The truth is, after being repeatedly asked to continue, users will reply "yes" regardless of what was asked
Call me paranoid but I'm one of those people that doesn't just blindly click continue. Like the small print on any document I will read it.
I reckon that the only people that hate UAC are those that are in PC repair line of business, as people can't screw up there machines as easily as they can with Windows XP.
I haven't had to sort out any of my friends PC's since they to switched Vista in 8 months (It was every two to three weeks with XP).
The biggest problem with UAC is that it's all-or-nothing, with a ton of innocent actions triggering it as well.
MS assumes that anything that tries and access areas that are restricted can not be truly innocent.
It would be half-way usable if there was a way to set a 'danger level' or something
It would have been better if there had been a trusted application data base that wouldn't trigger the UAC.
But then MS would want to test it like they do with hardware drivers (hard ware vendors have to pay for this) and the next thing we would find is software costing more.
but in its current way every fart will trigger a 'allow or deny' pop-up, which just trains the average user to always click 'allow' without even reading the messages anymore.
Then for my assumption you would have to change the word "unexperienced" back to "idiot".