"Vista UAC was put to annoy users"

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hatter

Inactive
Galvanizer
David Cross, a product manager responsible for designing UAC, gave the real reason for UAC at the RSA 2008 conference in San Francisco yesterday. "The reason we put UAC into the platform was to annoy users. I'm serious," remarked Cross.

Cross added that Microsoft's unorthodox method to stop users from wreaking havoc with their systems and to stop software makers from making applications that delved too far into the Windows subsystem was a necessary move.
Click to expand...
DailyTech - Microsoft Designed Vista's UAC to "Annoy Users"
 
That is really really old news. I actually heard that back when Vista was first released, and it makes sense.

If you are doing something that needs UAC a lot, you should wonder what exactly is going on that requires it - and maybe you should let your application developer know that too. A lot of them are quite responsive. Many of the applications that once threw UAC prompts for me now function flawlessly.

The problem I have with it is when for some Windows admin tasks (some file browsing, but not all) it throws up multiple prompts.
 
KingKrool said:
That is really really old news. I actually heard that back when Vista was first released, and it makes sense.
If you are doing something that needs UAC a lot, you should wonder what exactly is going on that requires it - and maybe you should let your application developer know that too. A lot of them are quite responsive. Many of the applications that once threw UAC prompts for me now function flawlessly.
The problem I have with it is when for some Windows admin tasks (some file browsing, but not all) it throws up multiple prompts.
Click to expand...

I think that is the point. When you have to do admin work, I think they want you to switch to an admin account to make sure you know what you are doing. (Like su in Linux).

Or are you saying that the prompts are when you are already in the admin account? (Haven't used Vista extensively, so maybe I am misunderstanding a few things here)
 
No, I'm talking about viewing certain directories. For example, when I use Vista's backup to backup my files it creates an admin-only folder on my disk. Which is good (I run the backup as admin, but I login as standard user). If I try browsing that folder, it throws a UAC prompt. Also OK. Then when I try going into one of the subfolders, it throws it again. And then when I try going deeper.... one more time. Basically it throws a UAC prompt at every level of the directory hierarchy.... which just doesn't make sense.
 
KingKrool said:
No, I'm talking about viewing certain directories. For example, when I use Vista's backup to backup my files it creates an admin-only folder on my disk. Which is good (I run the backup as admin, but I login as standard user). If I try browsing that folder, it throws a UAC prompt. Also OK. Then when I try going into one of the subfolders, it throws it again. And then when I try going deeper.... one more time. Basically it throws a UAC prompt at every level of the directory hierarchy.... which just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Oh OK. That does sound a bit stupid.:no:
 
KingKrool said:
it throws it again. And then when I try going deeper.... one more time. Basically it throws a UAC prompt at every level of the directory hierarchy.... which just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Did not read the article, but wat u say is just stupid, why the hell would MS do that. Dont they have some testers which test for bugs as well as the general usability of the product.
 
^I know people love to say that, but if you look at how OSes have sold traditionally, that is not the case. Vista has definitely had more bad press than any other MS OS, but that doesn't make it a flop. It may not be the resounding success MS wanted it to be, but that is neither here nor there.
 
SharekhaN said:
Vista is the plague of the world. Whatever u say the OS is a flop na?
Click to expand...

Vista UAC isn't that bad actually. When it's sitting quiet like a runaway cat on the highway, I don't mind it at all. When it suddenly gets up from the dead though and lashes at me with its mangled claws, that's when it really gets to me. Which is most of the time, unfortunately.
 
tracerbullet said:
Vista UAC isn't that bad actually. When it's sitting quiet like a runaway cat on the highway, I don't mind it at all. When it suddenly gets up from the dead though and lashes at me with its mangled claws, that's when it really gets to me. Which is most of the time, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
UAC is probably good for beginners and those not computer savvy (which is a huge % of the population). If you're an intermediate or advanced user, nobody is stopping you from turning off UAC and other notifications.

Vista isn't as bad as it was initially projected to be... 4 months into using Vista, I have grown to like it for various reasons. The most notable for me is how good it is for music production (a pleasant surprise) - nowhere close to a Mac in this department but it certainly is much better than XP.
 
I actually like having UAC on..
It just give me satisfaction that all exe files require my permission to run...
 
No... that article indicates exactly what is correct. The whole point in UAC is that people should separate out their applications into high and low privilege sections. That is exactly what those guys are doing in it. To be able to install the code that "gets around" UAC ... you need to first get past the UAC prompt.

It is sort of like saying that you can get around *nix security by running a daemon as root..... of course you can. You are supposed to be able to. The commenters on osnews pretty much trashed this article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom