Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:This guy is an idiot (Score 1) 1110

So in order to start a second program in windowed mode, I have to get out of windowed mode, find the tile for the program I want to start, which is a much bigger pain in the Win 8 start screen* than it was in the start menu of Win 7, and start it, only to go back into windowed mode. Sure. That's an improvement.

*Why is it a bigger pain to find an app in the start screen? Because, while it's categorized in the same was as the Win 7 start menu was with folders, all the categories are fully expanded, with no way to collapse them. With Win 7, if I didn't want something in Accessories, I could leave the Accessories folder collapsed, and not deal with anything in it. With Win 8, I have to scroll through everything in the Accessories category before I can find the next category, lather, rinse, repeat, until I get to the folder/category I want.

Comment Re:Not again... (Score 1) 1110

Most pre-Win8 full screen applications don't make sense to run windowed. The one that's usually brought up by Metro proponents as an example is games. often do I need to work on a Word document while I'm also killing pixels in Call of Duty? The attention required to not die in CoD means that I can't do anything else anyway, so running any less than full screen doesn't make sense.
Image and Fax Viewer, OTOH, doesn't make any sense at all to be full screen, unless you're using it to display a slideshow, but it's a Metro app in Win8. I can't remember exactly what other included applications have been changed to apps in Win8, but I know there are a few.

Comment Re:Not again... (Score 1) 1110

I have no problem with using, or managing Windows.

However, the changes to the UI for Windows 8 are not for the better. They are a significant cause of lost productivity for any user who uses more than one program at once.
As an example, the Image and Fax Viewer in Win 7 was a windowed component, just like every other component of Win 7.
In Windows 8, it's a full screen Metro app.
Now imagine the following use case:
You're to look at an image, and type up a description of it.
In Windows 7, you open the image in Image and Fax Viewer on one side of the screen, and your word processor on the other side, and type up your description, while looking at the image.
In Windows 8, you open the image in Image and Fax Viewer, look at it for a while, swap to your word processor, type some, swap back to the image, look at it some more, swap back to your word processor, type some more, think "Crap...what direction was that piece facing," swap back to the image, check what you needed to, swap back to your word processor, etc.etc.etc.

See the problem? Windows 8 requires the installation of third party software to not be unreasonably inefficient, whereas Windows 7 (and virtually all other windowing OSs) can efficiently do the task without third party software.

Changing something to improve efficiency is fine. Changing it for purely marketing reasons that have a detrimental effect on efficiency for a large number of use cases is a bad thing. That's exactly what has happened with Windows 8.

Putting up with someone's poorly thought out, authoritarian design decisions, simply because using it is possible, even though less efficient than the past, says much more about you than it does about Windows, too.

Comment Re:Who posted this question? (Score 1) 119

I did, right here -> Now, read the subject-line of YOUR POST NOW, you illiterate ignoramus! What post is PARENT to yours & gave it its subject-line?? Mine/that very one!

You really have trouble following a thread, don't you?
The parent post to mine was not your question. It didn't even claim to be you, although, I think it was yours; you just didn't put your name on it, as you wanted it to appear to be someone else who was supporting your asinine arguments.

The post I responded to was this:

The meaning's explicit directed at poster apk replied to. Obviously a question. You're obviously stupid or trolling.

from here:

Do you see your name at the end of that post? I don't. I'm pretty sure nobody else does, either. Well...maybe you do, but that would be your reality distortion field at work again.

In fact, it specifically refers to you in the third person, pretty definitively stating that it was NOT written by you.

Regardless of most of the world's opinion of your lack of mental capacity, incoherence, and incessant ramblings, every post in a thread that you've "contributed" to is neither a direct response to you, or a direct attack on you. Sometimes, responses are to people other than you. That's right. I know it's shocking to your ego, but not all human interaction on the planet has you as one of the parties. In fact, the vast, vast majority of it does not involve you at all, despite your best efforts.

Comment Re:This link easily proves otherwise... apk (Score 1) 119

"I didn't run." - by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Thursday December 20, @08:55PM (#42355183) Homepage

This proves QUITE otherwise ->

Really? How does that "prove" anything, other than you do a lot of acid before you post?
Your barely coherent ramblings cannot possibly prove or disprove anything that goes on outside your own little reality distortion field.

Explain it to the rest of us: How does that post of yours prove that I "ran?"
Don't get into all sorts of other irrelevant, unrelated crap, just answer that simple question.

Comment Re:This link easily proves otherwise... apk (Score 1) 119

Oh...I see what you're doing now:

You're changing your claim as to what the debate was about, so in your delusional little world, it looks like you won.
I never said the "indestructible rootkit" was actually indestructible, so claiming that I was wrong when I did is simply a straw man. That's not winning an argument; that's being a douche, which I believe I may have called you at some point.

My problem with your randomly capitalized, scatterbrained posts is that you claimed rootkits (not this particular rootkit, but rootkits in general) could be removed with Process Explorer when other tools fail. Yes, you also included Recovery Console in there, but you stated "removed" with Process Explorer. Afterwards you modified this to be "mopped up" with Process Explorer. (hmmmm... changing the terms of the argument again. Seems to be something you do a lot of. Terrified of losing, maybe?)
You then went on to claim that an partially automated tool that I wrote to do this kind of removal was unnecessary, because your manual method worked. You might as well say that GPS is unnecessary, because you can read a map to figure out where you're going. Or cars are unnecessary, because you can get where you're going on a horse.

This particular rootkit could be removed using your modified method (NOT your original method, mind you), although many can't.
The ONLY rootkits this method can remove are ones that use a windows driver to hide the rootkit components. Boot sector rootkits, BIOS rootkits and more do not use this method for hiding, and CANNOT be removed by your method.
I seem to remember telling you this in the conversation 18 months ago, which you promptly ignored with your "I completely SMOKED some IN that ARGUMENT!!1!11!eleventy!1!11!!" posts. I'm not going to bother looking it up, because your childish, simpleton arguments are not worth any more of my time.

Pretend you won the debate if you want, and maybe in your universe you did. But in this reality, you were beaten, badly, and you just refuse to admit it.

Comment Re:LOL - how many times've I "blown YOU away"? (Score 1) 119

Really? You're still going on about an argument you lost badly nearly a year an a half ago?

Since you keep harping on this insistence that you didn't say something you blatantly did, here are your exact words:

P.S.=> Besides, there isn't a botnet (or even ROOTKIT) I can't deal with effectively for removal anyhow - & I don't use the same tools others do...

Well, @ first I do, & when those fail? Out come the "big guns" in Process Explorer & Recovery Console - & there's nothing I can't "dust" between them... ... apk

They're from this post:

You directly say you use Process Explorer to get rid of rootkits when other tools fail. It's not even implied. You said it, outright. Maybe you didn't mean it (although I think you did, because instead of clarifying what you said, you've instead tried desperately to state that you didn't, in fact, say it), but there's no question you said it.

So why don't you take your damaged brain back to whatever warped reality you reside in when you're not trolling slashdot, and lick your wounds. Make sure they're all healed, because next time they'll be much deeper.....

Comment Re:How's Windows "hinder your efforts"? (Score 1) 119

And you're obviously apk trying (and doing a REALLY poor job) to pretend that you're somebody else that's agreeing with apk.

That's why you never log in, isn't it? Because it would be blatantly obvious if you accidentally posted a "APK asked you a question which you ran away from, STUPID TROLL!" comment under your apk account.

You think this way makes it impossible to tell, but there's only one poster on /. that has your arrogant, abusive posting style, so it's pretty obvious that you're apk, and you're attempting to fake many AC posters that "agree" with you to put on appearances of this mass horde of people that, by agreeing with you, means you must be correct.

So not only are you pathetically faking supporters, demonstrating a perfect example of an appeal to the majority fallacy, but since even in your deluded little world, they're all ACs, you're also committing a false attribution fallacy in your arguments.

Grow up. Nobody really gives a shit what you say. Although you are funny to read sometimes, what with your frothing-at-the-mouth verbiage.....

Comment Re:Not again... (Score 1) 1110

I don't get what people are complaining about, except that it's CHAAANGE!

Change to actually improve something is good, but this appears to be change for the sake of change, which is nothing but stupid makework shit that makes PHBs feel good and have points to put on their bonus-justifying PowerPoint presentations.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel