|
|
looooooool
Well, actually I do... What makes you say that?
hint_54
|
|
|
|
|
You asked for my opinion and I responded with a question. Guess I think the issues you describe are far from annoying and actually 'trivial'. If you are annoyed by such things I am sure your life is hell out in the world. Do you stil live with mommy? looool
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Werner wrote: Guess I think the issues you describe are far from annoying and actually 'trivial'.
Well, if those ballons keep poping up... Yes, I do think it is anoying. I do read a lot on the computer, sometimes it does even block my readings.
About the applications that do not uninstal: I really like to have a system configured MY way. I changed to Firefox because I had a problem with IE (spyware) several times, so, I don't like IE (for many other reasons too). So yes, I think it is anoying.
About the background: I like having my desktop very "clear" (no icons on it). The only icon I can't remove (without using other programs, like TweakXP) is the recycle bin. Usually I unset the "Show desktop icons" to hide the icons I have on the desktop, but that makes me lose quality on my background. This one is not that anoying. I have the recycle bin on the desktop.
About the files: you must agree it's anoying. If you see Dave Kreskowiak's post you will see that he arguments saying it is not XP's fault. And I agree, but still anoying.
regards.
PS: I do have a life!!!!!! ok!?? I just wanted to expose my oppinion about some of XP's "things". Remember it's official release was almost five years ago, I don't spend my time searching for these things, they show up with time.
PS2: Yes, I do live with the "momy". I'm 19. Any problem with that?
hint_54
|
|
|
|
|
1) You can't disable the messages unless the applications your installed that put those icons there expose some option to turn them off. Consult the application's documentation. Not XP's fault.
2) That's the installation of an old application on something that was release AFTER Visual Studio 6. Not XP's fault.
3) You can't use the old DOS reserved names, like AUX, COM1, COM2, LPT1, LPT2, PRN, CON, TTY, ... These are all reserved device names from the DOS age. Again, not XP's fault.
[As a side - First, you want backwards compatibility to crap that was released before XP in #2, then in #3 you DON'T want backwards compatibility! Make up your mind...]
4) I've never had a reason to turn off the Audio service, and frankly, don't have an XP machine sitting around right now. I'll wait until I get home.
5) You can't remove Internet Explorer. It's an integral part of the operating system and has been for quite some time. All the Explorer windows you see on the Desktop, that's IE showing those windows. Open up C:, the go to the address bar and type a web address and see what happens.
You can't get rid of MSN entirely without getting rid of Outlook Express. I'll give you this one.
6) I've never seen the problem you're describing. Possible video driver issue?
7) This is because the file IS open by a process. This comes down to bad programming on the applications part, not XP's. If you want to find out what process has the file open, try this[^].
I fail to see any problems that are worth the rise in blood-pressure you're posting...
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
1) Remember that some of those warnings ARE from XP (i.e "Security Center" warnings) or, if you rather , from SP2, but that is a part of XP as I see it.
1.1) It seems to me that those warnings are handled by the OS (i.e the application sends the OS some messsage and then it will process and present them to you on those ballons, but i'm just gessing). I don't believe that Microsoft is not using anything on the regedit (not the app, the "register" itself) that enables/disables those ballons. If it doesn't, then I'm sorry for asking.
2) You'r right on that one, but still Microsoft's fault.
3) Didn't know that. You win.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: [As a side - First, you want backwards compatibility to crap that was released before XP in #2, then in #3 you DON'T want backwards compatibility! Make up your mind...]
I never said that. Offcourse I want backwards compatibility, but Windows XP and VS6 are not THAT distant.
5) If it is so, then Microsoft is lying. Try accessing the "Help" -> "About" menus. Notice the diferences. According to that, they ARE diferent applications, meaning they should be independent (even if they share some DLL). Right now I can't find IE's .exe, but, if I remember well it was "iexplorer.exe", right? The explorer you are talking about is "Explorer.exe".
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Open up C:, the go to the address bar and type a web address and see what happens.
Yes, I know that. Still, that only means that Explorer is able to use some internet protocols. Nothing else.
6) No, nothing about the drivers. I have a GeForce 7800GTX with the 81.94 driver version. A friend of mine as an ATI (not shure which), i've tested it on his machine and the same thing happened.
7) I'll check it.
See some more problems now?
Thx & regards
[[]]
hint_54
|
|
|
|
|
1) You mean the little "tour" and "Security Center" garbage?? Great, they show up once, you click the little X and they're gone. Big deal?
1.1) No, they're NOT being generated by the OS. They're being generated by the utilities and apps that have been packaged up and added as a "feature", like the Security Center.
2) I like the Japanese attitude much better - Fix the problem, not the blame.
3) Sit down and write an application and an installer for the next version of Windows. No, not Vista, AFTER Vista! Not easy is it? In fact, next to impossible!
5) You don't remember anything about Sun's lawsuit against MS? Or more to the point, Netscape's suit? Microsoft embedded the core functionality of IE into Windows. Removing IE just removes the pretty UI application part that wraps the Internet API's. ALL of the components that make up the Browser, Windows Address Book, HTML rendering engine, Internet Connection's, Proxy configuration, Security Zones, ..., EVERYTHING that is IE is still there when you "uninstall" it. The IE application is just a wrapper for the API's, it's most definately NOT a seperate app.
hint_54 wrote: Yes, I know that. Still, that only means that Explorer is able to use some internet protocols. Nothing else.
Wanna bet?? Explorer is just another wrapper, using a customized browser window. Why aon earth would you build an HTML rendering engire into Explorer when "IE" already supplies it? Try again...
6) GeForce 6600. No problems...
I still don't see what all the fuss is about. There is still NOTHING here that is that aggravating.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
-- modified at 15:34 Tuesday 31st January, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
1) Allright, bad example.
1.1) Please, reread my post, because I never said that those messages are being GENERATED by the SO but that they are being HANDLED by the OS. Else, check this link: http://www.winbookcorp.com/_technote/WBTA20000902.htm. I consider it as a prove that the OS is handling those messages. Remember, you said this "You can't disable the messages unless the applications your installed that put those icons there expose some option to turn them off."
2) Right once again. You'r winning! lool
3) I think we're both on thin ice here. We would have to try it with a previous OS to see if the same happens, if it doesn't you win, if it does, one point for me. For now let us consider it a draw.
5) Then why is it avaiable for uninstalling on the add/remove windows components list? If everything is still there then it shouldn't be on that list. Please note: you are probably right on what you are saying (actually I DO think you are) but still, if I have uninstaled IE (ok, ok... almost)then Firefox should be the ONLY browser that my system should use when trying to access an outside address, and that does not happen!
6) Have tryed it? That's strange then. I have tryed it with 3 different machines (my 7800GTX, a Radeon 9200SE and a Radeon 9600) all the 3 had the same problem (and yes, the drivers are ok). The only connection I can think off is the fact that the OS (Windows XP Pro) is in Portuguese on all of them (probably, it has nothing to do with it, but if you guys don't have the same problem...)
Still, I think that no matter what (OS's fault or not) there are a lot of things on XP that do need improvements (dah! I guess that even Microsoft will think that). I just wanted to point out a few.
Regards
hint_54
|
|
|
|
|
Down to the bottom line... If you want a perfect OS, start writing it. If you pull it off, you'd be the first in the world to do so. Of course, other people that use it would probably say it has flaws too!  Vista will undoubtedly fail to meet your standards, as well as it's successors. But, as professionals, we learn to accept what we're given for tools and make the best of them. We even write our little extensions to them to improve them ourselves, but in the end, no OS is going to be perfect for everyone who uses it.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
I think that you are misjudging me.
I don't think that XP is a bad OS, actually I think it's great (otherwise I wound't use it!).
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Vista will undoubtedly fail to meet your standards, as well as it's successors.
You don't even know my standards!
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: But, as professionals, we learn to accept what we're given for tools and make the best of them.
Not kite. I can't say that I accept what is being given to me, I choose XP for several reasons, not just "acceptance". Don't you think that the ones using Linux or Max OS (or any other) think the same way? Different OSs offer different functionality, you are to choose. Off course "the perfect OS" does not exist (probably, never will), but, as a user, I think I have the right and the duty to claim "Something is wrong! I don't like or it doesn't work well." with the OS I have chosen. Otherwise OSs would improve a lot slower.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: We even write our little extensions to them to improve them ourselves, but in the end, no OS is going to be perfect for everyone who uses it.
Not XP nor any other. But by pointing out some flaws we can help making it better.
hint_54
|
|
|
|
|
hint_54 wrote: You don't even know my standards!
No, I don't. But you've given us quite the insight into how stringent your standards are.
hint_54 wrote: Don't you think that the ones using Linux or Max OS (or any other) think the same way? Different OSs offer different functionality, you are to choose.
No, I don't get to choose. In most companies, the choice is made for me. I just have to deal with it.
hint_54 wrote: Not XP nor any other. But by pointing out some flaws we can help making it better
You've picked the wrong forum to post your gripes in. You're preaching to the chior here. If you wanted to make the OS better, send the feedback to Microsoft.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: No, I don't. But you've given us quite the insight into how stringent your standards are.
No, I haven't. I've only pointed a few things out. I'm not saying XP sucks because of those... Actually, the "problems" i've pointed out are very superfluous and futile, I could have pointed some others, but I do like XP and can't see anything serious to point out but only a few small things.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: No, I don't get to choose. In most companies, the choice is made for me. I just have to deal with it.
I meant personal usage. Use the same OS at home? Right now I use XP only, but I've had dual boot before.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: You've picked the wrong forum to post your gripes in
Isn't this forum about OSs and SysAdmin? I'm talking about an OS. Why is it not allowed to talk about this kind of stuff here?
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: If you wanted to make the OS better, send the feedback to Microsoft.
Yeah.. Dream on! Why should they even read it? And else, there are (only) coders on this community, why shouldn't those (us all) improve the OS in such a maner?
I can tell that you are being very inflexible with this and defending XP at all cost. Just notice XP is not being attacked.
regards
hint_54
|
|
|
|
|
hint_54 wrote: I'm not saying XP sucks
Remember your subject line for these posts??? Or did I miss something? By using that line, you implied that you didn't like XP for such-and-such reasons.
hint_54 wrote: Actually, the "problems" i've pointed out are very superfluous and futile
If they're so superfluous, why bitch about them here?
hint_54 wrote: Isn't this forum about OSs and SysAdmin? I'm talking about an OS.
I didn't say that. I said this wasn't the forum to post your gripes about thing you want improved. Microsoft has their own forums and channels for that.
hint_54 wrote: Yeah.. Dream on! Why should they even read it?
Actually, MS does listen. It just takes a while for anything to happen because it has to fit into the grander scheme of things.
hint_54 wrote: why shouldn't those (us all) improve the OS in such a maner?
Didn't I just say that a little while back?? "We even write our little extensions to them to improve them ourselves"...
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Remember your subject line for these posts??? Or did I miss something? By using that line, you implied that you didn't like XP for such-and-such reasons.
Yes, I do remember. But that only means I don't like a few things on XP and I gave some examples. That doesn't mean I don't like it as a whole.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
If they're so superfluous, why bitch about them here?
For as minor as they can be, it's always worthwhile to mention them. For instance, I've learned that XP is actually more dependent on DOS then what I though (that "aux", "ltp1" thing). As I believe that Microsoft has announced before, XP was supposed to be more independent from DOS. But I understand it is for compatibility. Another example could be that Windows Audio thing: I saw it on a magazine, so Magazines talk about this!
I agree with the rest.
Regards.
hint_54
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: 1) You can't disable the messages unless the applications your installed that put those icons there expose some option to turn them off. Consult the application's documentation. Not XP's fault.
Indeed I was right. Please, see http://www.winbookcorp.com/_technote/WBTA20000902.htm
Regards
hint_54
|
|
|
|
|
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys! Im trying to use a dll in my Project in VB.NET. But the problem is that when i run the program in debug mode, i get an error saying that the source files of the dll are not present in the path where they were when the dll was created. How do i rectify this error. It asks me for the new path which i have to give everytime i debug my Program. Please tell me how i can change the source file path of the dll to the path where i have the source files. Thanx. Waiting for an Answer Soon. Bye!!
Devraj Raut!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Remove DLL or your "dll source" from reference, and add your "dll source".
I hope this works.
|
|
|
|
|
I made the mistake of installing MS DirectX 9 on a laptop whose video drivers do not support it (an HP Pavilion ze4420us). The result was BSODs at 20-minute
intervals, under Win2K Pro SP4. There appears to be no backout or uninstall for DirectX; when I try to reinstall DirectX 8.1, the installer reports success very quickly but doesn't actually change anything. I've had to turn off hardware accelleration entirely, and as a result cannot play DVDs any more...
Any ideas about hoe to downgrade DirectX? Any registry hacks to allow the reinstall of the earlier version? TIA!!!
--Jeremy H. Griffith <jeremy@omsys.com>
|
|
|
|
|
DirectX has no installation and cannot be downgraded using an older installation. There are 3rd party tools out there that can remove DirectX entirely, but I've never used them so I can't make a recommendation. You'll just have to Google for "remove DirectX" yourself and see what's got some good reviews.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
I had a simular problem with DirectX 9 with nvidia on older video cards. When i click run and tpyed DxDiag->Display->Test Direct 3D. Then my screen goes black and reset. But i have found a solution. I instaleld an older video drivers from nvidia and it worked normal with DirectX 9
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to ask if anyone knows a workaround to our problem. The problem is bad performance due to a problem with Opportunistic Locking in some Windows versions, and is documented in this knowledge base article:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=306981
Whilst not on the list, we verified that this problem persists on Windows 2000 Server SP4 as well.
The problem is that our ISAM database driver uses LockFileEx to lock parts of the database index files, which in effect will mark this file as "non-oplockable" as soon as the first concurrent access occurs. I understand that this LockFileEx call is probably unavoidable because the files are opened in shared mode to allow write access for concurrent clients to the same database.
We are already trying to get our hands on an improved ISAM database driver, but if LockFileEx is unavoidable this would provide no benefit for us. Accessing the database files locally is also out of question, unfortunately.
Are there any fixes or workarounds to this problem? Do you know any Microsoft Windows Server versions which aren't affected?
Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
There's no "fix" for this and only your testing on each version of the server is going to find any possible versions that are not affected. Also, your ISAM driver could render the results of this testing invalid.
I personally never use shared access to files. It's way too flaky and entirely dependent on the server's file system and network clients working perfectly (yeah, right! ). This can change from file server vendor to vendor (Novell Netware, Unix, Samba, Windows Networking, ...). Completely unsupportable...
If shared data is behind the application, I always go with SQL Server. It's simply the right tool for the job!
Now, I also realize that it's a very LARGE tool and is overkill for some applications. You CAN get away with a kind of file-sharing, without sharing the file. I've done this once before, by using a server-side singleton object that wraps the access to the file and maintains the database for the applications. This class library exposes methods that the clients call to get and set the data that they need while completely insulating the clients from the database.
The really nice part about this is that you can have multiple application types (Windows Forms, ASP.NET Web Apps, and mobile devices) all using the same database wrapper at the same time without knowning a damn thing about the database itself and without re-writing the datbase code for each platform!
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
How to set a program to autostart at the start up of Windows XP?
thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
There are many way to do it such as:
- Copy the shortcur of your program and place it in the start up folder.
- Use Scheduled Tasks to schedule your application to start while you log on to the system.
- Define logon script in group policies (wink2/xp) to start an application.
- Design an application as windows services (win2k/xp).
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
