Simplest way to get WinXP-style sliding cascading menu on Win10 (without MS Update bricking the system)?

ultred ragnusen wrote:

Use your silly arguments elsewhere,

In hind sight, I apologize for using the word "silly".

You apparently feel there is danger in the user putting programs where the
user feels they belong - ang that's not wrong - it's just not a realistic
fear.

I apologize for using the word silly. You have your reasons to fear where a
program goes.

I have no reason to fear that, so I don't feel the same fear that you do.

Thinking of how I could possibly cause a problem, I guess what you're
trying to say is that the user could put two programs in the /same/
directory, which, I agree, would cause problems most likely.

But who on earth is going to do that?
It's like running a rm -rf * command in that, sure, you have the power to
do it, but you wouldn't likely do it.

Would you?

ultred ragnusen wrote:
mechanic wrote:

Just think about what you just asked, and then think about reality.
Well I just asked a simple question which you seem unable to answer.

You don't like the simple answer, which doesn't mean I'm unable to answer.

A more detailed answer is that people often put programs on separate
partitions from the operating system, or, in a location of their choosing,
for reasons that /they/ know.

Except the OS Installer doesn't support this.

The OS details allow customization. But the OS Installer doesn't
like it when you do that, and the install is likely to back out
before it finishes. No disk corruption should result.

This is only detrimental on Windows 10, which is
a rolling release, and only has periods of months
before another OS Installer gains access to the system.

Nothing to worry about, if you *keep full backups* like
we keep telling people to do. Microsoft can then mess it up,
and you can fix it in ten minutes (that's the time to restore
a 60GB partition).

Keep the Microsoft portion in "default" configuration.
Move your personal files somewhere else as you download them,
to keep the C: partition size down. You're likely to be able
to run just the OS part in about 60GB or so (comfortably).
I've used smaller partitions, just to tease the OS, and it
still survives. Tablet users are getting by with a 32GB
eMMC (which seems unbelievable at times, that the installer
can deal with that). The installs don't have to be big,
like 10GB or so for an OS, but little things like hiberfil
and pagefile take up space too. And the OS installer calculates
all this, and aims for about 3GB of "slack" when it's all done.

Paul

On 02/28/2018 5:22 PM, ultred ragnusen wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Agreed, absolutely no need to put programs anywhere else.

There's absolutely no need for cars to be any color other than black
either.


"You can have any color Model T as long as its black".
Henry Ford.

Rene

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:22:51 -0800, ultred ragnusen wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Agreed, absolutely no need to put programs anywhere else.

There's absolutely no need for cars to be any color other than
black either.

Irrelevant analogy.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:33:04 -0800, ultred ragnusen wrote:

ultred ragnusen wrote:

Use your silly arguments elsewhere,

In hind sight, I apologize for using the word "silly".

You apparently feel there is danger in the user putting programs
where the user feels they belong - ang that's not wrong - it's
just not a realistic fear.

I apologize for using the word silly. You have your reasons to
fear where a program goes.

I have no reason to fear that, so I don't feel the same fear that
you do.

Thinking of how I could possibly cause a problem, I guess what
you're trying to say is that the user could put two programs in
the /same/ directory, which, I agree, would cause problems most
likely.

But who on earth is going to do that? It's like running a rm -rf
* command in that, sure, you have the power to do it, but you
wouldn't likely do it.

Would you?

http://hohle.net/scrap_post.php?post=23

"ultred ragnusen" wrote

| A more detailed answer is that people often put programs on separate
| partitions from the operating system, or, in a location of their choosing,
| for reasons that /they/ know.
|

Makes sense to me. No installer should ever
not provide an option of where to install, except
things like drivers or shared DLLs that might run
into complications otherwise.

It's not a good idea to install on a separate
partition because the Registry is on the OS partition.
If D is somehow lost then C will be a mess. But
it's not unusual for software to be installed in
something like a custom folder. One reason is
because some older software will write to the
program folder, and that will be blocked in later
Windows versions. So a lot of people will just
make a folder like C:\Programs and install
everything there.

What often gets missed in these discussions is
that the design of Windows is not primarily for
security but rather for corporate customers. All
of the standards are designed for workstations
on which corporate employees do work, like writing
MS Word docs. The employee is not allowed to
change software and is restricted from all but their
own app data folder. The way Microsoft have worked
it out, an employee can log on from any company
PC and get their own settings and files. At the same
time the IT staff can control what that employee
can do.
Even IE is designed to allow IT to completely
control employee behavior, by overriding settings with
Registry settings the employee can't access. That's
what allowed AOL to wrap IE and provide their own
browser that they controlled.

Networking functionality, likewise, is designed for
corporate workstations, where the network is trusted
and the user is not.

For most people here, neither is a good design. The
file restrictions and folder assignment system are sloppy
and make it hard to find things. Having to elevate for
common operations is highly inefficient. The networking
configuration is unsafe. It ends up that only Microsoft
and malware can get anything done.

If you own your computer and use it alone it's nuts
to store all your personal and config files several layers
down in a catacomb of real, fake and hidden folders
where you'll never find them. It's also nuts to enable
most networking services. But people hear Microsoft
talk about "best practices" and think that's an objectively
scientific viewpoint. So they run in lackey mode, install
2 or 3 antivirus programs, and cross their fingers, while
also allowing tech support to run remote desktop on
their system and allowing flash/script in the browser.

It's like an extra thick condom with holes: A lot of
hassle for not much protection.

Why shouldn't software be in "Programs", without a
space in the name to screw up command line? Why
shouldn't work files be in C:|Files, or in a subfolder of
the program folder? (There's no need to sacrifice
security if data files are kept in a subfolder.) The only
reason not to do that is because you've been shoehorned
onto a corporate workstation.

The mess Microsoft have made -- first by not serving
SOHo customers specifically and second by trying to
take over the system -- is why so much software is
now "portable". All that really means is that it doesn't use
the Registry and doesn't get installed. It bypasses the
convoluted mess of software installed on workstations.

Actually, probably half of the software I use doesn't
even have an installer. I put it all in Program Files because
I find that easy, but I didn't need to. That includes most
small utilities, like the Syssinternals tools, which are
written by one on Microsoft's top programmers. The
tradition of having installers is meant for convenience,
not limitation.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:21:57 -0800, ultred ragnusen
wrote:

mechanic wrote:

Just think about what you just asked, and then think about reality.

Well I just asked a simple question which you seem unable to answer.

You don't like the simple answer, which doesn't mean I'm unable to answer.

A more detailed answer is that people often put programs on separate
partitions from the operating system, or, in a location of their choosing,
for reasons that /they/ know.



True. But in almost cases that I'm aware of, in my view, their reasons
are very poor.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:28:13 -0800, ultred ragnusen
wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:

I have no statistics to quote and I haven't kept track of it myself,
but as best I can remember, the percentage is much higher than 1%-2%
and much lower than 98%-99%. Just a guess, but I'd say somewhere
around 50%.

Absolutely no way it's anything like 1/2 the programs out there don't give
you any option to install where you want them installed.

They exist, mind you, where iTunes' bloatware is one of them, and a quick
look in my old Program-Files(whatever) hierarchy shows a couple of the
really badly written programs (e.g., WinPcap) but, I must have over 250
programs installed on my old HDD where there are extremely few of them
showing up in the Program Files hierarchies.

IMHO, it's more like 1%, if that, are so badly written that they don't give
the user any option to put them where the user wants them.


We differ very strongly. In my experience, it's *way* more than that.


So few programs are that badly written that you probably can't name more
than one or two programs you feel gives the user no option to install where
they want it to install.



I can't name any. It's not something I've kept track of, mostly
because I don't really care whether they do or not. My guess (only a
guess, mind you) of 50% is based on memories, but not counts.

On 3/1/2018 12:17 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:21:57 -0800, ultred ragnusen
wrote:

mechanic wrote:

Just think about what you just asked, and then think about reality.

Well I just asked a simple question which you seem unable to answer.

You don't like the simple answer, which doesn't mean I'm unable to answer.

A more detailed answer is that people often put programs on separate
partitions from the operating system, or, in a location of their choosing,
for reasons that /they/ know.



True. But in almost cases that I'm aware of, in my view, their reasons
are very poor.

I have a tablet with 32GB main storage. If I install the programs that
I use on in the main storage, then Windows 10 will not update as there
is no room in the Main storage.

I have found from experience that for the updates to install without
hassle, you need 16 to 17 GB free. The only way I can get that is to
install everything in secondary storage. I have sought out portable
version of the programs that I use so they can be installed in the
secondary storage.

I am constantly surprised when I look at new Window 10 computers and
they have less that 10 GB of free main storage. I saw a computer the
other day with 5 free GB free. What this means is that the new owner
will constantly be fighting with MS updates.








--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 3/1/2018 12:17 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:21:57 -0800, ultred ragnusen
wrote:

mechanic wrote:

Just think about what you just asked, and then think about reality.

Well I just asked a simple question which you seem unable to answer.

You don't like the simple answer, which doesn't mean I'm unable to
answer.

A more detailed answer is that people often put programs on separate
partitions from the operating system, or, in a location of their
choosing,
for reasons that /they/ know.



True. But in almost cases that I'm aware of, in my view, their reasons
are very poor.

I have a tablet with 32GB main storage. If I install the programs that
I use on in the main storage, then Windows 10 will not update as there
is no room in the Main storage.

I have found from experience that for the updates to install without
hassle, you need 16 to 17 GB free. The only way I can get that is to
install everything in secondary storage. I have sought out portable
version of the programs that I use so they can be installed in the
secondary storage.

I am constantly surprised when I look at new Window 10 computers and
they have less that 10 GB of free main storage. I saw a computer the
other day with 5 free GB free. What this means is that the new owner
will constantly be fighting with MS updates.

And the sad part is, 64GB eMMC have been available for a while
now, and there's no reason to be making tablets with 32GB.

If you must buy computers with the accursed eMMC soldered to it,
at least buy a "big one". "Just say no" to 32GB products.

Paul

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote

| I never have a reason to install in another folder,
| why would I care where the program files are?

As I mentioned, some people like to use another folder
to avoid file restrictions for older software that's
not designed to handle them. Some people like it
to avoid the idiotic file path with a space ("Program Files"),
which can get complicated when trying to write
command lines.

You don't have to move your programs. I don't
think ultred was suggesting that. He just wants
to be able to make his own choices.

"Ken Blake" wrote

| IMHO, it's more like 1%, if that, are so badly written that they don't
give
| the user any option to put them where the user wants them.
|
|
| We differ very strongly. In my experience, it's *way* more than that.
|

You must be using some pretty shady software. I don't
remember ever seeing an installer that didn't provide
an option to choose where to install. I'd remove any such
software, assuming that such a bad installer doesn't
bode well for the software itself.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote

| You don't have to move your programs. I don't
| think ultred was suggesting that. He just wants
| to be able to make his own choices.
|
| It's a pointless choice.
|

What's it to you? You seem to have a perverse
fixation on your own opinions. Everyone you disagree
with is not just different or even wrong. They must
be an idiot. You're arguing on and on about
something that's none of your concern.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote

| You must be using some pretty shady software. I don't
| remember ever seeing an installer that didn't provide
| an option to choose where to install. I'd remove any such
| software, assuming that such a bad installer doesn't
| bode well for the software itself.
|
| Then you're judging a book by it's cover and are an absolute ****ing
bafoon.
|

Buffoon, not "bafoon". And I'm judging a book by
its content, not its cover. Judging by the cover
would be dismissing a program based on logo, name,
etc.

I realize that you relish being smug, crass
and condescending, but no one is that much smarter
than everyone else, so your gimmick persona ends up
being untenable and you just end up looking foolish.

There's no excuse for habitual meanness. It's not
clever.

The installer says a lot. Offering a choice of
install location is standard. Many installers these
days also offer custom options, such as whether to
install extras.
If an installer doesn't offer a choice of install
location then the reason can only be one of two
things. Either the author is not focussed on serving
the end user (since they didn't bother to create
a standard installer), or they're incompetent. Either
way, I don't want that software.

Books and covers:
If I visit your house and see that you have Skippy
peanut butter, Marshmallow Fluff, Wonder bread and
3 Musketeers bars on your counter, I don't need to
watch you cook in order to know that I don't want to
eat any food you offer. If you eat such things then
it's not possible that you'd know how to prepare a
meal properly.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote

| What's it to you? You seem to have a perverse
| fixation on your own opinions. Everyone you disagree
| with is not just different or even wrong. They must
| be an idiot. You're arguing on and on about
| something that's none of your concern.
|
| Do you think everyone should have the right to paint their car the same
colours as the police?
|

Where do you get this stuff? He wants to change
where he installs software. How does that become
impersonating a police officer?

I do think, though, that fascism is an unhealthy
and lazy habit. Those who won't bother thinking for
themselves create a low-cal facsimile by accusing
others of thinking wrongly.

There was once an episode on TV.... I think it was
Twilight Zone.... People in a 50s suburban neighborhood
start to get nervous because odd things are happening.
For instance, all the power goes out except for at
Ed Smith's house. Everyone starts thinking Ed Smith
might be a monster of some kind. But next time it's
Al Jones's house. Then someone else's. Mob mentality
takes hold. Everyone accuses everyone. Riots and
destruction ensue. At the end, the camera pans back to
show vast areas of destruction, viewed through a
window. An alien voice says, "So this works every time?
You just scare them a little and they all kill each other?"
A second alien answers something like, "Yes. Works every
time. It's so simple. We'll conquer this planet in a matter
of weeks."