Alien

Firstly, it's XP Pro that I'm using. Now, about the batch file: I'm not a DOS guru, nor have I claimed to be, but I did use it quite a lot in the past, & still do use it now & then when I think it's appropriate. [FYI DosFreak's the DOS guru on here ]. It's not a complicated thing, & I believe in circumstances such as this, when something's really simple to try & get the person to think it through for themselves, that way they're less likely to do the same thing again in the future than if you just give them the answer. If it was something complex I would have told you. I'll give you a clue: there are possibilities that you should have accounted for, but haven't. Have some of whatever chills you out [for me it's coffee ], sit down & just read through the batch file, line by line & ask yourself "what does this line do?" [not "what do I want it to do?]. Trust me, when you realise it you are really gonna kick yourself. It's 1 of those things that you can sometimes miss because it's too obvious. 2nd clue: your DOS syntax is fine, the flaw's in your logic. 3rd Clue: both batchfiles have same problem [i didn't use both, but had a look @ other 1]. As to the manual install thing - like I said - once you realise your mistake you will no-longer need the manual install option. On the subject of StyleXP & performance hits - no, that's not how it works. The ability to use visual styles is built into XP, however [for whatever reason] by default, you can only use the 3 styles that come with XP. To use any others you have to get a prog like StyleXP [though it's possible that there may be more in the Plus! pack, but I don't have that]. Once installed StyleXP doesn't actually use any memory, except when you have it loaded up to change Styles, themes, etc. The actual .dll [which after the install of StyleXP is a patched v. of MS's 1] uses up 1080k as far as I can tell, which these days isn't a lot. My mum has it installed on her P2/450 with 128MB RAM & a 16MB TNT1, & I don't notice any performance hit with it. The things that can cause a performance hit on XP are stuff like animated [as in sliding open] windows, list boxes, & menus, but I don't use any of those. I have used other skinning progs in the past, 1 in particular [Windowblinds] had a noticeable performance hit, but Visual Styles don't. About trusting your prog: Sorry, but whenever possible I like to know exactly what a prog is going to do before I let it do it [i'm not really a paranoid control freak, honest! ].

Quote: You had 2 instances of it running... it will issue that if you try to start more than one instance (so it is not doing anything to the registry 2x). No, I did not have 2 instances running, I'm not stupid. It happened the 1st time I ran it & I can reproduce the error with Task Manager open to show that there's only 1 instance running & post a screen capture of that if it'll make you believe me. Quote: Did you run it AFTER reading the directions on how to install it using either the automating batchfile, OR the manual installation directions? Those are errors you'd see if you did not install it properly. (Missing the .reg files that are in the zipfile... they have to be in your Windows folder, usually C:\WINDOWS or C:\WINNT) According to the readme it's a no-brainer, just unzip [which I'd already done to get the readme], then run InstallMe2kXPME.bat. Having just checked the batch file, I think you need to brush up on your DOS. I didn't bother with the manual install as I thought that if you could manage a registry cleaning prog then you'd know your way around DOS. Quote: P.S.=> Those errors you saw are the results of simply just not installing it right, & also trying to run 2 instances of it at once... you install it right & avoid having it 2x in RAM, you'll be fine! Everyone else did fine, except for yourself, & I know those errors... installation not done right is all, no biggie... should fix ya up! No, they are the result of you making a mistake in the batch file. You shouldn't be so quick to blame a user for problems with a prog that you're still beta testing. If you'd checked the batch file properly then there would be no need to do a manual install. Under normal circumstances I would have told you what's wrong with it, but as you were so quick to blame me I'll let you figure it out yourself. Also, something like this rather dents my confidence in using a prog that you've written that does stuff that's a lot more complicated than DOS. Quote: On the "Visual Styles" thing... I don't use it here. Sounds like it is trying to mask/overlay how a program form draws itself. If that is the case, I can see it messing around with my program... definitely. I do that as it is right now, with the black to dark blue title bar gradient... sounds like it is in your face! (That's a first too, in this test...) * I've never come accross a prog that had a prob with Style XP before. I discovered that it is actually that & not specifically Visual Styles. Style XP gives you more control over Styles & allows U to use more than the 3 that come with XP. Quote: P.S.=> "Visual Styles"... I am not familiar with that, what is it? Some 3rd party skinner? I dunno, I had trouble with those here & stopped using programs of that ilk, like Window Blinds... so it is not tested with that! apk Visual Styles is part of XP, it does kinda skin all [well, most] progs, but not as much as more traditional skinning progs. You know when you 1st install XP & the start button & window frames & title bar buttons look different to that of previous versions of Windows, rounded & 3D? Well that's the new Visual Styles thing [like themes on steroids ]. Quote: Put those files where it instructs to have them... simple fix. Actually, I think I'll pass. Quote: (Not a bad display, 95 errors is a pretty good find rate. You must do alot of file shuffling/using &/or deleting...) Not really, quite a few of them were things like recently used file lists stored by XP itself, & some stored by other progs, eg Paintshop Pro. Things like that are normally the domain of security-type progs that remove traces/records of what you've been doing, not registry cleaners. There were also a bunch of files referenced that are part of windows [i don't remember what specifically & can't be bothered to look again]. Quote: Could be your registry is just bigger/more packed with entries, could be variation in diskspeeds too... I have an IBM Deskstar 75GXP on a KT7A-RAID v1.3 mobo, running in UDMA/100 mode so I don't think it's a disc accessing problem. Neither Norton Uninstaller Deluxe or Norton Windoctor take anywhere near as long, & Norton Windoctor does a fair bit more in less time. Quote: Most of your "faults" are easily fixed. Bad install looks like caused 1/2 of them with files not in right spots, So fix the batch file, or as someone else suggested try a proper installer, like Nullsoft's 1. Quote: the rest are result of your use of this Visual Styles thing. Style XP is actually a rather popular prog, so you might wanna get hold of it & find some way to solve the prob, as ppl might get put off if they have to disable it everytime they want to use your prog. Quote: Delete them ALL at one shot. The program is designed to be SAFE, by not exposing OLE Server controls... anything it finds is 100% safe as a candidate for deletion. It was designed with safety in mind foremost, & I'd guarantee that. If you EVER doubt it? You can always restore from its file tracking method or eventlog tracking... all time/date stamped too! No way! If I don't even trust progs made by major software companies to do it automatically, & insist on going through the results & deciding which 1s to fix/delete & which ones to leave alone then I'll be damned if I'm gonna trust a prog that although showing potential, still needs a fair bit of work. I don't care if it does do backups - I prefer to avoid problems in the 1st place than sort them out afterwards,

Ok, a bit more info - I re-read that 2nd error message & decided to try disabling Visual Styles & try again. This time I got this: then when I click ok on that I got this: then the prog opened! I ran the analysis & it found 95 errors results & took about 20mins. Considering I'm using a faster CPU than you or 1 or 2 of the others I was a little surprised @ how long it was taking, so I checked on CPU useage & it stayed fairly steady between 4 & 6%. It might be interesting to see how much quicker its progress would be if it utilised more of the available CPU power. When I re-enable Visual Styles it goes back to not working & gives the original 2 error messages. <edit> I forgot to mention - it needs wheel-mouse support as well. </edit> <edit 2> Sorry to keep finding fault dude, but when I deleted a few of the results/orphans/whatever it didn't just delete them, & continue to show the rest, but it blanked the list as well, so to do any others I had to re-analyse. That could get real annyoung after doing it a few times. </edit 2>

Philipp - also the usual message forum index page link on the main page has been replaced with a link to the 2KSP3 thread. I know I can get back to the forum index from there, I just thought I'd let you know.

Alec - I think I tracked down the key & variable where that setting for IE's kept, but if I put it in a .reg file & merge it it doesn't take effect until after I've opened a new IE window, whereas doing it through IE's options it affects all open IE windows immediately. As to your Registry Cleaner prog - I got it from Major Geeks, unzipped it, & ran the appropriate .bat file for XP, but when I try to run the .exe file I get 1st this: then when I click ok on that I get this: & that's all.

Quote: I think I saw an "choose Avatar" option in the Profile Section What up with that? You did??? where? I looked when I read your message, but couldn't see it.

Quote: Quote: Another thing, don't know if it's possible or not, but what about some sort of thing to automatically resize images that are bigger than A x B pixels, to fit A x B? Something like this would have to be client side, as posted images are not hosted on the NTC server. So the server never sees the file, and has no idea if it's too big to fit on your screen. But, I believe if you turn on the "Enable Automatic Image Resizing" option in IE6, it will take care of this for you. No, it is enabled & it doesn't work like that. it only works when an image is addressed directly, rather than just put in a page, eg http://www.whatever.com/images/pic.jpg There should actually be a way [for the images, I don't know about the word-wrap thing]. It should be possible to read the dimensions of the image with some sort of script, yes? So you could perhaps do something a bit like what I've put below, sorry I don't know PHP or whatever the forum uses, but I think you'll see what I'm getting @. set maximum acceptable image size to A x B read image dimensions into X & Y Z=X/Y If X>A make X=A make Y=X/Z If Y>B make Y=B AND make X=Y*Z then make the script change the image tags so that it would read something like: <img SRC="pic.jpg" height=X Width=Y> [i apologise for any errors in my logic, it's been a long time since i did any coding] & if you really wanna impress ppl, you might even make the width component of the maximum acceptable image size a percentage of the window width, thereby taking into account ppl using different screen resolutions.

Quote: Quote: Phlipp - PLEASE don't use fixed sized fonts on the forum, as this stops IE's View -> Text Size setting from having any effect on it. That is because of the XHTML templates. I possibly add more styles/template sets in a few days. Ok, cool, cheers. Another thing, don't know if it's possible or not, but what about some sort of thing to automatically resize images that are bigger than A x B pixels, to fit A x B? & something to force word-wrap on things like long paths or URLs. Just a couple of ideas, I know you're probably rushing round like a blue-arsed fly @ the mo, but I thought that as you're in the process of setting it all up now would be the right time to mention them.

Phlipp - PLEASE don't use fixed sized fonts on the forum, as this stops IE's View -> Text Size setting from having any effect on it.

www.xteq.com

Yes it is, both from Windows Update, & from the download catalogue wotsit, failing that - do a search on the forum, there was a thread about it recently & I think Davros posted a link to it.

Congrats DF --------------------------------------------- Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run] ":-)"="shutdown -r -f -t 0" ---------------------------------------------

Quote: Xp only (as far as i can tell) stores product id. if anyone knows different, please post as i would love to know. cheers, Tim Tim, click that link in the post above yours, the prog works.

Quote: Hehehe... Philipp the filter! Shouldn't that be Philipp the Philter?

According to the Audigy NG on CL's news server they are not new, they are the same as the drivers from Compaq.

They are the Compaq ones.

Ok, here's another 1 for you, by a guy I was arguing about XP with: "I *know* you take XP to bed with you each night, but cant you just accept that its really no better than 98SE stability wise, once you get either set up right?" Does this guy know something I don't?

Quote: A brand new Asus P4T-E with i850 and 800Mhz RDRam???? I am putting my money on a oneoff! Hell Asus Socket 7's supoort it! LOL, I hope for your sake it is a 1-off.

Quote: How can a mouse melt? they get 5V's and what .1 mA's This prooves it bad engineering can create miracles. LOL, that's nothing - I was on a course 1 time [free & had nothing better to do, & for the qualification - which I never got - place got shut down from lack of funds], & as I kinda had a rep for knowing more than even the tutors [not actually that difficult!], it was me who usually got asked for help if something went wrong. So 1 day this girl calls me over cos her mouse buttons were vibrating. I was like "WTF??? This a windup?" but sure enough, it was true. Not having come accross the problem before, & the fact that the picture on the screen seemed to be fluctuating from side to side @ the same frequency as the mouse buttons, I decided that as I hadn't come accross this problem before I'd let someone else have fun with it, so shut the machine off & told the ppl who ran the course to call their contracted engineer out. So the guy comes out & has a look, & I ask him what the cause was - guess what he blamed it on? A Word macro virus!!! I kid you not. The system was infected with said macro virus, but I knew that couldn't be it. I later found out that this is an occasional thing that can happen with older systems & PS2 mice. Oh, & Uykucu - some mobos whilst claiming to be PCI 2.1 complient, just aren't - & it's usually all boards of same model, not just a 1-off, though I would have thought that would be very rare nowadays.

Yeah, this is like errr.. I forget which company, that reckoned they had the patent on hyperlinks or something like that. Was it BT? I don't know what officially happened about their claim, but all they seemed to achieve was becoming the inspiration for a bunch of jokes & did themselves a bit of PR damage.

Anyone know how to get rid of the EAX splash screen that appears on startup? Apparently a file called CTEaxSpl.exe is being called from somewhere & is playing 1 or more AVI files. Someone on 1 of Creative's newsgroups said to use Msconfig, only prob is I've already checked that. There are only 3 new entries: ADGJDet & CTLTask, which I've disabled already, but there's another 1 called Updreg.exe which is in C:\Windows which I haven't disabled, as I'm not 100% sure what it is - the file properties->version->comments says it's Creative Registry Update. I did a search in the registry & found a Runonce key for CTEaxSpl.exe. I know Runonce is supposed to do just that - run once, but I tried deleting that key on a hunch to see what would happen, & guess what - when I rebooted it's back again. Do you think Updreg.exe could be putting it back there? If this is true, this would be a sneaky way to stop people being able to disable CTEaxSpl.exe in Msconfig, as it doesn't show the contents of the Runonce key. I think I will try disabling Updreg in Msconfig & then deleting that Runonce entry & see if it still comes back when I reboot, but will have to that later this evening as I have a download going @ the mo that I don't wanna interrupt. Any other ideas?

I didn't read more than the 1st few lines of that article, but unless I'm mistaken ths gist of it is that wireless networking isn't as secure as ppl think it is with the default settings, & to use it safely/securely there's a whole bunch of precautions & measures to take, yes? If that's what it's about, then I don't mean to be harsh, but it's not exactly news. There have been umpteen web articles, & even 1 or 2 mentions about it on TV [well, in this country anyway - dunno about others].

Quote: I'm not worried about directly editing the info in the database, but I would like to export it out of the database into another format (just plain text would be fine, as long as all of the info was present). I don't use MP [just a personal preference thing], however I do know that you can make plain text play lists very easily that most progs, including MP, Winamp, etc can read/use. I know this isn't exactly what you were looking for, but if you download a prog called PathCopy [freeware] you may find it very useful. The way I make up playlists, using PathCopy, is simply to highlight all the files [eg MP3s for an album] & right click on the highlighted area then select Copy Path, then Copy Long Name, then past it into Notepad & save it with the extension .m3u in the same directory. It can also copy the full path & filename incase you want to keep the playlist in a seperate folder - very useful little shell extension indeed. PS - this works for video files too.

or just hitting the down cursor key til you get to what you want to delete, then hit the Delete key. Alec - this would be a good thing to add into your registry prog. To find out wher it is, simply make a note of 1 of the entries in that drop down lost, then use Find in Regedit.

Quote: I don't think so... I believe M$ made a few subtle changes to NTFS between 2k and XP so Speed Disk 2001 is likely to completely screw your disk over. I don't recall saying that I was using NTFS [ok, so on 1 drive/partition I am, but that's beside the point ], infact in numerous posts previously I have stated that I am using FAT32. I think the 1st time I brought this point up about Speed Disk I said that I could understand if I was using NTFS, but I'm not.