 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47fc18a3$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] san rrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Umm. Actually, I was referring to Windows there,
>
> I was too. I guess you never actually used DOS or something.
>
I have. Yes, things could crash in it, and in later years changes to
sound cards (like ones where the firmware needed to be hotloaded to the
card, so took up a bigger chunk of memory), it got to the point of being
damn annoying to work with. In some ways it was still easier to deal
with. lol
> > True enough. One wonders why most of that stuff
>
> What "stuff"??
>
I gave you an example. IE's object support. I have read lots of
documents, books, etc. on the subject and it *should* take about 10
lines of code to do it, if you use raw C++ without anything but the COM
libraries, but half the other libraries, which make coding applications
easier, put steel doors and brick walls in between you and the code to
do it, nor, unless some of the code they leaked a while back involving
IE included the code for this, is there clear documentation of how the
hell you actual use it. Its buried, deep in the bowels of the libraries,
such that it automates so much stuff "for you" that you can't do a damn
thing with it. .NET's solution wasn't BTW to give you access to the
original core either. In that you "cast" events, i.e., redirect the ones
your own application can't handle to a function that *maybe* can, if you
know how to code it right. Only one problem, you still need to know how
to figure out where the event came from, and thus what to do with it,
and its *still* easier to do that at compile time than at run time, so
you *still* can't replicate the object support in IE simply.
And all for what reason? Because they don't want to provide a system
call in any library that would support binding event connection points
to event sinks, unless the compiler did it for you. Argh!!!
> > "while" playing the games that need that sound?
>
> Don't even *start* talking about sound being poorly supported on Windows
> until you've made sound work on Unix.
>
Oh, give me a break. Sure, there may be issues, especially with newer
cards, but we are talking about basically throwing out *years* of
working hardware, in trade for something that won't even support,
without the help of someone that doesn't even *work for* Microsoft, or
the card manufacturers, *any* sound, since the library replacing the
original system doesn't provide legacy support for functions and methods
that have been standard in drivers for, well, since fracking DOS, when
they first started writing device drivers, instead of just letting the
software talk to the sound card. This isn't a case of, "well, they made
some changes to the driver design, so old drivers won't work." Its a
case of, "We don't want you to even use any of the cards you ever
bought, except as a sort of more powerful version of the speaker clicks
used in the Tandy."
There is a huge difference. As huge a difference as when the day they
created the first Soundblaster card and people where "asked" to use it,
because it produced better sound. That isn't even the excuse this time.
There is no real evidence the new design *can* produce better results,
and they are trying to force it as a "requirement" for new games, not an
optional one for if the designer thinks it would work better.
> > would have to sell a kidney to be able to make changes to a product
> > written in something that they don't freely support.
>
> So, by "hard to support", you mean "commercial." Come on, it's not
> *that* expensive.
>
> > Yeah, yeah, I know the reason. It doesn't help my mood when I look at
> > the price tag. lol
>
> Well, why are you even supporting Windows, then? It's a commercial
> product. If you want to work on stuff for free, there are excellent
> alternatives available.
>
Going to cover both of these at one time, since your contention makes no
damn sense. They are "phasing out" all prior libraries, and giving away
the compiler for the "new" one, .NET for free. The only thing they are
"asking" you to pay for is basically some better IDE features, their
help library, which is online for free anyway, and *legacy* library
support. So, my objection is the assumption that I would want to pay
them 2-3 times what I already paid for the OS, to get a bunch of stuff I
don't necessarily need, or can already get from them for free, just so
that I have the legacy support for some application someone else
wrote... The complaint isn't that its commercial, the complaint is that
if all I wanted to do is code for windows, I wouldn't need to buy it
anyway. Its only the fact that I am trying to fix, or convert, something
in an older legacy library that make it *necessary* to buy the full
product in the first place. To me this makes about at much sense as if
they decided to add support for old 3.1 applications, but then told
everyone that they had to pay $500 for the addon to do so.
> > Point was, unless its hardware related (and that is a whole new can of
> > worms), *nix isn't likely to have too many of those, even between
> > different "versions".
>
> I disagree. Where's /dev/mt? Do you have /proc under Solaris?
>
Ok, we can agree to disagree then. I said, "isn't likely", not, "isn't
possible".
> How does this differ from UNIX saying you're not allowed to delete
> something out of /bin for your own good?
>
Wasn't aware that there was a huge threat of someone "outside" your
system deleting /bin, or that simply not letting you delete things that
are stupid to delete was on the same level as, "I am sorry, but despite
the fact that it won't have an effect on the OS at all, and the language
appears to allow it, we won't let you do it anyway, because *we* think
that you might not know what you are doing, or that you might not be the
one doing it."
But, what ever.
> > I get a bit annoyed trying to learn how to "not" do dumb things and
> > having the goon tell me, "Yous sure you wanna do that?", all the time,
> > even when I know that it will work.
>
> It's asking permission to elevate your privilege. If you're running as
> administrator, you're already doing something wrong, so complaining that
> you're being annoyed by the warnings is kind of silly, methinks.
>
No, in the specific case I was trying to do something it had **nothing**
to do with privilege levels. MS deemed it more likely that some
*outside* entity would be using the feature to do bad things with your
computer, without you knowing, so disabled it for *everyone*, regardless
of if you where Admin, or fracking God. You don't even get a warning. It
just flat out doesn't work, when the same identical thing on earlier
patches of XP, earlier versions of Windows, and even *nix "does" work.
If you didn't read the patch information and know what it was and why
they did it, you wouldn't have any clue why the program didn't work,
what Windows was doing to prevent it working, or why the same, or
virtually the same, code worked on *every other* OS on the planet. That
is just bloody stupid imho. It doesn't even have the common decency of
popping up an error dialog that says, "Due to changes in service pack
blah, program X's attempt to do Y has been disabled."
> >> > Or an
> >>> admittance that they can't stop the stuff that "requires" that kind o
f
> >>> security.
> >> What kind of "stuff" are you talking about?
> >>
> > Umm. People making your machine a zombie. They seemed to figure that no
> > one has a legitimate reason to create certain types of arbitrary
> > packets, so no one would mind if they limited what zombies could do,
> > even though it also torpedoed things that used the same principle to
> > work, and where legitimate products. Heh, its just one I ran into
> > recently, not a huge issue, but its not the only thing I hear people
> > griping about with how they did Vista's security model (and also partly
> > XP).
>
> I expect they actually have a different interface of some sort for
> creating those alternate packets, and people are griping that it
> changed, but that's just a guess.
>
You would be wrong. You just can't do it anymore. They changed it so
that the packet management in Winsock, or some other key component
detects that the packet doesn't "look" like its big enough, contains the
right sort of data, or "something" when using certain protocols, then
simply doesn't send it, without warning, without an error, and without
any indication that it didn't work, other than the discovery that the
application isn't doing anything any more.
> >>> Either way, I didn't like 95/98 because it robbed me of a lot
> >>> of control I *used to have* over my system.
> >> Like what?
> >>
> > Mostly trying to fix things if they broke, or changing settings that
> > even the admin user doesn't necessary have clear access to.
>
> Sorry. "Admin user" in 95? Impress me by explaining what you're talking
> about, given that Win95 is a single-user OS.
>
Sorry, got confused about which OS I was talking about. lol Point being,
you just couldn't change them *period*.
> > annoying things I tried to adjust in them. (some there cases where you
> > could only change the setting via regedit though).
>
> And UNIX is better at this, is it? ;-)
>
At least in *nix you probably can find information on "how" to change
it. Some of the stuff in 95 where settings you needed to change to make
even stuff like networking work right, with certain situations, but
where the "setting" wasn't available from "any" control panel or
application installed, nor was their a "default" setting in the registry
for it. I have no clue how people even figure out what half the damn
settings where that I ended up tweaking to make the OS run better.
> > lol Yeah. Though, at times I wish Sudo existed on Windows.
>
> Um, it does. It's called "runas".
>
Neat. Had no idea that was there. Makes things nicer. Though, I suppose
if I didn't want to lose my mind trying to use it I might have to
install the Bash copycat CLI they came up with. Trying to do anything in
DOS, never mind Windows 'Run', which is basically the same thing,
without about 500 DOS utilities that a) don't come with the OS anymore,
or b) never did, but where written by PC-Magazine, was always a
nightmare. Worst day of my life was when I realized that 4DOS didn't
work right with 98. lol So much nicer, with a wonderful text file lister
built in, etc... Sigh.. Never could figure why, even today, Windows
basic method of dealing with large documents is either to a) send it
through "type", with "more", b) try and fail to load it (all at once)
into Edit, or c) try, and previous fail, to load it in notepad... 4DOS's
built in loaded one "page" at a time and showed it, so that only what
you "needed" was in memory at any given moment. Loved that command...
> > Frankly, I am
> > running, and shouldn't be, in a full access user, precisely because I
> > know if I change to a protected one I am going to be spending way too
> > much time arguing with the OS about what I am doing,
>
> You'd be surprised, actually. I mean, unless you've got really old
> crappy software.
>
Might be OK. I have found "some" stuff that oddly insists on only
installing as single user though, which kind of gets annoying. Right
now, as a super user, I just move the icon from "my" user to the main
directory for programs, it maybe asks if I am sure I want to let all
users get to it, and bam, there is it. Still, I have had some annoyances
with the My Documents folder, some things *cleaning it up* and deleting
files it shouldn't, which is why I moved it, and now, some older
programs (and even newer ones that don't recheck the location when
accessing files), looking in the "old" location. Had that problem with
Yahoo! Widgets, which *is* supposed to be XP compatible, but had that
bug. It *assumed* that once it knew where the files "should be", they
should always be there. Problem was, when I mover the folder location, I
"lost" access privileges to the original location for those files, so it
was trying to aggregate all widgets to some place it didn't have access
to, and due to a stupid bug, it would delete the file anyway (or maybe
loaded it, got ready to copy it, deleted the original, then tried to
save the file to the disallowed location. How ever it was doing it, it
fowled things up royally.
Bound to happen though, when someone changes your security model and
half the people writing for it don't think about the fact that the
folder "can" be moved.
> > the system updates that the OS **incists** you reboot with,
>
> Never had that happen. The worst I get is the little yellow shield in
> the corner saying "please let me know when I should install these patches
."
>
Yeah. I need to adjust mine back to that. Got annoyed with having that
show up, when the patch took hours to download. Dialup remember... It
was easier to "let it" install and do things, than have to deal with it
when I finally realized it "had" patched. lol
> Go to the control panel, under automatic updates. If you want it to
> reboot after installing patches, tell it when and on what day of the
> week in the drop-downs. Otherwise, set it to "download updates but let
> me pick when to install them." Or "notify me but dont download them."
>
What is it with people that use Windows that they tell you where to
change a setting in the control panel, by referencing it as though its
an option *in* the main page of the control panel? They do it on
websites too. The real method is like, "open bing in the control panel
and select bong, then pick the ding tab.", but all they give you is "Go
to Ding in the control panel and change these setting." I just don't get
it...
And don't bother being more specific. I figured out where it was. lol
> > Instead it keeps popping up
> > ever 5-10 minutes to ask you, "Heh! You done yet. Want to reboot?" No
> > frell you!!
>
> If you let it get to that point at all, you can stop it by (surprise)
> stopping the windows update service.
>
Which I don't really want to do... Now, the damn update service for
Arcsoft, which came with my camera.. That I disabled, then when it
wouldn't *stay* disabled I finally deleted the fracking thing. Stupid
thing would crash if it came up and no internet connection existed for
it to update over, and you had two options, "disable" or "don't bug me
for the next 7 days", and, like I said, "disable" didn't seem to work at
all. Oh, and it was a service, but for some damn reason there was no
"disable" or "turn off" option in the service manager, unlike with many
of the others. I hate third party programs that "should" be helpful, but
only manage to be a severe pain in the ass. Its not like they could
have, I don't know, had the relevant application check for updates, like
"most" of the ones I use...
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Don't even *start* talking about sound being poorly supported on Windows
>> until you've made sound work on Unix.
>>
> Oh, give me a break. Sure, there may be issues, especially with newer
> cards,
No. I'm talking about 25 years of UNIX not supporting sound properly.
How long ago did UNIX start supporting sound when logged in from an X
terminal? How long ago did UNIX start supporting mixers?
Trust me. I worked at Bellcore in the 90's. UNIX didn't "support" sound
for long, *long* after Windows did. And it's still a kludge on Linux.
Yes, Vista fucked up sound, but they did it on purpose.
>> Well, why are you even supporting Windows, then? It's a commercial
>> product. If you want to work on stuff for free, there are excellent
>> alternatives available.
>>
> Going to cover both of these at one time, since your contention makes no
> damn sense.
I don't see what's nonsensical about it. If you're making a commercial
product and that's why you need to support Windows, then shell out the
$100 and recoup it with your first couple of sales. If you're not
planning to sell the results, why are you complaining that Windows
development software is expensive? It's a hobby. Use Linux. :-)
> product in the first place. To me this makes about at much sense as if
Makes sense to me. They don't want you developing to old APIs. The
longer people use the old stuff, the longer they have to support it. If
it isn't worth money for you, it's not worth them supporting it.
>> How does this differ from UNIX saying you're not allowed to delete
>> something out of /bin for your own good?
> Wasn't aware that there was a huge threat of someone "outside" your
> system deleting /bin,
You'd be surprised. cf "the Morris worm" for example.
> or that you might not be the one doing it."
That's really the problem, I think. There are way, way more people using
Windows who don't know what they're doing than there are people using
UNIX who don't know the difference between "firefox" and "firewall".
> You would be wrong. You just can't do it anymore. They changed it so
> that the packet management in Winsock, or some other key component
> detects that the packet doesn't "look" like its big enough, contains the
> right sort of data, or "something" when using certain protocols, then
> simply doesn't send it, without warning, without an error, and without
> any indication that it didn't work, other than the discovery that the
> application isn't doing anything any more.
'k.
> I have no clue how people even figure out what half the damn
> settings where that I ended up tweaking to make the OS run better.
They either ask someone at Microsoft, or they figure it out the same way
they find buffer overflows. :-)
> Neat. Had no idea that was there. Makes things nicer.
Google for "Windows command line" and find a whole bunch of good stuff.
Also, read the documentation for "find" and "for" in the CLI, which do a
lot more than you probably know.
Now, if I could find a command line to "eject" a USB device, I'd be
happy. :-)
> Yeah. I need to adjust mine back to that. Got annoyed with having that
> show up, when the patch took hours to download. Dialup remember... It
> was easier to "let it" install and do things, than have to deal with it
> when I finally realized it "had" patched. lol
No. Set it to download, then inform you. Then you can just turn off the
machine, and it'll install the patches as it shuts down.
>> Go to the control panel, under automatic updates. If you want it to
>> reboot after installing patches, tell it when and on what day of the
>> week in the drop-downs. Otherwise, set it to "download updates but let
>> me pick when to install them." Or "notify me but dont download them."
>>
> What is it with people that use Windows that they tell you where to
> change a setting in the control panel, by referencing it as though its
> an option *in* the main page of the control panel? They do it on
> websites too. The real method is like, "open bing in the control panel
> and select bong, then pick the ding tab.", but all they give you is "Go
> to Ding in the control panel and change these setting." I just don't get
> it...
>
> And don't bother being more specific. I figured out where it was. lol
The icon at the top level of the control panel is called "automatic
updates". It's a one page panel with three radio buttons. I fail to see
how my description was confusing?
>
>>> Instead it keeps popping up
>>> ever 5-10 minutes to ask you, "Heh! You done yet. Want to reboot?" No
>>> frell you!!
>> If you let it get to that point at all, you can stop it by (surprise)
>> stopping the windows update service.
>>
> Which I don't really want to do...
Uh, why not? Note I didn't say disable it. I said stop it. Then it wont
bug you, until you reboot, which is all it's going to do until you
reboot anyway.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:34:51 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Now, if I could find a command line to "eject" a USB device, I'd be
> happy. :-)
http://quick.mixnmojo.com/usb-disk-ejector
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/system/RemoveDriveByLetter.aspx
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:34:51 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Now, if I could find a command line to "eject" a USB device, I'd be
>> happy. :-)
>
> http://quick.mixnmojo.com/usb-disk-ejector
You wouldn't believe how long I tried to figure out what to google on
Microsoft's site to find which function will do that. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47fe4fba$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Yeah. I need to adjust mine back to that. Got annoyed with having that
> > show up, when the patch took hours to download. Dialup remember... It
> > was easier to "let it" install and do things, than have to deal with it
> > when I finally realized it "had" patched. lol
>
> No. Set it to download, then inform you. Then you can just turn off the
> machine, and it'll install the patches as it shuts down.
>
You shut off your computer? Didn't know you could do that... lol But
seriously, mine is always on and up, since I work odd hours, may be
running things I need to keep going, or even downloading a torrent,
etc., all of which are a bit hard to do if you turn it off all the time.
The only time I ever reboot, never mind turn it off, is to
update/upgrade something, or there is a big storm over the city and
leaving it on risks frying it.
> >> Go to the control panel, under automatic updates. If you want it to
> >> reboot after installing patches, tell it when and on what day of the
> >> week in the drop-downs. Otherwise, set it to "download updates but let
> >> me pick when to install them." Or "notify me but dont download them."
> >>
> > What is it with people that use Windows that they tell you where to
> > change a setting in the control panel, by referencing it as though its
> > an option *in* the main page of the control panel? They do it on
> > websites too. The real method is like, "open bing in the control panel
> > and select bong, then pick the ding tab.", but all they give you is "Go
> > to Ding in the control panel and change these setting." I just don't ge
t
> > it...
> >
> > And don't bother being more specific. I figured out where it was. lol
>
> The icon at the top level of the control panel is called "automatic
> updates". It's a one page panel with three radio buttons. I fail to see
> how my description was confusing?
>
No it isn't. On mine its "Performance and Maintainence", then "System",
in which there is a tab which is called "Automatic Updates". Now, if you
have a link to the "systems" control panel on your desktop, like someone
that makes changes there a lot might do, then yes, it would be. ;)
This is, of course, one of the fun things about Windows. Nothing is ever
where you, never mind they, left it. lol
> >>> Instead it keeps popping up
> >>> ever 5-10 minutes to ask you, "Heh! You done yet. Want to reboot?" No
> >>> frell you!!
> >> If you let it get to that point at all, you can stop it by (surprise)
> >> stopping the windows update service.
> >>
> > Which I don't really want to do...
>
> Uh, why not? Note I didn't say disable it. I said stop it. Then it wont
> bug you, until you reboot, which is all it's going to do until you
> reboot anyway.
>
Well, yeah, that is true. Not something that would have normally
occurred to me though. Mute point now anyway, its now set back to,
"Download, but don't install until requested."
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47fe854e$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:34:51 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Now, if I could find a command line to "eject" a USB device, I'd be
> >> happy. :-)
> >
> > http://quick.mixnmojo.com/usb-disk-ejector
>
> You wouldn't believe how long I tried to figure out what to google on
> Microsoft's site to find which function will do that. :-)
>
Know the feeling..
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You shut off your computer? Didn't know you could do that...
Yeah. When I'm not using it. I'm rather annoyed at how flakey the
suspend code is on my Media Center. Never another HP, I'll tell you.
> No it isn't. On mine its "Performance and Maintainence", then "System",
> in which there is a tab which is called "Automatic Updates".
Huh. What are you running? Not XP, I assume?
> This is, of course, one of the fun things about Windows. Nothing is ever
> where you, never mind they, left it. lol
Yep. It takes forever to find all that stuff on each big upgrade.
> Well, yeah, that is true. Not something that would have normally
> occurred to me though. Mute point now anyway, its now set back to,
> "Download, but don't install until requested."
Glad to be of service. :)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> No it isn't. On mine its "Performance and Maintainence", then
>> "System", in which there is a tab which is called "Automatic Updates".
>
> Huh. What are you running? Not XP, I assume?
XP by default has the Control panel in its stupid "Category mode".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47ff8751$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > You shut off your computer? Didn't know you could do that...
>
> Yeah. When I'm not using it. I'm rather annoyed at how flakey the
> suspend code is on my Media Center. Never another HP, I'll tell you.
>
> > No it isn't. On mine its "Performance and Maintainence", then "System",
> > in which there is a tab which is called "Automatic Updates".
>
> Huh. What are you running? Not XP, I assume?
>
What Nicolas said. XP Pro, unmodified install, SP2. You either changes
it, or you bought the machine with it installed, and that had it set up
the other way. But what you get to start with is a list of "related"
features, instead of the "everything as an icon in the control panel",
that existed in 98.
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> No it isn't. On mine its "Performance and Maintainence", then
>>> "System", in which there is a tab which is called "Automatic Updates".
>>
>> Huh. What are you running? Not XP, I assume?
>
> XP by default has the Control panel in its stupid "Category mode".
Oh! Right! I turned that off in about the first 10 seconds, along with
"hide known extensions." It never occurred to me...
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
