|
You will probably need to add it to the registry in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run. But you may find that your users have their own ideas as to whether they want this to happen or not.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even simpler is adding a link in the startup folder (C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup).
|
|
|
|
|
no your screwed, close your computer, take out the hard drive
open your hard-drive and throw away the cover( this is what makes computers lag!!)
then take out the RAM and place a hot dog in there. Pour water into the cooling fans, turn it on and BAM!!!
faster computer along with the use of the program in all users
YOUR WELCOME!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
How i can do this by coding automatically when program setup
|
|
|
|
|
Add a link in the startup folder, you'll find that in the category "file system" in the setup project.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with others with either using the Registry and StartUp folder. However, there is also one more alternative if not more to consider. Why not try creating a Service?
Here is an article to get you started. MSDN: Walkthrough: Creating a Windows Service Application
Once that is done you can go to the Component Services and set the application to start once the computer has turned on. There is also very cool recovery options. (dcomcnfg)
Hope this helps! 
|
|
|
|
|
Services shouldn't be interacting with the desktop, so not a great idea for a "form" app
Mark Salsbery
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Depends Mark upon what the developer is trying to achieve. Hence, the reason why I chose the suggestion icon. Just another option to consider that's all I was trying to get at. I don't know the specifics of what the developer is hoping to accomplish with the "form" app.
Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
Under Windows 7, a service cannot display a Form for security reasons. Well, it could, but at best, it'll show up on a seperate Desktop and the user would be informed that a service is showing something that might need the users attention. If OK'd, it would switch Desktops. This is not something I would use in a production app at all.
|
|
|
|
|
The answers here have assumed that you want your application to open automatically when Windows is started.
I am wondering if what you are really asking is: how do you open your application when a file with the unique extension you are using for files you save is double-clicked ?
Please clarify your question.
thanks, Bill
"... Sturgeon's revelation. It came to him that Science Fiction is indeed ninety-percent crud, but that also—Eureka!—ninety-percent of everything is crud. All things—cars, books, cheeses, hairstyles, people and pins are, to the expert and discerning eye, crud, except for the acceptable tithe which we each happen to like." early 1950's quote from Venture Sci-Fi Magazine on the origin of Sturgeon's Law, by author Theodore Sturgeon: source Oxford English Dictionary on-line "Word-of-the-Day."
|
|
|
|
|
Venerable coders,
How do I connect a key press in a console window to event code?
All I've found on a search, thus far, is to put the Console.Read() statement in a loop to catch a key press --non-acceptable.
Please share.
Koodos, AZdon
|
|
|
|
|
|
The console does not have the concept of a message queue, so it doesn't really handle events - the only event it publishes is CancelKeyPress[^]
However, there is a way to do more. See this article: Console Event Handling[^]
Be warned though - it's not for beginners!
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that respectable and most helpful link, Sir Griff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hi all. I'm new to serialization and i cant understand something.
i read this article:
Introducing Serialization in .NET[^]
when do i need to use theSerializationAttribute , meaning when do i need to write [Serializable] above a class ?
i found an example for XmlSerializer and no [Serializable] tag was needed to serialize and DE-serialize all the classes there.
another thing i cant understand or find any doucimentation is HOW serilization really works. how is the magic of object to strean and vice versa works.
can any one give an hand to a fellow programmer ?
thx
|
|
|
|
|
This attribute marks types as serialisable through the standard serialisation process (using a BinaryFormatter or SoapFormatter). Despite its similar appearance, the XmlSerializer uses a different pathway, and the [Serializable] attribute has no effect there (instead, use [XmlSerializable]).
Standard ([Serializable]) serialisation stores the complete internal state of the object, by serialising private fields. To be able to use it, every field within the type must itself be serialisable (either by being a CLR type or itself being marked as [Serialiazable]), because the complete state must be available to the serialiser. There is an exception to this, if you explicitly mark some fields as [NonSerializable]. In contrast, the XML serialisation can only be applied to public properties, and you need to reconstruct the internal state of the object to an equivalent state based on the value of those properties.
You should use [Serializable] and IFormatters when you want to save or transfer a complete dump of an object, and reconstruct it exactly as it was before. For example, classes which are to be passed across AppDomain or web service boundaries need to either be marshalled by reference or serialisable. You should use XML serialisation and [XmlSerializable] if you want to use XML to save or transfer a high level view of an object, and you can use the public properties to sufficiently reconstruct the target object.
The article you linked to is quite good and once you understand that the XML serialiser is a separate thing, hopefully it will help you.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Windows.Forms.ListView control. On this control I need to have 310 columns. While scrolling through the listview the first 245 display without problems. After that, the column headers stop scrolling, but the data continues to scroll. Is there a setting somewhere for the max number of column headers that are allowed? Any idea what might be causing this?
Thank you.
Kalvin
- Kalvin
|
|
|
|
|
I've learned a little more about what is going on with this. It isn't a problem with the number of columns, but the total width of all the columns. If I give each column a width of 140 then I have a problem scrolling. If I give each column a width of only 100 with 310 columns then there is no problem.
listView1.View = View.Details;
listView1.MultiSelect = false;
listView1.FullRowSelect = true;
listView1.HideSelection = false;
for (int i = 0; i < 310; i++)
{
listView1.Columns.Add((i-1).ToString(), 140);
}
ListViewItem itm = listView1.Items.Add("newRow");
foreach (ColumnHeader columnHeader in listView1.Columns)
{
itm.SubItems.Add(columnHeader.Index.ToString());
}
- Kalvin
|
|
|
|
|
32768 / 140 is ~234...looks like exceeding 32768 pixels IS a bad idea[^]
Mark Salsbery
|
|
|
|
|
The docs[^] state "Unexpected behavior can result when the combined width of all columns exceeds 32,768 pixels." Could that be an issue?
Mark Salsbery
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Salsbery wrote: Could that be an issue?
Nope. It could be a paradox: when warned like that, there no longer is anything not to expect.
|
|
|
|
|
Your specific problem has been identified, however I would suggest you have a greater problem in the design of the UI part of your application.
I cannot imagine any scenario where it would be useful to any user that so many columns are displayed. Better to provide a means for the user to select to dispay differing subsets of the data so they can view what is relevant easily than to swamp them with so much data that requires endless scrolling IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Very true. I mean displaying hundres of columns is just insane IMHO.
All the best,
Dan
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
