Windows at fault - again

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by Gooseberry Clock:
I don't think so.

I totaly think so. I have defraged an 80Gb Windows 98 box, thing took for fucking ever, near 3 hours! Defraged my 80GB, under an hour.

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Gooseberry Clock:
I don't think so.

You don't think at all, fucktard.

Anyway, as mentioned above the point of this thread is not to argue but to catalogue windows' many flaws.

Well how about this for a start:
yesterday, one of my flatmates used my laptop without my consent or knowledge.
I had finished using linux at about 3 o' clock, and it was sitting on my bed. When i went back at 7 pm to use it again, it was warm (some bugger had just pushed the power button (which puts it to sleep) instead of switching it off) and not only that, it had been booted into windows. It had been used for 5 minutes from 5:37 to 5:42.

On the windows system (it's WinME) i have installed there is only one user, called Windows, and up till last night, i had not set a password (being the trusting soul i am), but i reckoned, oh i had better set the password up now, since some dumbass is trying to use my computer, so i set it, and lo and behold, i get a screen (similar to the X login screen) asking for my password when i switch it on now *but* i can click "cancel" instead and login as nobody!

Of course you know how on windows, once you log in, you can have access to all the system files and so on? so all you need do is press "cancel" and you immediately get the authority to wipe out the entire system? useless.
All that login screen does is act as a 3 second confusion until the intruder thinks of clicking "cancel"!

Try to go into control panel and open the "Users" control panel and, woops! it brings up the "Internet Options" panel instead! ho can this be? my installation of windows must be FUCKED (oh surely not!) how could an OS possibly allow this to happen to itself?!? try opening the "Internet Options" panel, and you get... "Internet Options" so how do i get to the "Users" panel?

I tried searching the registry, but windows users are deliberately kept in the dark about how to edit their *own* registry, so now all i need is the right info to put into a dos box (which i should be able to find in the registry) in order to open up the "Users" control panel. i don't know and don't care how to do this. it is not worth the excessive ag that it has involved.
I did open up a dos box and half heartedly give it a go, but after linux, who can be arsed?

note to gooseberry clock, let's not have any of your smartarse solutions to this problem please, i know you will say something like "are you sure you are clicking the right icon in the control panel?" so before you start, shut up. thankyou.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]

[Druid]

Calum:
WinME, as you are aware, is a POS, and like all the 9x series of Microsoft's finest it has no security features worth talking about.  If you need a MS system with some security, use the NT systems (NT4 or 2000)-but not XP!  At least with these if you don't have a password you can't bypass the login screen and access the system.

Druid

[Master of Reality]

windows flaw #142: the setup program.

the setup program is utterly useless in helping install windows. You can't choose any of your computers options. You have little choice of useless windows programs that you can leave out.

And it fuck itself over: I recently tried to install windows, for some inane reason. I started on a start-up disk, went into setup through the CD.
After setup install *some* of the OS files, halfway through install, it needs to restart.
So i let it automatically do its thing, in fear that if i touch this incredibly unstable program it might explode, it spits out my start-up disk, restarts, and behold, it says cannot find Operating System. I tried to go back into the setup program, to see if i could get back to the install step i was on... NO, had to restart from beginning
I tried getting into windows....Not enough of the system files were installed yet.

Windoze had caught itself in what i call a "loop of stupidity"

so, like an insane dog trying to catch its own tail for days at a time... i had to *euthanize* windoze


windows flaw #93: IE hidden files.
*go look at the feature article*

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Druaga ]

[Centurian]

Hey,

 

quote:Originally posted by Druaga:
windows flaw #142: the setup program.

the setup program is utterly useless in helping install windows. You can't choose any of your computers options. You have little choice of useless windows programs that you can leave out.

And it fuck itself over: I recently tried to install windows, for some inane reason. I started on a start-up disk, went into setup through the CD.
After setup install *some* of the OS files, halfway through install, it needs to restart.
So i let it automatically do its thing, in fear that if i touch this incredibly unstable program it might explode, it spits out my start-up disk, restarts, and behold, it says cannot find Operating System. I tried to go back into the setup program, to see if i could get back to the install step i was on... NO, had to restart from beginning
I tried getting into windows....Not enough of the system files were installed yet.

Windoze had caught itself in what i call a "loop of stupidity"

so, like an insane dog trying to catch its own tail for days at a time... i had to *euthanize* windoze

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Druaga ]

Sorry to say this but that one is your own fault. Windows does warn you to remove any floppies. It also tells you that in case of error to turn the machine off wait a few seconds and turn it back on. That way the auto-recovery will activate. It is writtne on the screen for you to read just prior to it rebooting itself. At least that is true for Windows 98 so I would guess the same applies to later versions also.

[psyjax]

None the less, should the setup program be such a timebomb waiting to happen? I mean seriously, what if this happens by accident. The program should at least be aware enugh of whats going on around it to give you a proper warning and istructions and not take down your entire system because you missed a note in the dialogue or absentmindedly left a disk in. In the long run I think this is M$'s fault.

[Centurian]

Hey,

 

quote:Originally posted by psyjax:
None the less, should the setup program be such a timebomb waiting to happen? I mean seriously, what if this happens by accident. The program should at least be aware enugh of whats going on around it to give you a proper warning and istructions and not take down your entire system because you missed a note in the dialogue or absentmindedly left a disk in. In the long run I think this is M$'s fault.

Ok maybe I am crazy. There are alot of things wrong with windows. IMHO this isn't one of them. I see it as a simple case of Read The Documentation.

In so far as that goes I could say the same is true about Mandrake because the docs tell you things you need to do prior to installing. If you don't know those things (because you did not read the docs) Mandrake can be much more difficult to install also. Whether it is a screen prompt or an online manual or a book people should take the time to read the docs that come with an OS.

[psyjax]

I don't disagree with you at all, I'm just saying, it wouldent be too hard for M$ to put in a line of code or two that check the disk drive and say "you have a disk in, this may cause problems, please eject it" that's all. I mean, it's not like he was pouring coffee on the circuit board, it was a disk in the drive, that shouldent be a big deal to begin with at all.

Whatever, maybe I'm just picky, but I think this problem could have been avoided with a little forsight from the programmers.

For example, when you run an Installer App in OS X or in other Mac OS's it says you can't have other programms running while it installs. If you try to install and another program is running the installer warns you and asks if you want to quit the running program or stop the installer. This is standard on even the system install.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]

[Centurian]

Hey,

 

quote:Originally posted by psyjax:
I don't disagree with you at all, I'm just saying, it wouldent be too hard for M$ to put in a line of code or two that check the disk drive and say "you have a disk in, this may cause problems, please eject it" that's all. I mean, it's not like he was pouring coffee on the circuit board, it was a disk in the drive, that shouldent be a big deal to begin with at all.

Whatever, maybe I'm just picky, but I think this problem could have been avoided with a little forsight from the programmers.

I can see your point here but think about it. Windows does not know how you booted your system. It could have been from a boot disk or from Dos on your hard drive. I suppose it could even have been from a different CD prior to putting the Windows CD in. Also Windows does not know the boot order you have setup in your bios. Your system could boot directly to the hard disk even though there is a floppie and a CD in the respective drives. So sure they could put in some code to check for a floppie but in reality most people are booting from a hard disk with an earlier version of windows or dos already installed. So the screen docs is a warning. Now suppose you keep a floppie in your a: drive constantly and keep your bios set to boot directly from C: drive. ( I actually know one person who does that ) In that case windows would not reboot until the floppie was pulled. Of course that would upset some people also. So either way someone will be upset. I think they did what should have been done in that particular situation.

 

quote:

For example, when you run an Installer App in OS X or in other Mac OS's it says you can't have other programms running while it installs. If you try to install and another program is running the installer warns you and asks if you want to quit the running program or stop the installer. This is standard on even the system install.

Windows does that also for installing Apps but we are talking very different circumstances. I have never used a Mac and have only once seen one run but I have heard that they use only their own hardware. I also would guess that there is only a limited amount of ways you can install the Mac OS. Possibly only one way for all I know. Where as with windows there are many ways that it can be handled. With Windows you can boot from a floppie or Hard disk and install from floppie (yes believe it or not you can still do that) or CD. I used to know a guy that kept a copy of W95 on his third hard disk and would install it from there.

So in this case I think MS did what was appropriate.

[psyjax]

Jeez... if your gonna pen an essay I guess I'll conceed  

Nah, I see your point, it's more of a hardware situation than anything else I would imagine. I have worked with windows machines before even had one back in the day. Little things like this sort of irritated me, I can see their functionality in a practicall sense due to the computers history and userbase, but perhapse not as elegant a solution as I would have liked.

Perhapse Mac's have spoild me since their Hardware and Software are so firmly integrated.

[Centurian]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax:

Perhapse Mac's have spoild me since their Hardware and Software are so firmly integrated.

I have heard how elegant the Mac is. As I said I have only ever seen one once. That was several years ago (91 or 92 I would say ok 10 yrs ago then ) when an aquaintence was showing me a barbarian fighting game on it. Even then the graphics were excellent.  

Maybe someday I will go to a big city where they actually sell Macs. If I ever do I plan to check one out throughly. Although I hate the look of that new one they came out with recently. Looks like a robot with a broken neck.