 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That wasn't very coherent, was it?
After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up and
going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box saying "This
is going to take about an hour to install what you just downloaded. Are you
sure you want to start it?"
F'ing A, Microsoft! That's why I filled out your form and agreed to the
license! WTF, just gooooo!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/23/09 22:33, Darren New wrote:
> That wasn't very coherent, was it?
>
> After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up
> and going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box
> saying "This is going to take about an hour to install what you just
> downloaded. Are you sure you want to start it?"
>
> F'ing A, Microsoft! That's why I filled out your form and agreed to the
> license! WTF, just gooooo!
You're not seriously complaining, are you? In most cases, I would want
it to prompt me before it installed.
--
Thesaurus: prehistoric reptile with a great vocabulary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> You're not seriously complaining, are you? In most cases, I would
> want it to prompt me before it installed.
I'm seriously complaining that they'd ask you to agree to install it, then
do a 45-minute download, then *stop* and ask you if you're really sure you
wanted to install it. I mean, damn guys, make it so I can walk away if it's
going to be an hour of disk thrashing. It would have finished before I got
back, except it stopped to ask if I really wanted to do what I already
agreed to.
Fortunately, it isn't urgent, so I'll just go and install it before I go to
bed. Assuming, of course, that it doesn't stop in the MIDDLE to ask me
something. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4a692b8b$1@news.povray.org...
> That wasn't very coherent, was it?
>
> After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up
and
> going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box saying
"This
> is going to take about an hour to install what you just downloaded. Are
you
> sure you want to start it?"
>
> F'ing A, Microsoft! That's why I filled out your form and agreed to the
> license! WTF, just gooooo!
I feel your pain. On the other hand, you didn't start a large download, go
back to typing code, have the file move dialog pop up on you and steal focus
after the download finished with the cancel button highlighted, at which
time you happened to be pressing enter. Granted, the temporary internet
files comes to the rescue, but one has to wonder 1) why downloads aren't
saved to the place you instructed in the first place 2) if whoever came up
with the idea of a popups that steal focus with default buttons is aware
that it's not DOS anymore and people do multitask 3) Even though previous
snafu was fixed more recently, why, in this day and age, program(mer)s
mostly still play dumb and apply the same logic to 3 bytes of data as they
do to 3GB and progress bars and time estimators are next to useless?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> I feel your pain. On the other hand, you didn't start a large download, go
> back to typing code, have the file move dialog pop up on you and steal focus
> after the download finished with the cancel button highlighted, at which
> time you happened to be pressing enter.
That happens often enough I don't even argh over it any more. I have no idea
why Vista decided to turn off focus-stealing-prevention. That was
*wonderful*. :-)
> files comes to the rescue, but one has to wonder 1) why downloads aren't
> saved to the place you instructed in the first place
Because then they wouldn't be cached. Remember that IE isn't the only piece
of code that uses that cache. The program doing the downloads have no idea
where you "told it to save the file". It's downloading a URL, not
manipulating files. Maybe it's a java applet you're going to reload every
time you open the home page, or a font you use in all your documents.
Granted, it could be better, but firefox doesn't have to deal with being
someone else's library.
> 2) if whoever came up
> with the idea of a popups that steal focus with default buttons is aware
> that it's not DOS anymore and people do multitask
Pop-ups should never steal focus. XP got that 99% right. Vista seems to
steal focus always, unless you want it to.
> 3) Even though previous
> snafu was fixed more recently, why, in this day and age, program(mer)s
> mostly still play dumb and apply the same logic to 3 bytes of data as they
> do to 3GB and progress bars and time estimators are next to useless?
That too. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up
> and going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box saying
> "This is going to take about an hour to install what you just downloaded.
> Are you sure you want to start it?"
Hehe, I was copying over about 80GB of data to an external harddrive, I
watched it for about 5 minutes while it was "discovering files" or some such
until it said 2 hours 53 remaining or whatever. I came back a few hours
later and there was a "Do you want to copy this file without it's
properties?" dialog box and it had hardly started the copying! Is it too
hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is waiting for
you to answer a question about one file?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I feel your pain. On the other hand, you didn't start a large download, go
> back to typing code, have the file move dialog pop up on you and steal
> focus
> after the download finished with the cancel button highlighted, at which
> time you happened to be pressing enter.
Hehe, you weren't browsing a website, about to a click a link, when an
online Poker window came to the front and your mouse happened to be exactly
over the "yes, please bet all my money on this rubbish hand" button :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> too hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is
> waiting for you to answer a question about one file?
I guess it'll get there eventually. :-) They *do* manage to improve it a bit
each time, except for the focus-stealing under Vista, which I heard they
claim is due to something about security but I can't imagine why stealing
focus could be more secure.
Got up this morning, computer said "You need to reboot to finish..." OK,
reboot. Another 40 minutes of "installing #1, installing #2". I understand
why you would want to reboot, but come on, put a checkbox on that says
"reboot automatically" on things that take hours to run after each
interaction. Sheesh. </rant>
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-7-2009 17:20, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> too hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is
>> waiting for you to answer a question about one file?
>
> I guess it'll get there eventually. :-) They *do* manage to improve it a
> bit each time, except for the focus-stealing under Vista, which I heard
> they claim is due to something about security but I can't imagine why
> stealing focus could be more secure.
>
> Got up this morning, computer said "You need to reboot to finish..."
> OK, reboot. Another 40 minutes of "installing #1, installing #2". I
> understand why you would want to reboot, but come on, put a checkbox on
> that says "reboot automatically" on things that take hours to run after
> each interaction. Sheesh. </rant>
>
The day before yesterday I was in the OR to record something on my
laptop. After firing up everything (which takes a insane amount
nowadays, I am really going for a clean install soon) then after some
time it came with that 'finished installing critical updates, reboot'
thing. You can click that away but it keeps on nagging you.
Interestingly, the laptop wasn't connected to the internet, hadn't been
so for a couple of weeks and was on for some days, with regular periods
of sleep during the night. Ok, I can imagine that if you have an
important update that needs rebooting, that you nag until it happens,
but why does MS find it necessary to lie about these things? If there is
no update don't claim that there is. In the end I clicked it a couple of
times away and rebooted when I knew that I had 10 minutes before any new
recording.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:4a697d21$1@news.povray.org...
> > After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up
> > and going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box
saying
> > "This is going to take about an hour to install what you just
downloaded.
> > Are you sure you want to start it?"
> Hehe, I was copying over about 80GB of data to an external harddrive, I
> watched it for about 5 minutes while it was "discovering files" or some
such
> until it said 2 hours 53 remaining or whatever. I came back a few hours
> later and there was a "Do you want to copy this file without it's
> properties?" dialog box and it had hardly started the copying! Is it too
> hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is waiting for
> you to answer a question about one file?
Ah, but what would the point be for an *Operating System* to make managing
files easy and logical?
/sarcasm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
