Microsoft exec: We know users hate UAC

UACondom v.s. real security

The problem is they failed to fix many (any?) of the fundamental security flaws from the "browser-in-kernel" model. It might break a lot more things. I've no idea why they changed the driver model (except to protect HD-DVDs). So they spend 8 billion dollars on a bigger tangled ball of string, and add a few layers so you can authorize screwing it up, or say no leaving it broken or dysfunctional.

Windows could be rewritten to be modular and where things are decoupled enough that there are few places for cascade failures. (When you have one layer, one failure is a cascade). Linux has faults and breaks, but they are in separate domains so when your email breaks, your browser still works. Even an unbootable system often will work almost normally from a live-CD. For that matter "pen drive linux" is portable across most machines.

The problem is because Microsoft doesn't want anyone to ever make a "pen drive Windows" or even a Live CD, they tangle things together to tie it to one configuration. But when one node breaks, every node in nearby links are affected. Even all the extraneous links can cause problems.

They can choose to untangle it, and it would probably not cost even $8 billion (there is embedded XP for a start). But if engineering is about lock-in and DRM, and not about robustness, reliability, and quality, you will get what was specified.

UAC and much of the rest are an attempt at bolt-on security, but only built-in security actually works. Instead of actually making Vista more secure at a fundamental level, they add things apparently at the last minute as protection. High-security deadbolts on thin wooden doors.

Yes, I am complaining - because Microsoft could make things much more secure (beyond locking you out of your own hardware with their DRM) and robust, but chose eye-candy and annoyances instead. Shouldn't I say a facade is a facade instead of complementing for their nice painting of a vault door?

He's Right

I'm no friend of Microsoft's -- most of my PC's run Linux. That said, I have one laptop which runs Vista Premium and those nag boxes are what I would expect from a consumer grade OS which has a good security component.

Microsoft relies on the system administrator (you) to be the final arbiter as to the properness of an attempt to install software on your machine. Those people who turn this stuff off will get bitten -- their machines will slow down, turn into molasses, and melt onto the floor. At that point they will be trying norton anti-virus, ad-aware, spybot search and destroy, et al. and be crying about how Microsoft didn't prevent this when it should have.

In the end, Microsoft doesn't own our machines -- we do. And turning off the sharpest of all the tools Microsoft has given us to maintain that ownership is, in the end, giving it to a botnet gang.

Hmmm, but you say--

You say, "By the way, I also just bought an iMac with Leopard. As far as I can see, it uses UAC as well. I'm prompted for a username and password every time I install an application or driver."

Hmmm, an apple is the same as an apple tree you say????

I use a Mac on the road and a PC at my desk. The Mac ONLY asks for a password ONE TIME, when you INSTALL new software. Period. Not several times and over and over.

So your point seems worded to confuse the reader, not enlighten them. Could you be a paid shill??
Just a thought.

en

sure looks like he said what you said

he said, "every time I install an application or driver", he never said "several times and over and over." Make sure you are reading what he wrote and not just assuming from the first couple of words...

could you just be a thread crapper?!?!?!