On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:17:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <be4m9ildsnm4emfi58n3pj9o77q7pvaips@4ax.com> at Tue, 27 Jun
>2023 11:46:56, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> writes
>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:07:33 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <u7eii7.e54.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> at Tue, 27 Jun
>>>2023 09:52:50, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes
>>>>Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>[]
>>>>> To copy text from a Command Prompt to the clipboard, highlight it with
>>>>> the mouse and press Enter.
>>>
>>>Yes, that's somewhat more tedious, but works fine.
>>
>>I'm sorry, more tedious than what? I don't know of an easier way to mark
>>(select) text and copy it to the clipboard. The only other way I know of
>>is via the Command Prompt menu system, either via the keyboard or the
>>mouse, but that's much more tedious so I'm curious if you know of a
>>third way.
>>
>No, I just meant it was more tedious than pasting text _to_ the command
>prompt, as you have to be quite precise with the mouse when you
>highlight it. (As it's a rectangle you are marking, and if it's more
>than one line, you can miss getting the whole width.)

Understood. Thanks, John.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:13:11 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <gk4m9idp2vnoe3a6jj5qt3rrdnrbupk6ku@4ax.com> at Tue, 27 Jun
>2023 11:48:40, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> writes
>[]
>>With QuickEdit Mode enabled, pasting text is a single right-click. I'm
>>not sure what "then P/select paste" refers to.
>>
>Thanks! I just discovered I _didn't_ have QuickEdit mode enabled. Now to
>see whether I remember to use that paste method!

Mystery solved. Good luck. :-)

In message <649b71e4@news.ausics.net> at Wed, 28 Jun 2023 09:33:57,
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> writes
>In alt.comp.software.firefox J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <649a5cff@news.ausics.net> at Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:52:32,
>> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> writes
>>>In alt.comp.software.firefox Brian Gregory
>>><void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 20/06/2023 23:39, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> I can use Wget to download new versions like that from the command
>>>>> line just as easily as running it with the "-U" option anyway. Not
>>>>> that I need to do so often.
>>>>
>>>> How can that big long line with a URL in it be just as easy to type?
>>>
>>>Paste it into a .bat script along with the Wget command then just
>>>run that (although I actually do the Linux equivalent).
>>>
>> That's fine if you're always wanting to use the same URL. I think Brian
>> was thinking it'd be a different one each time (as per the original
>> thread subject).
>
>It's not, because I used 'latest' instead of the version number in
>the URL that I posted:
>https://github.com/ytdl-patched/youtube-dl/releases/latest/download/yout
>ube-dl.exe
>
>It will download the youtube-dl.exe file from the latest daily
>build. No need to touch the URL again after pasting it into a .bat
>file (or Linux equivalent) because it always points to the latest
>one.
>
Not the URL of where to download yt-dlp.exe - the URL of the video
you're trying to download _using_ it (which would be different every
time you wanted to download a new video)! I think Brian was questioning
any command line method rather than a GUI utility, as you'd have to type
the URL of the video; however, two of us have posted means of pasting
that, rather than typing it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... behaving morally does not require religious adherence. - The Right Rev
Nigel McCulloch\Bishop of Manchester (Radio Times, 24-30 September 2011

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:25:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <0ecm9iplsers0rei4tkr760ik97l4it8nm@4ax.com> at Tue, 27 Jun
>2023 12:02:59, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:42:24 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>>wrote:
>[]
>>>Agreed. If I were to work in a Command Prompt window on a strange PC,
>>>I'd make sure QuickEdit Mode is enabled. On my own PCs, it's enabled,
>>
>>Same here.
>>
>>>but I don't remember if I had to do that or if it was a default.
>>
>>Same here. That's true of 90% of the setting here. Not only do I not
>>remember whether I changed the settings, but if I did, I don't
>>remember how I did it. Once something works the way I want it to, I
>>almost always quickly put it out of my mind.
>
>That's why I hate changing machines,

Same here. That's also why I hate doing a clean reinstallation of
Windows. It's a lot of work to get it back to the way I want it, and I
almost never succeed in getting it back exactly the way I want. I
reinstalled Windows several months ago. Today, it's almost exactly
back the way I want it, but there are still two or three things that
are not exactly right.

>and also am not keen on the
>smart-alecks who say they can get an out-of-the-box machine to how they
>want it very quickly:

Same here. It typically takes me at least two full days.

> I presume they just work mostly with the defaults.

Yes, very likely.

>In my case, some of the "settings" actually involve third-party utils,
>which I will have forgotten not only how to set them up and where I got
>them (even assuming they're still available!), but even that they _are_
>such and not part of the OS.

And for me, what their names are.

And for me, it's not just a matter of Windows and third-party
utilities; it's also a matter of configuring application programs.

>I image (using Macrium - other similar are
>available) my C: partition (which contains just the OS and software;
>nearly all data is on D: [which is backed up by a simpler process]; C:
>is 50G, and at present less than half full)

My C: drive is 1TB, much bigger than I need it to be at the moment..
Only 105GB is used.

>from time to time - I can be
>back up after a disc failure, to how I want everything to be, a lot
>faster than finding all those settings (and utils) and tweaking them.
>
>Others can do what _they_ want, of course.

On 6/28/23 10:19 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> I
> reinstalled Windows several months ago. Today, it's almost exactly
> back the way I want it, but there are still two or three things that
> are not exactly right.
Why did you have to reinstall windows? Was it a virus/malware? Some
complex corruption or bloat?

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <0ecm9iplsers0rei4tkr760ik97l4it8nm@4ax.com> at Tue, 27 Jun
> 2023 12:02:59, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
> >On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:42:24 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> >wrote:
> []
> >>Agreed. If I were to work in a Command Prompt window on a strange PC,
> >>I'd make sure QuickEdit Mode is enabled. On my own PCs, it's enabled,
> >
> >Same here.
> >
> >>but I don't remember if I had to do that or if it was a default.
> >
> >Same here. That's true of 90% of the setting here. Not only do I not
> >remember whether I changed the settings, but if I did, I don't
> >remember how I did it. Once something works the way I want it to, I
> >almost always quickly put it out of my mind.
>
> That's why I hate changing machines, and also am not keen on the
> smart-alecks who say they can get an out-of-the-box machine to how they
> want it very quickly: I presume they just work mostly with the defaults.
> In my case, some of the "settings" actually involve third-party utils,
> which I will have forgotten not only how to set them up and where I got
> them (even assuming they're still available!), but even that they _are_
> such and not part of the OS. I image (using Macrium - other similar are
> available) my C: partition (which contains just the OS and software;
> nearly all data is on D: [which is backed up by a simpler process]; C:
> is 50G, and at present less than half full) from time to time - I can be
> back up after a disc failure, to how I want everything to be, a lot
> faster than finding all those settings (and utils) and tweaking them.
>
> Others can do what _they_ want, of course.

You seem to address two scenarios: (in reverse order) 1) getting back
up after some major event like a disk failure and 2) changing from one
machine to another.

For 1), I use Macrium Reflect image backup and (Cobian Backup) file
backup, i.e. like you do. That gets us back up in a reasonably short
time.

As you mention, 2) changing from one machine to another, is much.
much more time consuming, not 'just' because of having to reinstall all
the software (including knowing what software you had and where you got
it from), but mainly because you need to re-configure all that software
to get it back to the state you had it / liked it.

For the latter part, I keep detailed laptop_install_<model-number>
documentation files (just POA (Plain Old ASCII) text files).

They document, in cronological order, all the download, installation,
configuration, etc. steps, ever since I got the new system. For some of
the more elaborate procedures, I make seperate documentation files,
with a reference in the main documentation file.

For me, this has worked quite well for two decades (XP, Vista, 8.1 and
now 11). Yes, it's a lot of work, but it's a lot of work with little
bits at a time, instead of a massive amount of work at the very moment
you get the new machine, i.e. when it's probably the least convenient to
have to spend all that time.

Yes, I sometimes forget to add stuff to the documentation file, so
sometimes, I need to search for some other documentation file, but my
(keyword(s)/regular-expression) search facilities make that rather easy
most of the time, so no major drama.

Of course none of this is rocket science, but maybe it's food for
thought for some, hence this post.

On 29 Jun 2023 17:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> As you mention, 2) changing from one machine to another, is much.
> much more time consuming, not 'just' because of having to reinstall all
> the software (including knowing what software you had and where you got
> it from), but mainly because you need to re-configure all that software
> to get it back to the state you had it / liked it.
>

It helps enormously to have the old and new machines set up next to
each other, if that's possible. And if you feel like tinkering, you
can copy %APPDATA% from old to new machine after doing the software
installs, rather that making all the settings by typing and mousing.
Firefox and Thunderbird profiles are in %APPDATA% by default, for
instance.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

In message <MPG.3f07c3143ff8464990159@news.individual.net> at Thu, 29
Jun 2023 17:35:02, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> writes
>On 29 Jun 2023 17:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> As you mention, 2) changing from one machine to another, is much.
>> much more time consuming, not 'just' because of having to reinstall all
>> the software (including knowing what software you had and where you got
>> it from), but mainly because you need to re-configure all that software
>> to get it back to the state you had it / liked it.
>>
There's also the matter of all the new drivers, unless you manage to
find an _identical_ machine. I've been known to spend some time
searching out such.
>
>It helps enormously to have the old and new machines set up next to
>each other, if that's possible. And if you feel like tinkering, you
>can copy %APPDATA% from old to new machine after doing the software
>installs, rather that making all the settings by typing and mousing.
>Firefox and Thunderbird profiles are in %APPDATA% by default, for
>instance.
>
Useful tip, thanks. (I never really accepted the reasons given for
getting away from .ini files - let alone the registry; I always assumed
_most_ of the reason for the latter was antipiracy.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Have the courage to be ordinary - people make themselves so desperately unhappy
trying to be clever and totally original. (Robbie Coltrane, RT 8-14 Nov. 1997.)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 01:41:39 +0100, J. P. Gilliver
wrote:
> Useful tip, thanks. (I never really accepted the reasons given for
> getting away from .ini files - let alone the registry; I always assumed
> _most_ of the reason for the latter was antipiracy.)
>

As I understand it, .INI files are potentially slower
because they must be read sequentially. So on average,
each time the program accesses a setting it has to read
half the .INI file, as text (which is marginally slower
than binary).

The Registry, on the other hand, has random access, so
the number of reads is reduced. That's a definite plus.
And I like the idea of programs using a common
structure for their options. But there's a big minus to
the Registry too: if you edit an .INI file manually
you're unlikely to make some other program, or Windows
itself, stop working. But with the registry, if you
don't pay attention to where you are in the hierarchy,
you can really do some damage and potentially make
Windows unbootable. (We're told that all the time, but
I really wonder how often it happens in real life.)

I think by encouraging the %APPDATA% model, Microsoft
is essentially saying that even if accessing a value in
a sequential file, takes an extra fraction of a
millisecond, it makes no practical difference. And
unlike .INI files, program can actually store documents
in %APPDATA%.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 6/29/23 10:06 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 01:41:39 +0100, J. P. Gilliver
> wrote:
>> Useful tip, thanks. (I never really accepted the reasons given for
>> getting away from .ini files - let alone the registry; I always assumed
>> _most_ of the reason for the latter was antipiracy.)
>>
>
> As I understand it, .INI files are potentially slower
> because they must be read sequentially. So on average,
> each time the program accesses a setting it has to read
> half the .INI file, as text (which is marginally slower
> than binary).
....

The best thing about .ini files was that you could edit them yourself;
if you did something stupid all you had to do was delete the edited
file, copy the original to work on and try again. I never felt comfy
tweaking the registry -- if you screwed up you could REALLY screw up.

--
Cheers, Bev
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator when
something closes the door from the inside.

In message <MPG.3f0802cec1f5fa2e99015a@news.individual.net> at Thu, 29
Jun 2023 22:06:55, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> writes
>On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 01:41:39 +0100, J. P. Gilliver
>wrote:
>> Useful tip, thanks. (I never really accepted the reasons given for
>> getting away from .ini files - let alone the registry; I always assumed
>> _most_ of the reason for the latter was antipiracy.)
>>
>
>As I understand it, .INI files are potentially slower
>because they must be read sequentially. So on average,
>each time the program accesses a setting it has to read
>half the .INI file, as text (which is marginally slower
>than binary).

Yes, but if read in when a prog. starts (the main executable, which also
has to be read when a prog. starts, is usually _much_ bigger), and kept
in memory - presumably in prog.-appropriate form, not the text version -
and written back when you close, shouldn't really be a valid reason.
(OK, changes wouldn't be saved if you crash the prog. - or, it could
save periodically.)
>
>The Registry, on the other hand, has random access, so
>the number of reads is reduced. That's a definite plus.
>And I like the idea of programs using a common
>structure for their options. But there's a big minus to

That, I think, is the main reason touted for it. But how many prog.s
genuinely share settings? (See also next post.)

>the Registry too: if you edit an .INI file manually
>you're unlikely to make some other program, or Windows
>itself, stop working. But with the registry, if you
>don't pay attention to where you are in the hierarchy,
>you can really do some damage and potentially make
>Windows unbootable. (We're told that all the time, but
>I really wonder how often it happens in real life.)
>
>I think by encouraging the %APPDATA% model, Microsoft
>is essentially saying that even if accessing a value in
>a sequential file, takes an extra fraction of a
>millisecond, it makes no practical difference. And
>unlike .INI files, program can actually store documents
>in %APPDATA%.
>
Hmm.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way.

In message <u7lpjj$2fa0k$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 29 Jun 2023 22:35:45,
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes
>On 6/29/23 10:06 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 01:41:39 +0100, J. P. Gilliver
>> wrote:
>>> Useful tip, thanks. (I never really accepted the reasons given for
>>>getting away from .ini files - let alone the registry; I always
>>>assumed _most_ of the reason for the latter was antipiracy.)
>>>
>> As I understand it, .INI files are potentially slower
>> because they must be read sequentially. So on average,
>> each time the program accesses a setting it has to read
>> half the .INI file, as text (which is marginally slower
>> than binary).
>...
>
>The best thing about .ini files was that you could edit them yourself;

Not only could permission-wise, but they were usually in human-readable
form, though sometimes needing a bit of head-scratching. My main hate of
the registry, I suppose, is the impenetrable strings of hex - not just
for the parameters, which I suppose I accept as quicker for machine use
(such as different bits of a DWORD controlling different things), but
the totally incomprehensible names of the keys, like 1234-567.8910,
rather than understandable names. I suspect that started as mostly
antipiracy, and then became just laziness. On the whole, .ini files were
comprehensible, though sometimes needed a bit of guidance.

>if you did something stupid all you had to do was delete the edited
>file, copy the original to work on and try again. I never felt comfy
>tweaking the registry -- if you screwed up you could REALLY screw up.
>
Hence my imaging.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way.

On 30/06/2023 01:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <MPG.3f07c3143ff8464990159@news.individual.net> at Thu, 29
> Jun 2023 17:35:02, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> writes
>> On 29 Jun 2023 17:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>   As you mention, 2) changing from one machine to another, is much.
>>> much more time consuming, not 'just' because of having to reinstall all
>>> the software (including knowing what software you had and where you got
>>> it from), but mainly because you need to re-configure all that software
>>> to get it back to the state you had it / liked it.
>>>
> There's also the matter of all the new drivers, unless you manage to
> find an _identical_ machine. I've been known to spend some time
> searching out such.

Snappy Driver Installer Origin.
Especially good for after an install of Windows where you don't have the
motherboard driver CD
- https://www.glenn.delahoy.com/snappy-driver-installer-origin/

>>
>> It helps enormously to have the old and new machines set up next to
>> each other, if that's possible. And if you feel like tinkering, you
>> can copy %APPDATA% from old to new machine after doing the software
>> installs, rather that making all the settings by typing and mousing.
>> Firefox and Thunderbird profiles are in %APPDATA% by default, for
>> instance.
>>
> Useful tip, thanks. (I never really accepted the reasons given for
> getting away from .ini files - let alone the registry; I always assumed
> _most_ of the reason for the latter was antipiracy.)

--
Regards
wasbit

In message <u7m7sb$2gns4$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 30 Jun 2023 10:39:24,
wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.invalid> writes
>On 30/06/2023 01:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> There's also the matter of all the new drivers, unless you manage to
>>find an _identical_ machine. I've been known to spend some time
>>searching out such.
>
>Snappy Driver Installer Origin.
>Especially good for after an install of Windows where you don't have
>the motherboard driver CD
> - https://www.glenn.delahoy.com/snappy-driver-installer-origin/
[]
I've seen so many "we'll help you update/get your driver" utilities,
most of which are either excellent malware gateways (drivers get past
most protection), or at least lead you round in circles, trying to sell
you things at each lap, that I'm very dubious of them. Is this one any
different? I note it doesn't include the "driver packs"; one wonders how
comprehensive those are, especially for new hardware on older OSs.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Where's Piglet?" asked Pooh, as he munched a pork pie.

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> My main hate of the registry, I suppose, is the impenetrable strings of hex

What about the ROT13 sections?

On 6/30/2023 1:35 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 6/29/23 10:06 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 01:41:39 +0100, J. P. Gilliver
>> wrote:
>>> Useful tip, thanks. (I never really accepted the reasons given for getting away from .ini files - let alone the registry; I always assumed _most_ of the reason for the latter was antipiracy.)
>>>
>>
>> As I understand it, .INI files are potentially slower
>> because they must be read sequentially. So on average,
>> each time the program accesses a setting it has to read
>> half the .INI file, as text (which is marginally slower
>> than binary).
> ...
>
> The best thing about  .ini files was that you could edit them yourself; if you did something stupid all you had to do was delete the edited file, copy the original to work on and try again.  I never felt comfy tweaking the registry -- if you screwed up you could REALLY screw up.
>

The OS, repetitively, can be reading *10,000* registry items
per second, in a kind of polled mode. You can check for this
behavior, with Process Monitor (procmon64.exe).

The Registry is memory mapped, which is why that sort of rubbish
behavior "does not matter".

The hardest entry in the Registry to edit ? why, one
owned by TrustedInstaller. When a malware sets a registry
entry in the BIOS, it uses the TrustedInstaller token,
just to make you miserable. There is a program to give
your Command Prompt window the token, and then you can
launch regedit.exe with TrustedInstaller permissions. Yum.

For the longest while, nobody would tell me whether the
Registry was a database or a file system. "is it a candy mint
or a breath mint?". Then one day I found an article that
claimed it was a file system. And that was one less thing
to think about.

Each registry entry has ownership.
The registry can contain "binary blobs", otherwise known
as "files". But it is not advised to make a monkey out of
yourself by doing that. There is absolutely nothing to be
gained, by bloating out the Registry. Not even for beer bets.
It's possible, for example, that a TZ (timezone) definition,
is a tiny file.

The registry has become pretty slow on search. Don't ask me why.
If we knew why, we could have that discussion about candy mint
or breath mint again :-)

Paul

On 6/30/2023 5:20 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>> But with the registry, if you
>> don't pay attention to where you are in the hierarchy,
>> you can really do some damage and potentially make
>> Windows unbootable. (We're told that all the time, but
>> I really wonder how often it happens in real life.)

Registry entries are addressed by absolute paths.

You know, those strings we paste into this newsgroup all the time.

The file system (NTFS) is journaled.

The registry files are journaled.

This makes the modern registry, robust to switching off the power.

Back when there was no journaling whatsoever, we used to "fear the registry".
Because it could eat our lunch.

An early access to the Registry, is for the value of the AutoChk.
That's the multiline storage containing "how would you like
to check NTFS before we mount it?" (do not ask me how you read the
registry without mounting the stupid file system, so it must already
be mounted just before they do this).

Malware used to like to edit this Multi_SZ (multi-line text thingy)
with additional stuff to launch, such as the .EXE name of the malware.
They would leave the final line of the stanza set to "autocheck autochk *"
as a joke (because they would not want to prevent the system from checking NTFS).

https://www.thewindowsclub.com/bootexecute-autocheck-autochk-windows

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > SYSTEM > CurrentControlSet > Control > SessionManager
BootExecute Multi_SZ autocheck autochk *

Hardly any malware does this today, but it pays to not forget the past.

Same as goes for "flushing/deleting all your System Restore points when
malware is onboard". Yes, malwares still inject themselves into SR.

Paul

On 29 Jun 2023 17:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <0ecm9iplsers0rei4tkr760ik97l4it8nm@4ax.com> at Tue, 27 Jun
>> 2023 12:02:59, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>> >On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:42:24 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>> >wrote:
>> []
>> >>Agreed. If I were to work in a Command Prompt window on a strange PC,
>> >>I'd make sure QuickEdit Mode is enabled. On my own PCs, it's enabled,
>> >
>> >Same here.
>> >
>> >>but I don't remember if I had to do that or if it was a default.
>> >
>> >Same here. That's true of 90% of the setting here. Not only do I not
>> >remember whether I changed the settings, but if I did, I don't
>> >remember how I did it. Once something works the way I want it to, I
>> >almost always quickly put it out of my mind.
>>
>> That's why I hate changing machines, and also am not keen on the
>> smart-alecks who say they can get an out-of-the-box machine to how they
>> want it very quickly: I presume they just work mostly with the defaults.
>> In my case, some of the "settings" actually involve third-party utils,
>> which I will have forgotten not only how to set them up and where I got
>> them (even assuming they're still available!), but even that they _are_
>> such and not part of the OS. I image (using Macrium - other similar are
>> available) my C: partition (which contains just the OS and software;
>> nearly all data is on D: [which is backed up by a simpler process]; C:
>> is 50G, and at present less than half full) from time to time - I can be
>> back up after a disc failure, to how I want everything to be, a lot
>> faster than finding all those settings (and utils) and tweaking them.
>>
>> Others can do what _they_ want, of course.
>
> You seem to address two scenarios: (in reverse order) 1) getting back
>up after some major event like a disk failure and 2) changing from one
>machine to another.
>
> For 1), I use Macrium Reflect image backup and (Cobian Backup) file
>backup,

Why do you use two? Are they different from each other? Is one better
than the other?

I use AOMEI? Do you recommend that I switch to one of the two you use?
Both of them? Why?

> i.e. like you do. That gets us back up in a reasonably short
>time.
>
> As you mention, 2) changing from one machine to another, is much.
>much more time consuming, not 'just' because of having to reinstall all
>the software (including knowing what software you had and where you got
>it from), but mainly because you need to re-configure all that software
>to get it back to the state you had it / liked it.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. And remembering what you reconfigured and how
you did it. And finding all the needed product keys.

> For the latter part, I keep detailed laptop_install_<model-number>
>documentation files (just POA (Plain Old ASCII) text files).

That's a very good idea. I've tried to do it more than once, but when
I make changes, or install something new to try it out, I invariably
forget to do it, so it's never worked well for me.

> They document, in cronological order, all the download, installation,
>configuration, etc. steps, ever since I got the new system. For some of
>the more elaborate procedures, I make seperate documentation files,
>with a reference in the main documentation file.
>
> For me, this has worked quite well for two decades (XP, Vista, 8.1 and
>now 11). Yes, it's a lot of work, but it's a lot of work with little
>bits at a time, instead of a massive amount of work at the very moment
>you get the new machine, i.e. when it's probably the least convenient to
>have to spend all that time.
>
> Yes, I sometimes forget to add stuff to the documentation file, so
>sometimes, I need to search for some other documentation file, but my
>(keyword(s)/regular-expression) search facilities make that rather easy
>most of the time, so no major drama.
>
> Of course none of this is rocket science, but maybe it's food for
>thought for some, hence this post.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 01:41:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <MPG.3f07c3143ff8464990159@news.individual.net> at Thu, 29
>Jun 2023 17:35:02, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> writes
>>On 29 Jun 2023 17:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> As you mention, 2) changing from one machine to another, is much.
>>> much more time consuming, not 'just' because of having to reinstall all
>>> the software (including knowing what software you had and where you got
>>> it from), but mainly because you need to re-configure all that software
>>> to get it back to the state you had it / liked it.
>>>
>There's also the matter of all the new drivers, unless you manage to
>find an _identical_ machine.

I've never switched to an identical machine. Every time I've gotten a
new machine, it's been an upgrade, almost always both of the hardware
and the operating system.

>I've been known to spend some time
>searching out such.
>>
>>It helps enormously to have the old and new machines set up next to
>>each other, if that's possible. And if you feel like tinkering, you
>>can copy %APPDATA% from old to new machine after doing the software
>>installs, rather that making all the settings by typing and mousing.
>>Firefox and Thunderbird profiles are in %APPDATA% by default, for
>>instance.
>>
>Useful tip, thanks. (I never really accepted the reasons given for
>getting away from .ini files - let alone the registry; I always assumed
>_most_ of the reason for the latter was antipiracy.)

As far as I'm concerned, there have never been good reasons. I still
think having a registry with settings for all programs rather than
separate ini files for each was a very bad idea. The registry should
be the "ini" file just for Windows, not anything else.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 10:25:29 +0100, J. P. Gilliver
wrote:
> My main hate of
> the registry, I suppose, is the impenetrable strings of hex - not just
> for the parameters, which I suppose I accept as quicker for machine use
> (such as different bits of a DWORD controlling different things), but
> the totally incomprehensible names of the keys, like 1234-567.8910,
> rather than understandable names. I suspect that started as mostly
> antipiracy
>

Sounds like you're talking about GUIDs.
<https://betterexplained.com/articles/the-quick-guide-
to-guids/>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_ident
ifier>

I remember 20-30 years ago we learned about them while
learning COM programming. The idea was to create a
unique identifier without any kind of central registry
yet with ultra-low probability of duplicates. Wikipedia
lists some other uses.

I don't recall ever hearing any connection to
antipiracy.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2023 17:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <0ecm9iplsers0rei4tkr760ik97l4it8nm@4ax.com> at Tue, 27 Jun
> >> 2023 12:02:59, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
> >> >On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:42:24 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> >> >wrote:
> >> []
> >> >>Agreed. If I were to work in a Command Prompt window on a strange PC,
> >> >>I'd make sure QuickEdit Mode is enabled. On my own PCs, it's enabled,
> >> >
> >> >Same here.
> >> >
> >> >>but I don't remember if I had to do that or if it was a default.
> >> >
> >> >Same here. That's true of 90% of the setting here. Not only do I not
> >> >remember whether I changed the settings, but if I did, I don't
> >> >remember how I did it. Once something works the way I want it to, I
> >> >almost always quickly put it out of my mind.
> >>
> >> That's why I hate changing machines, and also am not keen on the
> >> smart-alecks who say they can get an out-of-the-box machine to how they
> >> want it very quickly: I presume they just work mostly with the defaults.
> >> In my case, some of the "settings" actually involve third-party utils,
> >> which I will have forgotten not only how to set them up and where I got
> >> them (even assuming they're still available!), but even that they _are_
> >> such and not part of the OS. I image (using Macrium - other similar are
> >> available) my C: partition (which contains just the OS and software;
> >> nearly all data is on D: [which is backed up by a simpler process]; C:
> >> is 50G, and at present less than half full) from time to time - I can be
> >> back up after a disc failure, to how I want everything to be, a lot
> >> faster than finding all those settings (and utils) and tweaking them.
> >>
> >> Others can do what _they_ want, of course.
> >
> > You seem to address two scenarios: (in reverse order) 1) getting back
> >up after some major event like a disk failure and 2) changing from one
> >machine to another.
> >
> > For 1), I use Macrium Reflect image backup and (Cobian Backup) file
> >backup,
>
> Why do you use two? Are they different from each other? Is one better
> than the other?

Macrium Reflect image backups are mainly for cases where one cannotget
the system to boot, for whatever reason, for example a disk failure as
John mentioned.

The (Cobian Backup) file-oriented backup is for getting files back, in
case one has deleted, incorrectly modified, etc. them. For example, my
Thunderbird 'profile' is (also) backed up by the file-orieted backup.

I would advise doing the same, i.e. an image backup of all your
partitions - except a pure 'data' partition if you have one - and a
file-oriented backup of stuff you think might be needed to restored
without restoring the system itself.

> I use AOMEI? Do you recommend that I switch to one of the two you use?
> Both of them? Why?

Use whatever suits you best.

While I like Cobian Backup a lot, I can't really recommend it, because
it's very powerful and hence not easy to use. Strange tidbit: It doesn't
have a restore facility! Why? Because the backup are just plain Windows
folders/files with a bit of timestamps and backup type
(Full/Incremental) thrown in in the folder/file names.

[...]

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2023 17:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > As you mention, 2) changing from one machine to another, is much.
> > much more time consuming, not 'just' because of having to reinstall all
> > the software (including knowing what software you had and where you got
> > it from), but mainly because you need to re-configure all that software
> > to get it back to the state you had it / liked it.
>
> It helps enormously to have the old and new machines set up next to
> each other, if that's possible.

Yes, I try to do that as much as possible. The last time - from a
Windows 8.1 laptop to a new Windows 11 one - the old laptop was quite
sick (heavily flickering display which could only be temporarily 'fixed'
with great difficulty), but I managed anyway.

And if I don't have the old machine, I try to use another machine -
mainly my wife's - to mount the old images/backup-drives.

> And if you feel like tinkering, you
> can copy %APPDATA% from old to new machine after doing the software
> installs, rather that making all the settings by typing and mousing.
> Firefox and Thunderbird profiles are in %APPDATA% by default, for
> instance.

Yes, that can help, but settings/data tend to be all over the place
for different programs. Some in %APPDATA%, some in \ProgramData, some in
subfolders of \Users\<users> *other* than %APPDATA%, some in the
Registry, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Bottom line: Windows is a mess. (But you already knew that, didn't
you!? :-))

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <MPG.3f07c3143ff8464990159@news.individual.net> at Thu, 29
> Jun 2023 17:35:02, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> writes
> >On 29 Jun 2023 17:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> As you mention, 2) changing from one machine to another, is much.
> >> much more time consuming, not 'just' because of having to reinstall all
> >> the software (including knowing what software you had and where you got
> >> it from), but mainly because you need to re-configure all that software
> >> to get it back to the state you had it / liked it.
> >>
> There's also the matter of all the new drivers, unless you manage to
> find an _identical_ machine. I've been known to spend some time
> searching out such.

Yes, I contemplated to do that when my Windows 8.1 laptop broke beyond
(economically feasible) repair and got replaced by a new laptop which
came with - as yet uninstalled - Windows 11.

I thought about trying to restore the old Windows 8.1 environment on
the new laptop, but found it too risky (amongst others for the drivers
issue you mention) and thought I might lose the on-disk Windows 11
'copy' of the new machine (i.e. it's hard - but probably not impossible
- to image a machine which doesn't yet have a Windows *installation* on
it,

[...]

On 30 Jun 2023 14:24:13 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> Why do you use two? Are they different from each other? Is one better
>> than the other?
>
> Macrium Reflect image backups are mainly for cases where one cannotget
>the system to boot, for whatever reason, for example a disk failure as
>John mentioned.
>
> The (Cobian Backup) file-oriented backup is for getting files back, in
>case one has deleted, incorrectly modified, etc. them. For example, my
>Thunderbird 'profile' is (also) backed up by the file-orieted backup.
>
> I would advise doing the same, i.e. an image backup of all your
>partitions - except a pure 'data' partition if you have one - and a
>file-oriented backup of stuff you think might be needed to restored
>without restoring the system itself.

Do you not trust the Macrium images to act as your file backups?

I do, which is why I'm curious.

On 30 Jun 2023 14:24:13 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Macrium Reflect image backups are mainly for cases where one cannotget
> the system to boot, for whatever reason, for example a disk failure as
> John mentioned.
>
> The (Cobian Backup) file-oriented backup is for getting files back, in
> case one has deleted, incorrectly modified, etc. them. For example, my
> Thunderbird 'profile' is (also) backed up by the file-orieted backup.
>

Are you using Macrium Reflect Free or the paid version? Free can't,
but the paid version can do file backups also.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...