PDA

View Full Version : Woah! 5.2b UAC Compatibility for Non-Admin Acct: How?



Quiet1onTheSet
07-14-2009, 08:01 AM
Hi all. There seems to be no clear indication in the VT[5] ver. 5.2b documentation, about just *how* to run VT[5], under a non-administrator Windows Vista account, with UAC turned ON.

Yet, the READ ME doc for VT[5] version 5.2b indicates this as a new capability.

It would appear that eliminating the need to physically turn UAC "Off" before launching VT[5] is a terrific idea, but there's need for some clearly explained steps on how to pull this feat off, IMHO.

:deal: Unless it's already here in the docs somewhere, and I totally missed it.

We're running Vista 64 Ultimate here, but can't get VT[5] ver 5.2b to run under the Guest Account. Anybody got the skinny on how to affect this? Helpful advice, appreciated!

PIZAZZ
07-14-2009, 08:25 AM
So don't run it under the Guest account.

Run it as a Power User as a minimum.

All our client's system run as Admin user. Not necessarily the Administrator but a user set with admin properties.

There is no reason I can see that anyone would want to use a Guest account.

Quiet1onTheSet
07-14-2009, 08:43 AM
Run it as a Power User as a minimum. All our client's system run as Admin user. Not necessarily the Administrator but a user set with admin properties.

Thanks for that, Jef. Was essentially testing with "GUEST", to see if it was possible to run. Result: Even with UAC turned on, "Not!"

Quiet1onTheSet
07-15-2009, 11:50 AM
Well now! With assist from Dr. Cross, I've discovered that:

VT[5] ver 5.2b (or c) will indeed launch, with UAC turned on, in the Non-Administrator account, with certain prerequisites in place, including:

1. The VT[5].exe executable may have to be set up with the checkbox enabled for Windows XP Compatibility Mode within the Properties panel

2. The Non-Administrator account user should run the VT[5] executable by right-clicking on its icon, then and select "Run as Administrator" from within the context menu that pops up.

I don't believe these details are in any of the VT[5] readme docs, which could potentially cause an increase in number of calls from new "VT[5] on Vista users", to Tech Support.

That said, I suspect some of the above mentioned details in points 1 and 2 above would serve a healthy purpose, if included in the VT[5] FAQ section of NewTek's web site.

Quiet1onTheSet
07-15-2009, 12:36 PM
So don't run it under the Guest account.

There is no reason I can see that anyone would want to use a Guest account.
True, but on the other hand, it's conceivable, that a system administrator might desire to have a guest account reserved for VT use, as a means for providing a given "guest user" limited access to files, folders, and restricted ability to make changes, say -- during a live shoot.

Quiet1onTheSet
07-15-2009, 06:00 PM
A significant caveat with point 1 in Post #4 above, is that it would appear that this "XP Compatibility Mode" likely would rob the user of taking advantage of the extra RAM overhead afforded by Vista OS.

Quiet1onTheSet
07-15-2009, 06:03 PM
I'd love to hear more interaction on this, as I am hoping that it is indeed possible to run VT[5] ver 5.2b (and that, with the 5.2c patch), in the Vista x86 mode, while doing so under a Non-Administrator Account, and with User Account Controls turned "ON", and without resorting to having to hit the Windows XP Compatibility Mode checkbox in the Properties panel for the VT[5].exe icon!

SBowie
07-15-2009, 06:11 PM
I don't believe these details are in any of the VT[5] readme docs, which could potentially cause an increase in number of calls from new "VT[5] on Vista users", to Tech Support.I don't really think TS had to put on another shift due to being bombarded with calls asking how to do this, Peter. (Notice that of 8 posts in this thread, 6 are yours?) :D

It's a version readme, not a manual (;)) ... the sort of thing one is asked for an hour before it's needed, basically a tidied up rehash of changes listed in an email received during the same hour from Engineering. Details will probably wind up in the online FAQ, but that's Paul's baileywick.

Thanks for ferreting out these details.

Paul Lara
07-16-2009, 10:12 AM
As this thread did contain some helpful info, I've just removed the misunderstanding, since wacky hilarity did NOT ensue.