How about in Vista? Should I also use limited account instead of admin account? Because there is such thing called UAC in Vista.
As much as that may be true or may not, it only reassures me in my first statement that browsers aren’t security programs–contrary to popular belief. Choose yours based on usability.
With UAC’s default settings you’re safe even running as admin, as long as you don’t get too happy clicking “OK” after a while–and you will. Also please note that many people advise to disable user consent for the admin token, because it’s a “nuisance”, thus making Vista just as secure as Windows 95. Actually MS implemented this as a default setting because they knew from their XP experience that the only way to make people adopt safe practices was to force them on.
Anyway even in Vista the practice that makes sense, even with UAC, is using admin accounts for administration, and limited accounts for normal usage. Duh…
I only use admin account in Vista for installing CIS and images, everything else I do in the limited account.
I’m something of a “minimalist”. So the reason I don’t use another limited account is because I thought it may take up too much space.
A limited account will not take as much space as the Winsxs folder on Vista. ;D
Oh the plague spreadeth!
Remember that multiuser is a feature, and not just concerning security. If someone else had to use your computer, would you share your settings, favourites, etc.? And give him admin access to your machine?! :o No need for wand to remember passwords, just set all the websites to remember you, and password protect your account (even if it’s limited as it should). Your “Documents” will also be private and unaccessible to anyone else who boots the computer.
Thanks space consideration was also my primary concern. Now I’m browsing with limited account. Yesterday my sister in law asked my persmission to use my PC to surf for a while. She didn’t understand COMODO defense+ pop-ups luckily she asked. So I think I’m gonna use the limited account for guests primarily but for now I’m using it too though many my day-to day applications now require password to run. ■■■■ annoying. I still don’t know how to update Vista from a limited account probably can’t though. Looking forward to IE 8.0 final release.
Just set Windows Update to fully automatic at the Control Panel. The system will download the updates without your noticing (and yes without Internet slowdowns, in my experience), and will install them when you shut down the computer after closing all accounts (since many updates can’t be installed with a second account open–other than the one installing it). Seamlessly.
That’s been true for a long time, but it’s been changing, I don’t know if they’re the majority of mainstream apps any longer. In any event programs not designed to work in limited accounts aren’t given the “Vista Ready” seal of approval by Microsoft. It will change altogether eventually, and for the little self-contained proggies that refuse to use the profile folders, the only thing you need to do is install them under the Shared Documents instead of the Program Files folder–will work all right.
Also a new feature of Vista (not sure which Pro version or whatever you need to get it) is that it can hook attempts to write in protected locations of the folder tree or the registry, redirect them to subfolders of your profile folder, and virtualize so that when the program accesses those files it’s redirected again so that it gets the updated ones. For example from
Splitting topics… :P0l
I find very few normal applications require admin rights
My everyday applications include:
Microsoft office, Open office, Firefox & Thunderbird, a genealogy program Gramps, Adobe reader, XNView, CDBurnerXP, DBPoweramp, MPlayer, Various games, The Gimp, Paint shop pro, 7-ZIP, FooBar2000, Free commander.
None of them require admin rights. I find a better alternative if something does not work as a limited user. I guess there are probably older, more specialized applications that are a problem. I also use large fonts. If a program does not work as limited user or with large fonts I would not use it and complain to the producer if I felt there was no alternative (unless it is a really big company like Microsoft when there is no use trying to complain - I tried once).
Most malware cannot run under a limited account even if you have NO security programs installed. The only time my daughter accidentally tried to install some malware too new for the virus checker to spot it just could do nothing under a limited user account (this was on a computer without defence+).
I have never had any problems with Thunderbird as limited user and have been using it since about version 1.0. You need admin rights to update to a new version but that is all. You also need admin rights to install add-ons globally for all users. I have one add-on for Firefox that required this to make it run but once installed it was fine.
You can password protect CIS and stop alerts, if you want other people to use your computer.
I update Vista in a limited account never done in admin, as soon as you click install you will get a prompt for admin password.
After that one prompt it installs fine including reboot cycle.
Edit I did use admin once for SP1 but I used the standalone file so easier to do this in admin.
Sorry I didn’t mention what I said was for XP, somewhat different from Vista.
I have no problems with my programs in the limited account I use all the time:
[attachment deleted by admin]