On Sunday, December 4, 2005, 7:40:43, Mark Partous wrote:
> These settings are loaded every time Windows is being started.
No, they aren't. Registry settings are read-in when the application first
needs them, and they stay cached for a while (registry works similarly to
disk cache, however it's i
Hello Mark Partous & everyone else,
on 04-Dez-2005 at 07:40 you (Mark Partous) wrote:
> Well, I have a lot of software that I only need to use a few times a
> year. These settings are loaded every time Windows is being started. I
> would have preferred a situtation where one would have the choice
Mark
> Please do not post such self-correcting mails anymore. I had read your
> message skipping the quoted text. Without your correction I wouldn't have
> noticed the "swearing"! :-)
Gosh I'm so sorry I have offended you with my humor. Please accept my
sincerest apology.
--
Neal
___
Hello Michael,
Friday, December 2, 2005, 11:43:42 PM, you wrote:
MS> How about moving to a new workstation? With configuration-files you just
MS> have to backup your application and your configuration, copy both on
MS> your new machine and your done. Try this one with applications that need
MS> t
Hello Alexander,
Friday, December 2, 2005, 10:59:49 PM, you wrote:
ASK> Thats a common myth, and it never happened to me even once in 5 1/2 years
ASK> of using different Windows systems.
Good to know the crashes I had and the problems I currently have were due to
"a common myth"! :-)
--
Best
Hello Jernej,
Friday, December 2, 2005, 11:03:05 PM, you wrote:
JS> Registry slow? Get RegMon from sysinternals, and look at the number of
JS> transactions Registry handles per second - (I get an average of 870 on my
JS> computer). Now imagine that all of these were instead querying normal files
Hello Neal,
Saturday, December 3, 2005, 5:38:43 AM, you wrote:
NL> Please do not quote swearing members on this list. This is a clear
NL> violation of the list rules and will not be tolerated. The audience
NL> here is a mixed bunch and this is as much a matter of polite
NL> consideration for othe
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
> Why do *YOU* worry about the registry? You're using Thunderbird on Linux,
> anyway. Please go elsewhere to rant about Windows, the registry, and
> Ritlabs.
Oh sorry. Didn't I tell you that I have three TheBat! licences and I'm
running windows and linux on different work
Hello Michael Schneider & everyone else,
on 03-Dez-2005 at 00:01 you (Michael Schneider) wrote:
> Why all these queries at the same moment? What is going on there? Is
> this needed? I don't think so.
Why do *YOU* worry about the registry? You're using Thunderbird on Linux,
anyway. Please go else
Hi Marck
> I detect a vigilante in our midst! A self flagellating one at that.
> Hmmm...
Yes - you've all made quite an immpression on me .
--
Neal Laugman
Using The Bat! v3.63.06 (Beta) and Bayes Filter Plugin v2.0.4 on Win2000 SP4
Dear Neal,
@2-Dec-2005, 19:38 -0900 (03-Dec 04:38 here) Neal Laugman [NL] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
NL> Friday, December 2, 2005, 6:21:36 AM, you quoted:
DA It's just a bull reason to have another "product", based on the
DA same source code. I.e. the reason is "more money". ;)
Hello Neal
Friday, December 2, 2005, 6:21:36 AM, you quoted:
DA>>> It's just a bull reason to have another "product", based on the
DA>>> same source code. I.e. the reason is "more money". ;)
Note: This non-moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and
not just to the person being re
Thomas and Dimitry,
>>> What am I missing?
DA>> It's just a bullshit reason to have another "product", based on the
DA>> same source code. I.e. the reason is "more money". ;)
> People have been asking for a portable TB. There is a demand out
> there, which is being met. It's a wise decision.
I
Jernej Simončič wrote:
> Registry slow? Get RegMon from sysinternals, and look at the number of
> transactions Registry handles per second - (I get an average of 870 on my
> computer). Now imagine that all of these were instead querying normal files
> on disk - your disk cache would be trashed, an
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
> Thats a common myth, and it never happened to me even once in 5 1/2 years
> of using different Windows systems.
Ah and because it never happend to you it's a myth. :)
> I for one have no problem to navigate regedit to HKCU/Software/RIT/TB, not
> more or less than navig
On Friday, December 2, 2005, 22:44:08, Michael Schneider wrote:
> The windows registry is slow, possibility that one single application
> smashes the whole thing is very high, it's hard to maintain.
Registry slow? Get RegMon from sysinternals, and look at the number of
transactions Registry handl
Hello Michael Schneider & everyone else,
on 02-Dez-2005 at 22:53 you (Michael Schneider) wrote:
> That shows that you have no idea what you are talking about...
You are a very kind and friendly person, indeed.
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
The first Myt
Hello Michael Schneider & everyone else,
on 02-Dez-2005 at 22:44 you (Michael Schneider) wrote:
> The windows registry is slow
Things have changed dramatically since W95. Make yourself aware of how
WXP works with the registry. There a big difference to W2k and older
versions.
> possibility that
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
> Whatever. I don't know the correct names. I could have written "Alfred"
> instead of "registry" just as well, it makes no difference.
That shows that you have no idea what you are talking about...
mod, close ;)
Michael
--
Jabber [EMAIL PROTECTED] - OpenPGP 0xE59FD50D
Hello Jernej Simončič & everyone else,
on 02-Dez-2005 at 22:41 you (Jernej Simončič) wrote:
> That isn't true - on *nix, /etc is used for system-wide settings only
Whatever. I don't know the correct names. I could have written "Alfred"
instead of "registry" just as well, it makes no difference.
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
> MS chose to put all these configuration files into one big file called
> "registry" from W95 on. And in the multiuser capable versions of Windows,
> the user specific part of the registry ("user.dat", thats where TB stores
> its settings) resides in the users home direct
On Friday, December 2, 2005, 22:21:57, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
> Other operation systems put them into one single directory (instead of a
> single file) called /etc or whatever.
That isn't true - on *nix, /etc is used for system-wide settings only
(%ALLUSERPROFILE% and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE in Regi
On Friday, December 2, 2005, 19:13:32, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
>> There's no need at all for user applications to put their settings into
>> something like the windows registry!
> Except that it is the way MS has designed Windows. :)
Maybe, but Microsoft has deprecheated the use of Registry quit
Hello Michael Schneider & everyone else,
on 02-Dez-2005 at 21:46 you (Michael Schneider) wrote:
> Roellof said something about local applications and their "need" to use
> the registry.
You happily omitted quoting me saying that Windows was designed that way.
I assume we agree that the goal is
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
>> So your question has nothing to do with what I was saying.
>
> And what you were saying has nothing to do with Voyager. ;-)
*rolling eyes*
Roellof said something about local applications and their "need" to use
the registry. I answered him my opinion on *THAT* topic.
Hello Michael Schneider & everyone else,
on 02-Dez-2005 at 19:33 you (Michael Schneider) wrote:
> So your question has nothing to do with what I was saying.
And what you were saying has nothing to do with Voyager. ;-)
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
I loa
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
>> Configurations can easily be put into the user's home directory as a
>> plain text file, an ini or for the advanced as XML.
>
> But how would the application sense "oh, I'm running from a flash drive
> now" (which meams it should not store the settings in the user prof
Hello Michael Schneider & everyone else,
on 02-Dez-2005 at 14:18 you (Michael Schneider) wrote:
> There's no need at all for user applications to put their settings into
> something like the windows registry!
Except that it is the way MS has designed Windows. :)
> Configurations can easily be p
12/2/2005 10:54 AM
Hi Dimitry,
On 12/2/2005 Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Bye bye RITLabs. :)
Thank you.
--
Take Care,
Paul
The Bat! v.3.63.05 (Beta) on Win2k SP4-Rollup1 5.0.2195
No IMAP No OTFE Opera 9 Beta 1
Current beta is 3.63.0
Hello Dimitry,
> Thomas Fernandez wrote:
>>> It's just a bullshit reason to have another "product", based on the
>>> same source code. I.e. the reason is "more money". ;)
>> People have been asking for a portable TB. There is a demand out
>> there, which is being met. It's a wise decision.
> Ther
Leif Gregory wrote:
> That's part of the point. This is supposed to be a portable app. If I
> want to sit down at my friend's machine, pop in my flash drive and
> check my e-mail then I wouldn't have a home directory. It would get
> written to the home directory of whatever user is logged in (my
>
Hello Michael,
Friday, December 2, 2005, 6:18:58 AM, you wrote:
> There's no need at all for user applications to put their settings
> into something like the windows registry! Configurations can easily
> be put into the user's home directory as a plain text file, an ini
> or for the advanced as X
Thomas Fernandez wrote:
>> It's just a bullshit reason to have another "product", based on the
>> same source code. I.e. the reason is "more money". ;)
> People have been asking for a portable TB. There is a demand out
> there, which is being met. It's a wise decision.
There was never any reason
Hello Dimitry,
Friday, December 2, 2005, 6:21:36 AM, you wrote:
> It's just a bull reason to have another "product", based on the
> same source code. I.e. the reason is "more money". ;)
Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not
just to the person b
Hello Dimitry,
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:21:36 +0100 GMT (02/12/2005, 20:21 +0700 GMT),
Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> What am I missing?
DA> It's just a bullshit reason to have another "product", based on the
DA> same source code. I.e. the reason is "more money". ;)
People have been asking for a porta
Dimitry Andric wrote:
> It's just a bullshit reason to have another "product", based on the
> same source code. I.e. the reason is "more money". ;)
Ah, you think, THAT's the reason there was no v4 this year? It was too
obvious so it's better to release a spin-off? ;->
Interessting thought :-D
Graham wrote:
> I'm rather dubious about Voyaer for a couple of reasons:-
--snip--
> What am I missing?
It's just a bullshit reason to have another "product", based on the
same source code. I.e. the reason is "more money". ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
Roelof Otten wrote:
> For a multi user environment on one system the registry is the most
> logical place to store settings per user.
Sorry but that's pure nonsense. Or you want to tell me that every OS
without a registry (= all OS exept windows) won't run properly.
My poor Linux and OS/2 ...
Hallo Graham,
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:47:58 + (UTC)GMT (2-12-2005, 13:47 +0100,
where I live), you wrote:
GF> b) If the answer to a) is "no not really" - then why bother with it. Why not
GF> just put the INI file features into mainstream TB! and have this extra
GF> (useful) feature in the main
Hallo Graham,
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:47:58 + (UTC)GMT (2-12-2005, 13:47 +0200,
where I live), you wrote:
GF> What am I missing?
GF> Graham
Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not
just to the person being replied to, even if their post may have
instigated this rep
I'm rather dubious about Voyaer for a couple of reasons:-
a) Has ANY work been done to reduce the number of disk writes with Voyager?
USB drives (apparently) have a finite life, and the disk thrashing that
happens with TB! would do a USB drive no good whatever.
b) If the answer to a) is "no not
41 matches
Mail list logo
