Chrome on Windows 8 is a trainwreck
-
@Ben L. said:
NT? 98? 98SE? ME? 8?
Here are the versions of desktop Windows I've personally used and my
snap judgementsconsidered opinions on their quality, in order of release date:- 1.0: fuck off with this laughable nonsense
- 2.0: oh good, I can continue to ignore this crap
- 3.0: tries so hard to be a Mac and fails so badly
- 3.11: move along, nothing to see here
- 95: now that is pretty nice to use. Shame it's so crashy.
- NT4.0: ah, a real kernel at last! Half decent multi-user support and all! Pity half the stuff I want to use won't run on it.
- 98: all the crashiness of 95, now with extra bloat. Seriously, Active Desktop WTF?
- 98SE: turn off Active Desktop and it's actually not bad, given it still has fucking DOS underneath. Best of the DOS-based versions by a country mile.
- 2000: like NT4 with better app support. Not bad at all, for a Windows.
- ME: AH HA HA HA WTF oh fuck OFF. I'm gonna upgrade this box to 98SE.
- XP: fucking art department has got at 2000 and made it look all blobby. Mostly works though. New Start menu is an improvement. More things Just Work. Tolerable.
- XP SP1: more of the same.
- XP SP2: more things Just Work. Good.
- XP SP3: WPA2 support is nice but WTF did you pricks do to my SMB over SSH tunnelling? Fuck it, I'll cope.
- Vista: OMG you broke everything and it's so. fucking. slow. NO WAY am I putting this on the school boxes. We'll stick with XP SP3 until you fix your shit.
- 7: runs about as well as XP on identical hardware, so that's nice. User Annoyed Constantly now calmed down to tolerable proportions. OK, roll that out on new school machines.
- 7 SP1: better enough than XP to be worth replacing the school's remaining XP installations.
- 8: take your "new design language" and your blinky flashy mess of "live tiles" and your hot corners and general inscrutability and stick them up your arse. Everything is not a phone. Just FUCK OFF.
- 8.1: cool, you dumbed it down even more and now it wants a Microsoft account as well? Will continue to ignore until Metro gets properly sidelined. No, that's not a start menu.
So it's not a strict alternation of good and dreadful releases, but there is a pretty consistent history of innovations having unacceptable amounts wrong with them that subsequent releases attend to. ME, Vista and 8/8.1 are undoubtedly bottom-of-the-barrel Microsoft experiences that only a fanboi would put up with by choice.
-
@flabdablet said:
98SE: turn off Active Desktop and it's actually not bad, given it still has fucking DOS underneath. Best of the DOS-based versions by a country mile.
Windows 9X only used DOS as a bootloader, and as a virtual machine to run non-Windows drivers. It's a huge stretch to say it has "DOS underneath".
-
I'm also weird in that I actually appreciate an attractive ui. XP was alright, but Vista and 7 had something really nice going with aero, until 8 came along and fucked it right up.
Here's the thing though that I've never understood: almost any version of windows can, with enough tweaking, run the native window decorations from any given version going backwards. Why the hell can't Microsoft just leave in the old options for the guys who like XP or vista or whatever? And I mean aside from the ass ugly legacy.
-
@beginner_ said:
@Ben L. said:
While I acknowledge that ME is seen as a piece of festering shit that no-one liked, ever, I have to say I'm in the minority in that I never had any problems for the however many months I was using it.You ignored ME.
I think I used ME once at a friends place and it crashed like 3 times in 20 minutes.
With hindsight, I never did figure out what I was doing wrong for it to work...
-
@blakeyrat said:
@flabdablet said:
The author of "Unauthorized Windows 95" disagrees with you:98SE: turn off Active Desktop and it's actually not bad, given it still has fucking DOS underneath. Best of the DOS-based versions by a country mile.
Windows 9X only used DOS as a bootloader, and as a virtual machine to run non-Windows drivers. It's a huge stretch to say it has "DOS underneath".
[quote user="http://oreilly.com/centers/windows/brochure/isnot.html"]That overwriting MS-DOS from a DOS program brings down the
entire system means that Win95 can't survive without working DOS code
underneath it -- even if you never run a single DOS program. DOS is gone
from Win95 in only the most superficial and meaningless sense that it's
also gone from Windows 3.x Enhanced mode.[/quote]
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
"Start" - I have hit the command key and then the first few letters for many years
I've been doing this since Vista, and I thought the feature was removed from 8, until a helpful person pointed out you can still start typing and it'll search; it's just utterly hidden!
@TheCPUWizard said:
what I like about the start PAGE is the usage of LIVE tiles
What sort of apps are you using, then? I use none whatsoever.
-
@Master Chief said:
I'm also weird in that I actually appreciate an attractive ui. XP was alright, but Vista and 7 had something really nice going with aero, until 8 came along and fucked it right up.
I appreciate an attractive UI also. XP Luna wasn't it. Neither is Aero Glass.I used to set XP to classic, and then change the light brown to grey so that the quirk would trigger where the button highlight would disappear and everything looked sleek and flatter.
Windows 8 has the greatest UI visuals of all current OSs, in my super-personal opinion. (not including Metro) (though apparently Ender has trouble with high-contrast inverted schemes? That's pretty bad.). The buttons and tabs in XP Luna were wonderful, though, can't deny that. Shame about those title bars!
-
@Master Chief said:
I'm also weird in that I actually appreciate an attractive ui. XP was alright, but Vista and 7 had something really nice going with aero, until 8 came along and fucked it right up.
I didn't mind 7s UI (I liked it more than Vista's because at least the transparency was consistent). I hang around mainly on the desktop in 8.1, only really venturing into Metro to open an application or to use my bank's Metro app, and find it to be much nicer and cleaner - after a while of using it I went back to work to Windows 7 and found the whole faux glass and curved corners rather tacky and cheap to be perfectly honest.Also more instances of WTFery of how badly broken Chrome is on Windows 8: they managed to break what little HiDPI awareness it had. But that's okay, this new version features new UI elements that aren't Windows UI standard! I mean, why waste time on silly things like making the browser usable on increasingly common high resolution displays when you can add smaller, harder to click radio buttons, scroll bars and checkboxes, right?
-
@dhromed said:
(though apparently Ender has trouble with high-contrast inverted schemes? That's pretty bad.)
Basically, the only way to use your own colour scheme in 8+ is to switch to High Contrast mode. The problem with this is that they also broke background of some widgets, which now use button background instead of window background, making them stand out less.
-
-
@PJH said:
While I acknowledge that ME is seen as a piece of festering shit that no-one liked, ever, I have to say I'm in the minority in that I never had any problems for the however many months I was using it.
With hindsight, I never did figure out what I was doing wrong for it to work...
Interesting ... I thought I was in a minority of 1 here. I used ME for about 18 months and everything just worked. Often wondered what I was doing (or not doing?) that made ME perfectly fine for me whilst everyone else was bitching about it.
-
@Nagesh said:
If you study microsoft history, you'll find each alternate windows is disaster in making. Windows 95 - Good Windows 2000 - Bad Windows XP - Good. Windows Vista - bad. Windows 7 - Good Windows 8.1 - Bad
So next windows version will be good. I am purposefully left out server version which is having their own history.
Wait, where does Nemesis fit into this theory?
-
@DaveK said:
The author of "Unauthorized Windows 95" disagrees with you:
Yeah, well he's wrong. Maybe that's why he couldn't get authorization.
@DaveK said:
[quote user="http://oreilly.com/centers/windows/brochure/isnot.html"]That overwriting MS-DOS from a DOS program brings down the
[/quote]
entire system means that Win95 can't survive without working DOS code
underneath it -- even if you never run a single DOS program. DOS is gone
from Win95 in only the most superficial and meaningless sense that it's
also gone from Windows 3.x Enhanced mode.Well remember it uses DOS as a bootloader, so it's quite possible that if you fuck up DOS, Windows 9X won't be able to boot properly. Once it's booted, it 100% unloads DOS from memory, unless your computer has a hardware device without a Windows driver, or until the user purposefully loads it. Which means in practice, in 99.9% of all Windows 9X computers, DOS was only a bootloader and remained unloaded all the time.
-
@Douglasac said:
they managed to break what little HiDPI awareness it had.
True story: after seeing tons of bugs like that one, and general unreadability of EVERYTHING on my 13.3" 1080p screen, I downgraded my Acer S7 to Windows 7 assuming that the problem was with Windows 8. Surely Chrome couldn't be unaware of DPI scaling after all these years of development? Especially when it supports DPI scaling on Apple high-res displays?
Turns out: no it was buggy-ass Chrome all along. And the only way they "supported" Apple high-res is by simply doubling everything.
Chrome *kind of* supports high DPI now, at least in desktop mode, but there's still a lot of bugs. Mostly wrong x/y coordinates being reported to JavaScript, resulting in custom tooltips appearing off the window.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Douglasac said:
Chrome is one of a few apps I have forced to ignore DPI settings, the other being Spotify. I can tolerate it being smaller (a 15.6" FHD screen helps) if it means it's usable and not a pixilated mess.they managed to break what little HiDPI awareness it had.
Turns out: no it was buggy-ass Chrome all along. And the only way they "supported" Apple high-res is by simply doubling everything.
-
@beginner_ said:
I think I used ME once at a friends place and it crashed like 3 times in 20 minutes.
I'm surprised you got it restarted three times in twenty minutes. I don't remember any of the 95/98 variants being quick to boot.
@blakeyrat said:And the only way they "supported" Apple high-res is by simply doubling everything.
Isn't this how Apple does it on IOS on retina displays?
@blakeyrat said:Chrome *kind of* supports high DPI now, at least in desktop mode, but there's still a lot of bugs. Mostly wrong x/y coordinates being reported to JavaScript, resulting in custom tooltips appearing off the window.
Seems fine on a Chromebook Pixel - although I haven't used one for any extended period.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Once it's booted, it 100% unloads DOS from memory, unless your computer has a hardware device without a Windows driver, or until the user purposefully loads it. Which means in practice, in 99.9% of all Windows 9X computers, DOS was only a bootloader and remained unloaded all the time.
100% wrong. Read the book. I'll lend you my copy. He knows what he's talking about and you don't.
-
@DrakeSmith said:
Seems fine on a Chromebook Pixel - although I haven't used one for any extended period.
I wager the Chromebook was just doing the OS X "just double every dimension as the final draw step" cheap shortcut. The "problem" is: Windows DPI scaling isn't a nice 2x, but 1.5 or 1.75x, and that's what Chrome can't cope with. (Well, the real problem is that Chrome developers are dumbshits and didn't consider DPI scaling from fucking day ONE! But you know.)
-
@El_Heffe said:
100% wrong. Read the book. I'll lend you my copy. He knows what he's talking about and you don't.
Why would I read a book filled with wrong information?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@El_Heffe said:
100% wrong. Read the book. I'll lend you my copy. He knows what he's talking about and you don't.
Why would I read a book filled with wrong information?
It doesn't matter, since you can't understand what you read. For instance:
@Raymond Chen said:
Now, there are parts of MS-DOS that are unrelated to file I/O. For example, there are functions for allocating memory, parsing a string containing potential wildcards into FCB format, that sort of thing. Those functions were still handled by MS-DOS since they were just "helper library" type functions and there was no benefit to reimplementing them in 32-bit code aside from just being able to say that you did it. The old 16-bit code worked just fine, and if you let it do the work, you preserved compatibility with programs that patched MS-DOS in order to alter the behavior of those functions.
-
@flabdablet said:
@Ben L. said:
NT? 98? 98SE? ME? 8?
Here are the versions of desktop Windows I've personally used and my
snap judgementsconsidered opinions on their quality, in order of release date:- 1.0: fuck off with this laughable nonsense
- 2.0: oh good, I can continue to ignore this crap
- 3.0: tries so hard to be a Mac and fails so badly
- 3.11: move along, nothing to see here
- 95: now that is pretty nice to use. Shame it's so crashy.
- NT4.0: ah, a real kernel at last! Half decent multi-user support and all! Pity half the stuff I want to use won't run on it.
- 98: all the crashiness of 95, now with extra bloat. Seriously, Active Desktop WTF?
- 98SE: turn off Active Desktop and it's actually not bad, given it still has fucking DOS underneath. Best of the DOS-based versions by a country mile.
- 2000: like NT4 with better app support. Not bad at all, for a Windows.
- ME: AH HA HA HA WTF oh fuck OFF. I'm gonna upgrade this box to 98SE.
- XP: fucking art department has got at 2000 and made it look all blobby. Mostly works though. New Start menu is an improvement. More things Just Work. Tolerable.
- XP SP1: more of the same.
- XP SP2: more things Just Work. Good.
- XP SP3: WPA2 support is nice but WTF did you pricks do to my SMB over SSH tunnelling? Fuck it, I'll cope.
- Vista: OMG you broke everything and it's so. fucking. slow. NO WAY am I putting this on the school boxes. We'll stick with XP SP3 until you fix your shit.
- 7: runs about as well as XP on identical hardware, so that's nice. User Annoyed Constantly now calmed down to tolerable proportions. OK, roll that out on new school machines.
- 7 SP1: better enough than XP to be worth replacing the school's remaining XP installations.
- 8: take your "new design language" and your blinky flashy mess of "live tiles" and your hot corners and general inscrutability and stick them up your arse. Everything is not a phone. Just FUCK OFF.
- 8.1: cool, you dumbed it down even more and now it wants a Microsoft account as well? Will continue to ignore until Metro gets properly sidelined. No, that's not a start menu.
So it's not a strict alternation of good and dreadful releases, but there is a pretty consistent history of innovations having unacceptable amounts wrong with them that subsequent releases attend to. ME, Vista and 8/8.1 are undoubtedly bottom-of-the-barrel Microsoft experiences that only a fanboi would put up with by choice.
Wow, you're as old as Bill Gates?
-
@Nagesh said:
Wow, you're as old as Bill Gates?
Microsoft didn't start at Windows, DOS is older, I used to love it and it was better than the first few iteration of windows. Going to memory lane I remember that there were BIOS with mouse support, icons and graphs in some very old computers and then I see todays UEFI bios... circle of tech.
-
@serguey123 said:@Nagesh said:
Wow, you're as old as Bill Gates?
Microsoft didn't start at Windows, DOS is older, I used to love it and it was better than the first few iteration of windows. Going to memory lane I remember that there were BIOS with mouse support, icons and graphs in some very old computers and then I see todays UEFI bios... circle of tech.And there would not have been DOS without CP/M... and there is good evidence that there would not have bene CP/M without OS/8 which definately can trace back to the "4K resident Disk Monitory", which can trace back to....
-
@serguey123 said:@Nagesh said:
Wow, you're as old as Bill Gates?
Microsoft didn't start at Windows, DOS is older, I used to love it and it was better than the first few iteration of windows. Going to memory lane I remember that there were BIOS with mouse support, icons and graphs in some very old computers and then I see todays UEFI bios... circle of tech.And there would not have been DOS without CP/M... and there is good evidence that there would not have bene CP/M without OS/8 which definately can trace back to the "4K resident Disk Monitory", which can trace back to....
-
@serguey123 said:
Microsoft didn't start at Windows, DOS is older, I used to love it and it was better than the first few iteration of windows.
Microsoft bought DOS - they didn't have a 8088-compatible OS themselves yet.
@serguey123 said:Going to memory lane I remember that there were BIOS with mouse support, icons and graphs in some very old computers and then I see todays UEFI bios... circle of tech.
Yup, had that on my 486. Had to switch my mouse to 2-button mode to have it work in the BIOS though.
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
And there would not have been DOS without CP/M... and there is good evidence that there would not have bene CP/M without OS/8 which definately can trace back to the "4K resident Disk Monitory", which can trace back to.
Microsoft isn't the only OS vendor, yes, not the first and probably not the last either.@ender said:
Microsoft bought DOS
They bought an incomplete OS, sure, they also finished it , comercialized it, supported it and released several versions. Sometimes making a wheel from scratch doesn't make sense. DOS is a Microsoft OS.
@ender said:Had to switch my mouse to 2-button mode to have it work in the BIOS though
Had one of those too, very bricklike shape. I still think fondly of my 486 dx2, not my first machine by far, but I enjoyed a lot of good times on it
-
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
Pietrek agrees with him.The author of "Unauthorized Windows 95" disagrees with you:
Yeah, well he's wrong.
@blakeyrat said:
Maybe that's why he couldn't get authorization.
Or maybe it wasn't. You certainly have no evidence for your buttumption.@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
[quote user="http://oreilly.com/centers/windows/brochure/isnot.html"]That overwriting MS-DOS from a DOS program brings down the
entire system means that Win95 can't survive without working DOS code
underneath it -- even if you never run a single DOS program. DOS is gone
from Win95 in only the most superficial and meaningless sense that it's
also gone from Windows 3.x Enhanced mode.Well remember it uses DOS as a bootloader, so it's quite possible that if you fuck up DOS, Windows 9X won't be able to boot properly.
[/quote]That program was something to run from within Windows, not before it was booted, so you appear to be assuming that a program run after Win95 finishes booting could travel back in time and fuck up DOS before Win95 finished booting. Oh Blakey, you really are the worst of the worst.
@blakeyrat said:
Once it's booted, it 100% unloads DOS from memory,
No it doesn't. It instances it, and then uses that instance as the basis for all subsequent VMMs.
@blakeyrat said:
unless your computer has a hardware device without a Windows driver, or until the user purposefully loads it. Which means in practice, in 99.9% of all Windows 9X computers, DOS was only a bootloader and remained unloaded all the time.
As pointed out by others, Chen also says you're wrong.
-
@DaveK said:
Pietrek agrees with him.
God forbid I disagree with someone named "pietrek".
@DaveK said:
That program was something to run from within Windows, not before it was booted, so you appear to be assuming that a program run after Win95 finishes booting could travel back in time and fuck up DOS before Win95 finished booting.
It could certainly fuck up the NEXT boot. This is the first I've heard mention (implication, really) that this "DOS screw up Windows thing" screws up Windows immediately, and not upon the next boot.
@DaveK said:
No it doesn't. It instances it, and then uses that instance as the basis for all subsequent VMMs.
It doesn't "instance" it, it only keeps a very small amount of data tracked by DOS. Raymond describes this process with the name "sucks the brains out".
@DaveK said:
As pointed out by others, Chen also says you're wrong.
No he does not. Boomasszilla completely misread that paragraph.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
That program was something to run from within Windows, not before it was booted, so you appear to be assuming that a program run after Win95 finishes booting could travel back in time and fuck up DOS before Win95 finished booting.
It could certainly fuck up the NEXT boot. This is the first I've heard mention (implication, really) that this "DOS screw up Windows thing" screws up Windows immediately, and not upon the next boot.
That being said, you could still fuck up your next boot under Windows XP. Just browse your system drive properties, see that little checkbox that tells you you can "compress the files to save disk space", check it, wait a day, and presto - you've compressed your BOOTMGR and/or NTLDR. Raymond Chen seems to disagree with me, but I've screwed up my PC like that personally.
Also, ME. Holy fuck. It stopped booting to anything except safe mode from day one, and I've spent my whole holidays doing nothing but playing Solitaire and programming in QBasic until somebody at school borrowed me a 98 disc.
(preemptive response to a comment about piracy: STFU, I was 10 years old)
-
@blakeyrat said:
It could certainly fuck up the NEXT boot. This is the first I've heard mention (implication, really) that this "DOS screw up Windows thing" screws up Windows immediately, and not upon the next boot.
Because if you've never heard of it, it can't possibly exist.Unfortunately, for you, this is well documented. There is a small bit of code that you can run which overwrites some of the lower memory used by DOS (somewhere in the first 64k if I remember). Run this code on a computer running DOS and it crashes instantly. Run that same code on a computer running Win 9x, at any time, and it crashes instantly. Not later, not at the next boot, but right fuckng now. Because you are overwriting parts of DOS used by Win 9x.
Despite Win 9x "sucking the brains out of DOS", Raymond goes on to say, at the very end of that article:
Once again, you are the person with no reading comprehension.For example, there are functions for allocating memory, parsing a string containing potential wildcards into FCB format, that sort of thing. <font size="5">Those functions were still handled by MS-DOS</font> since they were just "helper library" type functions and there was no benefit to reimplementing them in 32-bit code aside from just being able to say that you did it. The old 16-bit code worked just fine, and if you let it do the work, you preserved compatibility with programs that patched MS-DOS in order to alter the behavior of those functions.
-
@Nagesh said:
Wow, you're as old as Bill Gates?
Operating systems I have used before Windows was even a thing, in the order I encountered them (might have forgotten a few):
- Commodore PET BASIC
- Exidy Sorceror BASIC
- AppleDOS 3.3
- Apple Pascal
- TRS-DOS
- Compucolor II BASIC
- CP/M
- Microware OS-9
- UCSD p-System
- FACOM OSIV/X8
- DEC RSTS/E
- Hitachi Peach BASIC
- Data General AOS
- Cromemco CROMIX
- CDC Cyber NOS/VE
- HP-UX
- CP/M-86
- Apple ProDOS
- IBM PC-DOS 1.0
- Apple Lisa
- Macintosh
- MS-DOS 2.0, 2.1, 3.0
-
@flabdablet said:
@Nagesh said:
Wow, you're as old as Bill Gates?
Operating systems I have used before Windows was even a thing, in the order I encountered them (might have forgotten a few):
- Commodore PET BASIC
- Exidy Sorceror BASIC
- AppleDOS 3.3
- Apple Pascal
- TRS-DOS
- CP/M
- Microware OS-9
- UCSD p-System
- FACOM OSIV/X8
- DEC RSTS/E
- Hitachi Peach BASIC
- Data General AOS
- Cromemco CROMIX
- CDC Cyber NOS/VE
- HP-UX
- CP/M-86
- Apple ProDOS
- IBM PC-DOS 1.0
- Apple Lisa
- Macintosh
- MS-DOS 2.0, 2.1, 3.0
How many times did you forget to back up a folder when switching OSes?
-
@Ben L. said:
How many times did you forget to back up a folder when switching OSes?
"Folders" did not become a thing until they appeared on the Lisa, so until then that was never a problem. In any case, most of those systems stored stuff on floppy disks (or tape cassettes for the first two), and although the formats were completely incompatible there was little enough overlap between what I wanted to do with one system vs. another that just re-typing things was an acceptable solution.
On the college FACOM M-160F that ran OSIV/X8, first year engineering students were allocated absolutely pathetic user accounts that got purged every Friday; the only files that survived were FORT.FORT, BASIC.BASIC, DATA1 and DATA2. The rationale was that engineering students were supposed to be doing their work with punch card decks, not using the interactive terminals, and therefore had no justifiable need for persistent disk storage.
Fortunately they didn't look inside any of those files, which meant that I was perfectly free to make DATA1 a "partitioned data set" and stuff all my things in there before going home of a Friday, then get them all out again on the Monday. I learned the system scripting language specifically to make that job less tiresome.
I still have a huge box full of 5.25" Apple II floppy disks. Must get around to transcribing those before the bits all rot.
-
@DrakeSmith said:
@beginner_ said:
I think I used ME once at a friends place and it crashed like 3 times in 20 minutes.
I'm surprised you got it restarted three times in twenty minutes. I don't remember any of the 95/98 variants being quick to boot.
It could have crashed on boot.
-
@Jedalyzer said:
@DrakeSmith said:
My parents both have Windows 7 laptops that take 10 minutes to boot and 5 minutes to shut down. Meanwhile, my computer reboots in the time it takes me to notice my computer has frozen.@beginner_ said:
I think I used ME once at a friends place and it crashed like 3 times in 20 minutes.
I'm surprised you got it restarted three times in twenty minutes. I don't remember any of the 95/98 variants being quick to boot.
It could have crashed on boot.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
Pietrek agrees with him.
God forbid I disagree with someone named "pietrek".
God forbid you actually know what you're talking about before you run your mouth off, you mean. If the topic is Windows architecture in the '90s and you don't know who Matt Pietrek is, you clearly weren't there at the time and haven't researched it in any depth since.
@blakeyrat said:@DaveK said:
That program was something to run from within Windows, not before it was booted, so you appear to be assuming that a program run after Win95 finishes booting could travel back in time and fuck up DOS before Win95 finished booting.
It could certainly fuck up the NEXT boot.
I'd be interested to hear how you think it could do that, since the BIOS doesn't need a running DOS in order to be able to boot DOS.
@blakeyrat said:This is the first I've heard mention (implication, really) that this "DOS screw up Windows thing" screws up Windows immediately, and not upon the next boot.
Well that clearly demonstrates how uninformed you are about the subject upon which you are pontificating. Maybe you should quit while you're behind?
@blakeyrat said:@DaveK said:
No it doesn't. It instances it, and then uses that instance as the basis for all subsequent VMMs.
It doesn't "instance" it, it only keeps a very small amount of data tracked by DOS. Raymond describes this process with the name "sucks the brains out".
It keeps the code around too, hooks and bypasses some of it, uses other bits of it. That's not remotely the same as "100% unloads" it.
@blakeyrat said:@DaveK said:
As pointed out by others, Chen also says you're wrong.
No he does not. Boomasszilla completely misread that paragraph.
As pointed out by others, what he actually did was continue reading to the end of the article and pay attention to [i]all[/i] of it, not just lose concentration after cherry-picking a single quote that appeared, when taken out-of-context, to support his argument. You should try being more intellectually rigorous sometime.
But you won't, because you are the worst of the worst.
-
-
@dhromed said:
@Master Chief said:
I'm also weird in that I actually appreciate an attractive ui. XP was alright, but Vista and 7 had something really nice going with aero, until 8 came along and fucked it right up.
I appreciate an attractive UI also. XP Luna wasn't it. Neither is Aero Glass.I used to set XP to classic, and then change the light brown to grey so that the quirk would trigger where the button highlight would disappear and everything looked sleek and flatter.
Windows 8 has the greatest UI visuals of all current OSs, in my super-personal opinion. (not including Metro) (though apparently Ender has trouble with high-contrast inverted schemes? That's pretty bad.). The buttons and tabs in XP Luna were wonderful, though, can't deny that. Shame about those title bars!
I get that they were going for a more minimalist look with 8, but I can't stand it. Looks so flat and dull. I suppose if you're into minimalist UI, that would be your thing. You'd probably like the look of iOS 7 over 6 as well, for the same reasons, where I have the opposite view, again for the same reasons.
-
@Master Chief said:
Looks so flat and dull.
EXACTLY! It's great! The scrollbar visibility is shit, though.
-
@flabdablet said:
I still have a huge box full of 5.25" Apple II floppy disks. Must get around to transcribing those before the bits all rot.
I backed up all my Apple II discs onto a 100-meg Zip disc and had space left over for two emulators.
-
@dhromed said:
@Master Chief said:
Looks so flat and dull.
EXACTLY! It's great! The scrollbar visibility is shit, though.
We'll have to agree to disagree, sir. :) I enjoy the sleek round corners and glass appearance too much (which is why I hacked it into my XPS 18).
-
@Master Chief said:@dhromed said:
@Master Chief said:
Looks so flat and dull.
EXACTLY! It's great! The scrollbar visibility is shit, though.
We'll have to agree to disagree, sir. :) I enjoy the sleek round corners and glass appearance too much (which is why I hacked it into my XPS 18).Master Chief: What are military computer systems almost always a drab (typically grey) color???
A part of the answer is to avoid distractions. The same it true for UI... "Chrome" (the pretty stuff - nothing to do with Google) has really been shown in scientific studies to increase the time needed for people to focus on actual content (statisically - there are always exceptions).
-
@Master Chief said:
@dhromed said:
Function over form. Usable over pretty.@Master Chief said:
Looks so flat and dull.
EXACTLY! It's great! The scrollbar visibility is shit, though.
We'll have to agree to disagree, sir. :) I enjoy the sleek round corners and glass appearance too much (which is why I hacked it into my XPS 18).I realize I'm not typical, but I tend to have a lot of windows open, and switch back and forth between them often. I want to see the window borders clearly, so that I can click on the right one, and I want it to be really, really obvious which window has focus (which tends to be a problem, even with some "flat and dull" themes). Window borders that blend into the background make the UI almost unusable for me.
By all means, sir, configure your system with a pretty theme, and I will configure mine with one that lets me work efficiently (when I'm not wasting time on TDWTF).
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
"Chrome" (the pretty stuff - nothing to do with Google)
Actually, Chrome was named as such because it removed the "chrome" from what would be considered a web browser. Then every other browser copied it.
-
@Ben L. said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
"Chrome" (the pretty stuff - nothing to do with Google)
Actually, Chrome was named as such because it removed the "chrome" from what would be considered a web browser. Then every other browser copied it.And then Google said "eh, fuck that" and let you log into a web browser.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
@Ben L. said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
"Chrome" (the pretty stuff - nothing to do with Google)
Actually, Chrome was named as such because it removed the "chrome" from what would be considered a web browser. Then every other browser copied it.
And then Google said "eh, fuck that" and let you log into a web browser.I'm sorry, what? What the hell does logging in to a program to share your settings and data across devices have to do with Google Chrome's namesake? Did your brain see the words "Google" and "Chrome" in the same sentence and then shut down?
-
@Ben L. said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
@Ben L. said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
"Chrome" (the pretty stuff - nothing to do with Google)
Actually, Chrome was named as such because it removed the "chrome" from what would be considered a web browser. Then every other browser copied it.
And then Google said "eh, fuck that" and let you log into a web browser.I'm sorry, what? What the hell does logging in to a program to share your settings and data across devices have to do with Google Chrome's namesake? Did your brain see the words "Google" and "Chrome" in the same sentence and then shut down?
If by "chrome" you understand what I understand (i.e. all the useless featuritis), then yeah, Google Chrome would be a good example of a browser full of that.
-
@Ben L. said:
Then every other browser copied it.
Which has been a fucking disaster. It's taken about until now for Firefox at least to settle back down into some semblance of working again, but Mozilla's cultural cringe is still very strong and they're about to fuck everything up some more with yet more kowtowing to the mighty Google. It's so unnecessary it makes me spit.
In particular, the conflation of search with addressing was a bad backward step. Yes I know the generic Where Is Grumpy Cat user doesn't know the difference between a web address and a search term any more, but at least when there were two boxes that useful distinction could still be taught. I have just charged some guy $100 to clean up the mess caused by his lack of appreciation of it: he wanted to install the support software for his new TomTom satnav, so he just typed tomtom into The Box and clicked on the first result - highly typical user behavior for sure, but not something anybody attuned to the difference between just going to a site and searching for it would ever choose to do.
As a result he ended up downloading his software from sharpfiles.com, which has lots of big friendly text guaranteeing freedom from spyware and viruses and a small block of 6 point text explaining that they're going to serve you a "download manager" that will also "offer" you some "free software" that you "might be interested in" i.e. trojans and droppers. A week later his PC was crawling with fuck knows what horrible blinky flashy slow-ass advertising bullshit and his antivirus suite was rendering the box pretty much inoperable just trying to keep it from spreading. You know how it goes.
If you have an address box that doesn't even try to apply stupid heuristics to what you type (OK, I'll allow the possible exception of prepending "http://" if it can't already find a protocol specifier) it's possible to avoid that kind of crap. But given a browser with unified address and search, Grumpy Cat users simply cannot be trained to stay safe from it.
It shits me that I actually now derive a monetary benefit from other people's vandalism.
-
@flabdablet said:
If you have an address box that doesn't even try to apply stupid heuristics to what you type (OK, I'll allow the possible exception of prepending "http://" if it can't already find a protocol specifier) it's possible to avoid that kind of crap.
1. The first google result for "TomTom" is the official site. If he kept scouring, then he's an idiot.
2. What you said doesn't work in practice. Idiots will remain idiots, no matter how hard you try to prevent that. One day, he'd be trying to download Program Y, and the official site would be "Ysoftware.com" or something like that. He'd type "Y" into the address box, wouldn't find anything, and go to Google again, and we're back where we've been.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
1. The first google result for "TomTom" is the official site. If he kept scouring, then he's an idiot.
Depends on the region - here the first result is a google ad for a local webshop, first actual result is another webshop selling them, only then the official site is listed.
