Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: Registry strings on XP versus Vista

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Registry strings on XP versus Vista

 
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
cb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I'm seeing a difference in how the registry stores strings on XP Pro
> versus Vista Ultimate. Both machines are running English OS's.
>
> On XP, registry strings seem to be terminated with a single binary "00"
> byte. On Vista, registry strings are terminated by "00 00" -- two bytes
> of binary zero.
>
> 1. Are these differences fundamental to XP versus Vista?
>
> 2. Or is there something different in the configuration of these two
> machines that would cause this?
>
> Anybody got ideas about this?
>

Well there *is* a 16 bit character set that recently became a new
standard. Unicode. That might explain it. I say this because the original
repair for the registry (in 95 now replaced by scanreg/fix even in XP)
does little more than translate the bytes in the registry characters,
zeros the ones that *are* supposed to be printable and aren't and just
copies the rest. This means that the majority of the registry is actually
ascii letters and numbers.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
chuckcar wrote:

> Well there *is* a 16 bit character set


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

--
-bts
-who wants some of what you're drinkin'
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Evan Platt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:58:30 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak


LOL...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95084292357074
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:h2uh56$rvj$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:

> chuckcar wrote:
>
>> Well there *is* a 16 bit character set

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
>


ASCII is 8 bit, look it up.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
chuckcar wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:h2uh56$rvj$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:
>
>> chuckcar wrote:
>>
>>> Well there *is* a 16 bit character set

>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
>>

>
> ASCII is 8 bit, look it up.


ASCII is 7 bit, look it up.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Evan Platt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:53:00 GMT, "rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>ASCII is 7 bit, look it up.


This is the point where chucktard drops out of the conversation...
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
chuckcar wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> chuckcar wrote:
>>> Well there *is* a 16 bit character set

>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

>
> ASCII is 8 bit, look it up.


Besides the fact that you got the bits wrong, I wasn't commenting on the
"16 bits" itself. I was commenting on your entire paragraph, which after
reading several times, comes across as a classic example of doublespeak.
George Carlin would have had great fun with it.

There was no point in requoting the whole mess.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2009
"rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:glQ4m.3332$(E-Mail Removed):

> chuckcar wrote:
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:h2uh56$rvj$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:
>>
>>> chuckcar wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well there *is* a 16 bit character set
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
>>>

>>
>> ASCII is 8 bit, look it up.

>
> ASCII is 7 bit, look it up.
>

Wrong. Hasn't been 7 bit since before the IBM PC first came out. The last
half of the 70's to be specific. Case in point: open up a dos window, hold
down the alt key and type 192 while still holding it down. You will get one
of the box drawing characters. Specifically the single line bottom left corner
one. Only the numbers, letters and punctuation (along with the 32 control
codes which are non-printable - with the arguable exception of the cursor
movement codes) are below 128. A wasted bit in each byte is something
programmers and Electrical engineers won't tolerate.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2009
chuckcar wrote:
> "rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:glQ4m.3332$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> chuckcar wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:h2uh56$rvj$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:
>>>
>>>> chuckcar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well there *is* a 16 bit character set
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
>>>>
>>>
>>> ASCII is 8 bit, look it up.

>>
>> ASCII is 7 bit, look it up.
>>

> Wrong. Hasn't been 7 bit


You can believe what you want but you are still wrong.

ASCII, more correctly US ASCII is 7 bit. During communication over, say,
RS232, the eight bit of a byte is often used as a parity bit, along with a
couple of start and stop bits.

> since before the IBM PC first came out.


At which time Mr Gates decided to *extend* the ASCII code by using the top
bit in a byte. He invented the "extended ASCII" character set. And there are
quite a number of totally different "extended ASCII" character sets. This
has nothing at all to do with the US ASCII character set, which is 7 bits.

> The
> last half of the 70's to be specific.


And ASCII predates that by a long way.

<snip attempted proof>


> A wasted bit in each byte is something programmers and
> Electrical engineers won't tolerate.


What utter rubbish. Programmers and Engineers waste bits all over the place,
and for good reason. Just look up (which you won't, as you even refuse to
visit http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ascii ) the encoding used in such a simple thing
as a CD. There are so many bits "wasted" in the reduncancy that allows for
error correction that you can scratch the bloody things with a nail file and
the music will still play.

Once again, you have no idea at all what you are talking about.


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2009
rf wrote:
> chuckcar wrote:
>> "rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in


>> since before the IBM PC first came out.
>> The
>> last half of the 70's to be specific.


And just to be specific on one little bit more of your rubbish, the first
IBM PC, model 5150, was introduced on August 12, 1981. Hardly the "last half
of the 70's". I know. I purchased one of them in early1982, at a ridiculous
price IIRC.

Do your bloody homework next time dipstick.

Or would you like me to do it for you, since you seem incapable of finding
out stuff for yourself:

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
vista ultimate 64 bit versus vista miker MCDST 5 10-01-2008 06:02 PM
Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo Firefox 0 05-08-2008 12:56 PM
equal? versus eql? versus == versus === verus <=> Paul Butcher Ruby 12 11-28-2007 06:06 AM
Strings, Strings and Damned Strings Ben C Programming 14 06-24-2006 05:09 AM
HTML Client Control versus. HTML Server Control versus. Web Server Control Matthew Louden ASP .Net 1 10-11-2003 07:09 PM



Advertisments