Moving DATA folder to "the cloud"?

[G. Morgan]

Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?

That way I can stay synchronized at each of my workstations. Cool idea, but
will it work?

Right now it's in:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

Dropbox folder is:
C:\Users\me\Documents\My Dropbox


¹If you don't know what Dropbox is, it's basically free offline storage that
runs a little app. to keep the "Dropbox" folder on each host synchronized. You
get 2GB free to start (which is plenty for Agent's DATA folder), and can get
more space with referrals. So I'll post a shameless plug for my referrer ID in
case somebody wants to try it that already hasn't.

http://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTE2MDQwMTI5

[Jeffrey Kaplan]

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?
That way I can stay synchronized at each of my workstations. Cool idea, but
will it work?
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs
in your C:\Users\userid\AppData\Roaming\Forte\Agent. Specifically, no
application should be storing its data in either C:\Program Files
location. Those are supposed to be protected locations.

Post by G. Morgan
C:\Users\me\Documents\My Dropbox

With a mapped drive location, Agent can use it. Just know that if the
connection breaks for any reason, so might your database.

[mm]

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?
That way I can stay synchronized at each of my workstations. Cool idea, but
will it work?
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs

What if you didn't assume win7? No problem putting the data where you
want it, at least on one of your own hard drives, right? (Does the OP
have win7?)

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
in your C:\Users\userid\AppData\Roaming\Forte\Agent. Specifically, no
application should be storing its data in either C:\Program Files
location. Those are supposed to be protected locations.

Post by G. Morgan
C:\Users\me\Documents\My Dropbox

With a mapped drive location, Agent can use it. Just know that if the
connection breaks for any reason, so might your database.

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?
That way I can stay synchronized at each of my workstations. Cool idea, but
will it work?
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs

What if you didn't assume win7? (Does the OP
have win7?)

If the OP has a "Program Files (x86)" then it is highly likely
that the OP has either Vista or Win7. The same Windows UAC
restriction affects both Vista and Win7.

No problem putting the data where you
want it, at least on one of your own hard drives, right?

So long as "where you want it" is not a directory which the
operating system protects from change by user-level programs.

Vista and Win7 protect "C:\Program Files (x86)" from change by
user-level programs.

[Agent] Help >> Index >> Vista >> Agent and Windows Vista

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
in your C:\Users\userid\AppData\Roaming\Forte\Agent. Specifically, no
application should be storing its data in either C:\Program Files
location. Those are supposed to be protected locations.

[mm]

Post by Ralph Fox

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?
That way I can stay synchronized at each of my workstations. Cool idea, but
will it work?
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs

What if you didn't assume win7? (Does the OP
have win7?)

If the OP has a "Program Files (x86)" then it is highly likely

Aha. I did't get the signicance of that.

Post by Ralph Fox
that the OP has either Vista or Win7. The same Windows UAC
restriction affects both Vista and Win7.

No problem putting the data where you
want it, at least on one of your own hard drives, right?

So long as "where you want it" is not a directory which the
operating system protects from change by user-level programs.

Okay. Good to know.

Post by Ralph Fox
Vista and Win7 protect "C:\Program Files (x86)" from change by
user-level programs.
[Agent] Help >> Index >> Vista >> Agent and Windows Vista

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
in your C:\Users\userid\AppData\Roaming\Forte\Agent. Specifically, no
application should be storing its data in either C:\Program Files
location. Those are supposed to be protected locations.

In past years, rules like that would have tremendously inconvenienced
me, but I've gotten more and more of my data in its own partiiton.

Now I just have to decide what to do with 98's "My Documents" and XP's
"Documents and Settings".

Thanks.

[DevilsPGD]

Post by mm

Post by Ralph Fox

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?
That way I can stay synchronized at each of my workstations. Cool idea, but
will it work?
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs

What if you didn't assume win7? (Does the OP
have win7?)

If the OP has a "Program Files (x86)" then it is highly likely

Aha. I did't get the signicance of that.

Well... That just indicates it's a non-x86 architecture. This notation
was used as far back as NT, although in modern environments you will see
it on the relatively rare XP 64-bit/x64 editions, as well as Vista and
W7.

It wasn't until W7 that x64 became common place, but the "Program Files
(x86)" has a far longer heritage than most people recognize.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

[Default] On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:39:16 -0800, DevilsPGD

Post by DevilsPGD

Post by mm

Post by Ralph Fox
If the OP has a "Program Files (x86)" then it is highly likely

Aha. I did't get the signicance of that.

Well... That just indicates it's a non-x86 architecture. This notation
was used as far back as NT, although in modern environments you will see
it on the relatively rare XP 64-bit/x64 editions, as well as Vista and
W7.
It wasn't until W7 that x64 became common place, but the "Program Files
(x86)" has a far longer heritage than most people recognize.

Also a sign of remarkably poor systems architecture IMO - why on earth
is it necessary? The user should never need to know, and the system
knows from the binary header of an executable what it has been
compiled for. It just makes life more complex.

I'm so glad I've given up on Windows.

Cheers - Jaimie

[DevilsPGD]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
[Default] On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:39:16 -0800, DevilsPGD

Post by DevilsPGD

Post by mm

Post by Ralph Fox
If the OP has a "Program Files (x86)" then it is highly likely

Aha. I did't get the signicance of that.

Well... That just indicates it's a non-x86 architecture. This notation
was used as far back as NT, although in modern environments you will see
it on the relatively rare XP 64-bit/x64 editions, as well as Vista and
W7.
It wasn't until W7 that x64 became common place, but the "Program Files
(x86)" has a far longer heritage than most people recognize.

Also a sign of remarkably poor systems architecture IMO - why on earth
is it necessary? The user should never need to know, and the system
knows from the binary header of an executable what it has been
compiled for. It just makes life more complex.
I'm so glad I've given up on Windows.

Users shouldn't need to care really, you have to already be at least a
little technical to care where programs are installed and why.

[Dan Musicant]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:12:39 -0800, DevilsPGD
<Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-***@crazyhat.net> wrote:

:In message <***@4ax.com> Jaimie
:Vandenbergh <***@sometimes.sessile.org> was claimed to have wrote:
:
:>[Default] On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:39:16 -0800, DevilsPGD
:><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-***@crazyhat.net> wrote:
:>
:>>In message <***@4ax.com> mm
:>><***@bigfoot.com> was claimed to have wrote:
:>>
:>>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:30:10 +1300, Ralph Fox <[e-mail]>
:>>>wrote:
:>>>
:>>>>If the OP has a "Program Files (x86)" then it is highly likely
:>>>
:>>>Aha. I did't get the signicance of that.
:>>
:>>Well... That just indicates it's a non-x86 architecture. This notation
:>>was used as far back as NT, although in modern environments you will see
:>>it on the relatively rare XP 64-bit/x64 editions, as well as Vista and
:>>W7.
:>>
:>>It wasn't until W7 that x64 became common place, but the "Program Files
:>>(x86)" has a far longer heritage than most people recognize.
:>
:>Also a sign of remarkably poor systems architecture IMO - why on earth
:>is it necessary? The user should never need to know, and the system
:>knows from the binary header of an executable what it has been
:>compiled for. It just makes life more complex.
:>
:>I'm so glad I've given up on Windows.
:
:Users shouldn't need to care really, you have to already be at least a
:little technical to care where programs are installed and why.

I think that it's this thinking that has made Windows more and more
unusable, at least for me and people like me who want to know what's
really going on. They've gone to greater and greater lengths to shield
the user from the realities. It's symptomatic of similar attitudes in
society in general and in my view reprehensible if not outright
unconscionable.

Dan


Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

[DevilsPGD]

Post by Dan Musicant
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:12:39 -0800, DevilsPGD
:>[Default] On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:39:16 -0800, DevilsPGD
:>
:>>
:>>>
:>>>>If the OP has a "Program Files (x86)" then it is highly likely
:>>>
:>>>Aha. I did't get the signicance of that.
:>>
:>>Well... That just indicates it's a non-x86 architecture. This notation
:>>was used as far back as NT, although in modern environments you will see
:>>it on the relatively rare XP 64-bit/x64 editions, as well as Vista and
:>>W7.
:>>
:>>It wasn't until W7 that x64 became common place, but the "Program Files
:>>(x86)" has a far longer heritage than most people recognize.
:>
:>Also a sign of remarkably poor systems architecture IMO - why on earth
:>is it necessary? The user should never need to know, and the system
:>knows from the binary header of an executable what it has been
:>compiled for. It just makes life more complex.
:>
:>I'm so glad I've given up on Windows.
:Users shouldn't need to care really, you have to already be at least a
:little technical to care where programs are installed and why.
I think that it's this thinking that has made Windows more and more
unusable, at least for me and people like me who want to know what's
really going on.

You're missing the point.

Post by Dan Musicant
They've gone to greater and greater lengths to shield
the user from the realities.

It's not about shielding users in the sense of preventing them from
digging around, but rather, to make things simple enough that a typical
user doesn't need to care.

Put it this way, why does a user care whether a MSI or EXE installer
places files in \Program Files\ or \Program Files (x86)\? What the user
cares about is that when they click on the icon in the start menu the
program does what it's supposed to do.

Compare what happens if you sit down a first-time user in front of a
booted Windows 7 system vs a MSDOS 6.22 system. Which user do you think
will manage to get on the internet first?

For those of us that want to know, you still can dig around in the file
system, the registry, understand the how-and-why things work. You can
tweak to your heart's content.

[Jeffrey Kaplan]

Post by Dan Musicant
:Users shouldn't need to care really, you have to already be at least a
:little technical to care where programs are installed and why.
I think that it's this thinking that has made Windows more and more
unusable, at least for me and people like me who want to know what's
really going on. They've gone to greater and greater lengths to shield
the user from the realities. It's symptomatic of similar attitudes in
society in general and in my view reprehensible if not outright
unconscionable.

Then use Linux.

The reality is that you (and I) are rare. Computers have moved beyond
the realm of the technorati and have become an appliance, like a TV or
a refrigerator. The vast majority of users do not care, and do not
want to care about how and why it works, they just want it to work when
they turn it on.

Then there are those who don't know what they are doing and poke into
things they shouldn't, because they don't know what they're doing, and
break things. Then they go complain to the vendor's tech support about
how crappy their product is because it broke for no reason. It is
these people that these changes are primarily designed to protect
against.

For those who do know, are willing to risk breaking things either
because they're sure they can fix it or are knowledgeable enough to
work within the available resources to fix it (and learn from the
mistake!), bypassing the protections is possible, often easily
possible.

For example, it's trivial now to adjust or disable UAC, whereas in
Vista it required a logoff if not an actual reboot. It's always been a
simple preference to show "hidden" and "protected" files, the minor
trick was knowing where the setting is.

I've found, on the whole, that Win7 is more usable than XP, and I do
not feel that I'm being blocked from messing with it if I so choose.
The only stumbling block I see in front of me on that is simply knowing
where things are. Some things have changed, but most are where they
were in Vista, and most of the changes since XP were renames to better
reflect what the thing is or does.

[Jeffrey Kaplan]

Post by mm

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by G. Morgan
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs

What if you didn't assume win7? No problem putting the data where you

Vista's is virtually the same, XP's is C:\Documents And Settings.

Post by mm
want it, at least on one of your own hard drives, right? (Does the OP
have win7?)

The various "protected locations" are protected by Windows for a
reason, and overriding that by forcing it to accept application
data/documents in the program files location is a Bad Thing.

It's a security issue.

[Foke]

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by mm

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by G. Morgan
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs

What if you didn't assume win7? No problem putting the data where you

Vista's is virtually the same, XP's is C:\Documents And Settings.

Post by mm
want it, at least on one of your own hard drives, right? (Does the OP
have win7?)

The various "protected locations" are protected by Windows for a
reason, and overriding that by forcing it to accept application
data/documents in the program files location is a Bad Thing.

It depends on who's driving the bus. For the clueless, UAC is a Good
Thing. For the rest, UAC is a PITA.

[Nick Spalding]

Post by Foke

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by mm

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by G. Morgan
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs

What if you didn't assume win7? No problem putting the data where you

Vista's is virtually the same, XP's is C:\Documents And Settings.

Post by mm
want it, at least on one of your own hard drives, right? (Does the OP
have win7?)

The various "protected locations" are protected by Windows for a
reason, and overriding that by forcing it to accept application
data/documents in the program files location is a Bad Thing.

It depends on who's driving the bus. For the clueless, UAC is a Good
Thing. For the rest, UAC is a PI

It doesn't do anything for me as an un-networked single user. It didn't
take me long to find out how to turn it off in Vista, I'm told it is
marginally more trouble in 7.

[Jeffrey Kaplan]

Previously on alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Nick Spalding

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Foke
It depends on who's driving the bus. For the clueless, UAC is a Good
Thing. For the rest, UAC is a PI

It doesn't do anything for me as an un-networked single user. It didn't
take me long to find out how to turn it off in Vista, I'm told it is
marginally more trouble in 7.

UAC is easier to deal with in Win7 because you can adjust it "live", no
need to restart anything.

[Marc Wilson]

In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Jeffrey Kaplan) wrote in

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
Previously on alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Nick Spalding

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Foke
It depends on who's driving the bus. For the clueless, UAC is a Good
Thing. For the rest, UAC is a PI

It doesn't do anything for me as an un-networked single user. It didn't
take me long to find out how to turn it off in Vista, I'm told it is
marginally more trouble in 7.

UAC is easier to deal with in Win7 because you can adjust it "live", no
need to restart anything.

And to a finer granularity than "on or off".

Note that 64-bit rootkits are out in the wild, UAC is some protection...

[mm]

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
Previously on alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Nick Spalding

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by Foke
It depends on who's driving the bus. For the clueless, UAC is a Good
Thing. For the rest, UAC is a PI

I believe that.

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by Nick Spalding
It doesn't do anything for me as an un-networked single user. It didn't
take me long to find out how to turn it off in Vista, I'm told it is
marginally more trouble in 7.

UAC is easier to deal with in Win7 because you can adjust it "live", no
need to restart anything.

You can turn it off? Good.

[Jeffrey Kaplan]

Post by Foke

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
The various "protected locations" are protected by Windows for a
reason, and overriding that by forcing it to accept application
data/documents in the program files location is a Bad Thing.

It depends on who's driving the bus. For the clueless, UAC is a Good
Thing. For the rest, UAC is a PITA.

I wasn't referring to UAC (which I agree with you on, btw). I was
referring to protected locations, not processes.

"Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" are protected locations in
the filesystem to prevent rogue programs/processes from infecting/
effecting your legitimate applications. (How well this protection
actually works is not the issue at this time.) Intentionally defeating
this protection is not a good idea.

By default, Windows now directs application data to the user's AppData
location, and in the vast majority of cases, the user should let this
happen.

[G. Morgan]

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
"Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" are protected locations in
the filesystem to prevent rogue programs/processes from infecting/
effecting your legitimate applications. (How well this protection
actually works is not the issue at this time.) Intentionally defeating
this protection is not a good idea.

I can assure you that I knew what I was doing when I placed the DATA folder in
the same one as the application. I don't do binaries, and only download bodies
that have been chosen to retrieve. I have UAC off purposely, and understand the
potential risk.

So, I disagree with your blanket-statement up there. Like someone else
mentioned, it really does depend on who's "driving the bus".

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

[Default] On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:09:20 -0600, G. Morgan

Post by G. Morgan

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
"Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" are protected locations in
the filesystem to prevent rogue programs/processes from infecting/
effecting your legitimate applications. (How well this protection
actually works is not the issue at this time.) Intentionally defeating
this protection is not a good idea.

I can assure you that I knew what I was doing when I placed the DATA folder in
the same one as the application. I don't do binaries, and only download bodies
that have been chosen to retrieve. I have UAC off purposely, and understand the
potential risk.
So, I disagree with your blanket-statement up there. Like someone else
mentioned, it really does depend on who's "driving the bus".

To swith metaphors slightly, Microsoft are driving the tax. You're
merely a passenger, with control over start and end points -
everything else is handled (or mishandled) by MS.

UAC is a somewhat successful attempt by MS to reduce the attack
surface of Windows at the desktop. Intentionally defeating this
protection is not a good idea for the vast majority of users.

Cheers - Jaimie

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

[Default] On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:55:21 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
[Default] On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:09:20 -0600, G. Morgan

Post by G. Morgan

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
"Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" are protected locations in
the filesystem to prevent rogue programs/processes from infecting/
effecting your legitimate applications. (How well this protection
actually works is not the issue at this time.) Intentionally defeating
this protection is not a good idea.

I can assure you that I knew what I was doing when I placed the DATA folder in
the same one as the application. I don't do binaries, and only download bodies
that have been chosen to retrieve. I have UAC off purposely, and understand the
potential risk.
So, I disagree with your blanket-statement up there. Like someone else
mentioned, it really does depend on who's "driving the bus".

To swith metaphors slightly, Microsoft are driving the tax.

Cripes. "Switch" and "taxi".

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
You're
merely a passenger, with control over start and end points -
everything else is handled (or mishandled) by MS.
UAC is a somewhat successful attempt by MS to reduce the attack
surface of Windows at the desktop. Intentionally defeating this
protection is not a good idea for the vast majority of users.
Cheers - Jaimie

[G. Morgan]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
UAC is a somewhat successful attempt by MS to reduce the attack
surface of Windows at the desktop. Intentionally defeating this
protection is not a good idea for the vast majority of users.

I always looked at it as a cop-out. M$FT can not figure out how to keep malware
off the OS automatically, so it just blocks everything by default. That way
when a customer calls about a malware infestation they can simply pass the buck
and say "you allowed it".

It's an annoyance. It's not a "solution" for the problem it intends to "fix".

Regular users, especially in a work/corporate environment should not and will
not have admin rights anyway. Even regular home users should run with a
"standard" account, rather than as an administrator.

We agree that "regular users" should keep UAC on though. I just don't on my own
machines.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

[Default] On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 07:06:48 -0600, G. Morgan

Post by G. Morgan

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
UAC is a somewhat successful attempt by MS to reduce the attack
surface of Windows at the desktop. Intentionally defeating this
protection is not a good idea for the vast majority of users.

I always looked at it as a cop-out. M$FT can not figure out how to keep malware
off the OS automatically, so it just blocks everything by default. That way
when a customer calls about a malware infestation they can simply pass the buck
and say "you allowed it".
It's an annoyance. It's not a "solution" for the problem it intends to "fix".

Right - it's a plaster over a gaping wound. But it's better than not
having it.

Post by G. Morgan
Regular users, especially in a work/corporate environment should not and will
not have admin rights anyway. Even regular home users should run with a
"standard" account, rather than as an administrator.
We agree that "regular users" should keep UAC on though. I just don't on my own
machines.

I do - I care *more* about my machines, since I'd have to firefight if
there was a zero-day web-borne infection or whatever, and I'm less
likely to be careful all the time (eg when somewhat under the
influence at 2am wielding a credit card on eBay...).

The downsides of using a standard user account and UAC are very small,
unless you're doing a lot of system admin sort of stuff. My boxes are
stable enough that I don't.

Cheers - Jaimie

[DevilsPGD]

Post by G. Morgan

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
UAC is a somewhat successful attempt by MS to reduce the attack
surface of Windows at the desktop. Intentionally defeating this
protection is not a good idea for the vast majority of users.

I always looked at it as a cop-out. M$FT can not figure out how to keep malware
off the OS automatically, so it just blocks everything by default. That way
when a customer calls about a malware infestation they can simply pass the buck
and say "you allowed it".

Would you prefer Windows proactively decide what software you are or are
not allowed to run on the basis that the software does something
Microsoft thinks you might not approve of?

Consider the alternatives; with the power to run applications you want
you have the potential to run all sorts of software. Are you really
suggesting giving that up?

Post by G. Morgan
It's an annoyance. It's not a "solution" for the problem it intends to "fix".
Regular users, especially in a work/corporate environment should not and will
not have admin rights anyway. Even regular home users should run with a
"standard" account, rather than as an administrator.

This is the whole point of UAC. UAC turns you into a standard user, but
simplifies the process of running programs with elevated permissions
when needed.

[G. Morgan]

Post by DevilsPGD

Post by G. Morgan
I always looked at it as a cop-out. M$FT can not figure out how to keep malware
off the OS automatically, so it just blocks everything by default. That way
when a customer calls about a malware infestation they can simply pass the buck
and say "you allowed it".

Would you prefer Windows proactively decide what software you are or are
not allowed to run on the basis that the software does something
Microsoft thinks you might not approve of?

Hell to the no³ (no to the 3rd power). I would never install an OS that had
that restriction.

Post by DevilsPGD
Consider the alternatives; with the power to run applications you want
you have the potential to run all sorts of software. Are you really
suggesting giving that up?

Of course not. When I help customers, friends, and family, I always make sure
they are using a standard account, have UAC on and all the way up (Win7), and
system restore is on. I don't do that on my own machines for convenience.

I keep a disk image of my system partition, and since I like to toy around I
frequently re-image. All my personal data is backed up on another machine.

In other words, I assume I'm going to break Windows. I may not break it with
malware, but I may do it by installing alpha version software and whatever
bleeding-edge stuff I can get my hands on.

I'm going to break it and I don't care, because I can be back in business with a
clean image in less time it takes to have a pizza delivered.

Post by DevilsPGD

Post by G. Morgan
It's an annoyance. It's not a "solution" for the problem it intends to "fix".
Regular users, especially in a work/corporate environment should not and will
not have admin rights anyway. Even regular home users should run with a
"standard" account, rather than as an administrator.

This is the whole point of UAC. UAC turns you into a standard user, but
simplifies the process of running programs with elevated permissions
when needed.

UAC simply makes the user complacent and hit 'yes' like Pavlov's dogs hearing
the bell ring. There should be a better method(s).

For instance, Windows could give a free "pass" to known good programs simply by
comparing the MD5 against a database. Software developers can come up with a
system that gets their program certified "virus/malware free" by a 3rd party
(let's say virustotal.com as an example). If the program passes a scan then it
is issued a certificate, which Windows will interpret as a "clean" download and
allow execution without the nag.

It would be commonplace, just as web developers run their work through a 3rd
party validater to brag about compliant HTML and CSS.

[Marc Wilson]

In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (G. Morgan) wrote in

Post by G. Morgan

Post by DevilsPGD

Post by G. Morgan
I always looked at it as a cop-out. M$FT can not figure out how to keep malware
off the OS automatically, so it just blocks everything by default. That way
when a customer calls about a malware infestation they can simply pass the buck
and say "you allowed it".

Would you prefer Windows proactively decide what software you are or are
not allowed to run on the basis that the software does something
Microsoft thinks you might not approve of?

Hell to the no³ (no to the 3rd power). I would never install an OS that had
that restriction.

Not a natural Apple customer, then :)

[G. Morgan]

Post by Marc Wilson

Post by G. Morgan
Hell to the no³ (no to the 3rd power). I would never install an OS that had
that restriction.

Not a natural Apple customer, then :)

Affirmative! I've never owned an Apple product!

[Jeffrey Kaplan]

Post by DevilsPGD
Consider the alternatives; with the power to run applications you want
you have the potential to run all sorts of software. Are you really
suggesting giving that up?

The alternative is to do it the way UNIX has from the start. NOBODY by
default has Admin (root) access, each user has not only their own data
directory but also their own "Program Files" location unless the
program is specifically installed for all users, and other security
features that do not get in the way of normal usage.

Post by DevilsPGD
This is the whole point of UAC. UAC turns you into a standard user, but
simplifies the process of running programs with elevated permissions
when needed.

That's not what UAC does, though. UAC does not elevate your
permissions. Rather, it jumps in your face and attempts to stop you
from doing things, even patently safe things. It's worse than useless,
because since it pops so often, it trains the user to just click
through it without bothering to read its caution notice.

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by DevilsPGD
Consider the alternatives; with the power to run applications you want
you have the potential to run all sorts of software. Are you really
suggesting giving that up?

The alternative is to do it the way UNIX has from the start. NOBODY by
default has Admin (root) access, each user has not only their own data
directory but also their own "Program Files" location unless the
program is specifically installed for all users, and other security
features that do not get in the way of normal usage.

I run Win7 from a normal user account.
I only ever log on as Admin when I need to do Admin type tasks.
In fact I usually don't even log on as Admin. I do the equivalent
of Unix's sudo -- I "run as Administrator".

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by DevilsPGD
This is the whole point of UAC. UAC turns you into a standard user, but
simplifies the process of running programs with elevated permissions
when needed.

That's not what UAC does, though. UAC does not elevate your
permissions. Rather, it jumps in your face and attempts to stop you
from doing things, even patently safe things. It's worse than useless,
because since it pops so often, it trains the user to just click
through it without bothering to read its caution notice.

Strange. This isn't my experience on Win7.

(a) The only times I get prompted are for the kinds of things
which I would have to sudo on Unix (i.e. require elevation).

(b) I am not training myself to click through -- I have it set
up so I also have to type the Admin password.


On Tuesday I added a .pto file association in my user account,
all without any UAC.

I would have only seen UAC if I were to set the association for
all users. That would be something which should require elevation.

[DevilsPGD]

Post by Ralph Fox

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
That's not what UAC does, though. UAC does not elevate your
permissions. Rather, it jumps in your face and attempts to stop you
from doing things, even patently safe things. It's worse than useless,
because since it pops so often, it trains the user to just click
through it without bothering to read its caution notice.

Strange. This isn't my experience on Win7.

Vista was pretty bad out the door, both with various items in the
control panel that really shouldn't need prompts, and the multiple (as
many as three in certain cases) prompts when doing a single task in
Explorer.

Vista's current incarnation is better. Windows 7 is better still.

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by DevilsPGD
Vista was pretty bad out the door, both with various items in the
control panel that really shouldn't need prompts,

Indeed! Can't even adjust the time without having my intentions
checked. I wouldn't have to do it at all if synchronising with a
time server worked properly like it did in XP.

Chris

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by DevilsPGD
Vista was pretty bad out the door, both with various items in the
control panel that really shouldn't need prompts,

Indeed! Can't even adjust the time without having my intentions
checked. I wouldn't have to do it at all if synchronising with a
time server worked properly like it did in XP.

Time synchronizing seems to work fine here in Win7.
I have the Internet time server set to "nz.pool.ntp.org".

If you are in the UK, you could use "europe.ntp.pool.org" or "uk.ntp.pool.org".

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Ralph Fox
Time synchronizing seems to work fine here in Win7.
I have the Internet time server set to "nz.pool.ntp.org".
If you are in the UK, you could use "europe.ntp.pool.org" or "uk.ntp.pool.org".

Same response as always:

"An error occurred while Windows was synchronizing with
uk.ntp.pool.org."

Chris

[Martin]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Ralph Fox
Time synchronizing seems to work fine here in Win7.
I have the Internet time server set to "nz.pool.ntp.org".
If you are in the UK, you could use "europe.ntp.pool.org" or "uk.ntp.pool.org".

"An error occurred while Windows was synchronizing with
uk.ntp.pool.org."

Try ntp1.npl.co.uk

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Martin

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Ralph Fox
If you are in the UK, you could use "europe.ntp.pool.org" or "uk.ntp.pool.org".

"An error occurred while Windows was synchronizing with
uk.ntp.pool.org."

Try ntp1.npl.co.uk

That did it! :-)

Thanks Martin. I had tried so many time servers, but always got
the error message, and then just dismissed the facility as
broken.

Chris

[Martin]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Martin

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Ralph Fox
If you are in the UK, you could use "europe.ntp.pool.org" or "uk.ntp.pool.org".

"An error occurred while Windows was synchronizing with
uk.ntp.pool.org."

Try ntp1.npl.co.uk

That did it! :-)
Thanks Martin. I had tried so many time servers, but always got
the error message, and then just dismissed the facility as
broken.

National Physical Laboratories atomic clock time :-)

[Roger]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:00:37 +0000, Chris J Dixon

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Ralph Fox
Time synchronizing seems to work fine here in Win7.
I have the Internet time server set to "nz.pool.ntp.org".
If you are in the UK, you could use "europe.ntp.pool.org" or "uk.ntp.pool.org".

"An error occurred while Windows was synchronizing with
uk.ntp.pool.org."

That should be "uk.pool.ntp.org". You'll notice that what Ralph
gave for the server he uses ends with "pool.ntp.org". They all
end that way. Unfortunately, he switched "pool" and "ntp" in his
next sentence.

[Martin]

Post by Roger
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:00:37 +0000, Chris J Dixon

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Ralph Fox
Time synchronizing seems to work fine here in Win7.
I have the Internet time server set to "nz.pool.ntp.org".
If you are in the UK, you could use "europe.ntp.pool.org" or "uk.ntp.pool.org".

"An error occurred while Windows was synchronizing with
uk.ntp.pool.org."

That should be "uk.pool.ntp.org". You'll notice that what Ralph
gave for the server he uses ends with "pool.ntp.org". They all
end that way.

No they don't - the one that worked for him doesn't.

ntp1.npl.co.uk

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Martin

Post by Roger
That should be "uk.pool.ntp.org". You'll notice that what Ralph
gave for the server he uses ends with "pool.ntp.org". They all
end that way.

No they don't - the one that worked for him doesn't.
ntp1.npl.co.uk

That depends on what you think "they" refers to.
The ntp.org time server pools all end that way.

It is better to use a server pool rather than a single server.

uk.pool.ntp.org is actually a pool of 139 different servers [1].
Even if a few of the servers are down, others will still be up.
That gives a much greater assurance than using a single server.

[1] http://www.pool.ntp.org/zone/europe

[Martin]

Post by Ralph Fox

Post by Martin

Post by Roger
That should be "uk.pool.ntp.org". You'll notice that what Ralph
gave for the server he uses ends with "pool.ntp.org". They all
end that way.

No they don't - the one that worked for him doesn't.
ntp1.npl.co.uk

That depends on what you think "they" refers to.
The ntp.org time server pools all end that way.
It is better to use a server pool rather than a single server.

I have used ntp1.npl.co.uk for as long as I can remember. It has always been
present. NPL is the home of UK standards including time.

Post by Ralph Fox
uk.pool.ntp.org is actually a pool of 139 different servers [1].
Even if a few of the servers are down, others will still be up.
That gives a much greater assurance than using a single server.
[1] http://www.pool.ntp.org/zone/europe

:-)

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Martin
No they don't - the one that worked for him doesn't.
ntp1.npl.co.uk

I am still puzzled why this site works whilst all the others I
have ever tried have given the same error message. Could it be
some sort of firewall or security problem, or something
fundamentally different with the way that site is set up?

Chris

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Roger
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:00:37 +0000, Chris J Dixon

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Ralph Fox
Time synchronizing seems to work fine here in Win7.
I have the Internet time server set to "nz.pool.ntp.org".
If you are in the UK, you could use "europe.ntp.pool.org" or "uk.ntp.pool.org".

"An error occurred while Windows was synchronizing with
uk.ntp.pool.org."

That should be "uk.pool.ntp.org". You'll notice that what Ralph
gave for the server he uses ends with "pool.ntp.org". They all
end that way. Unfortunately, he switched "pool" and "ntp" in his
next sentence.

You are correct (my mistake). They should be


nz.pool.ntp.org <--- works for me. This is the one I use.
uk.pool.ntp.org <--- works for me too.
europe.pool.ntp.org <--- works for me too.


From the Windows Event Viewer, "System" log
| 2010-12-11 07:22:11 The time provider NtpClient is currently receiving valid time data from uk.pool.ntp.org
| 2010-12-11 07:22:11 The time service is now synchronizing the system time with the time source uk.pool.ntp.org
| 2010-12-11 07:22:12 The system time has changed to 2010-12-10T18:23:12.154000000Z from 2010-12-10T18:23:12.154392000Z.

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Ralph Fox
If you are in the UK, you could use "europe.ntp.pool.org" or "uk.ntp.pool.org".

My mistake -- that should be "europe.pool.ntp.org" or "uk.pool.ntp.org".

[DevilsPGD]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by DevilsPGD
Vista was pretty bad out the door, both with various items in the
control panel that really shouldn't need prompts,

Indeed! Can't even adjust the time without having my intentions
checked.

Adjusting the time absolutely must be authorized, this is one of the
more critical pieces an attacker can use if they want to hide their
activities from auditing/logging software.

Say you have software designed to audit a specific event and keep
records for a period of seven years. What do you think would happen if
someone set the clock back 8 years and accessed whatever they shouldn't
be accessing when the clock was rolled forward?

Or worse, someone does something naughty then rolls the clock forward 8
years, causing the auditing software to dump all it's records.

Even if the logs aren't expired, being able to change the clock would
allow for arbitrarily writing logs in unexpected places, making it much
easier for an attacker to hide.

Sure, nobody really cares if you change the time on your personal
computer, but in the business world with mandatory auditing and
changelogs being part of corporate policy or even legal requirement,
reasonably accurate time is critical.

Post by Chris J Dixon
I wouldn't have to do it at all if synchronising with a
time server worked properly like it did in XP.

Since this has already been addressed downthread, I'll leave my comment
at "works fer me!" :)

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Foke
It depends on who's driving the bus. For the clueless, UAC is a Good
Thing. For the rest, UAC is a PITA.

I use Win7 from a user account, with UAC on. It's not a trouble at all.

Like with *nix, where best practise is to log on to a user account and
run commands as root only when needed. I don't need run as root all
the time to prove I am a "31337 d00d".

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?
That way I can stay synchronized at each of my workstations. Cool idea, but
will it work?
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs
in your C:\Users\userid\AppData\Roaming\Forte\Agent. Specifically, no
application should be storing its data in either C:\Program Files
location. Those are supposed to be protected locations.

AFAIK most stuff will work, except for deleting Agent message folders.
If the user tries to delete a folder which was created before the move
to Vista/Win7, then the folder will return from the dead when Agent is
re-started.

In the normal run of events, Vista or Win7 will "virtualize" the Data
folder. Any updates which Agent makes will be made to the "virtual"
copy of the database which is in
    C:\Users\[*USERNAME*]\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data
and not to the original copy of the database in
    C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

What doesn't work reliably is when the user tries to delete a folder
which has 00*.DAT and 00*.IDX files in "C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data".
In the normal course of events Vista or Win7 will not allow the copies in
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data" to be deleted. The next time Agent
is restarted, the folder will be resurrected from these files.

[G. Morgan]

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan

Post by G. Morgan
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data

I'm surprised that works reliably. Assuming Win7, Agent's data belongs
in your C:\Users\userid\AppData\Roaming\Forte\Agent. Specifically, no
application should be storing its data in either C:\Program Files
location. Those are supposed to be protected locations.

Yeah, I didn't do a clean install. I did it the 'old' way. Since UAC is off
(Win7x64) I don't have any issues.

[Dan Musicant]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:57:02 +0000, Jeffrey Kaplan <***@gordol.org>
wrote:

:With a mapped drive location, Agent can use it. Just know that if the
:connection breaks for any reason, so might your database.

Ah, I had no ambitions to have my Agent data stored on a remote server,
but I do have ambitions to have it on a server in my LAN. I assume the
caveat concerning connection problems applies. I don't know how reliable
my network is going to be. I have pretty good backup habits now, but
will try to keep them iron tight at least to begin with when I get my
server set up. Thinking of a WHS box or maybe a Linux distro, will see.

Dan



Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

[G. Morgan]

Post by Dan Musicant
Thinking of a WHS box or maybe a Linux distro, will see.

Have you researched WHS? Last time I did, I found out you can NOT use it as a
print server, and there was another major missing feature that escapes me now.
What I found out was it is like an O/S for a NAS device pretty much,
(worthless). The most compelling thing about it for me was the automatic
backups of all the machines on LAN. It looked like is was designed for that,
and serving up files on the LAN.

Hopefully the 2010 version is <vastly> different.

I just use a Win7, P4, 2GB RAM, machine for my "server" or better described
"always on machine". It's where I have all the shares setup, the most free disk
space, it serves as a print sever and media streamer. I use Logmein Free to
connect when I'm outside of my LAN.

[Ralph Fox]

Post by G. Morgan

Post by Dan Musicant
Thinking of a WHS box or maybe a Linux distro, will see.

Have you researched WHS? Last time I did, I found out you can NOT use it as a
print server, and there was another major missing feature that escapes me now.
What I found out was it is like an O/S for a NAS device pretty much,
(worthless). The most compelling thing about it for me was the automatic
backups of all the machines on LAN. It looked like is was designed for that,
and serving up files on the LAN.
Hopefully the 2010 version is <vastly> different.

From this blog's point of view, WHS is taking a backwards step...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-dumps-drive-extender-from-windows-home-server-effectively-neuters-product/10543

| In the meantime, Microsoft has been busy working on WHS V2, codenamed
| “Vail” (yes, that rhymes with “FAIL”) Fans of WHS expected this to be
| like WHS, only better. Yesterday those dreams were shattered when
| Microsoft announced that it was removing a key function from the OS -
| Drive Extender.
|
| For those of you not familiar with the product, Drive Extender is a
| file-based replication system that offers easy storage expansion (plug
| in a new drive and away you go), multi-disk redundancy, and a single
| folder namespace free from drive letters. In short, it meant that home
| users didn’t need to become storage experts to add and replace drives
| in their WHS. Or to put it another way, it was WHS’s killer feature.
|
| But now it’s gone.

Post by G. Morgan
I just use a Win7, P4, 2GB RAM, machine for my "server" or better described
"always on machine". It's where I have all the shares setup, the most free disk
space, it serves as a print sever and media streamer. I use Logmein Free to
connect when I'm outside of my LAN.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by G. Morgan
Have you researched WHS? Last time I did, I found out you can NOT use it as a
print server, and there was another major missing feature that escapes me now.

My 24-7 box is running WSH.

Tried putting the Access back end on it and found out what others
already know: if there's so much as the smallest hiccup in the
system/connection Agent's files get corrupted beeeeeeg-time.

My solution has been to keep the Agent back end on my desktop
machine where the Agent app runs and have a nightly backup of the
files to the WSH box.

I'm not the least bit in love with WSH.

On the surface it sounds pretty good with the pooled drives and
all.

But when stuff happens, WHS gets ugly. For instance, there is a
feature called "Duplication". Turn it on for all the shares and
it takes twice the disc space, but you have an extra copy of
every file in case one of the drives dies.

Sounds good, right? Problem is that the bad drive has to be
programmatically "Removed" - which, for a 2-tb drive, can take
literally *days*... during which time the server is effectively
down (unavailable...).

Also, Those Who Seem To Know counsel that Duplication isn't
really to protect data. Instead it's just to speed up access to
the data by providing two paths instead of one. I take them at
their word on that.

WHS is quick to tell you that a drive is on the way out; but
provides no means of relating physical drives to it's list of
drives. i.e. It will tell you that "Drive 3" is failing. But
I've got a dozen identical drives in there: WTF is "Drive 3"????

Once burned, you wind up getting the SN of each new drive by
other means, writing it physically on the drive, and then
discovering the SN of the failed drive - also by other means.

Also, they way WHS stores pointers to files in the pool, one
cannot image the System drive - to be restored if/when system
problems like a failed C: drive or a virus emerge.

With XP, you learn to put data on the D: drive and leave C: for
the system and applications. When the system fails, you just
re-image from the image you took after building the system.

With WHS, if the system goes South, you are in deep kimchee.

To me, the killer features of WHS are the drive pool AND the fact
that a drive can be removed from the WHS box, plugged into
another PC, and have all the files therein readable. Your mobo
emits that little puff of smoke.... Not sure about currency of
backups?... There's still hope - at least for the data... Ditto
the System drive biting the big one - but again only for the
data.

MS has undone the portability feature for the coming new release
of WHS. In that release, a drive is only readable while it is
part of the WHS pool.

I'd drop WHS in a heartbeat and go over to some other scheme that
allows pooling of drives, but I don't know enough about the
technology to make an informed choice. One thing I hear
over-and-over though is that going to a RAID array opens another
can of worms that sounds worse than WSH is.

So for now, I stick with the dumbed-down solution - which is WHS.

[G. Morgan]

"(PeteCresswell)" <***@y.Invalid> wrote:

{snip the in-depth review}

Thanks for sharing your experience, it sounds pretty bad.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
I'd drop WHS in a heartbeat and go over to some other scheme that
allows pooling of drives, but I don't know enough about the
technology to make an informed choice. One thing I hear
over-and-over though is that going to a RAID array opens another
can of worms that sounds worse than WSH is.

You can setup a RAID1 and not worry about your data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid0#RAID_1

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by G. Morgan
Thanks for sharing your experience, it sounds pretty bad.

Probably overstated. I'm one of those crabby, compulsively
fault-finding consumers.

Lots of times where I can rant on-and-on about a product's
defects, most people say "no problem".

[Jeffrey Kaplan]

Post by Dan Musicant
:With a mapped drive location, Agent can use it. Just know that if the
:connection breaks for any reason, so might your database.
Ah, I had no ambitions to have my Agent data stored on a remote server,
but I do have ambitions to have it on a server in my LAN. I assume the
caveat concerning connection problems applies. I don't know how reliable

It does. If it's not on the local machine, it's on a remote system.
Doesn't matter if that remote system is on the other side of the room
or the other side of the planet. The likelihood of a connection issue
when on the other side of the room is much less, but the if the
connection breaks, then the connection breaks.

Technically, the same can be said about keeping the database on ANY
drive, mounted in the case, on a USB, eSATA or network LAN or "cloud".
(No one ever seems to even think of that.) If the data connection to
the database breaks, so might your data. It's just the further away
from the physical drive the program is, the greater the risk of
connection loss. In practical terms, if it's on your own LAN, the risk
is low.

[Swifty]

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?

Perhaps you can use something like Gladinet to mount your Dropbox
folder as a drive on your PC. I use this to mount my Skydrive, for
example, as Z:

As others have pointed out, you will get undesirable results if there
is a network problem between you and your Dropbox folder...

[G. Morgan]

Post by Swifty

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?

Perhaps you can use something like Gladinet to mount your Dropbox
folder as a drive on your PC. I use this to mount my Skydrive, for
As others have pointed out, you will get undesirable results if there
is a network problem between you and your Dropbox folder...

Okay, but where are the settings to 'point' Agent to the mapped drive?

To the ones wondering about O/S, it's Win 7x64 with UAC disabled. I just
reformatted and to get Agent running quickly I just copied the program bits to a
folder and put my DATA sub-dir under it. What I'd like to try now is the
Dropbox idea.

[Ralph Fox]

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186

Post by Swifty

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?

Perhaps you can use something like Gladinet to mount your Dropbox
folder as a drive on your PC. I use this to mount my Skydrive, for
As others have pointed out, you will get undesirable results if there
is a network problem between you and your Dropbox folder...

Okay, but where are the settings to 'point' Agent to the mapped drive?

See the nice pretty picture and surrounding text at
Help >> Index >> Instance >> Agent Configuration Options
in the Agent 6.0 help file

To the ones wondering about O/S, it's Win 7x64 with UAC disabled. I just
reformatted and to get Agent running quickly I just copied the program bits to a
folder and put my DATA sub-dir under it. What I'd like to try now is the
Dropbox idea.

[G. Morgan]

Post by Ralph Fox

Post by G. Morgan
Okay, but where are the settings to 'point' Agent to the mapped drive?

See the nice pretty picture and surrounding text at
Help >> Index >> Instance >> Agent Configuration Options
in the Agent 6.0 help file

Thanks. I never would have looked there.

Since there is a DATA dir. listing here:
Folder -> Properties -> Name and Scheme

That is where I was looking around trying to change it.

[Ralph Fox]

Post by G. Morgan

Post by Ralph Fox

Post by G. Morgan
Okay, but where are the settings to 'point' Agent to the mapped drive?

See the nice pretty picture and surrounding text at
Help >> Index >> Instance >> Agent Configuration Options
in the Agent 6.0 help file

Thanks. I never would have looked there.

It is also at
Help >> Index >> Multiple copies >> Agent Configuration Options

The main use of this feature was by people who wanted to run multiple
instances of Agent each with its own database (when the help file was
written).

Post by G. Morgan
Folder -> Properties -> Name and Scheme
That is where I was looking around trying to change it.

The setting cannot be made inside Agent. Agent stores _all_ of
its own settings in its data directory. So there would be a
chicken-and-egg problem -- before Agent could read the location
of its data directory, it would already have to know the location
of its data directory.


Not every other program works the same way. But having another
special location to store the setting for where the data directory
is, can cause problems if you want to put the program on a USB stick
and run it on different computers.

[G. Morgan]

Post by Ralph Fox
It is also at
Help >> Index >> Multiple copies >> Agent Configuration Options
The main use of this feature was by people who wanted to run multiple
instances of Agent each with its own database (when the help file was
written).

I made separate shortcuts on each machine to fetch data from my Dropbox folder
and it works like a charm!

What's really cool is I can leave Agent in any state on the laptop for instance,
and when I launch it on the desktop it starts exactly in the state where I left
the other copy open.

Just started to play, no conflicts to report.... yet.

[G. Morgan]

Post by G. Morgan

Post by Ralph Fox
It is also at
Help >> Index >> Multiple copies >> Agent Configuration Options
The main use of this feature was by people who wanted to run multiple
instances of Agent each with its own database (when the help file was
written).

I made separate shortcuts on each machine to fetch data from my Dropbox folder
and it works like a charm!
What's really cool is I can leave Agent in any state on the laptop for instance,
and when I launch it on the desktop it starts exactly in the state where I left
the other copy open.
Just started to play, no conflicts to report.... yet.

Now I'm replying form the laptop after a remote session with the desktop. As
soon as I minimized the remote desktop (after closing Agent) I saw in the system
tray that Dropbox just updated 7 files. Agent had been running the whole time
on the laptop so I just hit refresh and my post (the one I'm responding to) was
there.

I just realized, the license key is stored in the DATA folder. This would mean
I can download Agent from any computer and download the DATA folder from
Dropbox's site and be up and running in minutes on any machine.

The nice thing about this method is there are no drive mappings required, in
fact, you don't need to be on your LAN to keep the database synchronized. All
that's required is a Dropbox installation that stores the copy locally.

It's going to be nice having a sync 'ed database now :-)) It is such a pain
trying to figure out what was read/unread when you switch between several
machines to use Agent.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

[Default] On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 03:19:23 -0600, G. Morgan

Post by G. Morgan

Post by Ralph Fox
It is also at
Help >> Index >> Multiple copies >> Agent Configuration Options
The main use of this feature was by people who wanted to run multiple
instances of Agent each with its own database (when the help file was
written).

I made separate shortcuts on each machine to fetch data from my Dropbox folder
and it works like a charm!
What's really cool is I can leave Agent in any state on the laptop for instance,
and when I launch it on the desktop it starts exactly in the state where I left
the other copy open.
Just started to play, no conflicts to report.... yet.

If you've got two copies of Agent open, you will get conflicts. Agent
doesn't play nice when the database changes underneath it, and you
will end up with broken data.

Always shut down Agent before starting another one elsewhere.

Cheers - Jaimie

[G. Morgan]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
If you've got two copies of Agent open, you will get conflicts. Agent
doesn't play nice when the database changes underneath it, and you
will end up with broken data.
Always shut down Agent before starting another one elsewhere.

Okie dokey... sounds like a plan. Tnx.

[Adam]

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?
That way I can stay synchronized at each of my workstations. Cool idea, but
will it work?
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data
C:\Users\me\Documents\My Dropbox
¹If you don't know what Dropbox is, it's basically free offline storage that
runs a little app. to keep the "Dropbox" folder on each host synchronized. You
get 2GB free to start (which is plenty for Agent's DATA folder), and can get
more space with referrals. So I'll post a shameless plug for my referrer ID in
case somebody wants to try it that already hasn't.
http://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTE2MDQwMTI5

Should not be a problem.
As drop box monitors that folder and then updates/syncs the contents if
changed.

What you need to do is to make sure that Agent is closed when you use it
on your other computer(s), and also do not keep anything private as the
data is not encrypted and also has the 2GB size limit for the free
accounts.

You have to move your Agent installation to your drop box monitored
folder for all this to work.

[Swifty]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:46:58 -0800, Adam

Post by Adam
do not keep anything private as the
data is not encrypted and also has the 2GB size limit for the free
accounts.

Skydrive would have the advantage here. It has what it calls "Private"
folders, and you get 25Gb space.

Even with a "Private" folder, I'd be leery what I store in there. I've
gone no further than storing a few pictures of last Cristmas's Puppy

[Glen Parks]

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?
That way I can stay synchronized at each of my workstations. Cool idea, but
will it work?
C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent\Data
C:\Users\me\Documents\My Dropbox
¹If you don't know what Dropbox is, it's basically free offline storage that
runs a little app. to keep the "Dropbox" folder on each host synchronized. You
get 2GB free to start (which is plenty for Agent's DATA folder), and can get
more space with referrals. So I'll post a shameless plug for my referrer ID in
case somebody wants to try it that already hasn't.
http://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTE2MDQwMTI5

I keep the whole Forte Agent folder, including its data folder, on a memory
stick for portability. But now, since reading your thread, I've plopped the
whole thing in my 'Dropbox' folder, and it works just fine on all my
computers. Instead of playing around with the Agent shortcuts, pointing them
to the data folder on each machine, I simply start Agent on each machine,
(one at a time to avoid conflicts) and then use the "pin this program to the
taskbar" option. It works great. I also use 'My Dropbox' folder to store my
EPIM data file as well.

[G. Morgan]

Post by Glen Parks
I keep the whole Forte Agent folder, including its data folder, on a memory
stick for portability. But now, since reading your thread, I've plopped the
whole thing in my 'Dropbox' folder, and it works just fine on all my
computers. Instead of playing around with the Agent shortcuts, pointing them
to the data folder on each machine, I simply start Agent on each machine,
(one at a time to avoid conflicts) and then use the "pin this program to the
taskbar" option. It works great. I also use 'My Dropbox' folder to store my
EPIM data file as well.

Good, glad it helped. It helped me today. I am posting on my media center PC
(Atom dual-core, ION chipset, 46" plasma). It didn't have Agent or Dropbox, so
I installed DB first and let it fill up, then d/l'ed Agent and made the
shortcut. Boom! Right back in business. ;-)

Google around for other DB tricks, that's how I came up with this idea.


PS: How did you start Agent without the modified shortcut to point @ the DATA
folder? Did you install Agent "in" your DB folder? That may be the way to go
since AFAIK Agent does not rely on the system registry.

[G. Morgan]

Post by G. Morgan
folder? Did you install Agent "in" your DB folder? That may be the way to go
since AFAIK Agent does not rely on the system registry.

I put the whole Agent dir.on DB and left DATA as a sub-dir. Works likes a
charm!

Agent everywhere now!

[Glen Parks]

Post by G. Morgan

Post by G. Morgan
folder? Did you install Agent "in" your DB folder? That may be the way to go
since AFAIK Agent does not rely on the system registry.

I put the whole Agent dir.on DB and left DATA as a sub-dir. Works likes a
charm!
Agent everywhere now!

Yeah, there's no need to separate them when you can keep both together in a
tidy little bundle, in my opinion. I've always bundled them together in this
way. I mean, what's all this 'Local, LocalLow and Roaming' stuff all about?
However, having said that, I should note that I don't download binaries. If
I did Agent creates a binary folder or folders to plop my downloads into,
and I'm not sure where it creates them. I doubt it would create them inside
my 'Forte Agent' folder.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

[Default] On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:39:43 +0000, Glen Parks

Post by Glen Parks

Post by G. Morgan

Post by G. Morgan
folder? Did you install Agent "in" your DB folder? That may be the way to go
since AFAIK Agent does not rely on the system registry.

I put the whole Agent dir.on DB and left DATA as a sub-dir. Works likes a
charm!
Agent everywhere now!

Yeah, there's no need to separate them when you can keep both together in a
tidy little bundle, in my opinion. I've always bundled them together in this
way. I mean, what's all this 'Local, LocalLow and Roaming' stuff all about?
However, having said that, I should note that I don't download binaries. If
I did Agent creates a binary folder or folders to plop my downloads into,
and I'm not sure where it creates them. I doubt it would create them inside
my 'Forte Agent' folder.

You choose where each group (or all groups) save attachments to, in
Folder Properties/Receiving/Attachment Folders.

Cheers - Jaimie

[Glen Parks]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:39:42 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
[Default] On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:39:43 +0000, Glen Parks

Post by Glen Parks

Post by G. Morgan

Post by G. Morgan
folder? Did you install Agent "in" your DB folder? That may be the way to go
since AFAIK Agent does not rely on the system registry.

I put the whole Agent dir.on DB and left DATA as a sub-dir. Works likes a
charm!
Agent everywhere now!

Yeah, there's no need to separate them when you can keep both together in a
tidy little bundle, in my opinion. I've always bundled them together in this
way. I mean, what's all this 'Local, LocalLow and Roaming' stuff all about?
However, having said that, I should note that I don't download binaries. If
I did Agent creates a binary folder or folders to plop my downloads into,
and I'm not sure where it creates them. I doubt it would create them inside
my 'Forte Agent' folder.

You choose where each group (or all groups) save attachments to, in
Folder Properties/Receiving/Attachment Folders.
Cheers - Jaimie

Brilliant. Thanks for that. I was fairly certain that Agent chose for me,
but then I'm talking of older operating systems and older versions of Agent,
and probably not understanding the system setting of wither very well.
Great, I'll give it a go and try downloading some binaries.

[DevilsPGD]

Post by Glen Parks
Yeah, there's no need to separate them when you can keep both together in a
tidy little bundle, in my opinion. I've always bundled them together in this
way.

In the general case, bundling applications and data together is a recipe
for disaster. This single practice is what brought us UAC and the
various problems UAC attempts to solve, as well as what makes it so
difficult to run a Windows computer without full administrative rights.
There's a number of reasons, the top few that come to mind would be:

Installers often make bad assumptions about what can be removed during
an uninstall or upgrade (Agent's installer isn't bad in this regard, but
many applications assume that their program directory can be destroyed
completely during an uninstall or upgrade)

Since your user account needs rights to modify your data, this means
anything that gets access to your account also gets rights to modify
executables (unless you're very careful with NTFS permissions), so a
virus or trojan can hide easily while still having reasonable odds of
getting executed.

Since Program Files is shared between users, a compromised executable
may get executed by other users, so user accounts are no longer
effective barriers between virus infections.

Backup software doesn't know what to backup and what not to backup.
There is little use in backing up the program side of things since it
can be re-built from an installer, and because so many programs need to
be installed with an installer. Data obviously needs to be backed up.

This isn't to say that it's something you should never do, but in the
general case it tends to be unsafe as a default behaviour since OS and
application authors don't know whether users have taken appropriate
precautions or not. Segregating programs and data by default solves the
problems described above (and more) without adding any significant
downside beyond a bit of complexity for users, and even then, only for
more technical users.

Post by Glen Parks
I mean, what's all this 'Local, LocalLow and Roaming' stuff all about?

Local is used for computer-specific data, data that can be easily
re-generated from non-local sources, and data that just shouldn't be
backed up. It only stored locally on your computer in a networked
environment with roaming profiles, and so must be recreated by software
when a user signs on to a new PC. An example would be a browser cache,
temp directories and similar.

LocalLow is similar to local, but designed for use by low-integrity
applications to have a place to store their temporary files. Typically
this is used by Internet Explorer when running add-ons and whatnot in
Protected Mode, although other applications can implement similar.
Processes using this directory typically won't have access to anything
stored elsewhere and data stored here should not be trusted.

Roaming is the primary location for application data storage. It's
named "roaming" because it roams with the user in a networked
environment using roaming profiles. This tends to include
non-machine-specific configuration (user preferences) and data files
that aren't documents/pictures/etc (Agent's folders, browser bookmarks,
mail client data, etc) and other stuff you'd want immediately available
when you login to a new PC.

Programs will often have data in both Local and Roaming based on whether
the data is useful enough to be backed up or whether it can be recreated
by the application easily.

Roaming and Documents are similar in terms of importance to the user,
but by convention if a file can be opened, stored and used directly by
the user it should be in Documents (or Music/Video/etc as applicable),
if it's part of a larger set of files, maintains a structure or is used
by the application directly (such as Agent's data files) then Roaming is
the correct place to me.

[Glen Parks]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 01:47:43 -0800, DevilsPGD

Post by DevilsPGD

Post by Glen Parks
Yeah, there's no need to separate them when you can keep both together in a
tidy little bundle, in my opinion. I've always bundled them together in this
way.

In the general case, bundling applications and data together is a recipe
for disaster. This single practice is what brought us UAC and the
various problems UAC attempts to solve, as well as what makes it so
difficult to run a Windows computer without full administrative rights.
Installers often make bad assumptions about what can be removed during
an uninstall or upgrade (Agent's installer isn't bad in this regard, but
many applications assume that their program directory can be destroyed
completely during an uninstall or upgrade)
Since your user account needs rights to modify your data, this means
anything that gets access to your account also gets rights to modify
executables (unless you're very careful with NTFS permissions), so a
virus or trojan can hide easily while still having reasonable odds of
getting executed.
Since Program Files is shared between users, a compromised executable
may get executed by other users, so user accounts are no longer
effective barriers between virus infections.
Backup software doesn't know what to backup and what not to backup.
There is little use in backing up the program side of things since it
can be re-built from an installer, and because so many programs need to
be installed with an installer. Data obviously needs to be backed up.
This isn't to say that it's something you should never do, but in the
general case it tends to be unsafe as a default behaviour since OS and
application authors don't know whether users have taken appropriate
precautions or not. Segregating programs and data by default solves the
problems described above (and more) without adding any significant
downside beyond a bit of complexity for users, and even then, only for
more technical users.

I really do appreciate your lengthy effort to explain the pros and cons in
bundling the Data folder in with Forte Agent's program folder, but most of
it is completely lost on me because I don't really understand anything about
administrative rights, UAC or even what the acronym NTFS is, actually. All I
know, by sheer accident, is that the data folder can be housed as a sub
folder inside Agent's main folder, and is robust enough to carry around on
my pen drive and doesn't leave anything behind after using it to access my
mail and newsgroups on my firm's computer on the sly. I realise that my lack
of technical knowledge excludes me from giving advice here on this group,
but I was careful to include, "in my opinion" in my response to the OP.

Post by DevilsPGD

Post by Glen Parks
I mean, what's all this 'Local, LocalLow and Roaming' stuff all about?

Local is used for computer-specific data, data that can be easily
re-generated from non-local sources, and data that just shouldn't be
backed up. It only stored locally on your computer in a networked
environment with roaming profiles, and so must be recreated by software
when a user signs on to a new PC. An example would be a browser cache,
temp directories and similar.
LocalLow is similar to local, but designed for use by low-integrity
applications to have a place to store their temporary files. Typically
this is used by Internet Explorer when running add-ons and whatnot in
Protected Mode, although other applications can implement similar.
Processes using this directory typically won't have access to anything
stored elsewhere and data stored here should not be trusted.
Roaming is the primary location for application data storage. It's
named "roaming" because it roams with the user in a networked
environment using roaming profiles. This tends to include
non-machine-specific configuration (user preferences) and data files
that aren't documents/pictures/etc (Agent's folders, browser bookmarks,
mail client data, etc) and other stuff you'd want immediately available
when you login to a new PC.
Programs will often have data in both Local and Roaming based on whether
the data is useful enough to be backed up or whether it can be recreated
by the application easily.
Roaming and Documents are similar in terms of importance to the user,
but by convention if a file can be opened, stored and used directly by
the user it should be in Documents (or Music/Video/etc as applicable),
if it's part of a larger set of files, maintains a structure or is used
by the application directly (such as Agent's data files) then Roaming is
the correct place to me.

Again, I really do appreciate the effort you've gone to to answer my
question, but I'd like to stress here that it was merely a rhetorical
question. However, having said that, your efforts aren't entirely wasted on
me on this occasion; I do understand most of it and I appreciate that. Thank
you very much.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

[Default] On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:35:22 +0000, Glen Parks

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
most of
it is completely lost on me because I don't really understand anything about
administrative rights, UAC or even what the acronym NTFS is

A quickie, then:

Each file and folder (and various other things, like registry entries)
has a set of permissions associated saying who's allowed to read it,
run it if it's a program, write to/modify it, delete it, and so on.

Permissions can refer to individual users, and/or groups of users.
Administrators is one such group set up by Windows automatically.
Users is another. Your user itself us an individual, belonging to
group user.

In Vista/Win7 The whole Program Files tree and content is *not*
allowed to be written to by anyone in the User group, only
Administrators and Windows itself (the system). Which is why
installing older apps (like Agent 2) doesn't work out well - they try
to have their data in the Program Files tree, but when you run
Agent.exe it launches with your ownership, and you as the user aren't
allowed to create files in Program Files/Agent/Data... splat.

UAC - User Access Control - is a way for normal users to run things as
Administrators, mostly. So when you start a setup.exe as a normal
user, Windows spots that it wants to write to Program Files (not
allowed!) and that it's a setup program, and pops a UAC panel asking
if you want to allow setup.exe to run as administrator.

Does that help?

NTFS (NT Filing System, where NT is the original name of the Windows
family that XP/Vista/7 are all part of) is just the way that files are
held on disk. The relevance is that NTFS includes file permissions as
needed for all the above. The old DOS/Win95/Win98 filesystem, usually
called FAT32 (32 bit extensions to the File Allocation Table), doesn't
do file permissions - so any user can dick with anything on the disk.

Cheers - Jaimie

[Glen Parks]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:53:58 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
[Default] On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:35:22 +0000, Glen Parks

Post by Jeffrey Kaplan
most of
it is completely lost on me because I don't really understand anything about
administrative rights, UAC or even what the acronym NTFS is

Each file and folder (and various other things, like registry entries)
has a set of permissions associated saying who's allowed to read it,
run it if it's a program, write to/modify it, delete it, and so on.
Permissions can refer to individual users, and/or groups of users.
Administrators is one such group set up by Windows automatically.
Users is another. Your user itself us an individual, belonging to
group user.
In Vista/Win7 The whole Program Files tree and content is *not*
allowed to be written to by anyone in the User group, only
Administrators and Windows itself (the system). Which is why
installing older apps (like Agent 2) doesn't work out well - they try
to have their data in the Program Files tree, but when you run
Agent.exe it launches with your ownership, and you as the user aren't
allowed to create files in Program Files/Agent/Data... splat.
UAC - User Access Control - is a way for normal users to run things as
Administrators, mostly. So when you start a setup.exe as a normal
user, Windows spots that it wants to write to Program Files (not
allowed!) and that it's a setup program, and pops a UAC panel asking
if you want to allow setup.exe to run as administrator.
Does that help?

Yes, absolutely. I should've got busy and done some reading on these things
years ago, because they're quite important. I do know that in order to
convert my 32 gig pen drive from FAT to NTFC I have to right-click the
command prompt icon and run it in administrator mode before typing in the
command, and the same goes if I want to use it to delete the hiberfil.sys
file before defragmenting C, but I didn't know WHY until now, so thanks for
that. What got me to plonk my Data folder in Agent 6's program folder is
probably an old memory telling me that that's where it went when I was using
Agent 2 under a much older operating system that didn't have UAC policing
the program folder.

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
NTFS (NT Filing System, where NT is the original name of the Windows
family that XP/Vista/7 are all part of) is just the way that files are
held on disk. The relevance is that NTFS includes file permissions as
needed for all the above. The old DOS/Win95/Win98 filesystem, usually
called FAT32 (32 bit extensions to the File Allocation Table), doesn't
do file permissions - so any user can dick with anything on the disk.
Cheers - Jaimie

Apart from plonk large files on it, maybe. That's why I had to change my
memory stick to NTFS; it wouldn't allow me to paste large .ISO files onto
it.

Thank you for all your help, Jamie.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

[Default] On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:06:34 +0000, Glen Parks

Post by Glen Parks
I didn't know WHY until now, so thanks for
that.

No problem. It's simple enough, but only once you've been jump-started
with the concepts.

Post by Glen Parks
What got me to plonk my Data folder in Agent 6's program folder is
probably an old memory telling me that that's where it went when I was using
Agent 2 under a much older operating system that didn't have UAC policing
the program folder.

Right - and Agent still looks for its settings in
(folder with agent.exe)\Data\agent.ini
first, even now.

Post by Glen Parks

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
NTFS (NT Filing System, where NT is the original name of the Windows
family that XP/Vista/7 are all part of) is just the way that files are
held on disk. The relevance is that NTFS includes file permissions as
needed for all the above. The old DOS/Win95/Win98 filesystem, usually
called FAT32 (32 bit extensions to the File Allocation Table), doesn't
do file permissions - so any user can dick with anything on the disk.

Apart from plonk large files on it, maybe. That's why I had to change my
memory stick to NTFS; it wouldn't allow me to paste large .ISO files onto
it.

Right - 4gig limit on FAT32.

Cheers - Jaimie

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Glen Parks
All I
know, by sheer accident, is that the data folder can be housed as a sub
folder inside Agent's main folder, and is robust enough to carry around on
my pen drive and doesn't leave anything behind after using it to access my
mail and newsgroups on my firm's computer on the sly.

Most likely your Agent is leaving a few registry entries on your
firm's computer.

Assuming XP:
If you can open "Set Program Access and Defaults" and check
which email programs are listed as options, chances are
that Agent will be on the list -- if you have ever run Agent
on the computer (even from a pen drive).

[Glen Parks]

Post by Ralph Fox

Post by Glen Parks
All I
know, by sheer accident, is that the data folder can be housed as a sub
folder inside Agent's main folder, and is robust enough to carry around on
my pen drive and doesn't leave anything behind after using it to access my
mail and newsgroups on my firm's computer on the sly.

Most likely your Agent is leaving a few registry entries on your
firm's computer.

WTF!
At work, yes, where I sometimes send a few emails and rubber-neck the
occasional train crash some posters substitute for debate on newsgroups.

Post by Ralph Fox
If you can open "Set Program Access and Defaults" and check
which email programs are listed as options, chances are
that Agent will be on the list -- if you have ever run Agent
on the computer (even from a pen drive).

And if your job depended on not leaving any traces behind after stealing
your boss' time, how would you go about removing those traces from the
registry, Ralph, mate?

[Ralph Fox]

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
how would you go about removing those traces from the
registry, Ralph, mate?

It all depends on whether the computer will allow you
to use regedit.


A. You should have un-ticked everything at
"Tools » Options » Default Program Settings"
before you ran Agent on someone else's computer.

Otherwise Agent will set even more registry settings
above and beyond those below.


B. When everything at
"Tools » Options » Default Program Settings"
is un-ticked, Agent will still set a few settings
(unless some other copy of Agent has already set them).

These are the settings to remove

1. Delete these registry keys

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Forte\Agent\Paths

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Forte\Agent

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\Mail\Forte Agent

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\News\Forte Agent

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ForteAgent.mailto.1

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ForteAgent.news.1

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ForteAgent.nntp.1

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ForteAgent.nzb.1


2. Find the key

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\RegisteredApplications

Don't delete this entire key, but do delete the setting for
"Forte Agent" inside it.

Forte Agent REG_SZ Software\Forte\Agent\Capabilities

[Glen Parks]

Post by Ralph Fox

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
how would you go about removing those traces from the
registry, Ralph, mate?

It all depends on whether the computer will allow you
to use regedit.
A. You should have un-ticked everything at
"Tools » Options » Default Program Settings"
before you ran Agent on someone else's computer.
Otherwise Agent will set even more registry settings
above and beyond those below.
B. When everything at
"Tools » Options » Default Program Settings"
is un-ticked, Agent will still set a few settings
(unless some other copy of Agent has already set them).
These are the settings to remove
1. Delete these registry keys
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Forte\Agent\Paths
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Forte\Agent
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\Mail\Forte Agent
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\News\Forte Agent
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ForteAgent.mailto.1
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ForteAgent.news.1
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ForteAgent.nntp.1
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ForteAgent.nzb.1
2. Find the key
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\RegisteredApplications
Don't delete this entire key, but do delete the setting for
"Forte Agent" inside it.
Forte Agent REG_SZ Software\Forte\Agent\Capabilities

Thank you very much. I couldn't find some of those entries, but I deleted
the ones I could. My boss wants to upgrade his OS from XP to the OS he uses
at home. He'll need to update his PC first because it's not fit for WIN 7.
The short conversation we had on the matter gave me the opportunity to slag
off the new Windows Essentials 2011 software my wife uses for email, and
cover any tracks I might've left behind by showing him Forte Agent's email
handling capabilities by plugging my memory stick in and giving a quick
demo. If he finds any registry entries now he'll assume they were made
during my demo. What a relief.

[Nick Spalding]

Post by G. Morgan

Post by G. Morgan
folder? Did you install Agent "in" your DB folder? That may be the way to go
since AFAIK Agent does not rely on the system registry.

I put the whole Agent dir.on DB and left DATA as a sub-dir. Works likes a
charm!
Agent everywhere now!

That's the way to do it - 15 years now starting with .99c on W3.1.

[Glen Parks]

Post by G. Morgan

Post by Glen Parks
I keep the whole Forte Agent folder, including its data folder, on a memory
stick for portability. But now, since reading your thread, I've plopped the
whole thing in my 'Dropbox' folder, and it works just fine on all my
computers. Instead of playing around with the Agent shortcuts, pointing them
to the data folder on each machine, I simply start Agent on each machine,
(one at a time to avoid conflicts) and then use the "pin this program to the
taskbar" option. It works great. I also use 'My Dropbox' folder to store my
EPIM data file as well.

Good, glad it helped.

You won't be so glad after I tell you I neglected to follow your link,
thereby giving you more DP space. I read up about DP after reading your
opening post in this thread and downloaded the program from the webpage
without thinking about your link. Sorry.

Post by G. Morgan
It helped me today. I am posting on my media center PC
(Atom dual-core, ION chipset, 46" plasma). It didn't have Agent or Dropbox, so
I installed DB first and let it fill up, then d/l'ed Agent and made the
shortcut. Boom! Right back in business. ;-)
Google around for other DB tricks, that's how I came up with this idea.

I was wondering, do you reckon the 'Favourites' folder can be moved into it,
making the same available on multiple machines? I'll Google about a bit for
that one in a minute.

Post by G. Morgan
folder? Did you install Agent "in" your DB folder? That may be the way to go
since AFAIK Agent does not rely on the system registry.

I don't think I've had to install Agent on any PC for years; I simply copy
the whole folder, including its data folder held within that folder, to each
PC or memory stick. As for shortcuts for Agent in Win 7, I don't bother
making them. I simply go into Agent's folder( now held in 'My Dropbox',
double-click 'Agent.exe', and then use the "pin this program to the taskbar"
option by right-clicking on it when the Agent's running, whallop! Done.

[G. Morgan]

Post by G. Morgan
Is it possible to change Agent's (6.0) DATA folder to my Dropbox¹ folder?

So am I getting credit for this awesome hack or not!! ?? :-)