empty folder

[Bob Adkins]

This is what is known as 'spurious reasoning'.
It is on a par with: eat shit; 100 million flies can't be wrong

Well, that's IS good reasoning... if you're a fly.



-- Bob

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I would guess there are 1000's of satisfied SafeXP users, and a
few dozen that are suspicious of it. That should tell you
something.

Yes. That you are guessing.

I think the people here are smart enough
to know that all information given here is PERSONAL OPINION, and
should be weighed and filtered with their own knowledge.

Not all information posted here is 'PERSONAL OPINION'. For example,
Karen has posted facts about what the program does to the registry.

I don't think your hair-on-fire scare tactics are a good
alternative to my admittedly more casual approach.

But the fact-posting tactic seems to have worked out quite well.
Tricksy omega.

 

[omega]

If you ask the author SPECIFIC questions, he will tell you there are
compromises. By this I mean there are XP registry entries that have no
function in Win9X.

No knowledgeable or responsible programmer would create keys that are
not applicable to the target registry. The API to *read* the registry,
basically all *other* programmers learn that at the same time as how
to write to it.

The programming behind SafeXP is so weak as to seem to be nothing more that
a set of registry keys, hidden into a compiled exe, which dumps that out
onto the system.

In that case, it'd be a lot more honest, a lot less hype, to just distribute
a .reg file, which equally does not read the registry. Then tell the shallow
types like you, "Here merge this whole thing, blindly, and then chant to
yourself about how much you like it."

 

[omega]

Well, that's IS good reasoning... if you're a fly.

You might be a fly, Bob, but most of the rest in ACF are not.

 

[omega]

It's like standing back and watching a full volcanic eruption.

It's like I had to explain, over and over, the behavior of the program.
Because you sit there like a dumb pile of mud, unable to process any of the
facts.

 

[jo]

You might be a fly, Bob, but most of the rest in ACF are not.

Do I get a point for setting you up for the punch line?

 

[omega]

All I'm saying is that SafeXP caused NO HARM to my registry.

If you wanted to make these statements whatsoever about what it did to
your registry, then you would have needed to look at *that* information --
what it to your registry. It's information that you never bothered with.

That which is your choice, on your own computer, within your own usage.

But to user your total lack of one piece of information of your own, against
full logs, and make your generalizations from there, as you have done, it
shows you as a foolish, loud blowhard.

I don't expect them to. I think the people here are smart enough to know
that all information given here is PERSONAL OPINION, and should be weighed
and filtered with their own knowledge.

Logs of program behavior are not personal opinion, Bob. You try to put that
on par with your idiotic generalizations? Right.

 

[omega]

Do I get a point for setting you up for the punch line?

When seeing how *easily* that was set up, the natural implication here, I
even tried to resist.

But then, what the heck, the way he has been brainlessly buzzing over the
shit & and the extent to which he's become so non-stop irritating, how can
I not agree about the attributes involved.

 

[omega]

By this I mean there are XP registry entries that have no
function in Win9X.

You mean the XP in the name? Where you ignored all the issues, and made your
idiotic comment quoted above, about "stick with old utilities"? Or are you
*still* imagining that Outlook 8,9,10, and all that rest is part of the XP
registry?

 

[omega]

Yea, because I use no logs, I don't know beans, do I?

Yes, in part, that you make generalizations out of thin air, without
consulting any actual reports. Combined with how you have shown in this
thread that you do not understand how a program is expected to properly
interact with the registry. Combined too with your ignorance of the keys
involved.

Its registry changes, during the save-restore settings action, included,
amongst a great many, the resets it does on the msie internet zones. It
turned on full Active Scripting & Active-X control downloads. Without
authorization. Without notifying the user it has done so.

As to harm that can result -- from just this one area alone? Yes. In
case you haven't heard, That indeed makes a user vulnerable to a wide
array of potentially malicious actions from websites. Wait, you have
heard. That's where you argue endlessly, for years, with Aaron. So now
you are espousing that everyone with MSIE should run a program that will
reset, without their knowledge, a program that will buggily reset all
their internet security zones to promiscuous? Swell advice, Bob.

 

[omega]

[Snipping, but want to say how much I appreciate your comments in this,
and your other post, Mike.]

I will work on this starting processing delay issue and post back.

It's the easiest first step to look over if there are orphan refs in startup
which Windows might be trying to look up. Which startup manager(s) do you
use?

 

[Bob Adkins]

It's like I had to explain, over and over, the behavior of the program.
Because you sit there like a dumb pile of mud, unable to process any of the
facts.

I'm still sitting here wondering what I said that caused all the
pyrotechnics. I don't think I said anything to deserve such a vicious
flogging or dredging up old stuff that had nothing to do with the
discussion. Frankly Karen, you're showing a vicious side of yourself I
wasn't aware of.



-- Bob

 

[Bob Adkins]

seem to be nothing more than
a set of registry keys, hidden into a compiled exe, which dumps that out
onto the system.

Right. That's all ANY registry tweaker is.

In that case, it'd be a lot more honest, a lot less hype, to just distribute
a .reg file, which equally does not read the registry. Then tell the shallow
types like you, "Here merge this whole thing, blindly, and then chant to
yourself about how much you like it."

That wasn't nice Karen.

-- Bob

 

[Bob Adkins]

You mean the XP in the name?

No, I mean there are differences in the XP registry and the 9X registry. For
example, any registry keys pertaining to XP Services, Firewall, etc. are
just occupying space in Win9X.

Where you ignored all the issues, and made your
idiotic comment quoted above, about "stick with old utilities"? Or are you
*still* imagining that Outlook 8,9,10, and all that rest is part of the XP
registry?

I didn't say anything of the sort.

My entire point is that it's advisable to be careful with new registry
tweakers, because they may not be well tested or totally compatible with
older OS. This especially pertains to those who are not prepared to restore
or edit their registry. What's so evil about that advice?

-- Bob

 

[omega]

Right. That's all ANY registry tweaker is.

WTF? How extremely clueless can you get!

FreshUI, TweakUI, WCP, X-Setup, X-Set v2 (the original X-Setup), every one
I have, the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO is read the registry. Showing the
current systems settings for each applicable tweak, directly in their
interface. Interacting with the system, and with the user, exactly as
a program is supposed to do.

Not one of these does a thing close to mindlessly dumping out precompiled
krap.

How long are you going to draw out this nonstop display of your ignorance,
Bob?

 

[omega]

I'm still sitting here wondering what I said that caused all the
pyrotechnics.

Pyrotechnics? You mean your insults, your "you sound like you were
violated," your "get a life," etc, coupled with your non-stop stream
of completely idiotic statements?

Why don't you quit?

 

[omega]

No, I mean there are differences in the XP registry and the 9X registry.
D'OH.

For example, any registry keys pertaining to XP Services, Firewall, etc. are
just occupying space in Win9X.

And you attacked me for criticizing a program dumping out keys onto a system
when those did not apply to that system, that program's actions as reported.
Some keys related to some of the services not used by 98. Others keys
related to software that could be found, or not found, on either OS. The
whole point is that any software that gets to stage A of functionality,
it has the ability to READ the target registry.

older OS.

This was not an OS issue, how can you not get that through your head.
You are so outrageously fixated on your tiresome XP singsonging. Wave
your XP rahrah flag when you want, Bob. But don't bring it in when it
is not the issue at hand.

 

[omega]

Frankly Karen, you're showing a vicious side of yourself I
wasn't aware of.

IOW, you thought you could DISH OUT all the krap you wish. My not
being passive about letting you do that, you then insultingly label
"vicious." Go kick on a teddy bear, instead, if its passive your
little ego craves.

 

[Bob Adkins]

How long are you going to draw out this nonstop display of your ignorance,
Bob?

How long are you going to keep up the foul-mouthed flaming?

-- Bob

 

[omega]

How long are you going to keep up the foul-mouthed flaming?

You have very clearly resolved to litter out your insults and idiocies
without cessation.