Darren New wrote:
> Or, in other words, "We're number one, why try harder?"
> 
Yep. Which is why people get irritated.

>> 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.
> 
Uh.. Where would this installer be? Oh, right... probably on the 
"corporate" multi-license version that most of us don't have access to... ;)

 > 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."
 >

Still doesn't imply that the defragger is "aware" of that data and uses 
it. It didn't for a "long" time, much as Paint was "stuck" in 256 mode 
until XP, and not(e)pad was stuck with a 32k limit until the same. So, 
maybe they made them better in XP and Vista. Good for them, its about 
fracking time!! lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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

Darren New wrote:
>> There is only *one* update site, 
> 
> And you'd rather have lots of update sites? I'm not sure why you think 
> this is a bad thing.
> 
You where implying that I was looking at the "wrong" one. I was a bit 
confused what one you thought I would be looking at...

>> and the only thing ever "added" are new versions of the "malicious 
>> software removal drone", 
> 
> Then I guess your stuff is pretty stable. I get all kinds of updates for 
> both Windows and Office.
> 
Ah, well. I don't use Office, so... Not a surprise there isn't a lot of 
that coming down the pipe. lol

>> whose sole purpose seems to be to send my machine into frozen limbo 
>> for several minutes, while it hunts hundreds of gigs of files for 
>> "dangerous" stuff, which it never actually finds. 
> 
> I try not to be hard at work while installing updates to the operating 
> system, myself.   Sounds like you don't have enough memory to me, 
> because that runs in about 90 seconds once a month on my machines.
> 
Uh.. I have... 2GB, and I am usually not running anything but Firefox 
while this is going on, so unless Firefox is eating up more than half of 
the memory... I just don't get it. It can take several minutes on mine, 
though, it "did" run faster before I tacked on an external drive. Hmm. 
Come to think of it, its probably hunting in the gigs of "backups" on 
that drive that get patched every few days too, which would mean its 
searching "two" copies of all the same data (well, mostly, since 
OneTouch's backup is lame enough to only backup the stuff "it" wants, 
not what you want. Need to find something to replace that with, one of 
these days... They ever get Windows Backup to do compressed incremental 
backups, or it still assuming you have an external removable that is at 
least as big as the "entire" data space you are backing up, like they 
did before? I haven't bothered to check, since it was nearly useless 
back when all I had to backup to was CDs, and it wouldn't do CDs. lol)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "You may need to reboot the machine after this install.", 
> 
> Note the word "may".   If you're using the file it needs to update while 
> the update runs, you'll need to reboot.  Otherwise, the system stops the 
> service, installs the patches, and starts up the service again, etc.
> 
If its just "may", it wouldn't keep asking me to reboot, over and over 
again. Now, when it "doesn't" need to do it, its very very nice. Just 
wish that was more often, or it was, I don't know, nice enough to tell 
me which applications might "conflict" with the install, so I can shut 
them down *before*. I do keep some things running most of the time, 
including MySQL database software, a Yahoo gadget toolbar and 1-2 other 
things that "could" be causing it, and are.. not always trivial to 
restart manually (or worse, won't restart automatically, in some cases, 
if you "manually" shut them down before, due to how they save their 
"active" state between boots.) But, yeah. Its a "little" better, but not 
what everyone kept insisting, which was "almost never".

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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:
> Uh.. Where would this installer be? Oh, right... probably on the 
> "corporate" multi-license version that most of us don't have access 
> to... ;)

Right. Because if you're only installing one or two machines, it's really 
not a problem to move stuff after the fact.

> Still doesn't imply that the defragger is "aware" of that data and uses 
> it. 

Actually, it probably doesn't need to any more, since the system does demand 
paging now. It really doesn't help to move directories on the disk relative 
to other directories just based on what they contain. Given things like 
superfetch, readyboost, and all that, the files don't get *read* 
sequentially, so having them particularly defragmented in a particular order 
probably doesn't make sense any more.

-- 
   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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> There is only *one* update site, 
>>
>> And you'd rather have lots of update sites? I'm not sure why you think 
>> this is a bad thing.
>>
> You where implying that I was looking at the "wrong" one. I was a bit 
> confused what one you thought I would be looking at...

Are you using "Windows Update" or are you using "Microsoft Update"? You're 
using the wrong update program if you're not getting updates to your Office 
software.

> Ah, well. I don't use Office, so... Not a surprise there isn't a lot of 
> that coming down the pipe. lol

What do you expect them to update?

> Come to think of it, its probably hunting in the gigs of "backups" on 
> that drive that get patched every few days too, which would mean its 

I wouldn't be surprised. I can do a full Defender scan of an entire drive 
here (including all software I've ever owned or downloaded on a separate 
partition) in about half an hour or so.

> They ever get Windows Backup to do compressed incremental backups, 

Yes. Unfortunately, MS screwed the pooch on this and only backs up what they 
think are important files. Otherwise, it would have been a really nice system.

> or it still assuming you have an external removable that is at 
> least as big as the "entire" data space you are backing up, like they 
> did before? I haven't bothered to check, since it was nearly useless 
> back when all I had to backup to was CDs, and it wouldn't do CDs. lol)

They improved that. You can now ghost the drive (full or incremental), or 
you can do incremental backups to compressed zip files, either onto an 
external HD or CD/DVDs, with a very nice mechanism for doing full and 
incremental restores as well.

-- 
   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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> If its just "may", it wouldn't keep asking me to reboot, over and over 
> again. 

Right. So you're using the file it updated. Not much you can do about that.

> Now, when it "doesn't" need to do it, its very very nice. Just 
> wish that was more often, or it was, I don't know, nice enough to tell 
> me which applications might "conflict" with the install, so I can shut 
> them down *before*.

It often does. Sometimes it's hard to tell which application is using a 
particular file.

> things that "could" be causing it, and are.. not always trivial to 
> restart manually (or worse, won't restart automatically, in some cases, 
> if you "manually" shut them down before, due to how they save their 
> "active" state between boots.) 

And that's exactly why you get asked to reboot. :-)

> But, yeah. Its a "little" better, but not 
> what everyone kept insisting, which was "almost never".

It's almost never for me. Are you using XP or Vista?

IME, XP reboots far less than previous versions (which pretty much rebooted 
for every update), and Vista reboots "almost never".  I've not had any 
software install that asked for a reboot except .NET 3.5.

-- 
   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

> Its not aimed at companies though. Companies "generally" don't go around 
> installing single machines, but buy "bulk" licenses, which gives them 
> "discounts" on installs. Sometimes they can even talk MS into handing them 
> the stuff for free (though not the upgrades).

OK small companies then.  I don't know many people at home who need Outlook, 
Visio, Access etc, most just want Word.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
> No, but, it shouldn't have been possible. And, I think it was "before"
> moving it. Like I said, I really have no idea what happened, just that
> Windows was complaining about running out of room, asked if I would let
> it remove some stuff, and it did. Since then, I clean things up myself,
> so I know what gets taken out. lol
> 

Well true, but if you didn't check it out, it can also be a bug or nasty
habit of the game itself, not necessarily Windows.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Uh.. Where would this installer be? Oh, right... probably on the 
>> "corporate" multi-license version that most of us don't have access 
>> to... ;)
> 
> Right. Because if you're only installing one or two machines, it's 
> really not a problem to move stuff after the fact.
> 
>> Still doesn't imply that the defragger is "aware" of that data and 
>> uses it. 
> 
> Actually, it probably doesn't need to any more, since the system does 
> demand paging now. It really doesn't help to move directories on the 
> disk relative to other directories just based on what they contain. 
> Given things like superfetch, readyboost, and all that, the files don't 
> get *read* sequentially, so having them particularly defragmented in a 
> particular order probably doesn't make sense any more.
> 
Hmm. Possibly.. In fact, I suppose, in some cases, you could actually 
get "bad" results, like if a prefetch got file 50-56 on the disk, but 
the one you need next is like.. '2'. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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

Darren New wrote:
>> Ah, well. I don't use Office, so... Not a surprise there isn't a lot 
>> of that coming down the pipe. lol
> 
> What do you expect them to update?
> 
My point was that "update" in their world means, "We maybe patched some 
bugs, but this is damn unlikely, unless they where security bugs." You 
are "not" going to get say, "Would you like to install Word 10.0, since 
you currently only have 9.0. ;) Well, not unless its IE, and... I don't 
use that unless I have to anyway. lol But, its not just "major" changes, 
its incremental ones. Even virus scanners will "patch" until they hit 
some version limit, then require you buy the next one. In the case of 
something like Word, that may mean getting 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, etc., some 
with "new" features, but requiring a major upgrade to get the "full" 
10.0 version. Its just not in their business model to not screw you for 
"huge" amounts of money, for "major" patches, without anything in 
between, especially not even including the bug fixes that only make it 
into the next major release.

In other words, you may be forced to "wait" for that high price update, 
if you expect to see some things fixed at all, and that... just sucks, 
and is yet another reason to be "somewhat" less than impressed by them. 
That is, if a list of "patches" that are like 99% security, and don't 
ever address "any" real problem you are having, isn't enough, by itself. lol

>> They ever get Windows Backup to do compressed incremental backups, 
> 
> Yes. Unfortunately, MS screwed the pooch on this and only backs up what 
> they think are important files. Otherwise, it would have been a really 
> nice system.
> 
Ah, well.. I suppose that explains the One Touch 4 software... They 
probably wanted to make it "work like" MS', never mind that the damn 
thing now won't backup files it doesn't recognize, directories that 
"contain" your My Documents (this one just fracking doesn't make sense 
to me, somehow it "knows" that your user data is in a subdirectory of a 
folder on the drive, so it refuses to even "allow" selecting the folder 
to backup, since it would duplicate the one its already defaulted to 
backup in the first place... Suppose I should fix that one of these 
days...), and won't backup anything that looks like it contains 
"settings", including ini, reg, etc. In other words, they took what, in 
version 1-3, worked well, and hosed it, by making it do the same thing 
Windows Backup does, from your description. <--- bangs head on desk.

>> or it still assuming you have an external removable that is at least 
>> as big as the "entire" data space you are backing up, like they did 
>> before? I haven't bothered to check, since it was nearly useless back 
>> when all I had to backup to was CDs, and it wouldn't do CDs. lol)
> 
> They improved that. You can now ghost the drive (full or incremental), 
> or you can do incremental backups to compressed zip files, either onto 
> an external HD or CD/DVDs, with a very nice mechanism for doing full and 
> incremental restores as well.
> 


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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