It would be far simpler if MS would quit playing "Father Knows Best" and simply let SW do what it's designed to do.

You're entitled to your opinion.

The problem, Merle Bowen, is that some software is designed to dig through your system files, replace them with trojaned phonies, find any personal data stored on the system, and send it to a server run by the Russian mafia.

In those cases, it's not a great idea to "simply let SW do what it's designed to do".

well, this doesn't really stop the mafia from doing that, does it? it's just an inelegant fix to a problem that could be solved a number of different and better ways.

all it really does it make prevista software not work well or at all with vista, requiring the user to buy MS substitutes.

How about this - I tried to restore a database file to c:\program files\microsoft sql server from a WinRar archive and when it ended the file was not there!
After 2 tries I found it in the virtual store and was VERY ANGRY!
I then had to attach the database file to that location.

Sounds like you're running a server product on a non-server OS - possibly an old version to boot. I'd be happy to find the workaround in general :)

"all it really does it make prevista software not work well or at all with vista, requiring the user to buy MS substitutes." ~ bacree

No it is not for that reason, Microsoft is trying to increase security. Instead of stopping a program from saveing to a location it should not save to it is redirecting the save to somewhere else. Would you rather the software just crash because windows is just trying to keep you safe. You mentioned it was Microsoft Software I did not bother to verify this but im sure they corrected this on a new version, if infact it was ment to be runned on your OS. Or if not Windows Server 2008 might handle all this stuff differently. Secureing a Computer that a user uses everyday is different from one that is not typically used by a user.

But my main point is that Microsoft set up an OS and Software relationship that allows any third party to freely develop software for their systems. This means that there is no way that Microsoft can make sure that they are programming correctly or not. You expect them to provide a solutions to make a system fully compatable with older systems software. One this allows the bad practices to continue. Also it make us hold on to legacy ways of doing thing which can burden us. Like the Intel Architecture, there are many things in windows that were done that are not unacceptable or not used in this day in age, why keep them around when they hold us back from advancing.

Very useful once I noticed it.
Basicly rather than (as per XP) Giving a Permission Denied error writing to a read-only directory, it will create a virtual version, and (for your user only) replace it with the version in the virtual store.

Also useful for those legacy apps that don't like the idea of multi-user... (savegames anyone?)

I would have to say that the behavior outlined above doesn't quite make sense. There is a bit of father knows best going on here and unfortunately like most of what Vista has come to represent is that the implementation Microsoft used in this case is half baked and extremely user unfriendly and confusing.

I can understand the security issues listed in the comments. What doesn't make sense is that one would never know what the heck is going on (unless you do a search for the ini file you're editing and find that it's in a hitherto unknown location) because Vista doesn't give you any indication that it's trying to be useful (or doing anything unexpected period).

I could argue that this security feature is not really needed but I won't go there. The next question is why does Vista/MS feel like they can redirect behaviors of existing software when the whole point in the Windows line of OSs was to be as backwards compatible as possible?

i.e., poor implementation once again.

Microsoft has been telling developers NOT to store user preferences in with the EXE files for a good long time, probably a decade or more. User preferences should be stored per-user, in User storage areas. EXE's should be installed and configured once by an admin, then be off limits to tampering. User preferences and configurations are not tampering, but there's also no reason why they need to be stored with the EXE files.

That said, for specific purposes (e.g. running a simple program from a USB stick) I much prefer to be able to override the default location with one of my own, even if that means storing it next to the EXE.

I also agree with Emmett Keyser that Microsoft should do a better job of letting the user know that VirtualStore has been invoked. For many situations redirecting user settings to a virtualstore makes a lot of sense and is very convenient, but if an administrator tries to edit a global configuration file that rightly belongs in the protected "C:\Program Files" tree, it shouldn't be so hard to do, or at least so hard to figure out why it is failing.

I have come across this issue today and whilst I appreciate the fact that the OS is trying to be secure and also appreciate that INI files stored next to the EXE's is not exactly best practice - would it have killed Microsoft to have had some kind of user interaction - perhaps "to better secure your system the save location of these files is in your virtual store - to access click here... (link)"

My main gripe is that I've had to go on the hunt for a file that had been converted and was expecting to find it in the location that I dictated, in doing so found loads of other instances where this had happened without my knowledge.

In so many ways, control is taken away with no acknowledgment and no warning - come on MS, please understand that we're not all novices and that WE own our systems. Personally, I'd like to think that father does NOT know best. I built my system, installed windows and administer the system - it's mine. At the very least I want to be told if you're taking over (for security reasons - or whatever)

Uh, why aren't you complaining about the shitty application that has been storing it's data to the *wrong* location for 5 years? Or that they don't give you the option of where to store your files... you make it sound like the app allowed you to select a directory and Windows overrode it. No, instead the app has been throwing INI files in a location that Windows has said "don't do that to" since Windows 2000... now that it's actually enforced, it's all Windows' fault? Because the app isn't working with the OS the way it's supposed to be? On OSX, this would get you a crash and a reboot... I like what Vista does better.

Sorry, but your complaint should be directed to the company that wrote the application.

This messed me up this morning. Note that virtual store is not indexed by default, and further that there is no way to do a non-indexed search (that I am aware of). I don't care if there is some non-indexed search somewhere deep in the meuns.

I had to resort to a command prompt.

I worked at MS, so I try to be an apologist, but screw it. Microsoft has lost its way very badly. That experience sucked so badly I will by a Mac for my next purchase. The security group and search group, you both suck, period.

Also: no secpol on home premium. Bwhaha.

Uh, you DO know that OSX has similar security restrictions *and* requires a password even if you are an Administrator, right?