Well, Windows is at least somewhat POSIX compliant.
A few semesters ago I took an Operating Systems class; our labs were simple programs involving forking processes, named pipes, sockets, and file I/O, which we were to develop on an old Solaris box.
Not much of a Pico fan, I developed my programs on Vista using Visual Studio 2005. They all compiled and ran on Vista, and then also compiled and ran on gcc and Solaris. These were simple programs, mind you, but it worked.
Now ODF... TFA only looks at spreadsheet compatibility, and evidently there is no way documented in the ODF standard to store spreadsheet formulas. Article claims that they should have reverse engineered it or reused code from some other plug-in, but really I'm surprised they included any ODF support at all - "new markets" be damned.
But, if no-one's satisfied, they also introduced a whole new API for writing file format converters. Go write your own plug-in!
Clinton had a "balanced budget" but a Republican congress.
Guess which drafts the budget?
Also notice how little difference party allegiance makes - Republicans were in congress during the Bush years as well.
More on topic... "the government and private entities combined should" as opposed to "a government taxing to spend that money" - the implications of that are absolutely scary.
You *are* however aware of the little fact that you can go for hundreds of miles in most interstates with no businesses in sight --except some fast food joints and motels at exits tens of miles apart from each other.
And in our completely government-less thought experiment, you would probably pay a toll to get on that 100 mile stretch of road.
Now we can debate if that toll would cost the average user more or less than the taxes that would be used to maintain it as a public road.
Step 1: Put your files where you can find them. Your home directory (c:\users\username) is a good place.
After that it's simple. Robocopy is a nifty, rscync-ish command-line tool; you can get it on Server 2003 or XP as a separate download. You can also get SyncToy, a GUI program. Windows 7's (and Vista's) built-in backup program can do some nifty things (including create a complete PC image), but only in the Business and Ultimate editions. (Natch.)
I haven't used PowerShell much, but it sounds pretty nifty. It's built in to Server 2008, and everything is configurable from a PowerShell command line. (Evidently on Server 2003 and prior, only some things were scriptable like this; most things had to be done with clicking.)
The niftiest thing about PowerShell is that it's built on.NET - pipes take fully-typed objects rather than character strings. Think object-oriented perl.
As for getting a Macbook... No reason why you can't install Windows 7 on it later; they're Wintel machines that haven't come out of the closet yet.
You customize Explorer the same way you always have - press "Alt", and the Tools -> Folder Options menu is there.
You can get the "classic" theme by right-clicking on "My Computer" and hitting "Properties." Click on "Advanced System Settings" and you have the same "System Properties" Window XP has. Under "Performance" select "adjust for best performance" (or uncheck "theming") and Vista will look every bit as ugly as Windows 2000.
I'd recommend leaving Aero on (not Aero Glass with all the effects, just Aero). Aero takes advantage of hardware acceleration which can make your shell a bit snappier.
As for tree views and start menu organization... I rarely use icons; I launch most programs by hitting "Windows+R" and typing in the name of the executable in the run dialog. (e.g., "winword"). But, indexing is actually useful in Vista - press the start button (with the mouse, or the one on your keyboard) and then begin typing - the instant search is nifty for finding things you don't use often. I find myself typing in "system restore" rather than navigate through the start menu to find it, or the name of the show I want to watch rather than browsing through my media partition.
TL;DR version - "Yes, you can." And the Vista shell does have some nifty you may like, and they're all there and then some in Windows 7. They're probably not worth $bucks, but it may be worthwhile to download the Windows 7 beta to play with. You can install it on a separate partition and dual-boot without hosing your XP partition.
The essence of any religion, including Christianity, is that logic and reason are less important than faith
Contradictions between Reason and Faith exist only if you buy into a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. It is possible to be a Christian and also to be Reasonable and Logical.
Those of us who don't believe the earth was created 6000 ago don't have this problem.
At work, we have an old, repurposed desktop at our help desk for doing troubleshooting over the phone. It's either an old HP D310 or DC5000; I forget which. Has the worst kind of horrible, integrated Intel graphics and a gigabyte of RAM. 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 processor.
The Vista partition runs fine on it, and in fact runs faster than the XP partition. (Although that's due to all the garbage the other help desk workers have thrown on the machine; they stay away from the Vista partition because "Vista is slow.")
Mind you that we're not running Aero Glass or gaming on that machine - all we have to do is pull up a web browser to enter support tickets, we have to manage iPrint printeres and NetWare shares, and we boot up Office 2003 and 2007 to step people through the horribly complicated process of double-spacing their paper. But, it's pretty snappy for those kinds of tasks - and this desktop has got to be running on 5 years old.
Will Vista run on less than a gigabyte? Haven't tried it and wouldn't want to, but my friend got it running on the "Linux version" of the Acer AspireOne netbook - the one with 512 MB of RAM (he upgraded it to 1.5 GB), the Intel 945 GMA graphics, and the ridiculously slow 8 GB SSD drive. He vLited the crap out of an installer ISO and got Home Premium (minus Aero) running on there, and installed any programs he needed to a 16 GB SD card.
So, it is possible, and it will work, and it will do 99% of common word-processing-web-browsing tasks. His biggest complaint was that it wouldn't run Finale well, but Finale is about as memory-hungry as Photoshop.
Now, our 5-year-old work computer had no bloatware (we have VLK copies of Vista and XP, and the machine at one point had a fresh image.) The netbook also came without bloatware (it was the 8 GB Linux model after all; we did a fresh copy of Vista.)
Perhaps a more appropriate reason for a lawsuit (if any) would be for bundling bloatware, rather than selling an "underpowered" computer.
Non-profit status for newspapers (that now can't have a political view) is simply a tax on newspapers that do. This seems like a limit on free speech along the lines of the fairness doctrine.
This is further complicated by the fact that no journalist seems to believe that they are capable of bias.
What you're describing is Windows key + left or Windows key + right in Windows 7 - it'll dock that application to the left or right half of your screen. You can also just drag a window over to that half of the screen.
One thing I *really* wished XP/Server 2003/Vista had.
That is exactly why you can do that - because IE isn't contained in "Internet Explorer.exe", it is contained in those components. Your "tabbed browser in C#" is nothing but an alternative launcher for the IE core code.
True, and that was kind of my point. Any application developer is going to be following the three-click method.
Also true that most of IE's routines hide in ie*.dll files in system32, or probably other places, too. But, if you just want to remove the browser killing iexplore.exe is sufficient. I can't imagine why you'd want to break any Windows program that uses a hyperlink, but it would be interesting to unregister all of those files and watch what breaks.
I can see where bundling iexplore.exe causes all sorts of anti-trust problems. Not that I agree, but it's a reasonable argument, and iexplore could easily be replaced with Firefox or Chrome or whatever other browser. However, I'm pretty sure that no browser other than IE extends the same support for an embedded browser without you having to include that browser itself, in its entirety, with your program. Hating IE is one thing, but there's not really an alternative for developers wanting simple HTML rendering in an application.
But you can't UNINSTALL the browser!
Microsoft entwines it so much with the OS that it's ALWAYS THERE.
It removes your choice and unfairly stifles competition!
Bullshit! People have to be getting this from somewhere if I just scrolled through pages of the same comment, but it's not true.
Because IE is included with the operating system, lots of first- and third-party programs use it for rendering web pages. It exports a nice COM interface and has.NET components. (In fact, you can make a "tabbed browser" in 3 clicks in C#.)
Removing IE doesn't break Windows - it breaks other programs. Any kind of F1 compiled help will die. Steam would die. Creative's "Update" application would die. So on and so forth.
So, the uninstaller just removes the icon. But, there's nothing stopping you from deleting c:\program files\Internet Explorer. For those of you following along on Vista, also try c:\program files (x86)\Internet Explorer.
Now, if the Mozilla devs would also export a nice, shiny COM interface or a.NET assembly, all of this would be moot. They could even make a redistributable version of Firefox so interested parties could include it with their installer.
Until that day, the alternative to assuming IE exists on every machine is every program even remotely related to the internets writing their own browser.
To follow up on parent, if you work in a IT department where you can image computers, it's far more effective to just back up their files and reimage the computer. I've spent hours cleaning them only to (as a last resort) reimage the computer.
Very true. I work at a college help desk, and imaging staff and faculty machines is usually what I do first. Imaging takes an hour; a single virus scan usually takes a half hour. It never takes "just" one scan to remove most malware, and half of the time you need to mount the drive on another machine to remove some of the nastier stuff.
On top of that, Windows updates are instantaneous. We have a caching proxy on campus, so the patches download at LAN speed.
That's actually pretty cool. Making a homegroup painless and takes a few mouse clicks, and if you have a copy of the beta you (most likely) already have a.NET passport.
So, Homegroup +.NET passport = free file sharing to anyone on your homegroup? Intriguing, but the article implies that there must be a way to invite a computer NOT on your LAN into a homegroup. I'm guessing that's what that new file sharing program is about.
Heh, if you have physical access the game is over. "Lock your terminal" is merely a poor defense against bored pranksters (beating their head in if they touch your machine is the only effective deterrent).
Lets say that the terminal only gives you a remote desktop on a secure remote system, and your credentials are required to authenticate.
What's with this "Windows 7 firewall issue" nonsense? This is how it has always worked for the Windows firewall, XP and Vista suffers from the same flaw. It isn't new or surprising for Windows 7.
Exactly! Furthermore, Windows 7's firewall is fully configurable! (Not sure if Vista's was; I use Vista, but I have an IPCop box for that.)>/p>
If you're running Windows 7, run wf.msc. Inbound rules... outbound rules... Different rules for different locations... It's actually usable and filters inbound and outbound traffic!
It seems that the problem was that Windows was cooperating with the app vendor to lock out such hacking attempts.
No, it doesn't. It seems that the "hacked" DLL is broken. Or, at incompatible with how Photoshop is expecting to link with it. Or doesn't exactly mimic the expected entry points. Or doesn't initialize the same global variables correctly. Or is referenced differently by the Windows 7 kernel. Or did work through some black magic but is now broken through a new security model. Etc.
DLLs are "dynamic link libraries." They're.lib files that live in memory and can be used by multiple programs simultaneously. Using them is relying on Windows to compile your program for you; change them at your peril. This is a Windows 95-era problem.
But, more evidence that this article is unresearched garbage.
And then finding that the OS even after reboot has locked you out of your own Local Settings folder...
Here's what actually happened. Open a command prompt under Windows 7 (doesn't even have to be an administrator command prompt) and navigate to your user profile. (C:\users\username). Type in dir a:l. Those of you following along at home will notice that Local Settings is a reparse point - the "real" location where all of these files reside is at AppData\Local. (They're similar to *nix hard links.)
Vista (and evidently Windows 7) use reparse points to make sure legacy (or poorly-coded) programs don't break. Install a 32-bit program on 64-bit Windows and it will magically end up in Program Files (x86) instead of Program Files.
There are security permissions associated with these. No 32-bit process will ever make it's way to the 64-bit Program Files folder even if Administrator with a capital-A Himself launched that process with his UAC-emblazoned blessing. The same thing is true for that Local Settings reparse point.
So, why did his foray into Local Settings fail? Explorer.exe is supposed to know about AppData\Local and is barred from the legacy backdoor. Why couldn't he set privileges or take ownership or use his crappy Unlocker program? You can't take ownership/set privileges/whatever on a reparse point; that has to be done on the folder it links to. All of those actions would have succeeded (or have been unnecessary) on AppData\Local.
Interestingly enough, the command prompt can use the Local Settings reparse point. Navigate to c:\users\username. The command cd Local Settings will succeed (even on a non-administrator command prompt.) The command mkdir loltest will succeed and show up in a directory listing. But double-clicking on the Local Settings "folder" in the Explorer shell will fail. But, the loltest folder will show up in AppData\Local even though it supposedly created inside Local Settings. I wonder why the command prompt use the Local Settings reparse point, but the shell can't.
As for degraded record quality while playing back? I called it "crappy audio drivers" when Vista was first released. Lo, Creative fixed it, however slowly. Have faith, or turn down the sample rate in the control panel.
Slashdot Mirror
But why not just, you know, learn to play an actual guitar?
Because Guitar Hero is a game, which people play for fun.
Playing a real guitar requires years of hard work and dedication. That'll be a smash at parties.
Besides, one controller for RL Guitar costs more than all of Rockband.
But people will still use firefox for porn.
CTRL+SHIFT+N brings up a new "incognito" tab - porn mode.
Well, Windows is at least somewhat POSIX compliant.
A few semesters ago I took an Operating Systems class; our labs were simple programs involving forking processes, named pipes, sockets, and file I/O, which we were to develop on an old Solaris box.
Not much of a Pico fan, I developed my programs on Vista using Visual Studio 2005. They all compiled and ran on Vista, and then also compiled and ran on gcc and Solaris. These were simple programs, mind you, but it worked.
Now ODF... TFA only looks at spreadsheet compatibility, and evidently there is no way documented in the ODF standard to store spreadsheet formulas. Article claims that they should have reverse engineered it or reused code from some other plug-in, but really I'm surprised they included any ODF support at all - "new markets" be damned.
But, if no-one's satisfied, they also introduced a whole new API for writing file format converters. Go write your own plug-in!
I suppose you read every piece of paper you signed your whole life.
Yes, actually. It's a really good idea.
I just screenshotted 100% for Tanuki and 0% for Cadabra.
Now to read the article and find out what I voted for. (I just modeled a meatspace election!)
Clinton had a "balanced budget" but a Republican congress.
Guess which drafts the budget?
Also notice how little difference party allegiance makes - Republicans were in congress during the Bush years as well.
More on topic... "the government and private entities combined should" as opposed to "a government taxing to spend that money" - the implications of that are absolutely scary.
You *are* however aware of the little fact that you can go for hundreds of miles in most interstates with no businesses in sight --except some fast food joints and motels at exits tens of miles apart from each other.
And in our completely government-less thought experiment, you would probably pay a toll to get on that 100 mile stretch of road.
Now we can debate if that toll would cost the average user more or less than the taxes that would be used to maintain it as a public road.
Did I miss any important rules about global warming?
"'Heads' I win, 'tails' you lose!"
How the hell do Windows users backup their files?
Step 1: Put your files where you can find them. Your home directory (c:\users\username) is a good place.
After that it's simple. Robocopy is a nifty, rscync-ish command-line tool; you can get it on Server 2003 or XP as a separate download. You can also get SyncToy, a GUI program. Windows 7's (and Vista's) built-in backup program can do some nifty things (including create a complete PC image), but only in the Business and Ultimate editions. (Natch.)
I haven't used PowerShell much, but it sounds pretty nifty. It's built in to Server 2008, and everything is configurable from a PowerShell command line. (Evidently on Server 2003 and prior, only some things were scriptable like this; most things had to be done with clicking.)
The niftiest thing about PowerShell is that it's built on .NET - pipes take fully-typed objects rather than character strings. Think object-oriented perl.
As for getting a Macbook... No reason why you can't install Windows 7 on it later; they're Wintel machines that haven't come out of the closet yet.
It's not difficult to get that "look" in Vista.
You customize Explorer the same way you always have - press "Alt", and the Tools -> Folder Options menu is there.
You can get the "classic" theme by right-clicking on "My Computer" and hitting "Properties." Click on "Advanced System Settings" and you have the same "System Properties" Window XP has. Under "Performance" select "adjust for best performance" (or uncheck "theming") and Vista will look every bit as ugly as Windows 2000.
I'd recommend leaving Aero on (not Aero Glass with all the effects, just Aero). Aero takes advantage of hardware acceleration which can make your shell a bit snappier.
As for tree views and start menu organization... I rarely use icons; I launch most programs by hitting "Windows+R" and typing in the name of the executable in the run dialog. (e.g., "winword"). But, indexing is actually useful in Vista - press the start button (with the mouse, or the one on your keyboard) and then begin typing - the instant search is nifty for finding things you don't use often. I find myself typing in "system restore" rather than navigate through the start menu to find it, or the name of the show I want to watch rather than browsing through my media partition.
TL;DR version - "Yes, you can." And the Vista shell does have some nifty you may like, and they're all there and then some in Windows 7. They're probably not worth $bucks, but it may be worthwhile to download the Windows 7 beta to play with. You can install it on a separate partition and dual-boot without hosing your XP partition.
Conficker doesn't use the internal system clock; it polls various websites to find out the real date.
If it can't connect to those websites, or gets an unexpected response, it assumes it's in a closed network and holes up.
A very insightful post... But I have a nit to pick:
There's nothing a computer can't solve: there are just things we haven't figured out yet.
The Halting Problem!
Maybe there could be some yeast-based implant to metabolize the yest-based toxins. I'm thinking some kind of Borg-esque kind of thing.
Additionally, achievements.
The essence of any religion, including Christianity, is that logic and reason are less important than faith
Contradictions between Reason and Faith exist only if you buy into a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. It is possible to be a Christian and also to be Reasonable and Logical.
Those of us who don't believe the earth was created 6000 ago don't have this problem.
At work, we have an old, repurposed desktop at our help desk for doing troubleshooting over the phone. It's either an old HP D310 or DC5000; I forget which. Has the worst kind of horrible, integrated Intel graphics and a gigabyte of RAM. 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 processor.
The Vista partition runs fine on it, and in fact runs faster than the XP partition. (Although that's due to all the garbage the other help desk workers have thrown on the machine; they stay away from the Vista partition because "Vista is slow.")
Mind you that we're not running Aero Glass or gaming on that machine - all we have to do is pull up a web browser to enter support tickets, we have to manage iPrint printeres and NetWare shares, and we boot up Office 2003 and 2007 to step people through the horribly complicated process of double-spacing their paper. But, it's pretty snappy for those kinds of tasks - and this desktop has got to be running on 5 years old.
Will Vista run on less than a gigabyte? Haven't tried it and wouldn't want to, but my friend got it running on the "Linux version" of the Acer AspireOne netbook - the one with 512 MB of RAM (he upgraded it to 1.5 GB), the Intel 945 GMA graphics, and the ridiculously slow 8 GB SSD drive. He vLited the crap out of an installer ISO and got Home Premium (minus Aero) running on there, and installed any programs he needed to a 16 GB SD card.
So, it is possible, and it will work, and it will do 99% of common word-processing-web-browsing tasks. His biggest complaint was that it wouldn't run Finale well, but Finale is about as memory-hungry as Photoshop.
Now, our 5-year-old work computer had no bloatware (we have VLK copies of Vista and XP, and the machine at one point had a fresh image.) The netbook also came without bloatware (it was the 8 GB Linux model after all; we did a fresh copy of Vista.)
Perhaps a more appropriate reason for a lawsuit (if any) would be for bundling bloatware, rather than selling an "underpowered" computer.
How will this make the media "more balanced?"
Non-profit status for newspapers (that now can't have a political view) is simply a tax on newspapers that do. This seems like a limit on free speech along the lines of the fairness doctrine.
This is further complicated by the fact that no journalist seems to believe that they are capable of bias.
What you're describing is Windows key + left or Windows key + right in Windows 7 - it'll dock that application to the left or right half of your screen. You can also just drag a window over to that half of the screen.
One thing I *really* wished XP/Server 2003/Vista had.
That is exactly why you can do that - because IE isn't contained in "Internet Explorer.exe", it is contained in those components. Your "tabbed browser in C#" is nothing but an alternative launcher for the IE core code.
True, and that was kind of my point. Any application developer is going to be following the three-click method.
Also true that most of IE's routines hide in ie*.dll files in system32, or probably other places, too. But, if you just want to remove the browser killing iexplore.exe is sufficient. I can't imagine why you'd want to break any Windows program that uses a hyperlink, but it would be interesting to unregister all of those files and watch what breaks.
I can see where bundling iexplore.exe causes all sorts of anti-trust problems. Not that I agree, but it's a reasonable argument, and iexplore could easily be replaced with Firefox or Chrome or whatever other browser. However, I'm pretty sure that no browser other than IE extends the same support for an embedded browser without you having to include that browser itself, in its entirety, with your program. Hating IE is one thing, but there's not really an alternative for developers wanting simple HTML rendering in an application.
But you can't UNINSTALL the browser! Microsoft entwines it so much with the OS that it's ALWAYS THERE. It removes your choice and unfairly stifles competition!
Bullshit! People have to be getting this from somewhere if I just scrolled through pages of the same comment, but it's not true.
Because IE is included with the operating system, lots of first- and third-party programs use it for rendering web pages. It exports a nice COM interface and has .NET components. (In fact, you can make a "tabbed browser" in 3 clicks in C#.)
Removing IE doesn't break Windows - it breaks other programs. Any kind of F1 compiled help will die. Steam would die. Creative's "Update" application would die. So on and so forth.
So, the uninstaller just removes the icon. But, there's nothing stopping you from deleting c:\program files\Internet Explorer. For those of you following along on Vista, also try c:\program files (x86)\Internet Explorer.
Now, if the Mozilla devs would also export a nice, shiny COM interface or a .NET assembly, all of this would be moot. They could even make a redistributable version of Firefox so interested parties could include it with their installer.
Until that day, the alternative to assuming IE exists on every machine is every program even remotely related to the internets writing their own browser.
To follow up on parent, if you work in a IT department where you can image computers, it's far more effective to just back up their files and reimage the computer. I've spent hours cleaning them only to (as a last resort) reimage the computer.
Very true. I work at a college help desk, and imaging staff and faculty machines is usually what I do first. Imaging takes an hour; a single virus scan usually takes a half hour. It never takes "just" one scan to remove most malware, and half of the time you need to mount the drive on another machine to remove some of the nastier stuff.
On top of that, Windows updates are instantaneous. We have a caching proxy on campus, so the patches download at LAN speed.
That's actually pretty cool. Making a homegroup painless and takes a few mouse clicks, and if you have a copy of the beta you (most likely) already have a .NET passport.
So, Homegroup + .NET passport = free file sharing to anyone on your homegroup? Intriguing, but the article implies that there must be a way to invite a computer NOT on your LAN into a homegroup. I'm guessing that's what that new file sharing program is about.
Heh, if you have physical access the game is over. "Lock your terminal" is merely a poor defense against bored pranksters (beating their head in if they touch your machine is the only effective deterrent).
Lets say that the terminal only gives you a remote desktop on a secure remote system, and your credentials are required to authenticate.
Let's say I steal your terminal and sell it.
What's with this "Windows 7 firewall issue" nonsense? This is how it has always worked for the Windows firewall, XP and Vista suffers from the same flaw. It isn't new or surprising for Windows 7.
Exactly! Furthermore, Windows 7's firewall is fully configurable! (Not sure if Vista's was; I use Vista, but I have an IPCop box for that.)>/p>
If you're running Windows 7, run wf.msc. Inbound rules... outbound rules... Different rules for different locations... It's actually usable and filters inbound and outbound traffic!
It seems that the problem was that Windows was cooperating with the app vendor to lock out such hacking attempts.
No, it doesn't. It seems that the "hacked" DLL is broken. Or, at incompatible with how Photoshop is expecting to link with it. Or doesn't exactly mimic the expected entry points. Or doesn't initialize the same global variables correctly. Or is referenced differently by the Windows 7 kernel. Or did work through some black magic but is now broken through a new security model. Etc.
DLLs are "dynamic link libraries." They're .lib files that live in memory and can be used by multiple programs simultaneously. Using them is relying on Windows to compile your program for you; change them at your peril. This is a Windows 95-era problem.
But, more evidence that this article is unresearched garbage.
And then finding that the OS even after reboot has locked you out of your own Local Settings folder ...
Here's what actually happened. Open a command prompt under Windows 7 (doesn't even have to be an administrator command prompt) and navigate to your user profile. (C:\users\username). Type in dir a:l. Those of you following along at home will notice that Local Settings is a reparse point - the "real" location where all of these files reside is at AppData\Local. (They're similar to *nix hard links.)
Vista (and evidently Windows 7) use reparse points to make sure legacy (or poorly-coded) programs don't break. Install a 32-bit program on 64-bit Windows and it will magically end up in Program Files (x86) instead of Program Files.
There are security permissions associated with these. No 32-bit process will ever make it's way to the 64-bit Program Files folder even if Administrator with a capital-A Himself launched that process with his UAC-emblazoned blessing. The same thing is true for that Local Settings reparse point.
So, why did his foray into Local Settings fail? Explorer.exe is supposed to know about AppData\Local and is barred from the legacy backdoor. Why couldn't he set privileges or take ownership or use his crappy Unlocker program? You can't take ownership/set privileges/whatever on a reparse point; that has to be done on the folder it links to. All of those actions would have succeeded (or have been unnecessary) on AppData\Local.
Interestingly enough, the command prompt can use the Local Settings reparse point. Navigate to c:\users\username . The command cd Local Settings will succeed (even on a non-administrator command prompt.) The command mkdir loltest will succeed and show up in a directory listing. But double-clicking on the Local Settings "folder" in the Explorer shell will fail. But, the loltest folder will show up in AppData\Local even though it supposedly created inside Local Settings. I wonder why the command prompt use the Local Settings reparse point, but the shell can't.
As for degraded record quality while playing back? I called it "crappy audio drivers" when Vista was first released. Lo, Creative fixed it, however slowly. Have faith, or turn down the sample rate in the control panel.
Now when I need confirmation that 2+2=4, Google isn't there to help. What a letdown.
Wrong! Google is always there to help!