Patrick Elliott wrote:
> When I hear rational discussion that includes facts, instead of 
> assertions, or facts not contradicted by other evidence, then, I would 
> give it credence.

That's not my experience, but OK.

 > 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**,

They don't have to be. Commerical software companies don't try to maximize 
quality per dollar. They try to maximize profit per dollar. As long as 
quality doesn't hurt their sales more than the amount they'd spend on 
improving the quality, they don't need to improve it.

Or, in other words, "We're number one, why try harder?"

> instead of being asked in the first place,

The sort of stuff you were talking about changing above, it *does* ask you 
in the first place, if you get the version of the installer that you use for 
things installed dozens of times instead of once. I.e., if you're actually 
working like you administer enough computers that changing them one at a 
time is problematic, you use the installer that asks you that stuff up front.

>>> 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.

In the bulk install sorts of programs that places like Gateway and HP use to 
install the software on their machines.  You don't think a place that has 
8000 employees is going to fiddle with switches one at a time, do you?

> programs broke "thought" they where following spec,

I think most people whose programs broke reverse engineered the spec. If 
they actually followed the spec (like invoking the proper APIs to read the 
system configuration instead of pulling it out of hidden files in the bowels 
of the OS) it would work.

> 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.

System already does that.

> 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.

Errrr... \windows\prefetch is there? You didn't notice?  You never looked at 
the add/remove programs window and noticed it told you how often you used 
the program?

"I never noticed it" isn't the same as "it isn't there."

-- 
   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