Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
Tihiy

New Regedit Version

Recommended Posts

Please, Tihiy, post for me (or reply this post) changes in new Regedit.exe (this version original / WinME or modify?). I try running original Regedit WinME (original M$ CD - czech WinME) and properly busy. :unsure:
Well, let's see whether I can help:

@Philco: REGEDIT.EXE is made up of two parts: a DOS executable (starting with "MZ" at offset 0) and a 32-bit windows executable (starting with "PE" at hex offset 9DD0, in Tihiy's version). The DOS part always starts at 0 and the start of the win-32 part is always present as a word at hex offset 3C, using "Little Endian" byte order, of course. What I understand Tihiy did was to join the Win-32 part from Win ME REGEDIT.EXE with the DOS part from Win 98SE (or from Win 98 they're both v. 4.10.0.1998) REGEDIT.EXE, doing the necessary adjustments to it, and then also updating the icons in the file thus obtained. So, in fact, it's neither the original Win ME version, nor just the result of simple patching, but a true new file, resulting from a procedure more complicated than a simple patch. HTH

Edited by dencorso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, Tihiy, post for me (or reply this post) changes in new Regedit.exe (this version original / WinME or modify?). I try running original Regedit WinME (original M$ CD - czech WinME) and properly busy. :unsure:
Well, let's see whether I can help:

@Philco: REGEDIT.EXE is made up of two parts: a DOS executable (starting with "MZ" at offset 0) and a 32-bit windows executable (starting with "PE" at hex offset 9DD0, in Tihiy's version). The DOS part always starts at 0 and the start of the win-32 part is always present as a word at hex offset 3C, using "Little Endian" byte order, of course. What I understand Tihiy did was to join the Win-32 part from Win ME REGEDIT.EXE with the DOS part from Win 98SE (or from Win 98 they're both v. 4.10.0.1998) REGEDIT.EXE, doing the necessary adjustments to it, and then also updating the icons in the file thus obtained. So, in fact, it's neither the original Win ME version, nor just the result of simple patching, but a true new file, resulting from a procedure more complicated than a simple patch. HTH

THX full report! :thumbup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have tired both version of regedit & regedit+, both of 'em still haven't able to search DWORD data. (well, the orginal regedit which came from win98SE cabs, also can't do it anyway).

for example i want to seach dword which value of '1252' (decimal), search result only find keys / value names / string values which has a substring of '1252' but the result has never pointed to dword value of 1252 (hex:4e3).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try the classic shareware Registry Search & Replace by Steven J. Hoek. It may solve your problem and is free for the first 25 searches. Later edit: it also isn't capable of DWORD data searches, I've got it installed for a long time now (and regeistered) and I've just checked it. Sorry.

Edited by dencorso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have tired both version of regedit & regedit+, both of 'em still haven't able to search DWORD data. (well, the orginal regedit which came from win98SE cabs, also can't do it anyway).

for example i want to seach dword which value of '1252' (decimal), search result only find keys / value names / string values which has a substring of '1252' but the result has never pointed to dword value of 1252 (hex:4e3).

Regedit search is really primitive and slow. I never use it.

What I do:

I backup the entire registry to a .REG file:

run Regedit -> highlight "My Computer" [root] -> click on "Registry" from menu -> select "Export Registry File..." -> type whatever file name in the "File name" field -> browse to the drive + folder you wish -> click the Save button.

Then search this REG file [plain text] using a free(ware) Notepad replacement:

http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#TXT

FYI:

Notepad cannot open files > 64 KB, and will eventually redirect such files to open in Wordpad.

Never use any word processors like Wordpad, MS Word [MS Office], AbiWord, OpenOffice or similar to edit REG files.

Always use plain text/ASCII editors like Notepad replacements: PFE32, Credit, Win32pad, Metapad, Notepad++, ConTEXT, etc:

http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#TXT

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend RegScanner for searching your registry; it's fast and powerful, and the program is small and writes settings to a config file rather than the registry. I guess it's a plus that it's free as well, but whatever.

http://nirsoft.net/utils/regscanner.html

Pretty much everything made by Nir Sofer is pure gold.

Queue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for posting on old thread

i still have problem about DWORD value, but this time with the .reg files.

while i was fiddling with IE' individual sites cookies handling override, and check how it affected the registry entry, i found that such reg file below wasn't properly merged:

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\P3P\History\doubleclick.net]
@=dword:00000005

the " @=dword:00000005 ", was not processed properly.

it should have create a DWORD default value, but it just leaving an empty STRING default value, instead.

i want to put several list of sites that i don't want to receive its cookies,

without have to type it and click 'block' for a few hundred times.

@queue : RegScanner is great, thank for the reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a new post would have been much better.

Perhaps your reg file did not merge correctly because it is missing a blank line at the end of it. Inf files also require one blank like to end with or so we are told. I have the same value in my registry and exported it to compare and not one whit of difference between the two texts exits. Missing blank line is the only remaining shot in the dark I have...

Also you may want to 'update' your registry and then check the values again. This is done by clicking Start|Shut Down and then clicking Cancel. Then refresh your registry values again to see what they really are, some registry writes are delayed until the shut down dialog box shows for God only knows what reason, but the .Default key just seems to sit up and beg for it somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...