Administrator sign-on

[William B. Lurie]

XP/SP2.... In order to correct a Norton Anti-Virus problem,
I was asked to "Sign on as Administrator". In the years I've
used XP, I never had to do so. I do Start>>Log Off and I see
a choice of Switch User/Log Off but I don't see any different
log on. I am now, and have always been, the sole owner and user
of this computer and I'd have assumed that I'm automatically the
"Administrator". Can someone tell me how to specifically start up
and "Sign on as Administrator?"

Thank you.

 

[JS]

There is a hidden 'Administrator' account (the account name is:
Administrator) in Windows.
The default password for this hidden account is normally blank (none).

For XP Home users:
Boot the computer into Safe Mode
Do this by pressing the F8 key (several times) after the Power On Self Test
is finished,
and until the Start menu appears.
This will get you to the correct menu window.

Once in Safe Mode,
you will see the normally hidden Administrator account
and any other accounts.
(Note: Accounts are displayed alphabetically).

Use the mouse or Up/down arrow keys to highlight the 'Administrator'
account.
The default password is a blank (no password required).

For XP Pro users:
You do not need to go into Safe Mode.
At the Welcome Screen, do/press the Ctrl-Alt-Del keys twice
to display the Windows logon box.
Type in "Administrator" (without the quotes),
by default the password is blank, no password need be entered.

 

[William B. Lurie]

Thank you, JS.
I'm in XP Home, and I was aware of the Admin account
via Safe Mode, but thought they wanted me to get
there without a full reboot.

 

[Daave]

XP/SP2.... In order to correct a Norton Anti-Virus problem,
I was asked to "Sign on as Administrator". In the years I've
used XP, I never had to do so. I do Start>>Log Off and I see
a choice of Switch User/Log Off but I don't see any different
log on. I am now, and have always been, the sole owner and user
of this computer and I'd have assumed that I'm automatically the
"Administrator". Can someone tell me how to specifically start up
and "Sign on as Administrator?"

Try this:

Start | Control Panel | User Accounts

Underneath "or pick an account to change" how many accounts (other than
"Guest") are listed? What does it say under the account you normally
use -- "Computer administrator" or "Limited"?

If it says "Computer administrator" and if Norton is instructing you to
"Sign on as Administrator", then I would contact their support since you
are already paying for it.

Then again, you could always ditch Norton.

 

[William B. Lurie]

Try this:

Start | Control Panel | User Accounts

Underneath "or pick an account to change" how many accounts (other than
"Guest") are listed? What does it say under the account you normally
use -- "Computer administrator" or "Limited"?

If it says "Computer administrator" and if Norton is instructing you to
"Sign on as Administrator", then I would contact their support since you
are already paying for it.

Then again, you could always ditch Norton.

Au contraire, Dave, I have found their Chat support a tremendous
improvement over their old stiff unhelpful ways. Between times,
they took control and fixed the glitch. I guess i"m one of the'few
people who are happy with them.

 

[JS]

What did they do to fix it?

 

[Daave]

Au contraire, Dave, I have found their Chat support a tremendous
improvement over their old stiff unhelpful ways. Between times,
they took control and fixed the glitch. I guess i"m one of the'few
people who are happy with them.

If you like 'em, keep 'em.

So is your account "compter administator"? Never assume.

 

[William B. Lurie]

If you like 'em, keep 'em.

So is your account "compter administator"? Never assume.

My main sign-on account is "Compaq Owner". To get to the
"Administrator" account, I have to go to Safe Mode, and
then I get a choice of "Compaq Owner" or "Administrator".
Same guy. I get to wear two hats.

 

[William B. Lurie]

What did they do to fix it?

The problem was that my Norton Anti Virus had some
glitch where I couldn't do a Live Update of my A-V
definitions, but their snoopware said I had to. They
went online and took control of my machine remotely,
downloaded a patch of theirs and executed it, and
the problem was solved. Their Chat service has short
waiting time, and many many efficient technician/analysts.
I used to bitch about their poor service, but not any
more.

 

[Daave]

My main sign-on account is "Compaq Owner". To get to the
"Administrator" account, I have to go to Safe Mode, and
then I get a choice of "Compaq Owner" or "Administrator".
Same guy. I get to wear two hats.

Once more...

Is the account which is called "Compaq Owner" administrative or limited?
(Follow my "Try This" instructions above.) Note that I am *not*
referring whatsoever to the built-in Administrator account which in XP
Home may only be accessed via Safe Mode. Is this the only account you
have?

Have you contacted Norton yet, and if so, did they provide a solution?
If so, please post it so others may learn.

 

[William B. Lurie]

Once more...

Is the account which is called "Compaq Owner" administrative or limited?
(Follow my "Try This" instructions above.) Note that I am *not*
referring whatsoever to the built-in Administrator account which in XP
Home may only be accessed via Safe Mode. Is this the only account you
have?

Have you contacted Norton yet, and if so, did they provide a solution?
If so, please post it so others may learn.

Daave, I spent 20 minutes letting Norton take over my machine, download
a patch and execute it. The problem is solved. Obviously there
was a glitch in the software, resulting in the need to be patched.

I did your "Try this" just now, and the answer is that it shows
exactly *one* account in addition to the Guest Account. The
account is labeled Compaq-Owner , and under that, in somewhat
smaller font, "Computer Administrator".

Thanks for following up.

 

[Daave]

Daave, I spent 20 minutes letting Norton take over my machine,
download a patch and execute it. The problem is solved. Obviously
there was a glitch in the software, resulting in the need to be
patched.

I did your "Try this" just now, and the answer is that it shows
exactly *one* account in addition to the Guest Account. The
account is labeled Compaq-Owner , and under that, in somewhat
smaller font, "Computer Administrator".

Thanks for following up.

YW.

Now you know your account is an administrative account (which means you
may have to be more careful than someone running a limited account when
it comes to activities like installing programs and updates, etc.).

As long as you don't mind spending the occasional "20 minutes letting
Norton take over [your] machine," then you might as well keep Norton if
you are happy with it.

Happy computing.

 

[M.I.5¾]

My main sign-on account is "Compaq Owner". To get to the
"Administrator" account, I have to go to Safe Mode, and
then I get a choice of "Compaq Owner" or "Administrator".
Same guy. I get to wear two hats.

If "Compaq Owner" appears on the welcome screen in safe mode then it is an
administrator account. Only administrator accounts are offered in safe
mode.

 

[M.I.5¾]

YW.

Now you know your account is an administrative account (which means you
may have to be more careful than someone running a limited account when it
comes to activities like installing programs and updates, etc.).

A limited account shouldn't be able to install programs let alone updates.

As long as you don't mind spending the occasional "20 minutes letting
Norton take over [your] machine," then you might as well keep Norton if
you are happy with it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I hate Norton personally, but I know
people who are extremely satisfied with it. Granted: they know nothing of
computers and it gives the perception of working in the background without
getting in the way, so they are happy.

 

[Daave]

A limited account shouldn't be able to install programs let alone
updates.

You are, of course, correct. What I meant to say is that an
administrative account can be more dangerous to run for some people if
they are not careful precisely because more changes can be made to the
PC compared to when one runs a limited account. Programs (sometimes
malicious) and updates (sometimes unwanted) won't be installed unless
the user allows it. And a limited account is more "idiot proof" with
regard to this.

Many people recommend that people use a Limited Account for most of
their activities and only use an administrative one when they need to
install programs and updates. Although I can understand the logic and I
believe that's usually how things are done in the Linux world
(normally), personally I would rather just have a strong backup system
and run as an admin. But for others, I figure it's good to let them know
about the method mentioned above; they can make up their minds.

As long as you don't mind spending the occasional "20 minutes letting
Norton take over [your] machine," then you might as well keep Norton
if you are happy with it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I hate Norton personally, but
I know people who are extremely satisfied with it. Granted: they
know nothing of computers and it gives the perception of working in
the background without getting in the way, so they are happy.

Personally, I hate Norton. Although I understand the lastest version
isn't necessarily too resource-hungry, I still wouldn't recommend it
from past experience and knowing how intrusive it can be. But like you
said, if someone's happy with it, they're happy.

 

[Daave]

If "Compaq Owner" appears on the welcome screen in safe mode then it
is an administrator account. Only administrator accounts are offered
in safe mode.

Good catch!

 

[M.I.5¾]

You are, of course, correct. What I meant to say is that an administrative
account can be more dangerous to run for some people if they are not
careful precisely because more changes can be made to the PC compared to
when one runs a limited account. Programs (sometimes malicious) and
updates (sometimes unwanted) won't be installed unless the user allows it.
And a limited account is more "idiot proof" with regard to this.

Many people recommend that people use a Limited Account for most of their
activities and only use an administrative one when they need to install
programs and updates. Although I can understand the logic and I believe
that's usually how things are done in the Linux world (normally),
personally I would rather just have a strong backup system and run as an
admin. But for others, I figure it's good to let them know about the
method mentioned above; they can make up their minds.

You are, of course, correct. Many of these people were effectively running
as administrator when using versions of Windows 9x prior to moving to XP.

As long as you don't mind spending the occasional "20 minutes letting
Norton take over [your] machine," then you might as well keep Norton
if you are happy with it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I hate Norton personally, but
I know people who are extremely satisfied with it. Granted: they
know nothing of computers and it gives the perception of working in
the background without getting in the way, so they are happy.

Personally, I hate Norton. Although I understand the lastest version isn't
necessarily too resource-hungry, I still wouldn't recommend it from past
experience and knowing how intrusive it can be. But like you said, if
someone's happy with it, they're happy.

And it can be an absolute pig to remove. While Norton do supply a removal
tool, it is as flakey as the product you are trying to remove. If you are
lucky it removes nearly all of Norton (some manual clean up is usually
required). At worst, it just leaves you with a PC that won't boot.

 

[Anteaus]

There is nothing wrong with Norton that a good dose of FDISK won't solve.

;-)

Seriously, a lot of home users soldier-on with it simply because it (and a
ton of other foisted software) was preinstalled, and thus they've never seen
the performance their computer is actually capable of.

It's time a stop was put to these forced-sales practices. If I buy a car I
don't expect to be forced to sign-up with a specified insurance broker, or
else to have to strip the car's instrument-panel down and rebuild it to stop
the nag-messages for Acme Insurance, Inc. appearing on the dash every two
miles.

What is worse about the PC software forced-sales situation is that the
foisted items are almost always of poor quality, with even the free
alternatives being better products. Perhaps this is not so surprising, after
all it's a captive market, and one in which they buyer has no opportunity to
do a quality comparison.

I suspect that in part, the Vista debacle was down-to foisted software.
While Vista's performance is not brilliant, it is acceptable for most
purposes with a clean install. But, put a ton of junkware onto it and it
totally crawls. The user then formats and installs XP, which -having no
junkware- flies. Vista gets the blame of course, and gets badmouthed across
every forum on the planet even if it's not entirely responsible for the poor
performance. Thus, if Microsoft had taken the bull by the horns and banned
preinstallation of trial software, who knows, Vista might not have flopped
they way it did.

Anyway, my thoughts for tonight. Purely an opinion, of course.

 

[M.I.5¾]

There is nothing wrong with Norton that a good dose of FDISK won't solve.

;-)

Seriously, a lot of home users soldier-on with it simply because it (and a
ton of other foisted software) was preinstalled, and thus they've never
seen
the performance their computer is actually capable of.

It's time a stop was put to these forced-sales practices. If I buy a car I
don't expect to be forced to sign-up with a specified insurance broker, or
else to have to strip the car's instrument-panel down and rebuild it to
stop
the nag-messages for Acme Insurance, Inc. appearing on the dash every two
miles.

What is worse about the PC software forced-sales situation is that the
foisted items are almost always of poor quality, with even the free
alternatives being better products. Perhaps this is not so surprising,
after
all it's a captive market, and one in which they buyer has no opportunity
to
do a quality comparison.

I suspect that in part, the Vista debacle was down-to foisted software.
While Vista's performance is not brilliant, it is acceptable for most
purposes with a clean install. But, put a ton of junkware onto it and it
totally crawls. The user then formats and installs XP, which -having no
junkware- flies. Vista gets the blame of course, and gets badmouthed
across
every forum on the planet even if it's not entirely responsible for the
poor
performance. Thus, if Microsoft had taken the bull by the horns and banned
preinstallation of trial software, who knows, Vista might not have flopped
they way it did.

Anyway, my thoughts for tonight. Purely an opinion, of course.

:

I have clean installed Vista without the junkware. I can tell you thay
Vista still crawls relative to XP. It's also a resource hog and heavyweight
applications just won't run properly under it because they cannot get the
resources that they require.