Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Stay Away From Microsoft VISTA

<< < (6/19) > >>

Renegade:
There is nothing to prevent them from doing so, but in .NET you're not supposed to use the registry for app settings - there is a whole different system for that.

Perfectly illustrates my point about bad programmer habits :)
-MrCrispy (September 06, 2007, 12:51 AM)
--- End quote ---

Couldn't agree more.

I went over some of this in a podcast about application settings. Well, part of it was about application settings.

The real kicker is that in .NET it's MUCH MUCH harder to use the registry than to do things properly. That anyone would bother using the registry in .NET is simply amazing to me.

Here's the .NET way (bascially):

SomeSetting = SomeValue;
Settings.Save();

Done.

Edit: Corrected Typo.

Eóin:
I too think that sometimes you have to cut the past loose. I myself always write my programs for unicode which limits me to Win 2k and better. But I think the advantages of unicode and support for multiple languages far out weighs the negatives.

f0dder:
I too think that sometimes you have to cut the past loose. I myself always write my programs for unicode which limits me to Win 2k and better. But I think the advantages of unicode and support for multiple languages far out weighs the negatives.
-Eóin (September 06, 2007, 07:59 AM)
--- End quote ---
What about MSLU/Unicows?

Renegade:
I too think that sometimes you have to cut the past loose. I myself always write my programs for unicode which limits me to Win 2k and better. But I think the advantages of unicode and support for multiple languages far out weighs the negatives.
-Eóin (September 06, 2007, 07:59 AM)
--- End quote ---

Agreed, but in the case you describe, ditching 98/ME only means ditching an audience that would never buy anyways. :)

Not much in the way of real negatives for ditching 98/ME. :)

As for "far out weighs the negatives"... I think you meant to write:

far out weighs the negatives... :D

mouser:
I think some of the comments about backward compatibility warrant a further comment from me.

There are always very difficult choices to be made when balancing backward compatibility with new features.  I think MS makes a reasonable choice to preserve backward compatibility.  Yes it does make things messier.  Apple is more willing to throw out stuff when they write new APIs, maybe that's just because they have a smaller developer pool which is more willing to be told: your code won't run on the new stuff, rewrite it.

However, the virtual store stuff that microsoft implemented for vista is to my mind, exactly the wrong approach for this kind of thing.  In fact i think it's a textbook case of how NOT to handle backward compatibility.

The idea that they are quietly behind the scenes creating mirror copies of files and tricking programs (and users!) into think they are working with one copy of a file (or registry key) when they are really working with another, is so clearly a bad idea that they should have fired they guy who dared to suggest it.  Don't even give him the end of the day to clear out his office.

The proper solution would have been simpler, clearer, safer, and better for everyone.  When a program is attempting to access files it's not allowed to in one of these privileged directories -- prompt the user, explain the problem, and let them switch the program to run in "compatibility mode" where it IS allowed to access these directories like it could in WinXP, etc.  If they want to run it in compatibility mode, fine.  If not, don't run it.  If you then wanted to let them switch into some insane virtual store more, with a huge warning, you could even do that (though if you ask me i wouldn't provide such an option).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page