I know UAC is off...stop alerting me!!!

[Guest]

I've turned off,what is without a doubt, the dumbest feature in any version
of Windows (UAC) and now Windows Security Alerts (the dreaded red shield)
keeps popping-up every time I re-boot to remind me.

How can I stop this?

 

[Mac]

Security Centre, on the left at bottom - Change the way...

 

[Frank]

I've turned off,what is without a doubt, the dumbest feature in any version
of Windows (UAC) and now Windows Security Alerts (the dreaded red shield)
keeps popping-up every time I re-boot to remind me.

How can I stop this?

Easy...go to the security center in control panel and on the left...last
item...Change the way security center alerts me...click on it and make
your choice.
Frank

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Understanding User Account Control in Windows Vista
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/help/f941cb45-b2cd-4b39-ab87-cb9ea959f44e1033.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----

:

I've turned off,what is without a doubt, the dumbest feature in any version
of Windows (UAC) and now Windows Security Alerts (the dreaded red shield)
keeps popping-up every time I re-boot to remind me.

How can I stop this?

 

[Lang Murphy]

I've turned off,what is without a doubt, the dumbest feature in any
version
of Windows (UAC) and now Windows Security Alerts (the dreaded red shield)
keeps popping-up every time I re-boot to remind me.

How can I stop this?

Hmm... What exactly is the Windows Security Alerts attempting to alert you
to every time you boot?

Lang

 

[Spirit]

They need to have a setting so UAC can IGNORE certain programs after the
initial warnings.
I finally turned UAC off since there was no way to prevent it from warning
me over and over
each boot about several programs I use. I tried giving each program full
access rights and
all, and that worked for some, but to no avail for a lot of others. Logging
in as Admin made
no difference either.

If a program could have a FLAG set to have UAC ignore it, or a small file
that UAC checks
to see allowed programs then UAC would be GREAT!

 

[xfile]

I finally turned UAC off since there was no way to prevent it from warning

me over and over each boot about several programs I use.

As others rightfully pointed out and experienced by myself, turning UAC (and
Windows Firewall) off will also have silent side effects which make you even
more difficult to find out problems.

Their engineers should go back to elementary school to learn what is Yes and
No before joining the project.

 

[Rock]

They need to have a setting so UAC can IGNORE certain programs after the
initial warnings.
I finally turned UAC off since there was no way to prevent it from warning
me over and over
each boot about several programs I use. I tried giving each program full
access rights and
all, and that worked for some, but to no avail for a lot of others.
Logging in as Admin made
no difference either.

If a program could have a FLAG set to have UAC ignore it, or a small file
that UAC checks
to see allowed programs then UAC would be GREAT!

The reason it alerts at startup is because those apps are requesting admin
privileges, so the OS is asking you to confirm you want it to run with admin
privileges. This is a good thing. It gives you control over what runs on
the system that wants admin privileges. Setting a flag to authorize an app
from now on defeats this purpose.

Maybe if you understood more about what UAC is about you would turn it back
on. Here are some links about it.

Inside Windows Vista User Account Control (Mark Russinovich)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/06/UAC/default.aspx

Jesper Johansson's Blog
http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jes...-about-vista-features-what-uac-really-is.aspx

Why is Windows Vista always asking for my permission: An explanation of UAC
(User Account Control) by
MVP Jimmy Brush
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/security/uac.aspx

Windows Vista User Account Control Step by Step Guide (TechNet)
http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true

 

[Not Me]

I do understand what it is all about.
That's why I think it is a very poor idea and even worse on the
implementation!
Here, put on this NASCAR certified helment, flack jacket, Hockey goalie pads
and 10 armed guards to go to the mailbox & see if there is any junk mail...

 

[xfile]

Hi Rock,

I think this subject has been discussed so many times here several months
ago and sorry for brining it up again.

IMHO, the issue is not about its intensions and purposes, but is about the
"choice". If a user has made a conscious decision for not using it, that's
pretty much the end of the story. Any further interferences are considered
annoyances regardless of its intensions and purposes.

Now the question might be, how does it know if that is a user's decision? I
don't know and that's the challenge for brilliant engineers as opposed to
common users like myself.

But either way, the underlying principle should be the same - once user has
made a decision, any software and hardware should respect and follow that
decision and shouldn't do anything without the user's knowledge. Again, in
my humble opinion, that's what I'd call - user control.

 

[Rock]

I do understand what it is all about.
That's why I think it is a very poor idea and even worse on the
implementation!
Here, put on this NASCAR certified helment, flack jacket, Hockey goalie
pads and 10 armed guards to go to the mailbox & see if there is any junk
mail...

I disagree. It gives you control. If you don't want it then don't take it.
The choice is yours.

 

[Spirit]

I fully understand UAC, I just think its implementation is the pits! I am
usually logged in as
Admin and DO NOT NEED to be repeatedly told the same ALLOWED program wants
to do something..... there needs to be a way to STOP ITS NAGGING! I want a
DIVORCE
from UAC...... Nagging when something not FLAGGED as always allowed
would be
a good thing.

 

[Rock]

Hi Rock,

I think this subject has been discussed so many times here several months
ago and sorry for brining it up again.

IMHO, the issue is not about its intensions and purposes, but is about the
"choice". If a user has made a conscious decision for not using it,
that's pretty much the end of the story. Any further interferences are
considered annoyances regardless of its intensions and purposes.

Now the question might be, how does it know if that is a user's decision?
I don't know and that's the challenge for brilliant engineers as opposed
to common users like myself.

But either way, the underlying principle should be the same - once user
has made a decision, any software and hardware should respect and follow
that decision and shouldn't do anything without the user's knowledge.
Again, in my humble opinion, that's what I'd call - user control.

But that is exactly the issue - there is no way for the OS to know the
user's intention. Just because they ran it before doesn't mean they
intended it to run again.

This problem is greatly mitigated by using apps that are coded properly to
run with Vista's UAC. Many of the XP coded apps assumed the user is running
as an admin. But for many of these apps that's not needed. Why should an
app install an automatic update feature to check for updates at startup and
need admin privileges to do so, for example. That makes no sense. I don't
have anything running at startup that needs admin permissions so I never see
it.

There is the task scheduler work around to avoid this if it must be run at
startup.

I see it as giving the user, me, control over what runs with admin
privileges each and every time. I don't want an app deciding that.

I'm not telling anyone how to use their system. If they want to turn off
UAC, then fine. I just think it's a bad idea to do so. Many times that
decision is made hastily without knowing what UAC is really about, and
knowing there are options.

I post the info links so people can have a better understanding of it. They
can choose to do whatever they want.

 

[xfile]

Hi,

Sorry if I mislead you and it was not my intension.

Many of the XP coded apps assumed the user is running as an admin. But for
many of these apps that's not needed. Why should an app install an
automatic update feature to check for updates at startup and need admin
privileges to do so, for example. That makes no sense. I don't have
anything running at startup that needs admin permissions so I never see it.

There is the task scheduler work around to avoid this if it must be run at
startup.

Exactly! That's how I generally feel about those poorly written programs,
and in fact, I normally will stop using any programs/applications that
silently put auto startup/update option without telling a user or has to use
some tweak ultities to find out where they put autostart services.

And this is why I also feel it shouldn't happen in Windows. It should know
much better than that.

But that is exactly the issue - there is no way for the OS to know the
user's intention. Just because they ran it before doesn't mean they
intended it to run again.

That's true and I also understand it could be difficult, based on my poor
technical knowledge. For the same matter, it will never know for sure which
action is indeed from the user and I certainly can't image or appreciate if
it askes every keystroke or click I made. So the bottom line, using my
common sense, still is - when user says NO, with certain confirmations,
that's pretty much the end of the story.

I'm not telling anyone how to use their system. If they want to turn off
UAC, then fine. I just think it's a bad idea to do so. Many times that
decision is made hastily without knowing what UAC is really about, and
knowing there are options.

I post the info links so people can have a better understanding of it.
They can choose to do whatever they want.

Totally agreed. It's my fault and I don't mean you're telling anyone how to
use their systems. Sorry again if I mislead you to believe that.

 

[Rock]

Hi,

Sorry if I mislead you and it was not my intension.


Exactly! That's how I generally feel about those poorly written programs,
and in fact, I normally will stop using any programs/applications that
silently put auto startup/update option without telling a user or has to
use some tweak ultities to find out where they put autostart services.

And this is why I also feel it shouldn't happen in Windows. It should
know much better than that.


That's true and I also understand it could be difficult, based on my poor
technical knowledge. For the same matter, it will never know for sure
which action is indeed from the user and I certainly can't image or
appreciate if it askes every keystroke or click I made. So the bottom
line, using my common sense, still is - when user says NO, with certain
confirmations, that's pretty much the end of the story.


Totally agreed. It's my fault and I don't mean you're telling anyone how
to use their systems. Sorry again if I mislead you to believe that.

No need to apologize. You weren't misleading me. We were just discussing
viewpoints.

 

[Stephan Rose]

The reason it alerts at startup is because those apps are requesting admin
privileges, so the OS is asking you to confirm you want it to run with admin
privileges. This is a good thing. It gives you control over what runs on
the system that wants admin privileges. Setting a flag to authorize an app
from now on defeats this purpose.

No it does not defeat the purpose.

If someone has an app they know is *legitimate* and will *always* be
legitimate and they don't want to be bothered by prompts
every-friggin-time they start their computer then YES they should be
able to flag it as such!

What makes that so friggin hard to understand?

Not everyone gets an orgasm over authorizing their apps to do their
work on a daily basis...some just want to use their system without
constantly being bugged.

 

[xfile]

Thank you for your understanding

Take care for now.

 

[Rock]

No it does not defeat the purpose.

If someone has an app they know is *legitimate* and will *always* be
legitimate and they don't want to be bothered by prompts
every-friggin-time they start their computer then YES they should be
able to flag it as such!

What makes that so friggin hard to understand?

Not everyone gets an orgasm over authorizing their apps to do their
work on a daily basis...some just want to use their system without
constantly being bugged.

Well it seems you are the one who doesn't understand. I would say this
discussion has gone as far as it can.

 

[Stephan Rose]

Well it seems you are the one who doesn't understand. I would say this
discussion has gone as far as it can.

What I understand is this:

It is *my* computer...*my* system...*I* use it...
I want to behave the way *I* want to, not how *microsoft* wants to.

If I don't want to be bugged with security prompts then I as the user
of my system should have the ability to not be bugged.

Wether or not turning something of is deemed a good or bad thing is
irrelevant. As a user, it should be my choice!

 

[Manatee Memories]

I disagree. It gives you control. If you don't want it then don't take it.
The choice is yours.

Freedom is slavery? Slavery is freedom?

--

At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the
Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin
replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."