Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space? [Archive]

Adam Albright

February 24th 07, 04:35 PM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:46:20 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> wrote:

>Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space after
>installation is complete, depending on what is installed.
>
>But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed and
>many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB.
>
>What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called Vista
>will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it.
>
>I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to hear
>them.
>
>Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.
>
>I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but Microsoft
>needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows" and
>other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it.

Me too, I'm also pro Microsoft, a long time user and stockholder.
>
>TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:

I can't give you five "good" reasons. That begs the question why I and
others did upgrade. Ok, a fair question.

For me, and I'm sure it is true for a lot of people I upgraded for a
single reason, I sometimes still dabble in writing code, I'm still
fairly active in creating web content and since I also author a lot of
DVD content I NEED to see how each new OS performs. As simple as that.

While Vista is being touted as a new "major" release, I don't see it
that way. To me and to many, it is mostly a face lift and a needed
one. Windows in XP was getting tired looking and a bit behind the
times. Vista, especially if your system can support Aero is slicker,
visually. I guess that's a benefit, but hardly one that justifies the
cost of upgrading.

Several little things have been fixed. About time! One thing I do like
is now with Windows Explorer when you drag and drop files you get a
tiny little pop up that TELLS you what folder you're over which avoids
a long time annoyance of mine, hoving over a folder and if you do it
hundreds of times a day it was too easy to be in a hurry and "drop"
the file in the folder above or below your intented target. Now that's
less likely.

Vista's help system is much improved over XP. So is how details about
where your files are for example when clicking on Start then All
Programs. No more annoying ever expanding to the right list that takes
over your monitor. Now each category opens in the same window and
scrolls in place. Takes a little getting used to, but better once you
get use to the change.

Believe it or not (except for UAC) Vista is less of a nag and actually
tries to be more helpful. Little windows pop up and give more specific
information like when installing new hardware, information in Event
logs is better, Control Panel has undergone a major face lift.

I'm sure there are many improvements under the hood I haven't had time
to explore yet. These and any one of many little things may be enough
for somebody to consider upgrading a good idea. Asking to make a list
is simply too difficult not knowing everybody's likes or dislikes in
XP and saying if or not they've been fixed, or made worse.

One thing that does seem to be a glaring mistake was forcing UAC on
users without asking if they wanted it forcing you to discover how to
turn UAC off as opposed to learning on to turn it on if you want it.

I bet that will get changed. Quick. Its ****ing off a lot of users.

Saucy

February 24th 07, 04:48 PM

"D. Spencer Hines" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space
> after -chop-
>
> TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:
>
> 1. ------------
>
> 2. ------------
>
> 3. ------------
>
>

[Features new to Windows Vista]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

--
Saucy
--
For email:
guidsaucy at hotmail dot com

Ken Blake, MVP

February 24th 07, 05:15 PM

Keith Schaefer wrote:

> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
> and age of 500gb drives....

Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your own
local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the operating
system.

My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used
about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.

Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90 or
so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even
considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's
dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone down
substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time.

Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so much
more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed for
it.

It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

>>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

Adam Albright

February 24th 07, 05:37 PM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:11:24 -0000, "Robert Moir"
> wrote:

>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>
>Others have explained about the install requirements. As for "in use", I
>wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb partition... and would be
>far happier with 80 to 100Gb if you keep your applications on the same
>partition as the OS.
>
>Now that people want miracle applications and OSes that do everything and
>now that hard disks are so cheap, the amount of disk space consumed by new
>stuff is only going to increase.
>

True enough, I gave Windows a 50 GB partition to play with.

What gripes me as a old dog seat of the pants programmer from way back
is Windows is beyond bloated. Far beyond. Somebody said 500 million
lines of code? I don't know if that's true, but BIG sure describes
Windows Vista.

A sobering thought... many of your are probably too young to remember
or weren't even alive when NASA way back in 1969 landed men on the
moon. The computer onboard that got them there and back (actually
there were three) had less computing power than today's average
desktop caculator.

Back then "programmers" knew how to write tight code. They had too,
not much memory to play with. Today's generation who fancy themselves
"software engineers" don't know how to write tight compact code. They
only know how to write bloatware and need hundreds of thousands of
lines of code, sometimes millions. This is progress?

No it isn't for one simple reason. We're all human. Humans make
mistakes. Its in our nature. The point is the more lines of code you
have the more prone you are to introducing mistakes. If Vista is
anywhere near as big as some claim that means even if it is 99% error
free there are still many thousands, likely tens of thousands of lines
of buggy programming, much of it yet still to surface. Hackers will
find it and exploit it. Take that to the bank.

Dale

February 24th 07, 05:41 PM

One poster who complained loudly about Vista's 18GB of space on his computer
finally admitted that 6GB of that was his own emails and the backup of those
emails left behind by the Vista upgrade process. On top of that, he has a
120GB raid drive on his PC. I wouldn't run Vista on a 120GB drive. Not
that you can't do it but that's just so lame. If you really want to have
the state of the art OS, wouldn't you like to have at least a current model
drive size?

Dale

"D. Spencer Hines" > wrote in message
...
> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>
> DSH
>
>

Earl Grey

February 24th 07, 05:49 PM

Hi Adam:

A printout of the Fortran used to land the LEM is on display at the
Museum of Science in Boston, as well as the core memory from on the
onboard computer. In those days they were still using magnetic core
technology.

Your comparison to Windows is incorrect. The Fortran that landed the LEM
didn't have a GUI, a media player, a web browser, a defragmenter, a
firewall, etc. etc. which users demand today. Heck, it didn't need to do
anything other than its specific purpose.

Earl Grey

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:11:24 -0000, "Robert Moir"
> > wrote:
>
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>> Others have explained about the install requirements. As for "in use", I
>> wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb partition... and would be
>> far happier with 80 to 100Gb if you keep your applications on the same
>> partition as the OS.
>>
>> Now that people want miracle applications and OSes that do everything and
>> now that hard disks are so cheap, the amount of disk space consumed by new
>> stuff is only going to increase.
>>
>
> True enough, I gave Windows a 50 GB partition to play with.
>
> What gripes me as a old dog seat of the pants programmer from way back
> is Windows is beyond bloated. Far beyond. Somebody said 500 million
> lines of code? I don't know if that's true, but BIG sure describes
> Windows Vista.
>
> A sobering thought... many of your are probably too young to remember
> or weren't even alive when NASA way back in 1969 landed men on the
> moon. The computer onboard that got them there and back (actually
> there were three) had less computing power than today's average
> desktop caculator.
>
> Back then "programmers" knew how to write tight code. They had too,
> not much memory to play with. Today's generation who fancy themselves
> "software engineers" don't know how to write tight compact code. They
> only know how to write bloatware and need hundreds of thousands of
> lines of code, sometimes millions. This is progress?
>
> No it isn't for one simple reason. We're all human. Humans make
> mistakes. Its in our nature. The point is the more lines of code you
> have the more prone you are to introducing mistakes. If Vista is
> anywhere near as big as some claim that means even if it is 99% error
> free there are still many thousands, likely tens of thousands of lines
> of buggy programming, much of it yet still to surface. Hackers will
> find it and exploit it. Take that to the bank.
>
>

D. Spencer Hines

February 24th 07, 05:59 PM

Nonsense!

The Burden Of Proof is on Microsoft to show US why we should buy Vista.

WE are the clients, the consumers and the customers ---- THEY have the
obligation to sell US -- NOT the other way around.

VERY Poor Marketing Rollout for VISTA.

The Rollout for even Windows 95 was far better.

Heads should roll at Redmond.

DSH

"Ronnie Vernon MVP" > wrote in message
...

> Do your own research! How are the users here supposed to know your likes,
> dislikes, and how you work. After you get the list together, then you can
> come back and tell us the ten best reasons you like Vista.
>
> Windows Vista: Home Page:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/default.mspx
>
> --
> Ronnie Vernon
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space
>> after installation is complete, depending on what is installed.
>>
>> But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed
>> and many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB.
>>
>> What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called
>> Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it.
>>
>> I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to
>> hear them.
>>
>> Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.
>>
>> I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but Microsoft
>> needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows" and
>> other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it.
>>
>> TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:
>>
>> 1. ------------
>>
>> 2. ------------
>>
>> 3. ------------
>>
>> And so forth.
>>
>> I haven't seen it.
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

February 24th 07, 06:07 PM

Balderdash!

It's a conspiracy between Bloatware Software Manufacturers and Hardware
Manufactures -- each scratching the other's back.

Tell us about the TEN Good Reasons why we need VISTA and all the things it
will do that XP can't -- THEN you MAY be able to justify the bloatware.

Capabilities & Limitations...

BOTH the Upside & the Downside.

"Transparent Windows" won't cut it.

But you don't seem to be able to do that.

I have 300 GB of disk space -- that's not the issue.

DSH

"Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in message
...

> Keith Schaefer wrote:
>
>> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
>> and age of 500gb drives....
>
>
> Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
> megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your
> own local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the
> operating system.
>
> My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used
> about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.
>
> Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90
> or so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even
> considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's
> dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone
> down substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time.
>
> Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
> 20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so
> much more capability while still spending much less for the disk space
> needed for it.
>
> It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
> system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>>>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

D. Spencer Hines

February 24th 07, 06:12 PM

Well-Stated!

Bravo Zulu!

DSH

"Adam Albright" > wrote in message
...

> Back then "programmers" knew how to write tight code. They had to,
> not much memory to play with. Today's generation who fancy themselves
> "software engineers" don't know how to write tight compact code. They
> only know how to write bloatware and need hundreds of thousands of
> lines of code, sometimes millions. This is progress?
>
> No it isn't for one simple reason. We're all human. Humans make
> mistakes. Its in our nature. The point is the more lines of code you
> have the more prone you are to introducing mistakes. If Vista is
> anywhere near as big as some claim that means even if it is 99% error
> free there are still many thousands, likely tens of thousands of lines
> of buggy programming, much of it yet still to surface. Hackers will
> find it and exploit it. Take that to the bank.

Robert Moir

February 24th 07, 06:40 PM

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software
> called Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't
> heard it.
> I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to
> hear them.

You won't hear them from me. I'm hardly a fan of Vista.

It does have some nice ideas, even if they might not be implemented all that
well. It does have some incremental improvements over XP in some areas, as
well it might given how long it took to make. You'll have to move or give up
on Windows eventually if you want to keep running new apps.

But compelling reasons to buy at the moment? Let me know if you ever find
any.

D. Spencer Hines

February 24th 07, 06:42 PM

Yours is a very honest, straightforward answer -- the first one I've
received....

After all the pompous bafflegab.

Thank you kindly.

Comments below.

DSH

"Adam Albright" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:46:20 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

> > wrote:
>
>>Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space
>>after
>>installation is complete, depending on what is installed.
>>
>>But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed
>>and
>>many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB.
>>
>>What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called
>>Vista
>>will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it.
>>
>>I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to hear
>>them.
>>
>>Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.
>>
>>I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but Microsoft
>>needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows" and
>>other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it.
>
> Me too, I'm also pro Microsoft, a long time user and stockholder.
>>
>>TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:
>
> I can't give you five "good" reasons. That begs the question why I and
> others did upgrade. Ok, a fair question.
>
> For me, and I'm sure it is true for a lot of people I upgraded for a
> single reason, I sometimes still dabble in writing code, I'm still
> fairly active in creating web content and since I also author a lot of
> DVD content I NEED to see how each new OS performs. As simple as that.

Fair Enough.

> While Vista is being touted as a new "major" release, I don't see it
> that way. To me and to many, it is mostly a face lift and a needed
> one. Windows in XP was getting tired looking and a bit behind the
> times. Vista, especially if your system can support Aero is slicker,
> visually. I guess that's a benefit, but hardly one that justifies the
> cost of upgrading.

Bingo!

I use the Windows Classical look. I don't want my computer to look like a
jukebox. "Slicker" is not something I cherish -- either in friends, women,
politicians or operating systems.

> Several little things have been fixed. About time! One thing I do like
> is now with Windows Explorer when you drag and drop files you get a
> tiny little pop up that TELLS you what folder you're over which avoids
> a long time annoyance of mine, hoving over a folder and if you do it
> hundreds of times a day it was too easy to be in a hurry and "drop"
> the file in the folder above or below your intented target. Now that's
> less likely.

That's Nice -- An enhancement.

> Vista's help system is much improved over XP. So it now details about
> where your files are for example when clicking on Start than All
> Programs. No more annoying ever expanding to the right list that takes
> over your monitor. Now each category opens in the same window and
> scrolls in place. Takes a little getting used to, but better once you
> get use to the change.

I prefer manuals -- which have been deep-sixed -- unless we pay extra.

> Believe it or not (except for UAC) Vista is less of a nag and actually
> tries to be more helpful. Little windows pop up and give more specific
> information like when installing new hardware, information in Event
> logs is better, Control Panel has undergone a major face lift.

I installed IE7 TWICE and pulled it OFF twice. HORRIBLE Nag -- worse than
three mothers-in-law at dinner. <g>

Now, Windows Update tells me I have HIDDEN a Critical Update and will surely
Go To Hell with viruses and Trojans beseiging me.

I don't need that. I am the master of my OWN computer.

> I'm sure there are many improvements under the hood I haven't had time
> to explore yet. These and any one of many little things may be enough
> for somebody to consider upgrading a good idea. Asking to make a list
> is simply too difficult not knowing everybody's likes or dislikes in
> XP and saying if or not they've been fixed, or made worse.

If they are TRUE improvements they will be obvious. Take Microsoft Windows
Truefonts, for example --- THEY were an item worthy of listing on the TEN
bullet list at the time -- and finished Bitstream Fonts for most of us.

> One thing that does seem to be a glaring mistake was forcing UAC on
> users without asking if they wanted it forcing you to discover how to
> turn UAC off as opposed to learning on to turn it on if you want it.

PRECISELY! That was similar to the Chinese Communists taking over Hong
Kong. VERY POOR MARKETING and STRATEGY by Microsoft -- HEADS SHOULD ROLL.
You simply don't treat Americans like that -- or anyone else for that
matter. I ran into it on IE7 and trashed it.

Bill Gates' departure from the hands-on led to these disasters?

> I bet that will get changed. Quick. Its ****ing off a lot of users.

Too slow for me. That's why I'll be waiting for SP2 -- AND the software
manufactures to catch up, change their drivers, work out bugs and so forth.

You were RIGHT -- you didn't even come up with FIVE Good Reasons. <g>

But Thanks Anyway.

Cheers,

DSH

Jeffrey S. Sparks

February 24th 07, 07:05 PM

I find it interesting that people on here are so upset about how microsoft
is marketing Vista. They obviously did their job as you do know about it
and people are talking about it. What are you hoping for? Better
commercials? LOL

Jeff

"D. Spencer Hines" > wrote in message
...
> Nonsense!
>
> The Burden Of Proof is on Microsoft to show US why we should buy Vista.
>
> WE are the clients, the consumers and the customers ---- THEY have the
> obligation to sell US -- NOT the other way around.
>
> VERY Poor Marketing Rollout for VISTA.
>
> The Rollout for even Windows 95 was far better.
>
> Heads should roll at Redmond.
>
> DSH
>
> "Ronnie Vernon MVP" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Do your own research! How are the users here supposed to know your likes,
>> dislikes, and how you work. After you get the list together, then you can
>> come back and tell us the ten best reasons you like Vista.
>>
>> Windows Vista: Home Page:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/default.mspx
>>
>> --
>> Ronnie Vernon
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows Shell/User
>>
>> "D. Spencer Hines" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space
>>> after installation is complete, depending on what is installed.
>>>
>>> But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed
>>> and many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB.
>>>
>>> What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called
>>> Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it.
>>>
>>> I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to
>>> hear them.
>>>
>>> Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.
>>>
>>> I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but
>>> Microsoft
>>> needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows"
>>> and
>>> other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it.
>>>
>>> TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:
>>>
>>> 1. ------------
>>>
>>> 2. ------------
>>>
>>> 3. ------------
>>>
>>> And so forth.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen it.
>>>
>>> DSH
>>>
>>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
>

D. Spencer Hines

February 24th 07, 07:25 PM

BINGO!

My Sentiments Too.

DSH

"Robert Moir" > wrote in message
...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>
>> What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software
>> called Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't
>> heard it.

>> I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to
>> hear them.
>
> You won't hear them from me. I'm hardly a fan of Vista.
>
> It does have some nice ideas, even if they might not be implemented all
> that well. It does have some incremental improvements over XP in some
> areas, as well it might given how long it took to make. You'll have to
> move or give up on Windows eventually if you want to keep running new
> apps.
>
> But compelling reasons to buy at the moment? Let me know if you ever find
> any.

Adam Albright

February 24th 07, 08:10 PM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> wrote:

>Keith Schaefer wrote:
>
>> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
>> and age of 500gb drives....
>
>
>Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
>megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your own
>local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the operating
>system.
>
>My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used
>about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.
>
>Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90 or
>so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even
>considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's
>dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone down
>substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time.
>
>Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
>20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so much
>more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed for
>it.
>
>It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
>system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.

I don't get upset with how much disk space it takes up, I do get
annoyed how bloated Vista is because we both know the bigger it is the
more lines of code. The more lines of code, the more chance for bugs.

Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer to offer
more customization at initial setup. I think it pretty much has always
been full speed ahead, load it up. I know there are ways to limit what
gets installed, but I'm talking what the typical person does.

I can remember several years ago I was trying a version of Linux. I
saw a fancy Linux suite package in the store, couldn't resist and ran
home with it. I had the disk space so I said to myself what the heck,
this package came with 8 CD's of stuff, I paid for it, may as well put
it all on. I know, that was kind of dumb. <grin>

Well for the next 90 minutes I sat in front of my PC feeding the beast
first this CD, then the next one, then going back to a earlier CD and
what seemed like a endless parade of menu pages coming up on screen.

Near the end it said insert CD #7. I popped it in and oops, the
instructions were now totally in German. That kind of spoiled my day.
Trying again I did notice the manual said I can choose to install what
I want as I go along. The Linux installer first loaded up necessary
files. That took maybe 15 minutes. Then it showed a nice menu with
check box after check box of what I could install or skip. Shame
Windows don't try that approach. First get the bare necessary files
unpacked, installed, try to boot, if successful then present a menu
and work its way down a huge laundry list of features you can accept
or skip.

Sean C.

February 24th 07, 10:40 PM

Can you just imagine how slick it would be if the operating system could
use the alphabet, instead of just a paltry 0 or 1. That'd open up a whole
new world, and increase our speed and capacity 13-fold.

"Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Schaefer wrote:
>
>> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
>> and age of 500gb drives....
>
>
> Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
> megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your own
> local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the operating
> system.
>
> My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used about
> 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.
>
> Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90 or so.
> That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even considering
> that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's dollars. The cost of
> providing space for the operating system has gone down substantially and
> continues to go down substantially all the time.
>
> Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
> 20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so much
> more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed for it.
>
> It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
> system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>>>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>
>

Dale

February 25th 07, 03:25 AM

I installed Ubuntu a few weeks ago. It didn't offer many options about what
to install. It installed all sorts of features I didn't ask for and don't
need.

Dale

"Adam Albright" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> > wrote:
>
>>Keith Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day
>>> and age of 500gb drives....
>>
>>
>>Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of
>>megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your
>>own
>>local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the
>>operating
>>system.
>>
>>My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used
>>about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.
>>
>>Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90
>>or
>>so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even
>>considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's
>>dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone
>>down
>>substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time.
>>
>>Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than
>>20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so
>>much
>>more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed
>>for
>>it.
>>
>>It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating
>>system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.
>
> I don't get upset with how much disk space it takes up, I do get
> annoyed how bloated Vista is because we both know the bigger it is the
> more lines of code. The more lines of code, the more chance for bugs.
>
> Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer to offer
> more customization at initial setup. I think it pretty much has always
> been full speed ahead, load it up. I know there are ways to limit what
> gets installed, but I'm talking what the typical person does.
>
> I can remember several years ago I was trying a version of Linux. I
> saw a fancy Linux suite package in the store, couldn't resist and ran
> home with it. I had the disk space so I said to myself what the heck,
> this package came with 8 CD's of stuff, I paid for it, may as well put
> it all on. I know, that was kind of dumb. <grin>
>
> Well for the next 90 minutes I sat in front of my PC feeding the beast
> first this CD, then the next one, then going back to a earlier CD and
> what seemed like a endless parade of menu pages coming up on screen.
>
> Near the end it said insert CD #7. I popped it in and oops, the
> instructions were now totally in German. That kind of spoiled my day.
> Trying again I did notice the manual said I can choose to install what
> I want as I go along. The Linux installer first loaded up necessary
> files. That took maybe 15 minutes. Then it showed a nice menu with
> check box after check box of what I could install or skip. Shame
> Windows don't try that approach. First get the bare necessary files
> unpacked, installed, try to boot, if successful then present a menu
> and work its way down a huge laundry list of features you can accept
> or skip.
>
>

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 03:27 AM

Today, Ken Blake, MVP made these interesting comments ...

> Keith Schaefer wrote:
>
>> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in
>> this day and age of 500gb drives....
>
> Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in
> terms of megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar
> cost (substitute your own local currency, if necessary) of
> providing hard disk space for the operating system.
>
> My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost
> $200. DOS used about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.
>
> Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of
> that, $90 or so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And
> that's without even considering that 20-year old dollars were
> worth much more than today's dollars. The cost of providing
> space for the operating system has gone down substantially and
> continues to go down substantially all the time.
>
> Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more
> easily than 20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's
> wonderful that we can get so much more capability while still
> spending much less for the disk space needed for it.
>
> It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about
> an operating system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.
>
Ken, I forget the fellow's name, but I imagine you would know,
but the one who predicted 20-30 years ago that computers would
double in performance every couple of years but be half as
expensive. What I think most users have seen, though, is that
increasingly bigger O/S's and apps, to support today's needs and
desire for GUI vs. command line stuff, and the changeover from
hardware being the big expense to the big money going for
programmers and marketing staff, whatever the hardware folks are
able to build gets chewed up within one cycle on O/S and apps, so
that today's 500 gig was yesteryear's 50 gigs and before that, it
was 150KB floppies. My first Apple II in 1978 cost me $400 for
just 48KB of memory, and the first floppy drives were $500 and
disks about 5 bucks apiece. But, an enormous amount of work could
be done with them, IF the user also wanted to be a programmer and
system support person.

I also remember the first IBM PX XTs we got at work with just 10
MEG HDs, and people thought those were the cat's meow! But, you
are right in that internal and even portable external HD space is
so cheap/gig that it is wiping out the optical market for
everythng except what people want to play in their cars or on TV.
Much easier to just buy another 200 gig external, plug it into
your USB port, dump your excess and backups, store it, and move
on.

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 03:31 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

> Balderdash!
>
> It's a conspiracy between Bloatware Software Manufacturers and
> Hardware Manufactures -- each scratching the other's back.
>
> Tell us about the TEN Good Reasons why we need VISTA and all
> the things it will do that XP can't -- THEN you MAY be able to
> justify the bloatware.

My view of the software industry in general, certainly not just
MS, is that they have become 100% marketing oriented, not problem
solvers. So, with the total possible market virtually saturated
with PCs already, the only way to generate new sales and revenues
is to convince customers with ever shorter product cycles that
they simply must have the newest and greatest, no matter what the
cost, no matter the problems, and certainly, no matter if it does
or does not improve the real reason why we have computers in the
first place - to do useful work.

I have long been a Luddite when it comes to both app and O/S
upgrades and hardware. I have found that I get much more work
done at much less expense and with far fewer headaches by staying
at N - 1 from whatever is state-of-the-art and let the other
fellow beta test with their Visa card. But, if you want to get a
new PC, or must, then you're probably going to be a Vista
customer.

> Capabilities & Limitations...
>
> BOTH the Upside & the Downside.
>
> "Transparent Windows" won't cut it.
>
> But you don't seem to be able to do that.
>
> I have 300 GB of disk space -- that's not the issue.
>

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 03:36 AM

Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> > wrote:
>
>>Keith Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in
>>> this day and age of 500gb drives....
>>
>>
>>Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in
>>terms of megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar
>>cost (substitute your own local currency, if necessary) of
>>providing hard disk space for the operating system.
>>
>>My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost
>>$200. DOS used about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.
>>
>>Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of
>>that, $90 or so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And
>>that's without even considering that 20-year old dollars were
>>worth much more than today's dollars. The cost of providing
>>space for the operating system has gone down substantially and
>>continues to go down substantially all the time.
>>
>>Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more
>>easily than 20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's
>>wonderful that we can get so much more capability while still
>>spending much less for the disk space needed for it.
>>
>>It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about
>>an operating system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.
>
> I don't get upset with how much disk space it takes up, I do
> get annoyed how bloated Vista is because we both know the
> bigger it is the more lines of code. The more lines of code,
> the more chance for bugs.
>
> Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer
> to offer more customization at initial setup. I think it
> pretty much has always been full speed ahead, load it up. I
> know there are ways to limit what gets installed, but I'm
> talking what the typical person does.
>
> I can remember several years ago I was trying a version of
> Linux. I saw a fancy Linux suite package in the store,
> couldn't resist and ran home with it. I had the disk space so
> I said to myself what the heck, this package came with 8 CD's
> of stuff, I paid for it, may as well put it all on. I know,
> that was kind of dumb. <grin>
>
> Well for the next 90 minutes I sat in front of my PC feeding
> the beast first this CD, then the next one, then going back to
> a earlier CD and what seemed like a endless parade of menu
> pages coming up on screen.
>
> Near the end it said insert CD #7. I popped it in and oops,
> the instructions were now totally in German. That kind of
> spoiled my day. Trying again I did notice the manual said I
> can choose to install what I want as I go along. The Linux
> installer first loaded up necessary files. That took maybe 15
> minutes. Then it showed a nice menu with check box after check
> box of what I could install or skip. Shame Windows don't try
> that approach. First get the bare necessary files unpacked,
> installed, try to boot, if successful then present a menu and
> work its way down a huge laundry list of features you can
> accept or skip.
>
I think it is a fundamental law of nature that software gets
bigger and slower, and also buggier. But, there are big
differences between software easily updated by a critical patch
or some dot maintence release vs. a fixed hardware/software
system such as consumer electronics or cars. Both can and are
flash upgradable, but people actually expect their TV to turn on
and run the first time every time and not have to "reboot" it.
And, they actually have this silly notion that their car, with
perhaps up to 25 or more computers talking to each other across
multiplexed wiring to actually start, run, get good economy, be
clean, and all the neat stuff work 24x7x250,000 miles. Yes, yes,
yes, I know those are closed environments that make it easier,
but if you had to buy all new software to keep your current stuff
running, well, ...

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 03:39 AM

Today, Robert Moir made these interesting comments ...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>
> Others have explained about the install requirements. As for
> "in use", I wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb
> partition... and would be far happier with 80 to 100Gb if you
> keep your applications on the same partition as the OS.
>
> Now that people want miracle applications and OSes that do
> everything and now that hard disks are so cheap, the amount of
> disk space consumed by new stuff is only going to increase.
>
I have about 55 gig for XP Pro SP2, but limit my primary partition
to only Windows and my apps. All data is stored on extended
partitions. Still, I am quite full on C:\ even with a modest
installed base of apps. If I were building a new PC today, only 30
months since my last one, it would be far hotter with far more
memory and HDD space into the terabyte range, but subdivided
between high-speed internal vs. removable-for-safety external. In
any case, if I really wanted Vista, I would want hardware that can
run it efficiently and take advantage of its new features, but
would not even stop to think about "only" 18 gig.

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 03:42 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

> Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of
> disk space after installation is complete, depending on what
> is installed.
>
> But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs
> installed and many other files in storage, I'm only consuming
> 16.44 GB.
>
> What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of
> software called Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I
> still haven't heard it.

Have you ever heard the phrase "don't try to fix it if it isn't
broken" and "never give Murphy an even break"? If you don't know
why you want or need Vista, then a) Bill Gates has failed in his
marketing message or b) you really don't.

> I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've
> yet to hear them.
>
> Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.
>
> I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user --
> but Microsoft needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and
> "Transparent Windows" and other rinky-dink cosmetic
> enhancement simply don't cut it.
>
> TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:
>
> 1. ------------
>
> 2. ------------
>
> 3. ------------
>
> And so forth.
>
> I haven't seen it.
>
You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that much
of life revolves around perception, and not absolute truth, but
reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you PERCEIVE you need
the next whiz bang, then I guess you do, but be prepared for some
headaches if you're an early adopter on something this big.

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 03:50 AM

Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...

[snip]
> Me too, I'm also pro Microsoft, a long time user and
> stockholder.

I used to be a MS stockholder. I had this vision circa 1998 or so
that I could follow Bill Gates to ever more money by riding his
coattails. Trouble is, Bill is worth half what he was then,
largely because his net worth is tied up in stock he can't sell
anyway, and so right along with him, mine tanked to 50%. It will
be an IRS write-off this year, it ain't ever coming back in my
view.

>>
>>TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:
>
> I can't give you five "good" reasons. That begs the question
> why I and others did upgrade. Ok, a fair question.
>
> For me, and I'm sure it is true for a lot of people I upgraded
> for a single reason, I sometimes still dabble in writing code,
> I'm still fairly active in creating web content and since I
> also author a lot of DVD content I NEED to see how each new OS
> performs. As simple as that.

That is a very valid reason, but perhaps not mainstream to the
marketing audience.

> While Vista is being touted as a new "major" release, I don't
> see it that way. To me and to many, it is mostly a face lift
> and a needed one. Windows in XP was getting tired looking and
> a bit behind the times. Vista, especially if your system can
> support Aero is slicker, visually. I guess that's a benefit,
> but hardly one that justifies the cost of upgrading.
>
> Several little things have been fixed. About time! One thing I
> do like is now with Windows Explorer when you drag and drop
> files you get a tiny little pop up that TELLS you what folder
> you're over which avoids a long time annoyance of mine, hoving
> over a folder and if you do it hundreds of times a day it was
> too easy to be in a hurry and "drop" the file in the folder
> above or below your intented target. Now that's less likely.

There are several basic classes of software bugs that we
programmers are familiar with, such as blunders, inadequate
testing, misunderstood user requirements, etc. But, increasingly,
security holes and side-effect bugs have taken over. Each new
"release" or patch of everything is 3 steps forward and 1 or two
back, as old bugs re-appear and new ones nobody anticipated
suddenly appear in the field requiring patch N, then N+1 to fix
that, then N+2 to fix that, etc. Then, let's fix the whole thing
AND make more money with an all-new - and buggy - thing-a-ma-bob!

> Vista's help system is much improved over XP. So is how
> details about where your files are for example when clicking
> on Start then All Programs. No more annoying ever expanding to
> the right list that takes over your monitor. Now each category
> opens in the same window and scrolls in place. Takes a little
> getting used to, but better once you get use to the change.
>
> Believe it or not (except for UAC) Vista is less of a nag and
> actually tries to be more helpful. Little windows pop up and
> give more specific information like when installing new
> hardware, information in Event logs is better, Control Panel
> has undergone a major face lift.

I didn't beta test it, but, no I don't believe it. MS will
accelerate its nagging, along with "validation of authenticity"
constant nagging, where if you cannot PROVE you're authentic, you
ain't and you can't get patches or any support. In criminal law,
that's the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent.
Personally, I cannot understand ANYONE who has automatic updates
turned on! I simply cannot fathom people who go to bed with a
working PC and get up in the morning to a nuke and reinstall.

> I'm sure there are many improvements under the hood I haven't
> had time to explore yet. These and any one of many little
> things may be enough for somebody to consider upgrading a good
> idea. Asking to make a list is simply too difficult not
> knowing everybody's likes or dislikes in XP and saying if or
> not they've been fixed, or made worse.
>
> One thing that does seem to be a glaring mistake was forcing
> UAC on users without asking if they wanted it forcing you to
> discover how to turn UAC off as opposed to learning on to turn
> it on if you want it.
>
> I bet that will get changed. Quick. Its ****ing off a lot of
> users.
>
Bottom line, Adam. Does Vista improve YOUR ability to do useful
work or not? If you're a hobbyist, fine, but if you use it
professionally or you have another life you like to live with
your family,the thing is supposed to help you. People don't buy
new TVs or cars twice yearly and even clothes horses don't buy
everything that is "in style".

--
HP, aka Jerry

Adam Albright

February 25th 07, 04:02 AM

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:39:45 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Today, Robert Moir made these interesting comments ...
>
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>>
>> Others have explained about the install requirements. As for
>> "in use", I wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb
>> partition... and would be far happier with 80 to 100Gb if you
>> keep your applications on the same partition as the OS.
>>
>> Now that people want miracle applications and OSes that do
>> everything and now that hard disks are so cheap, the amount of
>> disk space consumed by new stuff is only going to increase.
>>
>I have about 55 gig for XP Pro SP2, but limit my primary partition
>to only Windows and my apps. All data is stored on extended
>partitions. Still, I am quite full on C:\ even with a modest
>installed base of apps. If I were building a new PC today, only 30
>months since my last one, it would be far hotter with far more
>memory and HDD space into the terabyte range, but subdivided
>between high-speed internal vs. removable-for-safety external. In
>any case, if I really wanted Vista, I would want hardware that can
>run it efficiently and take advantage of its new features, but
>would not even stop to think about "only" 18 gig.

I keep wondering why so may miss the point that Windows is bloated. It
has nothing to do with how much free disk space you have or how much
hard drives cost or how fast a system you run it on. Because Windows
is bloated at some say 500 million lines of code (doubt it that's big)
it is without a doubt infested top to bottom with coding errors.
Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or it
Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most
not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the
potential for human error by a huge factor.

This "problem" multiplies with each new release of Windows because
each newer version is bigger and Microsoft never seems to find time to
get around to fixing all the bugs in the previous release so in effect
they get carried over and the latest version adds new, mostly yet
undiscovered bugs. What a way to run a railroad.

There is nothing wrong with adding new features. Still it would be
hard to say Vista isn't bloated with all kinds of clutter. This is
also true for browsers.

I don't know if it works with Vista, probably not, but if you're still
running XP, download a copy of the Opera browser. Use it for just a
day or two and then go back to IE7.

You'll see the difference immediately between lean mean fast running
code and bloatware.

Dale

February 25th 07, 04:40 AM

Moore's Law.

Dale

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...
> Today, Ken Blake, MVP made these interesting comments ...
>
>> Keith Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in
>>> this day and age of 500gb drives....
>>
>> Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in
>> terms of megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar
>> cost (substitute your own local currency, if necessary) of
>> providing hard disk space for the operating system.
>>
>> My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost
>> $200. DOS used about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.
>>
>> Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of
>> that, $90 or so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And
>> that's without even considering that 20-year old dollars were
>> worth much more than today's dollars. The cost of providing
>> space for the operating system has gone down substantially and
>> continues to go down substantially all the time.
>>
>> Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more
>> easily than 20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's
>> wonderful that we can get so much more capability while still
>> spending much less for the disk space needed for it.
>>
>> It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about
>> an operating system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.
>>
> Ken, I forget the fellow's name, but I imagine you would know,
> but the one who predicted 20-30 years ago that computers would
> double in performance every couple of years but be half as
> expensive. What I think most users have seen, though, is that
> increasingly bigger O/S's and apps, to support today's needs and
> desire for GUI vs. command line stuff, and the changeover from
> hardware being the big expense to the big money going for
> programmers and marketing staff, whatever the hardware folks are
> able to build gets chewed up within one cycle on O/S and apps, so
> that today's 500 gig was yesteryear's 50 gigs and before that, it
> was 150KB floppies. My first Apple II in 1978 cost me $400 for
> just 48KB of memory, and the first floppy drives were $500 and
> disks about 5 bucks apiece. But, an enormous amount of work could
> be done with them, IF the user also wanted to be a programmer and
> system support person.
>
> I also remember the first IBM PX XTs we got at work with just 10
> MEG HDs, and people thought those were the cat's meow! But, you
> are right in that internal and even portable external HD space is
> so cheap/gig that it is wiping out the optical market for
> everythng except what people want to play in their cars or on TV.
> Much easier to just buy another 200 gig external, plug it into
> your USB port, dump your excess and backups, store it, and move
> on.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

D. Spencer Hines

February 25th 07, 04:44 AM

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Personally, I cannot understand ANYONE who has automatic updates
> turned on! I simply cannot fathom people who go to bed with a
> working PC and get up in the morning to a nuke and reinstall.

BINGO! Yet the ruddy AV program nags me because I don't have the ruddy
thing turned on! I tell it to bugger off.

DSH

D. Spencer Hines

February 25th 07, 04:48 AM

You Make Good Sense.

Particularly This Part:

> I keep wondering why so many miss the point that Windows is bloated. It
> has nothing to do with how much free disk space you have or how much
> hard drives cost or how fast a system you run it on. Because Windows
> is bloated at some say 500 million lines of code (doubt it that's big)
> it is without a doubt infested top to bottom with coding errors.
> Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or in
> Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most
> not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the
> potential for human error by a huge factor.

DSH

"Adam Albright" > wrote in message
...

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:39:45 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >
> wrote:
>
>>Today, Robert Moir made these interesting comments ...
>>
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>>>
>>> Others have explained about the install requirements. As for
>>> "in use", I wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb
>>> partition... and would be far happier with 80 to 100Gb if you
>>> keep your applications on the same partition as the OS.
>>>
>>> Now that people want miracle applications and OSes that do
>>> everything and now that hard disks are so cheap, the amount of
>>> disk space consumed by new stuff is only going to increase.
>>>
>>I have about 55 gig for XP Pro SP2, but limit my primary partition
>>to only Windows and my apps. All data is stored on extended
>>partitions. Still, I am quite full on C:\ even with a modest
>>installed base of apps. If I were building a new PC today, only 30
>>months since my last one, it would be far hotter with far more
>>memory and HDD space into the terabyte range, but subdivided
>>between high-speed internal vs. removable-for-safety external. In
>>any case, if I really wanted Vista, I would want hardware that can
>>run it efficiently and take advantage of its new features, but
>>would not even stop to think about "only" 18 gig.
>
> I keep wondering why so may miss the point that Windows is bloated. It
> has nothing to do with how much free disk space you have or how much
> hard drives cost or how fast a system you run it on. Because Windows
> is bloated at some say 500 million lines of code (doubt it that's big)
> it is without a doubt infested top to bottom with coding errors.
> Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or it
> Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most
> not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the
> potential for human error by a huge factor.
>
> This "problem" multiplies with each new release of Windows because
> each newer version is bigger and Microsoft never seems to find time to
> get around to fixing all the bugs in the previous release so in effect
> they get carried over and the latest version adds new, mostly yet
> undiscovered bugs. What a way to run a railroad.
>
> There is nothing wrong with adding new features. Still it would be
> hard to say Vista isn't bloated with all kinds of clutter. This is
> also true for browsers.
>
> I don't know if it works with Vista, probably not, but if you're still
> running XP, download a copy of the Opera browser. Use it for just a
> day or two and then go back to IE7.
>
> You'll see the difference immediately between lean mean fast running
> code and bloatware.

D. Spencer Hines

February 25th 07, 06:15 AM

I agree with everything you said and also stay at N -1.

I've been on the bleeding edge of technology and it's a pain in the lower
parts -- for no gain at all.

Yes, you're constantly Beta-testing and wasting time on trivial matters --
NOT getting useful work done.

DSH

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
>> Balderdash!
>>
>> It's a conspiracy between Bloatware Software Manufacturers and
>> Hardware Manufactures -- each scratching the other's back.
>>
>> Tell us about the TEN Good Reasons why we need VISTA and all
>> the things it will do that XP can't -- THEN you MAY be able to
>> justify the bloatware.
>
> My view of the software industry in general, certainly not just
> MS, is that they have become 100% marketing oriented, not problem
> solvers. So, with the total possible market virtually saturated
> with PCs already, the only way to generate new sales and revenues
> is to convince customers with ever shorter product cycles that
> they simply must have the newest and greatest, no matter what the
> cost, no matter the problems, and certainly, no matter if it does
> or does not improve the real reason why we have computers in the
> first place - to do useful work.
>
> I have long been a Luddite when it comes to both app and O/S
> upgrades and hardware. I have found that I get much more work
> done at much less expense and with far fewer headaches by staying
> at N - 1 from whatever is state-of-the-art and let the other
> fellow beta test with their Visa card. But, if you want to get a
> new PC, or must, then you're probably going to be a Vista
> customer.
>
>> Capabilities & Limitations...
>>
>> BOTH the Upside & the Downside.
>>
>> "Transparent Windows" won't cut it.
>>
>> But you don't seem to be able to do that.
>>
>> I have 300 GB of disk space -- that's not the issue.
>>
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

D. Spencer Hines

February 25th 07, 06:54 AM

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
>> Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of
>> disk space after installation is complete, depending on what
>> is installed.
>>
>> But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs
>> installed and many other files in storage, I'm only consuming
>> 16.44 GB.
>>
>> What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of
>> software called Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I
>> still haven't heard it.
>
> Have you ever heard the phrase "don't try to fix it if it isn't
> broken" and "never give Murphy an even break"? If you don't know
> why you want or need Vista, then a) Bill Gates has failed in his
> marketing message or b) you really don't.

Yes, I've heard of all those and follow them. I fear Bill Gates is an
absentee landlord these days and his successors don't have a steady hand on
the tiller.

>> I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've
>> yet to hear them.
>>
>> Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.
>>
>> I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user --
>> but Microsoft needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and
>> "Transparent Windows" and other rinky-dink cosmetic
>> enhancement simply don't cut it.
>>
>> TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:
>>
>> 1. ------------
>>
>> 2. ------------
>>
>> 3. ------------
>>
>> And so forth.
>>
>> I haven't seen it.
>>
> You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that much
> of life revolves around perception, and not absolute truth, but
> reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you PERCEIVE you need
> the next whiz bang, then I guess you do, but be prepared for some
> headaches if you're an early adopter on something this big.

D'accord.

DSH -- Spence
--
> HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 10:48 AM

Today, Dale made these interesting comments ...

> Moore's Law.
>
Thanks, Dale!
>
>> Ken, I forget the fellow's name, but I imagine you would
>> know, but the one who predicted 20-30 years ago that
>> computers would double in performance every couple of years
>> but be half as expensive.
[snip]

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 11:01 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

> I agree with everything you said and also stay at N -1.
>
> I've been on the bleeding edge of technology and it's a pain
> in the lower parts -- for no gain at all.

I enjoyed FORTRAN programming while in engineering school circa
late 1960s and did it at work for about 5 years or so in mid-
career. Then, I bought an early Apple ][ as a toy in 1978 and PCs
beginning about 1988. I was the consumate hobbyist back then,
dreamily happy that I could beat the beasts into submission,
write my own code in multiple languages to do what I could not
buy, and didn't worry about the high cost and problems associated
with upgrade-at-any-cost thinking. I even did some Visual Basic
3.0 programming in Windows 3.1.

Then, rather suddenly one day in the summer of 1995, in the midst
of some sort of frustrating problem I was trying to fix after
just upgrading some HW or maybe installing a new app, when it
suddenly dawned on me that I was spending MORE time making the
blinking thing work than I was getting useful output from it! At
that point, I was pushing 50 and had moved on to bigger and
better things than software programming, so I no longer viewed my
home PC - and certainly not my work one, that was professionally
supported by people I managed back then - as a toy or hobby, I
began to view it as a very sophisticed adding machine, the old
analogy, that I had bought to do MY bidding.

That day, I quit being a hobbyist cold-turkey and went to N-1 or
even N-2. Yes, I have missed out on some "breakthroughs", but
generally, I am OK.

I also remember MS warning me that Win 98 wouldn't be supported
any longer, but it was for security, just not updates. Right now,
my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs HDD
is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer supported, the
little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray coming from MS, of
course. Well, it is still getting security fixes as well, and I
think it will continue to do so.

My view on "obsolete" is that while MS would certainly like me to
buy her a new PC, with Vista, or at least bite the bullet and
install SP2 (which I won't do because her system would become
unstable), I can seen a year, maybe several more years, of useful
life on a tool for her that is only used to get E-mail, look at
picture attachments from friends, and web surf. She doesn't need
the latest whiz tools and is happy enough that it doesn't crash.

Since Christmas I have toyed, gently, of having my nephew build
me a hot dual- or quad-core PC with lots more gigs or RAM to
enhance the speed of my digital camera and scanning graphics
work, but I'd have to majorly upgrade all of my apps, beginning
the slide back into oblivion since I would need Vista to get
where I want to go someday. And, right now, the increase in real
speed that I would see vs. advertised increases just from clock
speed that are eaten up by Vista partially is only about 40-50%
and I'd like to see at least 2X before I run the gauntlet again.

Please note everyone: I am NOT whacking on MS or any app
developer, but they all drink water from the same river along
with the rest of the animals.

> Yes, you're constantly Beta-testing and wasting time on
> trivial matters -- NOT getting useful work done.
>
[snip]

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 11:14 AM

Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...

[snip]
> I keep wondering why so may miss the point that Windows is
> bloated. It has nothing to do with how much free disk space
> you have or how much hard drives cost or how fast a system you
> run it on. Because Windows is bloated at some say 500 million
> lines of code (doubt it that's big) it is without a doubt
> infested top to bottom with coding errors. Murphy's Law
> applies. The larger the size of any "program" or it Windows
> case zillions of little applets all tied together with most
> not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the
> potential for human error by a huge factor.

Adam, I am hardly "missing" the fact that Vista, like all modern
software, is bloated and inefficiently written and/or compiled as
the driving force is increased sales with minimum human cost, not
the ultra-high HW cost that once drove the industry. But, I am
trying this time around not to develop the rep again of calling
Vista "Windoze" and Microsoft "M$", so I'm just ignoring the
obvious in public.

> This "problem" multiplies with each new release of Windows
> because each newer version is bigger and Microsoft never seems
> to find time to get around to fixing all the bugs in the
> previous release so in effect they get carried over and the
> latest version adds new, mostly yet undiscovered bugs. What a
> way to run a railroad.

Again, it isn't just MS. Product cycles for major, and even some
minor apps and utilities used to be 2-3 years, then it was 2
years, then it was 18 months, now it is 12 months and dropping.
That is clearly NOT what MS is doing, not even if you call an SP
a product cycle release. But, it IS what everybody else is doing
in their frenzy to artificially increase sales to their installed
base by either frightening them into upgrading so they don't fall
behind, or moving the GUI around so that it looks new.

I cannot - and will not - buy new versions or all-new
apps/utilities every year! And, ALL of my software either runs
poorly on Vista, as it is on the old side and thus no longer
supported or I would have to upgrade to fully take advantage of
today's HW and Vista in general.

> There is nothing wrong with adding new features. Still it
> would be hard to say Vista isn't bloated with all kinds of
> clutter. This is also true for browsers.

Most people, maybe all of us, have trouble differentiating
between needs and wants. And, the job of marketing for ANY
industry whether hard or soft, whether product or service, and no
matter what market segment, is to plant the seeds of discontent
in a current or potential new customer that they will die a
painful death if they don't buy X, Y, or Z.

I am in the American car biz, as you would guess, and not only
have the Big Three discovered that this upgrade-at-any-cost
syndrome, i.e., buy a new car, no longer works, even the Asians
(other than the Chinese) and Europeans are "discoverying" it. In
my biz, people simply cannot afford to "upgrade" especially as
they are being "downsized" for salary, so they repair and drive
for 5, 8, 12 years and upwards of 150-200,000 miles.

Moore's Law has kept costs dropping while performance increases
so the shrinking car market thingy hasn't seemed to hurt
computers, but eventually it will. The market is virtually
saturated and people do have other things to do with their time
and money.

> I don't know if it works with Vista, probably not, but if
> you're still running XP, download a copy of the Opera browser.
> Use it for just a day or two and then go back to IE7.
>
> You'll see the difference immediately between lean mean fast
> running code and bloatware.
>
Well, I refuse to let MS install IE7 and will continue to do so
while a breath is left in my XP body. Fast code CAN be written,
but MS has NEVER - in my view and many others - been a true
innovator no matter what Bill Gates says, and has never been a
purveyor of fast, efficient software, at least not since the
halcyon days of MS DOS. I remember fondly how slow MS software
development tools were to run and how lightning fast Turbo Pascal
was to compile and also execute that it was mind boggling. But,
so long as new mass-market PC hardware drives new customers to
Vista - and thus to upgraded apps - and millions of other people
go on some sort of feeding frenzy to buy new SW, it will succeed.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might agree that the HW and SW
bunch are in cahoots on this, but I'm not.

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 25th 07, 11:17 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

>> Have you ever heard the phrase "don't try to fix it if it
>> isn't broken" and "never give Murphy an even break"? If you
>> don't know why you want or need Vista, then a) Bill Gates has
>> failed in his marketing message or b) you really don't.
>
> Yes, I've heard of all those and follow them. I fear Bill
> Gates is an absentee landlord these days and his successors
> don't have a steady hand on the tiller.

The new head of MS, the guy Gates hired as CEO, is a consumate
businessman and has steadily raised their sales, revenues and
profits, which is what a traditional CEO is supposed to do. So, he
well deserves the salary, bonuses, and stock options he is getting.
But, he is not, not, NOT the techno visionary that Bill Gates is,
so my view is that Gates will never fully relinquish the throne to
an old-fashioned bean counter, even though that is exactly what MS
needs to do in a market driven by costs and with limited markets to
conquer, if they cannot convince people to upgrade on a whim.

[snip]
>> You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that
>> much of life revolves around perception, and not absolute
>> truth, but reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you
>> PERCEIVE you need the next whiz bang, then I guess you do,
>> but be prepared for some headaches if you're an early adopter
>> on something this big.
>
> D'accord.
>
Have a good Sunday, Spence!

--
HP, aka Jerry

D. Spencer Hines

February 25th 07, 05:04 PM

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Right now,
> my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs HDD
> is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer supported, the
> little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray coming from MS, of
> course. Well, it is still getting security fixes as well, and I
> think it will continue to do so.

I didn't know that.

I'm running XP Pro SP2...

Can it be far behind?

Two years at most?

Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?

DSH

D. Spencer Hines

February 25th 07, 07:30 PM

You are certainly right about that.

But they are pushing it VERY Aggressively.

DSH

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Well, I refuse to let MS install IE7 and will continue to do so
> while a breath is left in my XP body.

D. Spencer Hines

February 25th 07, 07:42 PM

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

>> I fear Bill Gates is an absentee landlord these days and
>> his successors don't have a steady hand on the tiller.
>
> The new head of MS, the guy Gates hired as CEO,...

Yes, what's his name -- Steve something or other? Former MS President --
now CEO?

>is a consumate
> businessman and has steadily raised their sales, revenues and
> profits, which is what a traditional CEO is supposed to do. So, he
> well deserves the salary, bonuses, and stock options he is getting.

Good Points & True.

> But, he is not, not, NOT the techno visionary that Bill Gates is,
> so my view is that Gates will never fully relinquish the throne to
> an old-fashioned bean counter, even though that is exactly what MS
> needs to do in a market driven by costs and with limited markets to
> conquer, if they cannot convince people to upgrade on a whim.

Yep, Bill and Melinda need to stop giving away their money and Warren
Buffet's for a while [although I understand exactly why they are doing it --
all the reasons] and watch the store more.

It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are convinced that Big
Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must be brought to heel -- by said
Judges -- or broken up if they fail to heel. It's often an eat the Golden
Goose solution.

> [snip]
>>> You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that
>>> much of life revolves around perception, and not absolute
>>> truth, but reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you
>>> PERCEIVE you need the next whiz bang, then I guess you do,
>>> but be prepared for some headaches if you're an early adopter
>>> on something this big.
>>
>> D'accord.
>>
> Have a good Sunday, Spence!

Oh, I am indeed -- on O'ahu -- Kailua.

And you too -- where, in general, if you don't mind.

DSH

> --
> HP, aka Jerry

Dale

February 25th 07, 11:01 PM

"D. Spencer Hines" > wrote in message >>

> It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are convinced that Big
> Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must be brought to heel -- by said
> Judges -- or broken up if they fail to heel. It's often an eat the Golden
> Goose solution.

Actually, it was the Bush administration who dropped the anti-trust cases
against Microsoft.

TOM7601

February 26th 07, 01:04 AM

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
>>> I fear Bill Gates is an absentee landlord these days and
>>> his successors don't have a steady hand on the tiller.
>> The new head of MS, the guy Gates hired as CEO,...
>
> Yes, what's his name -- Steve something or other? Former MS President --
> now CEO?
>
>> is a consumate
>> businessman and has steadily raised their sales, revenues and
>> profits, which is what a traditional CEO is supposed to do. So, he
>> well deserves the salary, bonuses, and stock options he is getting.
>
> Good Points & True.
>
>> But, he is not, not, NOT the techno visionary that Bill Gates is,
>> so my view is that Gates will never fully relinquish the throne to
>> an old-fashioned bean counter, even though that is exactly what MS
>> needs to do in a market driven by costs and with limited markets to
>> conquer, if they cannot convince people to upgrade on a whim.
>
> Yep, Bill and Melinda need to stop giving away their money and Warren
> Buffet's for a while [although I understand exactly why they are doing it --
> all the reasons] and watch the store more.
>
> It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are convinced that Big
> Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must be brought to heel -- by said
> Judges -- or broken up if they fail to heel. It's often an eat the Golden
> Goose solution.
>
>> [snip]
>>>> You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that
>>>> much of life revolves around perception, and not absolute
>>>> truth, but reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you
>>>> PERCEIVE you need the next whiz bang, then I guess you do,
>>>> but be prepared for some headaches if you're an early adopter
>>>> on something this big.
>>> D'accord.
>>>
>> Have a good Sunday, Spence!
>
> Oh, I am indeed -- on O'ahu -- Kailua.
>
> And you too -- where, in general, if you don't mind.
>
> DSH
>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry

And the next time you're looking for a job, ask the guy with the
squeegee, down on Main Street for a job...
--
Tom - Vista, CA

TOM7601

February 26th 07, 01:05 AM

Dale wrote:
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" > wrote in message >>
>
>
>> It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are convinced that
>> Big Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must be brought to heel -- by
>> said Judges -- or broken up if they fail to heel. It's often an eat
>> the Golden Goose solution.
>
> Actually, it was the Bush administration who dropped the anti-trust
> cases against Microsoft.

And a good thing someone had enough guts to do it...
--
Tom - Vista, CA

[email protected]

February 26th 07, 01:17 AM

On Feb 24, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" >
wrote:
> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>
> DSH

Yes PISTA requires about 18G of space.
My current Ubuntu Linux install is about 16G and that includes all
the Linux applications!!

You need to be de-Pistified!

Try Linux!

Dale

February 26th 07, 02:12 AM

You mean Linux installed all those programs you didn't ask for?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 24, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" >
> wrote:
>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>>
>> DSH
>
>
> Yes PISTA requires about 18G of space.
> My current Ubuntu Linux install is about 16G and that includes all
> the Linux applications!!
>
> You need to be de-Pistified!
>
> Try Linux!
>

HEMI-Powered

February 26th 07, 04:27 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Right now,
>> my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs
>> HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer
>> supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray
>> coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still getting security
>> fixes as well, and I think it will continue to do so.
>
> I didn't know that.
>
> I'm running XP Pro SP2...
>
> Can it be far behind?
>
> Two years at most?
>
> Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?
>
It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista replaces
any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would expect MS to
support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for critical updates and
security patches, but not features or other kinds of bugs.

When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the babbling of
someone who is trying to scare her into upgrading, who would be me,
and I am not easily intimidated. As to SP2, I have seen nothing.
Still, what exactly are you afraid of? I know many people leading
perfectly happy lives with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP Home or
Pro native, no SPs.

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 26th 07, 04:30 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

> You are certainly right about that.
>
> But they are pushing it VERY Aggressively.
>
> DSH
>
> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Well, I refuse to let MS install IE7 and will continue to do
>> so while a breath is left in my XP body.
>
No matter what we have been told or led to believe, no one can
force you to do anything you do not want to do, just as a salesman
no matter how good can sell you on something you do not want to
buy. However, in both examples YOU must take decisive action to
prevent an unwanted conclusion. In my case, I prevent Windows from
auto updating my PC 100%, I have both of them set to "notify only
but do not download or install". And, I have opted out of the IE7
auto install gambit. But, them who allow another to take away their
freedoms deserve exactly what they get, and I am NOT referring at
all specifically to MS, as other software developers do similar
things, as do cell phone providers, PDA sellers, car makers, anyone
who deals in modifiable computer code.

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 26th 07, 04:35 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
>>> I fear Bill Gates is an absentee landlord these days and his
>>> successors don't have a steady hand on the tiller.
>>
>> The new head of MS, the guy Gates hired as CEO,...
>
> Yes, what's his name -- Steve something or other? Former MS
> President -- now CEO?

Yes, you just jogged my memory - it is Steve Ballmer (maybe
spelled wrong).
>
>>is a consumate
>> businessman and has steadily raised their sales, revenues and
>> profits, which is what a traditional CEO is supposed to do.
>> So, he well deserves the salary, bonuses, and stock options
>> he is getting.
>
> Good Points & True.
>
>> But, he is not, not, NOT the techno visionary that Bill Gates
>> is, so my view is that Gates will never fully relinquish the
>> throne to an old-fashioned bean counter, even though that is
>> exactly what MS needs to do in a market driven by costs and
>> with limited markets to conquer, if they cannot convince
>> people to upgrade on a whim.
>
> Yep, Bill and Melinda need to stop giving away their money and
> Warren Buffet's for a while [although I understand exactly why
> they are doing it -- all the reasons] and watch the store
> more.

Bill and Melinda are free to give away THEIR money, it ain't any
of our business. But, my personal view, shared by some and
disparaged by others, is that besides being a visionary, Bill
Gates is also an extreme egotist in the best vein of a Lee
Iacocca, so I don't think he will ever totally drop the reins.

> It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are
> convinced that Big Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must be
> brought to heel -- by said Judges -- or broken up if they fail
> to heel. It's often an eat the Golden Goose solution.

Let's try to keep politics out of this, OK? I will make only one
comment about the courts: they are highly divided as to whether
anyone's EULA is or is not enforceable because they ALL violate
one main tenate of a contract, and that is the right of either
party to modify the contract prior to agreeing. There never has
been any law or rulings that force the other party to agree to
the changes, but full agreement on the wording, as well as full
agreement on what contract attorney's call "consideration", which
often means money but doesn't always mean that.

>> [snip]
>>>> You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that
>>>> much of life revolves around perception, and not absolute
>>>> truth, but reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you
>>>> PERCEIVE you need the next whiz bang, then I guess you do,
>>>> but be prepared for some headaches if you're an early
>>>> adopter on something this big.
>>>
>>> D'accord.
>>>
>> Have a good Sunday, Spence!
>
> Oh, I am indeed -- on O'ahu -- Kailua.
>
> And you too -- where, in general, if you don't mind.
>
> DSH

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 26th 07, 04:36 AM

Today, Dale made these interesting comments ...

> "D. Spencer Hines" > wrote in message
>
>> It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are
>> convinced that Big Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must
>> be brought to heel -- by said Judges -- or broken up if they
>> fail to heel. It's often an eat the Golden Goose solution.
>
> Actually, it was the Bush administration who dropped the
> anti-trust cases against Microsoft.
>
Again, please keep the politics out of here. This isn't
a.b.p.military, it is a MS peer-to-peer and MVP support group. In
another minute or two, we'll be debating first the American
political system then the international one, and I'd prefer not to
have to wade through war in Iraq crap here. Thank you.

--
HP, aka Jerry

D. Spencer Hines

February 26th 07, 05:00 AM

Yes, I understand entirely.

I was using 98 for years before XP Pro SP2.

I'm not afraid -- just inquisitive. <g>

Thanks.

XP Pro SP2 is phat though.

DSH

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Right now,
>>> my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs
>>> HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer
>>> supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray
>>> coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still getting security
>>> fixes as well, and I think it will continue to do so.
>>
>> I didn't know that.
>>
>> I'm running XP Pro SP2...
>>
>> Can it be far behind?
>>
>> Two years at most?
>>
>> Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?
>>
> It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista replaces
> any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would expect MS to
> support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for critical updates and
> security patches, but not features or other kinds of bugs.
>
> When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the babbling of
> someone who is trying to scare her into upgrading, who would be me,
> and I am not easily intimidated. As to SP2, I have seen nothing.
> Still, what exactly are you afraid of? I know many people leading
> perfectly happy lives with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP Home or
> Pro native, no SPs.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

D. Spencer Hines

February 26th 07, 05:03 AM

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
>> You are certainly right about that.
>>
>> But they are pushing it VERY Aggressively.
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Well, I refuse to let MS install IE7 and will continue to do
>>> so while a breath is left in my XP body.
>>
> No matter what we have been told or led to believe, no one can
> force you to do anything you do not want to do, just as a salesman
> no matter how good can sell you on something you do not want to
> buy. However, in both examples YOU must take decisive action to
> prevent an unwanted conclusion. In my case, I prevent Windows from
> auto updating my PC 100%, I have both of them set to "notify only
> but do not download or install".

As have I.

> And, I have opted out of the IE7
> auto install gambit.

As have I.

> But, them who allow another to take away their
> freedoms deserve exactly what they get, and I am NOT referring at
> all specifically to MS, as other software developers do similar
> things, as do cell phone providers, PDA sellers, car makers, anyone
> who deals in modifiable computer code.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

D. Spencer Hines

February 26th 07, 05:09 AM

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

>> Yep, Bill and Melinda need to stop giving away their money and
>> Warren Buffet's for a while [although I understand exactly why
>> they are doing it -- all the reasons] and watch the store
>> more.
>
> Bill and Melinda are free to give away THEIR money, it ain't any
> of our business. But, my personal view, shared by some and
> disparaged by others, is that besides being a visionary, Bill
> Gates is also an extreme egotist in the best vein of a Lee
> Iacocca, so I don't think he will ever totally drop the reins.
>
>> It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are
>> convinced that Big Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must be
>> brought to heel -- by said Judges -- or broken up if they fail
>> to heel. It's often an eat the Golden Goose solution.
>
> Let's try to keep politics out of this, OK?

Politics can NEVER be kept out of such weighty matters. Politics are where
we work these matters out.

> I will make only one
> comment about the courts: they are highly divided as to whether
> anyone's EULA is or is not enforceable because they ALL violate
> one main tenate of a contract, and that is the right of either
> party to modify the contract prior to agreeing. There never has
> been any law or rulings that force the other party to agree to
> the changes, but full agreement on the wording, as well as full
> agreement on what contract attorney's call "consideration", which
> often means money but doesn't always mean that.
>
>>> Have a good Sunday, Spence!
>>
>> Oh, I am indeed -- on O'ahu -- Kailua.
>>
>> And you too -- where, in general, if you don't mind.
>>
>> DSH
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 26th 07, 11:10 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

> Yes, I understand entirely.
>
> I was using 98 for years before XP Pro SP2.
>
> I'm not afraid -- just inquisitive. <g>

Sorry, bad choice of words on my part. One big problem with the
written word is that intonation and body language is impossible,
we're left with just BS like <grin> to tell people our feelings.
You came across - to me - like you were getting a panic attack.
I'll try to be more sensitive, DSH.
> Thanks.
>
> XP Pro SP2 is phat though.
>
> DSH
>
> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>>
>>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Right now,
>>>> my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs
>>>> HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer
>>>> supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray
>>>> coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still getting
>>>> security fixes as well, and I think it will continue to do
>>>> so.
>>>
>>> I didn't know that.
>>>
>>> I'm running XP Pro SP2...
>>>
>>> Can it be far behind?
>>>
>>> Two years at most?
>>>
>>> Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?
>>>
>> It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
>> replaces any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would
>> expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
>> critical updates and security patches, but not features or
>> other kinds of bugs.
>>
>> When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the
>> babbling of someone who is trying to scare her into
>> upgrading, who would be me, and I am not easily intimidated.
>> As to SP2, I have seen nothing. Still, what exactly are you
>> afraid of? I know many people leading perfectly happy lives
>> with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP Home or Pro native, no
>> SPs.
>>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry
>
>
>

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 26th 07, 11:16 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

>>> It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are
>>> convinced that Big Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must
>>> be brought to heel -- by said Judges -- or broken up if they
>>> fail to heel. It's often an eat the Golden Goose solution.
>>
>> Let's try to keep politics out of this, OK?
>
> Politics can NEVER be kept out of such weighty matters.
> Politics are where we work these matters out.

I am big believer in dissent being the only true and useful tool
to initiate real change. It was certainly true during the
Declaration of Independence day, the Revolutionary War, the
Constitutional Convention, development of political parties in
this country, and on to this very day. If the dissent, with its
obligatory political side, can be thoughtful and factual, and not
emotional, personal, and purely party politics, then I am not
only all for it, I will join in, as I have here. This thread,
unlike many, has not resulted in any flaming nor smart-ass
comments so far.

What I would NOT want to see is an American government political
debate, for example, whether it was liberal judges appointed
presumeably from some prior Democratic president's administration
that allowed MS off the hook or not, I would rather describe it
as I did, as in "the court hearing the MS monopoly case, brought
my Netscape, and X, Y and Z was decided in favor of MS because it
demonstrated A, B, anc C." and just leave off the left-wing part,
which I can't even verify.

So, let's dissent within the charter of this NG and not go
negative. No, I'm NOT suggesting that you are, just stating my
preferance. Threads can go anyway they like, I guess they have a
First Amendment as well! now, a <grin>

>> I will make only one
>> comment about the courts: they are highly divided as to
>> whether anyone's EULA is or is not enforceable because they
>> ALL violate one main tenate of a contract, and that is the
>> right of either party to modify the contract prior to
>> agreeing. There never has been any law or rulings that force
>> the other party to agree to the changes, but full agreement
>> on the wording, as well as full agreement on what contract
>> attorney's call "consideration", which often means money but
>> doesn't always mean that.
--
HP, aka Jerry

TOM7601

February 26th 07, 01:57 PM

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
>> Yes, I understand entirely.
>>
>> I was using 98 for years before XP Pro SP2.
>>
>> I'm not afraid -- just inquisitive. <g>
>
> Sorry, bad choice of words on my part. One big problem with the
> written word is that intonation and body language is impossible,
> we're left with just BS like <grin> to tell people our feelings.
> You came across - to me - like you were getting a panic attack.
> I'll try to be more sensitive, DSH.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> XP Pro SP2 is phat though.
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>>>
>>>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Right now,
>>>>> my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs
>>>>> HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer
>>>>> supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray
>>>>> coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still getting
>>>>> security fixes as well, and I think it will continue to do
>>>>> so.
>>>> I didn't know that.
>>>>
>>>> I'm running XP Pro SP2...
>>>>
>>>> Can it be far behind?
>>>>
>>>> Two years at most?
>>>>
>>>> Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?
>>>>
>>> It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
>>> replaces any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would
>>> expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
>>> critical updates and security patches, but not features or
>>> other kinds of bugs.
>>>
>>> When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the
>>> babbling of someone who is trying to scare her into
>>> upgrading, who would be me, and I am not easily intimidated.
>>> As to SP2, I have seen nothing. Still, what exactly are you
>>> afraid of? I know many people leading perfectly happy lives
>>> with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP Home or Pro native, no
>>> SPs.
>>>
>>> --
>>> HP, aka Jerry

I think I'll stick with Windows for Workgroups v 3.11.

Hey, I'm kidding!!! :>))
--
Tom - Vista, CA

Ken Blake, MVP

February 26th 07, 06:13 PM

HEMI-Powered wrote:

> It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista replaces
> any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would expect MS to
> support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for critical updates and
> security patches, but not features or other kinds of bugs.

There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is* planning a Windows XP
SP3. It's currently planned for for the first half of next year. See
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

D. Spencer Hines

February 26th 07, 07:08 PM

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
>> Yes, I understand entirely.
>>
>> I was using 98 for years before XP Pro SP2.
>>
>> I'm not afraid -- just inquisitive. <g>
>
> Sorry, bad choice of words on my part. One big problem with the
> written word is that intonation and body language is impossible,
> we're left with just BS like <grin> to tell people our feelings.
> You came across - to me - like you were getting a panic attack.

Nope. I never have those. I'm afraid I sometimes induce them in others,
however. I'm not talking about you, of course.

> I'll try to be more sensitive, DSH.

<G>

No Harm Done. Are you a New Sensitive Male? <G>

XP Pro SP2 is phat.

Microsoft did an excellent job on this one.

DSH

>> Thanks.
>>
>> XP Pro SP2 is phat though.
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>>>
>>>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Right now,
>>>>> my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs
>>>>> HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer
>>>>> supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray
>>>>> coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still getting
>>>>> security fixes as well, and I think it will continue to do
>>>>> so.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't know that.
>>>>
>>>> I'm running XP Pro SP2...
>>>>
>>>> Can it be far behind?
>>>>
>>>> Two years at most?
>>>>
>>>> Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?
>>>>
>>> It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
>>> replaces any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would
>>> expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
>>> critical updates and security patches, but not features or
>>> other kinds of bugs.
>>>
>>> When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the
>>> babbling of someone who is trying to scare her into
>>> upgrading, who would be me, and I am not easily intimidated.
>>> As to SP2, I have seen nothing. Still, what exactly are you
>>> afraid of? I know many people leading perfectly happy lives
>>> with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP Home or Pro native, no
>>> SPs.
>>>
>>> --
>>> HP, aka Jerry
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

D. Spencer Hines

February 26th 07, 07:20 PM

All I'm saying is that some judges just do NOT like BIGNESS in BUSINESS --
they think it's inherently bad.

SO, they hate Microsoft.

Bill Gates was not sensitive enough to those political currents and did NOT
grease enough Congressional palms with campaign contributions and schmooze
with politicians -- admittedly an execrable pastime.

Microsoft then became a target for all sorts of crazies -- and is now
restricted from including all sorts of things, which we actually need, in
the OS.

We have to buy them as expensive add-ons and since they are made by
different companies -- some of them fly-by-nights -- the OS and the apps are
no longer seamless and singing from the same sheet of music -- which is a
Perpetual PITA.

NOW, Bill and Melinda are doing a First-Rate job of giving away money and
building Corporate Goodwill for Microsoft, which is all to the good -- for
consumers, employees, stockholders -- and all Americans -- because Microsoft
is one of our most important corporations.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...

> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
>>>> It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are
>>>> convinced that Big Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must
>>>> be brought to heel -- by said Judges -- or broken up if they
>>>> fail to heel. It's often an eat the Golden Goose solution.
>>>
>>> Let's try to keep politics out of this, OK?
>>
>> Politics can NEVER be kept out of such weighty matters.
>> Politics are where we work these matters out.
>
> I am big believer in dissent being the only true and useful tool
> to initiate real change. It was certainly true during the
> Declaration of Independence day, the Revolutionary War, the
> Constitutional Convention, development of political parties in
> this country, and on to this very day. If the dissent, with its
> obligatory political side, can be thoughtful and factual, and not
> emotional, personal, and purely party politics, then I am not
> only all for it, I will join in, as I have here. This thread,
> unlike many, has not resulted in any flaming nor smart-ass
> comments so far.
>
> What I would NOT want to see is an American government political
> debate, for example, whether it was liberal judges appointed
> presumeably from some prior Democratic president's administration
> that allowed MS off the hook or not, I would rather describe it
> as I did, as in "the court hearing the MS monopoly case, brought
> my Netscape, and X, Y and Z was decided in favor of MS because it
> demonstrated A, B, anc C." and just leave off the left-wing part,
> which I can't even verify.
>
> So, let's dissent within the charter of this NG and not go
> negative. No, I'm NOT suggesting that you are, just stating my
> preferance. Threads can go anyway they like, I guess they have a
> First Amendment as well! now, a <grin>
>
>>> I will make only one
>>> comment about the courts: they are highly divided as to
>>> whether anyone's EULA is or is not enforceable because they
>>> ALL violate one main tenate of a contract, and that is the
>>> right of either party to modify the contract prior to
>>> agreeing. There never has been any law or rulings that force
>>> the other party to agree to the changes, but full agreement
>>> on the wording, as well as full agreement on what contract
>>> attorney's call "consideration", which often means money but
>>> doesn't always mean that.
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

D. Spencer Hines

February 26th 07, 07:30 PM

More Precisely & Succinctly:

"SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H CY2008. This
date is preliminary."

Note The TWO Caveats -- "currently planned for" and "preliminary".

<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx>

Astute weasel-wording.

My congratulations to the writers. Trap-door escape hatches galore.

DSH
-------------------------------------------

"Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in message
...

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>> It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista replaces
>> any major maintence [sic] releases of XP. But, I would expect MS to
>> support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for critical updates and
>> security patches, but not features or other kinds of bugs.
>
>
> There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is* planning a Windows
> XP SP3. It's currently planned for for [sic] the first half of next year.
> See
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup

HEMI-Powered

February 26th 07, 11:41 PM

Today, Ken Blake, MVP made these interesting comments ...

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>> It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
>> replaces any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would
>> expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
>> critical updates and security patches, but not features or
>> other kinds of bugs.
>
>
> There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is* planning
> a Windows XP SP3. It's currently planned for for the first
> half of next year. See
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
>
Ken, you are constrained by an NDA, so, no, there are no guarantees
and if you actually knew one way or another, you couldn't say. MS
will decide if it is most cost effective to continue to piecemeal
critical fixes or create a SP, or simply abandom millions of
customers. I'm not an MVP and don't want to be, but have there been
new SPs AFTER the release of an entirely new version?

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 26th 07, 11:44 PM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

> More Precisely & Succinctly:
>
> "SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H
> CY2008. This date is preliminary."
>
> Note The TWO Caveats -- "currently planned for" and
> "preliminary".
>
> <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx>
>
> Astute weasel-wording.
>
> My congratulations to the writers. Trap-door escape hatches
> galore.

Spence, notice also that the wording is in tiny letters and not
highlighted nor is there a link to go to for more info. MS will
decide to do an SP3 for only one of two reasons: 1) it costs less
than continuing HUNDREDS of individual patches or 2) Vista flops.
2) isn't all that likely, but the real thing is a combo of both.
I know of NO companies who will pre-announce future product
offerings or some sort of warrenty that far ahead.

> DSH
> -------------------------------------------
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>
>>> It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
>>> replaces any major maintence [sic] releases of XP. But, I
>>> would expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
>>> critical updates and security patches, but not features or
>>> other kinds of bugs.
>>
>>
>> There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is*
>> planning a Windows XP SP3. It's currently planned for for
>> [sic] the first half of next year. See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

February 26th 07, 11:48 PM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>>
>>> Yes, I understand entirely.
>>>
>>> I was using 98 for years before XP Pro SP2.
>>>
>>> I'm not afraid -- just inquisitive. <g>
>>
>> Sorry, bad choice of words on my part. One big problem with
>> the written word is that intonation and body language is
>> impossible, we're left with just BS like <grin> to tell
>> people our feelings. You came across - to me - like you were
>> getting a panic attack.
>
> Nope. I never have those. I'm afraid I sometimes induce them
> in others, however. I'm not talking about you, of course.
>
>> I'll try to be more sensitive, DSH.
>
> <G>
>
> No Harm Done. Are you a New Sensitive Male? <G>

Not that I am aware of <grin back at ya> But, there are times
when my people skills fail me, which is why I apologized in
advance in case I'd spoken out of turn.
>
> XP Pro SP2 is phat.

I resisted SP2 for about 15 months. My first 6 months or so, even
then, were majorly traumatic and I have no desire to repeat that
experience again until the jury is at least partially in on
Vista. Again, I don't beta test with my Visa card and I don't try
to fix things that aren't broken nor do I invite visits from
Murphy. Other than that, yeah, SP2 is phatter than SP1 which was
phatter than XP which was phatter than ME which was phatter than
98 SE which was ... back to Bill Gates DOS 1.0. Oh, well, ya gots
ta run something! <grin again>

> Microsoft did an excellent job on this one.
>
> DSH
>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> XP Pro SP2 is phat though.
>>>
>>> DSH
>>>
>>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>>>>
>>>>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now,
>>>>>> my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20
>>>>>> gigs HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no
>>>>>> longer supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the
>>>>>> systray coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still
>>>>>> getting security fixes as well, and I think it will
>>>>>> continue to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm running XP Pro SP2...
>>>>>
>>>>> Can it be far behind?
>>>>>
>>>>> Two years at most?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?
>>>>>
>>>> It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista
>>>> replaces any major maintence releases of XP. But, I would
>>>> expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely for
>>>> critical updates and security patches, but not features or
>>>> other kinds of bugs.
>>>>
>>>> When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the
>>>> babbling of someone who is trying to scare her into
>>>> upgrading, who would be me, and I am not easily
>>>> intimidated. As to SP2, I have seen nothing. Still, what
>>>> exactly are you afraid of? I know many people leading
>>>> perfectly happy lives with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP
>>>> Home or Pro native, no SPs.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> HP, aka Jerry
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry
>
>
>

--
HP, aka Jerry

Homer J. Simpson

March 1st 07, 07:51 PM

> have there been new SPs AFTER the release of an entirely new version?

Yes, in almost every single instance. I don't have actual release dates in
front of me, but going strictly from memory, I'm pretty sure NT4 SP6 (or its
subsequent re-release) came out after Windows 2000, and 2000 SP4 (or, again,
its subsequent re-release) came out after long after XP.

And I fully anticipate a third service pack for XP. 2003 SP2 has been at an
RC level for a few months now.

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 3rd 07, 08:46 AM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:11:24 -0000, "Robert Moir"
>D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

>Others have explained about the install requirements. As for "in use", I
>wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb partition...

I'm using 32G, and that's working so far - but then I make a point of
storing games, data, music, videos, pictures, downloads, desktop etc.
off C: on other (safer) HD volumes.

By the same token, on XP that C: would only be 8G.

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 3rd 07, 09:06 AM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:46:20 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

When XP came out, that 8G footprint was 20% of a 40G HD.
When Vista came out, that 32G footprint is 10% of a 320G HD.

So the head travel within a small C: should be similar, even though
the volume is bigger, and the heat travel required to step over the C:
to where your data, games etc. start is about the same too.

Then again, if you try to use a crappy "new" laptop with 40G HD as a
"desktop replacement", then YMMV. Laptop specs always cost more and
suck rocks, especially when it comes to HD capacity.

>I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista

I wouldn't upgrade a working XP system to Vista, just I wouldn't have
upgraded previous OSs on PCs that were running them.

OTOH, I would refuse to accept delivery of a "new" PC running XP.

>Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.

>I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but Microsoft
>needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows" and
>other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it.

>TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:

>1. ------------
Support for new hardware initiatives, such as ReadyBoost USB sticks,
hybrid hard drives (that contain flash memory onboard), auxilliary
displays if that rocks your boat, etc.

>2. ------------
Some safety clue that programs should not automatically get the same
rights as the user, even if the user is "admin"; i.e. UAC, IE 7
protected mode, etc. Right now this is a pain point, but when sware
switched to being written for Vista, the pain will ease and the
usefullness will increase.

>3. ------------
Better UI - and by that I mean more effective UI, not just "prettier"
(I generally don't use Aero even on Aero-capable hardware because I
prefer the cheaper Home Basic). File specs are now "live", i.e. each
node in the path is a navigable drop-down list. Renaming files now
preserves the file name extension (i.e. you can change it but it's not
part of the initial selected text). It's now far easier to tell
whether your LAN is sexposing file shares, and what they are.

4.
Related to 3; many aspects of PC use are now better explained in terms
that are easy, yet not patronizingly dummied-down. For folks short of
the full geek vocabulary and skill set, this is quite a win.

5.
Several new functionalities that were either absent in XP, or were
fairly useless "stubs", rather like DOS 4's DOSShell. Performance and
reliability centers, WinPE, WinRE... Recovery Console just grew up
from being a useful bunch of preset tricks to a proper maintenance OS
at last. That alone is a reason to use Vista, especially for NTFS.

I'll leave 6 to 10 as "an exercise for the reader" ;-)

>And so forth.
>I haven't seen it.

A lot of this stuff, you won't see until you live with and use it a
bit more intensively that the average magazine reviewer.

More to the point is where you are in your PC's lifeline. If you have
a 2-year-old PC you don't expect to be using by 2009, then there's
less reason to consider Vista, but if building a PC in 2007 that you;d
want to still be using in 2010, you should insist on it.

Right now, what kills Win98? Inability to natively use USB sticks,
cameras and other storage, poor or absent support for today's USB
printers and scanners, no support for HD > 137G, issues with fast
processors... that's where a "new" 2007 XP PC will be by 2010.

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

D. Spencer Hines

March 3rd 07, 09:25 AM

My box is less than two years old and could run on Vista spec-wise. It was
top-of-the line when I bought it in November 2005.

BUT, I think XP Pro SP2 is quite sophisticated and sufficient for my needs.

When I need a new box in late 2009 or early 2010 perhaps Vista will have
some of the kinks ironed out.

I'm going to wait for the dust to settle.

Good Post on your part.

Thanks.

DSH

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message
...

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:46:20 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>
> When XP came out, that 8G footprint was 20% of a 40G HD.
> When Vista came out, that 32G footprint is 10% of a 320G HD.
>
> So the head travel within a small C: should be similar, even though
> the volume is bigger, and the heat travel required to step over the C:
> to where your data, games etc. start is about the same too.
>
> Then again, if you try to use a crappy "new" laptop with 40G HD as a
> "desktop replacement", then YMMV. Laptop specs always cost more and
> suck rocks, especially when it comes to HD capacity.
>
>>I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista
>
> I wouldn't upgrade a working XP system to Vista, just I wouldn't have
> upgraded previous OSs on PCs that were running them.
>
> OTOH, I would refuse to accept delivery of a "new" PC running XP.
>
>>Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.
>
>>I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but Microsoft
>>needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows" and
>>other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it.
>
>>TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this:
>
>>1. ------------
> Support for new hardware initiatives, such as ReadyBoost USB sticks,
> hybrid hard drives (that contain flash memory onboard), auxilliary
> displays if that rocks your boat, etc.
>
>>2. ------------
> Some safety clue that programs should not automatically get the same
> rights as the user, even if the user is "admin"; i.e. UAC, IE 7
> protected mode, etc. Right now this is a pain point, but when sware
> switched to being written for Vista, the pain will ease and the
> usefullness will increase.
>
>>3. ------------
> Better UI - and by that I mean more effective UI, not just "prettier"
> (I generally don't use Aero even on Aero-capable hardware because I
> prefer the cheaper Home Basic). File specs are now "live", i.e. each
> node in the path is a navigable drop-down list. Renaming files now
> preserves the file name extension (i.e. you can change it but it's not
> part of the initial selected text). It's now far easier to tell
> whether your LAN is sexposing file shares, and what they are.
>
> 4.
> Related to 3; many aspects of PC use are now better explained in terms
> that are easy, yet not patronizingly dummied-down. For folks short of
> the full geek vocabulary and skill set, this is quite a win.
>
> 5.
> Several new functionalities that were either absent in XP, or were
> fairly useless "stubs", rather like DOS 4's DOSShell. Performance and
> reliability centers, WinPE, WinRE... Recovery Console just grew up
> from being a useful bunch of preset tricks to a proper maintenance OS
> at last. That alone is a reason to use Vista, especially for NTFS.
>
> I'll leave 6 to 10 as "an exercise for the reader" ;-)
>
>>And so forth.
>>I haven't seen it.
>
> A lot of this stuff, you won't see until you live with and use it a
> bit more intensively that the average magazine reviewer.
>
> More to the point is where you are in your PC's lifeline. If you have
> a 2-year-old PC you don't expect to be using by 2009, then there's
> less reason to consider Vista, but if building a PC in 2007 that you;d
> want to still be using in 2010, you should insist on it.
>
> Right now, what kills Win98? Inability to natively use USB sticks,
> cameras and other storage, poor or absent support for today's USB
> printers and scanners, no support for HD > 137G, issues with fast
> processors... that's where a "new" 2007 XP PC will be by 2010.
>
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Saws are too hard to use.
> Be easier to use!
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 3rd 07, 10:16 AM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:02:09 -0600, Adam Albright > wrote:

>Because Windows is bloated at some say 500 million lines of
>code (doubt it that's big) it is without a doubt infested top to
>bottom with coding errors.

Nope - if anything, the contrary maye be true.

There are various kinds of programming bloat:
- lines of code, as you mention
- level of code, i.e. how much runtime library baggage
- size of data sets, variables and resources

When I was coding, efficiency was king. One could feel individual
T-states, so doing the same thing in fewer instructions was a big
priority... I spent a weekend revising a screen dump routine in Z80
assembler to get it down from 1027 bytes to 1024 bytes, which I
eventually did by using self-modifying code instead of repeated branch
logic within the "engine". Why? Because 1024 bytes fiits into an
otherwise-unused printer buffer, whereas 1027 bytes would have to be
loaded into memory reserved for use against general availability.

So we had lots of great programming tricks to save space; using two
digits for year values, 16-bit cluster addressing, "lean" code that
performed no sanity-checking before throwing stuff into buffers, etc.

See the problem yet? You bet; all of these cool byte-saving methods
came to bite is in the ass later; Y2k, problems with "large" HDs over
512M, 8G, 32G, 137G etc. and code exploits that escalate the risk of
"viewing a picture" to "running raw code".

So you may have a "lean" OS to start with, but pretty soon it's
bloated with ad-hoc emergency patches, extra layers of code to
validate stuff before the system is allowed to use it, hectic Y2k
revisions, kludges to support "large: drives, etc. Better to have
done it properly in the first place, I'd say.

The same thing applies to layers of code.

Initially, the system was so simple that the programmer could fully
understand it, right down to volts, wires and T-states. The
programmer would bridge all the abstraction layers from "what the user
wants to do", all the way down to the actual instructions passed to
the processor. I hot coder could hold all that in his/her brain.

Both the system and usages have become too complex to manage in this
way; one person could not visualize the whole of MS Office, and code
that down all the way to raw opcodes. Combining multiple programmers
into teams can hold larger projects in the collective brain, but
introduces inter-brain interface errors. Things fall apart.

Instead, modern software is created in layers, which each layer
developing a higher level of abstraction basen on the layer beneath.
So a designer may understand "what the user wants to do" and drill
this down to drawings of dialog boxes and UI elements, then the next
layer visually assembles these out of library code, then the next
layer writes the libraries in a form that is abstracted from actual
hardware, then there are API calls, device drivers, compilers that
understand processor feature sets, etc.

Each layer limits the kind of cock-ups you can make. For example, a
UI designer is not in a position to make assumptions about CPU
instruction order that fail when new multi-core processors issue
instructions out of sequence, etc.

With this layering, comes layer bloat. You may have to bind a
67-function library but only need 1 of those functions, etc. But if
this layer bloat means less chance of unchecked buffers or wildly
inappropriate code logic, it's bloat well spent.

Another way to look at this is one of raw scalability and error %
rates. If I asked you to do something dumb and easy, e.g. write down
your name again and again, how many times would you do this before
making your first mistake? Well, maybe a drunk will go wrong 1 in 10
attempts, and a Mensa athlete may mess up 1 in 10 000 attempts.

But if I'm executing those instructions at a rate of a million per
second, the difference betwen best-case and worst-case may be crashing
every hour vs. crashing every minute. Neither is good enough to ship,
so how does one attain superhuman low error rates?

By breaking things down into human-sized chunks, and designing the
interface betwen these chunks to be easily understood, rather than
machine-efficient - and that is how modern sware works.

Hardware gets faster, but the burden of complexity (and the
consequences of exploitable errors) gets worse. So if you have a
choice between fast and buggy vs. bloated but solid, the smart money
is on the latter. Consider VL-bus and PCI as an example.

VL-bus was a hasty generic standard for fast 32-bit/33MHz data
transfers to graphic cards, as was needed for efficiency in Windows
3.yuk in the era of the 33MHz 486.

PCI was developed in a similar time frame, but with loftier
objectives; support multiple devices at a consistent 33MHz
irrespective of processor base speed, allow inteligent
self-configuration via machine dialogs that were later wrapped by
Win95 as Plug-n-Play, etc.

For the first year, VL-bus was king; it was cheaper, and good enough,
whereas PCI was "bloated", possibly less efficient because it was
unlinked from the CPU clock, network cards were still buggy, etc.

But which do we still use over a decade later?

>Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or it
>Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most
>not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the
>potential for human error by a huge factor.

Yes and no; it depends on what type of bloat you have. Layer bloat
can introduce bugs, but is far more likely to remove the potential for
the most destructive low-level bugs. Capacity bloat removes future
limitations, kludges, and the bugs that can arise from these. Only an
increase in the raw "number of lines" within the same level of
abstraction and vertical slice of functionality, will automatically
infer more bugs. More to the point is that the introduction of brand
new code is more likely to bring new bugs.

>This "problem" multiplies with each new release of Windows because
>each newer version is bigger and Microsoft never seems to find time to
>get around to fixing all the bugs in the previous release so in effect
>they get carried over and the latest version adds new, mostly yet
>undiscovered bugs. What a way to run a railroad.

Actually, no; each new OS or SP is an oportunity to re-design and
re-write sections of code so that entire classes of bugs may be swept
away. We've seen this with XP SP2 and IE 7, where new bugs found
after these releases often didn't apply to the new code base, even
though it preceded the discovery of the bug.

I expect Vista will go some ways to solving some of XP's worst
exploitabilities, both at the machine and user level. However, Vista
may bring new problems of the future, where new functionalities and
features are added, so it's not as "safe" as an SP, perhaps.

For example, Vista stresses search and runs a lot of file-groping code
when displaying contents of folders, and in the background while
indexing etc. Any defects within these internal code surfaces could
allow zero-integration malware to persist across runtimes, and simply
creating a malware file with a likely-looking name could allow it to
spoof another file when found via search, vs. explicit filespec.

>There is nothing wrong with adding new features.

Er... that depends on how fully-assed the design and implication
awareness may have (not) been when they were created.

For example, auto-running macros in "documents" was a stunningly bad
"feature" that led to several years of macro malware.

For example, treating unsolicited "message text" as HTML, complete
with autorunning scripts, in the same way as Internet web pages is a
stunningly bad "feature' that should never survive the planning phase.

>I don't know if it works with Vista, probably not, but if you're still
>running XP, download a copy of the Opera browser. Use it for just a
>day or two and then go back to IE7.

If you rely on DEP OptOut, as most folks currently do not, then be
aware that Opera cannot be protected by hardware DEP and is excluded
from OptOut cover due to use of aspack or similar.

>You'll see the difference immediately between lean mean fast running
>code and bloatware.

Whatever. I have little or no sympathy with folks who install a
2007-2012 OS on a 2004 PC and wonder why it's "slow"... generally,
it's best to avoid significant new sware that is more than a year or
two newer than your hardware.

The complexity equation means that machine efficience is no longer the
main issue. In fact, simply standing still on the same sware base and
waiting for 12 months of hardware performance evolution (even at
today's slow pace) will resolve many "bloat" issues.

So if you have a sweetly-running XP PC, stay on it for now. If your
PC's an old crock, you could build a new Vista PC now if you have to,
or a few months later if you want to avoid some hassles with useless
vendors (hello HP, Samsung, Nero...) who seem to have been caught
unawares by Vista's release.

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 3rd 07, 10:31 AM

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:27:34 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >
>Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message

>> Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?

>It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista replaces
>any major maintence releases of XP.

I think there will be an SP3. Vista is not free, and SPs are, and SPs
are also designed to be as low-impact as possible by "not adding new
features", etc. A new OS OTOH has to have new features to attract
sales, and is expected to do more than just fix the old OS.

>But, I would expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely
>for critical updates and security patches

It's the other way round. An SP is more than just a collection of bug
fixes rolled up into a single large install for convenience; it can
also fix things by broader recoding without this having to work with
the rest of the old OS code base.

Because SPs are free, they can be used to set a new baseline for
support. MS can support XP for X years from now, but that doesn't
oblige them to support all SP levels; typically, only the last 1 or 2
SP levels will be supported.

This creates a temptation to up-version subsystems such as IE, Media
Player, DirectX etc. so those teams can drop support for earlier
versions. That clashes with the "no new features" rule, and can bloat
the new OS code base beyond the capabilities of the oldest hardware
that shipped with that OS. We saw that with the security roll-up for
Win98, where the automated install would ram in new Media Player and
DirectX, irrespective of whether the PC had enough RAM for the new
Media Player or hardware driver support for the new DirectX.

So yes; there will likely be an XP SP3, if only so that MS can drop
support for the SP2 code base while still "supporting XP".

>When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the babbling of
>someone who is trying to scare her into upgrading, who would be me,
>and I am not easily intimidated. As to SP2, I have seen nothing.
>Still, what exactly are you afraid of? I know many people leading
>perfectly happy lives with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP Home or
>Pro native, no SPs.

XP "Gold" and SP1 are death-traps if installed and used in default
manner, because they are open to clickless attacks through RPC and
LSASS defects that are exposed without firewall protection.

Any IE/OE/Outlook2000+ combinations older than XP are lethal too, due
to clickless attacks via the MIME-spoofing defect, if nothing else.

If you don't expose your PC to the Internet, then the risks are a lot
lower. These days most folks seem to think "PC" as synonymous with
Internet activity; in that context, anything older than XP SP2 is
simply unfit for use unless you have the smarts to protect it.

If you want native USB storage support, you'd want WinME or later.

If you want > 137G, you'd want XP SP2 or later.

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Hertz_Donut

March 3rd 07, 10:46 AM

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:11:24 -0000, "Robert Moir"
>>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
>
>>Others have explained about the install requirements. As for "in use", I
>>wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb partition...
>
> I'm using 32G, and that's working so far - but then I make a point of
> storing games, data, music, videos, pictures, downloads, desktop etc.
> off C: on other (safer) HD volumes.
>
> By the same token, on XP that C: would only be 8G.
>
>
>
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Saws are too hard to use.
> Be easier to use!
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

I am running Vista Business (32 bit) and Office 2007 Professional, and
together they take up less than 10 GB.

Honu

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 3rd 07, 11:07 AM

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:36:07 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >
>Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>>>Keith Schaefer wrote:

>>>> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in
>>>> this day and age of 500gb drives....

I use large hard drives and screens to do more stuff, not the same
stuff in the same space - so that is one reason why I reject the "oh,
we have lots of space, let's waste it" argument.

Vista's a bit better at this than previous Windows, to some extent.
At least it's stopped being so dumb as to give IE x% of the HD
capacity to hold yesteryear's web pages - at LAST that stupid
non-logic was killed in IE 7!

I don't mind assigning 32G to Vista, but it had better stay comfy
within that space, without any dumb-ass "hard-coded to be on system
volume" workspace bloatage. SF,SG.

>> Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer
>> to offer more customization at initial setup.

What I referred to as "the new MS arrogance" has eroded that, starting
with WinME's Media Player, Movie Maker and System Restore.

Up until then, users could choose which components they wanted to
install. In WinME, you could still choose not to install the old and
tiny things such as Cacl, Notepad and Charmap, but were forced to
swallow the larger and often less useful frills.

XP gave you even less control; you can't even install to a different
base directory name without having to resort to an answer file.

Vista's more "closed" at this interactive UI level, but at least the
pro-grade installation tools are now avialable to users who aren't
hi-volume OEMs. WAIK includes everything you need to build and
maintain custom installations, though the answer file changes seem to
concentrate on a few toenails while leaving the bulk of the body Vista
as a single install-everything lump.

MS seems to scorn end-users, aside from dummying down things into
baby-speak. XP was the nadir in this trend; Vista gets better. With
XP, if you weren't a pro-IT sysadmin or bulk OEM, you were assumed to
have no business controlling Windows on your PC(s).

>I think it is a fundamental law of nature that software gets
>bigger and slower, and also buggier. But, there are big
>differences between software easily updated by a critical patch
>or some dot maintence release vs. a fixed hardware/software
>system such as consumer electronics or cars.

There shouldn't be (consumer rights perspective), but there inevitably
will be (basic complexity theory).

We've allowed the sware industry to re-write the rulebook on product
defects and recalls. If a dangerous defect arose in a "real" product,
the vendor would have to ship it back and replace it at their expense.
So folks who build "real" things try real hard not to screw up.

But a sware vendor just has to slap up a copy of a "fix" on a web site
somewhere, and it's up to the consumer to muster the resources to
download it and deploy it. Any consequent damage that arises from
this is also the user's burden to bear.

Not only that, but sware vendors can leverage these endless defects
and patches into a tighter dependecy on the vendor. It's like Ford
saying "give us your address and garage key so we can walk in whenever
we like to fix any defects in the car we sold you", and then "we need
your house key too, so we can verify you bought your car from us, else
we will refuse to fix it and may stop it from running".

I have a major problem with the "rights" that sware vendors assign
themselves via the EUL"A"s they unilaterally impose.

That's the "consumer rights" perspective. The "complexity theory"
perspective paints another picture entirely.

When you machine a piece of iron and a piece of wood, and combine them
to make an axe, there's only so much you can screw up. The wood will
always do what wood does, and the iron will always do what iron does.

With sware, there's no inherent material properties to rely on. If 5%
of the "content" of an axe is human invention, then a 1:1000 error
rate will mean almost all axes sold on the market will work. When you
build sware content that is 100% human invention, the same 1:1000
error rate bites deep. If you scale up from an axe to a car, you'd
still be OK; most cars will work reasonably well for most of the time.
but scale software up from DOS to Vista, or if you like from Notepad
to Office, that error rate meas there will always be bugs that matter.

What makes bugs matter a lot more, is:
- poorly-compartmentalized design
- poor file type discipline
- poor data vs. code distinction
- extensible parsers and liberal code re-use
- pervasive Internet access
- pervasive wireless access
- automatic content processing
- poor risk descriptrion in the UI
- actual risk is not bounded to this described risk

Some of the above are inevitable, but others are not. Windows does as
badly as it does partly as a result of unsafe design.

The other reason that bugs matter, is that there's an industry
dedicated to finding and exploiting these bugs. Most of the attention
of this industry is aimed at the most pervasive of software, which is
Windows, but as Windows gets harder to exploit, so attention turns to
the next-bigges target; the most common edge-facing 3rd-party
applications for Windows, and after that, the minority platforms.

As a final PoC, proof-read this post for typos (code defects) and
ambiguous meanings (design defects or "implication blindness"), then
consider the impact if this were program code. Having proof-read this
post and found "all" the bugs, get a buddy to do the same. How many
did you miss? Now scale this up to all the posts in a week's traffic
in this news group, and require all of these to be defect-free before
you'd consider that mass of code "fit to ship" as a new OS :-)

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 3rd 07, 11:22 AM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:40:06 -0600, "Dale" > wrote:

>Moore's Law.

Like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Moore's Law tends to be
over-generalized.

As I recall, Moore's Law states that the number of transistors in a
chip will double every 18 months. Let's verify that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

....OK, close enough.

It is inferred that this means things will get twice as fast every
year or two, and/or that capacities will double in a similar period.

That was true when processors grew from 8086 simplicity to L1 and then
L2 caches, the ability to execute instructions at the same time via
multiple hardware subsections, and through the concept of
meta-processing ("thinking about thinking") to process as efficiently
as possible - the whole "it's slower MHz but faster anyway" thing.

It's slowing down now, because there's only so much you can do by
throwing more logic at doing the same old things. Consider the period
of time between the 33MHz 486 and the 100MHz 486DX4, vs. the seemingly
endless Pentium 4 age and 2GHz-3.xGHz clock speed range.

Intel are aware of this, and are de-emphasizing GHz, pushing their
inscrutible model numbers, and claiming that speed isn't everything,
i.e. that processors may improve in ways other than speed. This is in
addition to the marketing lies that imply you need a processor called
"Pentium" to look at still images in 24-bit color, etc.

What interests me about Moore's Law is how it seems to apply to things
that aren't a matter of chips and transistor densities at all, such as
optical drive speeds and hard drive capacities.

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

HEMI-Powered

March 3rd 07, 12:09 PM

Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) made these interesting
comments ...

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:40:06 -0600, "Dale"
> > wrote:
>
>>Moore's Law.
>
> Like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Moore's Law tends to
> be over-generalized.
>
> As I recall, Moore's Law states that the number of transistors
> in a chip will double every 18 months. Let's verify that...

When I asked that question, I was merely making converstation to
the effect that software - anybody's - can get more and more
bloated, slower and slower, and need more and more memory, and
nobody notices because whoever's law says their next PC will be
twice as powerful at half the price.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
>
> ...OK, close enough.
>
> It is inferred that this means things will get twice as fast
> every year or two, and/or that capacities will double in a
> similar period.
>
> That was true when processors grew from 8086 simplicity to L1
> and then L2 caches, the ability to execute instructions at the
> same time via multiple hardware subsections, and through the
> concept of meta-processing ("thinking about thinking") to
> process as efficiently as possible - the whole "it's slower
> MHz but faster anyway" thing.
>
> It's slowing down now, because there's only so much you can do
> by throwing more logic at doing the same old things. Consider
> the period of time between the 33MHz 486 and the 100MHz
> 486DX4, vs. the seemingly endless Pentium 4 age and
> 2GHz-3.xGHz clock speed range.

Unless/until heat is solved as in liquid or supercooling on a PC
level and as traces and individual semiconductors begin to
approach singl digit atoms, yes, I would agree that the doubling
effect will slow down and eventually stop. Let us all
collectively hope that the general trend to software bloat also
slows down, else our O/S and apps will eventually beging to be
slower each release no matter what hot box PC we try to buy.

You didn't mention it, but the so-called Law of Diminishing
Returns also enters this arena. At some point, it is no longer
cost-effective to get better/faster/whatever, nor to continually
get smaller/higher performance, etc.

> Intel are aware of this, and are de-emphasizing GHz, pushing
> their inscrutible model numbers, and claiming that speed isn't
> everything, i.e. that processors may improve in ways other
> than speed. This is in addition to the marketing lies that
> imply you need a processor called "Pentium" to look at still
> images in 24-bit color, etc.
>
GHz ain't what it used to be as AMD and Intel do not "agree" on
the numbers.

> What interests me about Moore's Law is how it seems to apply
> to things that aren't a matter of chips and transistor
> densities at all, such as optical drive speeds and hard drive
> capacities.
>
>
>
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Saws are too hard to use.
> Be easier to use!
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
>

--
HP, aka Jerry

D. Spencer Hines

March 3rd 07, 09:29 PM

True?

What do others say?

"Herz Donut" doesn't inspire a Great Deal of Confidence.

He also doesn't tell us which options he has installed...

Nor does he tell us about the space consumed by IE7 and Windows Mail.

DSH

"Hertz_Donut" > wrote in message
...

> I am running Vista Business (32 bit) and Office 2007 Professional, and
> together they take up less than 10 GB.

D. Spencer Hines

March 3rd 07, 09:37 PM

Your posts are GREAT -- but FAR too long.

It's particularly unimpressive when you are writing about BLOATAGE in
software.

Please post more frequently -- but with shorter posts.

More People Will Read Your Wisdom.

Forte Free Agent, which you use, can't give an accurate Line Count of a
post?

DSH
-------------------------------------------------

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:36:07 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >
>>Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...
>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>>>>Keith Schaefer wrote:
>
>>>>> It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in
>>>>> this day and age of 500gb drives....
>
> I use large hard drives and screens to do more stuff, not the same
> stuff in the same space - so that is one reason why I reject the "oh,
> we have lots of space, let's waste it" argument.
>
> Vista's a bit better at this than previous Windows, to some extent.
> At least it's stopped being so dumb as to give IE x% of the HD
> capacity to hold yesteryear's web pages - at LAST that stupid
> non-logic was killed in IE 7!
>
> I don't mind assigning 32G to Vista, but it had better stay comfy
> within that space, without any dumb-ass "hard-coded to be on system
> volume" workspace bloatage. SF,SG.
>
>>> Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer
>>> to offer more customization at initial setup.
>
> What I referred to as "the new MS arrogance" has eroded that, starting
> with WinME's Media Player, Movie Maker and System Restore.
>
> Up until then, users could choose which components they wanted to
> install. In WinME, you could still choose not to install the old and
> tiny things such as Cacl, Notepad and Charmap, but were forced to
> swallow the larger and often less useful frills.
>
> XP gave you even less control; you can't even install to a different
> base directory name without having to resort to an answer file.
>
> Vista's more "closed" at this interactive UI level, but at least the
> pro-grade installation tools are now avialable to users who aren't
> hi-volume OEMs. WAIK includes everything you need to build and
> maintain custom installations, though the answer file changes seem to
> concentrate on a few toenails while leaving the bulk of the body Vista
> as a single install-everything lump.
>
> MS seems to scorn end-users, aside from dummying down things into
> baby-speak. XP was the nadir in this trend; Vista gets better. With
> XP, if you weren't a pro-IT sysadmin or bulk OEM, you were assumed to
> have no business controlling Windows on your PC(s).
>
>>I think it is a fundamental law of nature that software gets
>>bigger and slower, and also buggier. But, there are big
>>differences between software easily updated by a critical patch
>>or some dot maintence release vs. a fixed hardware/software
>>system such as consumer electronics or cars.
>
> There shouldn't be (consumer rights perspective), but there inevitably
> will be (basic complexity theory).
>
>
> We've allowed the sware industry to re-write the rulebook on product
> defects and recalls. If a dangerous defect arose in a "real" product,
> the vendor would have to ship it back and replace it at their expense.
> So folks who build "real" things try real hard not to screw up.
>
> But a sware vendor just has to slap up a copy of a "fix" on a web site
> somewhere, and it's up to the consumer to muster the resources to
> download it and deploy it. Any consequent damage that arises from
> this is also the user's burden to bear.
>
> Not only that, but sware vendors can leverage these endless defects
> and patches into a tighter dependecy on the vendor. It's like Ford
> saying "give us your address and garage key so we can walk in whenever
> we like to fix any defects in the car we sold you", and then "we need
> your house key too, so we can verify you bought your car from us, else
> we will refuse to fix it and may stop it from running".
>
> I have a major problem with the "rights" that sware vendors assign
> themselves via the EUL"A"s they unilaterally impose.
>
>
> That's the "consumer rights" perspective. The "complexity theory"
> perspective paints another picture entirely.
>
> When you machine a piece of iron and a piece of wood, and combine them
> to make an axe, there's only so much you can screw up. The wood will
> always do what wood does, and the iron will always do what iron does.
>
> With sware, there's no inherent material properties to rely on. If 5%
> of the "content" of an axe is human invention, then a 1:1000 error
> rate will mean almost all axes sold on the market will work. When you
> build sware content that is 100% human invention, the same 1:1000
> error rate bites deep. If you scale up from an axe to a car, you'd
> still be OK; most cars will work reasonably well for most of the time.
> but scale software up from DOS to Vista, or if you like from Notepad
> to Office, that error rate meas there will always be bugs that matter.
>
> What makes bugs matter a lot more, is:
> - poorly-compartmentalized design
> - poor file type discipline
> - poor data vs. code distinction
> - extensible parsers and liberal code re-use
> - pervasive Internet access
> - pervasive wireless access
> - automatic content processing
> - poor risk descriptrion in the UI
> - actual risk is not bounded to this described risk
>
> Some of the above are inevitable, but others are not. Windows does as
> badly as it does partly as a result of unsafe design.
>
> The other reason that bugs matter, is that there's an industry
> dedicated to finding and exploiting these bugs. Most of the attention
> of this industry is aimed at the most pervasive of software, which is
> Windows, but as Windows gets harder to exploit, so attention turns to
> the next-bigges target; the most common edge-facing 3rd-party
> applications for Windows, and after that, the minority platforms.
>
>
> As a final PoC, proof-read this post for typos (code defects) and
> ambiguous meanings (design defects or "implication blindness"), then
> consider the impact if this were program code. Having proof-read this
> post and found "all" the bugs, get a buddy to do the same. How many
> did you miss? Now scale this up to all the posts in a week's traffic
> in this news group, and require all of these to be defect-free before
> you'd consider that mass of code "fit to ship" as a new OS :-)

D. Spencer Hines

March 3rd 07, 10:02 PM

This is much SHORTER -- and much BETTER.

Thank you kindly.

DSH
-------------------------------------------

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:40:06 -0600, "Dale" > wrote:
>
>>Moore's Law.
>
> Like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Moore's Law tends to be
> over-generalized.
>
> As I recall, Moore's Law states that the number of transistors in a
> chip will double every 18 months. Let's verify that...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
>
> ...OK, close enough.
>
> It is inferred that this means things will get twice as fast every
> year or two, and/or that capacities will double in a similar period.
>
> That was true when processors grew from 8086 simplicity to L1 and then
> L2 caches, the ability to execute instructions at the same time via
> multiple hardware subsections, and through the concept of
> meta-processing ("thinking about thinking") to process as efficiently
> as possible - the whole "it's slower MHz but faster anyway" thing.
>
> It's slowing down now, because there's only so much you can do by
> throwing more logic at doing the same old things. Consider the period
> of time between the 33MHz 486 and the 100MHz 486DX4, vs. the seemingly
> endless Pentium 4 age and 2GHz-3.xGHz clock speed range.
>
> Intel are aware of this, and are de-emphasizing GHz, pushing their
> inscrutible model numbers, and claiming that speed isn't everything,
> i.e. that processors may improve in ways other than speed. This is in
> addition to the marketing lies that imply you need a processor called
> "Pentium" to look at still images in 24-bit color, etc.
>
> What interests me about Moore's Law is how it seems to apply to things
> that aren't a matter of chips and transistor densities at all, such as
> optical drive speeds and hard drive capacities.

Adam Albright

March 3rd 07, 10:14 PM

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:29:53 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> wrote:

>True?
>
>What do others say?
>
>"Herz Donut" doesn't inspire a Great Deal of Confidence.
>
>He also doesn't tell us which options he has installed...
>
>Nor does he tell us about the space consumed by IE7 and Windows Mail.

You still haven't told us what features you're looking for that you
keep hinting are missing from Vista to make it a worthwhile upgrade.
Why is that?

While I may criticize Vista, I have REASONS that I document. You and
others on the other hand keep asking why upgrade yet never get around
telling us what features you think are missing that YOU need.
Accordingly you seem more a troll than anything else which is just as
bad as somebody blindling singing the praises of Vista pretending it
doesn't have shortcomings.

You do inspire laughter. Thanks for that! <wink>

Adam Albright

March 3rd 07, 10:18 PM

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:37:19 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> wrote:

>Your posts are GREAT -- but FAR too long.
>
>It's particularly unimpressive when you are writing about BLOATAGE in
>software.

More top poster "wisdom" from some blowhard that insists on using not
just a first and last name, but a middle initial too. Did you foget to
add mister?
>
>Please post more frequently -- but with shorter posts.
>
>More People Will Read Your Wisdom.
>
>Forte Free Agent, which you use, can't give an accurate Line Count of a
>post?

Line counts show AFTER you post something.

Next.

D. Spencer Hines

March 3rd 07, 10:31 PM

Will XP Pro SP3 just be a Roll Up?

Will it simply incorporate all previous changes -- then delete the
<C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$> folder on my box, which now contains 97 KB's and sucks
up 235 MB, and replace it with a new one?

See Below.

DSH
-------------------------------------------------

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:27:34 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >

>>Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

>>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>
>>> Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when?
>
>>It is doubtful to me that there will be an SP3, as Vista replaces
>>any major maintence releases of XP.
>
> I think there will be an SP3. Vista is not free, and SPs are, and SPs
> are also designed to be as low-impact as possible by "not adding new
> features", etc. A new OS OTOH has to have new features to attract
> sales, and is expected to do more than just fix the old OS.
>
>>But, I would expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely
>>for critical updates and security patches

What does "indefinitely" mean?

> It's the other way round. An SP is more than just a collection of bug
> fixes rolled up into a single large install for convenience; it can
> also fix things by broader recoding without this having to work with
> the rest of the old OS code base.

Yes, but will XP SP3 do that?

> Because SPs are free, they can be used to set a new baseline for
> support. MS can support XP for X years from now, but that doesn't
> oblige them to support all SP levels; typically, only the last 1 or 2
> SP levels will be supported.
>
> This creates a temptation to up-version subsystems such as IE, Media
> Player, DirectX etc. so those teams can drop support for earlier
> versions. That clashes with the "no new features" rule, and can bloat
> the new OS code base beyond the capabilities of the oldest hardware
> that shipped with that OS. We saw that with the security roll-up for
> Win98, where the automated install would ram in new Media Player and
> DirectX, irrespective of whether the PC had enough RAM for the new
> Media Player or hardware driver support for the new DirectX.

Very Perceptive.

> So yes; there will likely be an XP SP3, if only so that MS can drop
> support for the SP2 code base while still "supporting XP".

Clever.

SP3 for XP and XP Pro will be the same?

>>When my wife gets a pop-up, she just ignores it as the babbling of
>>someone who is trying to scare her into upgrading, who would be me,
>>and I am not easily intimidated. As to SP2, I have seen nothing.
>>Still, what exactly are you afraid of? I know many people leading
>>perfectly happy lives with Win 95/98, Win ME, and Win XP Home or
>>Pro native, no SPs.

I'm not afraid of a damned thing -- just intelligently reviewing and
shredding out my options.

> XP "Gold" and SP1 are death-traps if installed and used in default
> manner, because they are open to clickless attacks through RPC and
> LSASS defects that are exposed without firewall protection.
>
> Any IE/OE/Outlook2000+ combinations older than XP are lethal too, due
> to clickless attacks via the MIME-spoofing defect, if nothing else.
>
> If you don't expose your PC to the Internet, then the risks are a lot
> lower. These days most folks seem to think "PC" as synonymous with
> Internet activity; in that context, anything older than XP SP2 is
> simply unfit for use unless you have the smarts to protect it.

BINGO!

> If you want native USB storage support, you'd want WinME or later.
>
> If you want > 137G, you'd want XP SP2 or later.

I HAVE XP Pro SP2 PLUS extensive Third Party Security Systems. Everything
Works Just Fine.

So I'm not afraid. <g>

Microsoft was VERY -- OPEN SYSTEM minded before 9/11 -- as were most
software manufacturers.

Then we got our 60-Year Wake-Up Call After Pearl Harbor to remind us there
are Evil Doers out there who want to kill us and screw up our computers.

Now we are seeing much more FORTRESS MENTALITY in software and hardware --
and that's generally a Good Thing.

But UAC and DRM may be a bridge too far and overkill.

Smart Users & Honest Users [often not the same people] don't want the
hassle -- BUT Dumb Users & Thieves may need it.

Sticky Wicket -- As The British Say.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

March 3rd 07, 10:36 PM

This pogue also simply doesn't understand that the Burden of Proof is on
Microsoft and its horseholders to sell us on a new product...

Not the other way around.

DSH

"Adam Albright" > wrote in message
...

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:29:53 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> > wrote:
>
>>True?
>>
>>What do others say?
>>
>>"Herz Donut" doesn't inspire a Great Deal of Confidence.
>>
>>He also doesn't tell us which options he has installed...
>>
>>Nor does he tell us about the space consumed by IE7 and Windows Mail.
>
> You still haven't told us what features you're looking for that you
> keep hinting are missing from Vista to make it a worthwhile upgrade.
> Why is that?
>
> While I may criticize Vista, I have REASONS that I document. You and
> others on the other hand keep asking why upgrade yet never get around
> telling us what features you think are missing that YOU need.
> Accordingly you seem more a troll than anything else which is just as
> bad as somebody blindling singing the praises of Vista pretending it
> doesn't have shortcomings.

Hertz_Donut

March 4th 07, 09:00 AM

"D. Spencer Hines" > wrote in message
...
> True?
>
> What do others say?
>
> "Herz Donut" doesn't inspire a Great Deal of Confidence.
>
> He also doesn't tell us which options he has installed...
>
> Nor does he tell us about the space consumed by IE7 and Windows Mail.
>
> DSH
>
> "Hertz_Donut" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I am running Vista Business (32 bit) and Office 2007 Professional, and
>> together they take up less than 10 GB.
>
>

Full install; all options. Don't use Windows mail. I *DID* tell you that
the install of both Vista Business and Office 2007 Professional combined
takes up less than 10 GB.

Your "confidence" is of little concern in the scheme of things.

Honu

Hertz_Donut

March 4th 07, 09:02 AM

DSH is a fake Doctor, his shame and hubris is legend in the world of Usenet.

Just a bitter old fool with nothing better to do with his time than attack
others.

Honu

"Adam Albright" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:29:53 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> > wrote:
>
>>True?
>>
>>What do others say?
>>
>>"Herz Donut" doesn't inspire a Great Deal of Confidence.
>>
>>He also doesn't tell us which options he has installed...
>>
>>Nor does he tell us about the space consumed by IE7 and Windows Mail.
>
> You still haven't told us what features you're looking for that you
> keep hinting are missing from Vista to make it a worthwhile upgrade.
> Why is that?
>
> While I may criticize Vista, I have REASONS that I document. You and
> others on the other hand keep asking why upgrade yet never get around
> telling us what features you think are missing that YOU need.
> Accordingly you seem more a troll than anything else which is just as
> bad as somebody blindling singing the praises of Vista pretending it
> doesn't have shortcomings.
>
> You do inspire laughter. Thanks for that! <wink>
>
>

Hertz_Donut

March 4th 07, 09:03 AM

"Adam Albright" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:37:19 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> > wrote:
>
>>Your posts are GREAT -- but FAR too long.
>>
>>It's particularly unimpressive when you are writing about BLOATAGE in
>>software.
>
> More top poster "wisdom" from some blowhard that insists on using not
> just a first and last name, but a middle initial too. Did you foget to
> add mister?
>>
>>Please post more frequently -- but with shorter posts.
>>
>>More People Will Read Your Wisdom.
>>
>>Forte Free Agent, which you use, can't give an accurate Line Count of a
>>post?
>
> Line counts show AFTER you post something.
>
> Next.
>
>

Ahhh, but there is the rub! Doctor Doolittle...I mean Hines...has little
use for such mundane things as facts and truth.

Honu

[email protected]

March 4th 07, 11:44 AM

On Mar 3, 6:22 am, "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"
> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:40:06 -0600, "Dale" > wrote:
> >Moore'sLaw.
>
> Like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle,Moore'sLawtends to be
> over-generalized.
>
> As I recall,Moore'sLawstates that the number of transistors in a
> chip will double every 18 months. Let's verify that...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
>
> ...OK, close enough.
>
> It is inferred that this means things will get twice as fast every
> year or two, and/or that capacities will double in a similar period.
>
> That was true when processors grew from 8086 simplicity to L1 and then
> L2 caches, the ability to execute instructions at the same time via
> multiple hardware subsections, and through the concept of
> meta-processing ("thinking about thinking") to process as efficiently
> as possible - the whole "it's slower MHz but faster anyway" thing.
>
> It's slowing down now, because there's only so much you can do by
> throwing more logic at doing the same old things. Consider the period
> of time between the 33MHz 486 and the 100MHz 486DX4, vs. the seemingly
> endless Pentium 4 age and 2GHz-3.xGHz clock speed range.
>
> Intel are aware of this, and are de-emphasizing GHz, pushing their
> inscrutible model numbers, and claiming that speed isn't everything,
> i.e. that processors may improve in ways other than speed. This is in
> addition to the marketing lies that imply you need a processor called
> "Pentium" to look at still images in 24-bit color, etc.
>
> What interests me aboutMoore'sLawis how it seems to apply to things
> that aren't a matter of chips and transistor densities at all, such as
> optical drive speeds and hard drive capacities.

Well, that's the software stall.
When they invented Moore's Law they didn't figure
that IBM on inventing data spoolers
that would put most of the mini-computer
companies out of buisness.

>
> >--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
>
> Saws are too hard to use.
> Be easier to use!
>
>
>
> >--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Donald L McDaniel

March 9th 07, 07:35 PM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:01:57 -0000, "Will Denny" > wrote:

>Hi
>
>The disk space used after the installation goes down dependent on what has
>been installed - 9/10 GBs perhaps.

Of course, that 9-10Gig only includes the OS files. Most users nowadays have
TONS of HUGE media files, which will NOT all fit in that 9-10gig.

Personally, with the prices of HDs so cheap nowadays, I don't understand WHY
people want to make their System partitions so SMALL. Doing this does not speed
up their machines.

The ONLY things which TRULY speed up a machine are
1) CPU type and clock speed
2) CPU cache size
3) System Frontside Bus speed
5) System RAM amount and speed.
6) HD speed both rotational and speed of movement of read/write heads.)
7) CD/DVD drive speed.
8) GPU speed
9) Graphics Card ON-BOARD VRAM and whether it shares memory with the OS or not.
10 Graphics bus speed.

Notice that NONE of these have a THING to do with OS size or user software size,
yet people STILL think smaller System folders are BETTER speed-wise.

Wake up, folks!! We NO LONGER have to try to maximize our small 500meg Hard
drives -- which cost over 100 times (or more) what our modern 500Gig drives now
cost on their initial introduction -- because they were so PRECIOUS, being so
EXPENSIVE.

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original thread.
================================================== ==========

Donald L McDaniel

March 9th 07, 07:54 PM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:07:42 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines" >
wrote:

>Balderdash!
>
>It's a conspiracy between Bloatware Software Manufacturers and Hardware
>Manufactures -- each scratching the other's back.
>
>Tell us about the TEN Good Reasons why we need VISTA and all the things it
>will do that XP can't -- THEN you MAY be able to justify the bloatware.
>
>Capabilities & Limitations...
>
>BOTH the Upside & the Downside.
>
>"Transparent Windows" won't cut it.
>
>But you don't seem to be able to do that.
>
>I have 300 GB of disk space -- that's not the issue.
>
>DSH

If it's "not the issue", as you claim, WHY are you MAKING an issue out of it?
You need to be a little more consistent in your posts.

The fact is, you simply don't like Vista. PERIOD.
Ok, that's fine. Some do, and some don't. But creating strawmen to argue
against it is kind of juvenile, don't you think?

Use Vista or not. We really don't care. But PLEASE make your idiotic comments
somewhere else.

The local Village Idiots Club monthly meeting, for instance. I'm sure they'll
think you're a genius compared with them, and pat you on the back, rather than
insult you.

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original thread.
================================================== ==========

Donald L McDaniel

March 9th 07, 08:03 PM

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:15:11 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines" >
wrote:

>I agree with everything you said and also stay at N -1.
>
>I've been on the bleeding edge of technology and it's a pain in the lower
>parts -- for no gain at all.
>
>Yes, you're constantly Beta-testing and wasting time on trivial matters --
>NOT getting useful work done.
>
>DSH
>

Well, I guess that, unlike you, some people like to "waste" their time (or else
their jobs REQUIRE "constant beta-testing and wasting time on [what YOU
consider] "trivial matters"), and while they do what YOU think is a "waste of
their time", they actually ARE "getting useful work done".

By the way, why are YOU "wasting" yours in this forum?

Why not just stop, and go somewhere else. I'm sure everyone will be much
happier, including yourself.

By the way, I have PLENTY of time to "waste on trivial matters", such as your
idiotic posts.

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original thread.
================================================== ==========

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 11th 07, 04:57 PM

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:29:53 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

>True? What do others say?

>Nor does he tell us about the space consumed by IE7 and Windows Mail.

Windows Mail data can and IMO should be moved off C: (this is
something that was not alqways possible during the beta, and that at
one stage was going to remain impossible).

You may want to use NTFS for WinMail storage, if that's still using
separate files for ecah message as it was earlier in the beta. I
don't use MSware for email, so I haven't been following that much.

IE 7 consumes less space than IE 6, because the default cache
allocation is now a reasonable 50M or so, rather than "X% of available
space", so nothing heroic needs to be done there.

>"Hertz_Donut" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I am running Vista Business (32 bit) and Office 2007 Professional, and
>> together they take up less than 10 GB.

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 11th 07, 05:07 PM

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:41:59 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >
>Today, Ken Blake, MVP made these interesting comments ...

>> There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is* planning
>> a Windows XP SP3. It's currently planned for for the first
>> half of next year. See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx

>Ken, you are constrained by an NDA, so, no, there are no guarantees
>and if you actually knew one way or another, you couldn't say. MS
>will decide if it is most cost effective to continue to piecemeal
>critical fixes or create a SP, or simply abandom millions of
>customers. I'm not an MVP and don't want to be, but have there been
>new SPs AFTER the release of an entirely new version?

Yes, AFAIK there were for NT 4 after Win2000 and Win2000 after XP.

Before that, I dunno. Win9x doesn't have Service Packs and generally
predated today's focus on code exploits, but there was a surprise
roll-up update CD for Win98 that came out after XP's release.

So generally, it looks as if MS has usually done the right thing, so
far. There was always a stronger committment to ongoing NT support,
in keeping with that OS's higher price over Win9x, and there are at
least some indications that this will continue.

But I think an SP3 will be more like SP1 over Gold, rather than SP2
over SP1 - i.e. I would not expect the same depth and breadth of
redevelopment, and I would not expect to see Vista-era revisions
back-ported to XP beyond the current "IE 7 for XP".

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

D. Spencer Hines

March 11th 07, 05:09 PM

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:29:53 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>
>>True? What do others say?
>
>>Nor does he tell us about the space consumed by IE7 and Windows Mail.
>
> Windows Mail data can and IMO should be moved off C: (this is
> something that was not alqways possible during the beta, and that at
> one stage was going to remain impossible).

Can it be moved off C:\ without using PartitionMagic or some similar
program -- does Vista provide the tools to do that?

> You may want to use NTFS for WinMail storage, if that's still using
> separate files for ecah message as it was earlier in the beta. I
> don't use MSware for email, so I haven't been following that much.
>
> IE 7 consumes less space than IE 6, because the default cache
> allocation is now a reasonable 50M or so, rather than "X% of available
> space", so nothing heroic needs to be done there.

That's good to know. Thanks.

DSH

D. Spencer Hines

March 11th 07, 05:13 PM

1. Do you think that SP3 for XP will basically just be a roll-up?

2. What are the advantages of IE7 for XP -- if any? New Capabilities and
Limitations.

Thanks.

DSH

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:41:59 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >
>>Today, Ken Blake, MVP made these interesting comments ...
>
>
>>> There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is* planning
>>> a Windows XP SP3. It's currently planned for for the first
>>> half of next year. See
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
>
>>Ken, you are constrained by an NDA, so, no, there are no guarantees
>>and if you actually knew one way or another, you couldn't say. MS
>>will decide if it is most cost effective to continue to piecemeal
>>critical fixes or create a SP, or simply abandom millions of
>>customers. I'm not an MVP and don't want to be, but have there been
>>new SPs AFTER the release of an entirely new version?
>
> Yes, AFAIK there were for NT 4 after Win2000 and Win2000 after XP.
>
> Before that, I dunno. Win9x doesn't have Service Packs and generally
> predated today's focus on code exploits, but there was a surprise
> roll-up update CD for Win98 that came out after XP's release.
>
> So generally, it looks as if MS has usually done the right thing, so
> far. There was always a stronger committment to ongoing NT support,
> in keeping with that OS's higher price over Win9x, and there are at
> least some indications that this will continue.
>
> But I think an SP3 will be more like SP1 over Gold, rather than SP2
> over SP1 - i.e. I would not expect the same depth and breadth of
> redevelopment, and I would not expect to see Vista-era revisions
> back-ported to XP beyond the current "IE 7 for XP".
>
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Saws are too hard to use.
> Be easier to use!
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 11th 07, 05:18 PM

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:31:00 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

>Will XP Pro SP3 just be a Roll Up?

>Will it simply incorporate all previous changes -- then delete the
><C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$> folder on my box, which now contains
>97 KB's and sucks up 235 MB, and replace it with a new one?

That's what I'd expect, yes.

What I'd wonder is whether an XP SP3 will update the codebase to
Server 2003 or not - some of the details are significant if you want
to develop a USB-based Bart mOS, for example.

>"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:27:34 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >
>>>Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>>>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message

>>>I would expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely
>>>for critical updates and security patches

>What does "indefinitely" mean?

Dunno, but prolly not "indefinitely" ;-)

For example, "lifetime warranty" RAM = 5 year warranty.

>> It's the other way round. An SP is more than just a collection of bug
>> fixes rolled up into a single large install for convenience; it can
>> also fix things by broader recoding without this having to work with
>> the rest of the old OS code base.

>Yes, but will XP SP3 do that?

I don't know how much deep revision there will be, and some subsystems
e.g. DirectX may not be up-versioned if development of those has been
Vista-only. Aside from that, as far as setting new subsystem version
baselines; yes, I'd expect that, as that may be the biggest reason MS
would have to bring out an SP, in terms of what is in it for them.

>> So yes; there will likely be an XP SP3, if only so that MS can drop
>> support for the SP2 code base while still "supporting XP".

>Clever.

Practical, too... what surprised me was when MS made XP SP2 available
to end users on CD, and did the same with the final Win9x roll-up.
I'd motivated them to release update roll-ups on CDs to system
builders and techs via "the channel", but I never thought they'd
swallow the higher costs of getting CDs to end users. Kudos!

>SP3 for XP and XP Pro will be the same?

That's a good question. I can see no technical reason why not, but
I've seen some rumblings on shorter supported lifetime for XP Home
than Pro as in keeping with the latter's higher cost - so they could
artificially limit late-life patches and SPs to Pro only.

I'd be annoyed if they did that... <understatement>

>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 11th 07, 05:23 PM

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:37:19 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

>Your posts are GREAT -- but FAR too long.

To paraphrase some writer I saw quoted: "Sorry to write such a long
post, but I didn't have the time to write a short one" :-)

Actually, it's quite appropriate to write bloaty posts in a thread
about bloaty software, in an "art imitates life" sort of way.

The usual sware dev cycle is:
- projectorware
- initial mock-up
- write the code
- debug until bug-free
- optimize for performance

However, we rarely emerge from "debug until bug free", and are usually
still in that phase by the time hardware capacity gets so much better
than the un-optimized code runs "fast enough" anyway.

So yes; MS didn't have the time needed to make a small, efficient,
bug-free Vista, so they made a large low-bug Vista instead ;-)

>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

D. Spencer Hines

March 11th 07, 05:45 PM

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:31:00 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>
>>Will XP Pro SP3 just be a Roll Up?
>
>>Will it simply incorporate all previous changes -- then delete the
>><C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$> folder on my box, which now contains
>>97 KB's and sucks up 235 MB, and replace it with a new one?
>
> That's what I'd expect, yes.

Good. Understood.

> What I'd wonder is whether an XP SP3 will update the codebase to
> Server 2003 or not - some of the details are significant if you want
> to develop a USB-based Bart mOS, for example.

Yes, Intriguing. I hope they do.

>>"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:27:34 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" >

>>>>Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

>>>>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>
>>>>I would expect MS to support XP, SP1 and SP2 indefinitely
>>>>for critical updates and security patches
>
>>What does "indefinitely" mean?
>
> Dunno, but prolly not "indefinitely" ;-)

BINGO!

> For example, "lifetime warranty" RAM = 5 year warranty.

RIGHT! The lifetime of the RAM -- not of the customer. <g>

>>> It's the other way round. An SP is more than just a collection of bug
>>> fixes rolled up into a single large install for convenience; it can
>>> also fix things by broader recoding without this having to work with
>>> the rest of the old OS code base.
>
>>Yes, but will XP SP3 do that?
>
> I don't know how much deep revision there will be, and some subsystems
> e.g. DirectX may not be up-versioned if development of those has been
> Vista-only. Aside from that, as far as setting new subsystem version
> baselines; yes, I'd expect that, as that may be the biggest reason MS
> would have to bring out an SP, in terms of what is in it for them.

Hopefully, SP3 will make the upgrade path from XP Pro to Vista -- or Vienna
in 2009 far easier than the one we have now, with
all these pratfalls and onerous glitches. The transfer clutching between
XP and Vista/Vienna should be made much more simpatico.
[i]
>>> So yes; there will likely be an XP SP3, if only so that MS can drop
>>> support for the SP2 code base while still "supporting XP".
>
>>Clever.
>
> Practical, too... what surprised me was when MS made XP SP2 available
> to end users on CD, and did the same with the final Win9x roll-up.
> I'd motivated them to release update roll-ups on CDs to system
> builders and techs via "the channel", but I never thought they'd
> swallow the higher costs of getting CDs to end users. Kudos!

Good For You -- And Microsoft.

>>SP3 for XP and XP Pro will be the same?
>
> That's a good question. I can see no technical reason why not, but
> I've seen some rumblings on shorter supported lifetime for XP Home
> than Pro as in keeping with the latter's higher cost - so they could
> artificially limit late-life patches and SPs to Pro only.

I feel confident some at Microsoft are considering that.

> I'd be annoyed if they did that... <understatement>

<G>

Thanks very much. Have a Great Sunday.

DSH

>
>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> The most accurate diagnostic instrument
> in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Good Sig.

DSH

D. Spencer Hines

March 11th 07, 06:05 PM

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:37:19 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>
>>Your posts are GREAT -- but FAR too long.
>
> To paraphrase some writer I saw quoted: "Sorry to write such a long
> post, but I didn't have the time to write a short one" :-)

<G> Of course, I wasn't talking about your posts.

That's attributed to Blaise Pascal [1623-1662] by Bartlett's.

"I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make
it short." _Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue parceque je n'ai pas eu le
loisir de la faire plus courte_. Bartlett's, 15th Edition, p. 299. It's
also often attributed to Mark Twain -- and many others.

> Actually, it's quite appropriate to write bloaty posts in a thread
> about bloaty software, in an "art imitates life" sort of way.

<G>

> The usual sware dev cycle is:
> - projectorware
> - initial mock-up
> - write the code
> - debug until bug-free
> - optimize for performance
>
> However, we rarely emerge from "debug until bug free", and are usually
> still in that phase by the time hardware capacity gets so much better
> that the un-optimized code runs "fast enough" anyway.

Perceptive!

> So yes; MS didn't have the time needed to make a small, efficient,
> bug-free Vista, so they made a large low-bug Vista instead ;-)

<G>

>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> The most accurate diagnostic instrument
> in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - -

HEMI-Powered

March 11th 07, 06:06 PM

Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) made these interesting
comments ...

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:41:59 -0000, "HEMI-Powered"
> >
>>Today, Ken Blake, MVP made these interesting comments ...
>
>
>>> There are no guarantees of course, but Microsoft *is*
>>> planning a Windows XP SP3. It's currently planned for for
>>> the first half of next year. See
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
>
>>Ken, you are constrained by an NDA, so, no, there are no
>>guarantees and if you actually knew one way or another, you
>>couldn't say. MS will decide if it is most cost effective to
>>continue to piecemeal critical fixes or create a SP, or simply
>>abandom millions of customers. I'm not an MVP and don't want
>>to be, but have there been new SPs AFTER the release of an
>>entirely new version?
>
> Yes, AFAIK there were for NT 4 after Win2000 and Win2000 after
> XP.
>
> Before that, I dunno. Win9x doesn't have Service Packs and
> generally predated today's focus on code exploits, but there
> was a surprise roll-up update CD for Win98 that came out after
> XP's release.
>
> So generally, it looks as if MS has usually done the right
> thing, so far. There was always a stronger committment to
> ongoing NT support, in keeping with that OS's higher price
> over Win9x, and there are at least some indications that this
> will continue.
>
> But I think an SP3 will be more like SP1 over Gold, rather
> than SP2 over SP1 - i.e. I would not expect the same depth and
> breadth of redevelopment, and I would not expect to see
> Vista-era revisions back-ported to XP beyond the current "IE 7
> for XP".
>
>
If there is an SP3 for XP Pro, I would be interested in
listening. But, depending on its content, I would likely do
watchful waiting for a long time before adopting it. You can't or
won't say, but I've commented before to the effect that my belief
is that MS will create an SP if it is ecomically cheaper than
continuing with little patches. It is far more profit related
than customer related.

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered

March 11th 07, 06:11 PM

Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) made these interesting
comments ...

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:37:19 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>
>>Your posts are GREAT -- but FAR too long.
>
> To paraphrase some writer I saw quoted: "Sorry to write such a
> long post, but I didn't have the time to write a short one"
> :-)

When you take a class in public speaking, and I have, the
instructor makes an interesting point that anyone can talk on any
subject, including those he knows nothing about for an hour. It
takes work, though, to talk effectively in 15-20 minutes and is
extremely difficult to cut it to just 5 minutes. In my profession
life, before I was forced to retire - according to DSH - I needed
to trim very complicated presentations to very short times
because I was either not given enough time or I was talking to
senior executives who don't want the background, just what is
worng and what action they must take.

> Actually, it's quite appropriate to write bloaty posts in a
> thread about bloaty software, in an "art imitates life" sort
> of way.
>
> The usual sware dev cycle is:
> - projectorware
> - initial mock-up
> - write the code
> - debug until bug-free
> - optimize for performance
>
> However, we rarely emerge from "debug until bug free", and are
> usually still in that phase by the time hardware capacity gets
> so much better than the un-optimized code runs "fast enough"
> anyway.

Nobody debugs until bug free because it can be shown
mathematically to be impossible, never mind its cost. And,
optimization is just one of many criteria used in development of
ANY software, and again is a compromise based almost exclusively
on the express purpose of the company - to generate profits.

> So yes; MS didn't have the time needed to make a small,
> efficient, bug-free Vista, so they made a large low-bug Vista
> instead ;-)
>
>
>
>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> The most accurate diagnostic instrument
> in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>

--
HP, aka Jerry

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 11th 07, 09:55 PM

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:13:42 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

>1. Do you think that SP3 for XP will basically just be a roll-up?

Too early to say. I don't know what the current intention is, nor
whether that intention will hold in the future... my hunch is that we
won't see a full deep OS re-engineering as we did with SP2.

Those sort of "deep" SPs are rather like a new OS version, except not
released and marketed as such. It's usually a required response to
hardware changes (e.g. Win95 SR2, NT 4 SP3 dealing with AGP, USB)
though XP SP2 was more of a safety/security thing.

There's often a fair bit of compatibility pain and support headache
that goes with a big re-engineering of the OS. I doubt if MS would
want that impact for an OS they no longer sell, have already replaced,
and will cease to support within (say) 5 years.

Even if it is "just" a roll-up, it would still be quite welcome. The
patch load from XP SP2 baseline's already getting a bit large!

>2. What are the advantages of IE7 for XP -- if any? New Capabilities and
>Limitations.

Some of the advantages of IE 7 depend on Vista as the underlying OS,
e.g. the new IE 7 Protected Mode.

But there's still plenty of functional advantages for XP; in fact, I'd
absolutely hate to go back. The big plus is tabbed browsing, which
you'd already have with Firefox.

The one thing I don't like about IE 7, is that there's not true
self-contained installation package. The IE 7 installer you download
will depend on Internet access when you install it, both to validate
your OS installation, and to pull down post-release patches. In fact,
I suspect these patches may be larger than the IE 7 installation
package, which is a lot smaller than IE 6.

Even allowing for OE and MS Messenger adding bulk to the IE 6 package,
IE 7 looks suspcially small - almost like a stub to pull down the real
material "live" during the installation process.

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

D. Spencer Hines

March 12th 07, 02:19 AM

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...

> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:13:42 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>
>>1. Do you think that SP3 for XP will basically just be a roll-up?
>
> Too early to say. I don't know what the current intention is, nor
> whether that intention will hold in the future... my hunch is that we
> won't see a full deep OS re-engineering as we did with SP2.

We discussed that earlier today and you said:
------------------------------------------------

>>Will XP Pro SP3 just be a Roll Up? [DSH]
>
>>Will it simply incorporate all previous changes -- then delete the
>><C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$> folder on my box, which now contains
>>97 KB's and sucks up 235 MB, and replace it with a new one? [DSH]
>
> That's what I'd expect, yes. [cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user]
-----------------------------------

> Those sort of "deep" SPs are rather like a new OS version, except not
> released and marketed as such. It's usually a required response to
> hardware changes (e.g. Win95 SR2, NT 4 SP3 dealing with AGP, USB)
> though XP SP2 was more of a safety/security thing.
>
> There's often a fair bit of compatibility pain and support headache
> that goes with a big re-engineering of the OS. I doubt if MS would
> want that impact for an OS they no longer sell, have already replaced,
> and will cease to support within (say) 5 years.

I agree.

> Even if it is "just" a roll-up, it would still be quite welcome. The
> patch load from XP SP2 baseline's already getting a bit large!

Right!

Welcome Indeed.

>>2. What are the advantages of IE7 for XP -- if any? New Capabilities and
>>Limitations.
>
> Some of the advantages of IE 7 depend on Vista as the underlying OS,
> e.g. the new IE 7 Protected Mode.
>
> But there's still plenty of functional advantages for XP; in fact, I'd
> absolutely hate to go back. The big plus is tabbed browsing, which
> you'd already have with Firefox.

Not a major issue with me. Any others?

> The one thing I don't like about IE 7, is that there's not true
> self-contained installation package. The IE 7 installer you download
> will depend on Internet access when you install it, both to validate
> your OS installation, and to pull down post-release patches. In fact,
> I suspect these patches may be larger than the IE 7 installation
> package, which is a lot smaller than IE 6.

You can't put it on your desktop and reinstall or remove at will -- I didn't
like that either.

I suspected the stub aspect as well. The current download for IE7 is only
14.8 MB.

I installed the damned thing twice and took it off both times. It runs far
more slowly than IE6 on my XP Pro SP2 box and is FAR more intrusive --
telling me all sorts of things I can and cannot do -- as well as wanting to
index things.

I don't need it. I saw NO significant advantage in it. It seems to be
designed for Vista and is very klutzy on XP Pro SP2 -- in my case -- and my
box is only about a year and a half old -- and has ALL the MS updates
installed. IE6 is MUCH faster, doesn't nag me and doesn't seem so bloated.

> Even allowing for OE and MS Messenger adding bulk to the IE 6 package,
> IE 7 looks suspiciously small - almost like a stub to pull down the real
> material "live" during the installation process.

BINGO!

DSH

HEMI-Powered

March 12th 07, 02:25 AM

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...

do you suffer from a bipolar disorder? you can't switch from Dr.
Jekell to Mr. Hyde this fast, especially accoring to your trail
of bread crumbs on Google.

> "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:13:42 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>>
>>>1. Do you think that SP3 for XP will basically just be a
>>>roll-up?
>>
>> Too early to say. I don't know what the current intention
>> is, nor whether that intention will hold in the future... my
>> hunch is that we won't see a full deep OS re-engineering as
>> we did with SP2.
>
> We discussed that earlier today and you said:
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>>>Will XP Pro SP3 just be a Roll Up? [DSH]
>>
>>>Will it simply incorporate all previous changes -- then
>>>delete the <C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$> folder on my box, which now
>>>contains 97 KB's and sucks up 235 MB, and replace it with a
>>>new one? [DSH]
>>
>> That's what I'd expect, yes. [cquirke (MVP Windows
>> shell/user]
> -----------------------------------
>
>> Those sort of "deep" SPs are rather like a new OS version,
>> except not released and marketed as such. It's usually a
>> required response to hardware changes (e.g. Win95 SR2, NT 4
>> SP3 dealing with AGP, USB) though XP SP2 was more of a
>> safety/security thing.
>>
>> There's often a fair bit of compatibility pain and support
>> headache that goes with a big re-engineering of the OS. I
>> doubt if MS would want that impact for an OS they no longer
>> sell, have already replaced, and will cease to support within
>> (say) 5 years.
>
> I agree.
>
>> Even if it is "just" a roll-up, it would still be quite
>> welcome. The patch load from XP SP2 baseline's already
>> getting a bit large!
>
> Right!
>
> Welcome Indeed.
>
>>>2. What are the advantages of IE7 for XP -- if any? New
>>>Capabilities and Limitations.
>>
>> Some of the advantages of IE 7 depend on Vista as the
>> underlying OS, e.g. the new IE 7 Protected Mode.
>>
>> But there's still plenty of functional advantages for XP; in
>> fact, I'd absolutely hate to go back. The big plus is tabbed
>> browsing, which you'd already have with Firefox.
>
> Not a major issue with me. Any others?
>
>> The one thing I don't like about IE 7, is that there's not
>> true self-contained installation package. The IE 7 installer
>> you download will depend on Internet access when you install
>> it, both to validate your OS installation, and to pull down
>> post-release patches. In fact, I suspect these patches may
>> be larger than the IE 7 installation package, which is a lot
>> smaller than IE 6.
>
> You can't put it on your desktop and reinstall or remove at
> will -- I didn't like that either.
>
> I suspected the stub aspect as well. The current download for
> IE7 is only 14.8 MB.
>
> I installed the damned thing twice and took it off both times.
> It runs far more slowly than IE6 on my XP Pro SP2 box and is
> FAR more intrusive -- telling me all sorts of things I can and
> cannot do -- as well as wanting to index things.
>
> I don't need it. I saw NO significant advantage in it. It
> seems to be designed for Vista and is very klutzy on XP Pro
> SP2 -- in my case -- and my box is only about a year and a
> half old -- and has ALL the MS updates installed. IE6 is MUCH
> faster, doesn't nag me and doesn't seem so bloated.
>
>> Even allowing for OE and MS Messenger adding bulk to the IE 6
>> package, IE 7 looks suspiciously small - almost like a stub
>> to pull down the real material "live" during the installation
>> process.
>
> BINGO!
>
> DSH
>
>
>

--
HP, aka Jerry

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 12th 07, 10:32 AM

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:11:05 -0000, "HEMI-Powered"
>Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:37:19 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

>> The usual sware dev cycle is:
>> - projectorware
>> - initial mock-up
>> - write the code
>> - debug until bug-free
>> - optimize for performance
>>
>> However, we rarely emerge from "debug until bug free", and are
>> usually still in that phase by the time hardware capacity gets
>> so much better than the un-optimized code runs "fast enough"

>Nobody debugs until bug free because it can be shown
>mathematically to be impossible, never mind its cost.

Yep, it's a Goedel thing. It's debatable whether there really is a
schism between determanism and chaos, or whether it's just a matter of
computational power limitations.

With enough energy, can you break molecules, atoms, electrons...?

With enough computational power, can you break DES, or the mysteries
of turbulance, or predict the stock market?

If you take the "bugs tend towards zero but never really reach zero"
perspective, then how far down the slope you need to go depends on how
complex is the system you're debugging. A 1:100 error rate may be low
enough to write 5-line batch files, and 1:1000000 error rate may be OK
for DOS and small apps... but for today's code, processed at over a
million instructions a millisecond, you're unlikely to beat Murphy.

>optimization is just one of many criteria used in development of
>ANY software, and again is a compromise based almost exclusively
>on the express purpose of the company - to generate profits.

Optimization is fading from significance as hardware capabilities
improve, and reliability needs increase.

The beauty of an elegant algorithm is still there, but of all the
tricks and tweaks one used to dance around the lumpy limitations of
hardware, I doubt if any remain relevant a decade later.

Hand-crafted, bug-free Assembler code is like diamonds; essential in a
narrow range of contexts, but far too costly to use as the sole
material for buildings, oil tankers, aircraft etc. That's why Win95
kept some 16-bit code for the UI; it was exactly this quality of
highly-optimized, reliable code that is well worth keeping.

The challenge is how to accept that code will always be buggy, and
design reliable systems anyway. I think a problem we have is that
devs are in denial on this; they still reckon that if they "try
harder", they can use code as if it were reliable and trustworthy.

This is like trying to divide by zero by Thinking Really Hard.

>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, does not go away (PKD)
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

HEMI-Powered

March 12th 07, 12:10 PM

Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) made these interesting
comments ...

>>Nobody debugs until bug free because it can be shown
>>mathematically to be impossible, never mind its cost.
>
> Yep, it's a Goedel thing. It's debatable whether there really
> is a schism between determanism and chaos, or whether it's
> just a matter of computational power limitations.
>
> With enough energy, can you break molecules, atoms,
> electrons...?
>
> With enough computational power, can you break DES, or the
> mysteries of turbulance, or predict the stock market?

In producing anything, hard or soft, the Law of Dimishing Returns
is what determines how many bugs you will squash. You CAN rid the
product of more, but it will take longer and cost more, both of
which are denied to you as the developer by your manager.

> If you take the "bugs tend towards zero but never really reach
> zero" perspective, then how far down the slope you need to go
> depends on how complex is the system you're debugging. A
> 1:100 error rate may be low enough to write 5-line batch
> files, and 1:1000000 error rate may be OK for DOS and small
> apps... but for today's code, processed at over a million
> instructions a millisecond, you're unlikely to beat Murphy.

Exactly. Suppose, for example, that operating systems and apps
were sold Sears-style: good, better, and best. YOu could then
choose by price alone the ones that have the most bugs and bloat
to the least bugs and bloat. Wish it worked that way, but it
doesn't. The degree of bug-freeness and least bloat is an
economic compromise sort of thing in order to bring the product
in on-time at the price target selected by management. And, yes,
computer aided testing is a great help, as is statistical
analysis to predict the impact of remaining problems and to
predict how the product will work. So, too, is alpha and beta
testing, inclunding beta testing by the Visa cars of the early
adopters.

>>optimization is just one of many criteria used in development
>>of ANY software, and again is a compromise based almost
>>exclusively on the express purpose of the company - to
>>generate profits.
>
> Optimization is fading from significance as hardware
> capabilities improve, and reliability needs increase.

That is true, but just think of the performance you would see if
developers didn't take this approach!

> The beauty of an elegant algorithm is still there, but of all
> the tricks and tweaks one used to dance around the lumpy
> limitations of hardware, I doubt if any remain relevant a
> decade later.
>
> Hand-crafted, bug-free Assembler code is like diamonds;
> essential in a narrow range of contexts, but far too costly to
> use as the sole material for buildings, oil tankers, aircraft
> etc. That's why Win95 kept some 16-bit code for the UI; it
> was exactly this quality of highly-optimized, reliable code
> that is well worth keeping.
>
> The challenge is how to accept that code will always be buggy,
> and design reliable systems anyway. I think a problem we have
> is that devs are in denial on this; they still reckon that if
> they "try harder", they can use code as if it were reliable
> and trustworthy.
>
> This is like trying to divide by zero by Thinking Really Hard.
>

--
HP, aka Jerry

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

March 12th 07, 04:05 PM

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:10:34 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" wrote:
>"Today", cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

>>>Nobody debugs until bug free because it can be shown
>>>mathematically to be impossible, never mind its cost.

>> Yep, it's a Goedel thing. It's debatable whether there really
>> is a schism between determanism and chaos

>In producing anything, hard or soft, the Law of Dimishing Returns
>is what determines how many bugs you will squash. You CAN rid the
>product of more, but it will take longer and cost more, both of
>which are denied to you as the developer by your manager.

Yep. Often the most solid inventors get left out of the loop, because
they can't "sign off and ship"; Tesla comes to mind there.

>Exactly. Suppose, for example, that operating systems and apps
>were sold Sears-style: good, better, and best. YOu could then
>choose by price alone the ones that have the most bugs

That relies on "you get what you pay for", which is not a truism, but
rather like the waterline on an iceberg. It's best-case; usually you
get a lot less than what you pay for.

And then there's the "Nike Effect", i.e. meaningless "brand tax"...

If you had the computational power to ascertain the true bug load of
an item of s(oft)ware, you'd have written it ;-)

You could, however, pay a premium based on the degree of pain the
vendor's contractually obliging themselves to undergo, should the
product fall short of expectations.

>> Optimization is fading from significance as hardware
>> capabilities improve, and reliability needs increase.

>That is true, but just think of the performance you would see if
>developers didn't take this approach!

Indeed... sometimes one might want a skeletal OS that does nothing
more than hand over full control to a single encapsulated app; rather
like what a thing called "DOS" used to do :-)

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

HEMI-Powered

March 12th 07, 05:05 PM

Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) made these interesting
comments ...

>>In producing anything, hard or soft, the Law of Dimishing
>>Returns is what determines how many bugs you will squash. You
>>CAN rid the product of more, but it will take longer and cost
>>more, both of which are denied to you as the developer by
>>your manager.
>
> Yep. Often the most solid inventors get left out of the loop,
> because they can't "sign off and ship"; Tesla comes to mind
> there.

Yep, he bolted when his boss wouldn't listen.

>>Exactly. Suppose, for example, that operating systems and apps
>>were sold Sears-style: good, better, and best. YOu could then
>>choose by price alone the ones that have the most bugs
>
> That relies on "you get what you pay for", which is not a
> truism, but rather like the waterline on an iceberg. It's
> best-case; usually you get a lot less than what you pay for.

Of course, I was being facious here ...

> And then there's the "Nike Effect", i.e. meaningless "brand
> tax"...
>
> If you had the computational power to ascertain the true bug
> load of an item of s(oft)ware, you'd have written it ;-)

If I thought I could write an O/S maybe I would, but there are
few companies large enough to successfully do that today, and
impossible for individuals. Linux is a cooperative effort of many
programmers using its open architecture, much as Unix was
intended to be a generation ago, but it lost its way when the HW
manufacturers wanted proprietary versions for marketing reasons.

> You could, however, pay a premium based on the degree of pain
> the vendor's contractually obliging themselves to undergo,
> should the product fall short of expectations.

That's a thought! See who can stand the most pain, the developer
or the consumer! <grin>

>>> Optimization is fading from significance as hardware
>>> capabilities improve, and reliability needs increase.
>
>>That is true, but just think of the performance you would see
>>if developers didn't take this approach!
>
> Indeed... sometimes one might want a skeletal OS that does
> nothing more than hand over full control to a single
> encapsulated app; rather like what a thing called "DOS" used
> to do :-)
>
I did a LOT of useful work on my old Apple //e with just 128KB
memory and a suite called Appleworks. And, I did a lOT of useful
work in the DOS days. I do a lot of useful work today, and it is
much easier to do thanks to standards of data interchange and
standards for how all apps and utilities to adhere to so as to
make the learning curve as shallow as possible.

--
HP, aka Jerry