Vista took one for the team

Sure, Windows 7 is a better Windows than Vista, but it would have been much less so in December 2006 when Vista was released. Enough adjustment to Vista has happened that Windows 7 won't be as imposing a change.

I'm coming to the belief that Windows 7 is basically Vista 1.5 - a notably upgraded, but not substantially different, product. But the passage of time and "work" done by Vista has freed Windows 7 from the disrepute of its predecessor.
My sense of the complaints about Vista is that the two biggest ones had to do with UAC (User Access Control) and lack of support for devices. Microsoft compromised some on UAC in Win7 (that compromise led to some controversies—I think they caved in to bad PR, they see it differently) but the basic principle of UAC in Windows 7 is the same.
The real problem that UAC tries to solve is when third-party software requires privileged access. In almost all cases, there are ways to do what the software needs to do without requiring privileged access or, in the alternative, segregating the privileged components into a service and communicating securely with it. This is, for instance, how Automatic Updates works on your system without requiring you to provide administrator credentials.


Vista Took One for the Team

 

[greeneggsandham]

Same as Win 7 now is (way it should have been as its a little to heavy in Vista).

Agreed, it's like being warned constantly in vista about what your doing as if you don't know any better. I know there's some added security benefit with UAC but it's just annoying & almost undermining to the user at times. Windows 7 has sorted it out & made it less intrusive.

 

[JimJoe]

I turned off UAC as well. It could have been implemented in a much better way.

In your opinion, how do you think it should have been implemented?

The Unix method.

Admins don't have to answer questions like 'are you sure ?', nor have to put up with being told 'you don't have permission'. The admin account isn't hidden. The 'try again' button would work first time.

Workable methods of user access control have been around for decades. Microsoft could easily have done a better job.

 

[VaguelyRapt]

The Unix method.

Admins don't have to answer questions like 'are you sure ?', nor have to put up with being told 'you don't have permission'. The admin account isn't hidden. The 'try again' button would work first time.

Workable methods of user access control have been around for decades. Microsoft could easily have done a better job.

As far as I understood, the idea was a lesson from XP, where the end user had a machine with total control, and would ultimately (we're talking about the average end user here) get infected with viruses, and then blame the OS (as it is always the first to get the blame by the average end user). The UAC, as I've read everywhere in this forum, is recommended to be left activated, precisely for this reason - it prevents very dangerous things in a very quick, simple, and straightforward manner, a question where the answer is yes or no. If you're worried about that nuisance, you can turn it off (in an admin's case).

So what am I missing?

About the "try again" and "you don't have permission", I always figured that was due to files not being able to be accessed by more than one source at a time or other similar constraints. No?

 

[bobtran]

I turned off UAC as well. It could have been implemented in a much better way.

In your opinion, how do you think it should have been implemented?

The thing that comes to mind is having to tell UAC the same thing again and again and again..... surely a company as diverse as M$ should be able to make this little tweek and the fact that they have not is simply a lack of attention to details. Microsoft has moved on. This being said...I use and like Vista x64 (including UAC) and plan to continue to use it for the forseeable. Vista vs. W7 or is it 98 vs. 98 SE.

 

[JimJoe]

I am the only user on my Vista desktop. I don't need a computer's nor Microsoft's permission to do anything. If I want to turn it into an aquarium, I will. I have been thinking of taking the guts out of the case, and painting it. Then reassemble the machine.

The original problem was me trying to move a plain notepad text file from one folder to another. After several minutes of 'you don't have permission' and 'try again'... well, my hands were less than a palm's width from grabbing my brand new desktop, which cost me $380, and tossing it out a second story window.

Sorry, but the computer isn't boss of my computers, I am.

 

[JimJoe]

The thing that comes to mind is having to tell UAC the same thing again and again and again..... surely a company as diverse as M$ should be able to make this little tweek and the fact that they have not is simply a lack of attention to details. Microsoft has moved on. This being said...I use and like Vista x64 (including UAC) and plan to continue to use it for the forseeable. Vista vs. W7 or is it 98 vs. 98 SE.

Exactly. M$ could have done a much better job of a UAC.

 

[Everlong]

If it really does bother you so much, you could go and get a program that disables the popups, but keeps the protection. I don't know how wise it is to use these though.

Popups don't bother me any more really. I got used to them a while ago.

 

[garysgold]

I've said before, you can click a whole lot of yes'/no's in the time it takes to remove a virus or reinstall an OS and all the software and files to go with (if you have good backups). This is way better than Linux. Last time I used that you had to enter a user and password and it doesn't remember. Clicking a button (you can hit the right arrow key and enter) is way way easier. From what I understand, the problem with a list is that it has to be stored somewhere, and the virus simply needs to be able to read that list and then changes it's name to one on the list and it's in.

It really isn't possible to have more security without having some kind of inconvenience. It's a balancing act between the two. Most secure is to run as a standard user. But that's very inconvenient. If you think you are smart enough or lucky enough to not get infected, don't mind spending your weekend installing software. Then turn UAC off. Isn't going to affect me a bit. I'ts true that if your careful you could go years without a virus or whatnot, but if you don't take precautions in this day and age, it's not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Just my opinion.

Gary

 

[JimJoe]

I am not trying to talk anyone into reducnig their computer security.

What I am saying is that the UAC could have been done much better.

 

[garysgold]

How would you like it done?

 

[JimJoe]

I believe I already mentioned I prefer the Unix method.

Users have limited privs, admin/root has all the privs.

An admin/root account never receives a 'you don't have permission' message.

 

[Barman58]

I agree that the "nix" way is the best system, one which professional windows system admins have used for years - you run as a standard user and then manually elevate to the root level when required.

I think the major problem we have here is unfortunately on a home system and due to Microsoft's decision to make the default single user the administrator, rather than a standard user, has meant those users who came into the industry since XP think that this is the normal correct method.

The whole purpose of the UAC is to provide a semi automatic implementation of "best practice"

To those of us who come from a "Nix" or Windows Server background, rather than the insecure "home" computing field, UAC actually helps to run a secure system.

Whereas before I would run as a standard user and used RunAs to perform the odd admin task, or log in as an administrator account when I was due to do a lot of admin tasks, I can now either let the UAC auto elevate for the odd task or switch UAC off if I need perform a lot of tasks at one time. Uac also saves me time and keystrokes as where I used to have to type a password I can now skip that If I decide to

Of course if ISV's would code their applications correctly to run as standard users, and place there data files outside the system folders, the amount of elevation required would be considerably less,

This has only been in the specification since NT days so maybe the ISV's will catch up someday .

A lot of the permissions issues are caused by Microsofts attempt to better secure the Program Files and Windows folders and not directly by UAC.

So if you are used to XP and wish to run using that IMO flawed security model that's fine, but if you want a better system , Again IMO, UAC is not the demon it's made out to be

 

[VaguelyRapt]

@barman58, That's exactly how I understood it. I thought I was missing something. There's always the elevated admin state, and there's always simply turning off the UAC.

I always saw Microsoft as the one that would make the most powerful systems with the most options for configuration. Unfortunately, they get a lot of criticism for that, from those who want less power and more intuitiveness, and also from those who want more power and less "BS". But the thing is, I've always noticed that if you're familiar with the OS enough, there's almost nothing you can't do...

 

[JimJoe]

If UAC asked once, I wouldn't mind... Once I clicked on 'Continue' it should have gone ahead and copied the file.

I feel that Microsoft doesn't write powerful operating systems. They could do so if they tried.

Around 1990 I had access to a x86 Unix, basically running on a PC instead of ms-dos, that was very good. User permissions worked well. We setup a newsgroup newsfeed on it. Worked fine.

A few years ago I ran one of the linux versions on a computer I had been running Win98SE on. The computer used less overhead, and ran faster. Of course, a number of linuxes are now taking up way more overhead, ram, and hard drive space.