Is this fun or what? :D


Meşter Strică-Tot
Sugar daddy
Mar 31, 2007
Cică "La aceasta oferta au mai aplicat 35 persoane". :biggrin2:


Oct 30, 2006
A se citi soluţiile din comentarii: :biggrin:

- să circule cu spatele;
- să circule cu roţile în sus;
- să circule pe dreapta doar autobuzele. :rotf:


zis şi Brucan
Sugar daddy
Nov 6, 2003
the past.
Cica din manualul unui router Edimax (BR-6226N):

"6. The router will become hot when being used for long time (This is
normal and is not a malfunction), DO NOT put this router on paper,
cloth, or other flammable materials." :tongue:


Membru Senior
Dec 20, 2004
Best comment I've seen in ages!
Actually, from my experience the "cruft" that supposedly gets Windows bloatier and slower, isn't as much a Microsoft issue, but the result of all those crap half-arsed 3'rd party installers and (more importantly) uninstallers, that placed crap all over the place and then forgot to uninstall it.

On my home machine I must have thousands of copy protection DLL's and drivers from all those paranoid game publishers alone, because God forbid that they don't place yet another obfuscated and untested driver on the DVD chain. You know, what with all the pirates running a cracked version without that anyway, God forbid that they'd stop punishing us honest paying customers instead. I must have such an unholy mix of StarForce, SafeDisc, SecuROM, and a few other things shat by the bowels of Hell, that it's got to reach either critical mass or sentience one of these days and start WW3.

And of course half the uninstallers forget to take _that_ crap out.

Then there are all the non-game things that just have to try to keep themselves resident, load their DLL's or custom libraries deep in Windows, and whatever. Last time I installed even Mozilla or Open Office from scratch (admittedly, that was way back in 2.0 days), they just had to try to keep themselves resident in memory, to appear that they launch faster than the MS alternative. Using the user's few RAM as your own private RAM-Disk has got to be an acceptable substitute to optimizing your own freaking code to actually load faster. But nah, the user surely has nothing better to do with his RAM than to help with out willy-waving, and will gladly buy another gigabyte just to help one more incompetent company brag about loading faster than MS.

Or here's an idea: how about using the standard widgets of whatever OS and window manager you run on? Now that ought to shave off the time of loading yet another cutesy skinned UI.

And then there's stuff loaded apparently for my convenience, that is "mine" only if I happened to be a marketroid for one of those vendors. Like EA's auto-downloader trying to stay resident in the tray, for no other reason than that apparently they don't want to let me download patches with a browser. Sun's Java trying to stay resident in the tray, just so it can pester me with reminders to get the latest Java 1.6... when I'm deliberately trying to test code that _must_ run with Java 1.4. Etc.

And then there's the occasional screw-up like an older version of McAffee antivirus which, I swear to the elder gods, actually couldn't cope with being installed in another directory than the default. So the first update actually installed a second copy, at the default location, but let the old one active too. So suddenly I had two antiviruses stacked in memory, and of course uninstalling only removed one. Took some grumbling and digging through Windows innards, just to get rid of it.

Then there's the stuff which plants its bits so deep in Windows, that you almost have to kill the host to get the parasite out. Goa'uld style. And I'm not even talking actual viruses and trojans, but antiviruses, and the occasional program which just has to bombard you with ads at all times. (And I'm still not even talking proper malware. An older RealPlayer version did just that... and that's why it was the last version I ever tried.)

Then there's stuff which just has to add some unneeded functionality, apparently just because they can't trust the default Windows implementation to do its job. I'm talking stuff like Creative adding its own disk change detector, never mind that Windows's auto-play works perfectly well as it is. Or that if I disabled that, I don't want Creative automatically starting to play anything either.

Then there are all the tons of custom skinned widgets, libraries that I need just for one single program (yeah, I sooo always wanted a display driver that needs .Net, thank you ATI), etc.

It's just sad. It used to be that you needed a virus to get your computer to crawl, while your hard drive icon and modem LEDs blink like crazy. For the last decade increasingly you only need to install legit paid-for software.


Membru Senior
Sugar daddy
Jun 27, 2005
A history of Microsoft Windows

1982: "Interface Manager" is being planned out.
THE MANAGEMENT: "Oh, hell, we have to stomp on VisiOn, they might be big, their spreadsheet was. Quick, build some kind of graphical shell thing."

1983: Windows 1.0 announced.
THE MANAGEMENT: "We must incorporate TopView compatibility, IBM's too big to ignore!"

1984: Apple Macintosh released.
THE MANAGEMENT: "OK, guys, the Mac's out, it's OK, you can play with those ones the Mac app developers have. Make it look more like the Mac!"

1985: Windows 1.01 released.
MARKETING DEPT: "Look, ma, we got one o' dem gooey things!"

1987: Windows 2.0 released.
THE MANAGEMENT: "No, really, Windows isn't that big a deal, OS/2 is the future. But for now, develop for Windows and you can port to OS/2 later! Here, look, we've got some apps for it!"

1988: Windows 2.1, Windows/286, Windows/386
WINDOWS DEVELOPERS: "Hey, we have some cool ideas about the 286 and 386. We could really use the extra memory!"

1990: Windows 3.0
THE MANAGEMENT: "Uh-oh. OS/2 is bombing. What to do we do now?"
WINDOWS DEVELOPERS: "Well, we could borrow the look and feel from OS/2 - you know, that app manager thing, File Manager, the proportional fonts and 3D widgets, stuff like that, give it virtual memory support and a few other hacks we had in mind, and bring all three editions into one?"
THE MANAGEMENT: "OK, go for it. It'll have to do for now."
(Shortly after the release, the dust settles and a stunned silence falls.)
THE MANAGEMENT: "Bloody hell. They bought it! Forget OS/2, this is the future!"
[Meanwhile, in Finland, a bored Comp Sci student thinks "I'm sick of this QL, I want a 386 with Unix. Only I can't afford Unix. I think I'll write my own."]

Early 1992: Windows 3.1
THE MANAGEMENT: "Oops. Multimedia. It needs that built in. IBM, here, you have OS/2. We'll, um, work on OS/2 3 with this Dave Cutler chap from DEC. Yeah, OS/2 3, that's it. All new technology."

Late 1992: Windows for Workgroups
THE MANAGEMENT: "And networking! We need networking!"

1993: NT 1.0, I mean, 3.1
MARKETING: "Here's NT! It's not OS/2 at all, it's Windows, look! It's the future!"

1995: Windows 95
16-BIT WINDOWS DEVELOPERS: "Hey, we've got some nifty ideas for tarting up the shell a bit. We could call it Windows 4!"
THE MANAGEMENT: "All right, but you're not calling it that 'cos it'd sound more advanced than NT. Speaking of which, you'd better make it 32-bit."
16-BIT WINDOWS DEVELOPERS: "Errr... OK. We can do that. Kinda."
MARKETING DEPT: "OK, so, lots of stuff doesn't work on NT, so here's Windows 95, it's, er, your migration path to NT! Yes, that's it!"

Windows NT 4
THE MANAGEMENT: "Oh bugger. Now 95 looks better than NT. Look, forget that Cairo stuff for now, let's bung the 95 interface on NT and call it NT4! Yeah! That's the real future!"

1996: Windows 95B OSR2
THE MANAGEMENT: "What did you say? You ess bee? What's that, then?"
LEGAL TEAM: "No, you honour, IE really is part of Windows, it's integral and everything. OK, so, we forgot to include it in 95 v1.0, it was part of the Plus Pack, but you need it. It's part of 95 OSR2. Look, if we remove it, Windows stops working."
LEGAL TEAM: "Oh, when Larry Lessig removes it, it still does work? Well, what does he know?"
LEGAL TEAM: "No, your honour, we wouldn't dream of stomping on Netscape, this isn't a bundled product, you told us not to do that last time."

1998: Windows 98
THE MANAGEMENT: "Shit, NT 5.0 still doesn't work, look, bung out a fixed version of 95… Give them, I don't know, multi-head support or something…"

1999: Windows 98SE
THE MANAGEMENT: "What do you mean the fixed version doesn't work? Oh, for god's sake…"

2000: Windows ME, Windows 2000
THE MANAGEMENT: "Here's NT5! Isn't it nice? Look, power management, plug and play, all that stuff that that nasty little 95 team had five years ago! No, it won't run 98 drivers. No, it won't run NT drivers either. No, not all DOS stuff works. No, it's not great for games. All right, shut up, here, have another version of 98, call it… Well, we know the millennium's not 'til next year, but it's close enough. Yeah, Millennium Edition. What, they can't spell "millennium"? Well call it something cuddly, then."

2001: Windows XP
MARKETING DEPT: "OK, look, we're really sorry about ME, all right? We're killing it off now. Finally. Here, try this, it's shiny!"

2003: Windows Server 2003

THE MANAGEMENT: "Look, it's been two years, we've had service packs and everything, it must be stable enough by now!"

2004: (...)
THE MANAGEMENT: "What do you mean it still doesn't work? Try harder!"

2005: (...)

"MAKE IT WORK! FOR GOD'S SAKE, MAKE IT WORK! Well, throw it away and use the server version then, that seems all right. Look, they won't know the difference, drop the database stuff, nobody remembers what we said in 1995 now! That was ten years ago! "Apple has what? 3D acceleration? So, we have DirectX. What, in the desktop? Really? What, even Stallman's beardie-weirdies have it? Oh hell. Right, you lot, make it look like this!"

2006: Windows Vista
THE MANAGEMENT: "Look, if we trickle it out to those mugs, I mean, valued customers who've already paid, we can say we released it this year and it'll buy us some more time…"

2007: No, really Windows Vista, honest

MARKETING DEPT: "Never mind the features, look at it! Isn't it shiny? Yes! Pretty!"



Membru Senior
Aug 9, 2004
A history of Linux

1991 OK, it sucks, but wait till next year

2009 OK, it sucks, but wait till next year


questionable intruder
Aug 1, 2004
war4peace, e cruntul adevar. Eu la munca, imi petrec mai nou 70% din timpul alocat rezolvarii problemelor software cu probleme cauzate de antivirus, antispam, anticeva. 30% sunt probleme din cauza virusurilor sau alte probleme software.
Sa vezi ce fain e cand iti pune pe butuci un server Exchange, un F-Secure for MS Exchange, cand un Kaspersky face ca la next reboot Windows 2003 sa dea BSOD si sa plangi pe langa el cu diverse metode de resuscitare, cand McAfee nu se mai dezinstaleaza si isi lasa servicile pornite fara drept de oprire nici macar pentru administrator si tot asa.


Membru Senior
Sugar daddy
Jun 27, 2005
war4peace, e cruntul adevar. Eu la munca, imi petrec mai nou 70% din timpul alocat rezolvarii problemelor software cu probleme cauzate de antivirus, antispam, anticeva. 30% sunt probleme din cauza virusurilor sau alte probleme software.
In cazul meu, procentul e tocmai invers. In ultima jumatate de an Conficker/Downadup mi-au mancat zilele. Concluzia la care am ajuns este ca nici un antivirus/sntispyware/firewall nu compenseaza pentru necunoasterea utilizatorilor in exploatarea calculatorului. :frown:


questionable intruder
Aug 1, 2004
Conficker mi-a mancat timp de lucru efectiv vreo 3-4 zile. McAfee vreo saptamana.
Conficker nu ma prea afecta cu mare lucru. McAfee imi facea statiile de lucru sa mearga ca rasnitele.
Top Bottom