Maker Pro
Maker Pro

A question for the group

P

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don't labor under the misconception that software 'manufacturers' will
be plural in the forseeable future. There can only be one.
You should be able to install software as an ordinary user so long as that
software doesn't effect other users and its self doesn't need any access
rights you don't have.

All software (regardless of who installed it)
All software should come with an uninstaller that removes it completely
and doesn't remove anything it didn't install.

If Joe User wants to install a bingo program so he can play bingo, it
should be no problem. If he wants to install a hard-disk reformating tool
then there should be a problem.

If you're running a 'real' OS, then the average user can indeed install
a hard disk reformatting program. Average users just can't run it, or at
least get past the part where it attemts a read/write operation not
allowed to them.
Unless you are upgrading a software product, no installation should be
allowed to change any existing file on your computer.

Everytime a computer boots up, the operator should be given a chance to
remove, or disable, the last program installed.

The 'operator' (by that, I assume you mean the admin.) should be able to
do that any time. Having a report to list what's changed since the last
time would be nice.
 
P

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael A. Covington said:
That's because of the C-based programming techniques taken over from UNIX.

So why doesn't *NIX have any trouble with C? The worst C application
still shouldn't get the kernel to do something its not allowed to do.

..NET may make it easier for sloppy programmers to crank out stable apps.
But if someone wants to crack the system, the underlying weaknesses
still remain.

[snip]
Is it the only operating system with this fault?

At this point, yes. The modern journaling file systems don't suffer from
this at all. Even the older systems were pretty robust, although they
took a few minutes to repair upon boot-up.

Why is it that something so tightly bound to an OS as a file system
can't be upgraded, installed and mounted without a reboot, much less a
major product release, advertising campaign, and years of schedule
slides?

The entire GUI engine is bound to the OS. That's why an app can take the
whole machine down. The X11 model runs in user space. Its possible to
crash an app. and take down the display. But non-display apps
(databases, web servers, etc.) and remote users remain unaffected.
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
keith said:
Why does Win9x constantly thow out "out of environment space", where WinNT
derivitives don't? Win9x had its environment fixed at 64K, IIRC.

Since "out of memory" often means that the graphics program eat up all of
the graphics resource handles, I assume that "out of enviroment space"
actually means that there was a parity error on the serial port.

Actually I really don't know why you get that error under 9X but not
WinNT. When do you see it. I have access to a Win98, WinME and WinXP
machines.
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul Hovnanian P.E. said:
.NET may make it easier for sloppy programmers to crank out stable apps.

I think you meant "unstable" apps. Anything that uses MFC inherits the
bugs in MFC and is thus unstable.
 
C

Charles W. Johson Jr.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ken Smith said:
Since "out of memory" often means that the graphics program eat up all of
the graphics resource handles, I assume that "out of enviroment space"
actually means that there was a parity error on the serial port.

Actually I really don't know why you get that error under 9X but not
WinNT. When do you see it. I have access to a Win98, WinME and WinXP
machines.

The only time I've ever gotten the out of system memory error was while a
web page was duplicating itself uncontrolably.

XP on a PIV with 128M RAM.

Almost all out of memory problems in Windows can be traced to a leaky
program.

Charles
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael A. Covington said:
In my opinion, Windows as we presently know it is basically UNIX
redecorated.

I really don't think so. UNIX was built up of discrete components. Most
of which are only loosely bound to the kernal. This means that there is
hope of replacing UNIX code section by section with new stuff with the
bugs fixed.

Windows is larger chunks. It is almost certain that fixing a bug will
create two more because there is no way to check all the paths to the code
fragment under consideration. The "draw a circle", for example, has 32
bit parameters but their values must not exceed 16 biits or some weird
things happen. If you fix those weird things, the undocumented code that
took advantage of them will suddenly cause the hard disk to get
reformatted.
The characteristic flaws are similar. However, .NET Framework
(the successor to Windows) is an object-oriented OS

..NET is an object-oriented wrapper that is placed over an OS to try to
make different versions all look the same so there is some hope of code
portability. I predict it will fail for the same reasons Java largely
failed plus a few more special to Microsoft.

Microsoft has never been good at writing a standard and then sticking to
it. It is part of the company culture. They will make changes from
version to version of .NET that will break older code.
with radically different
characteristics, probably the first major advance in operating systems since
the 1980s.

I disagree since it is not an OS.
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
BTW: While I'm reading this, we are reinstalling ME for the 3rd complete
time on my wifes machine. We are on our 2nd try of the third reinstall
that is.


Paul Hovnanian P.E. said:
If you're running a 'real' OS, then the average user can indeed install
a hard disk reformatting program. Average users just can't run it, or at
least get past the part where it attemts a read/write operation not
allowed to them.

Yes I know.
( points at real OS PC on desk )


[.. admin removing stuff ..]
The 'operator' (by that, I assume you mean the admin.) should be able to
do that any time. Having a report to list what's changed since the last
time would be nice.

Yes, I still use "operator" for "admin" sometimes.

What I was trying to suggest that a minimum system boots first that the
admin could use to fix a problem, before all the features start up. Sort
of like "run levels"
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Charles W. Johson Jr. said:
The only time I've ever gotten the out of system memory error was while a
web page was duplicating itself uncontrolably.

XP on a PIV with 128M RAM.

With XP the number of handles was greatly increased. I'm not sure but
they may even have added a handle garbage collection.

Almost all out of memory problems in Windows can be traced to a leaky
program.

Yes combined with an OS that doesn't reclaim an applications memory when
it leaves.
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
BTW: While I'm reading this, we are reinstalling ME for the 3rd complete
time on my wifes machine. We are on our 2nd try of the third reinstall
that is.
[snip]

Piece-a-crap! I cured all my wife's crashes by installing Win2K/SP3.

...Jim Thompson
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
BTW: While I'm reading this, we are reinstalling ME for the 3rd complete
time on my wifes machine. We are on our 2nd try of the third reinstall
that is.
[snip]

Piece-a-crap! I cured all my wife's crashes by installing Win2K/SP3.

...Jim Thompson

I've had real problems with SP4. Installed it twice, only to have to
take it off again.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
BTW: While I'm reading this, we are reinstalling ME for the 3rd complete
time on my wifes machine. We are on our 2nd try of the third reinstall
that is.
[snip]

Piece-a-crap! I cured all my wife's crashes by installing Win2K/SP3.

...Jim Thompson

I've had real problems with SP4. Installed it twice, only to have to
take it off again.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Same here... that's why I'm at SP3. I've had a few program installs
that "require" SP4, so I install SP4, install the program, then
uninstall SP4. The programs run just fine.

(Note for newbies, choose the "Backup Files" option :)

I'll probably die (literally) before I have to "upgrade" beyond
Win2K/Sp3 ;-)

...Jim Thompson
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm now at attempt #4 on the install. I've done all the hard disk
checking etc. This time is just so I can get the name of the component
that blows up so I can delete it. I'm hoping this will force the install
to put a new one in from the disk. At some point, I may just trash the
whole hard disk and start with a clean drive.

If I have to go to a clean drive, I hope my automatic back ups are right.

Chances are, I'll try trashing the registry first just to see if the
problem is a registry entry.
 
K

keith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Since "out of memory" often means that the graphics program eat up all of
the graphics resource handles, I assume that "out of enviroment space"
actually means that there was a parity error on the serial port.

NO! Good grief, read what I write!!!

"OUT OF ENVIORNMENT" <> "out of memory"

Win9x has a 64K "environment space that is not part of "main memory". I'm
not clear what Win9x's "environment is, but it's not the DOS stuff stuck
onto the command-line either.
Actually I really don't know why you get that error under 9X but not
WinNT. When do you see it. I have access to a Win98, WinME and WinXP
machines.

Clearly you don't understand the various dialects of Win. Load up a ton
of shit into the bar on win9x, you'll shortly see. Even if you have
many hundreds of megabytes of main memory, you'll finr that Win9x crashes
with an "out of environment" error. WinNT won't.
 
K

keith

Jan 1, 1970
0
BTW: While I'm reading this, we are reinstalling ME for the 3rd complete
time on my wifes machine. We are on our 2nd try of the third reinstall
that is.
[snip]

Piece-a-crap! I cured all my wife's crashes by installing Win2K/SP3.

....except that little license issue.
 
M

Michael A. Covington

Jan 1, 1970
0
Why does Win9x constantly thow out "out of environment space", where
NO! Good grief, read what I write!!!

"OUT OF ENVIORNMENT" <> "out of memory"

He's making fun of your typing. The word is "environment," not "enviroment"
nor "enviorment."
Clearly you don't understand the various dialects of Win. Load up a ton
of shit into the bar on win9x, you'll shortly see. Even if you have
many hundreds of megabytes of main memory, you'll finr that Win9x crashes
with an "out of environment" error. WinNT won't.

Right. For the peanut gallery: The environment space is where the "set"
command (and its API equivalents) store information for communication
between programs. To see what's in it, go to a command prompt and type SET
with no arguments.

Under DOS, the environment space was initially very small (512 bytes?) and
gradually got bigger with subsequent version. You may well be right that it
maxed out at 64k in Win95 (I'm not sure, but that sounds right). It is, as
far as I know, unlimited, or at least potentially much bigger than anyone
ever needs, in Windows NT/2000/XP.

Further, there is a difference between a Command Prompt (cmd.exe) and a DOS
prompt (command.com). The latter still exists in NT/2000/XP (and may even
have limited environment space) but is rarely used. To see it, go to Start,
Run, and type command.com.
 
M

Michael A. Covington

Jan 1, 1970
0
BTW: While I'm reading this, we are reinstalling ME for the 3rd complete
"Malfunctioning Edition..."?

I should add that when I say good things about Windows, I mean the
NT/2000/XP/2003 lineage. Windows 95/98/ME are much less reliable; they mix
too much of DOS in with it, rather than being pure Win32. But, in their
time, they were necessary, in order to run DOS device drivers.
 
C

Chaos Master

Jan 1, 1970
0
Frithiof Andreas Jensen screams:

[...]
If you want a secure games box, you should *really* buy a PS2!

NetBSD already runs (partially) on the PlayStation 2, IIRC, and there are some
Linux distros that run too.

Even more secure, but not for games. :D

--
Chaos Master®, posting from Brazil. REPLY TO GROUP!
"People told me I can't dress like a fairy.
I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!"
-- Amy Lee

Note: this e-mail address goes to /dev/null.
 
K

keith

Jan 1, 1970
0
He's making fun of your typing. The word is "environment," not "enviroment"
nor "enviorment."

Ok, I've had that problem since going to this new machine. I can't seem
to track it down (and the lack of a speel-checker in PAN doesn't help).
I don't see how you come to this conclusion though. He's talking about
"out of memory", not anything about environment space.

I did do a quick web search though, and it appears that the probkems with
"out of environment space" were due to DOS programs, apparently claiming
their share of it. It has nothing to do with memory size though.
Right. For the peanut gallery: The environment space is where the "set"
command (and its API equivalents) store information for communication
between programs. To see what's in it, go to a command prompt and type
SET with no arguments.

I never used Win9x and only passed through NT4 and 2K when I had to.
After reading a short while tonight, apparently you are correct.
Under DOS, the environment space was initially very small (512 bytes?)

It was adjustable (at least in later releases), but got coppied to every
loaded program (thus the problem?).
and gradually got bigger with subsequent version. You may well be right
that it maxed out at 64k in Win95 (I'm not sure, but that sounds right).
It is, as far as I know, unlimited, or at least potentially much bigger
than anyone ever needs, in Windows NT/2000/XP.

AFAIK it's unlimited. THe message passing is different in NT, though
again I'm no expert in any sort of Win (I do hardware).
Further, there is a difference between a Command Prompt (cmd.exe) and a
DOS prompt (command.com). The latter still exists in NT/2000/XP (and
may even have limited environment space) but is rarely used. To see it,
go to Start, Run, and type command.com.

No need. I keep it on my desktop. I find manipulating directories (and
stuff like ftp) easier from the command prompt. The GIU is good for some
things, but...
 
M

Michael A. Covington

Jan 1, 1970
0
keith said:
Ok, I've had that problem since going to this new machine. I can't seem
to track it down (and the lack of a speel-checker in PAN doesn't help).

Note that there was a typo on my own posting a few lines down. The moving
finger writes, and having writ, moves on...
I don't see how you come to this conclusion though. He's talking about
"out of memory", not anything about environment space.

I agree -- "out of memory" is not "out of environment space."

His remark about the parity error was an obscure joke. The idea was that if
the message says "enviroment" (not "environment") then there's been a
communication error between you and the computer. Think of 1970s serial
terminals.
No need. I keep it on my desktop. I find manipulating directories (and
stuff like ftp) easier from the command prompt. The GIU is good for some
things, but...

I keep a shortcut to Command Prompt (cmd.exe) on my desktop, not DOS Prompt
(which is much more restricted and rarely used; until I looked at it just
now I don't think I had used it in a year or more). I gather Command Prompt
is what you have in mind.

And if you like a fancy command prompt, Windows Services for UNIX (a free
but very large download) will give you a genuine C Shell and Korn Shell
right there under Windows. Useful for some things... especially hastily
porting UNIX software.
 
F

Frithiof Andreas Jensen

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ken Smith said:
BTW: While I'm reading this, we are reinstalling ME for the 3rd complete
time on my wifes machine.

Argh - Windows Me - is quite possibly *the worst* Windows ever!!
Even Win 98 is more stable than that pile-of-fsck!

Wipe the HD and slap an Win-XP on there - you life will be easier.
 
Top