20 worst Windoze features of all time (PC World)

[DanS]

Macintosh doesn't, and I'm pretty sure Linux doesn't either. I don't
see the problem with having all your prefs and setting in one place.
It make central administration easier (Group Policy for example).

I've never known a registry to become corrupt in all my years of
supporting Windows. If this were such a flawed concept I think it
would have been dropped long ago.

I don't think I've ever suffered a corrupt registry either, but that
doesn't change the fact (my opinion) that the registry is a mess.

Noone was ever saying that a central repository for settings and such was a
bad idea. It's a good idea actually, but the MS implementation of it is
horrible.....similar to UAC. Good idea, bad implementation.

Let's look in the registry for up to 10 different places where programs
could be set to autorun on bootup, and another 3 or 4 places for each user.
It's ridiculous.

'One place' to store program and system settings could be as easy as a sub-
directory somewhere named 'Settings' or whatever, where all config files
could be kept so they would not be scattered all around.

 

[Stephan Rose]

The only problem there though is that there are innumerable scattered
inconsistent lengthy convoluted text files scatter all over the
harddrive making for many confused nightmares when one does go to try to
fix one.

Seriously, do you think that to the average user the Registry is any less
convoluted? Do you really think the average user has any idea what
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT means?

Sure, both methods each have their pros and cons. Neither method is
perfect. Though I do have to say I highly prefer anything that is human
readable over a registry like Microsoft uses. The way I see it, anyone
with enough knowledge to fix a corrupted system isn't going to have a
problem dealing with config files. Anyone not capable to deal with text
based config files would probably not be any better off with a registry
either.

And honestly, it actually is not really that terribly bad under Linux.

All config files are generally found in the /etc directory. Come to think
of it, I can't think of a config file that is not located in /etc or an
app-specific subdir of /etc. So really, while in terms of physical
sectors they may be scattered all over the harddrive (which is a good
thing), they are actually in a very central place as far as the file
system is concerned.

The only other place you'll usually find config files are hidden
directories in the users home directory for user-specific settings.

I really don't see what is so difficult about that.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[the wharf rat]

Do other OS's (Mac, Linux) have something similar to the resistry?

AIX has used a registry since at least 3.0. Solaris adopted
one in the Solaris 10 release. Linux still relies on using the file
system as a database (rc scripts etc.) OS/2 mimics the Windows registry
when it runs Windows apps but uses text files for its own configuation.

BTW, people have been kicking and screaming about the Solaris
change but it's actually a great idea once you get used to it.

 

[norm]

The only problem there though is that there are innumerable scattered
inconsistent lengthy convoluted text files scatter all over the
harddrive making for many confused nightmares when one does go to try to
fix one.

Saucy

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what config files are and where
they reside. This might help your understanding:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linux-configuration-files-and-what-they-do-34292.shtml

 

[Stephan Rose]

Thanks for your reply.

One thing that I don't like about the regisitry is that it makes it very
difficult to move over settings to another PC. Settings tend to be
spread across the registry and some configuration files. I usually have
to manually re-configure things which can be very time consuming, and I
often don't quite get them right. In the days of DOS, sometimes I only
had to copy over a configuration file, and everything worked fine with
the modified settings the same as on my old PC.

I can see the advantages of the registry (one application can go to a
central place to find the settings for another application) but overall,
I do wonder if it's such a good idea.

Another related question: If I have a new PC with the same Windows OS as
my previous one, I can't just "copy" my applications over to the new PC
- I have to re-install them and set them up as I like them. Is this just
because of the registry (in which case presumably Mac and Linux don't
have this problem) or are there other reasons too?

Depends on the application. It's a combination of both.

Many applications use libraries that need to be registered with windows
before they will work. So applications that are dependent on such
libraries won't work until this is done. For larger applications or
software suites, this can include even their own libraries and not just
3rd party ones.

That's one of the core reasons.

The other reason may simply be missing registry entries that are required
by the application to run and the programmer wasn't bright enough to use
default values if the keys are missing.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[dennis@home]

AIX has used a registry since at least 3.0. Solaris adopted
one in the Solaris 10 release. Linux still relies on using the file
system as a database (rc scripts etc.) OS/2 mimics the Windows registry
when it runs Windows apps but uses text files for its own configuation.

BTW, people have been kicking and screaming about the Solaris
change but it's actually a great idea once you get used to it.

Its a great idea if it uses a proper database.
You really need to be able to roll back and stuff like that.

 

[Saucy]

Nice try but the Linux config files are a nightmare.

 

[norm]

Nice try but the Linux config files are a nightmare.

Is there a reason you don't quote whatever you are replying to?

 

[Saucy]

The thread should die.

 

[Stephan Rose]

Isn't that what the Registry is?

Having a single subdirectory where all program and system settings are
stored would introduce an even greater possibility of programs
corrupting a system setting, which would now be stored on the file
system which would in turn lead to inefficient use of disk space (in the
same way that shortcuts which the old Program Manager Groups caused
inefficient use of disk space).

Sure, in this day and age of Terabyte drives, it doesn't really matter,
but we are forgetting the most critical factor. Conformity, and many
applications developers that fail to adhere to the rules.

It doesn't really matter what system is used for the storage of program
and system settings. Whether it's in the registry, in text-based INI
files, or whatever, all it takes is one errant application or user error
to bring the whole house of cards down.

Not necessarily. Linux keeps its system config files in the /etc and
related subdirectories of /etc which an application cannot write to. It
can maybe, depending on user rights, read from there...but unless a user
explicitly allows it or does a dumbass thing such as running as root, no
application can read from there. And when I say explicitly allow, I do
mean explicitly in a far more explicit way than accidentally clicking
"allow" in an UAC prompt.

So an errant app can't modify those files. Not even an errant user error
can in most cases.

App-specific config files located in the users home directory are a
different matter. There anything can do what it wants. But anything that
happens there is not liable to tear the system apart. Though it could be
liable to corrupt the users data. But ya know what? Can't protect people
from EVERYTHING! Some common sense and at least a minute amount of
intelligence is occasionally needed...

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[DanS]

Isn't that what the Registry is?

It is, but since you snipped the conversation prior to my above
statement, maybe it dodn't look like that to you.

Having a single subdirectory where all program and system settings are
stored would introduce an even greater possibility of programs
corrupting a system setting, which would now be stored on the file
system which would in turn lead to inefficient use of disk space (in the
same way that shortcuts which the old Program Manager Groups caused
inefficient use of disk space).

Well the current files that _are_ the registry are stored in one single
subdirectory already anyway. The application setting's could be stored in
their install directory.

Sure, in this day and age of Terabyte drives, it doesn't really matter,
but we are forgetting the most critical factor. Conformity, and many
applications developers that fail to adhere to the rules.

Yes, adhere to the rules of the registry access. If programs were forced
to use their own ini files in the install directory, there's nothing to
adhere to other than that.

 

[DarkSentinel]

Isn't most corruption due to user intervention? Leave well alone!

It is indeed. I've been doing Win support for many years, and only edit the
registry when I have no other choice. And that only after I back everything
up first.

 

[Fearful1138]

I don't think I've ever suffered a corrupt registry either, but that

doesn't change the fact (my opinion) that the registry is a mess.

Fair point.

Noone was ever saying that a central repository for settings and such was a
bad idea. It's a good idea actually, but the MS implementation of it is
horrible.....similar to UAC. Good idea, bad implementation.

Let's look in the registry for up to 10 different places where programs
could be set to autorun on bootup, and another 3 or 4 places for each user.
It's ridiculous.

You're quite correct. The registry could do with a clean up but then I'd
guess you'd loose backwards compatibity.

'One place' to store program and system settings could be as easy as a sub-
directory somewhere named 'Settings' or whatever, where all config files
could be kept so they would not be scattered all around.

Sure but isn't that a registry in a different form?

Personally I don't like the way Mac uses settings files for each
application. I've supported Macs for many years too and have found that they
sometimes lose settings for a partucular application or control panel. I've
don't recall this ever happening on a Windows machine. The registry may be a
mess but it is robust and I certainly don't think that it belongs in a list
of bad Windows features.

 

[Celegans]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,133191-page,1-c,electronics/article.html

"13. Windows XP Search
It's kind of astonishing: Windows users had to wait nearly a quarter
century, until Windows Vista, for an OS with really good search features."

Microsoft's Vista search has cool new features and is very fast, but it's
unreliable and you don't know how many files it fails to find. Windows
Vista has some "really good search features" but it won't search 20-25% of
my files because Microsoft only searches files it wants to search. Why do I
need "good search features" if the search itself is now terribly flawed?

XP's search introduced the novel concept of not searching all files. Did
Microsoft patent this novel idea?
Why can't Microsoft at least give us a Vista version for this XP kludge:
Using the "A word or phrase in the file" search criterion may not work
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;309173

After 10 months with Vista, my biggest beef is I cannot find many of my old
files and Microsoft won't listen about how big of a problem search is (OK,
Word 2007 is driving me nuts too -- Microsoft split up and moved features
but didn't really improve much). Why did I bother keeping old, archive
files of anything if Microsoft can decide that I don't need them?
Vista doesn't even allow a "guided" search. I can get to the directory that
has files of interest, but Vista cannot even search ALL files within a
directory. OK, it searches the files but cannot find files with a specified
string if the files have extensions unapproved by Microsoft. Manual
file-by-file search for files of interest in Vista IS A REAL PAIN.
I'm seriously considering abandoning Vista because I need to find my old
files and Microsoft just doesn't care.

 

[Kurt Herman]

Take ownership of the files. Apparently, Vista search wont return results if
you are logged on as a user that doesn't have permissions or ownership of a
file.

I had this problem as well when I first set Vista on my machine. All my old
files were on a big, secondary drive, and were naturally created by me under
my old XP account.

Search wouldn't find then (or I should say, wouldn't say that it found
them), until I changed the ownership and permission on the drive and folders
that contained them, to my new account name (admin/username).

Kurt

 

[Chris Game]

Take ownership of the files. Apparently, Vista search wont return
results if you are logged on as a user that doesn't have
permissions or ownership of a file.

Isn't that reasonable?

 

[Kurt Herman]

Absolutely! I wouldn't have it any other way. That's why I love Vista!

All it takes to be happy with Vista is to learn that you have to play by the
new security rules, something that should have been in place a long time
ago.

I think the people who have problems with Vista just aren't willing to learn
the ropes.

Kurt

 

[David]

I think the people who have problems with Vista just aren't willing to
learn the ropes.

Hmm...been my impression that someone NOT having ANY problems with Vista
just isn't doing much with their PC!
seriously. I liked Vista the first day that i used it. My feelings
have changed somewhat since then, as I've come across its many deficiencies.

Dave

 

[DarkSentinel]

Hmm...been my impression that someone NOT having ANY problems with Vista
just isn't doing much with their PC!
seriously. I liked Vista the first day that i used it. My feelings have
changed somewhat since then, as I've come across its many deficiencies.

Define "isn't doing much". I do pretty heavy 3D rendering with Bryce and
Poser. Photo and picture manipulation. Stream on an internet radio station.
Edit audio files. Web development. Blogging. Usenet. Forums. Again, I am
just as productive, if not more so under Vista, than I was with XP. But it
been said a million times, everyone's experience is going to be different.
No two systems are the same unless you are in a corporate environment.

Bottom line is that no OS is perfect, there are going to be glitches here
and there,

 

[Kurt Herman]

I'm the same, DS.

I make Visual Pinball tables, but first I model and render the graphics for
them in trueSpace 7.11. I make large master renders, then HUGE (150-200meg)
..psd files with many layers to create sprite like animations for the lights
and other objects.

I also capture videos of the tables and have created and maintain my own web
site, which stream the videos, on demand. The videos are sharp and captured
with a good frame rate, and they were done from within Vista.
That means there was an Emulator for the pinball machine running, AND the
Visual Pinball program itself, AND the capture program, saving uncompressed
video to my hard rive to the tune of 1 gig a minute, without so much as a
hiccup. I later compress them with Divx (and that happens quickly as well).

I have no problems doing these things in Vista, and I might add, they run
better in Vista then they did in XP. I used to occasionally have to stop
what I was doing when my ram usage got too high in XP, and reboot, to get my
performance back. I haven't yet had to do this in Vista. I know by
experience that Vista handles memory MUCH better then XP ever did.

I have gigs of ram, and a dual core 1.8 ghz processor, NVidia 6600gt video
card and Vista Home Premium.

Kurt