new folder automatically write protected


Recommended Posts

Hello,

I have a problem with Windows XP and Server2003: Whenever I create a new folder, it is automatically write protected. The write protect checkbox is greyed out though. If I clear the check box, apply the changes and then check the properties of the folder again, the write protect box is checked AGAIN!?!

This isnt really a problem with most programs, but the oracle installation says it cant install cause some folders are write protected :angry:

I tryed it on 2 windows xp machines that are in a win2k domain, and 1 server 2003 machine that isnt in a domain.

any suggestions please??

Is it actually checked or are you talking about the green blob in the read only box? If the latter, that does not mean it is read only. Actually, it doesn't mean anything at all. Enable the attributes column in Windows Explorer to see what attributes the folder has.

What I think you have to do is uncheck the read only (write protect) box and then check the archive box at the same time. If it still shows up as read only, check the parent folder as that may be read only.

You might also have a virus or some spyware.

the_guy

Doesnt work either :( It is in the root directory on drive c:, I dont think you can write protect drives, or can you?

Dunno about virus, got McAffe running and dont visit any "bad" web sites since this is my work pc.

Ive tryed a few more Computers, and on every one the effect is the same: new folders are write protected :angry:

can this be a security setting?

Hi, thx for the nfo guy,

I allready tryed the attrib command. If I check the folder permission using the attrib command, it says the folder is not write protected.

Maybe it is a Problem with the application, ima look into that now.

this is strange though, I wonder why I cant change the read only attribute using windows explorer

Hi, eccofresh.

The problem is with the rights to the folder. Windows 2003 automatically makes a greyed out hash by write protect for all folders. This does not mean that it is totally write protected. If you are having problems with a program that will not run from this folder, or that you cant install in this folder check your rights. Share rights and security. It is NOT a write protect problem.

  • 6 months later...

hi i had the same problem...

windows automatically set folders to read-only but all files are made witeable if u deselect read only

if you want to remove read-only on a certain folder, start --> run --> cmd and type the following:

attrib -r (drive):\folder and hit enter

you should have write permissions to that folder even though the box will still be greyed out or have the green block inside

If we all use our logic, or read http://support.microsoft.com/kb/326549/, we would come to the conclusion that Read-Only status is ignored for folders. You see, \Windows is "read-only", \windows\system32 is "read-only", \Documents and Settings is "read-only", \Program Files is "read-only" but are they really? Obviously not, otherwise account changes wouldn't stick, Windows and apps could not write to the registry and programs could not be installed.

Windows only cares about read-only status on files.

To the OP, you'd have to post the specific error that the Oracle install spits out.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Of course the sales are bad. Who even asked for a thinner phone with way less battery? Lightness? It's still a giant brick, it's just a thinner giant brick. It makes no sense at all. Making folding phones thinner, now that does make sense. Because when folded, the thinner it is unfolded, the more usable and pocketable it is when folded. You already expect worse battery at expense of actually being more pocketable. Galaxy Flip, when folded is half the size of S Ultra models and about as thick. That does make a big difference when fitting it in a pocket. But the phone that's as big as Ultra, making it thinner, you don't really solve anything, it's still a giant slab that barely fits into a pocket. All the "Mini" phones made way more sense than this thin crap. Especially now that it's literally impossible to find a phone smaller than 6.5". My dad only needs phone for calls and SMS and he doesn't want to go with smartphone because they are all so massive. Especially cheaper ones. Like, he'd be fine with Galaxy A06 for all he cares in terms of hardware, but it only comes in giant 6.7" format. It's useless. Or is he suppose to find a 800€ old gen iPhone Mini or Zenfone? He doesn't even need those stupid specs and such stupid price. And then you see old people fumbling around with giant smartphones and they don't even need 3/4 of features on them.
    • its funny now instead of robots built for a specific task which is more efficient we are focused on humanoid robots that are built for do anything but might not do it as well because of restrictions similar to how human body works and they were molded after...
    • 3,900 mAh. When compared to the S25 Ultra (5,000), the S25+ (4,900) and the S25 (4,000), it has the worst battery of them all, all because of that slim size. Everything comes with sacrifices.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      emptyother earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Crunchy6 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      KynanSEIT earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      gowtham07 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Collaborator
      lethalman went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      671
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      272
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      218
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      165
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      163
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!