Should Stardock fix Microsoft's UAC?
User Account Control on Vista discussion
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
In a new Macintosh advertisement, the PC has what looks like a body guard who keeps interupting the conversation with the Mac in the name of "security". The feature Apple is making fun of is called the User Account Control.
The idea behind UAC is to protect users from malicious software and other content that could affect the stability and integrity of the user's computer. But many users have expressed utter disdain for it. As a result, UAC ends up being disabled by users much to the chagrin of Microsoft.
But what if there was a different solution? What if third-parties were able to modify how UAC worked?
For example, imagine the UAC remembering what users had given it permission to previously? Right now, every time I open up Stardock Central, I'm prompted by UAC. Very annoying. What if after I selected "continue" it saved Stardock Central and its checksum such that it wouldn't come up again for that program as long as it was unchanged?
Another example would be after I select continue on the UAC, the account remains in an elevated state for say 5 minutes (or some user-defined time) so that anything else that needs UAC would automatically be passed.
I think just these two changes would significantly improve the usability of UAC to the point where most of the complaints would go away.
And I think these kinds of changes are absolutely necessary because, right now, users are just turning it off completely which is definitely not a good thing. You should definitely not turn off UAC but it is very understandable how annoying its current implementation can tend to be.
Microsoft has stated that any attempt to alter the functionality of UAC would be considered a security violation that would be dealt with accordingly. It's scary sounding stuff. But if the alternative is that millions simply turn off this functionality or the bad reputation of UAC slows migration to Windows Vista then what's the best path?
Which brings us back, should third-parties like Stardock step in and fix UAC on their own? Or should the user base wait and hope that Microsoft enhances the UAC experience?
 |
|
Page 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
xxdesmus
Reply #42 Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:17 PM
Reply #42 Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:17 PM
There is no way UAC is something Stardock should touch.
Should Microsoft start releasing tweaks for problems in WindowBlinds? No. Stick with your own software and work on making that better, leave other people's work alone.
Should Microsoft start releasing tweaks for problems in WindowBlinds? No. Stick with your own software and work on making that better, leave other people's work alone.
ZubaZ
Reply #43 Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:26 PM
Reply #43 Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:26 PM
It's funny to me how few people know Stardocks history of integration with OSs.
Stardocks OS/2 timeline
heh . . I'd buy UAC management. Better yet, include it in my Thinkdesk Sub.
Stick with your own software and work on making that better, leave other people's work alone.
Do "other people's software" that they should leave alone include Windows? So should Stardock NOT enhance the GUI? What about Bootskins, or logons, or . .or . . or . . .Stardocks OS/2 timeline
heh . . I'd buy UAC management. Better yet, include it in my Thinkdesk Sub.
IllegallyDead
Reply #44 Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:04 AM
Reply #44 Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:04 AM
Hey guys... Just so you know, there already is a better version of UAC. It is called third party anti-virus software. I am not and will not become familiar with Vista because my XP machine is wonderful and McAfee blocks anything that could harm my computer. I have intentionally gone to sites with viruses on them that I am totally aware of, and guess what? No problem. Oh, and "malicious code"? Yup, got that base covered too...
So... My point is is that Vista is, overall, a worhtless "upgrade" (downgrade in my opinion) XP is perfectly sufficient, and is more efficient, although it still has its host of problems...
So... My point is is that Vista is, overall, a worhtless "upgrade" (downgrade in my opinion) XP is perfectly sufficient, and is more efficient, although it still has its host of problems...
ws777
Reply #46 Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:35 AM
Reply #46 Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:35 AM
I think most of these "features" of Vista already exist in third party software for XP. I agree with anyone that declares they will not install Vista. I use Spyware Blaster, and Spybot, either program will do pretty much the same thing as UAC, that is, asking for permission to make a potentially dangerous change to the system. And these programs will remember your choice too. Spybot uses the Teatimer program which has a small memory foot print. Spyware Blaster, although it remains in memory fully, but it can include integration with ClamWin Antivirus. So when it is scanning for spyware, it is also Virus Scanning. Neat eh? I have been using this setup for well over a year now and have never had an infection or malware problem. I do keep other scanners on hand though and of course Lavasoft's Adaware is used from time to time. And of course I don't use IE for anything other viewing IE only sites. That probably helps also. Firefox (sometimes Opera) are what I prefer. So, see, you don't need Vista. XP can have annoying UAC also!
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #47 Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:46 AM
Reply #47 Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:46 AM
I was organising my start menu to make it clearer ( that start menu in Vista is a dismal failure) by moving everything into categories and for each item UAC prompted me six times 
Needless to say it quickly got turned off and is staying off.
CerebroJD
Reply #48 Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:03 AM
Reply #48 Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:03 AM
UAC is definitely a little over-active in alot of cases, especially for a 'power user'. However, for everyday stuff such as chatting, gaming, skinning, its not a problem. I dont even really see it that often, although getting this rig up and going how I want it has me still installing stuff. Personally, I think it will make itself worth its 'annoyance' as soon as I start getting attacks that its blocking. I'm willing to keep it enabled for awhile... its really not that big of a deal.
TheBlackWatch
Reply #49 Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:50 AM
Reply #49 Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:50 AM
Should Stardock fix Microsoft's UAC ?
User Account Control on Vista discussion
Yesterday, 8:08 AM by Frogboy
You assume that UAC is broken ? - UAC may be an annoyance to many but broken it most definitely it is NOT.A simple reg tweak is all it takes to turn on or off as many already know.
If you would like to impress me , get the words "Stardock" and "Windowblinds" on this list - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305
User Account Control on Vista discussion
Yesterday, 8:08 AM by Frogboy
You assume that UAC is broken ? - UAC may be an annoyance to many but broken it most definitely it is NOT.A simple reg tweak is all it takes to turn on or off as many already know.
If you would like to impress me , get the words "Stardock" and "Windowblinds" on this list - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305
kin242
Reply #50 Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:38 AM
Reply #50 Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:38 AM
UAC is just microsoft's way of passing the responsibility for security on to the customer so they dont have to deal with it in the OS.
Disabled it as soon as that first box came up. Useless.
Disabled it as soon as that first box came up. Useless.
thomassen
Reply #51 Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:14 AM
If it's not broken, then why would you turn it off?
Reply #51 Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:14 AM
You assume that UAC is broken ? - UAC may be an annoyance to many but broken it most definitely it is NOT.A simple reg tweak is all it takes to turn on or off as many already know.
If it's not broken, then why would you turn it off?
bennnnny
Reply #52 Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:17 AM
Reply #52 Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:17 AM
I hate UAC!!
It not needed really, most unexperienced users would probably click continue even if it was a virus or something trying to damage the pc.
It not needed really, most unexperienced users would probably click continue even if it was a virus or something trying to damage the pc.
ShelbyGT_The_Car
Reply #53 Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:43 AM
Reply #53 Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:43 AM
Brad your intensions are good to such a great work. But they fully at MS intend to protect their software at any cost. For the time being I would just give instruction before installing any software via Stardock Central or even Stardock Central progam itself. That the user turn the UAC off! {If he has not already done so.}
The next best thing would be to offer such a design to Technet and see what happens to the design. With good intensions I believe the Techs would get approval to add your design to a new update for Vista OS and all would be well with things. This would also put the hammer down on other programs working along the same line. Such as Mcafee's SiteAdvisor and this could also startup some new ideas for them too.
I think you are on the right track and should follow through at whatever cost it maybe. It maybe that Stardock has an idea to venture into security for windows and espically it's own programs. This to gain a new name for Stardock with being safe and a excellent product to consider.
These people that say leave it to MS to fix have no idea what they are saying. UAC was designed around other software that is presently on the market today to make internet surfing safer for all. Thus it was the full intensions of MS to do this for Vista. But Vista is still a babe and it will go places here in the next few years too. So will Stardock as well espically.
The next best thing is to get in on the goings on at MS via a conference and let them know where you stand on the idea. A good start would be to attend the next conference here...
http://www.microsoft.com/events/mix/default.mspx
With that in mind and plenty of ammo for the right stuff. The work in progress for Stardock will take a major leap forward!Good luck and I hope that this all is helpful. You are on the right track Brad and your people there are to be congradulated on such great work for all the new Vista software they have done so well on.
SGT
The next best thing would be to offer such a design to Technet and see what happens to the design. With good intensions I believe the Techs would get approval to add your design to a new update for Vista OS and all would be well with things. This would also put the hammer down on other programs working along the same line. Such as Mcafee's SiteAdvisor and this could also startup some new ideas for them too.
I think you are on the right track and should follow through at whatever cost it maybe. It maybe that Stardock has an idea to venture into security for windows and espically it's own programs. This to gain a new name for Stardock with being safe and a excellent product to consider.
These people that say leave it to MS to fix have no idea what they are saying. UAC was designed around other software that is presently on the market today to make internet surfing safer for all. Thus it was the full intensions of MS to do this for Vista. But Vista is still a babe and it will go places here in the next few years too. So will Stardock as well espically.
The next best thing is to get in on the goings on at MS via a conference and let them know where you stand on the idea. A good start would be to attend the next conference here...
http://www.microsoft.com/events/mix/default.mspx
With that in mind and plenty of ammo for the right stuff. The work in progress for Stardock will take a major leap forward!Good luck and I hope that this all is helpful. You are on the right track Brad and your people there are to be congradulated on such great work for all the new Vista software they have done so well on.
SGT
NightTrainthedark
Reply #54 Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:44 AM
I hate myself for acknowledging your existance but... you have actually outdumbed yourself. That is the most absurd thing I have seen on the internet to date.
Your animosity towards Stardock is transparent, biased,predictable and boring. You have silenced your own opinions. Deleting yourself right now would be a step towards fixing the world.
Reply #54 Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:44 AM
Stop trying to fix the world...
I hate myself for acknowledging your existance but... you have actually outdumbed yourself. That is the most absurd thing I have seen on the internet to date.
Your animosity towards Stardock is transparent, biased,predictable and boring. You have silenced your own opinions. Deleting yourself right now would be a step towards fixing the world.
Jan71
Reply #55 Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:53 AM
Reply #55 Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:53 AM
I vote against such practices.
This is nothing different as the super user account in a NIX environment.
Every program that has acces to system files and has the intention to change something, like the majority of Stardock programs, should first ask permission from the user.
I turned this back on, and unless you want to change something on the system, this UAC thing does not pop-up : it does not pop up when performing work (Word, Excel, ...), it does not pop up when accessing the internet, unless you download and install something (works as designed), it does not pop up when playing games, it does not pop up while chatting, it does not pop up when watching movies or listening to music ...
In short, it does not bug me while using the pc, only when I want to make changes.
And if you are really in a spring clean mood, you can always temporary turn UAC off until you are finished (but do not forget to turn it back on afterwards).
BTW, I don't see how it can block the communications with a MAC ?
Messenger, Skype, Googletalk and GMAIL conversations all work flawlessly on my PC, with UAC enabled.
And do not forget the warning of MS if you try to change it : they will sue you. It is written clearly in the EULA.
Jan
This is nothing different as the super user account in a NIX environment.
Every program that has acces to system files and has the intention to change something, like the majority of Stardock programs, should first ask permission from the user.
I turned this back on, and unless you want to change something on the system, this UAC thing does not pop-up : it does not pop up when performing work (Word, Excel, ...), it does not pop up when accessing the internet, unless you download and install something (works as designed), it does not pop up when playing games, it does not pop up while chatting, it does not pop up when watching movies or listening to music ...
In short, it does not bug me while using the pc, only when I want to make changes.
And if you are really in a spring clean mood, you can always temporary turn UAC off until you are finished (but do not forget to turn it back on afterwards).
BTW, I don't see how it can block the communications with a MAC ?
Messenger, Skype, Googletalk and GMAIL conversations all work flawlessly on my PC, with UAC enabled.
And do not forget the warning of MS if you try to change it : they will sue you. It is written clearly in the EULA.
Jan
xxdesmus
Reply #56 Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:17 AM
It's frightening if you think you're a "power user" and yet you make comments that are that painfully inaccurate. Get a clue, read some information, then make uninformed comments afterwards because right now you just look stupid.
Wow just wow. You obviously have no idea what UAC is/for then.
Reply #56 Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:17 AM
Hey guys... Just so you know, there already is a better version of UAC. It is called third party anti-virus software.
It's frightening if you think you're a "power user" and yet you make comments that are that painfully inaccurate. Get a clue, read some information, then make uninformed comments afterwards because right now you just look stupid.
UAC is just microsoft's way of passing the responsibility for security on to the customer so they dont have to deal with it in the OS.
Disabled it as soon as that first box came up. Useless
Disabled it as soon as that first box came up. Useless
Wow just wow. You obviously have no idea what UAC is/for then.
JRSCCivic98
Reply #58 Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:27 AM
Reply #58 Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:27 AM
Something to add... it's 2/22/07 (A week+ further then when SD was going to release WB5.5). Maybe they can finish that project first before they try fixing someone else's software. How about that idea?... does that work for you?
Also, the whole "a regular user needs admin access to do things" is the real problem here. The problem stems from the fact that Windows natively is misdesigned. The failure in the design is around the fact that it has a registry and shared locations for system dependant items from programs such as dlls. This is where all the problems are comming from. If Windows would work much like other OSs work in terms of installing apps in their own directory and drop no other info anywhere else during install then you wouldn't need an admin account to function. The layout design of Windows is it's downfall. There's far too much crap getting dropped everywhere each time you install something, I think we can all agree on this. Imagine how much cleaner everything would be if you could install a program into it's own directory and the uninstall process was simply a delete of that directory and it's icon shortcut... there would be no hidden entries in the registry for registered portions of the program... it would be a simple layout much like Linux is... not to mention a cleaner layout in terms of admin work needed to maintain the systems. Until MS fixes this with a complete rewrite of the code from scratch there's always going to be some need for admin access to the end user. Users like to do stuff and cannot be locked down from this with a UAC or account restrictions. Account restrictions on a system at the moment is the only way to keep a user from "accidentatly" messing something up with an install or settings change. Until MS can find a way to split Kernel level control from User level control in Windows there will always be a weakness.
Also, the whole "a regular user needs admin access to do things" is the real problem here. The problem stems from the fact that Windows natively is misdesigned. The failure in the design is around the fact that it has a registry and shared locations for system dependant items from programs such as dlls. This is where all the problems are comming from. If Windows would work much like other OSs work in terms of installing apps in their own directory and drop no other info anywhere else during install then you wouldn't need an admin account to function. The layout design of Windows is it's downfall. There's far too much crap getting dropped everywhere each time you install something, I think we can all agree on this. Imagine how much cleaner everything would be if you could install a program into it's own directory and the uninstall process was simply a delete of that directory and it's icon shortcut... there would be no hidden entries in the registry for registered portions of the program... it would be a simple layout much like Linux is... not to mention a cleaner layout in terms of admin work needed to maintain the systems. Until MS fixes this with a complete rewrite of the code from scratch there's always going to be some need for admin access to the end user. Users like to do stuff and cannot be locked down from this with a UAC or account restrictions. Account restrictions on a system at the moment is the only way to keep a user from "accidentatly" messing something up with an install or settings change. Until MS can find a way to split Kernel level control from User level control in Windows there will always be a weakness.
JeremyG
Reply #59 Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:52 AM
Reply #59 Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:52 AM
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
I desperately want to turn UAC back on but I do NOT want a warning to stop my whole system just because I go into display settings. I dont know my microsoft did not add a "dont prompt me for this again" option....even if only for administrator accounts.
I desperately want to turn UAC back on but I do NOT want a warning to stop my whole system just because I go into display settings. I dont know my microsoft did not add a "dont prompt me for this again" option....even if only for administrator accounts.
Double Zero
Reply #60 Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:55 AM
Reply #60 Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:55 AM
Believe it or not the first thing I did was look for a way to turn that piece of cr^p OFF...
If MS has no issue with Stardock modifying it then go for it!
The intentions were probably great, but for a power user it is the most ANNOYING thing that can happen..
Perhaps it could be implimented a bit differently?
perhaps for users with diffeent levels of experience..
Say a 7 year old gets on the machine to play games.. Novice Setting
The teenager gets on it to do research for homework.. Intermediate
A Master Skinner gets on it to create a WB ... Advanced
Of course the advanced setting would be much less annoying, yet the UAC would still be active..
As it is right now..I will never turn that thing on again..LoL
If MS has no issue with Stardock modifying it then go for it!
The intentions were probably great, but for a power user it is the most ANNOYING thing that can happen..
Perhaps it could be implimented a bit differently?
perhaps for users with diffeent levels of experience..
Say a 7 year old gets on the machine to play games.. Novice Setting
The teenager gets on it to do research for homework.. Intermediate
A Master Skinner gets on it to create a WB ... Advanced
Of course the advanced setting would be much less annoying, yet the UAC would still be active..
As it is right now..I will never turn that thing on again..LoL
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:08 PM