New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:426 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

> I started learning this truth during the OS/2 switchover from Microsoft
> code over to IBM code. As many recall OS/2 v1.xx was all Microsoft code.
> OS/2 v2 was almost all Microsoft code too. Then Microsoft and IBM parted
> company. And IBM was left with OS/2 v1 and v2 code and Microsoft's OS/2
> v3 code stayed with Microsoft.

> And Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code turned into
> Microsoft's Windows NT.

Well, no. They started again...with a new architect.

> IBM tried to make their own OS/2 v3 and it was a real disaster. They
> really tried to rewrite OS/2 with all of their own code.

No, they never trioed to rewrite it. They added their own user interface
(which was good) and they tuned it to run on cheaper hardware. But there
was never a rewrite. Most of the code was the same model until the end.

> And every OS/2
> update that IBM put out was called fixpacs.

There were equal number of fixpacks for version 1.

> And every fixpac just made
> things worse and worse and at some point they had to plug in the
> Microsoft code back in to make it work again. What a mess!

Complete fabrication.

> I gave up with OS/2 and IBM after OS/2 v3 ordeal and the dozens of
> fixpacs that didn't work right.

v3 always worked smoothly for me, on varied hardware. v2 was iffy until
they got the Microsoft bugs out.

> I hear tell that IBM did finally got it
> right later with v4 and I think there was a v5 too.

There was no version 5. It stopped at 4.5.

> But IBM had lost a
> majority of OS/2 users by this point that most left for something else
> that worked.

Nothing at all to do with the fact that Microsoft told every hardware
manufacturer that, if they bundled OS/2 with just one machine, they'd
have to pay much more for Windows?

I don't have problem with Windows updates. They just work. When I have to
use Windows, which I admit isn't a lot.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

 

[dennis@home]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:hqfaeg$bqk$1@news.eternal-september.org...


> Really? Windows 7 froze up whenever I placed my favorite BattStat v0.98
> utility in the startup with UAC enabled. I had to tell it always it was
> okay to run every time I booted the machine. This is totally unnecessary.

That is true, if battstat was well written it wouldn't need to.
A lot of badly written apps fall foul of UAC but not the ones that followed
the guidelines.
I blame the programmers not M$ for tightening up the security.

 

[BillW50]

In news:83180qFe1qU8@mid.individual.net,
Bob Eager typed on 18 Apr 2010 20:22:50 GMT:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:426 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> I started learning this truth during the OS/2 switchover from
>> Microsoft code over to IBM code. As many recall OS/2 v1.xx was all
>> Microsoft code. OS/2 v2 was almost all Microsoft code too. Then
>> Microsoft and IBM parted company. And IBM was left with OS/2 v1 and
>> v2 code and Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code stayed with Microsoft.
>
>> And Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code turned into
>> Microsoft's Windows NT.
>
> Well, no. They started again...with a new architect.

That isn't what I heard. As Microsoft wanted OS/2 v3 to be Windows
compatable and IBM was totally against that idea. Microsoft's OS/2 v3
wasn't finished or anything. And it became clear to Microsoft that IBM
wanted to own everything. As IBM didn't want to make the same mistake
with PC-DOS vs. MS-DOS ever again.

So Bill Gates knew if Microsoft was to survive, that IBM and Microsoft
had to part company. And I am sure Microsoft made a lot of changes to NT
(aka OS/2 v3) that they wouldn't have otherwise. But deep down it was
based on Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code I was told even by IBM insiders. Who
by the way saw some of the source code.

>> IBM tried to make their own OS/2 v3 and it was a real disaster. They
>> really tried to rewrite OS/2 with all of their own code.
>
> No, they never trioed to rewrite it. They added their own user
> interface (which was good)

What new interface? I used the last version of OS/2 v2 a lot (I dunno,
was it OS/2 v2.11?). And yes OS/2 v3 (aka Warp) the interface changed. I
don't know if I would call it good or not. But it wasn't a big change
per se. Sort of like between Windows 2000 and XP are different I would
say. And like the difference between Windows 2000 and XP, OS/2 v2 and
v3, the core was mostly the same.

> and they tuned it to run on cheaper hardware.

Whoa! I didn't see this at all. As OS/2 v2 would run on almost anything.
Well a 386 or better I think. And OS/2 v3 (aka Warp) required something
like a Pentium (aka 586).

> But there was never a rewrite. Most of the code was the
> same model until the end.

I was a beta tester for OS/2 v3 for one. And second of all I had lots of
insider talks with IBM programmers. And they wanted for some reason (I
think because they had to pay Microsoft a fee for every copy of OS/2
with Microsoft code in it) and to get rid of all Microsoft code. This
was a big priority for them. And it was easy with a simple text editor
to read any file to find Microsoft copywrites in plain ASCII in many
OS/2 v3 files.

>> And every OS/2
>> update that IBM put out was called fixpacs.
>
> There were equal number of fixpacks for version 1.

I am clueless about running OS/2 v1, so you got me there. OS/2 v2 didn't
go too high from what I remember. But OS/2 v3 was over 35 plus fixpacs
and I lost count after that. And IBM spelled it Fixpac and not Fixpacks,
btw. Oops! Even I got it wrong. It was spelled Fixpak now that I think
about it.

>> And every fixpac just made
>> things worse and worse and at some point they had to plug in the
>> Microsoft code back in to make it work again. What a mess!
>
> Complete fabrication.

Really? I was in direct contact with IBM programmers and giving them a
hard time about all of this. It is funny before OS/2 Warp (aka OS/2 v3)
release. We beta testers had two versions to test and it was going
perfectly. It was really solid and I liked it a lot. Then unknown to
many of us beta testers, a tiny group of others got a third version. I
don't know who these people were, but IBM got a green light from them
and they released OS/2 Warp (aka v3). What a disaster! The biggest
difference between the second and third beta copies were IBM rewrote
many of the drivers. And this was the released version which many of us
beta testers couldn't ever get the dang thing to install. What was IBM
thinking?

>> I gave up with OS/2 and IBM after OS/2 v3 ordeal and the dozens of
>> fixpacs that didn't work right.
>
> v3 always worked smoothly for me, on varied hardware. v2 was iffy
> until they got the Microsoft bugs out.

I dunno somewhere around fixpak 40 something, OS/2 v3 did start to come
around. And OS/2 v3 the last version wasn't too bad from what I recall.
Far better then the early OS/2 v3 versions anyway.

>> I hear tell that IBM did finally got it
>> right later with v4 and I think there was a v5 too.
>
> There was no version 5. It stopped at 4.5.

Are you sure? As I heard it stopped at v4 for consumers, but for some
commercial customers actually got v5. Of course we OS/2 users were
promised that IBM would never abandon OS/2 users and keep supporting it
forever. Well that all changed when they were losing money from OS/2 (I
not not sure if they ever made any money from OS/2 to be honest) and we
see how well IBM promises are.

>> But IBM had lost a
>> majority of OS/2 users by this point that most left for something
>> else that worked.
>
> Nothing at all to do with the fact that Microsoft told every hardware
> manufacturer that, if they bundled OS/2 with just one machine, they'd
> have to pay much more for Windows?

And nothing to do with the fact that IBM said internally that IBM will
never sell any IBM machine with Windows anymore (this has been verified)
eh? You don't understand, this means IBM declared war with Microsoft.
And in war, all is fair. And Microsoft easily won once IBM customers
started to drop off in droves because IBM machines didn't offer Windows
and they didn't want that OS/2 crap. At the time IMHO, OS/2 didn't hit
crap status yet, but the majority of the people had voted with their
pocketbooks nevertheless.

> I don't have problem with Windows updates. They just work. When I
> have to use Windows, which I admit isn't a lot.

It depends on many factors. Odd third party drivers for one plays a big
part. Cheap inexpensive computer manufactures taking shortcuts are
another. I too on some computers things went very smoothly. But for some
others, not so well.

The jump to Windows XP SP2 upgrade was the worst for me. I updated 4 or
5 computers and yes they worked per se. But the performance went down
the tubes. I was a big believer that SP2 was just trash until I learned
that if you grabbed a Windows XP SP2 install disc, everything works just
fine. So a clean install of XP SP2 works really nicely. Some people
swear that they had no problems with upgrading to SP2. And I don't doubt
them at all. But some of us really did have tons of problems with the
upgrade too.

I really believe that Microsoft does learn from mistakes they made from
the past. At least the ones that really mattered. And that was the last
time I had seen Microsoft make a really bad mistake (although Vista some
feels was another one, but I don't think it was that bad as what I
mentioned). The two ones before that was Microsoft Bob and Windows ME.
Otherwise they seem to know how far they can push it without losing too
many customers.

Btw, Windows ME from all I have heard... half loved it and half hated
it. And I don't doubt for a second that it worked well for half of the
users (I almost got Windows ME working pretty well myself - although
that means if you got it working well, don't mess with it!). Although
working well for 50% IMHO is still a pretty sad number. So I have no
problems as rating it one of the worst that Microsoft OS had ever
produced. And as for MS Bob... did anybody like that one? Personally I
have never heard from one single individual that did. But I am sure
there must be one out there that did. Pretty sad, eh? Version 1 of MS
Bob and that was the end of the line. <wink>

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:08:25 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

>>> And Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code turned into Microsoft's Windows NT.
>>
>> Well, no. They started again...with a new architect.
>
> That isn't what I heard.

They employed Dave Cutler, from DEC. NT was really 'son of VMS'. And
that's obvious if you look at the internals. And I have seen the source
code. There is nothing much in common with OS/2 v2.

>>> IBM tried to make their own OS/2 v3 and it was a real disaster. They
>>> really tried to rewrite OS/2 with all of their own code.
>>
>> No, they never trioed to rewrite it. They added their own user
>> interface (which was good)
>
> What new interface?

In OS/2 v2. The Workplace Shell was *entirely* IBM's, and the reason OS/2
v2 from IBM was delayed about a year.

>> and they tuned it to run on cheaper hardware.
>
> Whoa! I didn't see this at all. As OS/2 v2 would run on almost anything.
> Well a 386 or better I think. And OS/2 v3 (aka Warp) required something
> like a Pentium (aka 586).

I don't know what you were trying to do. But OS/2 v3 was a LOT leaner
than v2. In the same way that 1.3 (IBM only) was an improvement on v2.

> I was a beta tester for OS/2 v3 for one. And second of all I had lots of
> insider talks with IBM programmers. And they wanted for some reason (I
> think because they had to pay Microsoft a fee for every copy of OS/2
> with Microsoft code in it) and to get rid of all Microsoft code. This
> was a big priority for them. And it was easy with a simple text editor
> to read any file to find Microsoft copywrites in plain ASCII in many
> OS/2 v3 files.

Of course. And they *never* got rid of the MS code, right to the end.

>> There were equal number of fixpacks for version 1.
>
> I am clueless about running OS/2 v1, so you got me there. OS/2 v2 didn't
> go too high from what I remember. But OS/2 v3 was over 35 plus fixpacs
> and I lost count after that. And IBM spelled it Fixpac and not Fixpacks,
> btw. Oops! Even I got it wrong. It was spelled Fixpak now that I think
> about it.

It changed over time...Fixpack and Fixpak. But never Fixpac!

>
>>> And every fixpac just made
>>> things worse and worse and at some point they had to plug in the
>>> Microsoft code back in to make it work again. What a mess!
>>
>> Complete fabrication.
>
> Really? I was in direct contact with IBM programmers and giving them a
> hard time about all of this. It is funny before OS/2 Warp (aka OS/2 v3)
> release. We beta testers had two versions to test and it was going
> perfectly. It was really solid and I liked it a lot. Then unknown to
> many of us beta testers, a tiny group of others got a third version. I
> don't know who these people were, but IBM got a green light from them
> and they released OS/2 Warp (aka v3). What a disaster! The biggest
> difference between the second and third beta copies were IBM rewrote
> many of the drivers. And this was the released version which many of us
> beta testers couldn't ever get the dang thing to install. What was IBM
> thinking?
>
>>> I gave up with OS/2 and IBM after OS/2 v3 ordeal and the dozens of
>>> fixpacs that didn't work right.
>>
>> v3 always worked smoothly for me, on varied hardware. v2 was iffy until
>> they got the Microsoft bugs out.
>
> I dunno somewhere around fixpak 40 something, OS/2 v3 did start to come
> around. And OS/2 v3 the last version wasn't too bad from what I recall.
> Far better then the early OS/2 v3 versions anyway.

I sdon't know why you seem to have had so much trouble, I really don't.
It just ran for me, no problem.

>> There was no version 5. It stopped at 4.5.
>
> Are you sure? As I heard it stopped at v4 for consumers, but for some
> commercial customers actually got v5.

I had a commecrcial maintenance contract, and was also in contact with
many users. 4.5 (well, the 4.52 update) was the last release. Yes, big
boys could continue maintenance for a very high price.

>> Nothing at all to do with the fact that Microsoft told every hardware
>> manufacturer that, if they bundled OS/2 with just one machine, they'd
>> have to pay much more for Windows?
>
> And nothing to do with the fact that IBM said internally that IBM will
> never sell any IBM machine with Windows anymore (this has been verified)
> eh? You don't understand, this means IBM declared war with Microsoft.
> And in war, all is fair. And Microsoft easily won once IBM customers
> started to drop off in droves because IBM machines didn't offer Windows
> and they didn't want that OS/2 crap. At the time IMHO, OS/2 didn't hit
> crap status yet, but the majority of the people had voted with their
> pocketbooks nevertheless.
>
>> I don't have problem with Windows updates. They just work. When I have
>> to use Windows, which I admit isn't a lot.
>
> It depends on many factors. Odd third party drivers for one plays a big
> part. Cheap inexpensive computer manufactures taking shortcuts are
> another. I too on some computers things went very smoothly. But for some
> others, not so well.

Well, I don't use cheap hardware, never have. My machines run until they
get too old to run the code.

I principally use BSD now, and that's good because I've used it for 33
years now!
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

 

[John Doue]

On 4/18/2010 3:43 PM, BillW50 wrote:
> In news:hqeoa5$nk0$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> BillW50 typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:525 -0500:
> [...]
>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the
>> Internet. The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.
>
> I am referring to KB971033. Lauren Weinstein's Blog write a great
> article about this update which can be found here.
>
> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html
>
> Who controls and owns your Windows 7 OS? Microsoft does.
>
> Sorry... but I don't have a fetish for allowing Microsoft to play games
> with my OS. Maybe it is fine for the rest of you, but I am not
> interested. I played those games back in the 80's with GeoWorks. And
> those games cost me over $1000. And for what? Anybody using GeoWorks
> today? I hope they used my money wisely and enjoyed cruising around in
> their yachts.
>

Thanks Bill for this post. Just the last reason I needed to stay away
from W7.

If my numerous XP machines will take me into the next decade (as you
mentionned in another post) depends both on XP and ... destiny, being
68! But I will certainly do my best!

--
John Doue

 

[BillW50]

In news:hqgugc$rnq$1@news.eternal-september.org,
John Doue typed on Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:50:53 +0300:
> On 4/18/2010 3:43 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:hqeoa5$nk0$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> BillW50 typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:525 -0500:
>> [...]
>>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
>>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the
>>> Internet. The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.
>>
>> I am referring to KB971033. Lauren Weinstein's Blog write a great
>> article about this update which can be found here.
>>
>> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html
>>
>> Who controls and owns your Windows 7 OS? Microsoft does.
>>
>> Sorry... but I don't have a fetish for allowing Microsoft to play
>> games with my OS. Maybe it is fine for the rest of you, but I am not
>> interested. I played those games back in the 80's with GeoWorks. And
>> those games cost me over $1000. And for what? Anybody using GeoWorks
>> today? I hope they used my money wisely and enjoyed cruising around
>> in their yachts.
>
> Thanks Bill for this post. Just the last reason I needed to stay away
> from W7.
>
> If my numerous XP machines will take me into the next decade (as you
> mentionned in another post) depends both on XP and ... destiny, being
> 68! But I will certainly do my best!

Hi John... You are quite welcome. We have to look after one another
since nobody else will. And Windows XP is still the most used OS, so I
believe we have lots of time yet. Even at our age.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)

 

[BillW50]

In news:61hms59ulfs9gfpc5mt3gh5pd18qusj1fp@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:49:52 -0700:
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options.
>
> In Vista I use a free program called TweakUAC which says it allows UAC
> to run but in "quiet mode". Having never gotten a virus before or
> after installation I can't say how effective it is in quiet mode, but
> at least it never bugs me much anymore...

Wow, that is very nice.

Here is Apple's commercial about Vista's UAC, remember it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfetbidVUYw

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)

 

[BillW50]

In news:4bcb3be6$0$2533$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk,
Bernard Peek typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:05:42 +0100:
> On 18/04/10 171, Barry Watzman wrote:
>> The problem is that there are a lot of programs (older programs) that
>> will generate UAC prompts every time you start them, and every time
>> you do certain things within them. Even if you are not even
>> connected to the internet. The best solution may be to configure UAC
>> on a program-by-program basis. This actually is possible, but it's
>> not something that MS intended to support, and, consequently, it's
>> not easy or user friendly.
>
> Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to the
> data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may have other
> unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from companies
> like that.

Wow really? Why is the folder called Data if you are not supposed to
store data in them? Is this the same folder as Application Data found in
Windows XP? If so, I have lots of applications that stores stuff in
these folders which are highly respectable programs. Heck I see
Microsoft using the Application Data folder too. That is where the
address book is stored for one.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)

 

[Bernard Peek]

On 19/04/10 19:08, BillW50 wrote:
> In news:4bcb3be6$0$2533$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk,
> Bernard Peek typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:05:42 +0100:
>> On 18/04/10 171, Barry Watzman wrote:
>>> The problem is that there are a lot of programs (older programs) that
>>> will generate UAC prompts every time you start them, and every time
>>> you do certain things within them. Even if you are not even
>>> connected to the internet. The best solution may be to configure UAC
>>> on a program-by-program basis. This actually is possible, but it's
>>> not something that MS intended to support, and, consequently, it's
>>> not easy or user friendly.
>>
>> Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to the
>> data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may have other
>> unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from companies
>> like that.
>
> Wow really? Why is the folder called Data if you are not supposed to
> store data in them?

My mistake. I should have said program folder.




--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

 

[BillW50]

In news:4bcb3a34$0$2533$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk,
Bernard Peek typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:58:28 +0100:
> On 18/04/10 17:03, BillW50 wrote:
>
>>> UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend
>>> disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are
>>> compromised because users do dumb things. If you keep running into
>>> UAC under W7 you should rethink how you are using the computer.
>>> It's a little too aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that.
>>
>> Really? Windows 7 froze up whenever I placed my favorite BattStat
>> v0.98 utility in the startup with UAC enabled. I had to tell it
>> always it was okay to run every time I booted the machine. This is
>> totally unnecessary.
>
> Well yess. You really shouldn't be using programs that trigger UAC.

Really? If it wasn't for BattStat, I wouldn't know the wear percentage
of my batteries, my CPU and HD temps, the amount of watts going in or
out of the battery, etc. Why in the world would I want to stop using
this program for? There is nothing else out there to replace it. That is
like asking somebody to pull out their dash gauges out of their
automobile.

I believe another one that triggers it is my Palm software from '99.
Here is another one that there isn't a replacement for and it works just
fine as is. Why should I stop using it?

And did you know that UAC protection is worthless anyway? All it does is
give somebody a false sense of security anyway. As malware can bypass it
anyway by design.

http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/0...ff-uac-in-windows-7-by-design-says-microsoft/

>> AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. It
>> would be very nice if it allowed some programs a free pass and
>> selectable by the user.
>
> That wouldn't be very nice for the rest of us that have to cope with
> spam sent by compromised systems.

You forget, some of us don't run compromised systems. And we don't need
or want crappy protection that clueless people think they need. As
malware can bypass it anyway. So what is the point?

> There were others programs that UAC complained about too, but
>> BattStat was one that bugged me the most.
>>
>>>>>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
>>>>>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the
>>>>>> Internet.
>>>>>> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.
>>>
>>> That's been true since automated patching was invented.
>>
>> I have some computers that I get almost every update. Although I also
>> have some computers that I never update. And I never had any virus on
>> any of them and I am connected to the Internet all of the time. So I
>> am having some serious concerns whether updates really makes a
>> system more secure or not.
>
> In the Windows world it's possible to check whether a computer has
> been properly patched and deny it access to the network if it fails
> the test. Unfortunately any ISP who tried to do that would go out of
> business.

Why would anybody want that? What's next? Outlaw any computer older than
two years old? I am sure Microsoft would love that one.

>> The biggest threat are newer viruses. And newer viruses like newer
>> applications require the latest patches to work well. So sometimes at
>> least, unpatched older OS can actually be safer IMHO.
>
> You've got that backwards. Viruses are often created by
> reverse-engineering the latest patches, but they then only affect
> unpatched systems. That's why there's a danger period starting about
> two days after a new patch is released. That's why running unpatched
> systems on the Internet is irresponsible and if I was emperor of the
> universe it wouldn't be permitted.

That is the claim, but I find old viruses die off very quickly in the
wild. Even those who don't update their anti-virus stops those.

Look, your anti-virus application monitors every thing that is opened,
coming in from the Internet, etc. So your computer doesn't have all of
the holes plugged, thus who cares? You never have all of the security
holes plugged even if you install every single security update anyway.
As there are always going to be new holes found all of the time. Now and
in the future.

Thus if you have one hole or zillions, your anti-virus will see it
before it gets a chance to install itself and it will stop it right
there. This is what anti-virus real-time scanning programs do. And this
is what these people get paid for. To stop any malware from entering
your system. Just keep it up-to-date and all you have to worry about is
0 day malware. And security patches wouldn't help you there anyway. So
why bother?

>> And no, I disagree that this has been true since auto patching. As so
>> far, Windows XP and Vista doesn't have this WAT piracy checking
>> system which can downgrade your OS at any time of Microsoft choosing.
>
> Microsoft has made that patch optional but there is nothing stopping
> them from dropping that restriction at any time they choose.

I know and that is scary. And who knows what else they have already
installed without our knowledge. I wouldn't doubt for a second that
under the umbrella of national security they already have government
approval to have plenty of backdoors in the OS already.

>> Where
>> Microsoft is the judge and jury. And where you are guilty until you
>> can prove otherwise. And if you can't to Microsoft's liking, you
>> must pay a fee to get your OS back again. And you are not out of the
>> clear either. As Microsoft could downgrade your OS over and over
>> again to collect more fees any time they feel fit.
>
> This is absolutely true. And has been true since automatic patching
> was invented.

There is a way around this. Just don't accept updates. As you don't need
them anyway.

>> Just look at the possibilities here. You could say something bad
>> about Microsoft and they could turn around and target your computer
>> for a downgrade. And charge you a ransom to get your OS up and
>> running once again. You know they will if they knew they could get
>> away with it. And knowing how Microsoft operates, I wouldn't hold it
>> passed them.
>
> They have had the capability to do that for years but have never used
> it. The same is true of the Mac and for those Linux users that can't
> rebuild the kernel from source.

Oh I am sure they have used it. I remember when Microsoft first opened
their knowledgebase back in the 90's. You had to register back then to
get in there. And they asked for my name and address. When I submitted
my information I was shocked at the next screen.

It said are you so and so who works at such and such place. And is your
bosses name so and so and is this your bosses phone number?

Hell what kind of database does Microsoft have there? What else do they
know about me that they didn't tell me? The make and model of my vehicle
and plate number? How much I earn a year? When I leave for work and come
home? Where I shop at? What time I go to bed?

I never ever gave Microsoft any of this information except my name and
address. Why on Earth does Microsoft need to know all of this
information for anyway? And if Microsoft knows it, who else knows all of
this?

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)

 

[Barry Watzman]

In the most common cases, the problem is caused by using software for
older hardware. Two examples, both happen to be scannes, an HP 5490C's
HP Precision Scan Pro, and a Nikon LS-2000's Nikon Scan. There is
nothing wrong with the programs, they were written at a time when the
way that they were written was perfectly fine.

But the only alternative is to replace the HARDWARE.

And that is not feasible.

Nikon has stopped making film scanners, no one else ever made comparable
35mm film scanners, and even the later Nikon scanners that they did make
don't scan 35mm NEGATIVES as well as the LS-2000.

As for the HP scanner (this is a conventional flatbed document scanner
with ADF), I have never found a scanner/software combination as good as
the HP 5470/5490 series and HP Precision Scan Pro [the SOFTWARE base
that HP began using after HP Precision Scan Pro is what I call "toy
scanning software" and is junk].


Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 18/04/10 171, Barry Watzman wrote:
>> The problem is that there are a lot of programs (older programs) that
>> will generate UAC prompts every time you start them, and every time you
>> do certain things within them. Even if you are not even connected to the
>> internet. The best solution may be to configure UAC on a
>> program-by-program basis. This actually is possible, but it's not
>> something that MS intended to support, and, consequently, it's not easy
>> or user friendly.
>
> Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to the
> data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may have other
> unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from companies like
> that.
>
>

 

[Barry Watzman]

Re: "Of course, I better make a backup of this on my hard drive just in
case those brain cells start to misbehave. "

Bill, the misbehaving started long, long ago.




BillW50 wrote:
> In news:hqfc83$f1u$3@news.eternal-september.org,
> Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 123:06 -0400:
>> See my previous post. It is possible to configure UAC on a
>> program-by-program basis, but it's not user friendly. A web search
>> will find instructions for doing so. Be prepared to do a lot of
>> things manually.
>
> Okay. I filed it away in my brain cells in case I ever need it in the
> future and it is good to know that this can be done. Of course, I better
> make a backup of this on my hard drive just in case those brain cells
> start to misbehave.
>

 

[Barry Watzman]

The reality is that you WILL lose.

If you update all the time, a few updates will bite you.

If you don't use automatic update, you will miss an update whose absence
will bite you.

The system is rigged; we [users] lose. Either way.

But, overall, for most people, doing all "CRITICAL" updates (e.g. auto
update on ... which ONLY installs CRITICAL updates automatically) is the
better course.

[In large part because for most real-world people, anything other than
"auto updates" becomes, in reality, almost no updates at all, almost never.]



BillW50 wrote:
> In news:hqfcai$f1u$4@news.eternal-september.org,
> Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 124:25 -0400:
>> When the problem is a "security hole", the "brokenness" may not be
>> obvious.
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> I personally believe in the old saying, don't fix something that
>>> ain't broke. So while I am in the minority, I believe in time more
>>> and more will also be convinced that OS updates are not necessary a
>>> good thing to blindly always do.
>
> Yes I admit on paper it looks good to update all of the time. Although
> in practice, it looks far better avoiding updates.
>

 

[BillW50]

In news:4bcc9f03$0$2525$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk,
Bernard Peek typed on Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:20:51 +0100:
> On 19/04/10 19:08, BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:4bcb3be6$0$2533$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk,
>> Bernard Peek typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:05:42 +0100:
>>> On 18/04/10 171, Barry Watzman wrote:
>>>> The problem is that there are a lot of programs (older programs)
>>>> that will generate UAC prompts every time you start them, and
>>>> every time you do certain things within them. Even if you are not
>>>> even connected to the internet. The best solution may be to
>>>> configure UAC on a program-by-program basis. This actually is
>>>> possible, but it's not something that MS intended to support, and,
>>>> consequently, it's not easy or user friendly.
>>>
>>> Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to
>>> the data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may
>>> have other unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from
>>> companies like that.
>>
>> Wow really? Why is the folder called Data if you are not supposed to
>> store data in them?
>
> My mistake. I should have said program folder.

Heck lots of applications write in the Program Folder. Off of the top of
my head, instant messengers (which stores the chat logs there),
anti-virus software (which updates the virus database there), Microsoft
Office (which stores saved templates there), Faststone Capture (stores
saved screen shots there), etc.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)

 

[BillW50]

In news:8329veFe1qU11@mid.individual.net,
Bob Eager typed on 19 Apr 2010 06:02:22 GMT:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:08:25 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>
>>>> And Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code turned into Microsoft's Windows NT.
>>>
>>> Well, no. They started again...with a new architect.
>>
>> That isn't what I heard.
>
> They employed Dave Cutler, from DEC. NT was really 'son of VMS'. And
> that's obvious if you look at the internals. And I have seen the
> source code. There is nothing much in common with OS/2 v2.

Oh okay that is good to know. How close was DEC RT-11 compared to VMS?

>>>> IBM tried to make their own OS/2 v3 and it was a real disaster.
>>>> They really tried to rewrite OS/2 with all of their own code.
>>>
>>> No, they never trioed to rewrite it. They added their own user
>>> interface (which was good)
>>
>> What new interface?
>
> In OS/2 v2. The Workplace Shell was *entirely* IBM's, and the reason
> OS/2 v2 from IBM was delayed about a year.

Oh okay.

>>> and they tuned it to run on cheaper hardware.
>>
>> Whoa! I didn't see this at all. As OS/2 v2 would run on almost
>> anything. Well a 386 or better I think. And OS/2 v3 (aka Warp)
>> required something like a Pentium (aka 586).
>
> I don't know what you were trying to do. But OS/2 v3 was a LOT leaner
> than v2. In the same way that 1.3 (IBM only) was an improvement on v2.

Oh okay. I remember it just the opposite. Btw, my OS/2 Warp won't
install on anything with a drive larger than 512MB I think it was. As it
reports the drive is too small. Great IBM quality, eh?

>> I was a beta tester for OS/2 v3 for one. And second of all I had
>> lots of insider talks with IBM programmers. And they wanted for some
>> reason (I think because they had to pay Microsoft a fee for every
>> copy of OS/2 with Microsoft code in it) and to get rid of all
>> Microsoft code. This was a big priority for them. And it was easy
>> with a simple text editor to read any file to find Microsoft
>> copywrites in plain ASCII in many OS/2 v3 files.
>
> Of course. And they *never* got rid of the MS code, right to the end.

Oh okay. No wonder they killed it. Sounds like they where just paying
Microsoft for every copy they sold anyway. I remember Microsoft taking
IBM to court. Because IBM told MS that they only sold some low amount of
OS/2 copies. But bragging elsewhere they sold a much larger amount. And
I guess the real truth never came out in court. But IBM ended paying the
difference to MS anyway.

>>> There were equal number of fixpacks for version 1.
>>
>> I am clueless about running OS/2 v1, so you got me there. OS/2 v2
>> didn't go too high from what I remember. But OS/2 v3 was over 35
>> plus fixpacs and I lost count after that. And IBM spelled it Fixpac
>> and not Fixpacks, btw. Oops! Even I got it wrong. It was spelled
>> Fixpak now that I think about it.
>
> It changed over time...Fixpack and Fixpak. But never Fixpac!

Well I remember just FixPak. Could have been since OS/2 Warp.

>>>> And every fixpac just made
>>>> things worse and worse and at some point they had to plug in the
>>>> Microsoft code back in to make it work again. What a mess!
>>>
>>> Complete fabrication.
>>
>> Really? I was in direct contact with IBM programmers and giving them
>> a hard time about all of this. It is funny before OS/2 Warp (aka
>> OS/2 v3) release. We beta testers had two versions to test and it
>> was going perfectly. It was really solid and I liked it a lot. Then
>> unknown to many of us beta testers, a tiny group of others got a
>> third version. I don't know who these people were, but IBM got a
>> green light from them and they released OS/2 Warp (aka v3). What a
>> disaster! The biggest difference between the second and third beta
>> copies were IBM rewrote many of the drivers. And this was the
>> released version which many of us beta testers couldn't ever get the
>> dang thing to install. What was IBM thinking?
>>
>>>> I gave up with OS/2 and IBM after OS/2 v3 ordeal and the dozens of
>>>> fixpacs that didn't work right.
>>>
>>> v3 always worked smoothly for me, on varied hardware. v2 was iffy
>>> until they got the Microsoft bugs out.
>>
>> I dunno somewhere around fixpak 40 something, OS/2 v3 did start to
>> come around. And OS/2 v3 the last version wasn't too bad from what I
>> recall. Far better then the early OS/2 v3 versions anyway.
>
> I sdon't know why you seem to have had so much trouble, I really
> don't. It just ran for me, no problem.

OS/2 had lots of driver issues. Some worked and some didn't. I had to
use some of the drivers from the beta copies to get OS/2 up and running.
I also remember OS/2 being really picky about the timing of the RAM. So
some RAM would work and some wouldn't. The same RAM that wouldn't ran
fine under Windows.

>>> There was no version 5. It stopped at 4.5.
>>
>> Are you sure? As I heard it stopped at v4 for consumers, but for some
>> commercial customers actually got v5.
>
> I had a commecrcial maintenance contract, and was also in contact with
> many users. 4.5 (well, the 4.52 update) was the last release. Yes, big
> boys could continue maintenance for a very high price.
>
>>> Nothing at all to do with the fact that Microsoft told every
>>> hardware manufacturer that, if they bundled OS/2 with just one
>>> machine, they'd have to pay much more for Windows?
>>
>> And nothing to do with the fact that IBM said internally that IBM
>> will never sell any IBM machine with Windows anymore (this has been
>> verified) eh? You don't understand, this means IBM declared war with
>> Microsoft. And in war, all is fair. And Microsoft easily won once
>> IBM customers started to drop off in droves because IBM machines
>> didn't offer Windows and they didn't want that OS/2 crap. At the
>> time IMHO, OS/2 didn't hit crap status yet, but the majority of the
>> people had voted with their pocketbooks nevertheless.
>>
>>> I don't have problem with Windows updates. They just work. When I
>>> have to use Windows, which I admit isn't a lot.
>>
>> It depends on many factors. Odd third party drivers for one plays a
>> big part. Cheap inexpensive computer manufactures taking shortcuts
>> are another. I too on some computers things went very smoothly. But
>> for some others, not so well.
>
> Well, I don't use cheap hardware, never have. My machines run until
> they get too old to run the code.

Lots of cheap hardware keeps on running 20+ years believe it or not. I
still have lots of them from the 80's still running just fine. These
cheap netbooks for example, costing about $200, I am expecting they will
keep running for the next 20 years too.

> I principally use BSD now, and that's good because I've used it for 33
> years now!

Well that is good to hear.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)

 

[AJL]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>Here is Apple's commercial about Vista's UAC, remember it?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfetbidVUYw

I hadn't seen that commercial before. Very clever. But not clever
enough to get me to buy one of Apple's overpriced laptops. Not that
they care though. When I was recently by the local mall's Apple store
(Phoenix area) it was jam packed...

 

[Happy Oyster]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:44:18 -0700, AJL <8239@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

>"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>>Here is Apple's commercial about Vista's UAC, remember it?
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfetbidVUYw
>
>I hadn't seen that commercial before. Very clever. But not clever
>enough to get me to buy one of Apple's overpriced laptops. Not that
>they care though. When I was recently by the local mall's Apple store
>(Phoenix area) it was jam packed...

Since I for the first time had to deal with Apple material I was again and again
confronted with badly designed toy stuff. If there is something I will never
buy, then it is from Apple.
--
Die volle Härte: http://www.kindersprechstunde.at
***************************************************************
Die Medienmafia » Die Regividerm-Verschwörung
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/showtopic.php?threadid=5710

 

[Bob Eager]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 177:21 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

> Oh okay that is good to know. How close was DEC RT-11 compared to VMS?

Nothing like it at all. I once had the RT-11 source code, and brought a
system up from scrtafch using just that.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

 

[BillW50]

In news:hqic3j$25a$1@news.eternal-september.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:49:02 -0400:
> The reality is that you WILL lose.

You say so, but facts are facts. I know a few people personally who
doesn't grab security updates for their computers. No downside for them
for many years now. Most stopped because they had been burned when a
security update messing something up.

> If you update all the time, a few updates will bite you.

Why take the chance?

> If you don't use automatic update, you will miss an update whose
> absence will bite you.

That is what most experts will claim. But facts are facts and many
actually don't use security updates and things are fine. I have never
heard anybody on the Internet complaining that they forgot to get a
security update and now they are infected. At least those with updated
anti-virus software anyway.

> The system is rigged; we [users] lose. Either way.
>
> But, overall, for most people, doing all "CRITICAL" updates (e.g. auto
> update on ... which ONLY installs CRITICAL updates automatically) is
> the better course.
>
> [In large part because for most real-world people, anything other than
> "auto updates" becomes, in reality, almost no updates at all, almost
> never.]

First of all. Here is what works for me for security.

1) One really needs a stealth firewall. That keeps hackers on the
Internet from knowing that your computer is even connected. The Windows
XP one is one of these.

2) Use a good anti-virus program. Having a good one will block anything
trying to make its way through any port, security hole in the OS, or
from any other source your computer is connected too.

Since you have the firewall and anti-virus watching your back, your OS
could be littered with security holes and what would it matter? As they
still can't get through to infect your system anyway.

Plugging security holes is only important if you want to use your
computer without any firewall and anti-virus checker. Now and only now
it matters a lot. But that wouldn't be such a hot idea anyway now would
it?

I actually tried this once as a test. Installed the original Windows
2000 release, no firewall, no anti-virus, nor any updates back in 2002.
Although I had it networked to another computer and that one was setup
to scan the unprotected one. And that was very interesting. Two servers
slipped two viruses on the computer within 90 seconds and I didn't even
access any of those servers. Those bots finds unprotected computers
really fast. Pretty clever! But not clever enough to fool me. lol

Just think, there are tons of people running older unsupported Windows
OS that hasn't seen a security update in many years. Yet these people
are not getting infected with viruses now are they? There is a good
reason why not.

And I have been using this one as a test bench and I quit all updates
since last May. Works just like it always have and I haven't had one
single problem. And I quit updates on my other computers for a couple of
months now and they too are fine.

Remember too, there are always security holes in virtually any OS. And
they seem to be never ending and you will never plug them all anyway. So
you should never trust plugging any of them will really help anything.
Because security updates only help on computers without real-time
scanning anti-virus software. And even then viruses can still get
through anyway. So what's the point?

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)

 

[tony sayer]

>I actually tried this once as a test. Installed the original Windows
>2000 release, no firewall, no anti-virus, nor any updates back in 2002.
>Although I had it networked to another computer and that one was setup
>to scan the unprotected one. And that was very interesting. Two servers
>slipped two viruses on the computer within 90 seconds and I didn't even
>access any of those servers. Those bots finds unprotected computers
>really fast. Pretty clever! But not clever enough to fool me. lol

Was this -directly- connected to the net, or via a ADSL/Router NAT unit
like a lot of people now use?..
--
Tony Sayer