Yes, but the point is that John Q. Normalperson who only has one account on
their computer shouldn't need to click a user account icon when there is only
one account on the computer. Any "tech-savvy" person would know how to bypass
that and input the Admin l/p when needed. As far as the standard account
goes, what would happen if somebody tried to install a program that requires
Admin access? I just don't see the reason why having to click a picture
allows you to log in when the computer is not shared with anybody else. That
is the question here, not admin privies, security or any other. The situation
I was giving was simply, "there's one account on the computer - by anybody
tech-savvy or not - why would they ened to "click the picture" to load to the
desktop when XP (by default - at least in my case) loaded the one and only
profile on it.
I gues what I'm saying is this (since I can't get the correct words out,
apparently) ... why would I, someone who has enough computer knowledge to fix
anything gone wrong (most of the time) but not MS-knowledgable enough to know
what "control userpasswords2" is, need to click a picture to load to the
desktop when nobody else uses this computer?
"Kerry Brown" wrote:
> On a properly setup, secure computer your parents would never need to use an
> administrator account for normal day to day use. They would use a standard
> user account with a password. The other account would be an administrator
> account with a password.
> Kerry Brown
> MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
> "Steven G" <StevenG@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > Let's not take this out of context, now. I said it was "silly" to not
> > allow a
> > single home-user to automatically login without having to click their
> > "user
> > account icon" on the primary pre-load screen. Security is great, but if
> > you
> > only have one account and set it up as though there's only one admin
> > (yourself), there should be a way to set it to auto-load that one profile
> > without interupption. Example, why would my parents - who have enough
> > problem
> > learning how to type - have a need to click their account icon when nobody
> > else uses that computer and/or has a need to "log in/out"?
> > That's all that was implied - nothing about security measures or the like.
> > I'm all for security in *ANY APPLICATION* - just not about more clicks
> > then
> > needed to get into my own computer system.
> > "Donald McDaniel" wrote:
> >> "Steven G" <StevenG@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:17CFE66D-B8CA-4AA9-9EC4-23A58BFB1D38@microsoft.com...
> >> > Ahh, Jimmy. Thank you very much! So that's the only way to get to that
> >> > "area"
> >> > of Vista, huh? Doing a control command? Wow ... yeah .. I hope they fix
> >> > that
> >> > in the final version .. that's just silly. Thank you again for the
> >> > help!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Jimmy Brush" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Is there any way to bypass the loading of the user account screen to
> >> >> > boot
> >> >> > directly into the desktop
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes
> >> >>
> >> >> - Click Start
> >> >> - Type: control userpasswords2
> >> >> - Press enter
> >> >> - Clear the Users must enter a username and password to use this
> >> >> computer
> >> >> check box
> >> >> - Click Apply
> >> >> - Enter the user name and password you wish to automatically log on
> >> >> with,
> >> >> and then click OK
> >> >> - Click OK again
> >> >>
> >> >> Hopefully Microsoft will make this easier before the Final Release.
> >> >>
> >> >> - JB
> >> Why would this be silly? It was the same under WinNT and XP. I see no
> >> reason to change it anytime soon.
> >> Such a powerful option SHOULD be hidden from most users, and only
> >> available
> >> to the Computer Administrator. My hope is that Microsoft WON'T make it
> >> "easier" for users to login auto-magically.
> >> What I think is silly is the ability to simply click to grant
> >> Administrator
> >> permission for various operations. It should be DIFFICULT to grant Root
> >> permission, not EASY. Even mouse-clicks can be programmed into malware
> >> installation if needed, after all.