"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23tNZ3ZdbJHA.1328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> When you run the above .reg file

Just to avoid some misunderstanding of 'regfiles', they don't *run* any
more than a 'textfile' does. Either, when chosen, will cause the OS to
invoke another program (regedit and notepad respectively by default)
and pass the contents to those programs to be consumed by them.

I know *you* know this and that the OP can change the extension to
'txt' to read the contents thereof in 'notepad', but maybe some readers
would get the wrong idea when someone says that they run regfiles.

You are right of course and I should have been clear on that point. A text
file is a text file. It is the extension and format of the text file that
calls regedit and allows the .reg file entry to be inserted into the
registry.

--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:O06AS9gbJHA.4664@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23tNZ3ZdbJHA.1328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> When you run the above .reg file

>
> Just to avoid some misunderstanding of 'regfiles', they don't *run* any
> more than a 'textfile' does. Either, when chosen, will cause the OS to
> invoke another program (regedit and notepad respectively by default)
> and pass the contents to those programs to be consumed by them.
>
> I know *you* know this and that the OP can change the extension to
> 'txt' to read the contents thereof in 'notepad', but maybe some readers
> would get the wrong idea when someone says that they run regfiles.
>

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:OlgOxXcbJHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
> Have you considered the very real possibility that the application in
> question simply isn't Vista-compatible, and that no amount of tinkering
> will make it work?

I see nothing indicating that is relevant. The ability or inability of
processing the reg file is not relevant to Vista compatibility of the
program.

When posting questions such as this, it helps to be more specific. It would
help for example to know if the registration is for the HKLM
(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE) or the current user.

I exported a key from the HKLM then tried to import it. I got the message
saying it is potentially dangerous but I just clicked on okay. Then I got a
message saying there was an error. Nothing else happened, but I assume the
problem is security. If so then perhaps if you had said enough then someone
would have helped you with that.

Microsoft personnel would never ever answer in the manner of most of the
messages in this thread.


"Lau" <Lau@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:044B8B1C-3CE0-4F38-8A2A-3A2DED6BF515@microsoft.com...

> With registration of a program that I got through internet I received a
> register key to make the use of the program possible. After clicking on it
> I
> got the message that Vista would not allow opening it since it extension
> .reg
> is considered a possible risk. I have been using the program with
> WindowsXP
> though without any problems. How do I unlock this key? I have tried the
> program Unlocker, but without succes.

Sam Hobbs wrote:

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:OlgOxXcbJHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>
>> Have you considered the very real possibility that the application in
>> question simply isn't Vista-compatible, and that no amount of
>> tinkering will make it work?

>
> I see nothing indicating that is relevant. The ability or inability of
> processing the reg file is not relevant to Vista compatibility of the
> program.

Of course it's relevant. If the *.reg file in question tries to modify
a registry "location" that does not and/or cannot exist in Vista, it
won't work.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:OEN%232dcbJHA.4480@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
> The fact that it worked on WinXP is absolutely *NO* reason to believe that
> it would work on Vista. They're two _different_ operating systems.

I sure expected the software I used with XP to work with Vista. I sure
believed that Vista is a newer version of Windows. Note that the name of
this newsgroup is microsoft.public.windows.vista.security; in other words,
Vista is Windows. Vista supports all of the Windows API that XP does.

None of that is relevant to the question; the question is asking about
importing a reg file. No part of the application is used by that or needs to
even exist in the system.

> While you're at it, why not ask them if their product is even
> Vista-compatible, to start with? (Had you taken this elementary and
> obvious step this first, you probably wouldn't have even had a problem to
> post, you know.)

Not obvious to me. If that truly is a requirement, then Micorsoft really
failed to inform people of that.

> How does preventing the installation of incompatible and possibly damaging
> software "restrict the freedom of computer users?"

Microsoft absolutely intends to support software that uses the Windows API
and that conforms to the documentation of Windows programs. I see nothing
indicating that the software does not comply. Importing into the registry is
not a good solution, but it is a documented solution and is unrelated to the
operation of the application itself.

"Sam Hobbs" <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote in message
news:OMd2qzpbJHA.4660@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:OEN%232dcbJHA.4480@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>
>> The fact that it worked on WinXP is absolutely *NO* reason to believe
>> that it would work on Vista. They're two _different_ operating systems.

>
> I sure expected the software I used with XP to work with Vista.

You probably just got used to the backward compatibilty afforded you
by the previous versions of Microsoft's OSes.

....but we could just go back and forth about this, so I won't respond
to you again :Op

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:e4srmypbJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
> Of course it's relevant. If the *.reg file in question tries to modify a
> registry "location" that does not and/or cannot exist in Vista, it won't
> work.

If the registry file worked in previous versions of Windows then by
Microsoft's self-defined commitments, it should work for Vista too, unless
they have explicitly stated an incompatibility. If you are aware of a known
incompatibility then it would help to know what that is.