the fourth problem is ignorant users, a perfect example of this was on the local Fox news in Indy last night, a lady telling her sob story that went something like this "The guy in Nigeria said I get 5% of the huge wire transfer if I send him some front money and my bank account number, he was to take care of the rest but he lied!" people like this should not be allowed to touch computers, their ignorance is far more dangorous than the intelligent of Kevin Mitnik.
Yeah, there should be a test to owning computers, or at least for getting online. Kinda like how we have tests for owning guns. Except that so far nobody's actually died from someone being stupid on a computer. I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time though.
Would it be reasonable to say we could, at the time we install our software, backup our section of the registry and then restore that when we run into trouble? That sounds easier than spending hours going through the registry manually. Perhaps the restore would not remove unwanted or duplicate entries? I'm sure I'm not the first to wonder about this.
Would it be reasonable to say we could, at the time we install our software, backup our section of the registry and then restore that when we run into trouble? That sounds easier than spending hours going through the registry manually. Perhaps the restore would not remove unwanted or duplicate entries? I'm sure I'm not the first to wonder about this.
This is fine as long as you take a backup every time you change your system (adding or removing software).
Don't use system snapshot as it generally gets out of date and won't work.
A good way is to use ntbackup.exe which saves the ntuser and other system stuff as well as the registry. The ntbackup is the newer version of the old rdisk program for nt4.
You could also just export it to a file.
If you load an out of date registry then you could/will get a corrupted system and will have to re-install.
Gnome uses a slightly similar construct named GConf.
I understand GConf's purpose is to simplify system administration and to allow them to set settings en masse to groups of users. GConf has some kind of XML interface which ensures there is always possibility of intelligent backups and using standard text/XML tools for manipulation.
I'd like to know what the motivation behind the Windows Registry is. I doubt it is defined as cleanly.
The thing that hurts Windows and causes the "decay" effect more than registry is the so-called "DLL hell". Windows does not control *at all* the installed libraries, and as a result installs of new software can overwrite libraries - that some other software is using - at will, often with older or newer incompatible versions.
Oh my god, what the hell did you do to your fonts?
I got 0 font errors. 560 total.
Yeah. Great tool. Has 560 errors in it from a user who's supposed to know what they're doing.
The registry is a tool to prevent piracy by making it close to impossible to ever fully remove a program. Unless you have a registry tracker installed, you'll never remove all the vestiges of a program once it's installed.
It's a piss poor implementation that is the cause of more Windows reinstalls than anything else. A Windows computer used by an end user as intended will suffer significant slowdowns due to registry rot/cruft over a three year period. It's basically a built-in Windows install obsolesence.
They were mostly homeless entries. Crap left behind when applications are removed. Happens in every OS.
I think that is not a state of affairs we should just accept. There is no reason for things to be like that. And does it really happen in every OS? Not to the same degree, I'm sure.
And does it really happen in every OS? Not to the same degree, I'm sure.
I haven't used an OS that honestly removes every trace of every application installed when un-installing. They all leave it up to the software maker.
If I install a piece of software by dragging it into the Applications folder would it be logical for me to think that dragging it out of the Application folder would return my system to the exact state it was in before installation?
I haven't used an OS that honestly removes every trace of every application installed when un-installing. They all leave it up to the software maker.
If I install a piece of software by dragging it into the Applications folder would it be logical for me to think that dragging it out of the Application folder would return my system to the exact state it was in before installation?
groverat.. i understand your point of view that the Registry in windows is designed for a purpose and there is a way of maintaining and cleaning it.
overall in practical day-to-day usage its just too susceptible to all sorts of errors, whether this is the fault of Microsoft or third-party software is of course a whole different debate \
in my experience trashing a .plist file on a Mac is way way way more easier then fooling around with windows registry, and uninstalling has virtually never ever worked properly and cleanly on windows, back from win95 to dare i say, winXP
i would use much stronger language but i have been a bit moody on the forums the past few days so i am trying to be nice today
groverat.. i understand your point of view that the Registry in windows is designed for a purpose and there is a way of maintaining and cleaning it.
overall in practical day-to-day usage its just too susceptible to all sorts of errors, whether this is the fault of Microsoft or third-party software is of course a whole different debate \
in my experience trashing a .plist file on a Mac is way way way more easier then fooling around with windows registry, and uninstalling has virtually never ever worked properly and cleanly on windows, back from win95 to dare i say, winXP
i would use much stronger language but i have been a bit moody on the forums the past few days so i am trying to be nice today
Oops, clicked "Edit" instead of "Reply" and got a permission denied message
Anyway...
You can trash a .plist file on Mac OS X just as easily as the Registry in Windows - just open it in a text editor and edit stuff. You're far more likely to cause lasting damage in Windows since the Registry is system-wide and binary (as opposed to plists, which are program-specific and textual).
Oops, clicked "Edit" instead of "Reply" and got a permission denied message
Anyway...
You can trash a .plist file on Mac OS X just as easily as the Registry in Windows - just open it in a text editor and edit stuff. You're far more likely to cause lasting damage in Windows since the Registry is system-wide and binary (as opposed to plists, which are program-specific and textual).
You could easily emulate the Windows's Registry on OS X if when the system detected a corrupt .plist file it poped up a dialog box asking you:
"Would you like to also trash every other .plist file on this machine?"
in my experience trashing a .plist file on a Mac is way way way more easier then fooling around with windows registry, and uninstalling has virtually never ever worked properly and cleanly on windows, back from win95 to dare i say, winXP
Trashing .plist files is easy if you know what they are and where they are. Which most users don't.
Let's say I drag Mozilla Firefox into the Applications folder. Use it for a while. Add some bookmarks. A few extensions. I decide I don't like it and drag it to the trash and empty the trash. How clean is that un-installation? And if that isn't clean, what is the alternative?
I think that is not a state of affairs we should just accept. There is no reason for things to be like that. And does it really happen in every OS? Not to the same degree, I'm sure.
Uh yeah, imagine how many preference files you have and don't use.
And besides, do the homeless entries hurt anything? I don't think so.
With permissions problems, you might not be able to boot. Anyone remember the 10.2.8 fiasco? If this were a registry error, windows would automatically use the last known good configuration, if it were restricting the boot process.
A wise man once said, all operating systems suck, but some suck less in some ways than others.
Yeah, there should be a test to owning computers, or at least for getting online. Kinda like how we have tests for owning guns. Except that so far nobody's actually died from someone being stupid on a computer. I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time though.
That's one of the most fucked up things I've ever read.
I think that's more along the lines of just being stupid. Computer accelerated his search for victims, but nobody did anything that really qualifies as a "stupid thing to do on a computer".
The concept of storing some of a computer's data in a system-wide database has unfortunately been tainted by microsoft's sloppy implementation of the registry and registry tools.
A database available to the OS and programs isn't such a bad idea. Yet the registry has been so troublesome that many users are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Unfortunately, simply switching to file system based storage won't fix anything. It's the registry's maintainance and security model that is flawed.
Can the registry function trouble free? Certainly. But that isn't the experience of the vast majority of windows users. Most have learned, through their own bad experiences, to hate the registry with a passion. If the registry actually worked, 99% of users wouldn't even know it existed.
The concept of storing some of a computer's data in a system-wide database has unfortunately been tainted by microsoft's sloppy implementation of the registry and registry tools.
A database available to the OS and programs isn't such a bad idea. Yet the registry has been so troublesome that many users are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Unfortunately, simply switching to file system based storage won't fix anything. It's the registry's maintainance and security model that is flawed.
Can the registry function trouble free? Certainly. But that isn't the experience of the vast majority of windows users. Most have learned, through their own bad experiences, to hate the registry with a passion. If the registry actually worked, 99% of users wouldn't even know it existed.
Now this post is the voice of reason if I ever read anything about the subject of the windows registry.
Now this post is the voice of reason if I ever read anything about the subject of the windows registry.
Fellowship
*blatantly fishes for kudos* hey yeah that's kinda what i said (along the lines of dfiler) several posts above:
"groverat.. i understand your point of view that the Registry in windows is designed for a purpose and there is a way of maintaining and cleaning it. overall in practical day-to-day usage its just too susceptible to all sorts of errors, whether this is the fault of Microsoft or third-party software is of course a whole different debate"
Comments
Originally posted by a_greer
the fourth problem is ignorant users, a perfect example of this was on the local Fox news in Indy last night, a lady telling her sob story that went something like this "The guy in Nigeria said I get 5% of the huge wire transfer if I send him some front money and my bank account number, he was to take care of the rest but he lied!" people like this should not be allowed to touch computers, their ignorance is far more dangorous than the intelligent of Kevin Mitnik.
Yeah, there should be a test to owning computers, or at least for getting online. Kinda like how we have tests for owning guns. Except that so far nobody's actually died from someone being stupid on a computer. I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time though.
Originally posted by neutrino23
Would it be reasonable to say we could, at the time we install our software, backup our section of the registry and then restore that when we run into trouble? That sounds easier than spending hours going through the registry manually. Perhaps the restore would not remove unwanted or duplicate entries? I'm sure I'm not the first to wonder about this.
This is fine as long as you take a backup every time you change your system (adding or removing software).
Don't use system snapshot as it generally gets out of date and won't work.
A good way is to use ntbackup.exe which saves the ntuser and other system stuff as well as the registry. The ntbackup is the newer version of the old rdisk program for nt4.
You could also just export it to a file.
If you load an out of date registry then you could/will get a corrupted system and will have to re-install.
Dobby.
I understand GConf's purpose is to simplify system administration and to allow them to set settings en masse to groups of users. GConf has some kind of XML interface which ensures there is always possibility of intelligent backups and using standard text/XML tools for manipulation.
I'd like to know what the motivation behind the Windows Registry is. I doubt it is defined as cleanly.
The thing that hurts Windows and causes the "decay" effect more than registry is the so-called "DLL hell". Windows does not control *at all* the installed libraries, and as a result installs of new software can overwrite libraries - that some other software is using - at will, often with older or newer incompatible versions.
Originally posted by groverat
Oh my god, what the hell did you do to your fonts?
I got 0 font errors. 560 total.
Yeah. Great tool. Has 560 errors in it from a user who's supposed to know what they're doing.
The registry is a tool to prevent piracy by making it close to impossible to ever fully remove a program. Unless you have a registry tracker installed, you'll never remove all the vestiges of a program once it's installed.
It's a piss poor implementation that is the cause of more Windows reinstalls than anything else. A Windows computer used by an end user as intended will suffer significant slowdowns due to registry rot/cruft over a three year period. It's basically a built-in Windows install obsolesence.
Just get your shiny new MSCE there groverat?
Originally posted by alcimedes
Yeah. Great tool. Has 560 errors in it from a user who's supposed to know what they're doing.
They were mostly homeless entries. Crap left behind when applications are removed. Happens in every OS.
Just get your shiny new MSCE there groverat?
I'd rather jab myself in the eyes than take any kind of computer class. I'm a journalism guy, this computer stuff is just a hobby.
Originally posted by groverat
They were mostly homeless entries. Crap left behind when applications are removed. Happens in every OS.
I think that is not a state of affairs we should just accept. There is no reason for things to be like that. And does it really happen in every OS? Not to the same degree, I'm sure.
Originally posted by Gon
And does it really happen in every OS? Not to the same degree, I'm sure.
I haven't used an OS that honestly removes every trace of every application installed when un-installing. They all leave it up to the software maker.
If I install a piece of software by dragging it into the Applications folder would it be logical for me to think that dragging it out of the Application folder would return my system to the exact state it was in before installation?
Originally posted by groverat
I haven't used an OS that honestly removes every trace of every application installed when un-installing. They all leave it up to the software maker.
If I install a piece of software by dragging it into the Applications folder would it be logical for me to think that dragging it out of the Application folder would return my system to the exact state it was in before installation?
groverat.. i understand your point of view that the Registry in windows is designed for a purpose and there is a way of maintaining and cleaning it.
overall in practical day-to-day usage its just too susceptible to all sorts of errors, whether this is the fault of Microsoft or third-party software is of course a whole different debate
in my experience trashing a .plist file on a Mac is way way way more easier then fooling around with windows registry, and uninstalling has virtually never ever worked properly and cleanly on windows, back from win95 to dare i say, winXP
i would use much stronger language but i have been a bit moody on the forums the past few days so i am trying to be nice today
Originally posted by sunilraman
groverat.. i understand your point of view that the Registry in windows is designed for a purpose and there is a way of maintaining and cleaning it.
overall in practical day-to-day usage its just too susceptible to all sorts of errors, whether this is the fault of Microsoft or third-party software is of course a whole different debate
in my experience trashing a .plist file on a Mac is way way way more easier then fooling around with windows registry, and uninstalling has virtually never ever worked properly and cleanly on windows, back from win95 to dare i say, winXP
i would use much stronger language but i have been a bit moody on the forums the past few days so i am trying to be nice today
Oops, clicked "Edit" instead of "Reply" and got a permission denied message
Anyway...
You can trash a .plist file on Mac OS X just as easily as the Registry in Windows - just open it in a text editor and edit stuff. You're far more likely to cause lasting damage in Windows since the Registry is system-wide and binary (as opposed to plists, which are program-specific and textual).
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
Oops, clicked "Edit" instead of "Reply" and got a permission denied message
Anyway...
You can trash a .plist file on Mac OS X just as easily as the Registry in Windows - just open it in a text editor and edit stuff. You're far more likely to cause lasting damage in Windows since the Registry is system-wide and binary (as opposed to plists, which are program-specific and textual).
You could easily emulate the Windows's Registry on OS X if when the system detected a corrupt .plist file it poped up a dialog box asking you:
"Would you like to also trash every other .plist file on this machine?"
<Cancel> <Trash>
Originally posted by sunilraman
in my experience trashing a .plist file on a Mac is way way way more easier then fooling around with windows registry, and uninstalling has virtually never ever worked properly and cleanly on windows, back from win95 to dare i say, winXP
Trashing .plist files is easy if you know what they are and where they are. Which most users don't.
Let's say I drag Mozilla Firefox into the Applications folder. Use it for a while. Add some bookmarks. A few extensions. I decide I don't like it and drag it to the trash and empty the trash. How clean is that un-installation? And if that isn't clean, what is the alternative?
Originally posted by Gon
I think that is not a state of affairs we should just accept. There is no reason for things to be like that. And does it really happen in every OS? Not to the same degree, I'm sure.
Uh yeah, imagine how many preference files you have and don't use.
And besides, do the homeless entries hurt anything? I don't think so.
With permissions problems, you might not be able to boot. Anyone remember the 10.2.8 fiasco? If this were a registry error, windows would automatically use the last known good configuration, if it were restricting the boot process.
A wise man once said, all operating systems suck, but some suck less in some ways than others.
Originally posted by Whisper
Yeah, there should be a test to owning computers, or at least for getting online. Kinda like how we have tests for owning guns. Except that so far nobody's actually died from someone being stupid on a computer. I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time though.
Umm, don't be so sure.
Originally posted by midwinter
Umm, don't be so sure.
I think that's more along the lines of just being stupid. Computer accelerated his search for victims, but nobody did anything that really qualifies as a "stupid thing to do on a computer".
A database available to the OS and programs isn't such a bad idea. Yet the registry has been so troublesome that many users are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Unfortunately, simply switching to file system based storage won't fix anything. It's the registry's maintainance and security model that is flawed.
Can the registry function trouble free? Certainly. But that isn't the experience of the vast majority of windows users. Most have learned, through their own bad experiences, to hate the registry with a passion. If the registry actually worked, 99% of users wouldn't even know it existed.
Originally posted by dfiler
The concept of storing some of a computer's data in a system-wide database has unfortunately been tainted by microsoft's sloppy implementation of the registry and registry tools.
A database available to the OS and programs isn't such a bad idea. Yet the registry has been so troublesome that many users are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Unfortunately, simply switching to file system based storage won't fix anything. It's the registry's maintainance and security model that is flawed.
Can the registry function trouble free? Certainly. But that isn't the experience of the vast majority of windows users. Most have learned, through their own bad experiences, to hate the registry with a passion. If the registry actually worked, 99% of users wouldn't even know it existed.
Now this post is the voice of reason if I ever read anything about the subject of the windows registry.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fellowship
Now this post is the voice of reason if I ever read anything about the subject of the windows registry.
Fellowship
*blatantly fishes for kudos*
"groverat.. i understand your point of view that the Registry in windows is designed for a purpose and there is a way of maintaining and cleaning it. overall in practical day-to-day usage its just too susceptible to all sorts of errors, whether this is the fault of Microsoft or third-party software is of course a whole different debate"
Originally posted by dfiler
If the registry actually worked, 99% of users wouldn't even know it existed.
I'd bet ~99% of users actually don't know the registry even exists.