Is Windows Registry really crap? Or Am I the only one?

[L0rd_M@dness]

Windows Registry: Yay or Nay.
I just hate the fact that my applications are not limited to one directory so I'm dependent on an uninstaller to fully remove the application.
In other words: rd [app directory] != removing [app] <- This I hate.
Couldn't all apps just use local config files?

[vezzy]

Windows up to 3.0 had a fairly reasonable (though still quite imperfect, a remnant from DOS) flat file configuration, similar to Unix and Unix-like systems. You had your BOOT.INI, SYSTEM.INI, WIN.INI and it was relatively straightforward.

The introduction of the registry in 3.1 definitely made things more complicated, but it was still under control to a degree. Afterwards, however, Microsoft blew it completely. The registry has now become some arcane, cryptic and volatile pseudo-filesystem that is hard to navigate, clogs up faster than a Hummer burns fuel and leaves tons of remnants, while slowing performance and being a point of risk.

Registry syntax is also unintuitive and doesn't seem as if it follows any consistency whatsoever. There are some tools that make using it a little less painful, but it's still superfluous. You have both registry keys and plaintext configuration files scattered across your system, in all sorts of locations.

Unix got it short and simple. The registry has been a total clusterfuck for a long time now and you are by no means the only one. Plenty of people before you have expressed the same sentiments and in far greater detail. It's no secret that the registry sucks.

[NovaCygni]

I Disagree, once mastered the registry tree can be highly useful, yourll be suprised how much "Tweaking" you can get done system wide with simple registry tree edits and additions, like adding features to basic windows drivers that you know the hardware supports, is in the drivers itself but isnt natively present (* ie, Channel limitations and so forth *).

Though ill grant, to someone who hasnt spent alot of time studying the registry tree I can see how it would seem like a chaotic system.

[vezzy]

Once mastered, Brainfuck can also be useful.

It is not practical in the slightest though, nor is it well designed (deliberate on Brainfuck's part, not on the registry's).

Adding hardware support disabled by default? Peanuts with a flat file configuration system, just edit the necessary files or do an "echo [OPTION] > file.conf". Even better: compile programs from source and tune the flags to your liking (`make config` is good for you).

The registry is an abomination that defies most common software practices and is rife with unnecessary complication, not to mention it's just a big inconsistency in the entire scheme of a Windows system.

I guess KISS and the principle of least astonishment, among other fundamentals, are inconceivable to Microsoft or to people like you.

[proxx]

Once mastered, Brainfuck can also be useful.

It is not practical in the slightest though, nor is it well designed (deliberate on Brainfuck's part, not on the registry's).

Adding hardware support disabled by default? Peanuts with a flat file configuration system, just edit the necessary files or do an "echo [OPTION] > file.conf". Even better: compile programs from source and tune the flags to your liking (`make config` is good for you).

The registry is an abomination that defies most common software practices and is rife with unnecessary complication, not to mention it's just a big inconsistency in the entire scheme of a Windows system.

I guess KISS and the principle of least astonishment, among other fundamentals, are inconceivable to Microsoft or to people like you.

Im gonna give you a cookie for being able to explain my own thoughts better than I could myself.

[ArkPhaze]

Windows Registry: Yay or Nay.
I just hate the fact that my applications are not limited to one directory so I'm dependent on an uninstaller to fully remove the application.
In other words: rd [app directory] != removing [app] <- This I hate.
Couldn't all apps just use local config files?

No, I would disagree, the registry is a good thing. I'm not sure what the registry has to do with programs relying on an uninstaller because they are on different parts of the filesystem though. The registry is not the Windows filesystem.

Also, not all apps only need to rely on using config files. Perhaps for settings, but what about for 32 vs 64 bit and dll loading? This is the whole reason why on a 64 bit machine you've got 2 directories that indicate program files exist in them. Windows isn't just installed with a bunch of folders, these folders mean something depending on what locations on the filesystem you're talking about.

Btw, they did have config files instead of the registry a long time ago. They were INI files, which slowly evolved the idea of XML config files, and the registry was born around that time too. INI is far too limited now however for the complex data that the registry has to store.

[L0rd_M@dness]

I don't understand how 32 vs 64 and dll loading have to do with registry...
And I never mentioned .ini, applications can have their custom config files if known formats like xml are not enough.
I just can't see the need for a central configurations storage. All applications should be portable. No ProgramData, no AppData, no registry, no nothing. All these are unnecessary. All applications should be limited to their directory and life would just be much easier.

[ArkPhaze]

I don't understand how 32 vs 64 and dll loading have to do with registry...

There, I was talking towards your comment of having multiple folders for a single program, not the registry either. YOU made that an assumption on your own. However, as to relevancy, neither does your idea with the registry have much to do with the registry as you're missing half of the point behind it or more. Probably less than 5 to 10% of the registry itself has things to do with programs on your system btw. And your main point against it was localization.

And I never mentioned .ini, applications can have their custom config files if known formats like xml are not enough.

I don't care -- I mentioned INI to show you that this is old methodology. tl;dr: It's already been done, and for good reasons they moved away from it.

All applications should be portable.

It has not everything to do with portability, but security as well, which is obviously, among other things, something you have neglected to consider here.

No ProgramData, no AppData, no registry, no nothing. All these are unnecessary.

You think?

Where are junk temp files going to go? Backup's? etc... You shouldn't forget that 80% of the computer users out there delete things just because they don't recognize it by filename. There's reasons why places like AppData are hidden in the first place.

All applications should be limited to their directory and life would just be much easier.

If you know how to work with the registry I really don't see the issue.

100% of your idea for config files only, was the reason older versions of Windows were so easily exploitable. This is a silly thread.

[vezzy]

Actually, the reason older versions of Windows were so exploitable was because its DOS core ran in x86 real mode and consequently had no memory protection, everything running with full privileges.

Even after NT this was still an issue and it wasn't until UAC that the situation (although it was still a kludge) somewhat improved.

[ArkPhaze]

Actually, the reason older versions of Windows were so exploitable was because its DOS core ran in x86 real mode and consequently had no memory protection, everything running with full privileges.

Even after NT this was still an issue and it wasn't until UAC that the situation (although it was still a kludge) somewhat improved.

The reason is actually subjective; there are many, there is no single reason. For config files though on the filesystem, unless they are encrypted or protected against read/write, this would probably cause lots of security issues. Hence, why we moved more away from INI and XML, and into the Registry, among other reasons of course that may and may not be obvious, depending on knowledge of the registry and both file formats.

Even on current systems, parts of the registry are much harder to enumerate than the filesystem, depending on privileges.