I don't get it. Mac OS X users don't seem to cause a fuss, and this has been part of the operating system since the first version of OSX. Microsoft is finally biting the bullet and introducing a much needed security feature that is available on almost every modern os available/used by the masses. There was a time when virus scanners and firewalls were considered resource hogs and shut down right away. Now they're a part of life. Hopefully Windows users can understand the benefits of the approach taken by MS for the security of their own machines. I've used the MS Vista Beta 2 since it was made public, and I must say the popups are really not that inconvinient, and at least provide a well presented dialog to the user about the task that is requesting more access than is currently allowed with the user's security level. It's about time.

Looks like Windows is, from a security perspective, trying to get to where VMS has been since before the dawn of Windows. Let's be honest: there has never been a virus for OpenVMS or its early versions known as VAX/VMS, and only one DECnet worm in its entire history (some 30 years or so). VMS's security model precludes viruses as a possibility. Maybe if, after BG turns his focus to philanthropy, the M$ guys can be more objective, they might consider, "Hey! what if we put the Windows GUI on top of an o.s. that has had security built into it since its inception?" That won't stop HTML or Perl exploits or document macro vulnerabilities, but it will go a long way toward protecting the integrity of the underlying system. If you've never heard of VMS, visit http://www.openvms.org/ or http://www.hp.com/go/openvms (I am *NOT* in any way affiliated with HP!)

feats(UAC) works well.
if some "dadyidon'tknow-why"-kiddies don't want some security - please, go, disable UAC and work under priveged credentials :)

I've got it disabled for now, but I will totally be testing it on final release, which way it goes I don't know - some things it interceeds with are totally unessecary - like emptying the recycle bin if non-admin users put their self-owned files in there, it's the recycle bin, who cares if it gets emptied?

I'm sure it will make sense in the end, even now it behaves pretty much as linux does - asking you for your 'root' password if you've asked to do admin-related suff, which is as it should be. Just annoying at the moment :p

Most sysadmins will shut this puppy down for their PC's, but I would tell them to reconsider for Joe Blow avg. PC user. They do not NEED admin access. So what if I'm prompted for my password as Admin to install something...that's fine...as long as it only does it once per installation. I would LOVE to see the look on Susy GottaKnowTheWeatherAndCan'tLookOutAFrigginWindowSoIGottaInstallWeatherbug's face when she tries to install her favorite toolbar/app and is unable to based on her permissions. Granted, most IT have a Domain Security Policy that remedies this in the first place. However, if I have to make a trip by every person's PC whenever they want to run Word/Excel/etc., then that will plainly get annoying and won't be worth the hassle.

This article is inaccurate - Mac OS X (the OS stands for operating system FYI) does not only ask users to enter their password once. I don't know where the author is obtaining that information, but it's completely untrue and is being used to imply the OS X has inferior security, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Just because Mirosoft is finally trying to secure their patchwork OS does not mean it's open season on MS biased authors to start implying other operating system have inferior security. Windows has a very, very long way to go before it can be put in the same play pen as OS X and other advanced operating systems.

As for UAC, it's good that Microsoft is trying to increase security. However, the means to that end have to be acceptable to users, otherwise, they're just going to disable / ignore it. I'm a computer scientist, not an IT Tech, but my friends and family call me up to "fix" their 'puters all the time. I'm 100% certain I'm going to get calls asking if I can "get rid" of these annoying messages for them and you know what? I'm going to do it. I'm an "advanced" user but I find OS X's prompts reasonable and have made no attempt to disable them. Vista (so far)? Not so much.

A security feature disabled is no security feature at all.

As for Bill Gates, he's leaving. He's getting old and he's got a lot of money to blow before he dies. We can't read his mind or verify his public reasons for leaving, so it's pointless to speculate. In any case it's bad news for Microsoft unless it leads to better business practices, which I very much doubt.

As for WinFS (Vista's 'killer' feature for those of you that have forgotten), it's not coming so don't wait for it. Vaporware FTW!

Suspicion would be it behaves like linux where you can remember the password for the session for every specific task?

As for Bill Gates, we've not heard the last - he's just going to be more hands-off, and we can verify what he says, his charity is well known, and another prominant american businessman with a fridge-full of cash has pledged alot of money to his charity - and it's well documented how many billions the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given to charity - not least to his commitment to wiping out TB and Malaria - and the Queen doesn't give out Hounoury Knighthoods for making lots of money - you have to do something special like the aforementioned

Just had to reply to that :)

Kudos to MS for giving you the option to turn UAC off. I think turning it off would be a horible thing, but at least it is there.

As one who generaly does not like MS's products, I still can at least give them credit when and where it is due. Folks, Vista is still Beta, therefore things are not going to work correctly..HELLO. Be fair about your comments people.

I have no doubt that UAC will work well with all of MS's products by release time, its third application devs you should all be pointing your frustration to. They still write, debug, and release thier apps as power user or administrator. Which kills essential functionality when you are a restricted user.

UAC is a great thing and I hope that it remains. I am glad to see that MS is seriouse about security and UAC gets them closer to having a very secure system.

Oh and to the commenter that accuses MS of stealing this idea. UAC is an idea that has been around in the *NIX world since it's birth, but it is a concept and is meant to be adopted by everyone who makes an OS. MS is not claiming (at least not that I have ever heard) that they invented it.

I might be disabling a lot more than UAC:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/index.php?p=84

Gee, all I got from that was:

one report claims WGA is about to become a Windows “kill switch”

Gee, one report? it *must* be true.

UAC is a good attempt at security, but the approach is way off... for now. As an "official Beta Tester", thus far, the first thing I do is turn off UAC. I have been away from my office/home for the last 15 days working on a project and have not had opportunity to test the latest release, but I will honor their (MS) request to not turn it off. People have posted many comments and opinions based on what I interpret as very limited knowledge. By limited I mean people saying *nix sucks, but yet they have no idea how to run a *nix system. I run *nix everyday. I use a debian w/gnome workstation daily. I also use Vista and XP on a daily basis. Iam fortunate enough to have multiple systems and a KVM. I work on OS X systems as well. I have a client that consists of 40 OS X workstations and 1 OS X server. I am in no way saying that I am the know the most about any OS, but I do have a wide range of administrative/user experiences. I must say, IMHO, that the *nix world has the better implementation. While they [*nix] use libs, (libs are very similar to dll files) programs mostly install and run in user directories where you are not constantly asked to approve or deny actions. That action alone greatly reduces the ability for a program to disrupt an entire system. MS should have followed more along the path of the "run as administrator" option. But this is only an option (as far as i know, please correct me if this is wrong) if you right click on an exe. This similar to sudo in linux. If you need to do something in linux, you simply go to a console and type sudo/password and whatever you have done will run in root (administrator) privileges. As soon as the action is complete, the elevated privs cease. It would not bother me a bit to have to put in a password to install a program. Simple enough even for novice users. Sure, people would have to get used to it and learn it, but many novices have learn to run spybot and adaware. One thing that would be helpful is an "Approved" list so that you are only asked once. Vista also has a process that intercepts programs and redirects them from writing to "Documents and Settings" and redirects them to the "Users" folder. If they could do this then spyware and malware would mostly (because nothing is truely %100) only be able to affect the profile of the person logged in at the time the code is executed. *nix doesn't have a default user profile like windows does and this gives *nix an advantage in making it more difficult to exploit an entire system. IF you were to take a look at the direction MS is taking, you can see the obvious similarities in UAC and basic *nix security methodology. I am not a windows hater. My favorite OS is Vista even though it is in beta code. I applaud MS for attempting to add a viable security approach without haveing to learn the intricasies of group policy. IMHO I do wish that MS would start from the ground up with a brand new OS. They are trying to amend and correct an approach to OS devolopment that is out dated and extremely flawed. The other OS choices from time to time say "Sorry, you old software will not work here anymore" . Apple did that with OS X and now they are seeing an increase in sales and users. It seems to have worked with them. There are exceptions to everything and yes there are some in my statements, but the overall idea and philosophy is what i am looking at. I would love to see more "Ideas" and "Suggetions" posted rather than indignant comments. If you have something to say, lets hear a suggestion or personal thought rather than an insult.

"One change, however, will not be a "sticky" verification process. Apple's Mac OS X operating system only asks users to enter their password once and it is remembered for the rest of the time they are logged on"

Now that's just incorrect. When a program authenticates, it stays authenticated until the program frees the authentication or until the program is closed. For example after you are done copying a file with Finder into a folder that requires authentication, to copy something else you authenticate again because the Finder has already freed its authentication. Other programs can hold on to the authentication but granting one app access certainly doesn't grant everything else access until you log out.

Yes, that's incorrect. Microsoft implement stolen ideas incorrectly. They can't even copy a good feature right.
Maybe MS talk about how they use Mac OS user authentication in their pathetic Mac applications.

Nope. In fact, MS implements it quite differently (not that it's a good thing though).

And FYI, OS X didnt invent that idea either... Why do some Mac users always seem to think that most features on Mac OS were invented by Apple? Apple copy many ideas from others too. And that's a good thing.

I'm not "a Mac user" or Mac fanboy. And I know apple didn't invented that idea, but if you look Windows vista betas, you'll see not UAC, but 90% of Apple Mac OS 10.4 functions implemmented (copied), that's why I mention Apple.
The problem for M$ developers seems to be that they never saw tiger 10.4, seems like they are copying things without knowing what they are doing. That's why windows is incoherent...
I'm pretty sure project leaders used Apple OS, but not the developers, maybe they could improve the development cycle giving their employees a cheap macbook so they know exactly how thing should look/work for their next OS.

UAC is something like the Admin or root functionality in many linux distributions. To make certain system changes the user has to enter the Admin or root password.

I believe that this type of security is needed but should not become a burden to use especially for the average computer user.

It won't be a burden by the time it is finished. UAC is already MUCH less intrusive in the 5456 build that they gave us last Saturday.

You can delete icons from your desktop without UAC coming up and most system tasks can also be accomplished without the UAC nag.

It's getting better. A lot better.

I love it how most of the people who have commented on this article aren't beta testers and have no idea what they are babbling about.

Some posts are extremely funny, others are extremely sad. It's amazing to me how much you dolts can comment on something you are not a part of, and only hear rumors about.

i love these egotistical a$$holes, that live their life in ignorance.
they figure that, just because they think they know something, they have the right to ridicule others.
i notice your post has nothing to do with the news topic.
loser

Are all the 'new' features and innovations being removed from Vista? Only 'new' eye candy left? Abandon ship............. Oh Bill wait for me.....................

What does this have to do with the article, please explain

The release of Longhorn, I mean Vista is slated for late 2006.
It's late June and UAC in Beta 2 sucks arse.

Anyone here in software development knows to stay the flying **** away from this bullshift.

Thanks for your wonderful insight!

If running as a non-admin is so important, why is the user created during the install an admin? And why do they not require a password for it? If you want to promote vista as making this change, then make the friggin change.

Umm... the user created during install may be an Admin, yes, but it DOES require a password for it. I'm not sure where you got the misinformation from, but reading through all the responses here I'm not surprised you are misguided.

The first user created in Windows has ALWAYS been an Administrator, because they are the owner of the system.

First off, I'm not a Vista user/tester but I have a question regarding the password requirement for the admin account.

In XP it was more secure to not enter a password for the admin because that then required anyone using that account to be physically present. Whereas, if you input a password there was a possibility of remote login to the admin account.

Does this still hold true for Vista?

In Vista, currently the Administrator account is not accessible when one is at the console. It is intentionally hidden and takes some registry hacking to make it available again.

Also, Vista doesn't require that the Administrator account have a password at the moment. I speculate that is because then it is required that anyone using the account to be physically present, to avoid remote logins into it.

This behavior may change before the final product, however. I for one think the Admin account should definitely have a password, but it looks to be a mixed bag of opinion at the moment.

Vista will be a joke.

It will not get installed in any of the places that I admin.

It doesn't offer anything more than XP does right now...other than pretty eye candy BS that I don't need or want.

Thanks for the comment that is so related to this article! Great insight!

Maybe you should actually KNOW about the operating system before jumping to assinine conclusions. There's plenty more to Vista than just eye candy. If you were a TRUE administrator, you would realize all the usability and administrative functions that are new to Vista and Longhorn Server.

I'd hate to work at one of the places that you work at, with your kind of closed-minded attitude. You obviously don't know too much about the job, or the product you claim to support there.

Here comes the astroturf..

Astroturf = better than bulls***.

"A form of propaganda, astroturfing attempts to selectively affect the emotions of the public, whether trying to win a campaign, be the top music record seller, the top book seller, or gain political support."

Welcome to betanews Official Vista Astroturf representative.

heh

lol

Testing? or Introdution?
The feature is useless as implemented. the people who wrote the feature will hide in a hole and issue version2. You didn't like it in beta2 so we won't show you version2. When we release it, the press will report 10k beta testers, all of whom were ignored.
Try this, beta2 is out, UAC needs work, BETA3 DOWNLOAD AVAILABLE AT???, post comments to newsgroup at: microsoft.beta.UAC /3 /4 /5 /6... until we get it working. If you get tired of calling them betas, then try gammas.
If a feature is so bad that 75%+ refuse to implement it, while saying they want it, then additional TESTING seems the prudent choice.

More resource hogger.........

Great. Microsoft will make a computer even harder to use. Yea, I know it's all about security, but not a single one of my clients do. And as a rule, nor do they really care -- until something bad happens -- and then they stop caring again after repairs are effected.

I guess I should thank Microsoft. There will be many dollars paid to me by my clients to turn that glorious feature off *immediately*.

Why doesn't Microsoft "get" everyday non-techie users? This is not unlike Windows Update being set to check/download at 3 AM in the wee morning hours every once in a while. I still run into computers that have never received updates (after purchase 1-2 years ago) because their users were never up at that time of the morning and their computers turned off, and therefore they never received a single automatic update of any security patches -- critical or otherwise.

Yep, in hindsight this may well be another "Duh!" moment for Microsoft. I *KNOW* UAC -- unless ultimately implemented very differently -- will **definitely** result in several of my clients switching to Apple/Macintosh. They're already completely fed up with Microsoft and its cluelessness.

Unless you're absolutely ignorant about apples OS, you would know that apple has this same feature, to make any changes to the system eg: install new software from an installation, then u would know that you would HAVE to enter your admin username and password to make the changes, i cannot believe that you people are b****ing about an implementation that microsoft is trying to do good on security, that everyone has been moaning about for years, and now they actually do something decent, and you're still b****ing about it, i'm an avid mac user that has switched from PC about 2 yrs ago, but now with VISTA, i am finding it an excellent OS, i know it's still in beta, but the beta2 is actually very good and stable. So all u guys moaning about some small extra thing u have to just to make changes to the system, maybe u should continue to use XP, but SHUT UP about your viruses then. Maybe even move onto crappy linux, maybe you'll all shut up then.

I see another way that MS can tell for sure UAC is terrible:

Someone can write a program for Win XP to implement UAC. Then let's see what happens ...

What... you mean like all the plentiful amount of HIPS and IDS already available.

The only problem as i see it is, the unexperienced users will ask the experienced users how to make it stop. If my customers bug me enough, i'm going to tell them how to turn it off. MS needs to make this something people will WANT NOT to disable. I hope they get it right in the final product. For my sanity's sake.

It will take MS 14 years just to get UAC to work 85% correctly. MS has lost touch with the world and I am even teaching my wife and kids (3 and 5) how to use Linux over MS. We will not be using MS much longer on any of our computers. My computer still has XP, but it has two distros of Nix on it too.

Another troll. You *are* on a roll today.

It will take MS 14 years just to get UAC to work 85% correctly

Yeah. Just *try* to back that one up, spanky.

Easy to back up, we still have many of the same bugs that 3.0 had and it's 14 years later.

I find it amazing that you seem to know more about Windows than you do *nix.

Shooo child...

Hmmmmm, ummmm, damn I just don't see your non existing point. You will get caught sharing those files and your dad will lose everything. You really should get off the computer.

PC_Tool, I've seen your posts a lot... How the heck do you have patience for comments like the one "gawd.." just made?! I can't even bring myself to respond to something like that... crazy!... :)

Seeing how it has taken them 6 year to release a large crap beta that should be an alpha, how could even dream of calling me crazy for posting facts about a down right crappy company that even the FOUNDER is getting away from it so that he doesn't get the blame for the release of more crap. You are crazy to believe that MS is ever going to produce another OS that would be worth the time to install it let a long the money to buy it.

Oh, I am so crazy, yet everyday more and more people are moving to MAC and Linux based systems and say good bye MS and your non functional crap. I use to stick up for MS all of the time! I just can't do it anymore. It's like sticking up for Bush and he even tried to sell OUR PORT SECURITY to the damn same country that supports the terrorists.

That is just crazy, on both accounts!

Again, you make claims like the 3.0 bugs that have existed for 14 years, PLEASE, name a KNOWN bug that has existed since the win3.1/3.0 days, I am dying to know!

Read below!

Where? I see no mention of a bug. If you refer to the filesystem, I dont consider it a bug since it does work and I have seen many pc's, with fat16/fat32, run for years without being reformatted or serious problems. Yes, it is unstable, but it does work.

lmao....

more and more people are moving to MAC and Linux based systems

Yeah. Microsoft's market share has dropped *so* much, right?

/sarcasm

Care to back that up?

I'm waiting for the same thing. He comes here, spams this article's comments with his nonsensical trollery, and then doesnt provide any evidence to back his claims.

"Yes, it is unstable, but it does work."

lol, what a classic comment. What twisted logic is at work here ?

Fat32 is an unstable filesystem, which is why microsoft is trying to rid itself of it, just like win9x/me's code line. But, FAT32 did work, otherwise it wouldnt have existed for so long and wouldnt be used on various devices throughout the world. So obviously, fat32 does something right.

No you are so stuck up Bushes and MS's asses that you can't breath or see the truth, so everyone else will always be wrong. So if I have to prove that there are other bugs that have been around for 14 years, shouldn't you have to prove that MS is so grand and that a 4+ gig install for an OS that is not faster and does nothing worth having over 2k? I mean hell you want to support a company that releases more bugs and has more shady business practises than any other company in the world, yet you act like they are so grand.
Everyone knows that the file system was never fixed and is still used today, every tech knows that even a new install of XP sp2 can still crash 2 seconds after first boot, every tech knows that it has been that way with all of MS's OS's other than DOS and that was taken from someone else.

You're an idiot.

The filesystem is just fine.

Any OS will crash if the hardware or drivers are *crap*. It's not just Windows, and every tech *should* know that.

The fact that you don't invokes an enormous amount of pity from me for your clients.

Patience is a virtue, man. It's probably one of the few I have. I ain't modest, I ain't modest, and I sure as hell ain't forgiving.

LMAO, That's going on BASH.

Seriously, do you practice stupidity, I've been around on the net a long time, I've seen people ask where to download video cards, cut parts off hardware so it fits and much more.

But you just brought it to a new level, cheers, you made my day!

You just go on getting your viruses and having your system crash all of the time. Enjoy your delusional world of MS.

No, the fact remains that you still live in a delusional world where you believe that MS can do anything right. People like you are the reason that they get away with breaking the laws and selling crap that just doesn't work worth a s***.
You defend MS with every bit of your being and yet you are completely clueless as to why you defend a company that has broken more laws and sold more crap than any other in the whole world.

you may nmot get your hands on newer builds, but you can always read reviews. For example: http://www.winsupersite....sta_5465_gallery_01.asp

Thx for the link, man.

UAC is a good feature for a new user, but an experienced user would find it a step backwards.

But an experienced user will be able to disable it easily enough.

I fail to see the problem as you describe it.

Think about how many man hours it would take to just upgrade a smaller company. I foresee MS getting bit in the ares with Vista. It has taken far to long to come up with anything and what they have come up with is a waist of everyone's time. The only reason people used the crap software was for the easy of use. That is a thing of the past unless you want even more exploits. MS is lost. Hell even Gates knows this that is why he is leaving the crappy company.

Small company?

Hmm...

GHOST.

Change the product keys either via SMS, or by hand after first boot.

There ya go. Easy as cake. Set up one system, ghost it, and you're good to go. Change the product keys either via SMS, or by hand after first boot.

You *have* deployed systems in the past, have you not? I'd hate to think you were talking out of your a** just then.

MS is lost. Hell even Gates knows this that is why he is leaving the crappy company.

Now that's just ignorant. First, Bill isn't even leaving the company. Second, they are working on UAC. They've admitted it several times. All is not lost. Counting MS out is like RIAA saying piracy is "controlled".

Not even close. No one would leave a good thing, second Bill is leaving! Third, ghost would not stop all of the pop ups and it would cause any and all companies to grind to a halt to have to either turn off the UAC or the users wouldn't be able to be productive. MS has been going down hill for years. You are one of the few people that are disillusioned enough to still support a company where the founder is even leaving it.

http://www.betanews.com/...t_in_2_Years/1150404593
http://www.longhornblogs...e/2006/06/15/16340.aspx

You know as well as everyone else, the media doesn't ever print the whole truth or even half of it.

Why are you here.... go post your drivel on a *nix site.

Look noobe that has nothing better to do other that talk about nothing, you might want to get off you dad's computer before you get him in trouble downloading and sharing those illegal files.

Yes, that must be why he is leaving. Or it might be the fact that he is getting up in age and wants to focus on other things. Its called retirement and EVERYONE does it. Please, go troll elsewhere

1.) Bill is stepping down. Not leaving. He will still be an employee of Microsoft.

2.) You are assuming again that UAC will not evolve. I believe you are sorely mistaken.

You are one of the few people that are disillusioned enough to still support a company where the founder is even leaving it.

Get the facts straight. Then we'll talk.

Bill Gates is leaving his position but he is not going to entirely leave the company.

Yes, and you seem to be so well informed on what the media isnt telling us. Please, keep telling me more

No, he isn't. He is stepping down so that the failures of MS won't be on his head anymore. MS is creating crap and you all know it. You just have to defend them and refute facts as opinions. However, about Bill stepping down I have no facts on that and it is 100% opinion, but it is based on the fact the he is stepping down just when MS is on a fast track to hell. MS was a great company at one time, but no more.

Errm, if Microsoft REALLY want people not to turn of UAC, then release a newer build than Beta 2..

As it is, in Beta 2, UAC has to be disabled, before it drives you insane..

For those with Beta 2, here is how to disabled UAC.

Start Menu, type is MSCONFIG (enter), then click the last tab on the R/H side, there is a option to disable UAC.

Release a newer build like they did last week you mean?

To the public? No..
To MSDN Subscribers? No..

It was only released to a small group of connect beta testers..

They are not under obligation to release *any* build to *anyone*.

We will see how well they fixed it come RC1. We *can* however, provide feedback to both MS and the Connect Beta testers in the meantime.

Getting pissy at MS for not giving us another build prior to RC1 is a little 'spoiled brat'-ish.

Then MS should not come crying to us about disabling UAC. That was the whole point of my thread.

The TOOL in your name, really does describe you. I have never asked for a newer build, I simply turn of UAC, but f Microsoft really don't want people to disable UAC, then they should release a build of Vista that has the friendly UAC.

Yeah... why would they want to test it in the real world before refining it? It would be stupid to base your changes on user feedback.

BTW, it looks like you did ask for a newer build.

It has been over a decade and they still haven't even fixed the the file system, yet. Why should we expect them to fix anything?

That is a troll if I've ever heard one.

Good on you, mate.

have never asked for a newer build...Errm, if Microsoft REALLY want people not to turn of UAC, then release a newer build than Beta 2..

Looks that way to me.

And again with the Tool. You people actually think I've never heard that before? You are niether clever, or funny.

Calling me a troll for pointing out the fact the MS hasn't been able to even fix the file system in over 14 years. Yet, you expect them to fix something like this? Get a grip.

There are support groups for people like you.

Errm, if Microsoft REALLY want people not to turn of UAC, then release a newer build than Beta 2..

As it is, in Beta 2, UAC has to be disabled, before it drives you insane..

For those with Beta 2, here is how to disabled UAC.

Start Menu, type is MSCONFIG (enter), then click the last tab on the R/H side, there is a option to disable UAC.

So, I guess this build is fake then

http://www.winsupersite....sta_5465_gallery_01.asp

Perhaps you should check your info before you post since this is a post beta 2 build

What exactly is wrong with the filesystem? I've never had issues with it. Perhaps a little more insight than simply stating something is broken would help people in understanding what exactly, if anything, you are talking about

Are you for real? You have never had the very common problems of the unstable fat and fat32 They don't even last a year on most computers that are used ever 1 hour a day for a year. NTFS is just not secure as it was once claimed and when you delete something it really just hides the name and that isn't even all of the time. NTFS is not stable and never has been, better that fat and fat 32, but it's still limited and doesn't play well with anything and corrupts way to much information. Any tech that has worked on computers for any length of time is able to tell you all of that.

I am sure you would like to visit a few.

http://www.find-a-psychiatrist.com/
It's not that bad for people like you: http://kidshealth.org/ki...going_to_therapist.html
http://panicdisorder.abo...cation/ht/findpsych.htm

Funny, aside from the fat comments (which I agree with, and microsoft wont be fixing since they are trying to phase out the FAT filesystems for use on pc's (aside from USB sticks or digital camera media)), I dont agree with your NTFS comments.

NTFS has been nothing but stable for me. I've worked on computers since the late 80's and I have never had a problem on any of the pc's I've worked with when it comes to NTFS. Fat16/32, yes, they had stability issues and corruption issues, but it was also designed in another era of computing and wasnt designed for usage as the standard computer user see's it today.

As for security, you claim its not as secure as it was, please explain. I have never had a security issue, nor have I seen one with NTFS. You claim it corrupts information, again, on the thousands of pc's i've worked on, including the hundreds I work on every day with the US Army, I've not once encountered a problem with the NTFS filesystem when it comes to security or data integrity. The only compatibility issue I've seen is when mixing it in the linux environment since a stable ntfs driver for linux doesnt exist.

Trust me, if security were as big of an issue as you claim it is in regards to NTFS, I dont think that the DoD would be using it. As it is, it meets the governements C2 security rating for handling Top secret data, so it must be doing something right.

Unless you use a strong encryption anyone with access to the PC or even the hard disk can take ownership of the files. Now tell me how is that secure?

If you leave your account without a password, then yes, anyone can do it.

Even with a password. I do it almost everyday. People will mess up the computer and want to keep some file, so I just drop the drive into another system and go in as admin and select the folders I want to get the information from and remove the old ownership and create a new one. It takes less than 5 minutes on any ntfs as long as it isn't encrypted then it would take a hell of a lot longer.

That's just BS from somone who does not know how to use file security.

"NTFS is just not secure as it was once claimed"

"as long as it isn't encrypted then it would take a hell of a lot longer."

Make up your mind, either it's secure or it's not...

Your arguments change more often than your mom's boyfriend...

Have you tried here: http://en.wikibooks.org/...Computers_for_Beginners

What's wrong with the filesystem?

You haven't backed up any of your claims. I would venture to guess it's a subjective issue *you* have with it, and not an actual flaw in the system.

I never said it wasn't fake, I said it's got a very restricted release... Perhaps you should check your info before you post...

Here is your post

"Errm, if Microsoft REALLY want people not to turn of UAC, then release a newer build than Beta 2.."

Implying that microsoft hasnt released a built newer than beta 2

Nowhere in your post did you say they released a private update. So it looks like I did check my info, as you didnt do in your original post

Ever ghost a computer only to find that the NTFS MFT is hosed, and you can never take another ghost image of that box again?

It's happened to me 4-5 times now. NTFS MFT fragments, and defrag / scandisk won't fix it. Symantec recommends diskkeeper, but that usually doesn't work either.

Ever use ERD commander? I could have your password in minutes.

Rip your drive out, stuff it in another computer and unless it's encrypted I own it.

Really, Linux is no better in this regard unless you use an encrypted filesystem or my fav, encrypted 4.7GB images that can be burned to DVD (still encrypted)

There is nothing wrong with NTFS IMHO.

I don't think you have any idea of what you are talking about. If you had even a 10th of the brains that my 5 year old son has, you would understand that just because it has a password doesn't mean it has a strong encryption as my post just before that one clearly stated and I was in a convo with Met and anyone that read it would see and understand what we were talking about. Thank you, and your retarded post as all of your posts have always been something that a 16 year old child that has never used a computer until the past few weeks would post.

Gawd21 says there is, though...so it *must* be true. ;P

Never had that happen to me. Immediately prior to Ghosting, I do an offline defrag using PerfectDisk. Defragments the pagefile, the mft, and the entire filesystem. Usually only takes about 20 minutes, if that.

Check it out, PD has yet to fail me. And no, I don't work for 'em. :P

NTFS is just not secure as it was once claimed and when you delete something it really just hides the name and that isn't even all of the time

Wow.

Your brilliance never ceases to amaze me. The above statement is true of virtually *every* filesystem currently known to man. Instead of writing a bunch of 1's and zero's, effectively ioncreasing the amount of time it takes to delete a file exponentially by size, it marks the file as 'ready to be written over'. This saves time, read/write cycles (an excellent thing if you happen to use flash drives for anything) and stress levels.

*Any* tech should know that.

We have a server here, running NT4, that's been up for 10 years without any data corruption. We've had an HDD failure on teh 2k server, but that's hardware. NTFS has yet to fail us.

First off I was referring to where you delete the file and it doesn't delete it and you lose that space. It will say it has been deleted and yet you can still see it and even rename it yet you can not delete it or use the space. Happens everyday all of the time all over the damn world. No when you really learn how to work on computers and not just be a runner then you might learn what really goes on and how the NTFS file system is not your savior and does not work as is should. The more you type your BS the more we know that you have had little to no time working with a computer other than maybe a minor network. I don't believe that you have ever had to work on more than a few personal computers. You make statements everyday that clearly shows that you don't see the errors or problems the 90% of the world does. You either lie or are to blinded by your love for MS to see the truth.

UAC is a lame approach. Instead of re-designing the architecture from scratch they simply put it in a lame patch process just like the infamous DEP that causes so many issues and drivers compatibility problems.

DEP is only an issue, if the deveoplers of the code did undocumented tricks and broken the rules, dynamic compilation for example.

...

"Sounds to me like Johansson
is copping an attitude. UAC
was beta tested and the testers
reacted honestly to it. If you
don't like the reaction you
might get, don't put the feature
in the test version. Better yet,
listen to what the testers said
and FIX the problem."

...

Amen, and amen !

Windows has always had the annoying habit of not
taking "no" for an answer.

UAC is a good thing if Microsoft implements it right.

But they ~must~ have the human engineering to make
it a workable solution !

There's absolutely NO good reason for more than a
single security prompt per event.

...

The Computer Rodent

...

True dat. I actually agree with you on that...if I am understanding you properly.

For instance:

Deleting a file. Once a file has hit the recycle-bin, no further prompts should be necessary to either restore or permenantly delete that file. (I'd say not to prompt on delete, and only prompt in the bin, but items are removed from the bin automatically when size becomes an issue and would lead to files being permenantly deleted without *any* prompt.)

Same goes for altering certain settings, like screen size. One should be prompted bringing up the display properties, but perhaps *not* for changing settings while *in* the properties window after already having given permission.

Makes more sense that way than they way it was in Beta 2.

Will wonders never cease....

This could help slow the spread of much hacker-ware through mainstream users. That's what features like this are truly meant for.

For the mid-level and hard-core PC user, of course we'll turn it off. But it is nice to know that the larger populous of computer using sheep will have some protections to help slow the eventual carnage.

Linux has made this work for years. Why not just copy that feature from a distro like Ubuntu?

It works.

Put in your password for sysadmin stuff and in a little while it "expires".

That's what UAC does... With the exception if you're on an Administrator account, then it doesn't even need a password, just a "Yes" or "No".

At the moment, there can be multiple prompts for a single action sometimes, but the Vista team has been working on reducing these (I hear the latest build of Vista already has reduced prompts since beta 2).

I thought that's what it did as well, however I have Beta2 (not the update) and seems to ask constantly instead of caching the "yes".

Could be that I'm just not doing stuff within it's timeframe before expiring though I guess.

Right, and when this is applied to Windows workstations, and the home user makes a change and then hops on the web, they are *completely* vulnerable until it 'expires'.

It works for linux due to the lack of exploits. It would not work for Windows.

Just open each individual program with the sysadmin privilages.

"It works for linux due to the lack of exploits"

There is no evidence to prove that it is not a viable solution.

There is a lack of exploits on Linux because it was built (for the most part) with security in mind.

Yeah, right. And next you'll tell me it has *nothing* to do with the gaping lack of a big red bullseye on it due to marketshare, right?

I'm not claiming linux is less secure *technically*, I am simply pointing out that a good *majority* of it's security is it's *obscurity*. At least among folks using credit cards and managing their personal data \ Finances online. ;)

If there was a greater majority of user doing so on Linux vs. Windows, you simply *cannot* deny Linux would not be hit over and over again. NO Operating system is invulnerable. Period.

Leaving itself open to attack for the duration of a log in, or even a 'little while' verges on criminal negligence in this day and age. Which is why MS is now trying to noodle a way to balance the security notices and useability.

I love Vista and use it daily but hate UAC. About the only thing that would be useful is to trim prompt to once per action (i.e. I really don't need to say yes do this, no really I mean it) and provide an easy to access and change way to allow a program to be "trusted". I've run Everquest 365 times this last year, odds are I really do want to trust this application! Let me say I trust something and then give me a list of the stupid stuff I said I trusted. Maybe only let me trust it the second time I've run the same program. There has to be a better alternative than ditching software I've been using forever (not going to happen) and forcing me to mindlessly click allow a gazillion times a day until I find myself accepting crap I really don't trust (or turning off UAC).

I havent had any problems with the UAC. Perhaps it's because i'm used to it, with ZoneAlarm Pro's similar security feature.

My My, and still they come.. another version of windows, more problems todeal with

Yes, the way you deal with it is disable it if necessary.

To deal with? Try *not* downloading it. If you can't handle a Beta, wait for the final.

UAC is thoroughly annoying as of beta 2. So what? Geeks will turn it off. But you can just already imagine that just like msmsgs, every time you run anything like that, it'll reappear. This is a major problem. Spongy is right; you need to be able to say "ok" to something forever. At least a year.

All kinds of msgboxs are why they got rid of Windows Messenger, right?

You are referring to the Messenger Service in Windows, not Windows Messenger which is akin to MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger.

Funny, msmsgs disappeared and never came back when I got rid of it.

Besides, disabling UAC is an option selectable form msconfig. A single option. No hacks, no mmc snap in, no elaborate methods needed to make it stop.

As for disabling prompts for a program, whether totally or just for a specific operation forever or for a long long time... sometimes it would be good, but it would depend on the scope. Disabling ALL prompts for a new program is usually not a good idea, however an "Always allow this program to access this file" checkbox, for example, could definately be useful.

For now if you trust a program and want to allow it to do whatever without disabling UAC and without prompts, right click on the EXE or shortcut and run as administrator. You will get one prompt to launch the program and that's it.

Just note that ANY PROGRAM THIS PROGRAM LAUNCHES will have the SAME PRIVILEDGES... no prompt either, so don't go doing it to a program you frequently launch other apps from (or a browser).

Actually once you turn UAC off, it's off unless you turn it back on. Already checked it out myself. As MAZZTer said it's not that hard. msconfig isn't the only way to disable it though. It can also be disabled through the control panel. Hard isn't it?

Sounds to me like Johansson is copping an attitude. UAC was beta tested and the testers reacted honestly to it. If you don't like the reaction you might get, don't put the feature in the test version. Better yet, listen to what the testers said and FIX the problem.

I suggest that Microsoft look into a system similar to the one used by ZoneLabs for okaying programs to access the network. Several times UAC asked me about the same program, especially on startup. I should be able to approve that program forever.

If Microsoft wants people to use UAC, they need to find a good balance between security and the user experience. Right now, UAC feels like
Microsoft clubbing the user over the head with a huge over-reaction. I know they are tired of being slammed for security issues, but making the security unusable will only get it turned off and the problems will continue.

So, you approve your browser forever, then someone/something hijacks your browser and it starts making system changes.
Where did the security go?

Oversimplifying? Or just feeling dumb?

if the browser is secure then you wont have that problem.

Seriously....

If a user wishes to install new software or change systems settings, they will need to enter credentials and verify the process.

Once initial set-up is done, how often is a normal user going to actually encounter this???

A lot of folks seem to be making *way* to big a fuss about this.

Same thing OS X for Mac does.

No, not nearly as intrusive.

And, not nearly as secure.

Sorry but, whats the point of having a single token. You might as well just ... NOT have it in that case.

Neither of us knows how secure UAC is, yet. One thing is for sure tho, if users feel they have to turn it off, it won't be secure at all.

Buahahaha, i'd get UAC up all the time! i'm always making major system changes and installing new software!!!

And are you a normal user? If you are using betanews, you obviously arent the normal home user.

Wait a minute. There are a million software programs out there. I'm supposed to set up my system once and not change it, or otherwise I'm abnormal?

I'll be happy to turn it off, disable it, or kill it with third-party software if it annoys me. People need to remember: it's my computer and I know the risks. Don't dumb down MY computer just because everyone else is an idiot.

The problem really isn't with Windows Vista. The problem is with software developers who develop Windows applications. Most applications, including games, do NOT need administrative rights but since everyone has been running Windows XP and earlier as an administrator the software developers figure there is no need to fix their software.

In Linux and Unix it is extremely rare to require root permissions to run any software application.

i'm always making major system changes and installing new software!!!

Hence why I specified 'normal' users.

Reading comprehension can be your friend.

Again, not you, genious.

An average user will install or ungrade an app what, once a month, if even that?

it's my computer and I know the risks. Don't dumb down MY computer just because everyone else is an idiot.

Riiiiight. So, we'll leave the OS unprotected, and let the majority of users fend for themselves while the few who actually have the time and inclination to mess around with it can be safe.

Elitist.

Go ahead and turn it off. You know how. 90% of MS users would *not* know how to turn it *on*. MS enables it by default for *those* users. If they did not, 90% of the systems sold with Vista would be just as vulnerable as an unmodified XP install is.

lmao...

How many user are going to know *how* to turn it off?

There will be 500 websites out there to tell them how. Heck, somebody will release a "patch" to do it for them.

Hopefully it will be improved and won't be an issue by the time Vista is released.

Riiiiight.

First, they need to know what UAC even stands for. Don't know how it is where you live, but 'round here, the average user doesn't know the difference betweeen a CPU and a computer chassis.

I hope they improve it, but I don't see neophyte users who can barely manage to import pics from a camera to be able to disable it.

I am assuming they will make it better. If any user is determined enough (annoyed enough?) they will find a way.

"An average user will install or ungrade an app what, once a month, if even that?"

Well, I guess it all depends on the applications this normal user uses, really...

For example, my wife, who is very normal user :), plays World of Warcraft. The game actually patches itself every tuesday, so just there, we have 4 interventions.

I'm not saying it's a lot, though. It's just that since the internet is becoming more accessible, and that applications are being more *aware* of this situation, system or application modifications are more frequent.

More and more programs have some type of checkbox/option for "Check for updates" now.

Vla

[Edit]
PS. You're right though as far not removing the UAC. I'd probably not even tell anyone in the family that the feature can be deactivated just to be sure the system stays "clean"

How long do you think it would take even a 13 year old child that is sick of seeing the pop ups to do a google or yahoo search to find out how to turn it off? All of 5 seconds?

That whole post is just naive and retarded. Do you really think that if they are going to upgrade or buy Vista that they would do it if their friends or family say how it has pop ups for everything and do you think that people won't be able to find out what it is called within the first few days of using it? You want to try and bash my posts for stupid comments, but that post was really stupid!

it has pop ups for everything

Really? For opening MS Works? For saving a document? For reading an Email? For browsing the Web? For putting the computer into sleep mode? Opening a PDF? Clicking Start - Programs - Quicken?

Sorry. When acutally *using* the computer, and not *configuring* the computer, the "pop-ups" virtually disappear. Other than deleting a file, they won't see it once.

Stupid? No, just not blinded by an absurd hate for anything Microsoft.

No you are just getting stupid. As if that is anything new for you.
No, you are blinded by your love of an illegally ran and crap producing company.

"We can try to plead with the app vendors to fix their stuff"
"We can stop buying these defective apps"

yes johansson, that's the answer, bash the companies making software for your bull$hit OS.

Not really, Microsoft is partially the problem, but majority of apps these days aren't applying to proper standards. Apps should never need full system control to work, yet tons do, and those are the apps that need to be fixed.

Every time I install an Nvidia driver it attempts to disable Norton Antivirus. With no warning to the user whatsover. Why? If there are no viruses in their software, why do they feel the need to do this? Are Norton's default heuristics *really* going to go off because you're installing a driver? Maybe this is the kind of thing that Microsoft is talking about when they refer to apps that need "fixed". In principal I agree with them. However, this is just a symptom of the inherently bad design in Windows. You can't do ANYTHING in 2000/XP/2003 of signifigance without admin rights. Why didn't M$ provide devs with some kind of authentication to verify their apps, or at least drivers? Oh wait, they did - its called the logo program and they make vendors PAY for the priviledge. Imagine GM making Delco pay for the priviledge of making parts for their cars. Its a safe bet than any sort of logo program for apps would involve similar kickbacks to Redmond. Microsoft will never, ever learn, and Vista will be lambasted upon release, patched and then patched again until its somewhat usable, then hacked in order to be TRULY usuable, rinse and repeat ad infinitum..

If only Jobs wasn't an arrogant elitist. Apple could've ruled the world.

It's because the NAV system services and processes interact with the OS at a low level, preventing proper drivers installation.
It's NAV at fault, not Nvidia.

The reason NAV goes offline was provided, but as an extension, I'd like to ask why you think MS's Windows OS is soo badly designed that it requires admin rights to run applications.

I think this is a bit of an ignorant statement, the problem is because an unbelievable amount of developers and by extension entire dev teams. Don't actually know how to adhear to proper standards.

As a developer, if you come across a problem with your method. Do you just p&%s and moan that it isn't your fault, or do you rethink (and often find the true correct way) to resolve the problem.

Truth is, a majority of the problems are from folder privileges, reading and writing into system spaces such as program files and windows during application use. All it takes from developers is to write their applications to read-write these parts into user space. It's only one more dynamic change from where their at now. But even MS didn't wanna leave this up to devs because soo many programs would not work anymore, so MS built Vista to run a bit of a 'training' system that will automatically redirect these calls to a user space seamlessly.

The only problem I can see with this, is developers STILL won't learn, and will just continue to let Windows redirect their malformed coding.

But realistically what should happen is, by the SP2 of Vista, or the next OS. This redirection should be turned off, and any applications that don't work, should be corrected by the devs who created it.

But MS isn't blameless themself, but it's in really an ignorance rather than a cheap resolve.

The Windows OS was never designed to take this kinda level of security, it could never of been predicted wayyy back then. Yet MS won't drastically change the OS as their scared they will disown quite a big user base. NTFS is still designed to be DOS compliant because some devs still like to use DOS elements such as batches.

If MS had some balls they would update their OS often, and each time would really prune the OS to more current standards.

That's the nightmare of Windows development right now. It's soo good because it's soo general purpose, but it's also what's slowing it's development down.

MS has a pretty simple choice, they start a more 'OS X' style releasing system, and like I said, prune the OS often. Meaning the development of the OS can push forward in meaningful ways for the user.

Or, MS can do another Vista, and plough through a minefield of legacy programming and standards while trying to make the OS more and more modern.

No WinFS. Yes UAC. No Vista for me until SP1!

Same here. I'll be sticking with 2003.

Based on the current test version, SP1 might be a good call, but it's still too early to tell.

Yup to early to tell wait for the RCs before making the call but XP is good enough for now i will wait till hardware prices drop a bit before i dive in since i want it running full featured and lag iritates me:)

Well, and I don't see the need to buy a 32-bit version of Vista and then turn around and buy a 64-bit version when my next computer will be a 64-bit machine in a year or two.

Microsoft should sell a single license and let customers switch from 32bit to 64bit free of charge.

Wouldn't it come *with* the computer?

They are. Both 32 and 64 bit versions are apparently on the same installation disc. You can switch at will.

In my book, waiting until SP1 is always a good idea regardless of the product.

I did the same thing with 2000 and XP.

You are incorrect. Why are you even commenting when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about?

The x86 and x64 builds come on SEPERATE dvd's, genius. And they both need SEPERATE licenses. They are not interchangable.

You are incorrect. Why are you even commenting when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about?

The x86 and x64 builds come on SEPERATE dvd's, genius.

The last official word on this was back in the Beta 1 timeframe where they were going to attempt to have all versions on a single DVD as suggested by johnus. And that switching between editions (e.g Home->Premium) was going to cost but switching from 32x bit to 64x bit would be free.

Now obviously, at least with Beta2, the code size is too big to fit everything on a single DVD hence the two discs. But why does that in itself indicate they are going to renege on their original promise. Or have you heard something from Microsoft more recently about what their plans are.

The currently builds are seperate because it's in beta, and testers can download DVD ISO images, for