Abstract observation

[William B. Lurie]

This comment isn't on any specific 'newsgroup' topic.
Over the past several years, I've raised this same question in
somewhat different form, regarding several different peculiar
performance characteristics of Windows Operating systems.

The question is, why do things happen wihout explanation, without
being caused by, or under the influence of, the user? It has manifested
itself
in the past as little things, like, in one example, why do the Page
Setup
boxes that are unchecked, revert mysteriously to being checked, as
though
that were a 'default' condition that some higher authority thought it
should be?
I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"

More recently, as reported, I find Windows XP Home Edition starting up,
on boot-up, sometimes searching for long minutes for a scanner, using up

100% of resources and clogging things up, and most of the time, ignoring

this. I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"

The answer to the root question comes back, specifically or by
implication,
"Can't you spare the time?" I like a question to be answered with an
answer,
not by another question. However, I fear that the real answer is buried
in
things that Windows systems do, that 'they' don't want to tell us about,
like
reverting to some Big-Brother-generated default or backup system, which,
in the
long run, may be helpful, and desirable, and even beneficial. That very
well might be;
but it is certainly exasperating, whatever causes these anomalous
behaviors.

William B. Lurie

[Ionizer]

You say that you like a question to be answered with an answer instead of
another question, so the only thing I can offer is essentially a "same
here." I've almost come to the conclusion that some aspects of my computer
are organic in nature instead of relying on the true mathematics that they
must surely run on. I update and alter nothing, and yet sometimes "Windows
Messenger" logs in when I launch OE and most of the time it doesn't. Other
programs which have run flawlessly for a dozen months suddenly decide that
they no longer care to do so. And I strongly suspect that my computer can
hear me cursing about it from a distance of several hundred yards, and will
hold it against me later.

But I really don't think that it's all the result of some "Big Brother"
scenario as you suggest. Computers really do obey the laws of mathematics,
and the fact that I have occasionally been able to permanently solve
problems gives me the assurance that most of the problems I have yet to
experience are ultimately solvable. And many of them, whether I realize it
or not, were probably somehow my fault in the first place.

We must all accept the reality that "PEBKAC" errors do exist.

Regards,
Ian.

"William B. Lurie" > wrote in message
...
> This comment isn't on any specific 'newsgroup' topic.
> Over the past several years, I've raised this same question in
> somewhat different form, regarding several different peculiar
> performance characteristics of Windows Operating systems.
>
> The question is, why do things happen wihout explanation, without
> being caused by, or under the influence of, the user?
<snip>

[S.Heenan]

William B. Lurie wrote:
> This comment isn't on any specific 'newsgroup' topic.
> Over the past several years, I've raised this same question in
> somewhat different form, regarding several different peculiar
> performance characteristics of Windows Operating systems.
>
> The question is, why do things happen wihout explanation, without
> being caused by, or under the influence of, the user? It has
> manifested itself
> in the past as little things, like, in one example, why do the Page
> Setup
> boxes that are unchecked, revert mysteriously to being checked, as
> though
> that were a 'default' condition that some higher authority thought it
> should be?
> I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
>
> More recently, as reported, I find Windows XP Home Edition starting
> up, on boot-up, sometimes searching for long minutes for a scanner,
> using up
>
> 100% of resources and clogging things up, and most of the time,
> ignoring
>
> this. I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
>
> The answer to the root question comes back, specifically or by
> implication,
> "Can't you spare the time?" I like a question to be answered with an
> answer,
> not by another question. However, I fear that the real answer is
> buried in
> things that Windows systems do, that 'they' don't want to tell us
> about, like
> reverting to some Big-Brother-generated default or backup system,
> which, in the
> long run, may be helpful, and desirable, and even beneficial. That
> very well might be;
> but it is certainly exasperating, whatever causes these anomalous
> behaviors.
>
> William B. Lurie

It's not simply a matter of the operating system being up to snuff; it's
also a matter of it working with thousands of different software
applications and thousands of different hardware configurations. All in all,
for the majority of people, Windows based on NT, is the way to go. As for
"...reverting to some Big-Brother-generated default or backup system, which,
in the long run, may be helpful, and desirable"; you're kidding, right ? No
worries, Bill's on the case.


--
The gene pool needs more chlorine.

[Richard]

Hi William,

If you would make the effort to think these things through properly, I am
sure that they are all intentional or the result of something you have done.
Directly or indirectly.

For instance the fact that certain options seem to be checked and unchecked
randomly. These changes are the result of some action. Usually on your
part. For instance installing a new program or utility. Rather than assume
the user knows what the configuration should be, the program and or the
operating system makes these settings for you.

Many times one setting will cause needed changes in other settings. These
complex configurations are handled expertly by Windows. Without any effort
on your part.

They also may occur due to some change in the users habits. For instance if
the user changes the method of preforming a task, windows will modify the "
Settings " namely the Registry to accomidate the change without waving
flags and saying " Hay look what we did for you.

Windows must operate with thousands of different programs and types of
equipement. Not to mention the updates made to drivers and to software.

There are literly millions of possible combinations of computer equipment
and software. But people still tend to blame windows if anything goes wrong.

In addition to all this it must deal with the people out there who live to
find a flaw they can use to create problems. Many do this only for the
braging rights, they intend no harm but the users ( Like you and me ) ASSUME
that Microsoft is at fault for not forseeing and preventing the hackers
attacks.

If your system is detecting a new piece of hardware ( scanner ) than thier
is a reason. If it was a weakness with windows itself it would happen to
everybody. It does not. Therefore their is a flaw in your system causing
this error, which you have been unable to correct.

If you installed a new piece of hardware and windows detected it, installed
the proper drivers and made the necessary changes to the registry etc. You
would not wonder how this is possible. But if any thing went wrong you would
raise hell.

If you want to understand what an incredable OS Windows is just get an old
X86 computer and try to do something with DOS. I wish everyone could have
that experience. Only than would they begin to appreciate todays Computers
and Operating Systems like Windows.

If you want your system to run the way you expect it to you only need do a
clean install. That will give Windows the oportunity to correct all your
mistakes.

Richard


"William B. Lurie" > wrote in message
...
> This comment isn't on any specific 'newsgroup' topic.
> Over the past several years, I've raised this same question in
> somewhat different form, regarding several different peculiar
> performance characteristics of Windows Operating systems.
>
> The question is, why do things happen wihout explanation, without
> being caused by, or under the influence of, the user? It has manifested
> itself
> in the past as little things, like, in one example, why do the Page
> Setup
> boxes that are unchecked, revert mysteriously to being checked, as
> though
> that were a 'default' condition that some higher authority thought it
> should be?
> I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
>
> More recently, as reported, I find Windows XP Home Edition starting up,
> on boot-up, sometimes searching for long minutes for a scanner, using up
>
> 100% of resources and clogging things up, and most of the time, ignoring
>
> this. I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
>
> The answer to the root question comes back, specifically or by
> implication,
> "Can't you spare the time?" I like a question to be answered with an
> answer,
> not by another question. However, I fear that the real answer is buried
> in
> things that Windows systems do, that 'they' don't want to tell us about,
> like
> reverting to some Big-Brother-generated default or backup system, which,
> in the
> long run, may be helpful, and desirable, and even beneficial. That very
> well might be;
> but it is certainly exasperating, whatever causes these anomalous
> behaviors.
>
> William B. Lurie
>
>

[William B. Lurie]

I appreciate the 3 responses I've received so far. But the tenor, at
least 2 out of 3, seems to be "Something you do, unknowingly, or some
automatic update like virus definitions update, happening at odd intervals,
triggers this change." I can't prove that it isn't so. When I studied REGMON
under Win 98, we found isolated instances where something in Registry
was changed. But nobody could pin down what changed it. I don't want
this thread to go on and on. If anybody has anything positive, beyond complete
exoneration from guilt of Windows, when I've heard tales of secret backups five
deep and the like, which could be the very source of the reported anomalies,
I'd like to hear them.
W B L

Richard wrote:

> Hi William,
>
> If you would make the effort to think these things through properly, I am
> sure that they are all intentional or the result of something you have done.
> Directly or indirectly.
>
> For instance the fact that certain options seem to be checked and unchecked
> randomly. These changes are the result of some action. Usually on your
> part. For instance installing a new program or utility. Rather than assume
> the user knows what the configuration should be, the program and or the
> operating system makes these settings for you.
>
> Many times one setting will cause needed changes in other settings. These
> complex configurations are handled expertly by Windows. Without any effort
> on your part.
>
> They also may occur due to some change in the users habits. For instance if
> the user changes the method of preforming a task, windows will modify the "
> Settings " namely the Registry to accomidate the change without waving
> flags and saying " Hay look what we did for you.
>
> Windows must operate with thousands of different programs and types of
> equipement. Not to mention the updates made to drivers and to software.
>
> There are literly millions of possible combinations of computer equipment
> and software. But people still tend to blame windows if anything goes wrong.
>
> In addition to all this it must deal with the people out there who live to
> find a flaw they can use to create problems. Many do this only for the
> braging rights, they intend no harm but the users ( Like you and me ) ASSUME
> that Microsoft is at fault for not forseeing and preventing the hackers
> attacks.
>
> If your system is detecting a new piece of hardware ( scanner ) than thier
> is a reason. If it was a weakness with windows itself it would happen to
> everybody. It does not. Therefore their is a flaw in your system causing
> this error, which you have been unable to correct.
>
> If you installed a new piece of hardware and windows detected it, installed
> the proper drivers and made the necessary changes to the registry etc. You
> would not wonder how this is possible. But if any thing went wrong you would
> raise hell.
>
> If you want to understand what an incredable OS Windows is just get an old
> X86 computer and try to do something with DOS. I wish everyone could have
> that experience. Only than would they begin to appreciate todays Computers
> and Operating Systems like Windows.
>
> If you want your system to run the way you expect it to you only need do a
> clean install. That will give Windows the oportunity to correct all your
> mistakes.
>
> Richard
>
> "William B. Lurie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This comment isn't on any specific 'newsgroup' topic.
> > Over the past several years, I've raised this same question in
> > somewhat different form, regarding several different peculiar
> > performance characteristics of Windows Operating systems.
> >
> > The question is, why do things happen wihout explanation, without
> > being caused by, or under the influence of, the user? It has manifested
> > itself
> > in the past as little things, like, in one example, why do the Page
> > Setup
> > boxes that are unchecked, revert mysteriously to being checked, as
> > though
> > that were a 'default' condition that some higher authority thought it
> > should be?
> > I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
> >
> > More recently, as reported, I find Windows XP Home Edition starting up,
> > on boot-up, sometimes searching for long minutes for a scanner, using up
> >
> > 100% of resources and clogging things up, and most of the time, ignoring
> >
> > this. I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
> >
> > The answer to the root question comes back, specifically or by
> > implication,
> > "Can't you spare the time?" I like a question to be answered with an
> > answer,
> > not by another question. However, I fear that the real answer is buried
> > in
> > things that Windows systems do, that 'they' don't want to tell us about,
> > like
> > reverting to some Big-Brother-generated default or backup system, which,
> > in the
> > long run, may be helpful, and desirable, and even beneficial. That very
> > well might be;
> > but it is certainly exasperating, whatever causes these anomalous
> > behaviors.
> >
> > William B. Lurie
> >
>

[Crusty \(-: Old Bastard :-\)]

It appears now that you are a troll. You have received three, very
reasonable, explanations. Accept them or learn your operating system.

"William B. Lurie" > wrote in message
...
> I appreciate the 3 responses I've received so far. But the tenor, at
> least 2 out of 3, seems to be "Something you do, unknowingly, or some
> automatic update like virus definitions update, happening at odd
intervals,
> triggers this change." I can't prove that it isn't so. When I studied
REGMON
> under Win 98, we found isolated instances where something in Registry
> was changed. But nobody could pin down what changed it. I don't want
> this thread to go on and on. If anybody has anything positive, beyond
complete
> exoneration from guilt of Windows, when I've heard tales of secret backups
five
> deep and the like, which could be the very source of the reported
anomalies,
> I'd like to hear them.
> W B L
>
> Richard wrote:
>
> > Hi William,
> >
> > If you would make the effort to think these things through properly, I
am
> > sure that they are all intentional or the result of something you have
done.
> > Directly or indirectly.
> >
> > For instance the fact that certain options seem to be checked and
unchecked
> > randomly. These changes are the result of some action. Usually on your
> > part. For instance installing a new program or utility. Rather than
assume
> > the user knows what the configuration should be, the program and or the
> > operating system makes these settings for you.
> >
> > Many times one setting will cause needed changes in other settings.
These
> > complex configurations are handled expertly by Windows. Without any
effort
> > on your part.
> >
> > They also may occur due to some change in the users habits. For instance
if
> > the user changes the method of preforming a task, windows will modify
the "
> > Settings " namely the Registry to accomidate the change without waving
> > flags and saying " Hay look what we did for you.
> >
> > Windows must operate with thousands of different programs and types of
> > equipement. Not to mention the updates made to drivers and to software.
> >
> > There are literly millions of possible combinations of computer
equipment
> > and software. But people still tend to blame windows if anything goes
wrong.
> >
> > In addition to all this it must deal with the people out there who live
to
> > find a flaw they can use to create problems. Many do this only for the
> > braging rights, they intend no harm but the users ( Like you and me )
ASSUME
> > that Microsoft is at fault for not forseeing and preventing the hackers
> > attacks.
> >
> > If your system is detecting a new piece of hardware ( scanner ) than
thier
> > is a reason. If it was a weakness with windows itself it would happen to
> > everybody. It does not. Therefore their is a flaw in your system causing
> > this error, which you have been unable to correct.
> >
> > If you installed a new piece of hardware and windows detected it,
installed
> > the proper drivers and made the necessary changes to the registry etc.
You
> > would not wonder how this is possible. But if any thing went wrong you
would
> > raise hell.
> >
> > If you want to understand what an incredable OS Windows is just get an
old
> > X86 computer and try to do something with DOS. I wish everyone could
have
> > that experience. Only than would they begin to appreciate todays
Computers
> > and Operating Systems like Windows.
> >
> > If you want your system to run the way you expect it to you only need do
a
> > clean install. That will give Windows the oportunity to correct all your
> > mistakes.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > "William B. Lurie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > This comment isn't on any specific 'newsgroup' topic.
> > > Over the past several years, I've raised this same question in
> > > somewhat different form, regarding several different peculiar
> > > performance characteristics of Windows Operating systems.
> > >
> > > The question is, why do things happen wihout explanation, without
> > > being caused by, or under the influence of, the user? It has
manifested
> > > itself
> > > in the past as little things, like, in one example, why do the Page
> > > Setup
> > > boxes that are unchecked, revert mysteriously to being checked, as
> > > though
> > > that were a 'default' condition that some higher authority thought it
> > > should be?
> > > I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
> > >
> > > More recently, as reported, I find Windows XP Home Edition starting
up,
> > > on boot-up, sometimes searching for long minutes for a scanner, using
up
> > >
> > > 100% of resources and clogging things up, and most of the time,
ignoring
> > >
> > > this. I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
> > >
> > > The answer to the root question comes back, specifically or by
> > > implication,
> > > "Can't you spare the time?" I like a question to be answered with an
> > > answer,
> > > not by another question. However, I fear that the real answer is
buried
> > > in
> > > things that Windows systems do, that 'they' don't want to tell us
about,
> > > like
> > > reverting to some Big-Brother-generated default or backup system,
which,
> > > in the
> > > long run, may be helpful, and desirable, and even beneficial. That
very
> > > well might be;
> > > but it is certainly exasperating, whatever causes these anomalous
> > > behaviors.
> > >
> > > William B. Lurie
> > >
> >
>

[Marshall G]

William,

I enjoyed your question very much.
I think the answer to your question is mathematical in nature, akin to a
permutation in statistics. Or, perhaps a better model would be weather
prediction, such as "a butterfly sneezes in Singapore, which causes a
hurricane in Northern England."

Like the weather, a Windows computer doesn't remain in a "steady state."
Each time your computer boots, the process is slightly different, even if
you don't change anything. There are dozens (or more) programs that
continually make If/then/else type decisions. Eventually, no matter how
thorough the design and testing, one piece of software will reach a state
that the engineer and QA staff never predicted. If the program was well
developed, it "catches" these errors and reverts to a default state... and
you see that doggone checkbox marked yet again.

While I agree that Windows is much better than DOS, I don't believe that's
any excuse for this behavior to occur. And while things you've done with the
computer may have caused an unanticipated change, that's also no excuse.
These are only explanations. I'm awfully happy, though, that the defects
these days are lost and reverted preference settings. It wasn't long ago
that system crashes and data loss were the most common complaints. Microsoft
has done a great job in that area.

Marshall

"William B. Lurie" > wrote in message
...
> I appreciate the 3 responses I've received so far. But the tenor, at
> least 2 out of 3, seems to be "Something you do, unknowingly, or some
> automatic update like virus definitions update, happening at odd
intervals,
> triggers this change." I can't prove that it isn't so. When I studied
REGMON
> under Win 98, we found isolated instances where something in Registry
> was changed. But nobody could pin down what changed it. I don't want
> this thread to go on and on. If anybody has anything positive, beyond
complete
> exoneration from guilt of Windows, when I've heard tales of secret backups
five
> deep and the like, which could be the very source of the reported
anomalies,
> I'd like to hear them.
> W B L
>
> >
> > "William B. Lurie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > This comment isn't on any specific 'newsgroup' topic.
> > > Over the past several years, I've raised this same question in
> > > somewhat different form, regarding several different peculiar
> > > performance characteristics of Windows Operating systems.
> > >
> > > The question is, why do things happen wihout explanation, without
> > > being caused by, or under the influence of, the user? It has
manifested
> > > itself
> > > in the past as little things, like, in one example, why do the Page
> > > Setup
> > > boxes that are unchecked, revert mysteriously to being checked, as
> > > though
> > > that were a 'default' condition that some higher authority thought it
> > > should be?
> > > I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
> > >
> > > More recently, as reported, I find Windows XP Home Edition starting
up,
> > > on boot-up, sometimes searching for long minutes for a scanner, using
up
> > >
> > > 100% of resources and clogging things up, and most of the time,
ignoring
> > >
> > > this. I ask the question, "Why sometimes, why not every time?"
> > >
> > > The answer to the root question comes back, specifically or by
> > > implication,
> > > "Can't you spare the time?" I like a question to be answered with an
> > > answer,
> > > not by another question. However, I fear that the real answer is
buried
> > > in
> > > things that Windows systems do, that 'they' don't want to tell us
about,
> > > like
> > > reverting to some Big-Brother-generated default or backup system,
which,
> > > in the
> > > long run, may be helpful, and desirable, and even beneficial. That
very
> > > well might be;
> > > but it is certainly exasperating, whatever causes these anomalous
> > > behaviors.
> > >
> > > William B. Lurie
> > >
> >
>