On Monday, 96/05/27, George White wrote to Andrew Grillet about
"profile" as follows:

GW> AG>But MS are dealing with Windows users. We are talking OS/2
users here :-)
GW> AG>It stops us from fixing our .INI files.
GW> 
GW> Now there I agree, thank goodness some of the OS/2 users have
GW> taken the time to decipher the OS/2 .ini file format so we can (to a
GW> degree) fix our .ini files. They have my sincere thanks.

Hi George,

I tend to agree with Jonathan here. Using a binary .INI format keeps
grubby little fingers out of places they don't belong. Furthermore,
anybody with enough programming skill to feel comfortable with
updating a program's internal parameters can write himself/herself an
INI editor in less than an afternoon. [I wrote a PM one using VisPro
REXX in such a time.]

Basically, anyone with the technical savvy can edit a binary .INI and
technoboobs are protected from their own incompetence. A simple
dichotomy.

GW> I see ones where they've done it by editing config.sys instead :-(

Q.E.D., perhaps?

GW> Or, what I consider even worse, back-levelling a file without
GW> asking :-(

Reinstalling to a base level implies this; you then need to reapply
any maintenance. This is standard operating practice for SMP/E users
supporting MVS on mainframes.

It might be ugly, but it really is what you are asking the reinstall
to do.

GW> That's a thought, I'd better make sure I've got them on floppy so
GW> I can access them if needed.

Just remember the PM-named DLL's that are required. As a result, most
INI editors I've seen are PM programs. I guess it's time to write me a
VIO jobby for my restart floppies too.

Regards

Dave


 * KWQ/2 1.2i * Sure, when... OINK FLAP, OINK FLAP... Well, I'll be damned.
--- Maximus/2 3.01