From: "Gary Britt" 

This attitude (which is perfectly understandable from the point of view of
the propeller head department) is why whenever I have been forced by
circumstances into such an environment have TWO computers.  MY computer the
one I do all my work on at the office that is setup the way *I* want and
with the programs *I* use, and the company computer which I use as
absolutely little as possible.  Usually just email, internet, and group
scheduling on the company computer (if possible not even that).

Gary

"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:6702c2p9n1dq6la6bd9f14dtm2einefvje{at}4ax.com...
> As a former corporate IT dweeb I agree.
>
> Despite the whining, life got much easier when we locked down desktops
> and implemented a software delivery system to prevent users from
> running to Best Buy for a copy of whatever piece of software they
> thought they needed on that day.
>
> Those machines belong to the corporation, not to the employees of that
> corporation.
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:33:21 -0400, "Rich Gauszka"
>  wrote:
>
>>In this day and age with all the instances of identity theft from a
>>corporate environment I'd tend to agree with John on the lockdown of PCs.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
>>news:44c0d58e{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Yuh know ... I'm somewhat technically more competent than most users
>>>> but,
>>>> frankly, in the corporate environment the rules change and
locking down
>>>> corporate assets so that they work properly all the time
is the proper
>>>> function of "the business" operations.  You
don't let fork lift truck
>>>> operators perform modifications on fork lift trucks - you
bring in the
>>>> appropriate technical expertise to do that.
>>>
>>> We're kind of small to be considered in that class.
>>>
>>> It's definitely a trade off I'll agree.  It costs money to lock things
>>> down like that, just like it costs money for me to keep things running
>>> as
>>> is --  it all depends on one's situation which might be cheaper in the
>>> long run, and you have to keep in mind that user happiness is important
>>> too.  For my shop, it's definitely cheaper for me to react than it would
>>> be to be proactive, plus I get the bonus of the users thinking they have
>>> a
>>> little bit of control of their own "stuff".
>>>
>>>>As long as the  functionality exists in windows to lock it down in a
>>>>corporate  environment, you are almost derelict in your
duty if you do
>>>>not
>>>>do that.
>>>
>>> Er, no.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob Comer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "John Beamish"  wrote in message
>>> news:op.tc1g2ulzm6tn4t{at}dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>>> Yuh know ... I'm somewhat technically more competent than most users
>>>> but,
>>>> frankly, in the corporate environment the rules change and
locking down
>>>> corporate assets so that they work properly all the time
is the proper
>>>> function of "the business" operations.  You
don't let fork lift truck
>>>> operators perform modifications on fork lift trucks - you
bring in the
>>>> appropriate technical expertise to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto for PCs.  I'm at a rather large oil company right
now and their
>>>> desktops are locked down as tightly as you could possibly
imagine.  And
>>>> that hasn't stopped me from getting my job done.  As long as the
>>>> functionality exists in windows to lock it down in a corporate
>>>> environment, you are almost derelict in your duty if you do not do
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:11:02 -0400, Robert Comer
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, if the users would all go home or more just
continue to call in
>>>>>> sick it would make life so much more enjoyable here.
>>>>>
>>>>> You got that right!!   I'm working on 2 PC's right now that had
>>>>> spyware
>>>>> problems.  Sometimes I wish I wasn't so nice and as
policy locked down
>>>>> their
>>>>> desktops to the point that they couldn't do anything personal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5