two browser issues

[Linea Recta]

I was happy for some time with Google Chrome performance as a whole.
However, recently I noticed a serious flaw: I think it's very cheeky that it
seems to alter my security settings all by itself(!). NO I don't want to
save ANY PASSWORDS NEVER for NO SITE. If it keeps changing this I will have
to wipe the program off my hard disk altogether...

I have a "web" button on my keyboard. Why doesn't it understand that it has
to start Chrome and not Explorer?
I have set Chrome as standard browser. And Explorer seems to know this,
because after appearing it tells me Explorer is not the standard browser and
asks me to make it standard. What's the logic of this behaviour??



--
regards,

|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

[dadiOH]

Linea Recta wrote:

> I have a "web" button on my keyboard. Why doesn't it understand that
> it has to start Chrome and not Explorer?

Because it is pointed to IE. Like a shortcut to IE. The KB soft probably
has a way to change it.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

[jim]

Go into Chrome settings and make it the default browser .

[Linea Recta]

"jim" <boji...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1459226419390077721.51...@news.eternal-september.org...

OK that's what it says already. Tested and OK.
Still, sometimes IE keeps showing up unexpectidly...

[Linea Recta]

"dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> schreef in bericht
news:kmo6i9$1r3$1...@dont-email.me...

> Linea Recta wrote:
>
>> I have a "web" button on my keyboard. Why doesn't it understand that
>> it has to start Chrome and not Explorer?
>
> Because it is pointed to IE. Like a shortcut to IE. The KB soft probably
> has a way to change it.
>
> --
>

I have a Microsoft keyboard and no special software installed. Just the
Windows XP support (Configuration - keyboard - properties - Tab for speed
settings - Tab Hardware - Standard keyboard (101/102 keys Microsoft Natural
PS/2-keyboard)



Of course I could use the Chrome shortcut on the desktop. But the intriguing
this is that sometimes I can use the keyboard button to start Chrome, and on
other occasions after pressing the button I have to wait looooong time
and... MSIE shows up again(!) Behaviour seems inconsistent...

[VanguardLH]

Linea Recta wrote:

>> Linea Recta wrote:
>>
>>> I have a "web" button on my keyboard. Why doesn't it understand
>>> that it has to start Chrome and not Explorer?
>

> I have a Microsoft keyboard and no special software installed. Just
> the Windows XP support (Configuration - keyboard - properties - Tab
> for speed settings - Tab Hardware - Standard keyboard (101/102 keys
> Microsoft Natural PS/2-keyboard)
>
> Of course I could use the Chrome shortcut on the desktop. But the
> intriguing this is that sometimes I can use the keyboard button to
> start Chrome, and on other occasions after pressing the button I
> have to wait looooong time and... MSIE shows up again(!) Behaviour
> seems inconsistent...

Then you have to edit the registry. "Media" keyboards have some
minimal or basic support in Windows. Some of the more common keys are
defined in the registry but the keyboard has to provide the correct
scancode to the associated media key in the registry.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\AppKey

Since this is a HKLM registry entry, any changes you make there will
affect all users. If you share the host, other users are going to get
pissed if you change the definition of the same media keys they will
be using on the same keyboard under the same instance of Windows.

The subkeys each define a media key. Sorry, I don't what the numeric
values for the registry keynames mean (probably associates to a common
media key). Some old info is available at:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463446.aspx

I had to go there to change regkey "18" so its ShellExecute data value
pointed at the calcplus.exe (Microsoft's Calculator Plus) rather than
the calc.plus that comes with Windows. Now when I press the
"Calculator" media key on my keyboard, CalcPlus loads instead of
Calculator.

Under the "AppKey" registry key is a "7" subkey. Its only definition
is and "Association" data name with "http" as its value. That means
pressing the "Web" media key on your keyboard will load whatever
handler is defined for the HTTP protocol. So you have a couple
choices here:

- Alter the "7" key to see if you can load <path>\chrome.exe instead
of the default HTTP handler.
- Edit the HTTP association so it points at <path>\chrome.exe.
- Make Chrome the default web browser so it becomes the default
handler for the HTTP protocol.

The handler (under the "shell" subkey) for the HTTP association can be
found under:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\http

Seems like the last method would be the easiest. Just tell Chrome to
be the default web browser (and configure all other web browsers NOT
to check if they are the default). You could edit the HTTP
association in the registry but changing option settings available in
the web browsers would be easier and safer.

Did you ever configure Chrome to be the default web browser?

[Linea Recta]

"VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> schreef in bericht
news:kmovvl$blr$1...@news.albasani.net...

Thanks very much for your input.
Answer to the last question is yes. Later on I realised I have been using
CCleaner. Is it possible that it has removed some of these settings? I do
have more function buttons on the keyboard but I don't use all of them.
Anyway, Calculator always works OK. So does the button for OutlookExpress.
I'll look into those reg keys more in depth asap.

[RJK]

"Linea Recta" <bleep...@bleep.invalid> wrote in message
news:518f7d21$0$16010$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

It's always interesting to see people using, or fighting with, third party
web-browsers !

I never use a 3rd party browser mainly because the vendors of these keep
trying to inflict them on me !
e.g. Google home page, (upper right screen), had, for ages, a gadget like
object that is crafted to to lure people into clicking on it, and so
installing a massive heap of crap that people, many of whom are used to
using the Rolls-Royce of web browsers (IE), ...then after a while trying to
use the unwanted "Chome" can't understand it, don't want it, didn't want it
in the first place, and it won't work properly.

Then there is the multitude of conputer users that have, over a period of
time, fiddled and tweaked their system, and IE, all over the place, have
allowed a sackfull of browser add-ons to be hooked into IE, ...then wonder
why IE won't work, then install a 3rd party browser as a solution to their
ineptitude, the spout its' praises all over the place, and slag off IE all
over the place becuase they are, unwittingly, mostly PC illiterate !!!

It seems to be the case that most people who shout the praises of a 3rd
party web browser, (who whilst blindly stabbing around all over their PC),
praise that 3rd party browser because he or she managed to cripple IE by
various routes.

It takes a good deal of expertise, and a good deal of rejecting unwanted
modifications to ones sytem, via millions of "web pages" that want to alter
your system, that can cause problems with the normally superb functioning of
IE

A 3rd party web browser is simply a cop-out, because after contributing to
the malfunctioning of IE, and not having the time or inclination, not to
mention ability, to put it right, ...perhaps not even realising that ones
dabbling caused the problems in the first place, ...the user of the 3rd
party web browser who shouts it's praises all over the place, are actually,
unwittingly, broadcasting their PC illiteracy ! :-)

regards, Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

I shouldn't feed the trolls, but ...

In message <51926e00$0$62264$862e...@ngroups.net>, RJK

<nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>"Linea Recta" <bleep...@bleep.invalid> wrote in message
>news:518f7d21$0$16010$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
[]

>> I have a "web" button on my keyboard. Why doesn't it understand that it
>> has to start Chrome and not Explorer?

Try to find out what pressing the button generates. Is it a Microsoft
keyboard? Is there a configuration tool for the keyboard buried
somewhere?

>> I have set Chrome as standard browser. And Explorer seems to know this,
>> because after appearing it tells me Explorer is not the standard browser
>> and asks me to make it standard. What's the logic of this behaviour??
>>

I think the keyboard button is "hardwired" - i. e. configured somewhere
- to call Explorer (by which I presume you mean IE). So it does, and -
since you've now made another browser your default - IE then asks. (Many
browsers have, in that popup, a "do not ask this question again" - or,
conversely, an "always ask this question when xxx starts" - tickbox; I
don't know if IE does.)

>>
>>
>> --
>> regards,
>>
>> |\ /|
>> | \/ |@rk
>> \../
>> \/os
>>
>>
>
>It's always interesting to see people using, or fighting with, third party
>web-browsers !

Or doing so with IE.

>
>I never use a 3rd party browser mainly because the vendors of these keep
>trying to inflict them on me !

By 3rd-party, I presume you mean anything other than IE.

I don't recall anyone trying to inflict my choice - Firefox - on me. (I
have heard the claim re Chrome.)

>e.g. Google home page, (upper right screen), had, for ages, a gadget like
>object that is crafted to to lure people into clicking on it, and so
>installing a massive heap of crap that people, many of whom are used to
>using the Rolls-Royce of web browsers (IE), ...then after a while trying to

Ford, maybe ... (-:

>use the unwanted "Chome" can't understand it, don't want it, didn't want it
>in the first place, and it won't work properly.
>
>Then there is the multitude of conputer users that have, over a period of
>time, fiddled and tweaked their system, and IE, all over the place, have
>allowed a sackfull of browser add-ons to be hooked into IE, ...then wonder
>why IE won't work, then install a 3rd party browser as a solution to their
>ineptitude, the spout its' praises all over the place, and slag off IE all
>over the place becuase they are, unwittingly, mostly PC illiterate !!!

My own preference - which is not strong, but since I have little trouble
with Firefox (and before that Netscape) - for not using IE is mainly due
to its (IMO; YMMV) excessive integration with the OS: changing things in
the OS change them in IE, and vice versa. Of course, you may actually
want that to happen.

>
>It seems to be the case that most people who shout the praises of a 3rd
>party web browser, (who whilst blindly stabbing around all over their PC),
>praise that 3rd party browser because he or she managed to cripple IE by
>various routes.

You can cripple any browser.

>
>It takes a good deal of expertise, and a good deal of rejecting unwanted
>modifications to ones sytem, via millions of "web pages" that want to alter
>your system, that can cause problems with the normally superb functioning of
>IE

Since it still has - I think - a majority, it is the biggest target for
such tweaks (malicious or otherwise). That's enough reason for some
people to use something else. (Since others - particularly Firefox - now
have significant market share, they've become targets too, so this is
now less of a valid point.)

>
>A 3rd party web browser is simply a cop-out, because after contributing to

IYO. MMVs.

>the malfunctioning of IE, and not having the time or inclination, not to
>mention ability, to put it right, ...perhaps not even realising that ones
>dabbling caused the problems in the first place, ...the user of the 3rd
>party web browser who shouts it's praises all over the place, are actually,
>unwittingly, broadcasting their PC illiteracy ! :-)

That's like saying drivers of diesel vehicles (let alone other
alternatives) are "broadcasting their illiteracy with petrol engines".
It's a choice, FFS!
>
>regards, Richard
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

- royalty, the Prime Minister, God, even Simon Cowell. - Carol Vorderman, in
Radio Times, 27 October - 2 November 2012

[RJK]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OaMzbwPb...@soft255.demon.co.uk...

>I shouldn't feed the trolls, but ...
>

but, I've encountered so many people (and their PC's) that "chose," or if
your like "resorted" to installing a 3rd party browser because they had
crippled IE !!! Invariably they became unhappy with the substitute web
browser, and when IE waw restored to full funtionality - they were more than
pleased to return to IE

I've had my own problems with IE in the past, (all self inflicted :-), some
so problematic that I once tried Firefox - (extensively) ... and eventually
hated it !

Why pull the engine out of a Rolls-Royce and stuff a mini engine into it ?

regards, Richard

[Bert]

In news:51969ac2$0$24206$862e...@ngroups.net "RJK" <nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Invariably they became unhappy with the substitute web
> browser,

Invariably? Not likely.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <51969ac2$0$24206$862e...@ngroups.net>, RJK

<nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:OaMzbwPb...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
>>I shouldn't feed the trolls, but ...
>>
>
>but, I've encountered so many people (and their PC's) that "chose," or if
>your like "resorted" to installing a 3rd party browser because they had
>crippled IE !!! Invariably they became unhappy with the substitute web
>browser, and when IE waw restored to full funtionality - they were more than
>pleased to return to IE

As bert says, definitely not invariably! I for one am happy with Firefox
- it's not perfect, but I think at least as good as the version of IE I
could run on XP. (I also like the plugin - or whatever term is preferred
today - philosophy around it; YMMV.)

>
>I've had my own problems with IE in the past, (all self inflicted :-), some
>so problematic that I once tried Firefox - (extensively) ... and eventually
>hated it !
>
>Why pull the engine out of a Rolls-Royce and stuff a mini engine into it ?

However, if you put in - as they have - a good BMW engine, ...
[Personally I dislike the appearance of modern RRs, but I'd be surprised
if, from the engine point of view, they're not more reliable and
efficient than the old ones.] I'd not agree that IE is a RR engine,
anyway - though it _is_ competent. From the usability POV, there's
actually little to choose between them; as I said earlier, I just
dislike the (to me) excessive integration with the OS. If you _like_
that, fine.
>
>regards, Richard
>
>
I would agree about XP being a Rolls-Royce, though. (Even to the extent
that it needs some care to keep it running!)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everyone learns from science. It all depends how you use the knowledge. - "Gil
Grissom" (CSI).

[RJK]

"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA1C3A5156DA...@78.46.70.116...

? ...I didn't use that word for fun. ALL, whose PC's I help with use IE,
the handfull of people that installed Mozilla, (as a solution!) were very
pleased when their IE problems were resolved.

regards, Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <5199c1f5$0$25566$862e...@ngroups.net>, RJK

Possibly the ones who actually like Mozilla (or one of the other
browsers) no longer come to you for help (perhaps in part because they
disagree with your IE-is-best view, and maybe don't want to hurt your
feelings).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A clean, neat and orderly desk is a sign of a sick mind. (G6JPG's mind is
clearly extremely healthy ...)

[RJK]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:vSY7ZpDK...@soft255.demon.co.uk...

> In message <51969ac2$0$24206$862e...@ngroups.net>, RJK
> <nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>

" ... I just

> dislike the (to me) excessive integration with the OS. If you _like_ that,
> fine."
>>
>>regards, Richard
>>
>>

I never really understood the debacle in the courts over IE. ...and to
continue for a moment with the motor car analogy :-) ...aftermarket parts
never really cut it, compared to OEM !
It seemed to me that, to fight for a share share of the web browser market,
to be used on someone elses operating system, was just irrashional.
And the "Browser Choice" KB was a significant annoyance for the majority of
people who were happy with IE !!!!!
Why not also pursue a legal claim to have multiple choice for the file
browser, ... or Control Panel, ....or the Windows Desktop :-) ?

regards, Richard

[Bert]

In news:5199c1f5$0$25566$862e...@ngroups.net "RJK" <nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> "Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1C3A5156DA...@78.46.70.116...
>> In news:51969ac2$0$24206$862e...@ngroups.net "RJK"
>> <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Invariably they became unhappy with the substitute web
>>> browser,
>>
>> Invariably? Not likely.
>

> ? ...I didn't use that word for fun. ALL, whose PC's I help with use
> IE, the handfull of people that installed Mozilla, (as a solution!)
> were very pleased when their IE problems were resolved.

So the handful of people who come to you like IE for some reason.

You're still wrong.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <5199c5d5$0$54134$862e...@ngroups.net>, RJK

<nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:vSY7ZpDK...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <51969ac2$0$24206$862e...@ngroups.net>, RJK
>> <nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>" ... I just
>> dislike the (to me) excessive integration with the OS. If you _like_ that,
>> fine."
>>>
>>>regards, Richard
>>>
>>>
>
>I never really understood the debacle in the courts over IE. ...and to
>continue for a moment with the motor car analogy :-) ...aftermarket parts
>never really cut it, compared to OEM !

But a _better_ engine/motor from a different manufacturer might be even
better. (Though the car analogy creaks somewhat.)

>It seemed to me that, to fight for a share share of the web browser market,
>to be used on someone elses operating system, was just irrashional.
>And the "Browser Choice" KB was a significant annoyance for the majority of
>people who were happy with IE !!!!!

I'm sure it was for the majority of {people who were happy with IE};
however, that's not the same as {the majority of people} who were happy
with IE - which I contest (especially outside USA).

>Why not also pursue a legal claim to have multiple choice for the file
>browser, ... or Control Panel, ....or the Windows Desktop :-) ?

Why not indeed.
>
>regards, Richard
>
>
>
I'm tired of this - you're clearly not going to change your mind, so I'm
going to kill this thread; you can claim that I'm giving up if you
choose, I won't see it.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Rugby is a game played by gentlemen with odd-shaped balls.

[RJK]

"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message

news:XnsA1C66906AC9...@78.46.70.116...

Big handful !

regards, Richard

[RJK]

"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message

news:XnsA1C66906AC9...@78.46.70.116...

I was tempted to not even dignify "handful of people" with a response but,
clearly your clairvoyant algorithm is malfunctioning !
To have encouraged such a stupid remark simply indicates a high probability
that you are amongst those who couldn't get on with IE, usually, stupidly,
after allowing a raft of IE plug-ins to be installed, or similar
self-inflicted problems.

Those who "hate" IE, are often those who "hate" MS OS/GUI's as well, and try
to substitute them with alternatives, often without success.
My circle of support contains a handful of people who chose a 3rd party
web-browser, (after being led astray by the ridiculous "Browser Choice"
fiasco), all of whom were pleased to return to IE !!!!

regards, Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <51bd6492$0$51649$862e...@ngroups.net>, RJK

We resent the implication that we're all that stupid.

>
>Those who "hate" IE, are often those who "hate" MS OS/GUI's as well, and try
>to substitute them with alternatives, often without success.
>My circle of support contains a handful of people who chose a 3rd party
>web-browser, (after being led astray by the ridiculous "Browser Choice"
>fiasco), all of whom were pleased to return to IE !!!!

That may well be only "a handful", and they're people who wanted to
"return to" IE. The majority of those who use another browser either
have no desire to "return to" IE, or don't want to return to you for
support (for reasons varying from just being tired with your attitude to
just not wanting to hurt your feelings).

FWIW, I could never "return" to IE, as I never used it as my main
browser. I have other reasons for not liking it (none of which have to
do with plugins - I wouldn't know how to install one). I don't dislike
MS OS/GUIs that much: if I did, I'd be using a *n*x variant.
>
>regards, Richard
>
>
>
>
>
(Why 5 lines?)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Freedom of the press is limited to those who have one.

[RJK]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:TjUkVyDQ...@soft255.demon.co.uk...

"...usually, stupidly, after allowing a raft of IE plug-ins to be
installed..." refers literally to "...stupidly, after allowing a raft of IE
plug-ins to be installed,"
...so please don't twist a literal point into something I didn't suggest !!!

...and your rather silly suggestion that people don't return to me, because
of my dislike of 3rd party web - browsers is incorrect. I never dissuade
people from using them but, as soon as they mention a problem with IE, the
moment it's fixed, ...their next question is, (in as many words), "...how do
I make IE my default browser again ?" :-)

regards, Richard