 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There are a few things that Windows won't let you do, that I wish it
would let you do. For example:
- Allow Administrators to pretend to be another user, without having to
know that user's password.
There are times when, in order to configure something, you have to log
in under the user's account before you can configure it. It would be
*so* much easier for everyone if the user didn't have to hang around so
they can enter their password for you 18 times while you try to get
their PC working. Of course, you can reset their password yourself - but
then you can't set it back to what it was (due to password recycling
restrictions).
- Allow Administrators to unlock a workstation without destroying all of
the user's unsaved work. (IOW, without terminating all the stuff they
have running.)
- Log security events in a meaningful way.
Do you know what
Object Access Attempt:
Object Server:Security
Handle ID:144
Object Type:File
Process ID:3156
Image File Name:C:\WINDOWS\system32\notepad.exe
Accesses:WriteData
Access Mask:0x6
means? I certainly don't.
But then, this isn't human-readable data. This is simply a raw dump of
the low-level internal data structures that Windows itself uses to
manage object access. Something human-readable would be far more useful.
As it is, all over the company we have event logs full of gibberish like
this that nobody can understand. We might as well not bother logging it...
- The ability to monitor CPU, HD and NIC activity from the notification
area would be useful. (It's useful for determining whether the computer
is actually "doing anything", and if it is, what it's waiting around
for.) Actually, I'm still hoping that one day somebody will design a
case with the NIC activity light on the front rather than the back. And
seperate indicator lights for each HD...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> There are a few things that Windows won't let you do, that I wish it
> would let you do. For example:
>
> - Allow Administrators to pretend to be another user, without having to
> know that user's password.
>
> There are times when, in order to configure something, you have to log
> in under the user's account before you can configure it. It would be
> *so* much easier for everyone if the user didn't have to hang around so
> they can enter their password for you 18 times while you try to get
> their PC working. Of course, you can reset their password yourself - but
> then you can't set it back to what it was (due to password recycling
> restrictions).
>
> - Allow Administrators to unlock a workstation without destroying all of
> the user's unsaved work. (IOW, without terminating all the stuff they
> have running.)
>
> - Log security events in a meaningful way.
>
> Do you know what
>
> Object Access Attempt:
> Object Server:Security
> Handle ID:144
> Object Type:File
> Process ID:3156
> Image File Name:C:\WINDOWS\system32\notepad.exe
> Accesses:WriteData
> Access Mask:0x6
>
> means? I certainly don't.
>
> But then, this isn't human-readable data. This is simply a raw dump of
> the low-level internal data structures that Windows itself uses to
> manage object access. Something human-readable would be far more useful.
> As it is, all over the company we have event logs full of gibberish like
> this that nobody can understand. We might as well not bother logging it...
Looks like someone was trying to overwrite notepad. I'd be suspicious.
Most people don't overwrite notepad. Wonder what process 3156 was..
> - The ability to monitor CPU, HD and NIC activity from the notification
> area would be useful. (It's useful for determining whether the computer
> is actually "doing anything", and if it is, what it's waiting around
> for.) Actually, I'm still hoping that one day somebody will design a
> case with the NIC activity light on the front rather than the back. And
> seperate indicator lights for each HD...
I think sysinternals has a utility like this..
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896646.aspx
Just open task manager for a CPU monitor. NIC, I dunno.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - Log security events in a meaningful way.
>>
>> Do you know what
>>
>> Object Access Attempt:
>> Object Server:Security
>> Handle ID:144
>> Object Type:File
>> Process ID:3156
>> Image File Name:C:\WINDOWS\system32\notepad.exe
>> Accesses:WriteData
>> Access Mask:0x6
>>
>> means? I certainly don't.
>
> Looks like someone was trying to overwrite notepad. I'd be suspicious.
> Most people don't overwrite notepad. Wonder what process 3156 was..
I think it means that process 3156 *was* NOTEPAD.EXE - but I have no
idea what it was trying to overwrite...
>> - The ability to monitor CPU, HD and NIC activity from the
>> notification area would be useful.
>
> I think sysinternals has a utility like this..
>
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896646.aspx
>
> Just open task manager for a CPU monitor. NIC, I dunno.
SysInternals has Process Explorer, which gives you a nice scrolling CPU
graph (and now also I/O). Task Manager gives you current CPU usage, but
PE gives you a scrolling graph, and seperates user-time and kernel-time
with colours. Unfortunately, the I/O graph is wildly inaccurate (as in,
it doesn't appear strongly correlated with the HD activity light on the
front of the PC).
Windows XP (and later?) have a feature where you can put a little NIC
icon in the tray, and it flashes when you access the network. Not
terribly accurate though. Task Manager shows you a better graph, but
only when you have it open on that page. There's nothing in the tray.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - Allow Administrators to pretend to be another user, without having to
> know that user's password.
Sure. We all wish security would let administrators make changes to the
system they could blame on other users. :-)
> There are times when, in order to configure something, you have to log
> in under the user's account before you can configure it.
Not really. That's the easiest way to do it, but it isn't necessary.
Everything about the user is stored in the file system, so...
If you knew how to work it, you could do it. Do you think people at
Microsoft or American Express hang around to enter their passwords while the
sysadmin fixes things?
> - Allow Administrators to unlock a workstation without destroying all of
> the user's unsaved work. (IOW, without terminating all the stuff they
> have running.)
Wouldn't be much of a lock, would it?
> - Log security events in a meaningful way.
> Do you know what
>
> Object Access Attempt:
> Object Server:Security
> Handle ID:144
> Object Type:File
> Process ID:3156
> Image File Name:C:\WINDOWS\system32\notepad.exe
> Accesses:WriteData
> Access Mask:0x6
>
> means? I certainly don't.
You didn't provide the actual interesting information, which is the Event ID.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/support/ee/ee_advanced.aspx
> But then, this isn't human-readable data. This is simply a raw dump of
> the low-level internal data structures that Windows itself uses to
> manage object access.
Not really. It's the codes the OS passed to be recorded in the event logs.
> As it is, all over the company we have event logs full of gibberish like
> this that nobody can understand. We might as well not bother logging it...
Or, alternately, you could learn what the codes mean.
> - The ability to monitor CPU, HD and NIC activity from the notification
> area would be useful.
CPU and NIC activity monitors come with Windows, if you're just interested
in a approximate "is it doing anything". Task manager will iconify to a CPU
activity barchart in the notification area, and there's a checkbox on the
network connection configuration front page that says to show the icon even
when you have good connectivity, and that icon will animate.
Your HD light on the front should work. :-) If not, google for "hd activity
systray" or something.
Vista has sidebar gadgets for nic and HD activity like you want. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Task Manager gives you current CPU usage, but
> PE gives you a scrolling graph, and seperates user-time and kernel-time
> with colours.
So does Task Manager. Go to the "performance" tab, turn on "show kernel
times", and you have a scrolling graph with separate times. :-) Not in the
tray, mind.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - Allow Administrators to pretend to be another user, without having
>> to know that user's password.
>
> Sure. We all wish security would let administrators make changes to the
> system they could blame on other users. :-)
Newsflash: If your administrators can't be trusted, you have A Big Problem.
>> There are times when, in order to configure something, you have to log
>> in under the user's account before you can configure it.
>
> Not really. That's the easiest way to do it, but it isn't necessary.
> Everything about the user is stored in the file system, so...
Yeah, sure, because it's really easy to figure out how every random
screwed up app designed for Windows 95 is using the filesystem to store
its stuff, right?
> If you knew how to work it, you could do it. Do you think people at
> Microsoft or American Express hang around to enter their passwords while
> the sysadmin fixes things?
Presumably they don't use obscure, badly designed software...
>> - Allow Administrators to unlock a workstation without destroying all
>> of the user's unsaved work. (IOW, without terminating all the stuff
>> they have running.)
>
> Wouldn't be much of a lock, would it?
Why? Because one person in the building can unlock it? (Note that the
administrator can *already* unlock it - as can anybody else by using the
on/off switch, come to think of it.) It would just be nice if somebody
goes home and forgets to save their work if I didn't have to destroy all
that work.
> You didn't provide the actual interesting information, which is the
> Event ID.
Yes, but you get my *point*. Turn on auditing, perform a few trivial
actions, watch your event log fill with many megabytes of data that
nobody knows what it means.
> Or, alternately, you could learn what the codes mean.
As far as I can tell, M$ hasn't actually documented many of them yet.
(Although a number of other sites have - but you're never sure the info
is correct.)
> CPU and NIC activity monitors come with Windows, if you're just
> interested in a approximate "is it doing anything". Task manager will
> iconify to a CPU activity barchart in the notification area
Yeah, I found that one. Process Explorer does it nicer tho. ;-)
> and there's
> a checkbox on the network connection configuration front page that says
> to show the icon even when you have good connectivity, and that icon
> will animate.
This is one of the many, many alterations I make every time I set up a
Windows box.
> Your HD light on the front should work. :-) If not, google for "hd
> activity systray" or something.
Not much help if you're accessing the machine remotely. System Internals
have a couple of tools that are supposed to do it, but they seem to not
be very accurate. (E.g., the HD light is flashing away, yet PE shows no
I/O activity.)
> Vista has sidebar gadgets for nic and HD activity like you want. :-)
I hope I never end up having to use Vista.
Actually, I used to say that about XP. Let me rephrase: I hope I never
have to use Vista before they're finished fixing it. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Newsflash: If your administrators can't be trusted, you have A Big Problem.
Not true. It's certainly easier to trust your administrators. But being able
to audit the administrators is probably a good idea.
>> Not really. That's the easiest way to do it, but it isn't necessary.
>> Everything about the user is stored in the file system, so...
>
> Yeah, sure, because it's really easy to figure out how every random
> screwed up app designed for Windows 95 is using the filesystem to store
> its stuff, right?
I didn't say it was easier. I said it was possible. If it's actually enough
of a problem, you'll buy a new program that works with remote management
technologies, or you'll hire someone to figure out where stuff is stored.
>> If you knew how to work it, you could do it. Do you think people at
>> Microsoft or American Express hang around to enter their passwords
>> while the sysadmin fixes things?
>
> Presumably they don't use obscure, badly designed software...
Or they hire someone to work out what they need to do to fix things.
>>> - Allow Administrators to unlock a workstation without destroying all
>>> of the user's unsaved work. (IOW, without terminating all the stuff
>>> they have running.)
>>
>> Wouldn't be much of a lock, would it?
>
> Why? Because one person in the building can unlock it? (Note that the
> administrator can *already* unlock it - as can anybody else by using the
> on/off switch, come to think of it.)
No. They can't unlock the programs running on the machine under another user
ID. They can only unlock the entire machine.
> It would just be nice if somebody
> goes home and forgets to save their work if I didn't have to destroy all
> that work.
Why would you log them out? Let it run. Open a new session if someone else
needs to use the same console.
>> You didn't provide the actual interesting information, which is the
>> Event ID.
>
> Yes, but you get my *point*. Turn on auditing, perform a few trivial
> actions, watch your event log fill with many megabytes of data that
> nobody knows what it means.
Because *you* don't know what it means doesn't mean *nobody* knows what it
means.
> As far as I can tell, M$ hasn't actually documented many of them yet.
As far as you could tell, MS didn't document what programs you get when you
buy Office Home. That isn't saying much. ;-)
> (E.g., the HD light is flashing away, yet PE shows no
> I/O activity.)
NTFS slowly commits the log out to the disk. If you do something big, it
might take 20 or 30 seconds to finish in the background after it has already
been committed. Try running "sync", and then see if it still happens.
> Actually, I used to say that about XP. Let me rephrase: I hope I never
> have to use Vista before they're finished fixing it. ;-)
Dunno. Works great for me. You seem to have bad luck, tho, so... Wait for
Win7SP1. ;-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> - Allow Administrators to pretend to be another user, without having
>> to know that user's password.
>
> Sure. We all wish security would let administrators make changes to the
> system they could blame on other users. :-)
>
>> There are times when, in order to configure something, you have to log
>> in under the user's account before you can configure it.
>
> Not really. That's the easiest way to do it, but it isn't necessary.
> Everything about the user is stored in the file system, so...
>
> If you knew how to work it, you could do it. Do you think people at
> Microsoft or American Express hang around to enter their passwords while
> the sysadmin fixes things?
>
>> - Allow Administrators to unlock a workstation without destroying all
>> of the user's unsaved work. (IOW, without terminating all the stuff
>> they have running.)
>
> Wouldn't be much of a lock, would it?
>
>> - Log security events in a meaningful way.
>> Do you know what
>>
>> Object Access Attempt:
>> Object Server:Security
>> Handle ID:144
>> Object Type:File
>> Process ID:3156
>> Image File Name:C:\WINDOWS\system32\notepad.exe
>> Accesses:WriteData
>> Access Mask:0x6
>>
>> means? I certainly don't.
>
> You didn't provide the actual interesting information, which is the
> Event ID.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/support/ee/ee_advanced.aspx
>
>> But then, this isn't human-readable data. This is simply a raw dump of
>> the low-level internal data structures that Windows itself uses to
>> manage object access.
>
> Not really. It's the codes the OS passed to be recorded in the event logs.
>
>> As it is, all over the company we have event logs full of gibberish
>> like this that nobody can understand. We might as well not bother
>> logging it...
>
> Or, alternately, you could learn what the codes mean.
>
Because.. Providing administrators with... I don't know, something that
could tell them, so they don't have to look it up, or memorize 4,000
codes, would just what? Make too much sense? 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:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Newsflash: If your administrators can't be trusted, you have A Big
>> Problem.
>
> Not true. It's certainly easier to trust your administrators. But being
> able to audit the administrators is probably a good idea.
>
>>> Not really. That's the easiest way to do it, but it isn't necessary.
>>> Everything about the user is stored in the file system, so...
>>
>> Yeah, sure, because it's really easy to figure out how every random
>> screwed up app designed for Windows 95 is using the filesystem to
>> store its stuff, right?
>
> I didn't say it was easier. I said it was possible. If it's actually
> enough of a problem, you'll buy a new program that works with remote
> management technologies, or you'll hire someone to figure out where
> stuff is stored.
>
>>> If you knew how to work it, you could do it. Do you think people at
>>> Microsoft or American Express hang around to enter their passwords
>>> while the sysadmin fixes things?
>>
>> Presumably they don't use obscure, badly designed software...
>
> Or they hire someone to work out what they need to do to fix things.
>
>>>> - Allow Administrators to unlock a workstation without destroying
>>>> all of the user's unsaved work. (IOW, without terminating all the
>>>> stuff they have running.)
>>>
>>> Wouldn't be much of a lock, would it?
>>
>> Why? Because one person in the building can unlock it? (Note that the
>> administrator can *already* unlock it - as can anybody else by using
>> the on/off switch, come to think of it.)
>
> No. They can't unlock the programs running on the machine under another
> user ID. They can only unlock the entire machine.
>
>> It would just be nice if somebody goes home and forgets to save their
>> work if I didn't have to destroy all that work.
>
> Why would you log them out? Let it run. Open a new session if someone
> else needs to use the same console.
>
>>> You didn't provide the actual interesting information, which is the
>>> Event ID.
>>
>> Yes, but you get my *point*. Turn on auditing, perform a few trivial
>> actions, watch your event log fill with many megabytes of data that
>> nobody knows what it means.
>
> Because *you* don't know what it means doesn't mean *nobody* knows what
> it means.
>
Snort. Been in this situation a few times. Go to MS site, either not
find anything on it at all, or find something so moronically unhelpful
that you might as well as asked the family dog, "Bark, bark!". "Well,
you are real helpful, I already knew it was application X that crashed,
I want to know fracking *why*!" lol Seriously, again, why not something
that at least told you want the codes "mean" in some usable way, as one
of the available tools?
--
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:
> that at least told you want the codes "mean" in some usable way, as one
> of the available tools?
Did you try putting the code into the link I offered? You know, the one with
the drop-down box letting you specify the program, the code, the sub-code,
and it spits back an explanation?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> As far as I can tell, M$ hasn't actually documented many of them yet.
http://learning.microsoft.com/Manager/Catalog.aspx?clang=en-US&dtype=Table&Sort=PublicationDateDescending&page=1&cats={2b4bc3f6-ff30-4b97-9188-b4f919a7f6f8}%3a{43456be0-e861-40a0-b351-0a4070381ad1}%3a{2d583e34-2bcf-4ed8-bfbb-34bb1612f8d4}
--
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:
> Because.. Providing administrators with... I don't know, something that
> could tell them, so they don't have to look it up,
Providing administrators with something that would tell them what the event
codes mean without having to look up what the event codes mean? What?
How about a web site that lets you look up what event codes mean which?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> How about a web site that lets you look up what event codes mean which?
>
That's great when you have internet on hand. If you're "out on the
field", it possibly ain't that great anymore.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> that at least told you want the codes "mean" in some usable way, as
>> one of the available tools?
>
> Did you try putting the code into the link I offered? You know, the one
> with the drop-down box letting you specify the program, the code, the
> sub-code, and it spits back an explanation?
>
Would be "so" useful if... I don't know, I was some place where there
wasn't any internet, or FSM forbid, the "bug" caused loss of access to
that, now wouldn't it. MS' recent foray into "cloud computing" stuff
makes me laugh for do to that. ISP can't keep me live reliably 100% of
the time (and I really doubt anyone else is *guaranteed* service either,
but I am supposed to rely on someone else's servers to "run"
applications I need... Might as well got back to horse and buggy and
"rent" someone else's horses to pull you around, while hoping the local
farm's pasture fence doesn't break 5 minutes before I need to go some
place, letting all the horses escape...
Web pages like that are worthless, if you can't get to them. Its the
same reason that, despite pages of documentation on the Windows API,
people thought writing API-Guide was a good idea. Looking something up
"locally", on software you actually have installed "works", unless its
the software that is broken. Looking it up on a web page you have at
least 5-6 points of failure on "your" end, plus another 5+, to as much,
in the worst case, of possibly a total of 30, or more, points of
failure, to get to that web page. Just plain logic demands that its
"not" as good as having something "in hand".
--
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:
> Would be "so" useful if... I don't know, I was some place where there
> wasn't any internet, or FSM forbid, the "bug" caused loss of access to
> that, now wouldn't it.
I'm not real sure what you expect, then. Go buy the book that lists all the
codes, maybe? How many of them do you think you're going to look up?
> Just plain logic demands that its
> "not" as good as having something "in hand".
And if this really is a frequent problem for you, you go buy the book. Be
forewarned: it's pretty friggin big. Do you really need a complete list of
every event ever logged by any piece of hundreds of megabytes of code?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Would be "so" useful if... I don't know, I was some place where there
>> wasn't any internet, or FSM forbid, the "bug" caused loss of access to
>> that, now wouldn't it.
>
> I'm not real sure what you expect, then. Go buy the book that lists all
> the codes, maybe? How many of them do you think you're going to look up?
>
>> Just plain logic demands that its "not" as good as having something
>> "in hand".
>
> And if this really is a frequent problem for you, you go buy the book.
> Be forewarned: it's pretty friggin big. Do you really need a complete
> list of every event ever logged by any piece of hundreds of megabytes of
> code?
>
Sigh.. Software, not a web page. Yes, software is easier, but web pages
are only convenient "if" you can get to them. That is the point. As for
books.. Gah.. Same situation as with API-Guide. I own most of the books
covering the stuff in that program, and its "easier" to find the stuff
in API-Guide, not to mention that the "examples" in it tend to be far
more helpful than the, sometimes, too lean and incomplete ones in the
book. Favorite has got to the the "assumption" that every one of them
has that you are a) using VC, not anything else, and you "don't need to
know" what a flag value is, since you can just plug in the .h file for
it, the reference the name in your code. Yep, that works "so" well, if
you are trying to access the API via VB, or worse, a Lua wrapper. lol
Too much to have something "someplace" in one of their dozens of books
that listed the actual flags and what their "values" are? Apparently...
:p After all, its makes so much more sense to buy a $600 compiler you
don't need, than a $50 book you "do". ;)
--
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:
> Sigh.. Software, not a web page.
Then get the software.
> know" what a flag value is, since you can just plug in the .h file for
> it, the reference the name in your code.
Or, you know, look up the name in the .h file.
All your complaints along this line come across as whining to me, for some
reason. Like "boo hoo, Microsoft doesn't make my job trivially easy for
free." Maybe it's just a conflict between your style and mine, but that's
why my answers probably sound obnoxious to you too. :-)
> Too much to have something "someplace" in one of their dozens of books
> that listed the actual flags and what their "values" are? Apparently...
No. You probably get such a listing when you go to the class that teaches
you how to manage machines using the codes.
> :p After all, its makes so much more sense to buy a $600 compiler you
> don't need, than a $50 book you "do". ;)
The compiler's free.
--
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:
> Sigh.. Software, not a web page.
BTW, *is* this actually a problem for you? Or are you just making up
problems so you can complain that you don't know how to solve them? Have you
ever actually any time in your life needed to know what an event log entry
meant in order to solve a problem, when it would be difficult to look it up
online?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sigh.. Software, not a web page.
>
> Then get the software.
>
>> know" what a flag value is, since you can just plug in the .h file for
>> it, the reference the name in your code.
>
> Or, you know, look up the name in the .h file.
>
Which you can't do ***if you don't have the compiler***. Think you
missed that. Most language MS puts out "do not include" the .h files
that only work with VC++/VC# anyway, so if you don't buy "both", you
don't have any way to "look up" the value.
> All your complaints along this line come across as whining to me, for
> some reason. Like "boo hoo, Microsoft doesn't make my job trivially easy
> for free." Maybe it's just a conflict between your style and mine, but
> that's why my answers probably sound obnoxious to you too. :-)
>
No, its called saving money. I hate spending stupid amounts of money for
books, which don't include the data I need, then spending a mess of time
hunting their pages, only to find the "same" references in the books,
and messes of C++/C# code as the "only" examples, then hunting google,
to find that there isn't anything on the specific function I am trying
to use, which isn't "also" in the C++/C#, etc. All leading to the
conclusion that the only way to "find" the information is by buying
which ever version of the VC++/VC# system **actually** included the
particular .h that you need. And, if its an older API call, you might
need the "developer" version.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent, in some cases, of telling
someone, "Well, is real simple. If you can't figure out how such and
such object is defined in an AutoCAD file, just spend thousands on a
copy of AutoCAD, and read "its" documentation on the subject. So, if its
your "style" to go out and buy everything they want you to, simply
because its the easiest way to get at the information, then hell yes our
"styles" differ. ;) lol
>> Too much to have something "someplace" in one of their dozens of books
>> that listed the actual flags and what their "values" are? Apparently...
>
> No. You probably get such a listing when you go to the class that
> teaches you how to manage machines using the codes.
>
Right.. Throw more money at it. lol But, true.. I do have an "ancient"
version of VC++ that "almost" would have helped me. Sadly, it was like
3.0, and the feature was introduced in 4.0/5.0, and by the time I
realized I needed it, you couldn't "find" 6.0 any place, which was the
last one you could "get" the libraries in, without going for the full
"developer" version.
But, point is, in contrast, years back I bought books on the Apple IIgs
API, when had one. It "included" the flag values in the examples, and
had entire tables at the end, which included them, as part of the books
on each API. The MS books.. are just a compilation of functions, often
with little or no examples, and "nothing" to tell you what any of the
flags actually where, just their names. Got to be the most frustrating
documentation I have ever seen. Hell, I am not sure they even tell you
what "TRUE" and "FALSE" are, never mind that they can be 2-3 different
definitions, depending on the language used, which would rather imply
that "maybe" knowing the name, or thinking you do, isn't "always" the
same as knowing the correct value. ;)
>> :p After all, its makes so much more sense to buy a $600 compiler you
>> don't need, than a $50 book you "do". ;)
>
> The compiler's free.
>
Umm. Only if you want to use the "latest" APIs. If, for some reason, you
are trying to update, modify, understand, or just "code for" an older
pre-.NET API, then "no it isn't". You still have to buy the full
"developer" version. I know. I tried that path on one project I was
attempting a while back. If it was free, it wouldn't require you to buy
a higher level version, to get "backward compatible" library
definitions. Just saying. ;)
--
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:
>> Sigh.. Software, not a web page.
>
> BTW, *is* this actually a problem for you? Or are you just making up
> problems so you can complain that you don't know how to solve them? Have
> you ever actually any time in your life needed to know what an event log
> entry meant in order to solve a problem, when it would be difficult to
> look it up online?
>
Is it now? No. Its **was**. Less than a year ago I had dialup, and
having to hunt pages for stuff, some of which could time out on the
connection, all which took forever to load, and which I "sometimes"
didn't have access to, wasn't fun at all. And, as others have pointed
out, its "not" always as simple as "does your home computer have
internet access?". Some times its someone else's machine some place,
where you don't.
--
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:
> Which you can't do ***if you don't have the compiler***.
Yes you can. It's in the Windows SDK, which is a free download. You don't
need *any* compiler to look up the values.
> conclusion that the only way to "find" the information is by buying
> which ever version of the VC++/VC# system **actually** included the
> particular .h that you need. And, if its an older API call, you might
> need the "developer" version.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=E6E1C3DF-A74F-4207-8586-711EBE331CDC&displaylang=en
http://www.microsoft.com/express/product/default.aspx
Viola! Free compiling, libraries, and examples!
> Right.. Throw more money at it. lol
It's your job. Your employer should be throwing money at it.
> But, point is, in contrast, years back I bought books on the Apple IIgs
> API, when had one. It "included" the flag values in the examples, and
> had entire tables at the end, which included them, as part of the books
> on each API.
I don't know what to say. I never had any sort of problem like you're
talking about.
>>> :p After all, its makes so much more sense to buy a $600 compiler you
>>> don't need, than a $50 book you "do". ;)
>>
>> The compiler's free.
>>
> Umm. Only if you want to use the "latest" APIs. If, for some reason, you
> are trying to update, modify, understand, or just "code for" an older
> pre-.NET API, then "no it isn't". You still have to buy the full
> "developer" version.
Welcome to commercial software development. Hold on to the old versions of
your software.
> I know. I tried that path on one project I was
> attempting a while back. If it was free, it wouldn't require you to buy
> a higher level version, to get "backward compatible" library
> definitions. Just saying. ;)
So, your primary complaint is that a commercial software company only gives
away for free their latest supported version of software, and that if you
don't have an old version, you have to pay them $50 or $100 to get it?
--
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:
> Is it now? No. Its **was**. Less than a year ago I had dialup, and
> having to hunt pages for stuff, some of which could time out on the
I think we're all aware that using web apps with crappy connectivity is
annoying. I'm asking whether you ever had to look up event log ID codes when
you didn't have connectivity? And, had you, would it have actually helped
you solve the problem?
Just curious.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> Right.. Throw more money at it. lol
>
> It's your job. Your employer should be throwing money at it.
>
Umm. Actually, no it isn't. If I had a job that involved "coding", I
wouldn't have as many problems getting the information I need. I am one
of the poor unfortunates that has to pay for this stuff with "my own
money", and doesn't make $15+/hr, or what ever the going rate is. It...
kind of puts a cramp into "solving" little issues like getting software
you need. ;)
--
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:
>> Is it now? No. Its **was**. Less than a year ago I had dialup, and
>> having to hunt pages for stuff, some of which could time out on the
>
> I think we're all aware that using web apps with crappy connectivity is
> annoying. I'm asking whether you ever had to look up event log ID codes
> when you didn't have connectivity? And, had you, would it have actually
> helped you solve the problem?
>
> Just curious.
>
These specific ones, probably not. But, I would have loved to have some
sort of "sane" explanations for error codes back in Win 98, when
something blue screened do to a DLL getting hosed, or other glitches,
which is a similar situation. Reinstalling really isn't a "fix" for that
stuff, since usually such a reinstall involves either replacing "all"
files, then having to repatch, hoping the same problem doesn't come up,
which was a nightmare with dialup, or replacing a single file **if** you
knew which one, thus possibly introducing an incompatibility, which
would cause a new BSD.
Yeah. Less of a problem now, but I still wish some times that the error
codes you get from their software was a bit clearer, or that even if you
know what the code means, it wasn't so much like modern car mechanics,
where you know the "general" area of the engine that broke, but its not
always clear *which* of three parts are involved, or even if its not
just a sensor glitch, and all of them are OK. lol
Just because I don't have the problem now doesn't mean I a) won't, or b)
haven't in the past, and that there are no reasons to distrust a
internet "dependent" solution to these sorts of things.
--
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:
> These specific ones, probably not. But, I would have loved to have some
> sort of "sane" explanations for error codes back in Win 98, when
> something blue screened do to a DLL getting hosed, or other glitches,
> which is a similar situation.
Not too similar. In the event logs, the program is running correctly and as
expected, and it inserts information about its progress into the log. In the
BSOD, something has crashed and nobody is really sure what or why, so
generating a meaningful message above the level of the machine's state isn't
really possible.
For example, I worked on a machine once where the OS didn't use any floating
point instructions. If it got a floating point exception while in kernel
mode, all it could do was dump memory and reboot. There wasn't any
reasonable diagnostic beyond "this can't happen." If it happens, there's
some other assumption far away that was violated to cause it.
> Yeah. Less of a problem now, but I still wish some times that the error
> codes you get from their software was a bit clearer, or that even if you
> know what the code means, it wasn't so much like modern car mechanics,
> where you know the "general" area of the engine that broke, but its not
> always clear *which* of three parts are involved, or even if its not
> just a sensor glitch, and all of them are OK. lol
When it breaks, it's not always obvious to the programmer why it broke, so
giving a meaningful error message isn't always possible. If the programmer
knew why it broke, they'd have fixed the problem instead of giving an error
message.
Log entries aren't error messages. They're success messages. If success is
what you're expecting, you don't need to look at the log records.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> When it breaks, it's not always obvious to the programmer why it broke,
> so giving a meaningful error message isn't always possible. If the
> programmer knew why it broke, they'd have fixed the problem instead of
> giving an error message.
>
True, but, too often they don't provide the program with a clear clue
what to do when something goes wrong that "should be" a possible problem
either. :p Computer teacher in high school and the ones in college
"both" said, "Its not enough to assume the data going in is right, so
make sure if its wrong, the program can do something 'rational' with it,
if it is wrong, like generating an error report." ;)
> Log entries aren't error messages. They're success messages. If success
> is what you're expecting, you don't need to look at the log records.
>
Almost like one game on the old Apple IIs, if you hit some combination
of control keys it would generate a message, "Congratulations, you find
a bug we didn't expect." lol It didn't crash, but the result made us
laugh our asses off.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
