How to give non-admin user ability to chkdsk drive?

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:ujGMtzl1IHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Dave R. wrote:

>
>
> Part of the problem is that, for some reason, you're mistakenly
> thinking of Chkdsk as some sort of routine maintenance tool.

No, I'm not. I'm thinking that *some* aspects of system administration
can be handled by *some* users who have *some*, but not all, of the
rights/privileges of system administrators.

> It isn't. It's designed to find and correct problems with the hard
> drive (limited, to be sure) and the file system.

I'm fully aware of chkdsk's purpose and usage, thanks.

> It has no preventative value, at all.

I'm not looking for "preventative value".

> All it's routine periodic use would do is unnecessarily increase the
> wear and tear on the hard drives.

First, I'm not looking for it to be used "periodically" or "routinely".
Second, if you actually believe this, then you have no idea how a hard
drive functions. That's like saying "the routine periodic reading of
data from hard drives unnecessarily increases the wear and tear on the
hard drives."

> And granting ordinary (or even power users)

I'm not looking to give "ordinary" users, or "power users", this
ability. You should stop trying to divine my intent as you are
consistently making incorrect assumptions.

> the ability to alter the very foundation on which the OS,
> applications, and data rests is very much granting the "keys to the
> kingdom."

No, it is granting *a* key to *one part* of the kingdom. A key that I
trust certain users to have. What is it about this that bothers you so
much?

Regards,

Dave

Thanks for the constructive reply, Mark. I'll take a closer look at
your suggestions and ideas and see if they can get me where I want to
go.

Regards,

Dave

"Mark" <jmhonzell@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B45B8D1E-59F0-4918-A1AA-12D4258D01F6@microsoft.com...

> Command-line utilities can be run from standard user without prompts
> if the application is given a manifest assigning highestAvailable.
> Unfortunately, this may also not give the results you want...
> The higher privileged application will open in a separate "DOS" window
> and close without providing the user an opportunity to read any
> information presented. ChkDsk can be assigned in this method to run on
> the next boot where the information will be provided to the user, or
> the logfile that ChkDsk could be reviewed after running, but no
> protected area sectors can be repaired while run from a standard user.
>
> Again, this is probably not what you wanted.
> Easier would be to setup ChkDsk to run each boot by marking the disk
> as "dirty" during network initialization.
> Again, missing the concept. You want to provide the standard user the
> ability to run certain applications while running Windows.
>
> I don't think that exists. Nor did it exist in prior versions. (They
> were simply running as administrator and you restricted those
> functions you did not want to give to them.)
>
> "Dave R." <dwragle (at) drbsystems (dot) com> wrote in message
> news:OUHyEef1IHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>

This is an interesting thread. A bit hostile, but interesting.

You have the answer to your question, obviously it is not the answer you are
looking for. For the last few replies, the conversation has degraded into a
tit for tat, exchange which still will not change anything.

At the risk of incurring more enmity...the granularity that you seek is
available in Vista/server 2008. Technology evolves; things that were not
possible (for whatever reason) are added in later versions -Granularity of
administrative functionality is now possible in the latest version of
Microsoft server/client OS. Might be time to upgrade if this is something
that you need.

If you must have the functionality in your present version of software, it
might be worthwhile to create a function/macro with the ability you need.
Compile it with the appropriate permissions then deploy it thru GPO? You
seem knowledgeable, more than capable to handle the coding. It can be done.


"Dave R." <dwragle (at) drbsystems (dot) com> wrote in message
news:uKGBCnv1IHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:ujGMtzl1IHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>
> No, I'm not. I'm thinking that *some* aspects of system administration
> can be handled by *some* users who have *some*, but not all, of the
> rights/privileges of system administrators.
>

>
> I'm fully aware of chkdsk's purpose and usage, thanks.
>

>
> I'm not looking for "preventative value".
>

>
> First, I'm not looking for it to be used "periodically" or "routinely".
> Second, if you actually believe this, then you have no idea how a hard
> drive functions. That's like saying "the routine periodic reading of data
> from hard drives unnecessarily increases the wear and tear on the hard
> drives."
>

>
> I'm not looking to give "ordinary" users, or "power users", this ability.
> You should stop trying to divine my intent as you are consistently making
> incorrect assumptions.
>

>
> No, it is granting *a* key to *one part* of the kingdom. A key that I
> trust certain users to have. What is it about this that bothers you so
> much?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>