If you've ever wondered about the whys and wherefores behind all the security changes that Microsoft made in Vista (vs. XP), then Ars Technica has a story for you:
"Over the years, much has been made of Windows' security or (perceived) lack thereof. Though Microsoft's record has certainly improved in recent years, many industry observers feel that the company could do more. So Vista does more, both to address old-fashioned security issues like buffer overflows and more recent "innovations." Especially significant is the modern phenomenon of spyware, and some of the much less modern phenomena such as rootkits that go along with it. Vista's most obvious, noticeable measures are aimed at just this kind of problem."
UAC doesn't seem so bad after reading this, now does it?