Frankly I haven't had the time to respond to this properly but the tone & intent do
require a response:
"Narrow-minded and/or misleading"? WTF are you reading and WTF do yo mean?
Clearly disabling UAC was not the thrust of my comments and I did say I have admins
setup to run like "the admin" with auto-elevate, so I have not disabled UAC as of yet.
The rest of what I said is valid from experience here trying to work on my bench
domain either as I had been pre-vista or modified to fit the new vista/7 paradigm.
Not owning folders inhibits admins from doing jobs they've already done which are
protected behind UAC and limited user accounts already, why move ownership to
apparently gain nothing? Multi-drive split installs narrow minded, LOL?
The rest about renaming the folders I stand by as valid gripe and must say your
comment sounded more narrow minded blaming software for doing things the normal way
pre-vista.
Clearly you did not want to get past the vibe & deal with the content of what I
posted but have in the process come off yourself as you have described me in the process!
On 12/26/2009 4:26 PM, Greg Sevart wrote:
Rather than point out how narrow-minded and/or misleading many of your
comments are, I'm just going to leave it at "agree to disagree" and move on.
You can certainly disable UAC if you feel that the protections it affords
are not worth the inconveniences. Frankly, I can appreciate that, but feel
they have advanced the technology enough to be an acceptable balance between
the two for me.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of maccrawj
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] Win2K/XP to Vista/Win7
And all the benefits of running as an administrators group account are lost.
UAC is not worth shit, more of an annoyance. Now on the other hand the shit
M$ pulled
with Trusted Installer rather than Admins owning everything among other
not-just-out-of-the-box-and-fixable-NO-permanent impairments to
administering a box.
To this day I do not see how a domain admin is not on par or superior to the
bulitin\administrator, but UAC and other security FUBARs seem to make my
domain admin
account nearly useless for non-UAC aware apps even UAC aware ones. Moronic,
if I want
to run as an admin& chance infecting myself that is my choice! If I have a
domain, I
expect domain admins have as many rights or more than local ones.
"poorly written" software? LOL, try anything written before Vista that you
now have
to fork out $$$ for updates to deal with M$ redefining the landscape yet
again in a
decade. You want to talk poorly written, then let's discuss why M$ made it
so that
multiple drive letter installs are certified to fail (C:\windows; D:\Program
Files)
unlike previous Windows that had zero issues with doing so.
On 12/19/2009 12:45 PM, Greg Sevart wrote:
I wouldn't encourage anyone to use that approach. Many of the protections
afforded by UAC are bypassed when running as _the_ local Administrator
account. While UAC in Vista was annoying enough that most users, myself
included, turned it off--I run with it enabled in W7, and we lock it on by
GPO at work on all W7 deployments.
Either way, the issue here is that the directories the OP is used to
aren't
real directories, they're NTFS junction points for legacy poorly written
software that doesn't use environment variables, as has already been
mentioned.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Winterlight
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] Win2K/XP to Vista/Win7
Log in as THE administrator... not a user with administrator
privileges. The first thing I do with Win 7 or Vista is to create the
administrator account
from the Command line = et user administrator /active:yes
and then use THE administrator account as my account so I do not run
into these problems.
