The fact that UAC doesn't remember anything is indeed the big issue. I don't think Stardock should get involved, but I do appreciate the fact that they are willing to bring this issue out and hopefully embarrass Microsoft into addressing this "UAC Amnesia" issue.

UAC Amnesia, hehehe, I like that.

It seems to me someone at stardock has a pretty big ego to think that they could fix anything for ms. I would bet ms is more than capable of fixing there own problems if there were one, after all they are ms, a multi million doller company and stardock well......is just stardock.  

wow, what ignorance.

i don't claim to be a stardock expert but...

stardock did zip folders before microsoft.

stardock was the first to do gui skinning.

stardock was the ones who did gadgets/widgets as we know them first

stardock did keep safe and multiplicity.

in other words, history seems to show that microsoft has used stardock as its own personal r&d center.

MS might be a multi-billion $$ company, but they have trouble making a Word Doc open the same on 2 different computers! Sometimes bigger isn't always better.

I'v been a faithfull Stardock user/subscriber since 1998, I think Stardock has plenty of experience (not ego) to tackle this.

----

Even if you just added the permission saving function, that would be great!
The only concern I would have is if a program could trick your UAC add-on.

If you can address that, I'm all for it!

I don't have any personal experience with UAC, but I've read about a lot of folks having issues with it. Frankly, I think the people who have responded to this post by stating that if there is a problem, then Microsoft will fix it themselves, are being a bit naive. Microsoft may choose to fix this and other issues when they issue the first or second service pack for Vista, and then again, they may not. It may be only through the action of several third-party developers like Stardock, Webroot, and others that Microsoft will come to realize that this is such a pain in the butt that something really should be done about it. I think that the more people step up to the plate and say, "Hey, this is an issue and we're willing to put a fix out here to help people," the more Microsoft will be forced to reconsider their rigid position on UAC implementation.

Other than the fact that it doesn't remember anything you've already told it, how does this UAC differ from a good software firewall, such as Outpost?

I dont know what I was thinking....I thought stardock was a graphic/toy software website...I didnt know they were up there with the big boys designing operating systems and all. Ms is more then capable of fixing there own os. the problem is everyone wants better security... ms gives it to them and then everyone thinks they can make it better. maybe stardock should try and design a better os but I wont hold my breath for that one. To sum it up...I HAVE A .DREAM......MY VISTA WILL RUN STARDOCK FREE.

The idea of making UAC remember what programs are allowed has been floating around since they've implented UAC in beta (used to be called UAP). And it was, obviously, suggested to Microsoft. They made it less intrusive, but still very annoying. The logic behind not letting it remember your settings, is that you're basically disabling it with most of your programs. Thus, like disabling it, it would be useless if a real virus threat came along and tried to hack the programs you decided to allow automatically.

There is more irritating parts about UAC beyond just the continue or cancel. For instance, lets say you have a .TXT file that you want to open up somewhere on your hard drive. You make some changes and then click on Save. Well UAC WON'T let you save it. Access is denied and it won't allow you to override it. So you have to name the .txt file to something different to be able to save it. Then erase the old one and rename the new one (if you choose). What a pain.

Also, there are many programs that you can try to delete that it won't allow you to. Again, won't even give you the allow or cancel. It will automatically state you are not authorized. Even if you take ownership and full control of the file. And this isn't important system files, these are harmless files you downloaded. For example, I downloaded a ZIP file and placed it in my AOL Downloads directory (dont' worry I don't use AOL anymore, I just got used to saving all my downloads there). After I extracted all the contents of the zip file, I went to delete it and UAC wouldn't let me do it. Automatically just told me that access was denied, with no way around it.

Also, lets say you go to your Program Files and go to your mIRC directory (just for example) and you right click on mIRC.exe and choose "Create Shortcut". UAC won't let you. It will tell you that a shortcut can't be placed there. So you'll have to send the shortcut to somewhere else, like your desktop instead!

So there are quite a few issues with UAC beyond it just being annoying with continue or cancel. I personally disabled it because of the other limitations it puts on me where I can't get around them.

First - UAC is retarded. I'm sorry but it just is. This is a perfect example of MS taking their sweet time to do something that should've been done years ago, and when they finally do it they don't think things through and screw it up. If somebody could modify it to actually function in a useful manner, I'd welcome it although it really should be taken care of by MS, which brings my to my second point...

We'll be waiting till the cows come home for MS to change the UAC, and when they (the cows) do, MS will say that cows pose a security risk and leave the UAC as is.

Well no one blames you for being clueless then. After all, it would take several seconds to go to the stardock home page and click on the products button.

Yes, DesktopX enterprise, KeepSafe, Multiplicity Pro.

And I can see how someone of your...intelligence...would have a hard time grasping that the same people who already blend their stuff into the OS might also have a head start on how to make the user account control remember what you've selected.

Would UAC remembering what programs have been given permission previously be an improvement? I say yes. Does Stardock have a history of being able to integrate into the operating system? Yes.

But please, Sixx21, show us how smart you are with your flippant remarks. Ooh. You make me so hot with your clever burns. You're a real hero.

Brad....if you can develop something that will give people a choice to turn it off, leave it on or modify it to they're liking...I'd say by all means go for it!

Stardock is one of the few companies I would trust to do it right.  Can you reuse any of the NeverTrust code? 

When i first installed Vista, and when the first time the UAC thingy pops up.. i was in utter disgust... "what do you mean i don't have permission.. i'm the admin!!"

UAC to me is complete annoyance 10 out of 10, being a home user, i turned it off immediately. I think UAC should be an option for the installer to choose when installing vista. Not left for the user to deactivate it after installing it.

I don't think stardock should be fixing UAC also, it's MS's toy, they should be the ones fixing UAC. Stardock.. just focus on bringing out desktop X 3.5 can't wait for the gadgets to come out.. make the best premium gadgets there are out there. That'll be the best. I'd love to see a fully IM gadget. Something like trillian where it runs MSN , ICQ, Yahoo, AIM but it's a gadget. Now that'll be awesome.

I have a better idea. How about MS treat software installs or program running without UAC much like web browsers tread secure sites with SSL. The PC has a list of Root Certificates that it knows are "proven good". Others will cause a prompt that it's not a "certified certificate". The UAC can act the same way. Software vendors have to deal with MS anyway when it comes to compatability dev tools for each OS... well, those same companies can turn arround and hand MS a checksum of the software once complete. MS turns around and updates those root UAC libraries on "patch Tuesday". Driver manufactures already have to kinda do this in order to get the MS Digital Signature "status". The UAC part of this wouldn't be any different. As a matter of fact, Vista 64bit DOES NOT ALLOW any non MS certified drivers to install.

Yes, it is that simple.

Being a Systems Admin and Consultant I have had the distinct displeasure of having to fix machines which have been totally screwed up due to user error, e.g., no antivirus and/or antispyware apps installed. And the #1 problem is people downloading brain-dead apps via P2P programs, ad nauseam. UAC might have been a good idea to protect such people from themselves, but there are serious issues on both sides of the equation, IMHO. Since the user can simply click "OK" or "Continue" whenever a dialog pops up, the potential protection UAC is supposed to provide is basically circumvented; again by user error. On the other side, if the UAC took full control without any ability to "Continue", then who would decide which action and/or application should be allowed?

I do applaud MS for making an attempt to diminish user error problems, but UAC doesn't appear to be the solution. As long as a human being is involved in the process, there are going to be problems. Personally, after putting up with the UAC for a week, I turned it off. If after all these years of working on and with PC's and having top-shelf antivirus and antispyware installed and consequently have never been infected or hacked, if I get "bit"... it's going to be my own stupidity that does it.

Oh yeh... should Stardock or any 3rd-party company mess with the UAC? I am agin it 100%. If a company can modify it, then the miscreants can also by-pass it. So what would be the advantage in that?

As long as stardock can figure out a way to make that transition to the UAC 'secure desktop' less jarring, I'm all for it.

There is no way UAC is something Stardock should touch.

Should Microsoft start releasing tweaks for problems in WindowBlinds? No. Stick with your own software and work on making that better, leave other people's work alone.

It's funny to me how few people know Stardocks history of integration with OSs.
Do "other people's software" that they should leave alone include Windows?  So should Stardock NOT enhance the GUI?  What about Bootskins, or logons, or  . .or . .  or . . .

Stardocks OS/2 timeline

heh . . I'd buy UAC management.  Better yet, include it in my Thinkdesk Sub. 

Hey guys... Just so you know, there already is a better version of UAC. It is called third party anti-virus software. I am not and will not become familiar with Vista because my XP machine is wonderful and McAfee blocks anything that could harm my computer. I have intentionally gone to sites with viruses on them that I am totally aware of, and guess what? No problem. Oh, and "malicious code"? Yup, got that base covered too...

So... My point is is that Vista is, overall, a worhtless "upgrade" (downgrade in my opinion) XP is perfectly sufficient, and is more efficient, although it still has its host of problems...

Stop trying to fix the world...

I think most of these "features" of Vista already exist in third party software for XP. I agree with anyone that declares they will not install Vista. I use Spyware Blaster, and Spybot, either program will do pretty much the same thing as UAC, that is, asking for permission to make a potentially dangerous change to the system. And these programs will remember your choice too. Spybot uses the Teatimer program which has a small memory foot print. Spyware Blaster, although it remains in memory fully, but it can include integration with ClamWin Antivirus. So when it is scanning for spyware, it is also Virus Scanning. Neat eh? I have been using this setup for well over a year now and have never had an infection or malware problem. I do keep other scanners on hand though and of course Lavasoft's Adaware is used from time to time. And of course I don't use IE for anything other viewing IE only sites. That probably helps also. Firefox (sometimes Opera) are what I prefer. So, see, you don't need Vista. XP can have annoying UAC also!

I was organising my start menu to make it clearer ( that start menu in Vista is a dismal failure) by moving everything into categories and for each item UAC prompted me six times   

Needless to say it quickly got turned off and is staying off.

UAC is definitely a little over-active in alot of cases, especially for a 'power user'.  However, for everyday stuff such as chatting, gaming, skinning, its not a problem.  I dont even really see it that often, although getting this rig up and going how I want it has me still installing stuff.  Personally, I think it will make itself worth its 'annoyance' as soon as I start getting attacks that its blocking.  I'm willing to keep it enabled for awhile... its really not that big of a deal.

Should Stardock fix Microsoft's UAC ?
User Account Control on Vista discussion
Yesterday, 8:08 AM by Frogboy

You assume that UAC is broken ? - UAC may be an annoyance to many but broken it most definitely it is NOT.A simple reg tweak is all it takes to turn on or off as many already know.

If you would like to impress me , get the words "Stardock" and "Windowblinds" on this list - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305

UAC is just microsoft's way of passing the responsibility for security on to the customer so they dont have to deal with it in the OS.

Disabled it as soon as that first box came up. Useless.