The most annoying thing about vista is the (UAC blkout screen)

It's very annoying and it freezes everything for about 1 seconds. Here's how to turn off the blkout screen.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/wind...top-blacking-out-the-screen-in-windows-vista/

 

Why don't you just turn it of by 2 clicks the easy way? As you don't even need it running.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/wind...nt-control-uac-the-easy-way-on-windows-vista/

 

I read that turning off the blackout screen helps programs not initiate any action while it is open or something like that.

 

well i still want some protection, plus tuning it off gives another annoying message. you can probably turn that message off to but i'll just leave it the way it is.

 

Well, xp doesn't have it from the beginning and XP-users do fine, so turning it off in vista shouldn't be such a pity.

What's that other message you're reffering to? I haven't seen it since i did turn UAC off like the way i posted.

 

I get the UAC is turned off message and Vista begging me to turn it back on.

 

Isn't that only when you turn it off from the first and no more after that if you click the right box?

 

Here's a guide to turning off the blanking/darkening screen:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=436&page=2
(Haven't tried it myself.)

The purpose of the screen darkening is both to distinguish it from non-UAC prompts and to make it harder for programs to put stuff on the screen to coax the user into clicking Continue. Another thing tied to that is the "secure desktop", which makes it hard or impossible for programs to script clicking the Continue button in the way that programs can normally script mouse clicks or keystrokes in other windows.

So yeah, you'll lose a little bit of security by turning off this effect, but nowhere near as much as you'd lose by turning off UAC entirely... so it may be a good compromise for some users.

 

No they don't "do fine". They have zero protection from a rouge process doing all sorts of nefarious things to system files because 99% of users allow the machine to be run with full administrator privledges at all times. With UAC Microsoft brought the same sort of protections from this that Unix and Unix derived systems have had for years.

Gary

 

The other bad thing about turning off UAC is that some programs (not many, but a few) are persnickety about it being on when they're installed but later being turned off, or vice versa. Something to do with a way UAC protects critical operating system files. Also the reason I made turning off UAC the first thing I did after installing Vista, rather than one of the first.

Oddly I don't find the equivalent root-password prompts nearly as annoying in Linux (except when they prevent me from installing software - or rather, force me to compile it from source code). Probably has to do with both their frequency and the lack of the screen darkening. It's good that Microsoft is adding some options for UAC in Win7; perhaps this will be one of the areas with options.

I know there's a way to disable the prompts entirely - there is for every Windows security measure, you just have to dig deeper for some of them.

XP users are at greater risk, but I've always felt that safe browsing habits are the most important thing in computer security. At least since hardware firewalls became commonplace. For some users, all kinds of security software is necessary, but others (myself included) would have to actively search for a virus to be infected by one.

 

UAC was one of the first things I turned off...screw the warnings! I keep my security suite updated and running all the time. After 18 months of using Vista without UAC, I've had no infections or unauthorized changes!

It is easily one of Vista's most annoying features! I've found Vista to be much more tolerable without it.

Allegedly, Windows 7 will include a less intrusive version of UAC. After finally beating Vista into submission, I'm in no hurry to "upgrade" again!

 

When reading about everyone who uses XP i don't see anyone complaining about anything. Else all xp-users would have complained and/or changed to vista or unix? If it's not fine for them.


And i know what the feauture does, thanks!

 

Oh please, you didn't here any of the complaints by all manner of folks in the industry that Microsoft was producing an operating system that was not secure? There were hundreds of articles in all sorts of trade journals, on line magazines etc. The loudest screamers were those from the Unix based community, siting how ridiculous it was for an OS to be installed with default user privileges begin set to Administrator. And they were right. It was ridiculous. Microsoft "got religion" and changed their ways. Subsequent releases of server operating systems had ALL ports locked down until specifically opened. And desktop operating systems (Vista) were set to have default privileges at a proper user level and any task requiring escalated privileges would require user intervention. (aka UAC)

So I guess you think it is perfectly fine for an OS to have default user rights set to Administrator?

Gary