Author Topic: Windows 10 Announced (Read 750175 times)

Deozaan · « **Reply #875 on:** October 15, 2016, 11:57 PM »

When trying to update MediaInfo from 0.7.61 to 0.7.89 today, the update had problems and I had to reinstall the previous version I had. Has anyone here had this problem?
-Arizona Hot (October 15, 2016, 08:39 PM)

What is MediaInfo and what does it have to do with Windows 10? This probably belongs in a new thread.

4wd · « **Reply #876 on:** October 16, 2016, 12:26 AM »

When trying to update MediaInfo from 0.7.61 to 0.7.89 today, the update had problems and I had to reinstall the previous version I had. Has anyone here had this problem?
-Arizona Hot (October 15, 2016, 08:39 PM)

What is MediaInfo and what does it have to do with Windows 10? This probably belongs in a new thread.
-Deozaan (October 15, 2016, 11:57 PM)

It provides information on media

ie. codecs, bitrate, bit depth, etc, etc

Windows 10 Announced

MediaInfo Lite worked fine for the 7-10 days I had the Anniversary Update installed.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #877 on:** October 16, 2016, 06:35 AM »

When trying to update MediaInfo from 0.7.61 to 0.7.89 today, the update had problems and I had to reinstall the previous version I had. Has anyone here had this problem? 0.7.89 is the latest version and the installer could do both 32-bit and 64-bit installs. I was installing on my 32-bit machine. I tried to install on my 64-bit machine with the installer from SourceForge and had no problems. I downloaded the SourceForge version on my 32-bit machine and it still had problems so I aborted the install, but when I checked the version it said it was the 0.7.89 version and worked fine.

[ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ]
-Arizona Hot (October 15, 2016, 08:39 PM)

Just for grins I would try installing somewhere other than the Program Files folders. From Vista onward every Windows release has increased permissions needed to write files there. I don't know why they get these ideas that break programs. But many utilities cannot write to their own install folders unless run as administrator. There is no good reason for it that I know of.

wraith808 · « **Reply #878 on:** October 16, 2016, 02:18 PM »

When trying to update MediaInfo from 0.7.61 to 0.7.89 today, the update had problems and I had to reinstall the previous version I had. Has anyone here had this problem? 0.7.89 is the latest version and the installer could do both 32-bit and 64-bit installs. I was installing on my 32-bit machine. I tried to install on my 64-bit machine with the installer from SourceForge and had no problems. I downloaded the SourceForge version on my 32-bit machine and it still had problems so I aborted the install, but when I checked the version it said it was the 0.7.89 version and worked fine.

[ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ]
-Arizona Hot (October 15, 2016, 08:39 PM)

Just for grins I would try installing somewhere other than the Program Files folders. From Vista onward every Windows release has increased permissions needed to write files there. I don't know why they get these ideas that break programs. But many utilities cannot write to their own install folders unless run as administrator. There is no good reason for it that I know of.

-MilesAhead (October 16, 2016, 06:35 AM)

For reasons of security. It's annoying, but I don't think it's a bad idea, nor did they just do it out of the blue, and there is a way around it, if you follow application development guidelines.

You only install to the Program Files. There is a program data, where all of the data for the programs should be stored. You can also use the expedient of installing to the user's profile.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #879 on:** October 17, 2016, 06:58 AM »

You only install to the Program Files. There is a program data, where all of the data for the programs should be stored. You can also use the expedient of installing to the user's profile.

-wraith808 (October 16, 2016, 02:18 PM)

I know. But MS likes to change this stuff around every couple of releases it seems. I like to set up so that my stuff works the same from XP to W8. If on a multi-user machine it's a different story. But for a true single user setup I see no reason not to make a folder C:\Utils like I have been doing for years and make a subfolder for each utility that needs to be in a folder. For command line stuff I just copy to C:\Utils and have it in the path. Also it makes it easy to copy shortcuts to other machines. For example after a custom install my programs in C:\Utils only need to have shortcuts copied on to be back in business.

wraith808 · « **Reply #880 on:** October 17, 2016, 08:32 AM »

You only install to the Program Files. There is a program data, where all of the data for the programs should be stored. You can also use the expedient of installing to the user's profile.

-wraith808 (October 16, 2016, 02:18 PM)

I know. But MS likes to change this stuff around every couple of releases it seems. I like to set up so that my stuff works the same from XP to W8. If on a multi-user machine it's a different story. But for a true single user setup I see no reason not to make a folder C:\Utils like I have been doing for years and make a subfolder for each utility that needs to be in a folder. For command line stuff I just copy to C:\Utils and have it in the path. Also it makes it easy to copy shortcuts to other machines. For example after a custom install my programs in C:\Utils only need to have shortcuts copied on to be back in business.

-MilesAhead (October 17, 2016, 06:58 AM)

They haven't changed this since Vista.

https://technet.micr...ibrary/ff716245.aspx

And you stated that you didn't know why they get these ideas that break programs. I was just telling the reason. Access to the Program Files directory can be just as injurious as access to the system directory.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #881 on:** October 17, 2016, 10:29 AM »

And you stated that you didn't know why they get these ideas that break programs. I was just telling the reason. Access to the Program Files directory can be just as injurious as access to the system directory.
-wraith808 (October 17, 2016, 08:32 AM)

But people who run single folder portable type programs that were designed to install in the program files folders and write to their own install folder are not going to uninstall and reinstall just to satisfy MS. The will run a Take Ownership utility and have done with it. So what good does it do except to be a pita?

There are hundreds of little XP utilities that still work fine if not broken by MS. Since they have such good reasons for all they do I would still like the explanation why they allowed spaces in file paths if not to deliberately break code? Yet again another Program Files gimmick to move there from Programs to break all the programs of all the coders who weren't given a heads up to wrap the path in double quotes. They deliberately set out to make non MS affiliated coders look bad. There's no other possible motive.

wraith808 · « **Reply #882 on:** October 17, 2016, 12:44 PM »

And you stated that you didn't know why they get these ideas that break programs. I was just telling the reason. Access to the Program Files directory can be just as injurious as access to the system directory.
-wraith808 (October 17, 2016, 08:32 AM)

But people who run single folder portable type programs that were designed to install in the program files folders and write to their own install folder are not going to uninstall and reinstall just to satisfy MS. The will run a Take Ownership utility and have done with it. So what good does it do except to be a pita?

There are hundreds of little XP utilities that still work fine if not broken by MS. Since they have such good reasons for all they do I would still like the explanation why they allowed spaces in file paths if not to deliberately break code? Yet again another Program Files gimmick to move there from Programs to break all the programs of all the coders who weren't given a heads up to wrap the path in double quotes. They deliberately set out to make non MS affiliated coders look bad. There's no other possible motive.

-MilesAhead (October 17, 2016, 10:29 AM)

Most people aren't in that category. This was no intended slight from my estimation; it was a desire to make things more secure. If programs by default can't store things in the program files directory, then you get less in the way of being able to alter other programs. Basically, by separating them, they've ensured that the installation is static to what was actually installed by the program and authorized by the user at that time, rather than it just being anything that is written there. ProgramData/AppData make sure that anything that is to be changed has a place. If it is something to be portable, then you do as you did- install it somewhere else.

Personally, though it was a pain when I first started to work with it, I find it now more intuitive.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #883 on:** October 17, 2016, 05:45 PM »

Most people aren't in that category. This was no intended slight from my estimation; it was a desire to make things more secure.
-wraith808 (October 17, 2016, 12:44 PM)

I was only talking about way back when they changed the name of the folder where programs were installed to "Program Files" including the space between. All kinds of programs after upgrading to that version of Windows produced the error "C:\Program is not a valid path" since the path got chopped at the space. I don't have a complaint with installing into folders under the user name. That's cool. But MS is just too cavalier about breaking code. As another indicator of attitude, they have a reputation for taking standard conventions and practices, then distorting them with their own non compliant tweaks, and making the rest of the world change to their conventions to be "compatible." Just look at the headaches caused by checking that HTML that works with most any other browser in the English Language world, looks the same on IE. Duplication of effort to orders of magnitude.

OK, now I won't bitch about MS for another 6 months. I got my quota.

wraith808 · « **Reply #884 on:** October 17, 2016, 06:09 PM »

I was only talking about way back when they changed the name of the folder where programs were installed to "Program Files" including the space between.
-MilesAhead (October 17, 2016, 05:45 PM)

That was because of upgraded capabilities in the OS, IIRC. Before that, there wasn't any equivalent. And that was introduced in Windows 95?

https://blogs.msdn.m...00/?p=8153/#10279251

MilesAhead · « **Reply #885 on:** October 18, 2016, 07:42 AM »

I was only talking about way back when they changed the name of the folder where programs were installed to "Program Files" including the space between.
-MilesAhead (October 17, 2016, 05:45 PM)

That was because of upgraded capabilities in the OS, IIRC. Before that, there wasn't any equivalent. And that was introduced in Windows 95?

https://blogs.msdn.m...00/?p=8153/#10279251
-wraith808 (October 17, 2016, 06:09 PM)

If they were not deliberately throwing in a monkey wrench all they had to do to avoid the path error I noted was to name the folder ProgramFiles without the space. Since they went out of their way to include the space one has to assume creating the launch errors was intentional. It broke some of their own software so it is impossible for me to believe these errors did not show up during testing.

wraith808 · « **Reply #886 on:** October 18, 2016, 09:32 AM »

I was only talking about way back when they changed the name of the folder where programs were installed to "Program Files" including the space between.
-MilesAhead (October 17, 2016, 05:45 PM)

That was because of upgraded capabilities in the OS, IIRC. Before that, there wasn't any equivalent. And that was introduced in Windows 95?

https://blogs.msdn.m...00/?p=8153/#10279251
-wraith808 (October 17, 2016, 06:09 PM)

If they were not deliberately throwing in a monkey wrench all they had to do to avoid the path error I noted was to name the folder ProgramFiles without the space. Since they went out of their way to include the space one has to assume creating the launch errors was intentional. It broke some of their own software so it is impossible for me to believe these errors did not show up during testing.

-MilesAhead (October 18, 2016, 07:42 AM)

How did it break anything other than 16-bit applications? The capabilities of Windows 95 allowed for spaces. Before that, there were no central locations. Also, applications that would have been running on 16-bit windows would see PROGRA~1 no matter what as directories had a limit of 8 characters (ah the 8.3 days). The space makes literally no extra difference for those applications. There were errors, sure because of the change. But the change that you're referring to has literally no difference to any legacy program that would be affected by it.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #887 on:** October 18, 2016, 10:15 AM »

I was only talking about way back when they changed the name of the folder where programs were installed to "Program Files" including the space between.
-MilesAhead (October 17, 2016, 05:45 PM)

That was because of upgraded capabilities in the OS, IIRC. Before that, there wasn't any equivalent. And that was introduced in Windows 95?

https://blogs.msdn.m...00/?p=8153/#10279251
-wraith808 (October 17, 2016, 06:09 PM)

If they were not deliberately throwing in a monkey wrench all they had to do to avoid the path error I noted was to name the folder ProgramFiles without the space. Since they went out of their way to include the space one has to assume creating the launch errors was intentional. It broke some of their own software so it is impossible for me to believe these errors did not show up during testing.

-MilesAhead (October 18, 2016, 07:42 AM)

How did it break anything other than 16-bit applications? The capabilities of Windows 95 allowed for spaces. Before that, there were no central locations. Also, applications that would have been running on 16-bit windows would see PROGRA~1 no matter what as directories had a limit of 8 characters (ah the 8.3 days). The space makes literally no extra difference for those applications. There were errors, sure because of the change. But the change that you're referring to has literally no difference to any legacy program that would be affected by it.
-wraith808 (October 18, 2016, 09:32 AM)

I don't get the point of the argument. MS is known for breaking code and forcing other software to conform to its non-compliant conventions historically. The space in the path is just one example.

I see no point in carrying on. If you think the space was not deliberately used as a booby trap then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

wraith808 · « **Reply #888 on:** October 18, 2016, 10:48 AM »

You haven't given any argument otherwise, other than that you were inconvenienced by it. While I've given many counter examples.

There used to be a trend in blaming Microsoft for everything bad, and that it was intentional, rather than unforeseen. That's what this feels like.

In all honesty, I wish they would move ahead, and not take older Windows 3.1 16-bit applications into account when developing the file system. Not worry about legacy compatibility. Anything that can't handle spaces in the name in this day and age is either (a) old, or (b) not developed correctly.

Windows wouldn't be so much of a mish mash if they quit taking into account old legacy applications. But they don't.

But we do agree on something. If you can't look at the arguments and links I provided above, and see how it explains away the fact that they were using spaces to booby trap the file system, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #889 on:** October 18, 2016, 03:17 PM »

You haven't given any argument otherwise, other than that you were inconvenienced by it. While I've given many counter examples.

There used to be a trend in blaming Microsoft for everything bad, and that it was intentional, rather than unforeseen. That's what this feels like.

In all honesty, I wish they would move ahead, and not take older Windows 3.1 16-bit applications into account when developing the file system. Not worry about legacy compatibility. Anything that can't handle spaces in the name in this day and age is either (a) old, or (b) not developed correctly.

Windows wouldn't be so much of a mish mash if they quit taking into account old legacy applications. But they don't.

But we do agree on something. If you can't look at the arguments and links I provided above, and see how it explains away the fact that they were using spaces to booby trap the file system, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
-wraith808 (October 18, 2016, 10:48 AM)

The "old" software that cannot handle the spaces in filenames is Windows cmd.exe. If they want to make the space a legitimate filename character, then it should not be a path separator character. They did it both ways because they do not want to update their code. Just like the 260 character path limit in explorer.exe that is not limited in the API file calls. They don't want to open a can of spaghetti. I bet all that code was written by some guy who got fired or hit by a car or something. Nobody wants to fix it. Just let it zombie-fy until nobody uses Windows anymore. That's the way to run a "modern" OS.

Edit: supposedly there is a Registry hack in Windows 10 that allows Explorer.exe to handle paths longer than 260 characters. I would be curious how much of a performance hit is involved.

Afa doing things deliberately goes, the fact that various Windows programming books were published under variations on the title "Undocumented Windows" is proof in itself. The programmers on the buddy list got a cheat sheet of undocumented calls. The other programmers got to trial and error it.

wraith808 · « **Reply #890 on:** October 18, 2016, 03:30 PM »

The "old" software that cannot handle the spaces in filenames is Windows cmd.exe.
-MilesAhead (October 18, 2016, 03:17 PM)

That's incorrect. Type cd "\program files\" at the prompt in the regular cmd.exe, and it works. Or just type cd \progra~1 and it works, which is what I stated above.

Afa doing things deliberately goes, the fact that various Windows programming books were published under variations on the title "Undocumented Windows" is proof in itself. The programmers on the buddy list got a cheat sheet of undocumented calls. The other programmers got to trial and error it.

-MilesAhead (October 18, 2016, 03:17 PM)

That doesn't prove anything other than programmers put in code that wasn't officially sanctioned. Happens all the time. I've done it to get back doors to what I need. Some of them are still out there in commercial software that I've done.

In my opinion, you're calling malice when there are many other explanations (incompetence, missed testing, programmer shortcuts, etc). But that would require that you take a more forgiving interpretation.

wraith808 · « **Reply #891 on:** October 18, 2016, 03:31 PM »

Editing a post is creating a new post?

MilesAhead · « **Reply #892 on:** October 18, 2016, 05:53 PM »

That's incorrect. Type cd "\program files\" at the prompt in the regular cmd.exe, and it works. Or just type cd \progra~1 and it works, which is what I stated above.
-wraith808 (October 18, 2016, 03:30 PM)

If it could handle the spaces you would not need the quotes. As I said, the space should be either a valid path character or a separator character, but not both. Why don't we just require double quoting any file path that contains an 'e' ?? It's just as valid to do that as to quote around the spaces.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #893 on:** October 18, 2016, 05:59 PM »

In my opinion, you're calling malice when there are many other explanations (incompetence, missed testing, programmer shortcuts, etc). But that would require that you take a more forgiving interpretation.
-wraith808 (October 18, 2016, 03:30 PM)

And why do we want to be forgiving of Microsoft? You don't see how this whole update thing was a wedge to force feed the user whatever they want in the name of "security" updates? Just look how they ram Win 10 home while spying the whole time. If I released a product that surfed the web while creating "index.dat" files, as they did in the old IE, tracking every place my program's users surfed, I would likely be in jail. But they are big business so they are not incarcerated. They are mega rich.

I think I will end this here. You are entitled to your perspective. But so am I to mine.

It is just getting old. Besides I can no why keep my promise not to nag on MS if I keep responding.

The moratorium is now in effect. I should set a timer counting down for 6 months but it would likely not work that well on a Laptop.

wraith808 · « **Reply #894 on:** October 18, 2016, 07:24 PM »

That's incorrect. Type cd "\program files\" at the prompt in the regular cmd.exe, and it works. Or just type cd \progra~1 and it works, which is what I stated above.
-wraith808 (October 18, 2016, 03:30 PM)

If it could handle the spaces you would not need the quotes. As I said, the space should be either a valid path character or a separator character, but not both. Why don't we just require double quoting any file path that contains an 'e' ?? It's just as valid to do that as to quote around the spaces.

-MilesAhead (October 18, 2016, 05:53 PM)

I'm sure they could have done a lot of things. But they didn't. But that doesn't mean malice. And you ignored the second part of that. If you don't want to quote, and don't want to use spaces... guess, what. You don't have to. And the translation is built in.

And why do we want to be forgiving of Microsoft?
-MilesAhead (October 18, 2016, 05:59 PM)

Perhaps because I contracted for them, and know that in a lot of cases that people say that they are evil, they're just misguided or made the wrong decision. Or one of many other reasons that are not a huge conspiracy. They're a company like any other. Except for working for them sucks more than a lot of other places, which is the reason that I'm glad I was just a contractor.

As you said, you're entitled to your opinion, and nothing I (or anyone else) will say will convince you otherwise. But you'll have to hold yourself to your moratorium, because if you respond, I will likely do so also. Onward!

Arizona Hot · « **Reply #895 on:** October 26, 2016, 06:54 PM »

T-Mobile Reveals Alcatel Idol 4S Windows 10 Mobile Flagship With VR Aspiration.jpg

Windows 10 Announced

T-Mobile Reveals Alcatel Idol 4S Windows 10 Mobile Flagship With VR Aspiration

Windows 10 Announced

Is this update late or early?

Arizona Hot · « **Reply #896 on:** November 09, 2016, 01:50 PM »

Windows 10 Announced

Is the timing of this update coincidence or was Microsoft mystically influencing the elections?

IainB · « **Reply #897 on:** November 09, 2016, 07:15 PM »

@Arizona Hot: Eh? What elections?

wraith808 · « **Reply #898 on:** November 09, 2016, 07:25 PM »

@Arizona Hot: Eh? What elections?
-IainB (November 09, 2016, 07:15 PM)

Well played, my good man. Well played.

Arizona Hot · « **Reply #899 on:** November 11, 2016, 04:22 PM »

@Arizona Hot: Eh? What elections?
-IainB (November 09, 2016, 07:15 PM)

You being in New Zealand, I can see why you're in denial about Clinton losing in the elections here. What other reason could you have for denying knowledge about someone as loud and blatant as Donald Trump.