That wasn't very coherent, was it?

After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up and 
going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box saying "This 
is going to take about an hour to install what you just downloaded. Are you 
sure you want to start it?"

F'ing A, Microsoft! That's why I filled out your form and agreed to the 
license! WTF, just gooooo!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/23/09 22:33, Darren New wrote:
> That wasn't very coherent, was it?
>
> After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up
> and going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box
> saying "This is going to take about an hour to install what you just
> downloaded. Are you sure you want to start it?"
>
> F'ing A, Microsoft! That's why I filled out your form and agreed to the
> license! WTF, just gooooo!

	You're not seriously complaining, are you? In most cases, I would want 
it to prompt me before it installed.


-- 
Thesaurus: prehistoric reptile with a great vocabulary.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     You're not seriously complaining, are you? In most cases, I would 
> want it to prompt me before it installed.

I'm seriously complaining that they'd ask you to agree to install it, then 
do a 45-minute download, then *stop* and ask you if you're really sure you 
wanted to install it.  I mean, damn guys, make it so I can walk away if it's 
going to be an hour of disk thrashing.  It would have finished before I got 
back, except it stopped to ask if I really wanted to do what I already 
agreed to.

Fortunately, it isn't urgent, so I'll just go and install it before I go to 
bed. Assuming, of course, that it doesn't stop in the MIDDLE to ask me 
something. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a692b8b$1@news.povray.org...
> That wasn't very coherent, was it?
>
> After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up
and
> going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box saying
"This
> is going to take about an hour to install what you just downloaded. Are
you
> sure you want to start it?"
>
> F'ing A, Microsoft! That's why I filled out your form and agreed to the
> license! WTF, just gooooo!

I feel your pain. On the other hand, you didn't start a large download, go
back to typing code, have the file move dialog pop up on you and steal focus
after the download finished with the cancel button highlighted, at which
time you happened to be pressing enter. Granted, the temporary internet
files comes to the rescue, but one has to wonder 1) why downloads aren't
saved to the place you instructed in the first place 2) if whoever came up
with the idea of a popups that steal focus with default buttons is aware
that it's not DOS anymore and people do multitask 3) Even though previous
snafu was fixed more recently, why, in this day and age, program(mer)s
mostly still play dumb and apply the same logic to 3 bytes of data as they
do to 3GB and progress bars and time estimators are next to useless?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I feel your pain. On the other hand, you didn't start a large download, go
> back to typing code, have the file move dialog pop up on you and steal focus
> after the download finished with the cancel button highlighted, at which
> time you happened to be pressing enter.

That happens often enough I don't even argh over it any more. I have no idea 
why Vista decided to turn off focus-stealing-prevention. That was 
*wonderful*. :-)

> files comes to the rescue, but one has to wonder 1) why downloads aren't
> saved to the place you instructed in the first place 

Because then they wouldn't be cached. Remember that IE isn't the only piece 
of code that uses that cache. The program doing the downloads have no idea 
where you "told it to save the file". It's downloading a URL, not 
manipulating files. Maybe it's a java applet you're going to reload every 
time you open the home page, or a font you use in all your documents.

Granted, it could be better, but firefox doesn't have to deal with being 
someone else's library.

> 2) if whoever came up
> with the idea of a popups that steal focus with default buttons is aware
> that it's not DOS anymore and people do multitask 

Pop-ups should never steal focus. XP got that 99% right. Vista seems to 
steal focus always, unless you want it to.

> 3) Even though previous
> snafu was fixed more recently, why, in this day and age, program(mer)s
> mostly still play dumb and apply the same logic to 3 bytes of data as they
> do to 3GB and progress bars and time estimators are next to useless?

That too. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

> After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up 
> and going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box saying 
> "This is going to take about an hour to install what you just downloaded. 
> Are you sure you want to start it?"

Hehe, I was copying over about 80GB of data to an external harddrive, I 
watched it for about 5 minutes while it was "discovering files" or some such 
until it said 2 hours 53 remaining or whatever.  I came back a few hours 
later and there was a "Do you want to copy this file without it's 
properties?" dialog box and it had hardly started the copying!  Is it too 
hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is waiting for 
you to answer a question about one file?

Post a reply to this message

> I feel your pain. On the other hand, you didn't start a large download, go
> back to typing code, have the file move dialog pop up on you and steal 
> focus
> after the download finished with the cancel button highlighted, at which
> time you happened to be pressing enter.

Hehe, you weren't browsing a website, about to a click a link, when an 
online Poker window came to the front and your mouse happened to be exactly 
over the "yes, please bet all my money on this rubbish hand" button :-(

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> too hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is 
> waiting for you to answer a question about one file?

I guess it'll get there eventually. :-) They *do* manage to improve it a bit 
each time, except for the focus-stealing under Vista, which I heard they 
claim is due to something about security but I can't imagine why stealing 
focus could be more secure.

Got up this morning, computer said "You need to reboot to finish..."  OK, 
reboot. Another 40 minutes of "installing #1, installing #2".  I understand 
why you would want to reboot, but come on, put a checkbox on that says 
"reboot automatically" on things that take hours to run after each 
interaction. Sheesh.  </rant>

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 24-7-2009 17:20, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> too hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is 
>> waiting for you to answer a question about one file?
> 
> I guess it'll get there eventually. :-) They *do* manage to improve it a 
> bit each time, except for the focus-stealing under Vista, which I heard 
> they claim is due to something about security but I can't imagine why 
> stealing focus could be more secure.
> 
> Got up this morning, computer said "You need to reboot to finish..."  
> OK, reboot. Another 40 minutes of "installing #1, installing #2".  I 
> understand why you would want to reboot, but come on, put a checkbox on 
> that says "reboot automatically" on things that take hours to run after 
> each interaction. Sheesh.  </rant>
> 
The day before yesterday I was in the OR to record something on my 
laptop. After firing up everything (which takes a insane amount 
nowadays, I am really going for a clean install soon) then after some 
time it came with that 'finished installing critical updates, reboot' 
thing. You can click that away but it keeps on nagging you. 
Interestingly, the laptop wasn't connected to the internet, hadn't been 
so for a couple of weeks and was on for some days, with regular periods 
of sleep during the night. Ok, I can imagine that if you have an 
important update that needs rebooting, that you nag until it happens, 
but why does MS find it necessary to lie about these things? If there is 
no update don't claim that there is. In the end I clicked it a couple of 
times away and rebooted when I knew that I had 10 minutes before any new 
recording.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:4a697d21$1@news.povray.org...
> > After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving up
> > and going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box
saying
> > "This is going to take about an hour to install what you just
downloaded.
> > Are you sure you want to start it?"

> Hehe, I was copying over about 80GB of data to an external harddrive, I
> watched it for about 5 minutes while it was "discovering files" or some
such
> until it said 2 hours 53 remaining or whatever.  I came back a few hours
> later and there was a "Do you want to copy this file without it's
> properties?" dialog box and it had hardly started the copying!  Is it too
> hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is waiting for
> you to answer a question about one file?

Ah, but what would the point be for an *Operating System* to make managing
files easy and logical?

/sarcasm

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Ah, but what would the point be for an *Operating System* to make managing
> files easy and logical?

Well, technically, it's the explorer shell, not the OS as such. But yah. :-)

-- 
   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

ah, where's that "yes" program when you need one?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving 
>> up and going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box 
>> saying "This is going to take about an hour to install what you just 
>> downloaded. Are you sure you want to start it?"
> 
> Hehe, I was copying over about 80GB of data to an external harddrive, I 
> watched it for about 5 minutes while it was "discovering files" or some 
> such until it said 2 hours 53 remaining or whatever.  I came back a few 
> hours later and there was a "Do you want to copy this file without it's 
> properties?" dialog box and it had hardly started the copying!  Is it 
> too hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is 
> waiting for you to answer a question about one file?
> 
Oh, hell. My number one pet peeve... Move a directory, or like 200 
files. ***One*** frakking file, like 21 files in is "in use" by some 
process some place, and you don't remember that, so Windows not only 
pops up a damn dialog telling you that its in use, it promptly stops 
transferring ***any*** of the other files. Mind, this may be like 3-4 
files out of the 200 that are in that state, and your just trying to 
move the other ones, knowing its going to be easier to do that, than 
hand select all the ones you do want to copy, and spend an hour trying 
to work out which ones you can't/don't want moved (i.e., maybe you don't 
really want it to move the data files you have open for Paint Shop Pro, 
but you "do" want to move all the movie files in the directory, or 
something.. But, no, the moment it hits a "sorry, you can't move a file 
already in use", it gets completely stupid, and won't copy any other 
files either. Sigh...

Then again.. Painshop Pro X2. Morons, for no sane reason, since you 
can't edit/open/play them, decided to do two things that are just 
asinine, 1) have it scan for "all" recognized media, even the ones it 
can't open, with no option to turn this off, and 2) scan all 
subdirectories in the path you have open, again, with no way to turn it 
off. Got a lot of damn images, clips, etc. in My Documents. First time I 
ran the thing it spent 30 minutes looking, then I nuked it. Second time, 
I let it run, and it took almost 2 hours. No idea why, except that it 
seems to also be scanning to "contents" of the damn files too, so, of 
course, a 800M video is going to take it a million years to look 
through, before deciding it doesn't contain anything else it can do 
anything with. Needless to say, unless they correct this issue, there 
isn't going to be a PSPX3 on this machine, and I still use the older 
PSPX version for all my editing, since it doesn't have this problem.

Mind you, the MS file handling annoys me a lot more, since I can't 
downgrade to a version that doesn't bloody do it. 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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
Hmm. Ok..

Temp3 is an ISA slot? WTF would be generating that kind of heat? About 
the only things I have in there is like.. a capture card or something, 
which isn't operating.

Core 2 is the GPU, so, that makes more sense.

-- 
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 <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Oh, hell. My number one pet peeve... Move a directory, or like 200
> files. ***One*** frakking file, like 21 files in is "in use" by some
> process some place, and you don't remember that, so Windows not only
> pops up a damn dialog telling you that its in use, it promptly stops
> transferring ***any*** of the other files.

Better yet: *Copy* some huge directory tree - say, to make a backup - with one
of the files currently open in *exclusive* mode. And not #21/200, but, say,
#19233/20000.

"Copying..."

.... ages later...

*Ding!*
"Can't copy that file. Won't copy the remaining ones either."

Oh well, I'll close that MS Visual Studio then, and try again...

*Ding!*
"Target directory already exists. Want to copy it nonetheless?"

Sure, go ahead. We still have 767 files *somewhere* in there to copy.

*Ding!*
"Do you want to overwrite all that stuff you already copied earlier?"

Now remember that there's a "Yes Sir, all of them", but no "No, none of them
please, just the other ones"...

Raaargh! STUPID RETARD DIGITAL MORON, YOU!!!

(Knowing the procedure, I'm usually prompted for this exclamation already right
when it fails to copy a file in the first place...)


Fortunately, there's smarter software out there for such jobs.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> already in use", it gets completely stupid, and won't copy any other 
> files either. Sigh...

Yeah. Or it copies a bunch of files, then stops and says "this one is read 
only" (Move them all!), then another bunch and says "this one is encrypted" 
(move the all, dammit!), then anoother bunch that says "this one is a system 
file" (you just won't listen, will you!?).  :-)

> and I still use the older 
> PSPX version for all my editing, since it doesn't have this problem.

Yes. The file manager is a lot more annoying in X2. Why can't they just give 
you the standard open-file browser that would let you pick pictures outside 
the "my pictures" directory?

The scripts aren't nearly as good, either.

> Mind you, the MS file handling annoys me a lot more, since I can't 
> downgrade to a version that doesn't bloody do it. lol

The only reason I bought the new version is the old one would crash on Vista 
if you modified a bunch of files and then said "close, saving them all."

-- 
   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

clipka wrote:
> Now remember that there's a "Yes Sir, all of them", but no "No, none of them
> please, just the other ones"...

Hold the shift key, or control key, or something. It's out there - they just 
(for some stupid reason) didn't dedicate a button.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 25-7-2009 18:48, Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Now remember that there's a "Yes Sir, all of them", but no "No, none 
>> of them
>> please, just the other ones"...
> 
> Hold the shift key, or control key, or something. It's out there - they 
> just (for some stupid reason) didn't dedicate a button.
> 
Nor an indication that you use that feature, nor a copy only newer 
files, nor anything else that was included in all commandline interface 
and third party filecopy programs for ages.
I think someone told that the reason was that they only designed boxes 
with two buttons. So apparently the graphics design artist got priority 
over useablility. Still no reason to not change the text on the buutons 
when you pressed a qualifier.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Nor an indication that you use that feature, nor a copy only newer 
> files, nor anything else that was included in all commandline interface 
> and third party filecopy programs for ages.

Command line is certainly easier when you have more than a handful but less 
than (say) 20 options for a program, yes.

> I think someone told that the reason was that they only designed boxes 
> with two buttons. So apparently the graphics design artist got priority 
> over useablility. 

More like "we already have a library routine for 2 buttons" than something 
graphics design, perhaps.

> Still no reason to not change the text on the buutons 
> when you pressed a qualifier.

Agreed. One would think that would be easy.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Yeah. Or it copies a bunch of files, then stops and says "this one is read
> only" (Move them all!), then another bunch and says "this one is encrypted"
> (move the all, dammit!), then anoother bunch that says "this one is a system
> file" (you just won't listen, will you!?).  :-)

Interesting thing I always wonder, what does Windows Explorer do when it
"prepares to copy" files?

You'd assume that it makes a list of files it intends to copy/move. If that is
so, why in Microsoft's seven circles of Hell doesn't it examine those file
attributes as it goes along? Would be easy then to *first* pop up a dialog with
check boxes to choose which files to process despite special attributes, warning
about files currently locked etc., *then* go about to actually copy/move the
smash.

If it would encounter issues because the status of some particular file changed
before Windows actually processed it, it could still pop up its nagging window
(or, better yet, leave that to a dialog at the end, prompting you to decide how
to deal with the problematic files).

It would also be nice if Windows Explorer could guesstimate from the file sizes
whether they all fit on the target drive...

But noooo...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Now remember that there's a "Yes Sir, all of them", but no "No, none of them
> > please, just the other ones"...
>
> Hold the shift key, or control key, or something. It's out there - they just
> (for some stupid reason) didn't dedicate a button.

.... and for another stupid reason they don't tell you that.

Ah, I love Microsoft! If computers would just DWIT, wouldn't they be awfully
boring? :P

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I think someone told that the reason was that they only designed boxes
> > with two buttons. So apparently the graphics design artist got priority
> > over useablility.
>
> More like "we already have a library routine for 2 buttons" than something
> graphics design, perhaps.

Actually, "we already have a library routine for dialogs that show a message and
a choice of buttons from "Ok", "Yes/No", "Yes/No/Cancel" and the like.

But they must have designed that "Yes/All/No/Cancel" dialog separately - it's
not a standard thing. And if a dialog features a way to say "None" by pressing
certain keys while clicking, it has to be custom-tailored as well. Or using
dirty tricks that can explode in your face the day after.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> I think someone told that the reason was that they only designed boxes
>>> with two buttons. So apparently the graphics design artist got priority
>>> over useablility.
>> More like "we already have a library routine for 2 buttons" than something
>> graphics design, perhaps.
> 
> Actually, "we already have a library routine for dialogs that show a message and
> a choice of buttons from "Ok", "Yes/No", "Yes/No/Cancel" and the like.

Well, yes.

Just as bad are the dialog boxes that have "yes/no" or "ok/cancel" when what 
they really want is "save/discard" or "really save as plain text and lose 
the formatting" vs "change the format of the saved file so you don't lose 
formatting". :-)

-- 
   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

clipka wrote:
> Interesting thing I always wonder, what does Windows Explorer do when it
> "prepares to copy" files?

I'm assuming it's counting up sizes so it can give you an estimate of how 
long it'll take. It's also pretty annoying that now when you move a 
directory to another place on the same disk, or into the recycle bin, it 
usually winds up counting something instead of just moving the one 
directory. Weird.

> But noooo...

Wait for Windows 8?  That sort of stuff is pretty hard to get right, 
generally speaking. Vista is still better with this stuff than XP was.

Heck, I'd be happy if the little pieces of paper stopped flying from one 
folder to the other when the copy actually broke. WTF good is a progress 
indicator that runs regardless of whether you're making progress?

-- 
   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

> Oh, hell. My number one pet peeve... Move a directory, or like 200 files. 
> ***One*** frakking file, like 21 files in is "in use" by some process some 
> place, and you don't remember that,

Worst is when it's actually *Explorer* that has the file open, to show a 
thumbnail or read properties of whatever...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Oh, hell. My number one pet peeve... Move a directory, or like 200 
>> files. ***One*** frakking file, like 21 files in is "in use" by some 
>> process some place, and you don't remember that,
> 
> Worst is when it's actually *Explorer* that has the file open, to show a 
> thumbnail or read properties of whatever...

Yeah.  Plug-ins can do this too. We use "zip genius" at work, and half the 
time I can't copy a zip file because the genius is doing something with the 
file, and I have to open a command prompt to delete it. (I'm guessing the 
genius is reading thru the TOC any time it's selected in explorer or 
something. No idea, but it's very annoying.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:33:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Microsoft Arrrrggghhh!

Product naming FTW!

(Is this product related to Bob at all?)

Jim

Post a reply to this message