Re: Ini File vs Registry
"BobF" <nothanks@spamfree.world> wrote in message
news:Ogdmf8dGJHA.4836@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Joseph M. Newcomer wrote:
What do you mean "abuse of my registry"? What, exactly, constitutes
"abuse"? Where is it
defined that the sole purpose of the Registry is to deal with
interactions with the
operating system? I never heard of this as a concept that could even
make sense, let
alone that it is a policy decision anywhere, on any site!
The Registry was designed to hold structured information for whatever
purposes the
programmer chooses to use it. It is there for a reason, and the reason
is NOT exclusively
to deal with OS interactions. In fact, the whole idea of limiting for
that purpose is
completely silly!
joe
Also, IIRC, use of the registry instead of ini files is a logo
requirement. If that matters to anybody ...
OAN, I have several apps that make liberal use of the registry -much more
than 30K- and that NEVER bothered me until I started reading this thread
:-))
I'm biased against using the registry to store app data because I favor
being able to quickly move the data with the app (if the app is on a USB
stick, and I want to take it with me). Also even though app data is in a
separate hive than system data, there is something unclean about putting my
app data long with the system info such as what PID/VID is the disk drive.
For real world concerns, registry fragmentation seriously slows down reading
of a lot of values. Maybe MS fixed that in 2K/XP/Vista, but in Win9x, I got
complaints that my app took 2 minutes to appear when all it was doing was
reading a couple hundred registry strings. I got the message and moved to a
text file, and the complaints disappeared.
When Win95 came out with the registry, I thought MS was going backwards. I
still think they were.
-- David