|
| x86 full download:  76 MB
|
| x64 full download: 157 MB
|
| And the .net evangelists wonder why I won't port my apps, most between .5
| and 2 MB to VB.NET.  And before the kooks come back and go on about how
| modern hard drives are practically limitless in size, that's not my
| argument.  My biggest gripe is the experience for the end user.  Who the
| hell wants to download an install of *that* size.  It's wrong of MSFT to
| assume everyone out there has a high bandwidth connection to the Internet.
| A lot of my friends up north still have no choice but to use dial up
because
| they live out in BFE and don't have the convenience of cable or DSL.
|
| I suppose I should start pitching my "download on demand" Inno script to
| .net coders so their unfortunate users only need to download and install
| this mess once and not with every update, or have to fumble through a
| website full of patches.  I've learned that part of being successful in
the
| software biz is to make the experience for the end user as easy and a pain
| free as possible as most of them are too computer literate like you and I.
| Once you make things complicated, like .net written apps, they start
looking
| for alternatives which amounts to lost sales.
|
| </RANT>
|
| --
| 2025
| If you do not believe in time travel,
| your beliefs are about to be tempered.
|
| http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
|
|

On Wed, 20 May 2009 22:36:10 -0400, "mayayana" <mayaXXy***@rcXXn.com>
wrote:

>
>>
>> 76 MB is the *minimum* download size.  Apparently it can go up to over 380
>> MB, depending on selected download components.
>>
>> Holy freakin' cow!
>
>   I've been playing around a bit with Win7 RC
>this past week. The system folder is 7.5 GB
>and Program Files, with *no software installed*
>is something like 330 MB! Win98, with a bit
>of housekeeping done, is about 700 MB, while
>XP can be easily trimmed to about 1 GB. Something
>tells me that Win7 can't be cleaned up 7 GB worth.
>
>  I can't even imagine what's taking up all that space,
>but it does serve to redefine what constitutes bloat.
>While .Net 4, unpacked, may be nearly half as big as
>the entire XP OS, it's only about 1/18th the size of
>Win7. So in one sense it's the most compact .Net
>runtime yet. :)

> > Trying to wean Microsoft off excessive
> > size would be harder than getting an alcoholic to stay dry for a year.
>
>   Actually I'm a little surprised. MS helped out
> their hardware partners by bloating Vista so
> that it required new hardware and 4-16 times
> the RAM of XP. But that backfired when it came
> to running on "netbooks". I was under the
> impression that Win7 was going to be pared
> down so that it could at least be shoehorned
> onto netbooks. Apparently not. If there are
> actually any notable differences between Vista
> and 7 (not counting new wallpaper options) I'd
> be interested to see a detailed list of them.

"Kevin Provance" <Bill.McCarthy.Is.Stalking.TPASoft.com***@nowhere.edu>
wrote in message news:O4dWRNb2JHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Have ya'll checked out the download for the 4.0 Shamework?
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ee2118cc-51cd-46ad-ab17-af6fff7538c9&displaylang=en#filelist
>
> x86 full download:  76 MB
>
> x64 full download: 157 MB
>
> And the .net evangelists wonder why I won't port my apps, most between .5
> and 2 MB to VB.NET.  And before the kooks come back and go on about how
> modern hard drives are practically limitless in size, that's not my
> argument.  My biggest gripe is the experience for the end user.  Who the
> hell wants to download an install of *that* size.  It's wrong of MSFT to
> assume everyone out there has a high bandwidth connection to the Internet.
> A lot of my friends up north still have no choice but to use dial up
> because
> they live out in BFE and don't have the convenience of cable or DSL.
>
> I suppose I should start pitching my "download on demand" Inno script to
> .net coders so their unfortunate users only need to download and install
> this mess once and not with every update, or have to fumble through a
> website full of patches.  I've learned that part of being successful in
> the
> software biz is to make the experience for the end user as easy and a pain
> free as possible as most of them are too computer literate like you and I.
> Once you make things complicated, like .net written apps, they start
> looking
> for alternatives which amounts to lost sales.
>
> </RANT>
>
> --
> 2025
> If you do not believe in time travel,
> your beliefs are about to be tempered.
>
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
>
>

> "Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:u6Mn36c2JHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Kevin,
>>
>> You are acting the same as the people who wanted to use two digits in from
>> 1960 to 1969 for a year column while in those days 1 was common.
>> In 1969 they recognize they had a decennium problem.
>>
>
> I graduated from high school and college during those years, and never once
> heard of anyone using a single digit year. A '62 Corvette or '68 Corvair,
> sure, but a '6 or '8?? I don't think so.
>
> I was programming in Fortran during that time, but didn't do much with
> dates. I do know the computer runs spelled out the year.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood your statement.  ;-)
>

> On 2009-05-21, Rick Raisley <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet> wrote:
> > "Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
> > news:u6Mn36c2JHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> Kevin,
> >>
> >> You are acting the same as the people who wanted to use two digits in from
> >> 1960 to 1969 for a year column while in those days 1 was common.
> >> In 1969 they recognize they had a decennium problem.
> >>
> >
> > I graduated from high school and college during those years, and never once
> > heard of anyone using a single digit year. A '62 Corvette or '68 Corvair,
> > sure, but a '6 or '8?? I don't think so.
> >
> > I was programming in Fortran during that time, but didn't do much with
> > dates. I do know the computer runs spelled out the year.
> >
> > Maybe I misunderstood your statement.  ;-)
> >
>
> If I recall, I think sometimes people would use one byte to encode a two digit
> sequence...  

> In article <eZBpnsk2JHA.***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
> tom_shel***@comcastXXXXXXX.net says...
>> On 2009-05-21, Rick Raisley <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet> wrote:
>> > "Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
>> > news:u6Mn36c2JHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> Kevin,
>> >>
>> >> You are acting the same as the people who wanted to use two digits in from
>> >> 1960 to 1969 for a year column while in those days 1 was common.
>> >> In 1969 they recognize they had a decennium problem.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I graduated from high school and college during those years, and never once
>> > heard of anyone using a single digit year. A '62 Corvette or '68 Corvair,
>> > sure, but a '6 or '8?? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > I was programming in Fortran during that time, but didn't do much with
>> > dates. I do know the computer runs spelled out the year.
>> >
>> > Maybe I misunderstood your statement.  ;-)
>> >
>>
>> If I recall, I think sometimes people would use one byte to encode a two digit
>> sequence...  
>
> Like a packed form of BCD?
>
>

"Tom Shelton" <tom_shel***@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message
news:e0sLX2p2JHA.4744@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> On 2009-05-22, Karl E. Peterson <k***@exmvps.org> wrote:
>> Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>>> If I recall, I think sometimes people would use one byte to encode a
>>>>> two digit
>>>>> sequence...
>>>>
>>>> Like a packed form of BCD?
>>>
>>> Kind of.  each nyble in the byte represents a value from 0 - 9.
>>
>> Why all the effort, when a byte can be 0-255.
>>
>> Seems like plenty of range for any two digits, no? <G>
>
> Hey...  I'm just going off of memory of things that were told to me.  I
> wasn't
> around during that time :)
>
> --
> Tom Shelton

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%23JsXeKq2JHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| Tom,
|
| I was around during that time. (Short but long enough to have worked with
it
| and to see others keep going on using outdated things because they
believed
| it was better not to change)
|
| What you now discuss with Carl, was why in past (a short while) beside
bytes
| also 4 bits words where used.
|
| But actually it comes from mechanical machines, who simply had wheels
which
| were moving up a piece and gave an overflow at the10.
|
| Those were not  always 10 long around because a piece of the surface was
| used for actions as moving up paper and things like that depending of the
| kind of machine the same as we see in ASCII.
|
| And therefore we had in the beginning of electronically data processing
all
| kind of (bit) words like 16bits or 24 bit long.
|
| The name "byte" has a long time (in those days 3 years was long) been used
| for bytes with 12 bits, 8 for data and 4 redundancy bits for control on
| that.
|
| Now the "byte" is commonly used for a word with 8 bits.
|
| Cor
|
|
| "Tom Shelton" <tom_shel***@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message
| news:e0sLX2p2JHA.4744@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > On 2009-05-22, Karl E. Peterson <k***@exmvps.org> wrote:
| >> Tom Shelton wrote:
| >>>>> If I recall, I think sometimes people would use one byte to encode a
| >>>>> two digit
| >>>>> sequence...
| >>>>
| >>>> Like a packed form of BCD?
| >>>
| >>> Kind of.  each nyble in the byte represents a value from 0 - 9.
| >>
| >> Why all the effort, when a byte can be 0-255.
| >>
| >> Seems like plenty of range for any two digits, no? <G>
| >
| > Hey...  I'm just going off of memory of things that were told to me.  I
| > wasn't
| > around during that time :)
| >
| > --
| > Tom Shelton
|

>
>
> --
> 2025
> If you do not believe in time travel,
> your beliefs are about to be tempered.
>
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
> "Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:%23JsXeKq2JHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | Tom,
> |
> | I was around during that time. (Short but long enough to have worked
> with
> it
> | and to see others keep going on using outdated things because they
> believed
> | it was better not to change)
> |
> | What you now discuss with Carl, was why in past (a short while) beside
> bytes
> | also 4 bits words where used.
> |
> | But actually it comes from mechanical machines, who simply had wheels
> which
> | were moving up a piece and gave an overflow at the10.
> |
> | Those were not  always 10 long around because a piece of the surface was
> | used for actions as moving up paper and things like that depending of
> the
> | kind of machine the same as we see in ASCII.
> |
> | And therefore we had in the beginning of electronically data processing
> all
> | kind of (bit) words like 16bits or 24 bit long.
> |
> | The name "byte" has a long time (in those days 3 years was long) been
> used
> | for bytes with 12 bits, 8 for data and 4 redundancy bits for control on
> | that.
> |
> | Now the "byte" is commonly used for a word with 8 bits.
> |
> | Cor
> |
> |
> | "Tom Shelton" <tom_shel***@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message
> | news:e0sLX2p2JHA.4744@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > On 2009-05-22, Karl E. Peterson <k***@exmvps.org> wrote:
> | >> Tom Shelton wrote:
> | >>>>> If I recall, I think sometimes people would use one byte to encode
> a
> | >>>>> two digit
> | >>>>> sequence...
> | >>>>
> | >>>> Like a packed form of BCD?
> | >>>
> | >>> Kind of.  each nyble in the byte represents a value from 0 - 9.
> | >>
> | >> Why all the effort, when a byte can be 0-255.
> | >>
> | >> Seems like plenty of range for any two digits, no? <G>
> | >
> | > Hey...  I'm just going off of memory of things that were told to me.
> I
> | > wasn't
> | > around during that time :)
> | >
> | > --
> | > Tom Shelton
> |
>
>

"Kevin Provance" <Bill.McCarthy.Is.Stalking.TPASoft.com***@nowhere.edu>
wrote in message news:%23jUmmpt2JHA.6056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Karl is spelled with a K.
>
> Would you prefer folks referred to you as Kor?
>
>
>
> --
> 2025
> If you do not believe in time travel,
> your beliefs are about to be tempered.
>
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
> "Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:%23JsXeKq2JHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | Tom,
> |
> | I was around during that time. (Short but long enough to have worked
> with
> it
> | and to see others keep going on using outdated things because they
> believed
> | it was better not to change)
> |
> | What you now discuss with Carl, was why in past (a short while) beside
> bytes
> | also 4 bits words where used.
> |
> | But actually it comes from mechanical machines, who simply had wheels
> which
> | were moving up a piece and gave an overflow at the10.
> |
> | Those were not  always 10 long around because a piece of the surface was
> | used for actions as moving up paper and things like that depending of
> the
> | kind of machine the same as we see in ASCII.
> |
> | And therefore we had in the beginning of electronically data processing
> all
> | kind of (bit) words like 16bits or 24 bit long.
> |
> | The name "byte" has a long time (in those days 3 years was long) been
> used
> | for bytes with 12 bits, 8 for data and 4 redundancy bits for control on
> | that.
> |
> | Now the "byte" is commonly used for a word with 8 bits.
> |
> | Cor
> |
> |
> | "Tom Shelton" <tom_shel***@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message
> | news:e0sLX2p2JHA.4744@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > On 2009-05-22, Karl E. Peterson <k***@exmvps.org> wrote:
> | >> Tom Shelton wrote:
> | >>>>> If I recall, I think sometimes people would use one byte to encode
> a
> | >>>>> two digit
> | >>>>> sequence...
> | >>>>
> | >>>> Like a packed form of BCD?
> | >>>
> | >>> Kind of.  each nyble in the byte represents a value from 0 - 9.
> | >>
> | >> Why all the effort, when a byte can be 0-255.
> | >>
> | >> Seems like plenty of range for any two digits, no? <G>
> | >
> | > Hey...  I'm just going off of memory of things that were told to me.
> I
> | > wasn't
> | > around during that time :)
> | >
> | > --
> | > Tom Shelton
> |
>
>

"Rick Raisley" <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet> wrote in message
news:uA5HbXk2JHA.5772@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:u6Mn36c2JHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Kevin,
>>
>> You are acting the same as the people who wanted to use two digits in
>> from 1960 to 1969 for a year column while in those days 1 was common.
>> In 1969 they recognize they had a decennium problem.
>>
>
> I graduated from high school and college during those years, and never
> once heard of anyone using a single digit year. A '62 Corvette or '68
> Corvair, sure, but a '6 or '8?? I don't think so.
>
> I was programming in Fortran during that time, but didn't do much with
> dates. I do know the computer runs spelled out the year.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood your statement.  ;-)
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rick Raisley
> heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-T-net
>
>

"Bob O`Bob" <filter***@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:u$Xo5Fw2JHA.6004@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Cor Ligthert[MVP] wrote:
>>
>> You are acting the same as the people who wanted to use two digits in
>> from 1960 to 1969 for a year column while in those days 1 was common.
>> In 1969 they recognize they had a decennium problem.
>>
>> Almost nobody currently still knows this, because who would care about
>> one byte.
>
>
>
> No.
>
> The reason "almost nobody" knows this
> is because you have fallen for *a joke*
> which was probably written in the early 1990s.
>
> There certainly were a few applications in the
> 50s and 60s with a single digit year, but they
> were nothing like "common" and essentially none
> had any "problem" because few could even afford
> to have five years worth of data on line at one
> time, much less ten.  Handwritten labels on the
> card boxes and tape archives were enough.
>
>
>
> Bob
> --

>Have ya'll checked out the download for the 4.0 Shamework?
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ee2118cc-51cd-46ad-ab17-af6fff7538c9&displaylang=en#filelist
>
>x86 full download:  76 MB
>
>x64 full download: 157 MB
>
>And the .net evangelists wonder why I won't port my apps, most between .5
>and 2 MB to VB.NET.  And before the kooks come back and go on about how
>modern hard drives are practically limitless in size, that's not my
>argument.  My biggest gripe is the experience for the end user.  Who the
>hell wants to download an install of *that* size.  It's wrong of MSFT to
>assume everyone out there has a high bandwidth connection to the Internet.
>A lot of my friends up north still have no choice but to use dial up because
>they live out in BFE and don't have the convenience of cable or DSL.
>
>I suppose I should start pitching my "download on demand" Inno script to
>.net coders so their unfortunate users only need to download and install
>this mess once and not with every update, or have to fumble through a
>website full of patches.  I've learned that part of being successful in the
>software biz is to make the experience for the end user as easy and a pain
>free as possible as most of them are too computer literate like you and I.
>Once you make things complicated, like .net written apps, they start looking
>for alternatives which amounts to lost sales.
>
></RANT>

"Kevin Provance" <Bill.McCarthy.Is.Stalking.TPASoft.com***@nowhere.edu>
wrote in message news:O4dWRNb2JHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Have ya'll checked out the download for the 4.0 Shamework?
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ee2118cc-51cd-46ad-ab17-af6fff7538c9&displaylang=en#filelist
>
> x86 full download:  76 MB
>
> x64 full download: 157 MB
>
> And the .net evangelists wonder why I won't port my apps, most between .5
> and 2 MB to VB.NET.  And before the kooks come back and go on about how
> modern hard drives are practically limitless in size, that's not my
> argument.  My biggest gripe is the experience for the end user.  Who the
> hell wants to download an install of *that* size.  It's wrong of MSFT to
> assume everyone out there has a high bandwidth connection to the Internet.
> A lot of my friends up north still have no choice but to use dial up
> because
> they live out in BFE and don't have the convenience of cable or DSL.
>
> I suppose I should start pitching my "download on demand" Inno script to
> .net coders so their unfortunate users only need to download and install
> this mess once and not with every update, or have to fumble through a
> website full of patches.  I've learned that part of being successful in
> the
> software biz is to make the experience for the end user as easy and a pain
> free as possible as most of them are too computer literate like you and I.
> Once you make things complicated, like .net written apps, they start
> looking
> for alternatives which amounts to lost sales.
>
> </RANT>
>
> --
> 2025
> If you do not believe in time travel,
> your beliefs are about to be tempered.
>
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
>
>

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:eN8gcKh2JHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Kevin,
>
> This newsgroup is declared by some private persons only for VB6 or
> earlier.
>
> Should I understand from Mayanana and you that by posting by both of you
> Net subjects in this newsgroup, that this restriction is ended?
>
> I know a good reason to keep this newsgroup for VB6. but as I see you
> posting now Net subjects in this newsgroup I think you tell that this
> reason is outdated.
>
> Cor
>
>
> "Kevin Provance" <Bill.McCarthy.Is.Stalking.TPASoft.com***@nowhere.edu>
> wrote in message news:O4dWRNb2JHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Have ya'll checked out the download for the 4.0 Shamework?
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ee2118cc-51cd-46ad-ab17-af6fff7538c9&displaylang=en#filelist
>>
>> x86 full download:  76 MB
>>
>> x64 full download: 157 MB
>>
>> And the .net evangelists wonder why I won't port my apps, most between .5
>> and 2 MB to VB.NET.  And before the kooks come back and go on about how
>> modern hard drives are practically limitless in size, that's not my
>> argument.  My biggest gripe is the experience for the end user.  Who the
>> hell wants to download an install of *that* size.  It's wrong of MSFT to
>> assume everyone out there has a high bandwidth connection to the
>> Internet.
>> A lot of my friends up north still have no choice but to use dial up
>> because
>> they live out in BFE and don't have the convenience of cable or DSL.
>>
>> I suppose I should start pitching my "download on demand" Inno script to
>> .net coders so their unfortunate users only need to download and install
>> this mess once and not with every update, or have to fumble through a
>> website full of patches.  I've learned that part of being successful in
>> the
>> software biz is to make the experience for the end user as easy and a
>> pain
>> free as possible as most of them are too computer literate like you and
>> I.
>> Once you make things complicated, like .net written apps, they start
>> looking
>> for alternatives which amounts to lost sales.
>>
>> </RANT>
>>
>> --
>> 2025
>> If you do not believe in time travel,
>> your beliefs are about to be tempered.
>>
>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
>>
>>
>

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eN8gcKh2JHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| Kevin,
|
| This newsgroup is declared by some private persons only for VB6 or
earlier.
|
| Should I understand from Mayanana and you that by posting by both of you
Net
| subjects in this newsgroup, that this restriction is ended?
|
| I know a good reason to keep this newsgroup for VB6. but as I see you
| posting now Net subjects in this newsgroup I think you tell that this
reason
| is outdated.
|
| Cor
|
|
| "Kevin Provance" <Bill.McCarthy.Is.Stalking.TPASoft.com***@nowhere.edu>
| wrote in message news:O4dWRNb2JHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > Have ya'll checked out the download for the 4.0 Shamework?
| >
| >

| >
| > x86 full download:  76 MB
| >
| > x64 full download: 157 MB
| >
| > And the .net evangelists wonder why I won't port my apps, most between
..5
| > and 2 MB to VB.NET.  And before the kooks come back and go on about how
| > modern hard drives are practically limitless in size, that's not my
| > argument.  My biggest gripe is the experience for the end user.  Who the
| > hell wants to download an install of *that* size.  It's wrong of MSFT to
| > assume everyone out there has a high bandwidth connection to the
Internet.
| > A lot of my friends up north still have no choice but to use dial up
| > because
| > they live out in BFE and don't have the convenience of cable or DSL.
| >
| > I suppose I should start pitching my "download on demand" Inno script to
| > .net coders so their unfortunate users only need to download and install
| > this mess once and not with every update, or have to fumble through a
| > website full of patches.  I've learned that part of being successful in
| > the
| > software biz is to make the experience for the end user as easy and a
pain
| > free as possible as most of them are too computer literate like you and
I.
| > Once you make things complicated, like .net written apps, they start
| > looking
| > for alternatives which amounts to lost sales.
| >
| > </RANT>
| >
| > --
| > 2025
| > If you do not believe in time travel,
| > your beliefs are about to be tempered.
| >
| > http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
| >
| >
|

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eN8gcKh2JHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Kevin,
>
> This newsgroup is declared by some private persons only for VB6 or
> earlier.
>
> Should I understand from Mayanana and you that by posting by both of you
> Net subjects in this newsgroup, that this restriction is ended?
>
> I know a good reason to keep this newsgroup for VB6. but as I see you
> posting now Net subjects in this newsgroup I think you tell that this
> reason is outdated.
>
> Cor
>
>
> "Kevin Provance" <Bill.McCarthy.Is.Stalking.TPASoft.com***@nowhere.edu>
> wrote in message news:O4dWRNb2JHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Have ya'll checked out the download for the 4.0 Shamework?
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ee2118cc-51cd-46ad-ab17-af6fff7538c9&displaylang=en#filelist
>>
>> x86 full download:  76 MB
>>
>> x64 full download: 157 MB
>>
>> And the .net evangelists wonder why I won't port my apps, most between .5
>> and 2 MB to VB.NET.  And before the kooks come back and go on about how
>> modern hard drives are practically limitless in size, that's not my
>> argument.  My biggest gripe is the experience for the end user.  Who the
>> hell wants to download an install of *that* size.  It's wrong of MSFT to
>> assume everyone out there has a high bandwidth connection to the
>> Internet.
>> A lot of my friends up north still have no choice but to use dial up
>> because
>> they live out in BFE and don't have the convenience of cable or DSL.
>>
>> I suppose I should start pitching my "download on demand" Inno script to
>> .net coders so their unfortunate users only need to download and install
>> this mess once and not with every update, or have to fumble through a
>> website full of patches.  I've learned that part of being successful in
>> the
>> software biz is to make the experience for the end user as easy and a
>> pain
>> free as possible as most of them are too computer literate like you and
>> I.
>> Once you make things complicated, like .net written apps, they start
>> looking
>> for alternatives which amounts to lost sales.
>>
>> </RANT>
>>
>> --
>> 2025
>> If you do not believe in time travel,
>> your beliefs are about to be tempered.
>>
>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
>>
>>
>

"Kevin Provance" <Bill.McCarthy.Is.Stalking.TPASoft.com***@nowhere.edu>
wrote in message news:O4dWRNb2JHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Have ya'll checked out the download for the 4.0 Shamework?
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ee2118cc-51cd-46ad-ab17-af6fff7538c9&displaylang=en#filelist
>
> x86 full download:  76 MB
>
> x64 full download: 157 MB
>
> And the .net evangelists wonder why I won't port my apps, most between .5
> and 2 MB to VB.NET.  And before the kooks come back and go on about how
> modern hard drives are practically limitless in size, that's not my
> argument.  My biggest gripe is the experience for the end user.  Who the
> hell wants to download an install of *that* size.  It's wrong of MSFT to
> assume everyone out there has a high bandwidth connection to the Internet.
> A lot of my friends up north still have no choice but to use dial up
> because
> they live out in BFE and don't have the convenience of cable or DSL.
>
> I suppose I should start pitching my "download on demand" Inno script to
> .net coders so their unfortunate users only need to download and install
> this mess once and not with every update, or have to fumble through a
> website full of patches.  I've learned that part of being successful in
> the
> software biz is to make the experience for the end user as easy and a pain
> free as possible as most of them are too computer literate like you and I.
> Once you make things complicated, like .net written apps, they start
> looking
> for alternatives which amounts to lost sales.
>
> </RANT>
>
> --
> 2025
> If you do not believe in time travel,
> your beliefs are about to be tempered.
>
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
>
>

"Rick Raisley" <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet> wrote in message
news:e92qwYk2JHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Saga" <antiSpam@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:%23VD7Y4h2JHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> The final solution was to dump CR and use the Printer object,
>> thus reducing the number of install diskettes. Regards, Saga
>>
>
> So they actually preferred to dump features and functionality, in order to
> reduce the number of install disks??? Amazing!
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rick Raisley
> heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-T-net
>
>

"Rick Raisley" <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet> wrote in message
news:e92qwYk2JHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Saga" <antiSpam@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:%23VD7Y4h2JHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> The final solution was to dump CR and use the Printer object,
>> thus reducing the number of install diskettes. Regards, Saga
>>
>
> So they actually preferred to dump features and functionality, in order to
> reduce the number of install disks??? Amazing!
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rick Raisley
> heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-T-net
>
>

"James Hahn" <jh***@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:%23p80DwN3JHA.480@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Not so amazing.  There seem to be a number of people hereabouts saying
> exactly the same thing.
>
> "Rick Raisley" <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet> wrote in message
> news:e92qwYk2JHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> "Saga" <antiSpam@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23VD7Y4h2JHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> The final solution was to dump CR and use the Printer object,
>>> thus reducing the number of install diskettes. Regards, Saga
>>>
>>
>> So they actually preferred to dump features and functionality, in order
>> to reduce the number of install disks??? Amazing!
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rick Raisley
>> heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-T-net
>>
>>
>

On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:02:57 -0400, "mayayana" <mayaXXy***@rcXXn.com>
wrote:

>> With registration-free COM the controls and other malarkey, e.g. the
>> .exe, are merely copied to an empty folder, so that seems the safest
>> approach.
>
>   Yes. I started doing that with a COM DLL I wrote
>for dealing with program settings. I'm using Olaf's
>DLL to load it. But that still doesn't justify a big pile
>of OCXs. VB works great with a pile of OCXs and all
>variant datatypes. I think one can even buy fullscale
>GUIs as OCXs from companies like Sheridan. With
>fancy 3-D "woodgrain" windows and the like. :)  But if
>someone is coding that way I don't really want their
>software on my system. And there's a lot of that stuff
>out there. .Net has just upped the ante, putting every
>control one can think of into one package and calling
>it a "framework".
>
>A good example of the exponentially bloated .Net version
>of that problem:
>    Some time back I wrote an HTA using VBScript to
>unpack and document MSI installer files. I could have
>written it in VB but the HTA was faster and easier, and
>the WindowsInstaller.Installer COM object that does all
>the work is Dispatch-only, so there's very little advantage
>to VB over VBS.
>   The only other
>program I've come across that actually works to unpack
>MSIs is written in .Net. It's got a dandy GUI, but takes
>some 350-400 times as much space as my HTA, including
>the runtime. It doesn't have as much functionality as the
>HTA I wrote using VBS. (Which is not to brag about my
>HTA. It's not terribly complex.) And the .Net program doesn't
>even deal directly with the Windows Installer API. Instead,
>it packs in 2 DLLs from the O.S. Wix project (1+ MB) to
>actually do the work of dealing with the W.I. API! So the
>88 MB .Net runtime is needed just to show a nice window.
>
>> I really do wish I could get some feedback about my use of a
>> manifest file for a VB6 app on XP and Vista, but the whole world
>> appears to have gone stumm! (...continues grumbling away madly in a
>> darkened corner...)
>>
>
>??   You mean this:
>
>> Meanwhile, I have been discovering the joys of manifest-based
>> "no-installation" installation! Works for me.
>> http://littletyke.myzen.co.uk/ktn/index.html

On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:59:11 -0400, "mayayana" <mayaXXy***@rcXXn.com>
wrote:

>> By the way, I hear what you say about "fancy woodgrain", but if
>> nothing is being installed, only copied, how does that matter on
>> today's vast hard disks? I fully support your point of view when it
>> comes to installing stuff in the registry - I am fed up with
>> deinstallations that fail to remove all traces of an app from the
>> registry - but I don't see any problem with copying files, including
>> OCXs, into an empty folder in a registration-free COM installation
>>
>
>  As an enduser I think an author should be
>more considerate. The space on my disk isn't
>there for them to waste. As an author I feel
>the same: Just because people might have lots
>of space that doesn't excuse me filling it up
>with bloat.
>   I actually don't mind the Registry so much. It's
>harmless to have a few settings left behind.
>Far more is left behind as a result of Microsoft's
>push to use the App Data folder. It seems to be
>standard behavior now to leave all of that behind,
>where most people don't even know it exists. (For
>instance, uninstalling Firefox leaves the entire
>cache and personal settings behind.)
>
>   But actually what I was getting at was not so much
>the problem of bloat per se. Rather, it's the implication
>that the person who wrote the software may have created
>a professional-looking program while having no idea of
>what they're doing. The bigger it is, the more likely
>that's true.
>
>
>> By the way (2), that woodgrain sounds quite nice! I think I'll take a
>> look.
>>
>  :)  Maybe there's something in the old VBPJ magazines.
>I remember seeing that kind of thing before, like an
>old car dashboard, but I don't remember now whether
>it was controls, skins, or maybe one of the numerous
>gnome/KDE options that Linux fans like to experiment
>with.

>On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:59:11 -0400, "mayayana" <mayaXXy***@rcXXn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> By the way, I hear what you say about "fancy woodgrain", but if
>>> nothing is being installed, only copied, how does that matter on
>>> today's vast hard disks? I fully support your point of view when it
>>> comes to installing stuff in the registry - I am fed up with
>>> deinstallations that fail to remove all traces of an app from the
>>> registry - but I don't see any problem with copying files, including
>>> OCXs, into an empty folder in a registration-free COM installation
>>>
>>
>>  As an enduser I think an author should be
>>more considerate. The space on my disk isn't
>>there for them to waste. As an author I feel
>>the same: Just because people might have lots
>>of space that doesn't excuse me filling it up
>>with bloat.
>>   I actually don't mind the Registry so much. It's
>>harmless to have a few settings left behind.
>>Far more is left behind as a result of Microsoft's
>>push to use the App Data folder. It seems to be
>>standard behavior now to leave all of that behind,
>>where most people don't even know it exists. (For
>>instance, uninstalling Firefox leaves the entire
>>cache and personal settings behind.)
>>
>>   But actually what I was getting at was not so much
>>the problem of bloat per se. Rather, it's the implication
>>that the person who wrote the software may have created
>>a professional-looking program while having no idea of
>>what they're doing. The bigger it is, the more likely
>>that's true.
>>
>>
>>> By the way (2), that woodgrain sounds quite nice! I think I'll take a
>>> look.
>>>
>>  :)  Maybe there's something in the old VBPJ magazines.
>>I remember seeing that kind of thing before, like an
>>old car dashboard, but I don't remember now whether
>>it was controls, skins, or maybe one of the numerous
>>gnome/KDE options that Linux fans like to experiment
>>with.
>
>I used woodgrain in my other music application:
>http://www.littletyke.myzen.co.uk/index.html
>
>However, it is simply a bmp or jpg of a slice of timber, so it takes
>up very little space.
>
>I don't know why you are so offhand about the registry, especially on
>Windows 98. It is well know how the registry in this OS is limited and
>bloat and leftovers WILL eventually slow performance down to such an
>extent that a reinstall is the only option. I have been running now
>for about two years since I upgraded the mobo and CPU, but now it is
>becoming ever more apparent that I will soon have to contemplate yet
>another reinstall (I've done it three times at least over the past ten
>years).
>
>MM

> Actually, while I'm here, if you (i.e. you, not a generalised you)
> install one of your VB6 apps on someone's Windows 98/98SE PC, which
> versions of the runtime (MSVBVM60.DLL) and the other OCxs do you
> deploy? You see, I updated to the latest 6B service pack recently,
> which provides much later versions than were around when Windows 98SE
> was mainstream. So once again I am loathe to use the *latest* versions
> as I fear they might interfere with other, older OCXs on the user's
> PC.
>
> For instance, my latest music app uses COMDLG32.OCX, MSCOMCTL.OCX,
> MSFLXGRD.OCX, MSVBVM60.DLL, RICHTX32.OCX, plus one third-party OCX and
> three third-party helper DLLs. Specifically in regard to the Microsoft
> controls, these obviously only represent a small subset of the entire
> suite of controls supplied with VB6. So, if I come along with my
> installer and put the latest versions of my few controls (above list)
> on the user's machine, how can I tell whether there will be adverse
> interaction effects if other apps on the user's PC suddenly are
> subjected to part-new, part-current (for Windows 98) controls?
>
> The user could have a number of apps running happily that were
> installed with the OCX versions and VB6 runtime that were valid at the
> time, but the risk is that introducing a small number of newest
> versions could upset the apple cart. This is why I am so excited about
> registration-free COM, since all the above fears are immediately
> lifted if the technology can be made to work on XP and later OS's.
>
> But maybe many hundreds of shareware authors never get any feedback
> from angry users that users' PCs have been allegedly screwed up?
>
> I was pondering this last night and this morning on reflection of what
> you said about your continued use of Windows 98 and so I took a look
> at my trusty Wise installer, which works fine. I opened up the
> Application Files/Files/Details window and had a look at how I've
> currently got the update settings configured: In all cases I've set
> the condition: "Replace Existing File if date/time and version number
> is older"
>
> Fine, but then I thought, ah, but *my* latest versions are MUCH later
> than I would have had four years ago! Unfortunately, Wise does not
> provide a condition that says: "Replace Existing File if you promise
> not to screw up the user's existing setup"    ;)
>
> MM

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:11:05 -0400, "mayayana" <mayaXXy***@rcXXn.com>
wrote:

>    I use my own customized version of the PDW
>and don't ship any extra support files. I don't use
>OCXs, and I haven't shipped the runtime for years.
>I used to include a note on download pages about
>getting the runtime for Win95/98/NT4, but these days
>I figure that anyone using those systems is going
>to be familiar with the issues, so VB6 software can
>safely be installed as stand-alond software.
>
>   My avoidance of controls is partly due to using
>my own userControls. I use my own owner-drawn
>RTB, my own sockets UC, and various customized
>controls. I use straight code for OpenFile diaogues.
>It's faster, more efficient, more customizable, and
>provides a lot more available functionality than what
>the MS planners decided was worth putting into the
>VB controls.
>
>  In many cases it turns out that the ocx-free
>version is not notably more difficult than the ocx
>version. It's just a bit more "gritty". For instance,
>the formatting of file extension strings for a common
>dialogue is a pain in the neck whether you use comdlg.ocx
>or comdlg32.dll. The main difference is that with the
>latter one has to use API and be aware of data types.
>The OCX really just uses a "wizard" to write the API
>code so that VB programmers won't have to understand
>data types. Arguably it doesn't save any work in
>terms of setting it up or in terms of learning how it
>works.
>
>   The owner-drawn RTB is nice because not
>only is it faster and basically dependency-free, it
>also runs RTB v. 2 or 3, depending on the system it's
>on. RTB 2 included a couple of very nice additions:
>multiple undo and find-backward. That's all coming
>from riched20.dll. The VB control is based on
>riched32.dll, which is Richedit v. 1 only. (Incidentally,
>for the PDW it's standard to also ship riched32.dll -
>on Win9x only.)
>
>    The other part of avoiding controls is that I've
>limited my usage. I've never used a FlexGrid or
>anything from the common controls libraries.
>Admittedly, that does limit my options somewhat.
>I was tempted to add a common controls dependency
>at one point to get a tab control. But then Jerry French,
>who used to frequent this group, provided a very
>simple owner-drawn tab control that showed how easy
>it was to make my own tabs.
>
>   If you want to use the Wise installer you could
>combine that with the Redist folder. Do you know
>about that? In the VB folder, Wizards\PDWizard\Redist.
>When MS found a serious compatibility issue with
>a new file version they would put the stable version
>in the Redist folder with the next service pack. So if
>you have an up-to-date VB service pack then you
>should have the best versions to use in your Redist
>folder and you can point Wise to those.
>   As for the actual runtime, I doubt it matters which
>version people have except in the case of very specific
>issues. (I didn't install a SP later than #3 for a long time
>because according to the release notes of SP4/5 there
>weren't any issues that were relevant to me. If I
>remember correctly there were mostly database-related
>fixes.
>
>   I think that, in general, the version of a system file
>shipped should be the version that came with Win98.
>(I think Win2000 is also OK. I don't remember for sure.)
>After that Windows File Protection (formerly known as
>System File Protection) started being used. On WinME/XP
>if you try to install a new system file it will get replaced.
>If you do it with the PDW you'll end up in a reboot loop
>because the PDW will reboot to replace files, then Windows
>will silently overwrite those files without telling you,
>then the PDW will say, "Need to reboot to replace files."
>And so on. You can avoid that by just not shipping any
>system file newer than what's on ME+. For those systems
>the official position from MS is that nothing should ever
>be replaced except by official MS patches. They basically
>took the system folder out of the hands of 3rd-party
>programmers who are not MS partners.
>
>   I don't think the OCX files are considered to be system
>files, but they still relate to the Redist folder. And if it
>were me I still wouldn't ship anything later than what
>I've used and I know works. (If there's a lesson in what
>Microsoft has produced in the past 10 years it's that newer
>is not necessarily better. :)

> this is where Wise first copies any file it's about to replace into a
> Backup folder. However, this should never arise if I implement my
> wunnerful new brain fart! Let me know if you have the time... thanks!)
>
> MM

On Wed, 27 May 2009 22:22:26 -0400, "mayayana" <mayaXXy***@rcXXn.com>
wrote:

>
>> Actually, I've just thought of a possibly safer installation route:
>> "Only install if not present."
>
>  That sounds good. It seems to be the same as
>"only install if newer" in practice, assuming that
>you ship the older versions. That's a bit tricky
>to do, I guess, if you code on a newer system.
>
>> Given that many
>> Windows 98 PCs will already have the runtime plus any controls that
>> other software may have installed, *adding* to the controls (rather
>> than replacing any of them) is likely to present the least problems.
>> Maybe I'll whack together an installation package and you can test it
>> for me!!
>
>  I wouldn't mind testing it for you, but I'd appreciate
>having a list of the files/versions to go with it, just in case
>there's anything that I want to change back later,
>without having to trust Wise to handle it.
>
>  If I were you, though, I wouldn't even consider shipping
>the runtime files. Only someone with Win95/NT4/98
>who's never installed a VB6 program would need that.
>For such rare cases you can just include a Microsoft
>link. (The symptom is that when the program is started
>there's an error message about MSVBVM60.DLL.)
>
>
> ;) (You can always use the Backup feature for added security;
>> this is where Wise first copies any file it's about to replace into a
>> Backup folder. However, this should never arise if I implement my
>> wunnerful new brain fart! Let me know if you have the time... thanks!)
>>
>> MM

"Rick Raisley" <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet> wrote in message
news:ODVdSy43JHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "mayayana" <mayaXXy***@rcXXn.com> wrote in message
> news:udPD5tz3JHA.1712@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >
> >
> >  If I were you, though, I wouldn't even consider shipping
> > the runtime files. Only someone with Win95/NT4/98
> > who's never installed a VB6 program would need that.
> > For such rare cases you can just include a Microsoft
> > link. (The symptom is that when the program is started
> > there's an error message about MSVBVM60.DLL.)
> >
>
> That might be okay for casual use, or within a company. But if I bought a
> program such as Microsoft Office or Command & Conquer, and it wouldn't
work
> until I downloaded and installed certain runtime files, I'd be quite
upset.
> IMHO, a commercially available program must include all files necessary,
> beyond a bare Windows install, for any version of Windows it is intended
to
> run on. In fact, that is normally the standard testing practice. And in
fact
> that is one reason I've stuck with VB6, rather than include the huge .Net
> framework necessary with VB.Net, in my downloads, etc.
>

>
> That might be okay for casual use, or within a company. But if I bought a
> program such as Microsoft Office or Command & Conquer, and it wouldn't
work
> until I downloaded and installed certain runtime files, I'd be quite
upset.
> IMHO, a commercially available program must include all files necessary,
> beyond a bare Windows install, for any version of Windows it is intended
to
> run on. In fact, that is normally the standard testing practice. And in
fact
> that is one reason I've stuck with VB6, rather than include the huge .Net
> framework necessary with VB.Net, in my downloads, etc.
>

"mayayana" <mayaXXy***@rcXXn.com> wrote in message
news:%23OY5NVt3JHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
>    If you want to use the Wise installer you could
> combine that with the Redist folder. Do you know
> about that? In the VB folder, Wizards\PDWizard\Redist.
> When MS found a serious compatibility issue with
> a new file version they would put the stable version
> in the Redist folder with the next service pack. So if
> you have an up-to-date VB service pack then you
> should have the best versions to use in your Redist
> folder and you can point Wise to those.

"Rick Raisley" <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet> wrote in message
news:eCIo6dv3JHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OlHZqFu3JHA.4872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Frankly, if you are not using P&D one is better off to ignore this
>> folder.
>>
>
> Then what's the best way to be sure you're using the "correct" version of
> all the runtime files?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rick Raisley
> heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-T-net
>
>

>
>"Rick Raisley" <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet> wrote in message
>news:eCIo6dv3JHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> "Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OlHZqFu3JHA.4872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > Frankly, if you are not using P&D one is better off to ignore this
>folder.
>> >
>>
>> Then what's the best way to be sure you're using the "correct" version of
>> all the runtime files?
>>
>
>To repeat MM's observation - "That is, indeed, the $64,000 question."
>
>It depends a great deal on what you consider to be "runtime" files. There is
>really only one (or three if you included the C and MFC runtimes), your
>target scenario, and to some degree on your resources.
>
>The target is probably the dominant factor. I generally lump these scenarios
>into three broad categories - "Enterprise", "Friends and Family", and "Wild
>Cats" (Commercial shrink-wrap). Or you might think of it has just two -
>known and unknown targets.
>
>The Enterprise or Corporate scenario is usually the easiest to design for.
>All boxes are essentially known. You can easily define several essential
>packages for Data components, Controls, Runtimes, etc. And then work with
>the administrators to insure all boxes have these packages installed. Then
>with any specific application you provide just include the bare minimum of
>components.
>
>"Friends and Family" is pretty easy - cause you can provide a simple minimal
>install and see what's missing.
>
>"Wild Cats" are a PITA. (Thankfully I only work on a few commercial
>projects). In this case I found that breaking up the install package into
>several versions based on O/S to be the easiest over-all.
>eg.
>    For Vista you can use this list to determine what probably isn't there
>and what you might need to include and definitely not include.
>vb support in vista
>http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vbrun/ms788708.aspx
>
>In general it is here that working with a deprecated development platform
>really pays off. In almost every case you can merely request the User to
>install the latest 'n greatest appropriate MS install packages for their
>O/S - VB Runtimes, VB Controls, and Data packages. The older the O/S the
>more the user might have to install. The User is almost always better off
>with the general upgrade.
>
>This also means your development platform must also be up-todate as well.
>Which is another story. :-)
>
>-ralph
>

On Wed, 27 May 2009 09:28:50 -0400, "mayayana" <mayaXXy***@rcXXn.com>
wrote:

>
>>
>> I used woodgrain in my other music application:
>> http://www.littletyke.myzen.co.uk/index.html
>>
>
>   That's a nice touch. (And nice buttons.)
>
>>
>> I don't know why you are so offhand about the registry, especially on
>> Windows 98. It is well know how the registry in this OS is limited and
>> bloat and leftovers WILL eventually slow performance down to such an
>> extent that a reinstall is the only option.
>
>   You might be right, but I've never experienced
>anything like that. And after watching Regmon run
>for a couple of minutes it's hard to imagine how
>that could be true. On the one hand, if a progam
>leaves behind settings it's probably just a handful
>of COM subkeys for installed libs, and/or a few
>settings in the Software key. (Most Registry "cleaners"
>are nonsense aimed at beginners and PC magazine
>columnists looking for a topic to write about. They're
>focussed on getting those trivial leftovers in the Software
>key.) Yet those values will probably never be accessed
>again and they represent a very tiny addition to the
>Registry. With that in mind, open Regmon and then
>open IE. You should find that IE accesses the Registry
>something over 5,000 times in a second or two! Microsoft
>is breathtakingly sloppy in the way they use the registry.
>Not only are there thousands of potential settings for
>IE alone, but running Regmon you can see that when
>you run Microsoft software it usually accesses its settings
>over and over and over and over. Most of the IE calls are
>repeats..... I've never even imagined a possible rational
>explanation for that, unless it's just a standard obfuscation
>technique. In any case, IE still pops right up despite those
>thousands of reads. And most software is far less sloppy
>than IE.
>
>  So the Registry is clearly extremely efficient. What you're
>saying about software and Windows slowing down
>noticeably with slightly larger system.dat/user.dat files
>would mean that it's quite inefficient, and that you should
>be able to reproduce the slowness by just adding a hundred
>or so dummy values.

"Kevin Provance" <Bill.McCarthy.Is.Stalking.TPASoft.com***@nowhere.edu>
wrote in message news:O4dWRNb2JHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Have ya'll checked out the download for the 4.0 Shamework?
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ee2118cc-51cd-46ad-ab17-af6fff7538c9&displaylang=en#filelist
>
> x86 full download:  76 MB
>
> x64 full download: 157 MB
>
> And the .net evangelists wonder why I won't port my apps, most between .5
> and 2 MB to VB.NET.  And before the kooks come back and go on about how
> modern hard drives are practically limitless in size, that's not my
> argument.  My biggest gripe is the experience for the end user.  Who the
> hell wants to download an install of *that* size.  It's wrong of MSFT to
> assume everyone out there has a high bandwidth connection to the Internet.
> A lot of my friends up north still have no choice but to use dial up
> because
> they live out in BFE and don't have the convenience of cable or DSL.
>
> I suppose I should start pitching my "download on demand" Inno script to
> .net coders so their unfortunate users only need to download and install
> this mess once and not with every update, or have to fumble through a
> website full of patches.  I've learned that part of being successful in
> the
> software biz is to make the experience for the end user as easy and a pain
> free as possible as most of them are too computer literate like you and I.
> Once you make things complicated, like .net written apps, they start
> looking
> for alternatives which amounts to lost sales.
>
> </RANT>
>
> --
> 2025
> If you do not believe in time travel,
> your beliefs are about to be tempered.
>
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
>
>

"Kevin Provance" <Bill.McCarthy.Is.Stalking.TPASoft.com***@nowhere.edu>
wrote in message news:OV3hyCm2JHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> | Why do you continually pollute the VB classic group with your mindless
> | tirades?
>
> It was posted as OT, idiot.  Wasn't me who changed it.  Call it counter
> balance to the drivel you and your fellow filthy aussies post here.  Or
> maybe just cause I can?
>
> | If you don't want to use .Net, then don't.
>
> Okay, I won't.  Thanks for your unneeded blessing.
>
> | Or is it that you are so insecure that you constantly have to show that
> others are more stupid than you?
>
> Naw, I've left that to you and your fellow heathens.  With that in mind,
> are
> you and Billy done putting our your brush fires?
>
>