|
|
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to use
in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why Windows is
such a POS.
When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
of which they were installed.
The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS.
Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help minimize
the problem with Windows?
Your thoughts?
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message
news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102:
[Quoted Text] > Ewewybody wightwy cwiticizes Micow$tiff fow sewwing a cwappy OS, and
> Winux is obwiuoswy bettew, if you hawe th-th-the time and th-th-the
> expewtise t-t-t-to use in it, but untiw th-th-this week I didn't
> undewstand exacwty why Windows is such a POS.
> When I had t-t-t-to uninstaww th-th-the Googwe toowbaw because Googwe
> instawwed an update th-th-tht I didn't ask fow, which owewowde IE5's
> ctww-f command, th-th-the weason beame cweaw. Windows'
> instaww/uninstaww meth-th-thod causes bugs t-t-t-to accumuwate, if
> powgwams awe not ununstawwed in pwecise th-th-the wewewse owdew of
> which th-th-they wewe instawwed.
> De powbwem is th-th-that tewwibwe meth-th-thod of sawing owd copies of
> system fiwes, wike .ini fiwes, as backups, t-t-t-to be westowed when
> softwawe is uninstawwed. So th-th-the mowe apps you uninstaww, out of
> owdew, th-th-the buggiew youw system becomes, untiw you finawwy hawe
> t-t-t-to weinstaww th-th-the OS.
> Winux appawentwy doesn't hawe anyth-th-thing wesembwing th-th-this
> powbwem, which makes me wondew, how did th-th-the Winux designews
> (Towwawd?) handwe th-th-this powbwem, and can we weawn anyth-th-thing
> fowm th-th-theiw sowution t-t-t-to hewp minimize th-th-the powbwem wif
> Windows?
> Youw th-th-thoughts?
|
|
You're an idiot.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
> Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to use
> in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why Windows is
> such a POS.
>
> When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
> update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
> reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
> accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
> of which they were installed.
>
> The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
> files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
> uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
> your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS.
>
> Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
> makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
> problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help minimize
> the problem with Windows?
>
> Your thoughts?
|
|
"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message
news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102...
[Quoted Text] >
> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$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?
I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can sometimes be
harder to sort out.
That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not require a
re-install.
I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% + trouble free
for *many* years.
|
|
Leonard Grey <l.grey[ at ]invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ea3kBovYJHA.4480[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
[Quoted Text] > You're an idiot.
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
>> Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
>> use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
>> Windows is such a POS.
>>
>> When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
>> an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command,
>> the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes
>> bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the
>> reverse order of which they were installed.
>>
>> The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
>> files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
>> uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
>> buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the
>> OS. Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
>> makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
>> problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help
>> minimize the problem with Windows?
>>
>> Your thoughts?
Agreed - shoot him at dawns house.
|
|
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$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?
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.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
|
Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote: > >> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and >> Linux is obviuosly better, > > Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga>
That's nice, what are you going to run it on?
It's my understanding that no one makes hardware
for it anymore.
TDD
|
|
|
|
The Daring Dufas <the-daring-dufas[ at ]peckerhead.net> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
>> Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote:
>>
>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
>>> Linux is obviuosly better,
>> Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga
>That's nice, what are you going to run it on?
>It's my understanding that no one makes hardware
>for it anymore.
The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose.
--
Food chain.
http://www.squidzone.ca/photos/uncategorized/185785.jpg
|
|
Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
[Quoted Text] > The Daring Dufas <the-daring-dufas[ at ]peckerhead.net> wrote: > >> Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote: >>> Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote: >>> >>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and >>>> Linux is obviuosly better, > >>> Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best. >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga> >> That's nice, what are you going to run it on? >> It's my understanding that no one makes hardware >> for it anymore. > > The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose. >
What....are....you....going....to....run....it....on?
TDD
|
|
<snipped>
Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
[Quoted Text]
The Daring Dufas wrote:
> That's nice, what are you going to run it on?
> It's my understanding that no one makes hardware
> for it anymore.
Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
> The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose.
The Daring Dufas wrote:
> What....are....you....going....to....run....it....on?
Anything they want?
http://emulation.victoly.com/amiga/
(Emulators, virtual machines, etc)
On the hardware that may someday appear?
http://www.osnews.com/story/17748
(AmigaOS4 and AmigaOS5?!)
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$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.
>
See: http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/hcs/index.html
|
|
Shenan Stanley wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> 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?
>
> 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.
>
After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at best)",
your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
|
|
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:13:18 +0000, Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS....
Windows really isn't so bad. Its purpose is to run other software sold
by Microsoft, which it does pretty well. If you stick to that, and don't
connect the box to the public network, it should be fine.
|
|
Shenan Stanley wrote:
[Quoted Text] > <snipped> > > Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote: >> Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga> > The Daring Dufas wrote: >> That's nice, what are you going to run it on? >> It's my understanding that no one makes hardware >> for it anymore. > > Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote: >> The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose. > > The Daring Dufas wrote: >> What....are....you....going....to....run....it....on? > > Anything they want? > http://emulation.victoly.com/amiga/> (Emulators, virtual machines, etc) > > On the hardware that may someday appear? > http://www.osnews.com/story/17748> (AmigaOS4 and AmigaOS5?!) >
See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Coolish, I'll have to check that
stuff out. I've only known one
person who ever had an Amiga and
that was back in the early 1990's.
TDD
|
|
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:52:22 -0600, "Shenan Stanley"
<newshelper[ at ]gmail.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> 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?
>
>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.
>
>--
>Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
Well said. I have few problems myself.
|
|
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1[ at ]mchsi.com> wrote in
news:Idi3l.489340$yE1.298419[ at ]attbi_s21:
[Quoted Text] > Bluuuue Rajah wrote: >> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and >> Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to >> use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why >> Windows is such a POS. >> > > http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/hcs/index.html
There's no reason to trust that.
|
|
"philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in
news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net:
[Quoted Text] >
> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102...
>>
>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$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?
>
>
> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
>
> Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
> sometimes be harder to sort out.
>
> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
> require a re-install.
> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
> trouble free for *many* years.
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.
|
|
"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message
news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102...
"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.
--
Regards,
Touch Base
Report back on the results, good or bad so others may benefit
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Sam Wormley <swormley1[ at ]mchsi.com> wrote in > news:Idi3l.489340$yE1.298419[ at ]attbi_s21: > >> Bluuuue Rajah wrote: >>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$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. >>> >> http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/hcs/index.html> > There's no reason to trust that. >
Trust what?
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "The Daring Dufas" <the-daring-dufas[ at ]peckerhead.net> wrote in message news:gik5e9$olr$1[ at ]news.motzarella.org... >> Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote: >>> The Daring Dufas <the-daring-dufas[ at ]peckerhead.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote: >>>>> Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and >>>>>> Linux is obviuosly better, >>>>> Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best. >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga>>>> That's nice, what are you going to run it on? >>>> It's my understanding that no one makes hardware >>>> for it anymore. >>> The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose. >>> >> What....are....you....going....to....run....it....on? > > Windows, Macintosh, DOS, Linux, etc. > > http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/amiga.shtml>
Neeto! Thanks for the link, I've had The Free Country
in my bookmarks for a long time but haven't explored
the site extensively yet. Still, there are no new boxes
to run the software.
TDD
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
> Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to use
> in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why Windows is
> such a POS.
>
> When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
> update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
> reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
> accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
> of which they were installed.
>
> The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
> files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
> uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
> your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS.
You need to work on the procedures which you use to backup your computer
system.
<snip>
/BAH
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in
> news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net:
>
>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102...
>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$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?
>>
>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
>>
>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
>> sometimes be harder to sort out.
>>
>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
>> require a re-install.
>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
>> trouble free for *many* years.
>
> 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.
Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.
/BHA
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > 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?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> 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.
Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
> After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at
> best)", your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
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.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
|
"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message
news:Xns9B7B39348C4E1fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.33.102...
[Quoted Text] > "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in
> news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net:
>
> >
> > "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102...
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> >
> > I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
> >
> > Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
> > and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
> > sometimes be harder to sort out.
> >
> > That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
> > require a re-install.
> > I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
> > trouble free for *many* years.
>
> 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.
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.
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1[ at ]mchsi.com> wrote in
news:pwq3l.490007$yE1.194324[ at ]attbi_s21:
[Quoted Text] > Bluuuue Rajah wrote: >> Sam Wormley <swormley1[ at ]mchsi.com> wrote in >> news:Idi3l.489340$yE1.298419[ at ]attbi_s21: >> >>> Bluuuue Rajah wrote: >>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, >>>> and Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the >>>> expertise to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand >>>> exaclty why Windows is such a POS. >>>> >>> http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/hcs/index.html>> >> There's no reason to trust that. > > Trust what?
Are you serious?
|
|
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in news:gilh5b2f50[ at ]news1.newsguy.com:
[Quoted Text] > Bluuuue Rajah wrote: >> "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in >> news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net: >> >>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102... >>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$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? >>> >>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows. >>> >>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems... >>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can >>> sometimes be harder to sort out. >>> >>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not >>> require a re-install. >>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% + >>> trouble free for *many* years. >> >> 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. > > Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.
Do you run Linux?
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in message
news:gilh5b2f50[ at ]news1.newsguy.com...
[Quoted Text] > Bluuuue Rajah wrote: > > "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in > > news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net: > > > >> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message > >> news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102... > >>> Evwere installed. > >>>erybody 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 > >>> 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? > >> > >> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows. > >> > >> Linux is not immune from it's own problems... > >> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can > >> sometimes be harder to sort out. > >> > >> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not > >> require a re-install. > >> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% + > >> trouble free for *many* years. > > > > 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. > > Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son. > > /BHA
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.
|
|
Leonard Grey <l.grey[ at ]invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:ea3kBovYJHA.4480[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
[Quoted Text] > You're an idiot.
You're an a-hole.
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> 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?
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > 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?
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.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:50:20 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >Bluuuue Rajah wrote: >> "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in >> news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net: >> >>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102... >>>> 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? >>> >>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows. >>> >>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems... >>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can >>> sometimes be harder to sort out. >>> >>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not >>> require a re-install. >>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% + >>> trouble free for *many* years. >> >> 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. > >Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son. > >/BHA
Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
|
|
On Dec 21, 6:29 pm, Lookout <mrLook...[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:50:20 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote: > >Bluuuue Rajah wrote: > >> "philo" <ph...[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in > >>news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net: > > >>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message > >>>news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102... > >>>> 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? > > >>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows. > > >>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems... > >>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can > >>> sometimes be harder to sort out. > > >>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not > >>> require a re-install. > >>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% + > >>> trouble free for *many* years. > > >> 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. > > >Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son. > > >/BHA > > Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities > and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
Thats just great!
Does it also clean up unused desktop icons? </sarkasm>
|
|
<snip>
[Quoted Text] > >>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
> >>>
> >>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
> >>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
> >>> sometimes be harder to sort out.
> >>>
> >>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
> >>> require a re-install.
> >>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
> >>> trouble free for *many* years.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.
> >
> >/BHA
>
> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
I don't advise that at all,
you can do more harm than good by using registry utilities.
The OP, if he's ruined his OS did so simply because he was clueless
and did not pay attention.
I know there are some apps that can put a Google search bar into your
browser (just as an example)
but if it's done, it's because the user was *not* paying attention.
I've never seen an application *not* give one a choice...
but most people just start clicking buttons without even watching
what the hell they are doing...
That is one way to destroy your system fast.
|
|
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.
"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message
news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102...
[Quoted Text] >
> 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?
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:40:10 -0800 (PST), gabydewilde
<fototour[ at ]gmail.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >On Dec 21, 6:29 pm, Lookout <mrLook...[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:50:20 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote: >> >Bluuuue Rajah wrote: >> >> "philo" <ph...[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in >> >>news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net: >> >> >>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message >> >>>news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102... >> >>>> 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? >> >> >>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows. >> >> >>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems... >> >>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can >> >>> sometimes be harder to sort out. >> >> >>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not >> >>> require a re-install. >> >>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% + >> >>> trouble free for *many* years. >> >> >> 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. >> >> >Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son. >> >> >/BHA >> >> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities >> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files. > >Thats just great! > >Does it also clean up unused desktop icons? </sarkasm>
It looks for registry entries that lead to dead ends and deletes them.
Then you use the hard drive cleaner to look for files that don't have
registry entries that apply to them. That eliminates most invalid
entries and files. No program is perfect but those I do help swear by
it after having problems for years now they don't have the same
problems.
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:50:35 -0600, "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
><snip>
>
>> >>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
>> >>>
>> >>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
>> >>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
>> >>> sometimes be harder to sort out.
>> >>>
>> >>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
>> >>> require a re-install.
>> >>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
>> >>> trouble free for *many* years.
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.
>> >
>> >/BHA
>>
>> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
>> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
>
>
>I don't advise that at all,
>you can do more harm than good by using registry utilities.
Of course that's true. You don't let it do all the work..you have to
watch what it points out as a problem and work from there.
>
>The OP, if he's ruined his OS did so simply because he was clueless
>and did not pay attention.
>
>I know there are some apps that can put a Google search bar into your
>browser (just as an example)
>but if it's done, it's because the user was *not* paying attention.
>I've never seen an application *not* give one a choice...
>but most people just start clicking buttons without even watching
>what the hell they are doing...
>That is one way to destroy your system fast.
>
|
|
Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
> After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at best)",
> your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
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.
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:48 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
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
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
|
"Lookout" <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ah4tk4dom2hdpi8ugasuadbgcvgofnmrtt[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:50:35 -0600, "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
> >> >>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
> >> >>> sometimes be harder to sort out.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
> >> >>> require a re-install.
> >> >>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
> >> >>> trouble free for *many* years.
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.
> >> >
> >> >/BHA
> >>
> >> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
> >> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
> >
> >
> >I don't advise that at all,
> >you can do more harm than good by using registry utilities.
>
> Of course that's true. You don't let it do all the work..you have to
> watch what it points out as a problem and work from there.
>
If you know exactly what you are doing...
which I am sure is the case with you...that's fine.
The only time I've used them is to cleanup the mess left behind
by a poorly written application that would not uninstall...
In that respect I found such a utility useful...
but for someone who does not know what they are doing
and just blindly lets one work...
it could create a big problem.
|
|
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in
news:geatk4teder98jtih7hkiuejtkacai067i[ at ]4ax.com:
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:48 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities >> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files. > > > 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
This was my whole point from the start.
Having unused reigstry entries lying around does not cause the bugs that
slowly accumulate under Windows. It is caused by uninstalling codes in
some order other than the reverse of how they were installed.
When you do that, the system reverts to previous version of the saved
files that were in place when you did the install, and those files don't
account for any new installs that you did, along the way. There's no
way out of this headache other than to redesign the uninstall procedure
so that it doesn't revert to those saved files.
Although it may have some small faults, Linux is a *lot* more
bulletproof than Windows, which means that it doesn't use that uninstall
method. I'd like to know what it does use, so I can better understand
the OS design issues associated with this problem.
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:41:45 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
<kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:48 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
>> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
>
>
>That's a very dangerous and poor thing to do, in my view.
I'm sure it's something you're not capable of working with. In my view
it's a great way to keep your system humming.
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:11:03 -0600, "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > >"Lookout" <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:ah4tk4dom2hdpi8ugasuadbgcvgofnmrtt[ at ]4ax.com... >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:50:35 -0600, "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote: >> >> > >> ><snip> >> > >> >> >>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems... >> >> >>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can >> >> >>> sometimes be harder to sort out. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not >> >> >>> require a re-install. >> >> >>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% + >> >> >>> trouble free for *many* years. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> > >> >> >Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son. >> >> > >> >> >/BHA >> >> >> >> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities >> >> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files. >> > >> > >> >I don't advise that at all, >> >you can do more harm than good by using registry utilities. >> >> Of course that's true. You don't let it do all the work..you have to >> watch what it points out as a problem and work from there. >> > >If you know exactly what you are doing... >which I am sure is the case with you...that's fine. > >The only time I've used them is to cleanup the mess left behind >by a poorly written application that would not uninstall... > >In that respect I found such a utility useful... >but for someone who does not know what they are doing >and just blindly lets one work... >it could create a big problem.
I work with them before they use it. But if they want to learn it's a
useful tool.
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:20:11 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:41:45 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:48 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
> >> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
> >
> >
> >That's a very dangerous and poor thing to do, in my view.
>
> I'm sure it's something you're not capable of working with. In my view
> it's a great way to keep your system humming.
You are certainly entitled to that view, if that's what you believe.
But as far as I'm concerned, you're dead wrong.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
|
Dear Ken Blake, MVP:
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in
message news:0kptk4l9lfp0588n6hqtcss38tmc5gm1gl[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:20:11 -0600, Lookout
> <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:41:45 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>> <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:48 -0600, Lookout
>> ><mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner.
>> >> I use FixIt Utilities and to delete invalid or no
>> >> longer need registry entries and files.
>> >
>> >
>> >That's a very dangerous and poor thing to do,
>> >in my view.
>>
>> I'm sure it's something you're not capable of
>> working with. In my view it's a great way to keep
>> your system humming.
>
> You are certainly entitled to that view, if that's
> what you believe. But as far as I'm concerned,
> you're dead wrong.
So how do *you* get rid of Norton Anti-virus? RegClean.exe didn'
touch it...
David A. Smith
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:11:38 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<dlzc1[ at ]cox.net> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >Dear Ken Blake, MVP:
>
>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in
>message news:0kptk4l9lfp0588n6hqtcss38tmc5gm1gl[ at ]4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:20:11 -0600, Lookout
>> <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:41:45 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>>> <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>>> >On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:48 -0600, Lookout
>>> ><mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner.
>>> >> I use FixIt Utilities and to delete invalid or no
>>> >> longer need registry entries and files.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >That's a very dangerous and poor thing to do,
>>> >in my view.
>>>
>>> I'm sure it's something you're not capable of
>>> working with. In my view it's a great way to keep
>>> your system humming.
>>
>> You are certainly entitled to that view, if that's
>> what you believe. But as far as I'm concerned,
>> you're dead wrong.
>
>So how do *you* get rid of Norton Anti-virus? RegClean.exe didn'
>touch it...
>
>David A. Smith
>
First..I wouldn't install it.
2nd...just cleaning your registry won't uninstall a program. If that's
what you're trying to do then you really shouldn't be installing
programs to begin with...you're way out of your league.
3rd...I don't use RegClean. As I said I use FixIt Utilities and I
explained the process I use.
4th..I'd type "How do I uninstall Norton AntiVirus" in Google and I'd
find
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS291&q=how+do+i+uninstall+norton+antivirus&aq=1&oq=how+do+I+uninstall+nort
As I said you're way out of your league. You should learn to ask
politely and you'll get more help.
|
|
Shenan Stanley wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>> After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at
>> best)", your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
>
> 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.
>
It's best not to backpedal when you say something stupid.
|
|
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:0kptk4l9lfp0588n6hqtcss38tmc5gm1gl[ at ]4ax.com:
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:20:11 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:41:45 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>> <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:48 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
>>>> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a very dangerous and poor thing to do, in my view.
>>
>> I'm sure it's something you're not capable of working with. In my
>> view it's a great way to keep your system humming.
>
>
> [... ] you're dead wrong.
That sounds like a veiled threat to me [sic]
|
|
philo wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in message > news:gilh5b2f50[ at ]news1.newsguy.com... >> Bluuuue Rajah wrote: >>> "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in >>> news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net: >>> >>>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message >>>> news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102... >>>>> Evwere installed. >>>>> erybody 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 >>>>> 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? >>>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows. >>>> >>>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems... >>>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can >>>> sometimes be harder to sort out. >>>> >>>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not >>>> require a re-install. >>>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% + >>>> trouble free for *many* years. >>> 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. >> Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son. >> >> /BHA > > > Wow...where the hell did you come from...
Massachusetts.
> and when are you going back there?
Never.
>
> Many years ago you gave me the best insult I have ever gotten...
> so I honestly respect you for that. <G>
I don't recall.
>
>
> I still chuckle about it from time to time.
>
<grin> good.
/BAH
|
|
Lookout wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:50:20 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote: > >> Bluuuue Rajah wrote: >>> "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in >>> news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net: >>> >>>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message >>>> news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102... >>>>> 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? >>>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows. >>>> >>>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems... >>>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can >>>> sometimes be harder to sort out. >>>> >>>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not >>>> require a re-install. >>>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% + >>>> trouble free for *many* years. >>> 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. >> Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son. >> >> /BHA > > Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities > and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
Doesn't matter. The original sources and their fixes are not on
your computer.
Look. The guy needs a backup stragegy for his computer system(s).
Since one of them got hosed, he needed to be able to drop back
to a computer system state that was known to not be broken.
Complaining about update processes isn't going to solve his
problem because the mess will happen again.
/BAH
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in message
news:ginuh211su2[ at ]news7.newsguy.com...
[Quoted Text] > philo wrote: > > "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in message > > news:gilh5b2f50[ at ]news1.newsguy.com... > >> Bluuuue Rajah wrote: > >>> "philo" <philo[ at ]privacy.net> wrote in > >>> news:WbmdnV8eb4a2HdDUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d[ at ]ntd.net: > >>> > >>>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote in message > >>>> news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg[ at ]207.115.17.102... > >>>>> Evwere installed. > >>>>> erybody 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 > >>>>> 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,
> >>>>> 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?
> >>>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
> >>>>
> >>>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
> >>>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
> >>>> sometimes be harder to sort out.
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
> >>>> require a re-install.
> >>>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
> >>>> trouble free for *many* years.
> >>> 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.
> >> Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.
> >>
> >> /BHA
> >
> >
> > Wow...where the hell did you come from...
>
> Massachusetts.
>
> > and when are you going back there?
>
> Never.
>
> >
> > Many years ago you gave me the best insult I have ever gotten...
> > so I honestly respect you for that. <G>
>
> I don't recall.
>
> >
> >
> > I still chuckle about it from time to time.
> >
>
> <grin> good.
>
> /BAH
>
You don't???
It was a few years back and we had gotten into a huge argument
about something...what ever that was I've long forgotten...however:
You were the one who accused me of *pretending* to be stupid.
I had to assure you that if I made a post that was stupid...
it was for real. <G>
|
|
Dear nobody:
"nobody >" <usenetharvested[ at ]aol.com> wrote in message
news:1qGdnTDJSeuQntLUnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d[ at ]supernews.com...
[Quoted Text]
Seems like it left stuff, like an updater. I still found entries
in the registry. But this might have been before this particular
utility came out.
David A. Smith
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] > 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?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> 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.
Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
> After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at
> best)", your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> 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.
Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
> It's best not to backpedal when you say something stupid.
It's good you admit to what you did.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
|
Dear Lookout:
"Lookout" <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gi4uk49o7pkbqlj218j28sc7odq9eug3u5[ at ]4ax.com...
....
[Quoted Text] > First..I wouldn't install it.
Once it is done... say on someone else's machine.
> 2nd...just cleaning your registry won't uninstall a
> program. If that's what you're trying to do then you
> really shouldn't be installing programs to begin with...
> you're way out of your league.
No, I directly edit the registry. You are assuming too much.
> 3rd...I don't use RegClean. As I said I use FixIt
> Utilities and I explained the process I use.
And I agree with you.
> 4th..I'd type "How do I uninstall Norton AntiVirus" in
> Google and I'd find
> http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS291&q=how+do+i+uninstall+norton+antivirus&aq=1&oq=how+do+I+uninstall+nort
>
>
> As I said you're way out of your league. You
> should learn to ask politely and you'll get more
> help.
You should climb on someone else's back. I am getting tired of
you trying to hump me.
David A. Smith
|
|
Lookout <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gi4uk49o7pkbqlj218j28sc7odq9eug3u5[ at ]4ax.com:
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:11:38 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > <dlzc1[ at ]cox.net> wrote: > >> Dear Ken Blake, MVP: >> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in >> message news:0kptk4l9lfp0588n6hqtcss38tmc5gm1gl[ at ]4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:20:11 -0600, Lookout >>> <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:41:45 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" >>>> <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:48 -0600, Lookout >>>>> <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. >>>>>> I use FixIt Utilities and to delete invalid or no >>>>>> longer need registry entries and files. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's a very dangerous and poor thing to do, >>>>> in my view. >>>> >>>> I'm sure it's something you're not capable of >>>> working with. In my view it's a great way to keep >>>> your system humming. >>> >>> You are certainly entitled to that view, if that's >>> what you believe. But as far as I'm concerned, >>> you're dead wrong. >> >> So how do *you* get rid of Norton Anti-virus? RegClean.exe didn' >> touch it... >> >> David A. Smith >> > First..I wouldn't install it. > 2nd...just cleaning your registry won't uninstall a program. If that's > what you're trying to do then you really shouldn't be installing > programs to begin with...you're way out of your league. > 3rd...I don't use RegClean. As I said I use FixIt Utilities and I > explained the process I use. > 4th..I'd type "How do I uninstall Norton AntiVirus" in Google and I'd > find > http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS291&q=how+do+i+uninstall+norton+antivirus&aq=1&oq=how+do+I+uninstall+nort> > > As I said you're way out of your league. You should learn to ask > politely and you'll get more help.
Do you recommend jv16 because I've nearly always had to reinsatll after
deleting keys in the registry.
I particularly like the advanced option which cleans up everything, it takes
longer, but it's more effective.
--
I'll poop ya! (formerly plonk)
|
|
Shenan Stanley <newshelper[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6ghsfDZJHA.5772[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
[Quoted Text] > Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>> After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at
>> best)", your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>> It's best not to backpedal when you say something stupid.
>
> It's good you admit to what you did.
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
How long is a piece of string exactly?
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:20:39 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<dlzc1[ at ]cox.net> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >Dear Lookout: > >"Lookout" <mrLookout[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:gi4uk49o7pkbqlj218j28sc7odq9eug3u5[ at ]4ax.com... >... >> First..I wouldn't install it. > >Once it is done... say on someone else's machine. > >> 2nd...just cleaning your registry won't uninstall a >> program. If that's what you're trying to do then you >> really shouldn't be installing programs to begin with... >> you're way out of your league. > >No, I directly edit the registry. You are assuming too much. > >> 3rd...I don't use RegClean. As I said I use FixIt >> Utilities and I explained the process I use. > >And I agree with you. > >> 4th..I'd type "How do I uninstall Norton AntiVirus" in >> Google and I'd find >> http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS291&q=how+do+i+uninstall+norton+antivirus&aq=1&oq=how+do+I+uninstall+nort>> >> >> As I said you're way out of your league. You >> should learn to ask politely and you'll get more >> help. > >You should climb on someone else's back. I am getting tired of >you trying to hump me. > >David A. Smith >
|
|
Rev Turd Fredericks turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
[Quoted Text] >> file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VirtualBox_XPCOM.xpt from
>> install of VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from
>> package virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
>> xwing:/home/kai/downloads #
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I've never had such a problem with either of my Macs :-)
That's because you can't install software on your Mac unless The Cult (tm)
approves it.
I was trying to do this on my FIL's mac a few months back and ran into all
sorts of dependency crap.
Remember, your Mac an my laptops are only a kernel (and a Cult following)
apart.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
Hock
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
> 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.
>
Uhm. Well, IE5 _is_ badly outdated. It won't display many websites
correctly.
To be fair, same goes for firefox 1.0x and old netscape versions, for
windows as well as linux ...
> 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.
>
Hmm. Usually, each new version of software in windows will either continue
to work with the current registry keys and maybe add one or the other
value, or it will create a new key with version number and use that.
Uninstalling may or may not remove that key, but if you reinstate the old
version, it should find useful settings or use defaults.
Of course, registry may become a bloated mess after many
installs/uninstalls.
> 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?
>
Linux works with configuration files. When updating, the existing files are
usually reused and maybe new parameters are added. Main version changes may
use differently named config files and even coexist with the old version.
When uninstalling, usually the configs are saved by renaming unless you
purge completely, so if you later reinstall that software or a newer
version again, you have fresh defaults but you can still copy statements
from the old saved files (and later on delete them).
|
|
Lookout wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:50:20 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote:
......
>>Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.
>>
>>/BHA
>
> Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
> and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.
The registry is a file-based database. It may grow big over time, but orphan
entries don't introduce much trouble. Instead, some uninstallers leave
hooks to nowhere - with known results. However, registry cleaners trying to
get rid of these, always are a bit dangerous.
|
|
Dear Lookout:
On Dec 22, 8:07 am, Lookout <mrLook...[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote:
....
[Quoted Text] > I'm sure that will sound witty when you tell it at
> your group meeting
I'm just not sure why you are climbing on me, when what I wrote (and
what you quoted) was directed to Ken Blake. I tend to agree with what
you said, that Ken replied to.
David A. Smith
|
|
PerfectReign wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Rev Turd Fredericks turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
>>> file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VirtualBox_XPCOM.xpt from
>>> install of VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from
>>> package virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
>>> xwing:/home/kai/downloads #
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I've never had such a problem with either of my Macs :-)
>
> That's because you can't install software on your Mac unless The Cult (tm)
> approves it.
>
> I was trying to do this on my FIL's mac a few months back and ran into all
> sorts of dependency crap.
>
> Remember, your Mac an my laptops are only a kernel (and a Cult following)
> apart.
>
>
I can install anything on my mac, and if for whatever reason I couldn't,
I can use vmware.
|
|
Shenan Stanley wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>> After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at
>> best)", your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>> It's best not to backpedal when you say something stupid.
>
> It's good you admit to what you did.
>
Good one Pee Wee.
|
|
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in message
news:giqkfk12959[ at ]news6.newsguy.com:
[Quoted Text] > philo wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in message
>> news:ginuh211su2[ at ]news7.newsguy.com...
>>> philo wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Many years ago you gave me the best insult I have ever gotten...
>>>> so I honestly respect you for that. <G>
>>> I don't recall.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I still chuckle about it from time to time.
>>>>
>>> <grin> good.
>
>> You don't???
>
> Sorry. I couldn't remember.
>
>>
>> It was a few years back and we had gotten into a huge argument
>> about something...what ever that was I've long forgotten...however:
>>
>> You were the one who accused me of pretending to be stupid.
>>
>> I had to assure you that if I made a post that was stupid...
>> it was for real. <G>
>
> At least it's caused light-heartedness since then.
>
> /BAH
<SLURP>
Do you two wanna get a room </SLURP>
--
nutter
|
|
philo wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in message
> news:ginuh211su2[ at ]news7.newsguy.com...
>> philo wrote:
<snip>
>>> Many years ago you gave me the best insult I have ever gotten...
>>> so I honestly respect you for that. <G>
>> I don't recall.
>>
>>>
>>> I still chuckle about it from time to time.
>>>
>> <grin> good.
> You don't???
Sorry. I couldn't remember.
>
> It was a few years back and we had gotten into a huge argument
> about something...what ever that was I've long forgotten...however:
>
> You were the one who accused me of *pretending* to be stupid.
>
> I had to assure you that if I made a post that was stupid...
> it was for real. <G>
At least it's caused light-heartedness since then.
/BAH
|
|
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <usenet[ at ]backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:l1v1l41hajdj4phqc8lp2ic9l7l9eeagao[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] >
> Of course for extreme needs I utilize a system I came up with called
> the "Hydra Cluster" which is a collection of CD bootable Linux CDs
> running Cluster Knoppix. The CDs are comprised of one base or "body"
> CD which is reconfigured with all the software I need and is setup to
> act as the primary hub. The rest of the CDs are "heads" which are
> reconfigured to automatically search the network they're on for the
> "body" and to connect to it. Once they do their processing
> power/memory is then directly tied into the "body" setup. And even if
> one of the heads is shut off the body will still continue to function
> in whatever task it's performing...hence the "hydra" name.
>
This sounds really interesting. Do you know of any well-done video tutorials
on such a system? it would be nice to squeeze every last bit of power out of
the multitude of POS boxes laying around that I don't really want to throw
away. Hydra seems to be the ideal solution.
-rjk
|
|
"Anthony Prigmore" <idontnow[ at ]nuffink.inlavid> wrote in message
news:giqknh$ta8$1[ at ]news.tornevall.net...
[Quoted Text] > jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in message
> news:giqkfk12959[ at ]news6.newsguy.com:
>
> > philo wrote:
> >> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv[ at ]aol> wrote in message
> >> news:ginuh211su2[ at ]news7.newsguy.com...
> >>> philo wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>> Many years ago you gave me the best insult I have ever gotten...
> >>>> so I honestly respect you for that. <G>
> >>> I don't recall.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I still chuckle about it from time to time.
> >>>>
> >>> <grin> good.
> >
> >> You don't???
> >
> > Sorry. I couldn't remember.
> >
> >>
> >> It was a few years back and we had gotten into a huge argument
> >> about something...what ever that was I've long forgotten...however:
> >>
> >> You were the one who accused me of pretending to be stupid.
> >>
> >> I had to assure you that if I made a post that was stupid...
> >> it was for real. <G>
> >
> > At least it's caused light-heartedness since then.
> >
> > /BAH
> <SLURP>
> Do you two wanna get a room </SLURP>
>
>
I should think not...
though I have to admit that she did remind me of one of my ex-girlfriends...
Anyway I'm not the type to hold grudges.
|
|
Onideus Mad Hatter turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
[Quoted Text] >>I remember being very impressed with Amiga. A buddy of mine in Germany
>>moved up to an Amiga 500 back in'89. It was an awesome computer doing
>>things that neither Mac nor DOS/Win were doing yet.
>>
>>Of course, that was almost twenty years ago.
>
> Yeah Amiga used to be the *ONLY* real option for graphics, 3D
> rendering, video editing and other multimedia forms, but then they
> just sorta lost it and in the 90s everything went down hill for them.
> Kind of sad really, it used to really mean something to say you had an
> Amiga, it was liak saying you had an SGI machine.
Oh yeah, I'd forgotten.
Wasn't it Video Toaster or something like that?
I just remember us taking the score for Phantom of the Opera and converting
it on the Amiga to multiple heavy metal guitars.
The synth program that came with teh Amiga was awesome - for the time.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
Hock
|
|
PerfectReign <theperfectreign[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >>>>>> Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
>>>>>>> Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue[ at ]Rajah.> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
>>>>>>>> Linux is obviuosly better,
>>>>>>> Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best.
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's nice, what are you going to run it on?
>>>>>> It's my understanding that no one makes hardware
>>>>>> for it anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What....are....you....going....to....run....it....on?
>>>
>>>Windows, Macintosh, DOS, Linux, etc.
>>>
>>>http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/amiga.shtml
>I remember being very impressed with Amiga. A buddy of mine in Germany moved
>up to an Amiga 500 back in'89. It was an awesome computer doing things that
>neither Mac nor DOS/Win were doing yet.
>
>Of course, that was almost twenty years ago.
I was Major Amiga 500, 2000, and the 3000. There was no Software for
the AmigA, the best stuff never made it out of Germany.
Sooo I grabbed software from any source available, people, pirate
sites, Internet with Pine (no sticking WWW for me.)
To kinda show you what I still have software wise.
I have Three wooden boxes like this one, three drawers each
http://i39.tinypic.com/5u1i11.jpg
Each drawer is filled with 720K floppy disk. (most of the disk were
1.4, but 720K was what the AmigA did.
http://i42.tinypic.com/fof67n.jpg
And yes indeed they are all in storage :)
I also ran one of the most popular BBS's in my area, Cnet, it was a
chat board with 6 lines.
--
Face appears in an icicle.
Since it's in the Godless Northwest, no one's claiming it's Jesus
http://www.komonews.com/weather/blog/36578184.html?blog=y
|
|
On Dec 22, 12:10 am, gabydewilde <fotot...[ at ]gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
[Quoted Text] > 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
Windows was originally a good operating system without backdoors.
Remember the anti-trust suit against Microsoft?
They settled and some of the governments demands were backdoors in
windows which are well-known. Look up "NSA key windows".
Microsoft was strong-armed into giving NSA and Mossad backdoors into
everyones computers. But that doesn't excuse Bill Gates.
Whether the Jews strong-armed him or whether he went along voluntarily
it doesn't matter, he's now aiding and abetting the criminal network.
[...]
> 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!
Good point. I forgot Bill and Melinda's foundation are masquerading
around the world as "helping poor blacks in africa" when in reality
they are
- steralizing the blacks with their "vaccines"
- testing out GM and other frankencrops on the blacks under the
guise of "nutrition".
I suspect Bill and Melinda are being subconciously manipulated.
They are just rich billionares who feel guilty and "want to help the
poor blacks".
Of course, the true order of things will rearrange what is such that
their desires are only met superficially, when in reality, they are
mere tools of the agenda.
[...]
|
|
schoenfeld.one[ at ]gmail.com wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On Dec 22, 12:10 am, gabydewilde <fotot...[ at ]gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> 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
>
> Windows was originally a good operating system without backdoors.
>
> Remember the anti-trust suit against Microsoft?
>
> They settled and some of the governments demands were backdoors in
> windows which are well-known. Look up "NSA key windows".
>
> Microsoft was strong-armed into giving NSA and Mossad backdoors into
> everyones computers. But that doesn't excuse Bill Gates.
>
Hell, the government forced Ma Bell to install a backdoor into
the national phone switching network so the alphabet agencies
could listen in on us to protect us from ourselves. All the
fiber it tapped by our "?servants?".
> Whether the Jews strong-armed him or whether he went along voluntarily
> it doesn't matter, he's now aiding and abetting the criminal network.
>
> [...]
>
>> 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!
>
> Good point. I forgot Bill and Melinda's foundation are masquerading
> around the world as "helping poor blacks in africa" when in reality
> they are
>
> - steralizing the blacks with their "vaccines"
> - testing out GM and other frankencrops on the blacks under the
> guise of "nutrition".
>
African Negroes are doing a pretty good job of killing
themselves off. The best way to help them is to give
them is a hand up with education because human beings
are not inherently stupid, they're just ignorant and
because of ignorance do some incredibly stupid things.
Like poor planning for disaster and running up the
population beyond their ability to feed it. Tolerating
corruption as part of the culture which allows a handful
of people to decimate a society and the refusal by many
to do the simplest things to prevent the spread of disease.
These things are the greatest threats to the lives of my
African cousins, not Bill and Melinda. Most people forget
that there are 54 different countries that make up the
continent of Africa and that the population not homogeneous.
I have a lot of fun with people who tell me that they are
"African American". I always ask them which of the 54
countries or which region of Africa they are from. I get
a lot of blank stares. That education thing strikes again.
> I suspect Bill and Melinda are being subconciously manipulated.
>
> They are just rich billionares who feel guilty and "want to help the
> poor blacks".
>
> Of course, the true order of things will rearrange what is such that
> their desires are only met superficially, when in reality, they are
> mere tools of the agenda.
>
> [...]
|
|
PerfectReign <theperfectreign[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >> I also ran one of the most popular BBS's in my area, Cnet, it was a
>> chat board with 6 lines.
>What's you're area?
Tri-cities Washington, bout 200 miles SW from Spokane
--
Face appears in an icicle.
Since it's in the Godless Northwest, no one's claiming it's Jesus
http://www.komonews.com/weather/blog/36578184.html?blog=y
|
|
Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
[Quoted Text] > PerfectReign <theperfectreign[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> I also ran one of the most popular BBS's in my area, Cnet, it was a
>>> chat board with 6 lines.
>
>>What's you're area?
>
> Tri-cities Washington, bout 200 miles SW from Spokane
Ahh, long distance for me!
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
Hock
|
|
schoenfeld.one[ at ]gmail.com wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On Dec 22, 12:10 am, gabydewilde <fotot...[ at ]gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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!
>
> Good point. I forgot Bill and Melinda's foundation are masquerading
> around the world as "helping poor blacks in africa" when in reality
> they are
>
> - steralizing the blacks with their "vaccines"
> - testing out GM and other frankencrops on the blacks under the
> guise of "nutrition".
>
i dont know about the above statements, but I DO recall a quote where
Bill Gates discusses donating computers to a third world country through
his Foundation, reflecting on how so few people in that country reflects
in "low market share".
Using one's Foundation to increase market share in your own company,,,,
why arent exploitation, tax evasion and conflict of interest charges
pending?
|
|
catchme wrote:
[Quoted Text] > schoenfeld.one[ at ]gmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 12:10 am, gabydewilde <fotot...[ at ]gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>
>> Good point. I forgot Bill and Melinda's foundation are masquerading
>> around the world as "helping poor blacks in africa" when in reality
>> they are
>>
>> - steralizing the blacks with their "vaccines"
>> - testing out GM and other frankencrops on the blacks under the
>> guise of "nutrition".
>>
>
> i dont know about the above statements, but I DO recall a quote where
> Bill Gates discusses donating computers to a third world country through
> his Foundation, reflecting on how so few people in that country reflects
> in "low market share".
> Using one's Foundation to increase market share in your own company,,,,
> why arent exploitation, tax evasion and conflict of interest charges
> pending?
Consider also that this "goodwill" effort only occured *after* the OLPC
project to get linux laptops to 3rd world kids was started.
M$ saw it as a threat to market dominance.
Giving kids wXP notebooks was the countermeasure.
FYI
HTH
|
|
catchme <someone[ at ]somewhere.net> wrote in
news:Uor5l.10544$lX6.2263[ at ]newsfe06.iad:
[Quoted Text] > schoenfeld.one[ at ]gmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 12:10 am, gabydewilde <fotot...[ at ]gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>
>> Good point. I forgot Bill and Melinda's foundation are masquerading
>> around the world as "helping poor blacks in africa" when in reality
>> they are
>>
>> - steralizing the blacks with their "vaccines"
>> - testing out GM and other frankencrops on the blacks under the
>> guise of "nutrition".
>
> i dont know about the above statements, but I DO recall a quote where
> Bill Gates discusses donating computers to a third world country
> through his Foundation, reflecting on how so few people in that
> country reflects in "low market share".
> Using one's Foundation to increase market share in your own
> company,,,, why arent exploitation, tax evasion and conflict of
> interest charges pending?
Maybe Washington doesn't have a law on the books prohibiting a business
conflict of interest for a large charity.
|
|
The Daring Dufas wrote:
SNIP>>>
[Quoted Text] >>
>
> African Negroes are doing a pretty good job of killing
> themselves off. The best way to help them is to give
> them is a hand up with education because human beings
> are not inherently stupid, they're just ignorant and
> because of ignorance do some incredibly stupid things.
> Like poor planning for disaster and running up the
> population beyond their ability to feed it. Tolerating
> corruption as part of the culture which allows a handful
> of people to decimate a society and the refusal by many
> to do the simplest things to prevent the spread of disease.
> These things are the greatest threats to the lives of my
> African cousins, not Bill and Melinda. Most people forget
> that there are 54 different countries that make up the
> continent of Africa and that the population not homogeneous.
> I have a lot of fun with people who tell me that they are
> "African American". I always ask them which of the 54
> countries or which region of Africa they are from. I get
> a lot of blank stares. That education thing strikes again.
>
hmmm, sounds like another place I know.
|
|
|