>>
> You only just figured this out? :)
Indeed - I"ve only used /Home for about a week...
>>
Oops, I guess it's Bill whose been playing with making home work in limited
accounts. :)
>>
> It was a favorite complaint by beta testers. Two of the reasons for
...making some features impossible to use in Home is 1) to reduce
... configuration problems by the level of user likely to use Home
But if that was the goal, then they should have put in proper [even if
"simplified"] tools to allow the security machinery to be set up. Just
because it was "home" doesn't mean that the users should be stuck with
Win98-like-security...
>>
That's why there are Home and Pro versions. If you need tighter security, you
should be using Pro.
Home is a replacement for Win98 - it was designed for people whose eyes glaze
over with tech talk, not people who want to tweak policies. Pro is a
replacement for Win2000. Home is more secure than Win9x - just not as secure as
it could possibly be - on the other hand, a lot of Pro machines are not secured
any more than Home is.
>>
> If you need policies then you shouldn't be using Home.
I disagree -- as I pointed out, a 'policy' [that I apparently can't
change] prevented my limited account from accessing the network.
>>
Home is not intended for network use. Yeah, a lot of people use it on networks,
but it's not a network OS.
Limited is really limited - many people run as admin if they want to get any
work done. Bill is the only person I know that's using limited. I have a few
limited accounts set up for testing, but they are too limited for real work.
>>
policy [that I can't change] wouldn't allow me to access a shared drive
unless I had a password on the account [easily fixed, of course, but a
PITA].
>>
I think it's a mistake that MS didn't force passwords on Home and I think this
policy is the proper one.
>>
And given the huge number of apps still living in the W98 world,
having access to the NTFS ACLs to 'tweak' things to get apps to run is
also necessary....
>>
I don't consider setting up the app to Run as admin a hardship or a tweak if
you want to use a limited account.
>>
I don't see how you can state that Home
users don't "need" that stuff... Unless what you're saying [which may
be the MS party line], that XP/Home was intended to be a replacement for
Win98 and so they *expect* [nearly _demand_] that users run as admin by
intentionally making limited accounts totally unuseable???
>>
They wanted to make it as easy as possible for users to use Home. People like
my sister that would easy screw up security policies, assuming she even knew
what they were or how to configure them.
Limited accounts are more for kids (and adults) who screw things up. I'd never
recommend it for a responsible person.
Was MS wrong not to make one version for both home and business users? Who
knows - I do know the business segment is more profitable, so they probably
didn't want to cut the cost of Pro below the cost of Win2000. I also know the
decision to have a Home and Pro version and the features removed from Home were
not made lightly - they did a lot of market research.
If they adjusted prices of home and pro so they "met in the middle" it would
affect home buyers more and they'd end up paying for features they didn't need.
(If you need those features then Home isn't for you.) If the features were
available but hidden (or enabled by a hack) who in their right mind would buy
Pro?
--
----------------------------------------
WIN-HOME Archives: http://PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM/archives/WIN-HOME.html
Contact the List Owner about anything: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Official Win-Home List Members Profiles Page
http://www.besteffort.com/winhome/Profiles.html
