Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> And which version of Windows do you need for this option to appear?

I think it was there in XP but you got to it a different way. I.e., it was 
buried in the control panel somewhere.

>> Everything respects that nowadays, unless you're installing programs 
>> from the Win98 era perhaps.
> 
> Heh. On Monday, I've got to see if a Windows 2.0 program works OK under 
> Windows XP. The fun part? To run it, you must replace SERIAL.SYS with a 
> custom modified version. (!!)

I'm not surprised. All the old 16-bit apps seemed to bypass the COM drivers 
and go right to hardware.

> The Java installer does something similarly retarded for some reason. 
> Maybe it's an IE quirk of some kind?

Could just be ... retarded! :-)  What makes you think the people writing the 
installers know anything more about Windows than you do? :-)

> You can't put, for example, the Word "normal" template in the registry. 
> But then, I guess it depends on what you consider to be "settings" and 
> what is "documents"...

Right. ANd yes, you probably could, but you wouldn't want to. :-)

> (Because you will never, ever determine which keys to copy...)

Yeah, I always thought so. It's very optimized for what it's good at. 
Unfortunately, it's quite undocumented as you say, and there's no permission 
system in Windows that's at a per-program level rather than a per-user level.

Which is kind of funny, given that nowadays how many people writing programs 
want to be in charge of your computer.  You would think by now people had 
figured out that the user might not want "the program from Adobe" to always 
have all the privs that the user has.  Altho Singularity has the only 
ACL-based permissions system I've ever seen address this.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message