Please help

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Arryn:
In the "old days", you had crappy, grossly-unstable OSes like DOS/Windows, or Windows 9x (still DOS-based, essentially). OSes that didn't care if you overwrote key system files (that shouldn't be) or installed drivers that are incompatible with other drivers. I could go on and on about the shortcomings of the M$ OSes prior to WinXP, but this isn't the forum for such, and, frankly, I've better things to do.

Pah, so? It's my computer. If I want to install incompatible drivers and arbitrarily delete things at whim, I can do that. Certainly this won't happen when installing a program this way, since everything goes in the program's own directory. That means the only way a system file or driver that's "incompatible", and I use this word in quotes for a reason, gets overwritten, is when *I* choose to overwrite it!

Just as an example, in the *OLD* days, and it's still true on Linux, when you wanted to delete something, you deleted it, and it went away. Now, Windows tries to pretend it's smarter than you are, and tells you that you CAN'T delete it, blah, blah, blah, because it's in use, blah, blah, blah. Like I'm supposed to care. So what if a program malfunctions as a result? Clearly, if I'm ordering the deletion of the file, I'm aware of the consequences of doing so, and simply am not concerned that some program, which I undoubtedly didn't like anyway, or I wouldn't be deleting its files, will break. In fact, that's the entire point!

And grossly unstable my ***. DOS NEVER CRASHES! Never! Ever! Programs crash. DOS doesn't. Same cannot be said for Windoze!

The short answer as to what the big deal is today with needing a sophisticated installer can be summed up in two words: Windows Registry. The long answer involves *why* this is important, and an entire college-level course on the subject can be taught.

Pah. The Windows Registry is a pile of crap. Linux doesn't have a registry that programs arbitrarily write crap into, and programs in Linux instead use something called a "configuration file"! What a novel concept, that items pertinent to the program are written in a file in the program's own directory, instead of all other the place! Amazing how such a simple concept works so well.

Since, AFAIK, you (Norfleet) aren't a sofware engineer, much less have extensive knowledge of Windows OS internals (there are many books on this subject alone), nor ever actually wrote an installer for a modern Windows application, you really have no business judging that which you know zilch about.

Pah. You think I've never programmed anything? I program lots of stuff....and it installs by UNZIPPING OUT OF A FILE! Amazing how such a simple and ancient concept works so effectively, even in the day and age where people needlessly add points of failure to what is otherwise a simple operation.

Case and point: I've installed Dom2 perfectly fine by simply unzipping it out of a zip file, from when I packaged my previous directory and shuffled it off to another computer. Amazingly, it works. So why do we need an wonky installer? Pah! If it really had that many files, there was an ancient method called "INSTALL.BAT". Once again, no wonky executables, and if you wanted, you could open it up and do it manually!

Of course, knowing you to be the cantankerous old curmudgeon that we're so fond of, that most assuredly would never stop you from doing so.

Us cantankerous old curmudgeons have this annoying habit of remembering that in the old days, these problems didn't exist, and why they didn't occur.

[ July 19, 2004, 00:17: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
And grossly unstable my ***. DOS NEVER CRASHES! Never! Ever! Programs crash. DOS doesn't.

If an app crashes and takes the OS with it, that's also an OS crash. A properly-written OS won't allow an app to corrupt the OS. Your wonky memory may not permit you to recall it, but DOS apps could very easily crash DOS. I remember games like X-COM and Panzer General doing it, just to name two. If you think differently, then you're deluding yourself (or worse).

BTW, DOS, even running no apps, could crash too. Hard to do, but it was possible. All depended on the stability of what was loaded using the config.sys file. Then there's infamous DOSes like DOS 5.0 (fixed in 5.1 IIRC), 6.0 (fixed, sort of, in 6.01), and 6.2 (fixed in 6.22).

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Arryn:
If an app crashes and takes the OS with it, that's also an OS crash. A properly-written OS won't allow an app to corrupt the OS. Your wonky memory may not permit you to recall it, but DOS apps could very easily crash DOS.

Meh, you act as if Windoze applications don't regularly crash the entire computer as well. DOS, however, doesn't come with any perceptible loading time even on the crummiest computer. You turn it on, and it runs! For the reason, such features were not necessary.

I remember games like X-COM and Panzer General doing it, just to name two. If you think differently, then you're deluding yourself (or worse).

X-Com still crashes and takes out the entire computer at times, even in Windoze.

BTW, DOS, even running no apps, could crash too. Hard to do, but it was possible. All depended on the stability of what was loaded using the config.sys file. Then there's infamous DOSes like DOS 5.0 (fixed in 5.1 IIRC), 6.0 (fixed, sort of, in 6.01), and 6.2 (fixed in 6.22).

Not so. DOS, running nothing, sat there and blinked. It could do this for weeks. Months, years. Never crashing. Starting with Windoze 9x, that ended: Windoze can now crash even if left completely unmolested.

[Arryn]

What M$ OS are you running now? And if it's XP Pro, what app(s) have you found that can take out the OS when the app crashes? I'm sincerely curious as I've yet to find one.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Arryn:
What M$ OS are you running now? And if it's XP Pro, what app(s) have you found that can take out the OS when the app crashes? I'm sincerely curious as I've yet to find one.

I mentioned X-Com, of course, although there are several other cases of a program crashing, immediately setting off a BSOD and taking out the rest of the operating system with it. I've had this happen in GalCiv also, and several others whose names elude me at this moment.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Arryn:
[QBThe short answer as to what the big deal is today with needing a sophisticated installer can be summed up in two words: Windows Registry. The long answer involves *why* this is important, and an entire college-level course on the subject can be taught.
[/QB]

And even Microsoft has finally realized that the registry was a colossally bad idea; with the .Net compilers, the preferred install goes back to using something much more similar to the old .ini (or unix .cshrc) type files.

This is even for real applications. And _why_ did a game ever need to be put into the registry??? Install Solitaire, possibly destroy your computer because it updates the registry. Or because it updates the registry after you save a game, in order to update the Documents submenu for a recently used file.

Use of the Registry slowed down computer boot times, increased complexity, increased chances of catastrophic failure. Sure, _some_ things deserved to be in something like a registry - if a program handles a certain type of file, for instance.

But the options and settings for the program itself should never have been in the registry. 10 years later, Redmond's blunderers finally start to realize this.

[Mad_Lear]

Well, back to the original topic, did you try simple things like a cleanboot ( http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=310353 for XP- just make sure to hide those Microsoft services, and, just between you and me, leaving those ".ini" files alone might not be a bad idea; there are other equivalent articles for the other O/S's, of course, except for Win 2000) or disabling the antivi (make sure you are firewalled before trying either of those steps- the plain-jane XP firewall would do for a short haul like an attempted dom2 installation)?

Antivis, in particular, can cause all sorts of problems, especially if you have it configured to be restrictive- Norton Internet Security, for example, can change the permissions of certain key registry keys, so that user-initiated programs (or, for that matter, just cracking-open regedit and trying to edit certain keys) will fail. Also, the tried and true method of installing from a flat (copying the whole disk to a directory on drive 'c:' and running the installation from there) could weed out a wonky CD drive (new computers tend to get dropped/trampled/played ping-pong with in transet, so they often arrive as broken computers) or, alternatively, a CD so fancy and fast it outruns the installer.

Finally, if it's a new computer, make sure your manufactured didn't screw you with a "user friendly feature" like a pre-partitioned hard-drive with a 500 meg "c:\ drive" or a pre-made user account with limited permissions- I kid you not, I've seen companies sell computers with setups like these, thinking all the time that they are making things easier on the buyer.

I know most of this is pretty basic, especially considering how computer-literate most of this forum is, but I just had to bring it up, since 90% of the time, the basic stuff is the bread-and-butter of getting past most problems. I mean, no need to track down the specific problem .dll file or registry key, when you can just shut down most of the crude in the background with a cleanboot and take out the problem program/process purely through colatarol damage!

BTW, a spyware sweep with a good program (links to a few good ones can be found at www.microsoft.com/spyware ) might not hurt as well. Spyware are the devil- they aren't as mean as viruses, but they are often much more subtle, and put up just as much of a fight when you try to remove them...

Anyway, just a few simple suggestions from a less philosophical, more pratical perspective!