Removed Windows Vista from machine

[manicd]

Could not install my Umax 2000u usb scanner under Vista, which wasn't
a big deal since it's time to replace it (have had it since W98). Had
to constantly play with permissions for the various folders, etc on MY
machine, but at least there were workarounds. All my software I had
installed (Works 7.0 suite, Office Pro 2000, Roxio Basic DVD 7.0,
Money 2006, Win DVD, etc.).

The primary reason I ended up removing Vista from my machine was the
simple fact that Norton Internet Security does not work on Vista. I
like Norton becuase it has always worked, allows me to block cookies
from particular sites, allows me to control what programs access the
internet, blocks ads from most sites (I have never clicked on an ad
in 10 years anyways and never will) and becuase it my opinion, is the
best all-around security product out there. And since I do a lot of
browsing of the internet, need quality protection.

When Norton releases a version to work on Vista, I plan to jump back
on the Vista bandwagon.

Hint to MS, Since you are releasing so many versions of Vista anyways,
why not release one for single user machines. That way single users
have a simple way to have full access to every folder and item on
their machine without having to jump through hoops to get into them.
Don't mention UAC, for that is very limited. I for one like my machine
customized to the way I want it. At lease with XP, I could easily
change were the some of system folders were easily through tweak. I
don't want my pictures or videos under my documents. I like using my
documenst just for the items that need backing up on a regular basis.
Just store it in my documents and it's backed up.

 

[WILL.I.AM]

hello there, i had the same problem too... when i was trying to open any
folder or program, the system stoped it by itself and asked to continue or
cancel... i was giving up, but then i thought there is the name User Account
Control... So what you have to do is...

1.Go to Control Panel.
2.Then click in User Accounts.
3.the last click in Change Security Settings.
*there you have to turn off the UAC.

and that's all... after that you can open any program without the Window
Microsoft Security can close it or stop it.

 

[manicd]

But that UAC did not turn off all security. I still had to change
permissions on each way too many folders I wanted access to on MY
machine. Like I said, I didn't like it but there were workarounds.

I feel that being MY machine, I should have FULL access to every nook
and cranny on it. There needs to be a global switch that will grant
FULL permission on MY machine.

If this machine was owned by somebody else and I was only authorized
to use it, I could go along with the security.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Sorry you feel that way about it but the security model is designed to keep
YOUR machine YOURS by preventing bots and such from taking it away from you.
It also protects us by your not having an infected machine. Nevertheless,
you are right to feel entitled to do with your machine as you wish and the
best of luck to you with it.

 

[Bill]

My first reaction to all security features in Vista was - yeah right!
BUT, after using it for a few days, getting used to the features, I have
accepted them as the way ''to do business'' these days.

Similar to the extra search processes at the airport...............''the
times they are a changin''

 

[manicd]

What's to stop a bot from changing permissions?

That's why a quality program like Norton Internet Secuirty is used.
It has protected me from everthing since I started using it a few
years ago. Norton has kept MY machine MINE.

 

[manicd]

There is no need to business that way these days if you use a proper
security program to begin with. That's why I only use Norton Internet
Security. (No, I do not work for or sell Norton) It is a quality
program that has protected me without fail.

Just becuase Windows has a ton of security problems, doesn't mean I
need to have to jump through hoops on MY own machine. If Windows was
properly written to begin with, these problems would not exist. And
no, I would never use that other computer known as Mac. I mean
really, their logo is an apple with a bite taken out of it. The
person who took the bite realized how rotten it was and didn't finish
it.

I don't have a problem at airports for I no longer fly. I refuse to
use an industry that has always ignored the safety of their customers
as history has proven out by there constant refusal to install saftey
measures until people are killed or injured. Nuff said about that.

 

[Peter M]

Under Vista a bot won't be able to change permission since it won't have a
security profile which is why we have to dance thru hoops with UAC as is and
it's all for the better (I can't say about tomorrow.. lot of
hackers/virus/trojan writers are as good as anyone).. And if you think
Norton is quality, sorry but Norton went downhill when Peter Norton left the
company years ago. Symantec Corp. AV is the only really good thing they make
IMHO. NIS is adequate at best and I can think of a few AVs off the top of my
head that are better and Vista's firewall can do what Norton's does if one
takes the time with the advanced one. I won't say NIS doesnt work, it does,
but it's tres heavy on resources and ram and it's not foolproof, nothing is
really.

 

[Bill]

We all have the right to do as we please. I wouldn't have a Norton Product
on my machine. Choice is good - I've made mine.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I reluctantly have to agree. I hate to diss a product line but as good as
some of the Symantec products are I have had too many late night sessions
picking registry entries out of my system after a Live Update mess. I just
am not up to digging into my system to fix a commercial product. I have had
such issues on three of my computers and life is just too short.

 

[Chad Harris]

You should stay off the Norton bandwagon and jump on the Win One Care Live
bandwagon--presumably some day MSFT will get WOC working on Vista. 3
Licenses; good backup to media or HD; firewall that will eventually mature
to the same one in Vista. Doesn't take up as much realestate as Symantec
products; less buggy; less CPU use. You also should use some feedback
mechanism to tell them.

CH

 

[Homer J. Simpson]

I feel that being MY machine, I should have FULL access to every nook

and cranny on it. There needs to be a global switch that will grant
FULL permission on MY machine.

The problem with every previous version of Windows is that most people run
it as admin--granting them full access to every nook and cranny. If you run
as an admin, then any code that runs under your account, malicious or not,
also runs with the exact same credentials.

Every security book under the sun will tell you that granting yourself only
the minimum rights you need to get your job done (and nothing more) is A
Good Thing(tm). One of the reasons there are (comparitively) few effective
attacks on Linux systems is that nobody (by default) runs as root--there's a
world of difference right there. The successful attacks are those running
under an elevated context.

I understand perfectly your feeling that it's YOUR machine and as such you
should have FULL access to it. That perception stems, if nothing else, from
the "this is how we've always done it in the past" perception. Guess what,
this is exactly why it's so easy to exploit a Windows box, and this is
exactly why this needs to change. The instant you go out of your way to
bypass the security put into place in Vista to avoid "all them annoying
prompts" and make it act like previous versions, well, indeed, Vista becomes
just as insecure as those previous OSes.

Believe me, I find it annoying to no end too, and I'll also be the last one
to step up in favor of Linux, but "they" got the right idea from the start.
It'll take Windows users a lot of "unlearning" their bad habits, and it'll
take developers a long time fix their software because it's been built with
the incorrect assumption that it's got rights to everything. This ain't DOS
anymore...

 

[RJ]

I have to agree. I have been using XP Pro since it came out.
I have never had a virus infection or spyware infection on my PCs, and I am
logged in as an Administrator everytime I log in. It all
has to do with knowledge and using the proper security tools.

MS has taken so much heat about the insecurity of Windows. And the
reason is the design of Windows. Now, with Vista, you have whole
sections of the file system that are blocked, by default, using the Deny privalege!

You should only use Deny in certain circumstances. In Vista, even an Administrator
can't view certain folders, without changing the security on the folders first.
From a support perspective, this will be a major headache and problem.

MS has had to take this drastic (and stupid) step, again, because of the design
of Windows. You would think they would have learned from Linux, especially since
they have a very large Linux lab in Redmond.