How do I know if Im truely administrator?

[Guest]

Well from the elevated cmd prompt I got:
the command completed succesfully

But still no go on the install. I could just use XP to defrag. I think Ive
read that the vista version doesnt have boot-time defrag and thats probably
the only reason to really need to do it from Vista. For the pagefile and all
that good stuff.

Also I allready had UAC turned off since almost the beginning in early June.
Ive had it acting almost like XP as far as permission and such ever since.
This is the first time Ive experienced this kind of denial, I think.
--


(¯`·._.·Ecat·._.·´¯)
HP a1230n
Athlon 64 Processor 3800+
1 Gig RAM
Radeon X700

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

You cannot do a boottime defrag on the Vista volume when running XP. Only
XP.
What is leading you to beleive that you need to do a boottime defrag? That
should not be a regular maintenance item. As for the Vista pagefile, you
could only defrag it from XP if both XP and Vista are using the same
pagefile. A pagefile with three or four fragments does not affect
performance at all.

 

[Guest]

I wasnt saying I would try and do boot-time on Vista from XP but sort of just
the opposite. I was just saying that, in this case, defragging from XP would
probably be just as good. Since the Vista version doesnt have boot-time (as
far as I know) then doing it from XP should be just as good. Exept for
running in the background etc. Which isnt that big of a big deal to me right
now. I can just do a plain ordinary defrag periodically without it constantly
being maintained.
--


(¯`·._.·Ecat·._.·´¯)
HP a1230n
Athlon 64 Processor 3800+
1 Gig RAM
Radeon X700

 

[Chad Harris]

I wish I knew what was keeping DK from installing on Vista but you can run
it from XP, at least for non-bootime defragmentation. Hopefully by the time
you would ever need to defrag the paging file or the MFT (Master File
Table), this will be ironed out for you.

That logic makes sense. I can defrag regularly and by the way as Colin
said, I think you need to defrag more often than once a month. Personally I
do it every 3 days or so, and particularly after installing a new build or
running any graphics intensive apps. I can see a palpable speed
inpromvement, and would always defrag that often. The only thing near to
"wrong" I ever saw Leo Laporte say on Tech TV when it was on in my country
was that you can overdefrag.

Ed Bott points out that as far as the paging file goes, it rarely gets
fragmented in his XP Inside Out. Most defrag literature says that graphics
intensive apps and large installs will fragment a drive the most.

I would do a boot time defrag once in a while. Personally I prefer Perfect
Disc's interface for regular defragging,and Diskeeper's interface for boot
time.

I was able to install my Diskeeper 8.0+ the latest 8 series on Vista. I
defrag with Perfect Disk from XP.

For those who want to install Perfect Disk until Raxco comes up with a Vista
Patch, you can do this. You can use Perfect Disk from www.raxco.com but in
order to do it you have to patch the MSI (the Windows installer) with ORCA
from the platform SDK. Then you can open the PerfectDisk MSI, and patch the
Launch Condition table (select it from the left list of tables). You will
see the three entries, one which has a description of "This program is
designed for Windows 2000, ect.

Delete that line, save the MSI and quit Orca. Then you can install PD
on Vista.

CH

 

[Guest]

Yea Im sure my Vista page file is fine but I would have still liked to see
what shape it was in being a new OS and NTFS version and all.

About a year ago when I finally got fed up with XPs defragging not seeming
to do much and taking forever to do it I got Diskeeper and my pagefile was
shredded. It was in little pieces all over the place. Its been fine ever
since.
--


(¯`·._.·Ecat·._.·´¯)
HP a1230n
Athlon 64 Processor 3800+
1 Gig RAM
Radeon X700

 

[Chad Harris]

MSFT uses a very watered down version of Diskeeper in XP--I'd bet probably
the same in Win Live One Care and Vista. MSFT has a limit of course to how
much they can get full apps into the OS as utilities cost wise and
litigation wise, although if they wanted to enter the defrag business and
make a major app, I don't think anything could stop them.

If you go to Diskeeper's site,there is a grid comparing Diskeeper and its
watered down one it made for MSFT. There is a significant difference and I
think most people would agree Diskeeper or Perfect Disk or comparable
defraggers are money well spent. I've seen Diskeeper in stores like Fry's
with rebates that had it costing very little.

CH

 

[Chris Game]

That is the administrator. But administrator does not mean
running as you did in XP. The administrator runs as a user but
can grant permissions when the system needs them. In Vista the
system has to ask before making a change to the computer.

Colin, after four attempts at answering the question, you're getting
more confusing.

 

[Intel Inside]

Well Chris, I understand Colin.
As he says, Administrator in Vista has a different meaning to that in XP.

In XP an administrator can do anything without being questioned by the OS.
However in Vista, even the administrator actions are questioned by the OS in
an attempt to maintain its integrity.

 

[Clark]

I don't know if this makes any difference, but someone else may want to
check if this is correct. Beside the edits mentioned above and the right
click, the only way I know to become administrator is to start in safe mode.
There you have an administrator prompt. The part that puzzles me is, when I
go to the security settings for the Administrator, the UAC box is
checked---. Why would it be checked for administrator, unless this is just
another fake admin account.

Try booting in safe mode and remove the UAC check for the admin and see if
it makes any difference.

Clark

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Well put.

Well Chris, I understand Colin.
As he says, Administrator in Vista has a different meaning to that in XP.

In XP an administrator can do anything without being questioned by the OS.
However in Vista, even the administrator actions are questioned by the OS
in an attempt to maintain its integrity.

 

[Ground Cover]

But incorrect.

 

[Chris Game]

Well Chris, I understand Colin. As he says, Administrator in Vista
has a different meaning to that in XP.

In XP an administrator can do anything without being questioned
by the OS. However in Vista, even the administrator actions are
questioned by the OS in an attempt to maintain its integrity.

Well, I take it administrator != Administrator, and that the purpose
of these pop-ups that seem to demand a double assurance that one
really wants to copy a file or whatever, is to stop anyone logged on
externally to my account to take that action.

So far so good...

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Exactly. When the UAC pops up the permissions requestor if you are an admin
(user with admin priviledges in Vista parlance) then when you click OK all
goes well. If you are a user without admin priviledges you will be refused.
What is really new and so hard to get used to is that there are no users who
don't get asked.

 

[Chad Harris]

True, however, there are frequent times in XP where people will have to take
ownership of folders in order to regain Admin privileges because software in
the equation can change their permissions. Go to any XP forum and you'll
see threads on this 24X7. I'm not sure yet whether Vista and UAC can exhibit
this.

CH

Well Chris, I understand Colin.
As he says, Administrator in Vista has a different meaning to that in XP.

In XP an administrator can do anything without being questioned by the OS.
However in Vista, even the administrator actions are questioned by the OS
in an attempt to maintain its integrity.

 

[Robert Robinson]

This has been discussed repeatedly in the past, but it is important to
understand that a user with administrator privileges is not the same as
being the Administrator.

One example concerns directory permissions.
Programs and data that are copied from a CD-ROM or other source
frequently are stored in a new directory that is set as read only. As a
user with administrative privileges, you can change the read only flag
to read/write with Windows Explorer, but the system then re-sets it to
read only after exiting Explorer. The only way to permanently change
the security setting is to go through an awkward procedure to set the
directory read/write for (all) users. None of this is necessary if the
user is the "real" Administrator.
The file security isn't of much value anyway because an odd work around
is to temporarily set the security with Windows Explorer, then leave
Explorer open at this point. You can then write into the directory with
another program. Write protection is only re-enabled after an exit from
Explorer. The system should obviously not permit a change in read/write
unless the user has permission to make this a permanent change.
For one's individual Vista system, the best current approach is to use a
good hardware firewall and Firefox for Internet communications, to
disable all of the new security features, and to log on as
Administrator. Vista actually runs reliably and is pretty easy to use
after making these changes.
Finally, Microsoft does deserve credit for recognizing and decreasing
some of the user hassles. The number and frequency of the "nag displays"
have been significantly reduced in beta 2.

Robbie

 

[Jimmy Brush]

The UAC check box simple displays and modifies the group policy option "User
Account Control: Run all administrators in Admin Approval Mode".

Admin Approval Mode is a synonym for UAC - they both refer to the same
feature.

This option is a global option - when turned on, all administrator accounts
run programs with "normal" user privledges unless elevated, either
automatically by a system prompt or explicitly by using the Run As
Administrator command. When turned off, all administrator accounts run
programs with full administrator privlidges.

With one exception ... the "real" administrator account. He ALWAYS runs
programs with full administrator privledges, and is unaffected by the UAC
check box, unless this behavior is changed by group policy.

- JB

 

[Rex Geissinger]

You are an Administrator but UAC is probably interfering. Uninstall any
previous attempted installation and Reboot just to make sure it's clean.
then Right click on the setup executable and pick run as administrator, this
will solve most of the setup problems with stubborn installs.

Disk Keeper 10 should run on vista fine, Hope that helps

Rex Geissinger