> Virtual memory, automatic updates, protecting itself from nasty programs 
> that try to access things they shouldn't, providing common dialogs for 
> all applications, plug and play, CD/DVD-RW access, wireless networking, 
> remote desktop, configuring machines remotely, network file systems, 
> network printing, offline files, hibernating, file type associations, 
> encryption, working in multiple time zones, working with different 
> region settings, firewall.  I'm sure there are more, but those are the 
> most useful.
> 

I just looked through my service list to try proving you wrong, and 
disabled these services:

"Quick wireless networking", enabled by default, yet I'm using a 
Ethernet cable and this machine has no wireless hardware.

DCOM launch, I can't disable this one, but I know I don't need DCOM and 
has been a security hole in the past.

Machine Debug Manager (C:\Program files\Common files\Microsoft 
Shared\VS7DEBUG\MDM.EXE), which I don't need since I use gdb, not Visual 
Studio debugger. Why is this even *installed*??

Remote registry. My sister doesn't need to poke around on my registry 
(but I do need to do it on her machine). Hanged trying to stop it, but 
at least I could set it not to start automatically.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> And when my mum tries to plug in her new camera...?  I was actually very
> impressed that my mum managed to install the software for her camera and get
> it working without even a single phone call to me :-)

On Linux she wouldn't need to install any software on CD whatsoever.  Digital
cameras are just USB devices and USB is an industry-strength standard.  It
works on Linux out-of-the-box.  And it comes with plenty of image visualizers
to see the content.

Post a reply to this message

>> automatic updates
> 
> Which is only necessary because the software wasn't done right in the 
> first place.

Or because Internet wasn't as widespread. Where would you get the 
downloads *from*?

>> providing common dialogs for all applications

Uh, this is provided by a SERVICE?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> Did you try using "Open and Repair" from the open dialog box of Word?
>>
>> And how do you do that?
> 
> In the open file dialog, there's a little arrow right next to the "Open" 
> icon - click that and you get some further options, one of which is 
> "Open and Repair".

Hmm. I would have never, ever found that. Not in fifty years.

And who says nobody learns anything by having M$ rants? :-D

[insert HCI comment here]

>> [FWIW, I did spend quite a lot of time researching the options. 
>> There's a Word experts website that tells you all the little tricks 
>> for fixing corrupted documents. Sadly, none of them work for a 
>> document so broken it won't even open at all...]
> 
> IME "Open and Repair" opens documents that would normally be 
> unopenable.  It then gives you a list of document sections that are 
> corrupt, and makes the rest back into a working file.

The advice I read was stuff like saving the file in a different file 
format, cut and pasting everything except section markers into a new 
document, etc. Which would probably work if Word didn't instantly die as 
soon as it touches the file...

>> Yes. Because the only difference between IE and FF is tabbed browsing. 
>> It's not like FF is 98% more efficient or secure or 
>> standards-compliant or anything like that...
> 
> Most people don't care about that though, the only difference they see 
> (IME) is tabbed browsing, and of course the fact that some websites 
> don't work with FF.

You're probably right about that. [Although you'd think most people 
would notice how much faster FF is.] There are of course quite a few 
sites that work fine in FF but not IE. Just nowhere near as many as the 
other way round.

I still think one day M$ will have a big problem because they will 
release IE 28 and discover that all the old crap written for IE 4 
doesn't work any more...

> Hehe, seriously, did you ever wonder what it would be like to have a job 
> that didn't involve computers?  I wonder sometimes ...

Oh, that's easy. I'd be fired. Fairly rapidly.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> Exactly the problem, why install Firefox when IE has the same 
> functionality and is just there ready for you to use? Feel free to try 
> and talk about standards compatibility to the MySpace generation.

MySpace and standards in the same sentence?

*gaaaaah!* >_<

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> (And even Linux isn't that hard to work these days.
>> Damn hard to set up, but not that hard to operate once you eventually
>> get it working.)
> 
> hmm, what have you been running?  Linux from Scratch?

KNOPPIX [which is based on Debian] and SUSE.

I have still yet to figure out how on Earth you make it so you can play 
DVDs...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> And when my mum tries to plug in her new camera...?  I was actually very
>> impressed that my mum managed to install the software for her camera and get
>> it working without even a single phone call to me :-)
> 
> On Linux she wouldn't need to install any software on CD whatsoever.  Digital
> cameras are just USB devices and USB is an industry-strength standard.  It
> works on Linux out-of-the-box.  And it comes with plenty of image visualizers
> to see the content.

USB is a physical layer standard. The wire protocol? Well, good luck 
with that... If the camera speaks the mass storage device protocol, 
it'll work on just about every OS known to man that supports USB. If it 
uses a custom proprietry protocol... well, you had *better* have 
drivers! What's that? Your manufacturer wouldn't release the protocol 
spec without an NDA? Oh, I'm sorry, you have no Linux driver. :-P

I had endless fun trying to get SUSE to talk to a HP LaserJet 1000 over 
USB. You should try it sometime. It requires you to connect to the 
Internet, manually download a tar.gzip file, figure out how to unpack 
it, do the whole configure/make/install trip, and then *maybe* CUPS will 
be able to drive the printer. Oh, but you gotta to it just right. [Gee, 
it almost sounds like Windows!]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> It requires you to connect to the
> Internet, manually download a tar.gzip file, figure out how to unpack 
> it, do the whole configure/make/install trip,

That's the *basic* installation method on Linux. If you don't even know 
how to unpack a .tar.gz... you don't know Linux.

Post a reply to this message

> Hmm. I would have never, ever found that. Not in fifty years.
> 
> And who says nobody learns anything by having M$ rants? :-D
> 
> [insert HCI comment here]

Help -> "Open a corrupt file"

1st result.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:46:36 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> No - but selling cars which you know are going to crash at least once  
>>> every 52 days... well, if a company tried to do that, they'd be shut  
>>> down.
>>  No it's subject to the same cost/benefit analysis. If I save $50m from  
>> not installing some widget and worst case scenario is the company  
>> paying total damages of $25m if 'found out' then you don't install the  
>> widget. If people die because of that, then people die.
>
> M$ is the largest and richest corporation ever to have existed in  
> recorded human history. If they wanted to, they could turn out a quality  
> product. It's not like it would cost too much to do it - it wouldn't.  
> They have more than enough money to do it. They just have no motivation.

Which as you pointed out they gained when Firefox started to gain ground  
with regard to IE.

> They have succeeded in convincing the general public that it's "normal"  
> for software to not work properly, and there's no real competition to  
> illustrate the falsehood of this idea. So why bother making a better  
> product when you can just continue ripping people off?

To be fair they've failed to pass the blame on to the faulty/cheating  
device drivers that are more often the cause of the problems, to be unfair  
they should have written an OS that didn't allow faulty/cheating device  
drivers to function.

>>> Well, sure, if there were an alternative, people would run out and buy  
>>> that in their droves. I'm sure M$ would radically rethink their  
>>> strategy if that happened. But it won't.
>>  At which point we recognise the free market system in action when it  
>> comes to monopolies, the company in question doesn't have to create a  
>> better product then their competitors simply a product not bad enough  
>> to encourage people to turn away from it.
>
> Indeed. This is what M$ does best - they create software that is utterly  
> awful, but not *quite* bad enough for mass migration to take place.  
> [Part of this equation is obviously preventing the emergence of anything  
> worth migrating to...]

It's more like swimming by keeping your head just above the water. Sure  
you could flail your arms and lega about to move, but why bother when  
you're doing just fine by doing nothing. The only time you need to exhert  
yourself is if the water rises or something comes along to botehr you.

>>> Apple requires you to buy new hardware, so it's not purely a software  
>>> decision.
>>  Yet everyone loves their monopolistic ways :-)
>
> They make good stuff? ;-)

They make pretty stuff. If Microsoft could control the hardware as tightly  
as Apple I'm sure we'd all be praising the robust nature of Windows and  
not caring about all the products they've integrated into the OS. They had  
a chance with Media Center, but tried to accomodate too many components;  
they had a chance with their Xbox, but made it PC-shaped; and they had a  
chance with the Xbox360, but jumped the gun quality-wise; meh screw them  
they've had their chance.

> If M$ suddenly started making really awsome products, people would like  
> it.

Well yeah and as has been mentioned if Ford started making Rolls Royces at  
'normal' prices then people would like that too.

> What everybody hates is being forced to buy extortionately over-priced  
> crapware because somebody has illegally exterminated all competition.

No-one's forcing you to buy a computer, no-one's forcing you to buy  
Microsoft products

>> At least we've LiveCDs now that helps so much.
>
> BTW, have you ever used a Windows Live CD?

I've yet to be inflicted with the pleasure.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message