MSnumber1 Posted July 27, 2005 Author Share Posted July 27, 2005 (edited) I think it's been said elsewhere regarding the registry - it's not Microsoft's fault that other software companies misuse the registry. There's a lot of talk about moving program settings to XML files and leaving the registry (or whatever it turns into) for the OS (which I think would be a much better method).No, it's definitely their fault if they allow a crucial OS resource to be corrupted. Let's quit making excuses for Microsoft here and get down to the root of the problem. Windows is Microsoft's product. The registry is a crucial part of that product. If Windows was half as good as they say it is, it would be able to ensure that the registry is kept in a healthy state. It's not unreasonable for consumers to want things to "just work." And from a technical standpoint it would not be too much work for Microsoft to ensure that programs don't mess up the registry. It's simply stupid that they let the registry get corrupted, and even stupider to try and blame it on anyone but Microsoft for that bad design. Edited July 27, 2005 by MSnumber1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Zugec Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 2MSnumber1: Have you ever tried to write even a small program with plugins support? 2Zxian: In fact whole .NET platform is using xml instead of registry... And it is few years old stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 No, it's definitely their fault if they allow a crucial OS resource to be corrupted. Let's quit making excuses for Microsoft here and get down to the root of the problem. Windows is Microsoft's product. The registry is a crucial part of that product. If Windows was half as good as they say it is, it would be able to ensure that the registry is kept in a healthy state. It's not unreasonable for consumers to want things to "just work." And from a technical standpoint it would not be too much work for Microsoft to ensure that programs don't mess up the registry. It's simply stupid that they let the registry get corrupted, and even stupider to try and blame it on anyone but Microsoft for that bad design.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think you misread my statement... I said misuse. I think that most people would agree with me that the registry is potentially a very powerful tool, but it's a bit like playing with fire. Play too much with it and you could get burnt. Windows is Microsoft's product... but it has to work with everyone else's as well. Try finding a good way to manage all that, and then sell it to Microsoft for a lot of money. And as for the "technical standpoint" that you speak of... have anything to back that up? If it was that easy, wouldn't Microsoft have released a patch to change the way things work?With a post like that... it's pretty obvious that you don't like Windows... so why don't you switch to Linux? If Linux is half as good as some people say it is, why aren't we all using it? Apple doesn't really care about selling its products to everyone - they'd rather sell to a small, selective market. They could launch a huge marketing campaign for their computers like they did with the iPod, but they don't.I'm really tired of people bitching about Microsoft and not doing anything about it. I know lots of people who hate Windows, so they use Linux. They've got Linux working and that's the end of that one. Sitting here, using Windows and then complaining about it is pointless. Do some reading, learn your stuff, and then make educated comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSnumber1 Posted July 27, 2005 Author Share Posted July 27, 2005 2MSnumber1: Have you ever tried to write even a small program with plugins support? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It's a moot point weather I have written a program with plugins support. The point is that the design of the registry was bad. It is an important resource and M$ should have written their operating system in a way that ensures that there is no corruption of such a crucial resource. If they are moving away from using the registry, more power to them. This doesn't change the fact that the registry as it exists on most people pc's is a major flaw in the system due to poor design on M$'s part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSnumber1 Posted July 27, 2005 Author Share Posted July 27, 2005 And as for the "technical standpoint" that you speak of... have anything to back that up? If it was that easy, wouldn't Microsoft have released a patch to change the way things work?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>If M$ would have designed the registry in a mindful manner they wouldn't have left it to developers to clean things up properly after a program is removed. They would have done well to require the use of a standard installation procedure that includes some sort of monitoring of what is changed in the registry by a program. This is the simplest solution I can think of and would eliminate the issue of programs leaving crap behind in the registry. You say "If it was that easy, wouldn't Microsoft have released a patch to change the way things work?" The answer is "No, we are talking about Microsoft here!" They won't fix something like this when they can easily ignore it in the short term. They know most users will not bother to install such a patch and they would also have to worry about backwards compatibility with the old broken registry. The point is, if the registry wasn't designed so stupidly, this would never be an issue. There are no other modern operating systems that will crash because some user installed too many programs. Now, I'm not saying you can mess up other operating systems, but it's much easier to mess up Windows, you just have to use it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 That's not a technical standpoint...that's an opinion, and an uneducated opinion at that. Seriously... do some reading on how the registry works and how other Operating systems manage their systems. Just saying that it was stupidly designed without giving concrete proof (not just "some sort of monitoring") doesn't make your argument stand.So... to go back to the topic title here... if you don't like Windows, switch to Linux. Have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSnumber1 Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 That's not a technical standpoint...that's an opinion, and an uneducated opinion at that. Seriously... do some reading on how the registry works and how other Operating systems manage their systems. Just saying that it was stupidly designed without giving concrete proof (not just "some sort of monitoring") doesn't make your argument stand.So... to go back to the topic title here... if you don't like Windows, switch to Linux. Have fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The "concrete proof" that it was stupidly designed is that it fails so easily. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or someone who knows every detail about the registry to determine that if something is a crucial OS resource it shouldn't be able to become corrupted so easily. There is clearly no point in arguing with you since you seem to think there is nothing wrong with such a huge flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prathapml Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 If M$ would have designed the registry in a mindful manner they wouldn't have left it to developers to clean things up properly after a program is removed. They would have done well to require the use of a standard installation procedure that includes some sort of monitoring of what is changed in the registry by a program.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yeah right.And what will they gain in the process?More bashings from windows-haters, saying that MS wants to be a "big brother" and control everything...Poor MS, damned if they do, and damned if they dont!Most members on here will get the meaning of that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Hear, Hear, prathapml. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now