Make a limited XP account without losing settings?
in [Design]
|
From: IanM on 21 Jul 2010 04:39 "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:8am424Fv4jU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Gents, > > For trips where a laptop may be exposed to unsecured WLAN it would be > good to have a limited user account. Easy to do but: Every time I > switch > an account from "administrator" to "limited" all the Windows > daftnesses > creep back in. Tons of sounds, touchpad tap, IOW all the stuff that > needs to get turned off after buying a computer. Needless to say, once > switched to "limited" XP does not allow one to change any of this. > > What do thee suggest? (other than switching to a better OS which I > can't) > Out of interest, what threat do you think there is from an unsecured WLAN? this page seems to cover all of the things I can think of:- http://antivirus.about.com/od/wirelessthreat1/a/starbucks.htm On my home PC (running XP home) the kids are "limited user", I promote the accounts to admin to install stuff for them and then put the account back to limited. This has not failed for anything as far as I remember. For convenience my account on that PC is admin and I use dropmyrights.exe on all internet facing programs.
From: JosephKK on 23 Jul 2010 01:08 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:30:25 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Joel Koltner wrote: >> "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:8am424Fv4jU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> For trips where a laptop may be exposed to unsecured WLAN it would be >>> good to have a limited user account. Easy to do but: Every time I switch >>> an account from "administrator" to "limited" all the Windows daftnesses >>> creep back in. Tons of sounds, touchpad tap, IOW all the stuff that >>> needs to get turned off after buying a computer. Needless to say, once >>> switched to "limited" XP does not allow one to change any of this. >> >> "Limited" might be a bit too ...limiting... but "power user" accounts >> are usually quite serviceable except for installing some new software or >> hardware drivers. >> > >My XP only offers "admin" and "limited". > Then you have the just XP version; instead of the more expensive XP-Pro version. BTW it is just settings that determine the difference. The kinds of accounts, and better privlege controls on those accounts is much of the difference, and all just settings. > >> Some ideas: >> >> If you go to control panel, you can shift+right click an icon to get a >> menu that includes "Run as..." -- you then enter the name and password >> of an admin account and you can change whatever you want for that >> limited user. >> >> In general you can right-click a program or shortcut and yse "Run >> as..."; the control panel applets just need shift held done as well for >> some reasons. >> > >Yes, but this did not work with the control panel. Which I'd need to >turn those <censored> sounds off. > > >> The menus that show up in the start menu are a combination (merging) of >> "c:\documents and settings\[your user name]\Start Menu" and >> "c:\documents and settings\all users\Start Menu". If you're logged on >> as an admin, right-clicking the start menu button gets you both "Open" >> and "Open all users," which lets you easily copy the shortcuts for a >> program you installed just for yourself to show up for all users. >> (Although most newer setup.exe's include a clickable options for >> "Install for everyone who uses this computer" vs. "Install for just me.") >> >> Unfortunately XP was introduced back when Microsoft was still in the >> mindset of, "well, individual users are probably OK just running as >> admins 100% of the time" so it is just plain old clunky to want to run >> under a more limited account. ... > > >It sure is clunky. Lots of things won't work in limited mode. I mean, >what's the security risk in turning sounds on and off? They could at >least allow part of the control panel. XP ain't that old, they had 95, >98, NT and 2000 before. But ... > It is nearly 9 years old. not a record but a solid product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP > >> ...There are some utilities that can help >> here as well, e.g., "cpau" >> (http://www.joeware.net/freetools/tools/cpau/index.htm) which lets your >> limited account essentially do a "run as" with any program that can be >> launched from the command line. Making a batch file to run cpau to >> launch explorer.exe is quite useful, as is one to launch cmd.exe if you >> prefer the command-line environment. >> > >Thanks, that one I'll have to try out.
From: JosephKK on 23 Jul 2010 01:10 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:59:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:8ambqoFgivU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> My XP only offers "admin" and "limited". > >Ah, you must be running XP Home. Gotcha... although I can't say I have that >much experience with it. > >> It sure is clunky. Lots of things won't work in limited mode. I mean, >> what's the security risk in turning sounds on and off? > >There's no security risk, but in the mind of many an IT guy, "limited" users >aren't "supposed" to change sounds, backgrouns, keyboard/mouse settings, the >start menu, etc. since it's just "asking for trouble" -- or something like >that. Apparently Microsoft largely agrees with that definition... > >---Joel It is not like they don't get an abundance of feedback from IT professionals and IT management.
From: JosephKK on 23 Jul 2010 01:20 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:07:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Joel Koltner wrote: >> "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:8ambqoFgivU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> My XP only offers "admin" and "limited". >> >> Ah, you must be running XP Home. Gotcha... although I can't say I have >> that much experience with it. >> > >Yes, XP Home. > > >>> It sure is clunky. Lots of things won't work in limited mode. I mean, >>> what's the security risk in turning sounds on and off? >> >> There's no security risk, but in the mind of many an IT guy, "limited" >> users aren't "supposed" to change sounds, backgrouns, keyboard/mouse >> settings, the start menu, etc. since it's just "asking for trouble" -- >> or something like that. Apparently Microsoft largely agrees with that >> definition... >> > >Well, I guess then Microsoft should get into the habit of talking more >to their customers. They tout in their latest ads that customers built >Win7 but I don't believe that. Everyone is bitching about this limited >user stuff around here. So they all run it as admin, not good. That's a >large part of the virus issues we are hearing about, if not the largest. Completely agreed. Home users typically cannot do proper (let alone multi-user) system management. Hell, many IT personnel have a hard time. So what to do? M$ has been fighting that battle and losing ground for 20 years.
From: Joel Koltner on 23 Jul 2010 14:59
"JosephKK" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kv8i46tv4e38u9hul49tcaeufihk18a909(a)4ax.com... > It is not like they don't get an abundance of feedback from IT > professionals and IT management. Agreed. I think a lot of people -- especially those who are responsible for the upkeep of their own PC -- don't realize just how very tightly "locked down" a lot of PCs in this world are, and similarly just how much demand there is from IT guys to provide these controls in the first place. I don't recall the exact number, but in Windows XP there were something like "many hundreds" of group policy settings, whereas in Windows Vista and Windows 7 there are now over 10,000. Amazing... ---Joel |