Locking down a registry value?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by thanatoid, Jun 21, 2010.

  1. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    I am pretty sure the answer is "no way", but is there any way to
    make a specific value in the (goddamned fucking nightmare
    inflicted on everyone by those bastards at MS) registry
    /permanent/?

    Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout changes
    EVERY time I run it. It is not a REALLY big deal, but I can
    think of several other instances where it would be nice to
    "lock" a value as well.

    FWIW, the system is running 98SE Lite, ie 3 main system files
    are from 95B.


    --
    Of course, it is no easy matter to come up with an interesting
    signature.
    t.
    thanatoid, Jun 21, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    Evan Platt <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:28:00 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
    > <> wrote:


    <SNIP>

    > Umm... Hmm. See if this works on 98 - works on XP, but I
    > don't have 98 in a sandbox to confirm - Start, Run, Regedit
    > <enter>.
    >
    > Navigate to the key you want to protect. Right click,
    > select Permissions. I believe you'd want to change the
    > permissions for Everyone or System to read only?


    No permissions in 98, or 98Lite anyway...

    Oh well - it seems there IS one thing XP has that I wish 9x
    had...

    At least if/when the dark day of no 98Lite arrives, I'll know
    one useful thing about XP that I haven't figured out yet - so
    far it's just been forcing myself to accept what can not be
    changed no matter how illogical and infuriating it is...

    Thanks very much for the quick reply.
    thanatoid, Jun 21, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thanatoid

    chuckcar Guest

    thanatoid <> wrote in
    news:Xns9D9EEED07492thanexit@85.214.73.210:

    > I am pretty sure the answer is "no way", but is there any way to
    > make a specific value in the (goddamned fucking nightmare
    > inflicted on everyone by those bastards at MS) registry
    > /permanent/?
    >
    > Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout changes
    > EVERY time I run it. It is not a REALLY big deal, but I can
    > think of several other instances where it would be nice to
    > "lock" a value as well.
    >
    > FWIW, the system is running 98SE Lite, ie 3 main system files
    > are from 95B.
    >
    >

    What is the program? Perhaps I could do some research.


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jun 21, 2010
    #3
  4. chucktard wrote:

    > Perhaps I could do some research.


    That would be a first!!! <lol>

    --
    -bts
    -Could. Not. Resist.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 21, 2010
    #4
  5. thanatoid

    rf Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9D9E45EB2521Achuck@127.0.0.1...
    > thanatoid <> wrote in
    > news:Xns9D9EEED07492thanexit@85.214.73.210:
    >
    >> I am pretty sure the answer is "no way", but is there any way to
    >> make a specific value in the (goddamned fucking nightmare
    >> inflicted on everyone by those bastards at MS) registry
    >> /permanent/?
    >>
    >> Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout changes
    >> EVERY time I run it. It is not a REALLY big deal, but I can
    >> think of several other instances where it would be nice to
    >> "lock" a value as well.
    >>
    >> FWIW, the system is running 98SE Lite, ie 3 main system files
    >> are from 95B.
    >>
    >>

    > What is the program? Perhaps I could do some research.


    You'd have to learn how to *search* before you could do any re-search.

    And you'd just come up with some blathering about malware or startup progams
    anyway.
    rf, Jun 21, 2010
    #5
  6. thanatoid

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:28:00 +0000, thanatoid ÇʇoɹÊ:

    > I am pretty sure the answer is "no way", but is there any way to make a
    > specific value in the (goddamned fucking nightmare inflicted on everyone
    > by those bastards at MS) registry /permanent/?
    >
    > Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout changes EVERY time
    > I run it. It is not a REALLY big deal, but I can think of several other
    > instances where it would be nice to "lock" a value as well.
    >
    > FWIW, the system is running 98SE Lite, ie 3 main system files are from
    > 95B.


    You need more partitions on your hard drive. At least 24 are required to
    lock down registry values.
    Meat Plow, Jun 21, 2010
    #6
  7. thanatoid

    Aardvark Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:04:56 +1000, Andy wrote:

    > Meat Plow wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:28:00 +0000, thanatoid ÇʇoɹÊ:
    >>
    >>> I am pretty sure the answer is "no way", but is there any way to make
    >>> a specific value in the (goddamned fucking nightmare inflicted on
    >>> everyone by those bastards at MS) registry /permanent/?
    >>>
    >>> Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout changes EVERY
    >>> time I run it. It is not a REALLY big deal, but I can think of several
    >>> other instances where it would be nice to "lock" a value as well.
    >>>
    >>> FWIW, the system is running 98SE Lite, ie 3 main system files are from
    >>> 95B.

    >>
    >> You need more partitions on your hard drive. At least 24 are required
    >> to lock down registry values.

    >
    > Doesn't he already have it split into 128 partitions?


    Nah, 512 and counting.

    (apologies to thanatoid- the devil made me dooit)



    --
    I'm Josef Fritzl, and No Windows was my idea.
    Aardvark, Jun 21, 2010
    #7
  8. thanatoid

    Mike Easter Guest

    thanatoid wrote:

    > Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout changes
    > EVERY time I run it.


    Portable apps used to support W98. Is there an older version of the
    program in portable apps?

    Then all of its configuration files would be in the app folder, nothing
    in the registry.


    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, Jun 21, 2010
    #8
  9. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    §ñühw¤£f <> wrote in
    news:p:

    <SNIP>

    > First you should do this to give yourself a decent level of
    > security: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/239869


    I believe I am secure as I can possibly be without getting
    totally insane about it. In over 15 years nothing has ever
    happened and I doubt anything will.

    On principle, I do not install ANYTHING with the extension MSI.
    Also, the description (what I could understand of it) implies
    this is /way/ beyond any security level I should be concerned
    about. I have never even heard of this stuff - and I have nearly
    20 years of fun with computers under my belt.

    And even though, astoundingly, it's ONLY 3.5 MB (instead of the
    expected 15MB+), I know it will do things to my system I do not
    like done (like add 300 lines to the registry and a copy of the
    program hidden somewhere in case I want to install it again and
    it has never occurred to me to make a backup copy of ANY program
    of any use on a disc for the future).

    > Then instally "Tiny Watcher" so that it scans the registry
    > at startup so you can selectively hack the files you want.
    > http://kubicle.dcmembers.com/watcher/


    I have "FileMap by BB" but it only checks root, win and win-sys.

    To be honest, while TinyWatcher is obviously a great tool, it
    requires too much work to set up. I know the machine is OK, this
    particular problem has about existed from the first time I
    installed the program, close to 10 years ago. If I lived with it
    for ten years, I can continue living with it.

    I DL'd TW anyway and will give it a try - it seems worth doing
    that at the very least.

    Thanks for the reply and suggestions.

    Also, see "general reply" for more boring stuff not worth
    pasting into 10 individual replies.
    thanatoid, Jun 22, 2010
    #9
  10. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    Mike Easter <> wrote in
    news::

    > thanatoid wrote:
    >
    >> Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout
    >> changes EVERY time I run it.

    >
    > Portable apps used to support W98. Is there an older
    > version of the program in portable apps?


    Hmmm. It seems there are several definitions of portable apps.

    The one that is closest to what /I/ have a separate dir. for and
    call "utils" (even though many are a LOT more than utilities) is
    from:

    http://www.portablefreeware.com/about.php

    and says:

    "To summarize, I have learnt that the ideal definition of
    "portable" means:

    It must run without installation.
    It must run on older versions of Windows which might not have
    been updated.
    It must not have any coupling with Internet Explorer,
    audio/video codecs, DirectX etc.
    It must not write settings to the registry or local filesystem.
    It must not leave any trace on the host machine at all, even
    when the app crashes (hereby referred to as "stealth").
    It must run with guest access rights.
    It must be able to compensate for USB memory stick drive letter
    changes."

    (I'm not sure what the last two mean/whether they matter since I
    run 9x and I do not own a flash stick.)

    > Then all of its configuration files would be in the app
    > folder, nothing in the registry.


    This particular program (TaskInfo ver 2,2,1,4©1998-2000),
    unfortunately, stores all its info in the registry - even though
    it is very little info, it still makes life less pleasant as per
    my OP, and as the registry was /apparently/ principally designed
    and intended to do, since it does it so damn well with SO many
    programs.

    Still, I am VERY happy to have found out about the
    portablefreeware site (500+ never-tried programs on CD-r's is
    absolutely NOWHERE near my target of keeping me busy at this
    desk for the rest of my life), it appears to have hundreds of
    great programs of the kind I like (ie fitting the above
    criteria) - so thank you /very much/ for steering me that way
    (ditto for portableapps.com).

    See "general reply" for more info on this particular problem.

    Thanks again.
    thanatoid, Jun 22, 2010
    #10
  11. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    Re: Locking down a registry value? --GENERAL REPLY--

    TOP POSTED:
    First of all, thanks to all who replied, and those who just
    flamed each other or made moronic partition jokes, get some
    lives, PLEASE. Too late for getting some brains.

    chuckcar <> wrote in
    news:Xns9D9E45EB2521Achuck@127.0.0.1:

    > thanatoid <> wrote in
    > news:Xns9D9EEED07492thanexit@85.214.73.210:


    <SNIP>

    >> Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout
    >> changes EVERY time I run it. It is not a REALLY big deal,
    >> but I can think of several other instances where it would
    >> be nice to "lock" a value as well.


    <SNIP>

    > What is the program? Perhaps I could do some research.


    It's IARSN's "TaskInfo2000" ver 2,2,1,4 ©1998-2000. The problem
    is that the vertical bar dividing the big list of processes and
    all their characteristics from the several sys details panes on
    the right moves a little to the left every time I run the
    program (and I run it at least 5 times a day).

    There is a setting in the registry (in pixels) for where that
    line should be, and I have changed it several times, but it
    might as well not exist since it has zero effect. It's a
    fantastic and free (that version) program so I really shouldn't
    complain.


    Anti-registry rant follows:

    I really believe the registry is one of the worst things MS has
    ever done. I was astonished when I read that an early version of
    it already existed in Win 3, but I have not had the time to do
    an install of Win 3 on my old 486 to find out the gory details.

    Easily half of the programs which store info in the registry do
    not need to do so - the proof being that when you delete their
    branches, they continue working perfectly. In fact, in at least
    ONE case, the way to MAKE a program run perfectly again is to
    delete its registry info (amusingly enough, I am speaking of
    XNews as I am using it). Sometimes I get weird error messages
    and all I have to do is delete the reg. info. NOTHING happens
    except the program runs perfectly again. If it wasn't such a
    PITA, it'd be funny.

    In other cases, with use, programs develop small "misalignments"
    and deleting the reg branch and restoring a perfectly-well-set-
    up .reg file for that program will make it run perfectly again.
    But that would be SO much easier by just overwriting an ini file
    with a "perfect copy".

    One could argue that one could make a "perfect copy" of the
    /entire/ registry, and restore THAT in cases of trouble, but
    even people who have a great DOS file manager (in my case, XTree
    Gold) and do not have to go through the nightmare of playing
    with the registry file attributes in the DOS command line will
    /probably/ agree it is a gigantic PITA. (I don't know WHAT XP+
    users do... And I hope never to have to find out... I guess they
    /could/ boot into DOS (if they have it) and do the change as
    described above except on the XP partition, with 5 times more
    work).

    BTW, if any of you have ever looked at the .dat files in a real
    file viewer, you may have seen all sorts of things which do NOT
    belong in there... Kind of like supposedly deleted stuff in Word
    docs which you can only see when you look at the file in a real
    file viewer, not in Word itself. WHAT is up with that?

    Also, the registry is intentionally loaded with absolutely
    useless stuff. WHO needs all the time zones of the world for a
    computer which NEVER leaves its room, let alone country or
    continent? And even if, is the correct time of a file such a big
    deal? (Yes, I know sometimes it can be critical, but I am not
    NASA).

    As for "classes", AFA I have been able to /sense it/, they exist
    mainly so that all the idiotic and bloated (/and/ additionally
    bloated by the redundant classes branches) Microsoft (and MS-
    friendly) programs (IE/OE and Office, mainly, but also over-
    bloated expensive standards NO ONE can do without like
    Photoshop) have reference options for "interacting with each
    other" (like forcing you to open IE when you want to look at a
    jpg image). And crap that used to be called OLE, whatever it is
    called now. And other MS crap.

    Anybody who needs to edit an image in their Word document and
    believes that the correct way to do is to is to open the
    document in Word (waiting for however long THAT takes), then
    double click (or whatever) ON the image, have Photoshop open
    (waiting for however long THAT takes), do the changes in
    Photoshop, save or NOT save the image ITSELF (consequences to be
    discovered later at the most inopportune moment) and then go
    back to Word and resize the image so it fits in the page
    (wrecking the correct dpi settings for printing etc.) instead of
    planning ahead and doing things the right way (ie preparing ALL
    the images, charts, etc properly FIRST and THEN placing them in
    the final document, not to mention not using Word but a real DTP
    application) should be put out of their misery by the most
    painful means possible.

    "X last used files" is a good idea, especially when the
    programmer is smart/considerate enough to allow you to choose
    HOW MANY. But what about programs which store the last 100 used
    files, make NO reference to it in the program interface
    whatsoever, /and/ - JUST in case you get REALLY lost but are
    smart enough to know it's stored in the registry - paths are NOT
    included. What is the *$%^$#@^ point?

    I remember first seeing "Microsoft Foundation Classes (blah
    blah)" on the splash screen of the 95B version of WordPad, I
    think. Truly a dark day. I have not gotten around to trying it
    (although I have mentioned this once before), but I would LOVE
    to delete the %#*&%^@)&^% classes branch and see what happens.
    Someone else tried it and the %#*&%^@)&&^% registry will not
    allow that first of 5 (in 9x) branches to be deleted.

    I WILL some day get around to deleting what I can of the
    registry - especially from the first of the 5 main branches -
    just to see what happens. Not that anyone but me cares, of
    course.

    I could go on but luckily for all who have gotten /this/ far,
    I'm a little tired today.
    thanatoid, Jun 22, 2010
    #11
  12. thanatoid

    VanguardLH Guest

    thanatoid wrote:

    > I am pretty sure the answer is "no way", but is there any way to
    > make a specific value in the (goddamned fucking nightmare
    > inflicted on everyone by those bastards at MS) registry
    > /permanent/?
    >
    > Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout changes
    > EVERY time I run it. It is not a REALLY big deal, but I can
    > think of several other instances where it would be nice to
    > "lock" a value as well.
    >
    > FWIW, the system is running 98SE Lite, ie 3 main system files
    > are from 95B.


    You could change the permissions on the registry entry. Select the
    registry key, right-click, and select to change its permissions. Then
    remove admins and your own accounts as having permissions to change the
    values. If you need to change them later, re-add yourself or the
    Administrators group (if your account is in that group).

    You aren't making anything permanent. You are removing yourself (and
    the apps that you run) as having permissions to alter a registry key's
    data item values. You cannot change permissions for a particular data
    item, only on a registry key (that can 1, or more data items and their
    values). That means ALL data items under that registry key will have
    their permissions changed (because you changed the permissions on their
    holding object).
    VanguardLH, Jun 22, 2010
    #12
  13. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    VanguardLH <> wrote in
    news:hvpkja$7cc$:

    <SNIP>

    > You could change the permissions on the registry entry.
    > Select the registry key, right-click, and select to change
    > its permissions. Then remove admins and your own accounts
    > as having permissions to change the values. If you need to
    > change them later, re-add yourself or the Administrators
    > group (if your account is in that group).


    <SNIP>

    Had you read the thread, you would know this is not possible -
    at least not on 98SE Lite. It MAY be possible on "normal" 98SE,
    and it IS possible on XP+.

    Thanks in any case.
    thanatoid, Jun 22, 2010
    #13
  14. thanatoid

    Desk Rabbit Guest

    Re: Locking down a registry value? --GENERAL REPLY--

    On 22/06/2010 03:20, thanatoid wrote:
    > TOP POSTED:
    > First of all, thanks to all who replied, and those who just
    > flamed each other or made moronic partition jokes, get some
    > lives, PLEASE. Too late for getting some brains.
    >
    > chuckcar<> wrote in
    > news:Xns9D9E45EB2521Achuck@127.0.0.1:
    >
    >> thanatoid<> wrote in
    >> news:Xns9D9EEED07492thanexit@85.214.73.210:

    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    >>> Specifically, I use one great program, but the layout
    >>> changes EVERY time I run it. It is not a REALLY big deal,
    >>> but I can think of several other instances where it would
    >>> be nice to "lock" a value as well.

    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    >> What is the program? Perhaps I could do some research.

    >
    > It's IARSN's "TaskInfo2000" ver 2,2,1,4 ©1998-2000. The problem
    > is that the vertical bar dividing the big list of processes and
    > all their characteristics from the several sys details panes on
    > the right moves a little to the left every time I run the
    > program (and I run it at least 5 times a day).
    >
    > There is a setting in the registry (in pixels) for where that
    > line should be, and I have changed it several times, but it
    > might as well not exist since it has zero effect.


    Which sort of suggests that there is a bug in the program. i.e. it can
    set the value in the registry but is not reading it or acting on it
    correctly. Contact the author and report it as a bug.
    Desk Rabbit, Jun 22, 2010
    #14
  15. thanatoid

    VanguardLH Guest

    thanatoid wrote:

    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >
    >> You could change the permissions on the registry entry.
    >> Select the registry key, right-click, and select to change
    >> its permissions. Then remove admins and your own accounts
    >> as having permissions to change the values. If you need to
    >> change them later, re-add yourself or the Administrators
    >> group (if your account is in that group).

    >
    > Had you read the thread, you would know this is not possible -
    > at least not on 98SE Lite. It MAY be possible on "normal" 98SE,
    > and it IS possible on XP+.


    Missed the last line (got distracted by chuckcar subthread). Since you
    are asking about a 9x-based version of Windows, there are no permissions
    to manage. You'll have to migrate to a more mature version of Windows.
    Been a decade since I bothered with the toy versions. Tis easy to miss
    with my "reading eye" when someone notes an ancient kernel version of
    Windows that was developed when pterodactyls still flew around.

    While not a solution for every time you run the program, something you
    could do when you start Windows would be to run a .reg file with the
    registry values you want. Use "regedit.exe /s <file>.reg" to eliminate
    the warning prompt. Or you could wrap your app's executable in a .bat
    file where you run the .exe followed by the .reg file to reset the
    registry values back to what you want.
    VanguardLH, Jun 22, 2010
    #15
  16. thanatoid

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:20:54 +0000, thanatoid ÇʇoɹÊ:

    > On principle, I do not install ANYTHING with the extension MSI.


    You're a fucking ignoramus. When you install anything you're using the MS
    installer. Most applications unpack to an .msi in a temporary folder and
    then run.
    Meat Plow, Jun 22, 2010
    #16
  17. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    Re: Locking down a registry value? --GENERAL REPLY--

    Desk Rabbit <> wrote in
    news:hvprls$f49$:

    <SNIP>

    > Which sort of suggests that there is a bug in the program.
    > i.e. it can set the value in the registry but is not
    > reading it or acting on it correctly. Contact the author
    > and report it as a bug.


    I know it's a bug but this version is ten years old and I doubt
    it has not been fixed by now.
    I also doubt the author will rewrite a free version from ten
    years ago just to make one person happy.

    Thanks for the suggestion anyway.
    thanatoid, Jun 23, 2010
    #17
  18. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    Re: Locking down a registry value? --GENERAL REPLY--

    Alec Lourmier <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:20:56 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>BTW, if any of you have ever looked at the .dat files in a
    >>real file viewer, you may have seen all sorts of things
    >>which do NOT belong in there... Kind of like supposedly
    >>deleted stuff in Word docs which you can only see when you
    >>look at the file in a real file viewer, not in Word itself.
    >>WHAT is up with that?

    >
    > My guess is Word's "track changes" feature.


    My last sentence had to do with the stuff in registry which
    should not be in there, not the ridiculous overbloated and
    perfectly oversold to everyone piece of crap known as Word.

    The Word problem has been discussed many times in many places. I
    only used it to illustrate the same problem with the registry.
    Anyone using Word gets what s/he deserves, but no one using
    Windows is free from the fucking registry.
    thanatoid, Jun 23, 2010
    #18
  19. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    VanguardLH <> wrote in
    news:hvpu0o$leq$:

    <SNIP>

    > Missed the last line (got distracted by chuckcar
    > subthread). Since you are asking about a 9x-based version
    > of Windows, there are no permissions to manage. You'll
    > have to migrate to a more mature version of Windows.


    Mature? A little inversion there, methinks. Something ten years
    old is NOT more mature than something 15 years old. Not to
    mention that even if we ignore that error, /every/ new version
    of Windows is dumbed down for the new "computer sub-literates".
    BOB lives on in Win 6 and 6.1. Woof, woof.

    So thanks, but no thanks. Even 98SE Lite is only bearable
    because of the Lite modification. If not for that, I would still
    be using 95B, as I did until about a year and a half ago, or I
    would have switched to Linux.

    > Been a
    > decade since I bothered with the toy versions.


    I respect your input to this group too much to make any of the
    multitude of possible sarcastic comments that statement fully
    deserves.

    > Tis


    'Tis

    > easy to
    > miss with my "reading eye" when someone notes an ancient
    > kernel version of Windows that was developed when
    > pterodactyls still flew around.


    No, actually it was quite a few million years later.

    > While not a solution for every time you run the program,
    > something you could do when you start Windows would be to
    > run a .reg file with the registry values you want. Use
    > "regedit.exe /s <file>.reg" to eliminate the warning
    > prompt. Or you could wrap your app's executable in a .bat
    > file where you run the .exe followed by the .reg file to
    > reset the registry values back to what you want.


    Now there is some useful information for a change. Thank you
    very much. It is useful /in general/ - I don't think it will be
    useful in this case, since if I change the reg value, do NOT run
    the program, reboot, and run the program, and the divider is way
    off to the left again, obviously it's either a major bug or an
    intentional bug to make you register for the few extra features
    which are useless to me - in fact I tried the registered version
    with a "password off the web" and I dislike the way it behaves
    more than I dislike the divider bar behavior, so I am running
    the free version, and have for ten years.

    Thanks for the above suggestions - they will be filed for future
    reference/use.
    thanatoid, Jun 23, 2010
    #19
  20. thanatoid

    Peter Foldes Guest

    Re: Locking down a registry value? --GENERAL REPLY--

    +10 for that answer . Great answer and right on the money

    thanatoid
    You are aware that in W98 SE and also in W95 you have a reg tool from MS that you
    can use. I forgot the name since I have not used either one of those OS's since many
    years



    --
    Peter

    Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
    Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
    http://www.microsoft.com/protect

    "thanatoid" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9D9ED92E66413thanexit@85.214.73.210...
    > TOP POSTED:
    > First of all, thanks to all who replied, and those who just
    > flamed each other or made moronic partition jokes, get some
    Peter Foldes, Jun 23, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Timo
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    404
  2. uv2003
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    617
    =?Utf-8?B?U2Vhbg==?=
    Jun 23, 2005
  3. philip007
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    597
    jcottingim
    Jan 31, 2006
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    703
  5. raiderhawk

    Locking locking resolution Frontpage

    raiderhawk, Jan 8, 2008, in forum: General Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    856
    raiderhawk
    Jan 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page