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

    • Microsoft's fast coding model MAI-Code-1-Flash comes to Copilot Business and Enterprise by Karthik Mudaliar Microsoft’s recently announced MAI-Code-1-Flash model is now generally available to GitHub Copilot Business and Copilot Enterprise customers. With this support, organizations can have more centralized policy controls and billing while finally being able to use Microsoft’s lightweight, first-party coding model. According to GitHub’s announcement, Business and Enterprise plan administrators must enable the MAI-Code-1-Flash policy in Copilot settings before developers can access the model. Microsoft says that MAI-Code-1-Flash is for fast, iterative coding work rather than the most demanding architectural or debugging tasks. GitHub’s official model comparison page says that the model is great for "general-purpose coding and writing," while it excels at fast, accurate code completions and explanations Microsoft introduced MAI-Code-1-Flash on June 2 as part of a broader collection of internally developed MAI models. GitHub subsequently expanded support to Copilot CLI, the Copilot cloud agent, GitHub.com chat, GitHub Mobile, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Eclipse, and Xcode, but said support for managed Business and Enterprise customers was still on the way. In Microsoft’s own benchmark testing, MAI-Code-1-Flash scored 51.2% on SWE-Bench Pro, compared with 35.2% for Anthropic’s Claude Haiku 4.5. Microsoft also claimed that the model used up to 60% fewer tokens on SWE-Bench Verified. Do note that these are vendor-run results rather than independent measurements. The model is billed at provider list pricing under GitHub’s usage-based system. GitHub currently lists MAI-Code-1-Flash at $0.75 per million input tokens, $0.075 per million cached input tokens, and $4.50 per million output tokens. For organizations, the main incentive to use MAI-Code-1-Flash is likely to be efficiency rather than maximum capability. A smaller model that responds quickly and limits unnecessary output is quite useful for repetitive agent tasks at scale, especially after GitHub Copilot’s move toward usage-based billing. The "Flash" model is recommended for fast work and not necessarily for huge repositories with loads of context. It's better if teams compare their output with other larger models, especially if they're working on security-sensitive changes and complex, multi-file work.
    • yes AND no the "original" or plain/normal Optiplex 7010 won't be getting any more new firmware updates BUT the Optiplex SFF/SFF Plus {small form factor}, Micro/Micro Plus & Tower/Tower Plus 7010 editions DO get new updates such as this new one   and here are similar guides from the Dell web site for Dell systems: https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000390990/secure-boot-transition-faq https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000347876/microsoft-2011-secure-boot-certificate-expiration
    • AT&T has been spying on US citizens with the NSA for decades.. they just know how to keep it more under wraps.. the evil level is still there.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      462
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      213
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!