Administrator Denied Access

[Sparky]

Firstly , I apologise if this should be posted elsewhere.

Main machine Win 7 / 64 up to date etc.

I was given a HP Athlon X2 6000 running Vista because it was blue screening.
I re installed from scratch , updated to SP2 and it's running like a dream.

All good.

I created the same 2 users I have on my Win 7 machine...same HOMEGROUP etc .
I always run as a Limited User.

Win 7 could see and access both user accounts on Vista but when I tried to
access the Win 7 from Vista I was prompted for credentials .

I entered my Limited User credentials as that's the account I'd normally be
running , but now , when I log into the Admin account on the Vista machine
I get

\\computer not accessible. The user has not been granted the requested log
on type for this computer.....

Just to clarify , I CAN access the Win 7 box from the Vista Limited account
, just not the Vista Admin account.

Thanks once again..

 

[Todd]

Firstly , I apologise if this should be posted elsewhere.

Main machine Win 7 / 64 up to date etc.

I was given a HP Athlon X2 6000 running Vista because it was blue
screening. I re installed from scratch , updated to SP2 and it's running
like a dream.

All good.

I created the same 2 users I have on my Win 7 machine...same HOMEGROUP
etc . I always run as a Limited User.

Win 7 could see and access both user accounts on Vista but when I tried
to access the Win 7 from Vista I was prompted for credentials .

I entered my Limited User credentials as that's the account I'd normally
be running , but now , when I log into the Admin account on the Vista
machine I get

\\computer not accessible. The user has not been granted the requested
log on type for this computer.....

Just to clarify , I CAN access the Win 7 box from the Vista Limited
account , just not the Vista Admin account.

Thanks once again..

Hi Sparky,

I am confused as to what you are asking, so I am going
to answer about the admin account. By default the "home"
editions have the administrator's account turned off.
Here is my notes on the subject. They are written
for me, so parts may not be understandable to you.

Did I come close to what you were asking?

-T


How to active the disabled Vista and Windows 7 Administrator's account:

Net user administrator /active:yes Note the "R" "user" not "use"


If this does not work (Access Denied), create a batch file:

Net user administrator /active:yes
pause

And right click on it with Windows Explorer and "run as Administrator"



If you do not have the proper password, you have to use your:
Offline.NT.PasswordRegEditor-cd080802.iso
disk to both activate the Administrator's account and blank out its
password.
http://pogostick.net/~pnh/ntpasswd/

 

[VanguardLH]

Main machine Win 7 / 64 up to date etc. ...
I created the same 2 users I have on my Win 7 machine...same HOMEGROUP ...
...when I tried to access the Win 7 from Vista ...

Don't use homegroups. That is a Windows 7 thing. Pre-7 versions of
Windows don't understand homegroups. They can't join homegroups. In
Windows 7, just use workgroups to eliminate the headaches if you intend
to share resources from Windows 7 with earlier versions of Windows.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=80B1AA5D-1B5A-4447-8036-ACC918BA7AF2

 

[Rodney Pont]

I created the same 2 users I have on my Win 7 machine...same HOMEGROUP etc .
I always run as a Limited User.

Does Vista have HOMEGROUP? I thought that was new in W7. If so have to
change W7 to use a WORKGROUP. If I've got it wrong no doubt some kind
person will put me right

 

[Ken Blake]

Don't use homegroups. That is a Windows 7 thing. Pre-7 versions of
Windows don't understand homegroups. They can't join homegroups. In
Windows 7, just use workgroups to eliminate the headaches if you intend
to share resources from Windows 7 with earlier versions of Windows.

I'll be even stronger. There's no advantage to using a homegroup
instead of a workgroup, so I recommend using a workgroup even if you
*don't* intend to add other non-Windows 7 computers to it; your needs
may change in the future.

 

[Sparky]

"Rodney Pont" wrote in message

I created the same 2 users I have on my Win 7 machine...same HOMEGROUP etc
.
I always run as a Limited User.

Does Vista have HOMEGROUP? I thought that was new in W7. If so have to
change W7 to use a WORKGROUP. If I've got it wrong no doubt some kind
person will put me right

--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail rpont (at) gmail (dot) com

My apologies....I'm referring to WORKGROUPS with Vista / Win 7.

The problem is I was prompted for credentials from the Limited Vista account
to access the Win 7. I supplied them and all is well however , I receive no
prompt from the Vista / Admin account and can not access the Win 7 Box. Same
usernames and passwords on both machines.

 

[Ken Blake]

Does Vista have HOMEGROUP? I thought that was new in W7. If so have to
change W7 to use a WORKGROUP. If I've got it wrong no doubt some kind
person will put me right

You've got it right. Only Windows 7 has homegroups.

 

[Ken Blake]

You've got it right. Only Windows 7 has homegroups.

Sorry, I replied to the wrong person. It wasn't Sparky who said the
above, it was Rodney Point.

But the reason I replied to the wrong person is that Sparky is using
Windows Live Mail, and his quotes are all screwed up. Please, either
dump Windows Live Mail or fix your quoting manually. Reading Windows
Live Mail messages is such a pain that I'm on the verge of just
killfiling everyone I see using it.

 

[VanguardLH]

Sorry, I replied to the wrong person. It wasn't Sparky who said the
above, it was Rodney Point.

But the reason I replied to the wrong person is that Sparky is using
Windows Live Mail, and his quotes are all screwed up. Please, either
dump Windows Live Mail or fix your quoting manually. Reading Windows
Live Mail messages is such a pain that I'm on the verge of just
killfiling everyone I see using it.

He also is lazy in adding his new content AFTER wherever his client
inserts the sigdash line. Everything after the sigdash line is the
*signature*, not the body of the post, and many clients strip out the
signature fluff. I said "lazy" because OE and WLM users more than
others don't bother to *review* their posts before submitting them.

I already color-tag all posts submitted using v15, or later, of WLM. It
lets me know that the post is very likely screwed up. If v16 doesn't
correct the quoting problem (or just does away with NNTP altogether and
focus on being an e-mail-only client) then it would easily to switch the
filter from colorizing to flagging as ignored (my default view is to
hide ignore-flagged posts).

 

[Ken Blake]

He also is lazy in adding his new content AFTER wherever his client
inserts the sigdash line. Everything after the sigdash line is the
*signature*, not the body of the post, and many clients strip out the
signature fluff.

Yep! Mine (Agent) does by default, although I have that default turned
off.

I said "lazy" because OE and WLM users more than
others don't bother to *review* their posts before submitting them.

Yep.

 

[Sparky]

"Ken Blake" wrote in message

He also is lazy in adding his new content AFTER wherever his client
inserts the sigdash line. Everything after the sigdash line is the
*signature*, not the body of the post, and many clients strip out the
signature fluff.

Yep! Mine (Agent) does by default, although I have that default turned
off.

I said "lazy" because OE and WLM users more than
others don't bother to *review* their posts before submitting them.

Yep.

Many thanks for all the ' constructive ' input. I still have the problem .
There is more content here bashing WLM and it's users than addressing my
issue.
That's not why I posted . You're like a bunch of schoolyard bullies picking
on a classmate because he's not wearing the right designer label.
You're not REQUIRED to answer if there is something about the post you don't
happen to like , or agree with.
I'll take my question elsewhere

 

[Paul]

You're like a bunch of schoolyard bullies picking on a classmate
because he's not wearing the right designer label.
You're not REQUIRED to answer if there is something about the post you
don't happen to like , or agree with.

What the respondents are trying to communicate, is WLM is
ruining the appearance of threads for *everyone*. And they
don't always pick the most diplomatic way of saying it.

There is an easy way to solve this.

1) Use a separate tool for email. Use a separate tool for USENET
newsreading. You get the best tool for emailing that way.
And the best tool for USENET.

2) By using separate tools, you'll *never* send a private
email to a USENET group by accident. So there is a benefit.

WLM 14 is apparently better at compliance with the basics,
than WLM 15, and WLM 14 is an alternative.

Paul

 

[VanguardLH]

Many thanks for all the ' constructive ' input. I still have the problem .
There is more content here bashing WLM and it's users than addressing my
issue.
That's not why I posted . You're like a bunch of schoolyard bullies picking
on a classmate because he's not wearing the right designer label.
You're not REQUIRED to answer if there is something about the post you don't
happen to like , or agree with.
I'll take my question elsewhere

We already addressed your issue. You can't even bother reading those
posts do something to determine if they resolve your issue.

Perhaps you haven't been around Usenet for long. Subthreads often
diverge onto other topics spurred by something previous.

Come on back when you actually decide to try the suggestions already
given.

 

[Ken Blake]

Many thanks for all the ' constructive ' input. I still have the problem .
There is more content here bashing WLM and it's users than addressing my
issue.
That's not why I posted . You're like a bunch of schoolyard bullies picking
on a classmate because he's not wearing the right designer label.
You're not REQUIRED to answer if there is something about the post you don't
happen to like , or agree with.
I'll take my question elsewhere

You can call us bullies if you want, but you clearly don't want to
realize that the problem is with *you*, not us; your messages are
nearly unintelligible.

So given that, I'm glad to say goodbye. And thanks for leaving and
saving me the trouble of killfiling you.