"limited" blocks games

[Pip R. Lagenta]

Hi!

At the grouphome for teenage boys, where I work, we recently switched
from old Macs to new PCs with XP Pro. It fell to me to set up the
PCs. I password protected the "STAFF" user which has administrator
rights, and "limited" the "RESIDENT" user that has no password
required. The idea being that some control over the use of the
computer should be held by staff. We want the residents to be able to
*use* the computer, but *not* to load every program the residents find
onto it.

I was very surprised to find how *few* choices were available in
configuring the privileges on the computer. The choices were: "full
rights", "limited", and "Guest". Well, the "RESIDENT" user should not
have the "full right" that an administrator has, but they should still
be able to *use* the computer. And that is the rub. Not only can the
"limited" user not load games (which is good), they can't *play* games
that have been loaded by staff (which is bad). So, "limited" renders
XP useless. Staff has been passing out the password to the full
rights "STAFF" user to the residents so that the kids can actually use
the damn thing. This renders the whole point of passwords
meaningless.

So, here is the question: Is there a way to set up the privileges so
that a limited user can be blocked from loading any damn thing, but
still allow the "limited" user to use programs that have been loaded?

The game in question is Diablo II. The "limited" user is blocked from
accessing the data on the CD/DVD drive that is required for game play.
The icon for the game is on the desktop.

Thank you--
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

 

[GreenieLeBrun]

Hi!

At the grouphome for teenage boys, where I work, we recently switched
from old Macs to new PCs with XP Pro. It fell to me to set up the
PCs. I password protected the "STAFF" user which has administrator
rights, and "limited" the "RESIDENT" user that has no password
required. The idea being that some control over the use of the
computer should be held by staff. We want the residents to be able to
*use* the computer, but *not* to load every program the residents find
onto it.

I was very surprised to find how *few* choices were available in
configuring the privileges on the computer. The choices were: "full
rights", "limited", and "Guest". Well, the "RESIDENT" user should not
have the "full right" that an administrator has, but they should still
be able to *use* the computer. And that is the rub. Not only can the
"limited" user not load games (which is good), they can't *play* games
that have been loaded by staff (which is bad). So, "limited" renders
XP useless. Staff has been passing out the password to the full
rights "STAFF" user to the residents so that the kids can actually use
the damn thing. This renders the whole point of passwords
meaningless.

So, here is the question: Is there a way to set up the privileges so
that a limited user can be blocked from loading any damn thing, but
still allow the "limited" user to use programs that have been loaded?

The game in question is Diablo II. The "limited" user is blocked from
accessing the data on the CD/DVD drive that is required for game play.
The icon for the game is on the desktop.

Thank you
--
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

Create a new Limited User account and see if making the account into
Power Users lets you run Diablo II, to do this go to Start-Run and type
in :-

control userpasswords2

Select the account, go to Properties, then Group Membership, Other and
select Power User from the dropdown box.

Other things you may like to try includ setting the compatibility mode
to Win98 or updating Diablo II to Version 1.10.

The CD will probably have a limited life so you may like to look at
Alcohol 120% (http://www.alcohol-soft.com/) which will let you mount
the CD as a virtual CD

 

[Frank]

Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
|| Hi!
||
|| At the grouphome for teenage boys, where I work, we recently switched
|| from old Macs to new PCs with XP Pro. It fell to me to set up the
|| PCs. I password protected the "STAFF" user which has administrator
|| rights, and "limited" the "RESIDENT" user that has no password
|| required. The idea being that some control over the use of the
|| computer should be held by staff. We want the residents to be able
|| to *use* the computer, but *not* to load every program the residents
|| find onto it.
||
|| I was very surprised to find how *few* choices were available in
|| configuring the privileges on the computer. The choices were: "full
|| rights", "limited", and "Guest". Well, the "RESIDENT" user should
|| not have the "full right" that an administrator has, but they should
|| still be able to *use* the computer. And that is the rub. Not only
|| can the "limited" user not load games (which is good), they can't
|| *play* games that have been loaded by staff (which is bad). So,
|| "limited" renders XP useless. Staff has been passing out the
|| password to the full rights "STAFF" user to the residents so that
|| the kids can actually use the damn thing. This renders the whole
|| point of passwords meaningless.
||
|| So, here is the question: Is there a way to set up the privileges so
|| that a limited user can be blocked from loading any damn thing, but
|| still allow the "limited" user to use programs that have been loaded?
||
|| The game in question is Diablo II. The "limited" user is blocked
|| from accessing the data on the CD/DVD drive that is required for
|| game play. The icon for the game is on the desktop.
||
|| Thank you

Penney wise, Pound foolish.
This is really the fault of the software writers.
You should have stayed with the Macs or at least loaded
XP Professional, which could be set up more securely.

 

[Guest]

Frank, read Pip's post again. He said they recently "switched from old Macs
to PCs with XP Pro."

 

[Guest]

Try right clicking on the shortcut and choose "Runas".
In the box that appears choose "The Following User" and supply your admin
user account credentials. If this works great but it will most likely only
work for that session.
To make it more permanent check Diablo's website for updates to their
software which addresses thsi or perhpas do some Google searches on runas
/savecred

 

[Frank]

Tonyo, if they had XP Pro they would have five user groups instead
of the two provided with XP Home. Not looking at the boxes it is
hard to tell what they really have.

Tonyo UK wrote:
|| Frank, read Pip's post again. He said they recently "switched from
|| old Macs to PCs with XP Pro."
||
|| "Frank" wrote:
||
||| Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
||||| Hi!
|||||
||||| At the grouphome for teenage boys, where I work, we recently
||||| switched from old Macs to new PCs with XP Pro. It fell to me to
||||| set up the PCs. I password protected the "STAFF" user which has
||||| administrator rights, and "limited" the "RESIDENT" user that has
||||| no password required. The idea being that some control over the
||||| use of the computer should be held by staff. We want the
||||| residents to be able to *use* the computer, but *not* to load
||||| every program the residents find onto it.
|||||
||||| I was very surprised to find how *few* choices were available in
||||| configuring the privileges on the computer. The choices were:
||||| "full rights", "limited", and "Guest". Well, the "RESIDENT" user
||||| should not have the "full right" that an administrator has, but
||||| they should still be able to *use* the computer. And that is the
||||| rub. Not only can the "limited" user not load games (which is
||||| good), they can't *play* games that have been loaded by staff
||||| (which is bad). So, "limited" renders XP useless. Staff has
||||| been passing out the password to the full rights "STAFF" user to
||||| the residents so that the kids can actually use the damn thing.
||||| This renders the whole point of passwords meaningless.
|||||
||||| So, here is the question: Is there a way to set up the
||||| privileges so that a limited user can be blocked from loading any
||||| damn thing, but still allow the "limited" user to use programs
||||| that have been loaded?
|||||
||||| The game in question is Diablo II. The "limited" user is blocked
||||| from accessing the data on the CD/DVD drive that is required for
||||| game play. The icon for the game is on the desktop.
|||||
||||| Thank you
|||
||| Penney wise, Pound foolish.
||| This is really the fault of the software writers.
||| You should have stayed with the Macs or at least loaded
||| XP Professional, which could be set up more securely.

 

[Pip R. Lagenta]

Hi!

At the grouphome for teenage boys, where I work, we recently switched
from old Macs to new PCs with XP Pro. It fell to me to set up the
PCs. I password protected the "STAFF" user which has administrator
rights, and "limited" the "RESIDENT" user that has no password
required. The idea being that some control over the use of the
computer should be held by staff. We want the residents to be able to
*use* the computer, but *not* to load every program the residents find
onto it.

I was very surprised to find how *few* choices were available in
configuring the privileges on the computer. The choices were: "full
rights", "limited", and "Guest". Well, the "RESIDENT" user should not
have the "full right" that an administrator has, but they should still
be able to *use* the computer. And that is the rub. Not only can the
"limited" user not load games (which is good), they can't *play* games
that have been loaded by staff (which is bad). So, "limited" renders
XP useless. Staff has been passing out the password to the full
rights "STAFF" user to the residents so that the kids can actually use
the damn thing. This renders the whole point of passwords
meaningless.

So, here is the question: Is there a way to set up the privileges so
that a limited user can be blocked from loading any damn thing, but
still allow the "limited" user to use programs that have been loaded?

The game in question is Diablo II. The "limited" user is blocked from
accessing the data on the CD/DVD drive that is required for game play.
The icon for the game is on the desktop.

[snip]

Create a new Limited User account and see if making the account into
Power Users lets you run Diablo II, to do this go to Start-Run and type
in :-

control userpasswords2

Select the account, go to Properties, then Group Membership, Other and
select Power User from the dropdown box.

Hi!

I took my copy of the SYBEX "MCSE Windows XP Professional" Study Guide
(Copyright 2002, first printing) to work last night. (I work nights.)
It is because I am the kind of person who has such a book that
computer jobs around the grouphome fall to me.

Anyway, last night I did a slightly different version of the test that
you recommend. Following instructions in chapters six and seven, I
logged on as "Administrator" and created a "Microsoft Management
Console" with "Local Users and Groups" and "Local Computer Policy"
snap-ins. Using this MMC, I changed the membership of the "STAFF"
user by deleting its Administrator membership, and adding its Power
User membership.

The result was that, while the "STAFF" user was a member of the
Administrator group it could run Diablo II, but when it is a member of
the Power User group it could *not*, any longer, run the game. The
"Power User Group" doesn't cut the mustard. I would like to know why.
I feel that if I can identify the task that Diablo II requires of an
administrator, then I *may* be able to assign just *that* task to the
more generally limited "Resident" user.

Other things you may like to try includ setting the compatibility mode
to Win98 or updating Diablo II to Version 1.10.

I looked at the "compatibility mode" settings last night, and
considered them. But I did not change them. I will experiment with
them tonight. I do not know which version of Diablo II the grouphome
has. It is from a box with the "expansion disks" included. This
leads me to think that it is a later version of the game.

The CD will probably have a limited life so you may like to look at
Alcohol 120% (http://www.alcohol-soft.com/) which will let you mount
the CD as a virtual CD

I defiantly see the potential advantages of the Alcohol 120% product.
However, the practicalities of the grouphome milieu would tend to
negate these advantages.--
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

 

[Pip R. Lagenta]

Tonyo, if they had XP Pro they would have five user groups instead
of the two provided with XP Home. Not looking at the boxes it is
hard to tell what they really have.

Hi!

Well, you are not wrong, but you are not fully correct either. To see
where I was coming from, you need to do the following experiment: on a
XP Professional PC, go to the "Control Panel", click on "User
Accounts", then pick the task "create a new account", name the account
"Foo" or whatever, then click on "Next". At that point, you will be
given two, and *only* two, account types to choose from. This is what
I saw when I set up these accounts, "Computer administrator" or
"limited" and nothing else. Nothing at all.

Now, I have done a lot learning in the last 24 hours. If I set up
other accounts, I will now do it using the MMC, where the five user
groups are, in fact, available.

As to the original problem that I am still working on, there is an
additional wrinkle. There is no Internet access at the grouphome. No
cables, no DSL, no phone lines. My Internet access is at home, not
work. If the solution to the problem involves an update from a web
site, then the solution will have its own problems.

Tonyo UK wrote:
|| Frank, read Pip's post again. He said they recently "switched from
|| old Macs to PCs with XP Pro."
||
|| "Frank" wrote:
||
||| Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
||||| Hi!
|||||
||||| At the grouphome for teenage boys, where I work, we recently
||||| switched from old Macs to new PCs with XP Pro. It fell to me to
||||| set up the PCs. I password protected the "STAFF" user which has
||||| administrator rights, and "limited" the "RESIDENT" user that has
||||| no password required. The idea being that some control over the
||||| use of the computer should be held by staff. We want the
||||| residents to be able to *use* the computer, but *not* to load
||||| every program the residents find onto it.
|||||
||||| I was very surprised to find how *few* choices were available in
||||| configuring the privileges on the computer. The choices were:
||||| "full rights", "limited", and "Guest". Well, the "RESIDENT" user
||||| should not have the "full right" that an administrator has, but
||||| they should still be able to *use* the computer. And that is the
||||| rub. Not only can the "limited" user not load games (which is
||||| good), they can't *play* games that have been loaded by staff
||||| (which is bad). So, "limited" renders XP useless. Staff has
||||| been passing out the password to the full rights "STAFF" user to
||||| the residents so that the kids can actually use the damn thing.
||||| This renders the whole point of passwords meaningless.
|||||
||||| So, here is the question: Is there a way to set up the
||||| privileges so that a limited user can be blocked from loading any
||||| damn thing, but still allow the "limited" user to use programs
||||| that have been loaded?
|||||
||||| The game in question is Diablo II. The "limited" user is blocked
||||| from accessing the data on the CD/DVD drive that is required for
||||| game play. The icon for the game is on the desktop.
|||||
||||| Thank you
|||
||| Penney wise, Pound foolish.
||| This is really the fault of the software writers.
||| You should have stayed with the Macs or at least loaded
||| XP Professional, which could be set up more securely.

--
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

 

[Guest]

That's correct, now you need to go to the admin tools users and groups and
explore the different groups.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Hi!

At the grouphome for teenage boys, where I work, we recently switched
from old Macs to new PCs with XP Pro. It fell to me to set up the
PCs. I password protected the "STAFF" user which has administrator
rights, and "limited" the "RESIDENT" user that has no password
required. The idea being that some control over the use of the
computer should be held by staff. We want the residents to be able to
*use* the computer, but *not* to load every program the residents find
onto it.

I was very surprised to find how *few* choices were available in
configuring the privileges on the computer. The choices were: "full
rights", "limited", and "Guest". Well, the "RESIDENT" user should not
have the "full right" that an administrator has, but they should still
be able to *use* the computer. And that is the rub. Not only can the
"limited" user not load games (which is good), they can't *play* games
that have been loaded by staff (which is bad). So, "limited" renders
XP useless. Staff has been passing out the password to the full
rights "STAFF" user to the residents so that the kids can actually use
the damn thing. This renders the whole point of passwords
meaningless.

So, here is the question: Is there a way to set up the privileges so
that a limited user can be blocked from loading any damn thing, but
still allow the "limited" user to use programs that have been loaded?

The game in question is Diablo II. The "limited" user is blocked from
accessing the data on the CD/DVD drive that is required for game play.
The icon for the game is on the desktop.

Thank you

You may experience some problems if the software was designed for
Win9x/Me, or if it was intended for WinNT/2K/XP, but was improperly
designed. Quite simply, the application doesn't "know" how to handle
individual user profiles with differing security permissions levels, or
the application is designed to make to make changes to "off-limits"
sections of the Windows registry or protected Windows system folders.

For example, saved data are often stored in a sub-folder under the
application's folder within C:\Program Files - a place where no
inexperienced or limited user should ever have write permissions. (Games
are particularly likely to follow this horrible practice.)

It may even be that the software requires "write" access to parts
of the registry or protected systems folders/files that are not normally
accessible to regular users. (This *won't* occur if the application is
properly written.) If this does prove to be the case, however, you're
often left with three options: Either grant the necessary users
appropriate higher access privileges (either as Power Users or local
administrators), explicitly grant normal users elevated privileges to
the affected folders and/or part(s) or the registry, or replace the
application with one that was properly designed specifically for
WinNT/2K/XP.

Some Programs Do Not Work If You Log On from Limited Account
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q307091

Additionally, here are a couple of tips suggested, in a reply to a
different post, by MS-MVP Kent W. England:

"If your game or application works with admin accounts, but not with
limited accounts, you can fix it to allow limited users to access the
program files folder with "change" capability rather than "read" which
is the default.

C:\>cacls "Program Files\appfolder" /e /t /p users:c

where "appfolder" is the folder where the application is installed.

If you wish to undo these changes, then run

C:\>cacls "Program Files\appfolder" /e /t /p users:r

If you still have a problem with running the program or saving
settings on limited accounts, you may need to change permissions on
the registry keys. Run regedit.exe and go to HKLM\Software\vendor\app,
where "vendor\app" is the key that the software vendor used for your
specific program. Change the permissions on this key to allow Users
full control."



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin