Just wondering… 
Lol@last option ;D
Q: Would my vote even realistically matter, as as have only owned a PC (as in, ever, this is my first) for a little over a year?
Would a VM count ?
You want it added as an option? Type 1 (HW) hypervisor, or Type 2 (SW) hypervisor - or even rootkits that are installing themselves as a hypervisor? Well I guess we are getting way too technical there. ;D
never happened here ??? 8)
Yeah… so, I am wondering. Actually quite shocked by the number of people here reporting to have got a rootkit. >:(
yeah… hundreds post here for the first time after getting their first infection… many of them don’t even run Avast, but they come here because somehow they heard of Essexboy ;D I myself advised it once to someone outside this forum 
Most of those getting rootkits, as well as those who repeatedly come here with infection after infection, is caused by the error code listed at the left under my icon. 
i have never been hit by a rootkit as i could remember.
I never got a rootkit either. 
+1 ;D 8)
Last option
i’ve purposely given myself rootkits on a VM a lot… and from what i see, the vast majority dont care about UAC even a little bit, they get around it
better options in the poll might be like:
- was prompted to update the javas so i clicked yes
- couldnt read that ups delivery attachment in my aol email
- friends on facebook said to click here for a surprise
- mom emailed me this link to check out
etc
@bryonTRN yes it’s been acknowledged by Microsoft that malware had no issue circumventing UAC. UAC was just meant to convince developers about developing apps that don’t need admin rights to run.
i fully agree with that - since uac is basically useless (useless account control) it’s the first thing i turn off. all it stops are legitimate installs.
False. It stops malware to get enhanced privileges.
UAC (and Linux call for the root/admin password) is a must have security measure.
It stops malware to get enhanced privileges.
oh yeah? ;D
and this is from Microsoft (sorry for derailing the thread a bit guys, but that’s about security too…)
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2009.07.uac.aspx
Elevations and Malware Security The primary goal of UAC is to enable more users to run with standard user rights. However, one of UAC's technologies looks and smells like a security feature: the consent prompt. Many people believed that the fact that software has to ask the user to grant it administrative rights means that they can prevent malware from gaining administrative rights. Besides the visual implication that a prompt is a gateway to administrative rights for just the operation it describes, the switch to a different desktop for the elevation dialog and the use of the Windows Integrity Mechanism, including User Interface Privilege Isolation (UIPI), seem to reinforce that belief. As we've stated since before the launch of Windows Vista, the primary purpose of elevation is not security, though, it's convenience
Sorry for me UAC even on the lowest settings is a pain in the A**e, on my win7 netbook there are time I questioned who owned my system me or UAC.
There are no customisation in it for common applications, every time I run many of my programs, MBAM for instance UAC chipped in. So in the end it was so infuriating that it got switched off and I can’t be alone in that decision to turn it off.
God forbid what it was like in Vista when it was first released if the one in win7 is more user friendly.
Can they bypass Linux password protection?
No?
So, it’s not a problem of the technology, but Microsoft solution and security.