![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
I want Vista to . . .
- Thread starter dgsg
- Start date
BTW, don't listen to this advice at all!
digital_exhaust
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - May 2008
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 6,903
Mansize_tissue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,501
Can much harm actually come from disabling UAC? I mean, if you rarely use the internet and are unlikely to get any malicious virii, can't we just do without it?
You can change that under Local Security settings in Administrative tools
User Account Control: Switch to the secure desktop when prompting for elevation
This security setting determines whether the elevation request will prompt on the interactive users desktop or the Secure Desktop.
The options are:
Enabled: All elevation requests by default will go to the secure desktop
Disabled: All elevation requests will go to the interactive users desktop
Default: Enabled
btw if you want it more secure, setup another account as a Standard User and use it as your default. that way when a UAC popup comes up, it asks for the Admin password you setup during installation.
not that the OP wanted it more secure...was just stating for reference
not that the OP wanted it more secure...was just stating for reference
btw if you want it more secure, setup another account as a Standard User and use it as your default. that way when a UAC popup comes up, it asks for the Admin password you setup during installation.
not that the OP wanted it more secure...was just stating for reference
You can also, change a setting in Local Security for admins that changes UAC from "Prompt for Consent" to "Prompt for Credentials"
something that i think should be enabled by default. thats just me though.
Why?
I never understood how people in such a community would even need something like UAC. I've been doing all I do for about 6 years now, mostly without a virus scan; I've never gotten a virus, never been hacked, nothing. Why? Because I use by brain. This security craze coming about recently, exemplified with Vista, is because idiot users don't know how to properly use a computer.
If you know what you're doing, you don't need anything like UAC.
Fixed. I consider myself a very good driver. Does that mean I don't need to use my seatbelts? Maybe I should disable my airbags? See how ignorant and foolish that sounds?
I'd really love to see people using their brain more (as you've said) and mix that in with some common sense. There's no reason NOT to have security software installed right now. The more you truly know...the more you realize why such applications are necessary.
Tell me...how many CIOs and I.T. Managers do you know that remove security software from their networks? None, including this one.
UAC protects the user from himself as well, same reason you don't run UNIX systems in root. Typos with rm can be bad
rm -r * from root as root. It wasent a good day for me. This was over 13 years ago, but I still remember it to this day. It was a bit more dificult to build a linux system back then.
The difference is, your air bag doesn't stop your car to ask you about trivial changes. If it did, hell yea I'd disable it.
I'm not on a large corporate network, I'm a home user who has 4 computers networked together. This kind of security is overbearing and pointless. I don't need a lead-covered shoe to stop shooting myself in the foot when I don't have a gun.
Mansize_tissue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,501
I agree with you, djBon2112, completely. The need for security, anti-virus, anti-spyware software and other bloatware has really been made to seem like a necessity recently. All you need is to know how to use the internet properly, have half a brain and the willpower to not click on the "free monies!!1one" ads.
I've completely done away with any type of security tools/software because, for a lot of us, it really isn't needed. I do see how, for a novice user, the obligatory daily virus scan might help them sleep better at night; but this is only (well, mainly) because the need to do so has been over-emphasised. For a lot of us, i'd imagine that UAC can be safely disabled as long as a certain degree of care is taken. I don't understand why it's been implemented now, though; XP didn't have these sort of problems, did it?
I've completely done away with any type of security tools/software because, for a lot of us, it really isn't needed. I do see how, for a novice user, the obligatory daily virus scan might help them sleep better at night; but this is only (well, mainly) because the need to do so has been over-emphasised. For a lot of us, i'd imagine that UAC can be safely disabled as long as a certain degree of care is taken. I don't understand why it's been implemented now, though; XP didn't have these sort of problems, did it?
So say you "know how to use the internet properly" and you visit one of your favorite websites (for sake of argument, CNN.com, but it'd be more likely with something a tad smaller). Now, unbeknownst to you, their website's been hijacked. The website, Flash ads and video player have been infected, but look normal, so you merrily browse away and check the news, see who the father is, all that fun stuff. Without any sort of security tool/software, despite the care you've taken, you're at risk, and might not realize the problem until it is too late. Personally, I prefer mild annoyance over risk of disaster.
XP had the same sort of problems, just without this particular line of defense. A big risk with XP is that most users ran as Administrators, so were free to create whatever havoc they could, and without much in the way of stopping it. SP2 helped by having an integrated security center (by default) that would at least warn you if you were running outdated protection software, and a few other nice tweaks. If anything, Vista is just trying to catch up to the competition.
fully agreed.
Mansize_tissue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,501
I see your point, but i am very careful when i browse the internet and i only visit a select few websites. Although it is possible that i may get one of those "bad nasties" on my computers, it's pretty unlikely.
As for the security center in Windows XP, i disabled that long ago; it was simply too much of an annoyance and constantly telling me that i've been a bad user and don't have AV software. The advances Vista has made - almost self maintaining, in that it can protect itself from the user's mistakes more effectly as well as the "nasties" which can come in externally - are quite good, for the average user. For me, however, it'll probably just get in the way.
Couldn't have fixed it better myself
Are you people running 486sx's with 2 meg of memory for antivirus etc to be considered "bloatware"?
Or, they could have tried using Norton or McAfee...
Considering how many lightweight alternatives there are, and how many quality free alternatives there are, the reasons not to run AV software are non-existent.
I have an old laptop that's a Pentium III 800 Mhz with 256 MB of memory. I gave it to my father-in-law for him to surf the web at his firehouse wirelessly. It's running XP, and AVG's software. There's no performance hit on that machine, so I don't buy that meager excuse either.
I use Mozilla Firefox with Adblock and NoScript (and only ever using "temporary allow", except obviously secure sites like Google). Even if a page is hijacked, those three in combination prevent any damage.
And though I said I didn't use virus scans, recently I have been using Nod32, though it's only on my main computer (not on any of my servers or anything). It's there just for the added comfort in case my sister uses my computer. It's never prompted me for anything. My router acts as a firewall and that's all that is really needed.
serialtoon
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 204
The very 1st time i installed Vista and got to the desktopi already knew it was a keeper. But when it started complaining to me about UAC and Admin privelages, i searched the forums on how to turn it off. Ive been computing for quite some time now and never needed a virus scanner, and i will never need it. Symantec makes tons of money off people who arent bright enough to figure things out for themselves (in the computing world, mind you). UAC is trash to the power user and so is a virus scanner.
Valid reasons are non-existent. Reasons abound (as we've seen). My point was just that if your AV experience is limited to Norton or McAfee and you believed that was all the world had to offer then a conclusion would be that AV software is bloatware. It's a perfectly logical and sound conclusion given the belief that the flawed premise is true.
That's a very valid point. If your only experience with beef is ground beef....you won't understand what's so special about filet mignon. Dammit, I need to stop posting about food before lunch.
So this assumes that Firefox is perfectly safe and has no security flaws...which isn't quite accurate...
However, at the end of the day: there's a simple risk/reward calculation each of us has to make. If the actual risk costs less than the annoyance of security measures, then go ahead and surf away unprotected. So long as your perception of risk is accurate and complete (i.e., takes into account any externalities), you're fine. The only real benefit of discussions like this is to ensure that everyone's perception matches reality.
It doesn't matter who you are, how long you've used computers, how many you've built, how many you've destroyed, how many you've started over on, how many you helped others with, how many you've sat in front of, how many you've owned, how many you're turned on and off, how many times you've rebooted, how safe you are, how perfect your driving record is, how nice you are, how well you take care of yourself, how comforting and caring your parents are/were, how nice your home is, how nice the place you grew up in is, how much money you make for a living, how many women think you're a nice guy, how many prayers you ask...
UAC exists for reason, just because it doesn't fit into what your brain considers to be useful doesn't make it trash. Power users are precisely the ones that can and typically do the most "damage" to their systems by tweaking it and messing around with everything under the sun, so UAC can help even them keep things situated. Linux people don't fuckin' run as root 24/7 and if they do even other Linux users LAUGH AT THEM, go figure.
Same principle here with UAC. It's there for a reason, and simply offering up your opinion that it's trash means the same thing: jack shit.
I've seen bigger people brought down by things they thought weren't worth caring about - in time you'll get hit at least once - and I really hope I never hear about it. I like a good laugh like anyone, but this wouldn't be a situation I'd care to waste my time reading about.
People need to just use the damned computer and get over the nitpicking bullshit, I swear.
Some people just shouldn't...
I've never run antivirus routinely, probably never will. I've been online a very long time without problems. Once or twice a year I'll run whatever the hot new AV product is for shits and giggles, and get nothing out of it.
Using common sense, keeping updated and simply paying attention to the latest virus/exploit scares keeps my pc in great shape. I really don't believe UAC will benefit the vast majority of users. They will continue to click thru the warning dialog just like they do every popup on the net. The power users who can appreciate such a thing don't need it because they aren't generally idiots. I don't leave remote assistance on, I don't leave system restore on, etc. Not everything that comes enabled by default is of interest to me, or helpful. UAC fits in that category.
I have never had a problem before, I don't expect to now. I'm not suddenly going to become the world's biggest internet using idiot. If I have to count on myself or Microsoft, I will choose myself every single time.
Using common sense, keeping updated and simply paying attention to the latest virus/exploit scares keeps my pc in great shape. I really don't believe UAC will benefit the vast majority of users. They will continue to click thru the warning dialog just like they do every popup on the net. The power users who can appreciate such a thing don't need it because they aren't generally idiots. I don't leave remote assistance on, I don't leave system restore on, etc. Not everything that comes enabled by default is of interest to me, or helpful. UAC fits in that category.
I have never had a problem before, I don't expect to now. I'm not suddenly going to become the world's biggest internet using idiot. If I have to count on myself or Microsoft, I will choose myself every single time.
Well said.
One of the difficult balances Microsoft is trying to find is when something gets elevated. If it happens too frequently, then it does become a meaningless warning. However, for most everyday users, once a system is set up, they are not constantly installing/uninstalling/testing software, tweaking system settings, or the like. For normal everyday usage, a user shouldn't be prompted by UAC.
One thing that I think would be nice is if you could temporarily disable UAC when logging in. For example, it'd be nice to sit down, log in, and when logging in say "I'm going to mess around a lot and don't want to be bothered" and have UAC disabled just for that session or for a certain time limit, so the onus isn't on the user to remember to turn it back on. Of course, odds are any opening like this would be exploited, but I can dream...
wow, this will make a huge difference in my life