Why does Windows XP refuse to die? - Page 17

[Tcll]

thanks for the support :)

I actually remember using 2003 back in school, so I can say it's actually pretty decent when it comes to my extremely high standards. :)

I think the modernization of everything is what's detouring everyone away from reality, and shoving MS's heads even further up their A's.
__

I havn't heard of WebPatrol, but I can say I personally dislike AVG as I've picked a Win98 tower out of the trash that wouldn't allow a user on their desktop because AVG's process would BSoD the compy shortly after getting the user login prompt.
(killing the process kept the compy stable)

I havn't heard any improvments from them lately...
people still report constant crashes and computer failures with AVG being the cause.

Comodo only causes lag, where Avast only annoys the user and installs software (such as GrimeFighter) w/o permission.
(at least the software IS safe, but still)

unfortunately I lost all their documents I was keeping backed up for them due to File System failures causing the HDD to go RAW and corrupt everything.
(if I'd've found them on the net, I'd've returned their documents to them)
^ that should show just how good of a person I am, and I take pride in it. :)
__

also, don't forget to uninstall IE8 and ActiveX.
IE8 likes to run in the background.

to think I used to love IE8. DX
granted it's safer than most modern browsers excluding ActiveX

I still rate Chrome the worst, and rate Opera 12 the best (for modern browsers)
Comodo browsers still have issues here and there, but they're still the safest of all.
though I think I could do one better. lol
(if only I had some space for another project) XD

[ggeoff]

thanks TcII
right uninstall IE8 and ActiveX next.

[MidiMagic]

I was just thinking how much of the work I did in my lifetime no longer exists, or exists in an unusuable form, thanks to Microsoft.

I have been a software and software-hardware interface developer for most of my life.

The first software I wrote was for an IBM 1130. Who even has one of those anymore.

Then I wrote a lot of analysis programs for a CDC 6600. Again, nobody uses those anymore. I still have some of the source code, but finding a Minnesota Fortran compiler would be fun.

Next I wrote many real-time data collection programs for the Tandy Color Computer. When those were discontinued, we switched to the IBM PC (with a loss in performance due to the interrupt-driven I/O).

Actually, the IBM PC with MS-DOS was one of the two most stable periods in computing, lasting from 1984 to 1996. We were actually able to use the same programs for most of that period.

Then Microsoft added Windows, with a whole new set of incompatibilities. The old MS-DOS programs still worked on the Windows 3.1 computers, provided you didn't start Windows. Once you had started Windows, none of the real-time software worked until you rebooted the computer.

With the introduction of Windows 95, compatibility ended. Microsoft changed the system timing enough that the MS-Dos programs wouldn't work in real time anymore. Neither would most of the Windows 3.1 programs.

We next tried Windows NT, which made nothing but a horrible mess of any real time data collection.

Finally, we got Windows XP, which we had from 2004 to the present. But we had to make special hardware modules to do the actual data collecting and processing, because a timesharing system just would not work.

Only the software I wrote for XP can still be used, and a lot of it won't wpork on Vista or later.

Now I am thinking of the thousands of dollars I have spent for software packages for my personal use that I can't use anymore. I have owned three different music synthesizer programs, and none of them run on any of the working computers I have. And last week, I discovered that, after I upgraded to Office 2010, I can't open my Lotus 123 files anymore.

The constant frenzy of upgrading and obsolescence is causing a tremendous waste of time, effort, resources, and money, just to keep what you already had. No wonder the economy won't work - everyone is wasting resources tyrying to convert everything over to a new OS every stupid three years. And think of the tax dollars government is having to waste on new computers, new software, and training, just because selfish Microsoft and other companies can't leave things alone.

My music collection is almost as haphazard. Most of it is still in phonograph form. I can still get the supplies and keep the equipment in working order to play most recordings from the 1890s to 1992. Much worse are the tape formats, because the heads wear out and can't be easily obtained. Next, we have the various forms of CD and CDR, with their various incomatibilites, sometimes among competing brands. And finally, there is a huge morass of different computer audio formats.

If an electromagnetic pulse ever happens, I would still be able to play the phonograph records, but everything else would be rendered unplayable due to the lack of unfried reproducing equipment.

[Tcll]

and the funny thing about XP vs 7 is:
winXP can be upgraded with the libraries for 7, so games that work on 7 could work on XP.
my point there is proven as GPT disk partitions only work on XP x64

if they could port the library to allow the use of GPT disks, then they should port the libraries which keeps games and software now-a-days from working on XP.

I'm already bamfing any software developers who don't support XP
especially the ones who program in DX9, or other interfaces capable of running on XP.

but I already bamf any DX game developer as is :P

the reason I refuse to get 7 and up is because MS ruled out your privacy, and basically have a "big red button" to hand your computer over to them and the gov't if they so please.
(meaning all of your files and private info on your compy could potentially be made publuc)
^just wait till hackers worse than me get their hands on this interface

and must I push the initial release of the XBox One again :P
(basically Win8 being used to spy on what your family does)

I laugh when they boast about 7 being more secure than XP
and especially because MS doesn't expect users to use anything other than IE (unsecure ActiveX) with MSSE (horrible security software)

the whole security thing is nothing more than a joke.

[greenknight]

I just built a new computer, and I'm putting Win 7 on it - but I'm going to dual-boot with Linux Mint, so I'll have a secure OS, too. Win 7 is just for the programs that need Windows.

I don't think Win 7 is more secure, unless you don't know how to secure your computer. Win 7 has UAC, basically a built-in HIPS - but I run a better HIPS, one I can fully control, that doesn't let Microsoft partners in automatically. There's no security advantage in the newer Windows that wasn't already available in third-party software.

I'm "upgrading" only because I need a new computer.

[MidiMagic]

Microsoft just announced that support for Windows 7 will be discontinued next year.

Everyone I know hates Windows 8. It is very hard to use, because it gets in the way of getting your work done. Since Microsoft is not selling enough copies of 8, it is going to force people to buy 8 by making it the only supported OS.

"Under new mismanagement" describes Microsoft perfectly.

[Reverend Jim]

With any luck, by that time Windows 9 will be released and, like Vista, will be the "what we really want" version.

<edit>see "disclaimer" below</edit>

[happygeek]

Ah, so you were the person who really wanted Vista were you Rev? I knew the mystery identity would be revealed one day :)

[Reverend Jim]

I misspoke (euphemism for really pooched it). I meant to say that I hope Windows 9 will be to Windows 8 what Windows 7 was to Vista. Thanks for keeping me honest ;-P

[Palebushman]

Why could't Microsoft do with XP what Boeing did with the much loved 'Jumbo Jet'? 40 years of pure genius!

('scuse the changed avatar, but someone on here accused me of being a sniper, so I thought it best to don the appropriate attire) lol:-))

[AKsarben]

Like the avatar, Palebushman!
Microsoft is going to chase away their huge customer base when there was no need to. People would have "BOUGHT" a newer version of XP that was more secure and had more functionality without all the hoopla and fanfare of all the others.

[Tcll]

just recently found out from a hacker friend of mine who joined my forum as "monster", has a friend who decoded the windows 8 kernal using Python and verified that Win8 was being used to spy on it's users and give MS access to take control over them.

his friend just verified my point that XP is waaay more secure than 8 will ever be.

from a hacker PoV, imagine what we could do with MS's hard-coded interface :P
access to personal information galore as long as a Win8 compy is connected to the net.
(with Win8's interface, I could inject you with a program without you even knowing about it)

this is exactly why I say to stay away from Win8
it's a RAT in itself.

facts:
if I was lieing to you about any of this, I wouldn't be providing a direct link to his profile on my forum.
(you need to be a member to view though... PB-rules, which I agree with)
take note that he's Co-Admin, which takes knowledge and experience to earn, even if he just joined.
(he's obviously a trusted member)

I may not recall any of my old sources, but I'm providing any new sources I find ;)

I also have a reputation of being trusted, and I'll do anything but smudge it >;)

[greenknight]

Win 7 extended support runs until 2020 - security updates only, but that's all I care about anyway.

[Tcll]

as long as that hard-coded kernel-RAT exists in vista/7/8 and quite possibly 9, I don't believe in security for those OS's

for those who don't know what a RAT is:
basically, if someone infects you with a RAT, they now have full control over everyhing you own on that PC.

now tell me the security in that.
all of your stuff IS in MS's hands.

[Palebushman]

Arhermm....

"for those who don't know what a RAT is:
basically, if someone infects you with a RAT, they now have full control over everyhing you own on that PC."

For those of us who still don't know what a 'RAT' is, in computer terminology it's this:- Remote Access Trojan.

[Palebushman]

And no............. I am not sniping!

I just prefer 'CLARITY' in "explanations" of the unknown.

[Tcll]

sorry, I know I forget to mention a few details at times...

RAT stands for "Remote Administration Tool",
but your term also works just as well. :P

[happygeek]

In the context of the security threatscape, both definitions work. That said, I always think of RAT as being Remote Access Trojan as that's how I have encountered it most in my dealings with security researchers/vendors and others.

[sbesch]

This has really been a fantastic thread. First, it provides a rather good sampling of opinions about MS and it's software products. Then, it also has a lot of interesting "stuff" buried in it as well - some of which provided moments of true mirth (Most of those will be left un-referenced so as not to cast aspersions on their authors). But then there is the persistent notion of: "Linux is hard to use...No older person could ever make it work." ;-) ) #@@*!

Sorry, I had to take break till the hysterical laughter stopped and I could type again. I wouldn't have brought this up in this thread, which is really about XP, but in all fairness, someone else brought it up and I'm only reporting my amusement. By the way, I've set up several old folks (80's and 90's) with Ubuntu Classic and none have had any trouble at all. In one case they didn't even know it wasn't windows. Of those that did know some, wondered how they managed before. I'm not saying that this would be a universal experience - just that it is naive to assume that Ubuntu Linux is "too had to use". This may have been true at one time, but it sure isn't anymore.

What seems to emerge as a summary is that XP is/was a fine MS Windows release and that for a whole host of reasons will not go away any time soon. Several things come to mind in this regard in terms of operating systems in general, and GUI's in particular. At first, there was an incremental progress towards perfection - in both MS Windows and Linux. I believe that an apex was reached with XP in the Win world and V10 of Ubuntu in the linux/unix world. Then there was a giant step backwards, at least in terms of ease of use. I've wondered a lot about this and I suspect that part of the reason is not just a grubby "let's make more money" motivation.

It occurs to me that the system programmers got really bored with just fixing up tiny little irritating bugs - sweeping out the corners so to speak". So, one day a bright idea came up: "Lets dump the whole GUI and start over. Won't that be fun". Eventually, I suspect that all the GUI's will drift incrementally back towards the near ideal achieved in WinXP/UbuntuV10.

Well, here's the punch line: The real reason that XP won't die is that it's too close to perfect compared to what is supposed to replace it.

[Tcll]

anyone who wants to knock XP:
look at my desktop before saying anything.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-P4C6YW8Ddsg/U9vym_oSj-I/AAAAAAAAHGU/hp5hHnhi52M/s3200/XP.PNG
no it's not an illusion, my desktop is actually 3D

this is only a few things I have to show... XP is capable of much more.

I will admit however, I'm still trying to find a good program to replace the default explorer.exe with. :P
maybe then I can get the Win7-style search and behavior

and one thing I can't do yet (because of my shell)
I don't have the mini window previews or task button loading effects.
^I've had these before, but with crappier shells and extensions

[Palebushman]

@ sbesch, Very well said mate and your bottom line "The real reason that XP won't die is that it's too close to perfect compared to what is supposed to replace it." is absolutely spot on.
KUDOS + 10

[greenknight]

@ sbesch, you're absolutely right, the "Linux is hard" meme is like a zombie that keeps shambling along when it ought to be long since in its grave.

As I mentioned earlier, I just installed Win 7 and Linux Mint 17 on a new computer - Mint was a snap to install, Win 7 was much more of a hassle. Mint is faster on the same hardware, and its interface (I chose the MATE version) is more intuitive than Win 7's. The software repositories that are pre-configured in Mint contain a wide selection of programs, and installing any of them is extremely easy - just select what you want and it installs automatically. Installing from other sources is only a little more involved, anyone who can figure out how to operate a computer should have no difficulty with it.

They way newer Win versions sort everything into "libraries" is just confusing, I much prefer XP's staightforward filesystem tree. The way they went about "making things easier" for the user just complicates my efforts to sort files the way I want them.

[sbesch]

@greenknight,

"The way newer Win versions sort everything into "libraries" is just confusing"

Interesting that you make this point. Microsoft has been slow to adopt symbolic links - I suspect because some characteristic of the NTFS file system makes them fragile. Nevertheless, the "Library" feature appears to be using some sort of symbolic linking mechanism. That is, each library is merely a collection of disguised symbolic links to the real files. In my experience Libraries seem to be somewhat fragile (that is, whole libraries just go POOF and disappear). All the original files are still there, just the hidden links are gone so the Library appears empty and must be regenerated. I'm not sure exactly how this happens, but some minor user error definiately causes the problem. That's why I refer to them as fragile: any feature that can be trashed with a wayward keystroke is in my opinion fragile - if not downright dangerous.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that a simple, well organized folder tree is much superior. The only thing is that the Library feature does allow Windows users to organize "Cloud" based and Network Based objects into the Library as if they are on the local machine. On Linux one would simply use network mounts and symbolic links to do the same thing - albeit completely under the user's control.

[Reverend Jim]

On the contrary, Windows 7 relies heavily on symbolic links although they are referred to as either junctions or reparse points. On my system...

C:\>junction -s

Junction v1.02 - Win2K junction creator and reparse point viewer
Copyright (C) 2000 Mark Russinovich
Systems Internals - http://www.sysinternals.com

C:\\Documents and Settings: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users

C:\\ProgramData\Application Data: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\ProgramData
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\ProgramData

C:\\ProgramData\Desktop: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Public\Desktop
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Public\Desktop

C:\\ProgramData\Documents: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Public\Documents
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Public\Documents

C:\\ProgramData\Favorites: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Public\Favorites
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Public\Favorites

C:\\ProgramData\Start Menu: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu

C:\\ProgramData\Templates: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Templates
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Templates

C:\\Users\Default User: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default

C:\\Users\All Users\Application Data: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\ProgramData
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\ProgramData

C:\\Users\All Users\Desktop: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Public\Desktop
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Public\Desktop

C:\\Users\All Users\Documents: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Public\Documents
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Public\Documents

C:\\Users\All Users\Favorites: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Public\Favorites
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Public\Favorites

C:\\Users\All Users\Start Menu: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu

C:\\Users\All Users\Templates: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Templates
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Templates

C:\\Users\Default\Application Data: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming

C:\\Users\Default\Cookies: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Cookies
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Cookies

C:\\Users\Default\Local Settings: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Local
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Local

C:\\Users\Default\My Documents: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\Documents
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\Documents

C:\\Users\Default\NetHood: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Network Shortcuts
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Network Shortcuts

C:\\Users\Default\PrintHood: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Printer Shortcuts
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Printer Shortcuts

C:\\Users\Default\Recent: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Recent
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Recent

C:\\Users\Default\SendTo: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\SendTo
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\SendTo

C:\\Users\Default\Start Menu: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu

C:\\Users\Default\Templates: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Templates
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Templates

C:\\Users\Default\AppData\Local\Application Data: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Local
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Local

C:\\Users\Default\AppData\Local\History: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\History
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\History

C:\\Users\Default\AppData\Local\Temporary Internet Files: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files

C:\\Users\Default\Documents\My Music: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\Music
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\Music

C:\\Users\Default\Documents\My Pictures: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\Pictures
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\Pictures

C:\\Users\Default\Documents\My Videos: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Default\Videos
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Default\Videos

C:\\Users\Jim\Application Data: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming

C:\\Users\Jim\Cookies: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Cookies
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Cookies

C:\\Users\Jim\Local Settings: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Local
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Local

C:\\Users\Jim\My Documents: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\Documents
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\Documents

C:\\Users\Jim\NetHood: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Network Shortcuts
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Network Shortcuts

C:\\Users\Jim\PrintHood: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Printer Shortcuts
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Printer Shortcuts

C:\\Users\Jim\Recent: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Recent
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Recent

C:\\Users\Jim\SendTo: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\SendTo
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\SendTo

C:\\Users\Jim\Start Menu: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu

C:\\Users\Jim\Templates: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Templates
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Templates

C:\\Users\Jim\AppData\Local\Application Data: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Local
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Local

C:\\Users\Jim\AppData\Local\History: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\History
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\History

C:\\Users\Jim\AppData\Local\Temporary Internet Files: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files

C:\\Users\Public\Documents\My Music: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Public\Music
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Public\Music

C:\\Users\Public\Documents\My Pictures: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Public\Pictures
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Public\Pictures

C:\\Users\Public\Documents\My Videos: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Users\Public\Videos
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Users\Public\Videos

C:\\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\Application Data: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming

C:\\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\Cookies: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Cookies
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Cookies

C:\\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\Local Settings: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local

C:\\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Application Data: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local

C:\\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\History: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\History
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\History

C:\\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Temporary Internet Files: JUNCTION
   Print Name     : C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files
   Substitute Name: \??\C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files

Rather a lot, really.

[Reverend Jim]

I do, however, agree that Microsoft's implementation of libraries is lacking. For example, I can only include so may folders at the root of a library. Another problem is the lack of a command line tool to do library maintenance. For example, I keep all of my pictures under D:\My Documents\My Pictures. Inside the My Pictures folder I have other folders with names like 1981, 1982, and various other specialized folders. I don't see the point of having a library named Pictures and having to add only My Pictures so I get

Libraries
    Pictures
        My Pictures
            1981
            1982
            .
            .
            .

I should just be able to add the folders under My Pictures directly either by selecting all the folders in Explorer and selecting "Add To Library -> Pictures" or by running a command from the command line to do the same. Incidentally, if Libraries were implemented using junctions or reparse points or links (why can't Microsoft just use the same terminology the rest of the world uses) then this would be possible. Unfortunately, libraries do not use links. Libraries are maintained as XML files

[ggeoff]

As I mentioned some time ago Windows Vista and Windows 7 has driven my daughter and her family off to Apple. I have several flavours of windows and I note that on windows 7 if I click on My Documents in the Libraries section I get "Location not available . . . access is denied". This is on a PC with one user. So I have to get at my files by accessing the appropriate hard drive. Which is sensible anyway. Surely the user should be managing access to real devices such as hard drives not libraries. If these constructs have a use they should be hidden from the user unless the user wants to use them.

[MidiMagic]

I wish the software companies would consider the needs of science, media production, the military, and government, instead of trying to grub as much money as they can by making businesses replace their stuff as often as they can get away with it.

• Science needs as little change as is possible. They really need to be able to use the same types of computers and the same software (including the operating system) for 20 years or longer. The only change they should have to endure is the replacement of failed equipment with identical equipment. This is the only way to make sure that a 20-year study has no discontinuities.

• Owners of scientific laboratories often find that an upgrade to the operating system requires replacing all of the real-time scientific equipment controlled by the computer. This greatly increases the cost of running a laboratory, and it also reduces the availability of computer-controlled equipment (because the companies go out of business trying to keep up with the OS changes).

• Those in media production (music, video, and games) often find that they have to replace all of their computer interface equipment when the OS changes, because the new OS can't work the old equipment. Likewise, companies that make hardware and software to control musical or video equipment often go out of business because they can't keep up with the OS changes. They are still developing products for one OS when Microself comes out with another one.

• The military needs long-term consistancy. The Space Shuttle used the same microprocessor and operating system ever since the Challenger disaster, because reliability was much more necessary than the latest bells and whistles. Likewise, the military needs as little change as is possible, because innocent people can be killed by subtle changes in the hardware or software. Remember the Pentium Bug and the Gregorian Bug.

• Government needs to avoid the expense to taxpayers of having to pay for new software, replace computers, and retrain staff every time Microwhim decides to come out with a new operating system or discontinue support for an old one.

Also, think of all of the product prices that are increazsed because businesses have to keep replacing software, replacing computers, and retraining staff. You are indirectly giving your hard-earned money to Microscam.

@ sbesch, Very well said mate and your bottom line "The real reason that XP won't die is that it's too close to perfect compared to what is supposed to replace it." is absolutely spot on.<

I fully agree!

Just today, my XP(POS-reg'd) got it's automatic updates again, it all worked well, as ever.

Ernie

[Reverend Jim]

Science needs as little change as is possible. They really need to be able to use the same types of computers and the same software (including the operating system) for 20 years or longer. The only change they should have to endure is the replacement of failed equipment with identical equipment. This is the only way to make sure that a 20-year study has no discontinuities.

My older son did his PhD in computational biophysics. If he had to run his computer models on 20-year old machines he would be pushing through one simulation a week rather than several dozen per day. Science depends on computers becoming faster and more powerful rather than on them remaining static tools.

The military needs long-term consistency. The Space Shuttle used the same microprocessor and operating system ever since the Challenger disaster, because reliability was much more necessary than the latest bells and whistles.

I saw a report recently that showed US missile silo installations still running software that is loaded from 8" floppy disks onto ancient computers. You can make a case for long-term consistency but at some point you have to realize that relying on technology that old is a problem that is only going to get worse.

Would you prefer to be doing all of your computing on 20 mHz computers with 10 meg hard drives and 640k of RAM?

Government needs to avoid the expense to taxpayers of having to pay for new software, replace computers, and retrain staff every time Microwhim decides to come out with a new operating system or discontinue support for an old one.

The US government currently sends surplus military equipment to local police forces at a cost of $50 per year. This is equipment that is not wanted by the Pentagon but is still manufactured to provide jobs in key constituencies. Waste is so rampant that tanks, which the Pentagon says are no longer effective, go directly from the factory to US desert military graveyards. Government funnels money to arms manufacturers and in return get generous campaign donations. The Democrats recently sponsored an initiative to see that every high school student in California would be given an iPad. It was an exceedingly generous gift to Apple Corp. I don't recall government ever being concerned about the expense to taxpayers except at election time.

[MidiMagic]

My older son did his PhD in computational biophysics. If he had to run his computer models on 20-year old machines he would be pushing through one simulation a week rather than several dozen per day. Science depends on computers becoming faster and more powerful rather than on them remaining static tools.

But was your son doing a 20-year study? Was he using real-time laboratory hardware? If he wasn't doing these, using new equipment is fine.

The problem is that the people who ARE doing 20-year studies must not change to new equipment in the middle of that 20-year study, or it may invalidate the entire study. The scientific method requires that there be no changes in the equipment or methods during the study.

Changing to a new computer probably will change much of the following:

• The program probably will not run.

• The adaptor cards won't fit the motherboard.

• The old dedicated equipment will not work, because the new computer uses different bus timing, changing the timing ot the equipment.

• If the program does operate the equipment, proving that the operation was totally unchanged and that results were not adversely affected would require yet another study.

If the computer is replaced and the old lab equipment will not work properly with it, the entire study so far is turned into to garbage. All of the work done so far is wasted. The entire 20-year study must be started over.

I saw a report recently that showed US missile silo installations still running software that is loaded from 8" floppy disks onto ancient computers. You can make a case for long-term consistency but at some point you have to realize that relying on technology that old is a problem that is only going to get worse.

True, but just try to buy new equipment that can work with the missile control hardware in that silo. Reverend Jim seems to think that all you have to do is plug the new computer in, install the software, and it works.

The problem is that nothing fits. The connectors are different, the bus speed and timing are different, the protocols are different, the operating system is different, and the old software won't run on the new computer. The new computer would have to be greatly modified to work the missile equipmemnt, and entirely new software would have to be written.

And if the old computer really has 8" disks, it doesn't have any of the microprocessors that are in use today. It probably has an Intel 8080, a Z80, a Mostek 6502, or a Motorla 6800 or 6809. Any software that runs on these will NOT run on any new computer. And the computer won't know Windows or Linux. Only the 6809 would be capable of running a UNIX style OS (I still have one), and none of them can handle Windows. It is probably using CP-M, Flex, OS9 or some variant.

In addition, the commmunication protocol with both the missile and with NORAD must be changed, because the new computers don't know how to use 8-bit parallel ports, the old RS-232 serial systems, or an acoustic coupler modem.

This is why new equipment using the old designs must continue to remain available. The best way to fix the missile silo is to get brand new equipment of the old design to get rid of the aging parts. The alternative is to completely redesign everything (and all of it would have to be changed out at once). The problem is that anything new would have to be extensively tested before it is installed. Otherwise we might have an accidental missile launch and World War III.

Would you prefer to be doing all of your computing on 20 mHz computers with 10 meg hard drives and 640k of RAM?

I did quite well on a 64K Tandy Color Computer. It actually did a better job of real-time data collection than any of the newer systems, and it was running at 1 MHz. This is because it had a latent operating system that did not interrupt the application program. The data points were collected ON TIME, because the OS didn't interfere.

Of course the reason it worked so well was that it didn't have all of the bells and whistles we use today:

• Fixed font text screen (32 char per line)
• The monitor was an analog TV set
• Command line latent OS (stored in ROM)
• No mouse
• No time of day clock or calendar
• 256 X 192 pixel 16-color graphics screen
• Memory mapped video
• 156 K 5.25" single side floppy (latent)
• No boot from disk
• No control or alt key
• Simple line printer - no Postscript or fonts
• No automatic updates or upgrades
• No Internet
• Totally virus proof (turn off, virus is gone)
• No remote console

I did have a plotter, but I had to write my own software to run it.

What I want is the ability to buy BOTH kinds of computers. I need one kind for word processing, documents, Internet, and data analysis, and the other kind with a latent operating system and simple parallel I/O for operating dedicated lab equipment.

The problem is that every computer manufacturer is interested in selling to businesses, who need the first kind of computer, but not the second. They don't care about the smaller scientific market.