Hello,
Ignoring the parts of your posts not related to UAC ...
Since you snipped everything you were replying to I can only guess
you're responding to me.
Your problem is not with UAC or even Vista, it is with application
compatability.
Some programs don't work right when the system changes. UAC definately
counts as a system change.
UAC is PART OF THE SYTEM designed by Microsoft. You're talking
gibberish. If it actually was directly under your control it could be
useful. The implementation is flawed. This is very noticeable when
transferring applications from a older version of Windows to a new one
where UAC takes it upon it self to either give or reject permissions
where previously XP may have been and likely was set up differently.
The result can be a hodgepodge of messed up settings where UAC
decides, again on its own, this application is ok to have permission
to do blah, blah, but oh, not this one. How anyone can suggest this is
progress or a good idea is beyond me.
The concept is good, but the implementation is awful. A correct way to
proceed would be like many firewall applications behave when you first
install them. You install a firewall who's job it is to sit between
you and the Internet. Its purpose is to act as a traffic cop either
allowing or blocking access to incoming and outgoing applications that
wish access to the outside world. The UAC does no such thing, it just
does WHAT IT WANTS as in the example I gave. You then can't change the
behavior IT, not you, assigned. Again, that's not progress, that's
stupidity.
Vista does alot to work around this, but it still ain't perfect.
That's a understatement. In typical Microsoft fashion it not only is
clumsy, it often doesn't allow you to fix it, aside from turning this
"feature" off. Again, that's a step backwards, not forwards.
The fact is, Vista is different, and that will break things.
No, Vista's UAC is BROKEN and it breaks applications that worked in
previous versions of Windows and even breaks applications that are
suppose to be "Vista Ready". That blame falls squarely on Microsoft's
shoulders for not tesing compatibility BEFORE dumping Vista on the
unsuspecting masses that didn't expect the new version of Windows to
in effect prevent much of a user's software from funcioning. If you're
lucky at worst you get a nag screen you can click through. Often, you
can't easily control your own applications, Microsoft attempt to be
your mommy if you ask it to or not. Thanks, but no thanks.
It's been the same for every major OS upgrade, and it will continue to be that way.
So what you're saying is in spite of Windows being in "development"
for twenty years the Microsoft software engineers STILL haven't got a
version that actually works as advertised. Somehow that just don't cut
it with me. How much more time you think they will need? Just imagine
if this was any other industry. They would be laughed out of business.
At the core of many of Windows inbreed problems is the newest version
of Windows builds on the previous version in part in order to have
backward compatibility. That's a double edge sword at best. Whatever
is wrong or a clumsy "feature" of Windows gets carried into the next
version and in time (surely 20 years is enough) the result is a
hodgepodge of patched code, bloated code and code that barely works
and sometimes don't under certain situations. I see UAC as a clumsy
attempt to try to "fix" a lot of ills that's always infested Windows
and made it a easy target to hackers. The bottom line is Windows has
always been a sloppy, ill tested hodgepodge of sometimes it works,
someitmes it don't bloated coding.
For example, the reason your program in particular wasn't working is
probably because it wasn't requesting administrator rights. Programs have
to do that now.
You think? Well kid, you're dead wrong. I have some vintage Windows
3.1 era software running just fine on Vista. That kind of blows a
giant hole in your arguement I would think.
For example Windcode (a joiner/splitter) version 2.7.3 copyright
1993-96 Snappy Software. Back then there was no UAC, no NTSF, nothing
like that. Your argument that "it wasn't requesting administrator
rights. Programs HAVE TO DO THAT now" is also faulty since you can
turn off UAC and it works fine and it doesn't need the rights, what it
needs is to accept the rights you tell it the application HAS or
needs. Vista sometimes simply won't let you, graying out the boxes
that is suppose to make it possible or even removing any boxes. I
would call that a bug. You I suppose will try to call it a feature.
That's default double talk for Microsoft failings. They rarely admit
to having bugs in their software.
Further you seem confused. The question isn't was the program working,
rather Vista kept refusing to initalize it because of some half-ass
rights it ALREADY had if you can believe what Vista is showing under
the security tab for the application in question. That to me says
Vista is dumb. Very, very dumb.
it probably would have worked if you had right-clicked it
and clicked Run As Administrator.
No, because Vista halted it dead in its tracks at the application's
splash screen with the warning box on top of it preveing you from
doing anything other than to curse Windows for being so damn dumb.
Windows Vista does not block you from performing common or administrative
tasks.
ROTFLMAO! Read what I just said again. Slowly.
However, you may have trouble using non-vista-compatible programs to
perform those tasks.
More double talk.
.