Validation of XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Desperateparents
  • Start date Start date
I think we're sort of on the same wave length now. Windows can be a secure
OS when you have the proper mind-set/practices, but your average user does
not. And you can't fault them for that as they just want a "box" that
works, so ultimately it's Windows/MS's responsibility to provide a
safe/secure environment.

And you're right, switching back and forth is a PITA. MS should have made
better use of and a more robust "runas" feature. The OS/applications also
needs to be more limited account friendly too. Things have improved
considerably but there is still room for improvment; games come to mind, as
there shouldn't be any reason you need to run as admin to play a game.

As to what MS can do? An "in-your-face" greeting with a
tutorial/explaination about admin vs limited accounts would be a good idea.
It liekly wouldn't solve all the problems but I'm sure it would help. UAC
(in Vista) is a step in the right direction although I think it's
fundamentally flawed. From what I've seen (so far) it pops up far too often
and it's likely to create an environment where "Joe user" will blindly start
pressing "Ok / Allow" to everything or just shut it off altogether. This is
seen now with a lot of virus/malware infections. A lot of the time the user
is actually prompted in IE, or has to physically double-click and
install/run something, before getting infected.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> So you basically agree that it's not the OS that is faulty, it's bad
> practices and the fact that Windows is so friendly to apps that
> themselves are faulty. I'm always hearing people complain that
> Windows doesn't do this or that natively, and one of those things is
> malware protection. If Windows did all those things, MS would be hit
> with more anti-trust litigation than they already have been. I would
> think that even making Windows do some kind of quality control of
> apps would have similar results.
>
> As for the default admin account, I'm of two minds. Especially during
> initial setup, admin permissions are frequently required. I certainly
> wouldn't want the default to be a limited user account, but that's me
> -- I run as an admin all the time and don't have any resulting
> problems because I'm diligent about other good practices. With the
> way I use Windows, it would be a royal PITA to be switching back &
> forth. Only thing I can think of is to make a very strong,
> in-your-face greeting that would push you to create a limited user
> account and explain in detail why this is good practice, but not
> force it.
>
 
"Desperateparents" <Desperateparents@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:1015D64D-FE17-4785-ADB6-00E98511F9D5@microsoft.com...
> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all purchased
> and
> real.
>
> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
> suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>
> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many times
> and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>
> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year old's
> immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat us out
> of
> our software?".
>

the message is just scare tactics.

You can reactivate by telephone. they will give you a reactivation code.

In future why not by pass the whole problem. Once you have successfully
reinstalled, navigate to the C:\windows\system32 folder. Make a copy of the
two files wpa.dbl and wpa.bak onto some suitable media (not the hard disk).
Next time you have to reinstall windows, and you get the usual 28 days to
activate. Instead, just boot into safe mode, navigate to the
C:\windows\system32 folder and rename wpa.dbl to wpabak.dbl and wpa.bak to
wpabak.bak (if it exists). Now copy your two carefully saved files in their
place. Reboot, and you have an activated windows.
 
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23jo4K5RvHHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> So you basically agree that it's not the OS that is faulty, it's bad
> practices and the fact that Windows is so friendly to apps that themselves
> are faulty. I'm always hearing people complain that Windows doesn't do
> this or that natively, and one of those things is malware protection. If
> Windows did all those things, MS would be hit with more anti-trust
> litigation than they already have been. I would think that even making
> Windows do some kind of quality control of apps would have similar
> results.
>
> As for the default admin account, I'm of two minds. Especially during
> initial setup, admin permissions are frequently required. I certainly
> wouldn't want the default to be a limited user account, but that's me -- I
> run as an admin all the time and don't have any resulting problems because
> I'm diligent about other good practices. With the way I use Windows, it
> would be a royal PITA to be switching back & forth. Only thing I can think
> of is to make a very strong, in-your-face greeting that would push you to
> create a limited user account and explain in detail why this is good
> practice, but not force it.
>

I would agree that running as an admin account is not a good thing to do.
Unfortunately, you don't have a great deal of option. Many applications are
written in a way that they won't run in anything other than an administrator
account. Have you any idea how many applications make an alteration to the
registry when starting up and another when closing down? This can only
happen when in administrator mode.
 
"Desperateparents" <Desperateparents@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:203B54FD-F0D0-4328-AAB5-15D8FF0FD008@microsoft.com...
> Thanks to Martin and LV. I appreciate your quick and accurate advice.
>
> To NL. You preach and rant and then say you hate parents who do that.
> Mirror
> time.
>
> As to your supposed reply. All virus, spyware detection and firewall
> software is current and up to date. Always. Yours?
>
> It's a she and she only uses Microsoft Messenger and does not download
> other
> files on her PC. If she wants that she does it on my PC with my
> supervision
> and agreement. So I suspect any nasties come through a Microsoft product.
>

The best thing you can do with Microsoft Messenger, is to completely disable
it. It is a poor application which easily allows the propagation of
malware.
 
And that's not really Windows' fault, is it? Blame the apps' developers.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4689f1b9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> I would agree that running as an admin account is not a good thing to do.
> Unfortunately, you don't have a great deal of option. Many applications
> are written in a way that they won't run in anything other than an
> administrator account. Have you any idea how many applications make an
> alteration to the registry when starting up and another when closing down?
> This can only happen when in administrator mode.
>
>
 
You too eh? UAC is a pain in the butt. LOL


Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Enough for now, except to mention that UAC caused me to reboot to
> WinXP within 20 minutes of trying Vista. I've tried it a couple of
> times more, trying to wrap my head around it and learn to work with
> it, but...
>
> I suppose there's a way to totally disable UAC, but I get so
> disgusted that I lose patience and dump the whole project.
>
>
> "GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:ewD%23BLSvHHA.4328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I think we're sort of on the same wave length now. Windows can be a
>> secure OS when you have the proper mind-set/practices, but your
>> average user does not. And you can't fault them for that as they
>> just want a "box" that works, so ultimately it's Windows/MS's
>> responsibility to provide a safe/secure environment.
>>
>> And you're right, switching back and forth is a PITA. MS should
>> have made better use of and a more robust "runas" feature. The
>> OS/applications also needs to be more limited account friendly too.
>> Things have improved considerably but there is still room for
>> improvment; games come to mind, as
>> there shouldn't be any reason you need to run as admin to play a
>> game.
>>
>> As to what MS can do? An "in-your-face" greeting with a
>> tutorial/explaination about admin vs limited accounts would be a good
>> idea.
>> It liekly wouldn't solve all the problems but I'm sure it would
>> help. UAC (in Vista) is a step in the right direction although I
>> think it's fundamentally flawed. From what I've seen (so far) it
>> pops up far too often
>> and it's likely to create an environment where "Joe user" will
>> blindly start
>> pressing "Ok / Allow" to everything or just shut it off altogether.
>> This is
>> seen now with a lot of virus/malware infections. A lot of the time
>> the user
>> is actually prompted in IE, or has to physically double-click and
>> install/run something, before getting infected.
>>
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>> So you basically agree that it's not the OS that is faulty, it's bad
>>> practices and the fact that Windows is so friendly to apps that
>>> themselves are faulty. I'm always hearing people complain that
>>> Windows doesn't do this or that natively, and one of those things is
>>> malware protection. If Windows did all those things, MS would be hit
>>> with more anti-trust litigation than they already have been. I would
>>> think that even making Windows do some kind of quality control of
>>> apps would have similar results.
>>>
>>> As for the default admin account, I'm of two minds. Especially
>>> during initial setup, admin permissions are frequently required. I
>>> certainly wouldn't want the default to be a limited user account,
>>> but that's me -- I run as an admin all the time and don't have any
>>> resulting problems because I'm diligent about other good practices.
>>> With the way I use Windows, it would be a royal PITA to be
>>> switching back & forth. Only thing I can think of is to make a very
>>> strong, in-your-face greeting that would push you to create a
>>> limited user account and explain in detail why this is good
>>> practice, but not force it.
 
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:uu3qGYVvHHA.4532@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4689f1b9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>> I would agree that running as an admin account is not a good thing to do.
>> Unfortunately, you don't have a great deal of option. Many applications
>> are written in a way that they won't run in anything other than an
>> administrator account. Have you any idea how many applications make an
>> alteration to the registry when starting up and another when closing
>> down? This can only happen when in administrator mode.
>>
> And that's not really Windows' fault, is it? Blame the apps' developers.
>

It doesn't matter whose fault it is, it's a reality.

Top posting corrected.
 
You must have come in late, since the original discussion between GO and
myself specifically started with a "blame Windows" tenor, which I disputed.
"Blame" is indeed the topic of discussion, whether you consider it
irrelevant or not.

Bottom posting corrected.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:468b3d75$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:uu3qGYVvHHA.4532@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:4689f1b9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>
>>> I would agree that running as an admin account is not a good thing to
>>> do. Unfortunately, you don't have a great deal of option. Many
>>> applications are written in a way that they won't run in anything other
>>> than an administrator account. Have you any idea how many applications
>>> make an alteration to the registry when starting up and another when
>>> closing down? This can only happen when in administrator mode.
>>>
>> And that's not really Windows' fault, is it? Blame the apps' developers.
>>
>
> It doesn't matter whose fault it is, it's a reality.
>
> Top posting corrected.
>
>
 
Back
Top