Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
WINDOWS 7 THREAD (ongoing)
Ehtyar:
Had they published "Windows Media Player Corrupts Your MP3s", you'd be accusing them of the same. The headline they currently have is the most accurate without being redundant IMO.
Ehtyar.
f0dder:
Had they published "Windows Media Player Corrupts Your MP3s", you'd be accusing them of the same. The headline they currently have is the most accurate without being redundant IMO.-Ehtyar (February 03, 2009, 03:50 AM)
--- End quote ---
No I wouldn't, because that's correct and non-sensationalist. Claiming that the operating system corrupts your MP3s has a lot of implications, like "OMFG IT'S NEW ÜBER-DRM!".
justice:
That's not even news is it, about 4 weeks ago that was the case - that's been patched when windows 7 public first appeared it automatically got the patch from windows update.
Hirudin:
...
2- The Win7 ISO is 4.6 Gigabytes... 600 Megabytes too large for the USB media.
...
-Edvard (January 30, 2009, 11:55 AM)
--- End quote ---
How?
That headline gave me second thoughts about installing W7, but after reading it and seeing that it is actually WMP12 (or whatever number they're on) that has the issue I stopped caring. I don't use WMP.
Seems like "Windows Media Player 7 May Corrupt Your MP3s" is a lot more descriptive than "Windows 7 May Corrupt Your MP3s". The warning in that headline is about as helpful as Google's apparent warnings about the whole internet.
40hz:
Had they published "Windows Media Player Corrupts Your MP3s", you'd be accusing them of the same. The headline they currently have is the most accurate without being redundant IMO.-Ehtyar (February 03, 2009, 03:50 AM)
--- End quote ---
No I wouldn't, because that's correct and non-sensationalist. Claiming that the operating system corrupts your MP3s has a lot of implications, like "OMFG IT'S NEW ÜBER-DRM!".
-f0dder (February 03, 2009, 03:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
That's correct. But to a certain extent, Microsoft brings it on itself with their continued insistence on incorporating non-OS elements into their OS installation. And then they further muddy up the waters insisting that they are essential parts of the OS. (Take a look at some of their their arguments to the EU as to why they shouldn't be made unbundle Internet Explorer if you don't believe it.)
If all of their add-ons (IE, WMP, etc. etc. etc.) were just placed in an optional (and separate) Microsoft Desktop installation, we wouldn't be having this problem. Microsoft's server installers already do it this way.
Allowing a more granular approach to component installation is what's needed.
Just don't hold your breath waiting for it on the desktop. :huh:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version