On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:41:09 +0100, White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:

>Robin T Cox wrote:

>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:38:31 -0700, AqD wrote:

>>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows

>>> counterparts.

>> Anyone got a 1908 version of Windows to enable us to make the comparison?

>On the Microsoft scale, I think we're talking Windows for Workgroups.

 

Somebody whould check him for the Y2K bug.

White Spirit wrote:

> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is

> just one of them:

>

> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It has

> the following prototype:

> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR

> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)

>

> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing

> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about

> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same

> address space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to

> ensure that the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers

> simply limited the application to one instance.

>

 

Heh! There are other reasons why a system developer may not want more than

one instance of his program running. Record locking, password protection,

approved access, resource management, and the like. So, Windows provides a

method of discovering this.

 

I suppose you advocate removing this API from the feature set. What about

all the legacy programs that use this API?

 

I think you're gonna have to dig farther to find a way to trash Windows.

White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

> Hadron wrote:

>

>> White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

>

>>> Have you ever programmed DirectX versus OpenGL or SDL? Take it from

>>> me, OpenGL and SDL have much cleaner, more elegant APIs. Just about

>>> all the Windows APIs are ugly. The only thing Microsoft has got right

>>> so far is C#.

>

>> Yes. And you are wrong. The Dx community for a start is far more

>> knowledgable and experienced. They have to be - if they dont cut it they

>> are out of business.

>

> Every developer has to have the requisite knowledge and experience,

> otherwise they wouldn't have a job. How does the relative knowledge

> and experience of DirectX developers, which you allege, relate to the

> quality of DirectX APS? Its just a red herring that you've thrown in.

 

Err, no its not. "Dx community" - the people using it.

>

>>>> because MS actively courted the programmers and HW manufacturers to

>>>> advance the 3d engines and HW.

>

>>> No. They applied their usual business tactics in order to put DirectX

>>> above OpenGL.

>

>> Err, they still support OGL as do the HW manufacturers. The reasons are

>> as I listed above.

>

> I didn't say that OpenGL isn't supported. I asserted that MS push

> DirectX as an closed source solution that ties people to their

> products.

 

CEDEGA?

>

>> You're clearly another loon with a chip on his shoulder.

>

> Perhaps. It's difficult to judge your motives given that you so far

> have not been able to argue any point without obfuscation and

> diversion.

 

Actually I have argued each point calmly and with facts.

 

You clearly just hate MS. Good luck to you.

White Spirit wrote:

> AqD wrote:

>

>> So what?

>

>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows

>> counterparts.

>

> It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so

> it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run better.

> Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without running

> Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better under Linux

> in my experience.

 

That may very well be true.

 

There are those of us, however, who do not see life as a quest for

pinball-score supremecy but rather endeavor to cure cancer, promote world

peace, and make sure every woman who wants breast implants gets them.

:

: On the Microsoft scale, I think we're talking Windows for Workgroups.

:

 

My favourite Windows.

"groovy" <bill.Gerry@greenpond.co.uk.ch> wrote in message

news:47ff5017@newsgate.x-privat.org...

: We all know that vista sucks.

: You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

: Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

: I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

: But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

: professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

:

: Not to worry, vista will be history soon and forgotten.

 

The ONE thing I like about Vista, and it really is irrelevant because I

won't use it, is the ability to use Flash drive to "cache" certain file from

the hard drive.

I see Intel's "TurboMemory" is designed for this (unless control of the

"caching" is hardware based? I didn't really read much about it).

 

But, of course, you can now buy hard drives that do this automatically,

without the need of the software to tell it to. These hard drives run their

own mini OS, turns out it's Linux!

Steve Thackery wrote:

>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

>

> Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean really

> - no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better than the

> tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher Price colour

> scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything, stupid fanfares and

> giggling children in the standard sound scheme, and so on.

>

> Vista is XP for grown-ups. Maybe you aren't grown up yet?

>

> SteveT

 

Any one that claims that any software as complex as an OS "is working

perfectly," is just full of sh*t.

 

Nothing made by man is perfect.

 

So the question is, why are you lying?

 

--

Peace!

Kurt

Former Self-anointed Moderator

microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea

"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

White Spirit wrote:

>> You're clearly another loon with a chip on his shoulder.

>

>Perhaps. It's difficult to judge your motives given that you so far

>have not been able to argue any point without obfuscation and diversion.

 

Hadron's "motive" is to troll and to denigrate Linux.

 

--

"All the Wintards around here make perfect sense to you Hardon. Then

again, you're a Linux advocate - the principled kind - the non-COLA

kind - the too many distros kind - the attack FOSS kind. Anyway, you

get the idea." - NoStop

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:02:00 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>White Spirit wrote:

>> AqD wrote:

>>

>>> So what?

>>

>>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows

>>> counterparts.

>>

>> It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so

>> it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run better.

>> Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without running

>> Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better under Linux

>> in my experience.

>

>That may very well be true.

>

>There are those of us, however, who do not see life as a quest for

>pinball-score supremecy but rather endeavor to cure cancer, promote world

>peace, and make sure every woman who wants breast implants gets them.

>

 

Here here!!

you can do that with xp too

 

see here http://www.eboostr.com/

 

there is nothing that vista can do so well that xp cannot.. but there are

millions of reasons to avoid vista until windows7 is out

 

 

"Cork Soaker" <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote in message

news:fto2et$15v$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>

> "groovy" <bill.Gerry@greenpond.co.uk.ch> wrote in message

> news:47ff5017@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> : We all know that vista sucks.

> : You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

> : Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

> : I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

> : But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

> : professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

> :

> : Not to worry, vista will be history soon and forgotten.

>

> The ONE thing I like about Vista, and it really is irrelevant because I

> won't use it, is the ability to use Flash drive to "cache" certain file

> from

> the hard drive.

> I see Intel's "TurboMemory" is designed for this (unless control of the

> "caching" is hardware based? I didn't really read much about it).

>

> But, of course, you can now buy hard drives that do this automatically,

> without the need of the software to tell it to. These hard drives run

> their

> own mini OS, turns out it's Linux!

>

>

Alias wrote:

> Steve Thackery wrote:

>

>>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

>>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

>>

>>

>> Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean

>> really - no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better

>> than the tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher

>> Price colour scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything,

>

>

> Yep, it ain't your computer anymore and that's why Microsoft removed the

> "my".

 

Idiot! It was removed by popular demand. But you can re-name it to

anything you want.

Oh, I forgot, you too broke to afford Vista so you don't really know do

you mr liar.

>

>> stupid fanfares and giggling children in the standard sound scheme,

>> and so on.

>>

>> Vista is XP for grown-ups.

>

>

> 97% of all businesses disagree with you.

 

Liar! Got any factual statistical evidence to backup that number?

Well...?

>

>> Maybe you aren't grown up yet?

>>

>> SteveT

>

>

> Maybe you foolishly spent your money on an OS that is dying before it

> even reaches puberty.

 

Up your ass moron! You too stupid and too broke to afford Vista so

you're jealous and stuck using that POS toy os...LOL!

Frank

terren wrote:

>>97% of all businesses disagree with you.

>

>

> You nailed him ...

 

What with lies?

>

>

>>Maybe you foolishly spent your money on an OS that is dying before it even

>>reaches puberty.

>

>

> You nailed him again...

 

With mores lies?

Idiot!

Frank

>

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:

> We all know that vista sucks.

 

You mean you all think you know.

> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

 

Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run

across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or have

used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.

 

I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a

decent machine that dislike it.

> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

 

I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like "It

treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising

Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.

 

People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.

we are not afraid of change. we have powerful machines and have been using

vista longer than you.

we are darn good at computers and vista experts.

 

that's why we say vista sucks..

 

the more you use it, the more you know about it, the more you dislike it.

 

that applies of course only if you know what you are doing and have the

knowledge to discriminate between something that is good and something that

is crap like vista is

 

 

"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message

news:18022psbs8eoa.dlg@funkenbusch.com...

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:

>

>> We all know that vista sucks.

>

> You mean you all think you know.

>

>> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

>> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

>> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

>

> Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run

> across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or

> have

> used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.

>

> I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a

> decent machine that dislike it.

>

>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

>

> I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like

> "It

> treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising

> Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.

>

> People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.

terren, a real idiot wrote:

> funny.. I have more than 2000 themes for XP that use the built in themeing

> engine of XP, using the neowin theme uxtheme patch.

 

Wow! That's impressive...NOT!!!

>

> The themes make XP look like any OS you can imagine and its still fast.

> If you have bad taste you can even make it look like Vista.

> But of course then you will run in to all the bad problems vista has:

> Bad selection of colors, bad fonts, black taskbars etc.

 

You're one tasteless POS!

>

> But I guess that people like you are satisfied with ONE theme (and one

> classic theme) that vista provides, that is

> badly made, and hundreds of people have complained in this very newsgroup

> about various elements of the vista theme,

> for example the infamous "light blue selection color"

 

Are you really that stupid?

>

> XP is for professionals,

 

hehehe...you're no professional...you're an idiot!

 

vista is for kids that like seeing transparent crap

> (that can be done on XP with windblinds if you want to

> get dizzy seeing undreneath windows.. LOL)

>

> Vista is stupid? OH YES IT IS!

>

Well, capin' crunch...all you need is a box of Crayons...LOL!

Frank

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:41 +0100, White Spirit wrote:

> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just

> one of them:

>

> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It

> has the following prototype:

> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR

> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)

>

> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing

> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about

> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address

> space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that

> the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the

> application to one instance.

 

So are you seriously suggesting that Unix doesn't have it's own legacy

cruft?

 

ACL's have been "it" for a long time, and because of the vast majority of

Linux users and apps that don't know how to deal with them, people still

use UGO.

 

Or how about tar, a system designed for legacy tape drives that has been

hacked to make it filesystem friendly over the years?

 

Why not search your kernel config file for the word "legacy" while you're

at it, there's plenty of hits.

> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95

 

Actually, it fixed it with Windows NT.

> - at which time it was over twenty-five years behind Unix in this

> regard(*)! Windows NT was also over twenty-five years behind Unix by

> being multiuser for the first time and finally allowing multiple

> permissions for the file system. Of course, the filesystem still became

> severely fragmented after a short amount of normal use - something that

> still happens with Windows XP, over thirty years behind Unix

> filesystems.

 

Oh, I get it, you're one of those people that really has no clue as to the

history of Unix. You think Unix sprung fully featured from the head of

Zeus in 1973, ignoring the fact that it too evolved over time.

 

Here's a hint:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System

 

It really wasn't until the mid-80's when the filesystems we think of as

"unix" filesystems were created. And, given that Windows NT was released

in 1993, that makes your exagerated timeframe more like "less than 10

years".

 

None of that excuses NTFS for fragmenting, although there is some research

which suggests that multi-user server filesystems benefit from filesystem

fragmentation because disk access is typically fragemented by multiple

users accessing file simultaneously anyways, but that's a different

argument.

> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86

> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only

> truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,

> so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the

> techonology.

 

Again, NT was released in 1993, and was in development since 87. Further,

remember that Microsoft developed most of OS/2 up until the 1.3 version.

The fact of the matter is, Windows 3.x (and 95) were more successful than

than OS/2 primarily because of legacy support that you pan.

> At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit

> versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor

> driver support and come at an exorbitant price.

 

64 bit versions have no price different from their 32 bit versions. What

are you talking about? And I use 64 bit vista every day, it's not buggy,

and it's faster (marginally, anyways) than the 32 bit version.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:39:42 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch

<erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:

>

>> We all know that vista sucks.

>

>You mean you all think you know.

>

>> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

>> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

>> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

>

>Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run

>across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or have

>used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.

 

I use MusicMatch. Vista won't allow that program. That alone is a

reason to avoid it. If ONE old favorite program won't run under Vista

then it's a valid reason NOT to use it.

>

>I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a

>decent machine that dislike it.

>

>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

>

>I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like "It

>treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising

>Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.

>

>People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:46:58 +0300, Be Yond wrote:

> we are not afraid of change. we have powerful machines and have been using

> vista longer than you. we are darn good at computers and vista experts.

>

> that's why we say vista sucks..

 

Vista experts... right. Ok.

 

How about you answer a simple question then. Is turning off UAC a good

solution to UAC annoyances?

> the more you use it, the more you know about it, the more you dislike it.

 

Not in my experience. That's not to say it doesn't have its flaws, it has

quite a few, but overall is not as bad as people make it out to be.

> that applies of course only if you know what you are doing and have the

> knowledge to discriminate between something that is good and something that

> is crap like vista is

 

Saying it doesn't make you an expert.

On 2008-04-11, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:

>

>> We all know that vista sucks.

>

> You mean you all think you know.

>

>> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

>> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

>> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

>

> Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run

> across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or have

> used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.

>

> I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a

> decent machine that dislike it.

>

 

I tend to agree with that. I was put off myself at first. I was having

a significant instability problem, and some of my software just wouldn't

work... But, as it turned out the instability was bad RAM. Once that

was replaced and I updated the software with a couple of vendor patches

for Vista, everything has been pretty much smooth sailing.

>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

>

> I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like "It

> treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising

> Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.

>

> People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.

 

Yep. Just go back to 2001 and look at all the complaints about XP's

gratuitous ui changes, and the need for retraining. The complaints

about instability (what was the number that was being quoted then?

Somethign like 1 in 5 xp machines crash more then twice a day). Look at

the people like Sinister who had the "XP: The ME of NT" sigs. Look at

the reports of slow uptake. Hell, 4 years after XP's release, it still

had less the 50% of the corporate desktop market. In fact, I doubt I

have heard a single complaint about Vista that I didn't hear about XP -

well except for DRM maybe, but with XP it was activation. I mean

really, the extended the Windows98 support lifetime twice because of

protests against moving to XP.

 

History will just repeat itself with Windows7. Only this time people

will be crying over the death of Vista - not XP.

 

--

Tom Shelton

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a

>decent machine that dislike it.

 

Well, Erik, you also claimed that you have "several friends that are

open cross dressers".

 

Are they all Vista users? 8)

 

--

 

"I'm truly sadened that anyone but a closet (or outright) homophobe

would fnd anything distressing in ***'s post. I saw nothing wrong

with it then and I see nothing wrong with it now."

 

- Erik Funkenbusch, defending his posting of someone else's personal

information.

 

 

"those that share intimate details about themselves inappropriately

are called sociopaths."

 

- Erik Funkenbusch, attacking that same person, after he chose to

post his own personal information on a Web site.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:22:15 -0500, Lookout wrote:

>>Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run

>>across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or have

>>used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.

>

> I use MusicMatch. Vista won't allow that program. That alone is a

> reason to avoid it. If ONE old favorite program won't run under Vista

> then it's a valid reason NOT to use it.

 

A lot of people like Weatherbug too, that doesn't mean Weatherbug is a good

app.

 

MusicMatch is a poorly written piece of crap, it barely ran on my XP

machines, much less Vista. That's why Yahoo effectively scrapped the app

when they bought MusicMatch.

 

The fact of the matter is, software breaks when you upgrade the OS. It's

happened to all platforms. MacOS, Linux, etc.. Linux, however, usually

updates their apps when breaks would otherwise occur. Breakage is higher

in Vista because too many apps were violating Microsofts design guidelines.

 

Having said that, many people have gotten MusicMatch to work in Vista by

adjusting the compatibility mode settings for all the apps. See post 25 of

this thread:

 

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?forumID=98&threadID=233835&start=15

 

I know it's hard for end users to understand how software can run fine on

one OS and then break on another, and it's somehow the applications fault.

It doesn't make sense, logic would say it must be the fault of the OS,

right?

 

In a way, it is the fault of the OS, but not the new one. The old OS

allowed an app to do something that it wasn't supposed to do, and when the

new app changes the behavior to enforce this, the app breaks. Or the app

relies on some undocumented side-effect of the old OS that isn't present in

the new one and it breaks.

 

Despite all that, Microsoft goes to great lengths to insure compatibility.

In fact, so much so that the author of this thread complained about that

fact as the reason Vista sucks. So your assertion that Vista sucks because

it's *NOT* compatible enough, sort of cancels out the entire post.

Experts of course!

 

I know more than most MVP's in here that are supposedly experts.. LOL

And because I have watching and using and installing and supporting vista so

closley thats why

I can say without any doubt that vista is CRAP!

 

To answer your question:

You can use tweakUAC that has 3 modes,

 

1)off

2)on

3) On but its not in your face all the time.

 

Google tweakuac

 

I never had a problem with security with windows xp that didnt have UAC.

Its not the added security layer that bothers me, its the implimentation of

UAC thats always in your face thats the problem. Even MS knows this, and

they are redesigning it for windows7. This is due to the outrage of the

users and hatred that just makes people either turn it off, or click without

reading the warnings.

Thus its not effective.

Even the linux implementation is better, you add a password, but you dont do

it 100 times a day.

 

 

"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message

news:1lw6xc43db028.dlg@funkenbusch.com...

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:46:58 +0300, Be Yond wrote:

>

>> we are not afraid of change. we have powerful machines and have been

>> using

>> vista longer than you. we are darn good at computers and vista experts.

>>

>> that's why we say vista sucks..

>

> Vista experts... right. Ok.

>

> How about you answer a simple question then. Is turning off UAC a good

> solution to UAC annoyances?

>

>> the more you use it, the more you know about it, the more you dislike it.

>

> Not in my experience. That's not to say it doesn't have its flaws, it has

> quite a few, but overall is not as bad as people make it out to be.

>

>> that applies of course only if you know what you are doing and have the

>> knowledge to discriminate between something that is good and something

>> that

>> is crap like vista is

>

> Saying it doesn't make you an expert.

Tom Shelton wrote:

>Just go back to 2001 and look at all the complaints about XP's

>gratuitous ui changes, and the need for retraining.

 

What "need for retraining"? The UI can set back to "classic" in

seconds. There is no such "easy fix" for Vistah's massive changes and

4X hardware requirement.

>The complaints

>about instability (what was the number that was being quoted then?

>Somethign like 1 in 5 xp machines crash more then twice a day). Look at

>the people like Sinister who had the "XP: The ME of NT" sigs. Look at

>the reports of slow uptake. Hell, 4 years after XP's release, it still

>had less the 50% of the corporate desktop market.

 

Slow uptake in business is to be expected. Extreme resistance and

rampant "downgrading" among home users is not to be expected.

>In fact, I doubt I

>have heard a single complaint about Vista that I didn't hear about XP -

>well except for DRM maybe, but with XP it was activation.

 

Did XP 4X the hardware requirements? No. Did XP break as much

compatibility, both hardware and software? I don't think so.

>I mean

>really, the extended the Windows98 support lifetime twice because of

>protests against moving to XP.

 

You're mixing-up the Win98 -> XP and the Win2k -> XP transitions, and

that makes it slippy to counter what you are saying.

>History will just repeat itself with Windows7. Only this time people

>will be crying over the death of Vista - not XP.

 

Gawd, I hope not. If a POS like Visduh is better than the

alternative, I'd hate to think how bad the alternative is...

In article <m9jvzhyb4u3d.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,

Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>

>Or how about tar, a system designed for legacy tape drives that has been

>hacked to make it filesystem friendly over the years?

>

 

Tar, like any other unix program, simply reads stdin and writes

stdout. You can connect those descriptors to files but it's not "designed"

to write to any particular device.

>Why not search your kernel config file for the word "legacy" while you're

>at it, there's plenty of hits.

 

When I do this all I get is some text about Subarus.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:42:33 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:

> Experts of course!

>

> I know more than most MVP's in here that are supposedly experts.. LOL

> And because I have watching and using and installing and supporting vista so

> closley thats why I can say without any doubt that vista is CRAP!

 

So you support Vista but don't use it yourself. You make my point.

 

You only see systems when they're screwed up. That skews your view of

things.

> To answer your question:

> You can use tweakUAC that has 3 modes,

>

> 1)off

> 2)on

> 3) On but its not in your face all the time.

 

That didn't answer my question. I didn't ask what modes there were. I

asked you if turning off UAC was a good solution.

> I never had a problem with security with windows xp that didnt have UAC.

> Its not the added security layer that bothers me, its the implimentation of

> UAC thats always in your face thats the problem. Even MS knows this, and

> they are redesigning it for windows7. This is due to the outrage of the

> users and hatred that just makes people either turn it off, or click without

> reading the warnings.

> Thus its not effective.

> Even the linux implementation is better, you add a password, but you dont do

> it 100 times a day.

 

As an admin, you hit a UAC prompt a lot because that's what you do, tweak

settings. But as a user, UAC prompts are seldom seen if the machine if

setup correctly (that includes proper permissions on things like USB keys

and secondary disks). At least once you've got the machine configured the

way you like it.

 

That's not to say UAC is perfect, and there is certainly a lot of room for

improvement, but for a normal user it's not that big of a problem.