Quick: Where is the equivalent of the Display control panel in Vista?
Tim Murray
underlines, but I did not see a "Display" item in the control panels. I
figure no problem: Microsoft provides a handy search field in the window
where control panels live. But it turns out it is a problem, because
searching for "display" found nothing. (Yes, I found it, by the way, on my
own.)
In OS X, as you type into the System Preferences search field, the preference
panes start as all dimmed, then as you type more characters, the panes that
might have something to do with your string have a glow around them.
My point? Don't really have one. Just thought I'd rag on MS UI for bit.
ed
news:0001HW.C237380B...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
so what happened in the ms ui as you started typing?
Tim Murray
In this case, nothing.
ed
then i know you're lying- by default, in the control panel display, when you
type in the search field, vista will trim the list of items as you type
(it'll do this both in the default vista view as well as classic view).
Tim Murray
That's why I said, "in this case" -- because it did not know what to do with
the string "display". Besides, it's so easy to verify, why lie?
Sandman
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >>> My point? Don't really have one. Just thought I'd rag on MS UI for bit.
> >>
> >> so what happened in the ms ui as you started typing?
> >
> > In this case, nothing.
>
> then i know you're lying
Why do he have to be lying? That's very Snit of you to make such a
claim. He could be wrong, or doing something wrong, or be mistaken, or
just forgetting to mention something.
Not everything is either true or a lie, you know. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-03E2B3.15...@News.Individual.NET on 4/3/07 6:37 AM:
Please stop trolling me, Sandman. It sorta goes against your claim that you
have me kill filed when you beg for my attention like that.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
ed
> In article <D5kQh.24159$uo3....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > >>> My point? Don't really have one. Just thought I'd rag on MS UI for bit.
> > >>
> > >> so what happened in the ms ui as you started typing?
> > >
> > > In this case, nothing.
> >
> > then i know you're lying
>
> Why do he have to be lying? That's very Snit of you to make such a
> claim. He could be wrong,
um, in what way? like he wasn't really on a vista box or something?
> or doing something wrong,
uh, nope, you just type, which is what he said he did.
> or be mistaken,
nope, it's very clear what happens.
> or
> just forgetting to mention something.
i can't think of anything that would be relevant.
> Not everything is either true or a lie, you know. :)
ok, he could be lying, or there could be some sort of other very
unlikely, convoluted explanation. happy? ;D
ed
> >news:0001HW.C2374243...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> >> On Apr 2, 2007, ed wrote:
> >>>news:0001HW.C237380B...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> >>>> I was playing around with Vista in a CompUSA. My goal was to turn on the
> >>>> menu underlines, but I did not see a "Display" item in the control
> >>>> panels. I figure no problem: Microsoft provides a handy search field in
> >>>> the window where control panels live. But it turns out it is a problem,
> >>>> because searching for "display" found nothing. (Yes, I found it, by the
> >>>> way, on my own.)
>
> >>>> In OS X, as you type into the System Preferences search field, the
> >>>> preference panes start as all dimmed, then as you type more characters,
> >>>> the panes that might have something to do with your string have a glow
> >>>> around them.
>
> >>>> My point? Don't really have one. Just thought I'd rag on MS UI for bit.
>
> >>> so what happened in the ms ui as you started typing?
>
> >> In this case, nothing.
>
> > then i know you're lying- by default, in the control panel display, when you
> > type in the search field, vista will trim the list of items as you type
> > (it'll do this both in the default vista view as well as classic view).
>
> That's why I said, "in this case" -- because it did not know what to do with
> the string "display".
sure it does- it searches for it, and trims the results as you type.
> Besides, it's so easy to verify, why lie?
i don't know, but you've done it before.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3f723a748041471b
Sandman
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > >>> My point? Don't really have one. Just thought I'd rag on MS UI for
> > > >>> bit.
> > > >>
> > > >> so what happened in the ms ui as you started typing?
> > > >
> > > > In this case, nothing.
> > >
> > > then i know you're lying
> >
> > Why do he have to be lying? That's very Snit of you to make such a
> > claim. He could be wrong,
>
> um, in what way? like he wasn't really on a vista box or something?
No, in that nothing happened. Something may have happened, he just
didn't remember it correctly, or he meant to say "nothing relevant
happened", while something actually did happen.
> > or doing something wrong,
>
> uh, nope, you just type, which is what he said he did.
You don't think he can type wrong? He has to be a willful liar?
> > or be mistaken,
>
> nope, it's very clear what happens.
You were there?
> > or just forgetting to mention something.
>
> i can't think of anything that would be relevant.
If he forgot to mention it, that would be pretty relevant.
> > Not everything is either true or a lie, you know. :)
>
> ok, he could be lying, or there could be some sort of other very
> unlikely, convoluted explanation. happy? ;D
No. It's very Snit of you to call someone a liar without having
anything at all to support it other than you conclusion being
different than the other person.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>>>> In this case, nothing.
>>>
>>> then i know you're lying- by default, in the control panel
>>> display, when you type in the search field, vista will trim the
>>> list of items as you type (it'll do this both in the default vista
>>> view as well as classic view).
>>
>> That's why I said, "in this case" -- because it did not know what
>> to do with the string "display".
>
> sure it does- it searches for it, and trims the results as you type.
You failed to point out his supposed lie.
> > Besides, it's so easy to verify, why lie?
>
> i don't know, but you've done it before.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3f723a748041471b
I can't find any lies there. Perhaps you accidentally posted the wrong
link?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > That's why I said, "in this case" -- because it did not know what to do with
> > the string "display".
>
> sure it does- it searches for it, and trims the results as you type.
Unless, of course, a software error occurs. My Vista installation
still claims that I have a file named "Screenshot - Whale" when
searching for "whale" - a file I trashed over a month ago!
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/21d3d092f6b8d
92c?hl=en&>
--
Sandman[.net]
ed
right link- you don't see where he admits to the xp machines crashing
every 5 minutes not being true (after a whole thread defending it)?
ed
> In article <1175632042.575487.115...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> My point? Don't really have one. Just thought I'd rag on MS UI for
> > > > >>> bit.
>
> > > > >> so what happened in the ms ui as you started typing?
>
> > > > > In this case, nothing.
>
> > > > then i know you're lying
>
> > > Why do he have to be lying? That's very Snit of you to make such a
> > > claim. He could be wrong,
>
> > um, in what way? like he wasn't really on a vista box or something?
>
> No, in that nothing happened. Something may have happened, he just
> didn't remember it correctly,
ok, fine, he could have a bad memory. happy?
> or he meant to say "nothing relevant
> happened", while something actually did happen.
in which case, he should have clarified by now.
> > > or doing something wrong,
>
> > uh, nope, you just type, which is what he said he did.
>
> You don't think he can type wrong? He has to be a willful liar?
even if he typed wrong, something would have happened.
> > > or be mistaken,
>
> > nope, it's very clear what happens.
>
> You were there?
i use vista, and it's very clear what happens when you type in the
search box. i don't see how having no search hits- which would result
in the control panel box being CLEARED- can be mistaken for 'nothing'
happening.
> > > or just forgetting to mention something.
>
> > i can't think of anything that would be relevant.
>
> If he forgot to mention it, that would be pretty relevant.
>
> > > Not everything is either true or a lie, you know. :)
>
> > ok, he could be lying, or there could be some sort of other very
> > unlikely, convoluted explanation. happy? ;D
>
> No. It's very Snit of you to call someone a liar without having
> anything at all to support it other than you conclusion being
> different than the other person.
ok, i won't out and out call him a liar- i'll state that given the
scenario presented, a lie is the most likely scenario, but i leave
open the possibility that there could be another explanation. if
that's the case, i eagerly await tim's reponse, and i'm ready with a
quick apology? happy NOW? ;D
Snit
If true then that is clearly a bug in Vista.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Jesus
> >news:0001HW.C2374243...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> >> On Apr 2, 2007, ed wrote:
> >>>news:0001HW.C237380B...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> >>>> I was playing around with Vista in a CompUSA. My goal was to turn on the
> >>>> menu underlines, but I did not see a "Display" item in the control
> >>>> panels. I figure no problem: Microsoft provides a handy search field in
> >>>> the window where control panels live. But it turns out it is a problem,
> >>>> because searching for "display" found nothing. (Yes, I found it, by the
> >>>> way, on my own.)
>
> >>>> In OS X, as you type into the System Preferences search field, the
> >>>> preference panes start as all dimmed, then as you type more characters,
> >>>> the panes that might have something to do with your string have a glow
> >>>> around them.
>
> >>>> My point? Don't really have one. Just thought I'd rag on MS UI for bit.
>
> >>> so what happened in the ms ui as you started typing?
>
> >> In this case, nothing.
>
> > then i know you're lying- by default, in the control panel display, when you
> > type in the search field, vista will trim the list of items as you type
> > (it'll do this both in the default vista view as well as classic view).
>
> That's why I said, "in this case" -- because it did not know what to do with
> the string "display". Besides, it's so easy to verify, why lie?
I just tried it and "Display" comes up with a whole bunch of results.
Perhaps you mistyped?
Snit
1175642403....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com on 4/3/07 4:20 PM:
Just tried it here - and it came up with a bunch of results ... and almost
instantly, even on the low end machine I am using.
Tim Murray
A whole thread? How about one post: "Well, duh! You are so astute! How can
anything get past you? Sheesh, I really didn't think anyone would be so
foolish as to latch on to such an obvious exaggeration to prove a point as
testimony."
Try again.
Tim Murray
Might as well reply to my own post. Yes, it was really Vista. No, when I
typed 'display' into the upper right field nothing happened in the window
where the control panels resided. Or perhaps it was ... hard to see?
I'm pretty careful to post accurate information, so now I have piqued my own
interest. I will have to find a Vista box and do it again.
ed
yup, a whole thread (that you started). see the thread view for that post:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/03f2ae434e4bf95d/3f723a748041471b#3f723a748041471b
Snit
0001HW.C2389EA0...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net on 4/3/07 9:15 PM:
In Classic view it says:
"No items match your search in Classic View. For more detailed
search results click Control Panel Home, and then try your search
again"
There are several oddities/weaknesses here, weaknesses that OS X's control
panel does not share:
1) Changing the way you *view* something should not alter the search
results. That is like having search results be different depending
on if you started the search in icon or list view. Just silly.
2) If they *are* going to be different, the more detailed results
should be tied to the more detailed view... which is the Classic
view. MS got this exactly backwards.
3) If you cannot see the results in one view you should not have
to go to the other view and then "try your search again". Why
not just have it where the search "follows" you from one view
to the next?
So it seems that you may have made an error in not reading the full message,
but MS made a mistake in design that makes such errors likely.
Please let me know if that seems like what happened with your experience.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
ed
news:C2387FB8.7C74B%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
that doesn't sound vaguely like what tim described- he said 'nothing'
happened. when you search in classic view, in addition to the message that
you quoted above, all the control panel icons disappear as you type- that's
hard to miss, and hard to describe as 'nothing' happening!
Snit
JEGQh.2803$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net on 4/3/07 10:24 PM:
By "nothing happened" he could heave meant nothing was found. Poor wording
perhaps, but it seems like the most likely explanation that fits the given
data... some user error on his part but *also* some poor design by MS. I
would agree that a better description on his part would be to have said
"nothing was found" or something like that... I am curious to his response
to my message...
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Sandman
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
No, I see him correctly identifying those five minutes being hyperbole.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > No, in that nothing happened. Something may have happened, he just
> > didn't remember it correctly,
>
> ok, fine, he could have a bad memory.
Good for you. You're less Snit now. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Please stop begging for my attention.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-F11893.10...@News.Individual.NET on 4/4/07 1:55 AM:
>
> > In article <1175635523....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> No, in that nothing happened. Something may have happened, he just
> >>> didn't remember it correctly,
> >>
> >> ok, fine, he could have a bad memory.
> >
> > Good for you. You're less Snit now. :)
> >
> >
> Please stop begging for my attention.
Great 'Mac advocacy' point, Snit... keep up the good work;)
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
ed
> "ed" <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> JEGQh.2803$5e2.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net on 4/3/07 10:24 PM:
ok. how are you going to explain away the exchange where i asked him
"so what happened in the ms ui as you started typing?" and he replied
"In this case, nothing."?
Snit
1175703814....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 9:23 AM:
Let us wait for his response... and until then read what I wrote about
"nothing happened", above.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Sandman
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> ok. how are you going to explain away the exchange where i asked him
> "so what happened in the ms ui as you started typing?" and he replied
> "In this case, nothing."?
And your take on it was that something WAS happening on his computer
and he just lied about that. You just can't come up with a logical
reason for why he would have lied or any actual support for him
actually lying.
That was very Snit of you.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Um, Sandman, Ed was responding to me... and yet you say he was acting like
me when I was clearly not acting as he was...
Oh... you are just begging for my attention.
Again.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Tim Murray
> 34e4bf95d/3f723a748041471b#3f723a748041471b
>
Try again.
Tim Murray
> By "nothing happened" he could heave meant nothing was found. Poor wording
> perhaps, but it seems like the most likely explanation that fits the given
> data... some user error on his part but *also* some poor design by MS. I
> would agree that a better description on his part would be to have said
> "nothing was found" or something like that... I am curious to his response
> to my message...
As soon as I find another Vista machine, I'm doing it again.
Snit
Thanks.
Jesus
Here, try mine. Open up Remote Desktop and log onto 127.0.0.1. The
username is "Me" and the password is "puppies". ;-)
John
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175733850.7...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I thought your standard password was "fuckup"
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ooh, John's getting advanced with his insults! That's at least at the
second-grade level! Impressive! Did John start going to school
recently? Good boy, lap dog!
John
You started the insults jerkoff.
Jesus
...actually, you did by calling me an uneducated fool because you
didn't (still don't?) understand how UAC works.
John
I DO understand UAC a 1000% better then your stupid ass does. You have
never installed anything but a few simple programs so you can get away with
being ignorant. Try installing Visual Studio 2005 fuckwit and see how far
you get with your "knowledge!
Jesus
I asked you what Visual Studio has to do with anything last time you
tried to use that bit of shit to flaunt your supposed superiority and
you never answered me.
You still believe you can double-click the Firefox installer and
install without a UAC prompt, then? I wasn't the only one telling you
you're wrong about this stuff, either... Steve de Mena was also
pointing out how you're incompetent. You seem to think that since you
managed to post stuff in Windows Mail on Vista you're the god of
knowledge for Vista.
John
BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO DAMN FUCKING IGNORANT TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU!!!!!! I
could tell that from your ignorant comments.
> You still believe you can double-click the Firefox installer and
> install without a UAC prompt, then? I wasn't the only one telling you
> you're wrong about this stuff, either... Steve de Mena was also
> pointing out how you're incompetent. You seem to think that since you
> managed to post stuff in Windows Mail on Vista you're the god of
> knowledge for Vista.
>
I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT YOU lying fuckup!!!
Snit
1175733850.7...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 5:44 PM:
Ha! Ha! I just did that and wiped out your machine... and... um... hey...
where did all my icons go?
:)
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Jesus
I'm too ignorant to explain it to myself? Hmm... that doesn't make
too much sense. Did you mean "BECAUSE I AM TOO DAMN FUCKING IGNORANT
TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU!!!!!!"?
> I could tell that from your ignorant comments.
Hmm... how could you tell that you're ignorant from my supposed
ignorant comments? Oh, wait, my comments weren't ignorant, so maybe
you mean my comments and the ease with which I could expose your
bullshit showed that YOU are ignorant?
>
> > You still believe you can double-click the Firefox installer and
> > install without a UAC prompt, then? I wasn't the only one telling you
> > you're wrong about this stuff, either... Steve de Mena was also
> > pointing out how you're incompetent. You seem to think that since you
> > managed to post stuff in Windows Mail on Vista you're the god of
> > knowledge for Vista.
>
> I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT YOU lying fuckup!!!
LOL!
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e55b422c4dac30e0?
Or do you not comprehend what you wrote?
Then, when I once again told you to try installing Firefox on Vista,
you wrote this:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/663a223936e0f956
So first no program will ever ask for elevation, meaning you have to
right-click and say "Run as Administrator", then EVERY program asks
for elevation? Hmm...
John
clicking "allow" on UAC are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!
Full administrative priviledges(as known in XP) are not assigned with UAC
even from an administrators account UNLESS one specifically assigns them to
run. And THAT IS NOT done by selecting Allow in the UAC dialog.
Jesus
>
> > Or do you not comprehend what you wrote?
>
> YOU DID NOT comprehend what I wrote. Full Administrative priviledges and
> clicking "allow" on UAC are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!
> Full administrative priviledges(as known in XP) are not assigned with UAC
> even from an administrators account UNLESS one specifically assigns them to
> run. And THAT IS NOT done by selecting Allow in the UAC dialog.
So you're saying that clicking "Continue" in response to a UAC dialog
will NOT bump the requesting process up to Administrator privileges?
What the fuck do you think the box is for, then? It's very simple.
When logged on with an account that is part of the Administrators
group, you STILL only run with standard privileges unless you
specifically authorize a given task by clicking "Continue" at a UAC
prompt. Regardless, what does that have to do with your unfounded
claim that the Firefox installer is designed to be used by limited
(non-Administrator) users? Oh, right, it's not related you, "lying
fuckup!"
I see you didn't even try to pretend to address my second quote, nor
did you try to address your claims of ignorance regarding Visual
Studio.
John
CLicking on UAC from an administrators account only assigns a LIMITED subset
of administrative priviledges. Programs that are "certified for Vista" are
designed to install with this limited set with no problem. Firefox,
Office 2007 etc. are some of those.
Visual Studio 2005 requires a FULL set of administrative priviledges to
install. To get that full set one must right click on the setup file and
selct "run as adminstrator" from the contectual menu. And that is just
to get the process started. There are plenty of headaches down the line
from that.
Jesus
No.
> Programs that are "certified for Vista" are
> designed to install with this limited set with no problem. Firefox,
> Office 2007 etc. are some of those.
That would imply the installer has to be Vista-aware. Office 2003
isn't Vista-aware and it installs fine. I get a UAC prompt when I
double-click "Setup.exe", the installer gets bumped up to
Administrator, and everything goes fine.
>
> Visual Studio 2005 requires a FULL set of administrative priviledges to
> install. To get that full set one must right click on the setup file and
> selct "run as adminstrator" from the contectual menu. And that is just
> to get the process started. There are plenty of headaches down the line
> from that.
"FULL set of administrative privileges" is crap. A setup file
automatically bumped up to Administrator level by Windows (without
right-clicking and picking "Run as Administrator... only clicking
"Continue" when Vista automatically tries to elevate the installer)
has FULL access to the machine. It could hose your machine in an
instant if it wanted to. (If you want proof of that, go and download
AOL 9.0.) What do you think this supposed "limited" set of
administrative privileges for elevated processes is?
John
Wrong it gets bumped up to LIMITED adminstrator. Try installing Office
2000!
Microsoft lists office 2003 as being Vista compatible. That means it will
install with a simple click of UAC.
>>
>> Visual Studio 2005 requires a FULL set of administrative priviledges to
>> install. To get that full set one must right click on the setup file
>> and
>> selct "run as adminstrator" from the contectual menu. And that is
>> just
>> to get the process started. There are plenty of headaches down the line
>> from that.
>
> "FULL set of administrative privileges" is crap. A setup file
> automatically bumped up to Administrator level by Windows (without
> right-clicking and picking "Run as Administrator... only clicking
> "Continue" when Vista automatically tries to elevate the installer)
> has FULL access to the machine. It could hose your machine in an
> instant if it wanted to. (If you want proof of that, go and download
> AOL 9.0.) What do you think this supposed "limited" set of
> administrative privileges for elevated processes is?
>
>
Absolotely WRONG!! Try installing Visual Studo 2005 and see
if your "knowledge will let you!!!
Jesus
Too bad for you that I have a copy of O2K sitting around. I put in
the CD and UAC came up. Very simple. Want to give more examples to
prove you have no idea what you're talking about?
> Microsoft lists office 2003 as being Vista compatible. That means it will
> install with a simple click of UAC.
Office 2003 still isn't Vista-aware. It doesn't know UAC exists, so
it's not doing anything special to get itself bumped up. Vista
recognizes it as a setup file and asks to bump up the setup file.
Just like with O2K.
Oh, and by the way, Visual Studio 2005 SP-1 with the Vista
compatibility patch is listed as being Vista-compatible. Oops.
> >> Visual Studio 2005 requires a FULL set of administrative priviledges to
> >> install. To get that full set one must right click on the setup file
> >> and
> >> selct "run as adminstrator" from the contectual menu. And that is
> >> just
> >> to get the process started. There are plenty of headaches down the line
> >> from that.
>
> > "FULL set of administrative privileges" is crap. A setup file
> > automatically bumped up to Administrator level by Windows (without
> > right-clicking and picking "Run as Administrator... only clicking
> > "Continue" when Vista automatically tries to elevate the installer)
> > has FULL access to the machine. It could hose your machine in an
> > instant if it wanted to. (If you want proof of that, go and download
> > AOL 9.0.) What do you think this supposed "limited" set of
> > administrative privileges for elevated processes is?
>
> Absolotely WRONG!! Try installing Visual Studo 2005 and see
> if your "knowledge will let you!!!
If I had a copy I would. I'd probably succeed, too.
It's very simple: clicking "Continue" at a UAC prompt gives the
requesting app FULL ACCESS TO THE MACHINE. There is no semi-
Administrator level offered by UAC. If I were to take your word on
having to right-click the Visual Studio setup file and clicking "Run
as Administrator", that would be because Vista didn't recognize the
setup file as being a setup file requiring elevation. It's very easy
to tell this - if there's a Windows security shield next to the setup
file's icon and Windows asks for permission to continue, Windows
recognized it and the process gets full admin privileges. If the
shield isn't there and you never get asked for permission to continue,
the installer wasn't recognized and you need to right-click it and
pick "Run as Administrator". Had you simply said Visual Studio
required that, I would believe you and would simply assume Vista
didn't recognize the setup file. However, you CONTINUE to contradict
yourself, not answer my questions, and say things that are flat-out
wrong.
So what's this limited Administrator status you seem to believe setup
files get after clicking "Continue"?
Snit
>>> That would imply the installer has to be Vista-aware. Office 2003
>>> isn't Vista-aware and it installs fine. I get a UAC prompt when I
>>> double-click "Setup.exe", the installer gets bumped up to
>>> Administrator, and everything goes fine.
>>
>> Wrong it gets bumped up to LIMITED adminstrator. Try installing Office
>> 2000!
>
> Too bad for you that I have a copy of O2K sitting around. I put in
> the CD and UAC came up. Very simple. Want to give more examples to
> prove you have no idea what you're talking about?
Is it possible that the two of you are just experiencing different things?
I know I am no longer getting the UAC dialogs I was just earlier today...
Vista did a scheduled update and now is popping those up far, far less
often.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1175802249.862654.113...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 4/5/07 12:44 PM:
No, John just doesn't understand how UAC works in general. He keeps
insisting that some UAC boxes elevate programs to "limited
Administrator" status, a status which doesn't exist. He's claimed
some more stuff, but I'll let you read the past posts instead of re-
listing all of them.
Snit
> On Apr 5, 4:06 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> 1175802249.862654.113...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 4/5/07 12:44 PM:
>>
>>>>> That would imply the installer has to be Vista-aware. Office 2003
>>>>> isn't Vista-aware and it installs fine. I get a UAC prompt when I
>>>>> double-click "Setup.exe", the installer gets bumped up to
>>>>> Administrator, and everything goes fine.
>>
>>>> Wrong it gets bumped up to LIMITED adminstrator. Try installing Office
>>>> 2000!
>>
>>> Too bad for you that I have a copy of O2K sitting around. I put in
>>> the CD and UAC came up. Very simple. Want to give more examples to
>>> prove you have no idea what you're talking about?
>>
>> Is it possible that the two of you are just experiencing different things?
>> I know I am no longer getting the UAC dialogs I was just earlier today...
>> Vista did a scheduled update and now is popping those up far, far less
>> often.
>
> No, John just doesn't understand how UAC works in general. He keeps
> insisting that some UAC boxes elevate programs to "limited
> Administrator" status, a status which doesn't exist. He's claimed
> some more stuff, but I'll let you read the past posts instead of re-
> listing all of them.
I admit I have not looked enough into UAC to see how it works or what it
does or does not do... so I am going to just bow out of the debate. :)
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
John
Try installing a couple of hundred more apps. Non-Microsft!!
Try researching at the Micrtosft site THE METHOD foir installing VS 2005!!
> If I had a copy I would. I'd probably succeed, too.
>
> It's very simple: clicking "Continue" at a UAC prompt gives the
> requesting app FULL ACCESS TO THE MACHINE. There is no semi-
> Administrator level offered by UAC. If I were to take your word on
> having to right-click the Visual Studio setup file and clicking "Run
> as Administrator", that would be because Vista didn't recognize the
> setup file as being a setup file requiring elevation. It's very easy
> to tell this - if there's a Windows security shield next to the setup
> file's icon and Windows asks for permission to continue, Windows
> recognized it and the process gets full admin privileges. If the
> shield isn't there and you never get asked for permission to continue,
> the installer wasn't recognized and you need to right-click it and
> pick "Run as Administrator". Had you simply said Visual Studio
> required that, I would believe you and would simply assume Vista
> didn't recognize the setup file. However, you CONTINUE to contradict
> yourself, not answer my questions, and say things that are flat-out
> wrong.
>
> So what's this limited Administrator status you seem to believe setup
> files get after clicking "Continue"?
>
How many programs have you installed? I have installed OVER 400!
I have explained it to you in simple terms. You have simply shown yourself
to be technically incompetent.
Jesus
That's right, move the goalposts because I called you on making stuff
up about O2K.
Send me a link.
> > If I had a copy I would. I'd probably succeed, too.
>
> > It's very simple: clicking "Continue" at a UAC prompt gives the
> > requesting app FULL ACCESS TO THE MACHINE. There is no semi-
> > Administrator level offered by UAC. If I were to take your word on
> > having to right-click the Visual Studio setup file and clicking "Run
> > as Administrator", that would be because Vista didn't recognize the
> > setup file as being a setup file requiring elevation. It's very easy
> > to tell this - if there's a Windows security shield next to the setup
> > file's icon and Windows asks for permission to continue, Windows
> > recognized it and the process gets full admin privileges. If the
> > shield isn't there and you never get asked for permission to continue,
> > the installer wasn't recognized and you need to right-click it and
> > pick "Run as Administrator". Had you simply said Visual Studio
> > required that, I would believe you and would simply assume Vista
> > didn't recognize the setup file. However, you CONTINUE to contradict
> > yourself, not answer my questions, and say things that are flat-out
> > wrong.
>
> > So what's this limited Administrator status you seem to believe setup
> > files get after clicking "Continue"?
>
> How many programs have you installed? I have installed OVER 400!
On Vista? Sure you have. I bet you use each of them every day, too.
How about giving me this list of over 400 apps?
>
> I have explained it to you in simple terms. You have simply shown yourself
> to be technically incompetent.
Still can't explain this supposed "limited Administrator" elevation
status? Why's that? Oh, right... because it doesn't exist.
John
ave explained it to you in simple terms. You have simply shown yourself
>> to be technically incompetent.
>
> Still can't explain this supposed "limited Administrator" elevation
> status? Why's that? Oh, right... because it doesn't exist.
>
\
I already did. I don't recall what term Microsoft uses for it but you
should be able to find it in an administrators guide.
John
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:UIidnVBReoRr-ojb...@netlojix.com...
GOSH fucking Windows Mail screws up just like Outlook did!!!
Jesus
*snip*
>
> >>> > So what's this limited Administrator status you seem to believe setup
> >>> > files get after clicking "Continue"?
>
> >>> How many programs have you installed? I have installed OVER 400!
>
> >> On Vista? Sure you have. I bet you use each of them every day, too.
> >> How about giving me this list of over 400 apps?
>
> > Not for a dimwit like you!!
...right.
>
> > ave explained it to you in simple terms. You have simply shown yourself
> >>> to be technically incompetent.
>
> >> Still can't explain this supposed "limited Administrator" elevation
> >> status? Why's that? Oh, right... because it doesn't exist.
>
> > \
>
> > I already did. I don't recall what term Microsoft uses for it but you
> > should be able to find it in an administrators guide.
Sure you did. That must be why you can point me to the post where you
explained how this supposed "limited Administrator" status works along
with what rights are granted with it.
>
> GOSH fucking Windows Mail screws up just like Outlook did!!!
GOSH fucking John screws up just like he always has!!!
John
Actually my only screwup was expecting Windows Mail to work!!! I wasn't
aware you had to use some special procedure THAT NO OTHER news software
requires. I thought all I had to do was hit Reply to Group, type message,
and hit send.
What precisly am I doing wrong hotshot? What is my method for "screwing
up" Windows Mail?
Jesus
I meant you screw up in general. Why didn't you address any of the
other stuff I wrote in that post?
John
I can't discuss anything technical with someone WHO WON'T READ THE FUCKING
MANUAL!!!!!!
Jesus
LOL! I should've used that on you a long time ago.
Point me to documentation that supports your argument.
John
LOL!!! You can't get ahold of an administrators guide!!!
Jesus
An administrator's guide? You're telling me Microsoft didn't publish
ANY information about "limited Administrator" status online? And it
really exists? Sure.
Also, I know there is no exclusive book called "Administrator's
Guide". What book are you claiming to have? Exact title. Or won't
you give that because specific information would allow me to call you
on BS more easily?
John
You're too dumb to look up what books Microsoft puts out for Vista!!! I
know they have a pocket administrators guide. I saw it at Borders the
other day . LOL!!!
Jesus
There is no book titled simply "Administrator's Guide". Also, if you
just saw it at Borders and don't actually have it, you haven't
actually read it and you're just blowing smoke.
Point me to documentation on the Internet that supports your case.
John
Here's the title:
Windows Vista - Administrators Pocket Consultant by William R. Stanek
Microsoft Press
Jesus
Here, I'll start:
Read that, fool. Especially read "Installer Detection Technology".
Note how anything that gets elevated gets the Administrator token,
meaning that process gets full access to the machine.
John
And your position is that the all of the same permissions are elevated as
would be for a Win 2000 or Win XP installation from an administrators
account?
I think you need to do a couple of hundred installations or so!!!
LOL!!!!
Jesus
>
> > Read that, fool. Especially read "Installer Detection Technology".
> > Note how anything that gets elevated gets the Administrator token,
> > meaning that process gets full access to the machine.
>
> And your position is that the all of the same permissions are elevated as
> would be for a Win 2000 or Win XP installation from an administrators
> account?
>
> I think you need to do a couple of hundred installations or so!!!
> LOL!!!!
So you're saying the Microsoft TechNet article is wrong?
John
Not at all. It just doesn't go into the level of detail required for this
discussion.
You didn't answer my question. Is it your position that when running an
install from a Vista administrators account are granted the same default
permissions that you had when using a Win XP administrators account for
example?
Jesus
Bullshit. The crap you're trying to spread would be a FUNDAMENTAL
part of UAC. It's not there because it doesn't exist. That page is
meant for IT administrators. Maybe that's why you don't understand
anything in it.
> You didn't answer my question. Is it your position that when running an
> install from a Vista administrators account are granted the same default
> permissions that you had when using a Win XP administrators account for
> example?
No. Processes are launched with standard permissions unless they get
elevated to full administrator status by UAC. That's what I've been
trying to tell you, but you keep coming up with crap about setup files
getting ELEVATED to "limited Administrator", a level which does not
exist.
John
You DID NOT answer the question. Still trying to run. It just isn't
worth the time to try and talk FACTS to someone sooo stupid!!
Jesus
Actually, I did answer the question. You must not have enough of a
brain to understand that.
John
So you answered "No"? Well you are soooo stupid as you don't see the
answer CONFLICTS with your MISTAKEN description of how UAC works.
You are soooo stupid as it is just not worth wasting more time on the
subject UNTIL YOU READ THE FUCKING MANUAL!!!!!
Jesus
Not really. I just restated what I was saying earlier. The installer
will get full administrative rights when the user grants them through
UAC. Assuming Windows recognizes the installer as an installer, Vista
will automatically prompt for permission to elevate the process. How
does that contradict anything I've said?
John
You really don't see it do you? LOL!!!!!
John
http://helpdesk.its.uiowa.edu/vista/compatibility/software/runas.htm
Jesus
OK. My point still stands, though - if Windows recognizes the setup
file as a setup file, that's not necessary. If Windows put the
security shield next to the icon, it's been detected and it will
automatically ask for elevation. It's all laid out in that Microsoft
TechNet page I linked to. Why is this obvious fact so difficult for
you to understand? Also, that says nothing to support your absurd
"limited Administrator" mode that you claim automatic elevation
provides.
John
If Vista was really running ALWAYS with FULL Admin as you say it is why
did I have to right click and use the procedure from the posted link for
about 40 of the programs I installed?? THATS 40 programs that were not
provided high enough priviledge(multiple read/write errors) from an
administrators account AFTER clicking on UAC!!! Obviously there was no
FULL adminstrator priviledge until the posted procedure was used!!
Jesus
> >>http://helpdesk.its.uiowa.edu/vista/compatibility/software/runas.htm
>
> > OK. My point still stands, though - if Windows recognizes the setup
> > file as a setup file, that's not necessary. If Windows put the
> > security shield next to the icon, it's been detected and it will
> > automatically ask for elevation. It's all laid out in that Microsoft
> > TechNet page I linked to. Why is this obvious fact so difficult for
> > you to understand? Also, that says nothing to support your absurd
> > "limited Administrator" mode that you claim automatic elevation
> > provides.
>
> If Vista was really running ALWAYS with FULL Admin as you say it is
I never said always. You get full admin privileges for specific
processes when you click "Continue" at a UAC prompt. The only way
everything always runs with admin privileges is if UAC is disabled.
> why did I have to right click and use the procedure from the posted link for
> about 40 of the programs I installed??
Vista must not have recognized the installer as needing elevation
automatically. Name one of these programs, please.
> THATS 40 programs that were not
> provided high enough priviledge(multiple read/write errors) from an
> administrators account AFTER clicking on UAC!!!
No. If you clicked "Continue" for UAC, that process got full admin
privileges. Anything that was failing was because you DIDN'T get a
UAC prompt.
> Obviously there was no
> FULL adminstrator priviledge until the posted procedure was used!!
Obviously you never got a UAC prompt. Again, there is NO SUCH THING
as "limited Administrator". You have yet to point to ANYTHING that
backs up the existence of such a state after clicking "Continue" at a
UAC prompt.
John
I got the UAC prompt , clicked on it and attempted to install OVER 40
FUCKING TIMES. Until I used the procedure in the link TOTALLY UNSUCCESSFUL
installation.
Sandman
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > No. Processes are launched with standard permissions unless they get
> > elevated to full administrator status by UAC. That's what I've been
> > trying to tell you, but you keep coming up with crap about setup files
> > getting ELEVATED to "limited Administrator", a level which does not
> > exist.
>
> You DID NOT answer the question. Still trying to run. It just isn't
> worth the time to try and talk FACTS to someone sooo stupid!!
This is cute. John thinks he has the capacity to report facts. :-D
*plonk again* Stop changing your alias, troll.
--
Sandman[.net]
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You're either lying or you're retarded. Or both.
John is now going to provide his list of 400 apps that don't install
properly on Vista:
Jesus
> In article <aOGdnddHVYrqAIjbnZ2dnUVZ_sSmn...@netlojix.com>,
Tee-hee... I know, very cute.
John
I said 40 did not install(not 400) without special procedure out of 400.
Thats 10%.
I see your upset because you were proven wrong!
Jesus
LOL! No, I wasn't. You were proven wrong by that TechNet article.
You're just too stupid to realize it.
You actually didn't say 40 didn't install (that I can remember... feel
free to prove me wrong). In your second-to-last post you said you
tried to install the same program 40 times and it failed each time,
indicating you're a moron. However, you have said you've installed
over 400 programs on Vista. Please list them, being sure to mark
which ones failed.
John
WRONG!! You consistently show your inability to grasp the most simple of
concepts. I stated clearly that 40 different programs (10%) of the 400
separate program installations didn't install without multiple read/write
errors. So I had to use the method stated in the link.
With your obvious lack of comprehension of simple concepts it is no wonder
you were proven wrong.
Jesus
...except I wasn't proven wrong. And you didn't say that until AFTER
my comment.
"I got the UAC prompt , clicked on it and attempted to install OVER 40
FUCKING TIMES." --John
That means the same program with the same error. 40 times. You
fucked-up moron. No wonder you have no idea what the fuck you're
talking about.
JOHN'S LIST OF VISTA-INCOMPATIBLE SETUP ROUTINES:
(to be filled in by John)
John
No need to waste a long time filling in the Apps. The LOW LOW IQ Jesus is
too stupid to comprehend it.
Tough to be proven sooo wrong isn't it ye one of low IQ?
Jesus
I'm too stupid to read a list of programs? More like you're BSing
don't have a list to provide.
Oh, and the more times you say you're right, the more reality will
change to suit you. :-P
John
Tough to be proven so wrong isn't it ye of low IQ?
Tim Murray
>> You actually didn't say 40 didn't install (that I can remember... feel
>> free to prove me wrong). In your second-to-last post you said you
>> tried to install the same program 40 times and it failed each time,
>> indicating you're a moron. However, you have said you've installed
>> over 400 programs on Vista. Please list them, being sure to mark
>> which ones failed.
>>
>
>
> WRONG!! You consistently show your inability to grasp the most simple of
> concepts. I stated clearly that 40 different programs (10%) of the 400
> separate program installations didn't install without multiple read/write
> errors. So I had to use the method stated in the link.
>
>
> With your obvious lack of comprehension of simple concepts it is no wonder
> you were proven wrong.
As long as your day job is not tech writing, keep it. You did not state
anything clearly; it sounded like the same program 40 times.