Vista - administrator without uac

Hi group,

i need a second administrator account on my maschine like the default
administrator account from vista.
An administrator without UAC handling. I dont want to disable UAC generally.
Is the first administrator account hardcoded on Vista or is there a way to
make a second one.

thanks

The disabled-by-default "administrator" account is what you are looking for.

To enable it:

- Open an elevated command prompt (right-click, run as administrator)
- Type: net users administrator /active:yes
- Press enter

This account is not affected by UAC. You should only use it in an emergency
or for short, limited times, as it is much more secure to run in a
UAC-protected administrator account.

If you are trying to do something in a UAC-limited administrator account and
are having trouble, if you post your specific issue, we may be able to get
it working for you without resorting to using the built-in administrator.

--
- JB
Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

"Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7141CB7A-FC40-4509-B0CD-88F4543A891C@microsoft.com...
> The disabled-by-default "administrator" account is what you are looking
> for.
>
Thanks a lot but i need a second administrator like the first one.
Is this first administrator account (without uac handle) hardcoded on Vista?

The main administrator account is basically hard-coded in Vista. I don't
quite like that phrasing, but it suits our purposes to think of it that way.
It is easily available through safe mode because you may need it in case of
emergency, but is disabled by default on a regular boot.

Why do you need an account without UAC? Once you have everything setup, you
should see those prompts much less often. Also, those prompts don't prevent
you from doing anything if you simply press allow.

Robert Firth
http://www.winvistainfo.org


"Mark Lindner" <Mark.Lindner@te-service.org> wrote in message
news:ubbmQIYVHHA.3948@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:7141CB7A-FC40-4509-B0CD-88F4543A891C@microsoft.com...
>> The disabled-by-default "administrator" account is what you are looking
>> for.
>>
> Thanks a lot but i need a second administrator like the first one.
> Is this first administrator account (without uac handle) hardcoded on
> Vista?
>

Because, as many are seeing, UAC is VERY annoying.
If I am an administrator I should NOT have to answer a yes/no prompt
for every little action I do.

Copying, moving files. prompt.
Open a program. prompt.
Turn features on or off. prompt.
install something. prompt.
remove something. prompt.
sneeze. prompt.
It gets really stupid really fast.

It makes an Admin account almost pointless
as a standard account gets the same prompts
except it asks for the admin password as well.

I think MS went way overboard with UAC feature.
People who need that much hand holding do not need
to use a PC as an admin in the first place.


--
Thank you,
JD Wohlever

Techware Grafx
techware(dash)grafx(at)hotmail(dot)com

"Robert Firth" <webmaster@winvistainfo.org> wrote in message
news:41520B9B-D959-4602-9F23-8CE876347DD8@microsoft.com...
> The main administrator account is basically hard-coded in Vista. I don't
> quite like that phrasing, but it suits our purposes to think of it that
> way. It is easily available through safe mode because you may need it in
> case of emergency, but is disabled by default on a regular boot.
>
> Why do you need an account without UAC? Once you have everything setup,
> you should see those prompts much less often. Also, those prompts don't
> prevent you from doing anything if you simply press allow.
>
> Robert Firth
> http://www.winvistainfo.org
>
>
> "Mark Lindner" <Mark.Lindner@te-service.org> wrote in message
> news:ubbmQIYVHHA.3948@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im
>> Newsbeitrag news:7141CB7A-FC40-4509-B0CD-88F4543A891C@microsoft.com...
>>> The disabled-by-default "administrator" account is what you are looking
>>> for.
>>>
>> Thanks a lot but i need a second administrator like the first one.
>> Is this first administrator account (without uac handle) hardcoded on
>> Vista?
>>
>

JD

Everything you say is true, however, if you are an advanced user then you
probably have all of the required, standard security components running and
configured to keep everything secure.

In this case, you can configure UAC to be less intrusive using SecPol or GP.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"JD Wohlever" <techware-grafx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news02702D9-E8D0-4562-984D-BD6AA3A82377@microsoft.com...
> Because, as many are seeing, UAC is VERY annoying.
> If I am an administrator I should NOT have to answer a yes/no prompt
> for every little action I do.
>
> Copying, moving files. prompt.
> Open a program. prompt.
> Turn features on or off. prompt.
> install something. prompt.
> remove something. prompt.
> sneeze. prompt.
> It gets really stupid really fast.
>
> It makes an Admin account almost pointless
> as a standard account gets the same prompts
> except it asks for the admin password as well.
>
> I think MS went way overboard with UAC feature.
> People who need that much hand holding do not need
> to use a PC as an admin in the first place.
>
>
> --
> Thank you,
> JD Wohlever
>
> Techware Grafx
> techware(dash)grafx(at)hotmail(dot)com
>
> "Robert Firth" <webmaster@winvistainfo.org> wrote in message
> news:41520B9B-D959-4602-9F23-8CE876347DD8@microsoft.com...
>> The main administrator account is basically hard-coded in Vista. I don't
>> quite like that phrasing, but it suits our purposes to think of it that
>> way. It is easily available through safe mode because you may need it in
>> case of emergency, but is disabled by default on a regular boot.
>>
>> Why do you need an account without UAC? Once you have everything setup,
>> you should see those prompts much less often. Also, those prompts don't
>> prevent you from doing anything if you simply press allow.
>>
>> Robert Firth
>> http://www.winvistainfo.org
>>
>>
>> "Mark Lindner" <Mark.Lindner@te-service.org> wrote in message
>> news:ubbmQIYVHHA.3948@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im
>>> Newsbeitrag news:7141CB7A-FC40-4509-B0CD-88F4543A891C@microsoft.com...
>>>> The disabled-by-default "administrator" account is what you are looking
>>>> for.
>>>>
>>> Thanks a lot but i need a second administrator like the first one.
>>> Is this first administrator account (without uac handle) hardcoded on
>>> Vista?
>>>
>>

>
> Why do you need an account without UAC? Once you have everything setup,
> you should see those prompts much less often. Also, those prompts don't
> prevent you from doing anything if you simply press allow.
>

Sorry but i am not a person who only need what microsoft say.
I want to be free in my decision which useraccount have got UAC or not..
I need this account for an automatic installation on notebooks.
Ok i am sure that i can go another way to do this. The way of microsoft.
Why did microsoft makes an administrator without UAC.
I think they need it and therefor they make one. But i cant.

Thanks

"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:%23rCqpR%23VHHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> JD
>
> Everything you say is true, however, if you are an advanced user then you
> probably have all of the required, standard security components running
> and configured to keep everything secure.
>
> In this case, you can configure UAC to be less intrusive using SecPol or
> GP.


That's true.... but that's only half the story.

Security & Group Policy Editors are NOT AVAILABLE for Vista Home Premium
users.
It wasn't in XP Home either, by default that is, but you could at least
enable it with a simple registry tweak.

Now, in order to have this kind of control over your own PC you'll need to
shell out top dollar for Business or Ultimate.
Same mindset went into the decision to remove Fax Support from Home too I'll
bet.

Never mind that MS KNEW that Home Premium was going to be their top seller.
makes one wonder...

Just two examples of how "upgrading" to Vista in reality turns out to be a
"downgrade".

John

Sorry, but I do not agree with your assessment!

These tools were removed from the home versions of both XP and Vista based
on surveys of what different groups of users wanted and needed.

If you are an experienced user, you can use your knowledge to do whatever
you wish with Vista, regardless of what edition you have and still maintain
the responsibility of keeping your system secure. Things like SecPol and
GPedit are removed from the home versions because the consequences of these
powerful tools, in the hands of an inexperienced user, can be devastating.

Most home users will never have a need for these tools simply because they
will not be setting up complex, multi-group networks that require
complicated group permissions.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"johnm" <johnm@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OttZS8OWHHA.5008@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:%23rCqpR%23VHHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> JD
>>
>> Everything you say is true, however, if you are an advanced user then you
>> probably have all of the required, standard security components running
>> and configured to keep everything secure.
>>
>> In this case, you can configure UAC to be less intrusive using SecPol or
>> GP.
>
>
> That's true.... but that's only half the story.
>
> Security & Group Policy Editors are NOT AVAILABLE for Vista Home Premium
> users.
> It wasn't in XP Home either, by default that is, but you could at least
> enable it with a simple registry tweak.
>
> Now, in order to have this kind of control over your own PC you'll need to
> shell out top dollar for Business or Ultimate.
> Same mindset went into the decision to remove Fax Support from Home too
> I'll bet.
>
> Never mind that MS KNEW that Home Premium was going to be their top
> seller. makes one wonder...
>
> Just two examples of how "upgrading" to Vista in reality turns out to be a
> "downgrade".
>