Is it wise to use the Registry for screensavers?

[RGBreality]

Hey, folks!

I am nearing completion of a corporate screensaver, and presently I use a Named Variable object to keep track of screensaver settings and preferences. When the screensaver exits, the Named Variable object writes its content to an INI file, which is then read when the screensaver is next launched.

While this arrangement functions well, I have been entertaining the idea of using the Registry object to read and write screensaver preferences. I am entertaining this because it seems to take the Named Variable object several seconds to write its INI file when the screensaver exits, and I thought using the Registry would be a cleaner and faster way of keeping track of settings.

However, I am wondering about the wisdom of accessing the Registry for a screensaver, for a couple of reasons:

1.) While I wouldn't have a problem using the Registry for an application, I wonder if people have greater distrust issues of a screensaver accessing their Registry--especially since this is a corporate screensaver for corporate environments?

2.) Would I have restrictions in being able to write to the Registry? Would it be better to write to the "Local User" or "Local Machine" root?

3.) Would corporate security applications such as Microsoft Sentry notice writing to the Registry and notify the user of this--thereby enhancing distrust of Registry access by a screensaver?


Since there are lots of people who design screensavers here, I was curious on your thoughts about this.

Thank you for your feedback (as always)!



Most appreciatively...

RGBreality

[koobare]

Hi RGB!

All I can say is that I generally prefer to keep my registry clear of any applications that don't really need to access it. I distrust widgets, screensavers or other apps that try to introduce any changes to my system, be it Windows or Android. Even if the change is minimal, I feel that bloating the registry with unnecessary software can weigh my system down and produce lags on startup that I really don't appreciate.

The same goes for my internet connection - I block everything that I don't really need accessing the web. Call me a guy with trust issues, but I generally like to think that if a piece of software doesn't need to do something, it shouldn't, unless I (the user) really need it do that.

And yes, many system-protecting apps will try to block your screensaver from accessing the registry, that's the way I set up my "software shield".

Cheers!

[Dynasoft]

There should be no trouble for applications/screensavers/games/whatever reading/writing to/from HKEY_Current_User/Software/Name, after all that's what it's there for.

EDIT: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE can only be written to by administrators, so is not a good choice for anything really.

[Nifflas]

Dynasoft is right here, but I think you should use the File object to retrieve the path to the user account's application data folder and store your settings there.

The main reason is that the registry object is more commonly used in malware. You'll get more people reporting false positives, just like with any other MMF2 system object (and it is a pain, every once in a while I get really offensive mails from people who thinks I'm spreading viruses, many won't consider apoligizing when I point out it's a false positive).

Second, even though there are those who disagree, a lot of people think of the registry as something that went wrong with Windows and is a growing cancer feeded by the intalled software, and a pain to clean up. Even if there's a standard place where things should go in the registry, I know software don't tend to stick to that single place, so I specifically look for software that doesn't touch it.

So... the user's application data folder (not to be confused with the application folder) gets my vote!