how to disable uac using local security settings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter william.hooper@gmail.com
  • Start date Start date
W

william.hooper@gmail.com

I keep seeing articls about how to disable UAC like this one:

http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx

but the instructions do not work for me. when i click start there is
no "Start search bar" anywhere that I can see.

Also I found:

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true

which says run secpol.msc from the run menu but when i try this it
does not work either.

I know it is Microsoft policy to hide everything from the user and
make all interfaces a total pain in the backside - but can someone
help me with this stupid one please.
 
william.hooper443771 Wrote:
> I keep seeing articls about how to disable UAC like this one:
>
> 'Tim Sneath : Windows Vista Secret #4: Disabling UAC'
> (http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx)
>
> but the instructions do not work for me. when i click start there is
> no "Start search bar" anywhere that I can see.
>
> Also I found:
>
> 'Microsoft Corporation'
> (http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true)
>
> which says run secpol.msc from the run menu but when i try this it
> does not work either.
>
> I know it is Microsoft policy to hide everything from the user and
> make all interfaces a total pain in the backside - but can someone
> help me with this stupid one please.


Hi William,

Try method two at this tutorial. It will show you how to Elevate the
Administrators Privilege Level for all Vista versions.

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/80938-user-account-control-uac-elevate-privilege-level.html

Shawn


--
brink

*There are no dumb questions, just the people that do not ask them.*
_http://www.Vistax64.com (\"http://www.Vistax64.com\")_
*Please post feedback to help others.*
 
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:45:06 -0700, william.hooper@gmail.com wrote:

>I keep seeing articls about how to disable UAC like this one:
>
>http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx
>
>but the instructions do not work for me. when i click start there is
>no "Start search bar" anywhere that I can see.
>
>Also I found:
>
>http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true
>
>which says run secpol.msc from the run menu but when i try this it
>does not work either.
>
>I know it is Microsoft policy to hide everything from the user and
>make all interfaces a total pain in the backside - but can someone
>help me with this stupid one please.


Would it really shock you to discover the crap on Microsoft's own web
pages is in error and doesn't always work? The second link above is a
classic example of Microsoft incompetence where they claim you can
elevate an application to ALWAYS run elevated. The truth is it only
works SOMETIMES for SOME applications and only if SOME conditions are
met otherwise it doesn't work.

Expect a barrage of clueless feces throwing fanboy monkeys to claim I
don't know what I'm talking about. They always do because they can't
stand me exposing Vista flaws or that I know the typical fanboy while
pretending to be "expert" in reality knows about as much about
computers as George Bush knows about public speaking without mauling
the English language. Nada.

If you want to turn off UAC do this:

1. Start button
2. Control Panel
3. User Accounts
4. Click where it says turn User Control on and off, then uncheck.

As far as if you should or shouldn't disable UAC, this topic has been
hotly debated up and down the Internet and all over newsgroups like
this one ever since Microsoft dumped this poorly implemented garbage
on unsuspecting users of Windows.

There is no one answer that fits every user. For some it is better to
leave it on, others turn it off because after awhile you just can't
take the constant nag screens.

While the fanboy losers club will try to pretend that UAC nag screens
go away over time after you've installed your applications and Vista
settles down into a normal routine. However that claim like most
things fanboys claim isn't totally true.

How often you need to endure UAC nag screens depends on how you use
your computer. Some older applications because of how they were
written (unsigned drivers is one example) refuse to behave even if you
follow the steps on the Microsoft page linked above to the letter
UNLESS you disable UAC. Otherwise they will just nag, nag, nag. If you
happen to use such an application daily after awhile you may decide it
isn't worth the annoyance since UAC doesn't do anything much other
than nag in the first place. The minor benefits it provides behind the
scenes when surfing for example is easily equaled with a decent
firewall anti virus application which you should have running anyway.
 
If you set up your user account as a member of the Administrators Group and
want to get rid of the nag screen but not completely turn off UAC go to this
reg key:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System]
"ConsentPromptBehaviorAdmin"=dword:00000002
"ConsentPromptBehaviorUser"=dword:00000001
"EnableInstallerDetection"=dword:00000001
"EnableLUA"=dword:00000001
"EnableSecureUIAPaths"=dword:00000001
"EnableVirtualization"=dword:00000001
"PromptOnSecureDesktop"=dword:00000001
"FilterAdministratorToken"=dword:00000000
"LocalAccountTokenFilterPolicy"=dword:00000001

Now set the ConsentPromptBehaviorAdmin value to zero (0) from 2 and the nag
screen should go away.


<william.hooper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189093506.937117.210190@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I keep seeing articls about how to disable UAC like this one:
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx
>
> but the instructions do not work for me. when i click start there is
> no "Start search bar" anywhere that I can see.
>
> Also I found:
>
> http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true
>
> which says run secpol.msc from the run menu but when i try this it
> does not work either.
>
> I know it is Microsoft policy to hide everything from the user and
> make all interfaces a total pain in the backside - but can someone
> help me with this stupid one please.
>
 
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:rn90e3h2lkc4vf7h4drv9q656rdn6nljmu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:45:06 -0700, william.hooper@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I keep seeing articls about how to disable UAC like this one:
>>
>>http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx
>>
>>but the instructions do not work for me. when i click start there is
>>no "Start search bar" anywhere that I can see.
>>
>>Also I found:
>>
>>http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true
>>
>>which says run secpol.msc from the run menu but when i try this it
>>does not work either.
>>
>>I know it is Microsoft policy to hide everything from the user and
>>make all interfaces a total pain in the backside - but can someone
>>help me with this stupid one please.

>
> Would it really shock you to discover the crap on Microsoft's own web
> pages is in error and doesn't always work? The second link above is a
> classic example of Microsoft incompetence where they claim you can
> elevate an application to ALWAYS run elevated. The truth is it only
> works SOMETIMES for SOME applications and only if SOME conditions are
> met otherwise it doesn't work.


What is there appears to be correct (and may be useful to some users YMMV).
I suspect that you misunderstand what part two actually says.

It says that to mark an application to run as admin do this.
It does not say that it makes the application run as admin.

It should make the application prompt for permission to run as admin.. are
you saying that it doesn't?

HTH
 
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:07:56 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:rn90e3h2lkc4vf7h4drv9q656rdn6nljmu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:45:06 -0700, william.hooper@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I keep seeing articls about how to disable UAC like this one:
>>>
>>>http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx
>>>
>>>but the instructions do not work for me. when i click start there is
>>>no "Start search bar" anywhere that I can see.
>>>
>>>Also I found:
>>>
>>>http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true
>>>
>>>which says run secpol.msc from the run menu but when i try this it
>>>does not work either.
>>>
>>>I know it is Microsoft policy to hide everything from the user and
>>>make all interfaces a total pain in the backside - but can someone
>>>help me with this stupid one please.

>>
>> Would it really shock you to discover the crap on Microsoft's own web
>> pages is in error and doesn't always work? The second link above is a
>> classic example of Microsoft incompetence where they claim you can
>> elevate an application to ALWAYS run elevated. The truth is it only
>> works SOMETIMES for SOME applications and only if SOME conditions are
>> met otherwise it doesn't work.

>
>What is there appears to be correct (and may be useful to some users YMMV).
>I suspect that you misunderstand what part two actually says.
>
>It says that to mark an application to run as admin do this.
>It does not say that it makes the application run as admin.
>
>It should make the application prompt for permission to run as admin.. are
>you saying that it doesn't?


Which is the problem! The Microsoft page IMPLIES if you follow the
steps they outline it will FIX this issue since the subhead is titled:
"Mark an application to ALWAYS RUN elevated"

I don't know, maybe the boys of Redmond need a remedial class in basic
English grammar.

I would infer from the wording on Microsoft's page that if you follow
the steps it lists that an application will ALWAYS RUN elevated, after
all that is what the subhead says! If all it does is force a UAC nag
screen prompting you to ask if you want to run as administrator THAT
is what the subhead should say, but of course if it did, nothing
really is changed, other than substituting one moronic UAC nag screen
for another one.

So I'm trying to get the "benefit" of bringing up a new UAC prompt
when the whole point would be to get RID OF the nag screen completely
once you jump through all those hoops to change how Vista responds by
drilling deep down into Vista's guts. The point being you still have
to click through so totally useless since it just replaces the
original UAC nag screen with another one.

Only Microsoft is stupid enough to think this would be a "solution".

You see it is things like this that separates me from the fanboy
crowd. They blindly accept whatever crap Microsoft comes up with and
at best just shrug their shoulders when they encounter something dumb
like this. I CHALLENGE why Microsoft sometimes does obviously bone
headed things. This is just one of many examples.
 
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:gqk0e3dgou0b9c3sc6h57eh6frgq6v4heu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:07:56 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:rn90e3h2lkc4vf7h4drv9q656rdn6nljmu@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:45:06 -0700, william.hooper@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>I keep seeing articls about how to disable UAC like this one:
>>>>
>>>>http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx
>>>>
>>>>but the instructions do not work for me. when i click start there is
>>>>no "Start search bar" anywhere that I can see.
>>>>
>>>>Also I found:
>>>>
>>>>http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true
>>>>
>>>>which says run secpol.msc from the run menu but when i try this it
>>>>does not work either.
>>>>
>>>>I know it is Microsoft policy to hide everything from the user and
>>>>make all interfaces a total pain in the backside - but can someone
>>>>help me with this stupid one please.
>>>
>>> Would it really shock you to discover the crap on Microsoft's own web
>>> pages is in error and doesn't always work? The second link above is a
>>> classic example of Microsoft incompetence where they claim you can
>>> elevate an application to ALWAYS run elevated. The truth is it only
>>> works SOMETIMES for SOME applications and only if SOME conditions are
>>> met otherwise it doesn't work.

>>
>>What is there appears to be correct (and may be useful to some users
>>YMMV).
>>I suspect that you misunderstand what part two actually says.
>>
>>It says that to mark an application to run as admin do this.
>>It does not say that it makes the application run as admin.
>>
>>It should make the application prompt for permission to run as admin.. are
>>you saying that it doesn't?

>
> Which is the problem! The Microsoft page IMPLIES if you follow the
> steps they outline it will FIX this issue since the subhead is titled:
> "Mark an application to ALWAYS RUN elevated"


Lots of programs are marked to run as admin.. but you have to click the uac
prompt first.. are you saying that they don't prompt but still run?

>
> I don't know, maybe the boys of Redmond need a remedial class in basic
> English grammar.
>
> I would infer from the wording on Microsoft's page that if you follow
> the steps it lists that an application will ALWAYS RUN elevated, after
> all that is what the subhead says! If all it does is force a UAC nag
> screen prompting you to ask if you want to run as administrator THAT
> is what the subhead should say, but of course if it did, nothing
> really is changed, other than substituting one moronic UAC nag screen
> for another one.


So you now understand what it says and are being argumentative.

> So I'm trying to get the "benefit" of bringing up a new UAC prompt
> when the whole point would be to get RID OF the nag screen completely
> once you jump through all those hoops to change how Vista responds by
> drilling deep down into Vista's guts. The point being you still have
> to click through so totally useless since it just replaces the
> original UAC nag screen with another one.
>


While I would also like to be able to get rid of the nag on a couple of
programs the fact is that the page is correct.. it is written in English and
does what it says. It is instructions on how to make sure a program always
runs as admin not on how to stop a program nag when you run it as admin.

> Only Microsoft is stupid enough to think this would be a "solution".


It is a solution to the problem.
You want a solution to a different problem but didn't read what it said the
first time.

>
> You see it is things like this that separates me from the fanboy
> crowd. They blindly accept whatever crap Microsoft comes up with and
> at best just shrug their shoulders when they encounter something dumb
> like this. I CHALLENGE why Microsoft sometimes does obviously bone
> headed things. This is just one of many examples.


This is not an example of anything wrong except maybe that you didn't read
it the first time.

>
>
 
Adam Albright wrote:


_--drunken stupidity deleted---

Look you moron, sober up and re-read the damn thing, ok?
You're awfully stupid for supposed "genius"...hahaha...yeah...right!
Frank
 
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 21:37:18 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:gqk0e3dgou0b9c3sc6h57eh6frgq6v4heu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:07:56 +0100, "dennis@home"
>> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>>news:rn90e3h2lkc4vf7h4drv9q656rdn6nljmu@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:45:06 -0700, william.hooper@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I keep seeing articls about how to disable UAC like this one:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>>but the instructions do not work for me. when i click start there is
>>>>>no "Start search bar" anywhere that I can see.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also I found:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true
>>>>>
>>>>>which says run secpol.msc from the run menu but when i try this it
>>>>>does not work either.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know it is Microsoft policy to hide everything from the user and
>>>>>make all interfaces a total pain in the backside - but can someone
>>>>>help me with this stupid one please.
>>>>
>>>> Would it really shock you to discover the crap on Microsoft's own web
>>>> pages is in error and doesn't always work? The second link above is a
>>>> classic example of Microsoft incompetence where they claim you can
>>>> elevate an application to ALWAYS run elevated. The truth is it only
>>>> works SOMETIMES for SOME applications and only if SOME conditions are
>>>> met otherwise it doesn't work.
>>>
>>>What is there appears to be correct (and may be useful to some users
>>>YMMV).
>>>I suspect that you misunderstand what part two actually says.
>>>
>>>It says that to mark an application to run as admin do this.
>>>It does not say that it makes the application run as admin.
>>>
>>>It should make the application prompt for permission to run as admin.. are
>>>you saying that it doesn't?

>>
>> Which is the problem! The Microsoft page IMPLIES if you follow the
>> steps they outline it will FIX this issue since the subhead is titled:
>> "Mark an application to ALWAYS RUN elevated"

>
>Lots of programs are marked to run as admin.. but you have to click the uac
>prompt first.. are you saying that they don't prompt but still run?
>
>>
>> I don't know, maybe the boys of Redmond need a remedial class in basic
>> English grammar.
>>
>> I would infer from the wording on Microsoft's page that if you follow
>> the steps it lists that an application will ALWAYS RUN elevated, after
>> all that is what the subhead says! If all it does is force a UAC nag
>> screen prompting you to ask if you want to run as administrator THAT
>> is what the subhead should say, but of course if it did, nothing
>> really is changed, other than substituting one moronic UAC nag screen
>> for another one.

>
>So you now understand what it says and are being argumentative.
>
>> So I'm trying to get the "benefit" of bringing up a new UAC prompt
>> when the whole point would be to get RID OF the nag screen completely
>> once you jump through all those hoops to change how Vista responds by
>> drilling deep down into Vista's guts. The point being you still have
>> to click through so totally useless since it just replaces the
>> original UAC nag screen with another one.
>>

>
>While I would also like to be able to get rid of the nag on a couple of
>programs the fact is that the page is correct.. it is written in English and
>does what it says. It is instructions on how to make sure a program always
>runs as admin not on how to stop a program nag when you run it as admin.
>
>> Only Microsoft is stupid enough to think this would be a "solution".

>
>It is a solution to the problem.
>You want a solution to a different problem but didn't read what it said the
>first time.
>
>>
>> You see it is things like this that separates me from the fanboy
>> crowd. They blindly accept whatever crap Microsoft comes up with and
>> at best just shrug their shoulders when they encounter something dumb
>> like this. I CHALLENGE why Microsoft sometimes does obviously bone
>> headed things. This is just one of many examples.

>
>This is not an example of anything wrong except maybe that you didn't read
>it the first time.


Typical fanboy subterfuge. No matter what, you'll go right on
defending Microsoft even when doing so you look ridiculous.
 
Adam Albright wrote:


>
> Typical fanboy subterfuge. No matter what, you'll go right on
> defending Microsoft even when doing so you look ridiculous.
>
>

You are just one totally clueless as*hole aren't you?
Grow the fukk up and STFU!
Loser.
Frank
 
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:5j41e39p1epjkk0e3avocvcj5dpo68jfco@4ax.com...

> Typical fanboy subterfuge. No matter what, you'll go right on
> defending Microsoft even when doing so you look ridiculous.
>
>


You have it wrong.
I am only too happy to state that M$ has done things in a way I would not
have done them.
However that has nothing to do with the fact that your statement was based
on your error not someone else's.
Calling me names won't make you correct no matter how many times you say it.
 
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:33:01 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:5j41e39p1epjkk0e3avocvcj5dpo68jfco@4ax.com...
>
>> Typical fanboy subterfuge. No matter what, you'll go right on
>> defending Microsoft even when doing so you look ridiculous.
>>
>>

>
>You have it wrong.
>I am only too happy to state that M$ has done things in a way I would not
>have done them.
>However that has nothing to do with the fact that your statement was based
>on your error not someone else's.
>Calling me names won't make you correct no matter how many times you say it.


You'll be a welcome addition to the fanboy club and be welcomed with
open arms no doubt since you seems to enjoy trying to paint black as
white.

The Microsoft page in question is poorly written and gives at best
misleading advice that does NOTHING to override UAC nag screens which
it suggests by the language used it WILL do. I'm sorry if you're too
dense to not get it. Better luck next time.
 
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:mrm2e353gh8d17urjdf2kje6p7vb3s6k83@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:33:01 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:5j41e39p1epjkk0e3avocvcj5dpo68jfco@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Typical fanboy subterfuge. No matter what, you'll go right on
>>> defending Microsoft even when doing so you look ridiculous.
>>>
>>>

>>
>>You have it wrong.
>>I am only too happy to state that M$ has done things in a way I would not
>>have done them.
>>However that has nothing to do with the fact that your statement was based
>>on your error not someone else's.
>>Calling me names won't make you correct no matter how many times you say
>>it.

>
> You'll be a welcome addition to the fanboy club and be welcomed with
> open arms no doubt since you seems to enjoy trying to paint black as
> white.
>
> The Microsoft page in question is poorly written and gives at best
> misleading advice that does NOTHING to override UAC nag screens which
> it suggests by the language used it WILL do. I'm sorry if you're too
> dense to not get it. Better luck next time.
>


Well you may claim that, but I first read that page a few days ago when it
was mentioned as being a solution to the UAC problem.
I also pointed out that it was not a solution to getting rid of the UAC
prompt as it is plain to anyone that reads it.
All it shows so far is that you didn't read it and the MVP either didn't
understand the posters question or didn't read it either.
How you can derive anything about my feelings towards M$ is a mystery to me.
I think its just your way of coping with being wrong and not being able to
admit it.
Don't worry.. just admit you were wrong.. you won't lose face.
 
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 19:07:55 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message


>> You'll be a welcome addition to the fanboy club and be welcomed with
>> open arms no doubt since you seems to enjoy trying to paint black as
>> white.
>>
>> The Microsoft page in question is poorly written and gives at best
>> misleading advice that does NOTHING to override UAC nag screens which
>> it suggests by the language used it WILL do. I'm sorry if you're too
>> dense to not get it. Better luck next time.
>>

>
>Well you may claim that, but I first read that page a few days ago when it
>was mentioned as being a solution to the UAC problem.
>I also pointed out that it was not a solution to getting rid of the UAC
>prompt as it is plain to anyone that reads it.


Maybe you should consider a career in politics. It seems you have a
gift for deliberately misstating the obvious. It seems the pastime of
too many posters in this newsgroup is playing semantic word games or
more commonly called starting pissing contests in some vain effort to
try to save face.

One more time, see if it sinks in:

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true

Scroll down to where it says:

Scenario 2: Mark an application to always run elevated.

I'm not arguing what it says isn't what happens, rather that what is
says is so poorly written it implies something totally different. I
note this is fairly common on Microsoft pages, so many times users get
lead down some garden path only to get unexpected results. This is one
such example.

Note the subhead does not say how to ensure some UAC nag screen pops
up which seems to be what you would like it to mean or you are just
making excuses for it to mean that.

You want me to diagram the sentence for you?

What is the subject? An application.

What is the verb? Run, ie always run elevated.

What is anticipated action? To mark. ie to cause an application to
always run as elevated by changing some
setting in Vista to make it do so.

Now any reasonable non fanboy would conclude the purpose of this
section of the Microsoft web page under discussion was intended to
show the user how to change Vista to mark an application to always run
elevated so when you click on the application or it's shortcut it runs
without nagging you any more. That would be a useful feature since the
jury is in on UAC. Many users think it sucks big time.

The problem which I clearly explained but apparently went over your
head was if you follow the instructions hoping to effect some change
in behavior you change nothing expect to substitute one nag screen for
another. Duh!

THAT is what I'm talking about.

My point. The sub heading is very misleading.

>All it shows so far is that you didn't read it and the MVP either didn't
>understand the posters question or didn't read it either.


The one that doesn't read for comprehension is YOU. So I am forced to
conclude you are nothing but another pompous windbag faking he's
another expert. Well isn't that precious. Just what this newsgroup
needs, another self-anointed expert that loves to shoot his mouth off
and keeps his eyes shut tight so he can pretend his narrow view is
right when facts staring him in the face prove otherwise.

To further illustrate how dumb Microsoft is later on the same page it
suggests a way to disable prompting shown below:

1. Click Start, click Accessories, click Run, type secpol.msc in the
Open text box, and then click OK.

2. From the Local Security Settings console tree, click Local
Policies, and then Security Options.

3. Scroll down to and double-click User Account Control: Behavior of
the elevation prompt for administrators or User Account Control:
Behavior of the elevation prompt for standard users.

4. From the drop-down menu, select one of the following settings:

• No prompt

• Prompt for credentials (this setting requires user name and password
input before an application or task will run as elevated, and is the
default for standard users)

• Prompt for consent (this is the default setting for administrators
only)

5. Click OK.

6. Close the Local Security Settings window.

Note the term Behavior of the elevation prompt for standard users.
Again the Microsoft instructions suggest if you do blah, blah, blah,
then you can get to a "no prompt" state. Notice this is suppose to be
an option to suppress prompting. I set it that way and surprise, it
has no effect at all, UAC still shows the damn nag screen.

So I played around with some other settings in the Local Security
Setting window and while now I no longer get a UAC nag screen for this
one problem application Vista being as dumb as it is now says UAC is
off when it fact it is turned on.

I confirmed it is on by going to Control Panel, User Accounts and see
the check mark "use UAC to protect your computer" is indeed checked,
yet Vista keeps popping up warning messages telling me it is disabled
and suggesting I turn it on.

You got to hand it to the boys of Redmond, they sure know how to mess
things up and tell you exact opposites at the same time. I guess
that's just another Vista "feature". You UAC in off. No wait, it is
on, well maybe not, could be off. Flip a coin.

The conclusion is Vista in it's present state is riddled with
programming errors. That's just sloppy programming. Period. Whoever
writes so-called Microsoft "help" web pages obviously doesn't follow
what is wrote to see if it actually does what is claimed.
 
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:hj73e3tgkcf0hr552qktkkj70qfb3bl71l@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 19:07:55 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>
>>> You'll be a welcome addition to the fanboy club and be welcomed with
>>> open arms no doubt since you seems to enjoy trying to paint black as
>>> white.
>>>
>>> The Microsoft page in question is poorly written and gives at best
>>> misleading advice that does NOTHING to override UAC nag screens which
>>> it suggests by the language used it WILL do. I'm sorry if you're too
>>> dense to not get it. Better luck next time.
>>>

>>
>>Well you may claim that, but I first read that page a few days ago when it
>>was mentioned as being a solution to the UAC problem.
>>I also pointed out that it was not a solution to getting rid of the UAC
>>prompt as it is plain to anyone that reads it.

>
> Maybe you should consider a career in politics. It seems you have a
> gift for deliberately misstating the obvious. It seems the pastime of
> too many posters in this newsgroup is playing semantic word games or
> more commonly called starting pissing contests in some vain effort to
> try to save face.
>
> One more time, see if it sinks in:
>
> http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true
>
> Scroll down to where it says:
>
> Scenario 2: Mark an application to always run elevated.
>
> I'm not arguing what it says isn't what happens, rather that what is
> says is so poorly written it implies something totally different. I
> note this is fairly common on Microsoft pages, so many times users get
> lead down some garden path only to get unexpected results. This is one
> such example.


I have read it.. it is obvious what it says.
You didn't read it.
Stop arguing about something you lost ages ago and do something enjoyable.
 
> Hi William,
>
> Try method two at this tutorial. It will show you how to Elevate the
> Administrators Privilege Level for allVistaversions.
>
> http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/80938-user-account-control-uac-elev...
>
> Shawn
>


thank you shawn for that article which explains it. i am amazed that
on home or home premium you have to use regedit to elevate. turning
off in control panel leave ie exposed so its only sensible to do it
this way- so why make it impossible for most people. stupid

someone should build an installed to do this change like the ie toobar
fixes most people run
 
william.hooper445214 Wrote:
> > Hi William,

>
> thank you shawn for that article which explains it. i am amazed that
> on home or home premium you have to use regedit to elevate. turning
> off in control panel leave ie exposed so its only sensible to do it
> this way- so why make it impossible for most people. stupid
>
> someone should build an installed to do this change like the ie toobar
> fixes most people run


Your welcome William,

Glad to hear that it has helped you.

Yeah, Vista Home Premium and Basic does not have the "Group Policy"
settings in the Control Panel. Only the more expensive Business and
Ultimate versions do. I suppose Microsoft does not think that people
using those version would want to use that feature. Wrong.

Shawn


--
brink

*There are no dumb questions, just the people that do not ask them.*
_http://www.Vistax64.com (\"http://www.Vistax64.com\")_
*Please post feedback to help others.*
 
Back
Top