> Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've seen a lot of posts from
> you over the past few weeks asking why/how to get around various parts of
> the operating system as a developer.

I certainly won't take this the wrong way, because evidently you're not
referring to anything I've posted. When you use phraseology like 'get
around' various parts of the operating system, I really have no idea what
your referring to. Asking for specs on how an oprating system operates
shouldn't be construed as an attempt to 'get around' the OS. Or perhaps
you've just hit on why MS typically witholds that information? They think
that vendors will use it to 'get around' the OS?

- Joseph Geretz -

"Robert Moir" <robspamtrap@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oos1fneXHHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "Joseph Geretz" <jgeretz@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ujrbMNBXHHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>> 3. Executable will require elevation. Executable is trusted and so
>> Windows will elevate the executable without prompting the user?
>>
>> No way to achieve option 3?
>
> If someone finds a method on monday, I'd expect a virus or other similar
> malware to drive a truck through the method by wednesday morning at the
> very latest. So I hope not.
>
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've seen a lot of posts from
> you over the past few weeks asking why/how to get around various parts of
> the operating system as a developer. I realise it's a lot of work... hell
> I don't even _like_ Vista myself so I don't agree with how it does
> everything and I'm not defending it, but if I may be so bold, I'd suggest
> you might find it easier in the long run to refactor your application to
> work with Vista in one of its "accepted" ways.
>
> --
> Robert Moir
> http://www.rhymeswithgeek.com
>