View Full Version : How can I save files to the root directory on a Windows Vista (ugh) laptop?
737NG_Girl
21st Jan 2008, 02:16
Ahh, Vista... you make life so much easier :yuk:
Can anyone tell me how I am able to change permissions so I can actually access the root directory (ie save files to) of the computer that I own, I am the administrator on, I have sole access to, and if it keeps going like this then I will be the one to take a sledgehammer to it?
Sorry - time for a cup of tea, a Bex, and a good lie down :sad:
Saab Dastard
21st Jan 2008, 08:20
Don't get mad, get even - install XP!
SD
Don't know about Vista (and plan to stay that way:)) but in XP a right click on the drive and then 'security' and try playing around with permissions there?
Good luck....................
There's a reason it's like that... it encourages you to keep your files in "your" section of the laptop - your Profile, which includes "Documents". There they're out of harm's way, and since you know where they all are, it makes backing them up easier. How are you going to back up documents stored in the root of C: - select them individually, every time?
As a rule, you should only have Administrator privileges when you need to do Administrator-type things. It's far to easy to make a "little mistake" that screws up the system. For normal use, you should be a normal user. This is a long-running UNIX practice that Microsoft is only now enforcing, kinda, so I actually agree with you being locked out of the root of C: :8
737NG_Girl
22nd Jan 2008, 02:07
Bnt I understand your point - call me a control freak if you will, but I refuse to let a piece of computer software tell me I can't access something that I am the OWNER of ha ha.
Anyway I got around it - just disabled User Access Control from the control panel, and now I should effectively be at 100% Administrator level.
Mac the Knife
22nd Jan 2008, 10:59
As a Unix/Linux guy I'm just curious as to why you'd want to? Can't think of any sound reason apart from " 'cos its there!" - the root should be clean. I don't use Vista :yuk: but there are good reasons for this.
Reminds me of the dear old DOS days when folks would get upset when they discovered that you couldn't have more than 256 files in the root....
:ok:
Bnt I understand your point - call me a control freak if you will, but I refuse to let a piece of computer software tell me I can't access something that I am the OWNER of ha ha.
Who said you can't be Administrator? I didn't. You want to do Administrator stuff, log in as Administrator, do the stuff, then log out - that's best practice.
My point was that it's dangerous to be wielding those privileges when you don't need them. Cat steps on the keyboard or chases the mouse at the wrong time, that is all it takes - or a virus. It's no more a "loss of control" than wearing a seatbelt: you don't plan to crash a car any more than you plan to trash system files, but... :eek:
"With great power comes great responsibility", and all that.
Saab Dastard
23rd Jan 2008, 10:43
bnt,
I agree with you 100% on the "least privilege" approach - it's something I've mentioned before on here.
I do have to say that MS - and more particularly some of the lazy b@stards that write commercial software - do not make it easy at all to follow this principle, as so many applications expect and demand admin access to function. I mean kids' games fercrissake! It is sheer bloody laziness / cost-saving on the part of the developers.
Rant over.
Admin off ;)
SD
I get exasperated with having to type Admin passwords every couple of minutes in Linux. To put the pesky clock right, for example.
I'm the only one who uses my computers, and don't follow the wise advice above.