Shortcut stops working after 4NT to TCC Upgrade

May 20, 2008
10,555
78
Syracuse, NY, USA
On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:25:06 -0400, Steve Fabian <> wrote:

|Sorry, executing TCCBATCH.BTM (or any of the TC*HERE.BTM files) is NOT part of the installation process. They are executed by the just-installed TCC.EXE. That's why the UNINSTALLER cannot remove their effects. Maybe a version of the batch file in C. Dye's response to this post should be included with the TCMD distribution (and also UNDO versions of the TC*HERE.BTM files).

That could be easily added as an option in TCCBATCH.BTM. TCC doesn't monkey
with batfile or cmdfile; it only points .bat and .cmd elsewhere. It should only
be necessary to ASSOC them back. You can leave the TCC.Batch file type there
(possibly for future use) ... I doubt any other app will use it (and leaving
file types and classes (and more) lying around the registry seems to be the
uninstall paradigm!).
 
May 20, 2008
10,555
78
Syracuse, NY, USA
TCC doesn't monkey
with batfile or cmdfile; it only points .bat and .cmd elsewhere. It should only
be necessary to ASSOC them back. You can leave the TCC.Batch file type there (possibly for future use) ... I doubt any other app will use it (and leaving file types and classes (and more) lying around the registry seems to be the uninstall paradigm!).
I guess I was wrong about that. TCCBATCH.BTM does mess with batfile and cmdfile by changing their Shell\Open\Command. But why; that seems unnecessary. Better (I think) would be to simply ASSOC .cmd and .bat with the TCC.Batch type (as is done for .btm). That would leave the batfile and cmdfile types untouched, and returning to the default would only require re-ASSOC-ing .bat and .cmd with batfile and cmdfile (which could be done with CMD and without needing to know the old, now gone, command line for Shell\Open\Command).

And (a suggestion) perhaps whatever creates the TCC.Batch file type would also give it some descriptive text (the default (@) value in the HKCR\TCC.Batch key. As I discovered (after a very frustrating session) such text is necessary in getting the ShellNew mechanism to work.

And (another suggestion) since FTYPE will create file types (even with no association) maybe FTYPE could be given an option (while maintaining CMD's syntax) to give a file type some descriptive text.

Giving a file type descriptive text is quite nice. I used "TCC BTM File" and now that's what I see in Explorer's "type" column, in the file types dialog, and (as I mentioned) in the "New" context menu item. Hmmm! ... maybe "TCC Command Script" will look even better.
 
May 20, 2008
10,555
78
Syracuse, NY, USA
On Thu, 26 May 2011 01:58:04 -0400, David Marcus <> wrote:

|---Quote (Originally by vefatica)---
|Better (I think) would be to simply ASSOC .cmd and .bat with the TCC.Batch type (as is done for .btm).
|---End Quote---
|Then Explorer would show them as being that type, which might be OK, but might also be confusing.

What's confusing? Any of .bat, .btm, and .cmd that ultimately result in
(paraphrasing) `TCC "%1" %*` might as well be the same file type?

Leave batfile and cmdfile alone, for CMD's use.

There are really only two types ... scripts run by CMD and scripts run by TCC. I
don't understand CMD's need to have the "batfile" and "cmdfile" types. TCC
needs only the "TCC.Batch" type.
 
May 16, 2011
22
0
Charles, I tried your version of whack-a-mole (gotta love it) but it did not fix my problem (nor did it do anything bad). Since, on this Win XP machine, I run as Administrator all the time, I see no reason to try running it as "Guest". (Can't even remember why I have a Guest account, because all other people using my computer would be SHOT ON SIGHT anyway. This is a PERSONAL Computer, not a VAX.)

I've always loved the install/uninstall arguments. I may be brand new to this particular forum, but I've been hanging around online since the early BBS scene, so I can easily sense that I am on VERY well-trod ground here when I try complaining that install/uninstall should do this or not do that.

One day soon, probably this long weekend, I'm gonna just roll back to either a Restore Point or a previous total backup of the system (the ULTIMATE whack-a-problem). After that, I can't rightly say if I'll have the stomach to try anything other then 4NT again. For now, I'm gonna hop on over to Ft. Lauderdale to do some offshore fishing tomorrow and forget about all this for a while.

Meanwhile, TCC is now working just fine on my new Windows 7 rocketship, and I THANK all you guys for all the advice. I notice that there are a LOT of posts in this thread I started, so I'm wondering if there is any prize involved. :-)

-- Nick
 
It's a shame we didn't figure it out.
It would help if Nick went about it in a more methodical way. If he ran your script, then he should post the assoc and ftype for the three types of files and what happens when he tries a shortcut with each. It is very hard to help people when they don't show exactly what they are doing and what the results are. There can be a big difference between raw and filtered data.
 

Charles Dye

Super Moderator
Staff member
May 20, 2008
4,193
72
Albuquerque, NM
prospero.unm.edu
If he ran your script, then he should post the assoc and ftype for the three types of files and what happens when he tries a shortcut with each.
It wouldn't have produced any informative output. That script just bangs in new info, it doesn't try to display the old.

If he were in Albuquerque, I'd offer to swing by and take a look -- I'm getting curious. But I don't think he's in Albuquerque.
 
It wouldn't have produced any informative output.
I know. But, all he said was that it didn't fix his problem. He didn't tell us what he did next and what happened. He should run assoc and ftype for the three file types, then try a shortcut with each file type (with a parameter and without) pointing to a file that echos its parameters and says which command processor is executing it. And, show us exactly what output he gets.

If he were in Albuquerque, I'd offer to swing by and take a look -- I'm getting curious. But I don't think he's in Albuquerque.
How about remote assistance?
 
May 20, 2008
10,555
78
Syracuse, NY, USA
On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:12:20 -0400, David Marcus <> wrote:

|---Quote (Originally by Charles Dye)---
|It wouldn't have produced any informative output.
|---End Quote---
|I know. But, all he said was that it didn't fix his problem. He didn't tell us what he did next and what happened. He should run assoc and ftype for the three file types, then try a shortcut with each file type (with a parameter and without) pointing to a file that echos its parameters and says which command processor is executing it. And, show us exactly what output he gets.
|
|
|---Quote---
|If he were in Albuquerque, I'd offer to swing by and take a look -- I'm getting curious. But I don't think he's in Albuquerque.
|---End Quote---
|How about remote assistance?

I'm really curious about it too.
 
May 16, 2011
22
0
Nick is nowhere near Albuquerque, but he sure can recognize a kind and generous offer. Thank you, Charles. I zip thru Albuquerque about once a year though, on my way to Sedona, and I really like the way you guys have painted the bridges and overpasses turquoise and coral/pink/salmon/whateveryacallit. Of course, since YOU probably paid for it somehow, your mileage may vary. :-)

Nick did say what he was going to do next. He said he was gonna go fishing near Ft. Lauderdale. He did go fishing (don't ask) and now he's back complaining. :-)

Since I got back, I've removed TCC and reinstalled 4NT, and now IT DOESN'T WORK RIGHT EITHER when passed an argument from a shortcut. I have concluded that it is my Windows shell that is hosed, not any of my jpsoft product(s). So, I have removed 4NT and reinstalled TCMD v12.10 and some day if/when I get some spare time, I will see about repairing my shell. For now, TCC works just fine (except for /F) so long as I simply invoke the .BTM by typing instead of clicking on a shortcut. Good enough has always been the enemy of better. Right now, I am packing up all my stuff for my annual Spring migration from Florida to Delaware.

One thing I have found time for though, is to "lodge an official complaint" that COPY /F does not work. (In a separate thread, of course.)

Seems to me the forum moderator must be fairly sick of this long-winded thread by now, and I would certainly go along with the idea of closing it (assuming that concept applies in this forum). Folks, I think we have wrung all we're gonna get out of this one. :-) Thanks again for all the advice.

-- Nick