one MORE final question

Why do we have to name a 'user'.
Why can't we just leave it as Administrator?

That way you wouldn't have to select upon boot up
and most of the permissions would be less intrusive.

"FireBrick" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Why do we have to name a 'user'.
> Why can't we just leave it as Administrator?
>
> That way you wouldn't have to select upon boot up
> and most of the permissions would be less intrusive.
>
>

So what are we to believe? You posted one final question, then less than
two hours later you post another final question? Is there a serious issue
going on here?

"FireBrick" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Why do we have to name a 'user'.
> Why can't we just leave it as Administrator?
>
> That way you wouldn't have to select upon boot up
> and most of the permissions would be less intrusive.
>


And that is one of the reasons why there are so many zombie computers
spewing out spam, and viruses and trojans washing round the internet - you
should NOT use an admin account for daily use!!!!!!

--
Asking a question?
Please tell us the version of the application you are asking about,
your OS, Service Pack level
and the FULL contents of any error message(s)

"FireBrick" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Why do we have to name a 'user'.
> Why can't we just leave it as Administrator?
>
> That way you wouldn't have to select upon boot up
> and most of the permissions would be less intrusive.

NT-based systems like XP and Vista are multi-user systems, as are Unix and
Linux. All of these require user accounts with varying permissions, for
various security reasons. As it's always possible for an account to become
corrupted or compromised, it's not a good idea to use the built-in
Administrator account for anything but critical maintenance.

You can easily set up to boot directly into one preferred account.

HTH
-pk

"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> "FireBrick" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Why do we have to name a 'user'.
>> Why can't we just leave it as Administrator?
>>
>> That way you wouldn't have to select upon boot up
>> and most of the permissions would be less intrusive.
>>
>
>
> And that is one of the reasons why there are so many zombie computers
> spewing out spam, and viruses and trojans washing round the internet - you
> should NOT use an admin account for daily use!!!!!!
>

I thought we went over that. HE can use Administrator as an account but YOU
can't. Since you can't be trusted to use your computer correctly, you
should login as a GENERAL user.

"Patrick Keenan" <> wrote in message
news:...
snip

> NT-based systems like XP and Vista are multi-user systems, as are Unix and
> Linux. All of these require user accounts with varying permissions, for
> various security reasons. As it's always possible for an account to
> become corrupted or compromised, it's not a good idea to use the built-in
> Administrator account for anything but critical maintenance.
>
> You can easily set up to boot directly into one preferred account.
>
> HTH
> -pk
>
>

Patrick,
I finally agreed with that logic and have my system set up as multi-user,
even though I've used Windows since v2, BB'es since before Windows and never
had a problem. As the need arose I started using an antivirus, spamware,
router with a firewall, and software firewall. Maybe I just gave up or maybe
I just answered my own question. :-D
Anyway, how do you set up to boot directly into an account? I searched
through help and couldn't find an answer to that.
Thanks in advance,
Dave

FireBrick <> wrote:
>
> Why do we have to name a 'user'.
> Why can't we just leave it as Administrator?
>
> That way you wouldn't have to select upon boot up
> and most of the permissions would be less intrusive.
>
>

It is exactly that thinking that led to this UAC crap in the first place.

I have not got any malware at all on my computers since 2001, as I know how
to do everything that I need to from a user account, including installing
programs, access control panel items as admin, and mmc snap-ins. UAC makes
things more difficult.

ss.

Jim Moriarty <> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do we have to name a 'user'.
>>> Why can't we just leave it as Administrator?
>>>
>>> That way you wouldn't have to select upon boot up
>>> and most of the permissions would be less intrusive.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It is exactly that thinking that led to this UAC crap in the first place.
>>
>> I have not got any malware at all on my computers since 2001, as I
>> know how to do everything that I need to from a user account,
>> including installing programs, access control panel items as admin,
>> and mmc snap-ins. UAC makes things more difficult.
>
> Are you saying <GASP!> that you have UAC turned OFF??

No. I don't. But then, I only use Vista on my HTPC anyway.

I turn the prompts off in secpol.msc instead, but that does not do anything
about all the frustration that it causes with command line and network
stuff.

But there are elements of UAC that are good, like IE virtualization. It's a
shame they bundled it all into one big ball of crap.

ss.

"Dave" <> wrote in message
news:C310012B-FFDB-4F2F-8EBC-...
>
> "Patrick Keenan" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> snip
>
>> NT-based systems like XP and Vista are multi-user systems, as are Unix
>> and Linux. All of these require user accounts with varying permissions,
>> for various security reasons. As it's always possible for an account to
>> become corrupted or compromised, it's not a good idea to use the built-in
>> Administrator account for anything but critical maintenance.
>>
>> You can easily set up to boot directly into one preferred account.
>>
>> HTH
>> -pk
>>
>>
>
> Patrick,
> I finally agreed with that logic and have my system set up as multi-user,
> even though I've used Windows since v2, BB'es since before Windows and
> never had a problem. As the need arose I started using an antivirus,
> spamware, router with a firewall, and software firewall. Maybe I just gave
> up or maybe I just answered my own question. :-D
> Anyway, how do you set up to boot directly into an account? I searched
> through help and couldn't find an answer to that.
> Thanks in advance,
> Dave

It's called autologon, and it is a security risk as the password - and there
does have to be a password - is stored on the machine. Googling "autologon
vista" will take you to links like this:

http://www.pctipsbox.com/how-to-auto...up-with-vista/

You will still have to enter the password if the PC is coming out of a
locked state, for example if it's a laptop and you've closed the lid.

Here's the procedure for XP, which may also work on Vista - this box is XP
and my Vista system's in another room.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...ips/knox2.mspx

Now, if you do that google search, you may notice that one of the hits on
the first page uses what looks like a generated page name. That page
actually attempts to infect your system with the Antivirus2009 malware.

HTH
-pk