Thank goodness Windows 7 will have Windows Updates until 2020!

MouseGolf · 20 Jul 2013

I have tried both Windows 8 and 8.1 on my system. My experience for non-touch screen use: inefficient in every area. People are downloading the Start Menu from many (10 now) different sources. Even the faux start menu in W8.1 is useless.

This is a perfect example of how quickly accessed the integrated Start Menu in Windows 7 is in this guy's video at YouTube. Just move the marker on the progress bar past his opinions on three free programs "IF" you're not interested in viewing them.

Emphasis on the Start Menu

gregrocker · 20 Jul 2013

We await a worthy successor to Win7, one which continues the perfected Desktop Experience which drives the world economy and is used by all those doing productive work.

Lady Fitzgerald · 20 Jul 2013

I have an issue with one tip the video give. UAC may be a royal...ah...hurt in the donkey but it's there to protect you from an unknown unwelcome process being started up by a nasty that might have "snuck" in. It doesn't take but a second or two to read and click when it pops up. I have mine full enabled.

Dude · 20 Jul 2013

Lady Fitzgerald said:

I have an issue with one tip the video give. UAC may be a royal...ah...hurt in the donkey but it's there to protect you from an unknown unwelcome process being started up by a nasty that might have "snuck" in. It doesn't take but a second or two to read and click when it pops up. I have mine full enabled.

Well said, it is an necessary evil in my opinion

bobafetthotmail · 20 Jul 2013

+1 for UAC. Screen dimming is not just cosmetic, it locks down any other program to prevent malware from simply operating the buttons on the popup on its own (which is pretty easy).

That's a feature that is more or less the same in all serious linux distros. So yeah. It's good to have.

Given that I have a rooted phone, I'm pretty much used to seeing "app X is asking for SuperUser permission, what should I do?" anyway so it's not that bad.

MouseGolf · 20 Jul 2013

I personally find the UAC a major pain in the neck. If a person is experienced they really don't need that enabled. It's probably a good idea for the average day-to-day user to keep it enabled.

After all, Windows 95 through XP didn't have this added layer of protection. I've yet to hear from anyone (might here) who said UAC alerted them in time to thwart a worm or trojan infection.

bobafetthotmail · 21 Jul 2013

Its mere presence scares off script kiddies from coding shit like that (that was more prevalent in the past, admittedly). Because it won't work on most modern PCs.

I keep it at level 3 I think, not max, it alerts me if there are programs that want to do admin stuff. I know what I am doing, but programs might be trying to deceive me.

Windows 95 through XP didn't have this added layer of protection

Malware was more basic too in their days. UAC would have been useful in XP, I do remember quite a few infected PCs where it would have made a difference. It's an arms race.

As I said, the fact that every major Linux distro and even Android has it too should mean something. Windows ripped off that feature (the concept of it anyway, their code isn't compatible) and called it UAC.

Britton30 · 21 Jul 2013

SuperTweaker said:

I personally find the UAC a major pain in the neck. If a person is experienced they really don't need that enabled. It's probably a good idea for the average day-to-day user to keep it enabled.

After all, Windows 95 through XP didn't have this added layer of protection. I've yet to hear from anyone (might here) who said UAC alerted them in time to thwart a worm or trojan infection.

I fully agree to that.

MouseGolf · 21 Jul 2013

gregrocker said:

We await a worthy successor to Win7, one which continues the perfected Desktop Experience which drives the world economy and is used by all those doing productive work.

Absolutely! I agree 100%!

Lady Fitzgerald · 21 Jul 2013

SuperTweaker said:

I personally find the UAC a major pain in the neck. If a person is experienced they really don't need that enabled. It's probably a good idea for the average day-to-day user to keep it enabled.

After all, Windows 95 through XP didn't have this added layer of protection. I've yet to hear from anyone (might here) who said UAC alerted them in time to thwart a worm or trojan infection.

The purpose of UAC isn't so much to prevent an infection as it is to stop an infection that "snuck" through from starting an unwanted process without your knowledge. An unwanted process doesn't have to be an obvious one, such as propagating spam. It can be one you normally would initiate yourself, such as going to a banking website to transfer money or to a social media page to steal the addresses of friends.

It doesn't matter how careful or experienced one may be, nasties will sneak through every once in a blue moon or few (and you won't know it). Nasties can attach themselves to downloads that used to be safe. Reputable websites can get infected and that infection can then sneak aboard your computer. Once there, it can do all sorts of "wonderful" things, such as delete your data, mine it for passwords in cookies, send spam, etc. UAC, if allowed to do its job, will alert you to any process starting without your knowledge.

UAC is like auto insurance. You may be the world's best driver and go for decades without an accident, never needing insurance, then some moron goes out of control and slams into your car while it is stopped at a red light. At that point, the insurance suddenly becomes welcome.

I've had UAC tell me a couple of times a program was self-starting a process I didn't want it to do at the time. Both times, it was harmless—the program was doing what it was supposed to—and all that was needed was to tweak the programs settings a little. However, it just as easily could have been a nasty up to no good.