Quote - Ok, first off, i'm very much on the side of those that don't like the security 'features' in Vista. I find them to be largely a pain in the butt and the most of my users are experiencing many problems trying to adjust to the new operating system. Please bear with me because I have tried to take some technical concepts and turn them into 'simple' english which may not sound 100% right. :biggrin:

Well, personally I rather like the idea of a secure OS in which admin privledges are limited, but then again I'm a Linux fan so this is something I'm accustomed too and appreciate.

However the scuttlebutt I've heard about Vista is that it's a royal pain in the keester - even some simple operations, like copying a file from one drive to another, often requires multiple acknowledgements that access should be granted for this operation to occur.

Ok, I'm all for hardening the OS, don't get me wrong, but since most viruses install themselves by piggy backing on other installation programs, and most end users don't know enough to say "no" to a process their not that familiar with, I just don't see this multiple yes/no acknowlegement as being a really good idea as far as a security feature for most.

It's something akin to the boy that cried wolf - after the 20 or 30th time you see the same box pop up asking you for permission the more likely it is the end user will just click yes without actually reading the contents, after all they are installing something intentionally anyway so they expect that annoying box to pop up already.

So while I understand and respect how difficult it is to secure certain portions of the OS effectively and still have the system be "user friendly" in many regards, I don't see the new features in Vista as being very effective over the long term for most users. 

Personally I think Vista should be paranoid about anything that overwrites files in the system directory, anything that tries to install itself as a root kit, and anything that tries to set itself up as a "service".

I think it should also be rather suspicious of anything that tries to access a port for external communication, but this utter and extreme paranoia it seems to have about something as innocuous as copying or moving non-system files is where I see the big downfall.  It pops up so many warning boxes that the warnings themselves become ineffective.

Just my 2 cents worth, mind you, but I prefer the Linux method - you enter an admin password for such critical operations, and then it performs them.  It doesn't stop at each stage and ask you over and over and over again to reconfirm.  You can't access any of the critical OS files, or overwrite them, without enteirng an admin password.  It's a simple approach, but pretty darn effective overall.

-Never fear, RenderDog is near!  Oh wait, is that a chew toy?  Yup. ok, nevermind.. go back to fearing...