Fucken MS

[shawn]

Fucken MS!!!!! I thought the internet was slower than fuck on a lot of sites but until I went to www.theregister.com I had no idea why.

Aparently MS like usual has released a bunch of patches all at once and with the usual settings every single person with windows today has been constantly downloading these updates.

Does MS even have a clue that it's better to release these updates as they happen and not to do them all in a bundle slowing down the entire internet. For smart guys these people sure are stupid when it comes to common sense. I bet there were terabyte upon terabyte shooting across the internet today updating all these people.

Gee can't wait till Firefox 3.5 comes out and the internet again becomes a crawl in a few weeks. :P

[The 9th Sage]

Er...so you'd rather have them wait on releasing patches that fill in security holes in Windows? Personally, I wish they'd release them MORE often.

[shawn]

Er...so you'd rather have them wait on releasing patches that fill in security holes in Windows? Personally, I wish they'd release them MORE often.

You misunderstood. They waited like they do with service packs and released a bunch at once and in doing so slowed down my ISP response time so much it took almost 30 seconds for page changes.

I actually wish they'd do what you said and release them immediately one at a time, not wait for a day of the week or day of the month or a prescheduled date , or till they had a bunch of them, and instead just release them the day they are approved for use.

That way instead of "just an example made up figure" releasing 10 MB of patches/fixes they instead release a single patch of 150K for just one fix.

The difference for a release day is say 50 million pc's in US alone downloading 10 MB per person/500 terabyte bandwidth usage in USA alone they are instead downloading 150k per person/7.5 terabytes bandwidth usage in USA alone. You see the difference in bandwidth is huge.

I imagine most ISP's were totally overwhelmed with people's computers set for automatic download hammering them to talk back and forth with MS dedicated servers.

[Fla Flash]

Er...so you'd rather have them wait on releasing patches that fill in security holes in Windows? Personally, I wish they'd release them MORE often.

Why don't they just realease a fucking operating system without any fucking holes in it?
Just a thought.

[Lillymon]

Why don't they just realease a fucking operating system without any fucking holes in it?
Just a thought.
Because it's impossible? No operating system the size of Windows could possibly be made without any major security hole.

[Bodomi]

Windows 7 has it fairly good.
It bitches about any system changes.
If they'd just fix the programs to not try taking administrative priviledges.

Though I'm sure it can/will be exploited too.

[The 9th Sage]

Because it's impossible? No operating system the size of Windows could possibly be made without any major security hole.
That's what I was gonna say. An OS is such a huge undertaking, with so much code that it's almost inevitable that something'll be wrong with it.

[Cornellius]

Hrm... They do release them one by one. You get packs when you miss some of the updates. I also agree with those who say that, with that amount of code, it's impossible to get it right on the first write. Via Microsoft or Windows Update, you can select the updates that you want to install, so you can install them one by one if you want.Or you could select a download/install time for the updates when you're not using your computer. Seriously, today's standart is cable, dsl, etc. It's not worth making applications modem-friendly anymore.

[Reaper man]

with Windows 7 I have it alert me of new updates and I download/install them at my choosing.

[The 9th Sage]

It's not worth making applications modem-friendly anymore.

Still kind of sad. I still think it's best to at least be concious of those who might have modems. I know some people who can't get faster internet because of where they live (though they would have it if they could).

[shawn]

Still kind of sad. I still think it's best to at least be concious of those who might have modems. I know some people who can't get faster internet because of where they live (though they would have it if they could).


Agreed since I hate waiting for something to download.

As for size sensitive I think games should be less size sensitive as in compressing everything to an inch of its life and go more for look since hard drives and dvds allow a lot more stuff to be stored than cd's and old drives where 40 to 60 GB were considered large.

[The 9th Sage]

Still kind of sad. I still think it's best to at least be concious of those who might have modems. I know some people who can't get faster internet because of where they live (though they would have it if they could).

To add to this, I HATE when websites use flash pointlessly. To do things that HTML/Javascript would work for. Apparently they are TRYING to bloat their websites. This is why I love FlashBlock.

[Isildur]

To add to this, I HATE when websites use flash pointlessly. To do things that HTML/Java would work for. Apparently they are TRYING to bloat their websites. This is why I love FlashBlock.

I hate that too, especially when it's used for navigation functions or large blocks of text. (I think you may have meant javascript though, not Java, since embedding Java applets can result in many of the same problems listed below) Aside from slowing down loading time and possibly slowing down the user's machine while the person remains on the page, it also means that:
- People with vision impairment can't change font size/color, and it can be harder for screen readers for the blind to interpret.
- If a user want's to ctrl-f search a block of text (or use various other shortcut keys), they can't.
- If a user has Flash turned off (there a number of reasons a person's browser might be set that way) the site can become unusable.
- It can make the site useless for mobile browsers.

Some sites offer no-Flash versions, but from a usability perspective that's still lacking-- not everyone even knows what Flash is, let alone if picking a Flash-free version of the website better suits their needs. Finally, (and this has nothing to do with the the technical aspects of Flash itself and everything to do with the designers themselves) a lot of Flash-heavy sites use it for just that - flash (with a lowercase f) - at the expense of ease-of-use, with over-artsy "too clever by half" interfaces that are actually less intuitive because they discard accepted navigation conventions. Don't even get me started on mystery meat navigation (http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/mysterymeatnavigation.html), where a user is presented with ambiguous uncaptioned images as navigation links that either have to be moused-over to discern their purpose via a tooltip, or worse yet, you have to follow every damn link to find out what it does. :banghead:

A lot of people in art/design or art/design-related fields create all-Flash websites for themselves because they like having an easy way to more precisely exert control over the style of the presentation. These sites are often horribly designed, from a usability perspective.


Edit: By the way, anybody who hasn't seen the "Web Pages That Suck" site yet (and perhaps even some people who have) might want to check the site linked above for some examples of hillariously, terribly, just mind-blowingly godawful websites. :lol:

[The 9th Sage]

Yeah, I meant Javascript. :)

[Lillymon]

- People with vision impairment can't change font size/color, and it can be harder for screen readers for the blind to interpret.
- If a user want's to ctrl-f search a block of text (or use various other shortcut keys), they can't.
- If a user has Flash turned off (there a number of reasons a person's browser might be set that way) the site can become unusable.
- It can make the site useless for mobile browsers.
I would add to this that it screws up my normal method of browsing, which is to open all of the links I'm interested in as tabs, which I then leave to load concurrently and later peruse at my leisure.

That all gets thrown out of the window with Flash, where the applet either lets me view just one part of the site at once (meaning I get to sit there while it loads), or opens the page where it wants to (same window, new maximized window, new non-maximized window, new foreground tab, new background tab) rather than where I want it to.

Entirely Flash-based sites need to die.

[Isildur]

Good point, I forgot to mention that one. Opening up a bunch of backround tabs is a constant practice of mine too.

[The 9th Sage]

Good point, I forgot to mention that one. Opening up a bunch of backround tabs is a constant practice of mine too.

I also do this. I find it annoying when a site won't let me just because they have some kind of fancy method of navigation.

[Cornellius]

Except the more tabs open, more memory Firefox is eating. I usually open 3 tabs maximum. Tabs seems to be less of a problem in Opera, though I haven't tested ver. 10 yet. I have a tendencie to avoid betas, unless the coder of the app want me to.

[Shadow]

Except the more tabs open, more memory Firefox is eating. I usually open 3 tabs maximum. Tabs seems to be less of a problem in Opera, though I haven't tested ver. 10 yet. I have a tendencie to avoid betas, unless the coder of the app want me to.

Try this tip:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_(Firefox)

[shawn]

Try this tip:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_(Firefox (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_%28Firefox))


I clicked it and I get the message...


There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Special:Search/Reducing_memory_usage_%28Firefox) in other pages or edit this page (http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=Reducing_memory_usage_%28Firefox&action=edit).

[Shadow]

I clicked it and I get the message...


There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Special:Search/Reducing_memory_usage_%28Firefox) in other pages or edit this page (http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=Reducing_memory_usage_%28Firefox&action=edit).

Well, you have to add the bracket to the URL. It seems they never thought it could be inserted into a forum. I fixed the URL for you :-)

Klick (http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=Reducing_memory_usage_%28Firefox%2 9)

[Lillymon]

Well, you have to add the bracket to the URL. It seems they never thought it could be inserted into a forum. I fixed the URL for you :-)

Klick (http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=Reducing_memory_usage_%28Firefox%2 9)
Or you could've just posted the real URL for the article rather than the redirect.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_-_Firefox

[Lenophis]

Still kind of sad. I still think it's best to at least be concious of those who might have modems. I know some people who can't get faster internet because of where they live (though they would have it if they could).
Amen to that.