Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The code needed to "react to" design mode flags in a window or other 
> object is well documented. The means by which to "turn on" design mode 
> for a window... 

I don't understand what you mean. The code to implement visual studio isn't 
documented? No, of course not.

What is it you think isn't documented? I think you think things work 
differently than they do. There's no "design mode" for a window. The VS IDE 
is using the design-mode properties to draw the widgets into the window.

It's like complaining that Firefox renders standard HTML, but doesn't 
document the HTML you need to edit a web page.

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
>   Not as right as Nintendo, though, as Wii is selling almost as much as
> Xbox 360 and PS3 combined...

Yes, to a completely different group of people.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

>> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged 
>> about the unused desktop icons? 
> 
> You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  
> It's only nagging if you can't read.

So why does it ask me once a month?

>> Who was it that thinks getting their PC infected with malware was a 
>> good idea?
> 
> Bugs aren't designed in.

Depends on what you think a "bug" is.

Windows is fundamentally based on the concept that only one person is 
using the PC. This is very much "designed in". They're trying to change 
that now to make the thing actually secure, but it's hard to alter one 
of the fundamental design assumptions of a large system without 
completely redesigning it.

> People think getting some small number infected with malware is 
> preferable to spending 30x as much for the software.

And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a 
mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But apparently 
that's just me...

When Linux goes wrong, it's annoying. But given that I spent £0 on it, 
you can just say "ah well, you get what you pay for". But when you pay 
vast amounts of money for something, you expect it to work.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged 
>>> about the unused desktop icons? 
>>
>> You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  

>> It's only nagging if you can't read.
> 
> So why does it ask me once a month?

I can only assume it's because you didn't turn it off. I got asked exactl
y once.

> Windows is fundamentally based on the concept that only one person is 
> using the PC.

Not really.  Maybe 15 years ago that was true, but not now.

>> People think getting some small number infected with malware is 
>> preferable to spending 30x as much for the software.
> 
> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a
 
> mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But apparently
 
> that's just me...

I dunno. Why are you getting virus infections? I've run for decades with 
no 
virus protection and I don't have problems. Actually, I've seen exactly o
ne 
  or maybe two machines with a virus on it in my career.  Heck, I've seen
 
more viruses on 8-bit machines than I've seen on Windows.

> When Linux goes wrong, it's annoying. But given that I spent £0 on
 it, 

No, you didn't pay $0 for it. You simply didn't pay *cash* for it. Most o
f 
the companies I worked for payed hundreds of thousands of dollars a year 
to 
the people keeping the Linux systems running.

-- 
   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

> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a 
> mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But apparently 
> that's just me...

It's just you who thinks that a desktop OS needs to have zero bugs to "work 
properly".  FOr controlling a plane of nuclear reactor, sure, but for a 
desktop OS? No way - nobody would be willing to pay for it.

Post a reply to this message

>>   Not as right as Nintendo, though, as Wii is selling almost as much as
>> Xbox 360 and PS3 combined...
> 
> Yes, to a completely different group of people.

That's the genius of it, see?

Post a reply to this message

>> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for 
>> a mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But 
>> apparently that's just me...
> 
> It's just you who thinks that a desktop OS needs to have zero bugs to 
> "work properly".  FOr controlling a plane of nuclear reactor, sure, but 
> for a desktop OS? No way - nobody would be willing to pay for it.

Why does everybody think it's expensive to design and test software 
properly? There's plenty of non-M$ software which works reliably enough 
to not cause a problem. (And let's face it, M$ isn't exactly short of 
cash...)

Post a reply to this message

>>>> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged 
>>>> about the unused desktop icons? 
>>>
>>> You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  
>>> It's only nagging if you can't read.
>>
>> So why does it ask me once a month?
> 
> I can only assume it's because you didn't turn it off. I got asked 
> exactly once.

On every PC I set up at work, it asks once, waits 30 seconds, asks 
again, and then goes away for a while. I don't know if it comes back 
after a month; I'm usually only there for the initial setup. But my PC 
had some does. (Interestingly, Vista seems to have fixed this bug...)

>> Windows is fundamentally based on the concept that only one person is 
>> using the PC.
> 
> Not really.  Maybe 15 years ago that was true, but not now.

Sure, they're slowly changing it. But it still does stuff like (for 
example) setting the first user as administrator so you can constantly 
run your PC in admin mode. But hey, piles and piles of old software 
fails to work unless you do this.

(To some extent I have sympathy with M$ here; before networks existed, 
"security" was a non-issue. If you want your computer to be secure, put 
it in a locked room. So the original insecure designs were appropriate. 
But now M$ can't really break backwards compatibility too horribly, 
which does somewhat limit what they can do with security - even if it is 
debatable how much they actually care...)

>>> People think getting some small number infected with malware is 
>>> preferable to spending 30x as much for the software.
>>
>> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for 
>> a mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But 
>> apparently that's just me...
> 
> I dunno. Why are you getting virus infections?

I'm not, but other people certainly are.

> Heck, I've seen more viruses on 8-bit machines than I've seen on Windows.

Interestingly, I've never seen a virus on an 8-bit machine. But then, 
I've seen few on Windows machines, to be honest. (In particular, I've 
never seen any of the Word macro viruses rumoured to exist.)

>> When Linux goes wrong, it's annoying. But given that I spent £0 on it, 
> 
> No, you didn't pay $0 for it. You simply didn't pay *cash* for it. Most 
> of the companies I worked for payed hundreds of thousands of dollars a 
> year to the people keeping the Linux systems running.

Sure, if you want to use it for serious work, it's going to cost you 
something. It always does. My actual *point* is that when something 
cheap breaks, it's annoying, but when something astronomically expensive 
breaks... it makes me very frustrated, to say the least.

Post a reply to this message

> Why does everybody think it's expensive to design and test software 
> properly?

Umm, because if MS spent another 6 months designing certain parts of Windows 
better and testing it more thoroughly, that would cost 6 months of salaries 
(plus all the other costs to run those departments) and also 6 months of 
lost sales.  In short, they have to decide when to release the product for 
maximum profit, and it will always be before they've fixed all bugs.

> There's plenty of non-M$ software which works reliably enough to not cause 
> a problem.

Sure, there's also apples that taste different to pears.

> (And let's face it, M$ isn't exactly short of cash...)

Did you ever stop to think that if they designed and tested more thoroughly 
they might have *less* cash?  I'm sure MS has already stopped and though 
about exactly this, and TBH I think they are in a much better position to 
decide how much (re)design and testing to do than you are.

Post a reply to this message

>> Why does everybody think it's expensive to design and test software 
>> properly?
> 
> Umm, because if MS spent another 6 months designing certain parts of 
> Windows better and testing it more thoroughly, that would cost 6 months 
> of salaries (plus all the other costs to run those departments) and also 
> 6 months of lost sales.  In short, they have to decide when to release 
> the product for maximum profit, and it will always be before they've 
> fixed all bugs.

Well, sure, it's almost impossible to make completely bug-free software. 
You could sit forever removing bugs, but as you say, eventually you have 
to release a product.

My problem is this: M$ doesn't even bother *trying* to produce 
high-quality software. They just release the most bug-ridden lump of 
junk they think they can possibly get away with. Their whole business 
model is about chucking out software as cheaply as possible, and then 
charging vast sums of money for it as if it were some premium-grade product.

I dislike people charging a fortune for crap. I have no problem with 
people charging lots of money for a product that's actually *good*, but 
I resent being charged a fortune for crap. (Hell, I don't even mind so 
much when cheap stuff breaks - it was cheap, after all...)

>> There's plenty of non-M$ software which works reliably enough to not 
>> cause a problem.
> 
> Sure, there's also apples that taste different to pears.

Yeah, that's true. I mean, it's not like OpenOffice Writer is anything 
like Microsoft Word. Not like they do the exact same function and even 
read the precise same file format. And hey, what Writer does it way 
easier, because it runs on multiple platforms, not just one, right?

> Did you ever stop to think that if they designed and tested more 
> thoroughly they might have *less* cash?  I'm sure MS has already stopped 
> and though about exactly this, and TBH I think they are in a much better 
> position to decide how much (re)design and testing to do than you are.

Except that they're not interested in how to make a better product. 
They're interested in how to screw the customer out of more money for 
the least possible effort. They're parasites.

As if that wasn't bad enough, then they try to claim that they're these 
visionary leaders of innovation and technical advancement, when they 
can't even produce a word processor that works properly - something that 
existed decades ago...

Post a reply to this message