Games missing from game explorer after moving folder

  • Thread starter Thread starter Defmetal
  • Start date Start date
D

Defmetal

I am moving a lot of my games out of the Program Files folder into C:\Games
so that UAC doesn't ask permission to play most of my games anymore.

The problem is that, after I move the game folder, even though the game
plays perfectly, it disappears from the Game Explorer and I can't seem to get
it added back.

The specific game i'm trying with is Lord of the Rings Online.
(I moved World of Warcraft and it fixed itself instantly)

Everquest 1 also disappeared and no matter what I do I can't seem to get it
back in the game explorer other than dragging in the exectuable.

Is there a way to get the official Game Explorer icon back for Lord of the
Rings Online with the full game rating and ESRB rating and all after moving
the folder?


I've been googling and searching and can't find anything.
 
I am moving a lot of my games out of the Program Files folder into
C:\Games so that UAC doesn't ask permission to play most of my games
anymore.
Click to expand...

Open Games Explorer
Click Options above the icons
Click Unhide Games
Click OK

might work, otherwise, Windows isn't designed to have files moved around,
it's great you got some games to work ok, but you're probably just screwed
on other things.

Instead of moving files around, why not just Disable User Account Control
from the User Accounts control panel?

UAC shouldn't come up when you run a game, only when you install it.

sounds like system problems, and moving programs around your HD is probably
just makin it worse.
 
MMORPGs (massively multiplayer online RPGs) require admin privs to run,
because they often update patch data.

Unfortunately for certain games, this causes a problem because you can't run
a game as admin from the Game Explorer by right clicking on it. Some games
were designed knowing about UAC, and have made workarounds. Older games
require you to go to properties and hit run as admin, and then require you to
click accept to play the game or patch it. Such as Vanguard or Final Fantasy
XI.

This however, does not happen if you have the game out of Program Files, and
in a folder such as C:\games (i found this out from WoW customer support when
the game wouldn't patch when executed from the Game Explorer)
 
Andy said:
MMORPGs (massively multiplayer online RPGs) require admin privs to
run, because they often update patch data.
Click to expand...

4 MMOs that I run, Guild Wars, The Sims Online (don't laugh), LotrO, and
EQ1 all correctly elevate Vista if they need to patch. So they do NOT
require manual elevation (Run as admin...).

Well that's not totally true, you have to patch the game once as an
admin so it can download the latest updater that is Vista compatible.
Except for Guild Wars, that game is so simplistic in it's design that
it's just simply the best MMO out there.
Older games require you to go to properties and hit run
as admin, and then require you to click accept to play the game or
patch it. Such as Vanguard or Final Fantasy XI.
Click to expand...

Really? Vanguard doesn't elevate correctly? When I ran it I never had to
run as admin on that one, it just does it when it needs to update. Odd.
FFXI I don't doubt that you have to do something special with that one.
Worst patching system EVER!

As for elevating, I simply go to the game EXE (in program files, like c:
\program files\sony\everquest\everquest.exe), change the properties so
the program runs as Admin then when you run the game from Games Explorer
it runs elevated.
 
Windows would operate alot smoother if UAC is disabled. If you have an
adequate security solution installed on your comp, then you don't need
UAC on....or Windows Defender for that matter.

r2rX :)
Click to expand...

I like windows defender, the only thing I don't like is it doesn't auto-
update you have to go through Windows Update.

UAC has it's use, if you have kids espically. Parental Controls in Vista
rock and I think you have to leave UAC on to use em. So there are
circumstances where you have to have it.
 
Windows would operate alot smoother if UAC is disabled. If you have an
Most security professionals would disagree.

Firewalls help, but lots of applications list themselves as an exception
which opens up the application to unsoliticed traffic. Virus scanners on
average find less than 20% of currently active viruses the first few days of
release, and is only up to about 50% by the time the virus is a month old.
Now, you really should use a personal firewall, virus scanner, and e-mail
protection, but it's like a flu shot, it often works but not 100% of the
time.

There are things built into Windows Vista that are not part of UAC that
helps, particularly around the security permissions for the background
services. There's also been tons of automatic code review done and thousands
of fixes made. Again, this all helps.

Computer security is about 'defense in depth'. If someone gets past the
Firewall (easy for say a peer-to-peer game that lists itself as an exception
on the Firewall), gets past your virus & spyware scanner (easy by just
targeting a well-known network-facing application, like say a multiplayer
game), and finds a vulnerability, if that application is running with full
administrator rights your machine can be owned. In fact, if you ever do find
a virus or rootkit, the only way you can be sure you have removed it is to
flatten your machine and not move any of the data over.

If on the other hand, you have UAC enabled and the application that is
hacked was running as Standard User, you can know that it won't have
infected the system files. It's much harder to create a rootkit without
admin rights.
 
Most security professionals would disagree.

Firewalls help, but lots of applications list themselves as an
exception which opens up the application to unsoliticed traffic. Virus
scanners on average find less than 20% of currently active viruses the
first few days of release, and is only up to about 50% by the time the
virus is a month old. Now, you really should use a personal firewall,
virus scanner, and e-mail protection, but it's like a flu shot, it
often works but not 100% of the time.

There are things built into Windows Vista that are not part of UAC
that helps, particularly around the security permissions for the
background services. There's also been tons of automatic code review
done and thousands of fixes made. Again, this all helps.

Computer security is about 'defense in depth'. If someone gets past
the Firewall (easy for say a peer-to-peer game that lists itself as an
exception on the Firewall), gets past your virus & spyware scanner
(easy by just targeting a well-known network-facing application, like
say a multiplayer game), and finds a vulnerability, if that
application is running with full administrator rights your machine can
be owned. In fact, if you ever do find a virus or rootkit, the only
way you can be sure you have removed it is to flatten your machine and
not move any of the data over.

If on the other hand, you have UAC enabled and the application that is
hacked was running as Standard User, you can know that it won't have
infected the system files. It's much harder to create a rootkit
without admin rights.
Click to expand...

Well, i'm not a security professional, though I know a bit about
security. Like how not to keep personal data on a computer that has
Internet access.

Everything else, feel free to take, I could care less if you end up with
a HD full of porn you can download from anywhere.

What do security professionals say when asked, "Which OS do you trust
the most with data security?"

I'd wager Vista isn't at the top of that list.

Also how many users, when presented with a UAC, just click continue,
even if they don't know why they are getting that message? It's nice to
get a heads-up, but that doesn't stop people from clicking through all
the time.

I forget if UAC says anything other than "Soandso app is trying to
access system files".

Considering how many times I see that message you'd think I'd have it
memorized.
 
UAC and Windows Defender are good ideas, but they're not executed so
well. And considering that alot of "Internet Security" solutions
(whether McAfee, Norton, ESET, Kaspersky etc) all have the same/similar
functionality, why not have that instead?

r2rX :)
Click to expand...

waste of cpu cycles? I'd rather just not run virusus on my system. Also not
nice to bunch McAfee with Kaspersky, most people will tell you one is not
at all like the other.

Kaspersky
Norton (2008, not <2007)
ESET
McAfee

in that order.
 
Back
Top