On 2 Feb 2007 at 13:15, Aaron Sherber wrote: > At 12:41 PM 2/2/2007, Phil Daley wrote: > >At 2/2/2007 10:56 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: > > > > >At 08:59 AM 2/2/2007, Phil Daley wrote: > > > >In Vista, you are not allowed access to files in some > directories. You > > >cannot even see them in explorer. And it has > nothing to do > with them being > > > >hidden, it has to do with them being system. > > > > > >Just curious, can you give an example? Have you tried enabling > 'Show > >hidden files and folders' and disabling 'Hide protected > operating > >system files' through Explorer? > >Right, but no one is > allowed access to Documents and Settings/ some of the >sub > directories there. > > Okay, I've just played around with this, because my interest was > piqued. I've got Vista installed under Virtual PC, so I haven't done > much with it yet. In Vista, Documents and Settings is now a shortcut > to c:\Users, and in fact the shortcut does have Everyone set to Deny > for list contents, making things unaccessible through that route.
What are the other rights? Full read/right/delete? That would mean that you just can't *look* at it, not that you can't use the files. > However, as Administrator I could remove that Deny and get into the > folder. I could also just go to c:\Users with no trouble at all. Seems to me that this is the method one should use, i.e., adapt to the new OS, which is what the design of Vista is urging on you by denying list rights. > At any rate, I am reasonably certain that as Administrator you would > somehow be able to access every single file on the computer. That's > sort of the sine qua non of Administrator, after all. One can use DENY permissions to freeze out even an administrator, except the admin can still change permissions. I keep my RUN key in the registry set to DENY WRITE for all, because I don't want applications promiscuously installing programs there. If I ever *want* to install something there, I turn off the DENY logged on under a username that has admin rights, install the app, the set it back to DENY. I also have my HOSTS files set to deny WRITE operations to all since I don't want process poisoning my local lookup tables. When I need to edit my HOSTS file, I turn off the DENY, edit the file, then turn it back on. My understanding was that Vista had returned to the historical model for editing permissions, instead of the bogus and horrid non-UI that was offered with WinXP's "Simple File Sharing" (which should be turned *OFF* on every WinXP where that's possible; and that's why you should never, ever use WinXP Home, because SFS can't be turned off -- it's your only option). > > >In any event, I would agree with David. If an application has > decided > >to store its settings file in a way that makes Vista think > it should > >be hidden, that's the fault of the application, not the > OS. > >But, since this was not a problem in XP, whose fault is it??? > > Have you ever read Raymond Chen's blog, > <http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/>? He talks a lot about how MS > tends to bend over backwards to ensure compatibility with old > applications, even those which do things like rely on behavior which > MS has explicitly said might not always work that way. They do this > because when users upgrade to a new Windows and suddenly one of their > apps stops working, the users naturally assume that it's the fault of > Windows. They don't imagine that it's because the app was doing > something which MS had said "Don't do this; we know you can do it in > XP, but we can't guarantee that it will work in future versions of > Windows." The documents and settings shortcut (is it a symbolic link, which is called a junction in NTFS?) is clearly set up to allow backward compatibility for applications while closing out end users and forcing them to use the new C:\Users, instead. This is good, seems to me. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
