Make your Vista's admin account acts like in XP


Recommended Posts

Wonderful guide.

Curious though, is there any way to remove the "run as administrator" function on context menus, since there's no longer any use for it(Or is there)?

If It involves resource hacking, it doesn't matter. I want to leave my Vista 'un-hacked'. >.>

@bradavon: I still can't figure out how to do that too. I added the bit about IE7 to the first post, I didn't notice it since I don't use IE :D thanks a lot.

@neospyce: Thanks for the link!

@Sniper101 & jamesyfx: You're welcome! :) I don't think there's a way to remove "Run as admin", but if you found a way let us know ;)

Wonderful guide.

Curious though, is there any way to remove the "run as administrator" function on context menus, since there's no longer any use for it(Or is there)?

If It involves resource hacking, it doesn't matter. I want to leave my Vista 'un-hacked'. >.>

Merge "RunAsAdmin_Exe-.reg" to remove the "Run as Administrator" Context Menu Item from all exe files.

Merge "RunAsAdmin_Exe+.reg" if you want to restore the "Run as Administrator" Context Menu Item.

RunAsAdmin.zip

I created these regfiles for the Take Ownership Context Menu Item.

? ? TakeOwn.png

More info @ Vista - Tips, Tricks & Tweaks:):)

Merge "RunAsAdmin_Exe-.reg" to remove the "Run as Administrator" Context Menu Item from all exe files.

Merge "RunAsAdmin_Exe+.reg" if you want to restore the "Run as Administrator" Context Menu Item.

RunAsAdmin.zip

I created these regfiles for the Take Ownership Context Menu Item.

TakeOwn.png

More info @ Vista - Tips, Tricks & Tweaks. :)

Sweet.

Heres a nice little tool:

http://www.tweak-uac.com/

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
@bradavon: I still can't figure out how to do that too. I added the bit about IE7 to the first post, I didn't notice it since I don't use IE :D thanks a lot.

No worries, glad I could help. If you like you can delete my ramblings above the main point of my post. The important part is when I discuss DropMyRights.

I too don't use IE but on occasion you have to when the site isn't FF compatible, or the you come across the odd site that uses ActiveX.

Is there a way to REVERSE this ?

I must admit, I've rarely used the "Administrator" log in, and only then by accident.

I'd like to go straight to my Phil K account.

How do I get shot of this ?

Yes there's!

1- Click Start, and type "cmd" in the search area, right click on "Command Prompt" and select 'Run as Administrator".

2- In the command prompt type "net users Administrator /active:no" (Note the capital "A" in Administrator) and press Enter, you will get a confirmation as "The command completed successfully".

Reboot and it'll go to the active account directly :)

Welcome everyone.

Yes there's!

1- Click Start, and type "cmd" in the search area, right click on "Command Prompt" and select 'Run as Administrator".

2- In the command prompt type "net users Administrator /active:no" (Note the capital "A" in Administrator) and press Enter, you will get a confirmation as "The command completed successfully".

Reboot and it'll go to the active account directly :)

Welcome everyone.

Cool. New little bit there.

Yes there's!

1- Click Start, and type "cmd" in the search area, right click on "Command Prompt" and select 'Run as Administrator".

2- In the command prompt type "net users Administrator /active:no" (Note the capital "A" in Administrator) and press Enter, you will get a confirmation as "The command completed successfully".

Reboot and it'll go to the active account directly :)

Welcome everyone.

Worked beautifully.

Thanks !

  • 1 month later...
maybe someone could post some reg tweaks for the above keys, so that we can just copy and paste them into notepad and save them as .reg files, would be very handy:)!

I know that the point of this tutorial is to move the annoying messages that warn you about almost every top level action you attempt, but after careful consideration, I think it's a good idea to be warned. Windows XP (mostly before SP2), was a completely in-secure file system with regards to administrative permissions. User accounts in both the Home and Professional editions of Windows XP were by default given administrative permissions over the system they presided in.

I think Microsoft has made a smart move by ensuring that users aren't able to harm them-selves. I understand there are those of you out there who are obviously careful and cautious enough to be able to take care of yourselves, but the majority is often the dumber fraction. ;)

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Hey :)

This doesnt seem to work very well. Everytime I try to copy and then paste something in Program Files it never allows me even if I say yes to the UAC prompt. While in my original admin account when I installed Vista, I could.

Why?

  • 8 months later...
Hello Tantawi, thanks for the welcome.

Thanks for that reg fix. It looks like it adds a context menu which dumps you at a DOS command prompt. It's a start but I'd prefer a Full Admin account like XP.

Even if I didn't use it all the time it would be nice to know it's possible. For example I've not worked out how to be able to rename files in the WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 folder (unless I take ownership of that too) which you may need to do if you need to delete/rename a system file.

Has anyone worked how to do this? Surely it's possible. I believe the difference here is the Administrator account (the proper one) in Vista still doesn't own certain folders, they're owned by the SYSTEM account (which cannot logged in with) as opposed XP where you own each and every folder.

That thread is great though, it's chocker block with goodies. I'll have to get reading :D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I suggest you add a disclaimer to your first post explaining disabling UAC takes Vista's IE7 Protected Mode with it.

This basically lowers IE7 to a Limited User (lower than the Semi-Admin you're logged in with). This is something IE7 users may not be aware of, even if you enable Protected Mode from Internet Options it stays disabled (just like UAC). There is a fix however.

If you want UAC disabled but Protected Mode on use DropMyRights which was written for XP but works just the same in Vista (I tested it last night), not only that but using it actually turns Protected Mode back on (i.e - instead of saying Protected Mode: Off it will say On). Therefore proving Protected Mode and DropMyRights are on and the same thing.

What is DropMyRights I hear you say, read on: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms972827.aspx

It was written by a Microsoft bloke but isn't officially supported. I use the /c switch to make it even more secure. I've been using it for months and bar ActiveX installs (which need admin rights) not one website has fallen over. You can prove it works by trying to save a file into the SYSTEM32 folder, it won't let you.

The great thing is it's completely seamless, works on XP or Vista (probably 2000 too) and lets you get the good bits out of UAC without the bad. Just set the shortcut for each Internet enabled program to use it and make sure you choose Open "Minimised" and it's seamless.

I tried this but it always gives me a invalid path....

it says C:\programs doesnt exist.

  • 2 weeks later...

yeah currently I use a real admin account with no UAC at all however I think UAC is a good idea as it follows the unix motto of trying to keep things running in limited priviledge mode. So I do plan at some point to move back to a UAC environment on my vista box and work around the non admin mode problems I had.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Which finger's fingernail are we talking about? I can see how not having this info can lead to massive differences in interpretation.
    • This Chinese company is reportedly developing a feature Apple and Samsung can only dream of by Hamid Ganji While companies like Apple and Samsung have been relatively conservative with their devices’ battery capacities in recent years, Chinese manufacturers have taken the competition to the next level by introducing significantly larger batteries. However, the latest report from China suggests that a local company may already be developing a smartphone with a whopping 14,000mAh battery. Chinese leaker Digital Chat Station claimed on Weibo that a smartphone maker is developing a device with a 14,000mAh battery. If true, it would be the largest battery ever used in a smartphone and could, in theory, provide up to a week of battery life on a single charge. The leaker did not reveal the name of the company behind the device, but there are some clues. This week, HONOR unveiled the X80 Pro Max in China with an 11,000mAh battery and 90W wired charging support. The company also launched the Honor Win in January, which packs a 10,000mAh battery. HONOR, a former subsidiary of Huawei, has a proven track record of developing smartphones with unusually large batteries. However, other Chinese brands, including Xiaomi, have also launched devices such as the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max with 7,500mAh batteries. Though Chinese users on Weibo also believe the company behind the new battery is HONOR. Interestingly, Digital Chat Station said the device with the 14,000mAh battery weighs around 220 grams, making it lighter than the Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max (233 grams) and slightly heavier than the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (214 grams). The iPhone 17 Pro Max currently packs a 5,088mAh battery in eSIM-only versions, while the Galaxy S26 Ultra features a 5,000mAh battery. Neither device is expected to see a dramatic increase in battery capacity in its next-generation successor. So when it comes to battery comparison, Chinese brands are unbeaten. HONOR smartphones are currently available in the EU, but the Chinese brand has no official presence in the United States due to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government.
    • Qualcomm takes on NVIDIA with new Dragonfly CPU and AI chips by Pradeep Viswanathan Microsoft, Google, Amazon, AMD, Meta, Apple, OpenAI, and several others have been developing their own chips for AI infrastructure. However, NVIDIA still remains the dominant player in the market. Today, Qualcomm announced a major expansion of its data center infrastructure portfolio to better compete with NVIDIA. The new lineup includes the Qualcomm Dragonfly C1000 CPU, Qualcomm High Bandwidth Compute technology, the Dragonfly AI300 inference accelerator, new connectivity products, and custom silicon solutions. Qualcomm claims that this new lineup improves performance per watt, token throughput, and total cost of ownership for AI data centers. The Dragonfly C1000 is a new data center CPU built with Qualcomm’s custom Oryon cores. This chip will feature more than 250 cores, frequencies above 5GHz, and a chiplet-based design. Qualcomm claims that this new C1000 can deliver more than 2x better performance per watt compared to existing server CPU offerings based on specifications. The Dragonfly C1000 will support PCIe Gen 7 with more than 2TB/s of connectivity, along with CXL, advanced RAS features, and both air and liquid cooling. Qualcomm expects the Dragonfly C1000 to be commercially available in 2028. Additionally, Qualcomm and Meta announced a multi-year, multi-generation agreement under which Qualcomm will supply Dragonfly C1000 data center CPUs for Meta’s next-generation server fleet. Qualcomm also announced High Bandwidth Compute, a new near-memory computing architecture designed to address AI’s memory bandwidth bottleneck. HBC Gen 1 will debut with the Dragonfly AI250, which is expected to sample in mid-2027. The AI250 will deliver 133TB/s per card, an 18x increase in effective memory bandwidth compared to the AI200 with LPDDR5X. The new Dragonfly AI300 with HBC Gen 2 is a rack-level AI inference platform from Qualcomm. Qualcomm claims that the AI300 can deliver 4x to 8x better performance per watt compared to existing GPU-based architectures based on memory bandwidth per watt per card. The Dragonfly AI300 is expected to be available in 2028.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Meta Plast earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      461
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      136
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!