What is Digg?46 Comments
- davidleeroth, on 10/25/2007, -23/+81What really slows down Windows?
Stupid users. - inactive, on 10/13/2007, -17/+49I hear this so much it's tiring. Do you know how to bleed an engine and refit the spark plugs? If not, then you're a f*cking idiot to a mechanic. Just because people don't know everything about a system that was designed and created by morons, it does not make them an idiot. There are people many many times more smart than you using a computer, but they don't give a damn about how the thing functions underneath. You cannot blame users for Norton's crap software, no more than you can blame yourself for getting ripped off at a garage. Users are not stupid, drop it.
- Celeron, on 10/25/2007, -2/+18Adware, spyware, trojans, viruses, the list goes on.
- inactive, on 10/25/2007, -0/+15Isn't it ironic then that the Free Software (AVG/AVast) is better than the paid for stuff (Norton). Y'see, it's not the users who are stupid, it's the programmers who write horribly insecure systems, and then try sell you a patch to the problem they created.
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@KrocCamen
Using that analogy(edit: referring to your first reply), most "stupid users" would be doing the following:
Car engine seizes up. Mechanic looks at it and tells you "You didn't put any oil in this car, you need to check your oil regularily, and have it changed every little while".
Car owner then pays to have the engine changed(because at this point it has more in common with a standard boulder then a combustion engine then drive it until it seizes again without checking the oil at any point then bitching about the mechanic not having fixed the car.
I don't fault the man who bought a computer, used it and fell for a trap online, having downloaded some horrible bloat/mal/spy ware(or even worse...Norton AV).
But I do fault any retard who does it again and again after being TOLD not to do it again yet still wants to blame the computer/computer tech/world
Also, I'm fairly certain one must take a minimum competency test to be able to legally drive a car(I believe it's called a 'license'). Computers have no such thing.
While I do understand that which you wanted to convey, I feel I should alert you that not all spite in this case is misplaced. - Zedtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10You know, I saw this in the upcomming and decided not to digg it because I though to myself what most tech-savvy people's first response was -- "Stupid Users".
Then I actually thought about it, it's not necessarily stupid users, its corrupt vendors. For those whom are non-tech-savvy how many of you get those false popups like "Your Computer Must Be At Risk" or something obnoxiously stupid like that and then click the link and let the software install?
Now I know this is digg, but please bare with me when I say there are people who actually use Internet Explorer in this world and do not know a false "Computer at Risk" popup from an actual error message. It plays off of their unknowing innocence to go ahead and click it -- just like someone who knows nothing about a car who has their "Check Engine" light come on. You trust the light to inform you of a problem do you not? You may not have the knowledge and understanding of cars but you trust the light in enough to tell you theres a problem (despite there actually being one or not).
So yeah, maybe users could use a little more education on the matter, but at the same time companies (especially spam companies) shouldn't be so corrupt in trying to make a buck or two by getting users to install software that makes them (the user) believe that it may actually benefit them. Maybe the solution isn't to blame the user but to either inform the user of companies like this or aim for the companies causing these problems in the first place. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10My favorite is when somebody put a small animated .gif as their (scaled) desktop background. I never knew simple blit operations could kill Windows.
- s14sh3r, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21@davidleeroth
Yep. Most of the time when I get a sick comp in my shop it's nothing more than something the user did. People really need to think before they click on ***** or decide to download some cool free screensaver. Oh well, keeps me in business lol - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I bought two fanboys off that train.
Cheaper than AC. - OAKsider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It's been said many times that nobody cares if the said story is a duplicate. I believe.
- ImperatorTerrae, on 10/25/2007, -1/+6"The largest thing that slows windows boot time down is Windows."
You don't realize how stupid that sounds, do you? - bagofmice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I will reply to myself since I can't reply to popfrogs.
See, that's the bitch about backcompat. VMM is going to be some of the most used code at all times. Any change you make to it will affect every app ever run. They all might have assumptions that you change, breaking their apps. When one line of code breaks 500 apps you are looking at a serious *****. Only by switching baseline assumptions and APIs can you remedy this. You gotta be dependable, yet you gotta evolve. Conflicting goals. Low userbase platforms can leverage the evolution by ignoring the dependability requirement. Hell, Mac went from pre 286 non-protected memory model to a BSD kernel.
You do the best you can. - mr804, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8He he's full of crap about vmware. I find it boots XP faster than a real box does.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ bogofmice: "I look forward to vista for the flash cache and the possibility ot a predictive heuristic for cache management. That would make debugging hell though."
Forget it. The smart caching has been quietly dropped (they couldn't make it work) and the monkeys at Microsoft wouldn't know a heuristic algorithm is you naild it to their heads.
All the "goodies" that were promised for Vista have been dropped, so that it's just a re-skinned, slightly more bloated XP.
Game Over, Microsoft - cal01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is very true. I've seen dozens of people fooled by those popups. :( Malicious pop-ups make me cry.
- warbird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3popfrog: as a walkaround, you could put the pagefile on a ramdrive.
- bagofmice, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3That and idiots allocating stupidly huge chunks of ram. Unless you are running at realtime priority, your huge alloc will be paged. Every write more than 1 ms apart will cause the whole allocation to drop and reload.
Dont ask me about the hours spent checking my email. - Avogadro65, on 10/25/2007, -10/+13I may not know how to bleed my engine, but I also don't try installing dirt cheap engine parts (free software) on my engine either.
I may not be a good mechanic, but I know what NOT to do. - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Erm, I think thats the point.. VMWare slows your "real" box boot-up-time down
- Ben - bagofmice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Reply to Mictester.
Right, because there are no heuristics which determine a virus. I mean they're totally undefined. It's not like detecting injection and replication that might be aspects of a heuristc or anything.
That's why all life on earth died out after the first viral breakout. Because there was no way to identify them. No antibodies, no analysis, nothing.
Seriously, why would any potentially executable machine code lay itself out in a manner to be executed, unless it were to be executed? Scanning data for potential conditionals followed by jumps is SOO hard.
Humans are random. Machines are not. Any attack these days that will succeed will come from tricking the stupidest priveleged user. It costs about 2 beers. That and dumpster diving.
P.T. Barnum knew his *****. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I just wish XP would use the RAM that people currently have. My home machine has 2gb of ddr400 and it'll start paging before I run out of available ram. That's just stupid and hurts laptop battery life and causes unnecessary wear and tear on hard drives.
- bagofmice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually your number one killer of speed is going to be disk paging. To jump from cache to ram costs you upwards of 20 cycles. To jump from RAM to page costs you thousands. Any time you hit a page in virtual memory you are doing a 16k disk read.
This is a tricky problem because many users have many highly variant usage profiles. For me, the VMM seems to reserve too much free ram of potential new processes, as it has to support a 256 setup.
I look forward to vista for the flash cache and the possibility ot a predictive heuristic for cache management. That would make debugging hell though. - huggy1122, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How many posts are you going to... erm... post?!
- Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Actually users really ARE stupid:
"Boy those Paypal people must need some new databases or something. They've been sending me like 5 emails a week asking me to update my account information." - Himself, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1did you mean OpenBios?
- nads, on 10/25/2007, -2/+2If it wasn't for these "stupid" users you'd be out a job. I'm glad you don't work for me, in fact you wouldn't get hired by me.
- bagofmice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Reply to Mictester:
Source on flash cache being dropped?
Once cpus hit 2 ghz memory hits became more expensive than most calculations. Optimization these days is all about how to feed data to a cache that is feeding multiple threads, and making sure you don't incur multicpu thread transitions.
Also:
"monkeys at Microsoft wouldn't know a heuristic algorithm is you naild it to their heads."
Right. Would you like to read the white paper on the Halo 2 ranking system? That poor Bayes fellow. Or perhaps any white papers done by the people from Cambridge, Berkely, and MIT. Or possibly anyone on search, or perhaps someone like myself that constructed a complete symbol based dependency graph of windows for the DOJ.
Or possibly THE ENTIRE NEW API for windows.
Perhaps.
Just a thought. Try googling WinFX. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There is no chance that the Microsoft "anti-malware" and "anti-virus" software will actually work. The claimed "heuristics" are marketing baloney (there aren't any real programmers in Redmond anymore) and the first thing the virus writers and phishers will do is find the easy ways to avoid detection by the Microsoft "protection" products!
There are NO "anti-virus" programs that CAN work - it is the work of just a few minutes to put together something malicious and disseminate it. The "anti-virus" companies won't see a copy of it for several days (at best), by which time half the world's infected. It is then just the work of a few minutes more to change the viral code, once it's been added to the signature files of these so-called "security" products, to further avoid detection.
Game Over, Microsoft - jdun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Norton and Mcafee are crap. I never recommend it to my clients and it is the first softwares I uninstall. Those two software alone cause more trouble then spyware and virus.
- nads, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1@realyst: I belive this license you speak of is to ensure the safety of you and everyone you when you drive. It's not there to test your mechanical or diagnosis skills, that's what Mechanics are for.
- bagofmice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I just shipped some of the anti phishing stuff. MS is the only one with a Heuristic AND reputation based anti-phishing software. The only real problem is the url verification on every click get.
Ah well, at least it will work for my parents. - bagofmice, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1Oh yeah, one of the neat things about .net is that you can subclass the GC and implement your own heap. Rock.
- bagofmice, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1AV is just a CPU hog when it runs. That and locking ***** tons of files. Goddamned annoying to have a 40 minute compile broken by exclusive files locks ran by AV.
- bagofmice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I should add the fact that the problem I was talking about would be the latency from a round trip get to check the reputation of a given url. It's not pretty, but it's not like the target audience will notice.
- sbbath, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3then you have a slow comp, my box boots windows in about 10sec
- sbovisjb1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5I suggest that you try installing linuxBIOS (on you're cmos) people have been able to get boot times of 3 seconds. There are companies that you pay around $50 and they would do it for you. Also try out Gamer Xp, TinyXp, windows server 2003 eXP or any of these derivatives. THey have been splitstreamed and optomized.
- BartSwordfish, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I have to be completely honest about this article. Typically I love it when someone takes the time to dig deep into such a topic; however, I couldn't help but notice that the author bills himself as a "guru level web developer." Well, he might be a fantastic web developer but he is seriously lacks "web designer" skills. thepcspy.com...without a doubt one of the worst looking web sites I've ever seen. Terrible navigation...basically made the entire article almost impossible to read.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8You missed the fanboy train.
- Phssthpok, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10[[Stupid users]]
Wow! Thanks for adding such an insightful comment. - HellifIno, on 10/25/2007, -11/+2Mostly, yup.
You CAN turn of several services to get XP to boot faster, but ya know what? Even if you set them to Manual (IE, the service SHOULD start on first request for said service), there is no guarantee that the service will start.
Case and point, my computer was invisible on the LAN after disabling several services (actually, setting them to Manual start). Worse still, OTHER computers w/ shares were invisible to me as well. Sure, I booted in half the previous time, but I was unable to network on my own LAN. Not good.
The largest thing that slows windows boot time down is Windows. Well, and your AV, a bit. - D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Windoze Error:
Insert a Linux Installation Disc and reboot
Windows: Use it and hate it, or use Mac and hate Windows, either way your going to hate Windows (And yes I use Windows) - CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Thanks for sharing.
- trylleklovn, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Now I just thought i could speed up my boot time, and then I am in the sad position that my computer is a Mac...
- bdmbdm, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12Windows slows down Windows.
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5The problem with Windows is it's too user friendly, so all the idiots use it. Stupid users give Windows a bad name...well...that and the fact that Windows sucks
- lsmaster, on 10/12/2007, -20/+1This is a duplicate I believe.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is