Environment variables not being expanded in Vista PATH

I have the problem described in http://support.microsoft.com/kb/329308 even
though the article does not include Vista (my problem is not with %APPDATA%
but with other environment variables). I suspect this is an oversight
because the article includes Windows Server 2008.

However, I don't see a method to workaround the problem in Vista as Computer
Management (local) does not have a Properties item in the menu when you right
click it.

Does anyone know how to workaround this as it is quite annoying as
applications do not run properly?

"Michael" <> wrote in message news:E4329C06-2DB6-4FE8-B30D-...
> I have the problem described in http://support.microsoft.com/kb/329308 even
> though the article does not include Vista (my problem is not with %APPDATA%
> but with other environment variables). I suspect this is an oversight
> because the article includes Windows Server 2008.
>
> However, I don't see a method to workaround the problem in Vista as Computer
> Management (local) does not have a Properties item in the menu when you right
> click it.
>
> Does anyone know how to workaround this as it is quite annoying as
> applications do not run properly?

To edit the Path setting:
Right-click Computer > Properties.
On the left pane select Advanced system settings.
Click on 'Environment Variables'.
Click on Path and then 'Edit..'.

I know about that. That's no different from the procedure described at the
top of KB329308 which causes the problem. I'm looking for the procedure that
mirrors the information at the bottom of the KB article. It is slightly
different than the first procedure and is supposed to workaround this issue.

I'm going to try using setx from the command line to see if that works around
this issue.

Michael

"Michael" wrote:

> I know about that. That's no different from the procedure described at the
> top of KB329308 which causes the problem. I'm looking for the procedure that
> mirrors the information at the bottom of the KB article. It is slightly
> different than the first procedure and is supposed to workaround this issue.