Here?s a neat trick you can do with the registry.
I discovered this trick sometime ago and put it to code.
I?ve tested it with 95-98-Me and NT4 with success.
Executable and source code included, have fun.:)
Posted on 2001-09-07 10:16:00 by bcraven
heh heh heh....

That's pretty cool. :alright:
Posted on 2001-09-07 10:38:16 by Kenny
That is pretty cool!...

I appended Explore with a preset path to my MASM32 projects directory... ( this was always alot of clicking to get to otherwise... ) Thanx.

Posted on 2001-09-07 12:26:41 by NaN
Hey! Whadda ya know--annother great idea! hehe
Posted on 2001-09-07 12:28:47 by Kenny
Here?s another trick. Replace ?Folder? in the source with ?Directory? with out the quotes of course.

There doesn?t seem to be any limit to how many new menu options you can add. Just remember that
each menu?s name key must be different ex: newmenuoption1, newmenuoption2 etc, etc and always
in the Folder\shell\ or Directory\shell\ subkey of HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT.

The command key must always be named ?command? without the quotes of course.:)

Make a great utility if you could add more options.

I?ve always done this trick by using Regedit. It?s the lower level way.;)
Posted on 2001-09-07 16:01:40 by bcraven
If your upto it.. write a brief tut on the registry.. i for one would appreciate it...

The reason i havent learned it yet is because I dont want to screw it up... and so i wont unless i know properly how to use it.

Regardless Nice work.

Posted on 2001-09-07 17:47:20 by NaN

you shouldnt really worry about messing up the registry (well i dont anyway). its just like using explorer. as long as your not an idiot and delete any keys that look like windows needs them then youll be ok. you can back it up too. i mean, if you start deleting random values in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT then obviously some of your file extensions are gonna get screwed up. its just like a giant .ini... and surely your not scared of your Win.ini or System.ini ;)


i'll take a look at this wonderful trick you seem to have discovered. sounds interesting from the responses. :p

Posted on 2001-09-07 17:54:15 by skud

Im still in shell shock if you will... (i realize this was w95 when i happend but...), One day.. well before i knew how to do anything but load up windows, i got a big bad ol blue screen while trying to boot up... "Your Registry Is Corrupt, You Must Reinstall Windows".

Well, when you cant even boot up in Safe Mode.. It does something to you.. (or maybe it was me manually backing up all my files with dos.... hmm.. ). Anyways, I didnt even try to cause this, and it happened.. so for me, to "learn" on my own CPU with out knowing what is what, makes me a bit wiery....

(( but thanx for your advice anyways.. it is definitly not ignored.. as i will someday have to learn this stuff ))

PS: "and surely your not scared of your Win.ini or System.ini "... Im not afraid to admit it, I have never manually edited any of these files.. (while i do know they exsits, I just dont feel comfortable tinkering with thinks that "can" be unstable)

(Since M$ OS's have historically allways been unstable ~ and im just about making my first ever year with out my OS crashing (98SE rocks on an AMD as im learning...) )

Posted on 2001-09-08 00:59:58 by NaN
Try this link NaN

Posted on 2001-09-08 02:55:35 by Mel
Win95 is notorious for the "bye bye registry" thing. I've only seen
it happen if you haven't shut down you computer properly (ie, crash,
or accidental flip of reset switch, or similar). Reasons? The sucky FAT
file system, the very dirty way the registry is handled in win9x.

As skud says, as long as you don't mess where you shouldn't be a-messin',
no harm will be done my fooling around with the registry. The idea
is to *think* a bit. Would it be bad to delete this key and subkey?
(yes, often). Would it be dangerous to change this value? (No, not
very often, unless it's critical stuff).

And, well, you can always boot to a clean DOS prompt and take backup
of the (hidden, %windows%) files user.dat and system.dat.

... Since M$ OS's have historically allways been unstable ...

Get windows 2000 or wait for windows XP. Then your view of m$
OSes will change.

... 98SE rocks on an AMD as im learning ...

That very much depends on what AMD you're talking about ;). I would
prefer people to use the correct CPU names, as there is a hell of a
difference from k6 to k6-ii to k6-iii to the athlon family. Some of the
k6 processors haven't exactly been stable.
Posted on 2001-09-08 03:46:08 by f0dder

Appender?s only my second experience with the registry API?s. I find them easy to use.
Use Win32.hlp or some type of API reference, lots of online ones.

Odd thing was in my first attempt I used RegSetValueEx instead of RegSetValue but NT4
would not accept the menu option name. Worked perfectly in 95-98-Me. Puzzling!?
I couldn?t figure out the problem.


You figured me out and gave it away!;)

You'll note at the bottom of each page they state the following:

Disclaimer: Modifying the registry can cause serious problems that may require you to reinstall your operating system. We cannot guarantee that problems resulting from modifications to the registry can be solved. Use the information provided at your own risk.

All I can say is know what your doing before you do it.:)
Posted on 2001-09-08 04:25:36 by bcraven

What's the difference between Win98 and Win98SE?
the only reason i installed SE is because of Internet Connection Sharing.

Posted on 2001-09-08 08:23:39 by skud
The difference? Well, 98 "vanilla" is just a 95 with some pretty
enhancements. The Second Edition makes it stable, and is actually
the most stable 9x there is. If I were to choose between 95 and 98
vanilla, it'd probably end with 95 even though I'd miss some of the
98 enhancements. If it was between 95, 98 and 98se, I wouldn't have
to think twice before picking 98se.

Of course anybody with a little reason would pick up win2k instead,
or perhaps WinXP.
Posted on 2001-09-08 08:40:48 by f0dder
so why did MS release it before it was really finished?
are they really as bad as everyone seems to think?
or is it just the same kind of idea game developers get when releasing a game quickly and then bringing out two dozen patches over the next month or two?

Posted on 2001-09-08 08:52:15 by skud
well, m$ *are* bad, and don't really care much about us customers,
as long as they have something that works well enough that they
can get our money (read: as long as there are no competitors).
Well, I dunno if you can say that windows 9x was released before
it was done... due to the brainfucked idea of building upon dos (legacy
my ass, it could have been done with a solid core and an emulation module),
9x will never be really stable. "Let's reuse all our 16bit crap, add some
32bit components, and call it a 32bit OS". Well, countrary to what
some people think, 9x IS an os and not just a gui, but it definitley
ain't pure 32bit :/.

Win2k works pretty great, btw :). But ok, they've been refining the
codebase even since the first NT versions. Quite funny, look at how
mature win2k is... then think about all the time spent since win3->win95->win98->winme...
and see how little has happened there. Actually, WinMe is a step *backwards* :).
Posted on 2001-09-08 09:04:15 by f0dder
My guess is that they put all the money they've been making on Win9x into Win2k/XP, and migrating little pieces that they could to the Win9x to make another release. :)
Posted on 2001-09-08 09:18:12 by bitRAKE
yeah, i dont like ME. i dont know why, it just doesnt feel right.
i got win2000 ages ago when it was still in developement off my uncle (he worked for intel at the time - i needed it cos i wanted to play games on my PC which has 2 processors). but i found it was buggy, mainly video problems. i also have a copy of Linux (2.2 - potatoe ???). i havent installed it yet cos i hear its an arse to install, unlike windows.

do you think i should get a full copy of win2000, XP... or carry on using Win98SE or install Linux and use that? I could install all 4 but im sure it would cause problems, and it would be a waste of space. Bearing in mind i play games...

Posted on 2001-09-08 10:28:41 by skud
Thanx all for your help... Mel: Thanx for the link.. it should keep me busy for a bit..

Fodder, Your views of OS's are 99% the same.. expecially your "evalations" of 9x's OS's. I was really hesitant to try 98se off the start as i knew how much crap 98 was... glad something worked out :)

As for w2000, i ran it for about 6 months.. but i couldnt get over the resource hog it was.. granted i now have alot more ram... but still it was the "smaller is better" mentality that finaly helped me decided on 98se of the newer NT based os's.

As well, my AMD sys is an 800 Duron (about to be overclocked :) ) with 256 MB ram. On this same system, Win ME completely crashed, belly up, in less than one week of install!!! That did it for me for ME (and i have no wierld 3rd part periphrial cards etc.).

Any who.. i dont see me changed from 98se anytime soon.

Posted on 2001-09-08 11:58:04 by NaN
Skud: win2000 and win98se dualboot. Install win98se first, then win2k
(due to the way the bootloaders work). If you don't like win2k, you
can always go back to win98se.. it's not THAT easy, but it can be done
if you have a moderate clue :). I liked win2k so much that I removed
win98se within a week. I have no regrets.

NaN: the "magic limit" is about 128 megabyte. 160mbyte is the "very
comfortable" limit. 512 is the "who cares, this flies" limit. Funny thing
is processor speed is not nearly as important as ram amount under
Posted on 2001-09-08 17:41:11 by f0dder
yeah, i have dual boot at the moment (win98SE and 2000).
but my 2000 is a developement one thats not complete and a bit buggy. so you reckon its worth me getting a full copy of 2000. does Linux dual boot too?
Posted on 2001-09-08 18:22:51 by skud