Re: Pirates of Silicon Valley

["Robert R. Dell" <robertdell@sprintmail.com>]

Steve Mentzer wrote:

> >functions like built-in browser , browser integration, and use brswer to
> browse you
> >HD, and Internet is your <I:> Right ?
> >AR.. Yes, and the function of win98 is to increase the system requirement, so
> >hardware maker could sell more !
> >
>
> Advanced 3d hardware support. True USB support. Support for the new WDM
> (windows driver model). Native FAT32 support. Supports more types of hardware
> natively. Multiple-monitor support. advanced networking support.
>
> gee, sounds like a bunch of code-bloat to me :)
>
> >
> >put it clearer ....
> >Win 98 is a bug fix fo win 95
> >and win 2000 is a bug fix/upgrade of win NT 4.0
> >
>
> Before NTSP3 (which was *free*), I will admit that NT4.0 had some major
> problems. However, a NT4SP3 machine is a very stable machine, provided you know
> what you are doing when you set it up.
>
> Saying that win2k is a bugfix/upgrade to nt4.0 is screaming ignorance. It
> doesn't take a rocket scientist to do some research and learn about the
> hundreds of new features in win2k that were not present in nt4.0 *or* win9x.
>
> BTW: Win2k is comprised of over 15 *million* lines of code. When was the last
> time you wrote a bug free program that was 1500 lines long, or 15,000?

how about my current count (not counting resources needed like strings, pictures, icons, and the lot) of 9415 lines of code, 316k long and is completely bug free for what IS implemented in it.

>
>
> I thought so...
>
> >
> >are you sure ?? ... though they keep an Log file, but still they will ask you
> if
> >you want to remove this DLL, this might be share with other program ... So
> >eventually you'll not remove because you are afraid that you might have
> deleted
> >something important !
> >
>
> yes, if you were to install a peice of new software and your common controls
> DLL was out-of-date, then it would install the new one and on uninstall, it
> will ask you if you want to remove it.
>
> Since common control libraries are used through every windows app, removing it
> would cause tons of problems.
>
> Not every DLL is subject to this message, only those that it cannot determine
> to be "cross-talk-free".

I agree with your opponent in this matter.  All those DLLs in the system folder gets rediculous.  Why not install them where they belong (in the folder of the application itself)?  The previous is a serious question that I really WANT to know the answer to.  I wrote a few programs that used DLLs and they were in the same folder as my application (EXE file)