naaloh

I noticed that Visual C++ 2005 SP1 (file version 8.0.50727.762) and later Visual C++ 2005 SP1 ATL Security Update (file version 8.0.50727.4053) all have atl80.dll for ANSI operating systems and do install on Windows ME. However, Microsoft download pages do not list Windows 95, 98 or ME as a supported OS for those runtime packages, hence my question. Has anyone tried using those updated runtimes instead of older Visual C++ 2005, which still lists Windows 98, 98SE and ME as supported, on any of those operating systems? If yes, did it lead to any problems/errors?

What interests me is whether newer-than-XP OSes install another device only when an identical device/devices is/are already present or regardless of that.

You are correct on your assessment of my position. Not even an "unofficial" name? If you were to objectively describe it in words, what would you call it? Would you mind explaining what kind of use you find in AutoPlay? Are you one of those people who connect/insert data storage media without knowing why, so that when an id***-friendly OS like XP scans the contents and displays the "What do you want Windows to do?" dialog, they find it useful and not consider the time wasted on scanning wasted As to the name, I can't come up with anything shorter than "simultaneous use of multiple identical USB devices with no serial numbers", but that name doesn't imply the problems actually caused by the feature. That much I knew already. This website is actually confusing because it doesn't mention the OSes that the information applies to. For example, I know for certain that on Windows ME the same device is NOT installed anew when plugged into a different receptacle. Tripredacus said something about "the issue in Vista and Windows 7 being more transparent and less annoying", but did not explain what he meant despite my asking him to do so. No problem. I'm not trying to tell you how to run this forum. No, it's not sensible at all. Such policy leads to the virtual port numbers of USB modems, Bluetooth adapters, SIM card readers, etc, etc being constantly changed. The only sensible policy right now is to use one specific receptacle for each device. Aslo, there's no need whatsoever for third-party tools to see (and remove if necessary) non-present devices. Editing two registry keys (see the attached regfile) and enabling the "Show hidden devices" option lets you do it in the XP Device Manager. ShowPhantomDevices.reg

You're right, it's not how it works, because my question is not pointless. And if you really found flame in my posts, then you'll certainly have no trouble finding water in Sahara desert... or a non-existent black cat in a dark room. Am I to assume that you don't consider features like AutoPlay or Desktop Cleanup Wizard stupid? Never thought people like that existed... except perhaps those who think that "stupid" is not a word strong enough to describe those features B) As to the name, none that I'm aware of.

Thanks, 5eraph. I didn't know that google accepted paths for the "site:" parameter (after all, the description says "Search one site (like wikipedia.org ) or limit your results to a domain like .edu, .org or .gov"). Well, looking through the results, I haven't found anything similar to my question, so we're back to square one: is there any way to prevent XP from installing already installed devices anew just because they've been plugged into a different receptacle?

Well, if this is indeed the reason, then whoever made the engine like this clearly lost his connection with reality, because, unlike internet search engines, the forum search allows to specify forums to look in and limit search to topic titles only, so it would most certainly haven't been more than a few hundred results (a score or two is more likely). In my world no respect is given for spouting pointless "advices", what about yours?

Yeah, sure, and spend the rest of my life studying the 44,100 results I wonder why you haven't suggested just searching the internet for usb xp, this would've been about as helpful Care to elaborate on this? I haven't used Vista or 7, so it would be interesting to know how it handles USB devices.

As every Windows XP user probably knows, this OS has an utterly stupid feature of installing a USB device anew if it was plugged into a different USB receptacle, unless the device has a unique serial number, which is, usually, only true for mass storage devices. I've read somewhere that it was introduced to permit using two identical devices without SNs simultaneously, but if the developers really wanted this, they should make the OS install another device only if the previously installed device(s) of this same type were connected. As it stands, the current implementation is nothing but annoyance for 99.(9) percent of users. I'm, therefore, very much interested if there's a way to get rid of this behavior. I don't care if I lose the ability to use two identical devices without SNs simultaneously. Why would I want to, anyway, it's not like I need a number of UMTS modems or IrDA adapters or anything else. I may need two identical external HDDs, but those will surely have SNs. Sorry if this question has already been asked, but it seems that the search engine on this forum ignores three letter words, at least I got nothing when I searched for "USB".