A Real Bill Gates Rant

lou ibmix XI submitted an email written by Bill Gates a few years ago and turned over to the feds as part of the government's antitrust case. Great quotes like 'Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?' and 'The lack of attention to usability represented by these experiences blows my mind.' We like to think of him as an abstract, but I think this is interesting stuff. Also, this might seem familiar. Oops.

Comments

Massive Dupe

[Thelasko]

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/06/26/026237.shtml

Re:Massive Dupe

[wisty]

It's been 6 years, and he still can't install it? Maybe he should install Wubi, and try apt-get, that usually works.

Re:Massive Dupe

[Sockatume]

No, no, this is deliberate. After posting a story which wasn't really news for nerds, they decided to post a story which is for nerds, but isn't actually news. They're giving up errors for lent and are trying to get them all out of their system first.

Re:Massive Dupe

[cayenne8]

"They're giving up errors for lent and are trying to get them all out of their system first."

Hmm...well, this year for lent, I'm either going to stop giving up things...

Or...I'm going to quit not drinking.

Will worry about that later, tomorrow is Fat Tuesday, and NOLA is a wonderful place to live this time of year!! I feel so sorry for all my friends around the country, that not only will they not have a cold drink in their hand by 6am...but, will be actually going to work?!?!

Hmm, now, what to drink for morning beverage? Bloody Mary?...Screwdriver?...Beer?.....Bucket of Everclear?

Re:Massive Dupe

[1hurcoman]

I love NOLA as well. Had a client schedule a meeting for 10:30 tomorrow. Told him "I'm going to be drunk by then".

Re:Massive Dupe

[hardburn]

Connecting to the SMTP port directly and writing ASCII in base 13 is better than Outlook.

Re:Massive Dupe

[Weaselmancer]

Using the stripped ends of two wires hooked to an RS232 port to enter it in binary manually. With your tongue.

Re:Massive Dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, "m" and "c" should be lower-cased in the famous Special Relativity equation.

Secondly, "m" is the inertial mass, which follows from a Lorentz transformation. It is not the rest mass, which is intrinsic to the object in question. "Rest mass" in Special Relativity is the intrinsic energy of an object in an inertial frame in which it is at rest with respect to a stationary observer at infinity, in a slice of spacetime with a set of coordinates that makes it locally flat (Minkowski spacetime).

A photon in the Standard Model must have zero rest mass. Experiment has demonstrated that the rest mass of a photon is actually << 1e-16 eV/c^2 (or much less than 1e-22 the rest mass of an electron). Cosmological observation puts stronger constraints on the rest mass of a photon, although those have not yet been demonstrated experimentally.

Photons have inertial mass when not at rest. Usually this is considered in terms of linear momentum (p) in the Special Relativity equation E=cp. However since this is equivalent to E=mc^2, there is an equivalence between inertial mass and momentum. This equivalence does not mean that they are the same thing, merely that an increase in linear momentum and in inertial mass gives an object more inertial energy, all relative to an observer.

Photons transfer energy from one object (or system thereof) to another; following a strict conservation law in nonexpanding/noncontracting Minkowski spacetimes. Usually this is considered in terms of a conservation of momentum, and is treated by statistical thermodynamics/statistical mechanics. An energetic system radiates away its movement in photons; photons bombarding a less energetic system heats that system up; in a closed system this leads to thermalization (equilibrium).

Beause of the equivalence of mass, linear momentum and energy, one can also say that photons carry inertial mass away from an energetic system to a less energetic one, but this sort of counter-intuitive use of equivalence is both unnecessary and liable to confuse people. This is mainly because inertial mass is not the same as intrinsic mass (aka rest mass).

Inertial mass comes from movement relative to an observer / measurer. Intrinsic mass is what is observed / measured when the observer / measurer is co-moving with the object under study (i.e., they are at rest with respect to one another). Lorentz transformations are used to determine rest mass when an observer is not co-moving with the object under study. The famous Special Relativity equivalence equations must be satisfied if the Lorentz transformations are correct.

Photon masslessness does not arise from Special or General Relativity[*]. It derives from the U(1) symmetry group in the Standard Model. The Standard Model is widely believed to be incomplete (thus the experiments at the LHC) but there are very, very few extensions to the Standard Model that predict a photon with a nonzero rest mass.

[*] In GR, photons are considered massless because they offer zero resistance to acceleration. They go from stationary (with repsect to an observer) to the relativistic speed limit (c) in free space and flat spacetime, given any acceleration at all (even exceptionally tiny ones). Giving a photon a small nonzero mass would mean giving a photon a small nonzero resistance to acceleration, which has enormous consequences for cosmology, but not on GR grounds per se. There would be Special Relativity consequences to a photon with nonzero resistance to acceleration, namely fringing or other evidence of directionality of travel when measuring the speed of light, but these were strongly precluded by Michaelson-Morley and other interferometry experiments, as well as microscale redshifting experiments (GPS for example) and the dipole anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

So, your parent should have said "rest mass" or "intrinsic mass" to be clear. However, I think requiring the qualifier on "mass" in a context that is

I don't get it

[Spazztastic]

I don't understand all the hate for Bill. Unless if this e-mail was nothing more than a publicity stunt to make him look less evil, it shows that he wasn't happy with the way things were going. He clearly saw the direction the ship was going and he couldn't turn it in time.

Despite what you say about Microsoft now, Ballmer will always be funny to read about and watch on youtube.

Re:I don't get it

[QCompson]

I don't understand all the hate for Bill.

Stay off my lawn.

Re:I don't get it

[Vellmont]

I don't understand all the hate for Bill.

Bill's the guy that's responsible for creating this monster. Obviously he didn't do it all by himself, but he's ultimately the captain of the ship.

He clearly saw the direction the ship was going and he couldn't turn it in time.

I actually don't really hate Bill (though I understand why some do). Even though I saw this email about a year ago I'm still greatly amused by it. It shows that even Bill Gates can't control the monster he's created. It's very interesting and amusing that Bill Gates, largest owner of Microsoft and (then) the person with the greatest control over it, reboots his computer nightly. That explains so much.

Re:I don't get it

[drinkypoo]

I don't understand all the hate for Bill.

You may hand in your geek card at the door.

If BillG's actions as the head of Microsoft we're enough for you, then surely his new mission of spreading IP law across the third world should get your attention? The Gates foundation makes for-profit investments that are killing people they claim to be trying to save. Bill is personally heavily invested in big pharma and Gates supports strong IP law in order to protect his profits.

Re:I don't get it

[smallfries]

It's the law of unintended consequences. The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity. Whenever there has been a tradeoff between control and simplicity, Microsoft has chosen simplicity. Unfortunately some things are inherently complex, and as you try to wrap them behind simplistic abstractions there comes a point where you simply can achieve what you want. Suddenly you, and your current task is one of the things that the designers abstracted away. The quote about "we didn't realise people would try and download it from the downloads page" is a classic example.

Which of course was exactly the point that Neal Stephenson made in the essay In the beginning was the command line.

Re:I don't get it

[Locutus]

Bill Gates is the one who, with Steve Balmer, created a Microsoft where it is more important to win by leveraging Windows than competing on quality. He's also overseen them target one software technology after another which were cross platform and therefore threats and had to be eliminated.

What was once a tiny software company who made a Basic interpreter became a monster threatening anyone and everyone if they did not do things One Microsoft Way. This is Bill Gates' fault as much as it is Steve Balmer. Just look at the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation for more proof. From what I've heard, if any school or library takes funds from them, they are not allowed to use open source software. They just constantly limit choice and that has been Microsoft's business method for over 20 years. IMO

LoB

Re:I don't get it

[zappepcs]

I'm keeping a copy of this and some other beauties. Anytime anyone wants to know why I think they should switch to Linux of OSX, I just show them the emails. Even Bill G is tired of Windows and how it works, why shouldn't joe the pc user be?

Re:I don't get it

[postbigbang]

>>The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity.

If this was true, then what's more onerous is that they failed, and did so in repeated, dramatically awful ways. The competing divisions, the lack of inter-disciplinary leadership, confused market views, the lie of 'customer-focused' decision making are all what were embodied in Microsoft's decided failure. Add in the mix of tawdry business practices, lack of belief in criticism, and an insular greed-based nature, and it's not a wonder even Gates could see and feel and experience the ultimate dysfunction. And Windows 7 cures none of that, years after this message. Instead, it continues the Microsoft habituation of trailing edge technology, executed poorly as an excuse to the madness of Vista. Ballmer needs to find a real replacement for himself and get the hell out.

Re:I don't get it

[aero6dof]

The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity.

Surely you jest.

Re:I don't get it

[porkchop_d_clown]

> It's the law of unintended consequences. The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity. Whenever there has been a tradeoff between control and simplicity.

Have you ever actually compared Windows to MacOS? Microsoft most definitely did NOT choose simplicity, rather they have always chosen flexibility - the ability to configure and reconfigure the system to run on different hardware and to do different things.

Re:I don't get it

[Vellmont]

From the perspective of developers once it builds and there aren't any showstopper bugs, everything is fine.

Usability is likely one of the hardest things to get right because it forces (anyone really) to look outside of their own perspective. I don't see this as a disease of just software developers, but everyone. Different users want different things out of the software, and sometimes those ends are at cross purposes. I won't defend developers as a whole class here, because I've seen some (and worse) of what you're describing. I will point out that it's a grand generalization though.

The problems Bill describes seem pretty inexcusable. It seems more a systemic problem than a particular one.

The point of Bill's email is that he tries new products and tries to make these 'dumb user' type critiques of it.

Heh. Dumb is an odd description for it. We've all experienced these same frustrations with using Microsoft software. Go to the horrible MS website, spend a lot of time looking for the DL, hopefully find it, wait wait wait while it DLs, machine locks up to being un-usable, finally install it.. but wait.. reboot! (assuming you survive the reboot).. now hope it works. No? Go to step 1.

If I had to identify the single biggest underlying problem here.. it'd be that the user doesn't have a single place to go to install new software that just handles it all for you (and doesn't make you reboot) like say..... a package manager under Linux ;).

Re:I don't get it

[arendjr]

Has Microsoft done some not cool stuff? Sure...I guess. At the same time, Bill Gates created an excellent company from the ground up, arguably created an entire industry (which, if you work with computers, you can thank him for your job), and continuously made the company profitable over and over again.

You already say its arguable that he created an entire industry, and it is. I believe this industry would have existed perfectly without them. And working for a web company I can tell you that Microsoft is actively holding back the industry you claim they created.

And of course Bill Gates is supporting strong IP. Duh. You would too if you had that kind of money and industry to protect.

So the richest man in the world is lobbying for laws that will make him even richer at the cost of others. And now you claim we should feel empathy for him?? To me, it's kinda like the definition of greed...

Re:I don't get it

[chdig]

Unfortunately some things are inherently complex, and as you try to wrap them behind simplistic abstractions...

Does anyone else see the irony in a poster reducing a company like Microsoft's approach to one of "simplicity", while he himself reduces the complex discussion down to a "simplistic abstraction"?

--
even worse, he's dead wrong.
Rather, the poster porkchop's argument that Microsoft chose flexibility is bang on.

Re:I don't get it

[UnknowingFool]

Microsoft's modus operandi has been more features = more sales. You see this in why Vista had so many issues with the new driver model. For years they neglected to work on security and stability over features. When it became obvious that XP was/is a major target of malware, then they worked on it. But by that time years of bad programming practices by MS and 3rd parties led to many drivers breaking in Vista.

Re:I don't get it

[maxume]

Counting their failure, they are still, by many measures, the most successful software company on the planet.

For instance, more desktop users have complained about how bad Vista is than have used Linux.

Re:I don't get it

[drinkypoo]

I don't think anyone was trying to manipulate you. But it does seem that your zeal to hate the great "evil" makes you look like you have a chip on your shoulder.

The question there has to be whether it's implied or just (incorrectly) inferred. I don't only despise Microsoft and I don't believe that they are inherently immensely worse than their competitors, or J. Random Corporation. What I believe is that they are in a unique position to do damage, and they take advantage. And they must be stopped. I do believe that the rise of the corporation signalled the end of personal rights, and if we want them back we're going to have to do certain things to limit the rights, powers, and abilities of corporations in general. Given a chance to attempt to create my own perfect society (snicker snort) I would propose a model in which all businesses are cooperatives.

If a government and market allows a business to convince them of certain policies to implement, then we should be blaming those elected to the decision-making positions who go along with it, not the businesses themselves.

If I hand someone a gun knowing that he will shoot you with it, then both he and I are liable when you get shot, albeit to varying degrees. The ability to do a thing has never been sufficient justification to do it.

Re:I don't get it

[deoxyribonucleose]

You wouldn't happen to have anything which actually substantiates a ban on open source software as a prerequisite for funding schools and libraries? Apart from Stallman's rants?

Re:I don't get it

[drinkypoo]

When you have billions of dollars, it's hard to be sure that all of it is doing good, and not doing evil.

Ah yes, the "saving the world is hard" argument. That's what the Gates foundation said in a press release explaining why they would not be examining their investments for ethical acceptability. Of course, this immediately followed a press release claiming that they would review their investments for same.

This argument is of course pure horseshit. You have a responsibility to invest your money ethically. To do otherwise is to simply abstract away all your bad behavior on to a proxy. If you invest in genocide, you're a murderer. If you aren't sure your investment is ethical, then the only ethical thing to do is not to make it. To do otherwise is to admit that you have no principles!

You can not be considered an adult until you at least attempt to comprehend the results of your actions.

Re:I don't get it

[theaceoffire]

The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity.

Surely you jest.

I am quite serious, and stop calling me Shirley.

Re:I don't get it

[spacefiddle]

Yes.

I worked for a couple places that were funded by M$ or accepted donations. I suggested a FOSS solution for something, and was told quite explicitly, "We can't, its in the contract."

Now, it's certainly possible the man was lying to me, or mistaken, or if you want to get cute, there was no actual legal obligation to eschew Open Source but M$ reps *implied* that there was, and the folks in charge assumed, were cowed, or simply too slow of mind or weak of will to look at it closer, resulting in this gawdawful run-on sentence i can't seem to fix.

But why wouldn't they add an exclusivity clause to such agreements, and why wouldn't most FOSS-ignorant public school and library administrators agree to it, thinking "who needs crappy free weird software written by teenage hackers, when i have professional polished shiny software for free?" They have never heard the drug-pusher analogy, i suppose, which is weird considering they're in at-risk public schools. Ahem.

Now, you asked for proof. I obviously cannot (and would not) provide a copy of any documentation from former employers, but you DID ask. I am not posting anonymously. Therefore, if you discount my account, as it were, then *you* are now the conspiracy theorist.

Re:I don't get it

[jedidiah]

"capitalism" didn't kill communism, corruption did.

The Soviet union was very much a crony-ism. Everyone that could,
robbed the state blind. This went all the way from the factory
floor up to the politburo. After awhile, the system just couldn't
take it any more.

Capitalism needs a little reigning in so it doesn't devolve into
cronyism. At that point, the positive incentives to do well start
to evaporate and the system loses it's ability to sustain itself.

Considering where Russia started at the start of the 20th century,
they still managed to do very well for themselves despite of
everything. Ultimately, they did themselves in and we will follow
right behind them if we don't pay attention.

Re:I don't get it

[AliasMarlowe]

The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity.

Alas, their hallucination has morphed into a very bad trip indeed.

The quote about "we didn't realise people would try and download it from the downloads page" is a classic example.

Who the hell mixed PCP into their acid?

Abstract

[msuarezalvarez]

We like to think of him as an abstract? Huh?

Re:Abstract

[eln]

You know, composed of a lot of straight lines and sharp angles, both eyes on the same side of his head, lots of colors everywhere, that sort of thing.

Re:Abstract

[Skim123]

From Microsoft's website:

The abstract modifier indicates that the thing being modified has a missing or incomplete implementation. The abstract modifier can be used with classes, methods, properties, indexers, and events. Use the abstract modifier in a class declaration to indicate that a class is intended only to be a base class of other classes. Members marked as abstract, or included in an abstract class, must be implemented by classes that derive from the abstract class.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/sf985hc5.aspx

Since CEO performance is in the news...

[Dolohov]

"'This is a shocking e-mail. Shocking!' And I said, 'What do you think I do all day? Sending an e-mail like that, that is my job. That's what it's all about. We're here to make things better.""

Apparently he either really sucked at his job, or it was the job of the people who worked for him to completely ignore what he said.

it's actually a fantasy game!

[Dekortage]

FTA: "In fact it is more like a puzzle that you get to solve. It told me to go to Windows Update and do a bunch of incantations."

Finally, someone at Microsoft admits that you have to use magic to make Windows work right... I would comment more, but I am on my way to my daily Ballmer goat and bull sacrifice.

Re:it's actually a fantasy game!

[Scrameustache]

FTA: I would comment more, but I am on my way to my daily Ballmer goat and bull sacrifice.

Ah yes, where you let a live goat or bull into the Ballmer enclosure at feeding time.
Because Ballmer doesn't want to be fed... he wants to hunt!

Re:it's actually a fantasy game!

[Bryansix]

Does he hunt with a chair?

Carter Pewterschmidt

[Red4man]

"Hey Bill, can you help me program my Zune? Ha ha ha, I'm kiiding, I have an iPod like the rest of the planet."

Usability and the Bottom Line are Incongruent

[stewbacca]

Maybe had Bill been more hands-on in a Steve Jobs sort of way, the focus might have been more on usability and less on feature-lists. Bill gets what he gets. It's his fault that usability sucks, because he didn't cut into the bottom-line to make it better. It's also Bill's "fault" that Windows enjoyed a 95% market share for a decade.

I know it's a dupe, but...

[Valtor]

I know it's a dupe, but I still love to see Gates say: "But that is just the start of the crap..."

It says it all right there. At least Microsoft knows about the problems with Windows. It is said that realizing there is an issue is the first step to resolving it :)

Re:I know it's a dupe, but...

[badasscat]

I know it's a dupe, but I still love to see Gates say: "But that is just the start of the crap..."

It says it all right there. At least Microsoft knows about the problems with Windows. It is said that realizing there is an issue is the first step to resolving it :)

I don't think Bill Gates is really responsible for the problems with Windows. In fact, I think it's probably one reason why he left when he did. The company just got too big for him to manage day-to-day - he wasn't the one making relatively minor decisions like where Windows Movie Maker sits on the Microsoft web site or how to install it, somebody else was making those decisions. And little decisions like that, all added up together, are 95% of what makes Windows as maddening to use as it is. And he was as annoyed by that stuff as everybody else.

Worse for him, it was his job to defend it, which probably gave him never-ending heartburn.

I think he built this thing, saw what it had turned into, saw no easy way of fixing it (especially at his age and point of his career arc), and so decided to get out and leave it up to someone else. The two questions are:

a) are the people he left behind smart enough to recognize the problems he saw?

and

b) are they actually up to the task of fixing the OS's problems?

So far, Windows 7 seems like a step in the right direction, as is its quick turnaround time (suggesting these guys don't have their heads in the sand about Vista anymore), so I think there's some hope.

Re:I know it's a dupe, but...

[Mister Whirly]

Bill Gates didn't get to where he is today by being ignorant and in the dark about Windows.

Bill Gates realizing and complaining about something that could work better in Windows isn't a huge "discovery". It is his job.

Re:I know it's a dupe, but...

[fastest fascist]

It is said that realizing there is an issue is the first step to resolving it :)

It is also the first step to ignoring it.

NEW!

[Cornwallis]

I've got a news item about Craig Shergold. Really, it's news. Can I post it here?

That's one way KDE/GNOME should emulate Windows

[bogaboga]

Now let's turn the conversation the other way...to KDE and GNOME. Bill Gates here, is just being a typical newbie if he is anyway. No offence to him here. But if he were to send such a "rant" to the GNOME folks, you all know what kind of answers he'd get.

This is not to say the KDE folks get it either. But for Linux to succeed even in the minutest way, it must meet Joe Public's expectations...and this can be done while at the same time meeting expectations of whoever it is at present.

I guess I will be labelled a troll but what I am saying is the truth...so go right ahead and mod me down.

Re:That's one way KDE/GNOME should emulate Windows

[SCHecklerX]

But for Linux to succeed even in the minutest way, it must meet Joe Public's expectations

Why? It's a tool. The majority of "Joe Public" don't have specialized tools to work on bikes/cars/woodworking/electrical/floors/whatever. Does that mean that professional tools for those tasks should be re-designed for those "joe publics" to use without skill?

I don't want my tools to be n00bified, they work great as they are, and appreciate them going in a direction that doesn't ape a broken paradigm. Thanks.

Re:That's one way KDE/GNOME should emulate Windows

[jmpeax]

You have to understand that the original poster was coming from the "my dream is that Linux becomes the only OS used in the world" perspective.

The idea that different software suits different people is lost on those with this mentality.

Re:That's one way KDE/GNOME should emulate Windows

[Draek]

But for Linux to succeed even in the minutest way, it must meet Joe Public's expectations...and this can be done while at the same time meeting expectations of whoever it is at present.

Define "success", then prove meeting "Joe Public"'s expectations is a requirement for such, and *then* prove that meeting them can be done doing only changes that don't alienate any of the current users. Good luck with that, you're gonna need it.

As it stands, your post is just unsubstantiated opinion, off-topic as it pertains to Linux instead of Windows, and very likely a troll since you're using a CEO's letter to his employees to imply that the Gnome and KDE developers react badly to any criticism from 'newbies'.

Re:Also that letter make Bill sound how should I p

[Just Some Guy]

Like a complete moron who has not even the slightest clue what a computer is never mind how to use it for even the most basic functions.

So, you've never even heard of usability testing? Note that almost every question he asked was rhetorical. He was putting himself in the position of a non-technical user who wanted to do something that should be simple but who was getting thwarted at every turn.

But hes a business man not a nerd he gust acts like one so as not to make the employees uncomfortable.

OK, I like Gates about as much as the next person who doesn't like him, but he's definitely geekier than 90% of Slashdotters. The fact that he can step back and look at things from an outsider's perspective is actually a good thing and something you should give him credit for.

Ironic

[Sockatume]

So, we have a story which implies Windows would be better if its architects used it more often and were therefore aware of its crappiness. And it's being duped, because Slashdot's editors don't read Slashdot often enough to notice they're reposting a really popular story. There's a lesson there somewhere.

Re:gust?

[PenguSven]

You don't vote huh? Sounds too much like hard work huh? Besides, why bother, the last guy you cunts elected has REALLY been great for the world. Spell check is intended to pick up mistakes. Unfortunately it can't deal with the mistake in your case, because YOU are the mistake.

Re:thanks but I need more than a lower case j

[xerxesVII]

Oh, great. So you're reproducing.

Thanks.

even more ironic, he praises add/remove

[Ancient_Hacker]

It's funny that he praises the add/remove programs control panel. Try opening it up when you have a file system mounted that contains a whole lot of files. Apparently this control panel, even though it has a cache of installed programs in some subdirectory, plus roughly the same info in a registry subtree, this sterling piece of software goes off and looks at every file on every device. That's the only explanation I can think of why the disks whir for like two hours before this control panel lists anything.

And even then all that work was for naught, because the items listed have not been even slightly vetted for correctness. You click on some of them and get an immediate "no uninstaller found" or even more cryptic messages, and no way to remove these useless entries. This control panel is a classic fail, with it doing slow and useless work several times over and still missing the whole point of what it should be doing.

Bill, you got real problems when you think this really crapalicious control panel is a shining star.

Re:even more ironic, he praises add/remove

[Ancient_Hacker]

It has nothing to do with a fragmented Registry. My Registry is not fragmented and the time goes from two hours to 20 seconds when I unmount the disk with all the files.

And the installed programs list in the registry is only 15 entries, that should not take two hours to load.

It's just poor design. You should never have to scan the universe when you already have the info in at least two places, the Registry and the installer directory. And of course it's a bad idea to have the info in two places.

Re:even more ironic, he praises add/remove

[Ancient_Hacker]

Problems opening the control panel can often be due to poorly written 3rd party control panel applets (.cpl files). My control panel would frequently lock up or open very slowly....

Well that sounds like a very poor design decision, synchronously calling into 3rd party code to see if it's okay to remove such code. IMHO an uninstaller should have more confidence and authority. What's the point of an uninstaller that is subordinate to its minions?

If you are talking about the time taken to list installed programs, this was sped up considerably with Vista, which begins to show installed programs instantly...

No thanks, I tried Vista for an hour and then returned the laptop. Plus this is a pointless hack. I do not care if the items start showing up as they're found. I need to see all of them.

...and populates the list in a fraction of the time XP uses for the same task.

A fraction of two hours is still too long to wait for something that should be instantaneous.

This seems more like "Classic Troll" to me. Are you sure you aren't ripping the programs out manually in a fit of rage and then surprised to find that Windows can't find the uninstaller?

I sometimes rip the program out by hand as the stupid add/remove gadget is not featureful enough to inform me as to what it's talking about or when or where it installed FooMangler Deluxe, plus it gives me no useful undo/redo ability with these critical system components.

Entires can be removed by deleting the appropriate registry keys located in:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall

Oh yeah, good strategy, point me to yet another clueless system utility, where any change is likely to break the whole system, and with no undo ability.

Re:even more ironic, he praises add/remove

[Spatial]

Yup, it's a piece of shit. I use this Nirsoft tool instead, which shows more information and allows you to remove and change the entries.

Re:Let me 'Summarize'...

[socsoc]

how many test pages do you print?

its easy

[diegocgteleline.es]

In some of those published emails, you can see Bill Gates:

-Asking to add Windows-specific quirks to the ACPI "standard", just to make Linux more dificult. "It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work [...] Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me. Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open. Or maybe we could patent something related to this

-Asking their teams to add IE-specific crap in the HTML code generated by Office, just to make harder for other browsers to display things: One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered well by others people browser is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPIETARY IE capabilities" (emphasis by gates, not mine)

-Lobbying Intel to get them to do all their design work in Windows desktops, not in Linux.

-A lot of other "fun" stuff.

And you wonder why people hates Gates? ;)

Re:Download page to download? No way!

[ben0207]

No, this is MS in a nutshell:

"Help help, I'm trapped in a giant nutshell. What kind of a nut has a shell like this?!"

Re:Glass houses and stones...

[spacefiddle]

"Grammer" is not an English word I have ever encountered.

She's married to Gramper.

Low bar to cross

[mkcmkc]

Git is a better source code control system than Visual Source Safe. cp is a better source code control system than Visual Source Safe. Heck, rm is a better source code control system than Visual Source Safe.