Every instance of registry "corruption" I've encountered (with the exception of disk/filesystem errors) seems to have occurred after the end-user ran registry "boosters", "cleaners", "fixers", and things like that.
Live Mesh, Mesh --- okay .. they're different things? I'm a little confused when you say I am talking about "Mesh" and not "Live Mesh" --- I've been using whatever it's called for over a year in beta on my Mac, Netbook, and two PCs and it's always been called Live Mesh, and it's always, by design, killed the taskbar when it would update (except on the Mac, where it doesn't kill the menu bar at the top of the UI).
Go to the Messenger folder
e.g. C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Live\Messenger\
And set Compatibility Mode to Windows Vista (Service Pack 2). That will fix the Taskbar suck.
I guess that's what they mean when they say it was designed from the "ground up" for Windows 7. LOL
I wonder if they're still pushing updates out for Live Mesh on a near daily basis - -each of which used to kill the entire taskbar and restart it when Live Mesh would update (by design), causing everything that was sitting in the "notification area" to disappear (yet still continue to run). It's pretty much why I stopped using Live Mesh . because I was tired of basically having a semi-daily scheduled crash of my taskbar.
rhm said:Dinjuk said:*snip*
But did anyone really use Vista's backup. I didn't see this thread when it was originally posted, but I have to agree with the OP - it's a completely worthless piece of software from the department of dumbing down that took over with Vista and seems to still be in charge of Win7.
People that want a good backup can download Crashplan for free.
Actually, one of the primary reasons for me upgrading from Vista to 7 was that they restored functionality to the Backup and Restore application, such as the ability to backup specific folders and files. Additionally, the ability to back up to a network location actually works now. Windows 7's backup/restore application is much, much better than Vista's. Vista's was indeed a complete joke.
GoddersUK said:spivonious said:*snip*
In the US the physical network provider also provides the DSL/ADSL service right? And you normally only have one such provider? Allowing them to screw you over with no repercussions. In Europe (or the UK at least) the regulators force the large infrastructure companies to allow competitors to provide services over their lines. (ie. in the UK BT, which has an effective monopoly on the telephone network, is forced to allow competitors to use it's lines, exchanges etc. Sadly it doesn't apply to all providers so Virgin Media - BT's only competition in terms of infrastructure provider, isn't forced to allow competitors to use their networks. Also unlike BT they don't have an obligation to provide universal service, so they only connect the profitable areas).
Forced-access regulation for telephone companies exists in the United States also since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. If I recall correctly, however, it only applies to telephone companies and not cable companies. Verizon provides all of the DSL loops in my area, but I don't necessarily have to use Verizon as my DSL ISP, Verizon is required to allow other ISPs to provide DSL service over Verizon's copper.
As far as what I have, Verizon FIOS (fiber), with the 20Mbps Downstream/5Mbps Upstream tier. As part of the Triple Freedom bundle with TV and landline, the Internet is $33. My speed is consistently thus:
Jun 14, 2010 at 9:16 PMSven Groot said:magicalclick said:*snip*
In the Netherlands, you can put a sticker on your mailbox indicating that you do not wish to receive unaddressed mail. The people who deliver advertisement flyers etc. are required by law to adhere to that.
The problem of having an automated system decide what is or isn't spam simply doesn't exist for physical mail. The analogy is therefore flawed.
The analogy is meaningless based simply upon two concepts: 1) we're not talking about physical spam at all, and 2) that just because you can't do anything about physical spam doesn't mean you can't do anything about electronic spam. The analogy is completely irrelevant - we're not talking about physical spam. We're talking about electronic spam transmitted over a computer network, sitting on computers whose sole design purpose is to perform tasks rapidly for humans.
We're talking about sifting through 300 messages every morning, all of which look nearly identical when you're staring at a long scrolling list of messages in the Outlook inbox, with maybe one or two legitimate messages hidden in there somewhere --- while any one of the other 298 messages could blow up your computer or trigger a cascading deluge of more spam if you so much as highlight it. Things like that don't happen with physical mail because people go to Federal Prison for it.
Dealing with electronic spam as above is a far, far cry from throwing away 5 flyers which are obviously from a catalog company, 6 envelopes which are obviously credit offers, and 2 coupon sheets.
Electronic spam is simply not the same as physical spam and any analogy is not only flawed, but completely baseless on its face.
W3bbo said:fknight said:*snip*
I use Exchange, and my OST files are still under AppData\Local\Microsoft\Outlook
Why would the PSTs be under Documents? It isn't a human-readable file.
"I'm reinstalling Windows and I need to backup my email so I still have it after the reinstall."
<proceed to walk a non-technically inclined user through the process of unhiding folders, possibly needing to cover the concept of user profile directories, and other additional things depending on his configuration>
XLS files aren't human readable either. Nor are JPEGs, PNGs, GIFs, MP3s, AVIs, or PDFs. Like PST files, they all need a program to open up the data file and present the information to the user.
And like XLS files, JPEGs, PNGs, GIFs, MP3s, AVIs, and PDFs, Outlook's PST files need to be in a place that's accessible to an end-user who has no interest in earning an MCSE certificate just so he can back it up when he needs to reinstall Windows or migrate to another PC.
OST files can stay where they are because they're not used directly by the end user and serve only as a cache. They have no need to be touched, located, or backed up by a non-technically inclined end user.
Microsoft also figured out that a hidden folder buried three levels deep into %USERPROFILE% wasn't a good default place to store the PST that has every piece of information a user has in Outlook. It's now in a folder in Documents. I was happy about this.
exoteric said:magicalclick said:*snip*
I believe this is a failure to understand the importance of usability. A cube mapped desktop or window flip may have some initial attraction but its appeal will quickly fade and it has near zero usability advantages.
Interestingly, I think this presentation on digital comics by Scott McCloud shows great usability ideas. Highly recommended.
I especially liked the part of the movie where the virtualized instance of Windows XP ran pretty smooth, but the native OS w/Compiz running on the bare metal lagged most of the time. I know for a fact from using Ubuntu 10.04 that it really isn't as laggy as the video indicates -- it's actually quite smooth with all of the effects -- I just thought the fact that this video was judged adequate to put on YouTube is humorous -- and if I didn't know better and was only exposed to this video, I'd stay the hell away from Compiz.