One of us is an ignoramus, but I'm not sure it's me.

If you don't see the problem of an OS setting up only one account with admin privileges, that requires no password to execute those privileges, then I'm afraid I can't help you and you really don't understand computer security. I've already pointed out that the problem is that computers will be running configured as if they have a single user, but in reality will have multiple users. You then put onus of this design flaw back on the consumer. This is the flaw of the design as it comes from MS. Sorry you don't see it.

You show further ignorance in not understanding the difference between those config files that reside in the user's directory and those that reside in the system directory. A program launched by a user could only fowl up the config files owned by the user (i.e. in the user's directory), if the program needs to write to files other than its own in the system directory, then an escalation of privileges needs to be granted (via admin password entry). So, yes, a program could screw with settings from other programs, but only at the user level. It's this granularity that MS continues to fail to understand.

But, then, for the sake of argument, since you think that the Unix/Linux/BSD/Mac way is not superior, let's just compare the number of registry repair utilities on the market to the number of config file repair utilities on the market for the other OSes? Hmmm. Done checking? There are literally dozens of registry repair tools for Windows and none for these other OSes. Why? Because the problems with the global registry are real and anyone who has spent any significant time troubleshooting Windows, if they are being honest, will attest to this. And no, its not because of the market size difference between Windows and those other OSes, it is because the registry is a bad design prone to corruption and rot. This isn't the only problem of a global registry either- another being that you cannot just chuck the registry and reboot and have Windows rebuild a fresh one on the fly. I'm sure MS had reasons for this design, one of which was to prevent piracy by making it harder to copy the software from one machine to another (i.e. you should need the installer CD to put the OS on another machine)- how's that working out for ya?

Now, you didn't even touch on the problem of programs being too intertwined with the OS and able to modify, update, or corrupt files belonging to the OS (without an escalation of privileges). Or, was this a case of me not knowing my limits (whatever the hell that meant)?

You also didn't address the issue of the number of processes that simply run as administrator, thereby having full run of the machine once they are compromised. Most other OSes have something like 40 different system accounts all with their permissions set specifically to keep them within their domains of specialty, and should they be compromised they cannot affect the entire system. Is it my ignorance that keeps you from addressing this point?

And, then there's the silly assertion from your opening, 'belligerent posts from ignoramuses who don't know their own limits'. What was belligerent about my observations of Win 7? What limits don't I know that I should have kept within? It's one thing to make such assertions, it's quite another to back them up. Or, are you ignorant of how to argue your point with evidence?

Many reviewers are probably making the same mistakes and oversights with Windows 7 that they did with Vista.

Any reviewer who is not pointing out how severely flawed UAC is in Win 7 is not thinking clearly and/or not doing their job properly. I've been putting Win 7 through it's paces and I can't help but marvel that Microsoft still thinks that it is okay (during the initial install) to have the user setup a single administrator account. Once logged in on this account, whenever UAC needs privilege elevation, it simply presents a dialog with "Yes" and "No" buttons. No password entry is required. Why is this a problem? Think of the millions of users who will setup their PCs this way and then let friends and family use them? Should the trojan that your 15 year old's best friend just downloaded to the family PC get its privileges elevated? Sure, no problem, because all Billy has to do is click "Yes" when he's using your computer- he doesn't need to talk to you or know your password before proceeding. I searched and can find no option to require password entry for UAC privilege approval/escalation on admin accounts in Win 7. The fix, is to create "Regular User" accounts, log out of the administrator account and then use those. But, seriously, how many people are actually going to do this? And, how hard would it have been for Microsoft to write the OS install wizard to set things up this way? It's almost amazing how poorly designed things can be coming from that company. It's almost like they strive for mediocrity.

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it. Win 7, while better in initial performance than Vista, will eventually suck as bad as any version of Windows. Why? Because the global registry is still there and still subject all of its flaws and rot problems. Programs are still too entwined with the OS and able to update, change, or corrupt it. And, because too many processes run as "Administrator". The viruses, worms, trojans, adware, etc. will not be stopped and your system will still spend a considerable portion of its CPU scanning for that shit in the background. And, there will be millions of users who neglect to have any, or at least any that's up-to-date, anti-malware detection.

Windows 7, slightly better out of the gate, but still arriving at the same destination due to poor design decisions in its underpinnings.