Re: Can MS listen to customers?

"Andy C.(never #)" <acamfield@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1135020133.452356.327550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Vanguard wrote:
SNIP<
IE is comprised of a set of libraries that other applications use. Web
browsing is just one aspect of those libraries. So you think your little
wish for removing the web browsing function would be granted at the expense
of killing off all those other applications? Just because it is there
doesn't mean that YOU must use it. Use whatever web browser suits your
fancy. No one is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to use the web
browser function whose front-end is IE. That is the advantage of a
general-purpose OS.

Fact is, a HUGE portion of even a minimal install of Windows (or even in
Linux) includes TONS of fluff that are not specifically just for the OS.
For Windows, Notepad, Paint, IE, OE, msconfig, Wordpad, Hearts, NT Backup,
defrag, Task Scheduler, and so on are not required to define an OS. Even
networking and audio don't need to be included since those are kernel-mode
subsystems that can be added later, just like the installable file systems
(CDFS, for example, for supporting your CD-ROM drive). But do you really
want to buy a bare-bones OS without all that non-OS fluff? Why are you
using Windows is you don't want the fluff? Go back to MS-DOS and after the
install delete all the non-OS files, like edit.exe, edlin.com, xcopy.exe,
mscdex.exe, and so on. You can use a real tiny partition for such a trimmed
down OS-only setup. But you chose Windows with all the accompanying bloat
that Microsoft adds to satisfy a worldwide community of users, so they don't
tailor it just for you.

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup - Share with others.
E-mail: Remove "NIX" and append "#VC811" to Subject.
__________________________________________________


Right, but shouldn't the user that paid $200 for that bloatware have
the choice of saying what they want to install and not install?

No, because it is the few rare users that are expert enough to understand all the interdependencies of the various technologies, protocol, or other schema employed by all the various components within the OS or which ones are expected by applications. The user would end up deleting all of IE, including all its libraries (and its rendering engine) and then wonder why Outlook won't display HTML-formatted e-mail, or why Norton won't display its main window, or why (and the list goes on).

Personally, yeah, I would like a hierachical tree that kept track of all the major interdependencies so that I could not deselect a feature that was required by another (like having to install the ALG.exe service if I opted to include the Windows-included firewall) but that still doesn't address the dependencies by applications that assume that support will be in the OS. I certainly don't want to go back to having every application install the same duplicate functionality only to find one application installs an older version and then screws up another application. Guess you forgot about the DLL hell back under Windows 9x, or applications that would install an older version of C runtime libraries whose DLLs didn't have the entry points (functions) that another application thought would be there because it expected or installed a later version that you then stepped on by installing an earlier version.

Windows XP is an end-user OS. As such, its users are not intelligent enough to know the dependencies or understand them (because they would then be forced to be educated and expert users and most don't have the inclination, time, or need to be proficient at that level). Just look at why users don't bother with using Prevx Home (which is free) or ProcessGuard simply because what they report to the user is often not understood by the user, so they just blindly allow the process and thereby obviate the security afforded by that product. Some firewalls have an option to prevent DLL injection (or fireholing) but users haven't a clue as to what DLLs are supposed to be called by an application to know if they should allow the process or any other to call that DLL. The security option is there but most users won't understand it (and often I have to do a lot more research than would a typical user to figure out if I want to allow a process to make a change or be allowed to start another process or make a connection - security is a time-consuming operation that requires the initiative and desire to educate oneself). Linux might come out-of-the-box with better security but the assumption is that the user is more knowledgeable than a Windows user (i.e., a hotrod kit assumes the builder knows cars whereas the car dealer assumes minimal expertise by their customers). Even mainframe OS'es require expertise in setup, maintenance, and security. How much are you going to require in expertise by the user to figure it all out rather than just using it?

And why
does notepad and paint need access to the web? I've heard this all
before. I know what a dll is. I've written a few of them. And there's
no logical, good reason to incorporate the functionality of a web
browser in dlls that are required by desktop applications.

You're right about one thing; when I install most Linux distros, I have
the option to install everything. But I don't have to unless I make
that choice. How much choice does a windows user get?

And how much duplication in funcationality must those Linux applications have if they cannot share a common library from where they could they call that functionality? If there were no shared libraries, every application would bloat due to duplication in functionality. For IE, you are only talking about the front end UI whereas lots of applications use those libraries. As seen with other browsers that provide no shared libraries or other means for an application to use them, they have to duplicate that functionality. yeah, you get independent and stand-alone browsers that will let you completely remove them but that is because they are independent so no other application can make use of their functionality. If you removed the browser and an application was designed to use it for its own purpose, you just broke that application. Are you going to require all users, especially those that aren't interested in becoming OS experts, in understanding and educating themselves regarding that dependence?

Linux users are not the same type of community as Windows users. Linux users are typically smarter regarding the OS simply because they are forced to be smarter. Windows users just want to run their applications and get their work done. They want to use the washing machine, not figure out what other timers they could shove into the front panel. The training curve for newbies for Linux is far steeper than it is for Windows (yeah, it is getting more level with the addition of better UIs and setup, but then it is catering to the boobs which are the ones that won't know how to setup, configure, and maintain their OS).

As for "my little wish" it seems like MS does that about every six
months or so. How many times have you had a program rendered unuseable
by a patch or a stealth upgrade. Again, why does a patch for Word alter
a dll that handles database access? That just shows that the whole idea
of bundling was bad and eventually a majority of even windows users
will admit that.

Some of that came from the lawsuits that forced the OS and application divisions to be forced into independent development (i.e., anti-trust suits forced one division to be ignorant of what another did). Just because it says Microsoft doesn't mean one product knows about another (although there would still be better communications within Microsoft than, say, between two independent 3rd parties).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FileSpy
    ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... applications you can use to protect yourself. ... using Windows XP "prettifications". ... install a third-party application and configure/maintain it. ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: Errors with Windows XP
    ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... More full function applications for CD/DVD burning would be: ... using Windows XP "prettifications". ... install a third-party application and configure/maintain it. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: When I am installing software on my system it takes forever.
    ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... More full function applications for CD/DVD burning would be: ... using Windows XP "prettifications". ... install a third-party application and configure/maintain it. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain)
  • Re: Three newbie questions!
    ... You can see the main groups, then the applications ... Until you get to know the names of applications, it is best to use RPM ... You normally find a README, an INSTALL, and a doc ... If you have installed any libraries, then you must run the following ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: Not very encouraging :(
    ... >> OS and any applications I install on it. ... > you've never had a problem with any Windows OS or application. ... > believe the market place will end up dictating to MS how they will ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)