How To Place A Program To Boot With Windows 7

[C***@dimbulbs.org]

I'm using Windows 7 Ultimate.

I was going bonkers trying to figure out how to get a program to boot
with Windows. Each site from a search on the question told me to go
into Startup and find All Programs. In my Windows 7 there is no such
menu as All Programs. I kept searching and, finally using the right
search words, found the following which worked for me. (This post is
for others who might be having the same problem.)

I found the answer at this URL:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/startup-folder-in-start-how-to-add-programs/f3344b61-dab2-4fcf-8046-a6714a451b5c

A Rob Brown said:
For specific Users copy to:

"C:\Users\The User Name\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start
Menu\Programs\Startup"

Use Start - Computer OR Windows Explorer to navigate to that.

How to Change, Add, or Remove Startup Programs in Windows 7
http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/1401-startup-programs-change.html

Autoruns - Free - See what programs are configured to startup
automatically when your system
boots and you login. Autoruns also shows you the full list of Registry
and file locations where
applications can configure auto-start settings.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx

- End -

Hope this helps someone else. It did me.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by C***@dimbulbs.org
I'm using Windows 7 Ultimate.
I was going bonkers trying to figure out how to get a program to boot
with Windows. Each site from a search on the question told me to go
into Startup and find All Programs. In my Windows 7 there is no such
menu as All Programs. I kept searching and, finally using the right

For me (7-HP, but I doubt that's different for Ultimate), it's Start,
Programs, Startup, but I have Classic Shell, so the route is probably
different.

Post by C***@dimbulbs.org
search words, found the following which worked for me. (This post is
for others who might be having the same problem.)
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/startup-folder-in-
start-how-to-add-programs/f3344b61-dab2-4fcf-8046-a6714a451b5c
"C:\Users\The User Name\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start
Menu\Programs\Startup"

For me it's "C:\Users\Stone\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start
Menu\Programs\Startup", but I actually use the "All Users" one, which is
"C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup", which is
easier; as I am the only user, I have tried to avoid splitting things
between "User" and "All users".

Post by C***@dimbulbs.org
Use Start - Computer OR Windows Explorer to navigate to that.
How to Change, Add, or Remove Startup Programs in Windows 7
http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/1401-startup-programs-change.html
Autoruns - Free - See what programs are configured to startup
automatically when your system
boots and you login. Autoruns also shows you the full list of Registry
and file locations where
applications can configure auto-start settings.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx
- End -
Hope this helps someone else. It did me.

Anything from the sysinternals crowd is Good Stuff. I have the suite
from them, and the one from NirSoft - I found I was liking so many of
their utilities that I just downloaded the whole suites (even if there
are some I'll probably never use, it's simpler). There's also
NirLauncher, which provides a nice front end for _both_ suites.

[lisa]

Post by C***@dimbulbs.org
I was going bonkers trying to figure out how to get a program to boot
with Windows. Each site from a search on the question told me to go
into Startup and find All Programs. In my Windows 7 there is no such
menu as All Programs. I kept searching and, finally using the right
search words, found the following which worked for me. (This post is
for others who might be having the same problem.)

maybe Starter is a nice option. I use it with Win7.

https://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/System-Tweak/Starter.shtml
--

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of it's existence." Nikola Tesla

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by lisa

Post by C***@dimbulbs.org
I was going bonkers trying to figure out how to get a program to boot
with Windows. Each site from a search on the question told me to go
into Startup and find All Programs. In my Windows 7 there is no such
menu as All Programs. I kept searching and, finally using the right
search words, found the following which worked for me. (This post is
for others who might be having the same problem.)

maybe Starter is a nice option. I use it with Win7.
https://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/System-Tweak/Starter.shtml

Looks good. But I' always wary of "Startup manager" type utilities, as I
fear they'll interfere with each other. As I have "Autoruns" in my
NirSoft suite ("Shows what programs are configures to run during system
bootup or login"), I'll probably not add another one. I'm just running
Autoruns - it's showing me 19 tabs! With things in all but 8 of them.

Post by lisa
--
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make
more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of it's
existence." Nikola Tesla

If your "--" line was, instead, "-- " (note the space!), some software
(like my ancient Turnpike) would recognise it as a .sig separator, and
not quote it or anything below it.

[lisa]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
If your "--" line was, instead, "-- " (note the space!), some software
(like my ancient Turnpike) would recognise it as a .sig separator, and
not quote it or anything below it.

in fact the space is the second line and the text the third line.
"--
"
You are the first one to correct me and I changed all my sig's.
Thanks
--
A mobile phone is a tool and not a drug.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by lisa

Post by J. P. Gilliver
If your "--" line was, instead, "-- " (note the space!), some software
(like my ancient Turnpike) would recognise it as a .sig separator, and
not quote it or anything below it.

in fact the space is the second line and the text the third line.
"--
"
You are the first one to correct me and I changed all my sig's.
Thanks
--
A mobile phone is a tool and not a drug.

Except that one (-: (the separator line still only has the two dashes,
no space).

[lisa]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by lisa

Post by J. P. Gilliver
If your "--" line was, instead, "-- " (note the space!), some software
(like my ancient Turnpike) would recognise it as a .sig separator, and
not quote it or anything below it.

in fact the space is the second line and the text the third line.
"--
"
You are the first one to correct me and I changed all my sig's.
Thanks
--
A mobile phone is a tool and not a drug.

Except that one (-: (the separator line still only has the two dashes,
no space).

if I reply to my own messages I don't get the signature part in the
reply message ( or yours or others messages).
Not on the first reply or on the later "ccorrected" one.
I have no idea what's going on.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by lisa

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by lisa

Post by J. P. Gilliver
If your "--" line was, instead, "-- " (note the space!), some software
(like my ancient Turnpike) would recognise it as a .sig separator, and
not quote it or anything below it.

in fact the space is the second line and the text the third line.
"--
"
You are the first one to correct me and I changed all my sig's.
Thanks
--
A mobile phone is a tool and not a drug.

Except that one (-: (the separator line still only has the two dashes,
no space).

if I reply to my own messages I don't get the signature part in the
reply message ( or yours or others messages).
Not on the first reply or on the later "ccorrected" one.
I have no idea what's going on.

Some software may recognise a "--" line, i. e. doesn't need the space?

[C***@dimbulbs.org]

Post by lisa

Post by C***@dimbulbs.org
I was going bonkers trying to figure out how to get a program to boot
with Windows. Each site from a search on the question told me to go
into Startup and find All Programs. In my Windows 7 there is no such
menu as All Programs. I kept searching and, finally using the right
search words, found the following which worked for me. (This post is
for others who might be having the same problem.)

maybe Starter is a nice option. I use it with Win7.
https://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/System-Tweak/Starter.shtml

Good deal!

Thanks!

[C***@RightHere.Net]

Post by lisa
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of it's existence." Nikola Tesla

Science doesn't study "non-physical phenomena" because it's horse
manure. In otherwords, bullshit.

[J. P. Gilliver]

You need to tweak your newsreader's parameters - "you" is right for
email, but in a newsgroup, you need to pick out the identity of the
poster.

Post by C***@RightHere.Net

Post by lisa
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make
more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of it's
existence." Nikola Tesla

Science doesn't study "non-physical phenomena" because it's horse

I must admit I was surprised to read that attributed to Tesla. (Though
allegedly he was a bit of an odd bird.)

Post by C***@RightHere.Net
manure. In otherwords, bullshit.

Er - not quite; different species (-:

[Ed Cryer]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by C***@RightHere.Net
Science doesn't study "non-physical phenomena" because it's horse

I must admit I was surprised to read that attributed to Tesla. (Though
allegedly he was a bit of an odd bird.)

Post by C***@RightHere.Net
manure.  In otherwords, bullshit.

How would science set about studying "non-physical phenomena"? It would
have to use mere speculative reason.
Oh, BTW, speculative reason and theory have often advanced physical
science. A planet was once discovered because it had to be there
according to Newtonian laws; Einstein's relativity theory said that
gravity would bend light, and eventually it was proven true; the Higgs
bosun was proposed to exist 40 years before it was eventually found.

And lastly, but probably most important of all in the history of
science, the Copernican view of our solar system was the result of mere
mathematical speculation.

Nowadays, string theory and multiverse theory drive a great deal of
research.

[Paul]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by C***@RightHere.Net
Science doesn't study "non-physical phenomena" because it's horse

I must admit I was surprised to read that attributed to Tesla. (Though allegedly he was a bit of an odd bird.)

Post by C***@RightHere.Net
manure.  In otherwords, bullshit.

How would science set about studying "non-physical phenomena"?

They're "non-physical", until you discover the physical part. Right ?

Everything is real. And can be quantified. Given enough time
and NSF research grants :-) (That's the $5K they used to
give grad students, to buy pencils. A lot of quantum mechanics
was done in $5k chunks.)

If someone is bullshitting us, we'll eventually figure it out.

Look at the research work on Dark Matter and Dark Energy,
to see how science works (or, doesn't work).

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are place-holders for what
is really going on. We will adjust our framework, to suit
observations.

Are cosmological constants, constant ? NO. Uh oh.

Did you know they changed "Avogadro's number" ?
(You know, the 6.02252 number.) If you punch that
number into your phone, it says "this number is
no longer in service - please dial again". In an
emergency, if someone asks "does anyone here
know what Avogadro's Number is", they'll turn to me
and say "not you, grandpa". I'm stuck with a number
I can't use now.

(See "2019" section)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

Avogadro is going to be pissed when he finds out.

Paul

[sticks]

Post by Ed Cryer
And lastly, but probably most important of all in the history of
science, the Copernican view of our solar system was the result of mere
mathematical speculation.

Not speculation, as his observations and study had evidence to support
his position. His work would be classified as theory.

Post by Ed Cryer
Nowadays, string theory and multiverse theory drive a great deal of
research.

Interestingly, these would be considered theory today, but for negative
reasoning. Neither of these "theories" can probably ever be proven
because of distance or size. They still only retain support because
they use mathematics to show something *cannot* have happened and offer
an alternative. It's a nuanced difference, yet they are using
mathematics to speculate how something *might* have happened. Should
their work be considered "El Torro De Poopoo" also?

My lastly would also take note of what some others would consider the
"most important of all in the history of science", that being where the
initial matter and energy before and during the big bang came from. To
answer this, they use what is called a "brute fact." It just always has
been! Other scientists would say that's impossible and call bullshit
themselves.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by sticks

Post by Ed Cryer
And lastly, but probably most important of all in the history of
science, the Copernican view of our solar system was the result of
mere mathematical speculation.

Not speculation, as his observations and study had evidence to support
his position.  His work would be classified as theory.

Post by Ed Cryer
Nowadays, string theory and multiverse theory drive a great deal of
research.

Interestingly, these would be considered theory today, but for negative
reasoning.  Neither of these "theories" can probably ever be proven
because of distance or size.  They still only retain support because
they use mathematics to show something *cannot* have happened and offer
an alternative.  It's a nuanced difference, yet they are using
mathematics to speculate how something *might* have happened.  Should
their work be considered "El Torro De Poopoo" also?
My lastly would also take note of what some others would consider the
"most important of all in the history of science", that being where the
initial matter and energy before and during the big bang came from.  To
answer this, they use what is called a "brute fact."  It just always has
been!  Other scientists would say that's impossible and call bullshit
themselves.

Mind baffles science. What is it? Where is it? How does the brain
produce it?
Mind gives us colours and sounds, but science can only explain the
phenomena that lead to them.
No minds --- no colours. No minds ---- no sounds.
No minds, no knowledge at all that there are such things as colours and
sounds.

In the twentieth century psychologists tried to make their discipline
empirical, behaviourism - no subjectivity allowed. That practice didn't
last too long.

All of which is unfortunate for the empirical sciences, since
"empirical" means based on human experience; and we experience the world
through our minds.
Look at this;

And that's not conditioned by individual childhood or trauma; it's a
root functi

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <v1at9b$2kpj6$***@dont-email.me> at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:32:38,
Ed Cryer <***@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes
[]

Post by Ed Cryer
Mind baffles science. What is it? Where is it? How does the brain
produce it?
Mind gives us colours and sounds, but science can only explain the
phenomena that lead to them.
No minds --- no colours. No minds ---- no sounds.
No minds, no knowledge at all that there are such things as colours and
sounds.

If a scientist falls over in the wood, but there's nobody to hear him
curse ...
[]

[sticks]

Post by Ed Cryer
Mind baffles science. What is it? Where is it? How does the brain
produce it?
Mind gives us colours and sounds, but science can only explain the
phenomena that lead to them.
No minds --- no colours. No minds ---- no sounds.
No minds, no knowledge at all that there are such things as colours and
sounds.

Yes, I see you've chosen the non-confrontational ones. It gets
interesting when you bring up things like self-awareness, ethics and
morality, and actions some would consider to be instinct.


“What is mind?”
“No matter.”
“What is matter?”
“Never mind.”

Oh, and I find brute facts almost as bad as Chelsea's statement,
"Science doesn't study "non-physical phenomena" because it's horse
manure". A statement like this begs the question of why someone would
actually write such a silly thing, specifically what is her motivation
or bias. I'm much more open to science stating "we just don't know,
yet" instead of ending discussion with a brute fact.

[Paul]

And lastly, but probably most important of all in the history of science, the Copernican view of our solar system was the result of mere mathematical speculation.

Not speculation, as his observations and study had evidence to support his position.  His work would be classified as theory.

Nowadays, string theory and multiverse theory drive a great deal of research.

Interestingly, these would be considered theory today, but for negative reasoning.  Neither of these "theories" can probably ever be proven because of distance or size.  They still only retain support because they use mathematics to show something *cannot* have happened and offer an alternative.  It's a nuanced difference, yet they are using mathematics to speculate how something *might* have happened.  Should their work be considered "El Torro De Poopoo" also?
My lastly would also take note of what some others would consider the "most important of all in the history of science", that being where the initial matter and energy before and during the big bang came from.  To answer this, they use what is called a "brute fact."  It just always has been!  Other scientists would say that's impossible and call bullshit themselves.

Mind baffles science. What is it? Where is it? How does the brain produce it?
Mind gives us colours and sounds, but science can only explain the phenomena that lead to them.
No minds --- no colours. No minds ---- no sounds.
No minds, no knowledge at all that there are such things as colours and sounds.
In the twentieth century psychologists tried to make their discipline empirical, behaviourism - no subjectivity allowed. That practice didn't last too long.
All of which is unfortunate for the empirical sciences, since "empirical" means based on human experience; and we experience the world through our minds.
Look at this;
http://youtu.be/ORoTCBrCKIQ
And that's not conditioned by individual childhood or trauma; it's a root function of mind.
Ed

Have you ever experienced something you can't explain ?

These quite frequently involve things you cannot currently
measure, or "debug".

I presume you know that not all the people around you, perceive
the world the same way you do. This is why I have to be careful,
when having a conversation with someone, to double check by
devious means, whether we're on the same "wavelength" or not.

You know those lights in the sky ? The ones that make the news
every once in a while in a breathless article ? Well, airline
pilots have made an interesting observation. When they fly W->E
and E->W, there are *zero* lights in the sky in one direction,
and a *finite* number of darting lights in the other direction.
Imagine how the conversation goes, when you're in the Airport
lounge after work, having one for the road. It must have taken
quite a while, to gather the courage to organize their observations.
Because of course, there can't be darting lights in the sky,
or "you can't fly aero planes any more".

Paul

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Paul
Have you ever experienced something you can't explain ?

A friend of mine has a phone with dual sim cards. Recently it stopped
offering a choice, and he spent days and days trying to solve it;
removed and reset the cards, etc.

I solved it as soon as he asked me, because I've seen it before.
Android phone, settings for dual sim, has an option to set default card.
And this had somehow been changed from Not Set to SIM2. And then stupid
Android had stopped showing SIM1 as a choice.

Things like this happen all the time in everyday life. What one person
knows easily, another has to wrestle with. We're just so specialised
these days.

Ed

[j***@astraweb.com]

Post by sticks
Neither of these "theories" can probably ever be proven

Post by sticks
because of distance or size.

quauntum entanglement is another one that could qualify under the above reasons.

Post by sticks

Post by sticks
My lastly would also take note of what some others would consider the
"most important of all in the history of science", that being where the
initial matter and energy before and during the big bang came from.  To
answer this, they use what is called a "brute fact."  It just always has
been!  Other scientists would say that's impossible and call bullshit
themselves.

[R.Wieser]

Carson,

Post by C***@dimbulbs.org
"C:\Users\The User Name\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start
Menu\Programs\Startup"

Remark: that solution doesn't work on startup, but on login of "The User
Name".

... Which is normally enough, but not exactly what you asked for.

Than again, running programs when th OS is booted has its own problems, as
no user is present yet - (you cannot (easily) do stuff for a user).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser