Hello,
(I also posted this by mistake to the "basic" group. Apologies for the
multipost.)
Windows XP Pro, SP3
I have a new install and want to change the unpleasant standard
Windows XP search assistant to the classic one. I have done this in
the past by creating an entry "Use Search Asst" REG_SZ (String Value)
in the following registry key:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\CabinetState

and setting the value to "no"

But my new system has 5 user profiles. Will I have to change this
setting for each user profile?

Is there a way to change to classic search assistant for all users?

Many thanks.

Jack

For an example of why multiposting is bad go in the other newsgroup(s?)
where you posted to see one possible solution. If you had crossposted
instead of multiposting the answers from respondents in other groups
would also appear here. And of course you won't see this reply in the
other groups where you posted.

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
Multiposting vs Crossposting

John

JClark wrote:
> Hello,
> (I also posted this by mistake to the "basic" group. Apologies for the
> multipost.)
> Windows XP Pro, SP3
> I have a new install and want to change the unpleasant standard
> Windows XP search assistant to the classic one. I have done this in
> the past by creating an entry "Use Search Asst" REG_SZ (String Value)
> in the following registry key:
>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\CabinetState
>
> and setting the value to "no"
>
> But my new system has 5 user profiles. Will I have to change this
> setting for each user profile?
>
> Is there a way to change to classic search assistant for all users?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Jack

JClark wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:29:53 -0400, John John - MVP
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> why multiposting is bad
> I accept the criticism and appreciate the link, which has a clear
> explanation of these differences. I have never done this before, and
> it was a simple mistake. I simply clicked on the newsgroup immediately
> adjacent to the one I wanted to post to in the list. Once I realized
> it, there was no going back. I had to post it again in the correct
> group, so technically it was multiposting, but I didn't want to
> crosspost or multipost and never before recall doing so. Just a
> mistake, like a typo.
> But I do appreciate your explanation.

No problem, we all have different skills and knowledge and we all learn
by doing different things. Crossposting isn't all that bad when the
posting is done to a few relevant groups.

John

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:53:04 -0500, JClark <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:08:59 -0400, John John - MVP
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Crossposting isn't all that bad when the
> >posting is done to a few relevant groups.

> Nice to know, since references to "crossposting" always seems to
> suggest something bad.


The reason for that is primarily that crossposting is a tool of
spammers. If you see a message crossposted to multiple unrelated
groups, you can be sure it's spam.

But crossposting to just a few related groups is fine. It's
multiposting that's bad.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:00:59 -0500, JClark <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:45:49 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > crossposting to just a few related groups is fine. It's
> >multiposting that's bad.


> Ken,
> Thanks to you also for clarifying this important point.


You're welcome. Glad to help.



> I so seldom
> need to post to more than one group, that I've never really
> investigated it. But I always felt there was something bad about
> "crossposting" Nice to know it's OK in certain circumstances.


As far as I'm concerned, it's OK all the time, *unless* it's to many
unrelated groups (as I said before).

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On 12/4/2009 2:00 PM, JClark wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:45:49 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> crossposting to just a few related groups is fine. It's
>> multiposting that's bad.
> Ken,
> Thanks to you also for clarifying this important point. I so seldom
> need to post to more than one group, that I've never really
> investigated it. But I always felt there was something bad about
> "crossposting" Nice to know it's OK in certain circumstances.

In addition to cross posting there's another thing you can do and that
is to set a follow-up flag. Let's say you have a problem with your
network and you want to ask a question. You cross-post a message to the
following newsgroups:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Then you can set a follow-up flag to
windows.public.windowsxp.network_web Now what this will do is that
whenever anyone replies to your message regardless of where they are
reading it, the reply will show up in the network_web newsgroup.

By doing it this way you can ask your question to a broader audience,
yet only have to monitor one newsgroup for the replies and add to the
message volume of a busy newsgroup such as windowsxp.general.

--

Roy Smith
Windows XP Pro SP3

Roy Smith wrote:
> On 12/4/2009 2:00 PM, JClark wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:45:49 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> crossposting to just a few related groups is fine. It's
>>> multiposting that's bad.
>> Ken,
>> Thanks to you also for clarifying this important point. I so seldom
>> need to post to more than one group, that I've never really
>> investigated it. But I always felt there was something bad about
>> "crossposting" Nice to know it's OK in certain circumstances.
>
> In addition to cross posting there's another thing you can do and that
> is to set a follow-up flag. Let's say you have a problem with your
> network and you want to ask a question. You cross-post a message to the
> following newsgroups:
>
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>
> Then you can set a follow-up flag to
> windows.public.windowsxp.network_web Now what this will do is that
> whenever anyone replies to your message regardless of where they are
> reading it, the reply will show up in the network_web newsgroup.
>
> By doing it this way you can ask your question to a broader audience,
> yet only have to monitor one newsgroup for the replies and add to the
> message volume of a busy newsgroup such as windowsxp.general.

From a respondent's point of view I don't think I like that idea too
much... Won't this prevent posts made in one group from propagating to
the other groups? Using your example above, if a respondent posts a
reply in help_and_support will his post show in the group where he
posted or will it only show in the follow up group? I take it that the
post wouldn't show in the windowsxp.general group? So the readers there
would not have a clue as to the replies made by respondents in the other
groups and they may very well reply for nothing as they might just be
repeating information already given elsewhere. Or does the follow up to
feature work differently than what I think it does?

John

From: "Roy Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>

| On 12/4/2009 2:00 PM, JClark wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:45:49 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>> crossposting to just a few related groups is fine. It's
>>> multiposting that's bad.
>> Ken,
>> Thanks to you also for clarifying this important point. I so seldom
>> need to post to more than one group, that I've never really
>> investigated it. But I always felt there was something bad about
>> "crossposting" Nice to know it's OK in certain circumstances.

| In addition to cross posting there's another thing you can do and that
| is to set a follow-up flag. Let's say you have a problem with your
| network and you want to ask a question. You cross-post a message to the
| following newsgroups:

| microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web
| microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
| microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

| Then you can set a follow-up flag to
| windows.public.windowsxp.network_web Now what this will do is that
| whenever anyone replies to your message regardless of where they are
| reading it, the reply will show up in the network_web newsgroup.

| By doing it this way you can ask your question to a broader audience,
| yet only have to monitor one newsgroup for the replies and add to the
| message volume of a busy newsgroup such as windowsxp.general.

| --

| Roy Smith
| Windows XP Pro SP3


The problem with that scenario is that some readers of the x-posted message will not all
get the benefit of any answers. Only those reading in the follow-up group.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

JacobH wrote:
> John John - MVP wrote:
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>> On 12/4/2009 2:00 PM, JClark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:45:49 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> crossposting to just a few related groups is fine. It's
>>>>> multiposting that's bad.
>>>> Ken,
>>>> Thanks to you also for clarifying this important point. I so seldom
>>>> need to post to more than one group, that I've never really
>>>> investigated it. But I always felt there was something bad about
>>>> "crossposting" Nice to know it's OK in certain circumstances.
>>> In addition to cross posting there's another thing you can do and
>>> that is to set a follow-up flag. Let's say you have a problem with
>>> your network and you want to ask a question. You cross-post a
>>> message to the following newsgroups:
>>>
>>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web
>>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
>>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>>>
>>> Then you can set a follow-up flag to
>>> windows.public.windowsxp.network_web Now what this will do is that
>>> whenever anyone replies to your message regardless of where they are
>>> reading it, the reply will show up in the network_web newsgroup.
>>>
>>> By doing it this way you can ask your question to a broader audience,
>>> yet only have to monitor one newsgroup for the replies and add to the
>>> message volume of a busy newsgroup such as windowsxp.general.
>> From a respondent's point of view I don't think I like that idea too
>> much... Won't this prevent posts made in one group from propagating to
>> the other groups? Using your example above, if a respondent posts a
>> reply in help_and_support will his post show in the group where he
>> posted or will it only show in the follow up group? I take it that
>> the post wouldn't show in the windowsxp.general group? So the
>> readers there would not have a clue as to the replies made by
>> respondents in the other groups and they may very well reply for
>> nothing as they might just be repeating information already given
>> elsewhere. Or does the follow up to feature work differently than
>> what I think it does?
>> John
>
> I think ALL responses will land up in the network_web group,
> irrespective of the group the repondant was in. Just as intended.

That's what I thought, if that is indeed the case I think that it's a
terrible idea, I think that it is even worse than multiposting! People
may answer and then wonder where in the hell their post went to, then
thinking that it got lost somewhere in the ethereal they may post again.

The whole point about crossposting as opposed to multiposting is that
answers given in one group show up in the other groups and everybody
sees replies from other respondents in other groups. Setting a follow
up group just defeats this and leads to duplication of efforts by the
other readers. It also somewhat defeats the purpose of peer groups
where other readers can review and add to information given by others or
suggest alternative solutions.

John

On 12/5/2009 1:03 PM, John John - MVP wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>> On 12/4/2009 2:00 PM, JClark wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:45:49 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> crossposting to just a few related groups is fine. It's
>>>> multiposting that's bad.
>>> Ken,
>>> Thanks to you also for clarifying this important point. I so seldom
>>> need to post to more than one group, that I've never really
>>> investigated it. But I always felt there was something bad about
>>> "crossposting" Nice to know it's OK in certain circumstances.
>>
>> In addition to cross posting there's another thing you can do and that
>> is to set a follow-up flag. Let's say you have a problem with your
>> network and you want to ask a question. You cross-post a message to the
>> following newsgroups:
>>
>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web
>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>>
>> Then you can set a follow-up flag to
>> windows.public.windowsxp.network_web Now what this will do is that
>> whenever anyone replies to your message regardless of where they are
>> reading it, the reply will show up in the network_web newsgroup.
>>
>> By doing it this way you can ask your question to a broader audience,
>> yet only have to monitor one newsgroup for the replies and add to the
>> message volume of a busy newsgroup such as windowsxp.general.
>
> From a respondent's point of view I don't think I like that idea too
> much... Won't this prevent posts made in one group from propagating to
> the other groups? Using your example above, if a respondent posts a
> reply in help_and_support will his post show in the group where he
> posted or will it only show in the follow up group? I take it that the
> post wouldn't show in the windowsxp.general group? So the readers there
> would not have a clue as to the replies made by respondents in the other
> groups and they may very well reply for nothing as they might just be
> repeating information already given elsewhere. Or does the follow up to
> feature work differently than what I think it does?


*_SIGH_* Obviously I'm not thinking clearly... guess that's what
happens when you take Loritab to help deal with an abscessed tooth and
start reading newsgroups. :-) It like my favorite quote though I'm not
sure who said it, Mark Twain possibly?

It's better to be though a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

With that I'll just resign myself back to lurking... :-)




--

Roy Smith
Windows XP Pro SP3