Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple to Begin Advertising Push Targeting Windows 7 Launch?

Terminal.app said:
I have *never* seen a UAC pane that asked me for my password, even on an admin account. The "cancel or allow" pane, yes.
Click to expand...

If you care to see what I captured in those screen shots, simply:

- Create a new user account ("Computer Management" -> "Local Users and Groups", or "Computer" -> "Manage" -> "Local Users and Groups")

- Open the new user, goto the "Member of" tab and note that it shows "Users" as the only group

- Log in as the new user

- Find "Command Prompt" ("Start" -> "All Programs" -> "Accessories") and wrong click - select "Run as administrator"

- Type an admin password into the dialog box that pops up.
 
Mr. MacPhisto said:
For one, attacking the Windows install for XP users isn't all that wise because if they buy a Mac then they'll have to reinstall all their software and transfer all their data too, either via Genius or some other way. So getting a Mac isn't any easier.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly true. The new $99 Parallels package moves your entire PC, Windows OS and all to the Mac effortlessly, giving you the best of both worlds and you DON'T have to pay $200 to do it, nor do you have to re-format your hard drive.
 
rjohnstone said:
Another Mac myth...
Don't forget all those "extra" files that get orphaned in the Library folder when you drag the app package to the trash.
A lot of apps will place things like plsit files and other support files in the Library folder when they are first executed. Go browse the Application Support folder every once and a while. It gets pretty big after a while.
When you drag the app to the trash, those support files get left behind. They can also give you headaches later on when you install other apps that run into these orphaned files.
Many apps for OS X should have an uninstaller or at least a list of where it dropped it's crap when you first launched it.

Every try and completely remove Adobe CS2 from OS X?
Have fun sifting through 30, yes I said 30 different folders to get rid of the stragglers.
I wish they would have provided an uninstaller for it.
Thank god Adobe wised up and provided one with CS3.


I have no love for the Windows Registry, but it serves it's purpose and has improved over the years.
Contrary to your statement, the registry does not contain any files whatsoever. Just information on where the files are located and what settings they require.
You can also safely delete many application in Windows without running an uninstaller.

Just like OS X, it all depends on how the application developer designed the applications structure and dependencies.

And I haven't seen an Uninstall All request since VB run times were dropped.
Click to expand...

Ha, keep telling yourself that the Windows Registry is no more of a pain and threat to the end user than Mac OS X. You may even start to believe it. :D
 
Apple marketing is no doubt one of the best in the business, but they need to invest more resources in their OS and hardware. While there are still nice touches that make Macs easy to use, the glaring omissions for aesthetic sake are disappointing. Windows is making strides and all indicators suggest their latest OS will succeed XP in corporate adoption.

Both windows and OS X need improvement. I will likely update from XP to 7 eventually and I hope the transition will be smoother than leopard to SL. "It just works" wasn't the case with my Mac Pro. As hiimamac astutely pointed out, the apple's recent releases havent gone so smoothly either.

Ultimately, it's all a matter of perspective. If one works better for you, use it. But don't create specious arguments based on anecdotal evidence or pass off specific market research as general market truths (e.g. Apple owns the premium market). Give the SJ idolatry a rest;)
 
rjohnstone said:
Another Mac myth...
Don't forget all those "extra" files that get orphaned in the Library folder when you drag the app package to the trash.
A lot of apps will place things like plsit files and other support files in the Library folder when they are first executed. Go browse the Application Support folder every once and a while. It gets pretty big after a while.
When you drag the app to the trash, those support files get left behind. They can also give you headaches later on when you install other apps that run into these orphaned files.
Many apps for OS X should have an uninstaller or at least a list of where it dropped it's crap when you first launched it.

Every try and completely remove Adobe CS2 from OS X?
Have fun sifting through 30, yes I said 30 different folders to get rid of the stragglers.
I wish they would have provided an uninstaller for it.
Thank god Adobe wised up and provided one with CS3.


I have no love for the Windows Registry, but it serves it's purpose and has improved over the years.
Contrary to your statement, the registry does not contain any files whatsoever. Just information on where the files are located and what settings they require.
You can also safely delete many application in Windows without running an uninstaller.

Just like OS X, it all depends on how the application developer designed the applications structure and dependencies.

And I haven't seen an Uninstall All request since VB run times were dropped.
Click to expand...

You'd just think that Adobe programs would be self contained, like the 99% of other 3rd party apps for mac OSX. There's stragglers on Windows too, Program Files, registry entries etc. Its a pain to remove drivers safely.
 
You do know if you dag something to the trash on mac os x without using say appzapper, that you leavecfiles in receipts and other extension folders right.

Just saying.

HLdan said:
Interesting how you somehow left out the Registry which is the biggest reason why Windows fails in the first place and is the biggest reason I left Microsoft's crap of an OS. The Registry gets clogged and requires maintenance that the end user shouldn't have to do.
What's better about the Mac in terms of this? Mac OS X's programs are all self contained in their own folder so there's no interaction of files from one program mixing with others like the way it happens in the Windows Registry which is one big reason the Windows system has so many problems. Couple that with the viruses that also get consumed in the Registry just makes the experience in Windows a big Fail.

When I'm done with a Mac program and no longer want it, I just drag the file and drop it in the trash. No worries, affects no other programs. Don't dare try that with the almighty Windows, the Registry requires the program to be uninstalled and it still leaves files in the Registry that negatively interact with other programs.
What happens when you choose to uninstall ALL of it instead of some of the files? Windows throws a fit because now other programs will be negatively impacted.

Please don't hand us the usual BS from the Windows fanboy crowd. These PC fans need to stop pretending that Windows 7 is now the end all, when it's still the same Windows. You PC fans just can't admit to it. :p
Click to expand...
 
hiimamac said:
You do know if you dag something to the trash on mac os x without using say appzapper, that you leavecfiles in receipts and other extension folders right.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

It isn't important or really advantageous to remove such files in OS X.

Using App Zapper (et al) religiously over the course of a year could get you back as much as 1-2MB of space.

It really isn't necessary. Whereas in Windows you can develop registry issues if you don't remove things properly.

Just moving a Windows program to the Recycle Bin without uninstalling would leave detritus in the Registry. Fine. But doing this enough times will slow down a Windows system to a crawl, among other things.

No version of the Mac OS has ever used a Registry, so it is really not a hugely critical issue to have an Uninstall function.

In reality, it is that easy for 98% or more of the programs you might use, although it is true that a few small minor files may be left behind if you do this. Those files might take up a trivial amount of hard drive space, but don't do any damage or slow anything down, or really cause any kind of negative impact at all. Neatniks will want to remove these other things (like preferences files, for example), but for most of us, they don't particularly matter.

The 2% of programs where it is important to completely remove everything are those programs that install StartupItems, daemons, or kexts. Things like APE - Application Enhancer (try to avoid), or HP's all-in-one printer drivers, need to be completely eradicated down to the smallest little piece in order to remove them from your system. In theory, this 2% should always include Uninstallers.

And as for general "cleaning", OS X cleans itself. It's a Unix feaure, using cron maintenance scripts that run automatically at certain (usually set) times per day. OS X requires no maintenance of any kind.
 
*LTD* said:
But doing this enough times will slow down a Windows system to a crawl, among other things.
Click to expand...

The registry is a transaction-based database. Its performance is nearly independent of the size of the database. A large registry won't "slow Windows to a crawl" due to its size - that's just a fanboi myth.

What may slow it down is if the user being stupid and thinking that it's OK to remove applications by deleting filesystem directories. It's not, and it may cause problems (including slowdowns because you haven't actually removed the application).

If you don't uninstall programs using the "Control Panel" -> "Programs and Features" tool, you're a bad admin. You will mess your system up.


Here's another perspective on the registry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Registry#Advantages_and_Disadvantages

Advantages and Disadvantages

The Windows centralized Registry has a number of advantages over legacy INI files:

  • Strongly-typed data can be stored in the Registry, as opposed to only textual information in INI files.
  • Separation of machine configuration from user configuration. When a user logs into a Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 2003 computer, the user-based registry settings are loaded from a user-specific path rather than from a read-only system location. This allows multiple users to share the same machine, and also allows programs to work for a least-privilege user.
  • Standardization of the method of storing configuration data across diverse applications.
  • The registry can be accessed over a network connection for remote management/support, including from scripts, using the standard set of APIs, as long as the Remote Registry service is running and firewall rules permit this.
  • The entire registry can be backed up more easily as it is just a small number of files in specific locations. However, it is much harder to back up and restore configuration of a specific application.
  • Since accessing the registry does not require parsing, it can be read from and written to more quickly than a text file can be. However, the registry becomes a large file to process once per boot.
  • Portions of settings like any subset of an application configuration can be saved in a text-based .REG file, which can be edited with any text editor later. .REG files can easily be merged back into the registry both by unattended batch file or by the user just double-clicking on the file without harming any setting that is not explicitly stated in the .REG file. This is very useful for administrators and support personnel who want to pre-set or pre-configure only a few options like approving the EULA of a certain application.
  • The registry is constructed as a database, and offers DB-like features such as atomic updates. If two processes attempt to update the same registry value at the same time, one process's change will precede the other's, so one will only last a short time until the second gets written. With changes in a file system, such race conditions can result in interleaved data that doesn't match either attempted update. Windows Vista provides transactional updates to the registry, so the atomicity guarantees can be extended across multiple key and/or value changes, with traditional commit-abort semantics. (Note that NTFS provides such support for the file system as well, so the same guarantees could be obtained with traditional configuration files.)

However, the centralized Registry introduces some problems:

  • Centralizing configurations makes it difficult to back up and recover individual applications.
  • In practice, manual manipulation of the registry might be required where applications that are using the Registry do not implement configuration through their user interface.
  • Because the Registry structure is contained in binary files, damage to it is difficult to repair. Because information required for loading device drivers is stored in the registry[25], a damaged registry may prevent a Windows system from booting successfully. Note that damaged configuration files have the same result to other operating systems, but these can be repaired more easily using a text editor.
  • Any application that does not uninstall properly, or does not have an uninstaller, can leave entries in the registry. Over time the computer suffers "software rot" as the registry fills with left-over and possibly incorrect entries.
  • Installers and uninstallers become complex, much more than just copying files into a folder.
  • Applications that make use of the registry to store and retrieve their settings are unsuitable for use on portable devices used to carry applications from one system to another.
  • Since an application's configuration is centralized away from the application itself, it is often not possible to copy installed applications that use the Registry to another computer. This means that software usually has to be reinstalled from original media on a computer upgrade or rebuild, rather than just copying the user and software folder to the new computer.
Click to expand...

I don't understand all the hate for the registry - it's an alternative approach with advantages and disadvantages.

(For me, the remote registry editing is a big advantage. If a system is stuck and you can't log in, it's usually possible to remotely edit the registry and fix it. With .ini (pref) files, you'd need to mount the disk on another system to edit the files.)
 
AidenShaw said:
The registry is a transaction-based database. Its performance is nearly independent of the size of the database. A large registry won't "slow Windows to a crawl" due to its size - that's just a fanboi myth.

What may slow it down is if the user being stupid and thinking that it's OK to remove applications by deleting filesystem directories. It's not, and it may cause problems (including slowdowns because you haven't actually removed the application).

If you don't uninstall programs using the "Control Panel" -> "Programs and Features" tool, you're a bad admin. You will mess your system up.


Here's another perspective on the registry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Registry#Advantages_and_Disadvantages



I don't understand all the hate for the registry - it's an alternative approach with advantages and disadvantages.

(For me, the remote registry editing is a big advantage. If a system is stuck and you can't log in, it's usually possible to remotely edit the registry and fix it. With .ini (pref) files, you'd need to mount the disk on another system to edit the files.)
Click to expand...

The registry is static. It typically has no provision for dynamic verification or re-registration of anything, because it depends on these babysitters called installers for its information (and makes the dangerous assumption that they are always right).

The registry is sedimentary. Thanks to its reliance on installers firing off one-time additions of data that may or may not ever be re-examined, stuff builds up over time, in layers as it were. Worse, new layers can overwrite previous layers entirely. Meaning: the registry is un-journaled and un-versioned on a granular level, which, given the computing power available today and the long-established practices for doing these things in filesystems and databases, is nothing short of criminal.

The registry stores data as dumb & de-contextualized. It lacks important metadata that it really ought to have if parties beyond the OS are going to be messing around in it, such as information about key creation and ownership, key history or version, dependencies, cross-references, validation constraints, comments, etc.

The very existence registry cleaners, registry repair tools, articles about demystifying the registry, registry tweaks and fixes, registry recovery, how to backup the registry, etc., should tell you that something is very wrong here. Yet another system on Windows that requires some form of maintenance and baby-sitting.
 
*LTD* said:
The registry is static. It typically has no provision for dynamic verification or re-registration of anything, because it depends on these babysitters called installers for its information (and makes the dangerous assumption that they are always right).

The registry is sedimentary. Thanks to its reliance on installers firing off one-time additions of data that may or may not ever be re-examined, stuff builds up over time, in layers as it were. Worse, new layers can overwrite previous layers entirely. Meaning: the registry is un-journaled and un-versioned on a granular level, which, given the computing power available today and the long-established practices for doing these things in filesystems and databases, is nothing short of criminal.

The registry stores data as dumb & de-contextualized. It lacks important metadata that it really ought to have if parties beyond the OS are going to be messing around in it, such as information about key creation and ownership, key history or version, dependencies, cross-references, validation constraints, comments, etc.

The very existence registry cleaners, registry repair tools, articles about demystifying the registry, registry tweaks and fixes, registry recovery, how to backup the registry, etc., should tell you that something is very wrong here. Yet another system on Windows that requires some form of maintenance and baby-sitting.
Click to expand...

This post was brought to you (word for word) by the Google search engine.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000939.html

I guess it makes a change from posting the word of Jobs.
 
*LTD* said:
The very existence registry cleaners, registry repair tools, articles about demystifying the registry, registry tweaks and fixes, registry recovery, how to backup the registry, etc., should tell you that something is very wrong here. Yet another system on Windows that requires some form of maintenance and baby-sitting.
Click to expand...

So you mean, the very existance of Mac uninstaller tools, Mac application cleaners, articles about properly removing Mac applications.. should tell us something is very wrong here ?

Because otherwise, I don't quite get why it applies only to Microsoft. :rolleyes:

And Aiden, if you can use remote registry, it means network services are still alive on the machine. If only your login is borked, and not the machine itself, you can easily fix that on Linux/Mac in any number of ways that don't include mounting the filesystem elsewhere. There are many remoting network services on Unix, and many are much better than remote registry.

Not to mention the best solution to a user not being able to log in is usually to unload his hive which is stuck and then delete it because it's probably corrupted in some way. Unless the issue is a very precise value under a very precise key that you know of (good luck) and even then, why should it break his login (aside from setting the shell to shutdown).
 
AidenShaw said:
I don't understand all the hate for the registry - it's an alternative approach with advantages and disadvantages.
Click to expand...
In my dark ages I did some work as a .NET developer. I find it telling that Microsoft introduced something like config files which from .NET is a lot of easier to access then the registry (the latter isn't even in the system namespace ! ) MS press books about .NET all talks about config files, very little about the registry.

Even being a "good system administrator" and using the control panel doesn't mean you will never have orphaned registry keys.
 
KnightWRX said:
So you mean, the very existance of Mac uninstaller tools, Mac application cleaners, articles about properly removing Mac applications.. should tell us something is very wrong here ?

Because otherwise, I don't quite get why it applies only to Microsoft. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Simple. One exists because there is a need for it, lest your Windows install fall on its face. The other exists for neatness' sake.

The registry is a potential disaster if not maintained properly. OS X's solution . . . isn't.

You don't even have to go hunting around with Google to realize this fundamental reality. Just use some common sense.
 
KnightWRX said:
So you mean, the very existance of Mac uninstaller tools, Mac application cleaners, articles about properly removing Mac applications.. should tell us something is very wrong here ?
Click to expand...
What is wrong is the sloppiness of some developers. The fact that a lot of OSX applications are just "drag and drop" (also for deletion) shows that.

And sloppiness like leaving behind some plist files will have little or no impact on the system. Compare that against a Windows system with a cluttered registry... .
 
*LTD* said:
Simple. One exists because there is a need for it, lest your Windows install fall on its face. The other exists for neatness' sake.
Click to expand...

That was my point and you missed it. The mere existance of the tools, articles, whatever, don't prove squat. They don't for Apple, they don't for Microsoft. These software vendors live off fear and fake problems to make a buck.

If you want to argue against the registry, don't use the existance of these tools to prove anything. It doesn't, and it makes you look like a gullible fool.
 
KnightWRX said:
That was my point and you missed it. The mere existance of the tools, articles, whatever, don't prove squat. They don't for Apple, they don't for Microsoft. These software vendors live off fear and fake problems to make a buck.

If you want to argue against the registry, don't use the existance of these tools to prove anything. It doesn't, and it makes you look like a gullible fool.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did pass over your point a little there. Je m'excuse!
 
rjohnstone said:
Another Mac myth...
Don't forget all those "extra" files that get orphaned in the Library folder when you drag the app package to the trash.
A lot of apps will place things like plsit files and other support files in the Library folder when they are first executed. Go browse the Application Support folder every once and a while. It gets pretty big after a while.
When you drag the app to the trash, those support files get left behind.
Click to expand...

90% of the time the files and folders are named the same as the app. it's only things that are universal accross several that won't be.

so it's pretty easy to do a search for appx and find the folders and such and dump them.

so the only part that is a myth is that you can simply drag the application file to the trash to uninstall ALL parts of it.
 
[edit] typed on an iPhone if you can believe it with keyboard clicking turned off, (too much lag sometime at certain forums), and want to give a heads upbin case the grammars or spelling is atrocious. With clicking off it can make it even harder as if you are a fast Tyler you can tell when you miss a letter. [end edit]


Yes that's true. But astute windows users will also use a regitry program that will snap shot the registry and upon removing files it uses the same program to delete the files, putting the registry back to the prior mode or snapshot that it once was, pre-installation. Why msft can't come up with something like this is beyound me. My guess is that the hidden files that developers use for trial purposes, would make msft look like the bad guy if they came out with such a program. here are some though, via 3rd party, that will indeed do this. N

registry is very similar to .plist and .kext files and if you are the type of user that shuts down your computer every night, the daily, weekly, monthly scripts will not run.

In addtion I disagree with it not having the same affect as windowsi registry as I am a beta tester and content producer and over time, if you dint run programs such as Oynx for Maca and simply drag files to trash, the sutem will slow down over time. Ask anyone here, most users will tell you their system is not as fast as the first few weeks they got their system and we can all thank the developers for creating hidden files that sometime appzapper will miss. I wonder if there is an app that will snapshot your plist/kext/preferences/documents/package receipts like windows.

Anyway the point is due to trial software, developers don't trustv us. Then again you can run appzapper on some prframs and have a fresh trial to play with. Where the mac and pc really get into trouble is with high end pace or security that hides files and phones home and while I'm not a huge fan or warez as I have seen my material posted inalterable.binaries.music, until we live in a day where we can try software and say no thanks to get our money back, we will always have these so called hidden files, and as stated earlier, I will have to disagree as even macs skis down over time due to orphaned files vand am surprised that , besides time machine, there is no snapshot software that takes a pre instal picture so it can delete these hidden files that even Apzapper misses. It will all be done 100% when yiu can install then uninstall anything then reinstall with a message of " sorry your trial has expired" sadly this is neither a msft or Apple problem, yet at the same time, both comanies could develop a program that catches all files. This way we would never duffer the slowing down of our computer. Of course we haven't even begun talking about harddrive sectors where the fastest portion of the hard drive is certain places. On the PC side there are programs that will defray most used apps to the fastest sectors if the drive.
So much to talk about, so many, many things each comany could do to keep our systems running fresh and new at all times if they weren't si afraid if the developers.


Peace.


*LTD* said:
It isn't important or really advantageous to remove such files in OS X.

Using App Zapper (et al) religiously over the course of a year could get you back as much as 1-2MB of space.

It really isn't necessary. Whereas in Windows you can develop registry issues if you don't remove things properly.

Just moving a Windows program to the Recycle Bin without uninstalling would leave detritus in the Registry. Fine. But doing this enough times will slow down a Windows system to a crawl, among other things.

No version of the Mac OS has ever used a Registry, so it is really not a hugely critical issue to have an Uninstall function.

In reality, it is that easy for 98% or more of the programs you might use, although it is true that a few small minor files may be left behind if you do this. Those files might take up a trivial amount of hard drive space, but don't do any damage or slow anything down, or really cause any kind of negative impact at all. Neatniks will want to remove these other things (like preferences files, for example), but for most of us, they don't particularly matter.

The 2% of programs where it is important to completely remove everything are those programs that install StartupItems, daemons, or kexts. Things like APE - Application Enhancer (try to avoid), or HP's all-in-one printer drivers, need to be completely eradicated down to the smallest little piece in order to remove them from your system. In theory, this 2% should always include Uninstallers.

And as for general "cleaning", OS X cleans itself. It's a Unix feaure, using cron maintenance scripts that run automatically at certain (usually set) times per day. OS X requires no maintenance of any kind.
Click to expand...
 
"best suited to its popular iPods and iPhones"

What a load of crap. There's nothing a Mac can do that a PC can't when it comes to iPods and iPhones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back