The best Vista tip I can offer and one that is sorely needed

Finn said:
The point is that Vista let's you 'kinda' install the software without even asking for administrative permissions even if one is required. This means that 8 out of 10 regular users will deliver a porked installation for themselves and then harass the customer service about it for nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean by installing in their user directory structure somewhere.

I'm sorry- but most users don't know how to turn on a computer, much less change the install path. Sorry, but it isn't a legitimate argument.

If you are purposely installing something, either it is:
A) Legit software
or
B) "Legit" software bundled with spyware

In the case of A- what the heck difference does it make?
In the case of B- Vista did everything it could to prevent you from installing that with system access... This is the point in which you need a computer administrator to prevent stupid users from installing crap like that by not giving out the Administrative password.
 
Just recently there was a case where a Vista user reported abnormal program behaviour. Turns out he installed into Vista without admin rights. Vista denied access to Program Files -> virtualized the program databases to the users private folders -> program malfunction. The program was designed to be completely localized in order to avoid having to have administrative rights during install.

Then it was up to the helpdesk again to troubleshoot and find out why the standard method of installation failed on Vista. Got to love it.

Just recently there was a case where a client managed to install the software to Vista without problems. But then out of the blue there was a mysterious client/server database replication problem. Client had outsourced IT support, took several support calls, a couple of days of troubleshooting and finally me going to the client to find out the cause - a Vista related registry bug denying server side file rename despite having full control (and same resource worked 100% fine on XP.)

And this is just the peak of the iceberg my friends. I'm really not looking forward to having the rest 99% of our clientel moving to Vista.
 
There's a small problem with you 'oil change' analogy, Finn. You sound like a person who might have responsibility for servicing the machines of other people, but I wonder if you've serviced vehicles before?

You see, it isn't just 'oil' you put in a vehicle. Before pouring that oil into the sump you need to have checked the specifications and ensured that you are using the 'correct' oil. Use a different type and you risk causing damage.

Similar deal here. Install programs which are properly written "for Vista" and you'll have no problems. Use earlier programs, which were written for earlier Windows versions, and you could well have problems. That's the scenario, after all, that the 'Install as administrator, run first time as administrator' technique is aimed at being a workaround for.


Dunno why people waste so much page space over stuff like this. Every new Windows version release has introduced the need to 'ditch' some older software and replace it with newer and better versions or alternatives.
 
While I appreciate the pseudo-bumpage to keep this thread in the limelight where it belongs, as the creator of it I'd ask that general Vista discussion be kept light and not cross that line that so often gets crossed, please.

This isn't a thread to discuss the pros and cons of Vista itself; it's a thread about making installation of software easier in light of UAC and the newer ways that Vista handles software and the user profile and program path virtualization issues.

Sooo...
 
Catweazle said:
Install programs which are properly written "for Vista" and you'll have no problems.
Click to expand...

100% true- was going to post the same thing myself until I saw yours ;)

Why people are so afraid of advancement is beyond me.
They want their old crap to run 10 times faster (or other advantages) with a new OS release, but don't want to have to learn or do anything new to get there.
 
I have a question if I may:

Why do we have to do this? I'm glad I found this thread before I started using Vista officially as it's probably saved me a lot of headaches.

As for my friends I like to explain my reasoning when I show them how to do something in an operating system. None of them can understand why they have to go through all this hoopla to just install something in Vista.

I've basically been able to say "it's just how it works" or "it's how Vista's set up" with out going into too much detail.

So WHY...Ohhhh why do we have to do this? I don't care now as it's become 2nd nature to me and I apply it to everything I click/install.

Can somebody give me a good reason/explanation on the reason why we have to right-click "run as administrator" just about everything we install for it too work properly?

I realize that Vista is run in a normal user mode and the right click run as admin command is to elevate that program/installer to admin status in order to write files/access registry. Is that just "how it is"? Has security become such an issue that this is what windows users are reduced to doing?

If that's so then how is this good for MS? The average user is not even going to know this option exists. I had absolutely no idea of this command until I came upon this thread. I'm thankful I did but I mean sheesh....
 
winston856 said:
Has security become such an issue that this is what windows users are reduced to doing?.
Click to expand...

It's what the windows user has been elevated to do ..

If you have played around with linux at all then you would view this whole UAC thing as Microsoft finally "getting it" so to speak .. In Linux you need 'root' access to install or do anything that could potentially hose your box or allow something access to take over your setup .. clearance to enter the 'holy of holies' if you will..

windows administrator is liken unto linux's root ...except until Vista , windows was setup like a country club and the admin was that overweight guard guy sitting at the front gate thinking he is all important .. but in actuality , not really keeping anything secure.

..now it's more like a more fit serious looking fellow sitting behind wire meshed bullet proof plexiglass when you walk into a medium security prison ..and he pushes the button to open the door to allow you into the next room ... kinda ..sorta

..bottom line is that it's a security feature that should have already been a part of previous Windows OS's . It's still not full proof , but definitely a step in the right direction.

:)

(I consider myself a windows and linux noob ..so feel free to take anything I say with a grain or large cinder block of salt)
 
winston856 said:
Can somebody give me a good reason/explanation on the reason why we have to right-click "run as administrator" just about everything we install for it too work properly?
Click to expand...
Because program installers cannot do that themselves. End of story.
 
zacdl said:
Because program installers cannot do that themselves. End of story.
Click to expand...

So this will go on until the programmers start to pick up on this and change installers accordingly?

Cool :)

I think it's definitely a step in the right direction for sure, a little annoying right now but it's going to keep a lot of peoples PC's safe just because it protects them from their own stupidity.
 
winston856 said:
So this will go on until the programmers start to pick up on this and change installers accordingly?

Cool :)

I think it's definitely a step in the right direction for sure, a little annoying right now but it's going to keep a lot of peoples PC's safe just because it protects them from their own stupidity.
Click to expand...

Excellent perception there, my good man. It's not Vista that's causing the issues, it's the software makers that have yet to catch up with the new kid on the block, aka Vista, and the new sheriff on the block watching over him, aka UAC.

It's only annoying to us, the users, when we encounter software that isn't Vista ready yet nor takes into account the new(er) security models that Vista uses to keep itself running ship-shape and bristol fashion.

Hope the tips and suggestions help make your Vista experience a bit easier...
 
You can blame 100% of program prompts from UAC on the software makers.

There is just no reason why applications need system access. None.
Apps can be installed and run in a User-Level permissions environment, that won't tear down your whole system should it be a virus or something. Some apps already support this quite well (I've created a "Apps" folder in Documents for this). No prompts to install nor run them.
 
Now I wonder when we'll know the programmers have switched over to Vista friendly installers. I've noticed with some select apps on my computer that there is no run as admin command. That's very rare though, like what zacdl is describing.
 
Not that it matters much online, but if an application, program, game, utility, etc... whatever... is sold with the Vista logo on it, that means it's passed testing for both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Vista and that means it works and is compatible with the UAC requirements for installers.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Excellent perception there, my good man. It's not Vista that's causing the issues, it's the software makers that have yet to catch up with the new kid on the block, aka Vista, and the new sheriff on the block watching over him, aka UAC.

It's only annoying to us, the users, when we encounter software that isn't Vista ready yet nor takes into account the new(er) security models that Vista uses to keep itself running ship-shape and bristol fashion.

Hope the tips and suggestions help make your Vista experience a bit easier...
Click to expand...

Thanks.

And I do believe you could look at it from two perspectives.

1) Vista came along and made working with programs difficult because of it's different privilege system than XP.

2) Vista came along and exposed a flaw or weakness in the way we generally ran programs. Now programmers are "scrambling" to adjust.

So you could blame vista for being created and forcing us and the programmers to change our ways (even though MS was trying to tighten security). Or just say the way we use to run programs was inferior and the programmers need to adjust to this new and better way.
 
Yeah, but you make it sound like Vista just suddenly appeared on our PCs in the span of a few days out of thin air. Microsoft has been working on Vista and UAC for years now and the developers haven't been playing catch-up.

They haven't been in the game at all, it seems, or at least a lot of them have been sitting on the bench, as it were.

Time to step up to the plate, boys, there's a new game in town to go with the new kid on the block and the new sheriff too. :)

I wouldn't exactly call it "a new way" of doing things, at least not from a very long term perspective. I have that type of perspective because I've been using 'puters since 1975-ish when I built my first one from a Heathkit, and I've seen the progression since then. What is "new" in all this is the way the user interacts and how the machine responds.

To blame Microsoft for trying to create a better way of doing things in Windows without pulling an OSX maneuver isn't fair in some respects. Apple, when faced with the loss of Motorola/IBM as their processor maker, had no choice but to fall back on some older more established and useful OS <hint: BSD> because they simply could not write a new OS completely from scratch in time before Motorola/IBM simply pulled the plug on 'em, so to speak.

Vista's security model is superior to what's come before on the Windows platform. It's not perfect, because perfection is unattainable, and people are always looking for holes anyway. OSX is what it is because of another three letter acronym: B S D.

But this is getting a bit off-topic sooo...
 
Just want to say what what said is exactly correct. Vista has been tested for YEARS. You would think some of these people would think "hey, we can get an edge on competition and release our software 100% compatible at release!"

Example: Dell POS Printers (I hate Dell). It took them 3 months after release to the GENERAL PUBLIC (Read: Not RTM. RTM is designed for this purpose, but Dell fails to take advantage of it) to release a printer driver for my all in one.
Printing works great now, but their software is so darn buggy I can't even open the application up (it crashes every time) to scan anything. In essence it is just a printer with a ton of extra crap hardware stuck on it now. They still haven't fixed it- even though it is a pretty widespread and common problem with this model of printer.

I will say that OS X is based HEAVILY on UNIX. Heck, I passed the national certification of the darn thing with HOURS use of OS X- due to the fact it is just so based on UNIX. It also goes to show you how useful certifications are, as I don't know much about actually running OS X as a power user at all.
 
When you deal with specialized business software they aren't going to be rewritten for Vista any time soon, if ever. So that line of thinking like totally fails dude. ;)

Catweazle: I've serviced quite many automobiles in my time and it's generally speaking a no-brainer. You read the manual for the correct oil specification, drain the old one, swap the filter and pour in the new one.

No pre-drain tricks needed, no special startup after service. And where in Vista manual does it say you need to 'run as admin' and then start up the app first time as admin? The real point is that it seems that apps that previously installed just fine using normal user privileges will now require administrative access in Vista. Recent findings point that way anyway.

Where you point is valid, however, is that modern cars will have to have their service interval counter reset afterwards using a specialized tool or even a computer (new cars tend to have data buses and internal computers). But that's only cosmetic - won't affect the success rate of the oil change in any way.
 
You've put the finger on the pulse of it for sure. The 'problem' isn't in the product. It's in the product manual (or lack thereof).

(That's not to say the 'product' is perfect, by the way. Far from it. But it is what it is and it works just fine.)

But it oughta be pretty much a 'no-brainer' as well that if the operating environment has changed substantially then installers which don't play by the new rules are gonna strike problems. To anybody with half a clue, anyways. It's easy enough for techies to devise workarounds for that small dilemma. The info was all there in the technical documents and discussions. It was left out of the info spread about to the general public, though, and that's the real problem. No public awareness level mention of "Oh hey! If you're gonna be installing older software which uses older installers you'll prolly need to blah, blah, blah to get the permissions set correctly!"

That's a very real 'omission', but it's an ommision from the documentation/promotion rather than from the product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top