>
He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
these problems.
>
Microsoft have now admitted that they implemented UAC not to improve
security but to cause complaints from customers so that application
vendors would stop their programs from taking actions that needed UAC
confirmation.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new _zealandwrote:
>In message <MPG.23530325d1 f084f98976a@new s.individual.de >, Thorsten Kampe
>wrote:
>
>* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)
>>
>>In message <48e75d94$0$253 03$426a74cc@new s.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
>>NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:
>>>
>Another way is to de-activate UAC.
>>>
>>Please don't be stupid!
>>
>He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
>these problems.
>
>Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.
That depends entirely on your audience. For developers, UAC is provably
detrimental to productivity. I have no hesitation recommending its
disablement in that case. As a driver developer, I use Device Manager a
LOT. It didn't take me long to pull the plug.
Now, if you have an office floor full of secretaries and salesmen, then I
think they SHOULD be frightned if they touch the wrong buttons.
--
Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)
In message <MPG.23530325d1 f084f98976a@new s.individual.de >, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)
In message <48e75d94$0$253 03$426a74cc@new s.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:
>
Another way is to de-activate UAC.
>
Please don't be stupid!
He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
these problems.
>
Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.
YOU don't recommend it. I don't "recommend" it either - all the people I
know (and this includes Microsoft techsupport people) do it anyway
without recommendation.
He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
these problems.
>
Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.
>
YOU don't recommend it. I don't "recommend" it either - all the people I
know (and this includes Microsoft techsupport people) do it anyway
without recommendation.
Be that as it may, it is still enabled by default, isn't it?
So advice that requires it to be disabled (or the Administrator
account enabled) ought to mention such a pertinent fact, shouldn't it?
In message <hshle4pqbo2h1d kq274h6ncl0s7ja 5j48u@4ax.com>, Tim Roberts wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new _zealandwrote:
>
>>In message <MPG.23530325d1 f084f98976a@new s.individual.de >, Thorsten Kampe
>>wrote:
>>
>>* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)
>>>
>>>In message <48e75d94$0$253 03$426a74cc@new s.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
>>>NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:
>>>>
>>Another way is to de-activate UAC.
>>>>
>>>Please don't be stupid!
>>>
>>He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
>>these problems.
>>
>>Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.
>
That depends entirely on your audience. For developers, UAC is provably
detrimental to productivity. I have no hesitation recommending its
disablement in that case. As a driver developer, I use Device Manager a
LOT. It didn't take me long to pull the plug.
Is that why Dimdows device drivers are so crap? Because they're written by
people like you, who think they know better than Microsoft?
In message <MPG.2355bd6525 d47bdc98976b@ne ws.individual.d e>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)
>
>In message <MPG.23530325d1 f084f98976a@new s.individual.de >, Thorsten Kampe
>wrote:
>>>
>>* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)
>>>
>>>In message <48e75d94$0$253 03$426a74cc@new s.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
>>>NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Another way is to de-activate UAC.
>>>>
>>>Please don't be stupid!
>>>
>>He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
>>these problems.
>>
>Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.
>
YOU don't recommend it. I don't "recommend" it either - all the people I
know (and this includes Microsoft techsupport people) do it anyway
without recommendation.
I find that hard to believe. Any company that would spend so much time and
effort developing and promoting such a feature on one hand, while quietly
disabling it on the other hand, would have to be sick.
In message <MPG.2355bd6525 d47bdc98976b@ne ws.individual.d e>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:
>
>* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)
>>
>>In message <MPG.23530325d1 f084f98976a@new s.individual.de >, Thorsten Kampe
>>wrote:
>>>* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)
>>>>
>>>>In message <48e75d94$0$253 03$426a74cc@new s.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
>>>>NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Another way is to de-activate UAC.
>>>>Please don't be stupid!
>>>He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
>>>these problems.
>>Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.
>YOU don't recommend it. I don't "recommend" it either - all the people I
>know (and this includes Microsoft techsupport people) do it anyway
>without recommendation.
>
I find that hard to believe. Any company that would spend so much time and
effort developing and promoting such a feature on one hand, while quietly
disabling it on the other hand, would have to be sick.
Well, that's certainly a more realistic assessment of Microsoft. Though
in fact they are just a big company with a huge backward compatibility
anchor. Just in case you jumped in without reading this whole thread, I
repeat:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:47:54 +1300)
In message <MPG.2355bd6525 d47bdc98976b@ne ws.individual.d e>, Thorsten
Kampe wrote:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)
In message <MPG.23530325d1 f084f98976a@new s.individual.de >, Thorsten
Kampe wrote:
>* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)
>>
>>In message <48e75d94$0$253 03$426a74cc@new s.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
>>NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:
>>>
>>>Another way is to de-activate UAC.
>>>
>>Please don't be stupid!
>>
>He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
>these problems.
>
Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.
YOU don't recommend it. I don't "recommend" it either - all the
people I know (and this includes Microsoft techsupport people) do it
anyway without recommendation.
>
I find that hard to believe. Any company that would spend so much time
and effort developing and promoting such a feature on one hand, while
quietly disabling it on the other hand, would have to be sick.
You can believe what you want. The people who developed UAC don't have
to support it.
Comment