Vista Administrator Account (revealed) - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Skype & Technology (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Tech Talk (/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+----- Thread: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) (/showthread.php?tid=73828)
Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Wally on 04-22-2007 at 05:35 AM
Ok people incase you didn't know about this already, theres a hidden administrator account in windows vista the reason why im posting this is if people are having problems or getting annoyed with the UAC and administrator permissions this hidden account will solve this problem and get rid of them without having to turn it off manually. This is the True Administrator account
Turning on the Administrator account is straightforward.
1. First, open an elevated command prompt by typing cmd into the Search box on the Start menu, right-clicking the command prompt icon that appears at the top of the Start menu, then selecting Run as administrator
2. Then enter this command and press Enter:
Net user administrator /active:yes
From now on, the Administrator account will appear as an option on the Welcome screen, along with any user accounts you may have set up. Use it like any other account.
If you want to disable the account and hide it, enter this command at an elevated command prompt and press Enter:
Net user administrator /active:no which i doubt you'd want to do 
This information was provided from here
I actually started using this account a while ago using a different method easier for me unfortunately i forgot where the source is but i will look and if i find it i will post it
this is only for people using Windows Vista and didnt know about it
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Felu on 04-22-2007 at 05:48 AM
I didn't know about it 
. Thanks. I've always thought of going to Safe Mode in order to access the Administrator a/c.
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by John Anderton on 04-22-2007 at 05:51 AM
How is this different from a normal admin account with UAC disabled?
Disabling UAC is as easy as start > run > msconfig > Tools > Disable UAC > Ok.
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Wally on 04-22-2007 at 05:52 AM
no problem i personally haven't tried this method but it should work
quote:
Originally posted by John Anderton
How is this different from a normal admin account with UAC disabled?
Disabling UAC is as easy as start > run > msconfig > Tools > Disable UAC > Ok.
with this account you will not have to disable UAC its already disabled, it will run like a normal administrator account like xp
quote:
Originally posted by wally
if you annoyed with the UAC and administrator permissions this hidden account will solve this problem and get rid of them without having to turn it off manually. This is the True Administrator account
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by John Anderton on 04-22-2007 at 05:58 AM
I have just one admin account and other standard accounts. So I just disable UAC and run my account. Why have to go to another account when you don't need to 
Anyway, UAC is too much trouble for power users anyway. 4 confirmations to whether I can paste a file in a folder is far from ideal. Only allowing auto elevation for administrators is fine too because tbh that's the worst part of it all.
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Wally on 04-22-2007 at 06:04 AM
well its really up to you if you want to use the account im just trying to help maybe you can use this for future purposes
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by M73A on 04-22-2007 at 08:15 AM
i dont have vista... but whats the difference between an xp admin account and a vista admin account 
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by kao on 04-22-2007 at 08:19 AM
quote:One is on Vista and one is on XP?
Originally posted by M73A
i dont have vista... but whats the difference between an xp admin account and a vista admin account
You can disable UAC in Control Panel > User Accounts aswell, don't need to use msconfig, JA ;p
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Wally on 04-22-2007 at 08:25 AM
not much difference its just vista has to much security asking for your permission with everything you do and one odd thing it will ask is for example if you want to install a specific program it will ask for administrator permissions ...why would it do that if your the administrator? the purpose of this hidden account is that you wont have to deal with any of that like i said in the first post 'this is the real Administrator account' alot of people i know hate vista and switch back to xp for this exact issue, but this solves there problem the right way.
i hope this answered your question
EDIT: yes i do know you can disable UAC i did this but i still had some issues i noticed some applications wouldn't run unless i right clicked them and click 'run as administrator' i would notice that the application would run but not correctly unless i did that. the hidden account also solves that problem
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by vaccination on 04-22-2007 at 08:59 AM
Why would I want a secondary account to be shown in the login screen ;<
My, admin, account will do 
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Wally on 04-22-2007 at 09:09 AM
i didn't post this information to make you do anything, you dont have to do anything you dont want to do this is only for people who didn't know about it and want to use it either now or the near future and to unlock the real administrator account and use it as there primary
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by vaccination on 04-22-2007 at 09:13 AM
I wasn't complaining
Just stating my opinion =p
RE: RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Verte on 04-22-2007 at 09:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by M73A
i dont have vista... but whats the difference between an xp admin account and a vista admin account
Nothing. The difference is that Vista doesn't let people run as admin by default. This is the default behaviour of most operating systems, and those operating systems usually have mechanisms for doing more privileged things that are fairly straightforward. The reason for this is it stops unauthorised software installing itself on your computer or changing your settings.
You can still run as administrator, just like in XP- but you'd have to know that you really want to do that rather than have it work that way by default. This is sort of good, because it keeps people who don't know that much about computers, or people on a friend's computer, from installing malware by accident [to a degree]. Further, UAC was designed so people didn't have to run as admin just to install software- this made many people abandon their regular accounts.
[If you want to see how UAC should have been designed, google gksu].
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Voldemort on 04-23-2007 at 01:50 AM
quote:that's all it takes.. no need for another account...
Originally posted by kao
UAC in Control Panel > User Accounts
quote:i'd call it annoying crap.
Originally posted by wally
security
RE: RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Wally on 04-23-2007 at 06:29 AM
quote:i'd call it annoying crap.
Originally posted by wally
security
thanks i couldn't have said it better
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by kezz on 04-23-2007 at 09:17 AM
on the topic of Vista, but off the topic of Admin Acc's
should i bother with getting Vista now in its infancy or wait until it matures a bit. ive heard stories of unreliability with some programs that i use...
RE: RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Verte on 04-23-2007 at 01:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kezzinator29
on the topic of Vista, but off the topic of Admin Acc's
should i bother with getting Vista now in its infancy or wait until it matures a bit. ive heard stories of unreliability with some programs that i use...
As far as I see it, you upgrade to Vista for one or more of two reasons:
1. XP's default theme has strange side effects on you.
2. You NEED DirectseX 10.
Otherwise, your money can probably be better spent elsewhere. The price of Vista will get you a pretty swish hard drive, or quite a bit of net bandwidth. Not to mention the time and effort you will save on NOT being a full time beta tester.
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by John Anderton on 04-23-2007 at 01:55 PM
quote:Yes but msconfig is leeter. And once I install the OS, I install all the apps I need, then goto msconfig to clean up my startup, disable UAC then reboot.
Originally posted by kao
You can disable UAC in Control Panel > User Accounts aswell, don't need to use msconfig, JA ;p
Its all done in 1 reboot. One nice smooth flow so
I have to goto msconfig anyway so might as well disable it from there while I'm there =pquote:Who cares what you'd call it. Its meant for security. It is annoying is another point all together. Microsoft have accepted that the UAC system isn't exactly what they wanted it to be. I'm not a linux expert but I think MS was going with the root user system of linux. In linux, users have normal accessibility but when you login as root, you can do anything, kinda like opening a program in elevated mode. Else even though you're an admin, vista runs the app in normal user mode.
Originally posted by Voldemort
quote:i'd call it annoying crap.
Originally posted by wally
security
IMO that's fine. That is what it is supposed to do. If you hate that feature, I don't know what you think about linux
What's irritating is the fact that it has to annoy you with requests for doing a small action multiple times. An action as simple as pasting a file in a folder under Program Files requires a single, sometimes multiple, authorisation(s). That's what's irritating to me.quote:You would need a DX10 compatible card for that and I must say, if you have that, you've spent a bit too much money anyway so might as well get vista
Originally posted by Verte
As far as I see it, you upgrade to Vista for one or more of two reasons:
1. XP's default theme has strange side effects on you.
2. You NEED DirectseX 10.
Seriously, a NVIDIA 8800 GTX is just too costly. Last I checked, all DX10 compatible cards were. So you really should be waiting.Vista, imo is pretty good. I like Vista at release way way more than xp at release. If you have the hardware to run vista perfectly, you could give it a shot imo
quote:No operating system is perfect. Xp had way more bugs in the first 90 days (as shown by a Microsoft employee) than Vista. Vista isn't evil. I don't understand why people think it is
Originally posted by Verte
Not to mention the time and effort you will save on NOT being a full time beta tester.
"My apps don't work
" Well when you moved from Windows 98 (hopefully not ME ) to XP, people said the same about their apps/games not being compatible. I still have quite a few games that don't work unless compatibility mode enabled. Those games are 8 or so years old. So? At xp's release, those games/apps were 2-3 years old. So why can't you expect vista to bitch about games/apps 2-3 year old games/apps? Tbh all you need is to update your game. A simple update patch does the trick and that too is rarely needed. I only needed it once out of all the games I have in my collection If companies/creators are too lazy to update their applications/softwares/whatever then they are the ones that are responsible, not the operating system imo. For me, a developer is supposed to keep up with the change in the market and not the other way around.
These are my views and I may be wrong. Feel free to point out where I made mistakes
RE: RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Verte on 04-23-2007 at 02:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by John Anderton
quote:Yes but msconfig is leeter. And once I install the OS, I install all the apps I need, then goto msconfig to clean up my startup, disable UAC then reboot.
Originally posted by kao
You can disable UAC in Control Panel > User Accounts aswell, don't need to use msconfig, JA ;p
Its all done in 1 reboot. One nice smooth flow so
quote:Who cares what you'd call it. Its meant for security. It is annoying is another point all together. Microsoft have accepted that the UAC system isn't exactly what they wanted it to be. I'm not a linux expert but I think MS was going with the root user system of linux. In linux, users have normal accessibility but when you login as root, you can do anything, kinda like opening a program in elevated mode. Else even though you're an admin, vista runs the app in normal user mode.
Originally posted by Voldemort
quote:i'd call it annoying crap.
Originally posted by wally
security
IMO that's fine. That is what it is supposed to do. If you hate that feature, I don't know what you think about linux
As I mentioned earlier, the Linux system is quite different. Most functionality can be done without root access, although many programs still require it. However, it's very easy to grant root access to a whole terminal, and then do all such things in this terminal [if you're doing a lot of installs, or fixing user accounts, say]. As a better example, opening the Linux settings and changing them requires one validation, just one.
quote:
Originally posted by John Anderton
quote:You would need a DX10 compatible card for that and I must say, if you have that, you've spent a bit too much money anyway so might as well get vista
Originally posted by Verte
As far as I see it, you upgrade to Vista for one or more of two reasons:
1. XP's default theme has strange side effects on you.
2. You NEED DirectseX 10.
Vista, imo is pretty good. I like Vista at release way way more than xp at release. If you have the hardware to run vista perfectly, you could give it a shot imo
If you're the sort of person who will be inconvenienced by apps breaking, and you can go without the new Vista features until SP1, there's no reason to spend the money now. IMHO DX10 may be the major drawcard for Vista- most of the other improvements are more stable in other OS's anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by John Anderton
quote:No operating system is perfect. Xp had way more bugs in the first 90 days (as shown by a Microsoft employee) than Vista. Vista isn't evil. I don't understand why people think it is
Originally posted by Verte
Not to mention the time and effort you will save on NOT being a full time beta tester.
"My apps don't work
If companies/creators are too lazy to update their applications/softwares/whatever then they are the ones that are responsible, not the operating system imo. For me, a developer is supposed to keep up with the change in the market and not the other way around.
These are my views and I may be wrong. Feel free to point out where I made mistakes
I'm not saying it could or even should work perfectly- bugs are a part of life. There were some serious API changes between the 5.2 and 6.0 kernels, and it makes sense that some side effects will come of that. I'm just saying, if having your computer Just Work is more important to you than Aero and monolithic app integration, it might be worth saving the jump until the code has had time to settle.
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Jhrono on 04-23-2007 at 09:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Verte
2. You NEED DirectseX 10.
You do? Since when? There's nothing on the market that makes any use of Direct3D10 yet
Gotta say I love your way of saying DirectX.. DirectseX lol
quote:
Originally posted by John Anderton
You would need a DX10 compatible card for that and I must say, if you have that, you've spent a bit too much money anyway so might as well get vista Seriously, a NVIDIA 8800 GTX is just too costly. Last I checked, all DX10 compatible cards were.
Not anymore! Since nVidia launched 8500 GT, 8600 GT and GTS (April 17th) Direct3D10 became affordable
.. However, ATi is yet to answer.. They've delayed their cards for so long that nobody believes them lol
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by vaccination on 04-23-2007 at 09:43 PM
My 8800 GTS wasn't _that_ expensive
* vaccination waits for Crysis 
RE: RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by Verte on 04-24-2007 at 01:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jhrono
quote:
Originally posted by Verte
2. You NEED DirectseX 10.
You do? Since when? There's nothing on the market that makes any use of Direct3D10 yet
Gotta say I love your way of saying DirectX.. DirectseX lol
I was enumerating reasons you might need to upgrade to Vista, with the suggestion that you can put it off while XP is working fine for you. It's a fair amount of money for a change of drapes, and there are probably better things you can get out of that much cash- especially if your critical apps aren't yet ready for it.
I hear someone hacked DX10 support into XP today, it will only be so long before there's an add on for wine
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by kezz on 04-24-2007 at 08:58 AM
thanks for all that John
well needed in-depth on Vista
RE: Vista Administrator Account (revealed) by John Anderton on 04-27-2007 at 07:02 AM
quote:Yeah. And I personally didn't like XP at first even though I had to use it (I was dead tired of 98 and well, don't get me started on ME
Originally posted by Verte
it might be worth saving the jump until the code has had time to settle.
). XP looked good and all but wasn't perfectly stable. Anyway, SP2 came along and made it the best Windows OS there was. It was pretty stable. No BSODs in the years that I've put it through hell. It even performed well. And by the time SP2 came out, most apps had perfect compatibility. I might be mistaken but I think SP2 had better Compatibility support. The original XP version never worked for me. After SP2 I could run old games under Compatibility mode. So it was all good.All I'm saying is, let the whole thing settle down. Maybe future updates might just take it to the next level, as it happened for XP
Its just my opinion but I like Vista at release more than XP at release. Despite the bugginess and the odd BSOD (mainly non perfect drivers like the ones for NVIDIA but they are fast improving
) I still like vista more Despite the fact that lopardo will continue to disagree with me meh.quote:Actually less than a week back, the first game using D3D10 was released!
Originally posted by Jhrono
You do? Since when? There's nothing on the market that makes any use of Direct3D10 yet
Its on the NVIDIA site but I didn't have time to read