Installing applications on a new XP-Pro installation

  • Thread starter Thread starter HenriK
  • Start date Start date
H

HenriK

On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
better approach:

1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default for new
XP-Pro installs), or

2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out how
to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used TweakUI)]?

Why is one method better than the other?

Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers to
where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a relatively
detailed manner).
 
Program installs should be done with an account that has Administrator
permissions.

User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail in a
non-privileged account.
 
My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was trying
to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to installing
applications as Administrator as compared to installing applications as
a user with Administrator permissions.

Since I am the only user of the PC in question, it isn't clear to me why
I would want to install applications as a user (with Administrator
permissions). My feeling is that there is something I haven't
understood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft go to the trouble of hiding
the Administrator log-on.

Thanks, in advance, for any insight.

By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply messages?
In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at the end of the
thread?


Leonard said:
Program installs should be done with an account that has Administrator
permissions.

User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail in a
non-privileged account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
better approach:

1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default for
new XP-Pro installs), or

2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out
how to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used
TweakUI)]?

Why is one method better than the other?

Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers to
where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a relatively
detailed manner).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The final result is the same, because in both cases you are running the
installer with Administrator credentials.

Personally, I install software from an Administrator account. I prefer
this for several reasons:

In an Administrator account I can temporarily disable the security
software before the install.

In my Administrator account I can backup my system partition before an
install.

If I encounter a problem during or after installer, in an Administrator
account I have easy access to Windows troubleshooting tools.

I could accomplish the above by repeatedly invoking Run As, but that
would be an inconvenience.

If you are the sole user of your computer you should have one
Administrator account and one User account. Do /not/ use Windows'
built-in Administrator as your Administrator account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was trying
to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to installing
applications as Administrator as compared to installing applications as
a user with Administrator permissions.

Since I am the only user of the PC in question, it isn't clear to me why
I would want to install applications as a user (with Administrator
permissions). My feeling is that there is something I haven't
understood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft go to the trouble of hiding
the Administrator log-on.

Thanks, in advance, for any insight.

By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply messages?
In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at the end of the
thread?


Leonard said:
Program installs should be done with an account that has Administrator
permissions.

User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail in
a non-privileged account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
better approach:

1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default for
new XP-Pro installs), or

2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out
how to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used
TweakUI)]?

Why is one method better than the other?

Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers to
where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a relatively
detailed manner).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the insight on my original query. It was the kind of thing I
was looking for.

Your last sentence - "Do /not/ use Windows' built-in Administrator as
your Administrator account" - leaves me a bit confused, however. When I
installed XP-Pro, it hid what I thought was the Administrator account
that I had become familiar with using W2K-Pro. I used TweakUI to make
the XP-Pro Administrator log on visible. Also, at the time of XP-Pro
installation, the XP-Pro installer prompted me into what is apparently
the XP-Pro default mode of immediately creating a user account that
appears to have most, if not all, of the Administrator permissions.

When you advise me not to use "... Windows' built-in Administrator as
your Administrator account", which account are you talking about? The
Administrator account I uncovered with Tweak UI or the XP-Pro user
account the XP-Pro installer prompted me to create as part of the XP-Pro
installation process? Also, why the warning?

Thanks, in advance, for clarification.


Leonard said:
The final result is the same, because in both cases you are running the
installer with Administrator credentials.

Personally, I install software from an Administrator account. I prefer
this for several reasons:

In an Administrator account I can temporarily disable the security
software before the install.

In my Administrator account I can backup my system partition before an
install.

If I encounter a problem during or after installer, in an Administrator
account I have easy access to Windows troubleshooting tools.

I could accomplish the above by repeatedly invoking Run As, but that
would be an inconvenience.

If you are the sole user of your computer you should have one
Administrator account and one User account. Do /not/ use Windows'
built-in Administrator as your Administrator account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was trying
to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to installing
applications as Administrator as compared to installing applications
as a user with Administrator permissions.

Since I am the only user of the PC in question, it isn't clear to me
why I would want to install applications as a user (with Administrator
permissions). My feeling is that there is something I haven't
understood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft go to the trouble of
hiding the Administrator log-on.

Thanks, in advance, for any insight.

By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply messages?
In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at the end of
the thread?


Leonard said:
Program installs should be done with an account that has
Administrator permissions.

User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail
in a non-privileged account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

HenriK wrote:
On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
better approach:

1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default for
new XP-Pro installs), or

2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out
how to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used
TweakUI)]?

Why is one method better than the other?

Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers to
where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a relatively
detailed manner).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The built-in Administrator is a /system/ account created by Windows. It
is distinct from a /user/ account that you create that has Administrator
permissions.

The built-in Administrator is your lifeline when you cannot access the
computer with a normal user account.

If you use the built-in Administrator for day to day computing you will
have no recourse should it become corrupted or inaccessible.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
Thanks for the insight on my original query. It was the kind of thing I
was looking for.

Your last sentence - "Do /not/ use Windows' built-in Administrator as
your Administrator account" - leaves me a bit confused, however. When I
installed XP-Pro, it hid what I thought was the Administrator account
that I had become familiar with using W2K-Pro. I used TweakUI to make
the XP-Pro Administrator log on visible. Also, at the time of XP-Pro
installation, the XP-Pro installer prompted me into what is apparently
the XP-Pro default mode of immediately creating a user account that
appears to have most, if not all, of the Administrator permissions.

When you advise me not to use "... Windows' built-in Administrator as
your Administrator account", which account are you talking about? The
Administrator account I uncovered with Tweak UI or the XP-Pro user
account the XP-Pro installer prompted me to create as part of the XP-Pro
installation process? Also, why the warning?

Thanks, in advance, for clarification.


Leonard said:
The final result is the same, because in both cases you are running
the installer with Administrator credentials.

Personally, I install software from an Administrator account. I prefer
this for several reasons:

In an Administrator account I can temporarily disable the security
software before the install.

In my Administrator account I can backup my system partition before an
install.

If I encounter a problem during or after installer, in an
Administrator account I have easy access to Windows troubleshooting
tools.

I could accomplish the above by repeatedly invoking Run As, but that
would be an inconvenience.

If you are the sole user of your computer you should have one
Administrator account and one User account. Do /not/ use Windows'
built-in Administrator as your Administrator account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was
trying to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to
installing applications as Administrator as compared to installing
applications as a user with Administrator permissions.

Since I am the only user of the PC in question, it isn't clear to me
why I would want to install applications as a user (with
Administrator permissions). My feeling is that there is something I
haven't understood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft go to the trouble
of hiding the Administrator log-on.

Thanks, in advance, for any insight.

By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply
messages? In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at
the end of the thread?


Leonard Grey wrote:
Program installs should be done with an account that has
Administrator permissions.

User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail
in a non-privileged account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

HenriK wrote:
On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
better approach:

1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default
for new XP-Pro installs), or

2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out
how to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used
TweakUI)]?

Why is one method better than the other?

Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers
to where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a
relatively detailed manner).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
HenriK said:
My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was trying
to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to installing
applications as Administrator as compared to installing applications as
a user with Administrator permissions.
Click to expand...


No, it shouldn't make any difference, whatsoever, unless you're dealing
with a peculiarity of some specific, poorly coded application.

I've encountered a very small sampling of installation routines
that had actually been written so that they would work *only* when run
from the built-in Administrator account, and then only if the account
hadn't been renamed, as is a common security practice.

In these instances, I could not install these applications using a
domain administrative account, nor using the renamed built-in
administrator account. I actually had to disconnect the machine from
the domain (as a security precaution) and rename the built-in
administrator account to "Administrator" before the installation routine
would work. Stupidest thing I've ever encountered; but some developers
simply have no concept of multiple user accounts and/or proper security.

Of course, this condition is a limitation of those specific, poorly
written applications, not the operating system. When installation
routines are properly written, there is no functional difference between
the built-in Administrator account and any other accounts that are
members of the local Administrators group.

By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply messages?
In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at the end of the
thread?
Click to expand...

Now you've done it; you've opened the door to a potentially long
argument. ;-}

Most users of Microsoft products have become accustomed to top-posting,
as you've done, because that's the default (and sometimes only) choice
available to them. On the other hand, long-time participants in Usenet,
and the users of other news reader applications, are more likely to
prefer bottom posting.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
 
HenriK said:
Thanks for the insight on my original query. It was the kind of thing I
was looking for.

Your last sentence - "Do /not/ use Windows' built-in Administrator as
your Administrator account" - leaves me a bit confused, however. When I
installed XP-Pro, it hid what I thought was the Administrator account
that I had become familiar with using W2K-Pro. I used TweakUI to make
the XP-Pro Administrator log on visible. Also, at the time of XP-Pro
installation, the XP-Pro installer prompted me into what is apparently
the XP-Pro default mode of immediately creating a user account that
appears to have most, if not all, of the Administrator permissions.

When you advise me not to use "... Windows' built-in Administrator as
your Administrator account", which account are you talking about? The
Administrator account I uncovered with Tweak UI or the XP-Pro user
account the XP-Pro installer prompted me to create as part of the XP-Pro
installation process? Also, why the warning?
Click to expand...


The built-in Administrator account was never intended to be used
for day-to-day normal use. The standard security practice is to rename
the account, set a strong password on it, and use it only to create
another account with administrative privileges for admin purposes, and a
limited account for regular use, reserving the built-in Administrator
account as a "back door" in case something corrupts your regular account(s).


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
 
Bruce said:
No, it shouldn't make any difference, whatsoever, unless you're
dealing with a peculiarity of some specific, poorly coded application.

I've encountered a very small sampling of installation routines that
had actually been written so that they would work *only* when run from
the built-in Administrator account, and then only if the account hadn't
been renamed, as is a common security practice.

In these instances, I could not install these applications using a
domain administrative account, nor using the renamed built-in
administrator account. I actually had to disconnect the machine from
the domain (as a security precaution) and rename the built-in
administrator account to "Administrator" before the installation routine
would work. Stupidest thing I've ever encountered; but some developers
simply have no concept of multiple user accounts and/or proper security.

Of course, this condition is a limitation of those specific, poorly
written applications, not the operating system. When installation
routines are properly written, there is no functional difference between
the built-in Administrator account and any other accounts that are
members of the local Administrators group.



Now you've done it; you've opened the door to a potentially long
argument. ;-}

Most users of Microsoft products have become accustomed to
top-posting, as you've done, because that's the default (and sometimes
only) choice available to them. On the other hand, long-time
participants in Usenet, and the users of other news reader applications,
are more likely to prefer bottom posting.
Click to expand...

Bruce --

Thanks for both comments.
 
HenriK said:
Bruce --

Thanks for both comments.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
 
Back
Top