LeftFoot
Tue Aug 12 10:25:01 PDT 2008
The only circumstance in which I would think that "generic" user accounts are
okay is a case where you have multiple users who absolutely must use the same
account -- as in production floor control of machinery through a Windows
system that has to stay logged in to keep production processes running.
Otherwise, use of "User" as an account for everyone is very much not a best
practices idea. User accounts can be removed / tombstoned, and profiles can
be deleted.
It seems to me that, from a security standpoint and from a license control
standpoint, generic user accounts just don't work -- unless the business is
really, really small. And, in that case, if user turnover is high enough that
management of user accounts is a problem, the business has bigger problems
than dealing with obsolete user accounts.
"Malke" wrote:
> Anteaus wrote:
>
> > I would add that standardising on 'user' is a good idea where no specific
> > 'userization' is needed. It avoids all the hassles where a computer is
> > (needlessly) personalised, then the name changes with marriage, staff
> > churn, etc.
> >
> > Standardising on Administrator is less ideal since that account cannot
> > have its priveleges changed.
>
> Absolutely. As you say, if the OP has a business, using generic user
> accounts is really important because people leave and it's so messy to have
> user accounts in a particular person's name. Home users generally prefer
> the comfort of using their own name.
>
> Malke
> --
> MS-MVP
> Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
> FAQ -
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ
>
>