right mouse button roblem

Very often I have to right click something up to 4 times before the context menu becomes available. I have cleaned the mouse and have even tried another mouse and still seem to have the same problem. I'm running WIN98SE and am using a Logitech 1st mouse. I completely uninstalled the Logitech drivers(including all registry entries) and reinstalled but the problem persists. Anybody have any idea why I now have this problem? Computer is very old with a 200Mhz CPU but it used to work very well. We also have an old Compaq with a 200Mhz CPU and there is no problem with the right mouse button. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

It is possible you have a cluttered regisry rather than problems
with your mouse and it's driver.
Do you carry out any registry maintenance ?
If so how often and with which software ?
regards

 

I use Regclean very often and recently did a Defrag.

 

“I use Regclean very often and recently did a Defrag.â€

The first of the above is a misnomer. It cleans very specific sections of the registry. If you look at the Undo whatever.reg files you'll see what I mean. You should also notice that they are quite small, especially if used "very oftenâ€. Full blooded registry cleaners will remove much more but I don't want to go into that topic here.

A Drefrag will create a contiguous registry or rather a contiguous System.dat and User.dat. However, since they reside in RAM during a Windows session, with the files on disk being flushed to keep them up to date, their disk fragmentation is academic.

If we look at the registry with Regedit everything is quite orderly. The keys and entries are displayed alphanumerically. In reality the registry is a mess with deletions creating pockets of unused space and additions being put "˜on the end’. Displayed as built we would need a search function to find anything! [1]

The pockets of unused space get removed by the system when their total size exceeds 500Kb. So, every now and then a boot will take just a little bit longer; in my case about 12 seconds.

The 'info' fragmentation, analogous to file fragmentation, continually gets worse but, again, since the registry is in RAM this impacts less than one would imagine. However, given enough time it will impact and even with modern CPU speeds keys split between many RAM pages will be retrieved a tad slower than keys sitting in one or two pages.

Win95 users had to export/import the registry to rebuild it so that it became the same as it appeared in regedit. Win98 users have it easy.

Go into DOS and execute the following two commands.

scanreg /fix
scanreg /opt

The first command checks the registry integrity and rebuilds it - ordered and cleared of unused space. The process leaves the files a little larger than needs be and the second command takes care of that. BTW, the second command is used when the system automatically removes unused space when it exceeds 500Kb.

You should now find your system a little snappier.

You may be tempted to carry this out regularly depending upon how much snappier your system is. There is no need because it takes a while for the 'mess' to build up to the extent where it becomes noticeable. I do mine every two or three months but it depends upon your modus operandi. You may find a couple of times a year will do just fine.

[1] Badly worded. I know regedit has a search function but I'm sure you get my point!

 

Or it could just be a cluttered "context menu ". Tweakui can be used to remove many of the entry's available in the New submenu and other ideas may be found by a huntNpeck through various google finds on the subject. I am sending you to google as there are various User Specific things that may apply. You'd have to be the best judge of which applies to you.

Make sure you have a current registry backup. Most of the tweaks and edits will be reversible by restoring an uneditted registry backup should something undesirable happen.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=right+click+context+menu+slow

========
Please remember to come back and update your post with final outcome. I hope it helps.

 

“ Or it could just be a cluttered "context menu" "

Not so sure about that, Ann.

Depending upon what file type I click on, it appears that my longest context menu has about 25 entries with many of them having sub-menus and the context menu snaps ups.

On the other hand your link brought up some extaordinary cases with some folks waiting 9 seconds for a context menu to appear! In these cases it is not cluttering but content. If some entries crunch code before displaying a following action then their authors should be taken out and shot!

 

Well howdy gammaepsilon,

I used a little "Writer's discretion" mixed with a tad of plagiarism from Merlin, ie; "cluttered registry ".

Just trying to round the post out with something that could be useful to all board members who dig this out of the Archives. Some may be looking for a nonspecific "rightclick desktop" as opposed to a file or folder rclick.

I tried to make up for slightly slipping off the specific focus by offering google links. I could see that a less experienced person would not understand why registry clutter would make a difference to the context menu. I was trying to tie the two together or least offer a method that a person could use to come to this conclusion.

I am often guilty of being relaxed, lax, lazy, slow or cramped for time. I tend to edit my posts and add to them in bits and pieces. I intended to or would have eventually gotten around to explaining that some context entry's may be left over or orphaned functions from either problematic or uninstalled applications as well as registry glitch's.

============
NOTE*This is my approach to what is a low_to_no risk topic/solution. I am much more literal and direct when dealing subjects that have a higher element of risk.

 

Hello Ann or rather howdy.

Erm, yes.

Well, thanks for the psychological profile - I wouldn't have guessed. Being a Brit I couldn't possibly reciprocate in the same manner but I will confess that my middle name is Pedant but then most folks will have guessed that. I am in the fortunate position of being bereft of any guilt as the malady is entirely innate and seemingly without any known remedy. [tongue firmly in cheek and exits somewhat hurriedly stage left]

 

Scanreg

Hi Gammaepsilon,
If you RUN "scanreg.ini" no quotes, you will see a page where you can specify using 0's or 1's if you want the registry optimized. The "1" is the affirmative and it has been checked in my case so that every time my computer starts up that option is taken.

 

WHY do users when posting about the registry in Win98 insist on leaving out the SYSTEM.ini and WIN.ini. They are both included as part of the COMPLETE Registry and are included in the reg backups that Win98 makes. ( the RB00x.CAB files )

And they both reside in RAM along with system.dat and user.dat. and what is in them is used by Windows.

And if these four files are not syncronized troubles can arise.

Also there are ( or may be ) settings for the mouse in the system or Win.ini that override anything in the other two files.

I just took a peek ( using SYSEDIT ) at the System.ini on a 98SE machine. There is a reference to the Mouse in the SYSTEM.INI. In fact there is more than one.

1- in the [Boot] section
1- in the [boot description] section
1- in the [386 enh] section

The System.ini and the Win.ini Do play a part in how things work ( or do not work ) And any bad info in either can mess up Windows operation.

BillyBob

 

I just did some further investigating in 98SE registry using Regedit/find/Win.ini.

Under

HKEY-Local Machine
**Software
***Microsoft
****Windows
*****CurrentVersion
******Applets
*******Defrag
********AppstartParam

Is shows what I take to be the EXCLUSION of ( I could be miss-understanding that too )

System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, Win.ini from Defrag.

I thought this was the case but checked to make sure.

BillyBob

 

ackerberg

Microsoft Quote:
--------------
If the registry contains more than 500 Kb of empty data structures, the optimization flag is set in the registry and the real-mode tool is invoked the next time the computer starts to optimize the registry.
--------------

Empty data structures are keys marked as deleted and the optimization flag is the one you refer too in scanreg.ini.

The quote was taken from here.

I am fairly well aquainted with scanreg.ini and have my optimization flag unset. My system is noticeably sluggish well before the 500Kb mark and I use a method to determine the amount of empty data structures and optimize, via scanreg /opt in real mode, when my chosen level is exceeded.

In fact I have taken over the responsiblity of the scanning/backup on the first boot of the day and have removed the scanreg entry in the Local Machine Run key. My regime emulates the systems method and adds to it. My rb0nn.cab file headers not only indicate whether they are 'Started' or 'Not Started' variants but also whether they have been optimized or not and what by ie Windows or third party optimizes. Since the system is not getting a look in 'Not Started' is written to the cab files but on leaving my code this is changed to 'Started' via a flag in the cab files header. MS don't describe the header, we have to examine a binary dump and figure it out ourselves. Put a foot wrong in there and we get well slapped.

BillyBob

I stand corrected but I do not insist on leaving out system.ini and win.ini; no more than does Microsoft in the above article. The post is primarily concerned with the internal fragmentation of the dat members and not the ini members of the registry core components.

BTW, the entries in the AppstartParam key are not excluded from a defrag, they are excluded from the program start optimization so as to ensure they are contiguous; the exact opposite to your interpretation.

 

I know it may have read like I was directing the message at you but I was not. It is directed at users in general.

You are absolutley Correct about the bad or incomplete info from microsoft. I have read many of their article that do not even mention about the system and Win.ini. Not even when they refer to scanregistry and the backup it makes. And this is why a lot of users do not think about them either.

I know that maybe this post is about fragrmentation of the so called internal .dat files but I just wanted to remind users that the System.in and Win.ini are part of and used by the registry and Windows. And if they get fragmented it can cause problems too.

A corrupted system or win,ini will cause problems. That must be why MS decided to backup all four with scanregistry.

I have removed entries form the registry using Norton Windoctor when it says they are not needed. After the next restart I run Norton again and they are back. On further checking with sysedit I find they are in the in either the System or Win,ini.

I have unistalled software and cleaned up the reg just to have things put back again for the same season.

I took the wording in the reg key to mean DEFRAG itself.

That may be Ok for you but I do not recommend it for the average user. Becasue if you do not pay attention or do something to make a backup NONE get made.

Well, I gotta go right now and get out to the Post Office as it is starting to snow again and I hear we could get hammerded BADLY.

Later
BillyBob

 

“A corrupted system or win,ini will cause problems. That must be why MS decided to backup all four with scanregistry.â€

Since system.ini and win.ini are the System's INIitialization and WINdows INIitialization files respectively it would be barmy not to back them up.

“That may be Ok for you but I do not recommend it for the average user.â€

I wouldn't recommend it to any user. I've been hacking into binary dumps for 25 years and I still break out in a sweat but its safer than rock climbing.

 

I believe that my main objective has been reached.

I now know that you are aware of the situation with the System.ini and Win,ini.

And I believe that you do agree to their use and importance and do need to be backed up just as much as the System.dat and User.dat.

I am satisfied.
BillyBob

 

If you cast your mind back to some discussions you and I had on the registry you will realise that you already knew that I was 'aware' and 'believed'.

When I used the term "I stand corrected" I did so because of your preoccupation, in this forum at least, with getting someone to agree with you so that you can then post back and publish the fact that you have been agreed with. It was said with tongue in cheek but I knew you wouldn't spot that.

My second hobby is Psychology. In fact, I have more books on Psychology than I do on Computing.

“I am satisfied.
BillyBobâ€

I am so pleased to read that. [TIC in case you miss that one as well]

 

Now that you mention it.

But my mind is having problems making 4 out of 2+2 latley.

It has a tendency to wander left when it should be going right.

Or I am trying to give it too many confusing commands all at once.

BillyBob

 

“But my mind is having problems making 4 out of 2+2 latley.â€

You just did.

“It has a tendency to wander left when it should be going right.â€

Many change politics in later life.

“Or I am trying to give it too many confusing commands all at once.â€

Preoccupation normally prohibits that.