|
Add/Remove Programs: [list=1] [*] When I click to Uninstall programs, why is it that "Upgrade" is selected as the default, followed by repair, THEN uninstall. Visual Studio 2008 C++ Express decided because I clicked Uninstall, I really wanted to upgrade to the full VS2008. Hurr. [*] When cleaning up multiple programs that I don't need anymore, why does the uninstall have to lock up the Add/Remove dialog? It must be doing it as one last gently caress you. "HAHA, You don't like me? Well, I'm going to waste more of your time!" [*] "Used Rarely" I use it everyday? WTF? [*] The 5,000+ windows upgrades. While it is nice to be able to uninstall them, why do they all have the same title, no reasonable description, and names like K234329801789? [*] And who actually uses it to Add Programs? Really? I guess goes the same for Add/Remove hardware since most things are plugged in, but some still require that I tell it to look for it. But installing programs through it? I've never even tried it. Seems like code that once served some purpose, but is impossible to get rid of now.[/list]
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 15:44 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 09:43 |
|
|
Nybble posted:Add/Remove Programs: It's because all it does is run an applications registered uninstall app, which often includes all of those options. It doesn't tell it to default to uninstall or anything, I don't think it can. The locked up uninstaller thing is annoying, but it's to prevent multiple uninstallers from conflicting and blowing up. The names are based on the KB article they're related to, and that is for easy reference. Plus, they would still end up with redundant names eventually, so why waste the time trying to come up with a descriptive name when it takes a 5 second google to figure out what it is. It's not perfect, but there are reason behind most of what it does.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 16:00 |
|
|
Why do you have to be so reasonable  Yeah, I understand the Reference numbers. I just hate seeing 5 pages worth of practically the same thing. If only there was an update manager that could handle it and keep it organized...
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 16:09 |
|
|
Nybble posted:Why do you have to be so reasonable You could always uncheck "Show Windows Update"
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 16:12 |
|
|
Casao posted:You could always uncheck "Show Windows Update"  Thanks.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 16:16 |
|
|
Nybble posted:
I think they may have agreed with you, since the option is now either "Programs" under Classic View or "Uninstall Programs" in Category View on the control panel in Vista if I remember right. The only time I've ever done anything that even looked like adding a program from that menu was using the link on the left side to Add/Remove Windows Components.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 17:36 |
|
|
Nybble posted:And who actually uses it to Add Programs? Really? 
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 18:02 |
|
|
You use add program when you publish software to users with group policies.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 18:11 |
|
|
Ah, okay. I'm CS, not IT, so thats not something I would run into. Now how am I supposed to be pissed off if you are going to rationalize it all??  Great insight into the matter, thanks.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 18:19 |
|
|
Nybble posted:Ah, okay. I'm CS, not IT, so thats not something I would run into. Now how am I supposed to be pissed off if you are going to rationalize it all?? You'll never make it in this business if you let rational arguments stop your hatred of things.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 18:25 |
|
|
Casao posted:You'll never make it in this business if you let rational arguments stop your hatred of things. What are you trying to do, set him up to work in Marketing?
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 18:33 |
|
|
Midelne posted:What are you trying to do, set him up to work in Marketing? No, set him up for a career as an executive.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 18:35 |
|
|
Casao posted:You'll never make it in this business if you let rational arguments stop your hatred of things. It is okay. See my previous comment (last page, first post) about lacking source control, losing work, shoddy documentation, etc. I have plenty of rage to go around. Did I mention that my other interning programming buddy can't even do the FizzBuzz test? He's not just bad a programming, he also asked me the following as he was studying for his college history Mid-Term: "What is a Democracy?"
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 18:35 |
|
|
Casao posted:No, set him up for a career as an executive. Oh, in that case he'll need a VPN login, no accountability, and an unjustified sense of entitlement for having grown up on the same block as the people who started the company.
|
| # ? Jul 18, 2008 18:37 |
|
|
Nybble posted:Add/Remove Programs Ccleaner has an uninstall part that runs much faster that the Windows one.
|
| # ? Jul 19, 2008 05:01 |
|
|
Utool is pretty good at uninstalling too.
|
| # ? Jul 19, 2008 06:12 |
|
|
I have here a driver disc for a SATA card simply labeled "Drivers & Utility" with pictures of a trackball mouse, a scanner, a webcam, and an inkjet printer. I made a little paper insert for it to remember what it is
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 02:54 |
|
|
jnr posted:I have here a driver disc for a SATA card simply labeled "Drivers & Utility" with pictures of a trackball mouse, a scanner, a webcam, and an inkjet printer. I made a little paper insert for it to remember what it is LOL Don't you love that? One little taiwanese or chinese manufacturer of hardware or wherever pays for one silk screening and gets its as generic as possible to fit whatever parts they produce and give nothing more specific. The best part is when you put the CD into the drive, trying to determine what it's for, and you get like... D:\ - Autorun.inf (which has nothing idenfitying in it) - 000f124.dll - 3892832.dll - 5hr5hh5.dll - fuckyou.ini - hahayou.ini - wontguess.ini - 83hf83s.inf - 83hf83s.sys - 83hf83s.ini ... or whatever. and like, thats it, maybe all the files are in a folder, but NOTHING to id what the file set is for.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 03:18 |
|
|
Sniep posted:and like, thats it, maybe all the files are in a folder, but NOTHING to id what the file set is for.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 03:43 |
|
|
hyperborean posted:At least if they're all in the same directory, you can just point Windows to it and it will usually pick the right one. Of course, thinking the right one is actually there in the first place, is often overly generous. The point being, years later, how do you know that CD even relates to any particular piece of hardware?
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 03:55 |
|
|
Sniep posted:The point being, years later, how do you know that CD even relates to any particular piece of hardware? If you find something in a thrift store or wherever, they never come have the CD anyway and you're back to digging. I couldn't find the AHCI patch for my motherboard anywhere but some post on a German forum from two years ago.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 04:06 |
|
|
Drwatson (in XP Pro). What the hell is that poo poo supposed to do? Every time some application crashes or stops responding drwatson will start and lag my whole system to hell, i won't be able to kill the application unless i kill drwatson which is taking 99% cpu in Task Manager first.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 11:56 |
|
|
revmoo posted:Get real! My whole point is that there is no need to run Windows for most business tasks. And for that matter, I've worked at several companies that used Open-Source servers for their Windows clients and things worked just fine. OSS also falls flat on its face where support is concerned. Business uses MS products because the open source alternatives still fall extremely short. Like anything else, Linux has it's place, and that simply is not on TS servers or corp desktops.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 19:08 |
|
|
poo poo Copter posted:Show me an OSS alternative to Office that doesn't suck and is known by the vast majority of employees or potential hires. Show me an OSS alternative to TS/RDP that integrates as easily and isn't slow as hell.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 19:48 |
|
|
hyperborean posted:You're right, in a sense. But otoh, in the big picture, I think it is our responsibility, as individuals interested in computing, to use and push open source programs, and improve them where we are able. OpenLDAP might not be at the point of full substitute, yet. Ditto GIMP and dozens of other programs. But they're a hell of a lot further than they were a few years ago. Witness the server market, some creative industries, and European bodies of government in general. This can and will spread to general workstations over time. It's OK to say that in some situations F/OSS isn't ready yet, but that isn't always the case, it will decrease, and it's incorrect to say this is the way it will be forever. No, it's not "our responsibility." What the gently caress are you on? There's no responsibility to some overall open source concept. The only "responsibility" is to use the software that works the best for the task. Linux servers are used for a lot of production tasks, but ANY time you come up against someone running an internal server with Linux on for managing the network, they're an idiot. Nothing comes anywhere close to AD. It's true and it won't be changing for a long, long time. And when it comes to Microsoft, Europe is a joke. They fine Microsoft like a bunch of superstituous weirdos. Software sales down? Fine Microsoft. Computer sales down? Fine Microsoft. Black cat cross your path? Fine Microsoft. Feeling a little down today? It's ok, fining Microsoft will make you feel better. They've proven time and again that they're basically an entire continent run by slashdot. Industries move away from Microsoft if it's cheaper/more efficient. Running a server that only needs to do one thing? Linux is great, you can cut it down to the bare minimum to do what you want. Need to do some grid computing? Linux is great there too. But Linux is no where near taking Desktop share away from Microsoft, not even at home, much less in the business world. The day I see a place running Linux desktops for their employees is the day I stop taking them seriously.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 20:35 |
|
|
It's a social responsibility of the technology world, that anyone may take on or not, as they desire. I wish to encourage it. I never said all coporate or enterprise environments should shift today or even this decade. But F/OSS becoming more common would make the world a better place, in my personal opinion. And it is doing that, it is growing, slowly but surely. Whether you continue to use MS or move to open source, increased competition will (ideally) give everyone better things than what we have today, and using non-Microsoft software presents the opportunity, if not the guarantee, for lower costs and higher efficiency. As things develop, those opportunities increase.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 20:55 |
|
|
hyperborean posted:You're right, in a sense. But otoh, in the big picture, I think it is our responsibility, as individuals interested in computing, to use and push open source programs, and improve them where we are able. OpenLDAP might not be at the point of full substitute, yet. Ditto GIMP and dozens of other programs. But they're a hell of a lot further than they were a few years ago. Witness the server market, some creative industries, and European bodies of government in general. This can and will spread to general workstations over time. It's OK to say that in some situations F/OSS isn't ready yet, but that isn't always the case, it will decrease, and it's incorrect to say this is the way it will be forever. I don't know why any reasonable person would care what the EU does either. Casao posted:The only "responsibility" is to use the software that works the best for the task. I guess I just never got on the OSS bandwagon. I tend to believe that the best solution for the job should be used, regardless of being commercial or now, and that people who make good software should be compensated for it. Shit Copter fucked around with this message at Jul 20, 2008 around 21:54 |
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 21:49 |
|
|
hyperborean posted:It's a social responsibility of the technology world, that anyone may take on or not, as they desire. I wish to encourage it. Except that I've never seen a situation where linux is lower cost/higher efficiency in a business server environment. Microsoft CALs are expensive as you become a gradiose organization, I'll admit, but what you don't pay for in CALs on the Small / Medium business angle, you pay for in technical expertise. The true cost is simply masked. You pay for more knowledgeable Help Desk personnel to support Linux (even if your desktop machines are Windows, because they have to know how to properly setup users, for instance), you pay more for the top-end staff, and you pay more for eventual downtimes. In a server environment that I used to run, Windows and Linux had similar downtimes with similar-role servers. The linux boxes actually averaged for 4-ish years to have longer downtimes by almost 12%. That "social responsibility" crap is horseshit, too. I find it a "social responsibility" to push Microsoft products. Why? Because if I die in a horrible body-twisting train wreck, my ghost doesn't have to come back and tell them *anything*. Any half-wit with Sys Admin experience can pick up where I left off and push the shiny buttons to add users here and there. On linux, it comes down to "Which program did they use for this function? And this function? And this other function? Oh, they did this stuff through an elaborate script without comments or instructions." and you get 6 months of system freeze for all but the most basic of tasks while the successor to your position gets up to speed with the systems he's now managing. I know that some things are taken for granted, such as Apache. But really, which system log did they use? Which remote configuration protocol did they use? Which kernel build did they use? Which user configuration system did they use? All of this matters because your system logger may decide that since it's April 1, 1999 that you need to get a "PID 0 giggle SPANK!" message in your urgent SMS log, so when you get that log, you go "What the hell?" and spend 2 hours trying to figure out what the gently caress went wrong with what program. And that's just the start of it. Linux is too customizable to be used as a stable business platform. Even though you can eek efficiency out of it, it's just not worth the effort in the long run. You'll notice that companies that use Linux outright have a far larger IT staff than their Windows counterparts. Why? Because they always have to have the redundancy in case someone flips them off and takes $20,000 more per year elsewhere. Linux is not cheaper. The money is just spent on people in IT, not licenses.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 21:52 |
|
|
hyperborean posted:It's a social responsibility of the technology world, that anyone may take on or not, as they desire. I wish to encourage it. But Open Source doesn't represent competition, because it's still not cost effective, it's not being trained and support costs more. It's a catch 22, until it becomes cheaper, it won't be commonly used, and until it's commonly used, it won't become cheaper. Top that off with the people who think Open Source is, in any way, "morally" superior to closed source who go around making it look like a bunch of crackpots. And as the cherry on top, there's half of the open source developers, whose mind frame is "Do it our way or make it yourself." Commercial businesses heed the customer because they need to to serve. As long as people are sitting in their mother's basements coding in their free time with no reason to listen to their users, OSS will continue to grow in a haphazard way that drives businesses away.
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 22:18 |
|
|
- OS evangelism from either camp (Use the right tool for the job and stfu about it)
|
| # ? Jul 20, 2008 22:38 |
|
|
Casao posted:But Open Source doesn't represent competition, because it's still not cost effective, it's not being trained and support costs more. It's a catch 22, until it becomes cheaper, it won't be commonly used, and until it's commonly used, it won't become cheaper.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 00:00 |
|
|
Midelne posted:I think they may have agreed with you, since the option is now either "Programs" under Classic View or "Uninstall Programs" in Category View on the control panel in Vista if I remember right. The only time I've ever done anything that even looked like adding a program from that menu was using the link on the left side to Add/Remove Windows Components.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 01:15 |
|
|
Blue Moonlight posted:Yes, they agreed with him, and now a bunch of people use it as a generic "Vista Sucks" argument on the internet. Vista sucks because you can't Add a Program from the programs manifest anymore? Like, the 12 people who actually used that button for a few years after Windows 95 was released are going to be hurt into cutting themselves over the fact that they now have to simply click the installer? What?
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 03:33 |
|
|
Arsten posted:What?
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 03:36 |
|
|
hyperborean posted:People complain not about that specifically but that the Control Panel is categorized (yes, as it is by default in XP) There still is a "classic" view, like there was in XP. It always amazes me the things people complain about when a new version of Windows comes out. I remember one guy ranting and raving about how Aero stole his game performance when Vista was first released and how even when the acceleration was turned off, it was still "stealing" his performance. Vista SP0 ran some games slower than XP. True. But he blamed, specifically, Aero and how it now used three quarters of his GPU. I couldn't convince him that it didn't use 400Mhz of a 600Mhz GPU because he "knew" and "Saw the numbers". Oh, the numbers he saw? Yeah. His screenshots showed one taken of his GPU (600Mhz 8500 or 8600 core clock) speed and one of his RAMDAC (400Mhz) speed. Aero!
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 03:44 |
|
|
The "Programs and Features" thing bugged me because there was no real reason for it to be changed and I had to refamiliarize myself with its new position. It's a very minor quibble, and certainly not a dealbreaker, but it's still an annoyance.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 03:45 |
|
|
hyperborean posted:People complain not about that specifically but that the Control Panel is categorized (yes, as it is by default in XP) It's not like the actual control panel applets make much sense half the time to begin with, but if i've learned over these years that shutting down hard drives and monitors is under Display->Screen saver, remote desktop is under System and that file type bindings is under Folder Options........... let me keep them that way!
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 03:46 |
|
|
Sniep posted:........... let me keep them that way!
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 04:06 |
|
|
hyperborean posted:I agree, for instance, that it's annoying that after opening Control Panel you have to click on three things instead of one to get the part where you uninstall programs. But as Arsten said, Classic View is still there. The problem is that Classic view shows each control panel applet as they actually exist on the system- and there are (I think) over 50 of them. The modern, searchable view just hides this behind a crapload of categorization that adds clicks and guesswork to whatever you're trying to do. This wouldn't be such an issue, except that OS X has already shown that you can provide a comparable level of customization with just 15-25 applets. Vista could have done the same had the developers bothered to do more than merely carry over applets dating back to Windows 95 (seriously, open Display Properties- what's that lone Settings tab doing there?).
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 04:18 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 09:43 |
|
|
Other people have said in this thread (I think) that the searchable CP is better somehow...it sounds retarded to me, but I don't have Vista so I wouldn't know.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2008 04:42 |
|
