modifying spell check defaults

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

the new (and annoying) default in the spell check of messages sent in windows
mail has the cursor always coming to rest on the "change" box. what line of
the registry can i change to revert to the previous process (under outlook
express), whereby the cursor rested wherever you placed it - such as on the
"ignore" box?
 
How about looking in the mouse properties in Control Panel.
Usually in the Pointer Options tab.
 
i can see that your answers are correct, but for my purposes they're
incomplete.
in fact, i already have that pointer default set, and it's a great feature,
too. but i had it arranged the same way in xp, and that default feature did
not carry over into the outlook express spell check - where it's not helpful
but illogical and bothersome.
i have to believe that there's a way to tweak the registry so as to maintain
the pointer default for nearly the whole of windows functions under vista,
but exempt it in the spell check feature of windows mail.
thanks.
 
Lots of things changed from OE to WinMail. Lots of stuff were ripped from it
and no there isn't nor has there been a registry setting for it. I've
documented the registry settings for OE and there wasn't one. It had to be
hard coded into the files to look at those settings. So basically, you're
SOL in WinMail.
 
dear DGuess,
your wisdom & concision are much appreciated, and yet they leave me
down-hearted. i think the 'jump to default' in a spellcheck is just plain
foolish, since there is usually more than one possible correction to be had
for a misspelling, and not always (or even usually) the first one that MS
offers. one shouldn't employ a yes/no command where there actually is more
than one answer, right?
james surowiecki makes a compelling case for "the wisdom of crowds", so i
guess the redmond mob really is the exception that proves the rule.
sol, indeed!
thanks again to you and brink.
 
could be a possiblity they didn't supply a default button to be active. Who
knows.


linux convert said:
dear DGuess,
your wisdom & concision are much appreciated, and yet they leave me
down-hearted. i think the 'jump to default' in a spellcheck is just plain
foolish, since there is usually more than one possible correction to be
had
for a misspelling, and not always (or even usually) the first one that MS
offers. one shouldn't employ a yes/no command where there actually is more
than one answer, right?
james surowiecki makes a compelling case for "the wisdom of crowds", so i
guess the redmond mob really is the exception that proves the rule.
sol, indeed!
thanks again to you and brink.
Click to expand...
 
if i may add one final thought,
this tiny thread is exemplary of one negative aspect of microsoft's approach
to its clients. here we've discussed something easily remediable in the new
vista operating system. two altruists have offered to help, but could only do
so much.
it's a tiny, tiny thing, and yet where is the one microsoft employee (out
of, how many, tens of thousands) who could present herself, here, for
attribution, saying "yes, well, our company chose to do this for the
following reasons ..."?
doubtless some microserfs lurk on these fora, but their invisibility is
telling of the corporation's disdain for, or at least indifference to, the
people who purchase its wares.
 
linux convert said:
if i may add one final thought,
this tiny thread is exemplary of one negative aspect of microsoft's
approach
to its clients. here we've discussed something easily remediable in the
new
vista operating system. two altruists have offered to help, but could only
do
so much.
it's a tiny, tiny thing, and yet where is the one microsoft employee (out
of, how many, tens of thousands) who could present herself, here, for
attribution, saying "yes, well, our company chose to do this for the
following reasons ..."?
doubtless some microserfs lurk on these fora, but their invisibility is
telling of the corporation's disdain for, or at least indifference to, the
people who purchase its wares.
Click to expand...

One reason that Windows isn't the fully integrated seamless OS
that we'd all love is that our representatives have taken M$ to court
to ensure there are holes in it for other companies to make a buck.
 
julian,
your contention is not so much outlandish as it is plain foolish; the idea
that congresses north american or european tinker with actual line code is
risible. it lets microsoft off the hook, too, for all the frailties that
beset it - frailties that are in no way, or at least are not primarily, a
product of government actions, but of its own corporate culture (and, to be
fair, our own acquisitive one.)
 
linux convert said:
julian,
your contention is not so much outlandish as it is plain foolish; the idea
that congresses north american or european tinker with actual line code is
risible. it lets microsoft off the hook, too, for all the frailties that
beset it - frailties that are in no way, or at least are not primarily, a
product of government actions, but of its own corporate culture (and, to
be
fair, our own acquisitive one.)
Click to expand...

Yeah whatever.
 
linux convert said:
sorry, i didn't know you were a tory
Click to expand...

Some governments, especially the European government, specify that certain
parts of Windows must be left out. This does, indeed, force different code
in places.
 
Back
Top