Personal computing discussed
K-L-Waster wrote:For example, if you minimize it, it keeps running but disappears completely -- not to be found on the start bar or in the system tray. You literally have to go back to the Start menu and relaunch it just to get the UI back.
captaintrav wrote:Also, an honorable mention goes to a piece of software where the dev's are too lazy to store the data in a folder other than the program's folder under C:\Program Files. How many programs are guilty of this, and then the developers just claim "you need local admin", or "install in a different folder", I've lost count of. This software in question takes the cake though, by just giving all users full control of C:\Program Files. Not just it's own folder. EVERY FOLDER. I'd kick the guy in the shins if I could find him.
LostCat wrote:K-L-Waster wrote:For example, if you minimize it, it keeps running but disappears completely -- not to be found on the start bar or in the system tray. You literally have to go back to the Start menu and relaunch it just to get the UI back.
Notifications come through the Windows notification center now, so the 'UI' seems like fluff unless you're actively using the app.
K-L-Waster wrote:Sorry to keep on the Microsoft thing, but... the Win10 bundled version of Skype is absolutely atrocious.
For example, if you minimize it, it keeps running but disappears completely -- not to be found on the start bar or in the system tray. You literally have to go back to the Start menu and relaunch it just to get the UI back.
S.M.H.
derFunkenstein wrote:captaintrav wrote:Also, an honorable mention goes to a piece of software where the dev's are too lazy to store the data in a folder other than the program's folder under C:\Program Files. How many programs are guilty of this, and then the developers just claim "you need local admin", or "install in a different folder", I've lost count of. This software in question takes the cake though, by just giving all users full control of C:\Program Files. Not just it's own folder. EVERY FOLDER. I'd kick the guy in the shins if I could find him.
That just floors me. I mean, I'm super green and I break stuff all the time, but I really want to put things where they belong and make every effort to put stuff where it "belongs". A lot of that is just not wanting to be the guy responsible for "everything does this except for that one package" like you're describing.
The behavior itself sounds like the application is some relic from the Win9x era (where everyone already had full control of that directory), and it was easier to have the installer give all users full control than it was to figure out where to put the data. My bosses would never stand for that. They'd want it done in a hurry but they want it done right.
captaintrav wrote:In my day job I deal with a lot of software written by engineers for engineers (not the software kind), and it's the rule rather than the exception that the software is doing something boneheaded like storing data files with the application. The sad thing is none of this is new. The concept of a limited user has been around since Windows NT debuted, I don't know why this isn't just a given that your app should work without administrative privileges unless it is doing something rather special. There is some sort of mental block in the Windows world where the mentality that the system is "wide open" basically has persisted despite Windows implementing an actual security model well over 20 years ago.
kvndoom wrote:Meh, it'll always be Windows Millennium for me. Nothing like an idle desktop, with no programs open, suddenly going to either "Explorer.exe has experienced an error" or just straight up BSOD.
When the only way to fix your bugs is literally install another operating system, it's tough to get any worse.
captaintrav wrote:In my day job I deal with a lot of software written by engineers for engineers (not the software kind), and it's the rule rather than the exception that the software is doing something boneheaded like storing data files with the application. The sad thing is none of this is new. The concept of a limited user has been around since Windows NT debuted, I don't know why this isn't just a given that your app should work without administrative privileges unless it is doing something rather special.
LostCat wrote:I guess, but you can just pin it as a tile. Or to the taskbar.
TwistedKestrel wrote:Why does every other piece of software need to install an always running update service, particularly when only a very small number will ever do updates when the application itself is not running (not that I want them to in the first place). Maybe it's a permissions thing and there's a good reason for it?
just brew it! wrote:I remember way back in the day there were some installers that got confused once HDDs got bigger than 4GB. The free space calculation would blow up and no matter how much you had it would think you didn't have enough.
caconym wrote:This was ages ago (2006, probably), but the software that came with a Philips digital photo frame I bought refused to install if you had less than 10% free space on your HDD. It didn't matter if you had a 40 GB drive or a 400. I ended up having to move a bunch of stuff to my D: drive, install the software, then move everything back to C:
Would it really have taken the programmer more time to code a limit in MB instead of %? Baffling.
just brew it! wrote:I remember way back in the day there were some installers that got confused once HDDs got bigger than 4GB. The free space calculation would blow up and no matter how much you had it would think you didn't have enough.
SuperSpy wrote:just brew it! wrote:I remember way back in the day there were some installers that got confused once HDDs got bigger than 4GB. The free space calculation would blow up and no matter how much you had it would think you didn't have enough.
One of the super-old installers (installshield?) used to do a 'system check' of sorts to see if the computer was 'good enough'. It, of course, used 32 bit integers for all the size related data, as well as timing a moderately hard calculation to guess the CPU speed.
Of course, on a desktop with 32 GB of RAM, 1 TB of C: drive space and a modern 4.8 GHz CPU it loses it's mind. The RAM and Disk meters would all report some huge negative number, and the CPU calculation was using the normal Windows ~16 ms 'tick' so it would report the calculation took 0 seconds snowing an infinity MHz CPU.