I only run SOFTWARE, PROGRAMS, and GAMES. What's this shit called "apps"? Are really Microsoft and PC users become so dumb, inept and lazy to be unable to use a fucking computer software the way it should be used (install it, run the .exe, download it, whatever) instead of a remotely-censored "app store"?!?

Jeez....

LOL ahahahahhaahahhahaha. Thank you, thank you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEWgs6YQR9A

"Origin of app: 1985-90; by shortening"

"Apps" is a short word for what was originally called "computer software application programs", later commonly known as "applications" or "programs", which is what I prefer to call them regardless of platform.
Hah :-)

Optional. At least for the time being. I'll break out the torches and pitchforks if that ever changes. Only for the insider/dev preview. It's the same for all kinds of beta participation whether games, software or whole operating systems. Nope. You can do just like you do with Windows XP, 7, and 8/8.1, you can set updates to manual, or download but install when you tell them to, or automatic. You can't with the insider preview, of course, one of the things you agree to in order to use the preview is that you accept updates be automatic and you can't turn them off. But the public build whenever it goes RTM will have the same options as always. What? Not only is this patently false aside from getting updates, but really... what OS are you using that doesn't basically require internet access these days? Even Linux, the pillar of user freedom has required internet access pretty much since it's inception. Surely you're using an OS that's less than 15 years old... Isn't that technically what OSes have always been? The only real difference with 10 in how it works as opposed to something like XP, is presumably once you've updated to 10 you'll always be able to get the new versions for free. They haven't confirmed this, but that seems to be what they're hinting at. Similar to how Apple is now giving all OS X updates away. Where before you had to pay to upgrade from XP to Vista, from Vista to 7, from 7 to 8, now once you're on 10, when 11 inevitably comes out, you will get it free. And when 12 comes out, and so on. Although the wording they've been using lately makes it sound like they'll eventually be dropping the number so it will eventually be "Windows" not "Windows 10" or "Windows 11" etc. I prefer Linux, personally, but I use Windows out of necessity. I just try to keep a level head and not be blinded by misguided bias. I'll make my judgement based on actual first hand experience, not conjecture and fear mongering.

Win7 doesn't require...

Looks like Elenarie works, or wants to work, for Microsoft.
As an IT, I can confirm that a wide number of system instability issues in windows had/have the Registry as their source. Also, the Registry is not acting as a *Directory* for anyone human that would want to find out things about the settings the programs run on his/her machine use. On the contrary, it acts as *hiding place* for that and it is often the case that simple settings that would need 3 seconds to change with an .ini file, is impossible for the average user to change, due to the way the registry is structured and how it keeps the values.

Also, when you need to check for problems, is always easier to look at the local installation directory of the suspected program for bad settings, rather than diving into the registry.

It is no secret that the registry has been one of the most failed "innovations" of the Windows Operating system, for anyone that has ever done any troubleshooting for Windows PCs.

I agree with the others that using the filesystem is much more efficient. A Directory branch devoted to the bookkeeping of stuff without the weird UID stuff the Registry requires.

Nice i love <3

Yes, Elenarie is biased towards Microsoft, but he does usually know what he is talking about.

Question: Was the problem how Windows parsed the registry or how a 3rd party used it? While Microsoft does provide excellent documentation, most programmers are quite unaware of what is there or how to use it. Vista's UAC is one of the greatest examples, especially when you consider that multi-user environment for Windows existed since 1995 or so.

Local installation directory, remote installation directory, or user directory? And what settings should be at each location? What about a software that is installed on a server, and used by multiple different machines, by many users per machine? What setting is stored where?

In this specific case, it looks like expressing preference, not knowledge.
This is really irrelevant. A system that does not provide stability through use, is a system not well implemented. Microsoft have been always encouraging programmers to keep their settings on the registry and not on .ini files, for some weird reason. Still, they failed to make their database(because this is what the Registry is) any really comprehensive or useful to anyone, as their very OS was becoming unstable through usage because of it.
Whatever is relevant. If you are an IT, you know where to look depending on the nature of the problem.
Note that you always hope you can find the appropriate settings on a file in a directory because if the setting is on the registry you are out of luck, anyway. Also, if it is on the registry, the registry of which computer?(ouch!). And it is much more difficult to figure *that* out, as the registry cannot be reasonably read and searched by humans.

I'm sorry, but are you familiar with the proverb "A bad carpenter always blames his tools"? If someone programs assuming a single user environment and then encounters errors when running on a multi-user one, it's not a problem with the multi-user environment, but with the programmer. And if someone doesn't document his settings (even if they aren't accessible by everyone), then it's still the programmer's fault, not the method of storage.

Yes. Mathematica installed on a server, run on any machine on the network, run by any of the students. Server directory contains the registration information only, user directory contains user preferences (which toolbars to show, what are the recent files etc), then local machine contains the settings for the specific machine (resolution of window for example, or number of threads to use). If Mathematica has a local directory, then use that to store the info, if it doesn't have, use the registry.
Registry does have its uses, though most people prefer to ignore it, either because they don't want to learn a new thing, or because their "hack" is faster, but will break down the road. That doesn't mean that one cannot create a method that doesn't need the registry (see all portable applications), but those are almost as rare as programmers that know how to use the registry.

We disagree here. The OS should always give every application the feel that it is a *single user environment*, even if it is not. For example, their excellent DIRECT X implementation prevented applications from acquiring exclusive handles for the audio device, while it permitted exclusive handles for the Video Device. If, for any reason, the application tried to acquire an exclusive handle to the video device and failed without being handled(bad programming) the application would die a horrible death *but the system would not be compromised*!!!
So, if an application was to make bad use of the registry, then the implementation had to be such that *the stability of the system would be preserved even if the application was not behaving as it should*. The bad application and the bad application *only* should be suffering, not the system as a whole.
The registry has no more uses than a system based on the filesystem. Noone said that a system monitored cataloging database has no use. All that has been said is that Microsoft's version of that system (the Registry) is poorly implemented and causes more problems than it solves.

Oh really? How do you do updates?

Except in this case the incompetent programmer has a good chance of screwing over the entire system because everything is in the registry. Screw up the registry, a single point of catastrophic failure, you screw up the whole system. Keeping the configurations localized to their programs has far less chance of mucking about with other programs or even the very operating systems configuration. It would essentially be limited to programs that are deliberately developed to jack with other programs (ie: malware of varying stripes), legitimate programs would be far less prone to these shenanigans and the system would more or less protect incompetent programmers from themselves, and us from them by extension.

You don't have to do them in Win7. It is an option.

You mean like how messing an uninstall utility would screw up your system? Because an incompetent programmer cannot screw the system through the filesystem...

... a bad one.

But none the less, neither do you in Windows 10, so mute point.

I did say less prone, less chance of, etc. I did not say immune. No system is going to be perfectly immune.