Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: CaptJosh on November 21, 2011, 08:42:43 am
-
Ok, to the person who is claiming that CCleaner is holding your system together, no it isn't. It's probably tearing your windows registry to hell and gone. Registry cleaners are strongly recommended against by Microsoft and every good computer tech out there, as they can never really know what entries belong and what don't. Use one long enough, and you'll screw your system up to the point where only a wipe and reload will fix it. Registry modification is always something that should be done carefully and delicately, not as a matter of course or through an automated tool like CCleaner. Of course, it is possible that your hard drive or some other part of your PC is failing or has failed. But CCleaner can't be helping, and no other so-called registry optimizer will unless Microsoft releases one of its own someday, which isn't going to happen.
-
Ok, to the person who is claiming that CCleaner is holding your system together, no it isn't. It's probably tearing your windows registry to hell and gone. Registry cleaners are strongly recommended against by Microsoft and every good computer tech out there, as they can never really know what entries belong and what don't. Use one long enough, and you'll screw your system up to the point where only a wipe and reload will fix it. Registry modification is always something that should be done carefully and delicately, not as a matter of course or through an automated tool like CCleaner. Of course, it is possible that your hard drive or some other part of your PC is failing or has failed. But CCleaner can't be helping, and no other so-called registry optimizer will unless Microsoft releases one of its own someday, which isn't going to happen.
To the person who doesn't understand CCleaner: It only cleans the registry IF you tell it to, it is a completely separate option from the 'normal' cleaning duties (browser history, recycle bin, etc). I, as a computer tech, highly recommend it for everyone, and suggest it be run once a week, as cleaning out said things can keep the computer running smooth. Do some research on the program before assuming what it actually does, though the fact you obviously haven't heard of CCleaner up until this point amazes me.
(http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5220/76120603.png)
EDIT: spelling Why you no have spellchecker IE? Had to get back to comp with Chrome
-
i wonder if working for the government gets me access to stuff like that. i probably should have looked into that a few weeks ago BEFORE buying windows 7.
Check out the Microsoft Home Use Program (Google it). I got MS Office 2010 for $10 + $10 shipping. (I could have skipped shipping and just downloaded it, but I wanted the disc.) I don't know if Windoze is part of that program or not. You will need a valid government e-mail address to take advantage of HUP though.
EDIT: Seconding CaptJosh. CCleaner is an excellent program. I have used other good programs that clean the registry as well. You just have to stay away from bad programs. There are hundreds if not thousands of bad programs that claim to "fix" your system... some are just placebos, others actually attempt to "clean" the system, and end up damaging it. However, there are quite a few (dozens, maybe a hundred or so) programs that actually are coded by people who know what the f--- they are doing. Ever heard of Sysinternals / Winternals (Process Explorer, Autoruns, Rootkit Revealer, etc)? They were so good Microsoft bought them (http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2006/07/microsoft-buys-sysinternals-winternals/) (and their programs were and still are, free!).
-
Nah, I can't say I'm a fan of programs like CCleaner at all - I'm slightly biased though, as I used to do work for Vista support and we had no end of tickets from customers who ran utilities like this and had it end up breaking their system in some bizarre and strange way, which caused us constant grief.
Mind you though, in these cases customers were running them because they 'heard it was a good idea' - they had little to no understanding of what was actually going on under the hood or what these tools actually did. I'm sure for those with knowledge on the implications of these tools and how to properly deploy them, they work fine.
I have to admit though, I really don't see the point - I've never woken up in the morning and go "I should clean my registry!" My computer (which gets very heavy use, I install and remove new crazy apps daily) boots and runs fine, a fact which makes it insufficient to overcome my bias against registry cleaners and my own paranoia for the potential damage they can cause. If you're having tangible issues then I suppose there's a bigger reason to run these tools (though at that point I'd rather just investigate and troubleshoot the specific symptom, not drop a nuke on it...), but otherwise there just doesn't seem like much of a point to me if I'm not having any actual problems.
Mind you, I'm also the sort of person who formats his system every 2-3 years - I feel running the same OS install longer than that is asking for trouble regardless of what you do.
-
All I know is that I was getting blus screens and lockups on my computer. So I used CCleaner and the blue screens and lockups have stopped. Instead of going to a tech and having to spend money on installing Windows XP, I will now have time to get enough money together and Windows 7 Pro Full!
-
Nah, I can't say I'm a fan of programs like CCleaner at all - I'm slightly biased though, as I used to do work for Vista support and we had no end of tickets from customers who ran utilities like this and had it end up breaking their system in some bizarre and strange way, which caused us constant grief.
Mind you though, in these cases customers were running them because they 'heard it was a good idea' - they had little to no understanding of what was actually going on under the hood or what these tools actually did. I'm sure for those with knowledge on the implications of these tools and how to properly deploy them, they work fine.
I have to admit though, I really don't see the point - I've never woken up in the morning and go "I should clean my registry!" My computer (which gets very heavy use, I install and remove new crazy apps daily) boots and runs fine, a fact which makes it insufficient to overcome my bias against registry cleaners and my own paranoia for the potential damage they can cause. If you're having tangible issues then I suppose there's a bigger reason to run these tools (though at that point I'd rather just investigate and troubleshoot the specific symptom, not drop a nuke on it...), but otherwise there just doesn't seem like much of a point to me if I'm not having any actual problems.
Mind you, I'm also the sort of person who formats his system every 2-3 years - I feel running the same OS install longer than that is asking for trouble regardless of what you do.
You too look at CCleaner as a registy cleaner instead of the one-stop program to clean browser history, recycle bin, bluescreen dumps, temp files, browser cache, and things of the like that it actualy is. Go to CCleaners site. That bit about registry? Thats way down on the bottom and listed as advanced.
What do I do when I find a computer bogged down by who the hell knows what over the years? Install CCleaner and wipe it all clean (obviously not the registry) and watch as IE or whatever browser they use speeds up since they had neglected to clean it for years on end because to do so is hidden in menus. I then tell them to right-click on the recycle bin and click "Run CCleaner" once a week, which does the basic wiping and leaves registry alone.
Have either of you actually used or even downloaded CCleaner? Or are you giving it a bad rep because you heard it was a registry cleaner and a few people blamed it and/or were dumb enough to break something with it (which is 100% possible with ANY program).
EDIT: Look at the screenshot in my last post. See the list where some of them are checked? That is what CCleaner cleans. See the Registry tab that isn't selected? It leaves that the hell alone.
EDIT2: Oh right, it may also carry a bit more weight then the other programs by being a legit buisness solution (http://www.piriform.com/business/ccleaner-network-edition).
-
And CCleaner is free. Since I have to save up money to get Win 7 Pro Full, in the meantime, I have a functional WIn XP Home to ride out though the storm.
-
And CCleaner is free. Since I have to save up money to get Win 7 Pro Full, in the meantime, I have a functional WIn XP Home to ride out though the storm.
Yes, and the private use version is free. :P
-
Check this link guys and see what you think.... ;7 http://seattle.ebayclassifieds.com/computers-tech/seattle/windows-7-ultimate-dvd-w-activiation-key/?ad=14034764
-
The problem with advanced options on programs like CCleaner is that idiots who have no business using them do so anyway, because it's there, because they think they're better with computers than they are, because it's never explained clearly enough that you shouldn't use it unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing, or any combination of those reasons. I hate any program with a registry cleaner in it because at my job, registry cleaners are the cause of most of the calls I take that result in the only fix being a system recovery to factory defaults. You and I may be wise enough to avoid the registry cleaning function. The problem is, the average user is an idiot and doesn't understand that just because there's a feature there doesn't mean they have to use it.
-
The problem with advanced options on programs like CCleaner is that idiots who have no business using them do so anyway, because it's there, because they think they're better with computers than they are, because it's never explained clearly enough that you shouldn't use it unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing, or any combination of those reasons. I hate any program with a registry cleaner in it because at my job, registry cleaners are the cause of most of the calls I take that result in the only fix being a system recovery to factory defaults. You and I may be wise enough to avoid the registry cleaning function. The problem is, the average user is an idiot and doesn't understand that just because there's a feature there doesn't mean they have to use it.
People are stupid so the program sucks. Good logic. Stick to blaming the people next time.
-
Yes. The problem with versatile and powerful programs is that they make excellent guns aimed squarely at your own foot. In such cases, it is best not to include options that can be used to render your system unstable. Yes, CCleaner is a great tool for doing maintenance tasks that aren't registry-related. But, as is commonly observed among car drivers, actual proficiency usually is lower than the users' estimation thereof.
-
CCleaner is a great tool for doing maintenance tasks that aren't registry-related.
And this is my entire point. Of cource users are going to be stupid, but that does not mean the program itself is bad or sucks. That's like saying programs like PowerIso are bad because they can be used to mount torrented games, or Linux is bad because people who hack/crack websites prefer to use it. I can safely say all those I told how to use CCleaner have thanked me for it and I have not had to fix their computers for registry issues. Blame the people, not the program. After all, its the person that aims the gun at their foot.
-
And it's the program that hands the user the loaded gun.
-
And it's the program that hands the user the loaded gun.
A person keeps cutting their fingers with the knife when they are trying to cook food. Do you teach them how to use the knife, or do you take it away and never let it be used by anyone including those who do know how to use it?
-
Which leads us to the unfortunate issue that, while many if not most people are interested in learning how to cook, the reverse is true about how people approach learning about proper computer maintenance.
-
Which leads us to the unfortunate issue that, while many if not most people are interested in learning how to cook, the reverse is true about how people approach learning about proper computer maintenance.
So because The program is potentially harmfull (like every single program out there) it should be classified as bad and never ever be recomended to anyone ever again? I would like to go back to the fact everyone I have told how to use it, uses it correctly. The concept of "-right click -> run- once a week will keep your computer from slowing down" is enough to get people's attention. And that is literally as simple as CCleaner is.
Note: There is no right-click -> clean registry. The only option on the recycle bin is the standard cleaning
-
No, it means that it should not be recommended to people who are unable to make the right calls regarding computer maintenance. Again, I am not saying that CCleaner is a bad or useless program, I am saying that it should not be in the wrong hands, and that most of those hands ARE in fact the wrong ones. The best advice you give is worthless in the face of someone willing to follow the advice of the clueless noobs who think they know their way around a PC. If you've mostly dealt with people who ask you for advice, great. If you've ever had to try and rescue a system burned by the combination of CCleaner and cluelessness, you will probably know why I feel how I feel about it.
-
My arguments are not that people arent dumb enough not to ruin their computer with the program, just that CCleaner does not suck as stated here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=79050.msg1565331#msg1565331) and here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=79050.msg1565356#msg1565356). They are based on the false assumtion that it is primarily a registry cleaner, and I have high doubts they have even used the program to judge its actual value. Just because it is not safe for the average user does not make it unsafe for people who know better, which they claim to be.
If you've ever had to try and rescue a system burned by the combination of CCleaner and cluelessness, you will probably know why I feel how I feel about it.
I don't need to have had experiance with CCleaner killing something, it is just (and i use the word 'just' very very lightly) another typical example of the pains of general tech support. It does nothing to single CCleaner out of the crowd, especialy when compared to other programs that make breaking things much easier (straight up advice on a website to modify registry manually anyone?). At least CCleaner promts to save a backup if you chose to 'clean' the registry and at least it defaults to 'yes'. That is already more the 99.9% of the programs out there.
-
If the drive is SATA, then yes. If the drive is PATA (40+ pins) then no.
Caveat: You can use a PATA laptop drive in a desktop, if you buy an adapter (it should come with the adapter for the pins + a power adapter to take 5V from a molex power plug and put it in the appropriate place in the laptop pins) Like this one here (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812196219) (Newegg, ~$15 US after shipping).
EDIT: And, about the whole CCleaner / registry deal, I believe that some bad "registry cleaners" go too far to seem like a good program... the more "errors" they find, the better they seem. Like a anti-spyware program calling a cookie a "medium"-classed threat to your system. Then, when the user goes ahead and removes the "problems", it causes issues like the ones The_E and CaptJosh are talking about. I do believe CCleaner doesn't find the "errors" that other programs do, as it knows better than to change most settings that might cause instability. See?
Just because Uniblue Registry Cleaner (to pick a random one) crashed a system doesn't make all registry cleaners bad.
I use the registry cleaners on both IOBit Advanced SystemCare Free and CCleaner on every computer I clean, and do you know how many bad results I've had?
None. (I'm not saying that it's necessarily a good idea for anyone to do what I'm doing, but anyone who knows how to use System Restore / the built-in undo function in IOBit ASC Free should be able to manage just fine if anything did happen.)
Although, yeah, the exclusions above kinda limit the users that should be able to use registry cleaners. I just don't get how The E is saying he always has to fix CCleaner's problems when I've never seen one... I'm pretty sure what you're running into is crapware released by companies that are just after the customers' wallets, whatever happens after they get your info, they could care the f--- less.
-
Use CCleaner registry cleaner on a daily basis. . .
haven't seen a problem in five years.
WAIT WAIT. . . once it disassociated FLVs from VLC or something.
-
Although, yeah, the exclusions above kinda limit the users that should be able to use registry cleaners. I just don't get how The E is saying he always has to fix CCleaner's problems when I've never seen one... I'm pretty sure what you're running into is crapware released by companies that are just after the customers' wallets, whatever happens after they get your info, they could care the f--- less.
I am not saying (and haven't) that I am "always" fixing problems caused by CCleaner. I had to do it twice, while I was working first-line tech support, back in the dark days of Windows Vista. While I have no doubt that the current versions are a lot more careful about what they touch, I still have lingering resentments against that program. Yes, it's probably irrational.
-
I have used CCleaner's registry clean somewhat regularly. I've never seen it do much more than delete entries for programs that no longer exist or get rid of unused file extensions. I don't comb through the list much anymore, but I've never had a single problem. The IOBit one made the menu toolbars look weird by highlighting all the menus like the mouse was hovering over them, but as far as I could tell it didn't do anything damaging. I don't use it anymore anyway though.
-
You know, I'm sorry I even mentioned registry cleaners creating problems now. I completely derailed this topic.
-
reinstall windows ftw....
or for the complete fail.
-
Although, yeah, the exclusions above kinda limit the users that should be able to use registry cleaners. I just don't get how The E is saying he always has to fix CCleaner's problems when I've never seen one... I'm pretty sure what you're running into is crapware released by companies that are just after the customers' wallets, whatever happens after they get your info, they could care the f--- less.
I am not saying (and haven't) that I am "always" fixing problems caused by CCleaner. I had to do it twice, while I was working first-line tech support, back in the dark days of Windows Vista. While I have no doubt that the current versions are a lot more careful about what they touch, I still have lingering resentments against that program. Yes, it's probably irrational.
/me is willing to bet this was caused by customers running CCleaner versions designed only for XP on Vista when Vista first came out, before CCleaner made updates to work with Vista "because it suuure wurked grate fer mah uther compuuter".
-
people still try cleaning their registry? lol. way i see it, no sense polishing the brass on the titanic. windows, once installed will go down. but its only 30 minute job to re-instal, and less if you made an image early on.
-
Yah but, how do you map the drives, update the drivers including the bios??? If someone could show me once how to do everything, I would pay them the $50 fee for labor. ;7
-
i find updates only make my computer slower. so i do everything in my power to stop them. il update my video drivers as i have problems or acquire new games. i like to identify which software doesn't mind not being formally installed, and i copy those to my d drive and run them from there. i kill and restore the c drive and its still there and still works. yay! im not going to let any system dev closed or open, tell me how to run my rig.
-
What about the Service Packs? :lol:
-
install the versions it admins use. web installs are so brutally tedious, downloading the same thing over and over, download once install many times. people who make web installers should be hung, shot, resurrected, and impaled, if they are still alive after 3 days, flame thrower. even then i only instal service packs when absolutely necessary.
-
My father (Who I inherited the 'tech hobbyist' thing from) has noticed that a clean Windows install with all the current SP's and updates integrated into the disc runs faster then a clean windows install where everything was done by Windows Update.
-
My father (Who I inherited the 'tech hobbyist' thing from) has noticed that a clean Windows install with all the current SP's and updates integrated into the disc runs faster then a clean windows install where everything was done by Windows Update.
This. But sometimes when you slipstream the updates, one of them won't quite take. Sucks, cause then any system you install with that disk needs to be fixed, or you need a new disk. But that was XP, maybe they have improved the slipstream process now.
-
ive done that with old versions of xp. had to tailor everything to fit in a very tiny storage device, and had to spin off a light weight distro of xp with sp3 to fit on a 2gb flash card, and for the most part it worked. i cant remember what i used for that.
i use as little of windows as possible, using 3rd party software whenever possible for example notepad++ over notepad/wordpad, winamp and vlc over windows media player and so on. i really dont like downloading updates for things i dont use, and service packs annoy me for that very reason (i only get 20 gigs of transfer a month on top of that so its a big chunk out of my download budget, especially if the downloads fail). slipstreaming them in and then stripping out all the crap i dont use would be rather awesome, assuming i dont have to download lots of other crap in the process. still i find theres either a new service pack or a new version of windows each time i format c:, so i usually just say screw it.
-
eXPerience's XP multi-boot DVD + autopatcher FTW
-
There's only two reasons i like ccleaner. Much cleaner way of uninstalling programs, and a general registry cleaner (both have to do with the registry). It happens to clear out the history and cache of internet explorer, and empty the recycle bin (and other things)?
Well now, i guess people are too lazy to right click on recycle bin, let alone how to clear the cache and history of internet explorer from internet explorer (and other things; just here to list the obvious). In the end, it's an easy to use program that does it's job well. But, ccleaner has redundant features that the os already provides.
I find ccleaner to be a paranoid-get-the-job-done-fast-and-effectively for those who surf too multiple infested porn sites with internet explorer and happened to snag a few dialers and other malware (of course in conjunction with a virus scanner, and of course the damn program has several legitimate uses too).
I say beat the heat and don't shoot yourself in the foot with your own gun by running as admin. Running a computer from a standard user account would really make the need for ccleaner almost zero (it'd be handy for cleanly uninstalling programs in this scenario, and that's about it). And it basically makes the need for having a virus scanner zero since no malware could run or execute unless you specifically malware permission to do so.
I always recommend updates. Those things that patch security holes (windows update set only to important updates). But, what really helps with security is not running as admin. That really cures a lot of windows problems. Not running as admin, watch windows firewall actually work, see the intended purpose of UAC (a godsend UAC is), see system os repair and maintenance really drop off, in general see your computer actually obeying you.
Running as admin 24/7 makes need for all of these specialty programs (ccleaner, spybot, windows defender, avast, avg, zonealarm, biglistitis). So, don't run as admin and you'll be making use of these programs a lot less and watch your computer work how you intended too. Increase productivity; let the computer work for you instead of you constantly working for it. God, running as admin all the time goes way back in windows before ms implemented multi-user ability (old habits will die hard).
People are dumb as long as we keep treating them like they're dumb. And people are certainly dumb to reject my advice on this matter.
-
There are a few levels of computer knowledge:
-Too scared to do anything (i like these guys, they almost never need support)
-General knowledge of how to use a computer, but doesn't mess with anything
-Thinks they know what is or isn't safe (and acts on it, these are the most annoying, and the most common)
-Actually knows what isn't safe, does it anyway (2nd most annoying)
-Actually knows what isn't safe, doesn't do it
-Knows exactly what isn't safe, but does it anyway and gets away with it because they know how to fix it.
Do i run with the paranoid settings S-99 lists? Not really, I'm a domain admin. I'm in that last group. I can fix it. This is where the concept of:
People are dumb as long as we keep treating them like they're dumb. And people are certainly dumb to reject my advice on this matter.
Is wrong. People are stupid. And running in such a crippled mode is for the stupid. If I break something, or get a virus, it is my fault for leaving myself open, but I can damn well solve the problem. I might even find it fun. A number of the tools I need (such as user/network management) require admin mode, and for good reason. It is not worth the effort (even with the risk) of logging out and in all the time.
So, don't run as admin and you'll be making use of these programs a lot less and watch your computer work how you intended too.
Either you still have all the programs running in the backround doing their job, just like in admin mode (that's right, you don't actively use any defence tools in admin mode either), or you aren't using the programs because you are 'safe' in user mode. If you are suggesting the latter, then quite frankly that is insanely bad tech advice to give to anyone.
Nuke's concept of 'don't download updates' is a horrible one too, and there is a very good reason why. The main target of any virus is windows loopholes and bugs, of course, we all know this. Interestingly enough, the vast majority of viruses are not made until after the patch is released, telling the virus makers exactly what to aim for. Not keeping your system up to date on security patches is the number one way to open yourself up. That's right, you can blame MS's annoying updates as the main reason your system is at risk.
Well now, i guess people are too lazy to right click on recycle bin, let alone how to clear the cache and history of internet explorer from internet explorer (and other things; just here to list the obvious). In the end, it's an easy to use program that does it's job well. But, ccleaner has redundant features that the os already provides.
As a side note, I know how to clean out IE, Recycle Bin, Chrome, etc. Guess What. CCleaner does it faster, with all of two clicks. That would be right-click on the Recycle Bin, and 'run CCleaner'. Its also nice to tell people who aren't tech savvy that just two clicks a week helps keep their computer clean. So ya, I'm too lazy to do it all by hand, I just don't see the point. I also use TerraCopy in place of Explorer Copy, NP++ in place of Notepad, GIMP in place of Paint, VMware in place of Windows VHDs. They do the job better, even if they do the exact same job. That's kinda the key reason we use... well, anything.
-
Is wrong. People are stupid.
Wow, just wow. You're attitude of users is so negative. I'm not discounting that there's dumb users out there, but please improve your attitude on this matter. It can only serve to disrespect the users that you do fix problems for. Maybe you even think that users can't learn?
And running in such a crippled mode is for the stupid. If I break something, or get a virus, it is my fault for leaving myself open, but I can damn well solve the problem. I might even find it fun. A number of the tools I need (such as user/network management) require admin mode, and for good reason. It is not worth the effort (even with the risk) of logging out and in all the time.
A great way of leaving yourself open is by running as admin 24/7. Sure you might be able to fix the problem, but you're guaranteeing yourself a lot more work and potential down time. Logging in and out all of the time; you don't realize how much that's been a thing of the past. You truly don't understand the power of UAC (hint, it's true power comes from when you're not running as admin). UAC is a good thing, so many people don't understand this and why i champion it, but go ahead, don't find out. Don't find out at all.
Either you still have all the programs running in the backround doing their job, just like in admin mode (that's right, you don't actively use any defence tools in admin mode either), or you aren't using the programs because you are 'safe' in user mode. If you are suggesting the latter, then quite frankly that is insanely bad tech advice to give to anyone.
That you don't need to use certain programs when you run in a user account with less permissions? The less programs you need and the ones you need to run less is a good thing.
Nuke's concept of 'don't download updates' is a horrible one too, and there is a very good reason why. blablalblalbalblablablabla.....
I already pointed this out.
As a side note, I know how to clean out IE, Recycle Bin, Chrome, etc. Guess What. CCleaner does it faster, with all of two clicks. That would be right-click on the Recycle Bin, and 'run CCleaner'. Its also nice to tell people who aren't tech savvy that just two clicks a week helps keep their computer clean. So ya, I'm too lazy to do it all by hand, I just don't see the point. I also use TerraCopy in place of Explorer Copy, NP++ in place of Notepad, GIMP in place of Paint, VMware in place of Windows VHDs. They do the job better, even if they do the exact same job. That's kinda the key reason we use... well, anything.
Ccleaner may do it faster, but it also means for the potential of not knowing how to do the same tasks without it. Is any os going to have the same way of doing things for eons? The safe answer is no. I'm talking about not breeding laziness with future os releases for any os; to learn how they actually work without that magical third party application. There's only two features i care about that the program has. Clean uninstallation of programs and a registry cleaner. Two things which windows doesn't really do well.
I don't care what you're job is. We're on two different wave lengths here. I do understand the power of running as a standard user in a multiuser account os and you don't. The key to knowing this is that admin privileges are only for when something administrative needs to happen (and you don't need to keep logging in and logging out for them either). In other words; surfing the internet, using an email client, word processing, and playing games do not need to take place with admin privileges.
Go and keep doing what you're doing without understanding me (please just please). Void my great advice, i don't care. It's your ass on the line not mine.
-
Wow, just wow. You're attitude of users is so negative.
Amazing how doing a lot of tech support for those who don't listen inspires courage, isn't it?
I'm not discounting that there's dumb users out there, but please improve your attitude on this matter. It can only serve to disrespect the users that you do fix problems for. Maybe you even think that users can't learn?
They can learn, but they have to want to first. You obviously -never- trip across the total ignorance of the average user who just wants it to work, and doesn't give the slightest damn how it works or how to stop it from breaking again.
That you don't need to use certain programs when you run in a user account with less permissions? The less programs you need and the ones you need to run less is a good thing.
Oh. So you really are saying that out of your list of antiviruses (when you only even need one) and CCleaner, you can run less. So you are suggesting that these antivirus programs are not needed then? You know, considering CCleaner is just a convenient tool and all... Great logic, amazing how not running in admin eliminates the need for that one anti-virus, I didn't know that. All joking aside, did you know that to run more then one anti-virus is to hurt your system? No two ever play nice, and it always drags the system down.
So enlighten me. What defense programs do you run only in admin mode that users don't need? And no, not tools like CCleaner. Those are used for convenience, not actual defence and are never required in the first place.
You truly don't understand the power of UAC (hint, it's true power comes from when you're not running as admin). UAC is a good thing, so many people don't understand this and why i champion it, but go ahead, don't find out. Don't find out at all.
When 90% of the work I do requires admin (including fixing other people's computers) guess what gets annoying real fast. Perhaps its the mini system lock out every 2 mins as I'm going through all the 'restricted' folders and programs to fix what broke. It is great for the normal user, it keeps them safe (kinda... most don't bother reading and just pass through it anyway) but it is just an annoyance for any true work.
Ccleaner may do it faster, but it also means for the potential of not knowing how to do the same tasks without it. Is any os going to have the same way of doing things for eons? The safe answer is no. I'm talking about not breeding laziness with future os releases for any os; to learn how they actually work without that magical third party application. There's only two features i care about that the program has. Clean uninstallation of programs and a registry cleaner. Two things which windows doesn't really do well.
I don't think Windows handles cleaning up very well, theres no one-stop-shop to clean it all. You'll notice all the programs I listed do exactly what windows does, but faster and better. Why should I bother teaching the average user how to clean it the normal way? Even I don't do it by hand. There are better ways to do it.
Its like saying install Linux next to windows and modify the fully capable windows MBR to recognize Linux as an option (which is a big pain in the ass), or just letting Linux install GRUB and have it recognize windows right away and can later modify with a text editor. Sure, I could learn the built-in windows bootloader... but why? It just doesn't do the job well enough.
I already pointed this out.
Considering Nuke's stance and considerable knowledge in computers, I'm going to go out on a limb and say your generic 'patch windows to keep it safe' logic would have no effect. I explained why, which goes a very long way.
-
-Knows exactly what isn't safe, but does it anyway and gets away with it because they know how to fix it.
i'm definitely in this group. yes i do things im not supposed to do, yes i make incredibly dumb security decisions. but i can usually have it fixed in an hour or two when something goes horribly wrong. i backup my stuff regularly, and there is nothing on the c drive i would miss if it got wiped.
Nuke's concept of 'don't download updates' is a horrible one too, and there is a very good reason why. The main target of any virus is windows loopholes and bugs, of course, we all know this. Interestingly enough, the vast majority of viruses are not made until after the patch is released, telling the virus makers exactly what to aim for. Not keeping your system up to date on security patches is the number one way to open yourself up. That's right, you can blame MS's annoying updates as the main reason your system is at risk.
you shouldn't be taking anything i say as advice. i have many reasons for disabling updates. the biggest of which is the fact that they are huge these days, and if i left automatic updates on for all my computers it would eat my 20gig monthly transfer cap. i like to know when my machine is downloading something big, and so i just stick with the it distribution packs, download once use them many times. i also am not a web surfer. i have a few websites that i go to regularly, i do not use email, or social networking. so i am not at risk for viruses. i have old computers with disposable os installs around just for doing risky things online.
-
you shouldn't be taking anything i say as advice. i have many reasons for disabling updates. the biggest of which is the fact that they are huge these days, and if i left automatic updates on for all my computers it would eat my 20gig monthly transfer cap. i like to know when my machine is downloading something big, and so i just stick with the it distribution packs, download once use them many times. i also am not a web surfer. i have a few websites that i go to regularly, i do not use email, or social networking. so i am not at risk for viruses. i have old computers with disposable os installs around just for doing risky things online.
I figured there was a good reason, those that know how to fix it don't normaly make problems for themselves without one. Sadly some people actualy go "look! HE isnt doing it, why do I have to?" and that always leads to pain...
i'm definitely in this group. yes i do things im not supposed to do, yes i make incredibly dumb security decisions. but i can usually have it fixed in an hour or two when something goes horribly wrong. i backup my stuff regularly, and there is nothing on the c drive i would miss if it got wiped.
And the fact you CAN fix it makes all the difference in the world. No other tech would care how bad you messed up your system either since you arent very likely to ask them for help, and even if you did atleast they wouldnt have to dumb it down. Not that most of that level would dare let anyone else use their main computer for risk of something being done that they don't know about.
-
you shouldn't be taking anything i say as advice. i have many reasons for disabling updates. the biggest of which is the fact that they are huge these days, and if i left automatic updates on for all my computers it would eat my 20gig monthly transfer cap. i like to know when my machine is downloading something big, and so i just stick with the it distribution packs, download once use them many times. i also am not a web surfer. i have a few websites that i go to regularly, i do not use email, or social networking. so i am not at risk for viruses. i have old computers with disposable os installs around just for doing risky things online.
I figured there was a good reason, those that know how to fix it don't normaly make problems for themselves without one. Sadly some people actualy go "look! HE isnt doing it, why do I have to?" and that always leads to pain...
i'm definitely in this group. yes i do things im not supposed to do, yes i make incredibly dumb security decisions. but i can usually have it fixed in an hour or two when something goes horribly wrong. i backup my stuff regularly, and there is nothing on the c drive i would miss if it got wiped.
And the fact you CAN fix it makes all the difference in the world. No other tech would care how bad you messed up your system either since you arent very likely to ask them for help, and even if you did atleast they wouldnt have to dumb it down. Not that most of that level would dare let anyone else use their main computer for risk of something being done that they don't know about.
definitely going to need to put a disclaimer in my tech advise, "this is what i do and it works for me, if you do it too you will probably break something". i grew up in the era where nothing was done for you. you did it and you did it right or you didnt do anything because your rig was in the shop. this kinda creates a learn or die environment which is perfect for learning essential skills. i took the time to read the dos manual for my 286 rig back in the day, people who didnt read it asked me for help. windows came and made everything easier at the same time as opening a new can of worms. of course now you got a generation of users that never experienced that kind of environment. perhaps your early linux adopters may have, linux is an easy os for a newb to break, and you can learn good habbits from it (i never liked it from anything but a dev standpoint myself). but anyone who started using windows with xp or later i find are rather sheltered from the way their computer actually works. my experience doesn't map well to the experience of the new wave of geeks, so my advice will always seem shoddy to them. i also have a less than healthy level of paranoia of both other users, software, and the internet that keeps me safe.
-
Amazing how doing a lot of tech support for those who don't listen inspires courage, isn't it?
I truly feel sorry for you in this respect. But, that attitude needs to be shaken eventually.
They can learn, but they have to want to first. You obviously -never- trip across the total ignorance of the average user who just wants it to work, and doesn't give the slightest damn how it works or how to stop it from breaking again.
Yes i have, but not so many times as you. I'm a nice guy, i treat them with respect, i also present myself as an understanding human being. This really helps with breaking the ice. If the ice can't be broken, then i make them listen to me. Or i don't fix their ****. I don't bend over for the user. Conduct yourself in a way that makes it obvious your worth the money and it really helps them to understand you.
Oh. So you really are saying that out of your list of antiviruses (when you only even need one) and CCleaner, you can run less. So you are suggesting that these antivirus programs are not needed then? You know, considering CCleaner is just a convenient tool and all... Great logic, amazing how not running in admin eliminates the need for that one anti-virus, I didn't know that. All joking aside, did you know that to run more then one anti-virus is to hurt your system? No two ever play nice, and it always drags the system down.
So enlighten me. What defense programs do you run only in admin mode that users don't need? And no, not tools like CCleaner. Those are used for convenience, not actual defence and are never required in the first place.
Again, we're on two truly different wave lengths here buddy. You did not understand what i meant. I'll put it simpler, do more with less.
When 90% of the work I do requires admin (including fixing other people's computers) guess what gets annoying real fast. Perhaps its the mini system lock out every 2 mins as I'm going through all the 'restricted' folders and programs to fix what broke. It is great for the normal user, it keeps them safe (kinda... most don't bother reading and just pass through it anyway) but it is just an annoyance for any true work.
Then change what is impeding you. Other than that it sounds lazy. It's all about productivity, efficiency, and security. Do what you need to be proficient. I just don't leave an admin account logged in 24/7, it's not the greatest idea. But, don't add so much security that it makes things impossible to do. That two minute folder lockout sounds like it impedes you. Like i said, try to change that. But, it also sounds like your main work computer runs as admin 24/7. When your firewall and virus scanner fail on your work station when you run as admin 24/7, that opens up a security hole to the network via your computer because you didn't have reduced systems permissions as a last defense. Don't **** up.
I don't think Windows handles cleaning up very well, theres no one-stop-shop to clean it all. You'll notice all the programs I listed do exactly what windows does, but faster and better. Why should I bother teaching the average user how to clean it the normal way? Even I don't do it by hand. There are better ways to do it.
I pretty much said earlier that i think windows doesn't clean itself up very well either. One of the big reasons i liked ccleaner. Quite frankly, cleaning up the registry by hand via regedit is not something anybody wants to do. Of course let ccleaner do that, it will do it better. I don't care about the apps you listed. My point was don't forget to keep up with the changes with new versions of windows, because the moment you're without something as awesome as ccleaner or whatever, then you may not have known what's changed when you're forced to not use awesome programs like ccleaner. This leads to inneffectivity.
Its like saying install Linux next to windows and modify the fully capable windows MBR to recognize Linux as an option (which is a big pain in the ass), or just letting Linux install GRUB and have it recognize windows right away and can later modify with a text editor. Sure, I could learn the built-in windows bootloader... but why? It just doesn't do the job well enough.
It's sort of like saying that for you i guess. I'm not discounting the use of other programs specialized programs. Sounds like a third party windows mbr manager that detects other os installations would be great since ms is never going to support the booting of anything non windows officially from their mbr with the built in windows mbr manager.
Considering Nuke's stance and considerable knowledge in computers, I'm going to go out on a limb and say your generic 'patch windows to keep it safe' logic would have no effect. I explained why, which goes a very long way.
Now you're going back on what you said earlier.
Nuke's concept of 'don't download updates' is a horrible one too, and there is a very good reason why. The main target of any virus is windows loopholes and bugs, of course, we all know this. Interestingly enough, the vast majority of viruses are not made until after the patch is released, telling the virus makers exactly what to aim for. Not keeping your system up to date on security patches is the number one way to open yourself up. That's right, you can blame MS's annoying updates as the main reason your system is at risk.
Yup, you did go back on what you said earlier. And no, i said much more than just patching windows to keep it safe. I said it's a good idea to keep up with security updates, and it's a good idea to run as standard user all of the time. Great job on ignoring the usage of UAC by the way. You'll never find out because it's convenient for you to not.
Running as standard user was never about being paranoid, it's about another great layer of security like firewalls and virus scanners that i find someone in your profession strangely hates. It's another layer of security, that you call paranoid. Go ahead and uninstall your virus scanner and firewall since they're pretty darn paranoid too. I mean, who's to think that someone would actually hack into your computer that paranoid you would meticulously need to maintain which programs and ports have outgoing and incoming traffic allowed. Or someone who'd send you a virus in an email or lace into a website. ROFL What are the odds? lulz
And yes, nuke has his own way of running computers, like he said, he's pretty old school. He seems to believe in the "if it isn't broken, then don't fix it" concept. That, bandwidth, and other things.
I offered fine advice. You're too easy to stir up. You're an unintentional troll.
-
One more thing about the whole "Do your business in a limited account" thing. It doesn't actually work anymore. Ever since Vista, malware writers have been doing their homework and figured out how to code their stuff to ruin your day even without admin privileges, or using social engineering to trick you into opening the doors for them. The only reason to have separate admin and user accounts is when your computer is regularly used by people you do not want to give the opportunity to do stuff you don't like.
-
What The E said. Also, I completely fail to see how admin mode would disable the firewall or antivirus, or any other security measure. You have also failed to list anything admins need to run that users do not.
The sole purpose of user mode and UAC is to restrict the normal users from doing stupid things. Nothing more.
-
Also, I completely fail to see how admin mode would disable the firewall or antivirus, any any other security measure. You're eating up the MS propaganda.
I don't think MS has ever said anything about AV or firewalls not running in admin mode :P
Yes, I know that wasn't what you meant. The thing about the "Use a separate Admin account" advice was that, for a time, it actually was genuinely good advice. Now, it only serves as an example of the dangerous cargo-culting that happens in IT, especially consumer IT.
-
Also, I completely fail to see how admin mode would disable the firewall or antivirus, any any other security measure. You're eating up the MS propaganda.
I don't think MS has ever said anything about AV or firewalls not running in admin mode :P
Yes, I know that wasn't what you meant. The thing about the "Use a separate Admin account" advice was that, for a time, it actually was genuinely good advice. Now, it only serves as an example of the dangerous cargo-culting that happens in IT, especially consumer IT.
I dunno, i think its a good idea to put people who don't know computers in limited user groups and leave UAC on. Even if it doesn't stop malware, it will stop them from harming their own C drive sometimes.
-
Nuke, I think your main problem is that you need an ISP that isn't still stuck in the 20th century. :P
Oh, and as a living example of how "Limited user accounts fix everything!" doesn't work all that well in practice, the family's Vista machine has been hit with a couple of drive-by Java browser exploits over the past several months, the sort of things that even a fully-updated MSE won't be able to catch. Nerfs the Windows Security Center, tries to convince you to buy some shady-ass "security" software, the works. Hell, it happened to my dad the other day just by opening up Yahoo's home page. And every account on the computer besides the admin account is a limited user. (It's happened to me a few times too, but I run XP, which means I'm pretty much forced to use an admin account if I want to be able to do anything on a daily basis.) The only upside is that these exploits tend to be easily fixed by running System Restore, but the issue still remains. Even with limited accounts and UAC, a third-party piece of software can still have security vulnerabilities that let crap in.
(Now what I need to figure out is why the Catalyst drivers are generating some sort of error, and even more puzzlingly, why my dad's account is the only one getting the error message...)
-
I dunno, i think its a good idea to put people who don't know computers in limited user groups and leave UAC on. Even if it doesn't stop malware, it will stop them from harming their own C drive sometimes.
Oh, I agree completely. Turning UAC off is something one should only do when doing major install work, like an OS reinstall or something.
-
What The E said. Also, I completely fail to see how admin mode would disable the firewall or antivirus, or any other security measure. You have also failed to list anything admins need to run that users do not.
The sole purpose of user mode and UAC is to restrict the normal users from doing stupid things. Nothing more.
I didn't say how admin mode would disable the firewall or antivirus or any other security measure. I was saying for the event when running as admin 24/7, that you rely on two things for security. One is your firewall. Two is your virus scanner. Time and time again, virus scanners and firewalls do eventually crash. In an admin 24/7 environment that leaves you with no extra layer of security. This is why it's stupid to run as admin all of the time. This is simple. This is why it's smart for administrators to not run as admin 24/7.
It's more than that that you don't see about how handy standard user accounts are. What The E said does not negate the use of standard user accounts effectiveness. It is still inherently more secure to run your computer through a standard user account. It's not just for stupid users. It's great for damage control. And of course, yes, rootkits can run in standard user accounts, but it's still stupid to say "well i should go back to admin" which is an even less secure environment where you malware and rootkits can all run rampant as opposed to just the rootkit risk.
The E, social engineering is a different subject. And i disagree. Standard user accounts are still very effective.
An approval by approval basis for admin privileges lets you run the computer how you want to run it. Running as admin becomes the opposite if a virus gets through and doesn't get taken care of. In which case i liken an admin account to a retard with a shotgun. The retard says yes to everything (yes trojan please access the rest of the system as you want because admin accounts have no permission limitations, or at least not many), and only shoots what you tell it to shoot, but that you may not catch everything that needs to be shot (like that virus that got past you when that virus scanner crashed).
Running as standard user using UAC to temporarily grant whatever you needed admin privileges for lets the retard with the shotgun say yes to only the things you want yes to be said to, and of course still retaining the ability to tell it to shoot whatever you want it to shoot.
It's not about protecting you from yourself on the computer, telling you how to run it, or being paranoid which is being stereotyped lately. It gives you more control over your computer, it also really helps in making viruses have no lee way unless you give them that lee way on purpose (great if virus scanner crashes, viruses wont be able to do crap anyway). It also gives hackers who break into the system a lot less things to do (if firewall crashes). Aside from people running tight ships for their computers, relying on only a virus scanner and firewall is not a good idea (time and time again one or the other or both crash). So i don't like running as admin 24/7 and never will. I also don't need to worry about people hopping on my computer and installing crap i didn't want on there.
This is not hard to understand. Telling me it's about paranoia, the computer telling you how to run it, or even protecting yourself from the computer is not good reasons for why you shouldn't run as standard user. Everyone has thoughts of UAC being useless. I will point out again, that UAC is only useful when running as standard user. When running as standard user UAC is not different than gksu or kdesu in linux.
It's a ****ing password prompt for god's sake. In a standard user account, this is a big upgrade over xp's runas window.
(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tr/contentPics/VistaUAC.png)
In the end, it's not a good idea to run as admin 24/7. Linux and unix have this as a basic foundation of their security. Since vista and the vista rerelease windows 7, people can finally replicate the same security in windows easily. You can do more with less programs in a more secure environment, have a lot less down time, efficiency will raise, mistakes wont matter so much, and it's much less volatile. You cannot tell me running as admin 24/7 is a good idea.
Run your computer the way you want, but telling me i'm offering bad advice when people can tell me nothing more to the contrary than "it's about protecting you from yourself", "telling you how to run the computer", and "it's paranoia". None of those responses tell me how it's bad advice. Those are called emotional responses. Just get your case over with by simply saying "hi i'm kyadck, i like to run as admin, that's my preference". Giving me emotional responses didn't get much done and only showed me that people didn't know what i was talking about.
Kyadck changes and twists what he says, he offers no more than preference, loads and loads of pissy emotion, and lies. Just say, "hey, i don't know what you're talking about". Kyadck either still doesn't understand me, or he does and proves it with twisting what i say and twisting what he says. I've talked about it enough without anybody understanding to know that the audience is stupid and kyadck is an obvious mischief maker who can only concert himself as a liar who's much less valuable than he knows (he just flames people and trolls).
-
Nuke, I think your main problem is that you need an ISP that isn't still stuck in the 20th century. :P
this is a typical rural internet connection. it sucks, but its not like we have other options.
-
And I'll make the TL;DR version for you... You are pissy because no one here has agreed with your 'advice'
I have told you how those in the final catagory run systems, and I have been backed up by others who do the same. You are not in that last group, and it is understandable that you would think us nuts for doing what we do.
And yes, UAC is exactly about protecting you from yourself. As The E said, malware now hides in seemingly legit programs, so as far as the user knows, random program A really is a song downloader. Either way, tough **** if you allowed it, cause now its on your system... with that temp admin rights you allowed. Some of them even get your admin password from UAC when you allow it. Guess what two programs are your actual line of defense. Antivirus and Firewall, just like admin mode. And if they are crashing on you, you better get defensive programs, because the ones you use are obviously ****.
You STILL haven't told me what programs admin mode has to run that users don't to follow the 'less is more' theme.
-
funny, from here it looks like YOU are the one flaming and trolling S-99. you seem to be on a crusade against those who would disable UAC.
-
funny, from here it looks like YOU are the one flaming and trolling S-99. you seem to be on a crusade against those who would disable UAC.
Na, I disable UAC because for what I do it gets in the way, however, for the standard user it does provide a good enough warning along the lines of 'are you sure you want to touch that?' which makes at least some people think twice.
If in his first post, he did not end with "And people are certainly dumb to reject my advice on this matter." I would have left it alone.
EDIT: Where in the hell did you get this idea, based on my stance, that I would damn anyone who turns it off? The closest I came to that was "it is for the stupid", which it is.
-
funny, from here it looks like YOU are the one flaming and trolling S-99. you seem to be on a crusade against those who would disable UAC.
let me rephrase that given the post-ninja
S-99, from here it looks like YOU are the one flaming and trolling.
i personally found UAC to be of no merit whatsoever. it wants to block EVERY goddamn thing i do on my computer. YES i'm sure i want to install that. otherwise i wouldn't have ****ing run the installer.
-
What I really love is when Vista triggers UAC when I'm trying to delete a goddamn desktop shortcut, just because it happens to be shared across all users. Yeah, I could really screw up my system doing that, totally.
-
Yes in Vista UAC blocked almost everything, but in 7 it's more reasonable.
-
funny, from here it looks like YOU are the one flaming and trolling S-99. you seem to be on a crusade against those who would disable UAC.
let me rephrase that given the post-ninja
S-99, from here it looks like YOU are the one flaming and trolling.
i personally found UAC to be of no merit whatsoever. it wants to block EVERY goddamn thing i do on my computer. YES i'm sure i want to install that. otherwise i wouldn't have ****ing run the installer.
Ah, sorry for misunderstanding you.
I do have to slightly disagree though, UAC does have benefits... just not to anyone who understands computers well enough not to break it on accident.
-
you may be right, but i tend to think that if someone is bad enough with computers that they are about to break something that UAC would catch, they aren't going to be stopped by one additional nag window. i know for me, nag windows have gotten so tiresome i click through it automatically, even if it IS something i did accidentally (delete the wrong file for example).
-
You all would hate linux with a passion then.
Na, I disable UAC because for what I do it gets in the way, however, for the standard user it does provide a good enough warning along the lines of 'are you sure you want to touch that?' which makes at least some people think twice.
If in his first post, he did not end with "And people are certainly dumb to reject my advice on this matter." I would have left it alone.
It's standard user account not as you say now "standard user". I've only been talking about running UAC in a standard user account for a while now. I was in no way talking about running UAC in an admin account like you are. You're actually talking about something different than i am.
And you didn't need to react like you did to my rejecting advice comment like that. It's been nothing but twisting details and arguments for you the whole time. You're a troll.
-
You all would hate Linux with a passion then.
Na, I disable UAC because for what I do it gets in the way, however, for the standard user it does provide a good enough warning along the lines of 'are you sure you want to touch that?' which makes at least some people think twice.
If in his first post, he did not end with "And people are certainly dumb to reject my advice on this matter." I would have left it alone.
It's standard user account not as you say now "standard user". I've only been talking about running UAC in a standard user account for a while now. I was in no way talking about running UAC in an admin account like you are. You're actually talking about something different than i am.
And you didn't need to react like you did to my rejecting advice comment like that. It's been nothing but twisting details and arguments for you the whole time. You're a troll.
Well, 1: "standard user" would be a person. If you had read, I have no problems giving a "standard user" a "standard user account" and leaving UAC on.
2: My stance is: To someone who knows better, UAC is useless on both sides (user and admin)
3: I am referring to UAC in general. Congratulations on assuming otherwise.
4: There was no "in my opinion", there was no "i think that". There was simply "I am better then all of you because I use standard user accounts and UAC and you're all dumb for not doing it".
5: You still have not told me what must be run on an admin account that users do not need to follow the 'less is more' theme. Seriously, I want to know.
6: Linux is great. Too bad you need root to do all the modifications you wa... wait... I have a Root Terminal for when I am making a huge amount of changes. Huh. Well, I guess it wont be such a pain to install those libs dependencies and compile the source huh.
6b: Needing root is the exact same concept as UAC: to stop people who don't know better from breaking something.
6c: In Linux, being a server/client OS (kinda like domains for windows) the admin is the one with the root password. This is because in theory, the admin is not an idiot and can fix what he or she breaks, and it forces all the normal users to ask the admin if they can install something. This would kinda be why when you first try to use sudo, Linux says stuff about the usual lecture from your admin.
-
You all would hate linux with a passion then.
thats exactly why i dont like linux. fortunately for me, there is an alternative (http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html) on the horizon.
-
You all would hate linux with a passion then.
thats exactly why i dont like linux. fortunately for me, there is an alternative (http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html) on the horizon.
I too am looking forward to ReactOS, and with Win8 on the way it can't get here soon enough.
-
Well, 1: "standard user" would be a person. If you had read, I have no problems giving a "standard user" a "standard user account" and leaving UAC on.
Earlier you referred to users as just users. Quit twisting stuff around.
2: My stance is: To someone who knows better, UAC is useless on both sides (user and admin)
My stance is that UAC is very handy being able to grab admin rights from within a resrticted permissions user account. That user account being standard user.
3: I am referring to UAC in general. Congratulations on assuming otherwise.
I was referring to UAC in one specific usage from the beginning. In this one specific usage, it's quite useful. All you said was UAC sucks UAC sucks UAC sucks it's only for people who don't know what they're doing. And then you proceeded to assume way too much about me.
4: There was no "in my opinion", there was no "i think that". There was simply "I am better then all of you because I use standard user accounts and UAC and you're all dumb for not doing it".
You chose to be pissed off by my rhetorical statement by reading too much into it. All it meant was that it was dumb to just reject the advice.
5: You still have not told me what must be run on an admin account that users do not need to follow the 'less is more' theme. Seriously, I want to know.
It was actually do more with less. It's a concept about efficiency. Figurative example is: As an admin going through which software is needed and what is not. Like disabling windows defender in favor of a real virus scanner that works. Getting rid of spyware cleaners if the virus scanner takes care of all forms of malware. Using a firewall and other software that compliments the abilities of the admin. The admin making sure that none of what he does gets in the way of the users, particularly what on the computer will impede the user. This means less for the admin to do, less complaints from users, and less use of special admin tools. It helps lead to a computer environment that keeps working and requires less up keep.
I wasn't saying don't use a virus scanner or firewall or other programs.
6: Linux is great. Too bad you need root to do all the modifications you wa... wait... I have a Root Terminal for when I am making a huge amount of changes. Huh. Well, I guess it wont be such a pain to install those libs dependencies and compile the source huh.
6b: Needing root is the exact same concept as UAC: to stop people who don't know better from breaking something.
6c: In Linux, being a server/client OS (kinda like domains for windows) the admin is the one with the root password. This is because in theory, the admin is not an idiot and can fix what he or she breaks, and it forces all the normal users to ask the admin if they can install something. This would kinda be why when you first try to use sudo, Linux says stuff about the usual lecture from your admin.
Use any terminal for root purposes by typing su. And terminal is great for making huge amounts of changes administratively. When not making huge amounts of changes the frontends to su being gksu and kdesu are valuable like UAC. For me it's the same concept as UAC in windows with a standard user account: to keep people who aren't supposed to be in the admin account out except those whare are authorized, and to keep a secure environment where things break less. It's not about me not knowing what i'm doing.
Yes, root is the equivalent of admin in linux. I was never disputing this. And i displayed knowing this when i said that you all would hate linux then. Again i don't care about your job. You're using it to take libery in assuming way too much about me with constant put downs. Your accuracy will be in question, because in reality, you have no idea if you're right about all or none of your unscrupulous claims about me. It makes you a jackass trying to prove who has the bigger ball sack. I don't care if you have the bigger ball sack or not. You're negative attitude on users sucks because it assumes way too much that you don't always know which makes you a jackass. And i've been sitting in here finding out ever more about this aspect of you.
There are a few levels of computer knowledge:
-Too scared to do anything (i like these guys, they almost never need support)
-General knowledge of how to use a computer, but doesn't mess with anything
-Thinks they know what is or isn't safe (and acts on it, these are the most annoying, and the most common)
-Actually knows what isn't safe, does it anyway (2nd most annoying)
-Actually knows what isn't safe, doesn't do it
-Knows exactly what isn't safe, but does it anyway and gets away with it because they know how to fix it.
Do i run with the paranoid settings S-99 lists? Not really, I'm a domain admin. I'm in that last group. I can fix it. This is where the concept of:
People are dumb as long as we keep treating them like they're dumb. And people are certainly dumb to reject my advice on this matter.
Why would i want to include myself in a list written by a jackass who chose to be pissed off? So, i didn't, you did. The dumb statement i made after giving my advice in my first post in this thread was rhetorical. As advice goes, take it or leave it. Holy crap you are offensive.
-
Earlier you referred to users as just users. Quit twisting stuff around.
User is a User is a User... You wanted to use a specific name for them by branding them 'standard' so I did the same.
My stance is that UAC is very handy being able to grab admin rights from within a resrticted permissions user account. That user account being standard user.
Your stance is very good at making an admin's life difficult. Since the admin is going to aprove anything he or she does anyway, there is no point. You also specified that admins should run in standard user mode with UAC. This includes admins in your stance, and makes them relevant.
I was referring to UAC in one specific usage from the beginning. In this one specific usage, it's quite useful. All you said was UAC sucks UAC sucks UAC sucks it's only for people who don't know what they're doing. And then you proceeded to assume way too much about me.
If you had read, I have no problems giving a "standard user" a "standard user account" and leaving UAC on.
You chose to be pissed off by my rhetorical statement by reading too much into it. All it meant was that it was dumb to just reject the advice.
You chose to make the arrogant remark that your way is best and everyone who disagrees is stupid. No one has taken your side. By that extension, you have called everyone here stupid. You're suprised at the result?
Running as admin 24/7 makes need for all of these specialty programs (ccleaner, spybot, windows defender, avast, avg, zonealarm, biglistitis). So, don't run as admin and you'll be making use of these programs a lot less and watch your computer work how you intended too. Increase productivity; let the computer work for you instead of you constantly working for it.
It was actually do more with less. It's a concept about efficiency. Figurative example is: As an admin going through which software is needed and what is not. Like disabling windows defender in favor of a real virus scanner that works. Getting rid of spyware cleaners if the virus scanner takes care of all forms of malware. Using a firewall and other software that compliments the abilities of the admin. The admin making sure that none of what he does gets in the way of the users, particularly what on the computer will impede the user. This means less for the admin to do, less complaints from users, and less use of special admin tools. It helps lead to a computer environment that keeps working and requires less up keep.
I wasn't saying don't use a virus scanner or firewall or other programs.
Ya... I'll let that one explain itself. You're going back on yourself and still haven't told me what you have to run by using admin over standard. In both cases it is only one anti-virus and firewall. Anything beyond that is choice, and is a convenience that said admin would use in standard mode anyway. No program works 'better' in standard mode, and you need (or use) just as many in standard mode. You're making up random crap at this point by even thinking standard magically uses less.
You're using it to take libery in assuming way too much about me with constant put downs. Your accuracy will be in question, because in reality, you have no idea if you're right about all or none of your unscrupulous claims about me.
I have made one assumption about you. I placed you in a group that conforms to your beliefs as to how a computer should be run. You deviate from it slightly by trusting users more then most of that group, but you do fit it. In case you are wondering, which I doubt, it would be "-Actually knows what isn't safe, doesn't do it". You simply do not take enough risk like myself or Nuke to fit in that final group. Perhaps you think this group makes you less of a capable tech and therefore took it as an insult? I don't know, but I also really don't care.
Why would i want to include myself in a list written by a jackass
Because the list, as any real tech will tell you, is true, and the only way to not fit in it is to never touch a computer. The list applies to everything, not just computers. For example, in the world of automotive, I would be in that second group.
The dumb statement i made after giving my advice in my first post in this thread...
I'm glad you agree.
...was rhetorical.
Bull****.
Holy crap you are offensive.
I don't recall calling you any names, but you seem to think its just fine to do so. I'm the offencive one?
-
Okay, enough with the back-and-forth personal attacks. Either debate the points or take it elsewhere.
-
One thing I missed in this discussion:
When you are logged in as an admin in Windows 7 - You also get the UAC prompt in case nasty stuff happens. You do not need to enter the password, but there still is 'Yes No' if you, or a program, wants to do stuff that require admin rights.
How is 'Standard User Mode' better for your PC security, except that it requires to enter your password all the time?
-
How is 'Standard User Mode' better for your PC security, except that it requires to enter your password all the time?
Standard user accounts have a reduced system permissions set compared to administrator accounts.
-
Guess what? With UAC enabled, Administrators do too. It's exactly the same as running a Linux system, with stuff you can do freely, and other, more dangerous stuff you need to use sudo for.
-
One thing I missed in this discussion:
When you are logged in as an admin in Windows 7 - You also get the UAC prompt in case nasty stuff happens. You do not need to enter the password, but there still is 'Yes No' if you, or a program, wants to do stuff that require admin rights.
How is 'Standard User Mode' better for your PC security, except that it requires to enter your password all the time?
A standard user isn't allowed to mess with other user accounts (desktop, my documents, stuff like that). Otherwise the only difference is you have to type out a password, and UAC off in standard mode does not mean you get to do everything as an admin.
As The E said, an admin with UAC on isn't a 'full' admin account, they still catch the prompts for anything that needs them, including 90% of the things you would use an admin account for in the first place.
Guess what? With UAC enabled, Administrators do too. It's exactly the same as running a Linux system, with stuff you can do freely, and other, more dangerous stuff you need to use sudo for.
Well ya, where did MS get the idea from? :p Sure, MS sets the standards, but whose standards are they half the time?
-
The simple fact I've learned about any OS maintenance is that any 'optimal' system will have snags, it's best to keep a healthy habit of multiple back-ups and for the technically savvy, a reinstall after a few years doesn't hurt.
There are plenty of days where I'm punching my fstab file or kicking xorg in the balls (I use Linux Mint Debian Edition), but I find a simple reintstall is better than trying to spend hours pouring over google results so I can find a series of commands to restore a borked script or repair a driver gone nuts.
For the paranoid, wipe wipe wipe or shotgun slugs. Or, take the computer and throw it into Vesuvius, liquified rock will clean that registry pronto.
-
Guess what? With UAC enabled, Administrators do too. It's exactly the same as running a Linux system, with stuff you can do freely, and other, more dangerous stuff you need to use sudo for.
I see what you're getting at. They made it pretty darn similar when running as admin with UAC. The difference is in needing to type a password versus clicking yes or no.
I disagree. That difference does not make it the same. If you're going to run as admin, you might as well turn off UAC.
-
For the paranoid, wipe wipe wipe or shotgun slugs. Or, take the computer and throw it into Vesuvius, liquified rock will clean that registry pronto.
No, nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be :warp: [cliche averted by maintenance team]