UAC behavior (administrator vs power user)

S

Spetsdod

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
181
So, this applies to both Vista and Windows 7.

I am wondering if anyone has any experience with the behavior of UAC when running as a power user vs. an administrator. I'll see if I can explain this.

Out of habit, as I'm sure many other folks do too, I run Windows with my primary account enabled as an administrator. I don't like having to dance through hoops or follow special steps to install apps or access files, etc and by in large I'm careful enough to not feel worried about the traditionally associated accidents while running in administrator mode (ie: deleting files, etc).

Also, as I'm sure many other people can attest to, I'm sick and tired of having to tell Windows it's okay to run a game or program for the 4,000th time. UAC doesn't behave like I expect it should, and it frustrates me daily. Many times I have said to myself "I'm just going to turn this shit off", and again I'm sure many others can sympathize. But that isn't the right response, and it stays on because it should work dammit!

How I would expect UAC to work is the first time I run an application, I have to tell Windows it's okay to run that program. Once it knows that I have approved the application, it should just run it, unless something about the program has changed that might constitute a risk. If I want to make a change to a system setting, I don't mind if UAC pops up and asks for permission to make a change. I just don't want to have to click "Yes" for the brazillianth time that yes, I really did intend to run Warhammer Online and it's okay for the computer to just do it.

The failure of UAC being so chatty is that as creatures of habit, eventually clicking Yes becomes a muscle memory action and if something really WAS wrong we would just click Yes and let it through because we've seen the message so many times before. UAC in it's current state is the equivalent of the boy who cried wolf.

By way of comparison, on my Mac, when I run an application for the first time, OSX warns me that the application was downloaded from the Internet and might pose a threat and asks if I want to run it anyway. Once I have accepted the risk and told the computer to run the program, I don't have to tell it again that it's okay. If I am trying to make changes to the system, I have to provide an administrator password before those changes can be made.

So this gets me thinking. Since I'm always running as an administrator, is it possible that Windows is just being bitchy because I'm "not doing it right"? If I set my user setting to be a power user, or even just a normal user, would Windows be smart enough to allow me to spot elevate my privileges when necessary to (properly) install an application, or make a system setting change, while not pestering me all the damn time with UAC pop-ups?

Does anyone have experience with this? Thoughts? Comments? I just downloaded RC1 and will be formatting my box this coming weekend and I think I'm going to try this out to see if it behaves differently. In the meantime, any input is appreciated.
 
don't run said programs as an administrator and it wont prompt you. The only time it will prompt you is if you're installing/uninstalling or running it as an administrator (or accessing system tools and junk)
 
No. Because the point of UAC isn't to get confirmation when YOU do something. It's to get confirmation when ANYTHING tries to do something. Let's say you know it's OK to run format.com since you're smart and know what you're doing. What happens when a program running as you tries to run format.com? Under your scenario, the App formats your hard disk with no prompting. Under any secure scenario, you should get prompted.

Also, Mac and Linux work the SAME way. Any time you want to run a program as an Admin, you have to use Sudo/whatever Mac calls it.
 
Spetsdod said:
How I would expect UAC to work is the first time I run an application, I have to tell Windows it's okay to run that program. Once it knows that I have approved the application, it should just run it, unless something about the program has changed that might constitute a risk.
...
By way of comparison, on my Mac, when I run an application for the first time, OSX warns me that the application was downloaded from the Internet and might pose a threat and asks if I want to run it anyway. Once I have accepted the risk and told the computer to run the program, I don't have to tell it again that it's okay. If I am trying to make changes to the system, I have to provide an administrator password before those changes can be made.
Click to expand...
IE does something similar if that's what you're using. Go to properties of the downloaded executable and click the unblock button. Then you'll only be prompted if the executable is trying to change (current) non-user specific settings/folders that the standard user has permissions for. You'll get a UAC prompt for installers or programs that try to do things outside of what the current user has permissions to do.

There are a *lot* of poorly written Windows programs that assume the user is an administrator. UAC is "bugging" you about that, and rightfully so IMO. UAC really doesn't bug me and I run as a standard user. It would be nice to whitelist programs after they have been approved once, but I don't get many popups for things besides installers and things that I would want to be notified about. The rest (user initiated system settings) are pretty much taken care of in the Win7 default security settings.
 
I know what UAC is, I was suggesting that you not run said programs (that are annoying you) as an administrator and you wont get prompted


If you're needing access to system files or running software that needs to run at higher levels that often, you're better off disabling it
 
Arainach said:
No. Because the point of UAC isn't to get confirmation when YOU do something. It's to get confirmation when ANYTHING tries to do something. Let's say you know it's OK to run format.com since you're smart and know what you're doing. What happens when a program running as you tries to run format.com? Under your scenario, the App formats your hard disk with no prompting. Under any secure scenario, you should get prompted.

Also, Mac and Linux work the SAME way. Any time you want to run a program as an Admin, you have to use Sudo/whatever Mac calls it.
Click to expand...

That's valid, but the break down happens because EVERY time I want to run a program I am forced to approve the action. As I mentioned, after the 4,000,000th time of having to click "Yes", UAC has done little except annoy me and get in the way of my daily activities, and it makes me (and as I've suggested probably many others) want to turn it off. The end result is that instead of having some acceptable level of security, many users end up with less than that because they turn off UAC. Honestly speaking, and don't even answer here if you don't feel like it, how many of you have turned UAC off for one reason or another? Modified the settings from the default to "don't tell me except when..."?

Security that is so annoying that it causes people to turn it off is just as bad as not having it in the first place.

Which all leads me to the point I was making to begin with. If I run daily as a standard user (instead of an administrator), then doesn't it hold to logic that some level of security would exist to prevent the previously mentioned "format.com" from running because the standard user doesn't have access to that? As I mentioned, I don't mind UAC popping up for system tasks or tools, adding / removing programs, deleting files from folders OTHER than my own user folder, etc. Those things I don't do every day. It's running a game or VoIP client that I have run hundreds of times before that shouldn't have any ability to modify the system (and if it tries, UAC can happily pop up and ask for permission).

I'm home now, and I've set up a standard user on my computer and so far, it is behaving exactly like I'd expect. UAC doesn't bother me when I try to do something it shouldn't bother me about, and pops up for confirmation when I try to uninstall a program, or modify a system file. I'll know more when I rebuild my system this weekend, since I will now create my user as a standard user with an administrative user for admin tasks but not for daily use.
 
What do you do in your daily activities that requires a UAC prompt?

And, no, the only time a UAC prompt pops up is when a program is trying to do something that requires Administrator access. If something's popping up a prompt, running it as a User will simply fail. If your programs are prompting, complain to the program developers to fix their stuff.
 
Yeah, it seems I spoke too soon. Launchpad is now prompting for Administrator privileges. Hitting cancel still lets it run, as far as I can tell, but hitting cancel is the same thing as having to hit okay every time. Not an improvement, really.

The things I do in my daily activities that produce a UAC prompt are running applications (notepad2, Warhammer Online, Everquest 2, Ventrilo, etc). As far as complaining to the program developers to fix their stuff, that sounds nice and is probably an appropriate course of action, however these are the same problems that plagued me while running Vista and they still aren't fixed. I'm sure the developers know the problem exists, and they aren't willing or able to fix it. The end result is the same. UAC is the visual enemy and disabling it ends up being the path of least resistance, resulting in the same lack of security.

And to your earlier comment about Mac and Linux working the SAME way, clearly they don't since I haven't ever once looked for a way to turn off the prompting in either OS. While the concept might be the same thing, the implementation of that concept is different and doesn't annoy the hell out of me.

None of this changes my opinion that UAC is still annoying despite assurances from Microsoft that UAC is less annoying than it used to be, and I'm sure doesn't change your opinion Arainach that it is working as intended (I assume that is your position, sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth). I'm not really trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to determine if my usage patterns are ultimately responsible for my headaches with it, or if there is something I can do differently.
 
Might be a good idea to read the stickies I wrote a few years ago because even now the info is relevant with respect to Vista and 7. The simple fact is: there is no Administrator account anymore, there hasn't been since before Vista was released (meaning in the betas and release candidates). The OS simply doesn't work that way anymore, hence the need for people to get edjumicated more about UAC.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1170936

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1164682

While Windows 7 is a vast improvement over how UAC operates in Vista by default, the fact that not every app honors it yet (even in Vista) still leads to problems. Some of the solutions in the stickies address these issues...
 
I read them long ago, if they are the ones that suggest the multiple steps to installing apps with admin rights or whatever. It just seems more than a little annoying to have to resort to all that just to use my computer without being harassed all the time. hehe
 
The point is: if you're being "harassed all the time" then something is wrong with the applications you're using because Windows 7 doesn't prompt you even a 1/10th as much as Vista did/does in the exact same situations. If you're getting that many prompts, I'd point a finger at the software you're using, regardless of what it is, as suspect. Windows 7 rarely if ever pops up anything for me on over 40 different machines I have regular access to, and I think most people would agree that UAC is far far superior in how it handles things by default in Windows 7 compared to Vista.

Even Vista was never anywhere near as bad as Apple's marketing tried to make people believe...
 
The reason it asks you for a prompt everytime is simple. If an application asks for elevation, which a lot of them do, Windows asks you. Why is it unwise to check an elevate automatically button? Because as an attacker I look for applications that have this magic flag, and attack them specifically.

Last time I looked at a MAC, how they were getting around this was to actually sign the binaries on the box, and then match signatures. This is kind of a sham, the operating system is modifying the binaries on the box.

Yes, being secure can be a pain. But as time goes on, it will get better, as more and more applications don't flag their programs for always elevate, and program to be more secure.

Note, I know Windows 7 changed the UAC behavior. I haven't looked at it yet.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
When I say I'm being harassed all the time, my point is that every time I run application xyz, it asks me if I want to allow the program to make changes to my computer. Even if I just ran that program 5 seconds before, it still asks me. Every time. That, in my opinion, is harassing me all the time.

I get what you're saying that applications are trying to elevate privileges either because they're poorly written, or because they need those privileges to work properly. I wish there was a way to make it stop doing that, because the extra step interrupts the workflow of just USING my computer. And like I mentioned before, it happens so often and so much, clicking "yes" becomes a habitual motion so if something ever WERE to be wrong, chances are it would get approved because I'm so used to it happening. If I break that habit, and slow down and read the box every time it runs, THAT becomes a huge interruption in my activity. Nevermind the fact that the elevation box is completely useless when it comes to understanding really what something is doing.

Code: 
Do you want to allow the following program from an unknown
publisher to make changes to this computer?

What changes? It shows me a filename, tells me the publisher is unknown, and the file is located on my hard drive. Assuming this prompt has popped up all by itself, with no interaction from me, then yes, I might have a reason to be suspicious. But in this case, I've clicked the program myself. How does this dialog box educate me in the slightest as to what this program is or does or might do? Why bother giving me an option at all if it is something that I've run? What I don't know is if clicking one program that may or may not prompt an elevation request launches another program, will I be asked a second time for elevation privileges or does the first prompt cover all apps that might start as a result?

In the end, what I'm discovering is that it really doesn't make any difference if I run as "administrator" all the time, or if I make a user called "user" that is only a standard user. The fact is that (badly written?) applications are going to cause UAC to bitch at me every time I run them. The cause is irrelevant. The effect is that the user is being annoyed by UAC and while I personally might just learn to ignore it (400 times a month), many users will get tired of it and search Google for the way to make it stop, resulting in computers being exposed just as much as they are today. UAC will end up not doing the job it was designed to do because it gets turned off.

If putting apps in a sandbox or signing the binaries makes running them more secure than doing nothing, and doesn't cause UAC to rear up every time you run the app, why does that make it a sham? Sounds to me like it accomplishes the goal while maintaining the integrity of the security device.

Maybe as virtualization grows up, that will become the answer. Every app is installed in a virtual shell and is executed completely within that shell. If an app decides to misbehave, the only thing it can corrupt is the virtual box and that gets destroyed when the app closes.

In reading your stickies on how to install apps so that UAC is less bothersome, I have a few questions. If I install the app as administrator, then run the app as administrator for the first time, how does that ensure the integrity of the security containment in UAC? In that scenario, is my daily use account a standard user, or an administrator (since that is the default account type anyway)? On the 40 machines you access that don't warn you about UAC all the time, how many of the apps were installed using the method you describe?

I know people have a tendency to lose objectivity when they feel that someone is questioning their integrity or input, but in my case I am conducting purposeful inquiry and looking for a solution, not being combative so please keep that in mind. I'm not suggesting that any of you are wrong, or that I'm right, I'm just weeding through the mire and muck to find an answer that makes sense, or to make sense of the answers I have.
 
Something isn't right with your system if things like notepad2 and vent are asking for admin
I've never had them ask. In fact, I can't think of anything that I run daily that UAC asks about, and I run as a standard user.
 
So, you're still running Vista, and you haven't installed Windows 7 RC yet from what I've just re-read a second time. I just want that clarified that we're talking about Vista as the OS you are currently using and having these constant "harassment's" from... yes, or no?
 
No, I am running Win7-64 build 7057. I have RC1 downloaded but not installed yet.

edit: So, notepad2 isn't complaining. It must have been something else. Ventrilo doesn't complain, it just doesn't work right unless I run it as administrator (won't let me key while I'm in another application). The three that do complain right now all have the shield logo on their icon, which I'm told means they require admin privileges to run.
 
Last edited:
Spetsdod,
I know what you're talking about. Visual Studio 2005 was initially a major pain in the ass (been using Vista since RTM). Every F'n time I ran VS it would complain. Someone here pointed me to the Application Compatibility Toolkit which finally made UAC STFU.

With Win7 and Visual Studio 2008, zero complaints so far.
 
Not too sure what you're going on about, but I just wanted to address your notion that users will turn off uac causing a situation similar to pre-uac windows. That's just not true, according to MS statistics, 8% of people or so turn off uac in Vista, the rest live with it 'somehow'. If 92% of Vista users leave it on and can live with it, I don't think what you're saying is very valid. Some people do complain, true, but then again, you can find a group of people that will complain about any particular thing anyways...
I run Vista x64, as a standard user, I use the system all day, I have no complaints about elevating, I'm glad I get notified when a app/game wants system access, and burning .0025% of a calorie to hit yes/type in my password does not bother me at all, then again I never was a crybaby.
 
devil22 said:
Not too sure what you're going on about, but I just wanted to address your notion that users will turn off uac causing a situation similar to pre-uac windows. That's just not true, according to MS statistics, 8% of people or so turn off uac in Vista, the rest live with it 'somehow'. If 92% of Vista users leave it on and can live with it, I don't think what you're saying is very valid. Some people do complain, true, but then again, you can find a group of people that will complain about any particular thing anyways...
I run Vista x64, as a standard user, I use the system all day, I have no complaints about elevating, I'm glad I get notified when a app/game wants system access, and burning .0025% of a calorie to hit yes/type in my password does not bother me at all, then again I never was a crybaby.
Click to expand...

And of course Microsoft has never misrepresented a statistic that makes them look better or like something they are doing is right. Can you provide a source for your 8% statement? Remember, 75% of statistics are made up 50% of the time to make 25% of people believe that they are 100% true.

If Microsoft came out and said "hey, about 80% of people are turning of UAC", how easy would it be for them to come back and say "UAC is a good thing and is working the way we planned!" In fact, just the opposite, if you read between the lines, Microsoft has come out and said "Yeah, UAC in Vista sucks and it's annoying and UAC in Windows 7 is much less sucky, we promise". If only 8% of people didn't like UAC enough to turn it off, why would Microsoft go through the effort of pointing out that they are making it better in Windows 7?

Sure, I'd like to know when an application or game is requesting elevation of privileges, but unless there is some meaningful way to restrict that access without preventing the application from running at all, really what choice is that? Either you give this application / game access to your system, or you don't run it. That's not really a choice. I mean, okay, either run it like this or don't run it, but would you just choose not to run it?

Also, please don't bring name calling or attitude into the conversation. It doesn't add anything productive to the conversation.
 
The biggest UAC offenders in Win7 are programs that try to write to their own directories (log files, playlists, etc.) ... i.e. Trillian and Winamp. One sure sign that's the problem is if the app still works even if you click No.

Install those apps to your User folder, then they can write to their own folder all they want without triggering UAC prompts.

I've always installed all my games to a separate folder (C:\Games) and haven't seen any UAC prompts from them. So if you're seeing UAC prompts for games, again, just don't install them in the Program Files folders.
 
I never install games in Program Files. I have as long as I can remember installed games in a folder called Games, and in this Win7 build I even have all my games on a separate drive.

Launchpad.exe (Sony's launcher app) has the hardest time not existing anywhere but Program Files\Sony\Station\Launcher. It's very frustrating. Even if I tell the game to install in D:\Games, the install app never allows the user to select a different location for Launchpad.

Now, you've brought up a good point with the Program Files thing. I'll have to dig into that more, since the other two apps I'm running that cause UAC prompts (City of Heroes and Warhammer Online) don't try to do anything outside their folders as far as I know.
 
Spetsdod said:
And of course Microsoft has never misrepresented a statistic that makes them look better or like something they are doing is right. Can you provide a source for your 8% statement? Remember, 75% of statistics are made up 50% of the time to make 25% of people believe that they are 100% true.

If Microsoft came out and said "hey, about 80% of people are turning of UAC", how easy would it be for them to come back and say "UAC is a good thing and is working the way we planned!" In fact, just the opposite, if you read between the lines, Microsoft has come out and said "Yeah, UAC in Vista sucks and it's annoying and UAC in Windows 7 is much less sucky, we promise". If only 8% of people didn't like UAC enough to turn it off, why would Microsoft go through the effort of pointing out that they are making it better in Windows 7?

Sure, I'd like to know when an application or game is requesting elevation of privileges, but unless there is some meaningful way to restrict that access without preventing the application from running at all, really what choice is that? Either you give this application / game access to your system, or you don't run it. That's not really a choice. I mean, okay, either run it like this or don't run it, but would you just choose not to run it?

Also, please don't bring name calling or attitude into the conversation. It doesn't add anything productive to the conversation.
Click to expand...

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/06/21/88-percent-of-vista-users-leave-uac-on/ <- this article says 88% leave it on, I could've sworn the MS post on engineering [windows] 7 said 92% [but I can't find it now], but even 88% is high enough to refute the claim that 'everyone will turn uac off.' And how can it be misrepresented? They are simply reporting the percentage of people that turn it off, how it gets represented it up to the consumer of the information. I interpret it as: the vast majority of vista users do not turn off uac, therefore it is not too annoying.

Why would MS go through the trouble of tuning UAC if only 8% (or 12%) didn't like uac enough to turn it off? Because MS Is not a machine, it is a bunch of humans who react irrationally when attacked, just like all other humans, things like the ignorant apple ads, ignorant people on the web whining endlessly about uac (even though they are the very small minority), etc. cause MS to misreact possibly? And besides, if they feel they can tone down UAC without greatly reducing security, then why not? Ok, they should've thought of that for vista, but I don't know an OS out there that has every feature and is bug and issue free in v1.0 - so they improved it, so what? That doesn't mean that the original was bad, that's just the nature of software and OSes.

As far as controlling how you run an app, that is up to the developer. Most things (like windows commands) can be run as standard user or elevated. MS gives developers the option of only running elevated (if the user agrees) so the app functions as expected if it REALLY needs admin privileges, really not much MS can do there. Would you rather your app crash mid-way through an operation or just not run as standard user? Seems like an obvious choice to me...
 
Personally I don't install games in Program Files anymore. Blizzard had it right when they decide to forgo the UAC headache by putting WoW in c:\users\public\games folder. That's where I put all my other games at too. No more UAC prompts.

Same for programs that constantly modifies it's program files. Keep it out of the Program Files folder. In my case, c:\users\public\apps
 
Azhar said:
Personally I don't install games in Program Files anymore. Blizzard had it right when they decide to forgo the UAC headache by putting WoW in c:\users\public\games folder. That's where I put all my other games at too. No more UAC prompts.

Same for programs that constantly modifies it's program files. Keep it out of the Program Files folder. In my case, c:\users\public\apps
Click to expand...
No, Blizzard had it horribly wrong. Put Program Files in PRogram Files, where they're protected. Make all CHANGES and user SETTINGS in the User's directory. Any program that constantly changes its Program Files is WRONG. There is no justifiable reason for that. EVER.
 
Arainach said:
No, Blizzard had it horribly wrong. Put Program Files in PRogram Files, where they're protected. Make all CHANGES and user SETTINGS in the User's directory. Any program that constantly changes its Program Files is WRONG. There is no justifiable reason for that. EVER.
Click to expand...

That may be, but to do so would cause 11 million disgruntled users who's addons broke because they're in the wrong place, or because they're no longer supported but was able to work when checking "load out of date addons" because of the pathings in addon config files

(for example, "..\wtf\profile" instead of "c:\program files\world of warcraft\wtf\profile")

Blizzard didn't really have much choice as it was much too late to do anything about it.
 
Oh, please. A bit of path redirecting, that's all they're looking for? That's not even worth blinking an eye at Microsoft - they've done FAR more elaborate tricks for backwards compatibility (this and this come to mind, but there are many, many others). Blizzard could have done it without much trouble at all.
 
devil22 said:
http://vista.blorge.com/2008/06/21/88-percent-of-vista-users-leave-uac-on/ <- this article says 88% leave it on, I could've sworn the MS post on engineering [windows] 7 said 92% [but I can't find it now], but even 88% is high enough to refute the claim that 'everyone will turn uac off.' And how can it be misrepresented? They are simply reporting the percentage of people that turn it off, how it gets represented it up to the consumer of the information. I interpret it as: the vast majority of vista users do not turn off uac, therefore it is not too annoying.
Click to expand...
And again, what compelling reason would Microsoft have to accurately report percentages? Just because this report or that says that 88% of people leave UAC on, doesn't make it accurate. Just out of curiosity, today I asked 10 people I know at work who use Vista at home on their personal computers if they disable UAC. 7 of the 10 told me they used it for a while but turned it off after it kept popping up, or turned it off as soon as they got their new computer. 2 said they didn't know what UAC was (so I assume it's still on). 1 said he left it on because he read on the Internet that it was important. Small sample set, but 70% turned it off.

devil22 said:
Why would MS go through the trouble of tuning UAC if only 8% (or 12%) didn't like uac enough to turn it off? Because MS Is not a machine, it is a bunch of humans who react irrationally when attacked, just like all other humans, things like the ignorant apple ads, ignorant people on the web whining endlessly about uac (even though they are the very small minority), etc. cause MS to misreact possibly? And besides, if they feel they can tone down UAC without greatly reducing security, then why not? Ok, they should've thought of that for vista, but I don't know an OS out there that has every feature and is bug and issue free in v1.0 - so they improved it, so what? That doesn't mean that the original was bad, that's just the nature of software and OSes.
Click to expand...
I asked politely for you to keep the personal attacks and insinuations out of the thread. If you can't respect that, please don't respond anymore. Thanks.

devil22 said:
As far as controlling how you run an app, that is up to the developer. Most things (like windows commands) can be run as standard user or elevated. MS gives developers the option of only running elevated (if the user agrees) so the app functions as expected if it REALLY needs admin privileges, really not much MS can do there. Would you rather your app crash mid-way through an operation or just not run as standard user? Seems like an obvious choice to me...
Click to expand...

While this is a valid statement, it doesn't really fit in the point of the conversation. I get it that you like Vista. I get it that you don't have a problem with UAC. I do, and I'm not alone, so I'm here making purposeful inquiry into solutions and trying to educate myself about how to minimize the annoyance and maximize the usability of the OS.

I have already concluded from the majority of responses in this thread that there isn't anything I can do about the prompts. I'm confident I'm not doing something that is causing these problems, and that they are probably the result of bad or outdated practices on the part of software developers. It's probably not something that is going to change anytime soon. There is no compelling reason for developers to make applications that work correctly because so many people seem to have the attitude that it's just the way things are and they accept all the extra UAC prompts as "working as intended".

If UAC popped up and demanded admin privileges for every application you ran every time, would that still be okay?

The salient point still stands. I propose that the UAC prompt to elevate privileges does little to protect your computer because realistically speaking most people probably just click okay and let it go anyway. The problem with "all or nothing" types of security is that there is no middle ground, and most people will blindly accept the "all" to access the material without a solid understanding of the implications or risks. Because of the frequency of UAC prompts, it has become the boy who cried wolf.
 
Cool, so you've made your point, it's your thread, so we're all done here, right? Cool... moving on.
 
Spetsdod said:
And again, what compelling reason would Microsoft have to accurately report percentages? Just because this report or that says that 88% of people leave UAC on, doesn't make it accurate. Just out of curiosity, today I asked 10 people I know at work who use Vista at home on their personal computers if they disable UAC. 7 of the 10 told me they used it for a while but turned it off after it kept popping up, or turned it off as soon as they got their new computer. 2 said they didn't know what UAC was (so I assume it's still on). 1 said he left it on because he read on the Internet that it was important. Small sample set, but 70% turned it off.


I asked politely for you to keep the personal attacks and insinuations out of the thread. If you can't respect that, please don't respond anymore. Thanks.



While this is a valid statement, it doesn't really fit in the point of the conversation. I get it that you like Vista. I get it that you don't have a problem with UAC. I do, and I'm not alone, so I'm here making purposeful inquiry into solutions and trying to educate myself about how to minimize the annoyance and maximize the usability of the OS.

I have already concluded from the majority of responses in this thread that there isn't anything I can do about the prompts. I'm confident I'm not doing something that is causing these problems, and that they are probably the result of bad or outdated practices on the part of software developers. It's probably not something that is going to change anytime soon. There is no compelling reason for developers to make applications that work correctly because so many people seem to have the attitude that it's just the way things are and they accept all the extra UAC prompts as "working as intended".

If UAC popped up and demanded admin privileges for every application you ran every time, would that still be okay?

The salient point still stands. I propose that the UAC prompt to elevate privileges does little to protect your computer because realistically speaking most people probably just click okay and let it go anyway. The problem with "all or nothing" types of security is that there is no middle ground, and most people will blindly accept the "all" to access the material without a solid understanding of the implications or risks. Because of the frequency of UAC prompts, it has become the boy who cried wolf.
Click to expand...

I understand completely. I just switched to windows (7100) a few days ago as my daily work machine, after using macs for years, and it's been hard to get used to. There are still things I haven't figured out and UAC is bothering me daily. Your idea of using a user or power user account instead of an admin account is very interesting so I'm going to try that. I'll also stop using program files entirely and install everything somewhere else. But hey, at least it's not asking for a password like OSX does!
 
I'm just trying to keep the thread from being derailed.

You started a thought earlier, Joe, then never finished it. Your input has been useful and insightful. I'd like to know what you have to add unless it has already been said.

I can't believe that I'm the only person who thinks that UAC is flawed, though. I feel that the analogy of UAC being the "boy who cried wolf" is accurate, and I'm interested to know what others think about that. I'm also interested to know how people handle or justify the "all or nothing" model of security. Do you have any applications that prompt you for elevation? How do you decide what to do?

Does anyone run Everquest 2, City of Heroes, Warhammer Online and NOT have those applications ask for elevation every time you run them?

rbennett:
I did set up a standard user last night and tried that approach. When I tried to run an app that wanted elevated privileges, UAC prompted for permission, then prompted for the administrator password. There have been a few comments about the benefits of installing apps in the Program Files directory vs. using a non-standard location, but I can't say which is really the right approach. I do know that Program Files is protected and if you try to drag a directory into that directory, it won't let you. You have to create the directory there first, then drag any files into that directory.

I should restate that I don't mind being asked for permission to elevate applications or tasks that make sense (deleting system files from the system folder, formatting the hard drive, etc). What I was hoping to find was that Microsoft had designed UAC to be able to distinguish between apps that need to write log files or modify their own directories, and applications that try to modify system settings or files. I don't think that's too much to ask.
 
Spetsdod said:
And again, what compelling reason would Microsoft have to accurately report percentages? Just because this report or that says that 88% of people leave UAC on, doesn't make it accurate. Just out of curiosity, today I asked 10 people I know at work who use Vista at home on their personal computers if they disable UAC. 7 of the 10 told me they used it for a while but turned it off after it kept popping up, or turned it off as soon as they got their new computer. 2 said they didn't know what UAC was (so I assume it's still on). 1 said he left it on because he read on the Internet that it was important. Small sample set, but 70% turned it off.



I asked politely for you to keep the personal attacks and insinuations out of the thread. If you can't respect that, please don't respond anymore. Thanks.



While this is a valid statement, it doesn't really fit in the point of the conversation. I get it that you like Vista. I get it that you don't have a problem with UAC. I do, and I'm not alone, so I'm here making purposeful inquiry into solutions and trying to educate myself about how to minimize the annoyance and maximize the usability of the OS.

I have already concluded from the majority of responses in this thread that there isn't anything I can do about the prompts. I'm confident I'm not doing something that is causing these problems, and that they are probably the result of bad or outdated practices on the part of software developers. It's probably not something that is going to change anytime soon. There is no compelling reason for developers to make applications that work correctly because so many people seem to have the attitude that it's just the way things are and they accept all the extra UAC prompts as "working as intended".

If UAC popped up and demanded admin privileges for every application you ran every time, would that still be okay?

The salient point still stands. I propose that the UAC prompt to elevate privileges does little to protect your computer because realistically speaking most people probably just click okay and let it go anyway. The problem with "all or nothing" types of security is that there is no middle ground, and most people will blindly accept the "all" to access the material without a solid understanding of the implications or risks. Because of the frequency of UAC prompts, it has become the boy who cried wolf.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that MS is lying about the number of users that disable uac? Oh, that's right, none. Don't call people liars without evidence, that's just ignorant. And frankly I don't care if you don't like my attitude or me posting in your thread, if you can't post responsibly then you should be prepaired to deal with people like me who have a problem with it. Your survey of 10 people is as irrelevent as it sounds, MS collects statistics on MILLIONS of users who opt-in to their surveys, and has much more accurate data than you'll ever have.

And you also provide 0 evidence that most users 'just click ok.' Users may click ok most the time, but that's because they realize the app they are installing or window's feature they are using is safe, therefore why not click 'ok'? I've seen NO evidence from you that most users click 'ok' to malware. That's how it works though, you click a program you get from microsoft.com or apple.com and it pops up a uac prompt and you 'just click ok' - I mean no duh. If you're just sitting there reading a web page, and uac pops up, I tend to think most users would click 'cancel' and understand that something is wrong, I mean maybe not everyone but a lot of people would probably understand that much, and that's how malware would try to get a foot hold. People who download malware from untrusted junk sites and run it are infecting themselves in an unpreventable way, but that does not mean all threats are unpreventable.

Users need to learn how to run secure, anyway, OSes should not be decreasing security on the notion that 'users just click ok' or whatever, that's just nonsense, and unsupported.

IMO, you can 'live' with your uac situation and complain to offending app/game developers, or you can turn uac off. I would feel the same way (appreciative of uac) if uac triggered for every app/game I used every time, as well, to answer your question.
That doesn't even make sense though, it's just a silly what if since the reality is by far most developers have made appropiate changes in their software for vista and uac.
 
My opinion - and this has been formulated over the decades with helping people with Windows - is very simple at this point, and refined over the recent past into a few very poignant words:

If you don't like Windows, don't fucking run it.

All these posts with these tainted opinions and slams against Microsoft have pushed me past the threshold of being a nice guy - and I have a reputation for being a complete asshole around here and many places, which is fine, because I am an asshole and so is everyone else - but that doesn't make me wrong. I'm just sick and tired of seeing this shit, I really am. I can't be any more blunt if I actually put a lot of effort into it. My reputation as an asshole will go up a few points after I submit this post, and honestly, I really just don't give a fuck anymore.

Use it, don't use it, I could care less past this point. I'll help those that actually have legitimate problems with Windows in terms of real tech support from now on. I won't get dragged into the useless arguments masquerading as debates over things that aren't problems, that aren't broken, and don't really need threads "debating" them. If you can do better, break out a compiler and get busy; put your mouth where your skills are and make a product that'll put Microsoft out of business forever that they can't possibly touch - as I've stated before, I'll be first in line with $1,000 cold hard cash to buy it if anyone can pull it off.

But instead, all I see is whining, bitching, and moaning, three of the things I hate the most all at the same time which has made this crap utterly ridiculous, no matter how well worded the comments or "debate" happen to be.

It goes back to what I just said above, and it's the best advice I'll ever be able to offer anyone with respect to Windows:

If you don't like it, don't fucking run it.

"And that's all I have to say about that."

'Nuff typed.
 
Interesting Joe. Perhaps you're right. We shouldn't run windows. We should just give up whatever job requires us to use windows and become sewer inspectors. No one should ever question anything, just accept it and move along.

Your attitude in this and other threads isn't helpful, just aggravating. I used to think mac zealots were harsh....
 
Joe:
I'm not sure where you saw in anything I've said that I don't like Windows. I have said I am annoyed by the constant and trivial pestering of "Windows Security" that isn't secure. I have asked for input to make sure that the fault for excessive pestering isn't mine. I have initiated dialog from other people who share my frustrations. But at no point did I say I didn't like Windows.

That being said, it's clear that your opinion about the OS is different that mine and both you and I share our stated opinions with others. Just because you don't think the OS isn't broken doesn't mean it isn't. Just because I think it needs improvement doesn't mean it does. And somewhere in the middle is the reality of what it is.

Since Windows is the only option available today that allows me to run the programs I want to run, I use choose to use Windows. If there was another option that allowed me to do everything I want to do, I might consider it, but not because I hate Windows. But neither do I think that Windows is the best OS available. Windows 7 is definitely a fine offering from the folks in Redmond, but could it be better (in my opinion)? Yes.

In the end, the negative attitudes and lack of ability to carry on an intelligent discussion without resorting to personal attacks and vulgarity is something that just generates more animosity toward the problem and doesn't really resolve anything.

devil22:
What evidence do I have that most users just click okay? Well the fact that programs (in this case games) like Everquest 2, City of Heroes, and Warhammer Online still ask the question EVERY time they are run. Since there are still thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people playing these games and at least some of them are running them under Vista or Windows 7, then by extension every one of those people is either clicking Okay, has UAC disabled, or knows something about installing the apps I don't. I'm willing to accept the latter as being a possibility, hence part of the reason I'm posting here.

Also, I'm not talking about UAC popping up randomly when I didn't do something. The reason I'm trying to figure out how to make this work right is for exactly that reason, so I can leave UAC on in case something like that does happen. If UAC were to warn me that something is trying to make a change to my computer and I didn't do anything to initiate that change, I would be happy to deal with that.

For the rest of us that are still interested in discussing the issue at hand, and possible solutions to making it work, does anyone have any other thoughts or input?
 
You stated several times in the OP that you have your normal account set to work as Administrator - to be honest, that's a huge part of your failure on your part because Vista and Windows 7 are not designed to work that way.

No matter what you say, or do, or come back with, you and I and everyone else should - if they don't by now - understand implicitly that there is no Administrator account in Vista or Windows 7 as it has traditionally existed and been empowered in all previous versions of Windows. That is the simple fact of the matter. Microsoft has explained time and time again that there is no Administrator account, there is no absolute "God" level type of control over a Vista or Windows 7 machine and nothing you nor anyone else will do is going to change that. Having said that...

When you tinker around with the innards, as the case may be, and take your normal user account and try to give it powers it's not supposed to have on a "normal" basis, you're not going to be happy with the results you're going to get. Process elevation is a temporary thing, not permanent, and it's that way by design meaning every time you need that process elevated - if it's not already running - it'll need to request permission once again, each and every time.

This is how Vista and Windows 7 (and Win2K8 for that matter) work, now, and it's not broken in that respect. What's broken is that people can always offer up their opinions - which is what this thread seems to be comprised of so far, including my own about those opinions - and it won't make one lick of difference. Again, if you can do better, do it. If you can think of a better way to do things given Windows, contact Microsoft and I'm gonna bet you'll make a shitload of cash for it.

You stated:

Spetsdod said:
... could it be better (in my opinion)? Yes.
Click to expand...

Well welcome to the real word, because everything can be better, by opinion. That's where I always tell people "best" and "better" are completely relative things based on the situation at hand. There is no way to define a "best" or "better" in terms of computer operating systems as each one has its own purposes - none of them sits at the top of the heap in that respect. There is no "best" OS - only what might be "best" for a given task or for the user based on their needs, wants, and their understanding of it in the first place.

Is there a better way to handle user and application security in Windows? You say "Yes" but I don't see you offering up much as proof of that, just opinions about how bad it is and how good it could be. I know this thread is supposed to be discussing such things, but so far I haven't seen any of it.

UAC works fine for me. I see one popup when an app is installed (because it's going into Program Files or Program Files (x86) where it's supposed to go (if the installer uses the defaults) - that is not an issue, nor is it broken in any way, it's that way by default and when you decide to "do it my way" you just "broke" UAC and other aspects of Windows.

Windows applications - by overwhelming majority - get installed to Program Files or Program Files (x86) as required, right? Right. On OSX, almost every application that gets installed has some popup that'll say "Drag this into the Applications folder" right? Right. Same principle. Might even go so far as to ask for the account password to make it happen, but the principle is the same: there's a default place where apps are designed to go.

What's the issue with that? Huh?

Disable UAC? Just broke it.

Install stuff to non-standard or non-default locations (as the installer typically tries to do). Just broke it.

Run your normal user account with so-called Admin priviledges? Just broke it.

How can anyone expect an OS to function the way it's supposed to by design if you go in and muck up the very way it's designed to run "just because"? Eh? EH?

As I stated, I see the popup the first time I install an app - and I don't even have to use my own instructions as written in one of the stickies when I'm running Windows 7 because it just works now - and I don't see a UAC prompt again for the same app, ever, for any reason. If you're having constant popups from UAC in that manner, with apps that trigger UAC every single time you execute them then guess what:

Something is broken on your machine, and it didn't break itself. Your admission in the OP about several things, including trying to run the normal user account with Admin privileges 24/7, is a huge factor in that.

I can see the problem(s) from here, I'm just kinda irked that you can't for all the supposed intelligent discussion being thrown around. Go figure...
 
Joe:
Thank you for taking the time to add more very valuable input to this discussion. I know you've had it up to the neck with questions, but your input is by in large useful and generally clear.
Joe Average said:
You stated several times in the OP that you have your normal account set to work as Administrator - to be honest, that's a huge part of your failure on your part because Vista and Windows 7 are not designed to work that way.
Click to expand...
One of the first questions I asked was if having my primary account set as a computer administrator was part of my problem. This is the first time anyone has said that it might be.

Joe Average said:
No matter what you say, or do, or come back with, you and I and everyone else should - if they don't by now - understand implicitly that there is no Administrator account in Vista or Windows 7 as it has traditionally existed and been empowered in all previous versions of Windows. That is the simple fact of the matter. Microsoft has explained time and time again that there is no Administrator account, there is no absolute "God" level type of control over a Vista or Windows 7 machine and nothing you nor anyone else will do is going to change that. Having said that...
Click to expand...
I must have missed those particular articles. I have read your post(s) where you said that the administrator account doesn't exist, but that's not very clear to me. I can configure a user as being a computer administrator, or a standard user. The computer administrator has access to (as far as I can tell) all the files and functions on the computer without restriction (even though UAC will still prompt the user if they attempt to make a change that might impact the computer operation) and the standard user can't. That seems to me like an administrator account exists.

Joe Average said:
When you tinker around with the innards, as the case may be, and take your normal user account and try to give it powers it's not supposed to have on a "normal" basis, you're not going to be happy with the results you're going to get. Process elevation is a temporary thing, not permanent, and it's that way by design meaning every time you need that process elevated - if it's not already running - it'll need to request permission once again, each and every time.
Click to expand...
I understand that elevation is temporary. I'm not trying to make a standard user into a superuser. It is obvious, through use, that that elevated privilege is requested every time it is needed. The part that becomes tedious and ultimately annoying is when that elevation request occurs over and over for tasks that don't seem like they should require it, ie: running a game.

Joe Average said:
This is how Vista and Windows 7 (and Win2K8 for that matter) work, now, and it's not broken in that respect. What's broken is that people can always offer up their opinions - which is what this thread seems to be comprised of so far, including my own about those opinions - and it won't make one lick of difference. Again, if you can do better, do it. If you can think of a better way to do things given Windows, contact Microsoft and I'm gonna bet you'll make a shitload of cash for it.
Click to expand...

Joe Average said:
Well welcome to the real word, because everything can be better, by opinion. That's where I always tell people "best" and "better" are completely relative things based on the situation at hand. There is no way to define a "best" or "better" in terms of computer operating systems as each one has its own purposes - none of them sits at the top of the heap in that respect. There is no "best" OS - only what might be "best" for a given task or for the user based on their needs, wants, and their understanding of it in the first place.

Is there a better way to handle user and application security in Windows? You say "Yes" but I don't see you offering up much as proof of that, just opinions about how bad it is and how good it could be. I know this thread is supposed to be discussing such things, but so far I haven't seen any of it.
Click to expand...
I did make a suggestion, actually, about how virtualization might be the way to go in the future. Every application runs in a sandbox that can't affect the rest of the system. I don't know if that would work, but it seems like virtualization is becoming popular and maybe this is the evolution of that.

Joe Average said:
UAC works fine for me. I see one popup when an app is installed (because it's going into Program Files or Program Files (x86) where it's supposed to go (if the installer uses the defaults) - that is not an issue, nor is it broken in any way, it's that way by default and when you decide to "do it my way" you just "broke" UAC and other aspects of Windows.

Windows applications - by overwhelming majority - get installed to Program Files or Program Files (x86) as required, right? Right. On OSX, almost every application that gets installed has some popup that'll say "Drag this into the Applications folder" right? Right. Same principle. Might even go so far as to ask for the account password to make it happen, but the principle is the same: there's a default place where apps are designed to go.
Click to expand...
I want to explore this a little more. I have always favored putting games in a location other than Program Files to keep things organized better, and clean. This is the first time I've seen it suggested that installing apps in a location OTHER than Program Files might cause a problem.

I want to understand more why putting a program in the Program Files directory might work, while putting it in another directory (at install, using the installer) shouldn't. What is it about the Program Files directory that is special?

I will see if I can figure out a way to test this tonight, install something that previously complained at me into Program Files instead.

Going to your sticky from before, does Win7 now work without the extra steps you've described? Manually running installer as administrator, then manually running program as administrator the first time? I'm sure that isn't what Microsoft intended to be the correct method to install apps, even though I acknowledge that following those steps may cause it to behave differently. Surely average users aren't expected to know that or use that method to install apps.

edit: okay, from a later line in your post, Win 7 sounds like it doesn't need that step, but I'm still lost as to how choosing "d:\games\" instead of "c:\program files\" as the install location for an app would somehow make it not work. I can't be the only person that wants to keep their OS drive clean and doesn't install everything to the C: drive.

Joe Average said:
What's the issue with that? Huh?

Disable UAC? Just broke it.

Install stuff to non-standard or non-default locations (as the installer typically tries to do). Just broke it.

Run your normal user account with so-called Admin priviledges? Just broke it.
Click to expand...
The whole point of this thread has been to figure out how to make Windows a better experience WITHOUT disabling UAC.

Again, if the installer lets me choose another location to install an app, why isn't that acceptable to Windows? Not disputing your point, just trying to clear up the confusion (on my part).

Also, not trying to run a normal user account with "admin" privs. I'm trying to determine if there is a difference between a standard user and a computer administrator user. If the daily user should be a standard user, why does Windows default the install created account to computer administrator. If there is no "administrator" user anymore, then running daily as a computer administrator type account should be okay, correct?

Joe Average said:
How can anyone expect an OS to function the way it's supposed to by design if you go in and muck up the very way it's designed to run "just because"? Eh? EH?
Click to expand...

Joe Average said:
As I stated, I see the popup the first time I install an app - and I don't even have to use my own instructions as written in one of the stickies when I'm running Windows 7 because it just works now - and I don't see a UAC prompt again for the same app, ever, for any reason. If you're having constant popups from UAC in that manner, with apps that trigger UAC every single time you execute them then guess what:
Click to expand...

Joe Average said:
Something is broken on your machine, and it didn't break itself. Your admission in the OP about several things, including trying to run the normal user account with Admin privileges 24/7, is a huge factor in that.
Click to expand...
The normal user account was created as a computer administrator. Windows didn't ask me what type to make it, it didn't ask me if I wanted to make a second account for daily use, I didn't change the account type. I haven't adjusted the registry or modified any settings.

Joe Average said:
I can see the problem(s) from here, I'm just kinda irked that you can't for all the supposed intelligent discussion being thrown around. Go figure...
Click to expand...

This has been a helpful post, in at least as far as it suggests a few things that might be wrong with the way I'm using Windows. This was really my original question. Am I doing something blatantly incorrect that might be causing the problem? This is the first post that has attempted to address those questions.
 
Through all that dissection you're still missing the most important part:

There is no Administrator account in Vista or Windows 7. There is no way - even by hacking the Registry or whatnot - to give any account regardless of it being the one and only user account or one of several the power of an Administrator account as it existed in all pre-Vista versions of Windows.

I can't make it any simpler than that, really, I can't. While there are "Power User" and "Limited" accounts, with the appropriate permissions as required, anytime you want do anything that requires actual Administrator level privilege by escalation - and I'll repeat: anything - will require that each and every single time you execute the process. I know it's coming across as redundant but the reason is because you and many others just don't seem to get that aspect of Vista/Windows 7.

There ain't no Administrator account in those OSes, anymore. There is no way to permanently make an account have the same level of control as pre-Vista OSes had, so that means whenever an app or process requires Administrator level escalation, you're going to see that UAC prompt even if the account is supposed to be set for "Administrator" level access on a "permanent" basis.

Having your primary account set as "Administrator" still won't give you process level escalation that never needs looking after - each time you fire something up, it's going to ask. And, more than likely, and this is a most important aspect, the fact that you're using that type of account makes your PC even more susceptible to anything of a malicious nature... and guess what that means...

UAC prompts you even more often than not because that's what it's designed to do.

I've told people this in the past and hinted at it in the stickies that I wrote; some people get it and understand it, and others beat their heads into walls and complain about it, but it's really simple:

The number one priority of Vista and now Windows 7 is to keep itself running, at all costs, which means the most protection of all will need to be implemented on behalf of the user, not errant software that could ruin things. The user is the most common reason for the most common problems with respect to Windows, believe it or not. They click stuff they shouldn't click - and I'm not going into UAC and the prompts and a click, etc, they do things they shouldn't do and alter the OS defaults for security on some level (there's this philosophy I started a few years back called "Leave it alone" which is the best overall methodology to use when approaching Vista/Windows 7 because it works), and many other things and each one of them can bring an OS down like a house of cards in a hurricane.

I cannot say specifically why you apparently have so many prompts, but I believe it's directly related to you running your primary user account with settings that contradict or flat out fly in the face of what Microsoft has determined are the defaults for Vista or Windows 7. Vista/Windows 7 does everything it can to protect itself from you, the user, like it or not, and doing anything - and here I go again, I mean anything that goes against that will result in some problems, a lot of which sound exactly like the ones you're having with the "constant harassment" of sorts.

I've installed Vista about 15,000 times since release, Windows 7 about 900+ so far (the public beta through the RC just released). I've dealt with hundreds of people, sitting beside them, overlooking their shoulders when they use the machines, and honestly, seriously, I just don't see the kind of situations you and many others describe with respect to UAC and prompts.

UAC exists for a reason, and here's that reason much to the chagrin of people that believe otherwise:

It's not to keep your system more secure or make the user feel more safe, it's simply to notify the user that something is going on in the background or attempting to make changes on a system level - and it's that system level thing that kinda messes some folks up. System level would be anything related to the Windows directory, the Program Files directory (or directories in the case of x64 versions), and the User directory where all the user's info and profile(s) is/are stored.

That's it, in a nutshell.

It's not there to hold your hand because it's not you that needs protecting - it's the OS that needs protecting, and it's doing so by notifying you that something is going on and it's your call to say yes or no to let it happen. UAC doesn't stop such actions, it's just saying "Hey man, something is going on here, pay attention... do this, or don't do it?" and that's it.

It's your call to proceed or cancel the pending operation, not the OS. So in that respect YOU still have control of things. But if you choose to do something, and it does cause some catastrophe at a later time, it's your fault, not the OS's. Remember that... :D

When you muck with the defaults and hamstring the OS by denying it that ability either by turning UAC off totally or setting it so it doesn't even notify you of shit happening that you probably - note I'm saying probably not even aware of, then it's your fault when everything goes wrong.

I watch people use Vista on a fairly regular basis, and now some of them are using Windows 7 and... well, I haven't had anyone even point out that UAC is less intrusive than it was in Vista by default. Not one person of the many clients I have has called to whine, bitch, or moan so far, so I consider that a very good sign.

Your case, however, seems to be way way outside the "norm" which is a popup during an app's initial installation and rarely if ever again unless something changes. I can't say why you're having the issues you're having, but I will always go back to the fact that you're not running Vista or Windows 7 with the system defaults for UAC. I don't know what else to say past that point...

I will say this, however (as if I haven't rambled on enough): if you haven't made any changes to the system defaults on your user account, or to UAC at all, then something is broken with perhaps the apps you're using - this was a big hassle when Vista first came out, with apps not honoring the "new" way of doing things because they hadn't coded the installers to do so. That could be the situation here, and even Windows 7 can't fix that if the apps are older and using older installers. Perhaps looking into updated installers or updates for the given software might be a consideration.
 
Azhar said:
Personally I don't install games in Program Files anymore. Blizzard had it right when they decide to forgo the UAC headache by putting WoW in c:\users\public\games folder. That's where I put all my other games at too. No more UAC prompts.

Same for programs that constantly modifies it's program files. Keep it out of the Program Files folder. In my case, c:\users\public\apps
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that Blizzard was brought up in this thread. My sister's computer has one primary purpose - WOW. She's not exactly computer savvy, neither is her husband who built the damned thing. With everything installed with the default setup, every time she launches WOW she gets a UAC prompt.
 
Okay, hold on.

The single account on my computer at home (until last night when I created a second one) is listed in the User Account control panel is identified as being a "computer administrator" account. That's it. I haven't attempted to modify that access in any way. I am not interested in modifying that account to give it more access than it already has. I'm sorry if somewhere along the way you got the impression that I was trying to mess with anything of the sort.

Question: Should I use this account, configured by Windows at install and never again modified or adjusted by me, as a daily use account, or should I create another account, either at install or following install, that is configured as a standard user?

I do understand that if I do something on the computer, regardless of the user or account settings, that needs elevated privileges to accomplish, I will be asked to approve that access and/or provide the credentials to accomplish that. This is not what I'm having problems with. For clarity, I am having problems with applications that are requesting elevation every time they are run, even when those applications should not (in my estimation) require it.

For further clarity, I am running my primary user account using the defaults as it was created by Windows. The only thing I'm not using as a "default" is the install location for a program. If installing a program in d:\games\ instead of c:\program files\ is enough of a change to cause this much issue, then would it not be fair to argue that something about that is not right?

UAC is configured at the highest level on my computer (notify and dim) and I haven't changed that, just to clarify.

Brand new hard drive, Windows 7 DVD in drive, install using all defaults, add user during install "Spetsdod", Windows finishes installing, log in as user, put game DVD in drive, UAC prompts during install, specify d:\games for install location, game finishes installing, double click game icon, UAC prompt asks for elevation. From that point forward, every time I run the game, UAC prompts for elevation.

That's it. Nothing different.

The application icons do have the shield logo on them, which I'm told means those apps require elevation to run. The apps that don't show that logo don't ask for elevation.

WoW was installed by copying the game directory from my old hard drive, it wasn't even installed using a DVD/CD and it has never asked me for elevation. EQ2 was installed by downloading the entire game from Sony using Launchpad.exe. City of Heroes was installed the same way (download the cohpatcher.exe, run that, entire app is downloaded from NCSoft).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top