Best Registry editor

[jason]

I wouldn't do a surface test if I were you. That's a relic from the
RLL/MFM and early IDE days.

Frequent surface scanning stresses the HDD so brutally it can actually
LEAD to failure. I think it's best to surface test only to trouble
shoot frequent drive errors.

I came into this thread late, so I apologize if I'm missing some things.
But are you talking about the scanning routine that occurs when you don't
shut down properly? Everytime that happens, I get an alert saying the size
of my hard disk is being reported incorrectly, should scandisk fix it, and
I click yes. Are you saying I should turn scandisk off and not let these
errors be fixed???

 

[omega]

I came into this thread late, so I apologize if I'm missing some things.
But are you talking about the scanning routine that occurs when you don't
shut down properly? Everytime that happens, I get an alert saying the size
of my hard disk is being reported incorrectly, should scandisk fix it, and
I click yes. Are you saying I should turn scandisk off and not let these
errors be fixed???

FSInfoSector, or something like that. Hi Jason! Answer to this: what I had
brought up, and Bob was replying to, it's about when you tell Scandisk to
do a surface check, that special 50 hour procedure, to check for bad
clusters. It's not something that's typically done.

My proposition was that I should do the scandisk /surface procedure
periodically (say 2-3 times a year). That perhaps the routine would have
provided me an earlier warning about the bad sector outbreak that had
occurred on last drive, before it gasped its last. Bob's response was that
I should not do it at all as a routine (presumably not even with the
write-checking turned off). Exception being only when I have specific
reason, by other signs. Like freezing on file access. Or special messages
you get from defrag about problems (maybe normal scandisk gave me special
messages too, during that last day, I can't recall offhand).

 

[Bob Adkins]

I click yes. Are you saying I should turn scandisk off and not let these
errors be fixed???

Always allow Scandisk to fix errors.

All I was saying was that it's not necessary to run Scandisk often unless
there are problems.

Bob

 

[John Corliss]

I find registry editors of this type are trying to re-invent the wheel. They
are little more than window dressing, and add little functionality to the
WinXP registry editor.




It's beyond my understanding too. XP is pricey, and requires (realistically)
a P3 800, 256mb of RAM, and a 20gb HDD to run. But golly,not a week goes by
that I don't discard or donate the above parts to kids to experiment with.

Bob

Quite simply, the XP drivers for my old hardware (printer and scanner)
totally suck, big time. And no, I won't buy a new printer and-or
scanner since I have over 1200 invested in them. I *am* going to get
my money's worth use-wise out of them. Also, I'm tired of having to
deal with MS keeping hidden, encrypted files that log my activity,
that I don't need a newer OS version which does even more of that.

Finally, there is the product activation idiocy. NO THANKS.

XP has no attraction for me. I'm not using 98 or 98SE, but ME isn't
that much different. As for "Longhorn", I haven't even seen it and
frankly, don't feel inclined to even be curious, given MS's history.

As soon as I finish phase two of my family photo history archiving
project, I'm going to reformat my drive and install Linux. I'm just
nerdy enough to be able to dump MS. And once I do, believe me that
I'll be convincing many in my physical sphere to do likewise as well
as facilitating that move. The more people out there who successfully
use Linux, the faster the movement will grow. I'm very sick and tired
of Microsoft's shit.

 

[John Corliss]

Quite simply, the XP drivers for my old hardware (printer and scanner)
totally suck, bark bark woof woof.

I canceled that harsh message. Please ignore any copies of it that
linger on.

 

[jason]

FSInfoSector, or something like that. Hi Jason! Answer to this: what I
had brought up, and Bob was replying to, it's about when you tell
Scandisk to do a surface check, that special 50 hour procedure, to
check for bad clusters. It's not something that's typically done.

Ah okay, thanks. I somehow thought the surface scan was that routine that
took 2-3 minutes, but it sounds like you're talking about something else.

And welcome back! You were gone for awhile...good to see you back.

 

[JoeA]

I find registry editors of this type are trying to re-invent the wheel. They
are little more than window dressing, and add little functionality to the
WinXP registry editor.




It's beyond my understanding too. XP is pricey, and requires (realistically)
a P3 800, 256mb of RAM, and a 20gb HDD to run.
Bob

But golly,not a week goes by

Bob, I want to be your friend. I'm just a kid at heart. Do you realy
have all that neat stuff to get rid of?

 

[omega]

Ah okay, thanks. I somehow thought the surface scan was that routine that
took 2-3 minutes, but it sounds like you're talking about something else.

Or, in the GUI scandskw, it's when you checkmark the radio button called
"thorough." Not that you have any need for this, but an article describing
the array of options & parameters for running scandisk:
http://www.dec.ctu.edu.vn/cit/tailieu/books/insidewin98/ch15/ch15.htm

Possibly of more interest. There was something new I recently learned, when
looking up bad clusters (msft kbid=127055).

"Some encryption programs and programs that are copy protected mark one
or more clusters as bad to prevent other programs from accessing them.

I don't currently have any programs that do this, but I was curious to
to read that it's done. And stored the bit in mind, in case I ever do end
with a prog who is puzzling me in a way that might be connected.

And welcome back! You were gone for awhile...good to see you back.

You know well how it goes. When the real world can abruptly become very
demanding on one's time, taking dominance without mercy. :<

I note that you have shown even less time to post during this past month,
but glad to see you have still managed to swing in with at least a few
messages.

 

[Vic Dura]

I canceled that harsh message. Please ignore any copies of it that
linger on.

I thought it was a good right-on post. MS is something we agree on.

 

[omega]

[snip previous poster's ignorance]

It's beyond my understanding too. XP is pricey, and requires (realistically)
a P3 800, 256mb of RAM, and a 20gb HDD to run. But golly,not a week goes by
that I don't discard or donate the above parts to kids to experiment with.

Bob, I'm skipping that other, because it is you who strikes me as the
poster who is normally conscious and thoughtful. And I want to at least
address now one small point in this. Something that I believe you have
not thought over. 'll hope you can deal with this post without taking
any sort of insult, too, as that is definitely not my intention. But it
bothers me to let this sit unchecked.

It's that I want to your attention to this fact: Many posters, right here
in ACF, are not what you and I might get called. Fat Americans.

For example. A couple of years ago I'd researched numbers on a couple of
FSU countries (mainly Ukraine), to assess the typical financial situation
or individuals living in that region. Average income is $30-100 US per
month. True the socialist aspect makes the picture slightly different;
the gov pays for housing, and university, and medical. Yet one specific
part about their buying power really struck me. The cost, the USD equiv,
for them to buy computer hardware - it's about the same as here. Look at
that monthly income figure, subtract food and basic survival costs, and
now tell me how "easy" it would be for a citizen in such a country to
save up for the sake of purchasing a new XP computer.

It's not just many posters in ACF who are not Fat Americans, but as well,
please note, many of those authors of the very freeware that we enjoy.

Therefore, to say to them, "Hey, go spend $800 this week on an XP computer,
it's easy, what's wrong with you..."

Well, what's wrong with the picture, you can see how that comes off, right?

 

[ms]

Always allow Scandisk to fix errors.

All I was saying was that it's not necessary to run Scandisk often unless
there are problems.

Bob

Bob, in the past, I've usually seen the advice to *not* automatically
fix errors in scandisk, as it usually results in problems??

Mike Sa

 

[John Corliss]

I thought it was a good right-on post. MS is something we agree on.

Still, it was too provocative. There's no reason for me to be
alienating those who like Windows. That's the wrong tack for trying to
establish reasonable and productive discussion on the issue.

I posted the reply because I'd just finished reading parts of this
extremely well written document and was quite upset:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/viinfo.html

I was very impressed with this portion:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/viinfo.html#digms

as well as this one:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/viinfo.html#future

The document on a whole follows along the lines of my beliefs and IMO
is very comprehensible. Very highly recommended reading.

I found the document while trying to gather clarification on DCOM (a
task I've completed to my satisfaction.)

 

[John Corliss]

Bob Adkins wrote:
(snip)


Bob, I want to be your friend. I'm just a kid at heart. Do you really
have all that neat stuff to get rid of?

LMAO MY thoughts exactly.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Bob, in the past, I've usually seen the advice to *not* automatically
fix errors in scandisk, as it usually results in problems??

If you're having problems, fix them for sure. If not, it's up to the user to
decide if it's a bogus error or not.

Bob

 

[omega]

Still, it was too provocative. There's no reason for me to be
alienating those who like Windows. That's the wrong tack for trying to
establish reasonable and productive discussion on the issue.

I posted the reply because I'd just finished reading parts of this
extremely well written document and was quite upset:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/viinfo.html

An article linked from there, I found to be an interesting read:

http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm

[very brief excerpt]

| Hidden Connections. Microsoft Windows XP connects with other
| computers, or expects to be allowed through the user's network
| protection firewall, in more than 16 ways.
....
| Windows XP is the first Microsoft operating system to challenge
| whether the user can have control over his or her own computer.
....

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

omega wrote in

It's that I want to your attention to this fact: Many posters, right here
in ACF, are not what you and I might get called. Fat Americans.

Yes,not everyone lives under the condition of the (upper) American
middle class. Not even the Americans them selves (else there would be
no "middle" class . For anyone in need of a reminder (or a wakeup
call) - see if your local library carries a copy of "Nickel and Dimed:
On (Not) Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich, book info at
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?E3EF16037> (takes you to Amazon.com).
As for connectivity (and hardware) status in other parts of the world,
see for example <http://www.bytesforall.org/>. Keeping on topic, that
last page had an interesting link (among others) to
"The UNESCO Free Software Portal"
<http://www.unesco.org/webworld/portal_freesoft/index.shtml>

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Roger Parks]

Nice links.

And, indeed, your -appropriate- comments reflect the sentiments of many of
us!

I'm a happy 2k user; really like the os.

But I greatly resent the emerging hegemony of MS, and the fact that it
is supporting industry - at the cost of the user. I'm wary of having a
little policeman inserted in my computer, reporting to "them" and hiding
from me.

This treats the customer as an advisary - not as a customer.

Linux is very close for many of us; not close enough for me to walk away
from 2k at this point, but in a couple of years Linux will be there - at
about the same time MS decides to drop support to 2k (or decides to implant
more tattleware) - and I'll become nix only. Between now and then I'll
continue dual OS and try to figure out nix. Next os will be Deb 2.6/sarge.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Therefore, to say to them, "Hey, go spend $800 this week on an XP computer,
it's easy, what's wrong with you..."

I think it would be disingenuous to hide the facts as I see them, and it
certainly is not practical to run my hasty posts through a Political
Correctness filter.

Karen, I realize more people in the world do not have computers than do, but
you can say that about anything. Even refrigerators. Yet you, Karen, have a
cola on your desk. And it has ice in it. Shame on you!

I apologize to nobody that I have 2 cars, a home, 2 cats, 2 kids, and 3
TV's. That's just the world I live in, boring as it is.

It's just a fact that when I work on computers, many people give me their
old stuff to keep or throw away. I throw away the worst, and keep the best
for my son's geeky friends to play with. That's a fact, and wasn't meant to
offend anyone. I have tried to donate them to schools and churches, but no,
they want only high-end stuff.


Bob

 

[Sietse Fliege]

omega wrote:

(Snipped a lot)

http://www.uinc.ru/files/neox/PE_Tools.shtml

I really value this one. I have it on my context menu, and use it
quite often for a quick read on what language a program is written
in, or else what PE compressor was used.

You might guess from my directory scan here, I haven't decompressed
much. Which I could - with UPX (and I also have an ASPack
decompresser). It's
in part a matter of spending the time; and in other part, a matter of
considering how my dupes searches, and related, would be affected.

Sometimes, though, I do, pointedly, decompress an exe. Irfanview was
my most recent. These programs are compressed in the first place only
for that certain motive, that their "small size" can be praised.

Thanks a lot, Karen. Useful info!
PE Tools is great. Also finds a lot more UPXed files than UPXFind.
My uneducated guess is that the chances are slim that it's showing false
positives; it's much more likely is much better in identifying them.
And of course PE Tools also lists ASPacked files (and other info).
And UPXFind did not search folders recursively (so I had to use a batch
file for that) and was much slower.
So: UPXFind goes.

As for ASPack: I never sorted that out.
Now I definitely want to unpack e.g. IrfanView's files, as I not
seldomly have quite a few instances running.
I could not find a tool for that easily (had not much time and did not
search properly).
Do you have a freeware suggestion ready?

Again, thanks a lot, Karen.

 

[omega]

Thanks a lot, Karen. Useful info!
PE Tools is great. Also finds a lot more UPXed files than UPXFind.

Miraculous moment. Normally it's /you/ who consistently recommends so many
programs which I'd not known about, and meet my interests.

My uneducated guess is that the chances are slim that it's showing false
positives; it's much more likely is much better in identifying them.
And of course PE Tools also lists ASPacked files (and other info).

Yeah, I don't think there's much in the way of false positives. (There
was one problem child I did have - thegun.exe, a small text editor. UPX
won't decompress it. Maybe it used a special early version of UPX, or
maybe there's some sort of extra entanglement its author did. Opening
thegun's exe in notepad, its readout is odd, as far as the UPX strings,
and I don't know what's up.)

PETools sure works worlds better than the clumsy, messy method I'd
previously used for directory readouts. Before, I'd resorted to using
individual Find boxes, the "containing text" field, for strings like
these: [.asprotect] [upx] [.aspack].

The part where I am hoping for this prog's continued development, it would
be in its recognitions base. It gives me 20%+ output of "[unknown]." For
compressors, I'd like if it added in listing, to start, Asprotect, since
those seem to come up regularly enough in my experience. Then the other
part about its results "[unknown]," it'd be language recognition.

I haven't adequately explored those "[unknown]" occurrences towards
ascertaining where most often PETools falls short in the matter of what
main languages it cannot recognize....

In the meantime, I sometimes supplement it, by asking another program
about those individual execs that PETools can't profile. Language2000
has come through for me, often as not, for those cases.

http://farrokhi.net/language/

Wishlists aside, PETools stills serves very well, and I really appreciate
both the context menu click for a quick properties type read; and best,
its directory scan feature.

One comment. Re programming language readouts. That brings in one of the
reasons it's so inconvenient that such a huge number of programs try to
live it out as compressed PEs. That result where basic profiling is then
disabled. Not getting a direct answer about what's on my drive.

I ask, "Hi, guys, where y'all from?" And in return, from that crowd of execs
wrapped hard in their thick cacoons, there is only muted silence.

As for ASPack: I never sorted that out.
Now I definitely want to unpack e.g. IrfanView's files, as I not
seldomly have quite a few instances running.
I could not find a tool for that easily (had not much time and did not
search properly).
Do you have a freeware suggestion ready?

Sietse, for this, I have to the other side of the tracks, the backstreets,
late night...shuffle up to the dealers, on one of the infamous street
corners. I'm just a conservative middle-aged white woman, only need some
medical marijuana for my back, you know, but it's those back corners where
I go to get it.

http://www.exetools.com/

For Aspack decompressors, /unpackers.htm, they have a group of different
ones listed there. The one that I have been using is AspackDie 1.3c. It has
worked fine. And I ignore where it says "HaVe PhUn!" in the readme. <G>

That site has a number of things I'm interested in, tools for getting
information about programs, but as yet I've not downloaded extensively.
(It's a matter of feeling a tad nervous, that my AV & trojan-detection
arsenal best first be in top shape, before proceeding.)