MFC App unable to run in Vista with UAC enabled
in [MFC]
|
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 13 May 2008 19:27 ....never buy version 1.0 of anything? .... I find Vista a constant annoyance, but UAC is not a major part of that annoyance. The gratuitous changes in the User Interface, whose sole purpose seems to be only keeping programmers employed (wouldn't it be nicer to fix the bugs and make code that works correctly before changing the interface and introducing new bugs? Or adding functional features that really matter?). Gratuitous limitations that serve no useful purpose (e.g., I can't move the taskbar to the top of the screen) don't help. joe On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:05:22 +0100, Bob Moore <> wrote: >On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:05:20 -0500, Clay Jones wrote: > >> Fault Module Name: Secur32.dll > >We had problems with several apps randomly crashing in this DLL (which >have all worked fine for years in both 2000 and XP), and most likely >cuplrit seems to be the legacy installer detection code in Vista. >Every so often LID thought that we had done something that made us >look a bit like an installer... and bang. Silly me just expected an >elevation dialog, but it seems life's not that simple. > >In two cases, simply changing the base module name of the app would >stop this happening (changing the executable filename isn't enough, it >took a recompile of the source inside a new project with a different >name, but nothing else changed). But don't go expecting MS to share >the detailed characteristics that LID uses to reach its decisions. > >This affected three apps in total, two with "launcher" as part of >their name, and one with "setup". Same secur32.dll crashes in each. We >recompiled two apps with new names and the problem went away. > >At the third app I lost patience and declared that entire version of >the system not compatible with Vista. Partially because I didn't want >to go on supporting it in an unpredictable environment, but mostly >because I don't want to be seen to be propping up the polished turd >that is Vista. > >But then we have another application called AutoUpdate that trips LID, >but that works fine and just produces an elevation dialog. The only >common factor among the three crashers was that they launched other >apps, and looked a bit like installers (and that they all worked fine >up till Vista shipped). > >UAC is actually not a bad idea (minimal privilege has always been a >good idea), its just the current implementation that sucks. Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Daniel James on 14 May 2008 05:52 In article news:<m2vj2415r6clu7h2pnrh97cqetlrqmqenc(a)4ax.com>, Bob Moore wrote: > Every so often LID thought that we had done something that made us > look a bit like an installer... and bang. Silly me just expected an > elevation dialog, but it seems life's not that simple. If LID causes problems for you then you should probably give your app a Vista-style manifest. That'll tell Vista that your app doesn't regard itself as legacy and LID won't bother you (or shouldn't, anyway). > I don't want to be seen to be propping up the polished turd > that is Vista. That's the nicest thing I've seen written about Vista all week! > UAC is actually not a bad idea (minimal privilege has always been a > good idea), its just the current implementation that sucks. The important thing to realize is that you don't need UAC to run with minimal privilege. I'm running Win2k here, as a "User" (not even a "Power User") and apart from occasional trips to the Admin account to set up stuff I can't do as a user (and for which "Run As" isn't adequate) everything works very well. It's even less trouble in XP, where "Run as" almost always does the trick. *Some* of the implementation of UAC works OK, but some of the things it does are incomprehensibly obstruse and others are just bizarre. It's usable as a tool to enable unsophisticated users to (mostly) work their PCs once you've forced them into a limited user account, but in a corporate environment where there are windows-savvy sysadmins to do the Administrator thing those sysadmins should set up the software and nail down the security and then normal users should be running limited accounts with UAC *OFF*. Cheers, Daniel.
From: Bob Moore on 14 May 2008 06:34 On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:27:15 -0400, Joseph M. Newcomer <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote: >Gratuitous limitations that serve no useful purpose (e.g., >I can't move the taskbar to the top of the screen) don't help. Moving the taskbar to the top of the screen works on this Vista installation works here. Hang on... I'll try it again... Yep, y'see ? It's there. Dunno whether it functions correctly or not, but it will move there. <rant> What I can't understand is how anyone ever justified the concept of translucent window frames. I mean, you know you're going to have to draw text on this right? That you'll therefore have to spend lots of code compromising the translucency just so people can read said text, right? So why bother in the first place? I suspect this is one of those of those features that get demoed "because we can", and the marketing people saw it before a senior engineer (if there are any such beasts left at MS) saw it and stamped on it. You know they demo this stuff by playing videos behind another window so you can see it playing through the frame? Well that makes sense, because I always watch my TV through frosted glass, so let's go for it, guys... And the UI for the networking stuff... is just incompetent. Yes, let's enumerate the entire subnet when I open the network window, because THAT makes sense. Stupid, stupid, stupid. </rant> Any road up, I can't guarantee the problem we saw _is_ what affects the OP, but I can tesify that we saw crashes in secur32.dll, the only common factor was the naming of the apps (and their behaviour in launching other apps), and rebuilding them with different base module names cured the problem. We just got sick of applying the solution and gave up. The apps would have had a manifest, but I don't know if it had an asInvoker section - but this was back on the Vista beta and I suspect the possible manifest contents were even more badly documented back then than they are now (if that's possible to believe). Bob Moore http://bobmoore.mvps.org/
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 14 May 2008 09:03 See below... On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:34:30 +0100, Bob Moore <> wrote: >On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:27:15 -0400, Joseph M. Newcomer ><newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote: > >>Gratuitous limitations that serve no useful purpose (e.g., >>I can't move the taskbar to the top of the screen) don't help. > >Moving the taskbar to the top of the screen works on this Vista >installation works here. Hang on... I'll try it again... Yep, y'see ? >It's there. Dunno whether it functions correctly or not, but it will >move there. > ><rant> >What I can't understand is how anyone ever justified the concept of >translucent window frames. I mean, you know you're going to have to >draw text on this right? That you'll therefore have to spend lots of >code compromising the translucency just so people can read said text, >right? So why bother in the first place? I suspect this is one of >those of those features that get demoed "because we can", and the >marketing people saw it before a senior engineer (if there are any >such beasts left at MS) saw it and stamped on it. You know they demo >this stuff by playing videos behind another window so you can see it >playing through the frame? Well that makes sense, because I always >watch my TV through frosted glass, so let's go for it, guys... **** It is one of the more incredibly stupid wastes of time to have put this in. Fortunately, I discovered where this feature, which makes it nearly impossible to use the system, can be disabled, and promptly did so. Visually, it sucks. There's even a myth that I should be able to see my desktop. That stupid widget bar is based on the premise that I (a) would not run everything full-screen and (b)want to waste space on pointless rubbish like RSS feeds from rock music sites, or a clock that looks like the clock I can see on the wall (except mine is digital). I looked at each widget, said "kill", ended up with nothing, killed the widget bar, and never missed it. **** > >And the UI for the networking stuff... is just incompetent. Yes, let's >enumerate the entire subnet when I open the network window, because >THAT makes sense. Stupid, stupid, stupid. **** I have several lovely CD changers here, which I cannot use, because some nitwit thought that I should be able to see the icon of every CD when I bring up the browser, so I had to sit there while each of three changers shuffled 7 CDs around, just to retrieve the icons! So your problem is just a continuation of poor implementation policies started years ago. **** ></rant> > >Any road up, I can't guarantee the problem we saw _is_ what affects >the OP, but I can tesify that we saw crashes in secur32.dll, the only >common factor was the naming of the apps (and their behaviour in >launching other apps), and rebuilding them with different base module >names cured the problem. We just got sick of applying the solution and >gave up. The apps would have had a manifest, but I don't know if it >had an asInvoker section - but this was back on the Vista beta and I >suspect the possible manifest contents were even more badly documented >back then than they are now (if that's possible to believe). **** Something about klludges breaking...better to design correctly than to debug into correctness...? I suspect manifests would help if only they were documented. But, hey, why should such a critical and fundamental piece of technology actually be described in any way to those who need to use it? It would take all the fun out of their lives, trying to reverse-engineer what a manifest is, and so they'd probably just fritter their time away on video games... **** > >Bob Moore >http://bobmoore.mvps.org/ Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 14 May 2008 09:06 How many times have you had a message box pop up and say "Contact your system administrator"? I *am* the system administrator, and my only reaction is "WHAT THE F***!!!!". As a sysadmin, I cannot find out anything useful about the situation, because all the DOCUMENTATION says to contact the sysadmin. Now, I admit that I do spend a lot of time talking to myself, but this whole sick attitude that the all-knowing sysadmin can fix anything bad has to go away. Every message box, every error, must give enough information that the user, who is his/her own sysadmin, can figure out what is wrong, and fix it! joe On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:52:10 +0100, Daniel James <wastebasket(a)nospam.aaisp.org> wrote: >In article news:<m2vj2415r6clu7h2pnrh97cqetlrqmqenc(a)4ax.com>, Bob Moore >wrote: >> Every so often LID thought that we had done something that made us >> look a bit like an installer... and bang. Silly me just expected an >> elevation dialog, but it seems life's not that simple. > >If LID causes problems for you then you should probably give your app a >Vista-style manifest. That'll tell Vista that your app doesn't regard >itself as legacy and LID won't bother you (or shouldn't, anyway). > >> I don't want to be seen to be propping up the polished turd >> that is Vista. > >That's the nicest thing I've seen written about Vista all week! > >> UAC is actually not a bad idea (minimal privilege has always been a >> good idea), its just the current implementation that sucks. > >The important thing to realize is that you don't need UAC to run with >minimal privilege. I'm running Win2k here, as a "User" (not even a >"Power User") and apart from occasional trips to the Admin account to >set up stuff I can't do as a user (and for which "Run As" isn't >adequate) everything works very well. It's even less trouble in XP, >where "Run as" almost always does the trick. > >*Some* of the implementation of UAC works OK, but some of the things it >does are incomprehensibly obstruse and others are just bizarre. It's >usable as a tool to enable unsophisticated users to (mostly) work their >PCs once you've forced them into a limited user account, but in a >corporate environment where there are windows-savvy sysadmins to do the >Administrator thing those sysadmins should set up the software and nail >down the security and then normal users should be running limited >accounts with UAC *OFF*. > >Cheers, > Daniel. > Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: HTML Help Redistribution Next: Unable to run MFC app on Vista with UAC enabled |