I am NOT amused, Vista.

Once again, I'd like to point out how utterly STUPID it is that I can't navigate into "C:\Users\All Users\Application Data\avg8\update\download" because of an "Access Denied" error while attempting to access the "Application Data" folder. STUPID, Vista.

I remembered this problem from before, and I think Calvin told me about some file ownership program before he switched to Ma-- I mean, LINUX!

However, I'd been trying to ignore the fact that I couldn't access them without some such program successfully for a while....until I needed to get into one of these folders to fix an AVG glitch. I even tried the "SUPER ADMIN" account, adn still got the same error. Sure, in the great and mighty SUPER admin account you can take ownership. But then the folder just loops to the same directory!!!! I think it has to do with it being not an actual location, but a "junction". Anyways....I found, after a quick bit of research, that you CAN access such folders through the "Run" command.

Hope that bit of info helps any other person(s) frustrated with the same problem. :GEEK:

Oh, by the way, while I'm on the rant....Vista, why can't I NAVIGATE backwards like normal in my directory tree???? No, it has to be all cool and browser-style. Look, if I open a folder from a link or from Launchy, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO HIT BACKSPACE AND GO UP A LEVEL!!!

 

You don't need any program... just right-click the offending folder > Properties > Security tab > Edit... > select your account (or the Users or Administrators group) > Check the boxes for whatever permissions you want.

You have permission on the subfolder but not on one of the parent folders.

Alt-uparrow does it. Or click a node in the path. Yeah I know I kind of miss the up-arrow GUI button too.

 

Some interesting Keyboard control of Windows Explorer in Vista:
. Alt + UP takes you up one level of the folder tree
. Alt + RIGHT goes forward
. Alt + LEFT goes back
. Alt + D focuses the address bar and selects the current path
. Alt + ENTER shows the properties of the selected file
. ...

cheers ...

 

Don't worry Pixelot, Vista is pissing me off too at the moment.

 

I like backspace or the back button taking me back where I was... it's a quick way of copying and pasting or copying files and folders around. If I ever want to go up a level I click the address bar buttons or on the left in the folder heirarchy I click where I want to go....

 

Tried it. I get "An error occurred while applying security information to: [insert offending folder] Access is denied.

But, strangely, the folder I was trying to access before is now accessible, I guess because I edited the permissions from the Admin account, even though it didn't show up in the Admin account. Maybe that's just the way it's structured in the Admin account....if their just "junctions". Or maybe I needed to log out and back in for it to take effect. So maybe I couldn't have accessed it from Run if I hadn't done that? Hmmm....will experiment.

Ok.

Thanks!!!

Thank you!

 

I think you may actually be running up against Junction Points rather than real shortcuts and directories.

 

program your 3rd mouse button go up one level

 

Right, if you need to do something in that folder, go to the actual location

c:\ProgramData

Now you owe Vista an apology

 

Thanks.

Yeah, I think I mentioned that above.

LOL. For folder navigation, I never use a mouse.

Thanks, but NO! I don't owe Vista anything.

 

Not Vista's fault. It's a security measure. You need to obtain permission to do something, especially because it deals with other application's data. It was meant to stop the script-kiddies from writing "viruses."

 

Technically, it's more of a structural change than security and was only inserted for backwards compatibility (and to confuse backwards users?), but it is related to system security since only the system account should be writing there

 

I have been using powerdesk for years to replace MS's crappy explorer. Powerdesk IMO is 100X better and more powerful. The few times I use explorer is so counter intuitive and less productive then using powerdesk. And powerdesk 7 was released last year for vista. You can customize the toolbar and yes... put the up arrow back in along with tons of other added functions. You can have two powerdesk windows horizontally stacked or vertically stacked from within the program without having to separately open two windows like with explorer. I'm just surprised that after all these years, explorer is just the same POS it has always been since win 95. I just love the feature in powerdesk where you go into the directory you want to create a new folder and just hit the insert button and it opens a window and just type your folder name, hit enter.. done. You can also go into the directory you want to open a command prompt and it will automatically change the command prompt to that directory path.. which comes in handy sometimes to change file names.. extensions. There is just too many features to list here. Unfortunately, they don't provide a free version anymore.. not sure if they have a trial version. But I got it pretty cheap on a reseller site. Probably my most used application I have.

 

I also got fed up with Windows Explorer (heck, File Manager in WFW 3.11 was better!), so I looked into alternatives. PowerDesk was one I tried out, but I liked xplorer² Pro better myself. There is a free version, but I liked some of the additional features of the Pro version.

 

To the OP: QQ

 

That looks good.. I like the move to and copy too buttons on the toolbar. That would probably avoid having to have two panes open in powerdesk. Can you also have two panes- split in xplorer²?

I agree with you that there are many other solutions to avoid explorer and its downfalls. MS just has no creativity to make it more intuitive. Or they are too scared to radically change the GUI thinking their customers don't want change.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. The image I posted actually has three panes, if you consider the tree to be a pane. xplorer² can show one, two, or three panes. The two I have horizonally split can be split vertically - is that what you were asking? The "Copy To/Move To" functions from the active pane (which I configured to be highlighted yellow) to the other pane (the target pane).

 

Yes, Vista's fault, security measure or otherwise.

 

This has actually been around since Windows/2000 and Windows/XP had a fair number, so I am a bit surprised you have not encountered them before.

 

Hmmm. I've always been able to access stuff in those OSes if I had an admin account.

 

Probably because you went to the actual location rather than using the smoke-and-mirrors pseudo-shortcuts

 

Never noticed any smoke-and-mirrors before. Weird.

 

That is sort of the definition of "smoke-and-mirrors"; you are not supposed to notice them.

 

I like Explorer for the most part. Sure I have a few gripes... but I think it's pretty good overall. Still, I'm glad that alternative programs are available... and that some of them include an up-directory button.

 

Your problem has more to do with your, ahem, lack of understanding, than it does with Vista. "C:\Users\All Users" is an old, deprecated path designation that Vista just maintains for backwards compatibility (it's actually a symbolic linkto C:\ProgramData). If you replace it with "C:\ProgramData" you'll have a lot more success...

P.S.: I would strongly advise against willy-nilly changing permisissions on Vista system folders and complex file system objects unless you really know what it is you are doing. Clearly, this is not the case for any of the psoters in this thread. You were warned...

 

Thanks for your clarification. However, that IS the path AVG gave me to fix the problem. Furthermore, I NEVER want to see Access Denied when I am in the Admin account. That's what Admin is for.

And, just because I'd appreciate others doing the same for me, I've pointed out your spelling errors in bold. I always find concise, grammatical, and spelling-correct posts to be the most helpful and persuasive.

Again, thanks for your cation, but I know what I'm doing when I change permissions. I accept any risks involved.

 

Interestingly, I have been satisfied with Explorer to. I actually visited the xplorer website and like what I see. However, I don't see myself changing anything. Explorer just doesn't bother me that much.

 

I find having tabs to be worth the price of admission alone

 

This does sound interesting. However, I really don't do ALL that much folder navigation, so it's not a super big deal. But I am very glad to learn of the Alt+Up Arrow command.

 

You do tend to over-analyze yourself. Anyway, I don't receive any file ownership problems with Vista. At least it's not as bad as UAC (which I turn off).

 

I remember you were using Arch. What happened?

 

Yeah, that's good. It's just that it's confusing to see these folders that apparently lead nowhere, but are referenced in multiple guides and tweaks I've seen, but that I can't get access to without a long, drawn-out process.

Dual-boot?

 

Nonsense. There are all sorts of reasons why the system would deny access to certain objects, even to an Admin. As a simple example, it does make some sense that the system will not allow you to delete the file holding the system registry, or, say, the OS kernel, wouldn't you agree?

You know, there is a difference between spelling errors and typos. Do you know what it is? If so, would you like to venture a guess which one of my "errors" were typos?

Hey, it's your computer

P.S.: There were some typos in your post.

 

No. I don't agree, when I have an Admin account. A restricted account, yes.

I am sorry for the confusion. By use of the term errors, I was including typos. So it really doesn't matter to me which were which.

My point.

I would, as always, appreciate it if you would be so kind as to point them out.

 

I think that would be an utter waste of time and bandwidth.

 

like the above post ?

 

Heh, point taken...

 

Well, I've seen a lot worse uses!

I'm curious because I couldn't find any.

LOL.

 

Vista owes me about 120 hrs of my life back since it runs so much slower than XP. I had XP on my Asus g1s for a while and XP ran like lightening.

Long story, playing with Ubuntu dual boot with XP(bad idea to have on a work computer), I used a vista recovery dvd in a pinch. Vista is so bad, I wouldn't give it to anyone to use professionally. Just stay away from the big "V."

 

Yeah. Back up before playing around. And work comp....

But Vista is pretty bloated, IMO, at least unless you have at least 2GB RAM and slim it down a bit. :smile:

 

Vista is not bloated. It's a myth.

 

Well pixelot said it is when it does not have enough memory. I think we all can say that is a given. Have you seen a machine with vista run on 512mb ram? Its beyond pathetic. Yet XP can run decent enough on 512 and fly on 1 gig. If vista was not bloated then why can't it operate on a single core net book? It can't. Netbooks still use XP. With enough horsepower vista runs nice.. but still has longer boots and a delayed superfetch cycle. Again, seven will no doubt show us that there was lots of room for MS to trim down the OS and make it leaner. Once seven arrives, I believe vista will go down as the bloated pig in relation to vista or XP. This does not mean that vista is a bad OS on decent specs.. It just shows that seven will perform at vista levels and retain all the security of vista and still run on a netbook. This I am sure will come to be once Seven arrives. MS cannot afford to put out something that is too similar to Vista in hardware requirements. They have to get it to run on a netbook or they are cooked.

 

^It's too lame that people still use PC's with 512MB RAM. More technology needs more power. You can't expect Vista to peform well in a 512MB intel PIII.

 

If you had read my post you would have seen the problem MS is having with netbooks and vista. You can't expect netbooks to be able to run under vista for what they are intended for and at the current price points. Netbooks generally have a gig of ram, wifi, web cam, with a single core for around 350 dollars. These machines are not built for heavy tasks. But they don't run vista very well and netbooks is the one class of notebooks that are showing healthy growth in this weaker economy. With XP having its end of life this coming summer, what do you expect MS to load on all these machines coolguy? Linux?
Again, MS has made it known to the public its wishes. That is, windows seven WILL be leaner, will perform everything that vista can on less resources and will also be efficient enough to run on the current netbooks. MS really does not have a choice at this point since they have decided to kill off XP. Either lean out Vista or allow linux to grab more market share on the growing netbook market.

But if MS kills off XP and just leaves vista in its current state.. its going to be bad. Especially since over half their business customers are still exercising their XP downgrade rights. It does not matter if you feel Vista is a complete OS with no issues. If half your business customers refuse to migrate to vista.. you have a problem and a big one.

 

NetBooks are a new offering and one MS didn't foresee...

You can expect that Windows 7 will offer a very basic version (lower than Home Basic for Vista) that is geared towards NetBooks where the only aimed tasks are web browsing and instant messaging.

NetBooks would get the best performance on a modified Linux distro than they would out of full blown OSs like XP and Vista both...

MS isn't having huge losses due to businesses skipping Vista... The reality isn't that! Vista offers a lot of advantages for IT pros that is propelling rapid adoption in companies. Hense why Vista is the best selling OS MS has ever released.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121020919115475411-lMyQjAxMDI4MTAwODIwMDg5Wj.html

It took XP 51 months to get to 400 million users

http://www.itworld.com/060118xpsp3

Vista is already well past 100 million in 16...

 

Well, the fact is MS has been adding those businesses that have downgraded to XP into their Vista totals. Again, I don't think you guys are seeing my point. At this point it does not matter how great Vista is in your eyes. There is a REAL perception in the business community that vista is not all that great.. whether you feel that's true or not is irrelevant. I'm sure you are one of those that also feel that the longer boot times is worth the wait for the benefits on vista. Hmmm, must be why MS is working feverishly at reducing that boot wait and have already claimed a goal of under sixty seconds for windows seven. It amazes me that anyone would support vista in its current build. There is room for improvement and I for one am looking forward to all the performance tweaks in seven.. I think allot of businesses are also waiting to see how seven performs in relation to vista.

But the amount of businesses and schools still exercising those XP downgrade rights is a real problem. I know several businesses personally that have done just that and have no plans to ever switch to vista. The college I am attending now also just upgraded all their PC's to HP's that are all running XP. Yet you can bet money that MS has put those numbers into their vista migration totals. At this point the perception problem is here no matter how many mojove commercials MS runs.

The only way MS could have avoided that would have been to refuse OEM's to install vista on crap machines with only 512mb of ram and with the intel 915 chipset back in 06-07. But they did, and now they have a perception problem that will not go away.

 

Vista? Dude, give it up, that`s why XP is for

My Vista dvd`s are just paperweights at this point...and they look as if they`re going to be doing that for quite a while

 

I installed Vista on my Aspire One Netbook... runs pretty well IMO, maybe better than XP... To be fair, I installed a Vlite'd version, IE a stripped down version, but only reason I did that was because the install needed to fit on a 1 gig USB stick to install it.

Count me a happy Vista user on both my laptops

 

To everything that's just been said:

When XP or Ubuntu does all for me that I need in a modern OS, why do I have to have over 2x the RAM to run Vista?

Although, as Citizen mentioned, it can be stripped down to usable size.