Changing the Read-only attribute Folder in XP Pro

[IG-88]

I don't know why this is giving me such a headache but for some reason I cannot get my C:\mame folder to stay non-"Read Only". I can unclick the option as many times as I want but as soon as I close the folder and re-open it, it's right back to being checked as read only again. Anyone know how to fix this?

[ark_ader]

Is your folder shared?

Click on Start -->Run -->and in the box type CMD

You should have a dos box.

Type this in the subdirectory of your roms:  attrib -R <mame rom folder>

Don't type <mame rom folder> bit just the subdirectory name  - duh.... I know. 

That should fix it, but I think it is a sharing issue or a program is using the rom directory so you should do this with no front ends or programs running, except the usual suspects like Norton......

Let us know if this fixed the problem.   

[gonzo90017]

There's also a freeware utility that does the same thing.

[IG-88]

Thanks for the ideas guys but neither one did the trick.   

[SavannahLion]

Probably dumb questions, but it's best to ask to make sure.

Is it actually checked or is it grayed out?

On my system, the box is always grayed out (or browned or whatever the theme happens to be). It will even gray it out on brand new folders I create.

Do you have permissions to change that particular folder permissions?

The Windows permissions design drives me ape ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. *NIX is so much better for handling permissions.

[IG-88]

No dumb questions when it comes to this windows crap   I assume it's checked cause I can uncheck it and make my changes in mame.

See, the heart of my problem is that I want to change some of my default global options in mame32. Like game display graphics and whatnot. I can make the changes and play my games the way I want but as soon as I close mame down and later re-open it everything defaults back to the original settings. So I figured it was because the folder was set at read-only and not keeping the settings.

As for the permissions thing. I am the admin so I thought I could make any changes to the folders I wanted. Is there something else I should look at.

( & what is *NIX? )

[fatfingers]

As I understand it, that checkbox is only there to annoy people on XP.  It doesn't actually do anything.

[Hoopz]

As I understand it, that checkbox is only there to annoy people on XP.  It doesn't actually do anything.

As is the ability to try and remove it.  I never had success with that.  Going to the root folder v. sub-folders, etc.  What a pain.

[u_rebelscum]

No dumb questions when it comes to this windows crap   I assume it's checked cause I can uncheck it and make my changes in mame.

See, the heart of my problem is that I want to change some of my default global options in mame32. Like game display graphics and whatnot. I can make the changes and play my games the way I want but as soon as I close mame down and later re-open it everything defaults back to the original settings. So I figured it was because the folder was set at read-only and not keeping the settings.

As for the permissions thing. I am the admin so I thought I could make any changes to the folders I wanted. Is there something else I should look at.

( & what is *NIX? )

*NIX is short for "all the variants of unix, including aix, solaris, BSD, and linux".

I am repeating a prior question, but: Is it checked or "box filled in"?  Checked means there is a check mark in the box, "box filled in" means the box is filled with a grey/green/(depends on theme) square; you can go through the three states by clicking in the box if it starts filled in.  What about the files in the folder?  Have you checked the sub-folders?  (Specifically the ini folder, and the mame*.ini in that folder in your case)?  I wouldn't worry if the box is filled in and the files inside the folder aren't read only.

[IG-88]

Filled in I guess. And as for all the sub folders and such everything else is non read only. Which makes this doubly frustrating as everything always defaults back to the original settings.   

[SavannahLion]

Filled in I guess. And as for all the sub folders and such everything else is non read only. Which makes this doubly frustrating as everything always defaults back to the original settings.  

Grayed out is expected behavior. Windows doesn't treat the "Read-Only" flag the same between folders and files. In other words, they don't necessarily mean the same thing. You can specify that all the files in that folder bet set to read only, but the folders will never* set.

This is why I prefer the way Unix handles permissions. It's a little more intuitive (or I understand them better I guess) right up until you toss in masks.

*Exceptions exist with judicious use of the attrib command and desktop.ini. Stay away from attrib, you don't need to use it.

[ark_ader]

With regard to my previous post, enter safe mode and try my suggestion again.

If anything is using or sharing that folder any attempts to change the folder attributes will not have an impact.

Also if it is XP make sure you don't have a security policy in place to prevent these changes.  Is the drive formatted NTFS or Fat32?

Oh and BTW the attrib command is your friend. 

[u_rebelscum]

Filled in I guess. And as for all the sub folders and such everything else is non read only. Which makes this doubly frustrating as everything always defaults back to the original settings.  

Grayed out is expected behavior....

Yup, the problem is somewhere else; filled in box is fine.

[kudah440]

Its true...it doesnt have anything to do with the checkbox or permissions, the Underwear Gnomes go in and RE-check it when you close the folder!  They will pay for their treachery.
All fear the Aarvarks.

 

[SavannahLion]

Oh and BTW the attrib command is your friend. 

When using a Windows PC on your daily work, leveraging attrib should not be a necessity.

Leveraging the attrib command is either a learning experiment or something has gone really wrong. For the purposes of the OPs problem, his solution lies elsewhere and not necessarily with folder permissions. A bad configuration perhaps that forces Mame32 to fall back to defaults. I have a vague tickling memory of running into a similar problem but the solution escapes me at the moment. Was it that one had to spool out the default configuration within MAME? Crap, it was so long ago.

BTW, ark_ader did you take a peek at the KB article I linked to? It explains all about the folder behavior with the Windows GUI in there.

[ark_ader]

Oh and BTW the attrib command is your friend. 

When using a Windows PC on your daily work, leveraging attrib should not be a necessity.

Leveraging the attrib command is either a learning experiment or something has gone really wrong. For the purposes of the OPs problem, his solution lies elsewhere and not necessarily with folder permissions. A bad configuration perhaps that forces Mame32 to fall back to defaults. I have a vague tickling memory of running into a similar problem but the solution escapes me at the moment. Was it that one had to spool out the default configuration within MAME? Crap, it was so long ago.

BTW, ark_ader did you take a peek at the KB article I linked to? It explains all about the folder behavior with the Windows GUI in there.

No but I will after I get some sleep.  NT folder permission documentation is sleepy stuff to read. When I passed my MSCE on NT4 all those years ago I was very much into the bones of the OS.  Now I need 5 candy bars to get the energy up.   

As I was about to sign off I had a thought.  If the drive was from another machine and it was formatted with NTFS, wouldn't the security on the drive have to be taken ownership  from the new NT?  Thus making the old NTFS drive read only?  IS that what happened IG-88?

Hmmm I think I'm babbling now.

I'm off.

 

[headkaze]

As I was about to sign off I had a thought.  If the drive was from another machine and it was formatted with NTFS, wouldn't the security on the drive have to be taken ownership  from the new NT?  Thus making the old NTFS drive read only?  IS that what happened IG-88?

I was thinking the same thing when I was reading this thread.