Mayayana wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote

| And I want to do this for the entire C: partition. And
| yes, I am aware of the security risks.
|

I gave you a link. I don't remember how that
worked out. I've used it myself to remove
restrictions from all C files and even was able
to delete from winsxs with abandon.

Aside from that, why not just set up the
Administrator account and be that user?
Also, as I mentioned before, you can create
FAT32 data partitions where file restrictions
can't work. Anything copied/moved to FAT32
will be stripped of leg irons.

There isn't a one to one mapping, going from NTFS
to FAT32. There are "details" you've skipped over.
This is why no partition management company can
blithely offer this capability, of making NTFS
into FAT32. Whereas the other direction is "OK".

Yes, it's true that you can "selectively" pave
over patches of your file system with TakeOwn or
similar. But there are also parts that
"resist being touched".

The OP wants to "pave everything in sight", and that's
just not practical. If you're willing to "win small battles"
but "never win the war", you can.

Would the OP be happy later, if he cannot get into
System Volume Information ? I'm sure his blood pressure
would go through the roof. But once inside that
folder, there are files in there which if touched,
could destroy the file system (they're not really files).
Is it worth the risk to go in there ? Well, you decide
(keep backups!!!).

*******

What's really amazing, in the history of Windows,
is WinXP being installable on either NTFS or FAT32.
And the OS is "feature complete" in both cases.
Including a working implementation of Volume Shadow Service,
even though FAT32 cannot represent files larger than
4GB in size. If I run Macrium on WinXP, it seems to have
no problem using VSS to back up a 72GB C: FAT32 partition.
The one shortcoming in WinXP, is shadows are not persistent
across reboots. And I don't know if this is related
to the NTFS/FAT32 differences or not.

The handling of System Volume Information on Windows 7,
is "definitely different". There's no comparison between
the WinXP contents and the Windows 7 contents there. But
I've not really had any interest in going spelunking there
(since the accident).

In WinXP, it's easy to go looking in there. In Windows 7, not
so much. I *destroyed* a C: volume by looking in SVI
on a Windows C: . A recent attempt to reproduce the failure,
no failure resulted. This is why, if you're going to be
an "atom smasher", better have backups. The morning
that happened to me, I'd made a backup only two hours
earlier, purely on a lark (the backup wasn't planned,
and I had no idea I was going looking in SVI that day).
It was sheer coincidence I had something to restore with.
CHKDSK couldn't fix whatever happened to the file system.
It was trashed (which sure smells to me like a VSS related issue).
VSS records file system deltas, which is why there could
be "severe tire damage" if you futz with one of those
that happens to be persistent (i.e. you touched it
while the OS was offline). I wasn't *writing* the
shadows, only *reading* them.

Windows 7 isn't designed to work on FAT32, so right
away, I could see VSS based backup programs, having
to fall back to PSSNAP, then telling you the pagefile
is open and the backup must stop now. It's fun to
pretend Win7 could run on FAT32, but unless provision
was made in the same way as on WinXP, it's just not
going to happen. And the Junction/Reparse practical
usage on Vista+, lays extra mines in the minefield
for you to trip on. Nobody really minds "tripping"
on a Junction point when they run into one, and
utilities vary on how "elegantly" they step
over the mines. Robocopy makes it a user responsibility,
to know they need to switch on the "step over" function.

If you used Robocopy to copy Win7 C: to a Win7 D: and
62 junction points were missing (because they were
stepped over), how happy will Win7 be on an attempt to
boot from the Win7 D: you made ? My guess is, not very
happy. It should crash just as the desktop tries to start.

Doing a complete paving job in a case like this,
involves filling a lot of tiny potholes along the way.
It's not "one command, for the win".

Paul