Now I Understand

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bluuuue Rajah
  • Start date Start date
"When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS."

================================

The above is not the fault of Windows. It did not write the uninstall
program for the google toolbar and it did not tell the uninstall program to
leave files behind. The fault lies with badly written code for the uninstall
process. The google toolbar program overwrote the IE5's ctrl-f command not
windows.
 
Bluuuue said:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to use
in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why Windows is
such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS.
Click to expand...

You need to work on the procedures which you use to backup your computer
system.

<snip>

/BAH
 
Bluuuue said:
You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows slowly
accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when people
started griping about what a POS it was.
Click to expand...

Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.

/BHA
 
[...]

The problem with windows is
 [1] Management - constantly making wrong decisions, deliberately
breaking bridges in software/APIs for their "commercial advantage" and
the rest of the typical corporate idiocy. Microsoft Management is
filled with people who have
   - never self-funded and run a profitable business on their own
   - never produced a profitable consumerable in the free market

Features, functionality and robustness always come after marketing and
politics and this is a sign that the company is on its way out.

 [2] User interface design needs to accomodate the entire spectrum of
computer users from idiots to experts, old to young, culture, race,
etc. As a result, the UI designed to fit everybody in reality fits
nobody. It is inefficient, etc.

 [3] Backwards compatibility - rather than dismiss the old and start
new, windows always carries the bad design principles through into new
version to support older software. They could've taken a
virtualization path as Apple have done in their OS, but idiot
management led by idiot Balmer decided that would be too easy,
profitable and make too much sense for them, so they support the
archaic APIs and software concepts in newer versions XP/Vista, etc
(and it looks like Windows 7 will still carry the same design).

That being said, Linux is worse (much worse).
Click to expand...

Wondoes is not bad at all if you appreciate what it was made for. The
main purposes are "make big business bigger" and "allow the US
government to eavesdrop on everyone in the whole wide world" So from a
technical perspective it truly is revolutionary. Every non US
government gave their cyberspace to Microsoft! I mentioned how
upsetting this was in 1995 The response talked mostly about a nice
green start button. And how I should support the mainstream consensus
of ubertruth.

You know the theorem: If you are 10 steps ahead of the crowd you are a
lunatic. I must say it took very long for people to figure it out.
Even today most minions love using M$ and I'm using it to! Because
there is no good alternative left alive. Honestly, Commodore was godly
compared to this crap.

Take for example the Chinese with the black screen. I thought it was
hilarious! Even the Chinese are to stupid to write their own operating
system. Would much rather use the US military application. Of course
long before that lots and lots of smaller businesses went bankrupt
thanx to micro$oft. You just got to give them credit for that.

A 10 cent CD that costs hundreds of Euro's !! What to do with the
money? Lets go and use it to kill kids in Africa and call it a fax-
ination program.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4204425.stm
"The foundation run by Microsoft magnate Bill Gates has announced it
is dedicating $750m (£400m) to a worldwide infant vaccination
programme. Mr Gates said the donation would help save millions of
children's lives."

Ohh I thought people around the world needed drinking water and food
stuffs?

You ever try to eat a vaccine? "ohh, I'm hungry please give my
shots!"; who believes that? But of course, the windoes crowd loves all
Billo rhetorics universally!

Here, this is the real work.

http://www.ryanswell.ca/

Put your hands on the screen!
 
Bluuuue said:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise
to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f
command, the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method
causes bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in
precise the reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall
the OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem,
which makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?)
handle this problem, and can we learn anything from their solution
to help minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Shenan said:
I think you have made gross generalizations based off personal
experience - which are usually proven inaccurate (at best.)

I utilize many different operating systems (and flavors/versions of
said operating systems) and if there is a single OS that is not
lacking in one or more (mostly more after years of use on any given
OS) ways, I have yet to come across it. Many times - some of the
'problems' found could have been avoided with experience and
know-how on the part of the user - which is acceptable in most
cases because I don't believe someone whould 'hold my hand' in
everything I do. Also - many times - it is a 'personal' issue with
the OS - meaning it won't do something the end-user believes it
*should* do.
As far as your gross generalizations - I have a system I have been
running since Windows XP was released. It has been through two
different sets of hardware, several hardware failures, many *MANY*
installations and software removals and is now finally running as a
VirtualBox machine on top of my Windows Vista and Windows Vista x64
Ultimate machines. I have *not* had to 'reinstall my OS' (assuming
you mean a clean installation) nor did it ever slow down in any way
I did not expect (when you upgrade applications, seldom do they
actually utilize less resources than their prior versions...)
In my specific experience - Windows (XP, Vista and some prior
versions to a certain extent) are fairly stable operating systems
that have given me personally little trouble. I've thrown a lot at
them - and my experience is not limited to just the applications I
utilize on a daily basis nor is my experience limited to just one
or two hardware configurations (I would put myself in the thousands
(possibly tens of thousands), easily, as far as how many different
hardware configurations I have had to deal with in the years since
Windows XP was first released alone.) I also pull from the
experience of those whose systems I have cleaned up from a mess or
setup initially - in that they seldom have the same trouble after a
little configuration and a little tutoring on how to properly
utilize their system.
YMMV.
Click to expand...
After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at
best)", your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
Click to expand...

Not what I said.

I said, "I think you have made gross generalizations based off personal
experience - which are usually proven inaccurate (at best.)"

It's the 'gross generalizations based off personal experience', not the
personal experiences themselves. There is nothing wrong with personal
experiences and if built up and combined many times - personal experience
can become pretty strong evidence. The original poster had ... seems to be
.... one personal experience and made an assertion that their personal
experience proved a point when combined with the trouble they saw (but had
no personal experience with) in the newsgroups (the whole 'walk into an
emergency room and assume the whole world has an epidemic of broken arms'
scenario...) - a "gross generalization".

It's best to read the entire message you respond to - not just one part.
 
Bluuuue Rajah said:
You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows slowly
accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when people
started griping about what a POS it was.
Click to expand...


If you think that you are a *total* idiot and do not know how to use a
computer.

Except when I've moved a HD into a new hardware environment
and had to perform a repair install...
I've never had to fool with one of my Windows installations.

At one time I had been using Linux for most of my work...
but for software compatibility reasons with the organization where I do my
volunteer work,
I found it easier to just stay with Windows.

I have used Linux, BSD ,Solaris, BeOS, OS/2 & ECS ...etc over the years
and they all have their own strengths and weaknesses.


To say that one OS is better than another is like saying
a chain saw is better than a hack saw. It depends what the hell you are
trying to do.
 
jmfbahciv said:
Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.

/BHA
Click to expand...


Wow...where the hell did you come from...
and when are you going back there?

Many years ago you gave me the best insult I have ever gotten...
so I honestly respect you for that. <G>


I still chuckle about it from time to time.
 
Bluuuue said:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise
to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f
command, the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method
causes bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in
precise the reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall
the OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem,
which makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?)
handle this problem, and can we learn anything from their solution
to help minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I do have one question to pose (in addition to my 'thoughts' given
earlier)...

You stated, "... which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command ..." in your posting
(quoted above in its entirety) - which leads me to ask, "Just what Windows
Operating System are you running?

I assumed it to have been Windows XP - given one of your chosen places to
post (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support) but if that was true -
you would not have access to Internet Explorer 5 directly - you would have
access to Internet Explorer 6 (at least.)

If you are using Internet Explorer 5 - that brings up other interesting
points. You installed a software that "Requires Internet Explorer 6.0+"
(among other requirements) according to the download page:
http://toolbar.google.com/ ... How?

I'm only asking because if you are going to claim a problem - you should be
fairly complete and accurate in your description of said problem before you
start throwing out accusations - otherwise it may be assumed the problem
doesn't even exist.
 
Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
Click to expand...

Thats just great!

Does it also clean up unused desktop icons? </sarkasm>
 
Apparently you DON"T understand a thing.
You state 'everybody RIGHTLY criticizes' Microsoft. What is right about it.
You state Linux is obviously better. How is it better?
You are posting nothing but emotional gibberish.
 
Rev said:
After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at best)",
your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
Click to expand...

actually he has eloquently described why every major o/s has the same
fundamental flaw: feature creep and bug-fix/ patches.....in other words,
bloatware.
I can only hope that his follow- up post will be an announcement of a
new o/s he and/or some friends built from the ground up.
 
Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
Click to expand...


That's a very dangerous and poor thing to do, in my view.

Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the
registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and
don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and
what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of,
having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.

The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
it may have.

Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html
 
Back
Top