Index
> IDE Development > Does FASMW use obselete file API under WIN 7 ?Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author |
|
|
shutdownall 07 Dec 2012, 13:58
Very strange.
Does FASMW use obselete file system API / functions under WIN 7 ? See my problems here. http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=14838 Today I got a bit deeper into it and looked at file attributes. There you have the option to create a copy of this file (FASMW.ASM) without "personal" information. A new file "FASMW - Copy.ASM" is created. This file is not listed when I open FASMW open file dialog. Regardless if I use asm files or all file types. The file is seen in explorer and can be opened in other programs. So is FASMW.EXE using an obsolete file API ? 
See attached pictures. Crazy. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
07 Dec 2012, 13:58 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
revolution 08 Dec 2012, 05:07
shutdownall wrote: Does FASMW use obselete file system API / functions under WIN 7 ? |
|||
|
08 Dec 2012, 05:07 |
|
|
sinsi 08 Dec 2012, 05:39
Different times on FASMW.ASM, are you sure it's the same directory?
|
|||
|
08 Dec 2012, 05:39 |
|
|
f0dder 08 Dec 2012, 18:11
shutdownall wrote: So is there a problem under WIN 7 to open files created with another user account? 
Internally, security descriptors don't refer to user accounts by name - you might want to use wikipedia as a starting point, then spend a few hours reading related links
shutdownall wrote: I wouldn't expect this behaviour when I am admin on my own local hardware. Tools that are relevant when (re)installing windows or moving disks include TAKEOWN, CACLS and ICACLS. _________________  - carpe noctem |
|||
|
08 Dec 2012, 18:11 |
|
|
shutdownall 08 Dec 2012, 18:58
f0dder wrote: Even administrators don't run with full SYSTEM privileges, preventing you from doing stupid mistakes... That's crazy. They could assume that admins know what they do, so no need to make admins life harder. |
|||
|
08 Dec 2012, 18:58 |
|
|
revolution 08 Dec 2012, 19:08
shutdownall wrote: They could assume that admins know what they do, so no need to make admins life harder. |
|||
|
08 Dec 2012, 19:08 |
|
|
f0dder 08 Dec 2012, 19:26
shutdownall wrote:
It limits accidents, and (once you know the mechanics) it's very little hassle in daily work. _________________ - carpe noctem |
|||
|
08 Dec 2012, 19:26 |
|
|
shutdownall 08 Dec 2012, 20:06
What I really don't need is someone asking me, if I really want what I want.
And I don't need someone only want my best, like a big mama. But this is the typical american way where nobody is responsible for nothing and protection is the only way how all things work. |
|||
|
08 Dec 2012, 20:06 |
|
|
shutdownall 08 Dec 2012, 20:10
f0dder wrote:
Driving with only 10km/h limits accidents, too. Welcome in the world of limits. |
|||
|
08 Dec 2012, 20:10 |
|
|
shutdownall 08 Dec 2012, 20:14
The most kidding part is that MS is keeping the complete MFT format secret.
Partly MFT is documented but only partly and not official from Microsoft as you would expect. Only a few forensic guys are finding out some parts of these secrets. If I pay for an OS like WIN I could expect to use a public documented file system with all aspects. |
|||
|
08 Dec 2012, 20:14 |
|
|
f0dder 09 Dec 2012, 13:36
Move to a macho OS and an unsafe filesystem, then, and you'll be happier?
_________________ - carpe noctem |
|||
|
09 Dec 2012, 13:36 |
|
|
shutdownall 09 Dec 2012, 14:37
Why is a well documented modern file system like Btrfs unsafe in general ?
If I am admin user with admin rights I should be able to do all on the files what necessary with no access restriction. What more do you want ? A super-admin ? With some more rights and above a super-super-admin ? Where should it end ? Should I need a confirmation from a developer of Redmond to delete or change something on my disk ? Why does linux handle this more efficient ? If I am root user there is no restriction in access at all. Or did you ever heard of a super-root concept ? Root is root and admin should be admin - that's all. There should be really more self-responsibility. The gouvernment provides restrictions more and more - I don't need this in software. This has nothing to do with macho - more with liberty. |
|||
|
09 Dec 2012, 14:37 |
|
|
f0dder 09 Dec 2012, 16:19
Linux' "root" is equivalent to Windows' "SYSTEM" account. No sane person logs in with neither root nor SYSTEM for daily use.
shutdownall wrote: This has nothing to do with macho - more with liberty. |
|||
|
09 Dec 2012, 16:19 |
|
|
shutdownall 09 Dec 2012, 18:21
f0dder wrote: Linux' "root" is equivalent to Windows' "SYSTEM" account. No sane person logs in with neither root nor SYSTEM for daily use. But you can not log in to Windows as a SYSTEM user. The complicate handling under windows to get full system rights is a big difference. f0dder wrote: NT doesn't prevent you from ruining your system, it just makes it harder to do so by accident - and in general has more granular permissions than what you get on *u*x. If it makes harder by accident it makes it harder in general as well. For me the concept of Microsoft's file access right managemant is bullshit like the concept of the registry.  |
|||
|
09 Dec 2012, 18:21 |
|
|
revolution 10 Dec 2012, 00:26
... and we don't need those pointless expensive safety rails on bridges, just let people walk off the edge if they want to.
The point is (or is supposed to be) that you can purposefully jump the safety rail if you want to, but it is meant to be unlikely that you'll do it by accident when casually walking along in a daydream. |
|||
|
10 Dec 2012, 00:26 |
|
|
f0dder 10 Dec 2012, 09:19
shutdownall wrote: For me the concept of Microsoft's file access right managemant is bullshit like the concept of the registry. Yeah. The zillion different configuration text-file formats on *u*x is so much better. _________________ - carpe noctem |
|||
|
10 Dec 2012, 09:19 |
|
|
sinsi 10 Dec 2012, 09:49
Just run fasmw as administrator, access to all files (except where the user has a password on their account, usually).
|
|||
|
10 Dec 2012, 09:49 |
|
|
xDOBORAx 03 Aug 2013, 12:39
win 7 uses 1 gb ram, XP just 512 and less if you disable some services
i know this is offtopic but best solution i to just use XP or even NT |
|||
|
03 Aug 2013, 12:39 |
|
|
comrade 03 Aug 2013, 23:15
Check %LOCALAPPDATA%\VirtualStore.
|
|||
|
03 Aug 2013, 23:15 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|