How to share ATI AIW settings with multiple users?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

wdsnews

unread,
Aug 30, 2003, 8:24:52 PM8/30/03
to
Every time a new user logs on to our shared family computer, I have to set
up MMC 8.5 for the All-in-Wonder 9000 all over again. If that was all there
were to it, then ok. I could live with that. But I want to share the TV
recording schedule with all users, which of course includes the "default"
user when no one is logged on.

As it is now, virtually all of our painfully setup TV schedules get missed
because the user, where a schedule got set up, is not logged on when the
show comes on.

The other big problem is with the vcr files. They're huge, and there's no
reason to keep extra copies.

Thanks for your advice.

Tim

unread,
Aug 30, 2003, 8:35:13 PM8/30/03
to
You fail to mention what operating system you are using....

Since you mention the "default" user, as in no user logged in, I assum it's not
Windows NT/2000/XP/2003....

If I am not mistaken, whenever a new user is created by just typing in a
username and password, and storing the password on the system, the default
registry settings are taken FROM the default user. So, try and setup the
Default user's settings first, then try logging in with a new user name.

"wdsnews" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message
news:vl2g1f...@corp.supernews.com...

@diogenese.ca Vance McNeil

unread,
Aug 30, 2003, 9:39:08 PM8/30/03
to
Sounds like it might be XP.

It seems more applications are sensitive to XP's multiple user scheme
allowing every app to be customised per each user's preferences (this is
likely the first step to requiring licenses for each user :)

Try setting the schedule from Admin's login.

"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5pb4b.55059$0u4....@news1.central.cox.net...

Tim

unread,
Aug 30, 2003, 10:09:02 PM8/30/03
to
Someone correct me if I am mistaken....

I am using Windows XP Professional. I am unaware if XP Home is different in this
matter:

You cannot bypass the login process. There is no "Cancel" button like there is
on Windows 95/98/Me to skip logging onto the system. This is the reason XP is
more secure.

So, we must assume he's not using XP..... but Windows 98/Me (surly not 95)

"Vance McNeil" <Vance @diogenese.ca> wrote in message
news:0lc4b.50424$ho5.9...@news2.telusplanet.net...

@diogenese.ca Vance McNeil

unread,
Aug 31, 2003, 4:05:20 PM8/31/03
to
Why must we assume he's not talking about XP?
I recall that when I tried to use MMC from another user's account, I had to
set up the TV all over again.

Different profiles, different settings...


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:2Nc4b.55451$0u4....@news1.central.cox.net...

Andre C

unread,
Aug 31, 2003, 4:12:12 PM8/31/03
to
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:09:02 GMT, "Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>You cannot bypass the login process. There is no "Cancel" button like there is
>on Windows 95/98/Me to skip logging onto the system. This is the reason XP is
>more secure.
>

You can by pass the login screen but only if you are the only account
set up. There is registry tweak though I think tweakui also offers
this.

With regard to XP I don't know if the following would work. When you
boot up for the day, log into the user who has the scehdules. Thus the
computer is geared to record. Then go back to the login screen. Now
any user can log into their own account, whilst the TV account runs in
the background.

Andre

Tim

unread,
Aug 31, 2003, 4:49:34 PM8/31/03
to
> You can by pass the login screen but only if you are the only account
> set up. There is registry tweak though I think tweakui also offers
> this.

That is bypassing the user-interactive login process yes, but you are still
logging in with a USER NAME and/or Password. Those programs just enable
auto-login, which stores your username and/or password and uses that information
to automatically log you on. It still is a login process, and the login process
cannot be bypassed.


> With regard to XP I don't know if the following would work. When you

> boot up for the day, log into the user who has the schedules. Thus the


> computer is geared to record. Then go back to the login screen. Now
> any user can log into their own account, whilst the TV account runs in
> the background.
>

Yea that'd work. But keep in mind, most programs which require access to the
computer hardware don't like to be opened more than once. The second user
logged in could suffer error messages saying this program is already running....
but is simple to press OK and go about your business. Also, if it's not a very
fast computer, having more than one person logged on at a time will degrade
overall system performance.


Tim

unread,
Aug 31, 2003, 4:52:38 PM8/31/03
to
> Why must we assume he's not talking about XP?
> I recall that when I tried to use MMC from another user's account, I had to
> set up the TV all over again.
>
> Different profiles, different settings...


That is already known. What I am trying to argue is you cannot bypass the login
process on XP and login without entering a username &/or password, whether you
type it in or click on a name or whether windows automatically does it for you
(Auto Login, referring to my other post). The original poster mentions not what
his operating system is, but makes references to the default user when you
bypass logging onto the system. Since you cannot bypass logging onto Windows
XP, he cannot be talking about Windows XP.


Tim

unread,
Aug 31, 2003, 4:54:06 PM8/31/03
to
I believe you need to do us the courtesy of responding with additional
information (please check the other posts).

This is something that is really not liked... someone posts a request for help
without providing enough information, and never responds with that required
information. Usually ends to blocking that person from people's systems and you
won't receive help from those people....

"wdsnews" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message
news:vl2g1f...@corp.supernews.com...

JAD

unread,
Aug 31, 2003, 4:59:53 PM8/31/03
to
If he used the word 'guest' it may have been more appropriate I think...but anywho 9x versions of windows share the setting unless
you evoke multiple users. Most people don't do this, but if the OP did , then just turn that off.

If in fact your using XP/2000 there are administration controls that allow you to share desktop settings with other users.

Alt.windows-xp


"Vance McNeil" <Vance @diogenese.ca> wrote in message news:4ys4b.55895$ho5.9...@news2.telusplanet.net...

Andre C

unread,
Sep 1, 2003, 4:55:35 AM9/1/03
to
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:49:34 GMT, "Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>> With regard to XP I don't know if the following would work. When you
>> boot up for the day, log into the user who has the schedules. Thus the
>> computer is geared to record. Then go back to the login screen. Now
>> any user can log into their own account, whilst the TV account runs in
>> the background.
>>
>
>Yea that'd work. But keep in mind, most programs which require access to the
>computer hardware don't like to be opened more than once. The second user
>logged in could suffer error messages saying this program is already running....
>but is simple to press OK and go about your business. Also, if it's not a very
>fast computer, having more than one person logged on at a time will degrade
>overall system performance.
>

I agree. That is the problem of trying to create an all purpose
multimedia device. Maybe if MMC is disabled in all the other accounts
except the TV one that would avoid conflict. This assumes that people
are not wanting to watch it on the computer of course. Far from ideal.

Maybe there is a registry hack which will allow pointing to the same
schedule whatever user. after all you can have "shared documents"
folder ect. ATI ought to think about that if and when they ditch
gemstar.

Andre

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 3, 2003, 12:22:08 PM9/3/03
to
Thanks for your attention. We're using WinXP Pro on a Domain network. It
create's a profile for each user. There is also an "All Users" profile and
a "Default" profile. But when nobody is logged on, the Default profile info
is used.

"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5pb4b.55059$0u4....@news1.central.cox.net...

Tim

unread,
Sep 3, 2003, 8:53:09 PM9/3/03
to
Why are you referring to the default user? You cannot bypass login on Windows
XP.... even if you have your PC setup to automatically log you on (which is a
default thing in Windows XP when it's installed)... you're still being logged
on.

You can go in using Registery Editor and edit the registry settings for the
HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT. Setup how you want everything in one profile, export the
HKEY_CURRENT_USER tree to a REG file. Open it up in notepad and replace every
instance of "HKEY_CURRENT_USER" with "HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT". Save it, then
double-click on it and add it to the registery. EVERY registery setting will be
exported into that registry location.

The .DEFAULT under the HKEY_USERS is probably for backward compatibility with
older programs that saved their settings there. But, Windows XP is NT-Based,
and because of that, security of the system requires that a user logs in. You
CANNOT bypass logging in.

You may wish to read the other posts on this thread...


"wdsnews" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message

news:vlc584i...@corp.supernews.com...

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 7, 2003, 6:43:45 PM9/7/03
to
Thanks for your attention.

I tried setting the schedule in the Admin's login, but it didn't work. All
other profiles have their own schedule. What I need is a way to share the
ATI settings in one profile with all the others.


"Vance McNeil" <Vance @diogenese.ca> wrote in message
news:0lc4b.50424$ho5.9...@news2.telusplanet.net...

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 7, 2003, 6:45:06 PM9/7/03
to
That is a good suggestion, but it didn't work. The moment someone logs on,
a new profile and a new set of settings are adopted.


"Andre C" <an...@libraris.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hdl4lvcp8hc0t37bv...@4ax.com...

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 7, 2003, 7:08:17 PM9/7/03
to
> Why are you referring to the default user? ... Windows XP is NT-Based,

> and because of that, security of the system requires that a user logs in.

I appreciate your help, but please consider the possibility of "logging off"
without "shutting down". Or consider simply turning on the PC and letting
it sit without "loggin in". In such a situation, a profile is still in
effect. A screen saver still runs. Schedules are still executed. The main
difference is that the default profile is used instead of an assigned
profile.

The only time someone is "required" to logon is if you want to use the
computer for more than it will do by itself. For example, if I wanted to
access the shared disk or printer of this computer from another computer,
nobody would have to logon at the keyboard of this computer. In another
example, if I wanted to change a schedule, I would have to logon. But if I
simply wanted to record a show I had previously scheduled, I could simply
turn it on and let it sit... assuming it were possible to share the user
settings with the default profile.

BTW, one of the registry keys to search for includes "ATI MMC". I've
successfully set the admin's profile to put "ATI MMC" in a common folder.
The time-shift file seems to be using the new folder. So now I'm wondering
if there is an official document that tells us how to share the MMC settings
with other profiles. Unfortunately, each new experiment seems to wipe-out
my previous settings.

I appreciate your suggestion for exporting and importing HKEY_USERS
settings, but I don't want to share all profile info. I just want to share
settings specific to the MMC 8.5.


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:V1w5b.63335$0u4....@news1.central.cox.net...

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 7, 2003, 7:11:29 PM9/7/03
to
Thanks Tim. I very much appreciate the help here. Thankfully, the weeked
arrived, and I am able to get back to this group. I hope my other posts
filled in the missing info.


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Oft4b.56272$0u4....@news1.central.cox.net...

Tim

unread,
Sep 7, 2003, 9:01:58 PM9/7/03
to
> I appreciate your help, but please consider the possibility of "logging off"
> without "shutting down". Or consider simply turning on the PC and letting
> it sit without "loggin in". In such a situation, a profile is still in
> effect. A screen saver still runs. Schedules are still executed. The main
> difference is that the default profile is used instead of an assigned
> profile.

Agreed, but YOU cannot run software in this state. Only scheduled tasks done
with the Windows Scheduling service (AT) can be run in this mode. You have no
access to Windows Explorer or the Start Menu for anyone.

> The only time someone is "required" to logon is if you want to use the
> computer for more than it will do by itself. For example, if I wanted to
> access the shared disk or printer of this computer from another computer,
> nobody would have to logon at the keyboard of this computer. In another
> example, if I wanted to change a schedule, I would have to logon. But if I
> simply wanted to record a show I had previously scheduled, I could simply
> turn it on and let it sit... assuming it were possible to share the user
> settings with the default profile.

Just "letting it sit" I am assuming you are referring to an auto-logon process
as discussed many many times on this thread. This is still logging on with some
user name...

I think you should do some reading up on Windows NT-Based operating systems. You
obviously do not comprehend what I am trying to tell you, which is doing neither
of us any good at this point in time.

> BTW, one of the registry keys to search for includes "ATI MMC". I've
> successfully set the admin's profile to put "ATI MMC" in a common folder.
> The time-shift file seems to be using the new folder. So now I'm wondering
> if there is an official document that tells us how to share the MMC settings
> with other profiles. Unfortunately, each new experiment seems to wipe-out
> my previous settings.
>
> I appreciate your suggestion for exporting and importing HKEY_USERS
> settings, but I don't want to share all profile info. I just want to share
> settings specific to the MMC 8.5.

Then why not find the keys where the settings are stored and duplicate them
only? Sorry, I can't exactly hold your hand while you do this one....


wdsnews

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 10:04:15 AM9/8/03
to
> Just "letting it sit" I am assuming you are referring to an
> auto-logon process as discussed many many times on this
> thread. This is still logging on with some user name...

No. You're wrong. You can turn on a PC and let it sit. The logon dialogue
will continue to stay on the screen until you logon, or the screen saver or
the stand-by mode takes effect. If you choose not to logon, then nobody is
logged on and the default profile is in effect.

Frankly, it does nobody any good for you to make accusations, assumptions,
and bad suggestions while ignoring the original issue. You've been wrong
from your very first message, and you're still wrong. You're attitude is
insulting and completely unacceptable.

If you were even a little bit correct in your assumptions or your replies
then your arrogance could be understood. But you're so amazingly off-base,
that you make a fool of yourself.

I think you should do some reading up on Windows NT-Based operating systems.
You obviously do not comprehend what I am trying to tell you, which is doing

neither of us any good at this point in time. In other words, quit wasting
my time.


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:ayQ6b.66704$0u4....@news1.central.cox.net...

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 10:20:26 AM9/8/03
to
> Agreed, but YOU cannot run software in this state. Only scheduled tasks
done
> with the Windows Scheduling service (AT) can be run in this mode. You
have no
> access to Windows Explorer or the Start Menu for anyone.

You're wrong about that too. Any program set to auto-start in the default
profile will run when nobody is logged on. Your anti-virus program and any
program you want runs that way.

Read some of these:
http://www.google.com/search?q=copy+user+profile+default+Windows+XP&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

You know, if you were simply wrong I could accept it. If you simply ignored
my original question, I could accept it. If you were simply arrogant, I
could ignore it. But you're all those things and...

...you belittle me, attack my character, and chastise me.

Frankly, arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous combination. It causes
people to send messages like yours.


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:ayQ6b.66704$0u4....@news1.central.cox.net...

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 10:34:05 AM9/8/03
to
> I think you should do some reading up on Windows NT-Based operating
systems. You
> obviously do not comprehend what I am trying to tell you, which is doing
neither
> of us any good at this point in time.

Did you catch that? I used those words or yours against you. Isn't that
funny how your words apply more to your ignorance of default profiles than
they do to me? It's called hypocrisy.

Get it? You're not only arrogant and ignorant, but you're a hypocrite too!
Isn't that funny?

"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:ayQ6b.66704$0u4....@news1.central.cox.net...

JAD

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 12:17:18 PM9/8/03
to
Take it to the alley the thread has reached an all time low


"wdsnews" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message news:vlp4p8h...@corp.supernews.com...

J.Clarke

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 7:54:42 AM9/8/03
to
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:04:15 -0700
"wdsnews" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote:

> > Just "letting it sit" I am assuming you are referring to an
> > auto-logon process as discussed many many times on this
> > thread. This is still logging on with some user name...
>
> No. You're wrong. You can turn on a PC and let it sit.

Yes, you can.

> The logon
> dialogue will continue to stay on the screen until you logon, or the
> screen saver or the stand-by mode takes effect. If you choose not to
> logon, then nobody is logged on and the default profile is in effect.

Nope. Nobody is logged on and _no_ profile is in effect.

> Frankly, it does nobody any good for you to make accusations,
> assumptions, and bad suggestions while ignoring the original issue.
> You've been wrong from your very first message, and you're still
> wrong. You're attitude is insulting and completely unacceptable.
>
> If you were even a little bit correct in your assumptions or your
> replies then your arrogance could be understood. But you're so
> amazingly off-base, that you make a fool of yourself.
>
> I think you should do some reading up on Windows NT-Based operating
> systems. You obviously do not comprehend what I am trying to tell you,
> which is doing neither of us any good at this point in time. In other
> words, quit wasting my time.

Lemme guess--you got an MCSE by taking a cram course?


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J.Clarke

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 7:59:38 AM9/8/03
to
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:20:26 -0700
"wdsnews" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote:

> > Agreed, but YOU cannot run software in this state. Only scheduled
> > tasks
> done
> > with the Windows Scheduling service (AT) can be run in this mode.
> > You
> have no
> > access to Windows Explorer or the Start Menu for anyone.
>
> You're wrong about that too. Any program set to auto-start in the
> default profile will run when nobody is logged on. Your anti-virus
> program and any program you want runs that way.

Nope. This is one of the most common questions asked about
NT/2K/XP--"how do I run a program with no user logged on", and the
answer is that you either run it through the scheduler or use the "run
as service" utility included with the Resource Kit.

The default profile is the one that is used to set up new users--when a
new user is created he will have a copy of the default profile until his
profile is altered. The default profile is not active when there is no
user logged on.

Yea, a lot about user profiles but I don't see anything there that
supports your argument. If there's a particular page you have in mind
perhaps you could provide a link?

> You know, if you were simply wrong I could accept it. If you simply
> ignored my original question, I could accept it. If you were simply
> arrogant, I could ignore it. But you're all those things and...
>
> ...you belittle me, attack my character, and chastise me.
>
> Frankly, arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous combination. It
> causes people to send messages like yours.

You are correct that arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous combination.
So is pot kettle black.

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 12:51:18 PM9/8/03
to
> Yes, you can.

Then we agree. It's possible to turn on PC and let it sit.

> Nope. Nobody is logged on and _no_ profile is in effect.

J., you're wrong. A screen saver is in effect and that info comes from a
profile... the "Default" profile. In fact, all the local user policies are
in effect, and all of them come from the Default profile.

"J.Clarke" <jcl...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:20030908115442....@attglobal.net...

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 2:02:29 PM9/8/03
to
You're so funny. It's not up to me to prove a negative. Since Tim made all
the assertions, the proof is up to him. You could click any one of the
links from my Google search and learn about copying ntuser.dat to the
default profile. But since you and Tim don't know anything about that, it's
quite funny that you're calling me ignorant.

The truth is Tim is wrong from his first message. You are not "required" to
logon.

Most off all, he's the one who is ignorant to start name-calling over such a
silly issue.

"J.Clarke" <jcl...@attglobal.net> wrote in message

news:20030908115938....@attglobal.net...

J.Clarke

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 9:26:28 AM9/8/03
to
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:51:18 -0700
"wdsnews" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote:

> > Yes, you can.
>
> Then we agree. It's possible to turn on PC and let it sit.
>
> > Nope. Nobody is logged on and _no_ profile is in effect.
>
> J., you're wrong. A screen saver is in effect and that info comes
> from a profile... the "Default" profile. In fact, all the local user
> policies are in effect, and all of them come from the Default profile.

You're using "profile" differently from the rest of us.

Now, have you actually tried to start a program with no user logged in
by using the default profile? If so, what program and how do you know
that it ran?

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 2:18:17 PM9/8/03
to
Oh JAD, you're so funny. Your perspective on the "all time low" makes me
laugh.

Let me remind you about my first four messages that I continued to send even
after Tim began making his accusations and insults.

I said:
Thanks for your advice.
--
Thanks for your attention.
--
I appreciate your help
--
I appreciate your suggestion

But after Tim continued with his insults, all the while ignoring my original
question, it became clear what kind of an arrogant, ignorant, hypocrite I
was dealing with.

It seems people like him defend each other.

"JAD" <jdem...@eartink.net> wrote in message
news:iY17b.5885$BG6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

wdsnews

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 2:23:31 PM9/8/03
to
Thank you. That is a good question. I appreciate productive conversations.

> If so, what program and how do you know
> that it ran?

You'll see I gave very clear instructions in another part of this thread.
But to answer your question here, you can tell the virus scanner is running
by its log entries. You can power up & shut down without ever having logged
on.


"J.Clarke" <jcl...@attglobal.net> wrote in message

news:20030908132628....@attglobal.net...

Andre C

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 3:30:45 PM9/8/03
to
Personally this is potentially a very interesting thread as a valuable
question is being asked. Okay so there is some disagreement about
default profiles and running programms outside the login process, but
it does not need a flaming war.

My question is that you refer to ntuser.dat for XP. I cannot find
such a file on my xp set-up. Where is it?

ACC

Andre C

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 3:35:26 PM9/8/03
to
Forget that i found it!!!
ACC

Andre C

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 3:58:57 PM9/8/03
to
I am wondering if you need "loopback" within the group policy setting
of the microsoft MMC? Reading the help file on this sounds hopeful

Alternatively can ATI MMC is run via a startup script?

I really don't know much about this type of thing.

Wayne

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 4:07:52 PM9/8/03
to
> Personally this is potentially a very interesting thread ...

> it does not need a flaming war.

We agree. This is potentially very valuable. As my ATI customer number is
three digits, you can know I have much experience with ATI. I've spent a
good deal of time on the phone with ATI on this specific issue. I'll share
it here when I get a solution.

Please tell Tim and J. how you feel about their attacks. I don't know how
my simple "thank you"s and "I appreciation"s could draw such an attack. It
reminds me of the kind of shameful attack you could expect in a Corel forum.
The Corel folks pretty much alienated their entire support community with
stuff like that, and their market share shows it. It makes me wonder what
ATI and Corel have in common.

BTW, you probably discovered you need to copy ntuser.dat from a different
user profile then you are currently logged on as to copy it to the default
user profile. Or to say it another way, get a profile set up as you want,
and then log on as someone else.


"Andre C" <an...@libraris.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message

news:v0mplv8hnunrlmeta...@4ax.com...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 4:39:28 PM9/8/03
to
That's a good question. Unfortunately, Mircrosoft named their MMC thing the
same as ATI named their MMC thing. Beware, they're two different things.
You can learn much by searching "ATIMMC" in the registry, file system, and
Google.


"Andre C" <an...@libraris.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message

news:urnplv40gmhg22pil...@4ax.com...

Tim

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 9:10:03 PM9/8/03
to
> No. You're wrong. You can turn on a PC and let it sit. The logon dialogue
> will continue to stay on the screen until you logon, or the screen saver or
> the stand-by mode takes effect. If you choose not to logon, then nobody is
> logged on and the default profile is in effect.

But you ignored my message regarding NO PROGRAMS CAN BE INITIATED by anyone,
unless it is a system process which is done automatically. The "Default" is
utterly useless because it CANNOT be "used" in the same manor as if you were
logged on. Once you log on, the system assigns that user specific rights. The
"Default" user has NO rights. It cannot access network drives, it cannot do
anything. Sure, it holds the desktop settings (such as if you have the GUI Logon
interface disabled, you can specify a background behind the login "Ctrl-alt-del
to login" screen, as well as the active screen saver. Hardly anything else is
used at all because you can start no programs at this time to actually use those
settings.

> Frankly, it does nobody any good for you to make accusations, assumptions,
> and bad suggestions while ignoring the original issue. You've been wrong
> from your very first message, and you're still wrong. You're attitude is
> insulting and completely unacceptable.

No, you have been wrong. Where are you getting your information from regarding
how WinNT/XP/2k work?? I, for one, have spent a little over $15,000 to take
classes just affirming the knowledge for which I already possess. Can YOU say
you have worked with NT-based systems for 10 years? Well, I can.

> If you were even a little bit correct in your assumptions or your replies
> then your arrogance could be understood. But you're so amazingly off-base,
> that you make a fool of yourself.

Well, as I read on ahead of some of the posts.... I see you have just made
yourself out to be the fool.

> I think you should do some reading up on Windows NT-Based operating systems.
> You obviously do not comprehend what I am trying to tell you, which is doing
> neither of us any good at this point in time. In other words, quit wasting
> my time.
>

Finally, you understood something.


Tim

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 9:11:50 PM9/8/03
to
>
> > If so, what program and how do you know
> > that it ran?
>
> You'll see I gave very clear instructions in another part of this thread.
> But to answer your question here, you can tell the virus scanner is running
> by its log entries. You can power up & shut down without ever having logged
> on.

But the question was and still is have YOU started a program using this default
profile, as you call it? The statement you just made doesn't answer that
question. Those are system services which don't need someone to be logged in to
run them. They are automatic SERVICES performed by the system. YOU did not push
a button and say "Run the antivirus right now" while you were at the login
screen.


Tim

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 9:15:46 PM9/8/03
to
>
> You're wrong about that too. Any program set to auto-start in the default
> profile will run when nobody is logged on. Your anti-virus program and any
> program you want runs that way.

Again, those are SYSTEM SERVICES. YOU Did not push a button while at the login
screen and tell it to run right then and there..... the system automatically
starts the services when told. Such as Norton Autoprotect. It sets up a system
task which does not require a user to be logged in to execute the scan. But you
yourself did not push a button right there and tell it to scan right then and
there....


> You know, if you were simply wrong I could accept it. If you simply ignored
> my original question, I could accept it. If you were simply arrogant, I
> could ignore it. But you're all those things and...
>
> ...you belittle me, attack my character, and chastise me.
>
> Frankly, arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous combination. It causes
> people to send messages like yours.

I have done nothing but try to help you. As stated in another post by someone
else, your definition and use of the word "profile" is misleading, which has
probably caused lots of confusion among other readers/responders to your
original post. We can only go off of what you give us for information. It is
not our fault when the original poster doesn't have the knowledge regarding what
he/she is posting about. That is confusing and doesn't help anyone at all. I
have tried and tried to explain things, and yet it doesn't get through to you.
I have meant no disrespect, but when you apparently were not getting what facts
were being conveyed to you, that is no fault of mine and sure, I'll get
offensive and defend myself from YOUR accusations.


Tim

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 9:23:57 PM9/8/03
to
> The truth is Tim is wrong from his first message. You are not "required" to
> logon.

Yes you are required to login, if you want to do anything on the system OTHER
than watch the screen saver run. If you want it to just sit there and look
pretty while the screen saver starts, then your statement would be accurate. But
to run programs, access network shares, setup system tasks, administrate the
computer, etc....you MUST log in. That is what I have been trying to say, but
you choose to ignore it.

Tim

unread,
Sep 8, 2003, 9:28:45 PM9/8/03
to
> But after Tim continued with his insults, all the while ignoring my original
> question, it became clear what kind of an arrogant, ignorant, hypocrite I
> was dealing with.
>

No, it was only after facts were being tossed at you right and left and you
chose to ignore them did I say what I did, as you say "stop wasting my time".

Only system services and scheduled events (Like using the AT command) can be run
without no one logged in.

So examples of how things auto-start, such as a scan for viruses... that is a
system task and is setup usually by the antivirus software. Like Norton
AntiVirus has an "auto-protect". Older versions of such software like McAfee
(I'm talking really old) wouldn't load the auto-protect until the "Startup"
folder in the start menu was processed. The system service for "Norton Antivirus
Autoprotect" is started up automatically, and so is run without anyone logging
on. But, again, this is a service, and you didn't push a button right there at
the login screen to have it started for you. The system did it automatically as
a service.


Wayne

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 10:19:08 AM9/9/03
to
Well hi Tim? Are you grown up now? But I see you're still ignoring my
original question and changing the subject again. I see you still haven't
admitted you were wrong. I see you still haven't apologized for attacking
me after I said nice things to you in at least five messages.

Well, little boy, the truth is you are NOT required to log on. I'm right
and you're wrong.

You're wrong because you won't admit it. You're wrong because you're
arrogant. You're wrong because you won't apologize.

neh.


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:qN97b.1022$NW3...@news1.central.cox.net...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 10:25:32 AM9/9/03
to
> Yes you are required to login, if you want to ...

You said "if". Therefore, I'm right and you're wrong. You are not
"required" to log on.

I'll bet you can't even come up with one example of why you would power up
without logging on.

can you?

"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:NY97b.1046$NW3...@news1.central.cox.net...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 10:27:13 AM9/9/03
to
> YOU Did not push a button while at the login
> screen and tell it to run right then and there.....

oh brother. You really are a little boy aren't you?


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:6R97b.1029$NW3...@news1.central.cox.net...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 10:29:10 AM9/9/03
to
And guess what Tim.... all that stuff happened without requiring anyone to
logon. Get it?

Nobody had to logon for that to happen? Listen little boy, you're wasting
my time.

I'm right and you're wrong. Nobody is "required" to log on.


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:h1a7b.1057$NW3...@news1.central.cox.net...

JAD

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 11:09:17 AM9/9/03
to
why don't you two make up a list of things that can be done without fully logging in and things that require logging in, then argue
each and everyone....your both nickpicking words and meanings.....BESIDES THIS IS NOT alt -OS -windows .XP! What I'm not getting
anyway is why not just set up the damn MMC for each user, instead of trying to set up one profile to fit all users.


"Wayne" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message news:vlrorva...@corp.supernews.com...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 11:44:17 AM9/9/03
to
> What I'm not getting anyway is why not just
> set up the damn MMC for each user, instead
> of trying to set up one profile to fit all users.

THAT! is a productive question. Thank you.

There are several problems with the way MMC is set up in each profile.
First, it creates a new time-shift file for each user. Each one is based on
maintaining X amount of free disk space. In other words, one of them can be
a reasonable size and all other users are left without enough disk space to
do useful time-delay viewing. This means you need to logon with
administrator rights to access all profiles, search for *.vcr, and delete
the existing time-delay files to make the feature useful again for other
users.

Otherwise, with only three users, you'll be using 30 to 150GB when only 10
to 50GB could do the same job. With more users, the situation is even
worse.

But even if the sharing problem were solved, all this disk space gets used
on the system partition! So clearly, the goal is to allow us to point the
time-shift file to the one common place where we want all users to use it,
and share it.

Another problem with the way MMC is set up in each profile is that the
recording schedule is maintained for each user. That means if you schedule
a recording, it won't work if you have multiple users. That's because the
"Best Practice" is for each user to log off after using the computer, or let
the server force a log-off after a period of inactivity.

But even if nobody logs off, it won't work because someone else will have
logged on, and be using the computer in the evening, when most of the shows
you want to record are on. With three users, there's only a 33% chance that
the right user will be logged on at the right time. With more users, or
using the log-off best practice, the situation becomes even worse.

There are other problems that seem minor by comparison. For example, if you
prefer a particular "default" recording quality that fits your disk size, it
will surely get set differently in each of the profiles that matter.

The ideal situation would be for the MMC services to be run in the
background by the system, and for all users to share the same MMC settings.
Any user would be free to over-ride defaults when scheduling a recording.
And, yes, any user could potentially mess with another user's settings just
as they could today with printers and other resources that are shared.

In this way, the MMC could record a program while nobody is logged on.
After all, we all know that nobody is "required" to logon. Don't we?


"JAD" <jdem...@eartink.net> wrote in message

news:x2m7b.4512$PE6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

JAD

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 1:13:48 PM9/9/03
to
Holy crap guys how many folks have more than 3 people logging onto the machine, and in a home environment why would you want such
security anyway? Or is this NOT the situation and this is in a commercial environment? Then MMC is not the first choice I would use.
It wasn't actually designed (properly?) to do this, obviously.

"Wayne" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message news:vlrt8rc...@corp.supernews.com...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 1:41:00 PM9/9/03
to
You're funny. So, I'll say the obvious.

The average home has more than 1.01 people living in it. Therefore, if you
use Windows XP and ATI's MMC the way they were designed, ATI's MMC fails.

...oh, unless you're in a commercial environment. Then you've probably
bought Windows XP Professional and a PC for each user. But at home, normal
people use Windows XP Home edition and they expect products such as MMC 8.5
to work.

"JAD" <jdem...@eartink.net> wrote in message

news:gTn7b.5265$Yt....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Andre C

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 3:11:40 PM9/9/03
to
True, but whats the answer re loopback. I am only offering it as a
possible solution. Someone here might know something about this.

Also I suspect ATI MMC cannot be run as a service.

Andre.

J.Clarke

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 4:10:56 PM9/9/03
to
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:41:00 -0700
"Wayne" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote:

> You're funny. So, I'll say the obvious.
>
> The average home has more than 1.01 people living in it. Therefore,
> if you use Windows XP and ATI's MMC the way they were designed, ATI's
> MMC fails.
>
> ...oh, unless you're in a commercial environment. Then you've
> probably bought Windows XP Professional and a PC for each user. But
> at home, normal people use Windows XP Home edition and they expect
> products such as MMC 8.5 to work.

I think you'll find that most home machines have a single account, not a
separate account for each person in the house. Perhaps if enough people
are using multiple accounts then ATI will decide that support for them
is a desirable feature and will provide such support.

Tim

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 10:30:38 PM9/9/03
to
Sure, you keep thinking that.... and be sure to let all your computer gurus know
that to. You just might make their day.

And for the record, I only got quite offensive when you refused to understand
what I was telling you. I take no fault in for your obvious low knowledge
regarding NT-based operating systems.

"Wayne" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message

news:vlro95a...@corp.supernews.com...

Tim

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 10:31:43 PM9/9/03
to
Do YOU want to use the computer or not? If so, you log in. If not, you don't do
anything but sit there and watch it while it only does automated tasks which you
cannot even see being performed except a system standard screen saver.

"Wayne" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message

news:vlrol5k...@corp.supernews.com...

Tim

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 10:32:01 PM9/9/03
to
> > YOU Did not push a button while at the login
> > screen and tell it to run right then and there.....
>
> oh brother. You really are a little boy aren't you?

Ha no, but I'm wondering if you are really Wanette......


Tim

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 10:39:53 PM9/9/03
to
> And guess what Tim.... all that stuff happened without requiring anyone to
> logon. Get it?

Yes, the system initiated the event. YOU did not. That is my point which you
fail to comprehend.

If you wanted to setup a system task, you logon with administrative privelges.
You go to All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, and then Scheduled Tasks. You
setup a task to be performed there. Then later you turn off the system. When
you start it back up, those events will be peformed at the times/dates you
specified. But you will not initiate those events, the system will. Sure, you
scheduled the system to have it done, but you didn't start the programs, the
system did.

> Nobody had to logon for that to happen? Listen little boy, you're wasting
> my time.

Ok Ma'am... listen here.

To setup the tasks, yes they did. To have the system run them, no they didn't,
because the system will execute the commands; while the person sitting in front
of the computer does not a thing but sit there and hope/assume it's working...

> I'm right and you're wrong. Nobody is "required" to log on.

To setup tasks, to run programs, to view files, to access the internet, to read
newsgroups, to chat with friends, to send/receive email... shall I go on? YES
you DO.


Wayne

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:41:23 AM9/10/03
to
See? I'm right again. You can't even come up with one reason or one method
for using a computer without logging on. ...but then that's your
limitation, not ours.


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:j2w7b.6867$NW3....@news1.central.cox.net...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:40:07 AM9/10/03
to
You're wrong. You said you're "required" to log on. But that's not true is
it?


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:i1w7b.6865$NW3....@news1.central.cox.net...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:45:53 AM9/10/03
to
> Then later you turn off the system. When
> you start it back up, those events will be
> peformed at the times/dates you specified.

Thank you. You finally got it. Nobody logged on, and the schedule was
executed anyway.

See? I was right. You were wrong. neh neh neh neh


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Z9w7b.6873$NW3....@news1.central.cox.net...

Tim

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 2:30:09 AM9/10/03
to
My goodness, how pathetic you are! and you've proved it over and over again.

Read this carefully. It requires at least a 6th grade reading level...

The person sitting in front of the computer did not execute the automated tasks.
The computer did all by itself! How about that?!? Computers do things on their
own! WOW!

"Wayne" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message

news:vlteiq2...@corp.supernews.com...

Tim

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 2:37:22 AM9/10/03
to
Simple. You can't USE the computer (as in interacting with it) unless you logon.
That's why I can't come up with a reason, because you can't. Or do I need to go
to a 3rd grade reading level to get you to understand?

This thread has gone on long enough. I'm through talking to a brick wall.
Either you're too old and feeble to understand what is being told to you, or you
are too young to comprehend. I teach classes of home users learning Windows XP
at a local community center. One of my students just had a birthday last month,
he turned 73. But he still amazes me at what he has learned regarding his new
computer system I built for him. Coming from an old "Franklin" computer (older
than an Apple-II) up to a new Pentium-4 system running Windows XP....

Quite frankly, I have expected people here to show a mental capacity higher than
his, but you have proved me wrong. I thank you. It tells me I have too high of
expectations.for people, and I should work on lowering those. Perhaps getting
an MCT didn't do any good. It obviously hasn't done good to teach someone here
something useful...

"Wayne" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message

news:vlteabi...@corp.supernews.com...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 6:58:17 AM9/10/03
to
> from an old "Franklin" computer
> (older than an Apple-II)

You're wrong. The Apple II came before the Franklin.

"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:CEz7b.8399$NW3....@news1.central.cox.net...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 7:06:48 AM9/10/03
to
Hey Tim, if I'm the one who doesn't understand, then why are you just now
saying the same words I said days ago?

In this message you'll see two things:

First, you'll see I was nice while you were rude. Second you'll see, I
pointed out how someone has to logon to set a schedule, but the schedule can


run when nobody is logged on.

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=CEz7b.8399%24NW3.5694%40news1.central.cox.net&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dalt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati


"Tim" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Rxz7b.8397$NW3....@news1.central.cox.net...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 7:26:28 AM9/10/03
to
excuse me. I pasted the link where Tim said the Franklin is older than the
Apple II. Here's the right one:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2140666003d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=vlnehe478ls431%40corp.supernews.com


"Wayne" <wdsnew...@oregoncity.com> wrote in message

news:vlu1cg9...@corp.supernews.com...

Wayne

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 7:35:43 AM9/10/03
to
"IF" we could find a solution using Group Policy, then yes, using a loopback
on the computer policy would be the way to implement it.

I'm not aware of any way to "run as.." using group policy. But if we could,
...there's the solution.


"Andre C" <an...@libraris.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message

news:7c9slvkkn5cgiubh6...@4ax.com...

J.Clarke

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 4:20:54 AM9/10/03