As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Flame on: Windows Vista

1151618202131

Posts

  • Options
    xWonderboyxxWonderboyx Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Okay, so, future reference, this is what I did and now my sound and icon work:

    "Searched for available updates. Found one. Downloaded and installed. No change.

    After much hair pulling and soul searching (Why or why did I purchase Windows Vista?), I came up with the following solution for when the Windows Vista network connection icon has a red x in it and states, “Connection status: Unknown Server execution failed” on mouse hover, and the Network and Sharing center won’t open.

    1. Go to Start > Run > cmd

    2. Copy/paste the following line and hit your Enter key:

    Net localgroup Administrators localservice /add

    3. Reboot your computer.

    Wipe your brow. Sigh relief. Heck, maybe even go out dancing!"

    xWonderboyx on
    shark2.jpg
    XBL - Follow Freeman
  • Options
    jonxpjonxp [E] PC Security Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Okay, so, future reference, this is what I did and now my sound and icon work:

    "Searched for available updates. Found one. Downloaded and installed. No change.

    After much hair pulling and soul searching (Why or why did I purchase Windows Vista?), I came up with the following solution for when the Windows Vista network connection icon has a red x in it and states, “Connection status: Unknown Server execution failed” on mouse hover, and the Network and Sharing center won’t open.

    1. Go to Start > Run > cmd

    2. Copy/paste the following line and hit your Enter key:

    Net localgroup Administrators localservice /add

    3. Reboot your computer.

    Wipe your brow. Sigh relief. Heck, maybe even go out dancing!"

    This is *BAD*. You fixed the problem by allowing a poorly designed application's installed service execute as administrator. Not only that, you now are allowing ALL services that are installed with the LOWEST level of permissions Admin access.

    Not your fault, of course, and you need to balance the benefits against the consequences (if a trojan does attempt to infect your computer from a local execution, it will succeed). If you are a reasonably safe browser, and don't download programs from unknown websites or peer-to-peer (bittorrent, limewire) it shouldn't be a problem.

    jonxp on
    Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
    3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
    PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
  • Options
    xWonderboyxxWonderboyx Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I am a smart browser. I use firefox with all kinds of plugins preventing bad things. I don't browse porn or anything like that, and while I do torrent, I check everything with virus scanner before opening. I should be okay.

    Now say I wanted to undo what I did, do I use /remove in place of add or is it a different command?

    xWonderboyx on
    shark2.jpg
    XBL - Follow Freeman
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2008
    Interesting problem with Vista, with my dad's computer.

    Besides the fact that it bluescreens with IRQ_LESS_OR_EQUAL every time you try to shutdown (going to have to take that up with HP), it seems every once in a while it becomes retarded and can't open up new windows.

    Like, for anything. Download dialogs, right click menus.. nothing will come up. mIRC will even error with "Error: Could not create new window" in the status window if I try to join a channel.

    Every single time this happens, IE can't open more than 3 tabs. If you close IE, I get right click menus again. Start up IE and open up 3 tabs, it won't open up anymore and I lose right click menus/the ability for any program to create a new window.

    Anyone else had this problem? It's Home Premium. Is it going crazy and implementing the Starter window limit?

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    CronusCronus Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    jonxp wrote: »
    Cronus wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Cronus wrote: »
    Now I know this is from a guy on the Windows team so take it with a grain of salt, but he said that ~90% of Windows crashes, lock ups, and random reboots are because of bad hardware. I don't know if it's actually 90%, but it does make sense with the ability to buy a computer from Dell so cheap it makes sense that they are going to cut corners on something that's not on the box. You'll get 2 gigs of ram, but it will be the cheapest Taiwanese RAM one can find. The same goes for the motherboard.

    The processor and graphics card look good on the side of the box, but Average Joe isn't going to know what a good brand of RAM is, and won't be able to find out as it's never listed. It really sucks for PC gaming and software makers as a whole that the only good way to get a computer is to buy it from a specific vendor you know makes good systems or to build your own.

    I took a course by Mark Russinovich (author of Process Explorer and a bunch of other tools) at Microsoft about a year back. They analyzed a bunch of crash reports from Windows XP.

    ~70% are caused by third party driver code
    ~15% are unknown (memory is too corrupted to tell)
    ~10% are caused by hardware issues
    ~5% are caused by Microsoft code

    So chances are that when you get a crash it's due to crappy third-party drivers, not the hardware itself. This is why there's an emphasis on driver quality verification and signing for Vista x64.


    That's very interesting. I wonder what the percentages are for crashes during games?

    They're probably talking about system, not application, crashes. A system crash during a game is likely the result of a hardware/driver issue because it's "touching" calls that normally don't get used and have less real world use to have bugs found.

    Yes you are right. I was however referring to system crashes caused by games. A game writing to memory it shouldn't or calling a driver function incorrectly on certain hardware or certain versions of the driver.

    Some games are very technologically advanced and many are quite rushed. However when a game is both these things an unstable game is often the result.

    Vista is supposed to be better at keeping crashes from crashing the OS. I've had a couple games and apps crash on me since I've been using Vista and I'm wondering what number of those, if any, would have crashed XP.

    Cronus on
    camo_sig.png
    "Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
  • Options
    xWonderboyxxWonderboyx Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    So I undid the thing I did earlier to see if there was a better workaround. Cross your fingers.

    xWonderboyx on
    shark2.jpg
    XBL - Follow Freeman
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Cronus wrote: »
    jonxp wrote: »
    Cronus wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Cronus wrote: »
    Now I know this is from a guy on the Windows team so take it with a grain of salt, but he said that ~90% of Windows crashes, lock ups, and random reboots are because of bad hardware. I don't know if it's actually 90%, but it does make sense with the ability to buy a computer from Dell so cheap it makes sense that they are going to cut corners on something that's not on the box. You'll get 2 gigs of ram, but it will be the cheapest Taiwanese RAM one can find. The same goes for the motherboard.

    The processor and graphics card look good on the side of the box, but Average Joe isn't going to know what a good brand of RAM is, and won't be able to find out as it's never listed. It really sucks for PC gaming and software makers as a whole that the only good way to get a computer is to buy it from a specific vendor you know makes good systems or to build your own.

    I took a course by Mark Russinovich (author of Process Explorer and a bunch of other tools) at Microsoft about a year back. They analyzed a bunch of crash reports from Windows XP.

    ~70% are caused by third party driver code
    ~15% are unknown (memory is too corrupted to tell)
    ~10% are caused by hardware issues
    ~5% are caused by Microsoft code

    So chances are that when you get a crash it's due to crappy third-party drivers, not the hardware itself. This is why there's an emphasis on driver quality verification and signing for Vista x64.


    That's very interesting. I wonder what the percentages are for crashes during games?

    They're probably talking about system, not application, crashes. A system crash during a game is likely the result of a hardware/driver issue because it's "touching" calls that normally don't get used and have less real world use to have bugs found.

    Yes you are right. I was however referring to system crashes caused by games. A game writing to memory it shouldn't or calling a driver function incorrectly on certain hardware or certain versions of the driver.

    Some games are very technologically advanced and many are quite rushed. However when a game is both these things an unstable game is often the result.

    Vista is supposed to be better at keeping crashes from crashing the OS. I've had a couple games and apps crash on me since I've been using Vista and I'm wondering what number of those, if any, would have crashed XP.
    Basically any time you get the "video driver stopped responding" error, you would have had to reboot the whole machine under XP.

    Azio on
  • Options
    xWonderboyxxWonderboyx Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I fixed it by just doing a system restore from a time just before installing aim. Based on my research, AIM is the culprit.

    xWonderboyx on
    shark2.jpg
    XBL - Follow Freeman
  • Options
    victor_c26victor_c26 Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I fixed it by just doing a system restore from a time just before installing aim. Based on my research, AIM is the culprit.

    Install Pidgin. Multi IM protocol IM client that doesn't suck or break your OS install.

    victor_c26 on
    It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
  • Options
    UrianUrian __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    I really like Vista 64 bit so far, but it's kind of bringing my 7900gtx to its knees in games. Definently a drop in performance, though its using all 4 gigs of ram. I can't wait till I get a 9800 in this sucker.

    Anyone have any performance boost tips for vista 64?

    Urian on
  • Options
    xWonderboyxxWonderboyx Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    victor_c26 wrote: »
    I fixed it by just doing a system restore from a time just before installing aim. Based on my research, AIM is the culprit.

    Install Pidgin. Multi IM protocol IM client that doesn't suck or break your OS install.

    Thank you for this, a hundred times. From what I've read, even programs like Trillian would cause the problem I was having so I created a restore point before installing and nothing has happened yet. Also, the little purple "pidgin" character chillin in my quicklaunch is the best thing ever. Now if I could get him to show as an icon in my notification area everything would be keen.

    Edit: The program, and the mascot, especially, remind me of Adium on the mac. Good times.

    xWonderboyx on
    shark2.jpg
    XBL - Follow Freeman
  • Options
    ZeonZeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I actually just "switched" to Vista last weekend. I bought a new PC (Its actually a refurb, got a fucking sweet deal on it), and it came preinstalled with Vista. My original intention was to wipe the drive and install XP since i have a bunch of licences for it lying around, but i thought id give it a try since ive never used it for a long period of time before. Ive used it very, very minimally in the past, my grandparents got a laptop that has Vista and i set it up for them, and one of my friends that came to visit also had vista on a laptop and i had to get him connected to our wireless network.

    Honestly, for about the first 2 days i fucking hated it. Everything is such a pain in the ass when its a fresh install. The constant popups, the need to confirm almost every single action, changing user settings, everything is just an exercise in frustration.

    However, once you tweak it, and set up things to your liking, its actually not that bad. The only 2 things that i really find myself frustrated with still are navigating folders in explorer (Why the fuck did they remove the up one folder button? Seriously, its almost impossible to navigate deep directories without that). The new directory structures are completely unintuitive. The second thing i dont like is the inability to add unsigned software to your startup menu. Maybe theres a way to get unsigned programs to run at start, but i sure as fuck cant find any way without turning off windows defender. I wanted to set up tversity to autostart when my computer comes on, but since its an unknown program Vista says fuck no. I have to manually right click the warning and launch it every time i reboot, which isnt terrible, but i might as well just open it from the start menu.

    Theres a couple other minor usability issues, but all in all i dont think its as terrible as it comes off at first impression. I also think that if i had never used a PC before, the Vista interface might actually be really intuitive. My grandma actually finds it easier to use than XP, which i was shocked by. I thought she would be calling me every other day asking how to do things, but as other people have said, she uses that start menu search bar and can find almost anything she needs no problem. She also doesnt give a shit about changing settings or anything, so for her the interface is awesome, one button does everything she needs. But if youve been using windows forever, its kind of a pain in the ass right out of the box because almost everything has changed, and not intuitively. I really dont think anyone who used XP thought it needed any of the improvements vista made to the core interfaces. Infact some of them are downright detrimental. But overall i think they work together to allow new users to start using their PC a lot quicker than before.

    I think one of the reasons i kind of didnt like the standard UI is that it is very reminiscent of the OSX interface. I know a bunch of mac users are going to scream at me for that, but its true. I get the same feeling using a fresh install of Vista as i do when i sit down at the Mac at work. Everything is just way TOO user friendly, and its hard for me to get any actual work done on the machine. Of course, this is a personal thing, as i know there are people who love the OSX interface. Im not one, and its not for lack of exposure or trying, i just can never remember how to do things on OSX because everything seems so unintuitive to me.

    Overall though, i kind of like it now. Its been only a week and ive pretty much adapted to the new UI after tweaking out all of the really annoying shit (UAC, fuck you). I would like to know how to get unsigned programs to autostart though, and also how to change the top bar in firefox from light blue back to grey so it matches the rest of the gui.

    Oh, and the adoption rates, im not surprised. When Windows XP was released, there was a lot of hate for it too. I didnt like it at first, and i waited almost a year and a half before i upgraded my machine. A lot of people who didnt even really use computers hated XP, but they couldnt ever really tell you why. The reasoning would be "Oh i heard it was shit" or "It crashed in the store". There were also a lot of news stories about how bad XP was versus 98. The same thing is going on here, with Vista vs XP. Honestly, from my experience over the past week, a lot of it is unfounded. I think people just dont like to change, and also dont like the idea that they need to spend 200-300 dollars on a peice of software. Also adding to the problem were vendors slapping Vista on PC's that really couldnt handle it. You do need a fairly beefy machine to run Aero, and im sure a lot of people were upset that their 400 dollar budget machine was running like shit just opening windows or surfing the internet.

    I think in the next couple years as more and more people buy Vista prebundled with machines that can actually run it, it will start to get a warmer reception. Theres a lot there to love for the average Joe 6pack or Grandma Emailer, and the stuff thats missing, well, they probably wont even notice it anyway.

    Zeon on
    btworbanner.jpg
    Check out my band, click the banner.
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    However, once you tweak it, and set up things to your liking, its actually not that bad. The only 2 things that i really find myself frustrated with still are navigating folders in explorer (Why the fuck did they remove the up one folder button? Seriously, its almost impossible to navigate deep directories without that).
    BACKSPACE.

    Azio on
  • Options
    RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    However, once you tweak it, and set up things to your liking, its actually not that bad. The only 2 things that i really find myself frustrated with still are navigating folders in explorer (Why the fuck did they remove the up one folder button? Seriously, its almost impossible to navigate deep directories without that).
    BACKSPACE.

    Also, use the breadcrumbs, they are your friends. Why click repeatedly on "up one folder" when you can just click once on the folder you want to navigate up to?

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Options
    CronusCronus Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    However, once you tweak it, and set up things to your liking, its actually not that bad. The only 2 things that i really find myself frustrated with still are navigating folders in explorer (Why the fuck did they remove the up one folder button? Seriously, its almost impossible to navigate deep directories without that).
    BACKSPACE.

    Also, use the breadcrumbs, they are your friends. Why click repeatedly on "up one folder" when you can just click once on the folder you want to navigate up to?

    There a shortcut for go up one folder. It's either Alt+UpArrow.

    Cronus on
    camo_sig.png
    "Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
  • Options
    ZeonZeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    However, once you tweak it, and set up things to your liking, its actually not that bad. The only 2 things that i really find myself frustrated with still are navigating folders in explorer (Why the fuck did they remove the up one folder button? Seriously, its almost impossible to navigate deep directories without that).
    BACKSPACE.

    Backspace is back. I already have a button for that on my mouse and in the explorer. And it doesnt work if you got sixteen folders deep clicking on a shortcut.

    I didnt realise you could click the folder names in the explorer bar though. Ive been clicking the arrows instead. Thats neat.

    Zeon on
    btworbanner.jpg
    Check out my band, click the banner.
  • Options
    LoneIgadzraLoneIgadzra Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Guys, don't turn off UAC. Seriously.
    Zeon wrote: »
    I think one of the reasons i kind of didnt like the standard UI is that it is very reminiscent of the OSX interface. I know a bunch of mac users are going to scream at me for that, but its true. I get the same feeling using a fresh install of Vista as i do when i sit down at the Mac at work. Everything is just way TOO user friendly, and its hard for me to get any actual work done on the machine. Of course, this is a personal thing, as i know there are people who love the OSX interface. Im not one, and its not for lack of exposure or trying, i just can never remember how to do things on OSX because everything seems so unintuitive to me.

    I don't really know what you mean by this. To me, Vista seems 90% similar to XP on the surface (barring the theme, whoo), and OS X is its own thing.

    LoneIgadzra on
  • Options
    MorskittarMorskittar Lord Warlock Engineer SeattleRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Guys, don't turn off UAC. Seriously.
    Zeon wrote: »
    I think one of the reasons i kind of didnt like the standard UI is that it is very reminiscent of the OSX interface. I know a bunch of mac users are going to scream at me for that, but its true. I get the same feeling using a fresh install of Vista as i do when i sit down at the Mac at work. Everything is just way TOO user friendly, and its hard for me to get any actual work done on the machine. Of course, this is a personal thing, as i know there are people who love the OSX interface. Im not one, and its not for lack of exposure or trying, i just can never remember how to do things on OSX because everything seems so unintuitive to me.

    I don't really know what you mean by this. To me, Vista seems 90% similar to XP on the surface (barring the theme, whoo), and OS X is its own thing.

    I've never seen Vista remove all text from an installer and replace it with a cute, bouncing, shiny thing.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • Options
    xWonderboyxxWonderboyx Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Why not disable UAC? Its annoying as fuck and if you don't download all willy nilly and run everything you come across you should be okay.

    xWonderboyx on
    shark2.jpg
    XBL - Follow Freeman
  • Options
    stigweardstigweard Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Guys, don't turn off UAC. Seriously.
    Zeon wrote: »
    I think one of the reasons i kind of didnt like the standard UI is that it is very reminiscent of the OSX interface. I know a bunch of mac users are going to scream at me for that, but its true. I get the same feeling using a fresh install of Vista as i do when i sit down at the Mac at work. Everything is just way TOO user friendly, and its hard for me to get any actual work done on the machine. Of course, this is a personal thing, as i know there are people who love the OSX interface. Im not one, and its not for lack of exposure or trying, i just can never remember how to do things on OSX because everything seems so unintuitive to me.

    I don't really know what you mean by this. To me, Vista seems 90% similar to XP on the surface (barring the theme, whoo), and OS X is its own thing.

    I've never seen Vista remove all text from an installer and replace it with a cute, bouncing, shiny thing.

    Funny, I've never seen os x do that either. Generally, you mount an image and copy the entire package over to the app directory. Most apps are self contained and have minimal scripts (create directories for the cache and library) that run when you copy them over and when you delete them. OS X and Windows can't really be compared properly. They both have very different design philosophies.

    The only part of Vista that has improved UI / usability is the Search box in the start menu. Everything else has either stayed the same or been changed for the sake of changing it. Separating the display property tabs so that you have to go back and click through a new category to get one tab is not a usability improvement. Renaming a quarter of the control panel apps does not improve usability. They even half assed a good chunk of features by removing the gui entries for functions, but leaving working shortcuts behind.

    stigweard on
  • Options
    ZeonZeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Guys, don't turn off UAC. Seriously.
    Zeon wrote: »
    I think one of the reasons i kind of didnt like the standard UI is that it is very reminiscent of the OSX interface. I know a bunch of mac users are going to scream at me for that, but its true. I get the same feeling using a fresh install of Vista as i do when i sit down at the Mac at work. Everything is just way TOO user friendly, and its hard for me to get any actual work done on the machine. Of course, this is a personal thing, as i know there are people who love the OSX interface. Im not one, and its not for lack of exposure or trying, i just can never remember how to do things on OSX because everything seems so unintuitive to me.

    I don't really know what you mean by this. To me, Vista seems 90% similar to XP on the surface (barring the theme, whoo), and OS X is its own thing.

    Navigating folders, the start menu in vista mode instead of classic mode, the control panel... Almost everythings been changed to default to big shiny buttons instead of an actual useful list you can get information out of. Now i understand that not everyone gives a shit about how big their files are, or where exactly their My Documents folder is, or even how to change the keyboard localization, but i do, and to me, on a standard install, doing this stuff is so much more roundabout than it needs to be. I find the same thing is true on a Mac.

    I dont own a Mac, and i only use one at work when we get quark stuff in, so im sure if i actually bought one and used it for a few weeks, id get pretty good at using the interface. But personally, for me, its unintuitive when i sit down and start trying to do stuff right away, and i find the same thing with Vista. Sure, all the information is there if i know how to find it, but i need to go through 15 different menus and 10 different pop ups to extract it, where as with older windows operating systems, the default is to have it all show up front and let you hide stuff that you dont feel you need. This might be intimidating to new users, i can see that, but for me, having to dig deep to find stuff is the opposite of user friendly. I am not afraid of having tons of information thrown at me and deciding myself what i need to see and what i dont need to see.

    Zeon on
    btworbanner.jpg
    Check out my band, click the banner.
  • Options
    bongibongi regular
    edited February 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Guys, don't turn off UAC. Seriously.
    Zeon wrote: »
    I think one of the reasons i kind of didnt like the standard UI is that it is very reminiscent of the OSX interface. I know a bunch of mac users are going to scream at me for that, but its true. I get the same feeling using a fresh install of Vista as i do when i sit down at the Mac at work. Everything is just way TOO user friendly, and its hard for me to get any actual work done on the machine. Of course, this is a personal thing, as i know there are people who love the OSX interface. Im not one, and its not for lack of exposure or trying, i just can never remember how to do things on OSX because everything seems so unintuitive to me.

    I don't really know what you mean by this. To me, Vista seems 90% similar to XP on the surface (barring the theme, whoo), and OS X is its own thing.

    I've never seen Vista remove all text from an installer and replace it with a cute, bouncing, shiny thing.
    i have no idea what mac os x phenomenon this is supposed to be referencing

    bongi on
  • Options
    xWonderboyxxWonderboyx Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    basically all your complaints are its a new operating system and you aren't used to it. I and many others went through the same thing with xp. Just give it time.

    xWonderboyx on
    shark2.jpg
    XBL - Follow Freeman
  • Options
    stigweardstigweard Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I also don't get the OS X hate. Everything is standardized and all applications have the same shortcuts. Preferences is always apple-, new window is always apple-n, close window is always apple-w, minimize is always apple-m, etc... They are always in the same places in the menus. The only applications that don't follow it are windows ports.

    In windows, your preferences could be tools->options, edit->preferences, edit->options, file->options, etc... depending on the application. There is no standardization at all. It took them years to even manage standardization of common shorcuts. Linux is even worse for it.

    There are many things you can complain about with OS X, but usability really isn't one of them. Learn one apps shortcuts and menus, and you 90% of every apps shortcuts. It is extremely rare to have an option buried more than 3 layers deep (in Windows (-Vista), or OS X - tabs don't count), and everything is generally organized logically.

    stigweard on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Why not disable UAC? Its annoying as fuck and if you don't download all willy nilly and run everything you come across you should be okay.

    Because actually enforcing user/admin privileges is a good thing. Like, in general.

    A better solution is to simply track down why you're getting UAC prompts or issues, then fix the permissions involved. You should be running under a standard user account as well, not an admin (this can be changed without changing accounts...just create a new admin account then downgrade yours). Simply allowing everything admin privileges is not the answer to this.

    I generally get, at most, three or four UAC prompts per day. Since my admin password is something I can type in .2 seconds, that's about 1 second a day I lose to UAC. The increase in security (despite the fact that I, too, don't download and run all willy nilly) is worth it.

    Really, to anybody who's spent any time in a unix/linux-style OS (including OSX) the idea that everybody's an admin (yay!) is the alien one. You should not have admin access while using your computer, you should only have it while actually administrating it.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I still find that the UAC can break a bunch of programs if it's left on. A program will bring up a prompt to change the screen resolution, the UAC will kick in, and when you click "allow" it closes the prompt, meaning you didn't get a chance to change the screen resolution at all. This is currently happening to me with some of my plug-ins for Adobe Premier, so it's not like I can just use another program to do it.

    The UAC just doesn't have the functionality to be worth it for me. Disabling it when required isn't particular easy, but leaving it on doesn't seem to work either.

    Brolo on
  • Options
    powersurgepowersurge Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Just curious but for those of you actually using Vista and use the sidebar what gadgets are you using? I haven't come across many worth using other than an app launcher and a digital clock displaying multiple time zones. (which tbh probably isn't worth the the 20 or so megs of ram)

    powersurge on
  • Options
    wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Why not disable UAC? Its annoying as fuck and if you don't download all willy nilly and run everything you come across you should be okay.

    what are you talking about? Seriously. I don't do all the "willy nilly" shit you speak of, but guess what, malware happens. I had an XP computer, did a fresh install, installed antivirus/antispyware with updated definitions off of CD, and fully patched from a CD before I plugged it into the network. It was the only computer on the network, behind a firewall, and it still got 2 peices of malware on the machine after 48 hours of just sitting there turned on, not being used for one minute after inital setup.

    Malware happens, saying that it can't happen to you is foolish. You have good net practices, but actually running things as administrator, and running an admin account is stupid when UAC is pretty much un-obtrusive after about 4 days of training.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • Options
    MonoxideMonoxide Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Why not disable UAC? Its annoying as fuck and if you don't download all willy nilly and run everything you come across you should be okay.

    what are you talking about? Seriously. I don't do all the "willy nilly" shit you speak of, but guess what, malware happens. I had an XP computer, did a fresh install, installed antivirus/antispyware with updated definitions off of CD, and fully patched from a CD before I plugged it into the network. It was the only computer on the network, behind a firewall, and it still got 2 peices of malware on the machine after 48 hours of just sitting there turned on, not being used for one minute after inital setup.

    Malware happens, saying that it can't happen to you is foolish. You have good net practices, but actually running things as administrator, and running an admin account is stupid when UAC is pretty much un-obtrusive after about 4 days of training.

    Except what you just explained is impossible and most competent users seem to get by just fine without significant malware infestations on XP.

    I'm not saying anyone should turn off UAC the second they get Vista, but it's not like plugging in a Windows machine to a reasonable network means it's instantly going to begin transmitting your bank details to Uganda because you disabled UAC.

    Monoxide on
  • Options
    RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    If you develop software, please for the love of god leave UAC on. Just because you are too cool for it doesn't mean you should write your program expecting the same from all of your users.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Why not disable UAC? Its annoying as fuck and if you don't download all willy nilly and run everything you come across you should be okay.

    what are you talking about? Seriously. I don't do all the "willy nilly" shit you speak of, but guess what, malware happens. I had an XP computer, did a fresh install, installed antivirus/antispyware with updated definitions off of CD, and fully patched from a CD before I plugged it into the network. It was the only computer on the network, behind a firewall, and it still got 2 peices of malware on the machine after 48 hours of just sitting there turned on, not being used for one minute after inital setup.

    Malware happens, saying that it can't happen to you is foolish. You have good net practices, but actually running things as administrator, and running an admin account is stupid when UAC is pretty much un-obtrusive after about 4 days of training.
    Malware does not just "happen". Malware gets into your computer through your own actions, like installing bad software, clicking on ads, visiting porn/warez sites, using Kazaa/Limewire, or clicking "yes" when you should be clicking "no".

    I've gotten by for years with no UAC, the most lightweight antivirus I could find, and running Ad-Aware every few months. As long as you are behind a router and don't do things that are likely to get you infected with viruses and spyware, malware will not "happen".

    Azio on
  • Options
    DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    powersurge wrote: »
    Just curious but for those of you actually using Vista and use the sidebar what gadgets are you using? I haven't come across many worth using other than an app launcher and a digital clock displaying multiple time zones. (which tbh probably isn't worth the the 20 or so megs of ram)

    weather, applauncher, calendar (not the default one, plugin contains ability to add to-do lists to days). i've removed all icons from my desktop with the applauncher, so it's pretty sleek.

    Dehumanized on
  • Options
    DigDug2000DigDug2000 Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Why not disable UAC? Its annoying as fuck and if you don't download all willy nilly and run everything you come across you should be okay.

    what are you talking about? Seriously. I don't do all the "willy nilly" shit you speak of, but guess what, malware happens. I had an XP computer, did a fresh install, installed antivirus/antispyware with updated definitions off of CD, and fully patched from a CD before I plugged it into the network. It was the only computer on the network, behind a firewall, and it still got 2 peices of malware on the machine after 48 hours of just sitting there turned on, not being used for one minute after inital setup.

    Malware happens, saying that it can't happen to you is foolish. You have good net practices, but actually running things as administrator, and running an admin account is stupid when UAC is pretty much un-obtrusive after about 4 days of training.
    Malware does not just "happen". Malware gets into your computer through your own actions, like installing bad software, clicking on ads, visiting porn/warez sites, using Kazaa/Limewire, or clicking "yes" when you should be clicking "no".

    I've gotten by for years with no UAC, the most lightweight antivirus I could find, and running Ad-Aware every few months. As long as you are behind a router and don't do things that are likely to get you infected with viruses and spyware, malware will not "happen".
    Heh. If you really want to learn about MalWare, you should read Google's report on it. Short end of the story, things that are "unlikely" to infect you are becoming more and more likely to infect you. A huge percentage of servers out there are running versions of Apache and PHP that have known security exploits. A fairly large percentage of malware is sent through ads too, which site owners get from someone who bought them from someone else who bought them from someone else, meaning that a even the most well meaning site can accidentally infect you.

    Not that I care that much about UAC. If you don't want to use it, then don't. You're adding risk to yourself and probably other people's systems too. That's life. Life isn't that hard with it turned on either though. Every now and then something pops up. You realize its because you're doing task <blank>, and you click OK. I just find it interesting how quickly malware makers always keep up with the malware stoppers.

    DigDug2000 on
  • Options
    Monkey Ball WarriorMonkey Ball Warrior A collection of mediocre hats Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    DigDug2000 wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Why not disable UAC? Its annoying as fuck and if you don't download all willy nilly and run everything you come across you should be okay.

    what are you talking about? Seriously. I don't do all the "willy nilly" shit you speak of, but guess what, malware happens. I had an XP computer, did a fresh install, installed antivirus/antispyware with updated definitions off of CD, and fully patched from a CD before I plugged it into the network. It was the only computer on the network, behind a firewall, and it still got 2 peices of malware on the machine after 48 hours of just sitting there turned on, not being used for one minute after inital setup.

    Malware happens, saying that it can't happen to you is foolish. You have good net practices, but actually running things as administrator, and running an admin account is stupid when UAC is pretty much un-obtrusive after about 4 days of training.
    Malware does not just "happen". Malware gets into your computer through your own actions, like installing bad software, clicking on ads, visiting porn/warez sites, using Kazaa/Limewire, or clicking "yes" when you should be clicking "no".

    I've gotten by for years with no UAC, the most lightweight antivirus I could find, and running Ad-Aware every few months. As long as you are behind a router and don't do things that are likely to get you infected with viruses and spyware, malware will not "happen".
    Heh. If you really want to learn about MalWare, you should read Google's report on it. Short end of the story, things that are "unlikely" to infect you are becoming more and more likely to infect you. A huge percentage of servers out there are running versions of Apache and PHP that have known security exploits. A fairly large percentage of malware is sent through ads too, which site owners get from someone who bought them from someone else who bought them from someone else, meaning that a even the most well meaning site can accidentally infect you.

    Not that I care that much about UAC. If you don't want to use it, then don't. You're adding risk to yourself and probably other people's systems too. That's life. Life isn't that hard with it turned on either though. Every now and then something pops up. You realize its because you're doing task <blank>, and you click OK. I just find it interesting how quickly malware makers always keep up with the malware stoppers.

    Honestly, No-script is WAY more likely to stop something that has snuck in server-side than UAC, unless it's from one of your trusted websites. In which case you will probably know who to complain to anyway.

    I don't give UAC the time of day because UAC is still Microsoft code. They are good at graphics API's and simple development enviroments but they don't know jack about security. It's just another layer on top of this teetering tower of decades-old code that purports to keep the free-for-all that is the kernel safe, but I am not impressed. Considering their past efforts in this area, I'd say not to expect UAC to do anything at all except bug you to death.

    Monkey Ball Warrior on
    "I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
  • Options
    Epyon9283Epyon9283 Registered User regular
    edited February 2008

    Honestly, No-script is WAY more likely to stop something that has snuck in server-side than UAC, unless it's from one of your trusted websites. In which case you will probably know who to complain to anyway.

    I don't give UAC the time of day because UAC is still Microsoft code. They are good at graphics API's and simple development enviroments but they don't know jack about security. It's just another layer on top of this teetering tower of decades-old code that purports to keep the free-for-all that is the kernel safe, but I am not impressed. Considering their past efforts in this area, I'd say not to expect UAC to do anything at all except bug you to death.

    If no-script manages to miss something and code gets executed on your system it will run with your privileges. As you're probably an admin user you'll be SOL.

    If you're using IE7 with protected mode enabled and UAC enabled on Vista then if something does happen to get executed via a browser exploit it will be running as a low integrity process. It won't have access to anything. As a low integrity process it can only write to a couple of temp dirs in your user dir. Everything else will be virtualized. It will think its writing to a location but nothing will actually appear there. It would take a privilege escalation exploit to get to run as a medium integrity process (what most of your apps will run as with UAC enabled) or a high integrity process.

    Epyon9283 on
  • Options
    CarnarvonCarnarvon Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Hey you guys, my dad wont stop bothering me to find a sound card that works for Vista(Price range $40ish). I've heard of a bunch of stuff about driver issues and such, so I don't want to end up RMA'ing some piece of shit.

    Links, comments, and recommendation are appreciated.

    Carnarvon on
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Azio on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Rolo wrote: »
    I still find that the UAC can break a bunch of programs if it's left on. A program will bring up a prompt to change the screen resolution, the UAC will kick in, and when you click "allow" it closes the prompt, meaning you didn't get a chance to change the screen resolution at all. This is currently happening to me with some of my plug-ins for Adobe Premier, so it's not like I can just use another program to do it.

    The UAC just doesn't have the functionality to be worth it for me. Disabling it when required isn't particular easy, but leaving it on doesn't seem to work either.

    I've found that more often than not I can either run individual programs as admin, give myself full permissions on their Program Files directory, or both and be fine. The biggest issue then is that when you go to, say, save something if it would normally point to your user directory it points at the admin user's directory. Aside from that, no issues.

    But yeah, if you have a program you need to use that simply doesn't play nice with it then you obviously will just have to disable it.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    LoneIgadzraLoneIgadzra Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Epyon9283 wrote: »

    Honestly, No-script is WAY more likely to stop something that has snuck in server-side than UAC, unless it's from one of your trusted websites. In which case you will probably know who to complain to anyway.

    I don't give UAC the time of day because UAC is still Microsoft code. They are good at graphics API's and simple development enviroments but they don't know jack about security. It's just another layer on top of this teetering tower of decades-old code that purports to keep the free-for-all that is the kernel safe, but I am not impressed. Considering their past efforts in this area, I'd say not to expect UAC to do anything at all except bug you to death.

    If no-script manages to miss something and code gets executed on your system it will run with your privileges. As you're probably an admin user you'll be SOL.

    If you're using IE7 with protected mode enabled and UAC enabled on Vista then if something does happen to get executed via a browser exploit it will be running as a low integrity process. It won't have access to anything. As a low integrity process it can only write to a couple of temp dirs in your user dir. Everything else will be virtualized. It will think its writing to a location but nothing will actually appear there. It would take a privilege escalation exploit to get to run as a medium integrity process (what most of your apps will run as with UAC enabled) or a high integrity process.

    This. Under an admin account in XP, every program runs with admin privileges. Fuck up for one second and double click on the wrong executable and that's it. There's no clicking "yes" to anything. And that's just the most obvious avenue of attack. There are many ways to trick people who aren't paying attention into executing code without being so obvious as to download an executable to the desktop - or even vulnerabilities that let it be done automatically.

    But honestly, if you're just going to say all Microsoft code is crap, why even bother using Windows? Some parts of it are good enough for you and others prompt irrational paranoia?

    LoneIgadzra on
  • Options
    RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I don't give UAC the time of day because UAC is still Microsoft code. They are good at graphics API's and simple development enviroments but they don't know jack about security. It's just another layer on top of this teetering tower of decades-old code that purports to keep the free-for-all that is the kernel safe, but I am not impressed. Considering their past efforts in this area, I'd say not to expect UAC to do anything at all except bug you to death.

    Ahhhh, good times. You are a funny man.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.