 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> not quite, but...
>
>> Ever since I tried to install the latest Blender, whenever I boot my PC,
>> I get the system32 folder that opens. I suppose there's a registry
>> entry somewhere that got created improperly and instead of trying to
>> load "C:\Windows\System32\whatchamacallit.dll" or
>> "%SYSTEM_ROOT%\System32\foobar.exe" it simply loads
>> "C:\Windows\System32".
>>
>> How do I find out which one it is? Regedit's search function is not
>> smart enough to let me search for ( "system32" except when it's
>> "system32\" )
>>
>>
>
> In the registry, you can search the entries
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/MicrosoftWindows/CurrentVersion/Run
> or
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/MicrosoftWindows/CurrentVersion/Run
> Where are stored all the softwares launched at the startup.
>
> Lionel.
That's the first place i looked, and there are no mentions of system32
there...
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> not quite, but...
>>
>>> Ever since I tried to install the latest Blender, whenever I boot my PC,
>>> I get the system32 folder that opens. I suppose there's a registry
>>> entry somewhere that got created improperly and instead of trying to
>>> load "C:\Windows\System32\whatchamacallit.dll" or
>>> "%SYSTEM_ROOT%\System32\foobar.exe" it simply loads
>>> "C:\Windows\System32".
>>>
>>> How do I find out which one it is? Regedit's search function is not
>>> smart enough to let me search for ( "system32" except when it's
>>> "system32\" )
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In the registry, you can search the entries
>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/MicrosoftWindows/CurrentVersion/Run
>> or
>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/MicrosoftWindows/CurrentVersion/Run
>> Where are stored all the softwares launched at the startup.
>>
>> Lionel.
>
> That's the first place i looked, and there are no mentions of system32
> there...
>
Have you seen in the StartMenu folder? A link may be placed here.
--
Do not judge my words, judge my actions.
---
http://www.avast.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> not quite, but...
>>>
>>>> Ever since I tried to install the latest Blender, whenever I boot my
>>>> PC,
>>>> I get the system32 folder that opens. I suppose there's a registry
>>>> entry somewhere that got created improperly and instead of trying to
>>>> load "C:\Windows\System32\whatchamacallit.dll" or
>>>> "%SYSTEM_ROOT%\System32\foobar.exe" it simply loads
>>>> "C:\Windows\System32".
>>>>
>>>> How do I find out which one it is? Regedit's search function is not
>>>> smart enough to let me search for ( "system32" except when it's
>>>> "system32\" )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the registry, you can search the entries
>>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/MicrosoftWindows/CurrentVersion/Run
>>> or
>>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/MicrosoftWindows/CurrentVersion/Run
>>> Where are stored all the softwares launched at the startup.
>>>
>>> Lionel.
>>
>> That's the first place i looked, and there are no mentions of system32
>> there...
>>
> Have you seen in the StartMenu folder? A link may be placed here.
>
It's late and my brain slow down!!!
Have you search for /explorer.exe/? It open the folder.
--
Do not judge my words, judge my actions.
---
http://www.avast.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.01.2014 17:58, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> You'd be surprised how often you still find good old 8.3 filenames in
>> the freakin' registry.
>
> How many new file formats are created nowadays that dare to use more
> than 3 characters in their file name extension?
>
> There are some brave people who are courageous enough to make them
> larger than 3 characters, but they are extremely rare.
Indeed.
Virtually the only pieces of software using file name extensions >3
characters seem to belong to the domain of development tools.
That, and the new MS Office file name extensions.
(The open source community seems to have been more daring in this
respect; probably because its strongest roots are in the Unix community,
where technically there has never been such a thing as file extensions
anyway.)
> When was the last time that the length of the file name extension had
> any kind of relevance on anything?
Only a few days ago. Relevant in the sense that the artificial
limitation to 3 characters keeps leading to file extension clashes,
which suck :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How many new file formats are created nowadays that dare to use more
> than 3 characters in their file name extension?
>
> There are some brave people who are courageous enough to make them
> larger than 3 characters, but they are extremely rare.
The only one I can think of is Java - which uses *.java and *.class for
source and object files.
Visual Studio uses a few like *.vcxproj and similar.
Flam3 uses *.flam3 (then again, this software originates from Unix).
In short, this stupidity is slowly drifting away - but only slowly.
Next up: Why, in the year 2014, am I still running installers that have
16-bit dithered logos? WTF?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > When was the last time that the length of the file name extension had
> > any kind of relevance on anything?
> Only a few days ago. Relevant in the sense that the artificial
> limitation to 3 characters keeps leading to file extension clashes,
> which suck :-P
I meant, obviously: When was the last time that a file name extension
of more than 3 characters caused any kind of problem...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Next up: Why, in the year 2014, am I still running installers that have
> 16-bit dithered logos? WTF?
Obviously you need to be able to run it in safe mode...
Speaking of which, even though the 80386 processor was introduced
in 1985 (that's almost 30 years ago), PCs still boot up in 16-bit
mode. Yes, even the new 64-bit ones.
The very first thing that the OS does is to switch to either 32-bit
mode (if the CPU is that old) or to 64-bit mode. After that it will
usually never revert back to 16-bit mode ever again.
Support for 16-bitness increases the CPU complexity and thus its price,
and is overall just dead weight that has little to no purpose.
(Granted, there might still be *some* software out there that's 16-bit
and needs to be run even on a modern PC... although this will happen
*only* on Windows. I don't think Linux or BSD has ever run anything
in 16-bit mode for as long as they have existed.
And the thing is, if you have some obscure legacy driver or something
like that, and it's 16-bit, it's only impacting the computer's performance,
even if so slightly.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> not quite, but...
>>>
>>>> Ever since I tried to install the latest Blender, whenever I boot my
>>>> PC,
>>>> I get the system32 folder that opens. I suppose there's a registry
>>>> entry somewhere that got created improperly and instead of trying to
>>>> load "C:\Windows\System32\whatchamacallit.dll" or
>>>> "%SYSTEM_ROOT%\System32\foobar.exe" it simply loads
>>>> "C:\Windows\System32".
>>>>
>>>> How do I find out which one it is? Regedit's search function is not
>>>> smart enough to let me search for ( "system32" except when it's
>>>> "system32\" )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the registry, you can search the entries
>>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/MicrosoftWindows/CurrentVersion/Run
>>> or
>>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/MicrosoftWindows/CurrentVersion/Run
>>> Where are stored all the softwares launched at the startup.
>>>
>>> Lionel.
>>
>> That's the first place i looked, and there are no mentions of system32
>> there...
>>
> Have you seen in the StartMenu folder? A link may be placed here.
>
Nope.
Also did msconfig, and the usual steps to resolve these issues.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Next up: Why, in the year 2014, am I still running installers that have
>> 16-bit dithered logos? WTF?
>
> Obviously you need to be able to run it in safe mode...
>
> Speaking of which, even though the 80386 processor was introduced
> in 1985 (that's almost 30 years ago), PCs still boot up in 16-bit
> mode. Yes, even the new 64-bit ones.
>
> The very first thing that the OS does is to switch to either 32-bit
> mode (if the CPU is that old) or to 64-bit mode. After that it will
> usually never revert back to 16-bit mode ever again.
>
> Support for 16-bitness increases the CPU complexity and thus its price,
> and is overall just dead weight that has little to no purpose.
>
> (Granted, there might still be *some* software out there that's 16-bit
> and needs to be run even on a modern PC... although this will happen
> *only* on Windows. I don't think Linux or BSD has ever run anything
> in 16-bit mode for as long as they have existed.
I think on some releases of Linux or BSD, you could run XENIX
executables, which were 16bit, if memory serves me right.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.01.2014 17:54, schrieb Warp:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Next up: Why, in the year 2014, am I still running installers that have
>> 16-bit dithered logos? WTF?
>
> Obviously you need to be able to run it in safe mode...
>
> Speaking of which, even though the 80386 processor was introduced
> in 1985 (that's almost 30 years ago), PCs still boot up in 16-bit
> mode. Yes, even the new 64-bit ones.
Not all of them. Look up UEFI and coreboot.
> The very first thing that the OS does is to switch to either 32-bit
> mode (if the CPU is that old) or to 64-bit mode. After that it will
> usually never revert back to 16-bit mode ever again.
I thought the 64-bit mode was exactly the same as the 32-bit one, except
that some memory pages are flagged differently?
> Support for 16-bitness increases the CPU complexity and thus its price,
> and is overall just dead weight that has little to no purpose.
>
> (Granted, there might still be *some* software out there that's 16-bit
> and needs to be run even on a modern PC... although this will happen
> *only* on Windows.
Even then, it might be argued that a bytecode interpreter on a modern
machine could probably run 16-bit code just as fast as machines from
back then.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
