Is this dialog not the most hostile in existence?



I mean, okay. Microsoft is trying hard to get secure, and I feel some
sympathy for that: because of their legacy, they have to wedge security
on top of the fluffy user interface house of cards they've built up 
over the years. In this case, lots of virii were propagating because it
was just too darn easy to harvest people's address books for email 
addresses to send more virii and spam to. So, instead of fixing the
problem in a smart way, they plopped this dialog box up to intercept 
the address book access and annoy the user. 

Sure, if you aren't expecting another program to be accessing your 
address book, this dialog will alert you that you have a problem. But,
what if you know full well that a program you have installed will be
doing such access, and it is okay by you? Well, you can answer 'Yes'
to allow the access, but that only works for this go-around. You can
say "Allow access for x minutes", but the maximum number of minutes 
is 10. Yes, no kidding. 

In my case, I want to answer 'no' because the program in question isn't
even accessing the address book, and it doesn't need address book info.
But, like 'Yes', 'No' only works for this go-around. 'Help' basically
tells you what I just did, but in a fluffier, more polished fashion.

What a crock. Me? I'm Microsoft-free on my network. But I feel somewhat
evil because people pay me to keep their Microsoft networks humming.
Issues such as this keep me from being able to do my job in an efficient
fashion, costing my clients more money and costing me my remaining 
non-grey hairs.

© 2005 Paul McNett       [/Computing/Opinion] permanent link