|
|
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Friday, September 5, 2003 at 8:27 pm
Posted by Tom Swanson
(5553 messages posted)
The post is generally universal on what it fixes. The special posts for XP work if
they are done properly.
On Friday, September 5, 2003 at 3:17 pm, nozero wrote:
>I have a comment about Force
>NumLock to Behave:
>
>The portion regarding the caps lock and scroll lock do not work in XP. This should
>be removed to save others from wasting their time with a fix that does not work.
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 7:13 am
Posted by nozero
(6 messages posted)
I was referring specifically to this section:
----
"Solution #3 (Windows 2000/XP only):
Run the Registry Editor (REGEDIT.EXE).
Open HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Keyboard (If the Keyboard key isn't there, add
it.)
Double-click the InitialKeyboardIndicators value on the right. (If it's not there,
select New from the Edit menu, then String Value, and type InitialKeyboardIndicators
for the name of the new value.)
Change the value to any of the following:
0 - all indicators off
1 - Caps Lock on
2 - Num Lock on
4 - Scroll Lock on
Or, combine them by adding the corresponding values:
3 - Caps Lock and Num Lock on
5 - Caps Lock and Scroll Lock on
6 - Num Lock and Scroll Lock on
7 - Caps Lock, Num Lock, and Scroll Lock on
Close the Registry Editor when you're done; the change should take effect the next
time you start Windows."
----
I am attempting to get the Caps Lock to be on when Windows is started. I tried this
on a total of three PCs. One of which was Win 2K, the other two were XP Pro. The
registries of all three PCs already had that key, so all I had to do was change that
value.
I've found that no matter what I enter as the value in the registry, the only thing
that is "saved" is the current state of that key when restarting. In other words,
if the Num Lock is on when I restart, the key value will be "2" when checked after
a restart or if the Num lock is off when I restart, the key value will be "0" when
checked.
I find your response to be somewhat vague at best. Please enlighten me as to how
this is "done properly", and what I could be doing incorrectly?
On Friday, September 5, 2003 at 8:27 pm, Tom Swanson wrote:
>The post is generally universal on what it fixes. The special posts for XP work
if
>they are done properly.
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 9:07 am
Posted by Tom Swanson
(5553 messages posted)
I run XP Home with few hotfixes installed. My caplock and numlock both behave as
directed (after a lot of fussing around). You may have many many things that cause
an interaction with your register that I don't have. In any event the instructions
work in some cases. I have tried register fixes for many problems. Some work for
me, some work for others and not for me.
My point is that this fix does work in a number of cases and shouldn't be removed.
If a recent upgrade negates it, that should be noted. The second point is that this
is a subject to discuss with Annoyances.org Webmaster and administration. They don't
scan posts daily for complaints - talk to them, they may clarify it or remove if
it's passed out of usefullness.
On Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 7:13 am, nozero wrote:
>I was referring specifically to this section:
>----
>"Solution #3 (Windows 2000/XP only):
>
>Run the Registry Editor (REGEDIT.EXE).
>Open HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Keyboard (If the Keyboard key isn't there,
add
>it.)
>Double-click the InitialKeyboardIndicators value on the right. (If it's not there,
>select New from the Edit menu, then String Value, and type InitialKeyboardIndicators
>for the name of the new value.)
>Change the value to any of the following:
>0 - all indicators off
>1 - Caps Lock on
>2 - Num Lock on
>4 - Scroll Lock on
>Or, combine them by adding the corresponding values:
>3 - Caps Lock and Num Lock on
>5 - Caps Lock and Scroll Lock on
>6 - Num Lock and Scroll Lock on
>7 - Caps Lock, Num Lock, and Scroll Lock on
>Close the Registry Editor when you're done; the change should take effect the next
>time you start Windows."
>----
>I am attempting to get the Caps Lock to be on when Windows is started. I tried
this
>on a total of three PCs. One of which was Win 2K, the other two were XP Pro. The
>registries of all three PCs already had that key, so all I had to do was change
that
>value.
>
>I've found that no matter what I enter as the value in the registry, the only thing
>that is "saved" is the current state of that key when restarting. In other words,
>if the Num Lock is on when I restart, the key value will be "2" when checked after
>a restart or if the Num lock is off when I restart, the key value will be "0" when
>checked.
>
>I find your response to be somewhat vague at best. Please enlighten me as to how
>this is "done properly", and what I could be doing incorrectly?
>
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 4:04 pm
Posted by nozero
(6 messages posted)
Thanks for the reply. I'm fully aware of all the things you mentioned. My point
was that you should not make statements indicating that you have assumed that one
has done something improperly when you have no evidence of that.
Regards,
On Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 9:07 am, Tom Swanson wrote:
>I run XP Home with few hotfixes installed. My caplock and numlock both behave as
>directed (after a lot of fussing around). You may have many many things that cause
>an interaction with your register that I don't have. In any event the instructions
>work in some cases. I have tried register fixes for many problems. Some work for
>me, some work for others and not for me.
>
>My point is that this fix does work in a number of cases and shouldn't be removed.
>If a recent upgrade negates it, that should be noted. The second point is that this
>is a subject to discuss with Annoyances.org Webmaster and administration. They don't
>scan posts daily for complaints - talk to them, they may clarify it or remove if
>it's passed out of usefullness.
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 4:27 pm
Posted by Tom Swanson
(5553 messages posted)
And my point was that you shouldn't say something does not work just because it didn't
work in your individual experience. If you follow this forum, you should know that
most of what is wrong with XP is, one way or another, self inflicted. Virus that
slips through MS cracks may be the main exception.
XP has worked, on all my computers, without fatal problems and according to the book
since it came out. Depending on a lot of undefined environmental factors. Fixes that
work beautifully for me, don't work for others. Conversly, fixes that work for others
don't always work for me.
The point remains that the Annoyances post should not be removed on your sayso, nor
should it remain on my sayso. The Webmaster, and likely David Karp are far better
qualified to make that decision than either of us. Talk to them before you demean
their articles.
On Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 4:04 pm, nozero wrote:
>
>Thanks for the reply. I'm fully aware of all the things you mentioned. My point
>was that you should not make statements indicating that you have assumed that one
>has done something improperly when you have no evidence of that.
>
>Regards,
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Monday, September 8, 2003 at 5:21 am
Posted by nozero
(6 messages posted)
I stated that I had personally tried this method on three PCs and it didn't
work. Now you can add to that two co-workers and a friend who have also tried this
on their PCs and it didn't work for them either. Zero for six is not what I would
consider a good success ratio in this instance.
I didn't "demean their articles", I stated my opinion and I'll continue to do so
as I see fit. Additionally, I'll contact whomever I desire whenever I desire.
I'm unimpressed by your name dropping, verbiage in general and failure to use a spell
checker. Unless you have something positive to contribute to accomplishing my objective,
I see no need for any further correspondence from you.
On Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 4:27 pm, Tom Swanson wrote:
>And my point was that you shouldn't say something does not work just because it
didn't
>work in your individual experience. If you follow this forum, you should know that
>most of what is wrong with XP is, one way or another, self inflicted. Virus that
>slips through MS cracks may be the main exception.
>
>XP has worked, on all my computers, without fatal problems and according to the
book
>since it came out. Depending on a lot of undefined environmental factors. Fixes
that
>work beautifully for me, don't work for others. Conversly, fixes that work for others
>don't always work for me.
>
>The point remains that the Annoyances post should not be removed on your sayso,
nor
>should it remain on my sayso. The Webmaster, and likely David Karp are far better
>qualified to make that decision than either of us. Talk to them before you demean
>their articles.
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Monday, September 8, 2003 at 11:49 am
Posted by Tom Swanson
(5553 messages posted)
It is still my opinions that if you disagree with part or parts of articles (as opposed
to forum posts), the place to say so is to the people who own and prepare the statements
and write the books sold on this forum. They, neither you nor I, can do anything
about correcting misinformation appearing in the articles or books, if such actually
exists.
I would think having a possible error corrected would be more important than crying
about it. Personally I ejoy thsi forum and appreciate the fact that it has been made
available at no cost to us along with an excellent search engine. When I have suggestions,
I tell them.
On Monday, September 8, 2003 at 5:21 am, nozero wrote:
>I stated that I had personally tried this method on three PCs and it didn't
>work. Now you can add to that two co-workers and a friend who have also tried this
>on their PCs and it didn't work for them either. Zero for six is not what I would
>consider a good success ratio in this instance.
>
>I didn't "demean their articles", I stated my opinion and I'll continue to do so
>as I see fit. Additionally, I'll contact whomever I desire whenever I desire.
>
>I'm unimpressed by your name dropping, verbiage in general and failure to use a
spell
>checker. Unless you have something positive to contribute to accomplishing my objective,
>I see no need for any further correspondence from you.
>
>
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Monday, September 8, 2003 at 12:09 pm
Posted by Red Shadow
(22 messages posted)
I hope you have informed the owner of this site? We can't do anything about it from
here.
On Friday, September 5, 2003 at 3:17 pm, nozero wrote:
>I have a comment about Force
>NumLock to Behave:
>
>The portion regarding the caps lock and scroll lock do not work in XP. This should
>be removed to save others from wasting their time with a fix that does not work.
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Monday, September 8, 2003 at 2:57 pm
Posted by Red Shadow
(22 messages posted)
You seem more interested in arguing than solving the problem...talk to the management.
On Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 4:04 pm, nozero wrote:
>
>Thanks for the reply. I'm fully aware of all the things you mentioned. My point
>was that you should not make statements indicating that you have assumed that one
>has done something improperly when you have no evidence of that.
>
>Regards,
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 4:14 pm
Posted by nozero
(6 messages posted)
I did yesterday. No reply yet.
Thanks,
On Monday, September 8, 2003 at 12:09 pm, Red Shadow wrote:
>I hope you have informed the owner of this site? We can't do anything about it from
>here.
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 4:19 pm
Posted by nozero
(6 messages posted)
No, just tired of vague statements, comments and information that I found to be of
no value. I'm still interested and looking for the fix. And I have requested that
"management" remove the content in question.
On Monday, September 8, 2003 at 2:57 pm, Red Shadow wrote:
>You seem more interested in arguing than solving the problem...talk to the management.
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Comment about 'Force NumLock to Behave'
Friday, February 11, 2005 at 4:27 am
Posted by bb86405
(1 messages posted)
Both are correct, I found that in a different user SID HKU\\ that this value was
set to "0". by changing it too to "2" the annoying NumLock off disappeared.
I use forums as a tip to solve problems, not as the solution itself.
Thanks to everyone who tries to help others.
bb86405
On Friday, September 5, 2003 at 3:17 pm, nozero wrote:
>I have a comment about Force
>NumLock to Behave:
>
>The portion regarding the caps lock and scroll lock do not work in XP. This should
>be removed to save others from wasting their time with a fix that does not work.
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
| |
Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread
| |
Return to the Windows XP Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
