Default location when drive removed

[p0k3m0n]

Hi,

Is it possible to set default location when drive removed? Now it return to root directory of main disk, not to eg. startup directory of TC.

[vdijken]

I do it the other way around. First I go to the desired drive and map and then I remove the drive.

[p0k3m0n]

I do it the other way around. First I go to the desired drive and map and then I remove the drive.

But You know, that it is not a solution.

[HolgerK]

What should happen if the startup directory of TC was located on the removed drive?

Regards
Holger

[p0k3m0n]

What should happen if the startup directory of TC was located on the removed drive?

Regards
Holger

First at all thx for answer.

Case 1) startup directory -> hard to say, few options: notification, root folder of the same disk, one folder above then non existed...

Case 2) the removed drive -> imho definitely return to user predefined startup directory. Now it is little dangerous. If drive is unexpectedly removed TC return to root, and if user makes some action on drive, after that, he accidentally can eg. delete important files from different location.

[HolgerK]

Case 1) startup directory -> hard to say, few options: notification, root folder of the same disk, one folder above then non existed...

Question was what should happen if you configure the startup folder as fallback (your suggestion) and this folder and the complete drive disappears because it was removed.
Ok: Notification and select another drive would be an option.

Case 2) the removed drive -> imho definitely return to user predefined startup directory. Now it is little dangerous. If drive is unexpectedly removed TC return to root, and if user makes some action on drive, after that, he accidentally can eg. delete important files from different location.

This can happen to the user with any other fallback location too.
ATM the root of the system drive is actually a secure place because you can't delete files at this location (assumed you are using a modern Windows and do not start TC as administrator).

Regards
Holger

[p0k3m0n]

This can happen to the user with any other fallback location too.

...but any location is safer then root.

[HolgerK]

...but any location is safer then root.

Really?

ATM the root of the system drive is actually a secure place because you can't delete files at this location (assumed you are using a modern Windows and do not start TC as administrator).

You will be asked for elevation which should give you a hint that something went wrong.

Regards
Holger

[p0k3m0n]

...but any location is safer then root.

Really?
You will be asked for elevation which should give you a hint that something went wrong.

Yes. Everything is safer then root.
No, I will not. I always use root rights for TC. I dont use TC to copy photos from holidays, but to work.

[HolgerK]

I always use root rights for TC. I dont use TC to copy photos from holidays, but to work.

Feeling better with admin rights, or do you really need them all the time?
Be sure, I'm not playing with TC or PCs.
It happens only once, 20 years ago under NT4.0 (working with full admin rights), that a script started by me causes troubles on the system drive. But this was my fault. Since then I'm more sensitive about access rights.
And because i know I'm a human, and humans tend to make errors after a working day >10h:
The last 12 years (since Vista) i'm always working with UAC-control set to highest level (using an elevated TC only when i had to install more than one setup or doing some other admin tasks).
But this is your decision.

Regards
Holger

[vdijken]

I think that this cannot be realized. After all it cannot be 100% sure that the desired location still exists, and it can become even worse when you copy wincmd.ini to an other system. That's why I propose that you go first to an existing directory end then you remove a drive.

[Phred]

I always use root rights for TC. I dont use TC to copy photos from holidays, but to work.

Feeling better with admin rights, or do you really need them all the time?
Be sure, I'm not playing with TC or PCs.
It happens only once, 20 years ago under NT4.0 (working with full admin rights), that a script started by me causes troubles on the system drive. But this was my fault. Since then I'm more sensitive about access rights.
And because i know I'm a human, and humans tend to make errors after a working day >10h:
The last 12 years (since Vista) i'm always working with UAC-control set to highest level (using an elevated TC only when i had to install more than one setup or doing some other admin tasks).
But this is your decision.

Regards
Holger

Hooray!
Just as an aside, I'd just like to say how much I applaud this point of view. I harangue people all over the web that:
'We are all NOT ADMINISTRATORS', even to our Author Ghisler who installs TC off the root to this day.
To run as an administrator for everyday work gives any exploit as many rights as your context has, which is to say, all of them.

When we had stand-alone, isolated, computers, last millennium, convenience and security were on par. We didn't even have 'accounts'.
But with our devices as permanent, live extensions of global connectivity, restricted rights must be used as an essential precaution, IMVHO.
But this is for another thread..

[Hacker]

Phred,

To run as an administrator for everyday work gives any exploit as many rights as your context has

While I understand and accept the general idea behind this notion, my personal files are much more important to me than anything that only an admin can access. I can reinstall my whole computer in an hour but losing my photos and the memories that go with them would be quite sad. Thus I'd argue that reasonably configured backups are much more important than working with restricted rights.

Roman

[Phred]

Well.. not only, but also, Roman?
Backup is most certainly important, but when something has remote root access to your machine(s), not only could your backup generations contain corrupted, un-noticed, photos and documents going back years (viewed wedding photos lately..?), but you could be inadvertently funding someone else's crypto-currency mining electricity demands, acting as a bot in a DDoS flood, sitting as an identifiable node in criminal activity. etc etc etcetera.
I say non-admin accounts are essential.

[Horst.Epp]

I think further discussion is useless.
He is one of the poeple which some day will be part of a large Botnet without knowing it.
Also such poeple doesn't need any Antivirus program or other security tools at all.
Hopefully he isn't admin in a company and only plays with its own files.