# Why do some "Enthusiast" not care to be Admin(s) of their own PC?



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

I am curious to know why some enthusiast would rather be just a user instead of an Administrator of their own PC?  In other words, why do you deny yourself full access to your OS (thus your PC)?  Which in some cases you have to grant yourself special instances of "Administrator Privileges" to either access certain aspects of your OS or to run some particular game/application.


----------



## kylzer (Jul 5, 2009)

Sorry but who the hell would do that ?

Its just wrong


----------



## Darknova (Jul 5, 2009)

They want to make it harder for themselves to run their PC in the name of "security" when if they just learned how to keep themselves secure, and stayed away from bad websites they'd be perfectly fine.


----------



## DaMulta (Jul 5, 2009)

they think someone is going to hack into them while they are admin.


----------



## MKmods (Jul 5, 2009)

or they could be like me and not have a clue what the diff is?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

kylzer said:


> Sorry but who the hell would do that ?
> 
> Its just wrong



You be surprised, I've found a few posts were someone has to run an application as Administrator in order to get it to work. Thus, they are just a user (or whatever designation that doesn't grant them instant admin privileges).  

This appears to have started with Vista.  With XP you could designate yourself as Admin during the install process.  I don't recall Vista install as it's been awhile but I don't believe you get that option anymore.   In order to do so you go to cmd and type net user administrator /active:yes.  Not sure if you have to do that every boot or not.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 5, 2009)

Huh? I'm the only user on my PC. If someone wants to use it, I don't care. Why would I need to make a different account?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Huh? I'm the only user on my PC. If someone wants to use it, I don't care. Why would I need to make a different account?



Did someone ask you to make a different account? 

If you get the "you don't have that priviledge" popup you have to run that program as admin.  Ergo why don't some enthusiasts have their OS setup so that on every boot they ARE Admin.


----------



## LittleLizard (Jul 5, 2009)

Didnt know that people dont like to be admin on they own pc. Is stupid.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

MKmods said:


> or they could be like me and not have a clue what the diff is?



Well, that's understandable if you didn't know.  Read my previous post and keep it in mind if you ever want to use it.


----------



## DaMulta (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> You be surprised, I've found a few posts were someone has to run an application as Administrator in order to get it to work. Thus, they are just a user (or whatever designation that doesn't grant them instant admin privileges).
> 
> This appears to have started with Vista.  With XP you could designate yourself as Admin during the install process.  I don't recall Vista install as it's been awhile but I don't believe you get that option anymore.   In order to do so you go to cmd and type net user administrator /active:yes.  Not sure if you have to do that every boot or not.



Just thd one time, and then delete.....then you are root or admin

Vista, and 7 hide the real admin from users....


----------



## oily_17 (Jul 5, 2009)

I think most people dont know about it because it is hidden by default, and they think that their _Admin_ account has full privileges like XP had.

You could just turn off UAC control in your normal _Admin _account and it gets round most of the 'do you want to do this crap'


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> *You be surprised, I've found a few posts were someone has to run an application as Administrator in order to get it to work. Thus, they are just a user (or whatever designation that doesn't grant them instant admin privileges).  *
> 
> This appears to have started with Vista.  With XP you could designate yourself as Admin during the install process.  I don't recall Vista install as it's been awhile but I don't believe you get that option anymore.   In order to do so you go to cmd and type net user administrator /active:yes.  Not sure if you have to do that every boot or not.



once I had to run daemon tools as admin when I was admin.
so I'd say it's Vista's problem most of the time.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

That's what I really wanted to know.  Is it that enthusiasts simply didn't know they were just a glorified user that disabled UAC or something else.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 5, 2009)

They think it makes them safer hahahahaha yeah I know how retarded,
and yes on Vista some critical programs will still need admin approval even if you are the admin justa as a safety precaution which i would not shut down sinse you should be aware of these programs regardless


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> once I had to run daemon tools as admin when I was admin.
> so I'd say it's Vista's problem most of the time.



You sure you have typed in the command prompt 

net user administrator /active:yes

prior to running that program


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> You sure you have typed in the command prompt
> 
> net user administrator /active:yes



Heh, I'm actually not sure
but that was before I installed sp1 tho...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> Heh, I'm actually not sure
> but that was before I installed sp1 tho...



Give it a try DaMulta implied that once you do you will always have Admin privileges.




DaMulta said:


> Just thd one time, *and then delete.*....then you are root or admin
> 
> Vista, and 7 hide the real admin from users....


Delete what


----------



## oily_17 (Jul 5, 2009)

Ctrl+Shift+Enter, to run any program, will give you elevated privileges
,


----------



## Bundy (Jul 5, 2009)

I share my rig with my children and also occasionally travel away from home. The kids know that they are not allowed to agree to any UAC prompt unless it's starting a game that I have installed for them. For me, the system works really well and it doesn't matter to me that I need to more regularly agree to prompts.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

Bundy said:


> I share my rig with my children and also occasionally travel away from home. The kids know that they are not allowed to agree to any UAC prompt unless it's starting a game that I have installed for them. For me, the system works really well and it doesn't matter to me that I need to more regularly agree to prompts.



For kids having "user accounts" is a legitimate use.  However, are you still the admin or are you a user like them? In other words you should be able to adjust their policies for your kids as Admin.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 5, 2009)

Most do it because that is the default way Vista/Win7 is set up, and people are too lazy to change it manually, or in some versions of Vista/Win7 you can't manually change it anyway.  The account structure has been revamped since Vista.



Vista | Windows XP
True Administrator | Administrator
Administrator | Power User
Power User | User
User | Guest
Guest | Guest

The way Vista does it is considered far more secure, and honestly I agree with it for your normal user.  It is the way OSX is also, you generally aren't logged on as Root.  It is also the recommended configuration for Linux(though usually not the default configuration).

I always run as the true administrator on all my machines, but I definitely wouldn't recommend it for most users, even enthusiasts.


----------



## Darren (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I am curious to know why some enthusiast would rather be just a user instead of an Administrator of their own PC?  In other words, why do you deny yourself full access to your OS (thus your PC)?  Which in some cases you have to grant yourself special instances of "Administrator Privileges" to either access certain aspects of your OS or to run some particular game/application.



With most Windows based operating systems, including vista the user that installs the operating system is usually the administrator by default. Therefore full access is permitted and one is not restricted at all. Although you'll be prompted for verification but turning off UAC solves that.


----------



## IINexusII (Jul 5, 2009)

back in the days my dad gave me the limited account in xp  but i had a workaround, which was to boot into safe mode, which would reveal the administrator account, then i would just make an account with full priveleges


----------



## btarunr (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I am curious to know why some enthusiast would rather be just a user instead of an Administrator of their own PC?  In other words, why do you deny yourself full access to your OS (thus your PC)?  Which in some cases you have to grant yourself special instances of "Administrator Privileges" to either access certain aspects of your OS or to run some particular game/application.



Like in Linux, when you declare yourself the "almighty user" of a PC, you _along with all the services and processes_ have absolute control over the system. It's a bad security practice. You wouldn't want malware to change settings that are exclusive to the administrator, even if your lesser-privileged account belongs in the administrators group. Certain things still require the administrator password.


----------



## Darren (Jul 5, 2009)

btarunr, most decent internet browsers, including Internet Explorer in a vista environment will create a sandbox area to stop the malware from doing harm and hence modifying settings such as administrator related features.


Edit:

Originally posted on: 07-05-2009, 09:49 PM



oily_17 said:


> I think in the end of the day Microsoft does not trust people with full control of their PC's, so they hid the true Admin account by default



Indeed, they gave you administator control with loads of prompts, it does not restrict ones ability to change settings but makes the user verify that they really want to to do it.

If they had UAC off by default, all the windows bashers would be like "microsoft sucks, vista sucks, look another operating system without security"


----------



## oily_17 (Jul 5, 2009)

I think in the end of the day Microsoft does not trust people with full control of their PC's, so they hid the true Admin account by default


----------



## btarunr (Jul 5, 2009)

Darren said:


> btarunr, most decent internet browsers, including Internet Explorer in a vista environment will create a sandbox area to stop the malware from doing harm and hence modifying settings.



Browsers haven't managed to control malware, and malware do exist. Only its medium of transport is not part of my argument, and hence abstract to us both. When you take absolute control over the OS, you're letting every active service/process that was started by you (voluntarily or otherwise) have access to a lot of things. If a malware process happened to be one of those, your PC could be compromised.


----------



## DaMulta (Jul 5, 2009)

Also easy you don't don't have to right click and run as admin in super admin mode.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 5, 2009)

Darren said:


> btarunr, most decent internet browsers, including Internet Explorer in a vista environment will create a sandbox area to stop the malware from doing harm and hence modifying settings such as administrator related features.



The internet browser has nothing to do with his comment, very little malware actually comes in through internet browsers.  Most malware is installed by the user completely seperate from the browser.  The only connected the browser has is that the browser might have been used to download the exe file that the user runs.



oily_17 said:


> I think in the end of the day Microsoft does not trust people with full control of their PC's, so they hid the true Admin account by default



It wasn't really something Microsoft wanted to do, they fought moving to this method since NT4.0.  The security world has begged them to do it for almost a decade.  Apple moved to this method years ago.


----------



## DaMulta (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Give it a try DaMulta implied that once you do you will always have Admin privileges.
> 
> 
> 
> Delete what



The BS admin account.

Keep your files tho...

In 7 I always make a tool bar, go to users, and make the user name the profile toolbar.

That toolbar will give you all your contacts, desktop, downloads, music, pics and all....

It should be a standard toolbar in 7 IMO.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

oily_17 said:


> I think in the end of the day Microsoft does not trust people with full control of their PC's, so they hid the true Admin account by default



That or they are still sore about the pounding XP got for not having enough security features.


----------



## Homeless (Jul 5, 2009)

The point in not running as admin is to be more secure.  As many others have mentioned, if someone or something gains access to your computer without your consent, they will not have the ability to completely control your computer.  Certainly there are ways in which super admin can be achieved through a user account, but if that happens you'd have something bigger to worry about then


----------



## Bundy (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> For kids having "user accounts" is a legitimate use.  However, are you still the admin or are you a user like them? In other words you should be able to adjust their policies for your kids as Admin.



It doesn't work out that convenient. I once had them set up in separate profiles but it meant that someone had to type a password every time UAC came up. If they use my main account, all they do is click to get the game running. (PS they are only getting to typing age now)


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 5, 2009)

Now that I think about it more, I don't think it is even possible to run as the true adming in Home Premium, which is probably what most people have...


----------



## oily_17 (Jul 5, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> It wasn't really something Microsoft wanted to do, they fought moving to this method since NT4.0.  The security world has begged them to do it for almost a decade.  Apple moved to this method years ago.



Yeah I was being a bit sarcay ..I can see how they are bending to the security world by doing this, even though it is easy circumvented.



newtekie1 said:


> Now that I think about it more, I don't think it is even possible to run as the true adming in Home Premium, which is probably what most people have...




I was not aware of this, would be nice to check out.

EDIT: You can enable it, just start CMD with Ctrl+Shift+Enter instead of clicking on it and then type the command.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Browsers haven't managed to control malware, and malware do exist. Only its medium of transport is not part of my argument, and hence abstract to us both. When you take absolute control over the OS, you're letting every active service/process that was started by you (voluntarily or otherwise) have access to a lot of things. If a malware process happened to be one of those, your PC could be compromised.



Interesting, some believe that Securom to be malware.  However, in order to play your games you have give it control or else you can't play your game.  So, in a case like this (based on opinion of Securom) that extra level of security doesn't really pan out.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 5, 2009)

Securom isn't replacing Windows' Microsoft-signed system files, or other protected resources. Hence that security measure doesn't apply to it. 

Whatever be the popular opinion, neither Microsoft, nor other security providers classify Securom as malware.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Securom isn't replacing Windows' Microsoft-signed system files, or other protected resources. Hence that security measure doesn't apply to it.
> 
> Whatever be the popular opinion, neither Microsoft, nor other security providers classify Securom as malware.


Then that would be a job for:
-your modem's firewall
-3rd party software firewall
-MS firewall
-a good anti-virus program
-etc

As an enthusiast (who at least has some rudimentary understanding of their PC) I can't see why they shouldn't have full control of their OS.  I can understand some reasons for it. Hence why I asked.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 5, 2009)

You can make your modem's firewall, MS firewall, block any application from accessing the internet. That wouldn't necessarily make the application blocked malware.


----------



## Darren (Jul 5, 2009)

In regards to malware and other malicious coding and Internet Explorer, I just to clarify that sandboxing in Windows Vista when running Internet Explorer 7.0 whilst in its protected mode, which is enabled by default prevents the malicious code from writing to locations outside the cache without the user’s verification even if the user is on an administration privileges.  Internet Explorer 7s new protected mode runs a low integrity process that can only write to low integrity locations where access rights are minimal and therefore any consequence applications derived would inherit those minimal permissions and therefore reducing the threat of malware etc. Even with these new sandboxing techniques Internet Explorer 7.0 on Vista can still writes to the registry or directories, the restriction is to areas of low integrity such as the ‘temporary internet folder’ where files can be created or modified freely. Obviously if the malware comes from a source other than the internet IE wouldn't protect you and UAC would be the best primary sandboxing precaution.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

btarunr said:


> You can make your modem's firewall, MS firewall, block any application from accessing the internet. That wouldn't necessarily make the application blocked malware.



Actually it can if that's an issue for you.  The same goes for viruses, etc.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Actually it can if that's an issue for you.  The same goes for viruses, etc.



...hence I said "doesn't necessarily".


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

btarunr said:


> ...hence I said "doesn't necessarily".



I understand that however, IMO enthusiast (not just your typical joe) should have some understanding of the risks involved when using the internet, usb drive, etc.  Thus certain precautions should be in place at the same time allowing you full access of your OS.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I understand that however, IMO enthusiast (not just your typical joe) should have some understanding of the risks involved when using the internet, usb drive, etc.  Thus certain precautions should be in place at the same time allowing you full access of your OS.



IMO the enthusiast needn't bother about the trivial notch-higher privileges the "true admin" has. Under the "admin" group, everything the enthusiast needs is there. The risks of operating as a true admin may outweigh the slightly higher portion of privileges. The deal may be different in different cases, I'm talking about the most typical case.



Darren said:


> In regards to malware and other malicious coding and Internet Explorer, I just to clarify that sandboxing in Windows Vista when running Internet Explorer 7.0 whilst in its protected mode, which is enabled by default prevents the malicious code from writing to locations outside the cache without the user’s verification even if the user is on an administration privileges.  Internet Explorer 7s new protected mode runs a low integrity process that can only write to low integrity locations where access rights are minimal and therefore any consequence applications derived would inherit those minimal permissions and therefore reducing the threat of malware etc. Even with these new sandboxing techniques Internet Explorer 7.0 on Vista can still writes to the registry or directories, the restriction is to areas of low integrity such as the ‘temporary internet folder’ where files can be created or modified freely. Obviously if the malware comes from a source other than the internet IE wouldn't protect you and UAC would be the best primary sandboxing precaution.



Again, my argument was not about "how you get malware", it's about "what happens when you have malware (and are running as an almighty user)", hence the part about the browser you're trying to force in, is out, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Bundy (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I understand that however, IMO enthusiast (not just your typical joe) should have some understanding of the risks involved when using the internet, usb drive, etc.  Thus certain precautions should be in place at the same time allowing you full access of your OS.



What do you think is the advantage of having full OS access? I'm not sure what I'm missing.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

btarunr said:


> IMO the enthusiast needn't bother about the trivial notch-higher privileges the "true admin" has. Under the "admin" group, everything the enthusiast needs is there. The risks of operating as a true admin may outweigh the slightly higher portion of privileges. The deal may be different in different cases, I'm talking about the most typical case.
> 
> ...





Bundy said:


> What do you think is the advantage of having full OS access? I'm not sure what I'm missing.



What you may consider trivial may not be trivial for others (unless you fall into that category yourself; IE speaking of personal preference).  So in essence, the reasons for not wanting full administrative rights is:
-personal security preferences
-some actually didn't know they weren't administrators with full privileges


As to why have it?  Simple, it's your computer why not have it? But remember, I am really asking why you prefer not to have it.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> As to why have it?  Simple, it's your computer why not have it?



....which again, is a personal preference. 

You may be a developer who needs to experiment with Windows system files, but the OS won't allow you to, in which case, you need to be a true-admin. For someone else, it's not worth it. So unless you need to be a true admin, there isn't much to gain from it. There could be some to lose, as you're depleting one security ring.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 5, 2009)

btarunr said:


> ....which again, is a personal preference.
> 
> You may be a developer who needs to experiment with Windows system files, but the OS won't allow you to, in which case, you need to be a true-admin. For someone else, it's not worth it. So unless you need to be a true admin, there isn't much to gain from it. There could be some to lose, as you're depleting one security ring.



Which is also an opinion.  A person is still (or should be) entitled to use their PC with full admin rights if they so choose.  If you don't then you can state why.  Which doesn't necessarily have to facilitate an opinion of why everyone else should or shouldn't.


----------



## Bundy (Jul 5, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> As to why have it?  Simple, it's your computer why not have it? But remember, I am really asking why you prefer not to have it.



LOL you are the OP and can define the thread as you want, I just thought that you could outline some of the advantages of full OS access, for the purposes of a good debate


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 6, 2009)

Bundy said:


> LOL you are the OP and can define the thread as you want, I just thought that you could outline some of the advantages of full OS access, for the purposes of a good debate



My theme is to get an understanding of why some enthusiast don't use it.


----------



## ShRoOmAlIsTiC (Jul 6, 2009)

im confused,  so im not a true administrator of my computer?  All I do is install vista and thats it,  I dont change any administrator settings.  

Exactly how do I go about setting me as the true administrator.  I have a great firewall and anti virus alreasy so I dont see it being an issue.


----------



## Bundy (Jul 6, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> My theme is to get an understanding of why some enthusiast don't use it.



Well it's a wise choice if you like a drink or three. Nothing worse than a hangover and windows not loading.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 6, 2009)

It is for the same reason why computer system administrators are supposed to have/use two accounts: one a plain user account and one an administrator account.  It limits the scope of damage should someone use that account to attack the system.

I do this on my server, not on my desktops.  I've thought about it but in the end, it is just too much hassle to change accounts constantly.

There is one situation where I did have administrator and user accounts separate on a desktop and that was a public computer with multiple users.  For example, one user would come along and discover they can't play Quicktime movies so then went and downloaded a codec to run quicktime movies only to discover all the core software can't use Quicktime either.  In effect, their ignorance and lack of experience with the system turned it into a mess whilst trying to "fix" the problem when they couldn't even define the problem.  The user account put an end to the user experimenting forcing users to talk to an administrator to resolve the problems.  It keeps inexperienced users from breaking things.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 6, 2009)

forget not caring, its a security thing. thats how UAC works.

Its a simple idea - if you're an admin, programs are set to "allow all" - it means anything can run, and do as it pleases. This includes viruses, worms, and other nasties.

if you are not an admin, its "ask" or "deny all" - which increases security a massive amount.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 6, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> That's what I really wanted to know.  Is it that enthusiasts simply didn't know they were just a glorified user that disabled UAC or something else.



i always enable full admin. its the first thing i do...i dont turn of uac or any of that other BS because once u activate true admin it never asks you again as for linux if im running linux as my prim OS which i do on other systems i am NEVER root i always run as admin but im never root though root is more powerfull if i f up the whole system fails.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 6, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> My theme is to get an understanding of why some enthusiast don't use it.



The better question is, "why would you bother using it?"

Seriously, the regular admin with UAC disabled grants you all the control you could ever need. I never have to go thru the "run as administrator" workarounds, but the OS still prompts me when something tries to overwrite a system file.

It's senseless to enable true admin. It really serves no purpose at all.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 6, 2009)

Wile E said:


> The better question is, "why would you bother using it?"
> 
> Seriously, the regular admin with UAC disabled grants you all the control you could ever need. I never have to go thru the "run as administrator" workarounds, but the OS still prompts me when something tries to overwrite a system file.
> 
> It's senseless to enable true admin. It really serves no purpose at all.



depends on what you do i cant compile my dvd via dos prompt if im not true admin i need to right click and run as....but if i enable true admin then i just click on it. and i never need to run certain things as admin they just work if i enable it to begin with. i agree without true admin enabled the system is safer and less pron to virus's or w/e but if your experianced than the diffirences can astound you depending on what you use your system for. you can hop on my rig and wont get a prompt for jack...but i need things that will frequently ask me for input and i dont visit bad sites...thus my system conforms perfectly to my needs and is malware free and backs up automatically without "acronis is trying to modify such and such a file would you like to continue?" these kinds of things burn alot of time if im backing up 400+gb of data and i come home to that message at 4am with only 12% done.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 6, 2009)

Solaris17 said:


> depends on what you do i cant compile my dvd via dos prompt if im not true admin i need to right click and run as....but if i enable true admin then i just click on it. and i never need to run certain things as admin they just work if i enable it to begin with. i agree without true admin enabled the system is safer and less pron to virus's or w/e but if your experianced than the diffirences can astound you depending on what you use your system for. you can hop on my rig and wont get a prompt for jack...but i need things that will frequently ask me for input and i dont visit bad sites...thus my system conforms perfectly to my needs and is malware free and backs up automatically without "acronis is trying to modify such and such a file would you like to continue?" these kinds of things burn alot of time if im backing up 400+gb of data and i come home to that message at 4am with only 12% done.



I use acronis and never get any system prompts when backing up. Are you using an older version?

And why do you need to be an admin to compile your DVD? What software do you use to do so?

At any rate, even tho you may get prompts, most of the people on this site have no need to use true admin on their computers, enthusiasts included.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jul 6, 2009)

Exactly, experienced users who have used Linux/Unix understand the consequences of having ROOT level access. This also means all programs running have ROOT level access and if I don't understand the program 100% I dont want it making changes to the kernel or file system I didn't give it explicit permission to do so.

For newer users on Vista and above they do not know the difference between administrative rights and root level rights.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I use acronis and never get any system prompts when backing up. Are you using an older version?
> 
> And why do you need to be an admin to compile your DVD? What software do you use to do so?
> 
> At any rate, even tho you may get prompts, most of the people on this site have no need to use true admin on their computers, enthusiasts included.



ya im using an older version of acronis as for my dvd i compile it via a cmd prompt but it needs to be able to read from DLL's which is why it prompts me for admin privlages. i wasnt dissagreeing with you just that it isnt TOTALLY useless it depends on how your system is used.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> The better question is, "why would you bother using it?"
> 
> Seriously, the regular admin with UAC disabled grants you all the control you could ever need. I never have to go thru the "run as administrator" workarounds, but the OS still prompts me when something tries to overwrite a system file.
> 
> It's senseless to enable true admin. It really serves no purpose at all.





Solaris17 said:


> ya im using an older version of acronis as for my dvd i compile it via a cmd prompt but it needs to be able to read from DLL's which is why it prompts me for admin privlages. i wasnt dissagreeing with you just that it isnt TOTALLY useless it depends on how your system is used.



That's the point in a nutshell.  The "I don't see why you need it" approach is hardly appropriate as you don't know how that person use their PC.  Furthermore, it's their prerogative if they want to use full admin or not.  Remember, it's their PC.  It's not something that he/she has to justify to anyone.

Therefore, I really can't justify that as a reason why someone does not use full admin.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 7, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> That's the point in a nutshell.  The "I don't see why you need it" approach is hardly appropriate as you don't know how that person use their PC.  Furthermore, it's their prerogative if they want to use full admin or not.  Remember, it's their PC.  It's not something that he/she has to justify to anyone.
> 
> Therefore, I really can't justify that as a reason why someone does not use full admin.



Not needing it is a perfect justification for somebody not to use full admin.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Not needing it is a perfect justification for somebody not to use full admin.



That's just an excuse of why some one you think shouldn't use it.  Not why someone doesn't use it.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 7, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> That's just an excuse of why some one you think shouldn't use it.  Not why someone doesn't use it.



No, it's exactly why I don't use it, and all the justification that's necessary. 

It's not needed for 99% of everyone out there. Except for the rare occasion that people like Solaris mentioned, the only thing using the true admin account successfully does, is to put your computer at greater risk to infection. A regular admin account with UAC turned off does almost everything the true admin account does, with the exception of altering system files. 

I think the better question is, how does using it actually benefit you, if you don't have any issues like Solaris does?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, it's exactly why I don't use it, and all the justification that's necessary.
> 
> It's not needed for 99% of everyone out there. Except for the rare occasion that people like Solaris mentioned, the only thing using the true admin account successfully does, is to put your computer at greater risk to infection. A regular admin account with UAC turned off does almost everything the true admin account does, with the exception of altering system files.
> 
> I think the better question is, how does using it actually benefit you, if you don't have any issues like Solaris does?



It reads like an excuse to me.  To answer a question with a question is really not an answer.  As I've posted before (which you conveniently ignored) I've answered you question twice already in post 47 and post 62.  Which is why I stated earlier that your response isn't really a legitimate one.  Because you think others shouldn't have the privilege.  And, if they do want it (for whatever reason) they have to justify it to you.  Which isn't why I created this thread.

However, as Solaris suggested there are plenty of reasons why a person needs full admin privileges he provided just one example.  For those that don't want it, that's the reason I am looking for.  Unfortunately you cannot provide one in this thread as you want to debate another topic of conversation. Which in hindsight is off topic why I created this thread.


----------



## Black Panther (Jul 7, 2009)

I wouldn't do it, ever. But perhaps for some people it's like having rails on their own balcony... kinda?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 7, 2009)

Black Panther said:


> I wouldn't do it, ever. But perhaps for some people it's like having rails on their own balcony... kinda?



Good analogy.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 7, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> It reads like an excuse to me.  To answer a question with a question is really not an answer.  As I've posted before (which you conveniently ignored) I've answered you question twice already in post 47 and post 62.  Which is why I stated earlier that your response isn't really a legitimate one.  Because you think others shouldn't have the privilege.  And, if they do want it (for whatever reason) they have to justify it to you.  Which isn't why I created this thread.
> 
> However, as Solaris suggested there are plenty of reasons why a person needs full admin privileges he provided just one example.  For those that don't want it, that's the reason I am looking for.  Unfortunately you cannot provide one in this thread as you want to debate another topic of conversation. Which in hindsight is off topic why I created this thread.



No, I ignored your responses in 47 and 62 because I don't find them to be relevant to the scope of the original question.

You asked why some enthusiasts choose not to be true admin. I gave a reason. It's unneeded for the majority of us. Being unneccessary is indeed a legitimate reason to choose to not do something. And then I went on to say that is more insecure. Also a legitimate reason.

I then countered by asking why those that do run in true admin feel it's necessary to do so. To which Solaris responded with an answer which seems legit, although a program update would fix at least one of his problems.

I gave both a very legitimate answer, and also a very legitimate question in response to your original question.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, I ignored your responses in 47 and 62 because I don't find them to be relevant to the scope of the original question.
> 
> You asked why some enthusiasts choose not to be true admin. I gave a reason. It's unneeded for the majority of us. Being unneccessary is indeed a legitimate reason to choose to not do something. And then I went on to say that is more insecure. Also a legitimate reason.
> 
> ...


If you are going to ignore my posts then their is really no need for me to answer your questions.  And, in order to reply it's common to not ignore posts which provoked you to reply to being with.  

Be that as it may, I honestly don't see your opinion as one that justify why someone does not use full admin privileges.  As stated, it's only your excuse of why someone shouldn't use it.  Had I asked if someone should or should not use full admin that would be relevant.  However, in this case it is not.  To clarify for you I asked. "Why do some "Enthusiast" not care to be Admin(s) of their own PC?"  Hopefully, you understand now.

You do go back and forth 1st saying that no one should use it.  Then turn around and say that Solaris response of why he does "seems legit".  Which is part of the reason why I do not find your response in line with the discussion at hand.  But thanks anyway


----------



## btarunr (Jul 7, 2009)

You are misunderstanding. I hope unintentionally.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 7, 2009)

btarunr said:


> You are misunderstanding. I hope unintentionally.



No, I have not.  However, I can also see we do not share the same view.  However, what I do see are:
-ignoring post
-arguing
-misunderstanding the question of the OP
-then contradiction of opinion, as stated in my previous post.

These are but a few examples exhibited in this thread.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 7, 2009)

My opinion's synchrony with that of yours doesn't have anything to do with that.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 7, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I am curious to know why some enthusiast would rather be just a user instead of an Administrator of their own PC?



Because I use unix.

Also, its a very effective security model. Microsoft just fails hardcore at it in windows.

The idea of a root super user, while running everyone else in a semi-protected user level is just....




Smart?


Looking at the responses from earlier posts, theres definitely a difference in what you guys are viewing as "running as admin".

From a windows perspective: Admin makes sense. because microsoft has fucked up a basic user. (Granted, they have great reasons for this.) Obtaining super user privledges in windows is more of a hassle than just running anti- mal/virus/ad-ware programs. Hence why windows users are more often found running as admins. (Hell, I do it, since none of my windows boxes are necessary to be running for me. Admin makes my life easier and makes no difference.)

Unix users, BSD, Linux, OS X, all support a root user and are designed with a user having basic rights. If I want to modify a system file, it will prompt me for a password, to allow higher rights.

Screwing with important files is protected, while adding sensible access to them if you are intentionally trying to change something.

Effective? Very.

Running as root would be a pretty dumb idea for obvious reasons. Typing passwords is hard AMIRITE?



Solaris17 said:


> depends on what you do i cant compile my dvd via dos prompt if im not true admin i need to right click and run as....but if i enable true admin then i just click on it.



This is exactly why this question is even being asked.

Windows fails. Unix OS's don't have this problem, so it is assumed.


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't understand about this issue, either . . .


But, I can say with Vista . . . that occasionally, Vista thinks it's "holier than thou" and proceeds to procure accessibility from you . . . and usually you don't know about it until you want to run a program, open a folder, or delete some files . . .

after a long, arduous battle trying to re-instate your privelages, you come to the realization that the war is pointless, and attempt to do a Safe Mode edit/delete of you target files . . .


only to find out, once in safe mode, that windows installer will not function, security is even tighter, and navigation of explorer is made to be a headache due to to blown up 640x480 screen resolution, and Vista's love of the expanding folder tree . . .

so, out of frustration, you decide that you'll have the last laugh, and proceed to format your primary drive - thereby removing the offending files and folders for good . . .

and then realize that now you need to reinstall the OS


----------



## Steevo (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't run my system at home as named administrator, nor mine at work, the only one I do is on the server, and I have granted myself higher than named administrator privileges.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 8, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> If you are going to ignore my posts then their is really no need for me to answer your questions.  And, in order to reply it's common to not ignore posts which provoked you to reply to being with.
> 
> Be that as it may, I honestly don't see your opinion as one that justify why someone does not use full admin privileges.  As stated, it's only your excuse of why someone shouldn't use it.  Had I asked if someone should or should not use full admin that would be relevant.  However, in this case it is not.  To clarify for you I asked. "Why do some "Enthusiast" not care to be Admin(s) of their own PC?"  Hopefully, you understand now.
> 
> You do go back and forth 1st saying that no one should use it.  Then turn around and say that Solaris response of why he does "seems legit".  Which is part of the reason why I do not find your response in line with the discussion at hand.  But thanks anyway



You asked him to provide a reason, and he did. a valid one. He answered your question. He then asked YOU a question, to which you have ignored him and tried to insinuate that his reply is not valid for some reason.

Why ask a question, if you're not going to listen to peoples responses unless they agree with you?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

Thank you Mussels. I think there is some sort of misunderstanding or language barrier going on here.

My point is, many people choose not to use true admin because they don't need it, and it is more unsafe. You asked why people choose not to, and I gave you 2 reasons why someone (myself included) might choose not to use true admin. How does that make my answer illegitimate to the scope of your question? It doesn't. It answers your question perfectly.

I then countered by asking you why people feel the need to run in true admin, even tho the majority of them get no benefit from it? Granted, there are always exception to the rule, but I'm willing to wager most that run it, have absolutely no need to. 

Hell, even Solaris could just make a shortcut to his cmd prompt to automatically run it in Admin mode, and update his Acronis, and then even he wouldn't need the true admin account at all, either.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> You asked him to provide a reason, and he did. a valid one. He answered your question. He then asked YOU a question, to which you have ignored him and tried to insinuate that his reply is not valid for some reason.
> 
> Why ask a question, if you're not going to listen to peoples responses unless they agree with you?





> The answer is actually found in the post your quoted
> If you are going to ignore my posts then their is really no need for me to answer your questions. And, in order to reply it's common to not ignore posts which provoked you to reply to being with.
> 
> Be that as it may, I honestly don't see your opinion as one that justify why someone does not use full admin privileges. As stated, it's only your excuse of why someone shouldn't use it. Had I asked if someone should or should not use full admin that would be relevant. However, in this case it is not. To clarify for you I asked. "Why do some "Enthusiast" not care to be Admin(s) of their own PC?" Hopefully, you understand now.
> ...


Everything you've asked is found right in my previous post.  As for your post that you believe someone has to agreeing with me; I have no opinion on this issue therefore it does not apply.  I simply want to know why some enthusiasts do not care to be admins (full admins).  However, I do prefer answers instead of arguing why someone should or should not use it.   





Wile E said:


> Thank you Mussels. I think there is some sort of misunderstanding or language barrier going on here.


As I said earlier, I asked, "Why do some "Enthusiast" not care to be Admin(s) of their own PC?"  Not if they should use full admin or not.  That's were the mis-communication is coming from.  



Wile E said:


> My point is, many people choose not to use true admin because they don't need it, and it is more unsafe. You asked why people choose not to, and I gave you 2 reasons why someone (myself included) might choose not to use true admin. How does that make my answer illegitimate to the scope of your question? It doesn't. It answers your question perfectly.


Based on what exactly?  I haven't read any replies to date that say they don't need it.  Maybe that can apply to yourself but I cannot see others with this point of view.  Which is why I am asking the question (to get their feedback vs. what you think their feedback is).



Wile E said:


> I then countered by asking you why people feel the need to run in true admin, even tho the majority of them get no benefit from it? Granted, there are always exception to the rule, but I'm willing to wager most that run it, have absolutely no need to.


I've already answered a similar question earlier.   



Wile E said:


> Hell, even Solaris could just make a shortcut to his cmd prompt to automatically run it in Admin mode, and update his Acronis, and then even he wouldn't need the true admin account at all, either.


Which is why I said that your earlier comment contradicted itself.  As he provided at least 1 example why someone would want full admin access.  Versus your belief that it's not needed.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 9, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> As I said earlier, I asked, "Why do some "Enthusiast" not care to be Admin(s) of their own PC?"  Not if they should use full admin or not.  That's were the mis-communication is coming from.



What are you looking for? _An answer_ or people's opinions on the matter? There have been plenty of legitimate opinions on the matter in this thread, on "why do some Enthusiast not care to be Admin(s) of their own PC" . If you want _an answer_, ask a research firm or a University.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 9, 2009)

i'm an enthusiast. i dont need full admin, so i dont use it. i even leave UAC on, in 7.

you're mistaking "someone who doesnt need it" for "someone who isnt an enthusiast"

the general tone i'm getting from you is that you seem to think the reasons for people not running as admin means that those people are not enthusiasts, and therefore do not apply.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i'm an enthusiast. i dont need full admin, so i dont use it. i even leave UAC on, in 7.
> 
> you're mistaking "someone who doesnt need it" for "someone who isnt an enthusiast"


No, I am not. 



Mussels said:


> the general tone i'm getting from you is that you seem to think the reasons for people not running as admin means that those people are not enthusiasts, and therefore do not apply.


Again, I am not.  I've never implied or said such a thing.


----------



## Bundy (Jul 10, 2009)

EastCoasthandle, an answer purports to state a fact as known and it must therefore be right or wrong. An opinion may also put forward a fact, but the first person is qualifying their statement in some way. It doesn't mean that it is invalid but that there are other considerations. 

As you asked about "some enthusiasts" rather than "you", there is an implication that the second person should offer answers pertaining to a third person. As the second person would be unlikely to know all third person situations, it is therefore appropriate to offer opinions.

I think you have been provided with reasonable responses to your question. They were offered to you passively via exressed opinions and yes, they were not answers. The information is still there though. The way in which you have reacted to these opinions is bemusing. Do you not appreciate that someone bothered to consider your post and respond?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 10, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Everything you've asked is found right in my previous post.  As for your post that you believe someone has to agreeing with me; I have no opinion on this issue therefore it does not apply.  I simply want to know why some enthusiasts do not care to be admins (full admins).  However, I do prefer answers instead of arguing why someone should or should not use it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I said it is not needed for most people, I didn't say it wasn't needed by anyone at all.

I also said, I am willing to bet that most people that do run true admin, have no real need to do so. Again, MOST people, not all.

And, on the converse side of things, I still want to know why people feel the need to use true admin. Why do you run true admin? In what manner does it benefit you? Is it worth the overall reduction in security?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 10, 2009)

Bundy said:


> EastCoasthandle, an answer purports to state a fact as known and it must therefore be right or wrong. An opinion may also put forward a fact, but the first person is qualifying their statement in some way. It doesn't mean that it is invalid but that there are other considerations.


The answer can be invalid if it strays away from the topic at hand.  I can clarify any confusion to my question (which I have done several times now) so that their is some direction as to why I asked the question.  



Bundy said:


> As you asked about "some enthusiasts" rather than "you", there is an implication that the second person should offer answers pertaining to a third person. As the second person would be unlikely to know all third person situations, it is therefore appropriate to offer opinions.


That's were things get confusing.  "Some enthusiasts" isn't about someone else's opinion on someone who things someone else is classified as an enthusiast or not. But the person responding to this thread who believes they are an enthusiast themselves. 



Bundy said:


> I think you have been provided with reasonable responses to your question. They were offered to you passively via exressed opinions and yes, they were not answers. The information is still there though. The way in which you have reacted to these opinions is bemusing. Do you not appreciate that someone bothered to consider your post and respond?


Your post in this thread is bemusing as it's off topic to this thread.  I never said that the responses in this thread were or were not reasonable.  Only to make sure that the question is understood.  IE: the opinion of the user responding.  If you have any further questions you can PM me (as I like to keep this thread on track) 







Wile E said:


> I said it is not needed for most people, I didn't say it wasn't needed by anyone at all.


And I asked based on what? 



Wile E said:


> I also said, I am willing to bet that most people that do run true admin, have no real need to do so. Again, MOST people, not all.


If they do have true admin how is that they have no real need for it?  One person already provided an example as to why they do.  



Wile E said:


> And, on the converse side of things, I still want to know why people feel the need to use true admin. Why do you run true admin? In what manner does it benefit you? Is it worth the overall reduction in security?


I've already answered this question. However, per your post you've ignored it.  So, there is really no need to answer it again.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 10, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> The answer can be invalid if it strays away from the topic at hand.  I can clarify any confusion to my question (which I have done several times now) so that their is some direction as to why I asked the question.
> 
> 
> That's were things get confusing.  "Some enthusiasts" isn't about someone else's opinion on someone who things someone else is classified as an enthusiast or not. But the person responding to this thread who believes they are an enthusiast themselves.
> ...


No, you've never answered the question, save for saying that you do it because you want to (in a nutshell). And if that qualifies as an answer, so does "I don't need it" as to why somebody wouldn't use it.

But you did not answer how it specifically benefits you. And you did not answer whether it's actually worth the reduction in security.

And yeah, one person showed how it benefits them, and I also gave solutions to those issues that makes true admin unneeded again. Yet, even if I ignore the solutions, and just agree that it benefits Solaris, how does it benefit you, or many of the others on this forum that use it?


----------



## a_ump (Jul 10, 2009)

well i never knew i wasn't the true-admin of my installation. I'm the only user on my PC, and i just have UAC turned off cause of annoying prompts. My system does everything just fine, if my account isn't a true admin idc bc i never knew there was a higher admin than what my account is, and why enable the true admin for my account when everything i do works perfectly without true admin. If one does not know they are not true admin, like i didn't, then it's probable they don't need to be.

The only thing i can gather that true admin has over a regular admin is to delete, edit, or use system files. I don't need to do that therefore i don't need true admin. I'm sure that's the answer for many users or enthusiasts.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 10, 2009)

a_ump said:


> well i never knew i wasn't the true-admin of my installation. I'm the only user on my PC, and i just have UAC turned off cause of annoying prompts. My system does everything just fine, if my account isn't a true admin idc bc i never knew there was a higher admin than what my account is, and why enable the true admin for my account when everything i do works perfectly without true admin. If one does not know they are not true admin, like i didn't, then it's probable they don't need to be.
> 
> The only thing i can gather that true admin has over a regular admin is to delete, edit, or use system files. I don't need to do that therefore i don't need true admin. I'm sure that's the answer for many users or enthusiasts.


Yeah, that's one of the things I've gathered so far.  Some don't know about it.  While others prefer the security of it.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 10, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Yeah, that's one of the things I've gathered so far.  Some don't know about it.  While others prefer the security of it.



The definition also depends on the OS the user is using.

Superuser in Windows98 = basically all users.
Windows XP will be the default user, unless otherwise defined.

Linux is Root.
OS X is root.

Both play different roles in administration, aswell.

"Enthusiast" also covers multiple levels of user... Beginners? Mid level users? Or advanced users?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 10, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> The definition also depends on the OS the user is using.
> 
> Superuser in Windows98 = basically all users.
> Windows XP will be the default user, unless otherwise defined.
> ...


An Enthusiast can cover multiple levels.  So I would say all levels...


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 10, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> An Enthusiast can cover multiple levels.  So I would say all levels...



Then you would have to define "why" for each one.

You have an extremely broad question


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 10, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Then you would have to define "why" for each one.
> 
> You have an extremely broad question



I didn't want to make the question that complex .
If you think you are an enthusiast it's good enough for me.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 11, 2009)

personally i consider anyone that is a member of this site and posts on it pretty much every day an enthusiast. When you know stuff bout computers thats one thing, but when your on a website where you try to help others, ask questions to learn more about computers, and read threads simply because the technology or info in the thread interests you, that's my definition of an enthusiast.


----------

