Gaining control of my PC

[R.H. Breener]

I'm starting a new thread because it's a slightly different subject. How can
I gain control of my PC so I can change the name of, or remove dlls and
other files? Why do I need permission from a "trusted installer?" I don't
even know what it is. How is all this safety crap turned off or deleted or
somehow removed so I can control my PC as I see fit?

Thanks

 

[Boscoe]

I'm starting a new thread because it's a slightly different subject. How
can I gain control of my PC so I can change the name of, or remove dlls
and other files? Why do I need permission from a "trusted installer?"
I don't even know what it is. How is all this safety crap turned off or
deleted or somehow removed so I can control my PC as I see fit?

Thanks

There's A simple Registry hack first developed for W7, but works fine in
W8. Rather than edit the Registry manually, you can download a
ready-made Reg file...


<http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/wind...ership-to-explorer-right-click-menu-in-vista/>

 

[MowGreen]

I'm starting a new thread because it's a slightly different subject. How
can I gain control of my PC so I can change the name of, or remove dlls
and other files? Why do I need permission from a "trusted installer?"
I don't even know what it is. How is all this safety crap turned off or
deleted or somehow removed so I can control my PC as I see fit?

Thanks

The "safety crap" you refer to is an OS component that, amongst other
"things", helps to prevent clueless Users from renaming, deleting, or
corrupting *required* system files. After reading your other thread
( Windows Mail again ), no one should give you any info that will end up
drastically lowering the built in security features of Windows 7 that
protect the OS from *you*.

Go search the windows7 forums ( sevenforums.com ) or the 'net for the
info you seek and then you'll only have yourself to blame for the
inevitable catastrophic results.


MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

 

[Gordonbp]

I'm starting a new thread because it's a slightly different subject. How
can I gain control of my PC so I can change the name of, or remove dlls
and other files? Why do I need permission from a "trusted installer?"
I don't even know what it is. How is all this safety crap turned off or
deleted or somehow removed so I can control my PC as I see fit?

Thanks

You manually remove dll files AT YOUR PERIL. These files are created by
either the Windows install initially, Windows updates or installed programs.

To remove dll files, uninstall the program that installed them! That is
the ONLY way of doing it.

 

[charlie]

I'm starting a new thread because it's a slightly different subject. How
can I gain control of my PC so I can change the name of, or remove dlls
and other files? Why do I need permission from a "trusted installer?"
I don't even know what it is. How is all this safety crap turned off or
deleted or somehow removed so I can control my PC as I see fit?

Thanks

This will usually allow you to get on with the task

http://social.technet.microsoft.com...lt-in-administrator-account-in-windows-7.aspx

 

[Wolf K]

You manually remove dll files AT YOUR PERIL. These files are created by
either the Windows install initially, Windows updates or installed
programs.

To remove dll files, uninstall the program that installed them! That is
the ONLY way of doing it.

To R H Breener in case you don't get it:

"DLL" stands for "dynamic link library". Every such file contains a
routine used by a program. Why are they not in the main body of the
program? a) Because they perform tasks that are not done every time the
program runs, so leaving them on the disk saves RAM space; b) to make it
easier to fix bugs; c) to avoid including code for tasks or routines etc
used by several programs.

HTH

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Wolf K

To R H Breener in case you don't get it:

"DLL" stands for "dynamic link library". Every such file contains a
routine used by a program. Why are they not in the main body of the
program? a) Because they perform tasks that are not done every time the
program runs, so leaving them on the disk saves RAM space; b) to make
it easier to fix bugs; c) to avoid including code for tasks or routines
etc used by several programs.

HTH

c) was, I always thought, the main justification for DLLs when they were
first brought out. But the principle wasn't used as much as intended -
and, where it is (usually with "system" dlls), they are prone to "DLL
hell" when upgrades stop one of the things that uses them from working.

Thus, it would be nicer if prog.s, if they must use DLLs, kept their own
copies in their own directories; after all, disc space is now so cheap
(and to some extent so is RAM, thus removing much of the need for DLLs
in the first place). But sadly, it's not going to happen: installers
will continue to put DLLs in common areas, thus making it difficult for
people to tell what can and what can't be removed. (Yes, you _should_
always remove things using the official uninstaller, and uninstallers -
_and upgrades_ - _should_ remove things no longer needed. Ha.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable
man. -George Bernard Shaw, writer, Nobel laureate (1856-1950)

 

[Wolf K]

n message <[email protected]>, Wolf K

To R H Breener in case you don't get it:

"DLL" stands for "dynamic link library". Every such file contains a
routine used by a program. Why are they not in the main body of the
program? a) Because they perform tasks that are not done every time
the program runs, so leaving them on the disk saves RAM space; b) to
make it easier to fix bugs; c) to avoid including code for tasks or
routines etc used by several programs.

HTH

c) was, I always thought, the main justification for DLLs when they were
first brought out. But the principle wasn't used as much as intended -
and, where it is (usually with "system" dlls), they are prone to "DLL
hell" when upgrades stop one of the things that uses them from working.

Thus, it would be nicer if prog.s, if they must use DLLs, kept their own
copies in their own directories... [...]

Right, but it seems that MS's developer kit(s) default to putting DLLs
into a System directory. Makes it easier for programmers, I guess. Hah!

 

[DanS]

n message <[email protected]>, Wolf K

To R H Breener in case you don't get it:

"DLL" stands for "dynamic link library". Every such file contains a
routine used by a program. Why are they not in the main body of the
program? a) Because they perform tasks that are not done every time
the program runs, so leaving them on the disk saves RAM space; b) to
make it easier to fix bugs; c) to avoid including code for tasks or
routines etc used by several programs.

HTH

c) was, I always thought, the main justification for DLLs when they
were first brought out. But the principle wasn't used as much as
intended - and, where it is (usually with "system" dlls), they are
prone to "DLL hell" when upgrades stop one of the things that uses them
from working.

Thus, it would be nicer if prog.s, if they must use DLLs, kept their
own copies in their own directories... [...]

Right, but it seems that MS's developer kit(s) default to putting DLLs
into a System directory. Makes it easier for programmers, I guess. Hah!

With development of the "manifest" file, which you'll see in a program
directory, typically as a [program_name].exe.manifest, MS did give
programmers the ability to use an ActiveX dll from the local app install
path.

There's an ActiveX dll, and a "standard" DLL.

An "ActiveX" dll is "registered" in the registry, so apps that share it
can use the same DLL. When the application loads, it looks at the
registry for the location of that shared DLL.

A "regular" DLL is different. These are not registered, and when a
program requires one of these, it follows conventional rules, looking in
the apps current directory for the dll first, and if not found it
traverses the %path% to see if it can locate the DLL in the path.

*My* experience is that the issue called "DLL hell" is no where nearly as
serious as it was under Win9x....not that isn't ever a DLL issue, just
that's it's not commonplace any longer.

*My* Linux experience tells me this is not the case under Linux. While
the diehard Linux users still (IMO incorrectly) use "DLL Hell" as bit of
FUD against Windows, there is "dependency hell" under Linux. Same as "DLL
Hell", but still very much an issue. There have been times when I started
to install a package, and because it used a "shared library" that it was
going to install/update, the system wanted to uninstall 10 *other* apps
that used that same shared library that was about to be updated.

 

[R.H. Breener]

The "safety crap" you refer to is an OS component that, amongst other
"things", helps to prevent clueless Users from renaming, deleting, or
corrupting *required* system files.

And WindowsMail dlls are system files? I don't think so. I've been online
for over 15 years and never met anyone who changed a "system" file and
screwed up their PC.

After reading your other thread

( Windows Mail again ), no one should give you any info that will end up
drastically lowering the built in security features of Windows 7 that
protect the OS from *you*.

So trying to get WM to work in W-7 is drastically lowering the built in
security features of Windows 7? I don't think so.

Go search the windows7 forums ( sevenforums.com ) or the 'net for the info
you seek and then you'll only have yourself to blame for the inevitable
catastrophic results.

If you send people to sevenforums.com who tire of all the unwanted safety
popups and denied access crap, why do you bother replying? You seem to be
unaware there are plenty of problems with W-7 even when people don't remove
or change "system" files. I had to do a System Recovery because one fine
day this past week because the W-7 PC couldn't see the HD. No new softwarfe
was added. Nothing was changed. The PC is about 6 months old. No one uses
the PC but me. All was well one day and the next moring it wouldn't boot
up..... so don't blame the user for every crash or problem W's PC have.

 

[R.H. Breener]

You manually remove dll files AT YOUR PERIL. These files are created by
either the Windows install initially, Windows updates or installed
programs.

To remove dll files, uninstall the program that installed them! That is
the ONLY way of doing it.

The dll I'm talking about is the one in WindowsMail that has to be replaced
for the mail program to work correctly in W-7. It has to be renamed, not
removed. It's a copy of WM from Vista. The other is a copy of WM that was
on W-7, but is disabled. I'm not stupid enough to start removing dlls for
the hell of it. :^)

BTW, I can't uninstall WindowsLiveMail using Programs-and-Features (not
there, essentials can't be removed either) and it has no uninstall choice in
Programs.

 

[R.H. Breener]

To R H Breener in case you don't get it:

"DLL" stands for "dynamic link library". Every such file contains a
routine used by a program. Why are they not in the main body of the
program? a) Because they perform tasks that are not done every time the
program runs, so leaving them on the disk saves RAM space; b) to make it
easier to fix bugs; c) to avoid including code for tasks or routines etc
used by several programs.

I am aware of that. But this is a copy of WindowsMail from another PC that
needs a dll renamed for the new dll to work. The dll has no other connection
to W-7. The WM copy is from the Vista PC, as per a website on how to get WM
to work on W-7. It was working perfectly for 6 months until W-7, suddenly,
out of the blue, could no longer boot. I had to call HP tech support since
it's still under warranty, to get a # and have them suggest options. The
tech, after having me run all kinds of tests, said the boot code somehow
became corrupt and the OS would have to be reinstalled. It happened once
before also. Again, there was no new software added, nothing was changed....
it just failed to boot with a BIOHD3 error.

 

[R.H. Breener]

This will usually allow you to get on with the task

http://social.technet.microsoft.com...lt-in-administrator-account-in-windows-7.aspx

This worked and I have that hidden Administrator account now on the W-7 PC.
Unfortunately, I still can't, unlike last time, get WM to work on W-7. I
can't figure out what the problem is. It worked perfectly until HP had me
reinstall the OS, now it wont work at all. One email account worked for a
few messages, NGs worked for awhile yesterday, but today that email account
wont work either, so I can download NG messages on WM but not reply to
messages. I'm friggin' sick over this. I despise WLM and tried several
other email programs over the years and didn't like any of them.

 

[Big Steel]

This worked and I have that hidden Administrator account now on the W-7
PC. Unfortunately, I still can't, unlike last time, get WM to work on
W-7. I can't figure out what the problem is. It worked perfectly until
HP had me reinstall the OS, now it wont work at all. One email account
worked for a few messages, NGs worked for awhile yesterday, but today
that email account wont work either, so I can download NG messages on WM
but not reply to messages. I'm friggin' sick over this. I despise WLM
and tried several other email programs over the years and didn't like
any of them.

Go install Thunderbird for Win 7, which is free. I use it for email and
the NG reader to go to my Earthlink email, Gmail, MS NNTP Bridge account
to access the MS forums and Earthlink NNTP servers.

One program that does it all with no problems.

You can also do this. I abandon WM after I dumped Vista.

http://www.reaper-x.com/2006/09/20/accessing-windows-live-mail-account-using-thunderbird/

 

[Char Jackson]

Unfortunately, I still can't, unlike last time, get WM to work on W-7. I
can't figure out what the problem is. It worked perfectly until HP had me
reinstall the OS, now it wont work at all. One email account worked for a
few messages, NGs worked for awhile yesterday, but today that email account
wont work either, so I can download NG messages on WM but not reply to
messages.

Regarding your GMail: I believe you were/are using incorrect server
settings, which would explain why email isn't working.

Regarding Usenet: I don't think you've asked for help with that or
provided any issue description or error messages. If you can retrieve
posts, you can usually reply to them (or your client should tell you
why it can't).

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

And WindowsMail dlls are system files? I don't think so. I've been online
for over 15 years and never met anyone who changed a "system" file and
screwed up their PC.

After reading your other thread

So trying to get WM to work in W-7 is drastically lowering the built in
security features of Windows 7? I don't think so.


If you send people to sevenforums.com who tire of all the unwanted safety
popups and denied access crap, why do you bother replying? You seem to be
unaware there are plenty of problems with W-7 even when people don't remove
or change "system" files. I had to do a System Recovery because one fine
day this past week because the W-7 PC couldn't see the HD. No new softwarfe
was added. Nothing was changed. The PC is about 6 months old. No one uses
the PC but me. All was well one day and the next moring it wouldn't boot
up..... so don't blame the user for every crash or problem W's PC have.

Logically speaking, that isn't actual *proof* that you didn't mess
something up yourself.

 

[Char Jackson]

Logically speaking, that isn't actual *proof* that you didn't mess
something up yourself.

The smoking gun is "Nothing was changed" and "No one uses the PC but
me." Back in the early 1990's I did a stint as tech support for a
small ISP and just about every call would start that way.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

The smoking gun is "Nothing was changed" and "No one uses the PC but
me." Back in the early 1990's I did a stint as tech support for a
small ISP and just about every call would start that way.

Actually, that last part is exactly what I meant

All based in no small measure on my own ability to make inadvertent and
unnoticed changes...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Actually, that last part is exactly what I meant

All based in no small measure on my own ability to make inadvertent and
unnoticed changes...

Sorry, I was careless again. I actually didn't realize that is exactly
what *you* were saying (I think I thought I was answering R.H. Breener).

 

[Bob Henson]

The smoking gun is "Nothing was changed" and "No one uses the PC but
me." Back in the early 1990's I did a stint as tech support for a
small ISP and just about every call would start that way.

I just had one of those from my ISP. My query as to why I was getting
much slower speeds was met with the usual lame old "we want you to try
these 50 different modifications on your system to find the problem"
which the customer service bods always do in the hope that you will go
away and not disturb the computer games they're playing any more. I
stuck it out with the standard " I haven't changed anything this end -
what have you changed at your end." The net result of the battle of
wills was that several messages and a lot of bullshit later they agreed
to put my system profile back to where it had been before they had
changed it, and my speeds were restored. Nothing had changed at my end

It's far from always the customer that's wrong - the bullshit from some
customer service set-ups is amazing.