Bad naming
-
One of my pet peeves is misleading or non-descriptive names. I've often ranted about it in other threads, but I figure I could have one just to document them as I find them.
I'll start with a classic: USB data transfer rates
- 1.5 Mbit/s: Low Speed
- 12 Mbit/s: Full Speed
- 480 Mbit/s: Hi-Speed
- 5 Gbit/s: SuperSpeed
- 10 Gbit/s: SuperSpeed+
Wow, way to think ahead there guys! Totally not confusing for future people.
And here's the one that inspired this thread: Windows 10 "servicing channels". In Windows 10 Pro you can currently choose between
- Semi-Annual Channel (Targeted)
- Semi-Annual Channel
Can you tell what each one does? No you can't. The "Targeted" one is the faster branch, meant for home users to test it more thoroughly before it reaches the other branch about four months later. They were previously known as "Current Branch" and "Current Branch for Business", which is much more clear. That makes me think the confusion is 100% intentional.
-
-
Another classic:
Wired Equivalent Privacy
-
@anonymous234 said in Bad naming:
Wow, way to think ahead there guys! Totally not confusing for future people.
Have you ever read the USB spec? If not, you should. Or actually, you shouldn't, if you value your sanity. The bad naming is just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Here's a great one that often confuses the heck out of customers when I have to explain it. On 64-bit Windows, 32-bit libraries go in the syswow64 folder while 64-bit libraries go into system32.
(Yes, I understand why. And yes it still confuses everyone.)
-
@mott555 said in Bad naming:
Yes, I understand why
Care to explain?
Because that's a
of epic scaleEdit: It's such a non-sense that I've seen some document on Microsoft's site that was saying the opposite.
Of course, I can't find it anymore since it was moved 32 times at least.
-
@TimeBandit said in Bad naming:
@mott555 said in Bad naming:
Yes, I understand why
Care to explain?
Because that's a of epic scaleBack in the 32-bit era, 32-bit libraries went into system32. For compatibility reasons, because programmers are awful people, this folder became 64-bit on 64-bit windows but retained the system32 name because too much code was searching for system32 even when it had been updated and recompiled for 64-bit.
So they made syswow64, which really stands for Windows-on-Windows-64, which is the compatibility layer that allows 32-bit applications to execute in a 64-bit environment. They also had to add some shenanigans to redirect any calls to system32 into the syswow64 folder. There used to be some very similar subsystems and redirections to support 16-bit code on 32-bit Windows.
Actually, now that I type this all out, I'm not sure I understand after all. I know I used to, but I think some details have escaped my memory.
-
@Zerosquare said in Bad naming:
@anonymous234 said in Bad naming:
Wow, way to think ahead there guys! Totally not confusing for future people.
Have you ever read the USB spec? If not, you should. Or actually, you shouldn't, if you value your sanity. The bad naming is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'd say the USB spec is more akin to this naval phenomenon:
-
Future USB speed standards:
- 25 Gbit/s: SuperDuperSpeed+
- 50 Gbit/s: SuperDuperSpeed+ One
- 100 Gbit/s: SuperDuperSpeed+ One X
-
@mott555 said in Bad naming:
Back in the 32-bit era, 32-bit libraries went into system32. For compatibility reasons, because programmers are awful people, this folder became 64-bit on 64-bit windows but retained the system32 name because too much code was searching for system32 even when it had been updated and recompiled for 64-bit.
That's the same explanation I got told.
Still doesn't make any sense to cause all this confusion just to let awful programmers get away with this shit.
If it would have been to let old 32-bit apps still work, I would understand.
But this?
-
@hungrier said in Bad naming:
Future USB speed standards:
- 25 Gbit/s: SuperDuperSpeed+
- 50 Gbit/s: SuperDuperSpeed+ One
- 100 Gbit/s: SuperDuperSpeed+ One X
You forgot SuperDuperSpeed+ 360
-
@mott555 said in Bad naming:
Back in the 32-bit era, 32-bit libraries went into system32. For compatibility reasons, because programmers are awful people, this folder became 64-bit on 64-bit windows but retained the system32 name because too much code was searching for system32 even when it had been updated and recompiled for 64-bit.
Which still doesn't make sense. If 64-bit libraries were in system64, and had always been in system64, then 64-bit code looking in system32 will never have worked. In a rather obvious way, hopefully.
-
Upon further, very extensive research I think I basically had it right even though it's still confusing. I couldn't find anything from Raymond Chen who certainly would have explained it well, but I found this.
This can be somewhat confusing, but the System32 folder is intended for 64-bit files and the SysWOW64 folder is intended for 32-bit files. This may seem a bit illogical if you look at the folder names, but there is an explanation to this. It has to do with compatibility. Many developers have hard coded the path to the system folder in their applications source code. They have included "System32" in the folder path. And to preserve compatibility, if the application is converted to 64-bit code, the 64-bit system folder is still named System32.
-
@PleegWat said in Bad naming:
If 64-bit libraries were in system64, and had always been in system64, then 64-bit code looking in system32 will never have worked.
Exactly
Instead, every time a program ask to open a system library, the OS must first check if it's a 32-bit or 64-bit making the call, then redirect the 32-bit to the syswow64 folder
-
@mott555 said in Bad naming:
Many developers have hard coded the path to the system folder in their applications source code. They have included "System32" in the folder path. And to preserve compatibility
Bullshit.
YOU MAKE THEM FIX THEIR CODE
Can't wait for Windows 128bit
System32 contains de 128-bit files, SysWOW64 contains 32-bit files and SysWOW128 contains 64-bit files
-
@anonymous234 said in Bad naming:
And here's the one that inspired this thread: Windows 10 "servicing channels". In Windows 10 Pro you can currently choose between
Semi-Annual Channel
Semi-Annual Channel (Targeted)Can you tell what each one does? No you can't. The "Targeted" one is the faster branch, meant for home users to test it more thoroughly before it reaches the other branch about four months later. They were previously known as "Current Branch" and "Current Branch for Business", which is much more clear. That makes me think the confusion is 100% intentional.
What's more clear about "for Business?"
-
@boomzilla Well, it's at least more clear that it's better for businesses.
I agree that it's not 100% clear, it relies on the "businesses get the slow version, individuals get the fast version" assumption, which ideally wouldn't exist, but it does because Microsoft.
-
@TimeBandit said in Bad naming:
Bullshit.
YOU MAKE THEM FIX THEIR CODE
What if they died of old age 20 years ago?
-
@anonymous234 said in Bad naming:
@boomzilla Well, it's at least more clear that it's better for businesses.
I agree that it's not 100% clear, it relies on the "businesses get the slow version, individuals get the fast version" assumption, which ideally wouldn't exist, but it does because Microsoft.
Except that you got it backwards. Businesses got the fast version, homes the slower version according to the OP.
-
@boomzilla My bad, I did write them backwards. The "For Business" version is definitely the slower one (about 4 months delayed).
To make things more confusing, you can also delay the update for up to 1 year on top of that.
-
@hungrier said in Bad naming:
What if they died of old age 20 years ago?
Re-read the explanation. The work-around is there for newer 64-bit apps.
I would understand if it was for backward-compatibility with 32-bit apps
-
@hungrier said in Bad naming:
@TimeBandit said in Bad naming:
Bullshit.
YOU MAKE THEM FIX THEIR CODE
What if they died of old age 20 years ago?
I wish I was more of an artist. I'd draw up a little comic about someone hiring a necromancer to bring a man back to life so he can fix a bug in some COBOL code he wrote 35 years ago.
-
@mott555 said in Bad naming:
@hungrier said in Bad naming:
@TimeBandit said in Bad naming:
Bullshit.
YOU MAKE THEM FIX THEIR CODE
What if they died of old age 20 years ago?
I wish I was more of an artist. I'd draw up a little comic about someone hiring a necromancer to bring a man back to life so he can fix a bug in some
COBOLExplorer shell extension code he wrote 35 years ago.
-
@mott555
And let's not forget its Registry counterpart - the Wow6432Node
-
@Zerosquare said in Bad naming:
Have you ever read
the USBany spec? If not, you should. Or actually, you shouldn't, if you value your sanity.FTFY
-
@TimeBandit said in Bad naming:
Still doesn't make any sense to cause all this confusion just to let awful programmers get away with this shit.
It does when you realize just how many awful programs are there in the wide, including very popular ones that Windows would die as a platform if it didn't run them anymore.
-
Re: increasingly increasing super duper standards.
- VGA (Video Graphics Array): 640x480
- Wide VGA: 768x480
- Full Wide VGA: 854x480
- Super VGA: 800x600
- Wide Super VGA: 1024x576
- XGA (eXtended Graphics Array): 1024x768
- XGA+: 1152x864
- Wide XGA: 1366x768
- Super XGA: 1280x1024
- Wide Super XGA: 1440x900
- Super XGA+: 1400x1050
- Wide Super XGA+: 1680x1050
- Ultra XGA: 1600x1200
- Wide Ultra XGA: 1920x1200
- QXGA (Quad XGA): 2048x1536
- QWXGA (Quad Wide XGA): 2048x1152 (yes, lower)
- WQXGA (Wide Quad XGA): 2560x1600
- QSXGA (Quad Super XGA): 2560x2048
- WQSXGA (Wide Quad Super XGA): 3200x2048
- QUXGA (Quad Ultra XGA): 3200x2400
- WQUXGA (Wide Quad Ultra XGA): 3840x2400
- HXGA (Hexadecatuple XGA): 4096x3072
- WHXGA (Wide Hexadecatuple XGA): 5120x3200
- HSXGA (Hexadecatuple Super XGA): 5120x4096
- WHSXGA (Wide Hexadecatuple Super XGA): 6400x4096
- HUXGA (Hexadecatuple Ultra XGA): 6400x4800
- WHUXGA (pronounced "w chuj XGA"): 7680x4800
-
@HardwareGeek said in Bad naming:
@Zerosquare said in Bad naming:
Have you ever read
the USBany spec? If not, you should. Or actually, you shouldn't, if you value your sanity.FTFY
It's a bit unfair. Specs are rarely fun to read, but there's a large difference between simple, well-designed ones (e.g. MIDI, some RFCs) and designed-by-committee abominations (USB, Bluetooth).
-
@boomzilla said in Bad naming:
What's more clear about "for Business?"
Speaking of "for Business" reminds me of Skype... which reminds me of the plenty of examples of MS badly naming products and/or renaming them every 6 months. I'm too tired to list them now...
-
@TimeBandit said in Bad naming:
Bullshit.
YOU MAKE THEM FIX THEIR CODEexcept you can't, really.
and when it breaks, every moron and their grandma (including many of the programmers themselves) blames the OS, because "it worked until i installed this shitty new version that broke everything".
-
@Gąska ... did you make some of those up? the last one i knew was named was XGA, everything beyond i thought people realized that giving a name to each resolution is stupid and just started to refer to them by... resolution
-
@anonymous234 said in Bad naming:
I agree that it's not 100% clear, it relies on the "businesses get the slow version, individuals get the fast version" assumption, which ideally wouldn't exist, but it does because Microsoft.
except i'd say it is clear, when you start with the right assumption, unlike you did.
the right assumption being that businesses need their. software to be more reliable and better tested, meaning they get the updates later, after the home users (who we can assume don't have 100s of thousands of dollars hanging on the computers not crashing) already beta-tested it for a while, including some hotfixes for the bugs they found.
-
My favourite (almost
d by @Gąska) is the various levels of HD.- 640 × 360: ninth-HD
- 960 × 540: quarter-HD
- 1280 × 720: HD
- 1600 × 900: HD +
- 1920 × 1080: Full HD
- 2560 × 1440: (Wide) Quad HD
- 3200 × 1800: Quad HD +
- 3840 × 2160: 4K Ultra HD
- 5120 × 2880: 5K Ultra HD +
- 7680 × 4320: 8K Ultra HD
-
@TimeBandit said in Bad naming:
Still doesn't make any sense to cause all this confusion just to let awful programmers get away with this shit.
Any more than it makes sense for programs to search the Windows edition name for
Windows 9x?
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Bad naming:
And let's not forget its Registry counterpart - the Wow6432Node
They're running it all on node.js? Much is explained…
