In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:02:16 +0000
<1524907.UW8eZdgmSh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Why windows why??
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Why does windows make it so difficult to transfer settings?
<voice mode="tongue-in-cheek">
Because it helps the terrorist pirates? (Or is
that pirating terrorists? Hmm....where's
www.republican-talking-points.com again?)
> | Why does windows
> | go out of its way to be incompatible with itself?
But it is compatible with oneself. One just has to look
at the ultimate oneness of all that is Windows. :-)
Especially when comparing Word95 with Word97,
or IE6 with IE7.
> | Why is windows purposely designed to make our lives a nightmare?
How do you know you're not in a dream? That's a deep
philosophical question that I for one can't answer, and I
doubt Microsoft can, though something in their R&D might
be astir regarding brainwave analysis.
We'll know once Microsoft BrainDead -- erm, I mean,
BrainWave -- edition comes out.
> | Why can't I take a windows hard disk
> | out of one machine and put it in another and have it work?
Because that would be too easy. What would e.g. the tech guys
at GeekSquad do for a living, then? :-)
> | Why can't I use
> | windows own files and settings transfer wizard to transfer accounts
> | from one computer to another without it wanting the original cd
> | or a bunch of floppies for the wizard program?
Because that wouldn't be wizzy enough. After all, the
movie of that little document moving from disk to disk
has to be put somewhere, right?
> | Why has not microsoft fixed up these problems since
> | the days of dos?
What, and ignore revenue opportunities such as cutting
off Netscape's air supply? Which is more important,
fixing bugs, or locking out competitors?
> | Why does microsoft go on about windows compatibility when
> | its own programs fail?
Well, it would look pretty silly if they went on about
Windows *in*compatibility, now, wouldn't it?
Of course that might be a tad more accurate....
> | Why windows why?
Another deep philosophical question, which troubles me.
</voice>
[warning: slight digression ahead]
Granted, this is *very* far afield from COLA, but think
on all the evil of the world, starting with the Magna
Carta, which was a response to King John, who wasn't
all that great a ruler apparently, if not even before
(the Chinese dynasties have a lot of history, which I'd
have to research; some of it is probably pretty nasty;
there's also the Bible's nastiness in various areas, wars,
plagues, and Jesus's crucifixion, miraculous as it was
[*]). I could go on about the Black Plague (which might
have been mitigated had the populace known more about rats
and fleas), King George III (who we successfully revolted
against here in the US), the Reign of Terror in France
(1793-09-05 to 1794-07-28), colonization (including the
US subjugation of/treachery against the Amerinds [+]), slavery,
and a lot of wars.
On a less violent, more relevant front, one can contemplate
Standard Oil of the late 19th century; the response to
*them* was the Sherman Antitrust Act, which is hopefully
still in force today but apparently the DoJ is more
interested in prosecuting Democratic lawyers than doing
anything really interesting nowadays, though they do maintain
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm .
And even today we have foibles such as Enron, the
(first??) S&L collapse during Bush#41, and the mortage
bubble popping, plus the Iraq war (which might ultimately
benefit the Iraqis by depositing and ultimately executing
Saddam "Whoops, I'm dead now" Hussein, but is also costing
a lot of their lives and our money -- and about 4,000 US
servicemen and women thus far), the Taliban (which blew up
two statues and is very regressive in many areas), Osama
bin Laden (who is either one of the nastiest masterminds
the world has ever known plotting to take down the Western
power structure, or complete fiction; God [either one]
only knows at this point) and Mugabe, the latest in a
series of DictatorsWeDon'tLike(tm).
It is naive to think this is limited to geopolitik.
[end digression]
> |
> | Several scenarios. Persons hardware needs to be upgraded.
> | Simple right?
Maybe. Changing out microprocessors -- even compatible
ones -- would be cause for some worry. Drives should be
simpler, but apparently not under Windows, especially if
an existing drive's letter designation changes. (I've had
that happen; the Wheel of Time game used drive letters --
the CD, basically -- to indicate where to get its file
data from. Guess what broke when one puts in another disk
or repartitions?)
> | Take
> | the guys hard disk, shove it in the new box and re-register
> | (why do we always have to register windows why?).
Can't be too careful with all of them "pirates" running amuck,
I guess.
> | Of course we will have to load up new drivers
A given for updates if one updates hardware, though
it depends on how one writes the drivers. In the case
of Linux, fortunately, the actual driver might have to
change, but the rest of the system shouldn't care much.
(It doesn't hurt that Linux can also find the right modules
to load, that are relevant to the machine.)
> | and reboot a few times but it's windows right? No go Joe!
> | The fscking thing won't even boot up!!!
> | I cant even get into safe mode.
> `----
>
> http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/why-windows-why-26125
Wow. I smell trouble on the original disk; some sort of
logical block remapping issue maybe? Yuck.
Between IBM's original PC design (which has now since been
hacked six ways from Sunday) and Microsoft (I don't fault
Intel -- much -- but Motorola did have a better, if later,
microprocessor), we're now left with this ... thing. Especially
when one considers that the controller board lies like a rug
to the microprocessor, and the disk is probably lying to the
controller board, all in the name of compatibility and partly
because of that 10-bit cylinder address limitation, which has
since been resolved -- a little late.
And then there's "conventional memory". I blame that
on IBM's slightly braindamaged decision to go with the
"teletype-like" interrupts as opposed to something that
actually handed B000:0000 or B800:0000 to interested
parties as a starting address and said "Here, you can play
with this region".
Sigh.
(Not that Windows helped any.)
>
> Again...
>
> Windows: when your time is not valuable. Setting up machines
> the hard way due to technical (some artificial) limitations.
Ahhh....he should have just bought a new machine, connected
the two to a common switch, copied things over using shares
overnight, and then woken up in the morning to find out
one of the machines had rebooted itself during the copy
because of an auto upgrade....
:-)
(And then there's the issue of finding the relevant crap in
%SYSTEMROOT%\Windows\System32, though it's getting a
little better.)
[related snipped for brevity]
[*] the debate on whether it actually happened as described is
best left to another newsgroup.
[+] or Native Americans or Indians, depending. I frankly
don't know at this point what the proper term is.
Of course the term "Indian" is an unfortunate accident
anyway, thanks to Christopher Columbus, who apparently
couldn't tell one very large triangular peninsula from
another.... ;-) though to be fair, he didn't have GPS
back then.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
