Update: Over at ZDNet, I’ve put together a visual representation of UAC as it exists in Windows Vista Build 5365.
One of the most intriguing new features in Windows Vista is a major change in the way user accounts work. Windows XP allows accounts to reside in either the Administrators group (where they have full control over the system, including the ability to install a piece of spyware or a virus) or in the Users group, where their capabilities are so limited as to be practically unusable.
Windows Vista adds a feature called User Account Control (UAC), which until recently was called User Access Protection (UAP) and grows out of research into least-privileged user accounts (LUA), a drum that Microsoft Senior Consultant Aaron Margosis has been banging for some time on his Non-Admin blog.
The theory behind UAC is sound: When you’re about to do something that requires an administrator’s privileges, you need an administrator’s consent. For a regular user, that means typing in a set of credentials (username/password) that belong to a member of the Administrators group; if you’re already an administrator, you just have to click a Permit button. This option allows you to see when a program or process is trying to do something that can have an impact on your system’s stability, and it’s an effective way to block untrained or naive users from accidentally screwing up their system.
(The UAC team has a new blog where they’re sharing some of the technical details behind this feature.)
UAC in the current build of Windows Vista is working, but not well. Some programs fail when they can’t get full system access or when they try to save a file to an area where the current user doesn’t have write privileges. The barrage of dialog boxes is annoying, especially during the initial phases of setting up a system. And those permission boxes can be confusing – at this early stage of the beta, some key Windows Vista components are still unsigned, leading to dialog boxes like this one, which appears when you try to run a Control Panel applet:
The annoyance factor is even higher when you factor in the steady stream of warnings from Windows Defender and Internet Explorer.
It’s possible to disable UAC so that you can run with administrator privileges full-time. But as Josh at Windows Connected argues, doing so means you’re not giving this feature the testing it needs. From a personal point of view, I have no choice but to grit my teeth and figure out how to work with UAC, because I have to document the inner workings of this feature for Windows Vista Inside Out.
I’m hoping that this feature will work much more smoothly in future beta versions. If it doesn’t, the UAC team had better be prepared for some caustic reviews.
Do you know Tiger? It has the feature as well, and while I’ve never seen it there, I’ve also not heard any complaints about it. How obtrusive is it there?
Pingback: Windows Vista (Longhorn) News : Is Windows Vista too protective?
Pingback: Computer Views : Is Windows Vista too protective?
Pingback: Windows Vista Info
Pingback: TechBlog
Pingback: » Tone Down UAC, Or Consolidate? InsideMicrosoft - part of the Blog News Channel
Tiger simplifies the install incredibly, Rick. 90% of the software you want to install does not need to get any permission from the OS- it’s a self contained package. Drag-n-drop. When I introduced my girlfriend to the Apple, she couldn’t figure out how to install software because that was too simple.
Some software installs kernel extensions, or new “frameworks”- system libraries, and those packages run an installer. The installer requires an admin password even if you are currently running as an administrator. It’s very smooth and unubtrusive. Because of the OS permissions, even an administrator can’t bone the system too badly- certain things require root access, and that’s disabled by default, and even after enabling, it requires knowing how to use a BASH prompt.
When it comes to UI, Microsoft is always a few steps behind Apple, and with the architecture of OSX, the same now goes for security. Personally, the TCPA initiative is enough to keep me away from Vista.
The problem is backward compatibility. Any application that follows best practices (and there are actually quite a few of them) will install just fine with no additional permissions required from a Protected Admin account. It’s the older apps that assume they’re running as a full Admin that are most likelt to cause problems.
UAC is just one annoyance, wait until the reviews of DRM in Vista. I’m on XP SP2, for example, and got super annoyed yesterday when I could watch the DVD I rent on my PC because of DRM. That’s just the icing, wait until Vista delivers the cake.
What I find perplexing is that you get spammed with these boxes all the time even when running an account in the administrator group…that doesn’t make any sense, privileged account should be exactly that.
The fact is the box pops up so often it totally meaningless, and just becomes a click through much like the annoying is it safe to run me box in XP. For the dialog to mean anything it really needs to be scaled back to critical compoents and then give real details about the risk and problems.
Pingback: Windows Tips and Tricks
it is a pain having to deal a box every time you run an app. this shouldnt happen and it a major fault of vista…
The su -c feature will be a nice addition to Windows…
Just log as Administrator !
=> When I am logged as “Administrator” (the built in admin account), I don’t get any UAP/LUA popup
If I am logged as a non built-in admin account, I get the UAP popup.
IMO, it’s a good thing. Just as to be get used to it.
Read this website:
http://blogs.msdn.com/uap/
Why User Account Control (UAC)?
[...]
The following section lists Windows Vista user accounts and groups.
Built-in Administrator account: The standard built-in Administrator account, and a member of the Local Administrators group. This account has full access throughout the operating system.
Local Administrators group: This group’s members have the highest potential level of administrative access to the local computer but are always logon restricted.
Standard Users group: This group’s members are unable to make system-wide changes, like installing applications and changing system settings, without an administrator providing his/her credentials during an Over the Shoulder (OTS) credential prompt. An OTS credential prompt occurs when a standard user attempts to perform a task that requires administrative privileges.
The Power Users group was deprecated from Vista since many tasks that formerly required privileges granted to this group are now available to the Standard Users group. For instance, Standard Users can now install printers and respond to Windows Firewall notifications.
Microsoft changed it to “Control” instead of “Protection” because they don’t have confidence in their products.
I can’t wait until Apple ships Intel iBooks. So long Billy G.
What does Apple on Intel have to do with anything here? Anyhow, I am interested to see how this goes. Security and usability are 2 things that don’t go hand in hand. I am hoping they come up with something that is usable while still being more secure, but from past experience, I am doubting it….
Security and usability are not nearly as often in opposition as Microsoft (or Apple!) would like you to believe. In fact, a more secure design is often more convenient as well. For example, as it turns out, NOT having programs auto-run or auto-install from web browsers and removable media, and letting the user open the installer or whatever on their own, is a LOT more convenient than answering gobs of extra dialogs just in case someone’s trying to abuse the excessive “convenience”.
um.. WE DONT WANT A FRIGGIN APPLE/WINDOWS OS! stop trying to copy Apple’s OS’s! wtf is this dialog box pop up crap? if u install something bad, its your fault! dont hinder the rest of us just cause theres dumb idiots who download pr0n 24/7 off google and end up with a comp full of virus’s.. at least make it so we can turn that idiot dialog n00b box off!
uh hello: unfortunately a vast amount of windows users are just that type of idiot.