|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
panopticon
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Problems with winexit.exe and "power users" |
 |
|
Hello,
I have nearly the same situation as the user Rob. We are trying to employ
the winexit.scr screensaver to make sure that public computer lab users
cannot leave themselves logged in. These domain users are simply classified
as Users in Active Directory for our university. We do not manage this
domain, so cannot classify them as Power Users or Admins. Right now,
Winexit.scr only runs for me when I'm logged in as a local admin.
I tried to follow the directions in this post, however when I browse to the
suggested registry key HKEY_Local_Machine\Software\Microsoft\Windows
NT\CurrentVersion, I do not see Set Value or Create Subkey here, nor do I see
these in HKEY_Local_Machine\Software\Microsoft\Windows
NT\CurrentVersion\IniFileMapping\Control.ini. perhaps it is obvious that I
am not an experienced Registry Editor...I really haven't done much with
Regedit, so I guess I am missing something here?
Can you point me in the right direction?
Many thanks,
-Chris
"Ramesh, MS-MVP" wrote:
| Quote: | Adding to what Doug said:
Winexit.scr always causes this error when run from a restricted user
account. Here is the information you need:
http://www.jsiinc.com/SUBc/tip1100/rh1179.htm
HKEY_Local_Machine\Software\Microsoft\Windows
NT\CurrentVersion\IniFileMapping\Control.ini
BTW, the solution is to set appropriate permissions for the registry key
discussed in that article. You can find more information about registry
permissions in this article:
How To Use the Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 Registry Editor Features:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=310426
--
Ramesh, Microsoft MVP
Windows XP Shell/User
http://windowsxp.mvps.org
"ArrrghBob" <ArrrghBob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6313C3C4-15A6-445F-BCC4-3645FDF5FCA0@microsoft.com...
Hi,
I am a computer lab technician at Gonzaga University. I manage 150
computers all using winXP sp2 in a lab setting. We are trying to use a
microsoft product called winexit.exe. I have installed the new version
for
XP. We are on an active directory system here. We use to have no problem
when our lab computers were running Win2000, and our users were all in the
administrators group. Now we have tightened up security by placing all
our
users in the power users group.
Also, we used to set our winexit.exe screen saver settings logged on as
administrator then copy our administrator profile over our default user
profile.
When we try to rely on the default user profile now to initiate
winexit.exe,
nothing happens. So we have gone to trying to use the group policy
settings
in active directory. We have had a minor success with that. As long as
an
administrator is logged on, winexit works properly. But when someone in
the
power users group is logged on, winexit fails when it attempts to log them
off. An error message appears that says:
Error encountered while creating registry key. Make sure you have Set
Value
and Create Subkey permissions.
Once we click "OK" on that, the log off continues properly.
I have tried adding the power users group to all the main registry keys
and
editing the permissions to include those permissions, but it still
happens.
I am open to having any kind of auto log off that will work consistently
with new profiles on an active directory, WinXP sp2 system.
Can anyone help me?
--
Rob
"Eddies in the space/time continuum"
Ford Prefect
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Google
Sponsor
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C J.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject: Re: Freeware Software |
|
|
Andee, with no brains <noreply@elmtreeweb.co.uk> wrote:
> ~~~ SPAM ~~~ < |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newbie Coder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: [SPAM] |
|
|
Details of the sad user:
Domain name:
elmtreeweb.co.uk
Registrant:
Andrew Hastie
Registrant type:
Unknown
Registrant's address:
15 Alma Street
Shipley, West Yorkshire
BD18 1DG
GB
Registrar:
Pipex Communications UK Ltd [Tag = FREEDOM]
URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 19-Jan-2007
Renewal date: 19-Jan-2009
Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.
Name servers:
server0001.freedom2surf.net
server0004.freedom2surf.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noozer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:19 am Post subject: Re: [SPAM] |
|
|
"Newbie Coder" <newbiecoder@spammeplease.com> wrote in message
news:%23iQFHiUwHHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Details of the sad user:
|
Another stupid AOL user who thinks we care... Report him to his ISP, don't
spam the groups whining about it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Premuž
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: RE: offline files indicator and shortcut indicator |
|
|
I've found a tweak explained on
http://www.pctools.com/guides/registry/detail/627/
that forces Windows Explorer to show the file name extension (.lnk)
for shortcuts:
in registry key "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\lnkfile" remove the value named
NeverShowExt and restart Windows (this also applies for some other
file types).
If you have offline files enabled, this can be useful for recognizing
shortcuts.
I enabled this, but then realized that Windows Explorer has another
"smart" feature:
If you try to rename a shortcut (e.g. public.lnk) and you do not put
the .lnk extension at the end of the new name, Windows Explorer
doesn't warn you about changing the file name extension.
If you do the same for a plain text file (e.g. test.txt), you get a
warning:
"If you change a file name extension, the file may become unusable.
Are you sure you want to change it?"
Is that any better in Windows Vista?
-- rpr. /Robert Premuz/
I wrote:
| Quote: |
If the offline files feature is enabled in Windows XP, Windows Explorer
puts a two-blue-arrows mark on icons of the files that are available
offline. The mark is placed in the left bottom corner of the icon.
(The two-blue-arrows overlay is contained in
"%SystemRoot%\system32\cscui.dll".)
On the other hand shortcuts are marked in Windows Explorer with a
shortcut-arrow mark, also in the left bottom corner of the icon.
(The shortcut-arrow overlay is contained in
"%SystemRoot%\system32\SHELL32.DLL".)
If you have a shortcut that is available offline, the two-blue-arrows
mark is shown on the icon while the shortcut-arrow mark is not shown.
So you have to look at the file properties to check if the icon is a
shortcut actually.
Does it work the same way in Windows Vista?
While investigating this issue, I tried this:
1. I created a custom icon file (shortcut.ico) that contains the
shortcut-arrow on the right bottom corner of a transparent background.
2. Using the Tweak UI from PowerToys for Windows XP I applied my
shortcut.ico as the shortcut overlay for Explorer and the shortcuts
became marked with the shortcut-arrow on the RIGHT bottom corner of
the icon.
3. But when a shortcut was also made available offline, only the
two-blue-arrows mark was shown (in the left bottom corner of the
icon).
So my conclusion is that Windows Explorer in Windows XP can show only
one overlay on an icon. What about Windows Vista?
I find this issue important in corporate environments for laptop users
where the My Documents and Desktop folders are redirected to network
folders but they are also available offline. In that case users cannot
easily recognize if an icon is a shortcut or a plain file/folder.
-- rpr. /Robert Premuz/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bod
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: Re: Desktop icons moving - even when autoarrange is unchecke |
|
|
Good point. When I use a 2nd monitor & go to desktop properties > settings
and drag the picture of the left hand screen to be aligned with the bottom of
the right hand screen - to match the physical setup, some desktop icons are
off screen.
a) What is quick way to get them all to get back onto the visible desktop.
(The wallpaper does move, but it's as if the icons stay where they are and so
some are off the top. I can select them all and move them down a bit before
going to properties.)
b) I was going to make a folder a desktop-double, and use that folder as a
desktop instead. Knowing how it shuffles icons from time to time, I thought
I'd try to make it like a webpage, but the article I found doesn't describe
my XP Pro dialogue:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/ie4_folder_background.mspx?mfr=true
"David Candy" wrote:
> It's so your icons are ALWAYS on screen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daved
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject: Re: Removing Gamblock downloaded software |
|
|
Take my advise do not install Gamblock it will destroy your PC. I
purchased it over a year ago to prevent my old flatmate from gambling
online. I now no longer live with him, the license has expired however
it continues to block every site under the sun. Their technical support
is at best useless. So please do not purchsae this product.
If anyone can offer any help on how I remove this software it would be
much appreciated. As I've mentioned the license is expired at this
point and has been for sometime.
--
daved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
daved's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=28326
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=219033
http://forums.techarena.in |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vanguard
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: Re: Replace Windows XP copy? |
|
|
"Noozer" wrote in message news:eeHAsPEzHHA.5380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | I often copy large amounts of files. Nothing is more frustrating than
having the computer copy files for an hour and then pop up an error.
This means I have to start over.
Now that Tucows has officially gone to crap I can't find any software
there, and Googling for "XP copy replacment" or "xp file copy"
generate a bazillion unrelated hits.
Are there any GOOD file copy utilities out there that I can use to
replace the XP file copy?
|
Yep, there are, and already included with Windows. Run "xcopy /?" for
help on using it, like the /C switch to ignore errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stan Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: Re: Replace Windows XP copy? |
|
|
Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:46:37 -0500 from Vanguard
<vanguard.x@comcast.net>:
| Quote: | Run "xcopy /?" for
help on using it, like the /C switch to ignore errors.
|
In my opinion, ignoring errors is a really good way to give yourself
a false sense of security.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vanguard
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Replace Windows XP copy? |
|
|
"Stan Brown" wrote in message
news:MPG.210d0cc266955c0c98aec2@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:46:37 -0500 from Vanguard
vanguard.x@comcast.net>:
Run "xcopy /?" for
help on using it, like the /C switch to ignore errors.
In my opinion, ignoring errors is a really good way to give yourself
a false sense of security.
|
And ignoring errors lets you continue the copying despite them. Why
lose all files just because one is bad? Yeah, the hard drive might be
going bad but why should that enforce losing ALL files? Could be the
one file is "bad" not because of a hardware defect but instead because
the file is locked. There are some utilities, like handle.exe from
SysInternals, oh.exe from Win Resource Kit, and Unlocker but most users
don't know about them because they don't realize the copy error is due
to a locked file (and don't understand what is a locked file). If you
were copying 38,000 multimedia (data) files and had to sacrifice a few
to get all the rest, would you simply decide that none of them were
salvageable because a few were not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noozer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:43 am Post subject: Re: Replace Windows XP copy? |
|
|
| Quote: | Run "xcopy /?" for
help on using it, like the /C switch to ignore errors.
In my opinion, ignoring errors is a really good way to give yourself
a false sense of security.
And ignoring errors lets you continue the copying despite them.
|
Which is still the wrong way to do it.
It shouldn't IGNORE errors. It should work around them and make you VERY
aware of what didn't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ayush
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:53 am Post subject: Re: Replace Windows XP copy? |
|
|
[Noozer] wrote-:
| Quote: | It shouldn't IGNORE errors. It should work around them and make you VERY
aware of what didn't work.
|
It will show all the errors i command prompt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stan Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:58 am Post subject: Re: Replace Windows XP copy? |
|
|
Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:42:29 -0500 from Vanguard
<vanguard.x@comcast.net>:
| Quote: | And ignoring errors lets you continue the copying despite them. Why
lose all files just because one is bad?
|
Are you serious?
It's a pretty bad thing if you have a "copy" that isn't the same as
the original, but you don't know it's not the same.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Sharpe
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: Replace Windows XP copy? |
|
|
Stan Brown wrote:
| Quote: | Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:42:29 -0500 from Vanguard
vanguard.x@comcast.net>:
And ignoring errors lets you continue the copying despite them. Why
lose all files just because one is bad?
Are you serious?
It's a pretty bad thing if you have a "copy" that isn't the same as
the original, but you don't know it's not the same.
The error is that the file cannot be copied. Assuming that the OP is |
copying files to another directory the ignored file just won't be copied
there. The significance, of course, occurs when you assume that all
files have been copied and delete the folder with the original files.
So, yes, use "ignore errors" but be aware of the potential consequences.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vanguard
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Replace Windows XP copy? |
|
|
"Noozer" wrote in message news:eXOkvJMzHHA.5380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Run "xcopy /?" for
help on using it, like the /C switch to ignore errors.
In my opinion, ignoring errors is a really good way to give yourself
a false sense of security.
And ignoring errors lets you continue the copying despite them.
Which is still the wrong way to do it.
It shouldn't IGNORE errors. It should work around them and make you
VERY aware of what didn't work.
|
You don't run DOS commands, do you? You haven't run the XCOPY command
and had files it couldn't copy, have you? Otherwise, you would realize
that it reports the files it cannot copy. You could edit the DOS shell
properties to up the number of buffered screen lines, like to 8000, or
you could simply redirect the stdout of XCOPY to a file, as in "xcopy
filespec {target} > {logfile}".
So what is your *right* way of copying dozens, hundreds, or thousands of
files when a few will fail? Sacrifice all of them, I suppose. Yeah,
good solution, uh huh. And what is "work around them"? Could it be to
ignore and report them? Well, then you are agreeing that XCOPY is a
solution.
In fact, you don't even need to actually copy the files if all you want
to do is check if they can be read. You can run XCOPY to NULL; see
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319137/en-us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
