Just because XP and previous systems do it that way doesn't make it right,
especially not in an OS that is going to be sold partially based on enhanced
security.

1. The time has passed when PC's were scarce resources in a group
environment. As I pointed out the only reason for displaying anything about
who has the PC locked is for some other user to track down the rude culprit.
Advertising who has the PC locked should at best be an option to be turned
on.  MS LURKERS TAKE NOTE of that last sentence.

2. In group environments, it's quite likely that there is a source of
displayable names i.e. the Active Directory. That display name should be
what is in the message if display of user info in the message is turned on.

3. It should not be a great effort on MS's part to add a displayable name to
the user attributes for use in a non-active directory environment i.e. in
peer-to-peer networks.. (Sure they have to be able to translate Display Name
to a gazillion leagues and write help explaining what's going on, but the
rest of it is or should be an hour or two's work for someone.)

4. If you review the literature - I came across a good paper on the subject
last week - you will see that two piece entry schemes are the best. You
should have to be able to identify yourself uniquely (user id) and provide
proof that it is you (your password, not necessarily unique.) IMHO both
should be secrets.

Incidentally, thumb print scanners are the rage now as an alternative to
passwords. BAD IDEA. There is a wonderful paper from Japan I came across
describing how to make gummy fingers (as in gummy bears) that fooled then
current technology (2003) a remarkably high percentage of the time. You
could even lift fingerprints and make a successful fake finger! And all with
readily available and inexpensive technology. Give me a memorable but strong
password any day!

Regards,
Al

Will wonders never cease. I stumbled across exactly the setting I want:

Interactive Logon: Display user information when session is locked. It has a
variety of options from saying nothing to spilling the beans.

Unfortunately this is only in ES 2003 and Windows SBS 2003.

Hey LURKERS on the Vista development team: If it's important in the server
world where the boxes tend to be under tight security, how much more
important this is in the client world where things are hanging out in the
open. Let's get this some future set of bits before final release to
manufacturing.

Incidentally, i consider this important enough that I almost wrote a screen
saver to be able to do it in Windows XP.

Regards,
Al