Is this how Windows is supposed to work?
Sandman
deal on children clothing, we also got a free PC game fro children - Bob the
Builder. My three-year old son loves Bob the Builder so I thought I'd install
it and see what it was all about.
Then I decided that my son is now old enough to be able to spend alone-time in
front of the computer. He's pretty good with a mouse and manages to play simple
games. So I decided to create a new account for him. Naturally, I created it
without a password and set to "limited" (which is the only other choice than
'Admin'). Now, in a perfect world - Windows would have been intelligent enough
to let me set up what apps my son could use, just like in OSX - but that
aside...
Now, I couldn't install the game when loged in as my user - which is logical
since ha has a limited account, so I switched user to my account and installed
the game in C:\Games\Bob the builder\
So then I switched back to my sons account and tried to launch the game - "You
don't have sufficient access privileges to launch 'XXX'" or something! Wtf?? So
I can't install the game in my sons account (which I would have been able to do
n OSX) and I can't launch an admin-installed game logged in as my son!
So what is a guy supposed to do - login as me every time he want to play a
game?? That's stupid.
Before anyone starts blaming the ones creating the game - this isn't the first
time I've run in to something like this - but last time it was a game for my
wife on her account that she couldn't launch. Needlesstosay, something like
this doesn't happen in OSX. I have several children games installed on my Mac
that my son plays on his account there.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-05799A.09...@individual.net on 2/13/05 1:19 AM:
There are ways around this on Windows. Perhaps if you apologize to me I
will help you.
Liam Slider
> Before anyone starts blaming the ones creating the game - this isn't the
> first time I've run in to something like this - but last time it was a
> game for my wife on her account that she couldn't launch. Needlesstosay,
> something like this doesn't happen in OSX. I have several children games
> installed on my Mac that my son plays on his account there.
This kind of thing doesn't happen on Linux either. We have a *properly
designed multiuser system with working permissions* instead of the broken
BS Microsoft has.
Aren't you glad OSX is based on Unix?
Tim Harbison
Yes, there are ways around this. Access can be granted to the specific
user or group where the program is trying to write (probably the
program's folder under C:\Program Files. Hopefully, it's not trying to
do something moronic like write to the registry or to the Windows root
folder (C:\Windows or C:\WINNT).
As a long time Windows user, I'll be the first to step up to the plate
and put the blame squarely on the people creating the software. In this
modern age of multiuser Operating Systems, there's no excuse for this
except laziness or stupidity on the part of the software vendor.
Snit
You recently corrected one of my errors in a post - and I was appreciative.
Now I am happy to be able to return the favor.
Now you can not say I did not offer you help based on this post.
You're welcome.
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in post
mr-05799A.09...@individual.net on 2/13/05 1:19 AM:
> Had a funny catch 22 thing going on with Windows yesterday. Through a special
> deal on children clothing, we also got a free PC game fro children - Bob the
^^^
for
> Builder. My three-year old son loves Bob the Builder so I thought I'd install
> it and see what it was all about.
>
> Then I decided that my son is now old enough to be able to spend alone-time in
> front of the computer. He's pretty good with a mouse and manages to play
> simple games. So I decided to create a new account for him. Naturally, I
> created it without a password and set to "limited" (which is the only other
> choice than 'Admin'). Now, in a perfect world - Windows would have been
^^^^^
If you are going to use double quotes on "limited", you
should on "Admin" as well
> intelligent enough to let me set up what apps my son could use, just like in
> OSX - but that aside...
>
> Now, I couldn't install the game when loged in as my user - which is logical
^^^^^
logged
> since ha has a limited account, so I switched user to my account and installed
^^ ^^^^
he users
> the game in C:\Games\Bob the builder\
>
> So then I switched back to my sons account and tried to launch the game - "You
> don't have sufficient access privileges to launch 'XXX'" or something! Wtf??
> So I can't install the game in my sons account (which I would have been able
^^^^
son's
> to do n OSX) and I can't launch an admin-installed game logged in as my son!
^^
in
>
> So what is a guy supposed to do - login as me every time he want to play a
> game?? That's stupid.
>
> Before anyone starts blaming the ones creating the game - this isn't the first
> time I've run in to something like this - but last time it was a game for my
> wife on her account that she couldn't launch. Needlesstosay, something like
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Needless to say
> this doesn't happen in OSX. I have several children games installed on my Mac
^^^^^^^^
children's
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Are you SO delusional that you actually think Sandman will value your
opinion on computers to the point where he would apologize for some
delusion you have that figures he owes you an apology? Wow... you're far
worse than I thought:)
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > There are ways around this on Windows. Perhaps if you apologize to me I
> > will help you.
>
> Are you SO delusional that you actually think Sandman will value your
> opinion on computers to the point where he would apologize for some
> delusion you have that figures he owes you an apology? Wow... you're far
> worse than I thought:)
Especially considering that Michael knows just about nothing about computers in
general. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
IOW, it's not the first time you've run into poor programming on the
part of a third party developer. Gotcha.
> but last time it was a game for my
> wife on her account that she couldn't launch. Needlesstosay,
something like
> this doesn't happen in OSX. I have several children games installed
on my Mac
> that my son plays on his account there.
Next time don't log out of the user's account and into your Admin
account to install a program for a user.
Stay within the 'limited use' account, and use "Run As" to install the
program, within the context of that users account.
You're welcome.
Snit
1108331460.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 2/13/05 2:51 PM:
>> Before anyone starts blaming the ones creating the game - this isn't the
>> first time I've run in to something like this -
>>
> IOW, it's not the first time you've run into poor programming on the part of a
> third party developer. Gotcha.
>
>> but last time it was a game for my wife on her account that she couldn't
>> launch. Needlesstosay, something like this doesn't happen in OSX. I have
>> several children games installed on my Mac that my son plays on his account
>> there.
>>
>
> Next time don't log out of the user's account and into your Admin account to
> install a program for a user.
>
> Stay within the 'limited use' account, and use "Run As" to install the
> program, within the context of that users account.
>
> You're welcome.
Awww, when you help him you take away my fun. :)
Just joshin', I figured others would come to his rescue and offer advice...
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Sure - why are there so many poor programmers for Windows that out of two times
I've tried this, it has failed both times?
>> but last time it was a game for my wife on her account that she
>> couldn't launch. Needlesstosay, something like this doesn't happen in
>> OSX. I have several children games installed on my Mac that my son
>> plays on his account there.
>
> Next time don't log out of the user's account and into your Admin
> account to install a program for a user.
"log out"? You know, Windows has this wild feature called "Switch user". You
should try it sometime.
> Stay within the 'limited use' account, and use "Run As" to install the
> program, within the context of that users account.
The CD pops up a installation guide as soon as I insert the CD, instead of
quitting that and finding the executable that was launched I just temporarily
switched over to my admin account.
> You're welcome.
Thanks anyway.
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
That's what I get for trying help a fruitcake like you. Why do you
think "switch user" is invoked by pressing the "Log Off" button,
dumbass? Because you're logging off as one user, and logging in as
another user.
> > Stay within the 'limited use' account, and use "Run As" to install
the
> > program, within the context of that users account.
>
> The CD pops up a installation guide as soon as I insert the CD,
instead of
> quitting that and finding the executable that was launched I just
temporarily
> switched over to my admin account.
Hey dumbass, that's what caused your problem. Don't switch to your
admin account, use "Run As" from the user's account. Moron.
> > You're welcome.
>
> Thanks anyway.
"Thanks anyway?" So you're not going to use the solution, so you can
have a reason to whine?
Stupid jackass...
Snit
>> "log out"? You know, Windows has this wild feature called "Switch user". You
>> should try it sometime.
>>
> That's what I get for trying help a fruitcake like you. Why do you think
> "switch user" is invoked by pressing the "Log Off" button, dumbass? Because
> you're logging off as one user, and logging in as another user.
Actually, no... that is the "magic" of fast user switching - you do not have
to log off as one user to log on as another.
It makes no sense for this to be under a log off option, being that you are
not logging off.
Of course, you are not starting, either, you are pausing, but that is best
left for another day.
The Mac handles this much better - in the upper right hand corner of my
screen I see my name - and I can click there to switch users. This would be
better if I could just have my icon - something with is likely to happen in
10.4.
>
>>> Stay within the 'limited use' account, and use "Run As" to install the
>>> program, within the context of that users account.
>>>
>> The CD pops up a installation guide as soon as I insert the CD, instead of
>> quitting that and finding the executable that was launched I just temporarily
>> switched over to my admin account.
>>
> Hey dumbass, that's what caused your problem. Don't switch to your admin
> account, use "Run As" from the user's account. Moron.
He likely does not know how. Even then, though, he may be able to install
the game and not play.
I wish him luck with your method, but it may or may not work. I have other
suggestions, but he would prefer to continue trolling me instead of helping
his child.
Edwin
Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> 1108332669.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 2/13/05 3:11
PM:
>
> >> "log out"? You know, Windows has this wild feature called "Switch
user". You
> >> should try it sometime.
> >>
> > That's what I get for trying help a fruitcake like you. Why do
you think
> > "switch user" is invoked by pressing the "Log Off" button, dumbass?
Because
> > you're logging off as one user, and logging in as another user.
>
> Actually, no... that is the "magic" of fast user switching - you do
not have
> to log off as one user to log on as another.
Jonas didn't specify fast user switching, just switch user. You're
right that when fast user switching is on, accounts are not logged out.
> It makes no sense for this to be under a log off option, being that
you are
> not logging off.
Without fast user switching enabled, it does log the users off.
> Of course, you are not starting, either, you are pausing, but that is
best
> left for another day.
Those types of arguments are best forgotten altogether.
[snip]
Snit
>
> Snit wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>> 1108332669.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 2/13/05 3:11
> PM:
>>
>>>> "log out"? You know, Windows has this wild feature called "Switch user".
>>>> You should try it sometime.
>>>>
>>> That's what I get for trying help a fruitcake like you. Why do you think
>>> "switch user" is invoked by pressing the "Log Off" button, dumbass? Because
>>> you're logging off as one user, and logging in as another user.
>>>
>> Actually, no... that is the "magic" of fast user switching - you do not have
>> to log off as one user to log on as another.
>>
> Jonas didn't specify fast user switching, just switch user. You're right
> that when fast user switching is on, accounts are not logged out.
Fair enough... I can see your point.
>
>> It makes no sense for this to be under a log off option, being that you are
>> not logging off.
>>
> Without fast user switching enabled, it does log the users off.
Still makes no sense to have fast user switching under log off... though I
would have to look at the exact wording and do not have an XP machine in
front of me now. OS X, while it gained this feature after XP, does it
better.
That is not that uncommon - often with MS and Apple, the one who copies a
feature will learn from the other one. Then again, often they do not. :)
>
>> Of course, you are not starting, either, you are pausing, but that is best
>> left for another day.
>>
> Those types of arguments are best forgotten altogether.
Ok... no argument here.
Elizabot v2.0.2
Wow, you are a disgusting little troll who is willing to take out your
anger on Sandman's children. Not at all surprising.
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Mayor of R'lyeh
<Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
Hell, yeah! After all, Sandman is their dad. Haven't they suffered
enough? 8)
--
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want
any part of that."
Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
Snit
42103c47$0$13886$7586...@news.frii.net on 2/13/05 10:51 PM:
I was not aware Sandman's kid's had even posted on CSMA...
Perhaps you have some reason to believe I should freely help someone who
repeatedly tells me he hates me and lies about wanting me to stop posting.
Sigmond
I have a reason - you would help Sandman simply to spite me. We've been
over this... I intend to hound you until I get some recognition. I
demand to be recognized. (A seat at the UN would be nice, too -
somewhere in the middle, not too near the back would be ideal)
Don't forget - I'm hounding you. You'll rue the day you neglected me.
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>> "log out"? You know, Windows has this wild feature called "Switch
>> user". You should try it sometime.
>
> That's what I get for trying help a fruitcake like you. Why do you
> think "switch user" is invoked by pressing the "Log Off" button,
> dumbass? Because you're logging off as one user, and logging in as
> another user.
Eh, Edwin. The first user stays logged in you know. That's why there are two
options - either log out or switch user. This is a good point of Windows
advocacy since Windows was -first- with Switch User. Apple -copied- Windows
here (and did a better job, but that's not important).
When you are logged in as "Edwin" and you are downloading a big file, and your
friend that has an account on the same machine wants to check his mail - all
you do is "Switch User" to your friend, and he can then check his email. Your
user - "Edwin" - stays logged in and the download continues in your "space".
When you friend sees that there is no new mail, he can log off (or stay logged
in and have his email client keep checking) and you can have your session back.
This is a great feature for families.
>>> Stay within the 'limited use' account, and use "Run As" to install
>>> the program, within the context of that users account.
>>
>> The CD pops up a installation guide as soon as I insert the CD,
>> instead of quitting that and finding the executable that was launched
>> I just temporarily switched over to my admin account.
>
> Hey dumbass, that's what caused your problem. Don't switch to your
> admin account, use "Run As" from the user's account. Moron.
Look, we all know you're not very smart, so I'll type this slowly:
If I do a "Run as..." on the installer, I get to install the game as the admin,
which is -the exact same thing- as if I just switch user to my admin account
and install it from there. This does in no way or form help the unprivileged
user to run the installed GAME once it is installed. That user STILL hasn't got
privileges to run the game.
So, the admin runs (via Run as... or via my own account - doesn't matter)
D:\InstallBTB.exe which installs C:\Games\Bob the Builder\StartBTB.exe which
can NOT be launched by anyone else but the admin user.
>>> You're welcome.
>>
>> Thanks anyway.
>
> "Thanks anyway?" So you're not going to use the solution, so you can
> have a reason to whine?
I tried "Run as..." a long time ago. I thanked you for trying to help me. But
you got all schoolyard on me so I retract it now. You will note that it once
again was you who started the insults.
> Stupid jackass...
Same old Edwin. You should be thankful that I once again taught you something
about Windows with regards to switch users (can't believe you didn't know about
-that-) and Run as...
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> BTW: how do you like it when your trolling technique is used on you? Kinda
> gets old, eh? :)
Your trolling technique grew old over a year ago, Michael.
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1108332669.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> "log out"? You know, Windows has this wild feature called "Switch
> >> user". You should try it sometime.
> >
> > That's what I get for trying help a fruitcake like you. Why do
you
> > think "switch user" is invoked by pressing the "Log Off" button,
> > dumbass? Because you're logging off as one user, and logging in as
> > another user.
>
> Eh, Edwin. The first user stays logged in you know. That's why there
are two
> options - either log out or switch user.
No, dumbass, you don't stay logged in unless you have fast user
switching enabled. How many times does the same thing need to be
repeated for you?
[useless babble snipped]
> >
> > "Thanks anyway?" So you're not going to use the solution, so you
can
> > have a reason to whine?
>
> I tried "Run as..." a long time ago.
During the install, dumbass, not while running the program.
> I thanked you for trying to help me.
Where?
> But
> you got all schoolyard on me so I retract it now. You will note that
it once
> again was you who started the insults.
No, it was you who started the insults, by replying to me as if I
didn't know what I was talking about when I tried to help you.
> > Stupid jackass...
>
> Same old Edwin. You should be thankful that I once again taught you
something
> about Windows with regards to switch users (can't believe you didn't
know about
> -that-) and Run as...
You told me nothing I didn't know, and you're incapable of "teaching"
anything to anyone, except how much of an idiot you are.
Stupid jackass...
Edwin
Shut up, Snit.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-B722C0.06...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/14/05
> 4:40 AM:
>
> > In article <BE359976.2140%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ~Big snip
> >
> >
> >> Perhaps you have some reason to believe I should freely help someone who
> >> repeatedly tells me he hates me and lies about wanting me to stop posting.
> >
> > What makes you think
>
> Leave it to you, Tim, to not understand what makes someone think.
He didn't ask about "someone", he asked about 'you'. As you've amply
displayed, there is a huge difference between you and anyone else when
it comes to thinking. Do you somehow figure that Tim stands alone and
isn't aware of your problem in this area?
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-B722C0.06...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/14/05
> 4:40 AM:
>
> > In article <BE359976.2140%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ~Big snip
> >
> >
> >> Perhaps you have some reason to believe I should freely help someone who
> >> repeatedly tells me he hates me and lies about wanting me to stop posting.
> >
> > What makes you think
>
> Leave it to you, Tim, to not understand what makes someone think.
I see you're still unable to answer a simple question but instead need
to distort what others wrote.
So it isn't a lie that Sandman wants you to quit posting.
~snipped garbage from the elephant dung eating snit. It's what makes him
so full of it.
--
Tim
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-B722C0.06...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/14/05
4:40 AM:
> In article <BE359976.2140%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> ~Big snip
>
>
>> Perhaps you have some reason to believe I should freely help someone who
>> repeatedly tells me he hates me and lies about wanting me to stop posting.
>
> What makes you think
Leave it to you, Tim, to not understand what makes someone think.
~snipped repeated lies and distortion the elephant dung eating Tim Adams
posted.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
~Big snip
> Perhaps you have some reason to believe I should freely help someone who
> repeatedly tells me he hates me and lies about wanting me to stop posting.
What makes you think it a lie that Sandman wants you to stop posting?
--
Tim
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-B722C0.06...@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'd still like to find out which of Snit's delusions has Snit believing
Sandman would even want his help.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-433572.09...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/14/05
> 7:04 AM:
>
> > In article <BE35F96D.22BA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-B722C0.06...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/14/05
> >> 4:40 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BE359976.2140%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ~Big snip
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Perhaps you have some reason to believe I should freely help someone who
> >>>> repeatedly tells me he hates me and lies about wanting me to stop
> >>>> posting.
> >>>
> >>> What makes you think
> >>
> >> Leave it to you, Tim, to not understand what makes someone think.
Not what I think - what you, with the aid of your drugs, think. There is
a difference even if your feeble mind doesn't see it.
> >
> > I see
>
> Glad we agree that snit is an asshole
yes we do agree on that fact.
~snit's attempt to restart his circus snipped
--
Tim
Snit
7:04 AM:
> In article <BE35F96D.22BA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-B722C0.06...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/14/05
>> 4:40 AM:
>>
>>> In article <BE359976.2140%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ~Big snip
>>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps you have some reason to believe I should freely help someone who
>>>> repeatedly tells me he hates me and lies about wanting me to stop posting.
>>>
>>> What makes you think
>>
>> Leave it to you, Tim, to not understand what makes someone think.
>
> I see
Glad we agree.
BTW: how do you like it when your trolling technique is used on you? Kinda
gets old, eh? :)
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> That's what I get for trying help a fruitcake like you. Why do you
>>> think "switch user" is invoked by pressing the "Log Off" button,
>>> dumbass? Because you're logging off as one user, and logging in as
>>> another user.
>>
>> Eh, Edwin. The first user stays logged in you know. That's why there
>> are two options - either log out or switch user.
>
> No, dumbass, you don't stay logged in unless you have fast user
> switching enabled. How many times does the same thing need to be
> repeated for you?
Remember all the times I've told you to do some research before claiming
things? This is one of those times you should have done just that. If you don't
have fast user switching enabled, you can't choose "Switch User" when you log
out. You can only choose "Log off" from the start menu and a dialog will ask
you if you really want to log off. With fast user switching enabled, pressing
"Log off" will present you with a different type of dialog that lest you choose
from log off (again) or Switch User.
I can't believe that you're this ignorant about Windows.
>>> "Thanks anyway?" So you're not going to use the solution, so you
>>> can have a reason to whine?
>>
>> I tried "Run as..." a long time ago.
>
> During the install
Exactly.
> dumbass
Pleased to meet you.
> not while running the program.
Of course not.
Needlesstosay, that doesn't work since that produces the exact same result as
if I'm installing it when logged in as the admin.
>> I thanked you for trying to help me.
>
> Where?
Where I said "Thanks anyway".
>> But you got all schoolyard on me so I retract it now. You will note
>> that it once again was you who started the insults.
>
> No, it was you who started the insults, by replying to me as if I
> didn't know what I was talking about when I tried to help you.
First, I didn't. Second, you DON'T know what you are talking about. I have once
again educated you about your prefered operating system. Humiliating for you,
once again.
>>> Stupid jackass...
>>
>> Same old Edwin. You should be thankful that I once again taught you
>> something about Windows with regards to switch users (can't believe
>> you didn't know about -that-) and Run as...
>
> You told me nothing I didn't know, and you're incapable of "teaching"
> anything to anyone, except how much of an idiot you are.
Hope you feel enlightened now that I have educated you about Windows -
regardless of your petty insults.
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
What I told you would get you around the problem of getting the program
to install, but you also had problems getting it to run.
You'll find a solution here:
http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/sampchap/6271.asp
"...Sooner or later (probably sooner), you'll run into problems setting
up a third-party program for a user with a limited account. Even after
you successfully install the software, you might discover that the
program refuses to run. Here's where to look for possible solutions:"
"Temporarily "promote" the user. Try changing the user's account type
from Limited to Computer Administrator, and then run Setup for the
program. After Setup completes successfully and you confirm that the
program will run, see if any user data files are being stored in a
system location. If so, move those files to the user's profile and
change the account back to Limited. This technique might help get past
a glitch caused strictly by a simple design flaw in the Setup program.
(For example, some Setup programs are designed to prevent installation
by any user who is not a member of the Administrators group-even if
the account has all the requisite privileges.)"
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> I apologize for my insults.
Apology accepted.
> What I told you would get you around the problem of getting the program
> to install, but you also had problems getting it to run.
Yeah, the catch 22 was that only the admin could install it and only the admin
could run it. A limited user couldn't run this game. That sucks, and is
probably due to lazy programming. But on OSX, I get the option to install apps
as a limited user, in my home directory.
> You'll find a solution here:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/sampchap/6271.asp
>
> "...Sooner or later (probably sooner), you'll run into problems setting
> up a third-party program for a user with a limited account. Even after
> you successfully install the software, you might discover that the
> program refuses to run. Here's where to look for possible solutions:"
>
> "Temporarily "promote" the user. Try changing the user's account type
> from Limited to Computer Administrator, and then run Setup for the
> program. After Setup completes successfully and you confirm that the
> program will run, see if any user data files are being stored in a
> system location. If so, move those files to the user's profile and
> change the account back to Limited. This technique might help get past
> a glitch caused strictly by a simple design flaw in the Setup program.
> (For example, some Setup programs are designed to prevent installation
> by any user who is not a member of the Administrators group-even if
> the account has all the requisite privileges.)"
Even if this would work - which it sound as it might, I don't have the patience
to hunt for whatever files it may have installed in odd places. How do I even
know what the files are named?
Second, this would only work for this limited user, not for all limited users,
which is fine for now, but when my daughter grows up I will need games to be
accessible from two limited accounts...
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Why are you responding to someone else as though they were me?
Are you really that clueless about how to read a Usenet post?
Snit
And Sandman could have gotten this same advice when he first asked the
question if trolling were not more important to him than helping his kids.
I would be interested to know if this works - it should, but if not, then so
be it. It was the advice I was going to offer him... so I goes there goes
my fun. :)
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> I would be interested to know if this works - it should, but if not, then so
> be it. It was the advice I was going to offer him...
Yes, you have a record for giving people non-functional advice. Aren't you busy
locking down your universal access preferences file, Michael?
Hehe, and you thought I actually wanted your "advice" about computers? That was
really funny!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <BE365CBB.2358%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> I would be interested to know if this works - it should, but if not, then so
>> be it. It was the advice I was going to offer him...
>
> Yes, you have a record for giving people non-functional advice. Aren't you
> busy locking down your universal access preferences file, Michael?
What do you think the correct pref should have been?
>
> Hehe, and you thought I actually wanted your "advice" about computers? That
> was really funny!
Are you denying you asked CSMA members for help? In any case, I know - you
would rather hurt your kids than listen to me. The worst part is you see
nothing wrong with that.
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1108411287.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Even if this would work - which it sound as it might, I don't have >
the patience to hunt for whatever files it may have installed in odd >
places. How do I even know what the files are named?
You could do a search for files modified on the day of the install.
> Second, this would only work for this limited user, not for all >
limited users, which is fine for now, but when my daughter grows up > I
will need games to be accessible from two limited accounts...
http://www.winxpsolution.com/UnderstandXPHomeUserAcct.aspx
Some programs might not work properly for users with limited accounts
due to the way the program was created/written. In this case the
user's privileges should be changed to administrator, either
temporarily or permanently.
Guest
There is also another type of account but that is rarely used and is
known as the guest account. This is available for users that do not
fall in the above 2 types. There is no password for the guest account,
so the user can log on quickly to check e-mail or browse the Internet.
When a user is logged as a guest he/she has the following restrictions:
Cannot install software or hardware, but can access programs that have
already been installed on the computer.
Cannot change the guest account type.
Can change the guest account picture.
But most of the time, the guest account is disabled for security
reasons.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>> I would be interested to know if this works - it should, but if not,
>>> then so be it. It was the advice I was going to offer him...
>>
>> Yes, you have a record for giving people non-functional advice.
>> Aren't you busy locking down your universal access preferences file,
>> Michael?
>
> What do you think the correct pref should have been?
I didn't "think" anything. The mouse acceleration is set by
com.apple.mouse.scaling in .GlobalPreferences.plist. It even takes negative
numbers.
>> Hehe, and you thought I actually wanted your "advice" about
>> computers? That was really funny!
>
> Are you denying you asked CSMA members for help?
Members, not trolls. So no - I didn't ask neither you or Edwin for help. Both
of you tried to give non-functional help though, which is expected.
> In any case, I know - you would rather hurt your kids than listen to
> me.
Haha!
> The worst part is you see nothing wrong with that.
Yes, my son is devastated since I didn't take your non-functional "advice"
Michael. That's it! OR - he is playing the game right now. I wonder which it
is... Hmmm.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <BE366889.2374%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> I would be interested to know if this works - it should, but if not,
>>>> then so be it. It was the advice I was going to offer him...
>>>
>>> Yes, you have a record for giving people non-functional advice.
>>> Aren't you busy locking down your universal access preferences file,
>>> Michael?
>>
>> What do you think the correct pref should have been?
>
> I didn't "think" anything. The mouse acceleration is set by
> com.apple.mouse.scaling in .GlobalPreferences.plist. It even takes negative
> numbers.
I see you read my post where I told you:
Hmmm, my mistake - but seems you do not know. The answer:
.GlobalPreferences.plist
You need to show hidden files to see this and lock it... bad Apple!
Have you figured out how to use Bob the Builder or is that still a bit
beyond your level?
BTW: did you ever figure out Bob the Builder? When it says "3 years or
more" it does not mean that is how long it should take to figure it out -
but I would not be surprised if it took you that long.
>
>>> Hehe, and you thought I actually wanted your "advice" about
>>> computers? That was really funny!
>>
>> Are you denying you asked CSMA members for help?
>
> Members, not trolls. So no - I didn't ask neither you or Edwin for help. Both
> of you tried to give non-functional help though, which is expected.
Your name calling does not change the fact that you would rather hurt your
kids than listen to me.
>
>> In any case, I know - you would rather hurt your kids than listen to
>> me.
>
> Haha!
It is not funny. It is very, very sad.
>
>> The worst part is you see nothing wrong with that.
>
> Yes, my son is devastated since I didn't take your non-functional "advice"
> Michael. That's it! OR - he is playing the game right now. I wonder which it
> is... Hmmm.
Oh, you *did* figure out Bob the Builder in less than three years! You must
be proud!
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>> Even if this would work - which it sound as it might, I don't have
>> the patience to hunt for whatever files it may have installed in odd
>> places. How do I even know what the files are named?
>
> You could do a search for files modified on the day of the install.
Yeah, not only did that search take some ten minutes to complete, it found 225
files. I shit you not.
>> Second, this would only work for this limited user, not for all
>> limited users, which is fine for now, but when my daughter grows up >
>> I will need games to be accessible from two limited accounts...
>
> http://www.winxpsolution.com/UnderstandXPHomeUserAcct.aspx
>
> Some programs might not work properly for users with limited accounts
> due to the way the program was created/written. In this case the
> user's privileges should be changed to administrator, either
> temporarily or permanently.
>
> Guest
>
> There is also another type of account but that is rarely used and is
> known as the guest account. This is available for users that do not
> fall in the above 2 types. There is no password for the guest account,
> so the user can log on quickly to check e-mail or browse the Internet.
> When a user is logged as a guest he/she has the following
> restrictions:
> Cannot install software or hardware, but can access programs that have
> already been installed on the computer.
>
> Cannot change the guest account type.
>
> Can change the guest account picture.
>
> But most of the time, the guest account is disabled for security
> reasons.
Yeah, the Guest account can't launch this game either, naturally.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <1108417581....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>> Even if this would work - which it sound as it might, I don't have
>>> the patience to hunt for whatever files it may have installed in odd
>>> places. How do I even know what the files are named?
>>
>> You could do a search for files modified on the day of the install.
>
> Yeah, not only did that search take some ten minutes to complete, it found 225
> files. I shit you not.
There are ways to sort the files not only by day, but by time.
I shit you not.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>> I would be interested to know if this works - it should, but if
>>>>> not, then so be it. It was the advice I was going to offer him...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you have a record for giving people non-functional advice.
>>>> Aren't you busy locking down your universal access preferences
>>>> file, Michael?
>>>
>>> What do you think the correct pref should have been?
>>
>> I didn't "think" anything. The mouse acceleration is set by
>> com.apple.mouse.scaling in .GlobalPreferences.plist. It even takes
>> negative numbers.
>
> <snit circus snipped>
Dumdi dumdi...
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Well of course. You're the loony that is telling him that he is
'hurting' his kids because this game isn't currently available. Only to
you does that make sense. With such realities as these you'll make a
great parent, Snit:)
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Occasionally, Snit likes to pretend that he alone has something others
need. It doesn't occur to him that such information is so readily
available that his misinterpretation of it wouldn't be missed.
Snit
noone-2F790C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/14/05 3:26 PM:
While lack of a game is not a real pain, Sandman did make the choice to
troll instead of pleasing his kids.
That is a sad commentary on his values.
I do not think you will understand why. I really don't.
Edwin
What you're basically saying is Sandman doesn't care about his kids
because he wouldn't kiss your arse.
You're not as indespensible as you think you are.
Get over yourself, Snit.
Snit
>> While lack of a game is not a real pain, Sandman did make the choice
>> to troll instead of pleasing his kids.
>
>> That is a sad commentary on his values.
>>
>> I do not think you will understand why. I really don't.
>>
> What you're basically saying is Sandman doesn't care about his kids because he
> wouldn't kiss your arse.
>
> You're not as indespensible as you think you are.
>
> Get over yourself, Snit.
Asking Sandman to stop trolling, or to apologize for repeatedly being
offensive, is hardly asking him to kiss my ass.
Edwin
You told him to apologize to you to get your help. That's telling him
to kiss your arse.
Sigmond
You tell him, Edwin! - Civility will not be tolerated around here.
Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one... :*(
Sigmond
>
> Sigmond wrote:
>> On 2005-02-13 22:55:34 -0800, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:
>>
>>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>> 42103c47$0$13886$7586...@news.frii.net on 2/13/05 10:51 PM:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in post
>>>>> mr-05799A.09...@individual.net on 2/13/05 1:19 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are ways around this on Windows. Perhaps if you apologize to me I
>>>>> will help you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, you are a disgusting little troll who is willing to take out your
>>>> anger on Sandman's children. Not at all surprising.
>>>
>>> I was not aware Sandman's kid's had even posted on CSMA...
>>>
>>> Perhaps you have some reason to believe I should freely help someone who
>>> repeatedly tells me he hates me and lies about wanting me to stop posting.
>>
>> I have a reason - you would help Sandman simply to spite me. We've been
>> over this... I intend to hound you until I get some recognition. I
>> demand to be recognized. (A seat at the UN would be nice, too -
>> somewhere in the middle, not too near the back would be ideal)
>>
>> Don't forget - I'm hounding you. You'll rue the day you neglected me.
>
> Shut up, Snit.
edwin, in the post you responded to, *i* was the parent. snit was the
grandparent. perhaps in your part of the world the concepts are often
confused, such as your father being also your uncle, but trust me,
that's not the norm.
for the inbred among us (you):
your assertion is that i am snit. i am not.
edwins assumption: sigmond is snit - (edwin ass.)
sigmonds contention: snit is csma_moderator. (sigmond contention)
my contention is backed up in an earlier post - your a big boy i'm sure
you can use google to find it - i don't feel like repeating it here.
assuming that your assumption were true, then sigmond->snit->csma_moderator.
if i were the moderator, i would include my own quotes. therefor im not
the moderator. therefor im not snit. therefore edwins ass is not
well-formed. qed
Snit
Asking someone to take responsibility for their outrageous behavior, esp.
when the only consequence is a lack of assistance, is in no way telling him
to kiss my ass.
Sandman has made some unbelievably outrageous comments - lying about how
everyone wants me to go, repeatedly telling me he hates me, etc.
I gave him a chance to redeem himself and help his kids - in more way than
one. He declined.
He always will - he cherishes his trolling too much.
ELVIS2000
>Now, I couldn't install the game when loged in as my user - which is logical
>since ha has a limited account, so I switched user to my account and installed
>the game in C:\Games\Bob the builder\
Install in your son's account as "admin". Rocket science.
Sandman
ELVIS2000 <elvi...@ElvisLives.com> wrote:
>> Now, I couldn't install the game when loged in as my user - which is
>> logical since ha has a limited account, so I switched user to my
>> account and installed the game in C:\Games\Bob the builder\
>
> Install in your son's account as "admin".
Yeah, my three eyar old son should be admin on my computer. Good solution!
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Well of course. You're the loony that is telling him that he is
> > 'hurting' his kids because this game isn't currently available. Only to
> > you does that make sense. With such realities as these you'll make a
> > great parent, Snit:)
>
> While lack of a game is not a real pain, Sandman did make the choice to
> troll instead of pleasing his kids.
My son has been playing the game on my account since I installed it. Do you
enjoy being constantly wrong? Hey, by the way - lock down that Universal Access
preferences file!
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Sandman has made some unbelievably outrageous comments - lying about how
> everyone wants me to go, repeatedly telling me he hates me, etc.
No.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Uh hunh... and exactly how do you know this isn't just an assumption on
your part? Is your narcissism now so engulfing that it really didn't
occur to you that Sandman dealt with the situation while not feeling the
need to notify you about it?
> That is a sad commentary on his values.
>
> I do not think you will understand why. I really don't.
I understand that you think you are the center of the universe... and I
*know* you won't understand why I say this.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > While lack of a game is not a real pain, Sandman did make the choice to
> > troll instead of pleasing his kids.
>
> Uh hunh... and exactly how do you know this isn't just an assumption on
> your part? Is your narcissism now so engulfing that it really didn't
> occur to you that Sandman dealt with the situation while not feeling the
> need to notify you about it?
Hehe, yeah I forgot to send sigmond a mail telling him that my son isn't in
great pain. :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
Shut up, Snit.
Sigmond
>
> Sigmond wrote:
>> On 2005-02-14 15:59:05 -0800, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>>>> 1108422344.6...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 2/14/05 4:05 PM:
>>>>
>>>> Asking Sandman to stop trolling, or to apologize for repeatedly being
>>>> offensive, is hardly asking him to kiss my ass.
>>>
>>> You told him to apologize to you to get your help. That's telling him
>>> to kiss your arse.
>>
>> You tell him, Edwin! - Civility will not be tolerated around here.
>> Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one... :*(
>
> Shut up, Snit.
edwina - you're being dense here - I'm not snit. if you're still having
trouble with the concept of the parent not being the same person as the
great-grandparent, you need to move out of your trailer park.
Edwin
Shut up, Snit.
Edwin
Reread what I wrote above.
[snip]
And quit using your sock puppet "Sigmond" to reply to yourself.
Snit
>> Asking someone to take responsibility for their outrageous behavior, esp.
>> when the only consequence is a lack of assistance, is in no way telling him
>> to kiss my ass.
>>
> Reread what I wrote above.
I did. You are still wrong.
>
> [snip]
>
> And quit using your sock puppet "Sigmond" to reply to yourself.
Stop making accusations you can not support.
Snit
>
> Sigmond wrote:
<SNIP>
> Shut up, Snit.
You are making accusations you can not support.
Snit
> Sigmond wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Shut up, Snit.
You are making an accusation you can not support.
Snit
You failed to understand the solution. The idea was not to have your son's
account be an Admin account as he used it.
You have already stated that your "solution" was to let your son use your
account - so it is *your* solution, not anyone else's, that your son be an
Admin of your computer.
You will, of course, not respond to this in an honest way. You never do.
TravelinMan
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Why not? With the way WIndows handles security, every 3 year old(*) in
the country can gain access to a few million Windows computers using
their choice of malware.
* Yes, Eddie, I know that 3 year olds don't actually do this. It's a
figure of speech.
Sigmond
Hey! Play nice with your toys. We all have to make allowances for
Edwin, if you play too hard, you'll break him and the rest of us won't
get our chance to play.
P.S. still hounding you.
Sigmond
This guy Edwin seems rather dense. DONK say 'he lame.'
EDWIN: I am not Snit. I'd call you Polaski, but I don't want to insult
Jim that way.
P.S. still hounding you, Snit.
Snit
abc-1F4CEF.1...@28-71.newscene.com on 2/15/05 2:33 PM:
> In article <mr-4B5E2C.08...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> That's not what he said. Read it again.
Sandman is just lying to try to prove he cares more about his kid than about
his trolling.
His actions say otherwise.
TravelinMan
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> I apologize for my insults.
>
> What I told you would get you around the problem of getting the program
> to install, but you also had problems getting it to run.
>
> You'll find a solution here:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/sampchap/6271.asp
>
> "...Sooner or later (probably sooner), you'll run into problems setting
> up a third-party program for a user with a limited account. Even after
> you successfully install the software, you might discover that the
> program refuses to run. Here's where to look for possible solutions:"
>
> "Temporarily "promote" the user. Try changing the user's account type
> from Limited to Computer Administrator, and then run Setup for the
> program. After Setup completes successfully and you confirm that the
> program will run, see if any user data files are being stored in a
> system location. If so, move those files to the user's profile and
> change the account back to Limited. This technique might help get past
> a glitch caused strictly by a simple design flaw in the Setup program.
> (For example, some Setup programs are designed to prevent installation
> by any user who is not a member of the Administrators group-even if
> the account has all the requisite privileges.)"
Sounds like a lot of work to get around the limitations of an OS that
doesn't know how to handle multiple users very sensibly.
Tim Harbison
I think it's unfair to lay the blame on the OS. The OS is obviously
doing its job here. The purpose of restricting non-administrators from
making changes to system/program files and critical areas of the
registry is just that. To prevent them from doing it.
I'll freely admit that MS should adopt the way OS X handles installing
software. If the user who's logged in doesn't have the rights necessary
to install it, then prompt for credentials that do at install time
rather than forcing the user to log out, log in as an admin and either
install it from there or promote the user, temporarily or otherwise, so
that they can install it.
Windows has handled this the same way since the introduction of Win2K
and do some degree, since NT4. The blame has to be placed on the
software company who wrote an application supposedly designed for a
(supposedly) secure multiuser OS that can't deal with the security.
I support over 500 Windows machines every day (one of the reasons I know
love coming home to my Mac) and if users were able to bypass this
restriction, I'd go mad.
Snit
vWzQd.8202$ng6....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 2/15/05 9:24 PM:
The fact that there is an MS style registry at all is a weakness.
>
> I'll freely admit that MS should adopt the way OS X handles installing
> software. If the user who's logged in doesn't have the rights necessary
> to install it, then prompt for credentials that do at install time
> rather than forcing the user to log out, log in as an admin and either
> install it from there or promote the user, temporarily or otherwise, so
> that they can install it.
>
> Windows has handled this the same way since the introduction of Win2K
> and do some degree, since NT4. The blame has to be placed on the
> software company who wrote an application supposedly designed for a
> (supposedly) secure multiuser OS that can't deal with the security.
>
> I support over 500 Windows machines every day (one of the reasons I know
> love coming home to my Mac) and if users were able to bypass this
> restriction, I'd go mad.
And...? :)
Sandman
wrote:
> In article <mr-4B5E2C.08...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> That's not what he said. Read it again.
I.e. "Run as..."? That doesn't help. I've already been over that.
--
Sandman[.net]
TravelinMan
Tim Harbison <coldw...@nospam.ameritech.net> wrote:
That's not true.
The OS won't allow someone with a user account to run this software.
Even if it's installed with an admin account, it won't run in a user
account. That's NOT what the OS is supposed to do.
In OS X, users can install software in their own account without
damaging anything else. They can run software installed by admin (if
given permission, of course) without damaging anything else.
THAT is how a proper OS should do it. XP isn't close.
>
> I'll freely admit that MS should adopt the way OS X handles installing
> software. If the user who's logged in doesn't have the rights necessary
> to install it, then prompt for credentials that do at install time
> rather than forcing the user to log out, log in as an admin and either
> install it from there or promote the user, temporarily or otherwise, so
> that they can install it.
>
> Windows has handled this the same way since the introduction of Win2K
> and do some degree, since NT4. The blame has to be placed on the
> software company who wrote an application supposedly designed for a
> (supposedly) secure multiuser OS that can't deal with the security.
Sorry, when the OS won't allow the user to install software or allow the
user to run software that admin gave him permission for, that's an OS
problem, not an application problem.
>
> I support over 500 Windows machines every day (one of the reasons I know
> love coming home to my Mac) and if users were able to bypass this
> restriction, I'd go mad.
That's silly. If it were done properly, users would be able to run the
software you want them to run - without driving anyone mad.
Snit
No, Sandman, that was not the only advice you were given.
You were given the likely solution.
You made the choice to ignore it.
You would rather have your 3 year old run on an Admin account than to stop
trolling, so you will likely never find the solution to your problem.
I helped you with the hidden pref file - I have no obligation to help you
here.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>> Now, I couldn't install the game when loged in as my user - which
>>>>>> is logical since ha has a limited account, so I switched user to
>>>>>> my account and installed the game in C:\Games\Bob the builder\
>>>>>
>>>>> Install in your son's account as "admin".
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, my three eyar old son should be admin on my computer. Good
>>>> solution!
>>>
>>> That's not what he said. Read it again.
>>
>> I.e. "Run as..."? That doesn't help. I've already been over that.
>
> <Michaels ignorance of Windows snipped>
Keep it up, Michael!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <BE389E98.292E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Now, I couldn't install the game when loged in as my user - which
>>>>>>> is logical since ha has a limited account, so I switched user to
>>>>>>> my account and installed the game in C:\Games\Bob the builder\
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Install in your son's account as "admin".
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, my three eyar old son should be admin on my computer. Good
>>>>> solution!
>>>>
>>>> That's not what he said. Read it again.
>>>
>>> I.e. "Run as..."? That doesn't help. I've already been over that.
>>
>> No, Sandman, that was not the only advice you were given.
>>
>> You were given the likely solution.
>>
>> You made the choice to ignore it.
>>
>> You would rather have your 3 year old run on an Admin account than to stop
>> trolling, so you will likely never find the solution to your problem.
>>
>> I helped you with the hidden pref file - I have no obligation to help you
>> here.
>
> Keep it up, Michael!
I will - I enjoy pointing out your ignorance and watching you run from it
like the troll you are.
The bottom line here is you were given a likely solution to your problem of
how to use Bob the Builder the way you want to.
You simply did not understand the explanation, and I, someone who you run
around lying about and saying how much you hate me, am certainly not going
to help you.
I notice you have even stopped asking for help on this issue.
You prefer to troll instead of helping your child.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Now, I couldn't install the game when loged in as my user -
>>>>>>>> which is logical since ha has a limited account, so I switched
>>>>>>>> user to my account and installed the game in C:\Games\Bob the
>>>>>>>> builder\
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Install in your son's account as "admin".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, my three eyar old son should be admin on my computer. Good
>>>>>> solution!
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not what he said. Read it again.
>>>>
>>>> I.e. "Run as..."? That doesn't help. I've already been over that.
<Michaels ignorance of Windows snipped>
:)
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in post
> mr-363403.15...@individual.net on 2/16/05 7:28 AM:
>
> > In article <BE389E98.292E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> Now, I couldn't install the game when loged in as my user - which
> >>>>>>> is logical since ha has a limited account, so I switched user to
> >>>>>>> my account and installed the game in C:\Games\Bob the builder\
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Install in your son's account as "admin".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, my three eyar old son should be admin on my computer. Good
> >>>>> solution!
> >>>>
> >>>> That's not what he said. Read it again.
> >>>
> >>> I.e. "Run as..."? That doesn't help. I've already been over that.
> >>
> >> No, Sandman, that was not the only advice you were given.
> >>
> >> You were given the likely solution.
> >>
> >> You made the choice to ignore it.
> >>
> >> You would rather have your 3 year old run on an Admin account than to stop
> >> trolling, so you will likely never find the solution to your problem.
> >>
> >> I helped you with the hidden pref file - I have no obligation to help you
> >> here.
> >
> > Keep it up, Michael!
>
> I will - I enjoy pointing out your ignorance and watching you run from it
> like the troll you are.
So much for the lie that you confine your trolling to the consolidated
delusion threads.
(circus snipped)
Tim Harbison
[snipped for brevity]
>>I think it's unfair to lay the blame on the OS. The OS is obviously
>>doing its job here. The purpose of restricting non-administrators from
>>making changes to system/program files and critical areas of the
>>registry is just that. To prevent them from doing it.
>
>
> That's not true.
>
> The OS won't allow someone with a user account to run this software.
> Even if it's installed with an admin account, it won't run in a user
> account. That's NOT what the OS is supposed to do.
I think you misunderstand what's going on behind the scenes... It's not
the OS that won't allow the person with a user account to run the
software, it's the software that was written in such a way as to require
write access to restricted areas (e.g. the Windows folder, anything
under the Program Files folder and / or certain areas of the registry.
This can be screwed up on any platform, but happens all the time on
Windows because the programmers are just flat out lazy or ignorant.
There are places that a typical user, even an administrator does not
have write access to in OS X. What you're saying would be like a Mac
program that you expect a normal user account to be able to run that
requires root access.
>
> In OS X, users can install software in their own account without
> damaging anything else. They can run software installed by admin (if
> given permission, of course) without damaging anything else.
>
> THAT is how a proper OS should do it. XP isn't close.
>
>
>>I'll freely admit that MS should adopt the way OS X handles installing
>>software. If the user who's logged in doesn't have the rights necessary
>>to install it, then prompt for credentials that do at install time
>>rather than forcing the user to log out, log in as an admin and either
>>install it from there or promote the user, temporarily or otherwise, so
>>that they can install it.
>>
>>Windows has handled this the same way since the introduction of Win2K
>>and do some degree, since NT4. The blame has to be placed on the
>>software company who wrote an application supposedly designed for a
>>(supposedly) secure multiuser OS that can't deal with the security.
>
>
> Sorry, when the OS won't allow the user to install software or allow the
> user to run software that admin gave him permission for, that's an OS
> problem, not an application problem.
>
I don't want my users installing software. If they can we have a huge
licensing problem on our hands. They may not like it, but if they need
it to do their job, they can cost justify it and IT will purchase it and
install it for them. If they want to play games and such, they can use
a machine that they own. The company issued machine is for company
business.
>
>>I support over 500 Windows machines every day (one of the reasons I know
>>love coming home to my Mac) and if users were able to bypass this
>>restriction, I'd go mad.
>
>
> That's silly. If it were done properly, users would be able to run the
> software you want them to run - without driving anyone mad.
They can run the software I want them to run. And they _can not_ run
software that's not approved and licensed by the company. That's the
way it should and does work.
TravelinMan
Tim Harbison <coldw...@nospam.ameritech.net> wrote:
> I think you misunderstand what's going on behind the scenes... It's not
> the OS that won't allow the person with a user account to run the
> software, it's the software that was written in such a way as to require
> write access to restricted areas (e.g. the Windows folder, anything
> under the Program Files folder and / or certain areas of the registry.
> This can be screwed up on any platform, but happens all the time on
> Windows because the programmers are just flat out lazy or ignorant.
> There are places that a typical user, even an administrator does not
> have write access to in OS X. What you're saying would be like a Mac
> program that you expect a normal user account to be able to run that
> requires root access.
The point is that this seems to be a common occurrence with Windows -
and just never happens on the Mac.
The average user doesn't care whether it's a bad app or a bad OS - it
makes their computing experience harder.
Tim Harbison
I agree 100% with that. OS X enforces standards on programmers. I've
heard some complaints, but after using both, I have to say that OS X is
much more "right" than Windows.
On one hand, I wish Microsoft would just scrap Windows and do it
right... maybe Longhorn... <sigh> but I doubt it. On the other hand, as
long as this kind of crap happens, I'll have a job.
ed
Tim Harbison <coldw...@nospam.ameritech.net> typed:
> TravelinMan wrote:
>> In article <9hRQd.8396$ng6....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Tim Harbison <coldw...@nospam.ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think you misunderstand what's going on behind the scenes... It's
>>> not the OS that won't allow the person with a user account to run
>>> the software, it's the software that was written in such a way as
>>> to require write access to restricted areas (e.g. the Windows
>>> folder, anything under the Program Files folder and / or certain
>>> areas of the registry. This can be screwed up on any platform, but
>>> happens all the time on Windows because the programmers are just
>>> flat out lazy or ignorant. There are places that a typical user,
>>> even an administrator does not have write access to in OS X. What
>>> you're saying would be like a Mac program that you expect a normal
>>> user account to be able to run that requires root access.
>>
>>
>> The point is that this seems to be a common occurrence with Windows -
>> and just never happens on the Mac.
>>
>> The average user doesn't care whether it's a bad app or a bad OS - it
>> makes their computing experience harder.
>
> I agree 100% with that. OS X enforces standards on programmers.
no, it doesn't. os x programmers in general are better about enforcing
standards upon themselves. programmers are free to screw themselves / users
with bad programming and design decisions just like they are on windows.
Snit
rqXQd.807$OU1...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 2/17/05 12:09 AM:
>> I agree 100% with that. OS X enforces standards on programmers.
>
> no, it doesn't. os x programmers in general are better about enforcing
> standards upon themselves. programmers are free to screw themselves / users
> with bad programming and design decisions just like they are on windows.
There are a few possibilities:
Apple may enforce / encourage standards better than Windows, through
either technical or other means
People who program for Mac may just be better at upholding the standards
and making better software.
Either way, seems it is clear the experience of using a Mac is better than
the experience of using Windows - for at least most people. Gamers and some
others might have reason disagree.
TravelinMan
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
No, OS X has a better defined structure that makes writing well-behaved
applications easier.
But, again, it's a moot point. If the user wants a good experience, OS X
is better in this regard than Windows. It doesn't matter whether it's a
bad app or a bad OS. The experience on OS X is better.
Snit
> In article <BE3992EC.30E6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Either way, seems it is clear the experience of using a Mac is better than
>> the experience of using Windows - for at least most people.
>
> Except that "most people" use Windows, not Macs, so your statement makes
> no sense.
When you snip away the context and pretend my statement means something else
very different from what it clearly means, perhaps you have a point. Not
sure why you would want to play such a game though.
Here is the context of the statement:
----------
> no, it doesn't. os x programmers in general are better about enforcing
> standards upon themselves. programmers are free to screw themselves / users
> with bad programming and design decisions just like they are on windows.
There are a few possibilities:
Apple may enforce / encourage standards better than Windows, through
either technical or other means
People who program for Mac may just be better at upholding the standards
and making better software.
Either way, seems it is clear the experience of using a Mac is better than
the experience of using Windows - for at least most people. Gamers and some
others might have reason disagree.
----------
> Unless you are going by the "experiences" of people posting here - which
> is hardly an unbiased population! For an equally unbiased view, check
> out a Linux group or a Windows group for "experiences" running a Mac!
My comments, clearly, were in response to and based on the comments I was
responding to!
ed
TravelinMan <tr...@hotmail.com> typed:
i disagree. would you care to point out specifics of the "better defined
structure" in os x that makes it easier to write programs that do not
require access to restricted areas?
> But, again, it's a moot point. If the user wants a good experience,
> OS X
> is better in this regard than Windows. It doesn't matter whether it's
> a
> bad app or a bad OS. The experience on OS X is better.
i disagree, but each person has their own opinion.
Snit
>>> no, it doesn't. os x programmers in general are better about
>>> enforcing standards upon themselves. programmers are free to screw
>>> themselves / users with bad programming and design decisions just
>>> like they are on windows.
>>
>> No, OS X has a better defined structure that makes writing
>> well-behaved applications easier.
>
> i disagree. would you care to point out specifics of the "better defined
> structure" in os x that makes it easier to write programs that do not
> require access to restricted areas?
What do you think it is about OS X programmers that makes them better at
"enforcing standards upon themselves"? It seems more likely that it is the
system and not a bunch of different people with no connection other than the
OS they code on.
>
>> But, again, it's a moot point. If the user wants a good experience, OS X is
>> better in this regard than Windows. It doesn't matter whether it's a bad app
>> or a bad OS. The experience on OS X is better.
>
> i disagree, but each person has their own opinion.
Above you state that you believe OS X programmers live to better
standards... does this not make the user experience better?
TravelinMan
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Sure. If you use all the defaults in Cocoa, it will not require access
to any restricted area. In fact, you'd have to go well out of your way
to make it do that.
Another way to look at it is that the most common Mac apps are
self-contained. You simply drag the app to the hard disk. In that case,
the app goes whereever you have permission to put it - and doesn't
require any access to secure areas. That kind of installation is almost
unheard of in Windows.
Most of the common Windows compilers don't care where you try to put
stuff.
>
> > But, again, it's a moot point. If the user wants a good experience,
> > OS X
> > is better in this regard than Windows. It doesn't matter whether it's
> > a
> > bad app or a bad OS. The experience on OS X is better.
>
> i disagree, but each person has their own opinion.
You already admitted that there are far more Windows apps that have this
user installation problem than Mac apps. Why are you changing your mind
and disagreeing now?
ed
not so sure. see below.
> If you use all the defaults in Cocoa, it will not require access
> to any restricted area. In fact, you'd have to go well out of your way
> to make it do that.
and likewise, if you used the defaults in whatever programming enviroment in
windows you're using, you'd also not require access to any restricted area,
and would have to go well out of your way to make it require such.
> Another way to look at it is that the most common Mac apps are
> self-contained.
>
> You simply drag the app to the hard disk. In that
> case, the app goes whereever you have permission to put it - and
> doesn't
> require any access to secure areas. That kind of installation is
> almost unheard of in Windows.
due to programming decisions to take advantage of features available on
windows but not on macs. it's trivial to make a stand alone program on
windows.
> Most of the common Windows compilers don't care where you try to put
> stuff.
umm, the *compilers* in os x cares where you try to put stuff?
>>> But, again, it's a moot point. If the user wants a good experience,
>>> OS X
>>> is better in this regard than Windows. It doesn't matter whether
>>> it's a
>>> bad app or a bad OS. The experience on OS X is better.
>>
>> i disagree, but each person has their own opinion.
>
> You already admitted that there are far more Windows apps that have
> this user installation problem than Mac apps.
there are far more windows programs.
> Why are you changing
> your mind and disagreeing now?
i'm not. you're extrapolating an argument that's simply not there.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mike" <a...@def.ghi> wrote in post
> abc-5E71A7.1...@28-72.newscene.com on 2/17/05 1:32 PM:
>
> > In article <BE3992EC.30E6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Either way, seems it is clear the experience of using a Mac is better than
> >> the experience of using Windows - for at least most people.
> >
> > Except that "most people" use Windows, not Macs, so your statement makes
> > no sense.
>
> When you snip away the context and pretend my statement means something else
> very different from what it clearly means, perhaps you have a point. Not
> sure why you would want to play such a game though.
>
As a troll, that's what you do ALL THE TIME, and now you bitch when
somebody does it to you? Poor widdle snit, got your pants all in a knot.
--
Tim
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-CA2DFF.07...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/18/05
5:51 AM:
Your support, of course, will be in your next post... you just forgot it in
this one.... right?
Oh wait... you are just a lying sack of doggy doo, posting flames about me
to try to make yourself feel just a wee bit better about yourself.
Is it working? Do your flames against others make you feel better about
yourself?
Snit
> In article <BE3A5BFA.3217%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Here is the context of the statement:
>>
>> ----------
>>> no, it doesn't. os x programmers in general are better about enforcing
>>> standards upon themselves. programmers are free to screw themselves / users
>>> with bad programming and design decisions just like they are on windows.
>>
>> There are a few possibilities:
>>
>> Apple may enforce / encourage standards better than Windows, through
>> either technical or other means
>>
>> People who program for Mac may just be better at upholding the standards
>> and making better software.
>>
>> Either way, seems it is clear the experience of using a Mac is better than
>> the experience of using Windows - for at least most people. Gamers and some
>> others might have reason disagree.
>
> Whatever you think the "context" was, the fact remains that "most"
> people don't use Macs. Get over it.
You are pretending that your comment was ever in question. It was not.
I was in response to Ed, who was commenting about the better programming
practices seen on OS X in comparison to XP. If Ed is right, and I have no
reason to doubt him, then people who use a Mac likely have, on average, a
better experience than people who use XP.
You can pretend that I meant something else and argue against your straw man
all day.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-CA2DFF.07...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/18/05
> 5:51 AM:
>
> > In article <BE3A5BFA.3217%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Mike" <a...@def.ghi> wrote in post
> >> abc-5E71A7.1...@28-72.newscene.com on 2/17/05 1:32 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BE3992EC.30E6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Either way, seems it is clear the experience of using a Mac is better
> >>>> than
> >>>> the experience of using Windows - for at least most people.
> >>>
> >>> Except that "most people" use Windows, not Macs, so your statement makes
> >>> no sense.
> >>
> >> When you snip away the context and pretend my statement means something
> >> else
> >> very different from what it clearly means, perhaps you have a point. Not
> >> sure why you would want to play such a game though.
> >>
> > As a troll, that's what you do ALL THE TIME, and now you bitch when
> > somebody does it to you? Poor widdle snit, got your pants all in a knot.
>
> Your support, of course, will be in your next post... you just forgot it in
> this one.... right?
Shall we start with the 'quote' you attributed to me a week ago? One I
never wrote? You remember right? You ran away when I accused you of
making it up and the way you disappeared from the thread proved you had
indeed made it up.
>
> Oh wait... you are just a lying sack of doggy doo, posting flames about me
> to try to make yourself feel just a wee bit better about yourself.
>
> Is it working? Do your flames against others make you feel better about
> yourself?
--
Tim
Snit
3:10 PM:
>>>>>> Either way, seems it is clear the experience of using a Mac is better
>>>>>> than the experience of using Windows - for at least most people.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Except that "most people" use Windows, not Macs, so your statement makes
>>>>> no sense.
>>>>>
>>>> When you snip away the context and pretend my statement means something
>>>> else very different from what it clearly means, perhaps you have a point.
>>>> Not sure why you would want to play such a game though.
>>>>
>>> As a troll, that's what you do ALL THE TIME, and now you bitch when somebody
>>> does it to you? Poor widdle snit, got your pants all in a knot.
>>>
>> Your support, of course, will be in your next post... you just forgot it in
>> this one.... right?
>>
> Shall we start with the 'quote' you attributed to me a week ago? One I
> never wrote? You remember right? You ran away when I accused you of
> making it up and the way you disappeared from the thread proved you had
> indeed made it up.
What quote? Perhaps you mean:
"I'm a troll that pisses off many CSMA regulars"
Which you did in deed author:
I will grant that when I quote you I do not always mention that fact that
you were dishonestly trying to attribute such ideas to others...
If you mean some other quote you will have to actually reference what it is
you are talking about instead of hinting at some alleged wrong I have
committed.
>> Oh wait... you are just a lying sack of doggy doo, posting flames about me
>> to try to make yourself feel just a wee bit better about yourself.
>>
>> Is it working? Do your flames against others make you feel better about
>> yourself?
No answer? It is not rhetorical:
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-CA2DFF.07...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 2/18/05
> 5:51 AM:
>
> > In article <BE3A5BFA.3217%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Mike" <a...@def.ghi> wrote in post
> >> abc-5E71A7.1...@28-72.newscene.com on 2/17/05 1:32 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BE3992EC.30E6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Either way, seems it is clear the experience of using a Mac is better
> >>>> than
> >>>> the experience of using Windows - for at least most people.
> >>>
> >>> Except that "most people" use Windows, not Macs, so your statement makes
> >>> no sense.
> >>
> >> When you snip away the context and pretend my statement means something
> >> else
> >> very different from what it clearly means, perhaps you have a point. Not
> >> sure why you would want to play such a game though.
> >>
> > As a troll, that's what you do ALL THE TIME, and now you bitch when
> > somebody does it to you? Poor widdle snit, got your pants all in a knot.
>
> Your support, of course, will be in your next post... you just forgot it in
> this one.... right?
Why would he need to support something that most here have seen you do
over and over?
(circus snipped)