1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Regedit

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by JB, Jan 11, 2010.

  1. JB

    JB Flightless Bird

    Could you tell me what this registry key is supposed to mean:the info in
    LastKey

    HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Applets\Regedit
    - LastKey ....

    Thank you
     
  2. John John - MVP

    John John - MVP Flightless Bird

    JB wrote:
    > Could you tell me what this registry key is supposed to mean:the info in
    > LastKey
    >
    > HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Applets\Regedit
    > - LastKey ....


    It's the last key that you opened in your last Regedit session, when you
    start Regedit it reads this value and opens to the same place where you
    last left off.

    John
     
  3. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    John John - MVP <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in
    news:-O93TgxykKHA.4500@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

    >
    > JB wrote:
    >> Could you tell me what this registry key is supposed to
    >> mean:the info in LastKey
    >>
    >> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion
    >> \Applets\Regedit - LastKey ....

    >
    > It's the last key that you opened in your last Regedit
    > session, when you start Regedit it reads this value and
    > opens to the same place where you last left off.


    Which is annoying as hell. It didn't do that in 9x, but of
    course, if it's not broken, MS /will/ find a way to break it (in
    the case of the registry, break it MORE).


    --
    There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
    and those that will break later.
    - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
    not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
    the quote. But it's true.)
     
  4. Norm Cook

    Norm Cook Flightless Bird

    Yes, it is annoying. See this:
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/244004

    "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9CFDE049F2264thanexit@188.40.43.245...
    > John John - MVP <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in
    > news:-O93TgxykKHA.4500@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
    >
    >>
    >> JB wrote:
    >>> Could you tell me what this registry key is supposed to
    >>> mean:the info in LastKey
    >>>
    >>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion
    >>> \Applets\Regedit - LastKey ....

    >>
    >> It's the last key that you opened in your last Regedit
    >> session, when you start Regedit it reads this value and
    >> opens to the same place where you last left off.

    >
    > Which is annoying as hell. It didn't do that in 9x, but of
    > course, if it's not broken, MS /will/ find a way to break it (in
    > the case of the registry, break it MORE).
    >
    >
    > --
    > There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
    > and those that will break later.
    > - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
    > not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
    > the quote. But it's true.)
     
  5. John John - MVP

    John John - MVP Flightless Bird

    thanatoid wrote:
    > John John - MVP <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in
    > news:-O93TgxykKHA.4500@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
    >
    >> JB wrote:
    >>> Could you tell me what this registry key is supposed to
    >>> mean:the info in LastKey
    >>>
    >>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion
    >>> \Applets\Regedit - LastKey ....

    >> It's the last key that you opened in your last Regedit
    >> session, when you start Regedit it reads this value and
    >> opens to the same place where you last left off.

    >
    > Which is annoying as hell. It didn't do that in 9x, but of
    > course, if it's not broken, MS /will/ find a way to break it (in
    > the case of the registry, break it MORE).


    I don't find it annoying at all, as a matter of fact I like this
    feature. I often make changes that I want to test, if the changes that
    I make have undesired effects when I start regedit I'm back at the same
    key where I can modify the entries again, if regedit would start with
    the registry collapsed I would have to navigate to the key to keep on
    working with the key and its values, that is considerably more annoying
    than having to collapse the registry. There are reasons for some of
    these settings, you may not like these things but other folks may find
    them to be very handy.

    In any case it's quite easy to collapse the registry when you start
    regetit and if that is too annoying you can change the way this behaves.

    John
     
  6. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    "Norm Cook" <normcook@cableone.net> wrote in
    news:-O6SOHB4kKHA.5604@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

    > Yes, it is annoying. See this:
    > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/244004


    Thank you /very/ much... I was resigned to just living with
    it...


    --
    There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
    and those that will break later.
    - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
    not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
    the quote. But it's true.)
     
  7. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    John John - MVP <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in
    news:-Oso9s04kKHA.2164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

    > thanatoid wrote:
    >> John John - MVP <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in
    >> news:-O93TgxykKHA.4500@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
    >>
    >>> JB wrote:
    >>>> Could you tell me what this registry key is supposed to
    >>>> mean:the info in LastKey
    >>>>
    >>>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersi
    >>>> on \Applets\Regedit - LastKey ....
    >>> It's the last key that you opened in your last Regedit
    >>> session, when you start Regedit it reads this value and
    >>> opens to the same place where you last left off.

    >>
    >> Which is annoying as hell. It didn't do that in 9x, but of
    >> course, if it's not broken, MS /will/ find a way to break
    >> it (in the case of the registry, break it MORE).

    >
    > I don't find it annoying at all, as a matter of fact I like
    > this feature.


    What a surprise.

    > I often make changes that I want to test, if
    > the changes that I make have undesired effects when I start
    > regedit I'm back at the same key where I can modify the
    > entries again, if regedit would start with the registry
    > collapsed I would have to navigate to the key to keep on
    > working with the key and its values, that is considerably
    > more annoying than having to collapse the registry.


    You might want to investigate the Ctl-C, Ctl-V shortcuts.

    > There
    > are reasons for some of these settings, you may not like
    > these things but other folks may find them to be very
    > handy.


    Just like with reg cleaners.

    > In any case it's quite easy to collapse the registry when
    > you start regetit and if that is too annoying you can
    > change the way this behaves.


    Well, someone else was kind enough to tell me how, so thanks for
    nothing as they say.

    BTW, where is the Message ID of that post where you gave a bunch
    of links to reg cleaner-caused disasters?


    --
    There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
    and those that will break later.
    - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
    not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
    the quote. But it's true.)
     
  8. John John - MVP

    John John - MVP Flightless Bird

    thanatoid wrote:

    > You might want to investigate the Ctl-C, Ctl-V shortcuts.


    You might want to try these same shortcuts yourself after you reboot to
    apply or test certain registry edits.

    > Well, someone else was kind enough to tell me how, so thanks for
    > nothing as they say.


    Oh, you're most welcome!

    > BTW, where is the Message ID of that post where you gave a bunch
    > of links to reg cleaner-caused disasters?


    If you can't thread discussions with your newsreader please create a new
    message and ask for help.

    John
     
  9. Peter

    Peter Flightless Bird

    "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9CFE74BD943C4thanexit@188.40.43.245...

    > You might want to investigate the Ctl-C, Ctl-V shortcuts.


    What about 'em? Do you think that Ctrl-C works in the registry?
     
  10. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    "Peter" <none@none.com> wrote in
    news:na63n.4970$5m.1541@newsfe12.iad:

    > "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9CFE74BD943C4thanexit@188.40.43.245...
    >
    >> You might want to investigate the Ctl-C, Ctl-V shortcuts.

    >
    > What about 'em? Do you think that Ctrl-C works in the
    > registry?


    Sigh. It does for values. I forgot it doesn't for key names, but
    you /can/ copy the key name (it's in the menus) and put it
    somewhere (I use a program called pasteboard [from sybia] for
    stuff like that) for almost-instant retrieve with search.

    There are programs (like a lot of reg cleaners) that take you
    directly to the key in question if you are not sure it /should/
    be deleted or not so you can see everything that's involved.

    (I couldn't resist another pro-reg cleaner plug.)

    That /is/ another idiotic thing about the Registry - no Ctl-
    C/etc support, you have to use the menus. It is /so/ stupid.


    --
    There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
    and those that will break later.
    - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
    not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
    the quote. But it's true.)
     
  11. Peter

    Peter Flightless Bird

    "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9CFF49AB5C01thanexit@188.40.43.245...
    > "Peter" <none@none.com> wrote in
    > news:na63n.4970$5m.1541@newsfe12.iad:
    >
    >> "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9CFE74BD943C4thanexit@188.40.43.245...
    >>
    >>> You might want to investigate the Ctl-C, Ctl-V shortcuts.

    >>
    >> What about 'em? Do you think that Ctrl-C works in the
    >> registry?

    >
    > Sigh. It does for values. I forgot it doesn't for key names, but
    > you /can/ copy the key name (it's in the menus) and put it
    > somewhere (I use a program called pasteboard [from sybia] for
    > stuff like that) for almost-instant retrieve with search.


    How clumsy. And this is supposed to be better than have regedit open to the
    last key?


    > There are programs (like a lot of reg cleaners) that take you
    > directly to the key in question if you are not sure it /should/
    > be deleted or not so you can see everything that's involved.


    Obviously you don't know how to create regedit path shortcuts.


    > (I couldn't resist another pro-reg cleaner plug.)


    You are new to XP, eventually you might find out what those who have years
    of experience know. XP is not Win98 and registry cleaning is not needed on
    XP, the only thing that these programs can do is cause problems. Registry
    cleaners are snake oil. But it's your computer and you have time on your
    hands and nothing else better to do so go on and clean to your heart's
    content.

    (I couldn't resist another stab at snake oil reg cleaners.)


    > That /is/ another idiotic thing about the Registry - no Ctl-
    > C/etc support, you have to use the menus. It is /so/ stupid.


    If XP is so bad stop complaining and go back to Win98. If Windows in
    general is so bad buy a Mac or be cheap and run Linux, do whatever you want
    but stop whining because most folks here will not give a flying you know
    what about your petty peeves. If you want to keep on using XP do yourself a
    favor and leave your Win98 baggages behind!
     
  12. ClueLess

    ClueLess Flightless Bird

    On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:01:46 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
    <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:

    >Which is annoying as hell. It didn't do that in 9x, but of
    >course, if it's not broken, MS /will/ find a way to break it (in
    >the case of the registry, break it MORE).


    Hi thanatoid

    If you have the 98SE available copy the regedit.exe to the WINDOWS
    flolder with the name regedit98.exe.

    It works in XP same as in the 98 way. Leave the XP's Regedit.exe be as
    it is required if you want to merge any registry entry using a reg
    file.

    --
    HTH

    ClueLess
     
  13. Peter

    Peter Flightless Bird

    "ClueLess" <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote in message
    news:1hauk5l5ohbbi9gpmve06prhbr27a9phln@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:01:46 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
    > <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>Which is annoying as hell. It didn't do that in 9x, but of
    >>course, if it's not broken, MS /will/ find a way to break it (in
    >>the case of the registry, break it MORE).

    >
    > Hi thanatoid
    >
    > If you have the 98SE available copy the regedit.exe to the WINDOWS
    > flolder with the name regedit98.exe.
    >
    > It works in XP same as in the 98 way. Leave the XP's Regedit.exe be as
    > it is required if you want to merge any registry entry using a reg
    > file.


    Great! Another Win98 user who thinks that Win98 registry tools are suitable
    for XP. What will the W98 registry editor do that the XP version doesn't?

    Lets see...

    1- It can't load hives. No big deal, clueless Win98 users wouldn't know
    anything about this anyway.

    2- It can't do security. Again no big deal, clueless Win98 users wouldn't
    know anything about permissions and security or out of ignorance they stick
    to their belief that FAT32 is superior to NTFS so they install XP on FAT32.

    3- It doesn't know the difference between a string, multi-string or
    expandable string value. Again no big deal because clueless Win98 users
    don't know the difference either so what you don't know can't hurt you.
     
  14. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote in
    news:1hauk5l5ohbbi9gpmve06prhbr27a9phln@4ax.com:

    > On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:01:46 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
    > <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>Which is annoying as hell. It didn't do that in 9x, but of
    >>course, if it's not broken, MS /will/ find a way to break
    >>it (in the case of the registry, break it MORE).

    >
    > Hi thanatoid
    >
    > If you have the 98SE available copy the regedit.exe to the
    > WINDOWS flolder with the name regedit98.exe.
    >
    > It works in XP same as in the 98 way. Leave the XP's
    > Regedit.exe be as it is required if you want to merge any
    > registry entry using a reg file.


    Ahh. Interesting. I have't gotten around to making that little
    fix another poster was kind enough to give me, so this is very
    timely. I actually do not foresee a need to go the XP registry
    often - rarely, in fact - so it may not even matter, ultimately.
    I seem to have the stupid OS more or less under control and
    there is only one program I am using with it which works fine.

    Still, thank you very much for the info.

    (And yes, I have/am on 98SELite now, it's a dual boot only
    because of that ONE video editing program for some old
    film/video work I want to "archive".)



    --
    There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
    and those that will break later.
    - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
    not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
    the quote. But it's true.)
     
  15. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    "Peter" <none@none.com> wrote in
    news:rLM3n.18178$DY5.9806@newsfe08.iad:

    <SNIP>

    > Great! Another Win98 user who thinks that Win98 registry
    > tools are suitable for XP. What will the W98 registry
    > editor do that the XP version doesn't?
    >
    > Lets see...
    >
    > 1- It can't load hives. No big deal, clueless Win98 users
    > wouldn't know anything about this anyway.


    I have NO idea what a hive is and I don't want to know.

    > 2- It can't do security. Again no big deal, clueless
    > Win98 users wouldn't know anything about permissions and
    > security or out of ignorance they stick to their belief
    > that FAT32 is superior to NTFS so they install XP on FAT32.


    As I did, and there is NO network support installed since I am
    the only person to use this machine and I use 98SELite to go on
    the net.

    > 3- It doesn't know the difference between a string,
    > multi-string or expandable string value. Again no big deal
    > because clueless Win98 users don't know the difference
    > either so what you don't know can't hurt you.


    Well, I sort of know, but I don't believe it would matter in my
    specific "unfolded messy registry view Vs. 5 closed trees" case,
    or in many others - in any case, as I said in the other reply,
    it is probably moot.

    I would be curious to see if there is another opinion on this
    issue.


    --
    There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
    and those that will break later.
    - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
    not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
    the quote. But it's true.)
     
  16. ClueLess

    ClueLess Flightless Bird

    On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:19:02 -0400, "Peter" <none@none.com> wrote:

    >Great! Another Win98 user who thinks that Win98 registry tools are suitable
    >for XP. What will the W98 registry editor do that the XP version doesn't?


    Bah!

    Did I suggest replace the XP's Regedit?

    The problem was the need to view registry as in Win98.

    --
    ClueLess
     
  17. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Flightless Bird

    The microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion newsgroup might know better.

    ClueLess wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:19:02 -0400, "Peter" <none@none.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Great! Another Win98 user who thinks that Win98 registry tools are
    >> suitable
    >> for XP. What will the W98 registry editor do that the XP version
    >> doesn't?

    >
    > Bah!
    >
    > Did I suggest replace the XP's Regedit?
    >
    > The problem was the need to view registry as in Win98.
    >
    > --
    > ClueLess
     
  18. Peter

    Peter Flightless Bird

    "ClueLess" <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote in message
    news:1vu0l59rrioj6mbq2gdduggia1801fg132@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:19:02 -0400, "Peter" <none@none.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Great! Another Win98 user who thinks that Win98 registry tools are
    >>suitable
    >>for XP. What will the W98 registry editor do that the XP version doesn't?

    >
    > Bah!
    >
    > Did I suggest replace the XP's Regedit?
    >
    > The problem was the need to view registry as in Win98.


    The problem is that you are trying to run w98 registry tools on XP. If you
    follow Norm's suggestion the registry will open collapsed and you won't see
    the registry tree any differently than you would using the w98 regedit
    version so why use the w98 regedit? Using these w98 tools on XP is just bad
    advice.
     
  19. JB

    JB Flightless Bird

    I am getting confused. What has all this to do with my oroginal post?

    JB



    "Peter" <none@none.com> escreveu na mensagem
    news:W164n.38980$Gf3.28089@newsfe22.iad...
    > "ClueLess" <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:1vu0l59rrioj6mbq2gdduggia1801fg132@4ax.com...
    >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:19:02 -0400, "Peter" <none@none.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Great! Another Win98 user who thinks that Win98 registry tools are
    >>>suitable
    >>>for XP. What will the W98 registry editor do that the XP version
    >>>doesn't?

    >>
    >> Bah!
    >>
    >> Did I suggest replace the XP's Regedit?
    >>
    >> The problem was the need to view registry as in Win98.

    >
    > The problem is that you are trying to run w98 registry tools on XP. If
    > you follow Norm's suggestion the registry will open collapsed and you
    > won't see the registry tree any differently than you would using the w98
    > regedit version so why use the w98 regedit? Using these w98 tools on XP
    > is just bad advice.
    >
     
  20. John John - MVP

    John John - MVP Flightless Bird

    It has nothing to do with your original post, your thread was hijacked
    by a disgruntled XP user who likes to rant and vent against Microsoft.

    John

    JB wrote:
    > I am getting confused. What has all this to do with my oroginal post?
    >
    > JB
    >
    >
    >
    > "Peter" <none@none.com> escreveu na mensagem
    > news:W164n.38980$Gf3.28089@newsfe22.iad...
    >> "ClueLess" <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:1vu0l59rrioj6mbq2gdduggia1801fg132@4ax.com...
    >>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:19:02 -0400, "Peter" <none@none.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Great! Another Win98 user who thinks that Win98 registry tools are
    >>>> suitable
    >>>> for XP. What will the W98 registry editor do that the XP version
    >>>> doesn't?
    >>> Bah!
    >>>
    >>> Did I suggest replace the XP's Regedit?
    >>>
    >>> The problem was the need to view registry as in Win98.

    >> The problem is that you are trying to run w98 registry tools on XP. If
    >> you follow Norm's suggestion the registry will open collapsed and you
    >> won't see the registry tree any differently than you would using the w98
    >> regedit version so why use the w98 regedit? Using these w98 tools on XP
    >> is just bad advice.
    >>

    >
    >
     

Share This Page