digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

So You Wanna Change Your Default Browser In Vista?

tech.cybernetnews.com — Microsoft has designed the User Account Control (UAC) to work so perfectly that it will be difficult for the average person to switch the default browser.

Who dugg this? Made popular Aug 12, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

103 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • BlakeHandler, on 10/12/2007, -20/+75Wrong -- Vista makes it hard for the average user to change ANY program (uninstall etc) -- Vista no longer allowed the "average" user to be the Administrator with the ability to change everything (which usually leads to spyware problems because as Admin anything can be installed)
  • motang, on 10/12/2007, -6/+51Well I run my computer (or my account on my XP Pro) as limited user. I really like the way Linux handles the root and regular users, and I use Ubuntu majority of time and when something that is required to install or change the system file I have to put in the root password. Which to my understanding OS X does the same way, which IMO is a very good way of computing.
  • alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+41This is outdated. He's running Beta 2, which is... old.
    I got curious, so I installed FireFox on my Vista post Beta 2 (Build 5472) box and it set the default to FF just fine.
  • shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31Incorrect. First of all, it is very reasonable that firefox wouldn't request admin privilege escalation or work properly without it considering it wasn't designed for vista. Second, this completely slams UAC for no reason. it wasn't 'designed' to prevent you from changing your browser or anything like that, it's a very useful if untuned piece of software.
  • mvprj84, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30That is true but in this case it doesn't prompt you to obtain the administrator rights when it doesn't have permission to make the change. You have to explicitly run Firefox as an administrator and in a normal situation it would just pop-up asking if you want to authorize this action.
  • explorer509, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25It's pretty hard to play ps3 games on a ps3 right now.
  • spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22This story really needs to be buried. First of all, Vista is still in beta. UAC is still being worked on quite a bit at the moment. Secondly, Firefox wasn't designed for Vista. The way it handles changing the default browser may just need to be changed. Once Vista has hit shelves and Firefox is updated to work correctly with Vista, then we can complain. Until then, it's just a fanboy rant in my eyes.
  • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25They're still working on UAC (Hence why improvements are so largely noted by news websites as at first it was pretty bad but is now usable) so this complaining is useless.

    If you still can't change your default browser when it's released, than complain. :D
  • Kerjo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Marked as inaccurate. I'm running Vista (build 5472) and making Flock my default browser couldn't have been easier - I clicked "Yes" when it asked.
  • andymuk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17On recent builds the experience with Opera is different. UAC appropriately flags the desire to change preferences. Firefox should fix thier product and stop assuming admin privileges. MS is changing and Firefox needs to follow.
  • spoonard, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Y'know they make it pretty hard to play PS3 games on the 360 too...
  • LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Hm. FUD is fear uncertainty and doubt. While I agree that this article is probably FUD directed at Microsoft and Windows, an article that presents Apple, Firefox, or Linux in a positive light isn't automatically "FUD."

    By the very definition of FUD, if an article presents those alternatives positively by depending on strengths of those platforms and not by belittling Microsoft (and most supporters of the alternatives do not rely on belittling the opposition), it is not FUD, because it doesn't rely on fear, uncertainty or doubt...

    And to top it off, even if an article such as this *IS* FUD, that doesn't mean that it is a lie, and that this isn't at least partially true. If when Vista ships to customers, we run into headaches with UAC, will anyone come back to this article and recant their statements that it was FUD and that we should ignore it?
  • alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15It works fine in Vista beta 5472. Any current review of Windows Vista that uses Beta 2 should be ignored. Microsoft isn't just sitting on its hands, after all. Two builds (I think, maybe three) have been released since Beta 2.
  • jejones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Yes, but... a limited user should be able to set the default browser for him or herself--if MS has made the default browser a single setting that is imposed on all users and only settable by the administrator, then it's done something stupid, at least from the point of view of the user wanting freedom of choice.
  • mvprj84, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I have tried it on 5472 and still have the same issue as the article mentions.
  • geekoid, on 10/12/2007, -17/+27What a stupid comment...
  • CarzorStelatis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@blakehandler:

    Except they can change back to IE without administrator rights. Which makes this anti-competitive
  • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Interesting. Running build 5472 here, and I don't seem to have encountered this problem. Marked as Inaccurate. UAC since beta 2 has been altered quite a bit, and we still haven't hit RC1. This article is based on an ancient build a vista, in comparison to what you can find on bittorrrent.
  • wolferz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Actually from working in the computer industry for several years I've learned most people really don't care. Even if they should, they don't. They want to push a button and the computer do what they are thinking. They only learn what they do cause there's no such button. It's not that they can't learn, they really just don't care enough to want to.

    I've had to ram info about safe browsing habits down customers throats after the 5th or 6th time they brought their computer back to me saying I never fixed it, when in fact the first thing they did was go to a bunch of B.S. websites and get it loaded down with more malware.
  • Kazaki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The "beta excuse" is a perfectly good reason. If Windows fans aren't allowed to tout new features in their upcoming OS against us Apple fans, then it's only fair that Apple fans aren't allowed to bash an unreleased OS on little problems other then it's nonexsistence in the market.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12When the Truth meets a chance to bash Microsoft, it takes a hike for a lot of people, doesn't it?

  • sleepyness, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15and memory leaks began? -.-

    My FF was up to 700mb physical memory usage and 1gig virtual memory usage. That's a bitch.
  • mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The memory issue is adressable via an about:config setting.
    You can set it to release memory when minimizing by dumping it to disk. (works fast as well)"

    This is not addressing the issue, this is a cheap hack. It compounds the issue by requiring that Firefox reallocate memory that it released each time you restore the window.
  • jole, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I'm going to have to go with Steve Gibson on this one:
    Security is not proclaimed, it's proven. Microsoft has once again stated that they're going to come out with the most secure version of WIndows yet. You just rewrote all of Windows and you're telling me that it's secure and funtional? Something like UNIX has been pounded on for years and years! That's security and funtionality. Windows simply missed the boat on permissions and I somehow doubt they'll ever catch another boat.
  • IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15There are people who are spreading FUD about Microsoft of late. Those people also tend to spread the FUD that Apple/Firefox /Linux are the best things in the world.

  • shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I forgot to say -- it has always worked flawlessly for me -- firefox is one of the first things I download on a new installation and i never had an issue with beta2 or the later build.
  • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Qenton

    Umm, read JUST ABOVE YOU, alwaysmc2 just pointed that it is ALREADY FIXED in a build which is a few weeks old.
  • babbling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Default programs should be a per-user setting, not a per-computer setting!
  • quarsaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This "feature" may be a marketing ploy or it may be a half-assed attempt at security or both, but in terms of being inconvenient it is no worse than entering a superuser password on a Linux distro. Although, superuser has a real purpose.....
  • Locuester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Running Vista 5384 (Beta 2), set Firefox to default last month - works fine. Just tried setting to IE and back to Firefox, again fine.
    Aside from that, it was only 3 clicks (Start, "Default Programs", "Set Default Programs")to get to the window where I can set anything to open htm, html, mhtml, mhtm, protocol: HTTP, FTP, SHTTP, etc.... I even set them all to "MS Paint", and it worked (or didn't) as I'd expect.
  • CarzorStelatis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@guy.gregory

    That's the point. It DOESN'T prompt for Firefox - when you select 'Yes' (make Firefox my default browser) at the prompt, Vista ignores it, whereas when you do the same in IE Vista obeys the user's instruction. Treating competitors' software differently from your own bundled software is what got Microsoft in trouble with the EU.
  • guy.gregory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@davidarussel

    I don't disagree with you on that, I'm just pointing out that if his Firefox had been digitally signed, he wouldn't have had this prompt:

    http://tech.cybernetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Vista-4.jpg
  • salmonmoose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"If when Vista ships to customers, we run into headaches with UAC, will anyone come back to this article and recant their statements that it was FUD and that we should ignore it?"

    If you have problems with the UAC post them to Microsoft - don't bitch about them on digg. It's a beta, MS has released this to the public to get a broad set of feedback, they provide means to report errors, it's not their job to trawl through pages of forum posts because people would rather complain than be constructive.
  • Chakz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9It's sad because i sang along to make sure you had the right amount...
  • consonance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@sleepyness
    Firefox 1.5.x.x indeed has a horrible problem with memory that the developers refer to as a "feature." Fixing the issue is as simple (not really) as searching something along the lines of "firefox memory leaks" on Google and following the first few links. From there I had to edit a few settings in Firefox's configuration, and I never had those same problems again. (Now, I just have different ones.)
  • Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Vista is in beta....so it's not final
  • trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Great way to get malware too.
  • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10"IE sucks period and always will"

    That's just ignorance. People (including me) said the same thing comparing it to Netscape years ago. A few years go by and Microsoft pretty much obliterated every other browser. Part of it was due to questionable tactics, but it really was the best browser for a time.

    With no competition Microsoft made some questionable choices and became complacent. IE began to rot from the inside out, but the sleeping giant is starting to awake again. IE7 still isn't as good as Firefox but it'll be good enough for most people (hell, most people are happy using IE6). Microsoft still has some fight in them--don't discount them so easily.
  • ziadoz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Correct me if I'm wrong but Mozilla haven't released a version of Firefox for Windows Vista yet. So complaining when something doesn't work properly is just plain stupid. Wait until Mozilla have a chance to examine Vista, modify Firefox accordingly, then release their Vista build, instead of complaining your XP build won't work perfectly on Vista.
  • agarc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm running Vista Beta 2 at work and have had absolutely no problems setting Firefox to the default browser. I have also had no trouble at all running the latest version of Firefox in Vista. Everything works fine (aero effects work perfectly too).

    I have never had to run Firefox in administrator mode...

    Marked as inaccurate.
  • P5ycHo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Digg is getting too childish.
  • guy.gregory, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@davidarussel

    The only reason it prompts the user for Firefox and not for IE, is because the version of Firefox he's using hasn't been digitally signed, and is (from Vista's point of view) completely untrusted.
  • spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just because it hasn't actually been around in its present form for very long doesn't mean that it can't draw on the knowledge gained from UNIX, though. You're right that newly written software is certain to have more bugs than software that has been around for a while, but it certainly doesn't mean that the fundimental concepts are going to be flawed as well.
  • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@pufuwozu

    If you read the comments you will see that it has already changed, know why ? Because of the whole "It's a Beta" thing - Yeah, that's right, each new release fixing things in the previous one and UAC is constantly being worked on.

    So, what he [And Kazaki] said is perfectly valid.
  • Wang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This article is inaccurate. Vista is preventing limited users from making system changes....and the prompting via UAC does occur for me as a limited user.
  • heavyd14, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@alwaysmc2
    I had a similar problem with XP. It seems to be FF problem, but I would blame MS for making it so arcane. I eventually got it working right though. The only problem is when other poorly coded programs try to launch a link, and they call IE to do it because noone ever wants to use a different browser. Of course I don't notice it until I try to middle click for a new tab.
  • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The everyday user doesn't change their default browser. That's why they're everyday users. That's why they use IE. If the new how to change, or they could change, you might have a point.

    This is still inaccurate because it merely points out that Vista's account protection works and stops you from making the change unless you authorize it. People need to understand the feature. Inaccurate.
  • drewperry, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@Qenton

    A) It's called a Class Action SUIT, not suite. Look it up. B) To what class action suit regarding "unexposed interfaces" are you referring? Do you really have any clue what you're talking about? C) Even if this alleged lawSUITE were to exist, what makes you think you'd have any right to it? Are you a software developer? Do you make a product that would be hurt by Microsoft's lack of "exposed interfaces" (Gotta love that phrase. Doesn't it just sound uber-secure?) If you're discussing Anti-Trust issues, do your homework first. You don't apply. If Microsoft doesn't want to let you use FireFox as your default browser, you'd be hard-pressed to get a judge to listen to you. Now, if they wouldn't let you run it at all, that would be a different story. I'm no Microsoft fan-boy in the least. But what I can't stand for is every Johnny on the Spot thinking they know first-hand what the "problem is with computers."
    "It's Microsoft, man, that Billy Gates makes it all hard in PURPOSE, man. It's like, he doesn't WANT us to be able to use them, man. Corporate America, they're bringin' us down, man. Keep out the little guys. Wow, that was deep. Hey, pass me another hit on that."
    Go back to school before you post anymore, k?
  • dAbReAkA, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i remember having the same problem with build 5383 (i think so) so i digged it.. maybe it has already been fixed for 5472 as someone said before.. surely people can learn something from this article..
  • redxii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3XP and 2000 can have per-user default browser even if they aren't admin.

    It's just not even IE implements it properly, they scan HKEY_CURRENT_USER but if that fails then it goes to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. Also, people insist on retaining their program's 9x/ME support with the same binaries.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.