IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 03:02:12 +0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

"J. Clarke"
Sun, 13 Sep
2015 20:20:11 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

So let's see, according to you Microsoft will be able to steal
information off of a doctor's computer in violation of HIPPA?
You mean that they just willingly abandoned the entire medical
market?

Nothing is according to me. I've published no papers or articles
myself on the subject. This is all from other sources. Respected,
IT, sources. I've made no claims that Microsoft can outright
steal anything, either. How do you steal something in the digital
world? Do you intend to delete the file when you're done copying
it, so the original owner no longer has it?

Sorry, but with that response you're not holding a discussion,
you're engaging in netloonery.

plonk

Interesting. You put words in my mouth, come up with some crazy idea
that MS is going to steal (wtf?) patient records. Yet, I'm the netloon?
Too funny.

Your self interested view on 'sharing' intellectual property i.e stealing
is not funny. Aside from normalising an endemic culture of theft and the
repercussions of that, what really ****s me off is the hypocrisy of jerk
offs like you. You're dishonest even with yourself.

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 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:25:38 +0100, David Taylor
wrote:

On 14/09/2015 05:27, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
I have spent many frustrating hours in correspondence with several
people from Datacolor. They kept telling me to 'run as administrator'
which I didn't find very helpful as I already (I thought) had
administrator powers. In the end I worked out they meant 'right click
and run as administrator'. That solved the problem. The point was that
this was not necessary before about June 2015.

Thanks for the clarification.

It's been the case since Win-7 (and possibly Vista, I don't recall now),
that a so-called Administrator account doesn't have full administrator
privilege. It seems that by running an a non-standard, basic user you
may have actually created this problem for yourself!

Since Vista, I have never needed a full administrator account, and
always used a basic account as offered by default in Windows setup.
Right-click, Run as Admin, provides all you need.

I don't know what changed in June 2015, but perhaps you can trace the
timing to a particular change you made, like installing a Windows update?

.... a flood of updates. I can't attribute the changes to any one but I
suspect it might have been due to all.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 14/09/2015 09:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:25:38 +0100, David Taylor
[]
I don't know what changed in June 2015, but perhaps you can trace the
timing to a particular change you made, like installing a Windows update?

... a flood of updates. I can't attribute the changes to any one but I
suspect it might have been due to all.

I didn't see any reports of change of rights for the faux-Administrator
account, and if you wanted to investigate further you could have used a
restore point to get the system back to pre-update status, and then
apply them one at a time.

Of course, since you discovered that right-click works, you've no need!
Not worth the time required.

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

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:26:05 +0100, David Taylor
wrote:

On 14/09/2015 09:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:25:38 +0100, David Taylor
[]
I don't know what changed in June 2015, but perhaps you can trace the
timing to a particular change you made, like installing a Windows update?

... a flood of updates. I can't attribute the changes to any one but I
suspect it might have been due to all.

I didn't see any reports of change of rights for the faux-Administrator
account, and if you wanted to investigate further you could have used a
restore point to get the system back to pre-update status, and then
apply them one at a time.

Of course, since you discovered that right-click works, you've no need!
Not worth the time required.

My conclusion also. All I know is that the behaviour changed at about
this time.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 03:02:11 +0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple"

Sun, 13 Sep 2015
23:51:10 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

[snip]

Under Vista + even if you logon with an account which has
administrative priviledges any applications you launch still run
in the context of a user unless you elevate. If you cannot see the
improvement then words fail me.

Normally that's what happens. Unless the program you clicked on or
were otherwise duped into running does it for you. As I said, the
security measures you mentioned that you think are some huge
improvement have already been defeated by ITW malware.

They are a huge improvement. This argument is as stupid as your assertion
that the entire public key infrastucture and certificate authorities are
broken to the point it is useless just because a few certificates were
compromised and in spite of the fact that the system was designed to cope
with that happening.


Hand holding isn't improving the malware situation. Only education
can do that.

Hand holding is the way forward and Microsoft know it. They have proved it
with Windows Phone. Big companies know it as well. Tightly controlled
computers and policies that only allow users to install acredited
applications from an internal source. It works. Billions of people just
want their computer to work and be secure. You're the one who's needs the
education. Common sense would be a good place to start.


All of those features you brag about have already been defeated,
though.

Well thanks for citing proof. It's an idiotic argument of course
because the bar was raised and remains raised and will now be even
higher providing the alledged vunerability has been patched.

Is your favorite search engine broken?

I've wasted time on your rubbish claims before. If they exist at all they
are perversions of the truth.


Have you been living under a
rock? Are you playing stupid concerning MS failed security for a
particular reason? What bar has been raised? If you actually
understood code, you wouldn't make such assinine statements.

Understand code. Listen dickhead this continual bull**** about you
magically understanding code just shows what a rank amateur you really are.
You can't develop security systems without testing them. Staring at screens
only gets you so far. How do I know that. Because I write and test code
pretty much every working day.


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.

What's forcing me to use the built in firewall?

Nothing, why do you ask? Did the fact that we are discussing the
XP OS escape you?

It didn't escape me. It seems to be escaping you though. You keep
mentioning things that aren't the fault of the OS. XP doesn't force
anybody to run as Admin. If they choose to run as a limited user
account, it's almost as secure as your vista+ machines using the UAC
that only seems to get in the way, and, gets disabled by a great
many user. Kinda defeats the purpose if your 'security' is so
obnoxious that people outright kill it.

This is rubbish as well. It can be quite difficult running XP from a
limited user account. Far less so under later versions.


XP doesn't force you to use the built in firewall. 3rd party
software ones exist. Kerio 2.1.5 was a good example and can still be
found. Most people these days are behind a router of some sort, and,
I don't of know of many that don't have some kind of firewall too.

You have no idea of the fundemental differences between a personal firewall
and a packet filtering brick. You are just waffling.


Most of your argument against XP concerning security risk has little
to nothing to do with the OS itself. There's no cure for user
stupidity.

There are cures for 'user stupidity' as I've already outlined.


It does *SOME* of the basic stuff. Woopee!! Basic stuff for a
personal firewall nowadays includes filtering outgoing by
application. Does it do that? No. Does it filter outgoing at all?
I can't remember. I don't think so.

It's still completely irrelevant to the discussion. You don't have
to use the firewall that comes with Windows XP. It's not forced on
you. It can be replaced. And, it's still doing the job of a basic
firewall. It doesn't allow unauthorized incoming connections.

You wouldn't just rely on the OS firewall would you?

Sure, I do that every time I connect to hotel WiFi. Do you take
your router with you?

I don't connect to open/public WiFis.

Still haven't figured out you need a WPA2 patch for XP eh! LOL.


Those encryption additions have worked out great for ransomware,
I'm glad you brought it up. Money maker, right there. Several
PoCs have already made it wild abusing them, too.

It's pointless asking you for proof of that of course. I've asked
before and you never back it up with hard evidence.

You are trying to play stupid, then?

In this case, I'll use a search engine for you. This discussion just
went the way of the US power grid condition one for you. You *are*
talking straight out of your ass, again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransomware_%28malware%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoLocker

Encryption is awesome. MS be praised for improving it significantly
in later editions of Windows. CryptoLocker was only too happy to
take advantage. And, it's just ONE example.

Here's more on the subject of OS built in crypto abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGPCoder

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/08/n...er-ransomware/

Talk **** more, It amuses me.

OK, lets talk ****.

Did either of those programs install themselves?

Can you install either of those programs if you don't have administrative
privileges?



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

Tony Cooper wrote:


On my Windows computer it's "Send to" and then choosing Dropbox. The
file is copied to Dropbox but remains the folder from where it was
sent.

Same here on my XP Pro PC, with DropBox Pro.

'Send to...' also appears in the right-click menu and I have included
'Dropbox\Public' in my \Send To' folder as that's the subfolder I
mostly use.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Tony Cooper wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:45:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

The only way Tony can be experiencing Dropbox offline as he says is, is
if he has somehow downloaded the image files from DB to his iPad, but
then he wouldn't be viewing them via DB, or he is unknowingly online
via some mystery WiFi hotspot, or a cellular data connection.

Nope. Never downloaded images from DB to my iPad.

dropbox on ios syncs when the app is run. if there's no connectivity,
you can only see what has previously been synced.

Well of course I'm seeing what has previously been synced. Images are
uploaded to my Dropbox folder when I'm home and using my desktop. As
far as I know, they are automatically synced, but I don't take any
steps to sync them. I may have set it up that way when I added the
Dropbox app to the iPad.

I don't use my iPad when I'm home. I don't upload when I'm out using
my iPad. I don't use my iPad as a camera.


I have a pretty active Dropbox account and many of my image files have
been loaded in DB for some time and have always been accessible on my
iPhone and iPad with the DB app. However, if I am offline the iPad
cannot connect with the DB server and cannot access the image files on
that server. The result is, offline I see no image files stored on DB
even those which had previously been available when online.


he may also be incorrectly describing what he did.

I will wait for Tony to clarify what he actually has been doing with
his iPad and DB, before I stick my foot in my mouth.

What proof do you need? For a small fee, I'll go somewhere out of
range of my router, and not in a hotspot, and use my video camera to
record the images on my iPad. That's a lot of work for no reason as
far as I'm concerned. I know what I see.

How about if I do it in the presence of a priest or notary and supply
an affidavit?

Here's an article by "The iPad Lawyer" covering viewing documents
offline. Please note that down the page a bit he says:

"One more thing . . . you will find that photos stored in Dropbox are
available for your offline viewing automatically."

Evidently, bringing up documents is different from bringing images,
but I don't have any documents in my Dropbox folder. I wouldn't know
about that.

http://cgclaw.com/ipad-lawyer-access...pbox-solution/

I'm using my iPad offline and viewing a variety of files. The
behaviour differs significantly.

Many images appear in lower than their original resolution, others are
OK.

Most folders open, but a few give 'Unable to open folder'.

All text files except those set as 'Favorites' give the message
'Couldn't Load File. No Internet Connection.' Favorites open OK.

Same with MP4 and AVI files, and XLS.

I'd be very interested to learn the definitive rules, but it clearly
seems to involve caching.

Experiment:
A newly created folder on my PC, Dropbox\TEST, obviously did not
appear until I switched wifi back on. On the PC I then copied an image
and a TXT file to it. Both could be opened OK on the iPad (the JPG at
full res). I then switched off wifi. Both could still be viewed OK on
the iPad. I rebooted my iPad (i.e. full reset) and while still offline
both files remained properly viewable.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote:

I wrote earlier:

I'm using my iPad offline and viewing a variety of files. The
behaviour differs significantly.

Many images appear in lower than their original resolution, others are
OK.

Most folders open, but a few give 'Unable to open folder'.

All text files except those set as 'Favorites' give the message
'Couldn't Load File. No Internet Connection.' Favorites open OK.

Same with MP4 and AVI files, and XLS.

I'd be very interested to learn the definitive rules, but it clearly
seems to involve caching.

Experiment:
A newly created folder on my PC, Dropbox\TEST, obviously did not
appear until I switched wifi back on. On the PC I then copied an image
and a TXT file to it. Both could be opened OK on the iPad (the JPG at
full res). I then switched off wifi. Both could still be viewed OK on
the iPad. I rebooted my iPad (i.e. full reset) and while still offline
both files remained properly viewable.

I thought it should be possible to learn a bit more about Dropbox
caching by examining how much storage it is using on the iPad. So I
went to Settings General Usage Manage Storage, and waited for
the application list to be prepared, in descending order of storage
used.

Dropbox was taking 470 MB.

On my PC in Dropbox I removed a 50 MB video file.

But in my iPad 30 mins later (with wifi on all of this time), although
the file had been deleted, Manage Storage Dropbox was still showing
470 MB, not 465 MB as I'd expected.

I did a full reset again but 470 MB is still reported.

Seems illogical. Any thoughts please?

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

| Windows has a tradition of backward
| compatibility because Microsoft's main customer is business.
| Business people won't update to a newer system if it
| breaks the software they need. As a result, much of what
| runs on Win10 will run on Win98. The general API has been
| maintained with great consistency for the sake of business
| customers. In many cases new software would need some
| updated system files to run on older Windows versions, but
| Microsoft is good about that, too. (Not because they're
| more considerate than Apple. Simply because Apple targets
| the consumer entertainment market and MS targets the
| business market.)
|
| That is your take on things, not what is actually happening in the real
world.
|
It's not anyone's take. It's old news. How do you
not know that Microsoft's core business is corporate?
I've been a Windows programmer since '99. I need to
know what the market is and how the API works. I
need to know what changes are made with each Windows
version. You don't even use Windows, yet you're denying
the common knowledge that their company is built
around business customers. Why would you think that?

It's easy enough to look it up. Microsoft has lost money
on just about everything they've done except the Windows
and Office monopolies. The majority of their profits
from those come from corporate contracts. There's an
interesting, related piece about all that, written by a well
known and respected Windows developer, about how
things have gone at Microsoft. It doesn't directly address
the business angle so much, but does touch quite a bit
on the importance of backward compatibility at Microsoft:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

If you look you can also find plenty of articles about
Microsoft's backward compatibility quandary: The cost
of supporting a wide variety of hardware over many
years time, vs the cost of risking business customers
if they break compatibility. They lost a lot of business
with Win7. Companies were slow to update. Win8 was
worse. Microsoft tried to play both sides, gluing a
consumer desktop on top of a business PC. As a result,
business has stayed away from Win8.

With Win10 they're trying a different angle: They're
going to let companies have a relatively normal version
of Windows while the consumer market gets partially
locked down spyware and services. The whole scenario
can be understood by recognizing one thing: Microsoft make
most of their money from corporate, but they see possible
big money in services. They also don't want to risk being
left behind. So they're making a big gamble: Trying to
herd/force all of the Windows consumer market into
Microsoft services without alienating business. Like Google
and Apple, they want to create a super-AOL walled
garden across devices and run peoples' lives for them,
getting a cut from nearly everything you do. But MS's
strengths are different. Unlike Google and Apple, they
don't have a phone. They don't have much for tablets.
They've got junk for services. But they have a massive
installed Windows base. So they have no choice but to
try to build their kingdom by quietly and gradually closing
off options for Windows customers.

Apple is just a whole other kettle of fish. They made a
play for schools early. They got the techno-phobic artist
crowd by getting better graphics earlier than Microsoft
did. (I have friends teaching in public schools who can't
get the tables and chairs they want unless they also
throw in a couple of Macs, lest the 6-year-olds should
turn 7 without playing computer games... all mandated
by federal funding.)

But what made Apple a big company was the iPod
and iPhone. They're primarily a high-end consumer gadget
company. Their marketing angle is sleek, easy and useful.
Backward compatibility has little role there. Business software
has little role, outside of graphics. That's not a criticism.
It's just the facts. It's no accident that the world doesn't
depend on "Apple Office". Steve Jobs didn't go for the
business market. (I imagine he'd probably like to think he
was too "spiritual" for that. There's more than a little
baby-boomer New Age pseudo-spiritual neurosis in Jobs's
world view.)

| XP isn't being phased out, it is dead, defunct, kaput, except for those
| who continue to use unsupported XP.
| ...and those folks are probably very happy.
|

I guess someone had better tell the people at
Mozilla and Libre Office. I just update both on XP
not long ago. The people who make VLC media
player also seem to have missed the memo. I just
can't seem to find any software I want (except
the latest Pale Moon) that doesn't run on XP.

The question is, why are you so worked up about
it? We're discussing the pros and cons of XP and
Win10, and you don't use either. Why should you
care? Methinks the AppleSeeds and WinTenners
doth protest too much.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


But what made Apple a big company was the iPod
and iPhone. They're primarily a high-end consumer gadget
company. Their marketing angle is sleek, easy and useful.
Backward compatibility has little role there. Business software
has little role, outside of graphics. That's not a criticism.
It's just the facts.

there is nothing factual about it.

apple goes well out of their way to maintain backwards compatibility
and there's plenty of business software for apple products.

for example, when apple transitioned from powerpc to intel, they
included a translation layer so that all powerpc apps could seamlessly
run without the user needing to do anything special. when apple
released os x, they included a compatibility layer so that classic apps
could seamlessly work, again, without the user needing to do anything
special. there were no special modes to enable.

ios 9, which comes out in 2 days, works on all iphones and ipads back
to 2011. compare that with android, where latest version barely works
on devices 1-2 years old.

It's no accident that the world doesn't
depend on "Apple Office". Steve Jobs didn't go for the
business market. (I imagine he'd probably like to think he
was too "spiritual" for that. There's more than a little
baby-boomer New Age pseudo-spiritual neurosis in Jobs's
world view.)

more nonsense. apple doesn't need to write 'apple office' to get
businesses to use macs. there's microsoft office, which, by the way,
microsoft released for the ipad *before* they released it for surface.

speaking of ipads, just about all fortune 500 companies use ipads
and/or iphones in one way or another. isn't the fortune 500 the
business market?

| XP isn't being phased out, it is dead, defunct, kaput, except for those
| who continue to use unsupported XP.
| ...and those folks are probably very happy.
|
I guess someone had better tell the people at
Mozilla and Libre Office. I just update both on XP
not long ago. The people who make VLC media
player also seem to have missed the memo. I just
can't seem to find any software I want (except
the latest Pale Moon) that doesn't run on XP.

that just means they haven't bothered to take advantage of new features
in win7 or later.

it's also just two apps out of thousands and thousands of apps.