64 replies to this topic

[mcoot]

I'm fine with the removal of the registry editing - personally I don't use it. And I really don't think it's a good idea to keep the sort of thing that could easily turn a newbie who is playing around with functions they don't understand's computer into a brick.

[frankpiet]

I see no need for the registry if you can still access it through DLLs.

All I ever used it for is editing a few file associations for a game editor.

[mcoot]

I see no need for the registry if you can still access it through DLLs.

All I ever used it for is editing a few file associations for a game editor.

Yes. That's probably the only thing I've really used the registry for, and possibly the only thing I would miss. I wouldn't mind as long as it could be accessed through a DLL.

[Dark Matter]

I never use it. Someone will just make a DLL for it if you get rid of it, so I think there's no point keeping it.

[MasterOfKings]

I think it should go. Not for the lack of it's usefulness; mainly the fact that a new user (say, a young child) could easily ruin a computer by playing around with it. The registry is a very-sensitive area and it shouldn't be touched unless you know exactly what you're doing.

-MoK

[Razon]

I've used the registry for storing settings like resolution, and other base application settings to keep it separate for each windows user. I've also used it to store an application base directory, which made for easy updating of game files through downloaded patches. Or allowing other programs to know if and where the game or application exists, and then get it's directory.

Though besides storing an install directory, I mainly use ini files for storing information now. The built-in ini functions could use an update, to allow it to open more than 1 file at once and to allow dealing with files that are located outside of the game directory.

If someone really didn't know what they were doing, then I don't believe that they'd be able to mess up any windows registries too easily. The same functions can be accomplished with a DLL, which there already is one available for. Of course, you wouldn't want to have to use a DLL for every little thing.

If nice speed improvements will be gotten by removing extra functions like this, then many would probably be in favor of such being done.

[Smarty]

Mike - for clarity sake, I think you mean registry access to the keys outside of the game's own key?

I think games should have no business storing stuff outside their own key, but I would certainly like to be able to have read-only access to keys outside the game's own. At least this would allow us, in specific cases, to check the system's configuration and then decide whether specific game features should be enabled or disabled.

I also wouldn't mind registry access to disappear for the game's own key, if that is to be replaced with a comparable alternative like an integrated, static variable database file. INI files work quite well but I suppose that to some users, they're a bit of a hassle compared to registry access. You'd need something anyway - highscore tables are stored in the registry by default.

[Manuel777]

I use the registry all the time, it's the best point of access to the main sistem settings like resolutions, wallpapers and simple stuff like that. Its also a good place to store variables like your username without having to create a whole bunch of external files (game maker even creates a new sepparate folder so you dont mess it up!)
I have to agree that it is a security breach and many people can mess it up very badly with it, but if you know how to use it correctly, it's great.

If removed, i would still use dll's to gain access to it.. and that applies for anyone else who uses it, i guess.

[Medusar]

I never use the registry; I think that especially full registry acces is the kind of functionality you normally wouldn't provide with GM by default. That's something I would expect to be only possible with DLLs because people shouldn't be needing to access the full registry. In the rare case that they do, something external seems more appropriate to me.

I never understood why GM does natively provide full access to the registry but needs external packages for proper ini and xml support.

GM natively allowing games to have access to only a limited part of the registry is fine by me, though I would personally never use it. I prefer files, though I'm not really sure why.

[Dark Matter]

The functions could be put into a GEX instead?

[paul23]

What's good in limiting the use of gamemaker?


Really what's the problem with having access to it? - Untill microsoft deprecates it officially, support should be kept. - Really I don't understand the good thing about purposelly cripling a program and limiting users!

Maybe in 99% of the programs written in gamemaker it isn't needed and stupid to change the registry. However, in that 1% of programs written, it still is stupid to remove it. As it just "being" there doesn't hurt anyone!
Is this a sign we're going to limit gamemaker so only minigames & uploading to yoyogames are soon only possible?

[ragarnak]

A few folk have said they would like to keep access to the systems registry, where as I (and Microsoft strangley enough) have said its horrible, dangerous and should go.

I think Microsoft is right. That registry is a big throw-it-all-in garbage-alike bin, which is near to impossible to determine which program uses/owns which key, and thus impossible to clean. I wonder what they intend to use instead though ...

So I'm interested in what you actually use it for?

The usual I guess. Although I predominantly use it to read from it. Like where another program stored its data-files so I can find and access them.

Perhaps we can achieve this some other way...

I think you will have a problem there. Not being able to access the registry at all would be a pretty crude solution, removing the write-capabilities (which are way underpowered by the way) will not stop anyone from doing dangerous things like snooping on other peoples settings ...

Personally I use the old INI file if I want to store settings. Although it does not have the flexibility of the registry I like how I can easily remove all traces of a oncewhile usefull program (by deleting the executable and its (same-named) INI-file).

P.s.
I also do not see a good reason why a games high-scores should be stored in the Registry. Deleting a game using highscores always causes a "registry-leak".

P.p.s
With the number of "what do you think about this" and "this is is going to be changed" things you've now presented, are you really going to put all of that into a "this is just an update" fractionally-numbered version (instead of giving it its own "Fully new" whole number) ?

Edited by ragarnak, 29 January 2011 - 01:26 PM.

[gnysek]

The functions could be put into a GEX instead?

It's good idea. This part can be removed from GM - begginners don't need this (they can even destroy something on their own PC's by using it), and if someone really needs it, can use DLL. That's why GM can use DLL's right?

[ani12321]

I personally have never used registry and probably will never use it but for others who use it will be good to make an extension just like windows dialogs

[ani12321]

I personally have never used registry and probably will never use it but for others who use it will be good to make an extension just like windows dialogs

[lacie]

I've got something I don't want people to easily copy from one computer to another. I guess DLL will be more complicated than built-in functions with permission to use. I will feel sad if they must go.

(Sry, my english is very bad :<)

[MasterOfKings]

I think putting it to a dll (hence making it more challenging to use), would seem like a bad idea to people who do use it; but it would also prevent beginner users from using it too (for reasons that I've previously stated). Making them into an extension would be a good idea. If you need it, it can be added. Otherwise, what's the point in having it?

-MoK

[Interrobang Pie]

I've never used it and I never will.