ZDoom .ini gone?

[Enjay]

That's probably because most of the users don't know what they're doing.

True, true.

[Gez]

Anybody who's been fixing up their neighbours' computers know that. There's this woman, I used to have to remove viruses and spyware twice per month. (The major part of the problem was her teenage son going to blatantly unreliable sites in search for pr0nz and pirated games.) I finally switched out Windows for Linux, showed her how to use Firefox (with adblock+ and noscript) and OpenOffice to do what she used to do on Windows, and hoped the problem would be solved for good.


Well, two weeks later the computer was on the fritz again because the son had reinstalled Windows over Linux to play some games, and it was again full of viruses and spyware. I told her it was hopeless forever and there was nothing I could do.

[Edward-san]

^
Hard times ... :facepalm:

Well, when I bought this laptop (which has Vista x32), I immediately created a new partition where I put all the games and programs, if there was the possibility.
This could be considered harsh, but this way you'll be saved by the UAC hell.

:insert pun here:

[Salad Viking]

I agree: UAC really gets in the way. I am the only user on my computer and I'm an administrator. So why do I constantly have to give permission to move files or open folders? I mean, I had to set 7-Zip to always run as administrator because, otherwise, it won't let me extract files. This means I have to click "Yes" on a prompt every time I want to open a zip file.

[Zippy]

I agree: UAC really gets in the way. I am the only user on my computer and I'm an administrator. So why do I constantly have to give permission to move files or open folders? I mean, I had to set 7-Zip to always run as administrator because, otherwise, it won't let me extract files. This means I have to click "Yes" on a prompt every time I want to open a zip file.

If you're the only user and the administrator, it might not be necessary. It's for people who might otherwise get themselves in trouble using the system. As could be expected, Microsoft did not build the operating system for you specifically, but for their larger and more computer illiterate customer base.

[Salad Viking]

If you're the only user and the administrator, it might not be necessary. It's for people who might otherwise get themselves in trouble using the system.

Well, actually, one of the main reasons UAC was implemented is to prevent malicious code from messing up your computer without you knowing. So it was sort of for everybody, even lone users.

As could be expected, Microsoft did not build the operating system for you specifically, but for their larger and more computer illiterate customer base.

Yes, and it looks like they're taking it to new heights with Windows 8: A tablet interface? There's not nearly enough of a tablet market yet that we need one of those in our desktop computer operating system. And mandatory XBox Live integration? Microsoft, have you forgotten that you have a professional user base, and that most of your users aren't even running machines powerful enough to play games? But I stray off topic.

[Zippy]

Well, actually, one of the main reasons UAC was implemented is to prevent malicious code from messing up your computer without you knowing. So it was sort of for everybody, even lone users.

I said it might not be necessary. If your computer awareness is such that you are unlikely to expose yourself to any danger, you don't need to be running UAC except when you feel you are engaging in risky activity. For those who cannot adequately judge the danger or maintain their computers, it is best to leave it on, where it will do it's job of separating access levels so malicious programs can't do their thing.

Yes, and it looks like they're taking it to new heights with Windows 8: A tablet interface? There's not nearly enough of a tablet market yet that we need one of those in our desktop computer operating system. And mandatory XBox Live integration? Microsoft, have you forgotten that you have a professional user base, and that most of your users aren't even running machines powerful enough to play games? But I stray off topic.

They haven't really forgotten anything. History has proven it isn't difficult to create a tablet interface that be dual purposed to serve desktop needs. Windows needs slightly better tablet integration anyway if you ask me. Doing development work for it could have been better, last experience I had anyway.

Also, the XBox Live integration is hardly something that makes sense described as "mandatory". It doesn't force you to create an XBox Live account or something. What they've said is that it will natively support interfacing with the XBox Live system. So those individuals that already make use of XBox Live, and whatever it is that XBox Live does, can also do some of those things through their PC. It doesn't, in any way, shape, or form mandate a machine must be capable of use for video games, in the same way that Windows Media Player doesn't mandate a machine must have sound output.

[FDARI]

Disabling UAC is possible. It may even be possible to have separate settings for administrators and normal users. However, administrators (and powerusers) need it more than others, not less, because administrators are empowered to make permanent changes to their computer. UAC tends to stop you when you are about to make a change to your computer that you are authorised to make only as a member of the administrators-group. Stop you, and check with you that you're really intending to do what you're about to do. Without the UAC, a seemingly legit program could secretly abuse your permissions to make changes to the system. With the UAC, that operation would either fail, or cause a prompt to the end user/admin.

The process ranges from slightly clumsy to excessively clumsy, and users who are in control of their pc/environment might be as safe without it. (Users who don't connect to the internet, or refuse all scripts and activex, and don't download anything, at least not without verifying programs carefully. And users who have exclusive access to their computer.)

It is over the top, though. Personally I find the handling of restricted files and folders most infuriating. (If you use "administrators" as a general permission group for a folder, and require that token to gain access, Windows Server 2008 may/will require you to use your administrative access to change the security of the folder and give your own user permanent access. That's not secure. That's messy. Baaaad. Stupid, ill conceived and counterproductive.)

I handle my security a little differently, though: I set up a non-administrator account for all my non-administration uses. And I rarely download anything but well known and trusted executables. I could achieve damage to my useraccount, but not to the computer in general; I do not grant myself those rights. (Otherwise I use the admin account for some specific purpose.)

[Edward-san]

I would actually prefer the UAC if it was like the linux one, it's less invasive.

[randi]

Linux doesn't have years worth of legacy software from a single-user, everybody is an administrator, operating system it has to be backwards-compatible with, either.

I had to set 7-Zip to always run as administrator because, otherwise, it won't let me extract files.

I don't know what you're doing wrong, but it works fine for me without any special administrative privileges.

[Salad Viking]

I had to set 7-Zip to always run as administrator because, otherwise, it won't let me extract files.

I don't know what you're doing wrong, but it works fine for me without any special administrative privileges.

Well, it won't let me extract to Program Files (because of the whole "can't read or write to Program Files" thing). You'd think 7-Zip is the kind of program that should automatically be given this privilege.

[Bio Hazard]

You'd think 7-Zip is the kind of program that should automatically be given this privilege.

Why? Then any malware could just claim "Hey, I'm an archive utility! Can I have automatic permission to mess with the important parts of the system?" and the whole point of UAC would be defeated.

[Salad Viking]

Why? Then any malware could just claim "Hey, I'm an archive utility! Can I have automatic permission to mess with the important parts of the system?" and the whole point of UAC would be defeated.

A simple user prompt would be enough to remedy that.

[Project Shadowcat]

The UAC.

[Salad Viking]

The UAC.

No, UAC is barring me from extracting to Program Files. It requires me to run 7-Zip as an administrator if I want to do so, and that requires me to click a prompt that asks me if I really meant to run this program every time I open a Zip.

What I was trying to say in the first place is that I would like it if Windows/UAC could identify that I'm trying to run a file management program which should have read/write access to all folders (I'm not concerned about the details of this process) and then ask me one time if I trust this program and then leave me alone.

Basically, it would be easier if UAC could grant specific privileges to programs without me manually having to give every program administrative power and asking me if I really wanted to do that every time I run said programs. Maybe I'm asking too much of UAC, but I would say it's a flaw that my operating system interferes when I'm trying to use my computer as I see fit, for my own safety or not. Windows XP may have been less safe, but it never got in your way at least.