If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
In article 2015091314381064254-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: On 2015-09-13 20:21:21 +0000, Tony Cooper said: On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:58:49 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Bill W wrote: And finally regarding upgrading from XP, I use lots of software - mostly music and photo, and almost none of it will run on XP. And I think I'm a typical user. as i said in another post, software developers aren't supporting xp anymore. Is that more of a case of XP not supporting software developers now that there are few XP units extant? No point in expending time and energy for the small demand. The reason many software developers are not supporting XP is much the same reason developers no longer support OSX 10.6.8 "Snow Leopard"(SL), the capability of new versions and revisions of their software would have to be crippled if they were to maintain backward compatibility. The newer OSs, for both Win and OSX provide opportunity for developing new software features and performance improvements over the versions written for the now unsupported OSs. Why should any developer ignore new and advanced OSs to support an OS put out to pasture by its parent company, when they need to move on? Consider Adobe, many folks felt they were compeled to upgrade from XP and SL when Adobe dropped support for the OSs abandoned by MS and Apple, but if you wanted to run PS CS6 and later, or LR5 and LR CC you had no option but to upgrade from XP, or SL and move on. The funny thing (with SL) is that you can run CS6 on (from Adobes archives) it but not the tool that Adobe offers to install it with! ;-P Even today in the Mac world there are many who will not upgrade from SL, or who run it in a seperate partition because there is a favorite software which does not exist for the newer editions of OSX. Snow Leopard has in many ways become Apple's XP. http://www.computerworld.com/article...sers-still-use -os-x-snow-leopard.html The same thing applies to much new software written for Mac today, they never had SL editions and never will, I think of the decent PS substitutes Pixelmator and Affinity Photo, but those are not multi platform apps either, and can fully take advantage of current OSX features. -- teleportation kills |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:12:00 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: ... you're denying the common knowledge that their company is built around business customers. Why would you think that? A few weeks ago I saw a small news item that said GE had just renewed a global license with Microsoft for 800,000 seats. Who thinks that you and I (individually) really matter much to them. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple"
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:49:48 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: They are a huge improvement. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. 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. That's insane. You're the one who's needs the education. Common sense would be a good place to start. *laugh* Thanks for your advice, all the same. 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. About as much as the US electrical power grid condition. That was a very short discussion, wasn't it? *grin* Understand code. Listen dickhead this continual bull**** about you magically understanding code just shows what a rank amateur you really are. No bull**** about my understanding code in various languages. I've already proven I do. What's more, I was also able to prove that you BULL**** about your expertise concerning coding the majority of the time. You couldn't even tell me what a simple program was doing and you managed to break the ****ing thing because you didn't understand a very very simple programming language. Enough with the bull**** already. I'm an amateur in the same way that BD is a professional security expert. 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. That's why it took you weeks to identify HEX then? That's why you couldn't answer a simple question, even when full source was provided, then? Who the **** are you trying to bull**** now? me, or yourself? Don't lecture me on developing security systems, either, asshat. I'm not a newbie in that dept, either. Nice vague comment 'security systems' too. This is rubbish as well. It can be quite difficult running XP from a limited user account. Far less so under later versions. Explain what you mean by quite difficult running under a limited user account. As the majority of the time, that's exactly how my clients run it as well as most of the computers here. This is the only one that I prefer to run as admin all the time, because *I* know WTF i'm doing. If they need admin rights to install a new piece of software, it's as simple as right click, run as admin, provide proper credentials. Done deal. Otherwise, a limited user account lets them surf the web and check their email and play most of their stupid old games that still work under Windows XP. Some games don't even need 'admin' level rights to run, either. That is what the majority of the public actually uses the machine for and the limited account is okay with it. They can even work with MsOffice under a limited user account. So, what examples am I missing that joe typical is going to have a problem doing with the limited user account? You have no idea of the fundemental differences between a personal firewall and a packet filtering brick. You are just waffling. Stop trying to slime and evade the subject. it's typical, but, boring. You brought up the built in firewall. I answered the issues concerning it and provided a 3rd party viable option that provides the additional control you whined about the built in firewall not having. Now, you're just talking straight ****. Again. There are cures for 'user stupidity' as I've already outlined. No, there isn't. If that were the case, the AV/AM industry would be extinct, right now. As it is, the UAC was annoying enough in vista that people turned it down and/or outright disabled it. I'll ask again, what good is a security feature if it's so obnoxious people deliberately disable it? That doesn't help them in the least little bit. I don't connect to open/public WiFis. Still haven't figured out you need a WPA2 patch for XP eh! LOL. Really? Strange, As last I checked, that 'patch' was for XP SP2 and down. Nobody should still be running vanilla, sp1, sp1a, or sp2 systems. It does *not* apply for XP SP3; you stupid ****. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...34bcdd6d2=True KB Articles: KB893357 This update to Windows XP provides support for Wi-Fi Protected Access 2 (WPA2), which is the latest standards-based wireless security solution derived from the IEEE 802.11i standard. It also contains Wireless Provisioning Services (WPS) Information Element support, which enables improvements in wireless network discoverability. Supported Operating System Windows XP Home Edition , Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Professional Edition, Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition Moron, I specifically said I didn't connect to open/public WiFis. I *DO* use the Wifi here with several of the XP based laptops. No patch required for full WPA2 benefits, either. As I don't run SP2 or below. ALL of these XP machines are XP Pro SP3 VLK editions. *spank* Want to talk more ****? OK, lets talk ****. Did either of those programs install themselves? Can you install either of those programs if you don't have administrative privileges? Oh. You need an example or two of malware that went itw that did escalate it's priveleges? I can provide them. Feel free to dig yourself deeper. Just ask me. As it is, I provided you two examples that took full advantage of the encryption improvements MS the great has blessed modern editions of Windows with. Why try to change the subject away from that? You asked for examples. I provided a couple. I'd be happy to humour your deflection about that and find you urls to malware that's 0wned the MS be praised security measures you write so highly about too. Why not kick your ass three for three in a row.. -- Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet. |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
David Taylor
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 04:11:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: On 14/09/2015 04:02, Diesel wrote: [] I understand. If you don't mind my asking... How many years do you have in the business as an active.. I'm thinking, bench? tech? About 25 years in various roles in paid employment, including IT Security and Windows & UNIX support, and since then I was running my own business for about 13 years including support of users running my own and 3rd-party software. Many of the users were primarily interested in the results from the software rather than knowing about the innards of Windows itself, but I've also been involved in detailed beta tests of satellite data downloads where we have been pushing PCs to the limit (two streams of 60 GB and 300 GB of data daily). I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by pushing PCs to the limit...I've ran FTP sites that moved that much or more in a given 24 hours or less. I wouldn't necessarily call it streaming though. It was just transferring data over some nice fast pipes. What languages do you develop software in? -- Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple"
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:03:56 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 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. I'll ask you the same question then. How do you plan to steal digital information? Are you going to delete the copy on the source after you have verified the one on the target is good? Otherwise, I don't see how you'll be stealing it (as in taking it away from the original owner). Do you understand a different definition of stealing than myself? -- Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet. |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
Bill W
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:59:15 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 03:02:12 +0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote: Bill W m Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:10:37 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: Total privacy is gone forever - it's just reality. If you are afraid of every bit of info that is sent off into the ether, turn off your phone, and disconnect from the internet. It's fine to be cautious, but at some level, caution can become futile, and a waste of time. That's an interesting viewpoint. A discussion for another time, perhaps. And finally regarding upgrading from XP, I use lots of software - mostly music and photo, and almost none of it will run on XP. And I think I'm a typical user. I'm very interested in learning the names of the programs and versions that do not support XP for music and photo work. I'm also interested in both (primarily music) and I haven't run into such an issue, so far. PS & LR CC, DXO Optics Pro & Viewpoint, HDR Express 3 for photos, Cakewalk Sonar for music, to start. I don't believe any of the newer DAW's work with XP. Arturia soft synths, and probably most of the others need 7 and up. Interesting. Some of those are on the pricey side for software, aren't they? -- Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:51:26 +0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote: Bill W Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:59:15 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 03:02:12 +0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote: Bill W om Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:10:37 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: Total privacy is gone forever - it's just reality. If you are afraid of every bit of info that is sent off into the ether, turn off your phone, and disconnect from the internet. It's fine to be cautious, but at some level, caution can become futile, and a waste of time. That's an interesting viewpoint. A discussion for another time, perhaps. And finally regarding upgrading from XP, I use lots of software - mostly music and photo, and almost none of it will run on XP. And I think I'm a typical user. I'm very interested in learning the names of the programs and versions that do not support XP for music and photo work. I'm also interested in both (primarily music) and I haven't run into such an issue, so far. PS & LR CC, DXO Optics Pro & Viewpoint, HDR Express 3 for photos, Cakewalk Sonar for music, to start. I don't believe any of the newer DAW's work with XP. Arturia soft synths, and probably most of the others need 7 and up. Interesting. Some of those are on the pricey side for software, aren't they? It depends on your definition of pricey. I think they are all worth what I paid, but I also tend to wait for specials. With Cakewalk, I've been using that about as long as they've been around (the late 80's), so it's just occasional upgrade pricing when I choose to do that. But even now, they have a basic version for about $100, I believe, and it does plenty. I didn't think any of the photo software was pricey at all. And I consider Lightroom with Photoshop CC at $10/month a bargain. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:51:24 +0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:
"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:49:48 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: They are a huge improvement. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. 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. That's insane. You're the one who's needs the education. Common sense would be a good place to start. *laugh* Thanks for your advice, all the same. 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. About as much as the US electrical power grid condition. That was a very short discussion, wasn't it? *grin* Understand code. Listen dickhead this continual bull**** about you magically understanding code just shows what a rank amateur you really are. No bull**** about my understanding code in various languages. I've already proven I do. What's more, I was also able to prove that you BULL**** about your expertise concerning coding the majority of the time. You couldn't even tell me what a simple program was doing and you managed to break the ****ing thing because you didn't understand a very very simple programming language. Enough with the bull**** already. I'm an amateur in the same way that BD is a professional security expert. 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. That's why it took you weeks to identify HEX then? That's why you couldn't answer a simple question, even when full source was provided, then? Who the **** are you trying to bull**** now? me, or yourself? Don't lecture me on developing security systems, either, asshat. I'm not a newbie in that dept, either. Nice vague comment 'security systems' too. This is rubbish as well. It can be quite difficult running XP from a limited user account. Far less so under later versions. Explain what you mean by quite difficult running under a limited user account. As the majority of the time, that's exactly how my clients run it as well as most of the computers here. This is the only one that I prefer to run as admin all the time, because *I* know WTF i'm doing. If they need admin rights to install a new piece of software, it's as simple as right click, run as admin, provide proper credentials. Done deal. Otherwise, a limited user account lets them surf the web and check their email and play most of their stupid old games that still work under Windows XP. Some games don't even need 'admin' level rights to run, either. That is what the majority of the public actually uses the machine for and the limited account is okay with it. They can even work with MsOffice under a limited user account. So, what examples am I missing that joe typical is going to have a problem doing with the limited user account? You have no idea of the fundemental differences between a personal firewall and a packet filtering brick. You are just waffling. Stop trying to slime and evade the subject. it's typical, but, boring. You brought up the built in firewall. I answered the issues concerning it and provided a 3rd party viable option that provides the additional control you whined about the built in firewall not having. Now, you're just talking straight ****. Again. There are cures for 'user stupidity' as I've already outlined. No, there isn't. If that were the case, the AV/AM industry would be extinct, right now. As it is, the UAC was annoying enough in vista that people turned it down and/or outright disabled it. I'll ask again, what good is a security feature if it's so obnoxious people deliberately disable it? That doesn't help them in the least little bit. I don't connect to open/public WiFis. Still haven't figured out you need a WPA2 patch for XP eh! LOL. Really? Strange, As last I checked, that 'patch' was for XP SP2 and down. Nobody should still be running vanilla, sp1, sp1a, or sp2 systems. It does *not* apply for XP SP3; you stupid ****. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...34bcdd6d2=True KB Articles: KB893357 This update to Windows XP provides support for Wi-Fi Protected Access 2 (WPA2), which is the latest standards-based wireless security solution derived from the IEEE 802.11i standard. It also contains Wireless Provisioning Services (WPS) Information Element support, which enables improvements in wireless network discoverability. Supported Operating System Windows XP Home Edition , Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Professional Edition, Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition Moron, I specifically said I didn't connect to open/public WiFis. I *DO* use the Wifi here with several of the XP based laptops. No patch required for full WPA2 benefits, either. As I don't run SP2 or below. ALL of these XP machines are XP Pro SP3 VLK editions. *spank* Want to talk more ****? OK, lets talk ****. Did either of those programs install themselves? Can you install either of those programs if you don't have administrative privileges? Oh. You need an example or two of malware that went itw that did escalate it's priveleges? I can provide them. Feel free to dig yourself deeper. Just ask me. As it is, I provided you two examples that took full advantage of the encryption improvements MS the great has blessed modern editions of Windows with. Why try to change the subject away from that? You asked for examples. I provided a couple. I'd be happy to humour your deflection about that and find you urls to malware that's 0wned the MS be praised security measures you write so highly about too. Why not kick your ass three for three in a row.. Quelle surprise. Usual word wall of disjointed verbal diarrhea, edited out of context responses mixed with a rather large dose of complete drivel. How do I manage to reduce you to a gibbering idiot with such consistency. It's just a talent I have I guess. I dunno why I bothered reading it though. It's pointless trying to save your sorry reputation that way Dusty. It gets shot full of holes every time Pooh's around. Try adding some real content boyo. Surprise us. Anyway, as expected, your comments about malware using the encryption improvements in later versions of Windows was complete ********. The malware was installed therefore as far as Windows is concerned it's legit. OS's are like that. They do their master's bidding. They didn't install themselves then did they Dusty. I'll take your lack of response as an affirmative. Someone with administrative privileges did. So Microsoft were not at fault. Silly boy. Why suggest they were. Ergo your comments were totally stupid. As per usual. Toodly poos. 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 |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple"
Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:17:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: Quelle surprise. Usual word wall of disjointed verbal diarrhea, edited out of context responses mixed with a rather large dose of complete drivel. Ahhh... Damage control by deflection, again. Old news, though. You tried this same routine when you ****ed up with my exevalid question. You did a fine job of stepping on your own dick with the WPA2 patch comment, too. idiot with such consistency. It's just a talent I have I guess. I dunno why I bothered reading it though. You're writing ********. Anyway, as expected, your comments about malware using the encryption improvements in later versions of Windows was complete ********. The malware was installed therefore as far as Windows is concerned it's legit. You're a joke. OS's are like that. They do their master's bidding. That they do. Be it the owner of the machine, or a coder someplace. Somebody will be the master. The only question is who. They didn't install themselves then did they Dusty. I'll take your lack of response as an affirmative. Someone with administrative privileges did. So Microsoft were not at fault. Silly boy. Why suggest they were. Ergo your comments were totally stupid. As per usual. Again, damage control by deflection. I suppose you don't want me to provide more urls then. ROFL. Poseur, as I've always said you were. You talk much ****. Toodly poos. Indeed. -- Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet. |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading
On 14/09/2015 23:51, Diesel wrote:
[] I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by pushing PCs to the limit...I've ran FTP sites that moved that much or more in a given 24 hours or less. I wouldn't necessarily call it streaming though. It was just transferring data over some nice fast pipes. What languages do you develop software in? The data is sent once as a broadcast stream - no retries or anything like that. Miss that data, and you've missed part of an image or some meteorological data you wanted. The PCs have to be very carefully set up with RAMdisks etc. to achieve loss-free reception. It is effectively streaming, and it does push PCs to the limit. There are more details he http://www.eumetsat.int/website/home...082113.html#sp I don't develop the reception software (although I take part in beta tests and automated analysis of the performance). The processing software I write is in Delphi - a Pascal-like language which produces efficient object code, and has a first-class development environment - something I as a single developer really need to make the best use of my time. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ProShow Gold slow video import - slow can anyone help? | Derek | Digital Photography | 0 | January 8th 06 10:52 AM |
Loading film while camping | Large Format Photography Equipment | 1 | October 18th 05 12:43 PM | |
AA loading - suggestion for Kodak | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 14 | May 5th 05 02:22 PM |
Bulk Loading 120 film? | Alan Smithee | In The Darkroom | 19 | April 29th 05 01:38 PM |
Loading "Curves" into a D70 | Sheldon | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 13th 05 04:32 AM |