No, if it is designed to run as admin, it will have the highest privileges and do whatever it wants once executed regardless of UAC. That is, unless you choose not to execute it, like clicking no to the UAC warning. Exactly, I don't see why not unless there's an actual conflict.
Always admin in XP, Vista, and Win8. It has been debated for many years now. Every time I've tried a standard account something would break or malfunction. Like others have mentioned, I have very reliable security that allows me to run perfectly safe in admin mode, including UAC at max. Last but not least my computer is absolutely personal, nobody in my family is allowed to use it...
I used to, but over time made some compromises of security for usability. It was just too much. I run an Admin acct. now (but not the built-in one), but utilize GP/LP edits, SRP, and folder permissions in a way that basically makes it like a LUA in a lot of ways, while not being too much of a PITA. I think the way I have it now gives me the best of both worlds.
Yeah sorry, it was a bit of a silly question, but I got confused because I read that apps that are not designed for Windows 64 bit, will simply fail to run correctly even when they have admin rights. But back on topic, on Win XP I´ve always run as admin, so I don´t think that UAC is really needed, especially not if you´re using a HIPS. http://www.7tutorials.com/uac-why-you-should-never-turn-it-off I had to return my new Win 8 machine, so that´s why I can´t test it right now.
I run sandboxed internet apps and drop the right in my account; same thing but easy to quickly change.
I have a Microsoft account allows you to make policy and other things, I have admin rights, you need admin/owner rights to install games and edit the config file; add or change game files. Just up-dated my flatbed scanner requiring me to install a driver and other scanner related software, I couldn't do that on a "limited Account".
I´m back on Win 8 again, and I had to turn off UAC, it was too annoying. The funny thing is that even when it´s turned off, it sometimes still restricts certain actions, and apps keep running in "medium integrity" mode. This means that even as ADMIN, most apps/processes don´t have admin rights.
I run under admin but launch all internet facing apps as a standard user (medium integrity) guarded by AppGuard and mostly sandboxed with Sandboxie 3.76 w dropped rights. (4.x causes too many issues for some apps I am forced to use but would love to dump)
I much prefer an admin account. When I once tried LUA, and I ended up having to switch back to my admin account for certain things anyway. Too much hassle for LUA, and for me the benefit isn't high enough. I prefer to focus on dealing with vectors of infection. In consolation, I do use UAC on max and use a software policy.
Just some further thoughts: The thing that bothers me most about a LUA (besides the inconvenience) is the fact that I'm treating myself as untrusted. I trust myself - it's other programs I don't trust. Why should the browser or PDF reader be given enough access to infect the whole system?
I don't use a limited usr account or UAC as I find both to be very annoying, as I'm installing software every day.
