Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Yep, updates without you even noticing, then annoys you to death to 
> reboot.

  Hardly any program nowadays requires you to reboot anymore after
installation. That was in the Windows 3.x days.

  Some do, like for example firewall programs, but that's understandable.

> With a countdown. Want to reboot now, or want me to annoy you 
> again in 10 minutes?

  Wasn't there an option somewhere to stop windows autoupdate from
showing those dialogs?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>> Yep, updates without you even noticing, then annoys you to death to 
>> reboot.
> 
>   Hardly any program nowadays requires you to reboot anymore after
> installation. That was in the Windows 3.x days.

All Windows updates do.

>> With a countdown. Want to reboot now, or want me to annoy you 
>> again in 10 minutes?
> 
>   Wasn't there an option somewhere to stop windows autoupdate from
> showing those dialogs?

Yes. Not letting it install automatically.

Set it to something like "download but ask me before installing". Then 
whenever you're ready to reboot, you install them and reboot.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nothing except that I'm amazed at how fast disk sizes grow.

  Not only do they grow a lot, they get incredibly cheap. Same for RAM.

  I remember when I bought 4 megabytes of extra RAM for my 486. It costed
something like (when converted) 250 US dollars. Nowadays I can buy 1 gigabyte
of RAM with less than half that amount of money.
  (Somehow the cost of RAM plummeted at an incredible rate at some point.)

> It used to be 32 meg was as huge as it got on a desktop machine. Now 
> that won't even be enough RAM to boot a modern desktop OS, let alone a 
> enough disk space.

  I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> >   Hardly any program nowadays requires you to reboot anymore after
> > installation. That was in the Windows 3.x days.

> All Windows updates do.

  Actually they don't *require* it, they just nag you to do it, by default.

> >> With a countdown. Want to reboot now, or want me to annoy you 
> >> again in 10 minutes?
> > 
> >   Wasn't there an option somewhere to stop windows autoupdate from
> > showing those dialogs?

> Yes. Not letting it install automatically.

  No, I meant that I faintly remember there was a way to have automatic
updates *and* not having it to nag about the rebooting.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:40:50 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> If anything, it takes longer now to do things on a computer than it did
>> 10 years ago
> 
>   I believe this to be just a false memory in most cases. Do you have
>   any
> concrete examples?

Boot DOS.  Boot Windows.  Compare the boot times.

Create a letter using WordPerfect 5.1.  Create a letter using Microsoft 
Word 2003.  Including the time just to start the applications, WP51 
starts quicker, and you finish quicker.

In both cases, use older machines, say, a PS/2 model 30 for the older 
tests, and a modern 64-bit machine for the Windows tests.

It's not a false memory, it's demonstrable fact.

>> But as tools have gotten more complex, people's ability to use then
>> effectively has been reduced significantly.
> 
>   Really? I have noticed the exact opposite trend. Just in the Windows
> side of the world, for example updating software is easier than ever: In
> many cases the software updates itself automatically without you having
> to do anything about it. Even if you have to start the updating
> manually, it's usually pretty automated.

And when the automated updates screw the machine up, the user is 
basically screwed.

>   This update doesn't require all your computer resources, but you can
> nowadays actually do something else while it's updating, and you won't
> even notice.
>   If I want to open a gigantic image in basically any software, it takes
> but a split second, while over a decade ago it could take a long time.
> Making modidications to the image is extremely fast, while over a decade
> ago it could take minutes.

As I said, there are some tasks that are faster on modern equipment with 
modern software.  But the majority of people need a word processor, a 
spreadsheet, and access to the 'net.  Maybe presentation software.

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said that certain things are faster.

>   Browsing the internet with a web browser? Fast and efficient nowadays,
> sluggish 15 years ago.

With a decent connection to the 'net, surfing the web 15 years ago was 
generally faster, if only because the amount of crap that people put on 
web pages was reduced.  15 years ago, the big thing being talked about 
was whether or not to use blink tags for $DEITY's sake.  Now it's all 
about flash animations and dynamically updating web applications which 
should *really* be implemented not using web technologies, but rather 
using desktop development technologies.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:16:53 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Hardly any program nowadays requires you to reboot anymore after
> installation. That was in the Windows 3.x days.

You clearly haven't installed Windows recently, have you?

My stepson reinstalled his Windows XP installation a few weeks ago.  It 
took 3 freakin' days to get the system built properly, because the 
machine needed so many reboots for driver installations, updates applied 
to the system - and he couldn't install his wireless card driver until he 
plugged the machine into an Ethernet port to do the stupid "Windows 
Activation" bull.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
> uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
> light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.

I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory 
capacity of 16 MB.  The machine physically couldn't take more memory.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escribió:
> My stepson reinstalled his Windows XP installation a few weeks ago.  It 
> took 3 freakin' days to get the system built properly, because the 
> machine needed so many reboots for driver installations, updates applied 
> to the system - and he couldn't install his wireless card driver until he 
> plugged the machine into an Ethernet port to do the stupid "Windows 
> Activation" bull.

And I bet installing the network card made Windows say "New hardware 
found. Would you like to search for drivers on Internet?" Erm, guess 
what, I can't get on Internet until I install the new hardware!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escribió:
> With a decent connection to the 'net, surfing the web 15 years ago was 
> generally faster, if only because the amount of crap that people put on 
> web pages was reduced.  15 years ago, the big thing being talked about 
> was whether or not to use blink tags for $DEITY's sake.  Now it's all 
> about flash animations and dynamically updating web applications which 
> should *really* be implemented not using web technologies, but rather 
> using desktop development technologies.

OMG somebody with common sense...

Some months ago I started writing my own NNTP server just so I could 
read web forums from Thunderbird, along with news.povray.org. The idea 
was writing both the server and the web scraper. Yet another abandoned 
project, for now.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:16:25 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:56:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> 
>>>   I'm amazed how you again and again succeed in showing your ignorance
>>> about basic things all computer and other nerds know.
>> 
>> Some people live very sheltered lives.
> 
> ...or just aren't interested in specific aspects of the world.

There is that as well - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Some of the folks here have struck a nerve with me by continuing to "pick 
on" you.  That *normally* comes out of a need to feel superior to someone 
- I grew up being the target of that kind of behaviour from my peers, and 
I really won't stand for it when I see people doing it to others.

And it seems especially ridiculous to me for *adults* having the need to 
feel superior by making fun of someone who hasn't had the same common 
experience they have had or likes different things, or whatever.  That 
smacks of serious insecurity on the part of those who are doing the 
"teasing".

This constant need that some members here have to continue to put Andy 
down *must* stop.  I'm not going to name names - you know who you are.  
Knock it off already.

Jim

Post a reply to this message