Microsoft Vista Compatibility Issues

[Shooting]

My experience with Vista Home Premium is that Proshow Producer has to be run as administrator to work even though that is how I'm logged in..it doesn't matter how you are logged in, you must run that as administrator before it will find your dvd/cd drive to burn a disc IF it will burn at all..I'm going back to XP Pro where I know everything works without a hitch.

[tdodd]

You should be asking why Proshow Producer needs administrator rights to do its job.

If you're satisfied with the answer, can't you just tweak your shortcut to change the compatibility mode to run with administrator rights?

[cosworth]

My experience with Vista Home Premium is that Proshow Producer has to be run as administrator to work even though that is how I'm logged in..it doesn't matter how you are logged in, you must run that as administrator before it will find your dvd/cd drive to burn a disc IF it will burn at all..I'm going back to XP Pro where I know everything works without a hitch.


A total reinstall is less hassle than a simple right click or waiting for Proshow to get off their butt and update their software? Maybe you should consider Apple.

[TPG]

Pssst.
You can turn off UAC.
I know, crazy.

[Shooting]

You should be asking why Proshow Producer needs administrator rights to do its job.

If you're satisfied with the answer, can't you just tweak your shortcut to change the compatibility mode to run with administrator rights?

As always, something so obvious I never thought of.

I wish I could get Print Shop 10 and Word Perfect 11 to run on Vista..can't even get them to finish installing before getting the error they are not Vista compatible.

[Guineh]

Just an update re: Bridge settings under Windows Vista.

I just got an e-mail from Adobe that they were able to reproduce the problem, and it looks like a bug in the program. Hopefully this means an update will be coming down the pipe to fix this :)

[stathunter]

I have joined the Vista Sucks Club.

[cosworth]

If you don't like the OS, switch and don't look back.

[Guineh]

I actually quite like Vista. The Windows explorer interface is rather good. Give it some time, it'll grow on you ;) See? --> Linky (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070331)

[Moppie]

I have joined the Vista Sucks Club.


Any good reason why?

[James Salenger]

I have vista, and have found if you turn off user accounts in the security section,
you can avoid lots of problems.

[Guineh]

I have vista, and have found if you turn off user accounts in the security section,
you can avoid lots of problems.

I actually keep UAC turned on. It's one extra layer of protection to prevent unwanted changes to your system. It seems most people are annoyed by the pop-ups asking to approve a certain action. I've found, for me at least, that these dialogs don't appear much in practice.

An update on some of the issues I was having with Adobe Bridge: Bridge would always cause Vista to switch to the basic interface, disabling most of the nice visual effects, which was annoying but workable. It turns out that problem wasn't bridge at all; It was Quicktime! If you haven't updated Quicktime, get the update. They fixed some compatibility issues with Vista.

Also, Adobe has acknowledged that the setting for not requiring the ctrl key when using the label/rate shortcuts (1-9) is not being retained. I have yet to see an update that resolves this, yet.

[davidcrebelxt]

I actually keep UAC turned on. It's one extra layer of protection to prevent unwanted changes to your system. It seems most people are annoyed by the pop-ups asking to approve a certain action. I've found, for me at least, that these dialogs don't appear much in practice.



I agree completely.

Many respected Windows and security experts also suggest leaving UAC active... the only time they disable is during some operations (OS install, SP update?) where multiple dialogs pop up at various times throughout the install... they then re-enable it.

Its also perception... once you learn to understand when they pop up, you look for them. The main reason they pop up so often is lazy programmers who always ask for admin priviliges even when they are not needed... eventually when you come across one written properly that doesn't pop up a UAC dialog, its a little strange. The idea is you should be complaining to developers of programs that do this, and once they get a clue, eventually Windows will get to a point where you see these dialogs very rarely. Annoying at first, but a necesscary step otherwise program developers will never change their ways.

[Guineh]

The idea is you should be complaining to developers of programs that do this, and once they get a clue, eventually Windows will get to a point where you see these dialogs very rarely. Annoying at first, but a necesscary step otherwise program developers will never change their ways.

Yup. Worse is the program that attempts to write settings/preferences to its folder under Program Files. Often causing the program to fail, because it was expecting to be able to write, but with UAC enabled, even administrative accounts cannot write unless priveledge is escalated.

[Shooting]

I finally went back to XP Pro...everything works so much better..the deal with Proshow Producer was it did work but could not burn to a cd/dvd or even find the darn things unless I ran as administrator...and I'm tired of everything I want to do I get a screen asking me if I want to do this..I click Yes, then another screen comes up asking for permission..if I didn't want to do it I wouldn't be trying to..Too much security in Vista for me..I don't need to jump thru so many hoops just to move a file from one place to another or delete something....Vista has a long way to go...if someone knows a way I can turn off all those screen so it can be like XP, when I want to do something let me do it, let me know.

[davidcrebelxt]

reasons for that happening are as stated above. You should voice your complaints with makers of the software.

IMO if you're going to disable uac you may as well stick with xp because you're giving up one of the main security controls vista provides. Plus, I think vista generally takes a slight performance hit in comparison with xp anyway.

We can't have it both ways without cooperation from developers. Either we get security along with annoyances, or we get ease of use... then well complain when loopholes get exploited.

[Shooting]

Ever have a program you could not even install unless you reboot into safe mode? Well I do..NIK Color Efex 3.0 would not even install on my system until I booted up into safe mode...those security features need to be optional. I for one do not need them nor care for them so I should have the option to turn them off and keep Vista..welcome to control freak Bill Gates.

[PeteJaffa]

I installed Nik Color Efex 3 no problem on Vista x64 mate.

You do have the option to turn UAC off.

[Shooting]

Yes but turning it off creates it's own set of problems..Vista has a long way to go. Best thing for Microsoft to do is to admit they made a mess of things and make the newer version just an upgrade of XP which is tried and proven, not something entirely new that has not been tested thoroughly.

[Moppie]

I have been useing Vista for over 8 months now, and I have to ask:

"Where are all these problems?"


I have installed it once, loaded all the drivers once, it updates itself when it needs to, my freeware firewall and antivirus software work on it, and all but 1 program works on it.

I have had no virus issues, no malware issues, it is fast, and it is stable.

I have XP on a dual boot, that I have had to load only for 2 programs: Once was for a monitor calibration tool that the maker was being slow in releasing a Vista driver for, and the other was to play Diablo II. A game that predates even Windows XP, ME, and I think 2000. It is also a hacked copy, as I can't be bothered digging through all my old games to find the original. So I am not surprised it doesn't want to run under Vista.


So I have a home built machine, with a mix of Intel, APacer, Nvidia, WesterDigital, Seagate and LG parts, and in 8 months the only real problem is I can't play a game that is now 8 years old, and is a hacked copy to boot.

[tdodd]

Moppie, I'm with you on this one. I have six Vista machines at home. Three are running original manufacturer installs of VHP 32. One is running a manufacturer install of VU 32. One is running my own build of VHP64 and one my own build of VU 32.

Hardware included Intel dual and quad core and AMD single core processors. I have ATI, nVidia and Intel Graphics. Machines have from 1GB to 4GB RAM. Everything works.

[Belmondo]

I have been useing Vista for over 8 months now, and I have to ask:

"Where are all these problems?"

In all, I must concede that I've had fewer problems with Vista after buying a machine with it already installed. The upgrade from XP on my old machine was a disaster.

My biggest frustrations remains the lack of support from HP on my 4345mfp printer/fax/scanner. This is a high-end machine designed for large workgroups, but the bundled (necessary) software is only supported by XP and older versions of Windows.

[Moppie]

In all, I must concede that I've had fewer problems with Vista after buying a machine with it already installed. The upgrade from XP on my old machine was a disaster.



It does seem that a lot of the problems have come from people trying to run Vista on older hardware, or dealers selling new PC's that simply are not up to scratch.
This is a problem for any new OS, in fact it is a problem for any new piece of Software.
I remember when Windows 3.1 first came out, people were complaining it was to resource hungry and it wouldn't run on their 086 PC, it has been a problem with every version of Windows ever since.

Try and install OS-X on an 5 year old Mac and see what happens, or XP on an 8 year old PC, either it simply will not install, or it will take all day, and then not run, or run so slowly it is impossible to work with.

[Belmondo]

It does seem that a lot of the problems have come from people trying to run Vista on older hardware, or dealers selling new PC's that simply are not up to scratch.
This is a problem for any new OS, in fact it is a problem for any new piece of Software.
I remember when Windows 3.1 first came out, people were complaining it was to resource hungry and it wouldn't run on their 086 PC, it has been a problem with every version of Windows ever since.

Try and install OS-X on an 5 year old Mac and see what happens, or XP on an 8 year old PC, either it simply will not install, or it will take all day, and then not run, or run so slowly it is impossible to work with.

You are wise beyond your years.;)

[Shooting]

Microsoft needs to make all that security issue an option to check at bootup or have a setting in the control panel for it.

[davidcrebelxt]

Microsoft needs to make all that security issue an option to check at bootup or have a setting in the control panel for it.

There is.

[dpastern]

People's problems are that for years, 3rd party software developers have *not* written their software smartly. They were given massive forewarning that Vista would be totally different, and that if they didn't code their software the way that Microsoft's SDK's indicated, their software would have issues.

People are wrongly blaming Microsoft, when they should be venting their anger at the idiotic 3rd party software manufacturers. Sure, some things with Vista aren't very good, but, mostly, I think you'll find that the vast majority of problems are simply caused by poorly written 3rd party software. Microsoft is no longer the darling of the software world, and the usual tall poppy syndrome has hit the computer magazine arena, with most reviews being stupid enough to blame Microsoft for problems that they know aren't their [Microsoft's] fault. Another reason why I have little faith in reviewers.

Dave

I finally went back to XP Pro...everything works so much better..the deal with Proshow Producer was it did work but could not burn to a cd/dvd or even find the darn things unless I ran as administrator...and I'm tired of everything I want to do I get a screen asking me if I want to do this..I click Yes, then another screen comes up asking for permission..if I didn't want to do it I wouldn't be trying to..Too much security in Vista for me..I don't need to jump thru so many hoops just to move a file from one place to another or delete something....Vista has a long way to go...if someone knows a way I can turn off all those screen so it can be like XP, when I want to do something let me do it, let me know.

[dpastern]

And what are HP doing about it all Tom?

Probably nothing is my guess. I'm all in favour of software developers being *forced* to support their products for at least 5 years from the initial release date, including porting drivers to new platforms like Vista. For far too long, the software industry has been a God unto itself, with little, or in many cases, no consumer laws directed against them, unlike EVERY single other consumer product.

Dave

In all, I must concede that I've had fewer problems with Vista after buying a machine with it already installed. The upgrade from XP on my old machine was a disaster.

My biggest frustrations remains the lack of support from HP on my 4345mfp printer/fax/scanner. This is a high-end machine designed for large workgroups, but the bundled (necessary) software is only supported by XP and older versions of Windows.

[Shooting]

I remember reading that Microsoft did not give the hardware and software makers the code they needed in sufficient time for them to make the changes they needed...but besides that.all that security stuff..if I want to copy a file I want to drag and drop and copy..I don't need a program to ask me if I'm sure I want to do this..if I wasn't sure I would not be doing it..Microsoft should have made all that stuff optional.

[Moppie]

.Microsoft should have made all that stuff optional.

It is. :rolleyes:

[tdodd]

....all that security stuff..if I want to copy a file I want to drag and drop and copy..I don't need a program to ask me if I'm sure I want to do this..if I wasn't sure I would not be doing it..Microsoft should have made all that stuff optional.
What do you think this dialogue is for?

http://lh4.ggpht.com/EezyTiger/SGCCLiBh38I/AAAAAAAAmwI/9k4RB3avjh0/s800/MWSnap%202008-06-24%2C%2006_11_38.jpg

If you don't like it then turn it off, not that I recommend that approach.

[gcogger]

I don't have Vista, so this is a genuine question. Are you saying that, if you have UAC switched on, Vista will ask you to confirm each time when you drag/drop a file? That seems a bit OTT, if true!

[tdodd]

It does not. However, if you drag into a "protected" location, such as the "Program Files" folder then it will ask you to confirm the operation. It's a rare and trivial annoyance and the choice whether to suffer it or not is yours. Personally I prefer to live with a more secure machine. If you just want to simply move your documents and photos around then you can do that freely without any nannying from the OS.

[Moppie]

I don't have Vista, so this is a genuine question. Are you saying that, if you have UAC switched on, Vista will ask you to confirm each time when you drag/drop a file? That seems a bit OTT, if true!

No it won't.
Mine certainly never has. In fact it has been very un-obtrusive and very easy to work with. Far better than XP.

[dpastern]

huh? Vista was in development for over 5 years. How much time do 3rd party developers want? A few centuries? The problem is that developers got used to very sloppy coding on older versions of Windows. Microsoft tightened security with Vista and cut a lot of loopholes. This meant that these poor little 3rd party software developers had to start coding properly, taking note of security. blah blah blah, they didn't like it. Poor things (note the sarcasm). Good on Microsoft for standing its ground. If 3rd party software developers don't like it, they don't have to write software for Microsoft Vista. Good luck to them.

I haven't found UAC intrusive - the real problem is that for years, Microsoft software required you to basically run as root for everything. Not a good idea from a security perspective. On UNIX you'd su or sudo to root in order to do administrative tasks, in Windows, you did them as an ordinary user (not quite true, but nearly *every* Windows install has the ordinary user as administrator). Microsoft have tried to stop this with Vista, and make your normal everyday account just that. Hence UAC, a temporary privildege escalation, no different to su/sudo on UNIX. Since I'm used to that type of environment, UAC doesn't bother me one iota. It's quick, takes less than second to read and click OK. And I don't mean blindly reading and clicking OK. Read what it is asking you, that is its purpose - to make you aware of things wanting root permissions (some of which can be potentially dangerous to your system, like viruses).

On a UNIX system, an ordinary user gets a virus, it kills their ~/. The rest of the system is unharmed. On Windows XP and lower, the whole system gets borked, including their user account (documents and settings). Vista makes this not possible, as these other locations are innaccessible unless you allow access via UAC.

Dave

Dave

I remember reading that Microsoft did not give the hardware and software makers the code they needed in sufficient time for them to make the changes they needed...but besides that.all that security stuff..if I want to copy a file I want to drag and drop and copy..I don't need a program to ask me if I'm sure I want to do this..if I wasn't sure I would not be doing it..Microsoft should have made all that stuff optional.

[Pekka]

Has anyone managed to make Canon RAW thumbails work on Vista 64? Or PS CS2 thumbnails on Vista 64?

[tdodd]

Has anyone managed to make Canon RAW thumbails work on Vista 64? Or PS CS2 thumbnails on Vista 64?
Not within Windows Explorer, but since DPP, Zoombrowser, Picasa, Lightroom and CS3 Bridge all allow me to view the raw files I'm not in the least bit bothered.

[dpastern]

Has anyone managed to make Canon RAW thumbails work on Vista 64? Or PS CS2 thumbnails on Vista 64?

I haven't tried (yet), the last time I played with it, it did funny things with my system, and I haven't been game to try since. I generally use DPP to view my RAWs anyways.

Dave

[PeteJaffa]

Has anyone managed to make Canon RAW thumbails work on Vista 64? Or PS CS2 thumbnails on Vista 64?


I've just started using the Ardfry Codec from here: http://www.ardfry.com/cr2-codec/ and it seems to be working fine.

[Shooting]

What do you think this dialogue is for?

http://lh4.ggpht.com/EezyTiger/SGCCLiBh38I/AAAAAAAAmwI/9k4RB3avjh0/s800/MWSnap%202008-06-24%2C%2006_11_38.jpg

If you don't like it then turn it off.

But that creates other problems...trust me. Been there done that...

[Shooting]

I have no problems with XP Pro. Never have..that is why I took Vista off my machines and put XP Pro on them. ALL software works, No security screens popping up asking me if I want to do something, etc...My laptop is even a Vista machine and XP Pro works perfect..

[Moppie]

But that creates other problems...trust me. Been there done that...

Like what?

I have no problems with it turned off.

[opus13]

I been using vista x64 for a bit now, and i haven't had a single driver issue or unsupported device. When i was planning my system upgrade everybody freaked out on me that I would never be able to get everything working, and that i was wasting my time. My old Canon scanner and HP printer work just fine.

After using a 64bit windows system, I'd be hard pressed to go back to 32 bit, much less my supposed 64bit Apple (please tell me why 32bit apps stop at 2gb of ram, Steve >:().

[James Salenger]

As time goes by, more and more people will replace or upgrade their
computers. More and more people will have to deal with Bill Gates
latest nightmare, Vista. Do yourself a big favor and go to the security
section in the control panel and un-check the user accounts box. Name
yourself as the only administrator for the computer and do not set up
any guest or other accounts. These actions will make life a lot easier
and Vista will act more like XP2. Once you get used to Vista it is not
so bad and has a couple of neat features. you can left click and hold the desktop icon near the start button to page thru open windows like a rolodex.
Big deal, right?
Windows Vista supports 32-bit color with home premium and
can read 3.1 gig memory the professional version reads 4.1 gig and
supports 64-bit.

[HankScorpio]

Windows Vista supports 32-bit color with home premium and
can read 3.1 gig memory the professional version reads 4.1 gig and
supports 64-bit.
Close but not quite. There are 32bit and 64bit versions of all Vista flavours from Home Basic to Ultimate and Enterprise. 32bit versions can only address around 3GB of RAM(you can install more but it won't be seen) whereas 64bit versions support between 8GB for Home Basic to 128+ GB for Ultimate, Business and Enterprise.

There is nothing wrong with Vista except for UAC which is easily disabled.

[James Salenger]

Excuse me, I was trying to remember all the stuff the geek squad was quoting
at Best Buy, but you are right once UAC is disabled, Vista works quite nicely.

[Pete]

Dead wrong.

Turning off UAC leaves your system at risk of attack from malicious code.

Don't turn it off. Having a few prompts when you install new programs is far better than not knowing when a suspect website is injecting bad code onto your system

Do not turn UAC off. Period.

[James Salenger]

Hey, I am just trying to get my posts up to the required number
so I can post in the glamour and nude section.

Dead wrong.

Turning off UAC leaves your system at risk of attack from malicious code.

Don't turn it off. Having a few prompts when you install new programs is far better than not knowing when a suspect website is injecting bad code onto your system

Do not turn UAC off. Period.
Is this true if you have anti-virus software running?

Dead wrong. Do not turn UAC off. Period.
I find your use of superlatives rude and condescending. If i had feelings,
they would surely be hurt.
Seven more to go.

[PixelMagic]

Excuse me, I was trying to remember all the stuff the geek squad was quoting
at Best Buy, but you are right once UAC is disabled, Vista works quite nicely.


:D:D:D

[sidx001]

I am the IT Manager for a mid sized company and I run Windows Vista Business edition, 32 bit with 4GB of memory (Vista does see it with a registry hack) on my personal machine. On all of our laptops and workstations, the first thing that gets turned off is the UAC as it is an annoying application that does little to stop malicious programs from running. What we do, however, is install ZoneAlarm Pro Internet on all machines which does a much better job of watching our systems! We use Symantec Endpoint Pro on all of our systems for virus protection which has worked really well.

I don't mean to step on anyones toes, this is just what we do. We've been a Microsoft shop for a long time, that doesn't mean that I have to agree with Bill on everything! :D

[James Salenger]

I am the IT Manager for a mid sized company and I run Windows Vista Business edition, 32 bit with 4GB of memory (Vista does see it with a registry hack) on my personal machine. On all of our laptops and workstations, the first thing that gets turned off is the UAC as it is an annoying application that does little to stop malicious programs from running. What we do, however, is install ZoneAlarm Pro Internet on all machines which does a much better job of watching our systems! We use Symantec Endpoint Pro on all of our systems for virus protection which has worked really well.

I don't mean to step on anyones toes, this is just what we do. We've been a Microsoft shop for a long time, that doesn't mean that I have to agree with Bill on everything! :D
Who is Bill?

[James Salenger]

Oh no!!!!!!!!!! I just realized that replys don't count as posts!!
but I still like Vista.

[sidx001]

Mr. Gates

[Colorblinded]

As time goes by, more and more people will replace or upgrade their
computers. More and more people will have to deal with Bill Gates
latest nightmare, Vista. Do yourself a big favor and go to the security
section in the control panel and un-check the user accounts box. Name
yourself as the only administrator for the computer and do not set up
any guest or other accounts. These actions will make life a lot easier
and Vista will act more like XP2. Once you get used to Vista it is not
so bad and has a couple of neat features. you can left click and hold the desktop icon near the start button to page thru open windows like a rolodex.
Big deal, right?
What are you on about?

Windows Vista supports 32-bit color with home premium and
can read 3.1 gig memory the professional version reads 4.1 gig and
supports 64-bit.
This is, as already mentioned, wrong. You got your info from Geek Squad? Well there's your first problem. I've been using Vista 64 for a year and a half and have been too lazy to turn off UAC because I rarely see it pop up.

[Desertraptor]

Well I just built a Home Premium Vista box with 4GB installed and the machine sees it. Whether it gets to use it is a different matter as Vista has decided to assign 1.5gb of system RAM as Graphics shared RAM on a Nvidia 512mb 8600GT which leave my system with 2.5gb? This can not be turned off

[sidx001]

Well I just built a Home Premium Vista box with 4GB installed and the machine sees it. Whether it gets to use it is a different matter as Vista has decided to assign 1.5gb of system RAM as Graphics shared RAM on a Nvidia 512mb 8600GT which leave my system with 2.5gb? This can not be turned off

The only way to change how Vista allocates the memory is to go into the Advanced Settings under the properties of the computer. You can change how different things act on your vista installation which will change how the memory is allocated.

Unfortunately, unlike in XP where you can physically change the amount of memory being allocated, Vista does not do this. However, there is a hack for Vista called Vista Manager (http://www.yamicsoft.com/vistamanager/)that does allow you some leeway.

[Mark1]

I could go on for a long time here. But I refuse to bash my head agenst a brick wall any more. You cant help the helpless.

[Moppie]

I don't think we needs 2 threads discussing the same things, so I have merged these together.

[davidcrebelxt]

Dead wrong.

Turning off UAC leaves your system at risk of attack from malicious code.

Don't turn it off. Having a few prompts when you install new programs is far better than not knowing when a suspect website is injecting bad code onto your system

Do not turn UAC off. Period.

I agree with you, and so do many computer security experts.

[PhotoJourno]

Well I agree with whoever is right. The rest are simply wrong !!!

[Guineh]

Dead wrong.

Turning off UAC leaves your system at risk of attack from malicious code.

Don't turn it off. Having a few prompts when you install new programs is far better than not knowing when a suspect website is injecting bad code onto your system

Do not turn UAC off. Period.

Yeah, that! Amazing what fails with UAC enabled, though. For a while, Adobe updater was writing to the Program Files folder (a big no-no!) when it downloaded its update, causing it to go into a hissy. Easily resolved, though.

I'm pretty certain if I had been running Vista the little nastiness with adware being shoveled down my computer by an IE exploit would have had very little chance even getting started, since a UAC prompt would have shown the minute I visited the website (or the piece of malicious code would have died a quick death the minute it tried to install anything or modify the registry. That is what UAC is designed to prevent: Unauthorized changes to your system.

[HankScorpio]

Dead wrong.

Turning off UAC leaves your system at risk of attack from malicious code.

Don't turn it off. Having a few prompts when you install new programs is far better than not knowing when a suspect website is injecting bad code onto your system

Do not turn UAC off. Period.
Actually if you know your system, have a decent process viewer, aren't stupid enough to use IE and aren't the kind of person who runs email attachments then UAC does nothing of use but irritate you. I have never had a software firewall or antivirus on any of my systems and have never had a virus or malicious attack. My systems run much smoother for it too.

I wouldn't recommend most people go without some kind of protection but UAC is a pointless tool that most people just click on without looking even if it's actually a virus asking for permission to destroy their system. I've seen it happen and the response was "I don't know what that is, I just click OK and it goes away".

[Guineh]

Actually if you know your system, have a decent process viewer, aren't stupid enough to use IE and aren't the kind of person who runs email attachments then UAC does nothing of use but irritate you. I have never had a software firewall or antivirus on any of my systems and have never had a virus or malicious attack. My systems run much smoother for it too.

I wouldn't recommend most people go without some kind of protection but UAC is a pointless tool that most people just click on without looking even if it's actually a virus asking for permission to destroy their system. I've seen it happen and the response was "I don't know what that is, I just click OK and it goes away".

Although, if you're one of those that uses a program which (instead of doing things the right way) takes the easy way out and ignores the user's browser preference and opens a website in a IE window, you're hosed if that website has recently fallen victim to someone placing an exploit on it.

I rarely see a UAC prompt. Generally there are a couple situations where it will appear: When I open Visual Studio, I run it as administrator due to some of the unique requirements of running a software development suite. When I install software, Though I can usually expect it, and it's really not an inconvenience, and when I'm making the kinds of changes to a system that should not be taken lightly.

In the day-to-day operation of my system, that rarely happens. I go weeks without seeing a UAC prompt, since when I'm working on a project I'll usually have my IDE open until I'm done with it, or am taking an extended break from it.

[Mark1]

Your first line of defense is the user, period.

Anti virus, anti spyware, root kit removers, This stuff is secondary, mabie even lower than that. I know several people that are running NO protection on thier computers. They have never had a virus or spyware problem. Why? they simply dont go to the kind of places that spread them. This has nothing to do with Vistas improved protection, or being on a Mac. Its simply paying attention and not doing anything that puts your computer at risk. I currently run Microsoft Care1. And only because it eas $4.99 for the year at Costco ($34.99- $30 instant rebate). Otherwise I would also be running a naked machine. I have not had a problem since I started to watch where I went to on the net.

[Belmondo]

I'll take whatever security is built into the system and be grateful for it, nuisance or not. I consider myself to be in the vast majority of computer users....completely lacking in technical finesse. I have to rely on others to tell me when my system is at risk. Once I've been warned, if I make a bad decision, I have no one to blame other than myself.

Maybe it's just feeding my paranoia, but I know very little about online security beyond the obvious, so I really don't object to UAC or any of the prompts by my virus checker, firewall, or operating system.

[HankScorpio]

Although, if you're one of those that uses a program which (instead of doing things the right way) takes the easy way out and ignores the user's browser preference and opens a website in a IE window, you're hosed if that website has recently fallen victim to someone placing an exploit on it.
That's why I have a small application that prevents IE from ever running on my system. I still think MS should detach that horrific thing from the OS so it can be uninstalled. Using IE is like running into a prison shower, bending over and shouting, "Come and get it". Even the beta versions of IE 8 are no safer than IE 6 was.

[Belmondo]

Using IE is like running into a prison shower, bending over and shouting, "Come and get it".

Just curious how you know that.:rolleyes:

[HankScorpio]

I've done time for regicide. My friend told me that's what I should do to earn respect. Respect is a pain the A** ;)

[davidcrebelxt]

Your first line of defense is the user, period.


Agreed. But unfortunately a vast majority of users out there aren't that careful... or have someone in their household who uses computer that may not be... thus I would never reccomend someone run without security protections in place. It may be fine for the few, but those few aren't the ones on the zombie-nets out there.

Also, from what I've read IE7 is actually very good and getting good security reviews (other than having 3rd party cookies enabled by default... but then again, almost all browsers do that... not sure, but I think Safari may be the exeception.) Hank, was wondering where you were getting the information about IE7 & 8 being bad? As computer experts I've read (whom tear IE6 to shreds) feel no qualms about using IE7 and are looking forward to IE8. I have no problems being wrong; just your comments don't mesh with what I've heard from multiple sources.

[HankScorpio]

Hank, was wondering where you were getting the information about IE7 & 8 being bad? As computer experts I've read (whom tear IE6 to shreds) feel no qualms about using IE7 and are looking forward to IE8. I have no problems being wrong; just your comments don't mesh with what I've heard from multiple sources.
Personal experience, I'm an MSDN member and have had the beta versions for ages and although it can be locked down much more than previous versions, it isn't that way by default and as most users wouldn't know to change it then it will still be one of the biggest contributors to spreading viruses. Until MS separate it from the OS and stop it being able to hook pretty much all of the OS then no matter how many bars they put on the windows, they are still leaving the front door open. I'm sticking with Opera (http://www.opera.com).

[Shooting]

I re-installed Vista on my laptop (had xp on it but it came with vista) just to see if any of the updates made things better..the last update was Service Pack 1 and it automatically downloaded without giving me a choice which is ok, it rebooted and then came up to blank screen with a white line blinking in the top right corner..I rebooted and no change, came back up to the blank screen..put in the Vista cd to boot up to cd..same thing, nothing...hummm, getting worried and heart beating fast, I put in the restore cd to the laptop, booted..still nothing..starting to sweat now...I put in my emergency boot disk to my Acronis backup program and it came up to the right screen to restore my hard drive from the last back up on XP..I restored my entire XP system back on it..never again will I try Vista.

[dpastern]

Dead wrong.

Turning off UAC leaves your system at risk of attack from malicious code.

Don't turn it off. Having a few prompts when you install new programs is far better than not knowing when a suspect website is injecting bad code onto your system

Do not turn UAC off. Period.

+1. UAC is not that bad, you get the *odd* prompt, nothing major. It is a security feature.

The problem I see here is one of education. If you were using a UNIX or Linux system, you'd get prompted to authenticate as the root user (either via su or sudo in most cases from a terminal). UAC is not really any different.

Leave it alone, leave it turned on.

Dave

PS Like many users, research! If you turn off UAC it turns off IE in protected mode.

Dave

[dpastern]

I am the IT Manager for a mid sized company and I run Windows Vista Business edition, 32 bit with 4GB of memory (Vista does see it with a registry hack) on my personal machine. On all of our laptops and workstations, the first thing that gets turned off is the UAC as it is an annoying application that does little to stop malicious programs from running. What we do, however, is install ZoneAlarm Pro Internet on all machines which does a much better job of watching our systems! We use Symantec Endpoint Pro on all of our systems for virus protection which has worked really well.

I don't mean to step on anyones toes, this is just what we do. We've been a Microsoft shop for a long time, that doesn't mean that I have to agree with Bill on everything! :D

Zonealarm? You gotta be kidding...don't you have a hardware firewall? Gee, some IT managers...

*walks away shaking his head*

Dave

PS I've seen Zonealarm completely screw up the tcp/ip stack on more than one occasion and I would NEVER let it near any PC workstation that I was maintaining EVER again.

[dpastern]

Personal experience, I'm an MSDN member and have had the beta versions for ages and although it can be locked down much more than previous versions, it isn't that way by default and as most users wouldn't know to change it then it will still be one of the biggest contributors to spreading viruses. Until MS separate it from the OS and stop it being able to hook pretty much all of the OS then no matter how many bars they put on the windows, they are still leaving the front door open. I'm sticking with Opera (http://www.opera.com).

Opera. Yes! Far better browser than FireFox in many ways. Opera has had the least amount of Secunia entries of ANY browser over the past ten years. It consistently has one of the best, if not the best rendering system, it's supremely fast, very reliable and just works. It does lack some of the extended functionality that FireFox offers, but that's cos FireFox is for geeks, nor ordinary users ;-)

I still maintain that FireFox is vastly overrated.

Oh, and IE7 isn't bad at all, that's just a misnomer.

In the end, security comes down to the user. Stupid user = stupid mistakes = infected system. No amount of software protection is going to fix a stupid user.

Dave

[CyberDyneSystems]

I used to use Opera until firefox came along for free,.

Is Opera still charging?
//runs to find it...

[HankScorpio]

Is Opera still charging?

No it's free and has come a very long way since the paid for and advert supported ones. They got loads of money from embedding it in mobile phones and the Wii, so they have a good set of developers.

[dpastern]

I used to use Opera until firefox came along for free,.

Is Opera still charging?
//runs to find it...

Opera is now free. Faster than FireFox, has just as good, if not better HTML/CSS support than FireFox and has far fewer security related issues than either FireFox or IE (FireFox, despite the rabid userbase, is not doing that crash hot as IE in terms of security related issues).

FireFox does have excellent extentions and add-ons though, and they do make it a worthy browser to consider - if you need them that is.

Back on topic -

Mark IIn on Vista x64 bit - not compatible - Vista won't even see it. This is when connected via the FireWire connection. Canon Australia has a ieee1394 driver for Vista 32 bit (released in January 2008 as well - very slow response from Canon), but nothing for 64 bit. Lazy, lazy, lazy...

This driver contradicts a Canon tech support person telling me a few weeks ago that it'll work out of the box, but I'd have uninstall all of the Canon software, then I would need to turn off the Windows firewall, and then uninstall my anti virus software and then reinstall all of the Canon software. What a load of baloney.

Dave

[Moppie]

Vista is now well established, with excellent driver support.

It is also about to be replaced with Windows 7, so times for this thread to become unstuck :)

[basroil]

Vista is now well established, with excellent driver support.

It is also about to be replaced with Windows 7, so times for this thread to become unstuck :)

I'm sure Bill would be happy to hear this ;)