Your AVG Protection.
-
@Ben L. said:
@Ben L. said:
@boomzilla said:
@boomzilla said:
@boomzilla said:
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@joe.edwards said:
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
Look at all the people who don't know the difference between host and target.
Or between forward and backward compatibility, for that matter.
Or between lettuce and kale.
Or between continuous and continual.
Or flammable and inflammable.
Or there and they're.
Or your and you're.
Or their and there.
Or should of and should have.
Or Link and Zelda.
Or Steam and Valve.
Or stuff that happens in movies and actual computer science.
-
@Ben L. said:
Or stuff that happens in movies and actual computer science.
I know a politician like that. He needs to sacked. Yesterday. Oh for 650 lampposts and a roll of piano wire...
-
@PJH said:
dat politician
Holy shit, I haven't cringed that much since the "Christian country with Christian values" thing. Glad to be watching from afar...
Oops, there I go bringing up religion. Let's face it, that was a ridiculous thing to say in the 21st Century UK regardless of what religion you may or may not be.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@jmap said:
Still trying to find the "just periodically scan for viruses, scan downloaded files and DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE, EVER" option.
Every virus scanner has that option. It's called "Uninstall and switch to MS Security Essentials" instead. Again, for all the shit MS puts out, when they get something right, boy-oh-fuck do they get it right.
- Silent. Only pops up when it finds something. Occasionally throws a notification in the taskbar "Hey, you haven't scanned in, like, a month. Wanna do it now?"
- Obeys your options. If you set up some excludes, or a scheudle, or turn it off entirely, it never EVER changes them because it knows best. Worst I've seen it do, whe I turned off Real Time protection, it threw ONE window up saying "Hey, buddy, turning this off may be bad unless you know what you're doing, k?" When I clicked "K", it NEVER bugged me about it again.
- Stays the fuck out of everything else. I never have to worry about my Firefox suddenly getting hijacked by the MS Essentials Toolbar. There is no MS Essentials Web Scanner DDOS'ing every website I visit. There's no MS Essentials Speedup Boost fucking with my registry. There's no MS Essentials Upgrade Helper threatening me for money every 15 days. There's no MS Essentials Safe Browser hijacking the browser by putting in a spyware laden web proxy.
- Free. Even updates. It never expires.
MS has a vested interest in keeping this efficient and free because people associate "getitng a virus" with "Windows le Sux".
It just sucks that they don't have a Linux version.
This enumerates the reasons why all my clients get MS Essentials on their boxes. Funnily enough, though, it's the fact that it updates, always and forever, without some upgrade or license renewal, that makes it the best option. Sure, it's a simple enough dialogue to get through for the knowledgeable user, but it's nightmare-fuel for grandmas who "don't know what to click." Or worse, become used to installing everything the computer tells them to. Better to be mostly protected and know it than to be not protected at all and think everything's fine.
For clients with real issues and a tendency to get infected I make them buy MalwareBytes Pro, which is a lifetime license, and has website blocking built in. And I do explain to the client that if they turn it off because they now can't access their favorite movie streaming site that I'll be happy to clean up their computer for an arm and a leg.
-
@DaveK said:
@db2 said:
@DaveK said:
@db2 said:
@DaveK said:
@db2 said:
Did you have a Windows 2.0 dev box back in 2000? Because Windows 2.0 was newer then than Windows 2000 is now. Unless you're developing for industrial control systems that need bizarro legacy hardware, bin it.
What part of "The machine that you write software on doesn't have to be the machine on which the software you write runs" do you fail to understand? All of it!
Did you also run Visual Studio 6.0 on Windows 2.0 14 years ago? Did they even ship that version on 5.25" floppies?
If you ever had a point, you've left in far behind in your pursuit of inanities. The machine I use runs the tools I need to run in order to write software for the targets on which I have to deliver software. Nothing's broke, yet you feel I should be fixing something.
I think we have different definitions of "broke", because I would include in the definition being almost a decade out of mainstream security patch support, API releases, dev tool updates, etc.
Wow. So misunderstanding. Very errors. Let's get the factual ones out of way first:
- Security patches ended in 2010, that's not a decade ago. Not that it matters, since the security of my dev box is unrelated to the security of the apps I develop on it. It doesn't run any internet-facing services, and I'm not about to start downloading and installing random software on it. Also, I have backups.
- "API releases" are perfectly available to it, all I need is the relevant import lib and headers to be able to develop against newer APIs.
- All the dev tools I'm using are up-to-date; I'm not using MS dev tools.
@db2 said:
Until I know what your targets are and get confirmation that you're forced to develop for outdated embedded/vertical market hardware from a defunct vendor using dev tools from another defunct vendor (which refuse to work on anything newer than 2K), then this sounds like Old Man Yells At Cloud to me.
Now you're just being a moron. (I will at least give you credit for being a persistent and consistent one). As I've pointed out over and over, there is no relationship beween the platform I'm using to develop on and the platform I am developing for. Everything I'm developing works on everything up to and including Win 8. I'm not the one yelling at anything; I'm just using a fully functional system to get on with my work, while you're the one yelling at it for not being as bleeding edge as you feel it ought to be. You're just distracted by the new and shiny for its own sake.
@db2 said:
I'm almost afraid to ask,
You scare easy.
@db2 said:
but... you're running this as a sandboxed VM, right? Or is it actually some old Packard Bell?
False dilemma. Neither of those statements is true, revealing the limitations of your thinking.
FYI, this isn't the sort of site where you can casually mention that you voluntarily do all of your dev work on a 14-year-old, unsupported OS, and not have everyone wondering what sort of street drugs you've been taking. Maybe if you stop being cagey about what you're developing, and why on earth a setup like this makes the least bit of sense, we could take it seriously.
-
@Ben L. said:
@Ben L. said:
@Ben L. said:
@boomzilla said:
@boomzilla said:
@boomzilla said:
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@joe.edwards said:
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
Look at all the people who don't know the difference between host and target.
Or between forward and backward compatibility, for that matter.
Or between lettuce and kale.
Or between continuous and continual.
Or flammable and inflammable.
Or there and they're.
Or your and you're.
Or their and there.
Or should of and should have.
Or Link and Zelda.
Or Steam and Valve.
Or stuff that happens in movies and actual computer science.Or parallel and concurrent.
-
@db2 said:
FYI, this isn't the sort of site where you can casually mention that you voluntarily do all of your dev work on a 14-year-old, unsupported OS, and not have everyone wondering what sort of street drugs you've been taking. Maybe if you stop being cagey about what you're developing, and why on earth a setup like this makes the least bit of sense, we could take it seriously.
You're reading too much into this. There's probably no logical reason for his choice of OS on his dev machine. Most likely he's just too cheap and lazy to upgrade a machine that works "well enough" for him.
-
@DaveK said:
False d̶i̶l̶e̶m̶m̶a̶ dichotomy. Neither of those statements is true, revealing the limitations of your thinking.
FTFY
-
@Mo6eB said:
One of those pairs of things is not like all the other pairs of things. hint: flammable and inflammable@Ben L. said:
@Ben L. said:
@Ben L. said:
@boomzilla said:
@boomzilla said:
@boomzilla said:
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@joe.edwards said:
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
Look at all the people who don't know the difference between host and target.
Or between forward and backward compatibility, for that matter.
Or between lettuce and kale.
Or between continuous and continual.
Or flammable and inflammable.
Or there and they're.
Or your and you're.
Or their and there.
Or should of and should have.
Or Link and Zelda.
Or Steam and Valve.
Or stuff that happens in movies and actual computer science.Or parallel and concurrent.
-
-
@db2 said:
FYI, this isn't the sort of site where you can casually mention that you voluntarily do all of your dev work on a 14-year-old, unsupported OS, and not have everyone wondering what sort of street drugs you've been taking. Maybe if you stop being cagey about what you're developing, and why on earth a setup like this makes the least bit of sense, we could take it seriously.
For what it's worth, I'm with DaveK. I completely fail to see why the age or support level of an OS on a personal development box make any difference whatsoever. It either works for its user, or it doesn't. If a setup already does everything that's required of it, what possible benefit could accrue from fucking with it? Unless and until DaveK's preferred toolchain won't run on Win2K, what compelling reason could be possibly have to move to a different OS?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Yeah, that was naturally my initial reaction as well, but it's actually a really competent product.@flabdablet said:
If you install Panda Cloud
Next.
-
@flabdablet said:
@db2 said:
If you are developing for something that is end-of-life, I understand, but if you need to be ready for deployment to new future OSs then it makes sense to stay at least a little up to date, since making minor updates over time is better than being faced with a potential brick wall of hundreds of API changes to make when you need to work with something new.FYI, this isn't the sort of site where you can casually mention that you voluntarily do all of your dev work on a 14-year-old, unsupported OS, and not have everyone wondering what sort of street drugs you've been taking. Maybe if you stop being cagey about what you're developing, and why on earth a setup like this makes the least bit of sense, we could take it seriously.
For what it's worth, I'm with DaveK. I completely fail to see why the age or support level of an OS on a personal development box make any difference whatsoever. It either works for its user, or it doesn't. If a setup already does everything that's required of it, what possible benefit could accrue from fucking with it? Unless and until DaveK's preferred toolchain won't run on Win2K, what compelling reason could be possibly have to move to a different OS?In addition to that, if you aren't keeping your components updated as far as security patches are concerned, and a vulnerability is found and exploited via your program, then you may be found liable due to neglegence.Perhaps your system is completely offline, but still a good point to consider in general.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
if you need to be ready for deployment to new future OSs then it makes sense to stay at least a little up to date, since making minor updates over time is better than being faced with a potential brick wall of hundreds of API changes to make when you need to work with something new.
DaveK has already said that his present toolchain will generate code for Win8. Presumably the toolchain is up to date. And provided that toolchain will work on Win2K, I still fail to see any advantage in moving it to something else.@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:In addition to that, if you aren't keeping your components updated as far as security patches are concerned, and a vulnerability is found and exploited via your program, then you may be found liable due to neglegence.Perhaps your system is completely offline, but still a good point to consider in general.
You seem to be assuming that parts of the dev machine's OS are going to end up in the products developed on that machine. Why?
-
@flabdablet said:
DaveK has already said that his present toolchain will generate code for Win8. Presumably the toolchain is up to date. And provided that toolchain will work on Win2K, I still fail to see any advantage in moving it to something else.
Quite an impressive feat... If that's the case, then I would definitely seize the opportunity to progress by 13 years, but each to their own, I guess.@flabdablet said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
If all the pieces of the toolchain are simultaneously up-to-date and running the same code on all OSs, then I guess you're covered. But, if you are making that compatibility work by, for example, switching out one DLL for an older one dependent on OS, then you'd have to be a lot more careful. Of course I'd still be far more concerned about the clients' inabilities to stay up-to-date.In addition to that, if you aren't keeping your components updated as far as security patches are concerned, and a vulnerability is found and exploited via your program, then you may be found liable due to neglegence.Perhaps your system is completely offline, but still a good point to consider in general.
You seem to be assuming that parts of the dev machine's OS are going to end up in the products developed on that machine. Why?
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
If that's the case, then I would definitely seize the opportunity to progress by 13 years, but each to their own, I guess.
I've used every version of Windows from 1.0 to 8, and for a machine I'd primarily be using to run edit/compile cycles I can think of absolutely nothing of value that any version subsequent to Win2K has added. Don't need XP's fisher-price windows. Don't need Vista's UAC. Don't need 7's idiot combined quicklaunch+taskbar. Don't need 8, period.
In 13 years, MS has managed to give Windows better hardware support, easier setup, increased idiot resistance and somewhat more malware resistance. Not one of those features is of any importance whatsoever for a dev box.
-
Improved malware resistance not important?
I think you just broke my stupid-o-meter.
-
The Start menu/Start screen improvements alone are reason to upgrade.
-
@flabdablet said:
Don't need 7's idiot combined quicklaunch+taskbar
@blakeyrat said:The Start menu/Start screen improvements alone are reason to upgrade.
Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man.
And start screen? An improvement? An improvement so bad they had to re-implement the start button, but still didn't give the menu everybody wants and just takes you back to that horrible start screen?
-
@DrakeSmith said:
@flabdablet said:
The Windows 8 start screen is an improvement over any Windows start menu I've used before. Important programs up front, always in the same place. Search for other programs by typing.Don't need 7's idiot combined quicklaunch+taskbar
@blakeyrat said:The Start menu/Start screen improvements alone are reason to upgrade.
Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man.
And start screen? An improvement? An improvement so bad they had to re-implement the start button, but still didn't give the menu everybody wants and just takes you back to that horrible start screen?
-
@RaceProUK said:
Improved malware resistance not important?
At least he doesn't connect it to the internet... and hopefully no local networks either.I think you just broke my stupid-o-meter.
@blakeyrat said:
The Start menu/Start screen improvements alone are reason to upgrade.
I have to agree with blakey on that. There are many other little things that make Win 7 better for power users too, like window snapping, and a whole bunch of other desktop utilities like DisplayFusion that won't work on anything before XP or Vista.You can also use Windows Virtual PC or some other VM to migrate all your old dev stuff across from your primary machine... and any others you may have. Who needs multiple dev boxes nowadays?
@flabdablet said:
Don't need 8, period.
That's the one thing I think we can all agree on!
-
@DrakeSmith said:
And start screen? An improvement?
Compared to Windows 2000? Yes. For one reason: it carries over the "hit Start button, start typing, hit Enter" convention from Vista. That one tiny feature alone is worth upgrading from Windows 2000.
If you compare it to Windows 7 the story might be different, but that's not what we're talking about.
-
@RaceProUK said:
Improved malware resistance is important for a general consumer box used mainly for web surfing and swapping pirated movies on USB sticks. For a dev box used by somebody who understands how malware spreads and how to avoid exposure to it in the first place, not so much.Improved malware resistance not important?
I think you just broke my stupid-o-meter.
-
@blakeyrat said:
The Start menu/Start screen improvements alone are reason to upgrade.
Not on a dev box, where you'd typically just be using the same small set of tools most of the time.
-
@flabdablet said:
Not on a dev box, where you'd typically just be using the same small set of tools most of the time.
This, I think, is what is befuddling to everyone else about trying to defend this.
Most developers have the understanding that you will update and upgrade your toolset as the industry progresses. You'll learn new langauges, get new libraries, install a better IDE or newer plugins. I'd be surprised if you didn't upgrade *something* at least once a year. The idea of staying static and using the same tools for 14 years is absolutely mindboggling.
-
@Snooder said:
@flabdablet said:
Not on a dev box, where you'd typically just be using the same small set of tools most of the time.
This, I think, is what is befuddling to everyone else about trying to defend this.
Most developers have the understanding that you will update and upgrade your toolset as the industry progresses. You'll learn new langauges, get new libraries, install a better IDE or newer plugins. I'd be surprised if you didn't upgrade something at least once a year. The idea of staying static and using the same tools for 14 years is absolutely mindboggling.Hit the nail on the head. I can understand if you're stuck developing for obsolete embedded/industrial hardware, and the only dev tools available refuse to run on a modern OS, or if you just want a hobby machine to mess around with developing for, say, CP/M. But voluntarily using Win 2000 to develop software intended to work with Win 8? That's just crazy town. "Coder" and "luddite" mix about as well as oil and hand grenades, and that combination is probably behind a lot of the shit we see on the main page of this site.
-
@Snooder said:
The idea of staying static and using the same tools for 14 years is absolutely mindboggling.
Only 14 years? I (sadly) know people still working with Clipper.
-
DaveK never claimed to be using the same toolset, only that the toolset he now uses works fine on Win2K and that he has therefore found no good reason to use some other OS. I honestly fail to see why so many people find this so problematic.
-
@db2 said:
I can understand if you're stuck developing for obsolete embedded/industrial hardware, and the only dev tools available refuse to run on a modern OS
I had something similar at my previous job. The C compiler was a pre-Standard one that I hated and there wasn't a C++ compiler available.
