! Windows 7 Sucks

In message , Stephen
Wolstenholme writes:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 13:43:28 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Ideally, software should be a whole lot more modular, so you only have
to buy (or at least install) the bits you want.

I have been involved with the production of modular software. It needs
to be built into a common structure. The software I was involved with
had thousands of modules and a "collector" system to put it all
together before releasing to the customer. That worked very well but
if it needed to be released in bits that the customer wanted it would
have needed a collector system with every customer. It's much easier
to give them the lot and tell them how to enable on the extra bits
they buy.

Steve

Oh, indeed; however, my remark was prompted by someone's mention of
bloatware. Sure, it's a lot harder to write software that's truly
modular (and does involve some inefficiency in itself, if truly common
interfaces between modules are used - I've been involved at the hardware
level, in VHDL). These days, with RAM and, especially, disc space being
so cheap, bloatware is - though it bugs me to say so - not nearly as
much of a problem as it once was. (I still admire compact code, though,
and feel it runs both faster and more reliably. Like "flamer", a little
utility I have which simulates flames on the screen, in 453 bytes ...
[my copy of the file is dated 1995, though I think the original is older
than that].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
news
Oh, indeed; however, my remark was prompted by someone's
mention of bloatware. Sure, it's a lot harder to write
software that's truly modular (and does involve some
inefficiency in itself, if truly common interfaces between
modules are used - I've been involved at the hardware
level, in VHDL). These days, with RAM and, especially, disc
space being so cheap, bloatware is - though it bugs me to
say so - not nearly as much of a problem as it once was.

That may have been me mentioning bloatware, but it doesn't
merely mean HD space. It means large number of unnecessary
processes, and quality of/efficiency of the programs themselves.



still admire compact code, though, and feel it runs both
faster and more reliably. Like "flamer", a little utility I
have which simulates flames on the screen, in 453 bytes ...
[my copy of the file is dated 1995, though I think the
original is older than that].)

This is intersting. Do you have source, or just the program ?

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:46:02 -0600, DanS
wrote:

Wolf K wrote in
. com:

Many (pretty well all older) office type
copier/printer/mufti-function machines have hard drives
(1), used to store the copy/print image while multiple
copies are made. Eventually the HDD fills up and FIFO takes
over as new print/copy jobs are done. Any security issue
would arise at a recycling depot where the machine is taken
apart. The HDD could be attached to a computer and its
contents read. Forestall that by removing it before sending
the machine to the dumpster.

I don't see any way to get data out of
the machine without a hack of the printer's firmware so
that the printer sends the contents of the HDD to the
computer used to hack it.

Which may or may not could be done. I don't have an intimate
knowledge of what is required for a printer/copier firmware
update. As I said, it all starts somewhere. "Super Anti-virus
2009" wasn't the first virus/whatever to appear.

Considering there are so many
easier ways to get "sensitive data", including the good old
cold-cash-in-greasy-palm method, that I think it's hardly
worth the trouble. But why bother?

People do stuff all the time, just because they can.

Back in about 2000 I was working for a large company in a cube farm.
We had big multi-function printers (copy/fax/print) scattered around
the area, although I don't remember the brand or model anymore.

Someone figured out how to access their hard drives over the network,
which came in very handy when you had a document to print and wanted
to jump to the top of the print queue. Instead of sending your
document to the print server and letting it manage the print queue,
you could send your document directly to the printer and 'insert' it
at the top of the queue, causing it to print ahead of everyone else's
print job.

That quickly morphed into storing jpg photos (mostly of the NSFW
variety) on the internal hard drives, and in turn that morphed into
storing mp3's and even some pirated software. Large video files were
still a few years off. The final straw was when someone figured out
how to display short messages on the printer's scrolling display. We
were told to stop messing around or risk being terminated, but the fun
lasted until at least 2004, so it was a good ride.

The point is, yes, people do things because they can.

--

Char Jackson

In message 31, DanS
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

In message
31, DanS
writes:
[]
Users are crying about Windows 'bloat', and how do you cut
bloat.....by removing things that *virtually noone* uses
anymore.

As opposed to adding things that "virtually no-one" (note
the hyphen) wants?

Why point out a typo, when you actually have ideas to convey?

(A third of time it comes out like that, antoher 1/3 it's
'none' and the other third is 'no one'. It's because I'm *not*
a typer, and my brain works faster than my fingers do,
skipping letters and appearing dyslexic, like the 'antoher'
typo I left above purposely.)

Because I thought it was a genuine case of your not knowing, rather than
a typo, and I for my sins like to educate people; I accept your
explanation - I am the same, I think faster than I type - that in this
case it was not.

Ideally, software should be a whole lot more modular, so
you only have to buy (or at least install) the bits you
want. But that's not attractive from the business point of
view, as they want to be able to keep selling the whole
suite every time.

Of course. They're in business to sell s/w.

We agree (-:
[]
There are only 3 OSs now that are viable for everyday
use.......Windows, Linux and OSX (MAC).

I'd eve say that for the man in the street it's only the
first and third two: for whatever reason, all the main (US)
[]
Well, my list of wasn't in any particular order.
[]
I can't see any new OS taking off in the real world: it'd
have to run Windows and/or Mac applications or not enough
people would buy it for it to be anything but a novelty for
geeks.

Like Linux ? (Don't let *them* hear you say that...wait, that
was me that said that. I run Linux too, 1/2 the time.)

As a desktop OS, Linux is comletely useable now, for a

I don't doubt that it is - or rather, the Linux enthusiasts have been
telling me so for many years now, and I'm inclined to believe them. The
fact remains, however, that if an ordinary member of the public, here in
UK and I suspect in US, decides to buy a computer from virtually any of
the high/main street usual suspects, and a pretty high proportion of
online retailers, he will not be offered a Linux-based one.

*typical home user*, except that 1) you need to make sure the

So the "typical home user" - who just buys the computer, and probably
some software - is unlikely to (have the opportunity to) actually find
out.

hardware will work, and two, 2) you'd need to learn new

Hmm ... now you're unpicking my support. To go cars again, even if I buy
something exotic like a hydrogen-powered one, I would expect not to have
to worry about whether it works or not, only where I'm going to find the
fuel stations.

troubleshooting and repair techniques, 3) some of your s/w
would need to be replaced, which would require some investment
in time to familiarize yourself with it. *Some* of the most
common home user apps are produced for Linux and Windows,
Firefox and Thunderbird spring to mind immediately. Dropbox,
Skype (although the Linux version really does s*ck), Nero,
OpenOffice/LibreOffice, GIMP, Filezilla, Opera, Pidgin.

I think we're moving out of "common home user" here. I suppose I mean
something like the 90% level (though I am pretty sure the proportion is
in the higher nineties). I think you'll find - sadly! - that the
majority of common users use Windows as OS, IE rather than Firefox as
browser, WLM (or, these days, a web interface) for mail (and won't use
newsnet at all - possibly using the odd forum), Office (or at least
Word) for WP, and so on. Or the Mac equivalents for those with lots of
money (or, and I think there probably _is_ something in it, who want
even less hassle).
[]
Linux does run some Windows s/w using WINE,

Ah yes - "if you try to run Windows software on Linux, this w(h)ine
starts up ..." (-:

It's not that M$/Apple now even have to apply their
(undoubtably significant) marketing force: they're just
_there_ in such a big way that nothing can shift them.

At least not over a truly significant span of time. Since car
analogies are common.....

...Toyota....1958, the first year Toyota began exporting to
the US. 287 cars. At that time, I believe GM ws the hands-down
winner for auto sales.

...Toyota....2009, Toyota Overtakes GM as Number One in Sales

It took over 50 years, but it was done.

And it may happen with Microsoft/Apple, over that sort of timescale. But
I imagine the computers - or, whatever has replaced them [and assuming
civilization remains uncollapsed enough to allow any sort of development
to continue] - of 50 years from now will bear so little resemblance to a
Windows, Apple, or Linux one of today, that it is moot!

(I know, not a truly valid analogy, since the cars don't need
to interop with other cars, but still.)

(Not entirely invalid - they have to run on the same fuel and roads, and
not be entirely different to operate.)
[]
No, but the person making the decisions may well be a
2x-year-old fresh out of business school.

And, at MS, specifically, are they ?....
----------------------------------------
"Steven Sinofsky (born 1965[1]) has been the President of the
Windows Division at Microsoft since September 2008,
responsible for the development and marketing of Windows,
Windows Live, and Internet Explorer.".....

.....In July 1989, Sinofsky joined Microsoft as a software
design engineer.....

I wonder just how much of the _low-level_ decision-making he still does,
though. (Though I'm pleased to here he's there.)
[]
(Not as the head of Windows the entire time, but as a point to
show that those 'running the show' certainly aren't brand-
spanking new 'lazy programmers'. )

Though quite possibly being _advised_ - especially in "business" matters
- by young business-people.

--------------------------------------------

Newly appointed head of 'Server & Tools Business'
[]
Seems as though the people that *are* making the decisions
aren't new young "programmers" that don't have a clue.

Server & Tools, as opposed to user interface ... (-:
[]
So the reason I'm not a typer, is because I'm not far behind
that. Nowadays, 'Typing' is called 'Keyboarding'. When I was
in school, 'Typing' was for girls. There was uproar among my
class when in 6th grade, the boys were forced to do a 1/2 year
of 'Home Ec.' and the girls to do a 1/2 year of 'Shop'. (That
was, until we boys realized most of the 'Home Ec' course, for
the boys version of it anyway, consisted of making and eating
food.)

(-:. Odd how it's "shop" in US and "workshop" in UK: in UK, "working in
a shop" means being employed in a retail outlet.

I've been programming since my first C64 back in the
80's....had 8-tracks, watched black and white TV at times,

Built my first Tangerine in the 80s (learnt computing on a 7-bit
processor with RAM of 16 in the '70s)...8-track never caught on here,
but had reel-to-reel and cassettes, and 405-line TV...

lived through and hated disco, watched with horror with the

ditto re disco, though

rise of the front-wheel drive car as the standard, etc.

can't say FWD bothers me that much (though drove a series of these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La...500_Estate.JPG which
certainly weren't!)

tend to think they tend to be _hasty_ decisions.)

They can be. MS has made many bad decisions before, like Bob
and Me, that BillW50 pointed out, but they seem to have
recovered from those, haven't they......

Bob was never an OS, just a sort of front-end helper. Not alone in that
- I remember at least one proprietary make (I think it was Packard Bell)
who had all the standard (then) Windows components, but accessed via a
front end that IIRR looked like a panelled hall.

....many thought that the time for MS to fall was with the
release of Vista....expecting large numbers to bail and seek
refuge in MAC/OSX and Linux.....and it just didn't happen.

I think that actually was their low point (in recent years, anyway): the
public really liked XP (many still do - over 50%, at least in corporate,
at least in UK), and didn't see Vista as offering anything significantly
new they wanted. Plus it coincided with the point where lower-powered
machines could still, with some sort of Linux (often in ROM), provide
much of what the basic computer-user wanted; finally, it (Vista) _did_
require a significantly more powerful (and thus expensive) host to give
the _same_ perceived performance people were used to. (Excessive UAC -
seen, whether justifiably or not, as in some ways M. getting into bed
with the remains of the recording industry - didn't help either.)

But lethargy - and, the genuine time it takes to learn anything
different, even if actually better - gave M. time to develop 7, which -
even if it is just Vista with a lot of the bugs (including in just how
it works) fixed, and that saved them. (Along with some pretty heavy
advertising.)

...not that it won't, in 20 or 30 *more* years.....

Indeed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010

In message 31, DanS
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
news
[]
level, in VHDL). These days, with RAM and, especially, disc
space being so cheap, bloatware is - though it bugs me to
say so - not nearly as much of a problem as it once was.

That may have been me mentioning bloatware, but it doesn't
merely mean HD space. It means large number of unnecessary
processes, and quality of/efficiency of the programs themselves.

Agreed. I wish I could stop - or, even, easily find out the purpose of -
most of the processes actually running on even this XP netbook. (I said
_easily_.)


still admire compact code, though, and feel it runs both
faster and more reliably. Like "flamer", a little utility I
have which simulates flames on the screen, in 453 bytes ...
[my copy of the file is dated 1995, though I think the
original is older than that].)

This is intersting. Do you have source, or just the program ?

Sorry, only the executable. (I think it's a .com rather than a .exe! I
think it runs in something like CGA - you can certainly see the pixels -
though it runs under DOS, 9x, and XP [though full-screen on all]; I
haven't tried it on 7.) And with a name like that, it's impossible to
google for.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010

In message 31, DanS
writes:
Wolf K wrote in
om:

On 03/12/2011 9:18 AM, DanS wrote:
[snip]
OK, so with complete honesty, how much s/w have you
actually had to replace because it *really* wouldn't run,
in any way shape of form, from a Windows OS upgrade.

Why qualify it with "in any way shape or form"? If I'm going to use
something under a new Windows, I don't want it to run crippled;
obviously I don't expect it to use any of the new facilities, but I
expect to be able to do with it all that I could before, and would have
some expectation (if I'd bought new hardware at the same time) that it
would run faster, too.

(Hardware drivers aside.)

Why? Why shouldn't a new (version of the) OS be able to work with the
old drivers?

(To answer your question: very little, but that's because [a] I buy very
little software anyway, [b] I upgrade very rarely. OK, I did start with
DOS and W3.1, but was on 98SElite for a very long time, and am on XP
now.)

I'll have to update my preferred office suite soon, at a
cost, as recent W7 updates have made it flakey. Bah!

That could just be another update away from a fix.

The point was, XP to Vista, or Vista to 7 mainly.

My understanding is that XP to Vista did cause a lot of problems - or
_perceived_ problems. Vista to 7 probably not many, because Vista wasn't
around for long enough for much software to be written solely for it. I
would say XP to 7 is a more valid question; I no longer have 7, so can't
answer. My understanding is that XP to 7 was if anything made easier, by
the improvements made to Vista which made 7.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 08:18:25 -0600, DanS
wrote:

OK, so with complete honesty, how much s/w have you actually
had to replace because it *really* wouldn't run, in any way
shape of form, from a Windows OS upgrade. (Hardware drivers
aside.)


None. Not even drivers.

Steve

--
Neural network software applications, help and support.

Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com

If I had the chance again, I would certainly NOT have gone for Win 7. I
support the notion that Win 7 SUCKS!!!!!!!!

On 03/12/2011 11:21 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
[...]
Back in about 2000 I was working for a large company in a cube farm.
[snip story]

A good read, thanks!

;-)
Wolf K.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:53:17 +0000, Loonie wrote:

If I had the chance again, I would certainly NOT have gone for Win 7. I
support the notion that Win 7 SUCKS!!!!!!!!

I think it's safe to say that most of us aren't having any serious
problems with it. Yes, there are a few minor annoyances, but overall
it works just fine.

What problems are you having?

--

Char Jackson

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:01:05 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 03/12/2011 11:21 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
[...]
Back in about 2000 I was working for a large company in a cube farm.
[snip story]

A good read, thanks!

;-)

Thanks. I left it vague enough to protect the guilty.

--

Char Jackson

On 12/3/2011 5:43 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:01:05 -0500, Wolf
wrote:

On 03/12/2011 11:21 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
[...]
Back in about 2000 I was working for a large company in a cube farm.
[snip story]

A good read, thanks!

;-)

Thanks. I left it vague enough to protect the guilty.

HP did have several network multifunction laser
copy/scan/fax/print/Email server/fax server models. The one I remember
was a 2002-2004 model.
It had an operating system, the ability to store messages, faxes, and
convert faxes to/from the email server.
I suppose that with the right information, and in the absence of
other precautions, it just might become contaminated, and a source for
various nasty things. We did lock out WAN access, and restricted full
service to local only users that were all behind the same firewall.
To send a fax, or print, it behaved as if it were attached to your P/C.
Receiving faxes got complicated, in that if the recipient was not
"parse-able", the incoming fax was printed, and stored in a common
access area on the units HD. If the recipient was identified, the fax
would be placed in the appropriate email account incoming folders as a fax.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

In message
31, DanS
writes:
Wolf K wrote in
. com:

On 03/12/2011 9:18 AM, DanS wrote:
[snip]
OK, so with complete honesty, how much s/w have you
actually had to replace because it *really* wouldn't
run, in any way shape of form, from a Windows OS
upgrade.

Why qualify it with "in any way shape or form"? If I'm
going to use something under a new Windows, I don't want it
to run crippled;

I didn't mean 'crippled'. Usually s/w works, or it doesn't.
(Unless of course you are installing a Windows s/w under WINE
in Linux.)

I meant something other than siplmy dbl-clicking the
installer...it may mean elevation, at install time, or each
time it's run, or having to install not under 'Program Files',
or required to first install the program, and then some patch
provided by the mfg.



(Hardware drivers aside.)

Why? Why shouldn't a new (version of the) OS be able to
work with the old drivers?

(To answer your question: very little, but that's because
[a] I buy very little software anyway, [b] I upgrade very
rarely. OK, I did start with DOS and W3.1, but was on
98SElite for a very long time, and am on XP now.)

I'll have to update my preferred office suite soon, at a
cost, as recent W7 updates have made it flakey. Bah!

That could just be another update away from a fix.

The point was, XP to Vista, or Vista to 7 mainly.

My understanding is that XP to Vista did cause a lot of
problems -

It did.

or _perceived_ problems.

Until the aforementioned work-arounds became common knowledge.

Vista to 7 probably not
many, because Vista wasn't around for long enough for much
software to be written solely for it. I would say XP to 7
is a more valid question; I no longer have 7, so can't
answer. My understanding is that XP to 7 was if anything
made easier, by the improvements made to Vista which made
7.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

still admire compact code, though, and feel it runs both
faster and more reliably. Like "flamer", a little utility
I have which simulates flames on the screen, in 453 bytes
... [my copy of the file is dated 1995, though I think
the original is older than that].)

This is intersting. Do you have source, or just the program
?

Sorry, only the executable. (I think it's a .com rather
than a .exe! I think it runs in something like CGA - you
can certainly see the pixels - though it runs under DOS,
9x, and XP [though full-screen on all]; I haven't tried it
on 7.) And with a name like that, it's impossible to google
for.

CGA ? That wouldn't be good anyway....

And yes, and Googling for "flamer", even with a binch of other
qualifying words, was futile.

In message 31, DanS
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

still admire compact code, though, and feel it runs both
faster and more reliably. Like "flamer", a little utility
I have which simulates flames on the screen, in 453 bytes
... [my copy of the file is dated 1995, though I think
the original is older than that].)

This is intersting. Do you have source, or just the program
?

Sorry, only the executable. (I think it's a .com rather
than a .exe! I think it runs in something like CGA - you
can certainly see the pixels - though it runs under DOS,
9x, and XP [though full-screen on all]; I haven't tried it
on 7.) And with a name like that, it's impossible to google
for.

CGA ? That wouldn't be good anyway....

Just guessing; it runs in full screen mode (not surprising), and when
it's running I can see that its resolution is limited (I can see the
little squares the flames are made up of). But it switches to it from
whatever (VGA, SVGA, etc.) mode you're using, and you get your original
screen back when you stop it.

And yes, and Googling for "flamer", even with a binch of other
qualifying words, was futile.

Is your email valid if I take all the dots out (apart from the one
before the c)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010