On 27/06/2022 14:28, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 09:04:09, Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>> On 26/06/2022 17:48, Coder Bucky Breeder wrote:
>>> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> posted this:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We have a laptop with Windows 11. Hope I can ask it in this usenet
>>>> group.
>>>> I have installed a few applications, under which Teracopy and
>>>> Firedaemon
>>>> Pro. The problem is that when I start these apps, Windows is asking for
>>>> permission to allow them to start. I must click on "yes".
>>>> How can I avoid this action and can start these apps straight away?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks beforehand.
>>>>
>>>> Fokke Nauta
>>>   https://winaero.com/windows-11-disable-user-account-control-uac/
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, that worked!
>>
>> Fokke
>
> Did it just turn off all UAC-prompt appearances (i. e. put you on a
> lower overall security level), or let you stop it appearing just for
> specific things?

Yes, it did turn off all permission appearances.

Fokke

Change you UAC setting to OFF

>On 27/06/2022 14:28, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 09:04:09, Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote
>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>> On 26/06/2022 17:48, Coder Bucky Breeder wrote:
>>>> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> posted this:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a laptop with Windows 11. Hope I can ask it in this usenet
>>>>> group.
>>>>> I have installed a few applications, under which Teracopy and
>>>>> Firedaemon
>>>>> Pro. The problem is that when I start these apps, Windows is asking for
>>>>> permission to allow them to start. I must click on "yes".
>>>>> How can I avoid this action and can start these apps straight away?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks beforehand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fokke Nauta
>>>>   https://winaero.com/windows-11-disable-user-account-control-uac/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, that worked!
>>>
>>> Fokke
>>
>> Did it just turn off all UAC-prompt appearances (i. e. put you on a
>> lower overall security level), or let you stop it appearing just for
>> specific things?
>
>Yes, it did turn off all permission appearances.
>
>Fokke

KenW

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 13:10:57, Zaidy036 <Eric@Bloch.com> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>One alternative is to leave UAC active but run a program from a batch
>initiated from a shortcut which uses a "button pusher" like PTFBpro to
>acknowledge the UAC. That way when you run from the shortcut UAC is
>accepted but if something else tries to run a program UAC is still
>invoked.

Eric/Zaidy, your above post appeared three times, at least here - all
dated today, but timestamped (I think my local time [BST, GMT+1])
18:8:59, 18:9:57, and 18:10:57.

(Interesting idea by the way.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never. For me, there has to be a meaning. There's not much meaning in eating
bugs. - Darcey Bussell (on whether she'd appear on /I'm a Celebrity/), in RT
2015/11/28-12/4

On 6/27/2022 3:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 13:10:57, Zaidy036 <Eric@Bloch.com> wrote (my
> responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>> One alternative is to leave UAC active but run a program from a batch
>> initiated from a shortcut which uses a "button pusher" like PTFBpro to
>> acknowledge the UAC. That way when you run from the shortcut UAC is
>> accepted but if something else tries to run a program UAC is still
>> invoked.
>
> Eric/Zaidy, your above post appeared three times, at least here - all
> dated today, but timestamped (I think my local time [BST, GMT+1])
> 18:8:59, 18:9:57, and 18:10:57.
>
> (Interesting idea by the way.)
It seems an e-s problem and I tried to delete after I saw the dups.

PTFB does the job as I have used it for UAC

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| There must be more to it than that, though: the UAC "do you want to
| allow ..." prompt seems to come up when you try to _start_ the offending
| prog., before it actually runs, so I can't see how Windows knows it is
| going to try to touch system files. Or at least that's how it looks.
| (Unless it remembers from last time the software was run. But I don't
| think that's the case.)

I seem to remember that MS was going to start requiring "digital
signatures" on Win32 software, but I can't find the article now.
That could be what the Win11 change is about. In any case, anyone
who keeps UAC at anything above the bottom setting is asking
to be harassed.

"Are you sure you want to flush to toilet now? Toilet flushing
has been associated with bathoroom flooding under some
situations. Proceed anyway?"

Probably not | No Way | Let me think about it

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| At the very least, signatures are required for driver software.
| Because they run in the same ring as the kernel.
|

Yes. I think that goes back to XP. One has to jump
through hoops to get device install to admit that it
can install an unsigned driver. As I recall it will just pretend
that it can't find a driver, rather than presenting a choice.

Big Al wrote:

> Ccleaner does something to disable UAC but only for itself. I don't know how but if you could duplicate that concept
> then that would be better.

I think Big Al, while trying to be helpful, is not reading the posts in
this thread because _multiple_ people explained EXACTLY how Ccleaner does
it.

It's _easy_ to reproduce what Ccleaner does for _any_ executable.
a. Create a shortcut that refers to a scheduled task
b. Create that scheduled task (and click the "elevate" checkbox

It's that simple.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information.

Zaidy036 wrote:

> One alternative is to leave UAC active but run a program from a batch
> initiated from a shortcut which uses a "button pusher" like PTFBpro to
> acknowledge the UAC. That way when you run from the shortcut UAC is
> accepted but if something else tries to run a program UAC is still invoked.

That's a great addition to the ways to eliminate UAC when you want:
1. Turn UAC off completely (usually not the recommended approach)
2. Turn UAC off per executable (using a shortcut to a scheduled task)
3. Turn UAC off per batch command (using vb tricks as far as I can tell)
4. Turn UAC off automagically with a button pusher

I've provided working step-by-step examples of the first three.
I've never seen a working step-by-step example for that last item though.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information.

On 6/27/2022 6:19 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Zaidy036 wrote:
>
>> One alternative is to leave UAC active but run a program from a batch
>> initiated from a shortcut which uses a "button pusher" like PTFBpro to
>> acknowledge the UAC. That way when you run from the shortcut UAC is
>> accepted but if something else tries to run a program UAC is still
>> invoked.
>
> That's a great addition to the ways to eliminate UAC when you want:
> 1. Turn UAC off completely (usually not the recommended approach)
> 2. Turn UAC off per executable (using a shortcut to a scheduled task)
> 3. Turn UAC off per batch command (using vb tricks as far as I can tell)
> 4. Turn UAC off automagically with a button pusher
>
> I've provided working step-by-step examples of the first three.
> I've never seen a working step-by-step example for that last item though.
#4
- AutoIt may work but I have not used it
- PTFBpro has no problem and may be used for many other things like
changing the Screen Saver time by batch and controlling programs that do
NOT have a command line interface.

[Added alt.windows7.general]

Zaidy036 <Eric@bloch.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/2022 3:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 13:10:57, Zaidy036 <Eric@Bloch.com> wrote (my
> > responses usually FOLLOW):
> > []
> >> One alternative is to leave UAC active but run a program from a batch
> >> initiated from a shortcut which uses a "button pusher" like PTFBpro to
> >> acknowledge the UAC. That way when you run from the shortcut UAC is
> >> accepted but if something else tries to run a program UAC is still
> >> invoked.
> >
> > Eric/Zaidy, your above post appeared three times, at least here - all
> > dated today, but timestamped (I think my local time [BST, GMT+1])
> > 18:8:59, 18:9:57, and 18:10:57.
> >
> > (Interesting idea by the way.)
>
> It seems an e-s problem and I tried to delete after I saw the dups.

Yes, it's some kind of eternal-september.org problem and it's all over
the place. (Also two from Mayayana in this thread.)

Multiple - sometimes upto five or so - copies of the same - or very
similar - posts with slightly different timestamps and different
Message-IDs.

It's rather annoying (and a waste of space for people/news-servers
who/which keep articles for a long(er) time).

Anyone knows what's going on?

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 15:09:45, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>[Added alt.windows7.general]
>
>Zaidy036 <Eric@bloch.com> wrote:
>> On 6/27/2022 3:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> > Eric/Zaidy, your above post appeared three times, at least here - all
>> > dated today, but timestamped (I think my local time [BST, GMT+1])
>> > 18:8:59, 18:9:57, and 18:10:57.
>> >
>> > (Interesting idea by the way.)
>>
>> It seems an e-s problem and I tried to delete after I saw the dups.
>
> Yes, it's some kind of eternal-september.org problem and it's all over
>the place. (Also two from Mayayana in this thread.)

Ah, apologies - I thought it might be Zaidy's problem.
>
> Multiple - sometimes upto five or so - copies of the same - or very
>similar - posts with slightly different timestamps and different
>Message-IDs.
>
> It's rather annoying (and a waste of space for people/news-servers
>who/which keep articles for a long(er) time).
>
> Anyone knows what's going on?

Steady on - I would imagine Ray is looking at it; given that we (I,
anyway) use E-S for free, I wouldn't quite put it quite like that -
report fact yes (the additional fact abut MIDs might be useful), tone
perhaps different?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The best way to achieve immortality is by not dying.

On 6/28/2022 11:09 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [Added alt.windows7.general]
>
> Zaidy036 <Eric@bloch.com> wrote:
>> On 6/27/2022 3:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 13:10:57, Zaidy036 <Eric@Bloch.com> wrote (my
>>> responses usually FOLLOW):
>>> []
>>>> One alternative is to leave UAC active but run a program from a batch
>>>> initiated from a shortcut which uses a "button pusher" like PTFBpro to
>>>> acknowledge the UAC. That way when you run from the shortcut UAC is
>>>> accepted but if something else tries to run a program UAC is still
>>>> invoked.
>>>
>>> Eric/Zaidy, your above post appeared three times, at least here - all
>>> dated today, but timestamped (I think my local time [BST, GMT+1])
>>> 18:8:59, 18:9:57, and 18:10:57.
>>>
>>> (Interesting idea by the way.)
>>
>> It seems an e-s problem and I tried to delete after I saw the dups.
>
> Yes, it's some kind of eternal-september.org problem and it's all over
> the place. (Also two from Mayayana in this thread.)
>
> Multiple - sometimes upto five or so - copies of the same - or very
> similar - posts with slightly different timestamps and different
> Message-IDs.
>
> It's rather annoying (and a waste of space for people/news-servers
> who/which keep articles for a long(er) time).
>
> Anyone knows what's going on?
>

What's going on, is some database message is coming back
from E-S, once a post is submitted. The database message
indicates an error. The client thinks the post did not make
it. The server thinks the post made it.

Clients with automatic-retry capability, will in this
situation go nuts.

I tried reproducing this today, and it would not work for me.

Paul

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On 6/28/2022 11:09 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > [Added alt.windows7.general]
> >
> > Zaidy036 <Eric@bloch.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/27/2022 3:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 13:10:57, Zaidy036 <Eric@Bloch.com> wrote (my
> >>> responses usually FOLLOW):
> >>> []
> >>>> One alternative is to leave UAC active but run a program from a batch
> >>>> initiated from a shortcut which uses a "button pusher" like PTFBpro to
> >>>> acknowledge the UAC. That way when you run from the shortcut UAC is
> >>>> accepted but if something else tries to run a program UAC is still
> >>>> invoked.
> >>>
> >>> Eric/Zaidy, your above post appeared three times, at least here - all
> >>> dated today, but timestamped (I think my local time [BST, GMT+1])
> >>> 18:8:59, 18:9:57, and 18:10:57.
> >>>
> >>> (Interesting idea by the way.)
> >>
> >> It seems an e-s problem and I tried to delete after I saw the dups.
> >
> > Yes, it's some kind of eternal-september.org problem and it's all over
> > the place. (Also two from Mayayana in this thread.)
> >
> > Multiple - sometimes upto five or so - copies of the same - or very
> > similar - posts with slightly different timestamps and different
> > Message-IDs.
> >
> > It's rather annoying (and a waste of space for people/news-servers
> > who/which keep articles for a long(er) time).
> >
> > Anyone knows what's going on?
> >
>
> What's going on, is some database message is coming back
> from E-S, once a post is submitted. The database message
> indicates an error. The client thinks the post did not make
> it. The server thinks the post made it.
>
> Clients with automatic-retry capability, will in this
> situation go nuts.

Thanks for the info. In this case, I think 'the client' is the human,
not the (newsreader) software. Zaidy uses Thunderbird, Mayayana uses
Outlook Express. I'm quite sure that Thunderbird will give an error
message and will not auto-retry. Probably the same for Outlook Express.

> I tried reproducing this today, and it would not work for me.

That's probaly because your newsreader doesn't only catch rats, but
apparently also server failures! :-)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 15:09:45, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> >[Added alt.windows7.general]
> >
> >Zaidy036 <Eric@bloch.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/27/2022 3:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
> >> > Eric/Zaidy, your above post appeared three times, at least here - all
> >> > dated today, but timestamped (I think my local time [BST, GMT+1])
> >> > 18:8:59, 18:9:57, and 18:10:57.
> >> >
> >> > (Interesting idea by the way.)
> >>
> >> It seems an e-s problem and I tried to delete after I saw the dups.
> >
> > Yes, it's some kind of eternal-september.org problem and it's all over
> >the place. (Also two from Mayayana in this thread.)
>
> Ah, apologies - I thought it might be Zaidy's problem.
> >
> > Multiple - sometimes upto five or so - copies of the same - or very
> >similar - posts with slightly different timestamps and different
> >Message-IDs.
> >
> > It's rather annoying (and a waste of space for people/news-servers
> >who/which keep articles for a long(er) time).
> >
> > Anyone knows what's going on?
>
> Steady on - I would imagine Ray is looking at it; given that we (I,
> anyway) use E-S for free, I wouldn't quite put it quite like that -
> report fact yes (the additional fact abut MIDs might be useful), tone
> perhaps different?

"tone perhaps different?" Huh!? I'm not 'reporting' anything, I'm just
describing a problem with posts from E-S. If I had realized you're an
E-S user, I would have asked/addressed you. (You're one of the few E-S
users who have changed/set their 'Organization:' header.)

If I was using E-S, I would of course have checked with them first,
but I'm not and never have been.

On 27/06/2022 20:34, KenW wrote:
> Change you UAC setting to OFF

I did

>> On 27/06/2022 14:28, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 09:04:09, Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote
>>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>> On 26/06/2022 17:48, Coder Bucky Breeder wrote:
>>>>> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> posted this:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a laptop with Windows 11. Hope I can ask it in this usenet
>>>>>> group.
>>>>>> I have installed a few applications, under which Teracopy and
>>>>>> Firedaemon
>>>>>> Pro. The problem is that when I start these apps, Windows is asking for
>>>>>> permission to allow them to start. I must click on "yes".
>>>>>> How can I avoid this action and can start these apps straight away?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks beforehand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fokke Nauta
>>>>>   https://winaero.com/windows-11-disable-user-account-control-uac/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, that worked!
>>>>
>>>> Fokke
>>>
>>> Did it just turn off all UAC-prompt appearances (i. e. put you on a
>>> lower overall security level), or let you stop it appearing just for
>>> specific things?
>>
>> Yes, it did turn off all permission appearances.
>>
>> Fokke
>
>
> KenW

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| There must be more to it than that, though: the UAC "do you want to
| allow ..." prompt seems to come up when you try to _start_ the offending
| prog., before it actually runs, so I can't see how Windows knows it is
| going to try to touch system files. Or at least that's how it looks.
| (Unless it remembers from last time the software was run. But I don't
| think that's the case.)

I seem to remember that MS was going to start requiring "digital
signatures" on Win32 software, but I can't find the article now.
That could be what the Win11 change is about. In any case, anyone
who keeps UAC at anything above the bottom setting is asking
to be harassed.

"Are you sure you want to flush to toilet now? Toilet flushing
has been associated with bathoroom flooding under some
situations. Proceed anyway?"

Probably not | No Way | Let me think about it

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| At the very least, signatures are required for driver software.
| Because they run in the same ring as the kernel.
|

Yes. I think that goes back to XP. One has to jump
through hoops to get device install to admit that it
can install an unsigned driver. As I recall it will just pretend
that it can't find a driver, rather than presenting a choice.