Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
ToolTipFixer 2.0 for Windows < Vista
yksyks:
To Josh:
No deal with me, I'm not one of the .NET haters, but I know here are some, so I just wanted to post an alternate solution, which I'm actually using.
The user makes the choice at installation whether to install the program as a service or as a stand-alone manually-activated-only program.-Curt
--- End quote ---
That's good to know for lucky people (like me) who meet this issue only once in a while. I didn't see it for months now, so there's no need to install a service.
Josh:
Yeah, please do not take my posting as an attack at you. It is just something that urks me. I see lots of people complain about .net dependencies but none of them provide rationale as to why.
yksyks:
Not at all. In fact, it urks me, too (I just learned a new word, thanks!). I'm sure someone will explain.
app103:
Yeah, please do not take my posting as an attack at you. It is just something that urks me. I see lots of people complain about .net dependencies but none of them provide rationale as to why.
-Josh (January 11, 2010, 07:07 AM)
--- End quote ---
This is actually very relevant information that could have an impact on whether I can run it or not.
Unless it's an older version of .NET it probably isn't supported on a 9x machine. And on a really low spec machine like my snail, one has to run any .NET apps right after a fresh reboot, before running anything else, otherwise it takes forever to load and may not load properly. Once they are loaded, however, they usually aren't that bad. (much better than Java apps)
Lashiec:
Supposedly Microsoft acknowledged and fixed this problem in the latest Service Packs for the currently supported Window releases. A while ago we had another thread about this problem, with several solutions suggested, and while I used one of them for a time (an AHK script), after upgrading to SP3, I noticed the tooltip was always shown correctly. Sounds like the odds of this bug nagging your system is something left to randomness, then.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version