Disable UAC for SPECIFIC PROGRAMS

[OldAirmail]

There can be little doubt that with the User Account Control (UAC) popping up and asking if you want to run almost EVERY program on your computer will make you VERY tired of seeing it.



And it only gets worse for those programs that you use every day.

You get so used to seeing it that you no longer even read it. After a while, you automatically click on Yes.

And many people just turn it off completely.

Neither solution is good.



So what's a person to do?

Over time, I've forgotten what method I used, but I don't think that it was one of these.

But these are the best that I could find for disabling UAC just for those programs that you use a lot.

Nothing is perfect, but having NO UAC is not a good solution. Give these a try.

4 Ways to Disable User Account Control (UAC) for Specific Software in Windows

[zswobbie1]

Basically, this is what UAC does.... nags you to make sure that you are doing the right thing.
If you are computer savvy, you can turn it down without any problems.
It is NOT an anti-virus feature. Your anti-virus & malware programs protect you.

[OldAirmail]

User Account Control - Wiki

It aims to improve the security of Microsoft Windows by limiting application software to standard user privileges until an administrator authorizes an increase or elevation. In this way, only applications trusted by the user may receive administrative privileges, and malware should be kept from compromising the operating system.

In a controversial article, New York Times Gadgetwise writer Paul Boutin said "Turn off Vista's overly protective User Account Control. Those pop-ups are like having your mother hover over your shoulder while you work."

Computerworld journalist Preston Gralla described the NYT article as "...one of the worst pieces of technical advice ever issued."

In Microsoft Windows UAC pops up so often that many people simply turn it off.

My post provides a way to mitigate that for the programs that you know and use often.



I don't know what Macs do, but in Linux, not only must you explicitly acknowledge the program that wants to run, but you must enter your password, to let it run.

But again, this is only for some programs, and mainly the ones that could download programs, or alter "protected" files.

Any program trying to run without your knowledge will be tripped up.



Is this type of intrusion necessary? Of course not. No more than wearing seatbelts.

I drove for over 30 years without wearing a seatbelt, and nothing ever happened to me.

Of course, nowadays the police will pull you over if they see you driving and not using it. But it's absolutely not needed.

The same is true about UAC.

[napamule]

Of course you realize that this UAC was made to use in a business enviorment where the CLERK is prevented from making changes to the 'books', etc. A SUPERVISOR would control who is authorized to 'make changes' to files. It 'gets in the way' with programs for FltSim. Windows is for business use not FltSim use. But that's life - you can't have everything.

[Jean Loup]

Is this type of intrusion necessary? Of course not. No more than wearing seatbelts.
I drove for over 30 years without wearing a seatbelt, and nothing ever happened to me.
Of course, nowadays the police will pull you over if they see you driving and not using it. But it's absolutely not needed.
The same is true about UAC.

Automobile seat belts are a design disgrace, have strangled more people tan saved until the advent of Air Bags: they will kill any toddler in the co-pilot seat. In my days, SAFETY was paying atention to the road one was driving, NO CELLS or other imbecile "smart" techs (except for Maxwell & his Sunbeam Alpine)

[H]

Is this type of intrusion necessary? Of course not. No more than wearing seatbelts.
I drove for over 30 years without wearing a seatbelt, and nothing ever happened to me.
Of course, nowadays the police will pull you over if they see you driving and not using it. But it's absolutely not needed.

Although NH makes the wearing optional from 18 on, I try to keep the habit of wearing it so I don't forget if I ever cross the state line; nevertheless, I would not state that it is absolutely not needed, more particularly for a passenger (the driver should know what he's doing as he/she initiates it, the passenger won't until it's already being done). When the vehicle is strongly braked (by brakes and/or impact), belt systems properly fitted to the person will counter the forward lurch; when my Lincoln was struck from the side, however, my belts hardly took part in it. Decades ago I had a comedy-show-type (as I look back on it) crash into the side of a hill while wearing the seat belt; knowing that there was no way to avoid the impact, I didn't even want to be in the front seat -- I quickly unharnessed and was still in the air over the back seat at impact. This doesn't account for other incidents where the seat belt won't release and actually traps the person in place. So, the drift is that there are incidents when the seat belt can be life-saving and others where it can be life-threatening -- but, if you knew which incident was going to happen, you'd undoubtedly avoid the the incident to begin with.

In my days, SAFETY was paying attention to the road one was driving...

Quite... and it's still supposed to be. If the fellow who smashed into the front of my Lincoln was driving with proper attention, he would never have run the red light.