Console Wars IV

[Apocalypse]

It doesn't rely on gimmiks.

[Wiglaf]

It is trivial to disable UAC and never hear a single word about it again on your computer. I don't know why you find this difficult, but there are options clearly visible to do this.

You're just lying now.

http://lifehacker.com/software/vista/windows-vista-tip--disable-annoying-need-your-permission-to-continue-prompts-230866.php

Now, Microsoft highly recommends that you do not do this. To make their point, after you ignore them and do it anyway, a scary little red X shield icon plants itself in your taskbar, visually screaming at you about the security risk. After the jump, find out how to rid yourself of that sucker...

In Control Panel, go to the Security Center. On the left hand side, click the "Change the way Security Center alerts me" and choose "Don't notify me and don't display the icon (not recommended)" as shown.

So turning off UAC completely basically involves disabling all of vista's security pop ups about antivirus/firewall/etc. It's just idiotic.

No, because that's how it is on MacOS X and Linux as well. That's really the way it should be by default, for security reasons. It's actually a bit more annoying on OS X and Linux as you need to type in your admin password every time you install/uninstall something.

Users dumb enough to leave UAC on get bombarded with so many pop ups that they're likely to just allow a malicious process without even realizing it. The thing cries wolf too often, it's not clear and it doesn't tell users what if anything they're doing wrong.

Stop whining and accept it's a failure of the OS.

[Asher]

It's a good thing, and thereby not a failure.

I don't understand what you get, but don't you pretend to lecture me on computer security.

[Wiglaf]

Only in your universe is pissing customers off a good thing. If idiots like you continue to control microsoft's operating systems, its marketshare will continue declining.

but don't you pretend to lecture me on computer security.

FINGER WAG FINGER WAG *** WAG! Don't you pretend to tell me disabling UAC is impossible without disabling other important security alerts. I just did it to test it out and I found you two links, and all you can do is mutter something about me being retarded.

Win for Wiglaf

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Only in your universe is pissing customers off a good thing. If idiots like you continue to control microsoft's operating systems, its marketshare will continue declining.

As I said, it's even more strict in MS' competition so your point is lost..

FINGER WAG FINGER WAG *** WAG! Don't you pretend to tell me disabling UAC is impossible without disabling other important security alerts. I just did it to test it out and I found you two links, and all you can do is mutter something about me being retarded.

Win for Wiglaf

It's either this or permit idiots to install Spyware that installs everywhere on their system when it's not supposed to. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves, because the laissez-faire approach to computer security in prior versions of Windows clearly didn't work.

And if you don't like notifications, why do you hate turning them off? I do not understand -- one second you're *****ing about how Vista pesters you with annoyances, then the next you're *****ing about how turning off the annoyances prevents the *****ing. Get your head screwed on straight and come back to debate this when you aren't inconsistent to a fault.

[Wiglaf]

It's either this or permit idiots to install Spyware that installs everywhere on their system when it's not supposed to. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves,

UAC sends out a prompt whenever users install ANYTHING. It does not tell you it is malicious. That is WINDOWS DEFENDER and ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE.

And if you don't like notifications, why do you hate turning them off?

I like turning off UAC. I'd rather have Vista notify me if my firewall was turned off, or if my antivirus is out of date, etc, but apparently it's either take UAC up the ass, or disable all of those other unrelated warnings.

As I said, it's even more strict in MS' competition so your point is lost..

I haven't used Apple's latest OS but given their marketing I can't believe they'd ask you questions with near the frequency that UAC does. If they do subscribe to UAC's retardation, it still doesn't change the fact that it's retardation and it's hurting Vista.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
UAC sends out a prompt whenever users install ANYTHING. It does not tell you it is malicious. That is WINDOWS DEFENDER and ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE.

Yes, but if you open up GRANDMAS_****.jpg.exe and suddenly UAC comes up, you know you have a problem, right? This kind of **** isn't caught by WINDOWS DEFENDER and ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE unless this specific executable is in the DB.

I like turning off UAC. I'd rather have Vista notify me if my firewall was turned off, or if my antivirus is out of date, etc, but apparently it's either take UAC up the ass, or disable all of those other unrelated warnings.

Your firewall and your antivirus should notify you themselves if there's any problems.

Sounds to me like you know jack **** about computer security and how all of the OSes handle this.

When you install something on OS X and Linux, not only does the prompt come up, but you need to type in your administrator password. Why aren't you *****ing about that? You're so thick.

[Wiglaf]

Yes, but if you open up GRANDMAS_****.jpg.exe and suddenly UAC comes up, you know you have a problem, right? This kind of **** isn't caught by WINDOWS DEFENDER and ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE unless this specific executable is in the DB.

Heuristics scanning

I really cannot believe this. For the 1% of cases in which the user installs something undetectable by antivrius and antispyware programs, it is justifiable to flood the user with dozens and dozens of prompts whenever he installs, removes, renames, moves, etc his files.

What world do you live in. The bottom line is that something like 12% of users turn UAC off, and another 20% probably wish they knew how and just hate their OS because of it.

When you install something on OS X and Linux, not only does the prompt come up, but you need to type in your administrator password. Why aren't you *****ing about that?

Like I said I'm not using OS X, nor is this relevant.

[Asher]

It's relevant because you brought up marketshare, so it is relevant to look at how others do it.

Once programs are developed properly this will not be a big deal. The only time UAC comes up should be when you're doing something only an administrator should be doing. For example, installing system-wide applications (not just for the current user) or moving files to the root C:\ directory and not a User's directory.

If you actually think about it, it makes a lot of sense. You're still using a computer like you would in the 80s, which is wrong no matter what platform you're on.

[Wiglaf]

If you actually think about it,

THAT's my problem. I wasn't thinking about it. Now that I think about it, all my worries are gone. UAC is simple genius. Have I been so blind? Put some wool and me and call me a sheep, but I have turned a corner. Microsoft

[Felch]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
User-driven files should be in the User's directory as a root. That's why, in Vista, you'll notice the username is the root entity in explorer (Dave -> Documents, etc). . .

If I wanted an OS that told me what to do, I'd buy a ****ing MAC. I want a computer that recognizes I'm in charge, and lets me do what I want, without a bunch of nagging.

If MS just kept selling XP, this wouldn't be a big deal. But instead we're expected to pay for Vista, then again for XP. That's as lame as a three legged mule.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch


If I wanted an OS that told me what to do, I'd buy a ****ing MAC. I want a computer that recognizes I'm in charge, and lets me do what I want, without a bunch of nagging.

Then simply turn off UAC.

FWIW, the UAC-like feature on Mac not only requires you to enter your passwords, but it cannot be disabled like on Vista.

If MS just kept selling XP, this wouldn't be a big deal. But instead we're expected to pay for Vista, then again for XP. That's as lame as a three legged mule.

Just pay for Vista then?

If you already had XP on a prior computer you don't even need to pay for it again to install it on your new computer (unless your old computer is an OEM version like from Dell).

[Felch]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I really cannot believe this. For the 1% of cases in which the user installs something undetectable by antivrius and antispyware programs, it is justifiable to flood the user with dozens and dozens of prompts whenever he installs, removes, renames, moves, etc his files.

This is the real issue. Any security that flags so many silly things is bound to become something that people either turn off completely or ignore and simply click "OK" whenever they see it.

That shows poor design.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch


This is the real issue. Any security that flags so many silly things is bound to become something that people either turn off completely or ignore and simply click "OK" whenever they see it.

That shows poor design.

It shouldn't come up as often as it does because until Vista's release, most software for Windows was NOT designed properly. Have you ever tried to install software from a regular (non-admin) account on XP? It's a nightmare.

UAC is designed, in part, to BE annoying but not limit what you can do (like it was in XP). The idea was to change how applications were designed, and it's worked in that respect. If you install modern applications, it'll ask you if it's just for this user or for all users. If you select "just this user". you don't get any UAC prompt -- if you select "for all users", you get the UAC prompt.

As Windows computers become more and more multi-user, this becomes more important to have this kind of sandboxing and user account control.

As I've said, if you don't like it and don't want to change how you use your computer, you're free to disable it. UAC was never supposed to be a feature people liked, but it's what's called a necessary evil to shape both industry practice and user's practices from ad hoc, unsecure methods to systematic, secure methods. Mac OS 9 users had the same *****es when they moved to OS X. Once applications and users both get used to it, everyone is better off.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
Yes, but the thing is you can make 100% acceptable "status quo" mobile games on the DS without using the touchscreen or the 2nd display in any extensive manner. This is why it is NOT a big gamble, if no one wanted to use the new features it wouldn't kill the platform or the device, it can still function as a "status quo" mobile gaming platform.

You're right that a DS can be used without the second screen, in fact that's how it runs GBA games. Still, if Nintendo decided that the new features were lame and that they weren't going to use them in games, it would be a huge failure. The DS was a very risky move in that sense. Nintendo was committing a good deal of money in producing a dual screened system with touch controls. It had to figure out ways to make games that weren't just a bunch of gimmicky crap. It only seems like it wasn't risky because it has been insanely popular.

The Wii is completely different. The hardware and control scheme of the Wii means it cannot compete vis-a-vis with Xbox 360/PS3 "status quo" games and it forces games to take a new paradigm, which is why it is a far larger gamble.

I look at it differently. Nintendo had the least market share of the previous generation (excluding Dreamcast), and it couldn't afford to compete with Sony and MS on the hardware angle. So making a low cost machine that they could sell without losing beaucoup bucks on was the only really safe option.

The difference between the two situations is one of market dominance. In terms of home consoles, Nintendo hasn't been dominant since the mid 90s. It had to use a different strategy than the other guys, or it would get creamed. The GBA though was virtually unchallenged. They knew the DS would have to compete with the PSP and mobile phones. When they decided to go with the DS, that showed a willingness to be daring in a field that they already controlled, instead of just sticking with what worked and making a fancier GBA.