The thing that i don't understand is that linux does the same thing right ? I havent used linux that much but I have seen the prompts that ubuntu throws up when trying to do things and also having to do sudo to do things.

So why is it that microsoft does it know and they get bashed but everybody defends linux for it?

In vista as long as you dont do something that needs admin access then the prompts dont come up.

The thing that i don't understand is that linux does the same thing right ? I havent used linux that much but I have seen the prompts that ubuntu throws up when trying to do things and also having to do sudo to do things.

So why is it that microsoft does it know and they get bashed but everybody defends linux for it?

In vista as long as you dont do something that needs admin access then the prompts dont come up.

It differs in that if you authorize the action in Linux, you don't get prompted 10 seconds later because you've accidentally closed the window. You are authorized for 5 or 10 minutes. UAC asks you every single time, so there is a big enough difference to not complain at all.

The thing that i don't understand is that linux does the same thing right ?

You only need it to do certain things such as install software for everyone. You can still download and run software without requiring elevated privileges, but you have to give it permission to execute which doesn't require a password, it's just a button click on a popup or an attribute change (right-click, Properties, Permissions, allow execution) if you want it to be permanent. You need to provide a password to write in system areas, and change global settings such as which system services are running and their configurations. You don't need it to open, move, copy files, delete shortcuts, run programs, empty trash, etc.

It differs in that if you authorize the action in Linux, you are authorized for 5 or 10 minutes.

It differs in that if you authorize the action in Linux, you don't get prompted 10 seconds later because you've accidentally closed the window. You are authorized for 5 or 10 minutes. UAC asks you every single time, so there is a big enough difference to not complain at all.

You don't need it to open, move, copy files, delete shortcuts, run programs, empty trash, etc.

Times like this I really enjoy Neowin. Very enlightening discussion people. Thanks!

What's to prevent something from hijacking the sudo grace period? Because I'm sure if Microsoft implemented it, with their market share, you'd have malware attacking it within seconds of its release.

That I've always wanted to know. Mind you, I like Ubuntu's implementation better. Also if that 'sticky UAC' seen in a test Windows 7 build makes it, it could solve headaches for people first configuring their fresh installs of Windows.

As I recall, none of the beta versions had UAC implemented, not even RC.

I've learned myself to live with UAC from the beginning. I don't have a problem with it. And it rarely appears. For normal users, I don't think UAC is a big problem. Having said that, UAC still need som tweaking of course.

As I recall, none of the beta versions had UAC implemented, not even RC.

What. Yeah, because they just threw it in at the last minute, didn't they?

Then which beta versions did you guys have? I can't remember having UAC in any of those I tried.

My problem with Vista's UAC is the fact that it seems to prompt you every time you try to delete a shortcut from the start menu. Now that is annoying - surely that is taking the idea too far!

Except that's it's not a SECURITY issue to delete (mistakenly or otherwise) a shortcut, no matter where it is or why it was put there. UAC does seem to stray a bit towards a Mommy model (now, honey, you sure you want to delete a shortcut?) rather than a purely Security Guard application.

Correct. If a program is written properly, UAC will not prompt for elevated access.

UAC need lots of works. At the point where we are today in term of technologies, they could have done a much better job, i.e. lot less prompt.

So yes, the inclusion of UAC in Vista is not a failure, but if you read between the lines of the article, what it is saying is that Vista with UAC is a marketing failure.

Oh, I understand very well how UAC works and you can blame the programmers if you want but that doesn't change the experience of most users. Most users don't understand why they get prompted anyway.

Again we are talking, marketing failure.

Yeap, that's right, MOST PEOPLE.

If you haven't got that yet, it must be because you're playing the ostrich.

Yeap, that's right, MOST PEOPLE.

If you haven't got that yet, it must be because you're playing the ostrich.

Gave me a break. You've been around here long enough. You know.

I agree with the majority of your post. However, this statement: "When you get the "setup your admin password now" prompt the first time you start your PC after a windows install, how difficult would it have been to insist upon a new user/pass being created following that step?" is incorrect. Microsoft set up the Out-of-box experience with the requirment to create a new user... however, the new user is put into the Administrators group by default. It should have been put into the "Power Users" group by default.

How dare people question Vista in any way. Its as perfect as Microsoft is.....

This is what happens when a minority believes that they're better than the majority. To the majority of users Vista is highly flawed. That is a fact. It is only a very small minority that have had little to no problems with it. Change has nothing to do with it either. That is as lame as blaming the users' equipment as well.

If you can pull out cited reputable sources that show clearly that most people of the hundred millions-odd that have already bought Vista have clearly stated that it's flawed, then and only then is it fact.

Simply put, you are the minority! Isn't it amazing that the minority believes that they're better than the majority (as you said)?

"I'm Sparticus!"... I bought a high spec. laptop, and had no choice but to buy it with Vista. I wiped it and installed XP.

A fact is it? Somehow I don't think so. If you can pull out cited reputable sources that show clearly that most people of the hundred millions-odd that have already bought Vista have clearly stated that it's flawed, then and only then is it fact.

Simply put, you are the minority! Isn't it amazing that the minority believes that they're better than the majority (as you said)?

Maybe you need to think about your statements before trying to pass opinion as fact.

Seem like also you shoudn't try to make a PVR using a PC running Vista:

http://www.windowsdailynews.com/2008/05/19...t-flag/#more-22

Except that report doesn't specify the app so for all we know it could be doing the same on XP, 2000 and whatever OS it can be installed on. In other words, it could very easily be the app itself that's the one honouring the "broadcast flag"!

Yep, the source is rubbish as it's devoid of details, so non-news really.

Ever heard of the term "irrelevant?"

It's obviously Windows Media Center from the screenshot. We've heard about this flag for a while now, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. In addition to the relationships MS has to keep with its customers, it has relationships to maintain with partners and other industries- like entertainment. You can bet that no one at Microsoft wanted to do this. If you're not satisfied with what Microsoft provides with Vista, then try a Media Center alternative.
And, if you really want to record American Gladiators... Read a fsckin' book!

Same vein. Vista is a marketing failure.

For it to be a marketing failure, it would've failed to sell. Considering the usual reputable business analysts have put sales of Vista above XP at the same point in time, I don't think Vista can be considered a marketing failure.

Sales ? You got to be kidding me.

Sales have nothing to do with that, Vista is a marketing failure because most people don't like Vista. It's a marketing failure because most business (like GM) have not adopted it.

Sales ? You got to be kidding me.

Sales have nothing to do with that, Vista is a marketing failure because most people don't like Vista. It's a marketing failure because most business (like GM) have not adopted it.