Developer Forum

Hello, this is Just a Friendly Reminder: Builds 5308 CTP and 5342 are not
beta 2. They are Interim Builds and are not to be considered Official Beta
Quality. Beta 2 has been Delayed until Winds day, May 24th, 2006 according
to Paul (you know who) from http://www.yqcomputer.com/ .

But that date isn't accurate and more than likely wrong. Paul Thurrott
doesn't work for Microsoft, never has and will unlikely never will. Think of
all the times where Paul has got a date wrong...

Too many times for me to remember.

--
Zack Whittaker
ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--


> Hello, this is Just a Friendly Reminder: Builds 5308 CTP and 5342 are no>
> beta 2. They are Interim Builds and are not to be considered Officia>
> Beta Quality. Beta 2 has been Delayed until Winds day, May 24th, 200>
> according to Paul (you know who) from http://www.yqcomputer.com/ >. >>
> "Thomas Klu<e" wrote in messag>

>>I dicovered a strange behavior of the CreateProcess() implementation unde>>
>>Vista Beta 2. I tried to run a Process wit>>
>>requestedExecutionLevel="requireAdministrator" from within a process wit>>
>>level="asInvoker>>
>> What I did expect is an Admin-Credential Box on standard users account>>
>> (thats the case) and a an admin confirmation box on admin accounts (that>>
>> not the case). In the last case the execution fails wit>>
>> GetLastError()==740 which is: "The requested operation require>>
>> elevation". It's the same error which would occur if the user would pres>>
>> a "No". So what is the initiator of error 740? If I'm using the functio>>
>> ShellExecute() instead of CreateProcess the call leads to the expecte>>
>> confirmation bo>>
>> Next one: If the parent process execution level is "asInvoker", a syste>>
>> message states compatibility problems and taken settings. The next time>>
>> I run the application, the error 740 is disappeared. If the paren>>
>> process execution level is not given per manif<st >> the described error 740 is permanen>>
>> note: both applications are standard VS6.0 MFC-application>>
>> I did not change the standard lua settings>>
>> User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt fo>>
>> administrators Prompt for conse>>
>> User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for standar>>
>> users Prompt for credentia>>
>> regard>>
>> Thomas Klu>>
>> T-Systems Enterprise Services Gm>>
>

Actually, it is one aspect of BETA 2, which is known as the Enterprise
Community Technology Preview. BETA 2 will be known as the Consumer
Technology Preview. Also, Jim Allchin said in a CRN interview, we will be
testing CTPs until RC1, so that means BETA 2 will be disguised by a CTP.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.yqcomputer.com/
Extended64 | http://www.yqcomputer.com/
Blog | http://www.yqcomputer.com/
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

hh... so no Beta 2 build then? CTP's all the way?

--
Zack Whittaker
ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--
"Andre Da Costa [Extended6<]" wrote in message
news:% XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>.
> Actually, it is one aspect of BETA 2, which is known as the Enterpris>
> Community Technology Preview. BETA 2 will be known as the Consume>
> Technology Preview. Also, Jim Allchin said in a CRN interview, we will b>
> testing CTPs until RC1, so that means BETA 2 will be disguised by a CT>.
> ->
> ->
> And>e
> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.c>m
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.c>m
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/and>e
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacos>a >>
> "Kevin John Panz<e" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >com> wrote in messag>
> news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>>
>> Hello, this is Just a Friendly Reminder: Builds 5308 CTP and 5342 ar>>
>> not beta 2. They are Interim Builds and are not to be considere>>
>> Official Beta Quality. Beta 2 has been Delayed until Winds day, Ma>>
>> 24th, 2006 according to Paul (you know who) fro>>
>> http://www.winsupersite.co>>
>> "Thomas Klu<e" wrote in messag>>
>> news:% XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>>> >>>I dicovered a strange behavior of the CreateProcess() implementatio>>> >>>under Vista Beta 2. I tried to run a Process wit>>> >>>requestedExecutionLevel="requireAdministrator" from within a process wit>>> >>>level="asInvoker>>> >>>> >>> What I did expect is an Admin-Credential Box on standard users account>>> >>> (thats the case) and a an admin confirmation box on admin account>>> >>> (thats not the case). In the last case the execution fails wit>>> >>> GetLastError()==740 which is: "The requested operation require>>> >>> elevation". It's the same error which would occur if the user woul>>> >>> press a "No". So what is the initiator of error 740? If I'm using th>>> >>> function ShellExecute() instead of CreateProcess the call leads to th>>> >>> expected confirmation bo>>> >>>> >>> Next one: If the parent process execution level is "asInvoker", a syste>>> >>> message states compatibility problems and taken settings. The next time>>> >>> I run the application, the error 740 is disappeared. If the paren>>> >>> process execution level is not given per manif<st >> the described error 740 is permanen>>> >>>> >>> note: both applications are standard VS6.0 MFC-application>>> >>> I did not change the standard lua settings>>> >>> User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt fo>>> >>> administrators Prompt for conse>>> >>> User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for standar>>> >>> users Prompt for credentia>>> >>>> >>>> >>> regard>>> >>> Thomas Klu>>> >>> T-Sys

o designated build for BETA 2, just a CTP.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Zack Whittaker" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
> Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.u>
> This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers >o
> rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, an>
> n>t
> of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we clear>d
> that u>! >>
> --: Original message follows :>-
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended6<]" wrote in messag>
> news:% XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>>
>> Actually, it is one aspect of BETA 2, which is known as the Enterpris>>
>> Community Technology Preview. BETA 2 will be known as the Consume>>
>> Technology Preview. Also, Jim Allchin said in a CRN interview, we will b>>
>> testing CTPs until RC1, so that means BETA 2 will be disguised by a CT>>
>> ->>
>> ->>
>> And>>
>> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.c>>
>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.c>>
>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/and>>
>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacos>>
>> "Kevin John Panz<e" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >com> wrote in messag>>
>> news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>>> >>> Hello, this is Just a Friendly Reminder: Builds 5308 CTP and 5342 ar>>> >>> not beta 2. They are Interim Builds and are not to be considere>>> >>> Official Beta Quality. Beta 2 has been Delayed until Winds day, Ma>>> >>> 24th, 2006 according to Paul (you know who) fro>>> >>> http://www.winsupersite.co>>> >>>> >>> "Thomas Klu<e" wrote in messag>>> >>> news:% XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>>>>>>>>I dicovered a strange behavior of the CreateProcess() implementatio>>>>>>>>under Vista Beta 2. I tried to run a Process wit>>>>>>>>requestedExecutionLevel="requireAdministrator" from within a proces>>>>>>>>with level="asInvoker>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I did expect is an Admin-Credential Box on standard users account>>>>>>>> (thats the case) and a an admin confirmation box on admin account>>>>>>>> (thats not the case). In the last case the execution fails wit>>>>>>>> GetLastError()==740 which is: "The requested operation require>>>>>>>> elevation". It's the same error which would occur if the user woul>>>>>>>> press a "No". So what is the initiator of error 740? If I'm using th>>>>>>>> function ShellExecute() instead of CreateProcess the call leads to th>>>>>>>> expected confirmation bo>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next one: If the parent process execution level is "asInvoker", >>>>>>>> system message states compatibility problems and taken settings. Th>>>>>>>> next time, I run the application, the error 740 is disappeared. If th>>>>>>>> parent process execution level is not given per manifes>>>>><>> the described error 740 is permanen>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: both applications are standard VS6.0 MFC-application>>>>>>>>

ice :o)

--
Zack Whittaker
ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--
"Andre Da Costa [Extended6<]" wrote in message
news:%23$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>.
> No designated build for BETA 2, just a CT>.
> ->
> ->
> And>e
> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.c>m
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.c>m
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/and>e
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacos>a >>
> "Zack Whittak<r" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >.uk> wrote in messag>
> news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>>
>> Ahh... so no Beta 2 build then? CTP's all the wa>>
>> ->>
>> Zack Whittak>>
>> ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co>>k
>> MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog>>rg
>> Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.>>.uk
>> This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and conf>>s no
>> rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so>>and
>> of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we c>>ared
>> th>> u>>
>>
>> --: Original message follo>> :--
>> "Andre Da Costa [Exten<ed64]" wrote in me>>age
>> news:% XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>>>...
>>> Actually, it is one aspect of BETA 2, which is known as the Enter>>>se
>>> Community Technology Preview. BETA 2 will be known as the Con>>>er
>>> Technology Preview. Also, Jim Allchin said in a CRN interview, we>>>ll
>>> be testing CTPs until RC1, so that means BETA 2 will be disguised>>> a
>>>>>TP.
>>>>--
>>>>--
>>>>>>dre
>>> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnect>>>com
>>> Extended64 | http://www.extended>>>com
>>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs>>>dre
>>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/ad>>>st>>>>>>
>>> "Kevin John <anzke" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >ail.com> wrote in me>>>ge
>>> news:9D01E8F8-5599-42C3-9026-136677CA12F9@microsoft.>>>>..
>>>> Hello, this is Just a Friendly Reminder: Builds 5308 CTP and 534>>>>e
>>>> not beta 2. They are Interim Builds and are not to be consi>>>>d
>>>> Official Beta Quality. Beta 2 has been Delayed until Winds day>>>>y
>>>> 24th, 2006 according to Paul (you know who)>>>>m
>>>> http://www.winsupersit>>>>m.>>>>>>
>>>> "Thomas<Kluge" wrote in me>>>>e
>>>> news:% XXXX@XXXXX.COM .>>>>>.
>>>>>I dicovered a strange behavior of the CreateProcess() implement>>>>>
>>>>>under Vista Beta 2. I tried to run a Process>>>>>
>>>>>requestedExecutionLevel="requireAdministrator" from within a pr>>>>>
>>>>>with level="asInv>>>>>. >>>>>>
>>>>> What I did expect is an Admin-Credential Box on standard >>>>>
>>>>> accounts (thats the case) and a an admin confirmation box on >>>>>
>>>>> accounts (thats not