Can install flag application as "runas" administrator?

I am having the same problem.  Basically, I am using code that resembles Updater Application Blocks but I wrote it so that I have more control.  My app was being installed under Program Files so had probs with Vista when not logged in as Administrator.  I am planning on doing one of the following and see what happens

1.  Install app under user profile so UAC doesn't complain
2.  Leave app as is but change code to install any files I need to read/write under user profile

See my question here..
http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/Q_22391543.html

Read the link (Microsoft) on best practices

jvuz - I could disable the UAC, but should I ask every customer I have to do the same thing?  I know my program won't harm their machines, but what about anything else they download?

gbzhhu - Can you download new versions of your code to the user's document area and execute that code?  I don't think so, but if you can that's still lousy design.   What I don't see is a thoughtful approach from MS to allow me to right code that downloads newer versions from our website, as they become available.  My code is not sold, however the data it uses - financial - is only available by subscription.  When we fix a problem we want to propogate it to our customers with minimal intervention.  Java applets do this seemlessly.  I don't mind prompting the user if they want to accept changes, but I'd like a way to allow them to update the program without un-installing and re-installing it.  Microsoft seems to have left us with no viable way to make this business model work (unless we ask customers disable their security "improvements").

Another question:  How do you installed a signed exe under Vista?  I have an Authenticode signature and sign my setup files.  I tried signing my executable as well.  Under XP it installs with the signature, under Vista installs *without* the signature.  Huh?
The other related thing I noticed was that the EXE has the same properties the 2nd time its installed. If I install once - manually set it to run as administrator, then uninstall, and re-install it has the same privileges the 2nd time, even though I did not set them.

Regarding your last 2 posts

1.  I think that what M$ is saying is Program Files is a shared area even though the name suggests otherwise and so should allow every user to write/read from.  I will try to download  my code under user's document area.  Disabling UAC is not an option really.  I will let you know what I find as I play around with bloody Vista !

2.  I don't know anything about signing an exe but I saw similar thing happen under vista when I tried to auto update my app.   First I logged in as administrator installed (under My Program Files) my app v 1.4- no problem.  I then run the app.  all is good.  I uninstalled v 1.4 logged off and logged in as NON administrator.  I installed v 1.3 (under My Program Files) no problem!  I run the app and It attempted to detect (via my webservice) that a newer version 1.4 is available.  Now the way I detect is that I have version.config which installed with each version, so v 1.3 has version.config that has
<CurrentVersion>1.3.0.0</CurrentVersion>.
Funny enough when my code read this file I was getting back 1.4.0.0!! I open the file and it says 1.3.0.0!!!  I realised that Vista put a shadow copy of this file under the user profile somewhere (never found out exactly where) and when code fails to read under Program Files it was retrieving the one it left under the user profile folders.

 

The shadow copy of write attempts to Program Files goes here:
c:\users\[yourname]\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\[company]\[product]\

The odd thing is:  I could install software to "ProgramFiles" ( minus the space ).  And then run my application under UAC with no restrictions.  However, it is useful to have all your programs in one place.  What has changed is that Microsoft has added restrictions to this one place, while most of the rest of the disk remains a free for all.  Does that sound right to you?

gerry99: I would guess that if the runas flag was still set that the setting is stored in the registry not part of the file data.
As for the rest of the disk being free for all that does sound a bit odd.
gbzhhu:Having the Program Files folder readable by all is a bad idea. If that is the case one user could download spyware or something to mess up the programs and it would be messed up for all other users too, also if a program is written badly it could possibly mess up other unrelated programs function.
all: I would say installing to the user's profile is a bad idea as then the update would need to be installed for each user.
You could write your auto update program as a service as a service should have the privileges to update program files.
I think Microsoft should have let other programs hook into the Automatic Updates service for their updates.
Justin

jd2066,

Your points only highlight the problem we are having

>>gbzhhu:Having the Program Files folder readable by all is a bad idea
   -- I am not sure I agree.  The program files is just a folder (it maybe called special folder but it is still a folder).  Just look what happened when gerry99 took the space off and all of a sudden, no restrictions!!  As the name suggests Program Files was supposed to be where programs are installed but who inforces that?  Users can install software whereever they like.  Let's say I installed my app under Program Files.  Since user's cannot read under Program Files I put my support files under user profile.  Another user logs in and can run the app BUT no suuport files accessible to that user, so WHAT is Microsoft trying to telll us? -- I guess I have to do more reading :-(

>>I would say installing to the user's profile is a bad idea as then the update would need to be installed for each user
   -- Makes sense too. WHAT do we do then?

From what I've read on other posts you have create a manifest file that tells Vista to run it elevated.
Here is a one link I found on another topic on creating one: http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/Visual_Basic/Q_22156349.html
If that doesn't help I can look for other links.
Justin

jd2066:

The link above sounds interesting.  I saw the manifest contains requires administrator.  Is that says app requires admin to install or to run?  Wer the steps for VB 6 or .NET?

I am meant to be answering this question but I am asking more questions than the asker :-)))

Clipboard messed up the SDK link is this http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C2B1E300-F358-4523-B479-F53D234CDCCF&displaylang=en

With my program the resolution will be to write any log files to a user area.  The update will attempt to run, and if it fails will prompt the Vista user to click a button to re-install the application overtop the existing one by using a MSI file.

I still think MS's design is bad.  Protecting user's program area is one thing, but it is still their computer, and legitimate users should not be prevented from upgrading programs.  If MS could bring up a prompt and let the user approve of my automatic update, then that would be fine.  Fixing the problem with manifests proved to be too poorly documented.

Gerry