What to do with all the stupid and unnecessary "other/guest" user accounts and directories?

"Tim Meddick" wrote in
:

Sorry,
you can also download my reg file from :

http://www.4shared.com/file/17617259.../SingleStartMe
nu.html

You may have missed this from my last post:

UPDATE: I just checked the DL dir where I saved you post, and
there IS a "SingleStartMenu.reg" file there. HOW it got there I
don't know. You learn something new about XNews (AND Total
Commander) almost every day.

I have yet to try your suggestions, but they sound very
promising. Thanks again.

"Tim Meddick" wrote in
:

Sorry,
you can also download my reg file from :

http://www.4shared.com/file/17617259.../SingleStartMe
nu.html

You may have missed this from my last post:

UPDATE: I just checked the DL dir where I saved you post, and
there IS a "SingleStartMenu.reg" file there. HOW it got there I
don't know. You learn something new about XNews (AND Total
Commander) almost every day.

I have yet to try your suggestions, but they sound very
promising. Thanks again.

=?Utf-8?B?QW50ZWF1cw==?=
wrote in
:

Purely an observational comment, but it seems to me that
userprofiling is what drives the bulk of the overcomplexity
present in modern OS's.

SNIP

In an era when providing a computer (or two) for each user
is almost a trivial cost, multiuser profiling does seem
like a farcical way to go about things, especially for
small sites. I begin to wonder if the reason why small-site
installers favour this route is because it's what they're
trained to do by Microsoft, or if it's a case of 'milking'
the client by making things as complex and as
time-consuming as possible, to maximize support bills.

I have very often thought that maximizing support costs (as part
of the "You sell Windows in your shop, and ONLY Windows, or
else..." strategy) was one of the main reasons for making
computer setups so unnecessarily complex.

=?Utf-8?B?QW50ZWF1cw==?=
wrote in
:

Purely an observational comment, but it seems to me that
userprofiling is what drives the bulk of the overcomplexity
present in modern OS's.

SNIP

In an era when providing a computer (or two) for each user
is almost a trivial cost, multiuser profiling does seem
like a farcical way to go about things, especially for
small sites. I begin to wonder if the reason why small-site
installers favour this route is because it's what they're
trained to do by Microsoft, or if it's a case of 'milking'
the client by making things as complex and as
time-consuming as possible, to maximize support bills.

I have very often thought that maximizing support costs (as part
of the "You sell Windows in your shop, and ONLY Windows, or
else..." strategy) was one of the main reasons for making
computer setups so unnecessarily complex.

"Tim Meddick" wrote:

User Profiles give access to shared resources from any terminal a user logs
onto in the network.

If User Profiles did not exist as you suggest - a worker could only access stuff from his OWN console and not from any other PC in his network.

News to me.

Lst time I checked, having a userprofile (roaming or static) didn't give any
access to server shared ares.

Loading a profile might bring a group policy into force which causes
drve-mappings to appear. That is purely an incidental effect though. In order
to set a mapping the user must first have access-rights to the share, and
profiles do not grant rights. If the user has rights then they are able to
access the share, roaming profile or no.

The issue which profiling fails to address is that in many smaller firms the
computers are task-specific, for example a firm has a bank of powerful
desktops for design work, another has specialst software for accounting,
another is set-up for voicemail and reception duties. If one of these guys
is off sick or on vacation someone needs to take over, but the moment they
log-in the computer's settings revert, and it will no longer perform the task
it was set-up for.

The textbook remedies I'm always given to this are to use mandatory
profiles, or modify the Default profile. With a little thought you can see
that neither are applicable. Mandatory profiles lock-down all settings, which
is useless. The default profile is only applied to first-time users, and in
any case will not provide settings for any software installed since its
creation.

The upshot is that security is thrown to the window, and passwords are all
made the same, or written on post-its. Then, it becomes established practice
that on computer A you log-on as Susan, no matter who you actually are. On
computer B you log-on as James. When you ask, 'Who is Susan, anyway?' you are
told that she left a couple of years back to work for a competitior.

Not just hypothetical either, I suspect that a fair proportion of small
firms work that way.

Roaming profiles work for large companies, but they have the benefit of
onsite IT, and a very uniform and 'faceless' set of computers. Outside of
this environment it's a different matter.

Then, we have the issue of being 'stuck in the past' - since Windows 7's
roaming profiles are incompatible with XP, the choices are to stick with XP
for the forseeable future, face a long period of disruptive working, or
upgrade the entire site in one go. Which latter most small firms cannot
afford, either in licensing costs or downtime. I wonder if Microsoft have
considered the effect this design-decision must have on Windows 7 sales?

"Tim Meddick" wrote:

User Profiles give access to shared resources from any terminal a user logs
onto in the network.

If User Profiles did not exist as you suggest - a worker could only access stuff from his OWN console and not from any other PC in his network.

News to me.

Lst time I checked, having a userprofile (roaming or static) didn't give any
access to server shared ares.

Loading a profile might bring a group policy into force which causes
drve-mappings to appear. That is purely an incidental effect though. In order
to set a mapping the user must first have access-rights to the share, and
profiles do not grant rights. If the user has rights then they are able to
access the share, roaming profile or no.

The issue which profiling fails to address is that in many smaller firms the
computers are task-specific, for example a firm has a bank of powerful
desktops for design work, another has specialst software for accounting,
another is set-up for voicemail and reception duties. If one of these guys
is off sick or on vacation someone needs to take over, but the moment they
log-in the computer's settings revert, and it will no longer perform the task
it was set-up for.

The textbook remedies I'm always given to this are to use mandatory
profiles, or modify the Default profile. With a little thought you can see
that neither are applicable. Mandatory profiles lock-down all settings, which
is useless. The default profile is only applied to first-time users, and in
any case will not provide settings for any software installed since its
creation.

The upshot is that security is thrown to the window, and passwords are all
made the same, or written on post-its. Then, it becomes established practice
that on computer A you log-on as Susan, no matter who you actually are. On
computer B you log-on as James. When you ask, 'Who is Susan, anyway?' you are
told that she left a couple of years back to work for a competitior.

Not just hypothetical either, I suspect that a fair proportion of small
firms work that way.

Roaming profiles work for large companies, but they have the benefit of
onsite IT, and a very uniform and 'faceless' set of computers. Outside of
this environment it's a different matter.

Then, we have the issue of being 'stuck in the past' - since Windows 7's
roaming profiles are incompatible with XP, the choices are to stick with XP
for the forseeable future, face a long period of disruptive working, or
upgrade the entire site in one go. Which latter most small firms cannot
afford, either in licensing costs or downtime. I wonder if Microsoft have
considered the effect this design-decision must have on Windows 7 sales?

I have updated the reg-file as it did not contain all the necessary changes, I have
also created an "Undo" reg file and both can be downloaded together in a .zip file
below :

SingleStartMenu.zip
http://www.4shared.com/file/17808116...StartMenu.html

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

I have updated the reg-file as it did not contain all the necessary changes, I have
also created an "Undo" reg file and both can be downloaded together in a .zip file
below :

SingleStartMenu.zip
http://www.4shared.com/file/17808116...StartMenu.html

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

I'm talking about his [own] files on a shared [public] network drive.

If no profiles existed the user would have to keep any personal files on his own hd.

Any files he saved to a public drive would be visible to all!

WITH profiles - a user can store files on a networked public drive with his profile's
security credentials and access them from any console on the network providing he
logs in to his profile.

For example - I log in to any PC as %user% and get access to a "My Documents" folder
on the public drive.

Any files saved to this folder can be accessed again by logging into any other PC on
the network as %user% again.

No-one else but %admin% can "see" the files in "My Documents" even though they are on
the "public" drive.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"Anteaus" wrote in message
...
"Tim Meddick" wrote:

User Profiles give access to shared resources from any terminal a user logs
onto in the network.

If User Profiles did not exist as you suggest - a worker could only access stuff
from his OWN console and not from any other PC in his network.

News to me.

Lst time I checked, having a userprofile (roaming or static) didn't give any
access to server shared ares.

Loading a profile might bring a group policy into force which causes
drve-mappings to appear. That is purely an incidental effect though. In order
to set a mapping the user must first have access-rights to the share, and
profiles do not grant rights. If the user has rights then they are able to
access the share, roaming profile or no.

The issue which profiling fails to address is that in many smaller firms the
computers are task-specific, for example a firm has a bank of powerful
desktops for design work, another has specialst software for accounting,
another is set-up for voicemail and reception duties. If one of these guys
is off sick or on vacation someone needs to take over, but the moment they
log-in the computer's settings revert, and it will no longer perform the task
it was set-up for.

The textbook remedies I'm always given to this are to use mandatory
profiles, or modify the Default profile. With a little thought you can see
that neither are applicable. Mandatory profiles lock-down all settings, which
is useless. The default profile is only applied to first-time users, and in
any case will not provide settings for any software installed since its
creation.

The upshot is that security is thrown to the window, and passwords are all
made the same, or written on post-its. Then, it becomes established practice
that on computer A you log-on as Susan, no matter who you actually are. On
computer B you log-on as James. When you ask, 'Who is Susan, anyway?' you are
told that she left a couple of years back to work for a competitior.

Not just hypothetical either, I suspect that a fair proportion of small
firms work that way.

Roaming profiles work for large companies, but they have the benefit of
onsite IT, and a very uniform and 'faceless' set of computers. Outside of
this environment it's a different matter.

Then, we have the issue of being 'stuck in the past' - since Windows 7's
roaming profiles are incompatible with XP, the choices are to stick with XP
for the forseeable future, face a long period of disruptive working, or
upgrade the entire site in one go. Which latter most small firms cannot
afford, either in licensing costs or downtime. I wonder if Microsoft have
considered the effect this design-decision must have on Windows 7 sales?

I'm talking about his [own] files on a shared [public] network drive.

If no profiles existed the user would have to keep any personal files on his own hd.

Any files he saved to a public drive would be visible to all!

WITH profiles - a user can store files on a networked public drive with his profile's
security credentials and access them from any console on the network providing he
logs in to his profile.

For example - I log in to any PC as %user% and get access to a "My Documents" folder
on the public drive.

Any files saved to this folder can be accessed again by logging into any other PC on
the network as %user% again.

No-one else but %admin% can "see" the files in "My Documents" even though they are on
the "public" drive.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"Anteaus" wrote in message
...
"Tim Meddick" wrote:

User Profiles give access to shared resources from any terminal a user logs
onto in the network.

If User Profiles did not exist as you suggest - a worker could only access stuff
from his OWN console and not from any other PC in his network.

News to me.

Lst time I checked, having a userprofile (roaming or static) didn't give any
access to server shared ares.

Loading a profile might bring a group policy into force which causes
drve-mappings to appear. That is purely an incidental effect though. In order
to set a mapping the user must first have access-rights to the share, and
profiles do not grant rights. If the user has rights then they are able to
access the share, roaming profile or no.

The issue which profiling fails to address is that in many smaller firms the
computers are task-specific, for example a firm has a bank of powerful
desktops for design work, another has specialst software for accounting,
another is set-up for voicemail and reception duties. If one of these guys
is off sick or on vacation someone needs to take over, but the moment they
log-in the computer's settings revert, and it will no longer perform the task
it was set-up for.

The textbook remedies I'm always given to this are to use mandatory
profiles, or modify the Default profile. With a little thought you can see
that neither are applicable. Mandatory profiles lock-down all settings, which
is useless. The default profile is only applied to first-time users, and in
any case will not provide settings for any software installed since its
creation.

The upshot is that security is thrown to the window, and passwords are all
made the same, or written on post-its. Then, it becomes established practice
that on computer A you log-on as Susan, no matter who you actually are. On
computer B you log-on as James. When you ask, 'Who is Susan, anyway?' you are
told that she left a couple of years back to work for a competitior.

Not just hypothetical either, I suspect that a fair proportion of small
firms work that way.

Roaming profiles work for large companies, but they have the benefit of
onsite IT, and a very uniform and 'faceless' set of computers. Outside of
this environment it's a different matter.

Then, we have the issue of being 'stuck in the past' - since Windows 7's
roaming profiles are incompatible with XP, the choices are to stick with XP
for the forseeable future, face a long period of disruptive working, or
upgrade the entire site in one go. Which latter most small firms cannot
afford, either in licensing costs or downtime. I wonder if Microsoft have
considered the effect this design-decision must have on Windows 7 sales?

"Tim Meddick" wrote in
:

I have updated the reg-file as it did not contain all the
necessary changes, I have also created an "Undo" reg file
and both can be downloaded together in a .zip file below :

Thanks for the update. Good thing I haven't had the "intestinal
fortitude" to try it yet...

Great to have the "undo" as well. I really appreciate your help.

Cheers,
t.

"Tim Meddick" wrote in
:

I have updated the reg-file as it did not contain all the
necessary changes, I have also created an "Undo" reg file
and both can be downloaded together in a .zip file below :

Thanks for the update. Good thing I haven't had the "intestinal
fortitude" to try it yet...

Great to have the "undo" as well. I really appreciate your help.

Cheers,
t.

Let me again assure you that all this reg file will do is make the CURRENT user's
Start Menu the only one that the system will refer to, and therefore, make the Start
Menu in the "All Users" folder redundant.

This is ALL it does and the "undo" reg file re-instates the "All Users" Start Menu.

I have tested both and know that they work.

However, it's only worth using on a system where ONLY one profile is usually used
from day to day, and it is from this profile you would execute (import) the
SingleStartMenu.reg file (the "undo" file can be imported from any profile).

Because if any other profile is then used, they would find their Start Menu located
in another's folder (and unless Admin, would be read-only for them).

But if you only ever use one profile, then I can well see the advantages of having
only one location for the Start Menu.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Tim Meddick" wrote in
:

I have updated the reg-file as it did not contain all the
necessary changes, I have also created an "Undo" reg file
and both can be downloaded together in a .zip file below :

Thanks for the update. Good thing I haven't had the "intestinal
fortitude" to try it yet...

Great to have the "undo" as well. I really appreciate your help.

Cheers,
t.

Let me again assure you that all this reg file will do is make the CURRENT user's
Start Menu the only one that the system will refer to, and therefore, make the Start
Menu in the "All Users" folder redundant.

This is ALL it does and the "undo" reg file re-instates the "All Users" Start Menu.

I have tested both and know that they work.

However, it's only worth using on a system where ONLY one profile is usually used
from day to day, and it is from this profile you would execute (import) the
SingleStartMenu.reg file (the "undo" file can be imported from any profile).

Because if any other profile is then used, they would find their Start Menu located
in another's folder (and unless Admin, would be read-only for them).

But if you only ever use one profile, then I can well see the advantages of having
only one location for the Start Menu.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Tim Meddick" wrote in
:

I have updated the reg-file as it did not contain all the
necessary changes, I have also created an "Undo" reg file
and both can be downloaded together in a .zip file below :

Thanks for the update. Good thing I haven't had the "intestinal
fortitude" to try it yet...

Great to have the "undo" as well. I really appreciate your help.

Cheers,
t.

"Tim Meddick" wrote in
:

Let me again assure you that all this reg file will do is
make the CURRENT user's Start Menu the only one that the
system will refer to, and therefore, make the Start Menu in
the "All Users" folder redundant.

If that "CURRENT" users is me, ie Admin in "E:\Documents and
Settings\Administrator\Start Menu"
then that is all I want.

This is ALL it does and the "undo" reg file re-instates the
"All Users" Start Menu.

I have tested both and know that they work.

I trust you.

However, it's only worth using on a system where ONLY one
profile is usually used from day to day, and it is from
this profile you would execute (import) the
SingleStartMenu.reg file (the "undo" file can be imported
from any profile).

I am the only person who ever touches or will touch this
computer, and I automatically log on as Admin.

Because if any other profile is then used, they would find
their Start Menu located in another's folder (and unless
Admin, would be read-only for them).

Irrelevant in this case, I trust.

But if you only ever use one profile, then I can well see
the advantages of having only one location for the Start
Menu.

That's an understatement.

Thanks again. I'll try it soon. (I have a lot of other things to
do right now...)
Will report on success/etc.

Cheers
t.