

Microsoft: Windows 7 UAC is fine, don't worry, we don't want to talk about it, OK? - technologizer
http://technologizer.com/2009/02/04/microsoft-windows-7-uac-is-fine-dont-worry-we-dont-want-to-talk-about-it/

======
kyochan
As a member of a household that has become the de facto PC repair shop for our
circle of friends, I'm glad Vista's UAC is extra paranoid. Sure, it's annoying
at first and it hasn't saved my PC from anything (yet), but for casual users
it will save them from self-inflicted problems down the road.

~~~
moxy
I'm not so sure. After becoming conditioned to having to click the "Allow"
button over a long period of time, it might become rote for people to allow
even the most detrimental processes (having become accustomed to UAC's
paranoia). It seems likely that the average user who would be afflicted by
such maladies (spyware, viruses, etc.) couldn't tell the difference between a
malicious and non-malicious process.

Even if they could recognize these processes as dangerous, would UAC really do
all that much to protect the computer? Although it does reduce the potential
for damage, it doesn't inhibit one from acquiring a virus in the first place.

Of course, if a person is messing around with their own system files, I'm not
sure how effective a warning box will be in preventing whatever it is that
they're doing. UAC seems to be a textbook case of "security theater."

~~~
kyochan
It's not meant to be a stop all. It's designed so that users is notified what
is being executed. For an average user, I believe if he does not know what it
is, chances are he will press cancel, unless people have a lot of faith in
processes they do not understand.

It's not perfect, but its better than the alternative. of friends coming to
our house with their PC's having no idea what they did to it.

