StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It's turned off by defualt, OFF!!!


How could such an important feature like file permissions be turned OFF by default? How? HOW?!!


Plus it's availiable only on NTFS file systems, so FAT32 permissions are totally open.


I've had XP for months now, and I'm just now discovering how to use them, I had to turn off simple file sharing in the folders options. Lord, M$ needs some lessons in UI and logical design....

The general attitude to keep in mind for things like this is:

XP fucking sucks.

I hate it. It must die. Die die die fucking die. I miss my 98.

JediNeophyte wrote:The general attitude to keep in mind for things like this is:

XP fucking sucks.

I hate it. It must die. Die die die fucking die. I miss my 98.

Once you go back to 98, you'll wish you never made the conversion.

98 has more holes than Agent Smith after he fights Neo.

Exonerate wrote:

JediNeophyte wrote:The general attitude to keep in mind for things like this is:

XP fucking sucks.

I hate it. It must die. Die die die fucking die. I miss my 98.

Once you go back to 98, you'll wish you never made the conversion.

98 has more holes than Agent Smith after he fights Neo.

No, I'd be quite content if I was running 98 on this comp. Of course, one of the problems is that I had to get Home Edition, some of the annoyances present may not exist in Professional, I don't know. But XP still fucking sucks.

EDIT: 500. Finally.

Lord MJ wrote:It's turned off by defualt, OFF!!!


How could such an important feature like file permissions be turned OFF by default? How? HOW?!!

XP Home Edition is for home users who often are not power users. Mucking around with security permissions can burn you quickly.

Plus it's availiable only on NTFS file systems, so FAT32 permissions are totally open.

FAT32 does not support security permissions in any version of Windows.

I've had XP for months now, and I'm just now discovering how to use them, I had to turn off simple file sharing in the folders options. Lord, M$ needs some lessons in UI and logical design....

No arguement there.

Hrm, I've never had an issue with ACLs not being enabled.?

So how the hell do you enable security permissions for XP professional anyway?

Defiant wrote:So how the hell do you enable security permissions for XP professional anyway?

Do you want to know how to manage them or how to turn them on? Ive never seen them turned off except when the drive is FAT32 or you log in with an account that does not have admin priveleges.

Defiant wrote:So how the hell do you enable security permissions for XP professional anyway?

Folder Options->View->show simple permissions
or something like that

My only qualm with XP is the way it hogs resources and the GUI being Teletubby gay, but after customizing it I feel much better.

I'm going to get more RAM someday though, 256MB doesn't seem to cut it with me (says the guy who runs WMP, three Mozilla windows, one IE6 window and MSN Messenger at the same time).

256MB should be more than enough RAM for that.

phongn wrote:256MB should be more than enough RAM for that.

http://www.geocities.com/jeffersonclay2003/Memory.txt

Sometimes it acts really slow, but it's okay now I guess. I can often use over 260MB of memory, most of it RAM but a lot of excess if obviously virtual which is never good.

You've got to be joking. File permissions is a "feature" that can be turned on and off? I just have a hard time actually believing that.

Durandal wrote:You've got to be joking. File permissions is a "feature" that can be turned on and off? I just have a hard time actually believing that.

In Windows XP, Microsoft added an option to abstract the ACLs from the user.

Durandal wrote:You've got to be joking. File permissions is a "feature" that can be turned on and off? I just have a hard time actually believing that.

Believe it.
[/Trinity]

I don't see the problem, thick, uneduicated people like the general public don't need it anyway. Most all the girls in my dorm are about as fluent in computing and IT as a White supremacist in Chinese.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

phongn wrote:256MB should be more than enough RAM for that.

http://www.geocities.com/jeffersonclay2003/Memory.txt

Sometimes it acts really slow, but it's okay now I guess. I can often use over 260MB of memory, most of it RAM but a lot of excess if obviously virtual which is never good.

Holy shit. My peak commit charge was only 229MB and I have more processes running than you! (Only using 162MB RAM right now).

Try using tabbed browsing on Mozilla - IIRC it's more RAM efficient.

phongn wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

phongn wrote:256MB should be more than enough RAM for that.

http://www.geocities.com/jeffersonclay2003/Memory.txt

Sometimes it acts really slow, but it's okay now I guess. I can often use over 260MB of memory, most of it RAM but a lot of excess if obviously virtual which is never good.

Holy shit. My peak commit charge was only 229MB and I have more processes running than you! (Only using 162MB RAM right now).

Try using tabbed browsing on Mozilla - IIRC it's more RAM efficient.

Oh yeah, I forgot all about the tab feature! DUH!

My bad, but I guess my HDD also needs cleaning since I have an amazing amount of crap on one drive and nothing on the other two. My RAM problems will soon be sorted when I can be arsed to get efficient.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:My only qualm with XP is the way it hogs resources and the GUI being Teletubby gay, but after customizing it I feel much better.

I'm going to get more RAM someday though, 256MB doesn't seem to cut it with me (says the guy who runs WMP, three Mozilla windows, one IE6 window and MSN Messenger at the same time).

I have 256 mb and I run several multiple-tabbed Mozilla windows, trillian, getright, Photoshop, 3D Studio, and Winamp at the same time. Often I want to play a game and just start it, without quitting any of the programs.

Durandal wrote:You've got to be joking. File permissions is a "feature" that can be turned on and off? I just have a hard time actually believing that.

File security doesn't get turned off, it's the Permissions tab that can be switched between the usual NT format and some ultra-dumbed down version that looks like the Win98 "sharing" tab.

You have to do a lot of customizing for windows, no matter what version it is.

So far my max normal peak charge usage has been about 90 something. The highest I ever got was 160 something but that was when I was editing a 80 something meg WAV file.

Personally, I prefer XP Pro SP1 (mines is corporate) over any other windows version. It seems to be the only one (2000 is pretty close) that's actually relatively worth its money.

Are the permissions built, like linux, so that you cannot overwrite anything you don't own, and programs running under your permissions can't either? I mean on my school computer I managed to install Mozilla on the c:\mozilla since I couldn't write in the Program Files folder. Why the hell does C:\ have write permissions for a regular user (by default?)? The only directory that should have these is anything under c:\application data (is this right?)\username\*. Even then I think you can make windows crash with a hacked user.dat (really is only a concern on multiuser (simultaneous) systems, is 2k/XP/NT multiuser?)

JediNeophyte wrote:The general attitude to keep in mind for things like this is:

XP fucking sucks.

I hate it. It must die. Die die die fucking die. I miss my 98.

It fucking rocks, I've rolled over a year on this system and it's still ROCKSOLID!

Admiral Valdemar wrote:My only qualm with XP is the way it hogs resources and the GUI being Teletubby gay, but after customizing it I feel much better.

I don't see how it hogs resources, I removed NT4 on my old workstation at work(500mhz Celeron with 256mb Ram and an ATI128) and it was disgustingly faster and more efficient than a clean NT4 install.

Shinova wrote:You have to do a lot of customizing for windows, no matter what version it is.

So far my max normal peak charge usage has been about 90 something. The highest I ever got was 160 something but that was when I was editing a 80 something meg WAV file.

Personally, I prefer XP Pro SP1 (mines is corporate) over any other windows version. It seems to be the only one (2000 is pretty close) that's actually relatively worth its money.

AHA! U R A PIR8! There's no such thing as "corporate edition"

Now that I think about it, the second time I installed it from scratch (after I got the pre-patched version and mine was so filled with spyware that the CDR wouldn't record) I barely changed a couple of things.

But it makes sense that you have to customize it, after all this is server software (even if lite), not just a gaming platform.

Durandal wrote:You've got to be joking. File permissions is a "feature" that can be turned on and off? I just have a hard time actually believing that.

The actual file permissions are still there and still work, the 'user' just doesnt have a GUI proclaiming to the world that the feature is there.