Hello all,
On my XPsp3 'puter I've two versions of VLC installed (1.1.11 - doesn't run >everything but starts fast, 3.0.20 runs more but starts slow), and they
seem
to overwrite each others "starting volume" setting (when using "the other >one" the volume always resets to 100%) . :-(
The thing is that I can't seem to find where that setting is stored.
Neither googeling for it nor inspecting the registry showed anything in
that
direction.
So, the question is : does anybody know where should be looking for it (and >wants to share that information ofcourse :-) ) ?
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
2000/XP: C:\Documents and Settings\%username%\
Application Data\vlc\vlcrc
lisa,
2000/XP: C:\Documents and Settings\%username%\
Application Data\vlc\vlcrc
Yep, exactly where I found it (after you mentioned the file in your previous post). Thank you.
Interresting though, the volume for VLC 1.0.11 is not stored as displayed (a percentage), but, under the "Default audio volume (integer)" label, as a fraction of 256.
In my case the entry was "volume=29", which translates to 29/256 => 11% (which is displayed in the preferences).
It turns out that the problem isn't just the volume : both VLC versions try to read that vlcrc file, and if not found to their liking they use their own defaults and, on close, overwrite an existing file with their own. :-|
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
My version 3.0.17.4 requires a trip to Tools:Preferences then in the Audio section
[dialog box described as "Simple Preferences"]
Enable audio
Always reset audio start level to: 90% (Tick the box to switch this on)
then in the vlcrc file, a new entry is added
# Audio volume (float)
waveout-volume=0.900000
Paul,
My version 3.0.17.4 requires a trip to Tools:Preferences then in the Audio >> section
[dialog box described as "Simple Preferences"]
Enable audio
Always reset audio start level to: 90% (Tick the box to
switch this on)
VLC 3.0.20 also has that setting. But alas, both the tickmark as well as the slider are grayed-out - with no indication to how to enable it (pressing the "reset preferences" button didn't help)
then in the vlcrc file, a new entry is added
# Audio volume (float)
waveout-volume=0.900000
I did change that value, but it has no effect on whats displayed in the preferences or on the volume displayed on the main window - not after re-starting VLC, and not after disabeling the "remember the audio volume" setting under the "all" settings either.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
I expect a feature like that is under "constant redesign".
We would not want two releases to work the same.
Paul,
I expect a feature like that is under "constant redesign".
We would not want two releases to work the same.
:-) :-(
I solved my origional problem (the volume getting reset) by hex-editing one of the DLLs of VLC 3.0.20 so it uses a different folder to store vlcrc and related.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Paul,
I expect a feature like that is under "constant redesign".
We would not want two releases to work the same.
:-) :-(
I solved my origional problem (the volume getting reset) by hex-editing one >of the DLLs of VLC 3.0.20 so it uses a different folder to store vlcrc and >related.
Presumably, since you imply it is now not being reset, you mean any
any change _you_ make is now retained?
If so, it suggests there are _two_ embedded references to where
it stores vlcrc;
Why not just use the latest version?
Jeff,
Why not just use the latest version?
Why not explain to me why you think that that would solve anything ?
In my initial post I explained why I have two versions installed. Whats
the chance that the latest version will be even slower to load than
v3.0.20 ?
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
In my reply to you I explained the problem and solution. It is Windows
that slows VLC startup because it thinks VLC is a virus,
Jeff,
In my reply to you I explained the problem and solution. It is Windows >>that slows VLC startup because it thinks VLC is a virus,
No, you didn't. You just stated to "exclude its directory from Defender".
Newsflash: XP doesn't have Windows Defender.
Besides, I have two versions of VLC installed, of which, as mentioned, one >starts fast and the other slow - *in comparision*.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Then whatever XP has it needs excluding,
Jeff,
Then whatever XP has it needs excluding,
XP doesn't have any kind of build-in AV product.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Then whatever XP has it needs excluding,
XP doesn't have any kind of build-in AV product.
If you are using an OS that old and out of date you must be using
something.
Jeff,
Then whatever XP has it needs excluding,
XP doesn't have any kind of build-in AV product.
If you are using an OS that old and out of date you must be using >>something.
Says who ?
Why do you think I didn't respond to your first post here ? Yes, indeed: >because your facts clash with the reality of my 'puter.
I suggest that next time you give yourself a bit of needed leeway, and put >your advice in a "if this, than (try/test) that" form.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Along the lines of "as this is a Windows 10 group it is reasonable to
assume people are using Windows 10 and if they are not it would be
sensible to find the appropriate group or say so?"
On 2026/10/26 8:38:17, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[]
Along the lines of "as this is a Windows 10 group it is reasonable to >>assume people are using Windows 10 and if they are not it would beYou didn't check what 'groups you were posting to.
sensible to find the appropriate group or say so?"
Along the lines of "as this is a Windows 10 group it is reasonable
to assume people are using Windows 10 and if they are not it would
be sensible to find the appropriate group or say so?"
Jeff,
Along the lines of "as this is a Windows 10 group it is reasonable
to assume people are using Windows 10 and if they are not it would
be sensible to find the appropriate group or say so?"
So you know that I am using XP, but now suddenly want to complain that I'm >not using Win 10 ?
Kiddo, you made a mistake (I hope), and are now trying to dig the hole you >found yourself deeper to try to get out of it. :-)
No, it was reasonable for me to assume you were using Windows 10
Not sure why you are still going on about this, as I have said the
solution is simple and widely reported.
Follow up set to alt.comp.os.windows-xp.
Jeff,
No, it was reasonable for me to assume you were using Windows 10
Bullshit. You quoted the whole of my initial post (bad show by the way), >which shows me mentioning that I'm using XPsp3 as the first thing.
In that same post/quote I also mentioned that v1.1.11 loads fast. If its >VLC in its whole which is regared as a virus than that version should have >loaded slow too.
Kiddo, I suggest you stop digging. You're bad at it.
Not sure why you are still going on about this, as I have said the >>solution is simple and widely reported.
Which is both not applicable and doesn't solve my stated problem.
Don't play stupid kid - unless you're not playing. In that case I >apologise.
Follow up set to alt.comp.os.windows-xp.
And I reset it to what it was.
Funny: you removed two cross-post newsgroups and only posted into the >remaining one, but set the follow-up to one of the removed cross-post >newsgroups. Its almost as if you purposely tried to disrupt the thread ...
By the way, you still have not responded to my "Why not explain to me why >you think that that* would solve anything ?" request. How come ? Should
I make a guess ?
* installing the newest VLC version.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Kiddo, I suggest you stop digging. You're bad at it.
If you researched online you would know why that is.
Not sure why you are still going on about this, as I have said the >>>solution is simple and widely reported.
Which is both not applicable and doesn't solve my stated problem.
It relates to the cause of slow loading of VLC.
Having only one version installed solves the problem you had relating to different versions having different volume levels.
Jeff,
Kiddo, I suggest you stop digging. You're bad at it.
If you researched online you would know why that is.
Kiddo, its your claim, and thus yours to explain.
Though your attempt to get me to prove your point for you tells me you
most likely can't do it yourself. And to be honest ? I'm not surprised.
Not sure why you are still going on about this, as I have said the >>>>solution is simple and widely reported.
Which is both not applicable and doesn't solve my stated problem.
It relates to the cause of slow loading of VLC.
Kiddo, we had a nice round of posts, ending with me indicating I'm not >running any AV. But for some reason you still claim that an AV *that I'm >not running* must be the cause of one of my VLC versions slow loading.
You're a special kind of stupid, still digging for all that you're worth.
Or trolling.
Having only one version installed solves the problem you had relating to >>different versions having different volume levels.
I never indicated having such a problem. I suggest you re-read my initial >question.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Kiddo, I suggest you stop digging. You're bad at it.
If you researched online you would know why that is.
Kiddo, its your claim, and thus yours to explain.
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=VLC%20slow%20to%20launch%20under%20windows
Having only one version installed solves the problem you had relating to >>>different versions having different volume levels.I never indicated having such a problem. I suggest you re-read my initial >>question.
Your concern was that running two versions of VLC affected your volume settings.
The solution is to run just one version of course,
running two versions of the same program is asking for trouble.
I had the same problem
It seems likely your issue is related.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
This should be:
--
Rudy Wieser
So that proper news readers don't include it in the reply.
Jeff,
Kiddo, I suggest you stop digging. You're bad at it.
If you researched online you would know why that is.
Kiddo, its your claim, and thus yours to explain.
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=VLC%20slow%20to%20launch%20under%20windows
Kiddo, you are an absolute moron. I do not have an AV installed. All
your
brouh-ha-ha -ing in that direction is therefore not applicable to my >situation. As I have said before.
Having only one version installed solves the problem you had relating to >>>>different versions having different volume levels.I never indicated having such a problem. I suggest you re-read my >>>initial
question.
Your concern was that running two versions of VLC affected your volume >>settings.
That much is true.
The solution is to run just one version of course,
Than that should have been your suggestion : delete one of the two I've got >installed.
Funny though, you never said or suggested as much ...
If you think you did, than do quote where you did so. Good luck. :-)
running two versions of the same program is asking for trouble.
Indeed it did cause trouble. Hence my question here, trying to figure out
a
solution for it.
... Which I thought of and applied a few days ago.
I had the same problem
No, you did not.
The only thing that matches between your erstwhile problem and my initial >post is the word "slow". You didn't even bother to check if your "slow"
was
comparable to mine.
It seems likely your issue is related.
And you've been told that it can't be. Yet, for some reason you keep >pushing your "adjust your AV" solution. Why ?
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
This should be:
--
Rudy Wieser
So that proper news readers don't include it in the reply.
:-) Looking for something to complain about I see.
Kiddo, lets end our conversation here. You have not offered me anything of >any use, nor do you seem capable of understanding that.
Goodbye.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
lisa,
2000/XP: C:\Documents and Settings\%username%\
Application Data\vlc\vlcrc
Yep, exactly where I found it (after you mentioned the file in your previous post). Thank you.
Interresting though, the volume for VLC 1.0.11 is not stored as displayed (a percentage), but, under the "Default audio volume (integer)" label, as a fraction of 256.
In my case the entry was "volume=29", which translates to 29/256 => 11% (which is displayed in the preferences).
It turns out that the problem isn't just the volume : both VLC versions try to read that vlcrc file, and if not found to their liking they use their own defaults and, on close, overwrite an existing file with their own. :-|
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
I believe this is common with open source projects; they tend to be coded...
in such a way that the /programmer is always right/,
You're welcome to refute me, but please give accurate details if you
do.
and regular people don't have a say
But if you don't like what some open source program offers you than you are free to take (fork?) the *open source* and modify it so the program does exactly what you want. Thats what open source is for. :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
...But if you don't like what some open source program offers you than you
are free to take (fork?) the *open source* and modify it so the program
does exactly what you want. Thats what open source is for. :-)
That's /one/ of the reasons for it; another is so that people can see
that the code is not doing anything nefarious.
Johann,
I believe this is common with open source projects; they tend to be coded...
in such a way that the /programmer is always right/,
You're welcome to refute me, but please give accurate details if you
do.
You can ofcourse provide us with accurate details to support your above
claim ?
Also, what makes you think you may demand that a project - regardless of an open or closed one - has to be written to your (and theirs,theirs, and let not forget theirs and theirs too) liking ?
and regular people don't have a say
Besides repeating the above "accurate details" part, I don't think that you realize that if you put three people - let alone thousands of them - in a room to come up with a single set of requirements that you most likely get a fight to the death over who's are the most important and how they need to be implemented..
So yes, its the programmer who has the first (duh), and last word about *their* project.
But if you don't like what some open source program offers you than you are free to take (fork?) the *open source* and modify it so the program does exactly what you want. Thats what open source is for. :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Did I hurt your feelings? Do you feel pain in your VLC? Have you thought
to talk to a psychologist about it?
Johann,
Did I hurt your feelings? Do you feel pain in your VLC? Have you thought
to talk to a psychologist about it?
Ah, kiddo, did I touch a nerve with what I said ? Maybe even a few of them
?
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
...Did I hurt your feelings? Do you feel pain in your VLC? Have you
thought
to talk to a psychologist about it?
Ah, kiddo, did I touch a nerve with what I said ? Maybe even a few of
them
?
No, you did not. But if you think I'm going to respect /open source developers/ who make bad software, you're missing a few screws.
Johann,
...Did I hurt your feelings? Do you feel pain in your VLC? Have you
thought
to talk to a psychologist about it?
Ah, kiddo, did I touch a nerve with what I said ? Maybe even a few of
them
?
No, you did not. But if you think I'm going to respect /open source
developers/ who make bad software, you're missing a few screws.
Thats fun! You're now trying to make it sound as if "bad developers" was what your initial post was about all along ! But alas, again/still without providing any "accurate details" to any of it. :-(
Kiddo, if you think that I do not notice that kind of shennigans than I'm afraid its you who is "missing a few screws".
And for the record, you're still stuck on "open source developers", when there are enough closed-source developers who seem to be bad* at their jobs too.
* but without having information from the developers themselves I cannot
even be sure about that.
And again, you can always take their source-code and fix all the bad stuff you see yourself.
But if you want to discuss your POV, than I could oblige. Though not if you keep trying to pull stunts/play tricks like that. Start with supporting your claims with some facts.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
P.s.
Next time you don't like how someone responds to what you've said than do *not* go for the messenger. If there is *anything* that shows you are
unable to counter what has being said to you than its that move.
Thats fun! You're now trying to make it sound as if "bad developers"
was what your initial post was about all along ! But alas, again/still
without providing any "accurate details" to any of it. :-(
I don't need to. There is so much bad software out there, you can pick anything at random.
And what shenanigans are that, exactly?
I know that. You know that. So why are we discussing them?
And again, you can always take their source-code and fix all the bad
stuff
you see yourself.
No, I can't.
Because when I do, someone else will come around in two to
ten years and replace my code with theirs.
Often for "obscure reasons" with the side effect that someone's rare sound card stops working in Linux.
But if you want to discuss your POV, than I could oblige. Though not if
you keep trying to pull stunts/play tricks like that. Start with
supporting
your claims with some facts.
I don't have to /support my claims/. This is the real world, and not academia.
I can counter a lot,
but there's a limit to what I'm willing to type.
I'm ending this conversation. Find some other person and see if you can >get them to play yes-man to whatever you say.
Goodbye.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Kiddo[]
P.s.
Next time you don't like how someone responds to what you've said than do *not* go for the messenger. If there is *anything* that shows you are unable to counter what has being said to you than its that move.
What, like calling someone "Kiddo"?
but certainly I don't respect anyone who stoops to that sort of name-calling.
I have seen useful posts from you in the past.
John,
What, like calling someone "Kiddo"?
Whats wrong with it ? I find it rather fitting for someone who exhibits child-like behaviour, and continues doing so even when called out for it.
but certainly I don't respect anyone who stoops to that sort of
name-calling.
I do not respect someone who thinks they should play stupid games like
Johann just did. And I'm afraid that, at some point in the conversation, it showed.
I have seen useful posts from you in the past.
I thought that my suggestion to Johann that he could get the offending open source and fix it himself was, even though obvious, rather usefull.
Reghards,
Rudy Wieser
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 25:09:25 |
| Calls: | 222 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 83,563 |