XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com   
      
   On Jan 17, 2026 at 10:27:14 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote   
   :   
      
   > Brock McNuggets    
   > news:696c2034$1$20$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sat, 17 Jan 2026 23:50:12   
   > GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Jan 17, 2026 at 3:47:39 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote   
   >> :   
   >>   
   >>> Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=    
   >>> news:10kfimn$2c5f0$3@dont-email.me Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:53:43 GMT in   
   >>> comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:31:32 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I also don't mess the centralized registry concept that MS foisted   
   >>>>> upon us.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Who is this “us”?   
   >>>   
   >>> The typical Windows user.   
   >>   
   >> I am surprised to see you refer to yourself as a "typical Windows user".   
   >   
   > I wasn't.   
      
   You said "us" and then defined that group as such. Simple set theory.   
      
   ...   
      
      
      
   >   
   >>>  MS was actively discouraging the use of .INI files   
   >>> from Windows 95. They wanted you using the centralized registry   
   >>> instead.   
   >>   
   >> Yes... what a pain.   
   >   
   > It could be if you weren't very familiar with it.   
      
   I prefer the INI or stand alone preferences system. Especially when they are   
   stored in a logical location they make troubleshooting easier.   
      
   ...   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>> I appreciate human readable text file configurations.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Funnily enough, Windows had that, in the form of .INI files that were   
   >>>> quite popular among Windows/DOS apps in the days before Windows 95 and   
   >>>> Windows NT.   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm well aware. The windows 9x series was a glorified DOS shell though.   
   >>> The NT family wasn't.   
   >>   
   >> Not quote... the 9x series could run 32 bit code, and that was not just   
   >> as a shell. It did use DOS and was not a seepage from it as the NT code.   
   >   
   > Yes, quite. It didn't just use DOS, DOS was still under the hood;   
      
   It was... BUT as I said, the 9x series could run 32 bit code where DOS could   
   not.   
   ...   
   >   
   > NT oth, didn't rely on DOS in any way shape or form.   
      
   This was not in contention.   
      
   ...   
      
   --   
   It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with   
   you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)