Someone's advice on here broke my PC!

This is a discussion on Someone's advice on here broke my PC! within the Tech Board forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by abachler That sounds more like server issues. And why this "server issue" is not issue for Google ...

  1. #46
    CSharpener vart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rishon LeZion, Israel
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    That sounds more like server issues.
    And why this "server issue" is not issue for Google Chrome?
    The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time,
    the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

  2. #47
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by vart View Post
    And why this "server issue" is not issue for Google Chrome?
    Have you done an actual statistical analysis, or are you just goign off 'well IE locked up so i fired up another browser and it loaded right away'. Because many times these situations can be fixed by simply hitting reload. Google chrome is also written to handle non-standard code, while IE is written to handle standard compliant code. Don't blame the browser because it choked on a broken website.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  3. #48
    CSharpener vart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rishon LeZion, Israel
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Have you done an actual statistical analysis, or are you just goign off 'well IE locked up so i fired up another browser and it loaded right away'. Because many times these situations can be fixed by simply hitting reload.
    No, I haven't made a statisitical analysis. And I havent sit with a timer while waiting for some stites to load in IE and Chrome.

    I just have seen to many times "Loading..." message in IE (too many for my liking) and started to look for another browser. And Chrme is my current alternative... I'm still evaluating it...

    About

    Google chrome is also written to handle non-standard code, while IE is written to handle standard compliant code. Don't blame the browser because it choked on a broken website
    I fill just the opposite. Chrome so far is a lot less "real web"-compliant when IE. There are too many sites - that it cannot load while IE can.
    The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time,
    the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

  4. #49
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    What kind of websites are you going to?
    I've never seen a speed problem with IE. Although Apple's crappy browser (can't remember the name right now) does seem to load pages at lightning speed, they look like crap. But waiting 1 second vs 2-3 seconds, isn't really that important to me.
    "I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008

    "the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010

  5. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    Google chrome is also written to handle non-standard code, while IE is written to handle standard compliant code. Don't blame the browser because it choked on a broken website.
    LOL. That line is usually written the other way.

    IE CSS bugs - Google Search

  6. #51
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    Although Apple's crappy browser (can't remember the name right now) does seem to load pages at lightning speed
    I believe you are referring to Safari.

    The real debate is over who's standards you want to adopt. There's open standards, found more in the open-source world, but as abachler points out - if all your clients already support one standard, you might as well cater to them. If you do have a virtual monopoly, what you do pretty much IS the standard.

    As much as I don't like a lot of Microsoft's recent products, people know them, and you have to deal with that. I use Linux and Firefox because they are closer to my own personal preferences, and from my perspective I believe them to be superior. I even convinced by wife to start using alternative browsers for security reasons. After the switch, she had fewer reliability and virus issues (which were very common on her PC before). On the other hand, she still has to use IE for her homework because she's required to use certain tools that only work on IE.

    I think it's only worsening the situation when people develop in such a way that students are required to pay for a Windows license in order to complete the class, but unfortunately that's how a true market economy works, and so businesses are just going to keep working that way. For what I do at work, I thought BSD would be a much better choice - but the fact is, if I used BSD, most of the people working to support my department wouldn't have a clue what was going on, and so we have to account for that.


    edit: @ akkerknight

    The problem with your computer has nothing to do with Linux's lack of features. When you boot up, a computer has to start somewhere. It starts in a location call the boot record. Windows used to have a boot loader at that location. When you installed Linux, it overwrote that with GRUB, allowing you to choose between two other places to start: Windows, or Linux. Once you remove the files GRUB needs to work, do you really think Linux (which was no longer on your machine) should be written to put your Windows boot loader back at that location? Not only is that a tricky thing to do, I don't think Microsoft would want Linux getting shipped with a very crucial part of their operating system.

  7. #52
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,598
    Linux may be great and all but I really think most of its users live in a fantasy world where money doesn't win. Microsoft is not going to be de-throned any time soon as the king of OS's. Linux has a long way to go to ever hope of coming close.

    If you look at the console market you can plainly see that anyone that is poised to beat Microsoft eventually gets squashed. It is rumored that Microsoft did not make one penny of profit on the first XBox and yet they continued to produce it just to compete. How can a company compete with a giant like that who can afford to put a great product out without making a single dime?

    So you really think Linux is going to win over Windows just because it has a bigger fanboy base? C'mon now.


    ..and my how we have strayed off the topic. My apologies to the OP.

  8. #53
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    22,170
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler
    Well, come July when my next scheduled linux trial arrives, ill give it a shot, until then its not worth the waste of my time. However, I expect it to run out of the box, no special downloads, no foreknowledge whatsoever, just as if I were installing any version of Windows. I'm sorry if that is a bit of a strict requirement, but unless linux can meet that challenge, it has no right to claim to be better. If ti doesnt provide an easier nstallation, and ti doesnt provide a better development environment, then what exactly makes people think it is better?
    I think that this article titled Linux is Not Windows still makes good points in response to your questions, although some Linux distributions really are working towards becoming "Windows replacements".
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  9. #54
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    The problem with the "windows replacement" is that it's exceptionally hard, if not impossible, to get the best of both worlds. Take abachler's issue with the Ubuntu installation, for instance.

    I think Ubuntu is the closest thing yet to a drop-in replacement of Windows, but I think it does it without sacrificing a lot of the power. Partitions for instance. In the installer, you can manipulate, create, and remove partitions, install to a particular partition without affecting the others, and then set it up to boot to any of the existing operating systems.

    On the other hand, Windows won't let you do any of that. It gives you a one-click installation.

    You could make it a one-click installation, with another button to open up a customization menu, but I'm sure that would draw criticism from some groups too - it'll be impossible to please everyone. My only objection is when companies do things to intentionally hide the possibilities from their users.

  10. #55
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,918
    Quote Originally Posted by sean View Post
    On the other hand, Windows won't let you do any of that. It gives you a one-click installation.
    But it will. Ever since Vista.
    It asks you right during the installation on what partition you want to install it on.

    Quote Originally Posted by sean View Post
    You could make it a one-click installation, with another button to open up a customization menu, but I'm sure that would draw criticism from some groups too - it'll be impossible to please everyone. My only objection is when companies do things to intentionally hide the possibilities from their users.
    I like that approach actually. The ability to choose Standard or Advanced, plus the option that the installer can choose for you, if you are unsure.
    The Ubuntu installer, if I remember correctly, is more of the spirit of advanced users:
    It provides options for everything to customize, though you can skip over them if you want. It's different than Windows hide it approach, though.
    Last edited by Elysia; 04-05-2009 at 01:59 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  11. #56
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by sean View Post
    The problem with your computer has nothing to do with Linux's lack of features. When you boot up, a computer has to start somewhere. It starts in a location call the boot record. Windows used to have a boot loader at that location. When you installed Linux, it overwrote that with GRUB, allowing you to choose between two other places to start: Windows, or Linux. Once you remove the files GRUB needs to work, do you really think Linux (which was no longer on your machine) should be written to put your Windows boot loader back at that location? Not only is that a tricky thing to do, I don't think Microsoft would want Linux getting shipped with a very crucial part of their operating system.
    I don't think Linux would need to come with a Windows boot loader. All they'd need to do is make a backup copy of the existing boot loader before installing Grub. Then when you uninstall, it restores the old boot loader.
    "I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008

    "the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010

  12. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    The Ubuntu installer, if I remember correctly, is more of the spirit of advanced users:
    It provides options for everything to customize, though you can skip over them if you want. It's different than Windows hide it approach, though.
    I believe you are referring to the Debian/early Ubuntu text mode installer. It divides options into "sections", and you can choose to skip them. Not too pretty, but very functional, easy to use, and runs with 32MB RAM.

    I believe Ubuntu has had the "dumber" GUI installer since at least 6.04 (released April 2006). IIRC, the steps are (may not be in this order) -
    license agreement
    timezone
    username/password
    partitions
    confirmation (and whether you want to install GRUB)

    That's why I don't get why people say it's hard to install Linux...

    All they'd need to do is make a backup copy of the existing boot loader before installing Grub. Then when you uninstall, it restores the old boot loader.
    Problem is uninstalling is not usually done by Linux code.

    Do you uninstall Windows first before you install Linux?

  13. #58
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    Installing linux is even easier with WUBI. It just creates a partition within a file from windows and then you get the option to boot into linux. You can even uninstall the operating system through addremove programs.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-27-2006, 02:21 PM
  2. Need help with reformating my pc
    By XunTric in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-22-2005, 04:44 PM
  3. girl friend advice (prob. the wrong place)
    By B0bDole in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-22-2004, 07:38 PM
  4. Post you pc pics (mods)
    By biosninja in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-15-2004, 04:15 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21