Vista Less Secure Than XP?

[Grentz]

UAC tends to not popup that much for me except when doing admin type tasks.

Frankly I do not really mind it.

Also, no one has yet said how ironic it is that Kaspersky is making offensive comments to MS when they were the ones that were also blaming MS for their AV not working and yet most others were

 

[idividebyzero]

The whole "click until it goes away" crowd is proof that no matter what you do, people will install stupid crap on their computer. Macs really arent any better than UAC, you have to input a password, that can become just as much an automated process as clicking "allow" and in some cases is more annoying.

The only thing that really makes vista more secure for me is the ability to delete ANY file you want. I only got one virus on XP, and it was a kind that couldnt be removed by antivirus and it was a file that I couldnt delete because it was always in use. That fact alone made XP extremely unreliable and extremely unsafe. With Vista its no longer a problem, you can delete any file you want after taking full control over it.

While no amount of protection will ever overcome a persons stupidity, its atleast nice to know that Vista will allow you to fix the mistakes youve made, unlike XP.

 

[digital_exhaust]

If you need to turn it off, you're an impatient ass IMO. You get used to it and for once your operating system is interacting with you instead of getting those calls "I have no idea how that got there"

I agree with this 100%. Take the time to understand how a completely new and different Operating System works and you may actually find that some of these new "features" are actually good things, not bad.... and honestly, it takes all of one second to click allow...

Vista - Not since ME have I seen such a turd.

Two whole hours and your able to decide that not only is Vista not worth using, but also somehow able to compare it to ME? Care to elaborate a bit? A few examples of the similarities would probably validate your comparison....

 

[Kahnvex]

I am an impatient ass.

Taking one second to click an OK box is one more than I want to be bothered with when I'm the one doing the clicking in the first place

Honestly, whats the point of name calling because some us don't want to be asked if we're sure we want to do something we want to do. I simply don't like it, and I'm thankful I can turn it off.

I would accept it with more customization options, as it's a worthwhile feature, just one I'm annoyed by in its current implementation.

 

[Anach]

I like how the insults and name calling fly when people cant actually give a valid argument (like "because you're an idiot" isnt a debate.)

Actually I was thinking the exact same thing as the news article in question.

Being an advanced user, I'm more often than not - tweaking something.

The silly thing is, this false security (Because most with either disable or learn to ignore it due to the frequency of popups and its not actually offering any protection other than the users knowledge), there is no way to tell it to disable warnings for select programs. So EVERYTIME you get the same warning.

The better way to handle this would have been to allow it to have a database of software allowed to run (such as windows apps and other signed or approved apps) then ask the question for unknowns, also with the ability to disable on a per application basis.

Instead, its either fully on, or fully off, and I know which one is most likely after a few weeks of use.

Why the hell would they need this type of 'security' on default installed windows apps??

When MS ruined the perfectly good Antispyware app (Giant) and made that dumbed down and useless thing they have now, they took out a very useful feature that was very similar to this built in feature, but at least it had a check box to stop it reminding you on each subsequent use.

 

[zero_vertical]

The problem with Vista's UAC isn't that it is annoying, or less effective, it's that MS thinks that they can wash their hands of security issues by closing the door completely, and putting the risk on the user's shoulders by saying "well, you hit okay and let it in"

That's not effective. After the first 250 clicks of "allow," it becomes crying wolf. People become desensitized to it, and will evenutally hit "allow" on something dangerous unknowingly.

zv

 

[dotHectate]

Maybe it's just me, but every time I see "UAC" I think of Union Aerospace Corporation from Doom. Lol

Sorry.

 

[LoneWolf]

The only thing that really makes vista more secure for me is the ability to delete ANY file you want. I only got one virus on XP, and it was a kind that couldnt be removed by antivirus and it was a file that I couldnt delete because it was always in use. That fact alone made XP extremely unreliable and extremely unsafe. With Vista its no longer a problem, you can delete any file you want after taking full control over it.

I've never had a problem deleting such files in XP. Or perhaps I should say, there are ways, no matter what. Assuming you can't boot in safe mode (or delete the file in safe mode), booting off a BartPE CD will fix this. Chances are your "in use" file is set up to run as an automatic service; setting this service to Disabled in the Management console will let you delete the file after a reboot. I see a lot of bot-takeovers of systems, and clean a lot of spyware, few of them are that agressive. If you know your way around the registry and the system management console, it can be done, it's just sometimes "Missionifficult".

I agree that the average user couldn't do these things to fix their system. However, I find it unlikely that they'll be able to in Vista either, it's still likely beyond their learning curve.

 

[MagnusDredd]

Files that are in use can be deleted using a a shell extension called "Delete on Reboot":
http://www.snapfiles.com/get/removereboot.html

There are a ton of different versions of this shell extension, and there are multiple programs which also expose this functionality in Windows. For the record, this is the recommended method to get rid of in use files on Windows XP by Microsoft. The underlying delete on reboot function was placed in the OS by Microsoft but requires a small hack to expose it (like the above shell extension).

UAC does suck. I tried to deal with it for a few days. It's as annoying as hell. For the record I also run Slackware Linux (generally without a GUI), FreeBSD, and OS X. I've also run every version of Windows since 2.0.

Most users NEVER read warnings that show up. They don't understand them. Furthermore they dismiss them when they're wrong.

Example, UAC states that a web page is trying to open a file on my computer, and do I allow it to open. No web page was trying to open ANYTHING. I'd double clicked a pdf on the desktop... So not only does UAC have shitloads of pop-ups, they display incorrect info as well at times.

For something that's important, an administrator's approval should be required. On a standalone box where you don't want to have your kid/mom/friend have to log out for the setting to be changed, having to walk over and authorize something with a password is a good thing. Furthermore, having them able to make improper changes without a password is not a good thing. Even further, having to log them out and log back in as an admin, or use a second log in to authorize a behavior is annoying as hell. On any of the above systems I can either enter a password or invoke "sudo" to make the changes and then walk away.

The worst part about UAC is the disruption to workflow. (Example delete key on Windows to delete a file then hit enter to make the dialog box go away, or OSX: hit Apple and backspace at the same time, no dialog because you're not going to accidentally hit that key combo) Windows has been on the worse side of the whole annoying pop-up BS for some time, but UAC is just ridiculous.

For games I apparently need Windows. Which will remain XP for quite a while.

To get stuff done I need an OS that does not interrupt me all the damned time and stays out of my way in order that I may accomplish my work.

 

[digital_exhaust]

I just thought that anyone who may still be interested in this whole UAC issue may find this thread worth reading.... should help clear up a little of the confusion surrounding UAC. Definitely worth reading.