Security?
By amanojaku on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Zero Click Security?
By archcommus on 4/11/2008 11:13:49 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, now please compare how many exploits are attempted against Windows versus against Unix.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By amanojaku on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Zero Click Security?
By imperator3733 on 4/11/2008 12:21:22 PM , Rating: 3
There are more attempted exploits against Windows because of Windows's higher market share. Therefore, more disruption will be caused by an attack on Windows than there would be if the attack was against UNIX. UNIX may be more secure than Windows (and it probably is), but security isn't the reason for the higher number of attacks. Crackers just want to cause the most damage possible, so they go after the OS that is largest.

It's the same reason why the Mac isn't attacked as much as Windows. I would guess that it would be easier to damage Macs that it would be to damage Windows but it doesn't happen because of the market share.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By akugami on 4/11/2008 11:19:38 AM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't if Vista is more secure than Linux, Unix, MacOS, etc. The damned problem, and this is what annoys power users, is that a single program accessing resources, such as on an install will pop up not one, but as many as four or five and maybe more, UAC modal boxes for permission to access certain information or do certain tasks. MS needs to design UAC in a more intelligent fashion. I have UAC turned off both at work and at home.

While a fan of some Apple products, I have not used OSX. I do have reports that the access permissions in OSX is much more intelligently designed. I do not want to have to click 20 times just to install and get a program up and running. I do understand setting local and internet permissions to programs, especially new ones but it takes multiple clicks per UAC modal box, and when three or four of them pop up, you'll be cursing at the screen.

I would love to leave UAC off, but the consequence of doing so is so much of an annoyance that it causes my productivity level to drop. Simply unacceptable.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By therealnickdanger on 4/11/2008 11:24:07 AM , Rating: 5
If you install programs THAT often that it impacts your productivity, then you are the very user Microsoft had in mind when they provided the option to TURN OFF UAC.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By crimson117 on 4/11/2008 11:48:13 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, just disable it temporarily while you install your initial system configuration (anti-virus, office software, games), and then only enable it once it goes into day-to-day usage.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By akugami on 4/11/2008 12:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm constantly tinkering with apps, I can't help it. It's part of what I have to do. A lot of times I have to go into the Program Files folder to look at things, either copy to or from app folders. This constantly brings up UAC boxes. Hence, UAC is turned off.

I'm also not Joe Computer User and while no computer expert, I'm fairly knowledgeable about computers.

What I don't mind is some form of UAC. What I hate is MS's implementation. If you look at how ZoneAlarm does things, I think that is a much more acceptable way to do it. It still requires clicking, it still requires a person to look at what is being installed and what is accessing the internet but at the same time it's not inducing annoyance (or not much) on its users.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By phatboye on 4/11/2008 11:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
UAC is not needed in UNIX and UNIX-like OSes because unlike windows, users are not given root/admin privileges by default. Generally in non-windows environments you need to su/sudo as root in order to perform actions that may affect the system. In a way you could say this is synonymous with UAC.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By eye smite on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Zero Click Security?
By therealnickdanger on 4/11/2008 11:39:12 AM , Rating: 3
Ethical? They are providing a service that prevents system-wide damage by people that lack the even the moderate understanding that we take for granted. You turned it off, great job. Stop perpetuating the fantasy that Microsoft is out to control your life. There is nothing malicious behind UAC, in fact, just the opposite.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By eye smite on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Zero Click Security?
By therealnickdanger on 4/11/2008 12:06:25 PM , Rating: 3
That's not exactly the same thing, UAC let's you press "OK" to continue, it doesn't bar you from continuing... but I don't want to get into an argument over analogies. The subject matter is simple enough without needing them.

When it comes to technology, people ARE sheep! Don't assume I'm assigning a negative connotation to "sheep". Ignorance is bliss. The simple fact is that Microsoft is safe-guarding their operating system and the sheeps' computers at the same time with VERY LITTLE intrusion.

It's extremely arrogant to assume that these sheep should take the time or even care about taking the time to learn what you have learned. I understand why they should, but they never have in the past and never will, so something has to be done to do it for them. Enter UAC. Effective and ethical.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By eye smite on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Zero Click Security?
By darkpaw on 4/11/2008 12:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Theres a reason every lawn mower has those saftey stickers plastered all over them... some people are stupid enough to stick their hands/feet/other appendages into them.

People can learn, but most people can't learn the way I and many other computer focused people did. I wiped out the os so many times on my original PC while learning, but I was willing to pay the price. If average user wipes out their OS they end up spending $200 to have those geek squad idiots fix it for them. They don't learn, just pay the price to have it fixed.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By Rob Pintwala on 4/11/2008 12:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that people should learn, but to learn we need to make mistakes. My problem with this is that making mistakes on a PC can be a VERY costly endeavor for the vast majority of people who are unable to rectify their PC problems on their own.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By nyarrgh on 4/11/2008 4:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
I use Unix and I use Vista. In Unix, I have to sudo or psh, In Vista, i use "run as administrator". I don't see anything wrong with this. I do have a machine with UAC disabled, I don't see anything wrong with that either. I may have taken the time to learn how to use a computer properly, but Hell will freeze over before you can get my grandmother to do so. Some people are forgetting that not all people share their inclination towards computers. I don't expect everybody to learn the way I did, the same way I don't expect to have time or the inclination to learn how to sew properly, or glass blowing, or bullfighting.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By abzillah on 4/11/2008 1:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
What the hell are you guys talking about? I have had vista for 15 months now and I don't even know what UAC is. I install progams and such multiple times a week, but I haven't had any problems with this UAC you guys are talking about. The one thing I can tell you is that I haven't had to reinstall Vista once yet on my PC like I used to with all the other windows when I would end up with a virus. If UAC is actually doing helping me with this, than I have no problems with it.

RE: Zero Click Security?
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 1:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you've installed any application at all on vista without modifying the default UAC settings then you've seen the prompts. The screen will darken and you'll get various forms of Cancel/Allow or Continue/Cancel dialogs that you have to answer before windows will allow you to do *ANYTHING* else.

I do agree that they are not the constant issue many people make them out to be. I do get promts at least once a day, but only because I have to run VS.Net 2005 in administrator mode to ensure I can properly run the debugger.

By Xodus Maximus on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
By Spivonious on 4/11/2008 11:34:05 AM , Rating: 4
The .NET Framework can be ported to any operating system. Google "mono" for a linux version.

"Managed C#" is redundant, since C# is always managed. Perhaps you meant "managed C++"?

I think Microsoft's goal here is to encourage developers to use the user space rather than always going to the system space. A program accessing the user space does not need admin privileges.

By Xodus Maximus on 4/11/2008 12:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
The .NET Framework can be ported to any operating system

.NET can not be ported, any porting would violate its terms of not reverse engineering the Microsoft standard, In fact Mono was warned about infringing on the IP a couple of years ago. There was an MS email posted about it, google if you care...
Right now its like homebrew on the PSP, as long as it remains a hobby thats fine, but you can never make a product designed for the purpose of that infringement. When MS said that .NET was cross-platform they always meant other MS platforms, like XBOX and mobiles.

"Managed C#" is redundant

most people do not know that C# is managed, I was trying to differentiate it from C++, guess I confused more than helped.

I think Microsoft's goal here is to encourage developers to use the user space

That would make sense, but Im not sure all of MS is on the same page, Visual Studio 05 and 08 still have bugs relating to administrative privilege, though they have hotfixes that disable warnings, instead of fixing it. So they are all over the place, im not sure what the goal actually is, probably the usual corporate "impose your will" type strategy...

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki