Windows 7 Ultimate Edition BETA...

[BC_Programmer]

Interestingly this is NOT running in a VM like one might expect. real deal! DOS and windows was installed on this laptop in 1996, and it hasn't had any problems!

says something about stability back then... I blame the registry... 

[Kurtiskain]

I was wondering about that 

Yeah I rarely had issues with my Win 95 either.

[Zylstra]

95 introduced the registry though...
It was 98 where the real problems began.

Darn you, Active Desktop!

[Kurtiskain]

Fully agree with the active desktop 
But what came first? Win 95 OSR2 or Win98?  Win95 OSR2 had active desktop too...

[patio]

No it did not,

[Kurtiskain]

Sorry Patio...

Active Desktop is a feature of Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0's optional Windows Desktop Update that allows the user to add HTML content to the desktop, along with some other features. This function was intended to be installed on the then-current Windows 95 operating system. It was also included in Windows 98 and higher Windows operating systems until Windows Vista, where the feature was discontinued.

...

Active Desktop debuted during the 1997 release of Internet Explorer 4.0 for Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0, as a feature of the optional Windows Desktop Update offered to users during the upgrade install. While the Windows Desktop Update is commonly referred to (improperly) as Active Desktop itself, it is actually an entire Windows shell upgrade from v4.0 to v4.71, or v4.72, with numerous changes to the Windows interface, resulting in an appearance and functionality level nearly indistinguishable from the then yet-to-be-released Windows 98.

...

The installation of Internet Explorer 4 on Windows 95 (or the OSR2.5 version preinstalled on a computer) gave Windows 95 active desktop and browser integration into Windows Explorer, known as the Windows Desktop Update.

Okay so I guess I should say OSR2.5 but still...my Windows 95 disk still has OSR2 written on it...

And I guess that answers my question too...Windows 95 had Active desktop before Windows 98

[BC_Programmer]

Active Desktop was technically part of IE4- you could install it on the original windows 95 release.

as far as the registry is concerned, i think it can pretty much be summed up with

it seemed like a good idea at the time

And now, Microsoft as always is bent on backwards compatibility and can't really dump the registry completely.

[Zylstra]

I wish more people and businesses, including Microsoft, would start pushing for developers to quit using the registry, and switch to either a custom database, information, or XML file for settings...

Oh, bit random: Wordpad, in Windows 7, uses an XML format now.

[BC_Programmer]

I wish more people and businesses, including Microsoft, would start pushing for developers to quit using the registry, and switch to either a custom database, information, or XML file for settings...

The registry almost solves the problem if INI file wandering, it just isn't as user managable as it could be.

[Kurtiskain]

I wish more people and businesses, including Microsoft, would start pushing for developers to quit using the registry, and switch to either a custom database, information, or XML file for settings...

The registry almost solves the problem if INI file wandering, it just isn't as user managable as it could be.

A wandering .ini file is hard to come across, and surely te registry is so much harder to navigate

[BC_Programmer]

I wish more people and businesses, including Microsoft, would start pushing for developers to quit using the registry, and switch to either a custom database, information, or XML file for settings...

The registry almost solves the problem if INI file wandering, it just isn't as user managable as it could be.

A wandering .ini file is hard to come across, and surely te registry is so much harder to navigate

your missing my point, which is driven home by your admittance to never using windows 3.1

You could never tell were a program stored settings back then. COuld be their own INI file, could be in win.ini, and if it was their own INI file the program could put in anywhere it *censored* well felt. C:\Windows\ and C:\windows\system and of course the app directory itself. And due to the 8.3 limitation on filenames it was likely that in the process of using a lot of programs more then one might try to use the same name. Confusing matters further.

The registry was an attempt to consolidate the settings of all application into a central store, rather then little INI files strewm about the disk.

I think it works quite well. Most problems people blame on the "registry" are actually caused by a change to the settings in the registry. The same problem would occur if changing that setting had it existed in an INI file of some sort. This essentially means it isn't the implementation of the registry itself that causes the problems but rather the lack of any user-oriented tool for changing settings on an application basis.

[Kurtiskain]

Ahhh I get it now yes those are very valid points

[BC_Programmer]

The funny thing is, if we go back to XML configs, we're basically using bigger versions of INI files; but common users won't be able to edit XML files as easily as INI files, which almost defeats the whole purpose of having it as a separate file. And then what will happen?

Giant XML files in the system folder... The registry, in XML format!

[patio]

Giant XML files in the system folder... The registry, in XML format!

Can't wait to see this alternative in practice...i sincerely hope no one took this as promising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML

[Zylstra]

What I said about Wordpad using an XML Format:
Somewhat incorrect.


It still defaults as .rtf, however, it has the option of saving as OOXML Document.

As for the registry being efficient:
I think its fine for Windows, however, if a program just puts the ini file in its own directory under "Program Files", thats when I would be happy. Its horrible when they end up all over in system folder, and windows, and under other ini files.

My biggest problem with the registry is the sheer fact that if part of it is lost, it can render an even larger part useless, which makes it more susceptible to corruption.
Also, its loaded at startup, and on older slower computers, that can take a while.