IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading

On 13/09/2015 05:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
The behaviour changed and affected a number of apps I was running
under Win 7/64.

Exactly how? Full details, please.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 13/09/2015 01:02, Diesel wrote:
David Taylor
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:00:32 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

XP is outdated because it is now out of support, and anyone using
it with an Internet connection is asking for trouble. The more
modern Windows versions are more reliable and have fewer bugs. As
I run Win-7 on one PC which only has 1.25 GB memory, I can hardly
agree that it's a resource hog (but I don't photo edit there).

asking for trouble, how exactly?

Don't be put off by the look of Windows-8 or Windows-10 - you can
use the free Classic Shell program to make it look like Windows-7
should you wish.

To a point, yes.

You are in control of the privacy settings with Windows-10, so
choose carefully if you don't like the defaults. What is
collected is no more, and likely less, than Apple, Google, Android
etc. etc. Greatly exaggerated, in my view.

You may need glasses, then. As you are not in full control of the
privacy settings either. Some turn back on after a preset period of
being disabled.

From the many I've spoke to who have upgraded to Windows-10, the
overwhelming view has been positive.

What is many?

And if you _really_ think that a 2015 computer is not going to be
more powerful than a 2001 computer, especially for photo and video
editing, I respectfully suggest you think again. Processor speed,
number of cores, available memory, disk speed, display resolution,
multiple displays - yes the difference /is/ stunning. Just try
going back to a 2001 computer and see for yourself....

The issue date of OS doesn't necessarily mean the computer is also
from 2001. XP was installed for years on many a box.

Asking for trouble in that they are running an OS with unpatched
vulnerabilities.

What privacy settings get turned back on, and after what period of being
disabled? List them, and I will check on the systems here.

Probably hundreds of users now. I haven't been counting.

Terry clarified that his PC was Vista-era.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

*ahem* I'd expect to get an update to the OS/Apps (if enabled) that i'm
already using. NOT replace the installed OS outright with a different
one; which is what happens here if you allow it.

You have a choice of upgrading to Win-10 or not. It's not forced on you.

correct.

On 12/09/2015 21:08, Mayayana wrote:
| Have you tried Win-10 yourself?
|

No. For a number of reasons. No blocking
updates. Ads. Spyware. No blocking calling
home. Metro apps. Any of those is reason
enough for me to stay away. As far as I'm
concerned, Microsoft have no more right
tracking my computer than Toyota does
tracking my movements, simply because I
drive a Toyota. So even for free I have no
intention of using such a product.
[]
But I've been writing Windows software for
many years, and I like using Windows in
general, so I want and need to keep up with
what's happening. That's why I have so much
info and links. I've been told that my software
runs fine on Win10. Backward compatibility has
been maintained, for the most part. That's my
main concern. If I have occasion to get a free
Win10 PC I wouldn't refuse it. I could use it for
testing. I'd be curious. But I wouldn't let it go
online.

The problem I have with this is that all your knowledge of and
experience with Win-10 is second-hand, at best. Try it, set up network
monitoring, and see if all that is written is true for yourself, without
relying on others. Quite honestly using emotive terms like "spyware",
"ads", without having checked whether the 3rd-party reports are true or
not, or just /how/ true they are, makes it more difficult for me to
accept your arguments.

I've never see a single "ad". The few Metro apps I user (settings and
the calculator) don't appear to have caused me any trouble so far.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:02:36 +0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

yes it did. xp is insecure and anyone still running it is at risk.

Okay. Please, specify the way(s) in which it's insecure.

Well, where do I start...

Most people logon to XP using an adminstrative account and they launch
applications under that context whereas later versions of Windows at least
have UAC which only elevates applications to run in the context of an
adminstrative account if they require it, then there's the out of date
security subsystem, lack of mandatory integrity control, user interface
privilege isolation, windows service hardening, lack of a whole raft of
group policy additions, it's missing a load of encryption additions and
improvements in later versions of windies, the firewall is dated, and so on
and so on.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll,
troll infâme, the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers]
lowlife troll, shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple,
sociopath, kook, smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile,
snittish scumbag, liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur,
scouringerer, the most complete ignoid, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:02:38 +0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

nospam news:110920151029520516%
lid Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:29:52 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

XP is not outdated simply because
he's having trouble setting up his new disk.

xp is outdated because it's no longer being supported by microsoft or
software developers.

The latter is not entirely true. Some developers are continuing to
support XP. Malwarebytes is one of them.

But that sucks doesn't it. It's like only 10% of the team turning up. You
can't expect to win at football if only the goalie plays.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll,
troll infâme, the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers]
lowlife troll, shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple,
sociopath, kook, smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile,
snittish scumbag, liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur,
scouringerer, the most complete ignoid, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:12:42 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

that means *all* exploits found can be weaponized.

That's only true of those found since MS stopped supporting XP. Some
of the earlier ones will still be open on XP machines according to
the extent that they have not been updated or their owners have
neglected security on their system.

obviously, exploits found while they were still patching it have been
patched. you're arguing just to argue.

I'm just pointing out the ill-coordinated nature of your argument. You
don't say what you really mean or mean what you actually say. No
wonder you are surrounded by clouds of arguments.

it's clear to anyone who doesn't nitpick every word in search of an
argument.

It's called 'clear English' not nitpicking words in search of an
argument.

If you don't write exactly what you mean you can't complain if people
don't exactly understand you.

You wrote "because xp no longer has any security patches" when you
really meant 'because xp no longer has any *new* security patches. The
difference is significant.

since english does not appear to be your first language:
all exploits found since they stopped patching exploits will *not* be
patched and therefore can be weaponized. is that clearer?

I knew that was what you were trying to say, but it's not what you
said.

yes it is what i said.

you're nitpicking every word in search of an argument.

I'm looking closely at every word in an attempt to identify exactly
what it is you are really trying to say.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:23:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

they do not upgrade the os without you saying go ahead and upgrade.

The behaviour changed and affected a number of apps I was running
under Win 7/64.

did you end up with win10?

Not until aftwards. But I suddenly no longer had the Windows 7 with
which I was familiar.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 06:06:46 +0100, David Taylor
wrote:

On 13/09/2015 05:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
The behaviour changed and affected a number of apps I was running
under Win 7/64.

Exactly how? Full details, please.

Two examples:

I had from the outset been an administrator (naughty-naughty) and had
no problems when I ran DataColor's Spyder 4 or 5. Suddenly W7 stopped
allowing Spyder to save profiles until (as I eventually discovered) I
right-clicked and selected 'run as administrator'. I mean to say I
always thought I was running it as administrator.

You cannot move a file from one physical device to another. All you
can do is copy them. This goes back to the year . of computing.
Dropbox has always behaved the same way: you can only copy a file to
Dropbox, you cannot move it. Suddenly I found that (Whoops) dragging a
file from "XXX" to Dropbox resulted in it being moved rather than
copied.

There are other examples but I'm not going to run through them right
now.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 13/09/2015 09:44, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
Two examples:

I had from the outset been an administrator (naughty-naughty) and had
no problems when I ran DataColor's Spyder 4 or 5. Suddenly W7 stopped
allowing Spyder to save profiles until (as I eventually discovered) I
right-clicked and selected 'run as administrator'. I mean to say I
always thought I was running it as administrator.

You cannot move a file from one physical device to another. All you
can do is copy them. This goes back to the year . of computing.
Dropbox has always behaved the same way: you can only copy a file to
Dropbox, you cannot move it. Suddenly I found that (Whoops) dragging a
file from "XXX" to Dropbox resulted in it being moved rather than
copied.

There are other examples but I'm not going to run through them right
now.

As you say, running a program as Administrator (but why does it need
that?) is a right-click away. Same applies in Win-10.

You can most certainly move a file from one device to another in Win-10!
Select the files, and use the right mouse button. When you release
the mouse button, it allows either move or copy in addition to Create
shortcut.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu