Windows 7 and general bitching about OSes

[AceHigh]

Care to elaborate?

[Lupin]

Shun windows 7! More DRM spyware sh1t !!

this comment came from a person that primarily uses linux.

[dankles]

Shun windows 7! More DRM spyware sh1t !!

this comment came from a person that primarily uses linux.

Linux is a superior OS. I have freedom and am not bound by copyright restrictions and DRM
If you like the fact that Microsoft owns your PC system, then feel free to using it.
DRM gives power to Microsoft and big media.

    * They decide which programs you can and can't use on your computer
    * They decide which features of your computer or software you can use at any given moment
    * They force you to install new programs even when you don't want to (and, of course, pay for the privilege)
    * They restrict your access to certain programs and even to your own data files

DRM is enforced by technological barriers. You try to do something, and your computer tells you that you can't. To make this effective, your computer has to be constantly monitoring what you are doing. This constant monitoring uses computing power and memory, and is a large part of the reason why Microsoft is telling you that you have to buy new and more powerful hardware in order to run Vista. They want you to buy new hardware not because you need it, but because your computer needs it in order to be more effective at restricting what you do.

 Microsoft says it best:

The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.

To make it even more confusing, different versions of Vista have different licensing restrictions. You can read all of the licenses at http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx

Technology security expert Bruce Schneier explains it most concisely:

Windows Vista includes an array of “features” that you don't want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support problems. They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software. And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM) features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment industry—And you don't get to refuse them.

I know that all of this speaks against Vista, but it applies to Windows 7 as well.

[fohfoh]

It's great that you like Linux... BUT TOO FUCKING BAD I CAN'T USE BUSINESS PROGRAMS IN WINE!

MICROSOFT MIGHT SUCK BUT I CAN'T FULLY GET RID OF IT!

[iindigo]

Are you sure that the DRM components are on and running all the time? I mean that sounds kind of silly. If it's anything like the (very minimal) DRM in OS X from iTunes, it only applies when a DRM-affected music or video file is open, and even then it's not "active" protection - just stuff like export functions and such are unavailable on that file.

[Lupin]

Shun windows 7! More DRM spyware sh1t !!

this comment came from a person that primarily uses linux.

Linux is a superior OS. I have freedom and am not bound by copyright restrictions and DRM
If you like the fact that Microsoft owns your PC system, then feel free to using it.
DRM gives power to Microsoft and big media.

    * They decide which programs you can and can't use on your computer
    * They decide which features of your computer or software you can use at any given moment
    * They force you to install new programs even when you don't want to (and, of course, pay for the privilege)
    * They restrict your access to certain programs and even to your own data files

DRM is enforced by technological barriers. You try to do something, and your computer tells you that you can't. To make this effective, your computer has to be constantly monitoring what you are doing. This constant monitoring uses computing power and memory, and is a large part of the reason why Microsoft is telling you that you have to buy new and more powerful hardware in order to run Vista. They want you to buy new hardware not because you need it, but because your computer needs it in order to be more effective at restricting what you do.

 Microsoft says it best:

The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.

To make it even more confusing, different versions of Vista have different licensing restrictions. You can read all of the licenses at http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx

Technology security expert Bruce Schneier explains it most concisely:

Windows Vista includes an array of “features” that you don't want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support problems. They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software. And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM) features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment industry—And you don't get to refuse them.

I know that all of this speaks against Vista, but it applies to Windows 7 as well.

i simply don't don't like the way posted it.

it sounds like you hate microsoft, thus you also hate windows. do you use windows on a regular basis? or you hate windows because of all the hate you hear about it from FSF?

what you posted may be the truth and i somewhat agree with most of them. it's just irritating to hear people say shitty things about something they already have a bias against. it's similar to those mac fanbois who say their os is the best when they haven't even tried other OSes.

i use different operating systems. i use ubuntu/fedora/red hat/centos in school while i use windows xp/vista/7 at home. i also use osx when i need to. i think each of these operating systems were developed with different philosophies in mind.

[dankles]

It's great that you like Linux... BUT TOO FUCKING BAD I CAN'T USE BUSINESS PROGRAMS IN WINE!

MICROSOFT MIGHT SUCK BUT I CAN'T FULLY GET RID OF IT!

Lots of business programs run under linux... Though I did *have* to run WinXP once upon a time when I was programming with .NET 1.1.... so i don't completely shun Windows/MS... unless it's WinVista or Win7 because they include all the drm stuff.

Are you sure that the DRM components are on and running all the time? I mean that sounds kind of silly. If it's anything like the (very minimal) DRM in OS X from iTunes, it only applies when a DRM-affected music or video file is open, and even then it's not "active" protection - just stuff like export functions and such are unavailable on that file.

Vista gives Microsoft the ability to control *everything* on your system if they want (hence the license agreement)... wither it's all run-time or not I don't know, but I don't want those "features" none the less.

i simply don't don't like the way posted it.

it sounds like you hate microsoft, thus you also hate windows. do you use windows on a regular basis? or you hate windows because of all the hate you hear about it from FSF?

what you posted may be the truth and i somewhat agree with most of them. it's just irritating to hear people say shitty things about something they already have a bias against. it's similar to those mac fanbois who say their os is the best when they haven't even tried other OSes.

i use different operating systems. i use ubuntu/fedora/red hat/centos in school while i use windows xp/vista/7 at home. i also use osx when i need to. i think each of these operating systems were developed with different philosophies in mind.

I guess I *did* over react a bit by calling it shit, but I still feel that a move to Vista/Win7 (not specifically MS) is a move away from software freedom. I don't like it with corporations have the ability to forcefully control the user when it should be the other way around. No I don't think all software needs to be free/gratis, but should be at least for the most part free/libre.


That said... priority one is to put money on the table, and if MS is required to do business then so be it. I have a job that lets me run Linux or what ever OS I want, but not everyone has that luxury...

[dankles]

Just remembered an excellent real life example of how malicious DRM can be:
Google Video robs customers of the videos they "own"
I still use google, guys.... just for the record...

And the same thing can apply to Vista/Win7 so far as Government Law allows it.

[fohfoh]

I've actually tried a couple of those programs in wine. It gets all screwed up to the point where I can't use it. (goes off the screen, or doesn't show up properly etc.) I had the same happen with agent once too. I could only resolve it via a fresh install. (installing the os and then software everytime is pointless)

[dankles]

I've actually tried a couple of those programs in wine. It gets all screwed up to the point where I can't use it. (goes off the screen, or doesn't show up properly etc.) I had the same happen with agent once too. I could only resolve it via a fresh install. (installing the os and then software everytime is pointless)

Just don't use wine... I personally hate it (though it does run MS Notepad perfectly lol). Find a replacement program like openoffice is to MS Office.

Or if it's a business program then you're probably S.O.L. ... thats when I'd go with VMWare or Xen or something lol. But thats coming from a linux obsessed maniac 

[AceHigh]

Linux is a superior OS. I have freedom and am not bound by copyright restrictions and DRM

Too bad it's not usable for anyone who needs to use computer for something useful like work. Not sure if you noticed it, but most programs don't work on linux. Now correct me if I am wrong but isn't the whole point of an OS is to make other programs run and give you a nice interface while you do it? Linux fails the most important aspect right there.

If you like the fact that Microsoft owns your PC system, then feel free to using it.

Yeah I like it just as much as the fact that I got it off Pirate Bay for free and it was stripped of bullshit. Actually it is so amusing that they use their server bandwith and people to give me my updates automatically and I didn't pay a dime for it? Who is screwing whom here actually?

DRM gives power to Microsoft and big media.

SHIT!!! That means all my movies and music are gone!!! Oh wait, it is all still there. Exactly what power do they have again?
 

   * They decide which programs you can and can't use on your computer

False, they can't decide if I am to play BF2 or Dawn of War on my Windows and I do, you however can't do that.

* They decide which features of your computer or software you can use at any given moment

False again, there is always a way to disable features and get new ones (without paying hehehehehe)

* They force you to install new programs even when you don't want to (and, of course, pay for the privilege)

Give me one fucking example of that happening. I never looked at my account finding out that Microsoft drained it for money and forcefully installed something on my computer.

* They restrict your access to certain programs and even to your own data files

Trust me, sometimes it is better that stupid rednecks don't get access to system32 folder.

DRM is enforced by technological barriers. You try to do something, and your computer tells you that you can't. To make this effective, your computer has to be constantly monitoring what you are doing. This constant monitoring uses computing power and memory, and is a large part of the reason why Microsoft is telling you that you have to buy new and more powerful hardware in order to run Vista. They want you to buy new hardware not because you need it, but because your computer needs it in order to be more effective at restricting what you do.

Applies only if you use Windows Media Player. If you are not completely gay and use players like TCMP with CCCP codecs and VLC you will never notice any DRM.

I know that all of this speaks against Vista, but it applies to Windows 7 as well.

Speculations, only time will tell.

In other words, unless you have some real arguments that carry any weight and are not just something that goes against your ideology you are welcome to try again. My arguments for Windows are: I can run most applications that are created, it is free if you know where to look, great support in terms of auto updates instead of a crappy forum where linux elitists will flame you for asking a question and it works great.

[dankles]

@Dragoon AceHigh :
Look, I've already said:

priority one is to put money on the table, and if MS is required to do business then so be it. I have a job that lets me run Linux or what ever OS I want, but not everyone has that luxury...

So I don't know why you're flaming me about that. Though to say "Too bad it's not usable for anyone who needs to use computer for something useful like work" is irrational. Lots of people including myself use it every day for work.

Those thing I had in bullets are obviously not all implemented. But per license agreement and government law they would be able to do those things. And if you don't think it might happen, look at what history tells us:

Just remembered an excellent real life example of how malicious DRM can be:
Google Video robs customers of the videos they "own"

DRM gives power to Microsoft and big media.

SHIT!!! That means all my movies and music are gone!!! Oh wait, it is all still there. Exactly what power do they have again?

Google Video robs customers of the videos they "own"

Applies only if you use Windows Media Player.

It applies to all of the OS.

Give me one fucking example of that happening. I never looked at my account finding out that Microsoft drained it for money and forcefully installed something on my computer.

It might not have anything to do with pro-actively draining your bank account but simply forcing a customer to submit to corporate will (A loss of freedom)

Here is a great example:

If you put Microsoft at the center of your home entertainment system, be prepared to hand them the remote control, literally.

Following reports that digital television viewers were blocked from recording the new season of NBC's "Gladiators", Microsoft confirmed that it is preventing users from recording the show. They claim they were acting on behalf of NBC, and are in line with regulations set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in disrupting computer usage based upon the so-called "broadcast flag" that was transmitted alongside the show.

A Microsoft spokesperson told CNET News, "...Windows Media Center fully adheres to the flags used by broadcasters and content owners to determine how their content is distributed and consumed."

What is the broadcast flag?

The broadcast flag is a sequence of information transmitted alongside television programs as a kind of digital order telling viewers to not do certain things, such as record the show or share it with a friend.

Many of the large media companies and the FCC tried to make obeying the broadcast flag a law. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation took the FCC to court, and US Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had exceeded its authority, and that no such law could exist. Despite this ruling, it appears that Microsoft has decided to work directly with media companies to implement these rules anyway, restricting how and when you watch television.

Building such a system is no trivial task. To do this, Microsoft has gone to great lengths to restrict users from saving a television program to their computers, we call this kind of functionality an "antifeature," because it takes more work for Microsoft to prevent the user from saving the program, than if they were to leave just the default behavior alone. So instead of letting you record programs as you normally would, it locks you out and deletes the show before you can save it.

However, Microsoft hasn't just made a little tweak to their software to do this -- they have compiled an entire system built upon antifeatures. This antifeature platform is integrated into their Windows Media software and forms the basis of their Windows Vista operating system, and they are working hard to convince companies like NBC, that Microsoft can be in control of how and when you get to watch television. As creepy and as ridiculous as it may sound, this is their business strategy, and by getting this control, both the television and movie industry and computer users will be tied to Microsoft software.

Don't be fooled into their claims that they are following regulations by the FCC -- the court ruled that the FCC has no power to make such regulations. This is also claimed as a measure just to stop unauthorized file sharing, yet what Microsoft is doing is trying to make sure that they are on every end of the market, from how it is delivered, to how you watch it. As Ars Technica reporter Jacqui Cheng puts it, this is not about Microsoft preventing people from sharing files without permission, "t's about the ability to strictly control how we consume content"[2].

Microsoft wants to have that control, and this software is the way they are trying to get it. Software that is designed in this way is known as 'DRM', which stands for 'Digital Rights Management', and yet it is really just another way to restriction how consumers interact with things on their own computers and devices. Because of this restriction, we refer to DRM as 'Digital Restrictions Management'.

[2]: It should be noted that this writer refers to a person that shares files as a "pirate," we think this is a bit of an extreme description that should be avoided. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080514-nbc-vista-copy-protection-snafu-reminds-us-why-drm-stinks.html

Speculations, only time will tell.

In other words, unless you have some real arguments that carry any weight and are not just something that goes against your ideology you are welcome to try again. My arguments for Windows are: I can run most applications that are created, it is free if you know where to look, great support in terms of auto updates instead of a crappy forum where linux elitists will flame you for asking a question and it works great.

-Win7 and Vista *are* built off the same base, and slated to ship with DRM, though Microsoft refuses to comment on this. (if by some miracle they don't include DRM, then I'll retract my comments applying to win7) 
-I think my arguments DO have real weight to them. I've given real life examples in this post and previous.
-You only have a free/gratis OS. Not a free/libre OS.
-Linux "elitists" *never* flamed me when I asked questions.

[AceHigh]

First of all, what a hell does Google has to do with Windows 7?

Second:

It might not have anything to do with pro-actively draining your bank account but simply forcing a customer to submit to corporate will (A loss of freedom)

There is still nobody forcing me into anything at all. Especially economically. They wanted me to upgrade from XP to Vista, I didn't. That is called freedom of choice and it seems I still have it.

-You only have a free/gratis OS. Not a free/libre OS.

Exactly how is it different from a practical view? I mean ideologically it is different, but for a piratebay junkie it makes absolutely no difference at all.

-Linux "elitists" *never* flamed me when I asked questions.

Maybe they sense on of their own.

My question is: how is linux a superior OS from a practical point of view? Let's take this quote from Wiki:

An operating system (commonly abbreviated OS and O/S) is an interface between hardware and applications; it is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the limited resources of the computer. The operating system acts as a host for applications that are run on the machine.

So this is the primary function of an OS. So tell me, which OS is compatible with the majority of programs out there?

I am not arguing that Linux has the potential of becoming a superior OS, however it has still a long way there. You know it's biggest weakness? Freedom. Everybody thinks they have a better version so there are like 100 distros out there. How the hell are the software developers supposed to make applications for that?

[dankles]

I merely gave examples of how DRM is bad, which is related to Vista/Win7 (What *could* happen to them).
The freedom I speak of is the ability to do what ever I want with my OS, which I think is necessary especially at an OS level over application level. Because bugs would be *much* easier to fix, security would be better (lots of people think that hiding code is security, but thats simply not true), and user flexability would be greater because so many more people/companies could easily contribute.

Richard Stallman explains it like this:

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

here is a link to that article

Now from a practical point of view, I'll say that I use Linux for nearly every thing I do (email,docs,programing,internet,server,etc). yes, there are way to many distros, but only a few main stream ones. And its not as hard as you think to make software for them. It's actually easier IMO to make Linux software than windows, even if you include the great "Visual Studio" suite.

I'll say that windows *does* do some things better simply because it has better software in some areas (video editing,easy codec conversion tools,games,i cant think of anything else). For those things I do actually use windows sometimes, but only WinXP because it lacks the DRM "features" of its children.
Also, Linux lacks some of the driver support that windows has because companies refuse to open their driver specifications to the Linux developers.

Again, if business requires windows, then use windows. Because money on the table it priority one.
anyways... I've rambled too much...

[sdedalus83]

I am not arguing that Linux has the potential of becoming a superior OS, however it has still a long way there. You know it's biggest weakness? Freedom. Everybody thinks they have a better version so there are like 100 distros out there. How the hell are the software developers supposed to make applications for that?

You're at least an order of magnitude too small there.

They don't even think about the number and variety of distributions, since it doesn't matter.  Linux applications are built on, for the most part, platform and distribution independent libraries.  Whomever packages the application for the distribution ensures that dependency issues are checked for and resolved during installation.

[fohfoh]

Linux is good at basic levels and all, but once you get more complex (business programs, and at one point, games) so for the "complex" stuff... I'll use windows. NOT VISTA, but 7 isn't bad.

Try the beta before bashing it dankles. It's not that damn hard.

[dankles]

Linux is good at basic levels and all, but once you get more complex (business programs, and at one point, games) so for the "complex" stuff... I'll use windows. NOT VISTA, but 7 isn't bad.

Try the beta before bashing it dankles. It's not that damn hard.

What kind of business stuff can't Linux run? or at least have an equal counter part application (there are a few, but most can be matched by linux). Everything in the business world is becoming web-based, so anything like that will work fine with Linux. Again, I use Linux for almost everything. Not just non-"complex" stuff. As for games, I've already said that Windows wins. I use XP for games *sometimes*(I say it grudgingly).

I'm not bashing the usability of Win7, just the philosophy. And for that, I will never run Win 7 if I can get away with it.

[xShadow]

Employers are used to using windows, and the employees are, too. Who the fuck would want to decrease (even temporarily) the productivity of their company to switch to Linux, where they will spend glorious amounts of time hunting perfect alternatives (which may or may not exist) to the PERFECT business applications that they already use, when the change isn't even going to be an improvement (in fact, you're going to have the tech-illiterates wondering around not knowing where the hell this or this is in Linux)? No one. Linux is a very inconvenient workspace format.

You talk about "alternative this" or "alternative that". Where are they, what are they, and where is your concrete proof about them being as good?

I merely gave examples of how DRM is bad, which is related to Vista/Win7 (What *could* happen to them).
The freedom I speak of is the ability to do what ever I want with my OS, which I think is necessary especially at an OS level over application level. Because bugs would be *much* easier to fix, security would be better (lots of people think that hiding code is security, but thats simply not true), and user flexability would be greater because so many more people/companies could easily contribute.

[snip]

You were being ridiculously vague about the DRM issue. I fail to see how the hell it has anything much to do with the actual OS itself. I have not run into ANY issues involving DRM on my Vista system and it has stayed that way. The only time it's popped up is when I was playing a song that I downloaded, and it was right to; that song was protected media. The damn thing doesn't touch anything other than that.

As a user of a Vista system, I will say that you are WAY fucking overreacting about the DRM. It's not even noticeable, and it doesn't do shit.

I will admit Vista is a bit overbloated, and sometimes a little annoying, but even IT isn't as bad as people make it out to be, and the Aero skin looks quite fantastic. Honestly, it just seems you're pulling stuff out of your ass, concerning how much you're a fanboy of Linux, not about how Linux is actually in any way better. The only valid point you've really given is that you can customize it. Yippee, now I can dig around with piles of code and whatnot, to achieve some effect that was entirely unnecessary, and doesn't make up for shit.
If Linux is gonna even start competing with windows, they have to set their focus to one distro, and start developing to it. That isn't to say other people shouldn't be able to tweak it (have fun fucking around with 50 fucking megs of code, or something), but just the fact that they don't have shit in the unity department is part of the reason that Linux doesn't have very good support. The damn thing needs to get its act together. Literally. If it was as easy to use as Windows, and it had all of the support of Windows, I would use it. It doesn't. I don't want to be a handicapped man in a wheelchair that goes slightly faster than walking speed. I'd rather be a man that has working legs and can walk, albeit a bit slower. Crappy analogy, but I'm tired.


With that argument aside, I'm not gonna say that Vista is better than XP. It really isn't (but you knew that). Nevertheless, I haven't had any urges to change it lately, nor have I gotten horribly annoyed with it, and I even find it downright convenient, at times. If that ain't saying something, I don't know what is.

So okay, Linux can keep all of its wonderful advanced features, while I stay with the applications that count (that is, any application ever released; compare that to your library. >_>).

[dankles]

@xShadow:
I really don't feel like explaining myself twice. And I don't think I'm over reacting in what I've said after reading your post.

My first post explanation is Reply #162

Just to summarize though:
-My point is to bash the DRM philosophy of MS more than promote linux. Go use something else for all i care(BSD/Solaris/even Mac(without DRM Itunes) is better).
-there are plenty of options that don't involve MS. I've seen many many many network setups that don't require MS stuff and they work great.(google it)

[Lupin]

-My point is to bash the DRM philosophy of MS more than promote linux. Go use something else for all i care(BSD/Solaris/even Mac(without DRM Itunes) is better).

bashing a product to promote another product is not really a good way to promote something. if you want to promote linux then show the good stuff about it not bitch about how much microsoft's drm sucks. the way you promote your os is like the way mac cultists promote their beloved osx.

the drm example you gave makes me wonder. is microsoft the real culprit in your example? did microsoft added that broadcast flag crap to control the content or did the media companies pressured them to add that drm? is this any different from the way intel forced microsoft to lower the vista capable branding so that intel graphics can be used when it fact they cannot? remember that microsoft is a for profit company. they have shareholders to please. they have to control the market they have to keep their shareholders happy. while it's not an excuse for giving them some slack for implementing such drm, can you give me some alternative on how microsoft can please everyone? if ms removes drm, media companies will let hell break out on them. if they add drm, some consumers will let complain but the majority will be silent about it. why? because drm is something designed and implemented by humans, thus it can be broken by humans. this silent majority will look for alternatives. if microsoft will be forced to choose between angry media companies and some angry customers, who do you think they will try to please? the one with lots of money of course!

-there are plenty of options that don't involve MS. I've seen many many many network setups that don't require MS stuff and they work great.(google it)

yes, there are alternatives. and some of them are free and maybe even better than their windows counterparts. but have you considered the transition costs it will make the companies pay? they have to look for experts using these alternative to train their staff. if a company implements a specific project development cycle, they have to retrain their staff for the changes. they might have to even create a new project cycle if they can't modify it. these are costs established companies cannot take in in an instant.

dankles, i agree with you about all the free/libre stuff you've been posting. but please, if you're just going to bitch about linux being better because X features of windows are shit in this thread, then please shut the fuck up. your posts doesn't contribute any constructive ideas to the discussion. this is a thread about windows 7, not linux. you're not a real windows user to begin with. it also doesn't help your cause to promote linux. if you want to promote linux, tell people things that will make them think "this feature of linux looks good, i might as well try the os." don't do some mudslinging because people can also do the same thing. and please, avoid using sources like FSF and stallman. i understand what they try to point out but they have a bias against microsoft. to them everything microsoft does is wrong. they may or may not be right in their claims against windows, but i'd rather read stuff from sources that are impartial to both sides.

moving back to the topic, there are some changes to the user account control since people complained about it:

the UAC control panel will run in a high integrity process, which requires elevation. That was already in the works before this discussion and doing this prevents all the mechanics around SendKeys and the like from working. Second, changing the level of the UAC will also prompt for confirmation.

this is clearly better that the uac implemented in vista.