"Run this program as an administrator" always grayed out

The checkbox to "Run this program as an administrator" under the
Compatibility tab of an .exe's properties is always grayed out. I did a
search for executable files and randomly checked about 15 different
applications, located in a variety of folders (C:\Program Files, Program
Files (x86), C:\HP, etc).

I am running Vista Ultimate 64 on an HP Pavillion notebook which I just
purchased. I disabled UAC because it broke TortoiseCVS, which is
necessary for my development work (and in my previous experience UAC was
a nightmare on a development box where I'm constantly
adding/testing/removing software). Visual Studio 2005 needs to run with
elevated privileges, but now I can't enable this by checking the
previously noted box for devenv.exe, as MS recommends.

I will address the specifics regarding Visual Studio on another forum,
but for now, I would like to know why this feature is not available for
any applications, and what I can do to restore it.

Thanks - Dan


--
developer_dan

As an update to my previous comment ... I re-enabled UAC for now and the
"Run this program as an administrator" option is back. Since the user
account I am logged in as has administrative privileges, it follows that
any .exe would run as administrator if UAC is disabled, but it doesn't
seem like that should cause the Run-as-Admin feature to be disabled,
since you would want this property to be associated with the file,
regardless if UAC is turned on/off.

Also, what added to the confusion is that Visual Studio informs me that
it needs to be run as an Admin when I start it, even if I already
checked Run-as-Admin. This seems like its own bug.

Please note that I am NOT saying that the solution to my problem is to
re-enable UAC, so I would still like any feedback on this topic. I'll
see how long I can endure with UAC for now, but it has created enough
problems in the past that I'm not optimistic.


--
developer_dan

"developer_dan" <developer_dan.319rm3@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:developer_dan.319rm3@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> As an update to my previous comment ... I re-enabled UAC for now and the
> "Run this program as an administrator" option is back. Since the user
> account I am logged in as has administrative privileges, it follows that
> any .exe would run as administrator if UAC is disabled, but it doesn't
> seem like that should cause the Run-as-Admin feature to be disabled,
> since you would want this property to be associated with the file,
> regardless if UAC is turned on/off.


Well, that's not the case. If you disable UAC, then any file association
regarding UAC is off.

And on top of that, a user with Admin rights on Vista only has Standard user
rights in a lot situations, and their rights must be escalated.

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/

>
> Also, what added to the confusion is that Visual Studio informs me that
> it needs to be run as an Admin when I start it, even if I already
> checked Run-as-Admin. This seems like its own bug.

It's not a bug, that's just the way it is.
>
> Please note that I am NOT saying that the solution to my problem is to
> re-enable UAC, so I would still like any feedback on this topic. I'll
> see how long I can endure with UAC for now, but it has created enough
> problems in the past that I'm not optimistic.
>

The link talks about developers having to come into line on Vista.


http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=785

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa905330.aspx

<http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/00d04415-2b2f-422c-b70e-b18ff918c2811033.mspx?mfr=true>

I'll assume you have heard of the Vista UAC manifest.

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=211271

"developer_dan" <developer_dan.319ngo@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:developer_dan.319ngo@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> The checkbox to "Run this program as an administrator" under the
> Compatibility tab of an .exe's properties is always grayed out. I did a
> search for executable files and randomly checked about 15 different
> applications, located in a variety of folders (C:\Program Files, Program
> Files (x86), C:\HP, etc).
>
> I am running Vista Ultimate 64 on an HP Pavillion notebook which I just
> purchased. I disabled UAC because it broke TortoiseCVS, which is
> necessary for my development work (and in my previous experience UAC was
> a nightmare on a development box where I'm constantly
> adding/testing/removing software). Visual Studio 2005 needs to run with
> elevated privileges, but now I can't enable this by checking the
> previously noted box for devenv.exe, as MS recommends.
>
> I will address the specifics regarding Visual Studio on another forum,
> but for now, I would like to know why this feature is not available for
> any applications, and what I can do to restore it.
>

If the software such as TortoiseCVS is not Vista complaint, then it's not
Vista compliant.

The link may do you some good.

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...hut_off_v.html

developer_dan;538248 Wrote:
> As an update to my previous comment ... I re-enabled UAC for now and the
> "Run this program as an administrator" option is back. Since the user
> account I am logged in as has administrative privileges, it follows that
> any .exe would run as administrator if UAC is disabled, but it doesn't
> seem like that should cause the Run-as-Admin feature to be disabled,
> since you would want this property to be associated with the file,
> regardless if UAC is turned on/off.
>
> Also, what added to the confusion is that Visual Studio informs me that
> it needs to be run as an Admin when I start it, even if I already
> checked Run-as-Admin. This seems like its own bug.
>
> Please note that I am NOT saying that the solution to my problem is to
> re-enable UAC, so I would still like any feedback on this topic. I'll
> see how long I can endure with UAC for now, but it has created enough
> problems in the past that I'm not optimistic.

Hi Dan,

Welcome to the Vistax64.com forum. arty:

Step 5 in this tutorial will show you how to check (enable) the "Run as
Administrator" option in the Compatibility options.

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/63...-programs.html


If you do not want UAC on and not have these problems with it off, then
see:

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/80...ege-level.html

and

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/67...r-account.html

Hope this helps,
Shawn


--
brink

*There are no dumb questions, just the people that do not ask them.*
WWW.VISTAX64.COM (\"HTTP://WWW.VISTAX64.COM\")
*Please post feedback to help others.*

Thank you for your replies, especially the informative links provided by
Shawn, which answered my initial question. Although it was not my
intention to begin a discussion regarding the pros/cons of UAC, I do
appreciate the feedback and tips. I read through all the links and have
tried to objectively reconsider the matter. My primary frustration in
the past with UAC was not the annoying prompts, which simply reflect
poor UI design, but the frequency of problems where software simply
didn't work or UAC wouldn't allow me to copy files, even after prompting
me for privilege elevation. I don't mind being harrassed nearly as much
as I mind being denied functionality without a choice.

A simple example I ran into yesterday: I added Notepad to the SendTo
folder so I can right-click to edit a text file that has no file
extension. When I then used this method to edit a manifest file for a
program in the Program Files folder, I could not save the file. In this
case, UAC did not prompt me to ask for approval, which would be the
desired behavior; I had to save the file somewhere else and copy it back
using Explorer. From a technical standpoint, I understand why this
happens, and a workaround in this case is to grant Notepad.exe
"Run-as-Admin" rights, but the experience is an everyday occurrence with
UAC, and the solutions are not always so simple.

I don't appreciate Mr. Arnold's tone regarding the need for developers
to "come into line on Vista." There is a big difference between
programming for security and programming for conformity to Vista's
requirements. That MS has had a huge number of problems getting Visual
Studio to work properly in Vista is evidence. And even now, after
applying all the available updates, I still can't open a project or
solution file by double-clicking the file because of UAC issues
regarding file association and the Visual Studio Version Selector
program. I've found workarounds that are sufficient for now, but it's
proof that the current implementation of UAC impacts the function of
programs that were written according to reasonable security guidelines.
They just weren't written for Vista.

In any case, I now have a clearer understanding of how Vista stores the
"Run-as-Admin" information (registry), and why it's grayed out when UAC
is disabled, which was my original question. I verified that a file for
which you check "Run-as-Admin" remains checked even after you turn UAC
off, which makes sense. I will continue to run with UAC enabled and keep
a log of the problems I encounter, doing my best to be reasonable about
when it's the result of third-party sloppiness, and when it's something
that could be improved in the implementation of UAC. I'm hopeful that
Microsoft will continue to make the needed usability improvements,
rather than just stubbornly insisting that all problems are the result
of a failure on the part of everyone else. As a loyal Microsoft
developer for ten years, I would find that attitude highly distasteful.


--
developer_dan

>
> I don't appreciate Mr. Arnold's tone regarding the need for developers
> to "come into line on Vista." There is a big difference between
> programming for security and programming for conformity to Vista's
> requirements. That MS has had a huge number of problems getting Visual
> Studio to work properly in Vista is evidence. And even now, after
> applying all the available updates, I still can't open a project or
> solution file by double-clicking the file because of UAC issues
> regarding file association and the Visual Studio Version Selector
> program. I've found workarounds that are sufficient for now, but it's
> proof that the current implementation of UAC impacts the function of
> programs that were written according to reasonable security guidelines.
> They just weren't written for Vista.

Well, I am a software developer professionally, and I have been so since
1980 and MS since 1995. I don't have any problems using .Net solutions on
Vista -- none. You should stop whining because there is nothing you can do
about it, other than, not use the product.

Mr. Arnold;539426 Wrote:
> >
>
> Well, I am a software developer professionally, and I have been so
> since
> 1980 and MS since 1995. I don't have any problems using .Net solutions
> on
> Vista -- none. You should stop whining because there is nothing you can
> do
> about it, other than, not use the product.

I'm very happy to hear about your success, but I'm pretty sure you're
in the minority. With regard to my "whining," I'm sorry you see it that
way, and I couldn't disagree more. Voicing my opinion about what can be
improved is called customer feedback. It is a vital step in the process
that leads to improved products. As a developer, you should know full
well that 'not using the product' is not really a viable option for most
developers, and besides, I'm not saying that I don't like the product.
Programming with Visual Studio and the .Net framework is more enjoyable
than any other type of programming I've done, and I think there are many
obvious business benefits to having a single widely accepted platform to
build on, and overall I've been fairly satisfied with Microsoft's
efforts to produce good products and meet the needs of their customers.
They carry a huge burden on their shoulders, and positioning themselves
as the dominant force in a huge worldwide industry makes them a ripe
candidate for criticism, which is how it should be. They should be held
to high standards, and it's disappointing to me that many of the
frustrations I've had with Vista can easily be identified as either bugs
or poor design. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop using it. It
means I'm going to do my part to help Microsoft do what it should have
done in the first place, even if it sounds to some people like whining.


--
developer_dan

"developer_dan" <developer_dan.31coh0@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:developer_dan.31coh0@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> They should be held to high standards, and it's disappointing to me that
> many of the
> frustrations I've had with Vista can easily be identified as either bugs
> or poor design. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop using it. It
> means I'm going to do my part to help Microsoft do what it should have
> done in the first place, even if it sounds to some people like whining.
>

You can talk to them about Vista II and see if that buys you anything.