Computer Hope

Quote from: patio on November 05, 2010, 10:25:23 AM
The step by step guide for the Flash updates are Mozilla webpages...

The Mcaffee Opt-Out page is not. That is on Adobe.


there's also this...

Quote
   4. Follow the on-screen prompts until you reach our goal: a browser running an up-to-date version of Flash

Adobe and Mozilla both need to make this process easier for users. In summary, this is how it went:

    * Windows: 9 steps, 2 unnecessary software downloads from Adobe
    * Mac: 15 steps
    * Linux: 6 steps, high likelihood of failure or conflict with package manager

Safe to say that there are many ways we can improve this process:

    * Show specific warnings about which plugins are out of date
    * Don't have an intermediate step on the plugin checker
    * Do not have the McAfee opt-out on the Flash download page
    * Do not force people to download the XPI (Firefox could use an external installer + hash check like it does with PFS)
    * Eliminate any steps you can — get it down to a one-click experience if possible

A while ago I posted saying Avast! anti-virus has bundled Google chrome, yet the check boxes were not pre-ticked, I am saddened to say that I have done some fresh installs on some new clients machines and now not only is the "Install Google Chrome" box ticked but also "Make Google Chrome my default browser" is also ticked.

HP Advisor Dock - Changes your search engine to yahoo on startup.

The Internet Explorer 4 installer is the worst. It took over Windows 95 and NT4 systems and made them very slow by replacing stable system files with slower and unstable ones, even if you don't choose the enhanced desktop. I have a old 95 system (really old now, don't use it much) and it is really slow with IE4 junk.

Above: This is what happens to the desktop (not my screenshot). It becomes from a clean desktop (http://bit.ly/hjfFkL) to a very cluttered one invaded by Internet Explorer

I found one very interesting website at http://toastytech.com/evil/ieisevilstory.html explaining more detail about this

^Nonsense.^

*that is only what you get if you check off EVERYTHING in the installer. Otherwise Active Desktop will not be enabled. In fact, come to think of it, I don't think I got any checkboxes at all the check off. the only result was that I had an IE icon on the desktop. The horror! That looks more like an OEM customized version of Windows 95 OSR2.

I have an "old" Windows 98 System and it didn't run slow with IE4 junk, it doesn't run slow with "IE5 junk" either. Well, not slower then I would expect, it being 133Mhz and all. It didn't run noticably faster without either, anyway.

One cure-all solution in the windows 95 case is to simply not install IE of you don't want such "annoyances" as the quick-launch bar, sane Explorer windows, or a desktop that let's you have a background that isn't simply centered or tiled but also allows for stretch. (I think it allows you to use JPG and GIF as wallpaper; by default you can only use BMP and RLE.)

The site you linked, I've seen it before. Some idiot trying to live in the past. You can tell because the page itself is designed using barebones HTML. Additionally he seems to enjoy weaving conspiracy theories:

Quote
Microsoft began bundling or requiring Internet Explorer as a non-optional component of their software products. They even "convinced" many other software vendors to bundle Internet Explorer as well.

It was "non-optional" because the rendering engine was starting to be used more prevalently. Also, many features (such as the Rebar control, ListView, and Treeview controls) used functionality from IE (well, actually, no... what they did was the Common controls were part of IE4 but they were not redistributable; so vendors who used the controls had to check to see if IE4 was installed. his implication that Microsoft strong-armed vendors into doing this is nonsense, since they could have simply written their own controls and not installed IE4, but apparently they found it easier to do it that way. Their choice- not Microsoft's.

Quote
And as if forcing IE on all Windows users wasn't bad enough, Microsoft forced Apple to bundle IE for Mac as their default browser instead of Netscape. If Apple refused, Microsoft would discontinue MS-Office for Mac.

That is simply dead-wrong. Microsoft didn't force apple to do squat. In fact, If Microsoft had offered that ultimatum, Apple would have gladly declined, since one of the competitors to Office for the Mac was Appleworks as well as a few other Apple supported applications. Office for the mac was hardly the only choice people had- in fact it was not even a very popular one at the time. The two companies entered into a partnership. What reasons would apple have to choose the lesser of the two browsers (netscape)? It had already suffered several years up through 1997.

Many pages on the site are lies from what I seen (he said MS will take over the world but nobody can), but I should have looked at different web pages also. He should invest in a mac computer if he hates IE so much.

Anyway, the IE4 installer is still invasive. On 98 it includes IE4 with sidebar and enhanced explorer.

Also, the old 95 system I have would have been slow anyways, but IE4 makes it slower.

Quote from: BC_Programmer on February 17, 2011, 09:10:33 AM
^Nonsense.^

*that is only what you get if you check off EVERYTHING in the installer. Otherwise Active Desktop will not be enabled. In fact, come to think of it, I don't think I got any checkboxes at all the check off. the only result was that I had an IE icon on the desktop. The horror! That looks more like an OEM customized version of Windows 95 OSR2. quote]

That is an OEM customized version of Windows 95, but as he said - It isn't his computer. I have a 95 system, I tried ths out and the same thing occured, you DO get the active desktop enabled. It was a custom built 95 system and NOT a OEM install.

Quote from: immental1200 on June 07, 2011, 02:25:42 PM
you DO get the active desktop enabled. It was a custom built 95 system and NOT a OEM install.

Before IE4 install:



After IE4:



OMG! it replaced the Internet Icon with a Internet Explorer ICON! IT'S SO INVASIVE! MICROSOFT IS EVIL! Now, to be absolutely fair, it did have that channel bar (which I don't remember it having last time, perhaps I merely misremembered). But it's not like pressing the X on that was difficult. "Do you want the channel bar to start up again on next boot" "No" problem solved.

Also, no Active Desktop; HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\CLSID\ {AEB6717E-7E19-11d0-97EE-00C04FD91972}\InProcserver32  was still set to URL.DLL.

As for the IE4 installer being invasive: from that experience, where all it did was install IE4, I'm not seeing where that comes from. Clearly the installer I got doesn't include the Desktop Update; the ones that do, it's optional.

Which is still funny. People are constantly complaining, and were even then, that Microsoft is "forcing" people to upgrade their version of windows. And yet, then they release a desktop update for windows 95 to make it's shell more like windows 98 (translation: Not a P.O.S) and all people can do is complain and weave conspiracy theories. Did it take more resources? Of course it did; you were basically transmuting Windows 95 into Windows 98, just like the NT 3.51 Desktop update took more resources than using program manager. Windows XP Luna themes took more processing and graphics power than Windows 98 or 2000's, and Windows Vista and 7's Aero glass take even more. The only people that make a big deal out of this are chicken littles who insist the sky is falling because they can run the latest version of IE or Windows on their 486, or that installing the desktop update to a windows 95 computer makes it slower, as if that isn't to be expected for the features and abilities you get (like the aforementioned ability to actually use some sort of non-crap bitmap compression for your wallpapers). What makes it even better in this instance is all their "problems" could be averted by merely unchecking the box. Or not checking it to begin with (although presumably it defaults to checked). And, it can be uninstalled, so even if somebody claiming to be a careful PC user manages to install it by accident they could simply remove it.

Quote from: BC_Programmer on June 07, 2011, 03:39:12 PMthat channel bar

Ah, I remember that.  I didn't like it because it didn't really fit in with the rest of the interface so I removed it.  The closest thing MS has done since then was the Desktop Bar or whatever it was called that came with Vista.  I removed that too.

Is there any point in even updating this list? Lately I haven't seen a single installer without some kind of toolbar or extra software that they try trick you into installing.

It's ridiculous how crafty they are allowed to be. Recently I was installing something and I chose "Express Install" rather than custom because I was in a hurry - and the *censored* thing installed a toolbar into my browser. Apparently you have to choose "Custom" in order to deselect the stupid add-ons that come with the software.

I know way too many people who fall victim to these and have no clue how or why.

Quote from: drmsucks on September 20, 2008, 12:36:55 PM
Very nice, Broni

And a firm reminder to ALWAYS do a custom install, if possible. It is much better to 'not install' than to 'uninstall.'

I just leaned this after installing and uninstalling unnecessary crap over 10 times. Good Tip!!!

>>> Unchecky helps you avoid installing adware <<<

Pivot also gets you to install some stuff.