Which is better:Windows XP or Windows Vista?

[Sajuuk]

Personally, I hate UAC, since I usually go into the system stuff every so often to check on how the laptop is performing.

But I don't see why this thread has to be turned into an argument over a thing that is pointless. :|

 

[Meadow]

I used to use XP, but now I think Vista is better because I can't get used to any other Windows software.

 

[beauty. proletariat]

Personally, I hate UAC, since I usually go into the system stuff every so often to check on how the laptop is performing.

But I don't see why this thread has to be turned into an argument over a thing that is pointless. :|

It is all relevant in which operating system "wins" as the main thing that vista is being marketed through is "added security" and better cosmetics.

 

[linkinpark187]

You have stated that UAC can remove a trojan virus :|

You wanna try re-reading what I wrote?

What are you going to do when a really nasty trojan virus installs itself

The UAC will prevent this in such way that it's going to ask you if you want to allow it to continue to install. I DID NOT STATE AND/OR IMPLY ANYWHERE THAT IT IS ANTI-MALWARE/ANTI-VIRUS. For the love of God and all that's holy, RE-READ!!!

 

[Sajuuk]

This was a nice quiet thread, nothing serious.

Now, it's became a thread of where we start bashing Vista about. Can't any polls on PC be done without something happening?

 

[Bianca Paragon]

This was a nice quiet thread, nothing serious.

Now, it's became a thread of where we start bashing Vista about. Can't any polls on PC be done without something happening?

Spey; can you leave this thread be, please? You seem to bring drama where-ever you go :X

 

[linkinpark187]

This was a nice quiet thread, nothing serious.

Now, it's became a thread of where we start bashing Vista about. Can't any polls on PC be done without something happening?

:laugh: Yes, occasionally. I do have to say that I like Vista, but as I've stated earlier, 7 is the way to go. Save up your pennies, boys and girls, it's going to be the greatest thing since XP. lol

 

[beauty. proletariat]

Oh god Spey... :(
and linkinpark... I think I'm better off not replying to that telling me to re read :|

To apple:
Most antivirus do the job as UAC anyway; NOD32, Kaspersky, McAffe, Avast are what comes to my mind immediately.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

Most antivirus do the job as UAC anyway; NOD32, Kaspersky, McAffe, Avast are what comes to my mind immediately.

They don't; though. They monitor memory space for *suspicious activity*; but they don't trigger a query of the user to elevate privileges. They run in the same memory-space as the user does; which makes them actually just as vulnerable to direct attack *on the scanner itself*. UAC can't be compromised in this fashion.

 

[twocows]

From what I've seen, UAC is "designed to annoy users" and is "easy to code around." That first one is a Microsoft quote by David Cross, believe it or not. I'm not an expert on UAC, but when I see stuff like that, I get a bit skeptical. Personally, I'd recommend using Sandboxie instead of UAC. Or you could run in a Guest account most of the time, like you're supposed to anyway.

Edit: oops, looks like someone already linked the first article or something related.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

"[S-HIGHLIGHT]"We needed to change the ecosystem[/S-HIGHLIGHT]," said Cross. "[S-HIGHLIGHT]UAC is changing the ISV ecosystem; applications are getting more secure. This was our target--to change the ecosystem[/S-HIGHLIGHT]. The fact is that there are fewer applications causing prompts. Eighty percent of the prompts were caused by 10 apps, some from ISVs and some from Microsoft. Sixty-six percent of sessions now have no prompts," said Cross."

UAC isn't an Anti-Virus; but it makes your computer much more resistant and resilient to infection. Why? Because UAC is NOT "just a display of a warning messages". UAC runs as a separate user-account that cannot be compromised and requires you to AUTHENTICATE any action which requires hightened permissions. Any Virus that wants to add itself to your start-up? Needs to authenticate through UAC. Any malicious code that is opened from an email attachment? Needs UAC permission to proceed.[S-HIGHLIGHT] UAC makes you magnitudes more secure[/S-HIGHLIGHT]. And [S-HIGHLIGHT]it also trains you; as a user; to be more aware of the actions you're allowing[/S-HIGHLIGHT]. A/V products do not do the same job; they don't even come close.

Turning it off is irresponsible and most certainly a sign of a computer beginner who has never used a secure OS like Linux or Mac ~ which, by the way, both operate in the same manner to UAC except it's NOT optional.

Every comment can be made to sound bad if you take it out of context. Let's try and read entire articles and recognize the contexts of comments before we spout them willynilly on forums and make ourselves look silly, yes?

As for "Coding Around"; you make it sound as if that means UAC is insecure; when in-fact what your second article proves it that developers are now working within the confines of UAC and finding more secure solutions

"...would be to split iReboot into two parts. One would run in the background as a service, running under the SYSTEM or LOCAL SERVICE accounts and having privileged access to the OS without requiring admin approval or UAC elevation, and with the second half running as an unprivileged userspace client program which interacts with the service backend to get stuff done. The resulting application has an installer - [S-HIGHLIGHT]which requires admin privileges, of course[/S-HIGHLIGHT] - which installs and launches the background service. The background service has full permission to do what we need to get operating system XXXX to be the default option for the next boot, but - in line with the Windows Service Model - cannot be interacted with by end users.."

Herein lies the rub; they haven't "circumvented" UAC or "Coded around it". They've done exactly what Microsoft asked them to do and coded a solution that STILL requires UAC authentication to deploy and install; but that doesn't perform UAC Tagged tasks on a regular basis.

 

[twocows]

Fine, I'll put it in context. This is the last time, though; you've used up your supply of reasonable requests for this month.

UAC is designed to annoy the user so that they understand what sorts of actions they're allowing, and to pressure software companies into making more secure solutions that don't piss off the consumers (though this part backfired, since users just got pissed at Microsoft instead).

This doesn't change the fact that UAC is incredibly annoying. I suppose it's actually excellent software insomuch as it is extremely effective at doing that. I still recommend Sandboxie over it, especially for web browsing, though this doesn't "train" the user, as you put it.

 

[MisterWalrus]

:laugh: Yes, occasionally. I do have to say that I like Vista, but as I've stated earlier, 7 is the way to go. Save up your pennies, boys and girls, it's going to be the greatest thing since XP. lol

That's what was said about various linux distros, windows vista, and mac and yet most of them end up being utter crap. Anyways i don't hate vista, it has a few features which are extremely useful.

Fine, I'll put it in context. This is the last time, though; you've used up your supply of reasonable requests for this month.

UAC is designed to annoy the user so that they understand what sorts of actions they're allowing, and to pressure software companies into making more secure solutions that don't piss off the consumers (though this part backfired, since users just got pissed at Microsoft instead).

This doesn't change the fact that UAC is incredibly annoying. I suppose it's actually excellent software insomuch as it is extremely effective at doing that. I still recommend Sandboxie over it, especially for web browsing, though this doesn't "train" the user, as you put it.

Haha i agree with you on this one.