UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users

  • Thread starter Thread starter SG
  • Start date Start date
S

SG

"The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm
serious," said Cross"

http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._3-6237191.html


I've read this article several times and I'm still not sure what Cross means
by forcing independent software vendors (ISVs) to make their code more
secure. Is he saying by annoying user that we are to put pressure on these
vendors?
Opinions welcome....

--
All the best,
SG

Is your computer system ready for Vista?
https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
 
SG wrote:
> "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm
> serious," said Cross"
>
> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._3-6237191.html
>
>
>
> I've read this article several times and I'm still not sure what Cross
> means by forcing independent software vendors (ISVs) to make their code
> more secure. Is he saying by annoying user that we are to put pressure
> on these vendors?
> Opinions welcome....
>
Fact. Quickbooks demanded admin rights.

Fact. Vista by the very nature of how it's coded ensures that vendors
like Intuit can't get away with that anymore.

I never see UAC unless I am updating a piece of software.

But QB 2007 and 2008 now support running without admin rights.
 
Hi Susan,

Thanks for the reply.
I'm well aware of UAC and the forcing of (ISVs) to comply, but I don't
understand why Cross stated that how annoying users will force these (ISVs)
to do so. What part does the users have to do with making vendors comply?.
Maybe I'm just not reading this article correctly.

--
All the best,
SG

Is your computer system ready for Vista?
https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/

"Susan Bradley" wrote in message
news:uZgALbFnIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> SG wrote:
>> "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm
>> serious," said Cross"
>>
>> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._3-6237191.html
>> I've read this article several times and I'm still not sure what Cross
>> means by forcing independent software vendors (ISVs) to make their code
>> more secure. Is he saying by annoying user that we are to put pressure on
>> these vendors?
>> Opinions welcome....
>>
> Fact. Quickbooks demanded admin rights.
>
> Fact. Vista by the very nature of how it's coded ensures that vendors
> like Intuit can't get away with that anymore.
>
> I never see UAC unless I am updating a piece of software.
>
> But QB 2007 and 2008 now support running without admin rights.
 
SG wrote:
> Hi Susan,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
> I'm well aware of UAC and the forcing of (ISVs) to comply, but I don't
> understand why Cross stated that how annoying users will force these
> (ISVs) to do so. What part does the users have to do with making vendors
> comply?. Maybe I'm just not reading this article correctly.
>

I'm a user and I complained to Intuit to make Quickbooks run without
admin rights.
 
OTOH, as discussed in another thread (started by me) Microsoft is one of the
vendors whose software (Visual-Studio 2005 and 2008) does not play correctly
with UAC. In fact, in order to have Visual Studio installed on my Vista
machine, I am FORCED to turn UAC off and LEAVE IT OFF! Even uninstalling
Visual Studio does not fix the problems. Only a fresh install of Vista will
fix it.

"SG" wrote in message
news:eIpHibEnIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm
> serious," said Cross"
>
> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._3-6237191.html
>
>
> I've read this article several times and I'm still not sure what Cross
> means by forcing independent software vendors (ISVs) to make their code
> more secure. Is he saying by annoying user that we are to put pressure on
> these vendors?
> Opinions welcome....
>
> --
> All the best,
> SG
>
> Is your computer system ready for Vista?
> https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
>
 
It is annoying when independent software vendors don't
write their software with the "least privilege" concept.

UAC just sort of pressures them to get in line with what
is already a standard security measure. People will want
software that works without the 'surprise' prompts. The
vendors will want people to use their software.

It's sort of a 'if you build it, they will come' mindset.

"SG" wrote in message
news:eIpHibEnIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm
> serious," said Cross"
>
> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._3-6237191.html
>
>
> I've read this article several times and I'm still not sure what Cross
> means by forcing independent software vendors (ISVs) to make their code
> more secure. Is he saying by annoying user that we are to put pressure on
> these vendors?
> Opinions welcome....
>
> --
> All the best,
> SG
>
> Is your computer system ready for Vista?
> https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
>
 
"Jim Kay" wrote in message
news:044124D9-0511-486F-89FA-50DB475BE6B5@microsoft.com...
> OTOH, as discussed in another thread (started by me) Microsoft is one of
> the vendors whose software (Visual-Studio 2005 and 2008) does not play
> correctly with UAC. In fact, in order to have Visual Studio installed on
> my Vista machine, I am FORCED to turn UAC off and LEAVE IT OFF! Even
> uninstalling Visual Studio does not fix the problems. Only a fresh install
> of Vista will fix it.
I am glad you mention this fact, so I will know not to install VC++ 2008 in
case I get a Vista machine. I will have to keep an XP machine or just dump
VC++ 2008 and stick to GCC. I guess you could cross-compile for Vista on an
XP machine.

--
Allan
 
"Jim Kay" wrote in message
news:044124D9-0511-486F-89FA-50DB475BE6B5@microsoft.com...
> OTOH, as discussed in another thread (started by me) Microsoft is one of
> the vendors whose software (Visual-Studio 2005 and 2008) does not play
> correctly with UAC. In fact, in order to have Visual Studio installed on
> my Vista machine, I am FORCED to turn UAC off and LEAVE IT OFF! Even
> uninstalling Visual Studio does not fix the problems. Only a fresh install
> of Vista will fix it.

Not sure what you mean - I'm running Visual Studio 2005 and 2008 on a vista
box with no problems. With UAC on. I usually run them as administrator so I
can attach to a service for debugging. Moving to sp1 didn't cause any
difficulties either.

M

> "SG" wrote in message
> news:eIpHibEnIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> "The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm
>> serious," said Cross"
>>
>> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Vista-featur..._3-6237191.html
>>
>>
>> I've read this article several times and I'm still not sure what Cross
>> means by forcing independent software vendors (ISVs) to make their code
>> more secure. Is he saying by annoying user that we are to put pressure on
>> these vendors?
>> Opinions welcome....
>>
>> --
>> All the best,
>> SG
>>
>> Is your computer system ready for Vista?
>> https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
>>
>
 
I have installed Visual Studio 2008 a few times already and have not had any
problems with it. I did not have to turn off UAC, and I never have turned it
off. You do not have to read about one instance of a person having to turn
UAC off and conclude that you should not touch Vistual Studio 2008.

"Allan" wrote in message
news:OFqy$fOnIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Jim Kay" wrote in message
> news:044124D9-0511-486F-89FA-50DB475BE6B5@microsoft.com...
>> OTOH, as discussed in another thread (started by me) Microsoft is one of
>> the vendors whose software (Visual-Studio 2005 and 2008) does not play
>> correctly with UAC. In fact, in order to have Visual Studio installed on
>> my Vista machine, I am FORCED to turn UAC off and LEAVE IT OFF! Even
>> uninstalling Visual Studio does not fix the problems. Only a fresh
>> install of Vista will fix it.
> I am glad you mention this fact, so I will know not to install VC++ 2008
> in case I get a Vista machine. I will have to keep an XP machine or just
> dump VC++ 2008 and stick to GCC. I guess you could cross-compile for Vista
> on an XP machine.
>
> --
> Allan
 
"Susan Bradley" wrote in message
news:eEm0DOGnIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>
> I'm a user and I complained to Intuit to make Quickbooks run without admin
> rights.
>

Well done, you!

Most users, however, neither know or care what admin rights are. They just
see this annoying box thing pop up and wonder why Microsoft chose to annoy
them like that.

Most people, in fact, won't even distinguish between Microsoft and other
vendors. They just see that Vista (which includes all the software on the
computer) is harder to use than XP was.

The point SG is making is this: why slap the user round the head for
something they are neither responsible for, nor reasonably expected to
understand.
 
In message "Rojo
Habe" wrote:

>The point SG is making is this: why slap the user round the head for
>something they are neither responsible for, nor reasonably expected to
>understand.

Yeah. Damn car, complaining it needs oil, it should just maintain
itself.

Why is it that users demand the ability to do whatever they want on a
computer, but don't take responsibility when they do something stupid?
 
Nothing we do wrong or stupid is our responsibility or at least the News
Media, Lawyers or Psychologist have us believe :>)

--
All the best,
SG

Is your computer system ready for Vista?
https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/

"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
news:g5t514dd6oohqhiavfi0kl5jh4qpccqrtk@4ax.com...
> In message "Rojo
> Habe" wrote:
>
>>The point SG is making is this: why slap the user round the head for
>>something they are neither responsible for, nor reasonably expected to
>>understand.
>
> Yeah. Damn car, complaining it needs oil, it should just maintain
> itself.
>
> Why is it that users demand the ability to do whatever they want on a
> computer, but don't take responsibility when they do something stupid?
 
Complaining about a click or two is trivial when you consider how
much effort it took to run a program in the olden days. Switches,
patch cables, and shoeboxes of IBM keypunch cards. Now it's
sooo easy to do - people complain about UAC prompts.

"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
news:g5t514dd6oohqhiavfi0kl5jh4qpccqrtk@4ax.com...
> In message "Rojo
> Habe" wrote:
>
>>The point SG is making is this: why slap the user round the head for
>>something they are neither responsible for, nor reasonably expected to
>>understand.
>
> Yeah. Damn car, complaining it needs oil, it should just maintain
> itself.
>
> Why is it that users demand the ability to do whatever they want on a
> computer, but don't take responsibility when they do something stupid?
 
"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
news:uCGIXUKqIHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Complaining about a click or two is trivial when you consider how
> much effort it took to run a program in the olden days. Switches,
> patch cables, and shoeboxes of IBM keypunch cards. Now it's
> sooo easy to do - people complain about UAC prompts.
>

Yes, but back then you needed to know how to use a computer. Nowadays
people get them for Christmas we're all told how easy it is and how it's
impossible to break them (yeah, right) and When XP was released it came
complete with a Fischer Price visual style to encourage everybody that it
really is easy.

We have a whole new generation of computer users who've been brought up to
treat them like consumer goods. Your TV set doesn't start asking you if
you're REALLY sure you want to change channels.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily having a go at Vista. UAC doesn't
actually bother me that much. It just seems a weird that they've attracted
hordes of non-computer-savvy users and then put the onus on them to complain
to software vendors when the Windows Logo requirements are breached.

Oh, and if pushed, I could probably name loads of people who don't know
where the oil goes in their car.
 
"Rojo Habe" wrote in message
news:43A4CD93-A310-4188-A423-F49593622C8D@microsoft.com...
>
> "FromTheRafters" wrote in message
> news:uCGIXUKqIHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Complaining about a click or two is trivial when you consider how
>> much effort it took to run a program in the olden days. Switches,
>> patch cables, and shoeboxes of IBM keypunch cards. Now it's
>> sooo easy to do - people complain about UAC prompts.
>>
>
> Yes, but back then you needed to know how to use a computer. Nowadays
> people get them for Christmas we're all told how easy it is and how it's
> impossible to break them (yeah, right) and When XP was released it came
> complete with a Fischer Price visual style to encourage everybody that it
> really is easy.

ohmy.gif
)

> We have a whole new generation of computer users who've been brought up to
> treat them like consumer goods. Your TV set doesn't start asking you if
> you're REALLY sure you want to change channels.

No, but it is generally acceptable to be asked if you really want to
delete something after you pressed the delete button. Nobody said
a word about how annoying it was - and deleting is not really as
important a consideration as running foriegn code is.

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily having a go at Vista. UAC doesn't
> actually bother me that much. It just seems a weird that they've
> attracted hordes of non-computer-savvy users and then put the onus on them
> to complain to software vendors when the Windows Logo requirements are
> breached.

This paradigm has been looming on the horizon for years if not decades. The
vendors should have been prepared for this - it is they who annoy the users
by not writing 'least privilege' code in the first place. It was a good idea
long
before Vista made it more of a necessity.

> Oh, and if pushed, I could probably name loads of people who don't know
> where the oil goes in their car.

It goes everywhere, even on your clothes - you can even smell it from a
distance.
ohmy.gif
)
 
Back
Top