From: John Beckett 

"Rich"  wrote in message news::
> The complaint of the "hacker" is that she believes users
should have to
> choose between three options not two with the third being, run but not
> elevated.  I'm sure this can be debated on and on.  Three options is more
> complex to users than two and if the user chooses wrong then the setup
> program may appear to work but actually does not.

No doubt lots more technical jargon will be produced to explain why Vista
will not run an exe that appears to be a setup program, unless that program
is given full admin access to 100% of the computer hardware, operating
system, drivers and user data.

Let me just say that I totally loathe the result. It is a design failure.

It reminds me of the stupidity of Microsoft Word etc where if I open a
document with a macro, I'm given the choice to allow the macro to do 100%
anything I can do, or else I can't even see the macro to remind me WTF it
is.

I also loathe the similar way that Internet Explorer provides no practical
way for a user to render an insecure web page other than by allowing it
100% access to everything. I can see the arguments to support the IE
situation, namely that users really are impetuous and stupid, so an option
to just render this web page now would be abused. But I'm prepared to sign
a contract affirming that I own the computer and the software, and I'm over
the age of consent. There are web sites that I trust for one page right
now, not for all pages for all time.

John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5