Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> I had no problem moving my home directory to a different partition.
>>>
>> Home, yeah. But.. You don't want to do this "before" you install some 
>> things, or they break (and yeah, yeah, they don't follow spec, blah, 
>> blah.. But geeze...), and somehow I doubt that it moved "everything", 
>> not just the documents.
> 
> Um, no.  Zero problems with it.  Indeed, it's done *exactly* the same 
> way you do it in Linux.
> 
> Alternately, you can go and change your home directory setting in the 
> registry after you copy all the files over, and you're good again.
> 
> Since you haven't any idea how I moved things, I'm not sure what basis 
> you have for doubting it moved everything.
> 
> But OK, we get it, no amount of actual rational discussion will change 
> your mind about how evil Microsoft is or how sucky their products are.
> 
When I hear rational discussion that includes facts, instead of 
assertions, or facts not contradicted by other evidence, then, I would 
give it credence. Their products don't suck, they are just **not as good 
as they could be, given the amount of fracking time and money they have 
to fix them**, then they are no more evil that Apple for DRMing iPods, 
or Palm for insisting on keeping that insanely stupid DB based file 
system, all the way up into their line of phones, instead of replacing 
it with a) a real file system, and b) installing drivers for such a file 
system that could "use" HDSD cards, or just a bigger hard drive, in the 
last model of their true "PDA" lines. I am sure MS has all sorts of 
reasons for making choices I find totally incomprehensible and makes 
people's lives more annoying. I am sure the others did too. I am also 
sure that I can't fathom what it could be, short of either intentional 
sabotage (which MS **is** known for, and has been documented doing to 
protocols all the time in their own internal memos), or plain laziness.

I suspect its a mix of the two. On one hand, anything you can do to make 
it harder for someone else to replicate your work, keeps you alive a few 
more years, even if it drives tech-aware people completely mad, from the 
irrationality of it. On the other, there is no incentive to fix "minor" 
issues, if 90% of your user base either doesn't care, doesn't mind using 
some convoluted method to get around it, doesn't mind "changing" a 
setting after the fact, instead of being asked in the first place, and 
everyone figured you are going to relocate menu items, hide features, 
place useful settings in registry edit only keys, and/or just not bother 
to implement a way to do it, figuring someone else will "fill the niche".

I find it irritating. That isn't the same as thinking they are evil. 
That comes from actually reading about how they "came to" some of those 
choices. ;) lol

>> Main point is, must Linux allow you do do this when setting it up, 
> 
> So does Windows.   Not by default, but certainly if you use the more 
> advanced setting up options.
> 
Sigh.. Ok, where then? Because I couldn't find any, and that was 
googling on it, and even trying to find it on MS' online archives. Short 
of editing the registry, at least in XP, you can move some stuff, sort 
of, but doing so isn't 100% reliable. That this may be due to software 
in transition, which some times "assumed" that the directory location 
would always be the same, could also be true. But, the people whose 
programs broke "thought" they where following spec, which says something 
about the documentation itself, that it wasn't clear enough to keep them 
from making a mistake like that.

In any case, I don't fracking want things that install where "they" 
want, no matter who makes them, instead of where I want. And, I have 
found 1-2 other produces, "from" MS, that presume to install where they 
want, without asking where you want to put them too. Its a pain in the 
ass from the perspective of backups, organization and general common 
sense, in trying to keep "data", "applications" and "system" all in sane 
places, instead of all woven together in some huge ball of unmanageable wax.

> They don't optimize program access? It's been doing that since like Win 
> 3.1 or so. What's "the other" you're talking about?
> 
Well, MS' defrager didn't, and as far as I can tell, since it certainly 
doesn't show or tell you, it probably still doesn't. The first one that 
"ever" did it was from Norton, and it defragged "everything" that it 
could, and optimized based on usage. It was also "still" the #1 
defragmentation program for Windows, until at least 98, when decisions 
in how Norton packaged, designed, and made work, their newer versions, 
made them all but useless and laggy. I.e., it wasn't that MS built a 
better defragger, it was that Norton made theirs harder to get without 
high cost, tied it in with stuff that lagged the machine to hell, and 
took up space for a bunch of other "mandatory" software installs, with 
the defragger, to get one. It also costs a bit more processing time to 
do it, since it meant that the "watcher" for telling what got used the 
most had to run all the time, and not just to count how many times you 
"application" ran, but how often you opened specific documents, used 
specific folders, etc.

Now, its possible MS *could have* added it since they introduced, in 
like 98 or so?, the capacity of the OS to track "recently used" 
applications. But, I have seen no evidence of anything saying that this 
behavior was ever added.
>> No they don't. Or not visibly, and/or obviously. If anything, load 
>> times on some things have gotten "worse" since the last defrag I did...
> 
> You've actually measured this scientifically, then?
> 


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message