Just write your program in undocumented assembly language, and you can safely release the source code. That way, 99.9 percent of the programmers out there won't know what the heck you're talking about, and it'll act as perfect obfuscation. Then, if you're *still* a bit paranoid about people reading your code, do what some professionals do: sprinkle some meaningless or irrelevant comments throughout the (otherwise comment-less) code. Paris Hilton's birthday, written in octal, is an ideal candidate for this.
Excuse me, I have some paper tape to program. Can't let anyone get my Secret Family Recipe, you know.
Think of what this means for a moment: a high-bandwidth router capable of sending a fat data stream anywhere in the world instantaneously, a stream that nobody could jam, spy on, or even detect. This would be the worst nightmare of intelligence services everywhere, and there is just no way they'd let this technology get loose.
In fact, it's potentially so dangerous and disruptive, I'd venture to say that even the military would be denied access to it, since it would quickly escape into the wild. Of course, NASA would kill to get their hands on it. You could send more than data through this thing, remember, you could send electricity, too! Space probes powered by earth-based generators (or earth systems powered by space-based satellites).
Hand out a whole bunch of those big whistles you see referees carry in sports games, and when people get one of these calls, have them take a good deep breath and blow.
My mother-in-law hasn't called the house in years, so I know it works!
And no, it's not about wearing face paint when you're coding, smartalec! It's "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"
While a lot of the points in the article are painfully obvious (note however several people here criticizing the use of any comments in code. Arrrgh!), the last one covers my biggest gripe when fixing someone else's code. I call it "Gee, Mom, look what I can do" code. Spare me, please, the people who code to impress. And it's not just C and C++ that are susceptible to this (my particular "favorite" is crap like "if(a=14)". It's wrong on so many levels, even if it does work as intended -- note the single equal sign instead of a double one). Object Pascal, Basic, every language I've worked with has its own delightful way of letting you obfuscate the hell out of things, and shooting the *next* guy in the foot. Even raw assembler has a nice trick or two up its sleeve (anyone remember unimplemented opcodes?).
The only thing that impresses me is code that is simple (no huge, miles-long functions that run hundreds or thousands of lines), obvious, and works.
Is this an attempt to make Windows more familiar to the Debian user (hoo boy, how about *that* for a turn around!), or solve a real problem with installing programs in Windows? Most of the commercial software development systems I've used came with a free entry level copy of Install Shield, which in my experience is one of the easiest to use, most powerful ways to install Windows apps -- no matter what twisted logic you need to use to get your program working on a user's machine. And the installations created are easy for people to use, too. You just look for "setup.exe" and run it. Yes, there's still DLL Hell, but it seems to be less of a problem these days than it was before.
This is a solution looking for a problem. What problem does this new installation mechanism solve, anyway? How does this help the Windows user? It seems to me like it's targeted at helping the Debian/Ubuntu crowd work with Windows in a manner more familiar to them.
Programs need to install and operate like the OS they're running in. A Windows application shouldn't look and act like Debian or Mac or a Mainframe, or anything else. Same is true of a program in those operating systems as well. Native look and feel, from installation to interface.
Sorry, but I don't see this thing as serving any useful purpose. It would be like me writing a version of Install Shield that ran on Debian. It's alien to that environment, and just doesn't make sense.
NAT is here to stay, at least for home networks, even if IPV6 gains widespread use. The reasons as I see it are as follows:
1. Most home users are completely clueless when it comes to computers, networks, and security. NAT is a simple way to give them the benefits of at least a minimal firewall. Giving each device on their network its own unique IP address, making it visible to the world, without the benefit of even something as brain-dead as NAT would put these devices at risk. In fact, more than half of the people I've been asked to help with computer problems shouldn't be using a computer at all. They seem to think it's some sort of television set (i.e. check your brain at the door) or typewriter.
2. The vast majority of home users do not need to access the devices on their network from outside the home. They might need to tie into a private network *from* home, but those who need to go the other way are few and far between. So, this added functionality of IPV6 serves no useful purpose for most home users. Keeping the home network separate from the world won't make a difference to this majority.
So, as I see it, once IPV6 becomes widespread, it will pick up a version of NAT. Not only will this happen in the home, but in small to medium businesses as well. It's much too useful a tool to be abandoned.
I neither abandon Microsoft software, nor do I leave myself open to tricks like Microsoft's latest dream of world conquest. I choose a middle ground.
I run the Windows software I cannot or will not replace in a virtual VMWare sandbox with no internet connection (just a local intranet connection). That way, I don't feel the urge to update Windows (I generally use Win2k sp4) or play the old "whack-a-mole" game with viruses and trojans. It's not perfect, and I still use Wine for the occasional Windows game (I don't stay up-to-date there, either, preferring older games), but I avoid a whole lot of pain and most of the risk in using Windows software.
There's an old saying in computer software (and yes, it's US centric. sorry about that): You can tell who the pioneers are, they're the ones with arrows in their backs. Avoid being a pioneer, and all sorts of viable solutions to Microsoft's schemes and dreams present themselves.
All well and good to go pawing through my drawers, as long as they start with the one I throw my *dirty* underwear and socks into. In that case, I think the punishment fits the crime.
Excuse me, I have to scrub my typing fingers after that one. ewww!
There is no justification in my mind for a site like this to be allowed to exist, particularly not by a convicted criminal who has an axe to grind. But I'm equally outraged that this information is available to the general public in the first place. You should force people to make a real effort to get it, and even then, I would suggest that the information on informants in cases of violent crimes or drug dealing should be kept sealed. Get a lawyer, and convince a judge that you need to know who snitched in that ten million dollar drug bust. Please! This is why people refuse to get involved when they see a crime going down. Getting your name and address plastered all over the internet as a result is a sure fire way to get yourself (and maybe your family, too) killed.
In my humble opinion, there is too much stress these days on the rights of the criminal, and little or none on the rights of the innocent, law abiding person just trying to live a normal life doing the right thing.
As a computer programmer, I have to constantly keep in mind my First Law of Debugging: When it seems impossible for the subroutine you're looking at to cause the observed behavior, then you're looking in the wrong place for the bug. You overlooked something, and that something only *appears* irrelevant to the problem.
Science (not just QM) is exactly like that. Sometimes in their persuit of answers, scientists will push and twist a particular theory until it *does* provide the answer they want, producing a nightmare of convoluted logic that to the layman might not make any sense. I strongly suspect that QM, while it accurately answers the mathematical need to describe reality, is the result of someone looking in the wrong place for the right answer. They've already decided that a certain place (wherever and whatever it is) couldn't possibly hold the answer they're looking for, and like the weary programmer trying to fix a program, in the wee hours of the morning, insists that the place he's looking at *must* somehow be causing the observed behavior. Somehow.
I gave up on Open Suse when the 10.0 version came out, and they started removing stuff from the standard release. They first took out support for the nVidia drivers, then some of the wireless drivers, forcing me to find and install them both manually. So, whenever they get a little antsy about something, they remove it. As much as I really like Suse, I prefer something that just works out of the box, and doesn't make me jump through hoops just to use my own computer.
I've been a gamer since the days of the original Wolfenstein 3D, and when I had a son, I decided to use the video games in my collection to teach him a few things: like the consequences of your actions, thinking through problems, and *not* killing civilians indiscriminately. I chose games that had a definite right and wrong about them (and yeah, I'm of that generation that believes World War Two was about right and wrong, so a few of those titles were in there), or about thinking (the original Deus Ex, for example).
Unfortunately, my son quickly learned that there were cheat codes out there, so a lot of my hopes at a learning experience went out the window.
There are some games I keep away from him, such as the Carmageddon and Grand Theft series, along with the ever-popular Postal series.
Every step of the way, I know what he's playing, and we talk about it. We don't play against each other because the one time we did he kicked my butt. But otherwise, we're on the same wavelength. We generally play the same games, and talk the same language about them, even though he's 40 years younger than I am.
Games are no more violent than television, and in one way, they're less violent, because when playing a game, the kid is at least in some control. The parent just has to pick the games, and stay involved with the kids. Neither computers nor televisions are baby sitters, and parents who use them as such get the ba****ds they deserve.
But I'm still not gonna let him play Postal -- not until he reaches 65. There have to be *some* limits, you know!
1. Assign a fixed IP address to the Windows PC, instead of grabbing a dynamic address from the router. 2. In the router, block that IP address from being able to get outside the local network. 3. You can now share files across your local intranet while forbidding outside access.
Actually, I only run Windows in a VMWare virtual machine in Linux, and block the Virtual machine's IP address from getting out. Works fine, and has the added benefit of properly sandboxing Windows from damaging my system with malware, etc. Since I don't use my PC for games, this works well for me.
What about My 1541 Floppy Drive?
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
How the heck does Microsoft expect me to keep my coffee hot without it, huh?
Simple Solution: Don't Activate Right Away.
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
Granted I did a clean install of Vista, rather than an upgrade, but I've already been running Vista for more than 30 days without activating it. With a simple DOS command, you can run Vista for up to 120 days without activating it (slmgr -rearm). I figure I'm gonna wait a while before I shoot myself in *that* foot by activating! I imagine the author of the article did the same thing.
What's really funny is that right now, Linux may support more PC hardware than Vista. Time to share the pain, Mr. Gates!
The music industry has gotten too accustomed to collecting profits from their existing catalog. With the music being released in yet another new format (i.e., downloadable files), the industry expects people to line right up and buy all their music again. When this doesn't happen, the reason must be piracy. There is no other logical alternitive.
1. We already have all the old music we want in a digital format. Nobody has any interest in buying it again. No new sales here, friend!
2. We want to hear something new, something that appeals to our taste. We have a lot of different tastes, so don't think you can get away with feeding us the same list of 40 pathetic songs. Either the RIAA companies give it to us, or we're gonna start turning to independants, and drop your sales even further! Your choice, but don't you dare blame your incompetance and short sightedness on piracy.
3. You no longer have a relatively cheap, easy-to-use marketing tool like the 45RPM single (CD singles and cassette singles are too expensive). If you sold digital singles for 99 cents without DRM, and turned a blind eye towards piracy (while still telling people not to), the free publicity would boost the album sales, provided, that is, the music doesn't suck.
4. Allow podcasts to "broadcast" lower bitrate versions of those digital singles, without restrictions, creating a new form of radio. The added publicity will also lead to increased sales. Provided, of course, the music doesn't suck.
5. If you went after the professionals mass-producing illegal CD's, instead of college students, little old ladies, single moms and nine-year-olds, you'd make more money *and* make a real dent in piracy. Of course, then you'd have to deal with a few governments who get protection money from the crooks, or organized crime who like to break kneecaps, or both. It's easier going after little kids and their grandmas, isn't it?
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the RIAA to get a clue.
Microsoft will never create an operating system with the one improvement I think all of us here on/. want to see:
Faster performance using fewer CPU cycles and less memory. Personally, if it weren't for certain games, I'd still be running Windows 2000 instead of that bloated mess called XP! As for Vista, that's so fat and ugly it makes XP look like one of those anorexic European models by comparison.
What features does Vista have that's so great, anyway?
Search? Every piece of data has a specific home on my machine. I don't store anything at random, so I have no need to search for stuff. I already know where everything is. A little discipline goes a long way, guys.
Easier to use? I'm still trying to find where they moved all the functions on me. Arrrgh! What's this, an operating system or an ad for a "Dummies" book?
More secure? This is Microsoft we're talking about. 'Nuff said!
More stable? Yeah, tell that to the blue screens I get periodically. Granted, this might partially be nVidia's fault, but how much you want to bet that the DRM "features" added to Vista have made it more difficult to write a stable driver?
Nicer look and feel? Bah! I have the same look and feel in XP using third-party tools, and they don't consume half the CPU time or memory that the Vista stuff does.
The Vista sweet spot: a 64-core processor with at least 512 GB memory and 1TB disk space. Oh, wait. Those are the specs for Vista SP1. Nevermind.
After several weeks using Vista, I'm back to XP, not only for the usual reasons (Apps that don't work, nVidia drivers that blue screen), but because Vista is a *pig*!
When I went from Windows 2000 to XP, I was startled at how much of a pig XP was. In short, it seemed bigger and slower, even on adequate hardware. As proof of this, note that one expert recently commented that the "sweet spot" on XP is 2 GB of RAM. Now, compare that with Vista, where the same author claims the "sweet spot" to be 4 GB.
Oink, Oink!
From the description of all this ReadyCrap (TM) in Vista, it appears that the entire OS has been designed for hardware that would make a professional gamer blush. Oh, I understand that it doesn't *require* 4GB of memory, but this is definitely the Cray Supercomputer version of Windows.
And beyond memory usage, don't get me started on how many CPU cycles this pound of bacon consumes at idle. No wonder they want you to use a Mega-Multi-Core Processor.
...in the schoolyard with several of your best mates at your side.
Geez, no wonder the world's the way it is today. Everybody's running home to mommy instead of learning to deal with it like adults: gang up on the bleeding sod and beat the living crap out of him!
Bunch of sissies, the lot of ya.
Finding Time For Code Reviews Is The Problem
on
PMD Applied
·
· Score: 1
I used to hate going into code reviews at this one place I worked. Because nobody had time to prepare for it properly, it often collapsed into a series of "You need to indent 4 spaces instead of 3" kind of criticisms, while ignoring issues like code reuse, poorly commented code, and misuse of basic OOP principles.
I don't believe a machine, no matter how well programmed, can replace a proper review done by real live human beings. But to do that, you need to give people the time to do it right. Unfortunately, the project managers in the companies I've worked for didn't really believe in a structured programming approach. It's a big waste of time, and programmers are being paid to write code,not sit around talking about code.
Oh well, these are the same managers who feel that functional and technical specs are also a waste of time. I believe this is called the Redmond Programming Methodology. AKA "Quality is Job 1.1"
Slashdot Mirror
"I trusted him like a brother. That is, not at all"
--From somewhere in the original Amber Series
Just write your program in undocumented assembly language, and you can safely release the source code. That way, 99.9 percent of the programmers out there won't know what the heck you're talking about, and it'll act as perfect obfuscation. Then, if you're *still* a bit paranoid about people reading your code, do what some professionals do: sprinkle some meaningless or irrelevant comments throughout the (otherwise comment-less) code. Paris Hilton's birthday, written in octal, is an ideal candidate for this.
Excuse me, I have some paper tape to program. Can't let anyone get my Secret Family Recipe, you know.
Think of what this means for a moment: a high-bandwidth router capable of sending a fat data stream anywhere in the world instantaneously, a stream that nobody could jam, spy on, or even detect. This would be the worst nightmare of intelligence services everywhere, and there is just no way they'd let this technology get loose.
In fact, it's potentially so dangerous and disruptive, I'd venture to say that even the military would be denied access to it, since it would quickly escape into the wild. Of course, NASA would kill to get their hands on it. You could send more than data through this thing, remember, you could send electricity, too! Space probes powered by earth-based generators (or earth systems powered by space-based satellites).
Too bad we'll never get to see any of it.
Hand out a whole bunch of those big whistles you see referees carry in sports games, and when people get one of these calls, have them take a good deep breath and blow.
My mother-in-law hasn't called the house in years, so I know it works!
And no, it's not about wearing face paint when you're coding, smartalec! It's "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"
While a lot of the points in the article are painfully obvious (note however several people here criticizing the use of any comments in code. Arrrgh!), the last one covers my biggest gripe when fixing someone else's code. I call it "Gee, Mom, look what I can do" code. Spare me, please, the people who code to impress. And it's not just C and C++ that are susceptible to this (my particular "favorite" is crap like "if(a=14)". It's wrong on so many levels, even if it does work as intended -- note the single equal sign instead of a double one). Object Pascal, Basic, every language I've worked with has its own delightful way of letting you obfuscate the hell out of things, and shooting the *next* guy in the foot. Even raw assembler has a nice trick or two up its sleeve (anyone remember unimplemented opcodes?).
The only thing that impresses me is code that is simple (no huge, miles-long functions that run hundreds or thousands of lines), obvious, and works.
Is this an attempt to make Windows more familiar to the Debian user (hoo boy, how about *that* for a turn around!), or solve a real problem with installing programs in Windows? Most of the commercial software development systems I've used came with a free entry level copy of Install Shield, which in my experience is one of the easiest to use, most powerful ways to install Windows apps -- no matter what twisted logic you need to use to get your program working on a user's machine. And the installations created are easy for people to use, too. You just look for "setup.exe" and run it. Yes, there's still DLL Hell, but it seems to be less of a problem these days than it was before.
This is a solution looking for a problem. What problem does this new installation mechanism solve, anyway? How does this help the Windows user? It seems to me like it's targeted at helping the Debian/Ubuntu crowd work with Windows in a manner more familiar to them.
Programs need to install and operate like the OS they're running in. A Windows application shouldn't look and act like Debian or Mac or a Mainframe, or anything else. Same is true of a program in those operating systems as well. Native look and feel, from installation to interface.
Sorry, but I don't see this thing as serving any useful purpose. It would be like me writing a version of Install Shield that ran on Debian. It's alien to that environment, and just doesn't make sense.
NAT is here to stay, at least for home networks, even if IPV6 gains widespread use. The reasons as I see it are as follows:
1. Most home users are completely clueless when it comes to computers, networks, and security. NAT is a simple way to give them the benefits of at least a minimal firewall. Giving each device on their network its own unique IP address, making it visible to the world, without the benefit of even something as brain-dead as NAT would put these devices at risk. In fact, more than half of the people I've been asked to help with computer problems shouldn't be using a computer at all. They seem to think it's some sort of television set (i.e. check your brain at the door) or typewriter.
2. The vast majority of home users do not need to access the devices on their network from outside the home. They might need to tie into a private network *from* home, but those who need to go the other way are few and far between. So, this added functionality of IPV6 serves no useful purpose for most home users. Keeping the home network separate from the world won't make a difference to this majority.
So, as I see it, once IPV6 becomes widespread, it will pick up a version of NAT. Not only will this happen in the home, but in small to medium businesses as well. It's much too useful a tool to be abandoned.
I neither abandon Microsoft software, nor do I leave myself open to tricks like Microsoft's latest dream of world conquest. I choose a middle ground.
I run the Windows software I cannot or will not replace in a virtual VMWare sandbox with no internet connection (just a local intranet connection). That way, I don't feel the urge to update Windows (I generally use Win2k sp4) or play the old "whack-a-mole" game with viruses and trojans. It's not perfect, and I still use Wine for the occasional Windows game (I don't stay up-to-date there, either, preferring older games), but I avoid a whole lot of pain and most of the risk in using Windows software.
There's an old saying in computer software (and yes, it's US centric. sorry about that): You can tell who the pioneers are, they're the ones with arrows in their backs. Avoid being a pioneer, and all sorts of viable solutions to Microsoft's schemes and dreams present themselves.
All well and good to go pawing through my drawers, as long as they start with the one I throw my *dirty* underwear and socks into. In that case, I think the punishment fits the crime. Excuse me, I have to scrub my typing fingers after that one. ewww!
There is no justification in my mind for a site like this to be allowed to exist, particularly not by a convicted criminal who has an axe to grind. But I'm equally outraged that this information is available to the general public in the first place. You should force people to make a real effort to get it, and even then, I would suggest that the information on informants in cases of violent crimes or drug dealing should be kept sealed. Get a lawyer, and convince a judge that you need to know who snitched in that ten million dollar drug bust. Please! This is why people refuse to get involved when they see a crime going down. Getting your name and address plastered all over the internet as a result is a sure fire way to get yourself (and maybe your family, too) killed.
In my humble opinion, there is too much stress these days on the rights of the criminal, and little or none on the rights of the innocent, law abiding person just trying to live a normal life doing the right thing.
A Standard is the whole world deciding to use your product instead of the competition. What, you thought this was all about the consumer? Since when?
As a computer programmer, I have to constantly keep in mind my First Law of Debugging: When it seems impossible for the subroutine you're looking at to cause the observed behavior, then you're looking in the wrong place for the bug. You overlooked something, and that something only *appears* irrelevant to the problem.
Science (not just QM) is exactly like that. Sometimes in their persuit of answers, scientists will push and twist a particular theory until it *does* provide the answer they want, producing a nightmare of convoluted logic that to the layman might not make any sense. I strongly suspect that QM, while it accurately answers the mathematical need to describe reality, is the result of someone looking in the wrong place for the right answer. They've already decided that a certain place (wherever and whatever it is) couldn't possibly hold the answer they're looking for, and like the weary programmer trying to fix a program, in the wee hours of the morning, insists that the place he's looking at *must* somehow be causing the observed behavior. Somehow.
I gave up on Open Suse when the 10.0 version came out, and they started removing stuff from the standard release. They first took out support for the nVidia drivers, then some of the wireless drivers, forcing me to find and install them both manually. So, whenever they get a little antsy about something, they remove it. As much as I really like Suse, I prefer something that just works out of the box, and doesn't make me jump through hoops just to use my own computer.
If I wanted to do *that*, I'd install Vista!
I've been a gamer since the days of the original Wolfenstein 3D, and when I had a son, I decided to use the video games in my collection to teach him a few things: like the consequences of your actions, thinking through problems, and *not* killing civilians indiscriminately. I chose games that had a definite right and wrong about them (and yeah, I'm of that generation that believes World War Two was about right and wrong, so a few of those titles were in there), or about thinking (the original Deus Ex, for example).
Unfortunately, my son quickly learned that there were cheat codes out there, so a lot of my hopes at a learning experience went out the window.
There are some games I keep away from him, such as the Carmageddon and Grand Theft series, along with the ever-popular Postal series.
Every step of the way, I know what he's playing, and we talk about it. We don't play against each other because the one time we did he kicked my butt. But otherwise, we're on the same wavelength. We generally play the same games, and talk the same language about them, even though he's 40 years younger than I am.
Games are no more violent than television, and in one way, they're less violent, because when playing a game, the kid is at least in some control. The parent just has to pick the games, and stay involved with the kids. Neither computers nor televisions are baby sitters, and parents who use them as such get the ba****ds they deserve.
But I'm still not gonna let him play Postal -- not until he reaches 65. There have to be *some* limits, you know!
Oh, no we're doomed, I tell you! I read it in a comic book somewhere.
This is pretty simple if you have a router.
1. Assign a fixed IP address to the Windows PC, instead of grabbing a dynamic address from the router.
2. In the router, block that IP address from being able to get outside the local network.
3. You can now share files across your local intranet while forbidding outside access.
Actually, I only run Windows in a VMWare virtual machine in Linux, and block the Virtual machine's IP address from getting out. Works fine, and has the added benefit of properly sandboxing Windows from damaging my system with malware, etc. Since I don't use my PC for games, this works well for me.
Party like it's 2010!
I'm allergic to kittens
How the heck does Microsoft expect me to keep my coffee hot without it, huh?
Granted I did a clean install of Vista, rather than an upgrade, but I've already been running Vista for more than 30 days without activating it. With a simple DOS command, you can run Vista for up to 120 days without activating it (slmgr -rearm). I figure I'm gonna wait a while before I shoot myself in *that* foot by activating! I imagine the author of the article did the same thing.
What's really funny is that right now, Linux may support more PC hardware than Vista. Time to share the pain, Mr. Gates!
The music industry has gotten too accustomed to collecting profits from their existing catalog. With the music being released in yet another new format (i.e., downloadable files), the industry expects people to line right up and buy all their music again. When this doesn't happen, the reason must be piracy. There is no other logical alternitive.
1. We already have all the old music we want in a digital format. Nobody has any interest in buying it again. No new sales here, friend!
2. We want to hear something new, something that appeals to our taste. We have a lot of different tastes, so don't think you can get away with feeding us the same list of 40 pathetic songs. Either the RIAA companies give it to us, or we're gonna start turning to independants, and drop your sales even further! Your choice, but don't you dare blame your incompetance and short sightedness on piracy.
3. You no longer have a relatively cheap, easy-to-use marketing tool like the 45RPM single (CD singles and cassette singles are too expensive). If you sold digital singles for 99 cents without DRM, and turned a blind eye towards piracy (while still telling people not to), the free publicity would boost the album sales, provided, that is, the music doesn't suck.
4. Allow podcasts to "broadcast" lower bitrate versions of those digital singles, without restrictions, creating a new form of radio. The added publicity will also lead to increased sales. Provided, of course, the music doesn't suck.
5. If you went after the professionals mass-producing illegal CD's, instead of college students, little old ladies, single moms and nine-year-olds, you'd make more money *and* make a real dent in piracy. Of course, then you'd have to deal with a few governments who get protection money from the crooks, or organized crime who like to break kneecaps, or both. It's easier going after little kids and their grandmas, isn't it?
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the RIAA to get a clue.
Microsoft will never create an operating system with the one improvement I think all of us here on /. want to see:
Faster performance using fewer CPU cycles and less memory. Personally, if it weren't for certain games, I'd still be running Windows 2000 instead of that bloated mess called XP! As for Vista, that's so fat and ugly it makes XP look like one of those anorexic European models by comparison.
What features does Vista have that's so great, anyway?
Search? Every piece of data has a specific home on my machine. I don't store anything at random, so I have no need to search for stuff. I already know where everything is. A little discipline goes a long way, guys.
Easier to use? I'm still trying to find where they moved all the functions on me. Arrrgh! What's this, an operating system or an ad for a "Dummies" book?
More secure? This is Microsoft we're talking about. 'Nuff said!
More stable? Yeah, tell that to the blue screens I get periodically. Granted, this might partially be nVidia's fault, but how much you want to bet that the DRM "features" added to Vista have made it more difficult to write a stable driver?
Nicer look and feel? Bah! I have the same look and feel in XP using third-party tools, and they don't consume half the CPU time or memory that the Vista stuff does.
The Vista sweet spot: a 64-core processor with at least 512 GB memory and 1TB disk space. Oh, wait. Those are the specs for Vista SP1. Nevermind.
After several weeks using Vista, I'm back to XP, not only for the usual reasons (Apps that don't work, nVidia drivers that blue screen), but because Vista is a *pig*!
When I went from Windows 2000 to XP, I was startled at how much of a pig XP was. In short, it seemed bigger and slower, even on adequate hardware. As proof of this, note that one expert recently commented that the "sweet spot" on XP is 2 GB of RAM. Now, compare that with Vista, where the same author claims the "sweet spot" to be 4 GB.
Oink, Oink!
From the description of all this ReadyCrap (TM) in Vista, it appears that the entire OS has been designed for hardware that would make a professional gamer blush. Oh, I understand that it doesn't *require* 4GB of memory, but this is definitely the Cray Supercomputer version of Windows.
And beyond memory usage, don't get me started on how many CPU cycles this pound of bacon consumes at idle. No wonder they want you to use a Mega-Multi-Core Processor.
Oink!
...in the schoolyard with several of your best mates at your side.
Geez, no wonder the world's the way it is today. Everybody's running home to mommy instead of learning to deal with it like adults: gang up on the bleeding sod and beat the living crap out of him!
Bunch of sissies, the lot of ya.
I used to hate going into code reviews at this one place I worked. Because nobody had time to prepare for it properly, it often collapsed into a series of "You need to indent 4 spaces instead of 3" kind of criticisms, while ignoring issues like code reuse, poorly commented code, and misuse of basic OOP principles.
I don't believe a machine, no matter how well programmed, can replace a proper review done by real live human beings. But to do that, you need to give people the time to do it right. Unfortunately, the project managers in the companies I've worked for didn't really believe in a structured programming approach. It's a big waste of time, and programmers are being paid to write code,not sit around talking about code.
Oh well, these are the same managers who feel that functional and technical specs are also a waste of time. I believe this is called the Redmond Programming Methodology. AKA "Quality is Job 1.1"