Quote:
I was being serious to the point of: Vista running as non-LUA administrator is no more or less secure than XP running as administrator was. So if you ran XP as administrator all the time, then your Vista installation with LUA turned off isn't any less secure.


So why, in all the rush to build a "secure" OS called Vista did Microsoft not choose to make a LUA account the default? Clearly, Microsoft has a very good understanding of defaults, as they used defaults and forced bundling to win the browser war illegally in the late 90s. So why can't such passion for market share also carry over to the passion of making a better and more secure product? If it's not default, the majority of users out there won't be using it. And so even when Vista takes over the majority Windows market share from XP, my inbox is still going to be filled with spam from zombie PCs.