Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards

Just move the game into user-writeable directory... DOS-based games don't
need access to registry. If a Windows game needs to write to protected
places, it's not designed properly. Those programmers would then write a
game for Linux that requires root login. It's their problem, not Windows.

" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:00:43 -0400, Tony Hill
wrote:

They finally changed this
around for SP2 and have taken it further with Vista.


So much so that I have to give my 6 year old admin access on her new
box (I was stupid to set it up with XP SP2 - should've opted for 2k)
whenever she wants to play some of her favorite games (she likes some
DOS-based oldies). There is not even an option "run as different
user" that I could set up the games under her account, or I just could
not locate it by quick looking. Any idea, anyone? TIA

NNN

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:31:12 -0400, Tony Hill
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:25:32 GMT, "
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:00:43 -0400, Tony Hill
wrote:

They finally changed this
around for SP2 and have taken it further with Vista.


So much so that I have to give my 6 year old admin access on her new
box (I was stupid to set it up with XP SP2 - should've opted for 2k)
whenever she wants to play some of her favorite games (she likes some
DOS-based oldies).

Most of the problems I've encountered have to do with applications
being absolutely moronic about file permissions (ie they just assume
that they can write data anywhere and everywhere and crash when such a
write fails). If you can figure out where the game needs write
permissions you might be able to resolve this.

This is easy enough to test for DOS programs since they usually reside
entirely within one folder. Just give her user account full
read/write access to that folder and see if it works as a non-admin.
If so you can then optionally try to narrow down exactly what files
and/or directories specifically require the read/write access and what
ones can do with only read access.

That was the first thing that came to my mind. Gave her full access
to the folder and each file in it - still no-go. Apparently the game
tries to access some hardware directly or does something else that XP
tolerates only from admins.


There is not even an option "run as different
user" that I could set up the games under her account, or I just could
not locate it by quick looking. Any idea, anyone? TIA

The 'Run As' command will take care of this, though it's
implementation leaves a bit to be desired. Try something like the
following command line:

runas /savecred /user:mymachine\admin application

Thanks - that's exactly what I hoped to find. I suspected all along
that there must be a command line corresponding to the GUI option that
is available to admins but hidden in limited user account. Will try
as soon as I get to the box.


A few points of note though, the '/savecred' option will allow you to
run it without entering a password every time, but it's only
implemented in WinXP Profession, disabled in XP Home (I don't know
about Media Center). The 'mymachine' is the hostname of your computer
and 'admin' is the user account of the administrator for which you
want to run the application.

Also note that, as with 'sudo' in the *nix world, the 'runas' command
should be looked at as something of a last resort for non-admin tasks.
Ideally you want her to be able to play the games simply as a standard
user account, which is usually possible by simply adjusting file
permissions.
With XP, especially SP2, you never know...

Thanks,

NNN

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:25:32 GMT, "
wrote:

So much so that I have to give my 6 year old admin access on her new
box (I was stupid to set it up with XP SP2 - should've opted for 2k)
whenever she wants to play some of her favorite games (she likes some
DOS-based oldies). There is not even an option "run as different
user" that I could set up the games under her account, or I just could
not locate it by quick looking. Any idea, anyone? TIA

How about dosbox.sourceforge.net ? It's what I use to get old dos
stuff working without having to muck around too much

--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself

Tony Hill wrote:
What exactly was not working with this search utility? I know you
complained about a bug in 'Find.exe', though the only one I'm aware of
is one that was fixed with Win2K SP2, 6 years ago. It's not exactly a
tool that they've had much reason to change for quite a few years.

It was finally fixed in Win2K. It was broken (it was simply unsuable as it
could not find data which was obvoiusly there) for so many years.


So basically your example is agreeing with me that Microsoft did a
terrible job with software quality up until Win2K. After that point
they improved dramatically.


It is certainly a key application. MPlayer (or any alternative to
Windows Media Player) is not a key application and has had MORE then
it's fair share of bugs simply in getting it packaged and distributed
with all the accompanied packages to make it useful without running
into dependancy hell.

Now compare what you can play with default install of MPlayer and Windows
Media Player


That depends on what distribution because there are so many different
ways that MPlayer gets packaged up. It needs MANY libraries to be
useful at all, not to mention some kind of GUI.

I has GUI built in. And it's current set of libraries shipping with it is
good for vast majority stuff out there -- it can play various mpeg4, mpeg2,
WMV (up to 9), and tons of older stuff.


When it IS installed
correctly though it can be a very good player. I use it because I can
get the dependancy nonsense sorted out and I don't mind spending an
hour or two doing so. But most people don't care about this sort of
stuff enough for it to be worth their time, they just want something
that works.

Now it just works. Download stuff from mplayerhq.hu and install and it will
work.


This is why Ubuntu holds a MUCH larger chance of
succeeding on the desktop then Redhat.

That's true. But that's because Ubuntu is free as free beer and is oriented
towards home desktop use (RHEL is business oriented, but works there well).

Ubuntu is where it is because it's paid for and doesn't have to make money
at all. It's even supposed to loose money as it's meant to be a generous
gift to the World.

rgds
--
Sebastian Kaliszewski