What's the best way to MOVE an app to where it belongs, after it has already been installed?

What's the best way to MOVE an app to where it belongs, after it has
already been installed?

In the olden days, we used COA and then COA32, but it doesn't seem to exist
for Windows 10. Searching I didn't find a good app that moves installed
hierarchies to where they belong (keeping in mind myriad associated
registry entries occur during installation).

So I moved it manually, fixed the registry keys, and set it as the default.

The app in question is the "Epic Privacy Browser":
https://cdn.epicbrowser.com/epicsetup.exe
Whose canonical installer has two flaws I had to overcome:
a. The canonical site does not provide a full offline installer, and,
b. Epic *always* installs into the %LOCALAPPDATA% hierarchy.

It's clear that:
a. I want a full offline installer for my software archives, and,
b. I want to install the Epic browser where I think it belongs, and,
c. I want to set Epic as the default web browser.

I solved all those problems (including the associated registry changes) and
wrote up a step-by-step tutorial for others to benefit from the effort,
where I only ask here if there is a better way to move an installed app's
location than manually.

In this case, the goal is to move the installed Epic Privacy Browser:
FROM: %LOCALAPPDATA%\Epic Privacy Browser\Application\epic.exe
TO: C:\app\browser\epic
Taking into account the myriad associated registry changes that occur so
that the app works properly, and so that the app can be set as the default
Windows 10 web browser.

As I noted, I already solved these problems, but I did the work manually.

Hence I only ask here what's the best way to move an already-installed app
and associated registry entries, so that it works properly and can be
assigned to the Windows 10 web-browser default?

--
Please do not respond if you don't know how to move already installed apps.
(If there are 0 responses - that's OK - it just means nobody knows how.)

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:04:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote:

What's the best way to MOVE an app to where it belongs, after it has
already been installed?

See if this does what you need:

https://www.howtogeek.com/howto/16226/complete-guide-to-symbolic-links-symlinks-on-windows-or-linux/
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-take-advantage-of-symbolic-links-in-window-10/

Arlen,

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:07:29 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

Not in this, the XP newsgroup.

1) why did you chose to add the XP newsgroup to it ? {1}
2) why didn't you add that reason to the top of your reply ?
3) Where is the reference to the origional/initial messages newsgroup (and,
in case you changed the subjectline, it too)?

{1} The differences between W10 and XP are big, and answers for the former
might well not work for the latter, and vice-verse. By accepting
suggestions for both in a single thread you are just making your work much
harder, and in turn ours too.

I don't ask questions that are easy to solve.
Only experts can answer my questions.

In this case you are asking a question thats impossible to solve, and you
know it.

Tell me, what is the _standard method_ used by *all* sofware to refer to
their installation/data/other directories as well as any other configuration
files/data, and where do *all* software store that info ?

Or, in the reverse:

Can you imagine/do you know of the existance of a piece of software that
uses a "non-standard" way to handle the above references ?

If the answer to either the first is "there is none" or the answer to the
second "yes" than you will have to concede that your question is
unanswerable. (no "one method fits all" available).

I'm not an expert in any sense of the word, but the above looks like a
no-brainer to me. :-)

I get the strong feeling that your"expert" is just your way to refer to some
mythological being which is supposed to bend this universums rules to give
you what you want.

And please, don't tell me you did not even consider the above non-existance
of standarisation of the storage of such configuration data ... On the
other hand, if you did you would not have asked your above question. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
There are several programs available which sole purpose is to convert
standard windows programs into portable ones. They sometimes work, and
sometimes don't. Often they come with a "will work on" program list. Take
a wild guess why.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:38:22 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:07:29 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

See if this does what you need:

https://www.howtogeek.com/howto/16226/complete-guide-to-symbolic-links-symlinks-on-windows-or-linux/
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-take-advantage-of-symbolic-links-in-window-10/

Hi Char Jackson,

You're still having trouble with your chit-chat model.

I don't ask questions that are easy to solve.
Only experts can answer my questions.

*blush* Flattery now?

Anyway, you're welcome. I'm glad to have found a solution that was both
easy and obvious.

?? Good Guy ??,

Because he wrongly believes that he has a better chance of
finding young boys in that group!!!!!!!

Trolling is one thing.

Accusing someone of being/doing something which can, especially in the
current climate regarding it, cause someone to get in trouble with the
authorities is something quite different. As in, not funny at all.

He keeps changing his nym and he is using OpenVPN to
circumvent any "intrusion" by the authorities.

There are other reasons to do that, with one of them what he explained to
us, being that he does not want to be(come) a number on some data
aggregator-and-sellers lists.

You might think that that is rather overdone and therefore not believe it,
but do you have any *proof* that that isn't the reason (and ofcourse proof
that yours is the real other one) ? If not ...

However, he is mistaken. The authorities have better tools
to snare him.

Yes, I heard those stories too. But as they are not known for telling us
anything about them all we, and you, can do is guess.

So, although I can understand that you do not like Arlen (or whatever his
real name is), you still should not be making wild accusations. They might
even come back to bite you in the butt (slander and such - maybe even one of
those new online revenge this-and-that laws).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser




"?? Good Guy ??" wrote in message
news
On 30/06/2018 09:55, R.Wieser wrote:
Not in this, the XP newsgroup.

1) why did you chose to add the XP newsgroup to it ? {1}

Because he wrongly believes that he has a better chance of finding young
boys in that group!!!!!!! He is a known pedo and the authorities are
watching him. He keeps changing his nym and he is using OpenVPN to
circumvent any "intrusion" by the authorities. However, he is mistaken.
The authorities have better tools to snare him.


/--- This email has been checked for viruses by
Windows Defender software.
//https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/comprehensive-security/






--
With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

On 30/06/2018 19:52, R.Wieser wrote:

Accusing someone of being/doing something which can, especially in the
current climate regarding it, cause someone to get in trouble with the
authorities is something quite different.

I posted that so that other pedos like yourself can come out of the
closet and surprisingly it worked!!. You guys are running a racket of
abusing young boys and sooner the authorities come after you lot the
better it would be for the innocent kids.





--
With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

R.Wieser wrote:
?? Good Guy ??,
[...]
He keeps changing his nym and he is using OpenVPN to
circumvent any "intrusion" by the authorities.

There are other reasons to do that, with one of them what he explained to
us, being that he does not want to be(come) a number on some data
aggregator-and-sellers lists.

It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication - let
alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist and 2) that the
very *way* he fakes/forges his headers makes it *trivial* for such
'aggregators' to pinpoint his postings.

But he refuses to accept reality/facts and continues his paranoia.

[1] Of course there are address-harvesters, but they only harvest email
addresses and then mainly only from the From: header (because that's in
the [X]OVER data. I.e that's not what our resident nymshifter (aka Mr.
EMAK) is talking about.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 20:52:45 +0200, R.Wieser, thunk thusly:
?? Good Guy ??,

Because he wrongly believes that he has a better chance of
finding young boys in that group!!!!!!!

Trolling is one thing.

Accusing someone of being/doing something which can, especially in the
current climate regarding it, cause someone to get in trouble with the
authorities is something quite different. As in, not funny at all.

He keeps changing his nym and he is using OpenVPN to
circumvent any "intrusion" by the authorities.

There are other reasons to do that, with one of them what he explained to
us, being that he does not want to be(come) a number on some data
aggregator-and-sellers lists.

You might think that that is rather overdone and therefore not believe it,
but do you have any *proof* that that isn't the reason (and ofcourse proof
that yours is the real other one) ? If not ...

However, he is mistaken. The authorities have better tools
to snare him.

Yes, I heard those stories too. But as they are not known for telling us
anything about them all we, and you, can do is guess.

So, although I can understand that you do not like Arlen (or whatever his
real name is), you still should not be making wild accusations. They might
even come back to bite you in the butt (slander and such - maybe even one of
those new online revenge this-and-that laws).

Get the **** out of here.
He's a little bitch, and I bet that name disappears shortly.
He's baiting people, and is getting more bait than it likes.
You dolts must be new to usenet.

--
With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

940 million have no idea what they're using

--
Brick Mortar

?? Good Guy ??,

I posted that so that other pedos like yourself can come
out of the closet and surprisingly it worked!!.

:-) Try again. You post something - blackballing someone else - addressed
to me, and you crow some kind of victory because I wrote a response to you ?
Really ?

You really stink at trolling.

Goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Frank Slootweg,

It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist
....
[1] Of course there are address-harvesters, but they only harvest
email addresses

How many of those companies which actually do some sort of usenet scraping
have you visited ? If none, how do you know that nothing of the sort Arlen
is afraid of happens ? (yes, I know that its rather blunt.. My apologies)

I.e that's not what our resident nymshifter (aka Mr. EMAK) is talking
about.

Nope. He seems to be afraid that all of his posts will be aggregated, and
anything in them, even when posted many years ago, could be used against him
at some future point.

The "normal" us ignore that possibility, because we all think that there is
no reason for anyone to put a searchbeam on us. Who are we anyway that
anyone would feel the need to put us under it ?

But thats not the point. Just as with being afraid of spiders will not
stop even though you know that in your nick of the world there are
absolutily no spiders that can harm you, knowing that the chance that that
spotlight will single you out is smaller than winning a 5mil jackpot, the
nagging(? or just full-blown?) fear will never subside.

2) that the very *way* he fakes/forges his headers makes it
*trivial* for such 'aggregators' to pinpoint his postings.

Could you show how thats done ? I would certainly like to know how I can
match a new nym to an already existing one. The last time I tried to
compare the headers of two messages that way I could not find anything even
remotely matching.

But there is the question why someone would need to fake/forge headers, as
you can use different newsgroup hosts. There seem to be a number around for
which only need to register (no credentials checked, just that the provided
email address exists - even for just a few minutes)...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Frank,

As chances will have it, it only popped into my mind after I'd shut-down my
'puter to go sleep:

It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist

It has been staring us in the face: What about gmail ? That certainly is
an aggregation of email messages, currently going back *at least* a decade.

Just a few weeks ago someone posted a reply to a 13-year old message. To
which someone else responded that the person posting that message had not
been active in that newsgroup for over 7 years ...

So, both proof of aggregation - gmail, duh - and that its easily
searchable - the extraction of "not been active in 7 years" info.

I don't know about you, but if I would be worried about stuff I said in the
past at some time in the future possibly coming back to hound me than gmail
would be a good candidate to fuel it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" wrote:

Arlen,

Char Jackson wrote:

Not in this, the XP newsgroup.

1) why did you chose to add the XP newsgroup to it ?

Maybe because it's freaking crazy.

Why did you include introductions without quoting any text?

R.Wieser wrote:
Frank Slootweg,

It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist
...
[1] Of course there are address-harvesters, but they only harvest
email addresses

How many of those companies which actually do some sort of usenet scraping
have you visited ? If none, how do you know that nothing of the sort Arlen
is afraid of happens ? (yes, I know that its rather blunt.. My apologies)

Of course one can't prove a negative, but - as I said - there is no
indication that these Usenet aggregators actually exist. For *other*
media, such as Gmail which you mentioned in your other posts, Google,
Facebook, Twitter, etc., such aggregators of course *do* exist, but
we're talking about Usenet, not those other media.

I.e that's not what our resident nymshifter (aka Mr. EMAK) is talking
about.

Nope. He seems to be afraid that all of his posts will be aggregated, and
anything in them, even when posted many years ago, could be used against him
at some future point.

Not quite (AFAIK). He's afraid that his *identity* will be found out.
Whether that found identity will be used against him is a subsequent
concern, not his primary (AFAIK).

The "normal" us ignore that possibility, because we all think that there is
no reason for anyone to put a searchbeam on us. Who are we anyway that
anyone would feel the need to put us under it ?

But thats not the point. Just as with being afraid of spiders will not
stop even though you know that in your nick of the world there are
absolutily no spiders that can harm you, knowing that the chance that that
spotlight will single you out is smaller than winning a 5mil jackpot, the
nagging(? or just full-blown?) fear will never subside.

2) that the very *way* he fakes/forges his headers makes it
*trivial* for such 'aggregators' to pinpoint his postings.

Could you show how thats done ? I would certainly like to know how I can
match a new nym to an already existing one. The last time I tried to
compare the headers of two messages that way I could not find anything even
remotely matching.

Sorry, I can't post that info, because then also he will know how's
it's done, while he claims it cannot be done and attacks anyone (i.e.
me) who says otherwise. I've given him clue-by-fours many times, but
he's just too clue-resistant and convinced that he can't be wrong. Yet
another of his traits.

But there is the question why someone would need to fake/forge headers, as
you can use different newsgroup hosts. There seem to be a number around for
which only need to register (no credentials checked, just that the provided
email address exists - even for just a few minutes)...

He already uses multiple NSPs (News SPs), but he wants to go beyond
that and fakes/forges other headers (which he knows how to fake/forge).

N.B. Of late he doesn't switch his nyms and his NSPs as often as he
did, but he has used many tens of different nyms and several different
NSPs.

John Doe,

Why did you include introductions without quoting any text?

I didn't.

I quoted that itroduction line because its indicates the post being a reply
to someone, but without that someones post anywhere in view (in this, the XP
newsgroup). As I thought I made clear in the three points I wrote below
it.

I also did quote "any text" (de two lines directly below the quoted
"introductions" line), just below the above - as a start for my response to
the actual content.

1) why did you chose to add the XP newsgroup to it ?

Maybe because it's freaking crazy.

Maybe. But I do not wish to jump to conclusions (and especially not ones
like that). Maybe he has a good reason for it, and I'm (we are) the one(s)
just not seeing it ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser










Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Frank,

Of course one can't prove a negative

Quite. But you still seem to want to deny the possibility of the existance
of a positive - and even though you seem to concede that it happens for
other kinds of web-based communications.

but - as I said - there is no indication that these Usenet
aggregators actually exist.

So, you deny the example I gave you ? Than I'm afraid we have, in this
regard, nothing to talk about anymore. Sorry.

And by the way, I did make a mistake. I referred to Googles usenet access
with the name "gmail", where it should have been, as some googleing showed
me, "google groups". Does that change anything for you(especially in
regard to your "usenet aggregation does not exist!" stance) ?

Not quite (AFAIK). He's afraid that his *identity* will be found out.

How come you think so ? And how would that knowledge benefit or damage
anyone ?

Whether that found identity will be used against him is a subsequent
concern, not his primary (AFAIK).

I don't think so. Its the possibility of the latter which *causes* the
wish to conceal the former. The latter simply does not exist without the
former.

Sorry, I can't post that info, because then also he will know
how's it's done,

Ofcourse. As your method of detection depends on him making mistakes, you
don't want him to get privvy to the ones he (still) does make.

In other words, its as good as looking at the way someone writes his
messages (word usage, punctuation, etc.), and infer that two messages must
have been from the same person.

Bummer. I thought it was an exact science.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser