Vista UAC (User Account Control) on or off???

Vista UAC (User Account Control)....turn it off or leave it on?

  • Turn it off

    Votes: 104 51.0%
  • Leave it on

    Votes: 100 49.0%

  • Total voters
    204
That insurance comparison is really pathetic and the only word I can think to describe you is stupid, maybe naive as well.

Basically AV/UAC and anti-spyware to some degree are only for idiots who know nothing of computers and type "sex" into google and click every link they see. If you know what you are doing with your computer you don't get ANY viruses. Trust me. I never had an AV running in my life (I install AVG about once a month to run a scan and then uninstall, just incase) and never had anything.

It's simple. Viruses and spyware don't install from CD's from id or from Steam. And hackers have better things to do than hack your measly PC. As a matter of fact, guess what, I don't have a firewall on right now and Windows' firewall is turned off. Hack me, anyone. Go ahead.

No reason to run protection when there is virtually 0 percent chance I'll get anything. Just an annoyance more than anything. Now if only I had a program to filter posts like comparing insurance to PC protection, that'd be something I'd run.
 
I guess I am stupid and naive then, not that I mind. Not installing, java, or flash and turning directx and java script off, as well as safe browsing habits and not running as admin do greatly improve your chances of not getting infected. They don't eliminate it though.
Have it your way. :D

Average people should prolly leave UAC on, and use good anti virus/malware products.
 
then make uac pop up a message in the taskbar, or write something specific and useful to a log instead of just telling me that everything in my computer is protected except my documents.
So writing an event to a log prevents infection how, exactly???
By the time it's written to the log it's too freaking late.

If you know what you are doing with your computer you don't get ANY viruses.

BS.
I find it funny how you called someone on here stupid, yet made this STUPID claim.

If it's zero day- you're screwed. That's all there is to it.

What would happen if, for example, a wildly popular product like an iPod is shipped with a virus on it? Good thing that's never happ....... oh wait, it has!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your logic fails you.
 
That insurance comparison is really pathetic and the only word I can think to describe you is stupid, maybe naive as well.

Basically AV/UAC and anti-spyware to some degree are only for idiots who know nothing of computers and type "sex" into google and click every link they see. If you know what you are doing with your computer you don't get ANY viruses. Trust me. I never had an AV running in my life (I install AVG about once a month to run a scan and then uninstall, just incase) and never had anything.

It's simple. Viruses and spyware don't install from CD's from id or from Steam. And hackers have better things to do than hack your measly PC. As a matter of fact, guess what, I don't have a firewall on right now and Windows' firewall is turned off. Hack me, anyone. Go ahead.

No reason to run protection when there is virtually 0 percent chance I'll get anything. Just an annoyance more than anything. Now if only I had a program to filter posts like comparing insurance to PC protection, that'd be something I'd run.

Wow, talk about not knowing what's going on. You really have no clue do you? First off, if you're so sure that you'll never get a virus from your daily internet/computer usage, why install AVG once a month "just incase"? They don't just install from random CD's do they? Do you own an iPod? Apple's had them ship with a virus. Seagate and Maxtor have shipped drives loaded with them. How about Microsoft shipping a version of Nimda in Visual Studio .NET?

Hackers have better things to do than hack you huh? A true hacker, probably. How about the people that run the huge bot networks? You're entire post is filled with useless, disinformed, and disillusioned information. I wish that I had a program to filter posts like yours. So please just quit now and save the people of these forums the crap and lies you call information.
 
Turn that sh*t off! It's like linux where you have to type in your root password everytime you want to change a setting...
 
I have it turned on for my main rig, but with my new laptop and all the setup and installation it required I was starting to get annoyed with it.

I actually came to this thread to see what the consensus was .... but the vote is currently 82-83. :p Oh well, I will leave it on for now.
 
Wow, talk about not knowing what's going on. You really have no clue do you? First off, if you're so sure that you'll never get a virus from your daily internet/computer usage, why install AVG once a month "just incase"? They don't just install from random CD's do they? Do you own an iPod? Apple's had them ship with a virus. Seagate and Maxtor have shipped drives loaded with them. How about Microsoft shipping a version of Nimda in Visual Studio .NET?

Hackers have better things to do than hack you huh? A true hacker, probably. How about the people that run the huge bot networks? You're entire post is filled with useless, disinformed, and disillusioned information. I wish that I had a program to filter posts like yours. So please just quit now and save the people of these forums the crap and lies you call information.
Explain to me then how come I got a virus only a handful of times, and that was when I was a lot younger and didn't have the first clue how to get rid of them back then. And how my password was never hacked, my mouse doens't move by itself and delete files, and so on? Oh, because I know what I'm doing.

Don't come here crying because you don't know common computer knowledge :(

As far as the iPod incident, if you read the article it mentions "So far we have seen less than 25 reports concerning this problem", oooh, how popular is 25 people getting infected, oh noes! Not only that, but it's really, really.. really, simply to remove that virus. Please, continue using your AV/UAC, whatever works for computer newbies like yourself is fine. While at it, though, don't use a computer in the first place because it may blow up on you, get it enclosed, just incase.
 
Explain to me then how come I got a virus only a handful of times, and that was when I was a lot younger and didn't have the first clue how to get rid of them back then. And how my password was never hacked, my mouse doens't move by itself and delete files, and so on? Oh, because I know what I'm doing.

The debate is not "I know what I am doing" vs "I don't know what I am doing." I think most here would agree this is what you don't seem to grasp. It's not about: "I know this website is safe so I'll never get a virus" Its about, maybe one day this website will be the unfortunate incident of a hacker, and then I'll visit it, and unknown to me that virus will reach my computer. I *knew* what I was doing (visiting a safe website), but what I didn't know is that website had become infected and now has passed onto me (through whatever means).

I know thats kinda a bad example, but I am hoping it demonstrates the point that just because I know what I am doing doesn't mean nothing bad will happen. Just because Windows Explorer was virus free one day, doesn't mean it will be a minute from now, an hour, or a day from now. Having tools like AV/Spyware/and UAC help to alert the user to these issues if and when they arrive.

However, I think debating on you the validity and effectiveness of UAC is a mute point as your quite stubborn. But, thats ok, your intitled to your opinion as I am to mine. So live and let live now.

Argh, I just re-read your post.

Oh, because I know what I'm doing.

As far as the iPod incident, if you read the article it mentions "So far we have seen less than 25 reports concerning this problem", oooh, how popular is 25 people getting infected, oh noes!

See, you even contradicted your arguement here. Those 25 people KNEW what they were doing: Buying an iPod. But they got a virus, sucks to be them.

YOU can very well be one of those 25 people one day. And wouldn't you have wished then to have a tool like UAC tell you some virus/shit has tried to execute on your computer?
 
I used to leave it on all the time. I eventually ran it in silent mode as many games require administrative privileges and the notification was annoying. Now I just turn it off as so many of my applications require admin privileges and I'm tired of setting each one up. I have NOD32 for the occasional inevitable virus.
 
The debate is not "I know what I am doing" vs "I don't know what I am doing." I think most here would agree this is what you don't seem to grasp. It's not about: "I know this website is safe so I'll never get a virus" Its about, maybe one day this website will be the unfortunate incident of a hacker, and then I'll visit it, and unknown to me that virus will reach my computer. I *knew* what I was doing (visiting a safe website), but what I didn't know is that website had become infected and now has passed onto me (through whatever means).

I know thats kinda a bad example, but I am hoping it demonstrates the point that just because I know what I am doing doesn't mean nothing bad will happen. Just because Windows Explorer was virus free one day, doesn't mean it will be a minute from now, an hour, or a day from now. Having tools like AV/Spyware/and UAC help to alert the user to these issues if and when they arrive.

However, I think debating on you the validity and effectiveness of UAC is a mute point as your quite stubborn. But, thats ok, your intitled to your opinion as I am to mine. So live and let live now.

Argh, I just re-read your post.



See, you even contradicted your arguement here. Those 25 people KNEW what they were doing: Buying an iPod. But they got a virus, sucks to be them.

YOU can very well be one of those 25 people one day. And wouldn't you have wished then to have a tool like UAC tell you some virus/shit has tried to execute on your computer?

My last post, this is really turning into a flame war, I don't come here to fight people!

First, I don't know for sure if UAC would have stopped that virus from happening in the first place, but I doubt it. In any case, even if I was one of those 25. It's not a big deal. It was a small, almost harmless virus, that not only is not noticable (which is why it wasn't found in the first place), that is easy to remove. If it was a bigger, more serious virus, it would have been noticed for sure and those iPods would not have been released.

So this virus is nothing serious. If you did have it, oh well, most likely nothing happened. If you knew you had it, it would have taken 2 minutes to remove. Not worth HOURS worth of Windows asking me for my password.

If you're so worried about the unpredictable, just lock yourself in some huge metal container so you wouldn't get murdered randomly. Don't even step outside, lightning might strike you, etc.

My opinion is that I'm more computer smart than the average grandma that still uses Windows 98. I don't need a program to watch for me while I'm online. I've been using computers for 14 years, which isn't very long. But after learning how to recognize shady websites and their implications, I have had no viruses, spyware, or any security breaches so far, and I'm happy with that, no reason to install/enable extra software when I can replace them.
 
My last post, this is really turning into a flame war, I don't come here to fight people!

Fair Enough :D


So this virus is nothing serious.

A virus is a virus. Which are all serious. The word you are looking for is probably having to do with its serverity.

Not worth HOURS worth of Windows asking me for my password.
FUD like this is why people are so unwilling to try Vista. No it really won't. And if you go around spreading this to potential users of Vista or the UAC is just horrible.

If you're so worried about the unpredictable, just lock yourself in some huge metal container so you wouldn't get murdered randomly. Don't even step outside, lightning might strike you, etc.

Its not about that mate :) Its about having the tools to keep me safe. I don't have an alarm system in my house, because I am paronoid of getting robbed. I have it for the fact thats its an added deterrent, and stumbling block for a potential robber.

Like I said last time though. It's all good. I hope that you continue your days virus/rootkit/etc free without UAC as I will stay Virus/rootkit/etc Free with it.
 
UAC is just like insurance. It's in case shit. In case shit don't happen, it shouldn't pop up minus updating software/installing software that accesses system level files. In case it does....well then you're protected. Honestly, I'd like you anti-UAC people to give examples of where or how you get like 100x UAC popups or something so much that it annoys you.
 
As with any other OS on the market today (OSX and Linux distros, primarily) you can't do most anything on a system-level basis without tripping a request for Admin priviledges, so that's a moot point to begin with. The issue is there's no adequate way to have the OS being able to say "Ok, that should be fine to go" and "Hang on, this thing looks too suspicious to me." It's fairly impossible given the limitations of Windows in and of itself.

To put it more bluntly:

If you can find some way to give Windows *nix like security and so-called stability without getting in the way, hop to it, people. Put time and effort into it, patent it, sell it to Microsoft for $20 million, retire and STFU about it.

Until then, deal with it because it's the best they can do given the inherent nature of Windows itself - meaning a completely unique beast in the world of computer operating systems because it tried so hard to not be a *nix clone and because of it now rules the world.

People are attracted to things that stand out, even if you hate it. Such is the case with Windows.
 
I never had an AV running in my life (I install AVG about once a month to run a scan and then uninstall, just incase) and never had anything.

I got a virus only a handful of times

Little bit of contradiction and backpedaling going on, anyone????
And like someone else said, if you are so sure of yourself, why are you installing AVG once per month??? More contradition???


As far as the iPod incident, if you read the article it mentions "So far we have seen less than 25 reports concerning this problem", oooh, how popular is 25 people getting infected, oh noes! Not only that, but it's really, really.. really, simply to remove that virus.
You're missing the point.
FACT: It was a virus.
FACT: It got onto people's machines.
FACT: The means it used to get there (iPod) was a trusted one.

That's all you need to know.
Yes, in this particular case it was a minor virus. But it could've been ANYTHING else. If it was a "worse" virus, lets start from bottom facts back up: It came from a trusted source, there is the means. It got onto people's machines- that's the infection. It's a virus, which when trying to run and delete files in C:\Windows UAC would have prevented from running.


First, I don't know for sure if UAC would have stopped that virus from happening in the first place, but I doubt it. In any case, even if I was one of those 25. It's not a big deal. It was a small, almost harmless virus, that not only is not noticable (which is why it wasn't found in the first place), that is easy to remove. If it was a bigger, more serious virus, it would have been noticed for sure and those iPods would not have been released.
Why would it have "noticed for sure" if it was a "bigger" virus???

UAC doesn't give a severity or risk level to anything... It's not anti-virus (which for this fact, is why I think you have no idea what UAC even is).
UAC blocks system level changes. End of story. Period. Adios.
If ANYTHING tries to make system-level changes, it's going to prompt you.
 
FACT: The means it used to get there (iPod) was a trusted one.

FACT: most people will auto-accept prompts from 'trusted' devices/software etc

UAC only works for a small group of people, everyone else just gets annoyed and either turns it off or clicks the ok box every time while bitching about Vista.
 
FACT: most people will auto-accept prompts from 'trusted' devices/software etc

UAC only works for a small group of people, everyone else just gets annoyed and either turns it off or clicks the ok box every time while bitching about Vista.

That's just something you can't prevent. But that isn't the issue we're talking about here.
 
FACT: most people will auto-accept prompts from 'trusted' devices/software etc

UAC only works for a small group of people, everyone else just gets annoyed and either turns it off or clicks the ok box every time while bitching about Vista.

In the long term it will encourage developers to write better software. It's not that bad as it is, you generally only see UAC when installing applications.

A UAC type function was badly needed in Windows. Get used to it.
 
But that isn't the issue we're talking about here.

Sure it is. UAC as a security feature is useless to the majority of people because it's so annoying at the beginning and rather vague to normal users that it's value is nullified. Think of it like identity theft via social-engineering; unless a box pops up that explicitly states that the new ipod or other "trusted" device/software/etc being used is actually going to install a virus, people will just click ok.

Long run, sure it might make people change programming habits. I doubt it, they'll just keep on going like they are until Microsoft actually does a total overhaul. They won't get a headstart though, so MS has to add in this over time which means people ignore it.
 
Sure it is. UAC as a security feature is useless to the majority of people because it's so annoying at the beginning and rather vague to normal users that it's value is nullified.

No, it isn't- for the reason I highlighted.
The users on here are self-proclaimed power users making some these claims.
 
So writing an event to a log prevents infection how, exactly???
By the time it's written to the log it's too freaking late.

i run mysterious executables all the time. the majority of the executables modify things in program files or windows, hence they all trigger the same prompt. the prompt doesnt give me the information like what is being modified. only that the virus i clicked on is trying to modify something. but that virus is labled as a system utility and a system utility should trigger the prompt. so there is no reason to not allow it.

basically the only possibility that i would install a virus on my computer, would be in the exact same situation that i would be installing a program. and a uac would have no affect on my decision whether to accept or not accept.
 
FACT: most people will auto-accept prompts from 'trusted' devices/software etc

Makes me laugh to see this silliness troted out as a justification for disabling UAC, by people who are participating at [H]ard|Forum. It's a lame excuse, and using it is akin to saying that you're a drongo who'd click on anything without checking out what it is first!

A truly [H]ard|Kore user would be able to distinguish between what are simply system config change prompts and what are suspicious prompts, and a truly [H]ard|Kore user would, when offering assistance which applies to computer users in general, assist the naive and novice user to learn distinguish the difference, rather than inanely telling them to turn off the feature!


Oh well. I guess oft|Koks get let in too!


As somebody mentioned, "Get used to it!" User account protections are here to stay. Windows has always previously been a dramatically less secure OS than alternatives. Nowadays it's started to "grow up" and users need to "grow up" along with it. It'd be a pretty sure bet that in the next iteration of Windows users won't even get the choice to disable the feature. The facility to do so has only really been included as a transitional measure, because so much software exists which doesn't 'play nice' with the system, despite the fact that 'recommended practices' have been out and about for years now in relation to software development for Windows.

Biggest joke of it all, in my eyes anyway, is that most often the complaints come from self-styled 'power users' who insist on running sloppily written freebie software tools. Witness the mention of CPU-Z I made above, where a user had discovered that the thing was only generating UAC prompts because of poor code included in the program. When he corrected the sloppy coding the prompts disappeared.

The most productive way to address such situations is not to disable UAC. Instead it's to insist that the people developing Windows software write the bloody things properly, and the best way to do that is to refuse to use the sloppy shit! When I made the move to Vista I welcomed the opportunity to audit my software library and eliminate the poorly written alternatives from the library. There are better written alternatives available, which don't compromise the system or help replicate that 'pressure' for Windows to remain a less secure OS than other alternatives.


That, to me, is the single biggest benefit of UAC that there is! Turn it off and you're nothing other than a part of the continuing problem.
 
I want this version of CPU-Z that doesn't trip UAC...

Someone mentioned previously in this thread that they decompiled the .exe for CPU-Z and what was making UAC trip was a simple typo in what it was calling, instead of "CPU-Z.exe" it's calling "cpuz.exe" or something along those lines....

file bug reports with the devs...
 
The most productive way to address such situations is not to disable UAC. Instead it's to insist that the people developing Windows software write the bloody things properly, and the best way to do that is to refuse to use the sloppy shit! When I made the move to Vista I welcomed the opportunity to audit my software library and eliminate the poorly written alternatives from the library. There are better written alternatives available, which don't compromise the system or help replicate that 'pressure' for Windows to remain a less secure OS than other alternatives.

QFT 100%. I've stopped using and supporting the shoddily-written software. And guess what? Either the folks that made them fixed it, or usage went way down. Most of the time there is someone else that makes something very similar- this is the beauty of competition. You don't fix your software- your competitor takes over.


I'd also agree (and hope this turns out to be true) that UAC will be a feature you cannot disable in the future. That in itself will make things even more secure.
 
A truly [H]ard|Kore user would be able to distinguish between what are simply system config change prompts and what are suspicious prompts

Of course, what about the other 99.9% of users? This feature is not working for its intended users, making it a defunct feature.
 
Says who, n00berdude? You?

I know quite a few 'naive users' who've picked up Vista boxes of late, and hardly a one of them hasn't learnt pretty damned quick that if they cop a prompt and blackened screen for something which isn't a change they were making themselves, "No" is the sensible policy.

It's not bloody rocket science, after all.
 
wow- about half and half. looks like MS did the right thing leaving it up to the people to turn UAC on or off....
 
Explain to me then how come I got a virus only a handful of times, and that was when I was a lot younger and didn't have the first clue how to get rid of them back then. And how my password was never hacked, my mouse doens't move by itself and delete files, and so on? Oh, because I know what I'm doing.

Don't come here crying because you don't know common computer knowledge :(

As far as the iPod incident, if you read the article it mentions "So far we have seen less than 25 reports concerning this problem", oooh, how popular is 25 people getting infected, oh noes! Not only that, but it's really, really.. really, simply to remove that virus. Please, continue using your AV/UAC, whatever works for computer newbies like yourself is fine. While at it, though, don't use a computer in the first place because it may blow up on you, get it enclosed, just incase.


If you don't run AV, then how do you know you don't have a virus? In fact, if you'd been reading, I'm not crying here, I'm sure I have more common computer knowledge than you, and I DON'T run UAC. The next time you'd like to find a "computer newbie", pull your head out of your ass and look in a mirror. If you're so good, then stop even installing AV once a month. Why doubt yourself if you know what you're doing?
 
I turn it off on my PC, I don't need a babysitter asking me if I'm sure that I'm sure when I feel like installing a program or new drivers.

I would leave it on for my parents though so they will second guess what they are doing to prevent a possible phone call to fix their PC.
 
This thread is getting kind of old. To sum up the 8 pages...

-i use UAC, it's the best thing since sliced bread.
-i used to disable UAC but now I keep it on.
-i have a legit reason for not running UAC, but I do agree that it's good
-i just don't like it.
-I'm a "power user" and I don't need windows holding my hand...

and of course whats a Vista thread without...

-vista sucks I still use Windows 98se
 
I'm still waiting for the UAC nay sayers to prove to me something that can trip UAC 3 times in a row....:rolleyes:
 
I'm still waiting for the UAC nay sayers to prove to me something that can trip UAC 3 times in a row....:rolleyes:

I think deleting a file and then emptying the Recycle Bin took 5-7 UAC prompts in the Vista Betas... But of course we're not rtalking beta software here.
 
No UAC prompts to delete... or empty the bin... there is the obligatory "are you sure" but thats existed forever.
 
No UAC prompts to delete... or empty the bin... there is the obligatory "are you sure" but thats existed forever.

During the betas there were a larger number, of course it depends on whether you were trying to delete a system file or a regular file but there were an obscene number. Key part: "were" and "Vista beta." Still irrelevant to the present though. What I was trying to get at is that some of the FUD spreaders are relying on statements that may have been correct for pre-RTM, but aren't in any sense right now.
 
During the betas there were a larger number, of course it depends on whether you were trying to delete a system file or a regular file but there were an obscene number. Key part: "were" and "Vista beta." Still irrelevant to the present though. What I was trying to get at is that some of the FUD spreaders are relying on statements that may have been correct for pre-RTM, but aren't in any sense right now.
My apologies.
 
I think UAC is a great feature, its just badly implemented. When UAC comes with an option to add programs to some sort of exception list, i'll be sure to turn it on. But until then it will stay off at my computer. I've tried several times to get used to the prompts, but in the end they just annoys me, especially programs i've allowed before and know is safe.
 
Back
Top