Vista - can't say on C: root

E

Eiolon

Gawd
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
928
I just installed Vista. When I try and save things it won't let me save on the root of the C: drive. Instead it tells me I don't have permission and to save in my user profile area (Documents, Pictures, Downloads, etc). Is there any way to fix this? I am a domain admin and I have also made my account an administrator locally under Users and Groups. Thanks.

EDIT: Meant to change title to Vista - can't SAVE on C: root
 
check what the security permissions are set to for the C: and you could add yourself to the write access list if not present.
Be careful though, i managed to remove permissions to the c: for everyone before on windows NT4 and had to reinstall, oops.
 
Do you REALLY want to save things to the root of your system drive? Why not make a folder and save things inside it?

If you need something moved to C: you can always save it somewhere else, run a command prompt as an administrators, and then move it over from the command line.


But I ask again -- do you REALLY want to save something to the root of C:?
 
Administrators are listed as having Full control. So I decided to add my username and get this message:

An error occurred while applying security information to:

C:\Boot

Access is denied.

I get the same if I try adding the domain admins group.
 
Demon10000 said:
Do you REALLY want to save things to the root of your system drive? Why not make a folder and save things inside it?

If you need something moved to C: you can always save it somewhere else, run a command prompt as an administrators, and then move it over from the command line.


But I ask again -- do you REALLY want to save something to the root of C:?
Click to expand...

YES! I hate saving my files in in a folder of a folder of a folder of a folder. I do create new folders on the C: drive occassinally but if I download single files I just save them in C: because it is so fast to access. I've done this since Win 3.1 so it's a habbit of mine.
 
Keiichi said:
By default you need admin permissions to do that.
Click to expand...

How do I get admin permissions if I am already an admin though? There isn't even a place to prompt for my credentials (though logging in as an admin should have already done that for me).
 
Demon10000 said:
But I ask again -- do you REALLY want to save something to the root of C:?
Click to expand...

Sometimes there are good reasons for doing this. The software tools that my company produces use the root of c:\ to store backup copies of modified files so that our customers can easily find them. The reason for doing this is that our directory structures get very deep and the specific path can vary greatly depending on the options that the customer has selected when running a specific tool. So, we just store the file in the root and then tell the customer that they can find it there.

This isn't a big deal since the file our tools create needs to the then be cut-and-pasted to a different directory anyway for the tools to work properly. So, the file lives in the root for less than a few minutes. It's just a matter of convenience for both us and our customer.
 
I have found a temporary solution. I had to enable the local Administrator account and use that (Vista disables it by default). That allows me to do anything I want. Too bad I'll have to use that account to use Vista from this point on. I even logged on with the domains Administrator account and got no luck.
 
Eiolon said:
I have found a temporary solution. I had to enable the local Administrator account and use that (Vista disables it by default). That allows me to do anything I want. Too bad I'll have to use that account to use Vista from this point on. I even logged on with the domains Administrator account and got no luck.
Click to expand...
Or you could, I don't know, get with the times and actually use your computer within its security policies. Just because Windows couldn't implement a proper multi-user model until 32 years after UNIX did it doesn't mean people shouldn't adopt it. While I admit that UAC is a poor implementation of the model (I much prefer sudo in Linux), it's a hell of a lot better than the old system. You don't have to save in 'a folder of a folder of a folder'. Just save in a folder. Singular. I use C:\Downloads.

Think of it this way: If Firefox can't save to C:\, then no website in the world can corrupt any file in that directory (say autoexec.bat, bootmgr, or any of the other key system ones). If it can save files there, there's always the chance of an attack. Run applications with the least permissions possible. That's the way the world needs to work (and that everything but stubborn DOS-era nutjobs works).
 
Considering hard drive prices, get a second drive, and stop loading up your system volume with user data and files. Keeping your system volume clean of "junk" will only help in the long run to keep a system stable, not to mention all the other benefits of having your data away from the OS.
 
Arainach said:
Or you could, I don't know, get with the times and actually use your computer within its security policies. Just because Windows couldn't implement a proper multi-user model until 32 years after UNIX did it doesn't mean people shouldn't adopt it. While I admit that UAC is a poor implementation of the model (I much prefer sudo in Linux), it's a hell of a lot better than the old system. You don't have to save in 'a folder of a folder of a folder'. Just save in a folder. Singular. I use C:\Downloads.

Think of it this way: If Firefox can't save to C:\, then no website in the world can corrupt any file in that directory (say autoexec.bat, bootmgr, or any of the other key system ones). If it can save files there, there's always the chance of an attack. Run applications with the least permissions possible. That's the way the world needs to work (and that everything but stubborn DOS-era nutjobs works).
Click to expand...

Quoted for Truth.
 
Arainach said:
Or you could, I don't know, get with the times and actually use your computer within its security policies. Just because Windows couldn't implement a proper multi-user model until 32 years after UNIX did it doesn't mean people shouldn't adopt it. While I admit that UAC is a poor implementation of the model (I much prefer sudo in Linux), it's a hell of a lot better than the old system. You don't have to save in 'a folder of a folder of a folder'. Just save in a folder. Singular. I use C:\Downloads.

Think of it this way: If Firefox can't save to C:\, then no website in the world can corrupt any file in that directory (say autoexec.bat, bootmgr, or any of the other key system ones). If it can save files there, there's always the chance of an attack. Run applications with the least permissions possible. That's the way the world needs to work (and that everything but stubborn DOS-era nutjobs works).
Click to expand...

QFT !!!
 
I know you are all trying to be helpful and all but I was just looking for a solution to the original problem, which was to allow me to save in the C: drive root. I appreciate the advice and whatnot but these are all temporary files. I reformat my my drive monthly. Anything that I need to save for long term is saved to an external hard drive any ways.
 
I haven't used the root directory to put anything in since DOS 6. At the time, I only did that for a couple of things until I was pointed to the "PATH" command in the autoexec.bat file (I believe that's the one; it's been a few years since I messed with that) which would allow me to add a directory for DOS to look in for executables. Otherwise, the root directory was left strictly alone except for possibly temp backups of the autoexec.bat and config.sys files when I was messing around with them.

At the time, cluttering up the root directory was stupid to do as it would slow some things down as well as the limit to the number of directories and files you could have in the root directory.

You're spending more time and trouble trying to figure out a way around not being able to save files in the root directory than it would take to create or use another directory and make a shortcut to it. You're also compromising security badly by running the administrator account.

If you want to continue to do that, fine, it's your choice. However, myself and others feel the need to point out the problems with running your system like that.

 
You know, just set fire to your PC, you'd be saving so much time and effort trying to fix it later on! :)

More seriously though, don't use your root administrator account, it's just not worth it. You want somewhere to dump files, use your desktop! If it makes you feel better, you can put a folder on there and call it C
 
Again, I understand what you are all saying. I just don't understand why it's so hard to get the original question answered. Hopefully someone with an unbiased opinion on the matter knows the answer and will chime in.

I KNOW its a security risk. I KNOW there is a stability risk. The point I am trying to make is I DON'T CARE about that. I would care if this computer was used for something important, but it's not. I wouldn't go on a server and do it nor a workstation that was used for production. This is just a system that I don't give a rats ass about and could care less if it were burned into ashes.
 
svet-am said:
Sometimes there are good reasons for doing this. The software tools that my company produces use the root of c:\ to store backup copies of modified files so that our customers can easily find them. The reason for doing this is that our directory structures get very deep and the specific path can vary greatly depending on the options that the customer has selected when running a specific tool. So, we just store the file in the root and then tell the customer that they can find it there.

This isn't a big deal since the file our tools create needs to the then be cut-and-pasted to a different directory anyway for the tools to work properly. So, the file lives in the root for less than a few minutes. It's just a matter of convenience for both us and our customer.
Click to expand...

Convenience is not good practice.
 
Eiolon said:
How do I get admin permissions if I am already an admin though? There isn't even a place to prompt for my credentials (though logging in as an admin should have already done that for me).
Click to expand...

That is something I still have not understood with Windows Vista. More amusingly when I start a command line prompt with administrator credentials via `runas /user:administrator cmd' and I launch internet explorer from that, it does not inherit the credentials. Very unfortunate thing, since I commonly used that with WinXP so that I could run as a plain-vanilla user.

Arainach said:
Or you could, I don't know, get with the times and actually use your computer within its security policies. Just because Windows couldn't implement a proper multi-user model until 32 years after UNIX did it doesn't mean people shouldn't adopt it.
Click to expand...

It appears to me that WinXP already had a fine multi-user model. Unfortunately this was broken with Vista, see above.

Eiolon said:
Again, I understand what you are all saying. I just don't understand why it's so hard to get the original question answered. Hopefully someone with an unbiased opinion on the matter knows the answer and will chime in.

I KNOW its a security risk. I KNOW there is a stability risk. The point I am trying to make is I DON'T CARE about that. I would care if this computer was used for something important, but it's not. I wouldn't go on a server and do it nor a workstation that was used for production. This is just a system that I don't give a rats ass about and could care less if it were burned into ashes.
Click to expand...

Have you tried making the Domain Admin member of local admins? Did you disable UAC? Have you tried taking ownership of C:\ ? Just things I'd try.
 
yeah bullshit, if you knew better you wouldn't make such a big deal and make a freaking thread on some internet forum about it.

Eiolon said:
Again, I understand what you are all saying. I just don't understand why it's so hard to get the original question answered. Hopefully someone with an unbiased opinion on the matter knows the answer and will chime in.

I KNOW its a security risk. I KNOW there is a stability risk. The point I am trying to make is I DON'T CARE about that. I would care if this computer was used for something important, but it's not. I wouldn't go on a server and do it nor a workstation that was used for production. This is just a system that I don't give a rats ass about and could care less if it were burned into ashes.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top