Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rüdiger from Vienna]

Just a small tip:
As long as all entries of MJ are saved under HKEY_Current_User, starting MJ under Windows XP from an other user than the one that installed MJ, causes a lot of pop-up-error-messages and a non-working MJ!!
This is because the new user has no entries of MJ in his registry!!
Only solution is to backup the Registry in the user MJ installed it & to restore in the new user!
This is really no good!!
Since Win9x is no longer developed, WinNT is the Windows of the future.
(For those who don't know, WinXP=WinNT 5.1)
Wouldn't it be good to support the lastest windows version?

SO, could you move all regsitry entries to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE? Then it would work for all users.

Greetings
Rüdiger
P.S. I haven't tried it, but the same problem should also occur on Windows 2000, being NT 5.

[JimH]

Did you install as the user you're running as?

[Rüdiger from Vienna]

YES AND NO!
My user profile is the one where MJ was installed, there it works.
BUT, ALL OTHERS USERS (mom, sister, etc) CAN'T USE MJ!!!

That sould be fixed, don't you think??
Rüdiger

[JimH]

Try also installing as one of the other users.

[Rüdiger from Vienna]

This will work for sure, but it is even easier to backup and restore only the reg-entries of MJ under HKEY_CURRENT_USER!!

BUT BOTH IS NOT PERFECT, YOU MUST AGREE!! Especially multiple installation of a software results in a disaster in the regsitry-file, since the registry files are all regsitered several times, making a correct uninstall impossible!!

Don't you think that it would be better to move entries to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE in one of the next releases??
That wouldn't be really too much programming-work and would make MJ perfect for all future windows version!!

Well?
Rüdiger

[Matt]

Don't you think that it would be better to move entries to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE in one of the next releases??
That wouldn't be really too much programming-work and would make MJ perfect for all future windows version!!

Windows is moving towards a more user-centric (vs. machine-centric) model, which is why we've switched from LOCAL_MACHINE -> CURRENT_USER.  In fact, with out the proper permissions (power user or above I believe), you can't even write to LOCAL_MACHINE, meaning a lot of people at work couldn't even use MJ before we switched.

Take care.

-Matt

[IQ10]

Rüdiger from Vienna, I don't think un-installing Media Jukebox, is a high priority around here.

A better cleaner un-install method anyway is the FDISK or Ghost checkpoint methodology given near the end of thread below.
http://www.musicex.com/cgi-bin/interact/NeoBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=inter&Post=8135&BoardIdle=7&SortingBy=0&BoardOrder=Descend&Page=0&UserSession=

[former member]

[Rüdiger from Vienna]

@Matt

The thing with the people at work is ok, but what about the machine at home, where whole family is sharing one machine!
Here in my home, there is one administrator profile (me), and the rest of family have normal user profiles.
It would be really a lot of work to install MJ for all users separately!
Why didn't MJ work with LOCAL_MACHINE-entries??
The rest of the family should only be able to use MJ without changing my configuration of MJ (which took really long!!)
I think read-access to LOCAL_MACHINE do all users have, shouldn't this be enough??

Those people at work who have no admin-right can't even install MJ, because NT-admins in offices often prohibit program-installation for normal users.
So they would have to ask admin for installation, thsi guy could also make the ground-configuration of MJ.
Adding more music or deleting some is possible without registry access, so where is then the problem for people in the office with LOCAL_MACHINE??

??
Rüdiger

[Rüdiger from Vienna]

An idea:

When MJ gets installed, reg-entries are created in CURRENT_USER and(!) in LOCAL_MACHINE!
If another user trys to use MJ, reg-entries from LOCAL_MACHINE are copied to CURRENT_USER.
Wouldn't this be possible? I think to LOCAL_MACHINE a normal user has read access, but full write-access to CURRENT_USER, or?

So what do you think?
Rüdiger

[dwex]

Actually, the proper way to work with the registry and with user profiles on WinXP is to install shared stuff in HKLM\Sofrware and common files to the All Users profile. User-specific settings should be dynamically created the first time each user runs the app, by adding the appropriate stuff to HKCU and the user's profile.

And in response to "Limited users can't install software if we do that" the answers is "right, that's exactly the point of limited users".

And before you ask, I've been building Windows apps on NT-based platforms for a goodly number of years, and have spent years messsing with registry and profile behaviors.

[Rüdiger from Vienna]

That's what I meant. If someone is a limited user, he can't even install a program under WinXP, so why is MJ in the HKCU and not in HKLM??

For using MJ, only read-access is needed, and for configuration, well, only an administrator should be aloud to do so, that's the idea of an Admin!!

But I think the idea of copying the keys from HKLM to HKCU on first run is not such a bad idea, making the program usable under several users without problem with access-rights to the registry and without the need to install MJ for each user separately!!

So, why not??
greetings
Rüdiger

[cjdshaw]

dwex is right. Common stuff (like file locations, version info etc.) should be stored in HKLM and user specific stuff (skins, options, layouts, current DB etc) should be HKCU.
How about: if you install as a power-user, MJ acts as above. When a new user runs MJ, user settings are copied from HKLM to HKCU
          if you install as a normal user, you get a dialogue saying "You are not a power user. MJ will not be available to other users. Continue?" and if you say OK, it puts it all in HKCU, as it does now.

[Rüdiger from Vienna]

cjdshaw says exactly what I've meant! Would it be possible to realize this functionality??
He just made a small error: user-specific in HKCU is ok, but there must be a standard set of user-specific entries in HKLM so that another user can copy them from HKLM to HKCU!!

Rüdiger

[Rüdiger from Vienna]

Matt? JimH? Anybody out there?

Would like to know what you think about the idea of cjdshaw.

Please tell me, if there will be improvment in multi-user-support!
Greetings
Rüdiger

[JimH]

This is not the kind of change we could make now.  We can look at this more closely after 8.0 is released.

[Rüdiger from Vienna]

Well, but after the final release such a big change would be worse than in beta-stage, I think.

Because such a change would afford a new installation of MJ, an upgrade will not work, since new version would look for reg entries in HKLM and old version installed them only into HKCU.

Am I wrong?

For people who are used to test a lot with software, like me, such a change wouldn't be a great problem, but for the home-users, wanting a system as easy as possible, it will be hard to understand why all their personal configuration of MJ is gone after that update!

Or would an update be able to move this settings from HKCU to HKLM?

Rüdiger