Re: Registry strings on XP versus Vista

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by chuckcar, Jul 7, 2009.

  1. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    cb <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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) )
     
    chuckcar, Jul 7, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jul 7, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chuckcar

    Evan Platt Guest

    Evan Platt, Jul 7, 2009
    #3
  4. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in
    news:h2uh56$rvj$-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) )
     
    chuckcar, Jul 7, 2009
    #4
  5. chuckcar

    rf Guest

    chuckcar wrote:
    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in
    > news:h2uh56$rvj$-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.
     
    rf, Jul 7, 2009
    #5
  6. chuckcar

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:53:00 GMT, "rf" <> 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.
     
    Evan Platt, Jul 8, 2009
    #6
  7. 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
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jul 8, 2009
    #7
  8. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in
    news:glQ4m.3332$:

    > chuckcar wrote:
    >> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in
    >> news:h2uh56$rvj$-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) )
     
    chuckcar, Jul 8, 2009
    #8
  9. chuckcar

    rf Guest

    chuckcar wrote:
    > "rf" <> wrote in
    > news:glQ4m.3332$:
    >
    >> chuckcar wrote:
    >>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in
    >>> news:h2uh56$rvj$-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.
     
    rf, Jul 9, 2009
    #9
  10. chuckcar

    rf Guest

    rf wrote:
    > chuckcar wrote:
    >> "rf" <> 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
     
    rf, Jul 9, 2009
    #10
  11. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in
    news:x5k5m.3722$:

    > rf wrote:
    >> chuckcar wrote:
    >>> "rf" <> 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.
    >

    I didn't *say* that. Apparently your reading skills aren't up to the level
    of your anger about trivial matters. I said that 7 bit ascii went the way
    of the dodo *before* the IBM PC.
    > Or would you like me to do it for you, since you seem incapable of
    > finding out stuff for yourself:
    >

    You mean like the model number for the Original IBM PC?


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jul 10, 2009
    #11
  12. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in
    news:7ch5m.3639$:

    > chuckcar wrote:
    >> "rf" <> wrote in
    >> news:glQ4m.3332$:
    >>
    >>> chuckcar wrote:
    >>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in
    >>>> news:h2uh56$rvj$-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.
    >

    No, it's ANSI ASCII for one. Parity bits in ram are handled differently
    than they were in the 70's, the need for a parity bit for each byte
    has disappeared due to RAM being more reliable.

    >> 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.
    >

    I very much doubt Bill Gates himself had *anything* to do with the
    invention of ANSII.

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

    >
    >> 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.
    >

    Your wild hyperbole aside, parity bits on volatile media - such as CD
    isn't a bit thrown away unused, they're used for parity. Only using 7 bits
    for ASCII and reserving one bit for parity that isn't used is a completely
    different thing.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jul 10, 2009
    #12
  13. chuckcar

    rf Guest

    chuckcar wrote:
    > "rf" <> wrote in



    > No, it's ANSI ASCII for one. Parity bits in ram are handled differently
    > than they were in the 70's, the need for a parity bit for each byte
    > has disappeared due to RAM being more reliable.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_(disambiguation)

    ANSI may refer to, amongst other things:
    "ANSI character encoding, more properly referred to as Windows-1252. /Not to
    be confused with ASCII/ "

    There is no such thing as ANSI ASCII.

    Windows-1252, which you are confusing with something you think of as "ANSI
    ASCII" is an *extension* to the ASCII character set, and contains a huge
    bunch of European characters and a few other odd ones, like the pound sign.
    It does *NOT* contain any of the "box drawing characters" you mentioned.

    The *extended* ASCII character set used in IBM PCs is nothing like
    Windows-1252, and does contain those "box drawing characters". That
    character set is *not* however, ASCII. It is an *extension* to ASCII.

    >> 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.
    >>

    > I very much doubt Bill Gates himself had *anything* to do with the
    > invention of ANSII.


    Did anybody say that Mr Gates had anything to do with the American National
    Standards Institute?

    And yes, Mr Gates may not have actually invented the extended ASCII
    character set used in the first IBM PCs, as that character set lives in the
    rom on the video card, but I'll bet he was right in the thick of it. After
    all, MS DOS (or PC DOS) was a colaboration between Microsoft and IBM (with
    the source code remaining the property of Microsoft). I imagine Microsoft
    (Mr Gates and his mates) would have had quite a bit of input into the
    design of the hardware that their operating system was to run on.

    Once again, you have no idea about which you writing.
     
    rf, Jul 10, 2009
    #13
  14. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in
    news:HKv5m.3860$:

    > chuckcar wrote:
    >> "rf" <> wrote in

    >
    >
    >> No, it's ANSI ASCII for one. Parity bits in ram are handled differently
    >> than they were in the 70's, the need for a parity bit for each byte
    >> has disappeared due to RAM being more reliable.

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_(disambiguation)
    >
    > ANSI may refer to, amongst other things:
    > "ANSI character encoding, more properly referred to as Windows-1252.
    > /Not to be confused with ASCII/ "


    Except it doesn't it this case as the context make obvious.
    > Once again, you have no idea about which you writing.
    >

    No, that's *your* problem. Proven since in this entire wasted thread, you
    have not got one thing right.



    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jul 10, 2009
    #14
  15. chuckcar

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:59:52 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    wrote:

    >No, that's *your* problem. Proven since in this entire wasted thread, you
    >have not got one thing right.


    Unlike you, who since as far back as I can see, haven't gotten one
    thing right.
    --
    To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
     
    Evan Platt, Jul 11, 2009
    #15
  16. chuckcar

    Guest

    "rf" <> wrote:

    >chuckcar wrote:
    >> "rf" <> wrote in

    >
    >
    >> No, it's ANSI ASCII for one. Parity bits in ram are handled differently
    >> than they were in the 70's, the need for a parity bit for each byte
    >> has disappeared due to RAM being more reliable.


    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_(disambiguation)


    "In Microsoft Windows, the phrase "ANSI" refers to the Windows ANSI
    code pages (even though they are not ANSI standards"

    Doesn't that just figure.

    I My TRS-80 model 3 (1981), using higher ansii (above 128) is how I
    would do my graphics, I still remember CHR$(191) would produce a Û ,
    that's a black rectangle in terminal font. - Peeking and poking
    CHR$(191) you could cause the screen to flash (black and white). ah
    nostalgia

    Modems have always allowed 7 or 8 bits communications, fact is to hide
    from the war dialers most would set theirs to 7 bits - this was a
    trick realtors used (7 bits) - I don't know why but they would. get a
    hit, change your modem to 7N1 and it would be a realtor.


    --

    Never knew what bit em.
    http://imgur.com/id7O4.jpg
     
    , Jul 12, 2009
    #16
  17. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    wrote in
    news::

    > "rf" <> wrote:
    >
    >>chuckcar wrote:
    >>> "rf" <> wrote in

    >>
    >>
    >>> No, it's ANSI ASCII for one. Parity bits in ram are handled
    >>> differently than they were in the 70's, the need for a parity bit for
    >>> each byte has disappeared due to RAM being more reliable.

    >
    >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_(disambiguation)

    >
    > "In Microsoft Windows, the phrase "ANSI" refers to the Windows ANSI
    > code pages (even though they are not ANSI standards"
    >
    > Doesn't that just figure.
    >
    > I My TRS-80 model 3 (1981), using higher ansii (above 128) is how I
    > would do my graphics, I still remember CHR$(191) would produce a Û ,
    > that's a black rectangle in terminal font. - Peeking and poking
    > CHR$(191) you could cause the screen to flash (black and white). ah
    > nostalgia
    >

    Yup. Was taught BASIC programming and graphics on one in the local
    college. Had "bitmap" graphics. A real joke, the smallest thing you could
    draw was 1/6th of a character. The graphics were made up of combinations
    of those six blocks on or off. That was *their* ANSII.

    This was when every other computer on the market had actual pixels being
    used for graphics. They were built tougher than nails, but Radio Shack
    computer were always about 5 years behind everyone else.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jul 12, 2009
    #17
  18. chuckcar

    Guest

    chuckcar <> wrote:

    >They were built tougher than nails, but Radio Shack
    >computer were always about 5 years behind everyone else.


    Can't answer that I don't know.

    Had two plastic pieces that looked like floppy drives, that could be
    replaced with the real thing for a bunch of money, I went to radio
    shack to by a modem, I was quoted $500 for a 300 buad modem.
    Him telling me he would log into compuserve, start printing the latest
    news, go eat and when he was thru he would read the print outs.

    I still have it, no modem, and cassette storage. but it taught me a
    lot, that I had to learn on my own. I learned basic and assembly
    language with it.

    --
    DIY shotgun made in prison, using match-heads,
    AA batteries and broken light bulb
    http://www.marcsteinmetz.com/pages/fluchtstuecke/efluchtstuecke01.html
     
    , Jul 12, 2009
    #18
    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. =?Utf-8?B?U3RlcGhlbiBJbmtwZW4=?=

    Device search returns devices with zero length strings

    =?Utf-8?B?U3RlcGhlbiBJbmtwZW4=?=, Jul 6, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    520
    =?Utf-8?B?TWlsZXM=?=
    Jul 15, 2005
  2. Matthias Fischer
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    895
    Matthias Fischer
    Jan 21, 2004
  3. Arjan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    668
    Arjan
    Apr 2, 2004
  4. gangle

    Pulling strings

    gangle, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    499
    gangle
    Sep 16, 2004
  5. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    765
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page