Invisible wrote:
> The command descriptions given here are a word-for-word reproduction of 
> the interactive command help. It does not explain anywhere, for example, 
> that bootcfg is merely a programatic way of editing BOOT.INI.

Given the description of the name and options, what did you *think* it was for?

 > (Also, it
> seems that /scan, /add and /rebuild *all* scan your disks for hours - 
> I've tried it.)

Really? I can't imagine why it would take hours to scan for Windows 
installations.  Mine never took more than maybe three or four seconds. Maybe 
if your disks are screwed up enough you need to scan them, it takes longer.

> *This* article explains it properly:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291980

But, you know, MS documentation never covers the stuff you need.

> Thinking about it, the load routine probably does just dump a bunch of 
> pointers directly into Word, which probably then trips the rendering 
> engine over or something. (I've seen Word go into in infinite loop 
> instead of crashing also. That, at least, you'd think would be 
> detectable quite easily.)

Doing so would require time and resources, both programming and end-user. 
*You* had this problem, so *you* think the bloat in this instance is OK. But 
you complain the program takes too many resources, because it's doing things 
*you* don't personally need.

> Uh... they're the largest software corporation on the face of the Earth? 

And they do a bunch more than just working on Office.

> Well, if M$ doesn't consider "making our products work properly" to be a 
> "profitable" thing to do, then there's your answer. :-}

Nobody considers "making our products work properly" a profitable thing, if 
you count "solving every last bug that someone somewhere might encounter" to 
be "working properly."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message