convert older binary *.reg to Vista *.reg?

I'm trying to install a pre-Vista version of an app on this new Vista
machine. I keep getting re-asked for the serial. Here is why:

Upon first entering the serial, the app starts correctly and also writes
a binary *.reg file. All is well until I close the app. On restarting
the app, it wants the serial again. What it *should* have done is use
the *.reg to create registry entries, and then I wouldn't have to keep
re-registering. But Vista doesn't like that *.reg file. (I know, because
when I use regedit to try to import the *.reg, regedit will instead
tell me that it's not a valid *.reg file.) The wrinkle is that the app
accepts the registration as valid, deletes the *.reg file, but then
fails to make the corresponding registry entries.

So, does anybody know of a way to convert an older style binary reg file
to one (either script or binary) that Vista will understand? Thanks.

All works well on XP, no problem there.

Binary is binary
Did you try using run As Administrator when running the install?
If the installer needs to write to HKLM in the registry, it "Must" be run as administrator.


--

Steve Easton


"Jrz" <> wrote in message news:...
> I'm trying to install a pre-Vista version of an app on this new Vista machine. I keep getting re-asked for
> the serial. Here is why:
>
> Upon first entering the serial, the app starts correctly and also writes a binary *.reg file. All is well
> until I close the app. On restarting the app, it wants the serial again. What it *should* have done is use
> the *.reg to create registry entries, and then I wouldn't have to keep re-registering. But Vista doesn't
> like that *.reg file. (I know, because when I use regedit to try to import the *.reg, regedit will instead
> tell me that it's not a valid *.reg file.) The wrinkle is that the app accepts the registration as valid,
> deletes the *.reg file, but then fails to make the corresponding registry entries.
>
> So, does anybody know of a way to convert an older style binary reg file to one (either script or binary)
> that Vista will understand? Thanks.
>
> All works well on XP, no problem there.

Steve Easton wrote:
> Binary is binary

I would have thought so, but as I described, regedit rejects the file.

so it seems the format might be different. There's a "RegTool"
program which might tell more. I suppose I'll have to try it out, if
nobody has a surefire method. I kind of shrink, though, from downloading
and installing program after program. You never know what might get
fouled up.

> Did you try using run As Administrator when running the install?
> If the installer needs to write to HKLM in the registry, it "Must" be run as administrator.

yes, I did, on multiple attempts. Other keys are written such as for
config. Are perms for HKLM different than for other branches?


But, as I had already described, the writing to the registry takes place
when the app is run - not during installation. And yes, I have run it as
admin, too.

Thanks.

"Jrz" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Steve Easton wrote:
>> Binary is binary
>
> I would have thought so, but as I described, regedit rejects the
> file.
>
> so it seems the format might be different. There's a "RegTool"
> program which might tell more. I suppose I'll have to try it out,
> if nobody has a surefire method. I kind of shrink, though, from
> downloading and installing program after program. You never know
> what might get fouled up.
>
>> Did you try using run As Administrator when running the install?
>> If the installer needs to write to HKLM in the registry, it "Must"
>> be run as administrator.
>
> yes, I did, on multiple attempts. Other keys are written such as for
> config. Are perms for HKLM different than for other branches?
>
>
> But, as I had already described, the writing to the registry takes
> place when the app is run - not during installation. And yes, I have
> run it as admin, too.

Yes, writing to HKLM is different. While signed on as administrator,
right click the application and choose something like 'run elevated'
or 'run as administrator', and it should write to the real HKLM
instead of the short lived pseudo branch of the registry it uses if
the correct permissions are not used. After the first run, you should
be able to run without special permissions unless the application
violates some more UAC rules.

-Paul Randall

Jrz wrote:
> Steve Easton wrote:
>> Binary is binary
>
> I would have thought so, but as I described, regedit rejects the file.
>
> so it seems the format might be different. There's a "RegTool"
> program which might tell more. I suppose I'll have to try it out, if
> nobody has a surefire method. I kind of shrink, though, from
> downloading and installing program after program. You never know what
> might get fouled up.
>
>> Did you try using run As Administrator when running the install?
>> If the installer needs to write to HKLM in the registry, it "Must"
>> be run as administrator.
>
> yes, I did, on multiple attempts. Other keys are written such as for
> config. Are perms for HKLM different than for other branches?
>
>
> But, as I had already described, the writing to the registry takes
> place when the app is run - not during installation. And yes, I have
> run it as admin, too.
>
> Thanks.

Some programs store customer registration details like user name, serial number etc. as a registration file
and give it a .REG extension. The fact that it has a .reg extension makes the OS assign the regedit icon.
Although it looks like a file that regedit will open, it is just a data file and not a Windows registry-type file.
Maybe this is what you have got ?
..

bomb#20 wrote:

> Some programs store customer registration details like user name, serial number etc. as a registration file
> and give it a .REG extension. The fact that it has a .reg extension makes the OS assign the regedit icon.
> Although it looks like a file that regedit will open, it is just a data file and not a Windows registry-type file.
> Maybe this is what you have got ?


now there is an idea...

but, on reflection, if the file exists with valid registration data,
then I don't think I'd be re-asked for registration info upon the next
app startup.

Thanks for the suggestion, it might be correct in the end anyway. I
don't know.

Jrz wrote:
> bomb#20 wrote:
>
>> Some programs store customer registration details like user name,
>> serial number etc. as a registration file and give it a .REG
>> extension. The fact that it has a .reg extension makes the OS assign
>> the regedit icon. Although it looks like a file that regedit will
>> open, it is just a data file and not a Windows registry-type file.
>> Maybe this is what you have got ?
>
>
> now there is an idea...
>
> but, on reflection, if the file exists with valid registration data,
> then I don't think I'd be re-asked for registration info upon the next
> app startup.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, it might be correct in the end anyway. I
> don't know.

Try opening the file with Notepad, then you will see if it is a proper registry-type file.
..