Just How Many "Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable" packs Do We Need ?

[Trimble Bracegirdle]

Not OT as most game installers require these.

There are releases 2005 , 2008, 2010 in 32 Bit & 64 bit versions .
The releases are updated so that there is a 'newish' "Microsoft Visual C++
2005 Redistributable" on M/S site.
The releases have long version numbers appended.
Its my understanding is that these are 3 different, rather than
updated Libraries. That are all 3 are needed. ???
The 32 bit will be OK on 64 bit O/S .(it is said)

A few weeks ago I had a tidy around my Win 7 64 bit install
& found a number... 6 or more...in Control Panel/Add Remove Programs
of these... 2 or 3 of the same release with different version numbers.
I removed the lot & installed the latest versions of all 3 from Microsoft's
site.
Since then I have installed / reinstalled a number of Games which
would had there own MS Visual C++ installs.

I have just noticed Add Remove Programs lists 2 copies
of 2008 32bit AND 2 of 2008 64 Bit with slightly different version numbers.
??!!
I have removed all but one 2008 64 bit, one 2010 64bit .
The 2005 I installed a few weeks back has vanished !
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse (What Is He supposed To Do ??)

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:45:25 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-...@never.spam> wrote:

> (What Is He supposed To Do ??)

For best results, don't screw with them. Let the game install what it
wants and leave it there.

There was a time when there was "shared component" thinking, which
lead to "DLL hell". Problem was that one application could want one
version of a DLL and another application would want a different one.
Installing a newer version might break one app but not the other.

I think the last time I had any sort of DLL versioning conflict was
probably around 2004 or 2005. Just let games do their thing and don't
try to second guess what the developer might have intended. Its only
disk space and disk space is cheap.

[WDS]

On 10/4/2011 5:07 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:45:25 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
> <no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>
>> (What Is He supposed To Do ??)
>
> For best results, don't screw with them. Let the game install what it
> wants and leave it there.
>
> There was a time when there was "shared component" thinking, which
> lead to "DLL hell". Problem was that one application could want one
> version of a DLL and another application would want a different one.
> Installing a newer version might break one app but not the other.

Exactly.

I remember regularly reinstalling Windows 98 to clean things up and then
only installing a few programs at a time trying to figure out which one
was screwing up the others. It was a total PITA.

[Carl Lundstedt]

Rin Stowleigh wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:45:25 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
> <no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>
>> (What Is He supposed To Do ??)
>
> For best results, don't screw with them. Let the game install what it
> wants and leave it there.
>

IOW: Harddrive space is pretty cheap, your gaming time is not.

Or

How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Bomb, or Windows, or Bill
Gates....

Carl

[Ross Ridge]

Trimble Bracegirdle <no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>Not OT as most game installers require these.

Yah, as others have said you shouldn't uninstall them. There's supposed to
be lots and lots of them, I've a couple of dozen installed on my machine.
You can have problems with updated versions of the Microsoft C++ runtime
breaking programs, but you can also have problems with old buggy versions
of the runtime breaking programs.

If nothing is broken, do not try to fix it.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //

[Xocyll]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:45:25 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
><no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>
>> (What Is He supposed To Do ??)
>
>For best results, don't screw with them. Let the game install what it
>wants and leave it there.

I wouldn't mind if it actually put them somewhere out of the way - but
when it's leaving loads of stuff in the root of a drive it gets
annoying.

>There was a time when there was "shared component" thinking, which
>lead to "DLL hell". Problem was that one application could want one
>version of a DLL and another application would want a different one.
>Installing a newer version might break one app but not the other.

If a game requires a particular third-party redistributable, it belongs
in the game directory, not in the root of another drive.

I like a tidy system, with everything in it's place - having random
programs install 3rd-party addons all over the place offends me on many
levels.

>I think the last time I had any sort of DLL versioning conflict was
>probably around 2004 or 2005. Just let games do their thing and don't
>try to second guess what the developer might have intended. Its only
>disk space and disk space is cheap.

So you don't tweak your games at all?
After all, you're second guessing the developer by not playing it with
their default settings like they intended you to.

Xocyll

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:33:38 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
>of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:45:25 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
>><no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>>
>>> (What Is He supposed To Do ??)
>>
>>For best results, don't screw with them. Let the game install what it
>>wants and leave it there.
>
>I wouldn't mind if it actually put them somewhere out of the way - but
>when it's leaving loads of stuff in the root of a drive it gets
>annoying.

You have VC++ redist in the root directory of your drive? How did you
do that?

>>There was a time when there was "shared component" thinking, which
>>lead to "DLL hell". Problem was that one application could want one
>>version of a DLL and another application would want a different one.
>>Installing a newer version might break one app but not the other.
>
>If a game requires a particular third-party redistributable, it belongs
>in the game directory, not in the root of another drive.

(see question above)

>I like a tidy system, with everything in it's place - having random
>programs install 3rd-party addons all over the place offends me on many
>levels.

We all like a tidy system. The VC++ redist package is not a 3rd party
add-on, though. Firefox and Chrome are good examples of 3rd party
crap with lots of addon / spyware opportunities.

>>I think the last time I had any sort of DLL versioning conflict was
>>probably around 2004 or 2005. Just let games do their thing and don't
>>try to second guess what the developer might have intended. Its only
>>disk space and disk space is cheap.
>
>So you don't tweak your games at all?
>After all, you're second guessing the developer by not playing it with
>their default settings like they intended you to.

Not to save a couple of megs of hard disk space, hell no. I've got
something like 70 steam games games installed right now on my game
drive and its only half full. Why would I want to go chasing pennies
into a busy street?

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 01:33:44 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:53:16 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Rin Stowleigh
>wrote:

>
>>>I wouldn't mind if it actually put them somewhere out of the way - but
>>>when it's leaving loads of stuff in the root of a drive it gets
>>>annoying.
>>
>>You have VC++ redist in the root directory of your drive? How did you
>>do that?
>

>I've had that happen too. I think it's just the installer files. I deleted them
>and there don't seem to be any ill effects.
>
>(Some of the VC++ redist installers would show up in the root of my external
>drive. I think they just extracted to the drive with the most space.)

Thats what I was thinking too, an application might have extracted
some files there and failed to clean them up due to some other error
aborting part of the install routine?

Either way, VC++ redist is not just a common component to game
installers. Some of the files (like MFC and ATL libraries) are
fundamental to Windows itself, and lots of applications ship with
their own copies of the libraries to avoid versioning problems of a
decade or so ago. So if someone does find these files in their root,
it may or may not be a game install that did it, and it's certainly
not Microsoft's doing.

[Mark P. Nelson]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:o2br87d7riu0iorb6...@4ax.com:

>
> Either way, VC++ redist is not just a common component to game
> installers. Some of the files (like MFC and ATL libraries) are
> fundamental to Windows itself, and lots of applications ship with
> their own copies of the libraries to avoid versioning problems of a
> decade or so ago. So if someone does find these files in their root,
> it may or may not be a game install that did it, and it's certainly
> not Microsoft's doing.
>

Yeah, every time I install LibreOffice I end up with the installation files
for the VC++ redistibution littering the root directory of the drive I
installed it from. Very annoying, but definitely not Microsoft's fault.

Mark.

--
While I'll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the
same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of
deliberate.--V.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:00:47 +0000 (UTC), "Mark P. Nelson"
<markp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:o2br87d7riu0iorb6...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> Either way, VC++ redist is not just a common component to game
>> installers. Some of the files (like MFC and ATL libraries) are
>> fundamental to Windows itself, and lots of applications ship with
>> their own copies of the libraries to avoid versioning problems of a
>> decade or so ago. So if someone does find these files in their root,
>> it may or may not be a game install that did it, and it's certainly
>> not Microsoft's doing.
>>
>
>Yeah, every time I install LibreOffice I end up with the installation files
>for the VC++ redistibution littering the root directory of the drive I
>installed it from. Very annoying, but definitely not Microsoft's fault.
>
>Mark.

I think I've gotten accustomed to "clean living through Steam". All
the games I've bought over the last 4 or 5 years were through Steam,
and I think that might be protecting me from some of the horrors of
installation routines.

I can't remember the last time I've had to deal with a registry issue,
BSODs, or any of the other problems that used to be par for the course
when gaming on Windows.

Although, I'm not sure how much of that is because of the Steam
purchases or just improvements to Windows itself.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:03:39 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:30:52 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Rin Stowleigh
>wrote:
>

>To be more specific, the one time it happened to me was after a Steam
>preinstall run, Rin. I think it was one of the "Humble Bundle" games. Suffice
>it to say that if there's a Steam install prerequisite routine (DirectX redist
>is a common one), Steam really can't control or manage that particular
>component. All they can do is blacklist the game. Looks like one of my indy
>games uses the same libraries as LibreOffice.
>
>A minor nuissance to be sure, but Steam is no guarantee. It still uses third
>party installers for runtime environments, the HAL, and other libraries.

Yep, understood. I didn't mean to imply its a guarantee, I've just
found that many older titles install cleanly through Steam and the
overall installation experience tends to go smoother. This could be
because the installation through Steam is tested on a recent version
of the OS before its deployed, whereas that DVD sitting on my shelf
from 6 years ago is still as it existed when Windows XP was still
relevant.

If you've noticed, in many cases you get the status message about VC++
redist installing as Steam message rather than a regular Windows
dialog, which seems to indicate the install routine has been modified
such Steam is executing some or all of the .msi files rather than just
launching off a fire and forget setup.exe. Probably some powershell
scripting going on (or maybe Steam has its own installation script
language... this is the first time I've spent any amount of time
thinking about it).

[Xocyll]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:33:38 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
>>of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>>On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:45:25 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
>>><no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (What Is He supposed To Do ??)
>>>
>>>For best results, don't screw with them. Let the game install what it
>>>wants and leave it there.
>>
>>I wouldn't mind if it actually put them somewhere out of the way - but
>>when it's leaving loads of stuff in the root of a drive it gets
>>annoying.
>
>You have VC++ redist in the root directory of your drive? How did you
>do that?

I didn't, the program installer did.
The one thing that might have confused it, is that I _never_ install
games in c:\program files, nor to drive:\company name\game name,
they're always on the games drive in the games name (IE E:\Fallout3
which I'm currently playing.)

I had multiple copies of VC++ redist packages in the root of the J:
drive - I didn't put them there, nor did any install program even
mention it was installing them.

I also had multiple "temporary" install directories created by all kinds
of things, (some of them years old) when I recently sorted through
everything prior to a major reinstall recently (new hard drives.)
Most of them were not even in the system temp directory, but secreted
away wherever the install program felt like sticking them, again with no
input from me.

The previous system had most applications installed to the applications
drive, yet "temporary" install directories were strewn across 12 drives.

When did they lose track of what temporary means? Install, then delete
your crap already.

>>>There was a time when there was "shared component" thinking, which
>>>lead to "DLL hell". Problem was that one application could want one
>>>version of a DLL and another application would want a different one.
>>>Installing a newer version might break one app but not the other.
>>
>>If a game requires a particular third-party redistributable, it belongs
>>in the game directory, not in the root of another drive.
>
>(see question above)
>
>>I like a tidy system, with everything in it's place - having random
>>programs install 3rd-party addons all over the place offends me on many
>>levels.
>
>We all like a tidy system. The VC++ redist package is not a 3rd party
>add-on, though. Firefox and Chrome are good examples of 3rd party
>crap with lots of addon / spyware opportunities.

The game company didn't write the VC++ redist, so it is indeed a 3rd
party addon, just as directX is which is also included with just about
every game.

>>>I think the last time I had any sort of DLL versioning conflict was
>>>probably around 2004 or 2005. Just let games do their thing and don't
>>>try to second guess what the developer might have intended. Its only
>>>disk space and disk space is cheap.
>>
>>So you don't tweak your games at all?
>>After all, you're second guessing the developer by not playing it with
>>their default settings like they intended you to.
>
>Not to save a couple of megs of hard disk space, hell no. I've got
>something like 70 steam games games installed right now on my game
>drive and its only half full. Why would I want to go chasing pennies
>into a busy street?

Some people have less space and computers that aren't used only for
games.

There are still developers out there that don't have much of a clue -
remember Pool of Radiance 2 - that would only install to c:.
The one with the uninstaller that if it was interrupted would wipe the
whole drive? Which of course was the OS drive.

I'll second guess the developers all I want - it's why my system runs
without error (and without reinstalls all the time.)

Even games want to install things by default that _every_ player doesn't
need - I always custom install and skip the things I'll never have any
use for.
I may have a couple of terabyte drives now, but I've had years of
smaller drives and space limitations, so it's pretty firmly ingrained in
me.

Just as I'll second guess the developers of apps I download.
I recently was looking for a music converter and the first one I
downloaded got deleted uninstalled. Why? Because the developer coded
their installer to not only install the app, but to force install
another app of theirs as well (some kind of file browser) and there was
no choice in the matter other than canceling the install.

Developers are just as capable of error as anyone else.

Equally bad, since the AMD/ATi merger - installing the motherboard
drivers for my AMD system requires installing the ATi Catalyst install
thing - even though I run an nVidia card.
[I Installed the driver, then force removed Catalyst.]

Yeah, I'll keep second guessing them, thanks anyway.

Xocyll

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:46:23 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:12:49 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Rin Stowleigh

>Ha, I just installed the old Crysis SP demo for a lark, and it dropped
>msdia80.dll in my root after installing VC++ 2005 redist. Go figure.
>
>Totally deletable. The thing was nowhere to be found in the registry. No clsid,
>completely unregistered, so no package would have the slightest idea where to
>find it.

LOL! Yes, demos are probably high-risk culprits for this sort of
thing, because they are apt to be pushed out the door with less
testing, before any patches have been applied to the game.

You might look at your event log and see if some kind of error
occurred during the process (a lot of older installs assume local
admin rights are present or other things that can invisibly barf).
That is the biggest culprit for temporary files not being cleaned up.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:42:53 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>

That theory works as long as an error doesn't occur mid-way through
the process that ends in termination of the process that was supposed
to clean up the files.

The whole process could be fully transactional (all succeed or all
fail and no middle ground) -- and Microsoft does strongly encourage
best practices, but perhaps gives the software vendor a little too
much freedom sometimes, just as Windows itself allows the end user a
little too much freedom to fuck up their own machine if they try hard
enough.

Sometimes the cost of this freedom is that it comes down to a choice
on the software vendor's part of whether to allow the installation
routine to continue on failure, allowing the user to play the game at
the expense of having a few stray/harmless files left over that are
unsightly but otherwise inconsequential. I suspect at some point the
vendor decides that its better to let a few unfortunate people end up
with a few stray files rather than have floods of whiners on the
support forum complaining that they can't play their game.

The alternative to this freedom of choice you get with Windows is to
have a system like Apple where things are dictated to the software
vendor, do it the Apple way or you're banned from selling your app
through the store. Only problem is, Apple has a tendancy to change
their mind about their own standards more frequently than a 12 year
old girl, and the whole process can be such a pain in the arse to deal
with that in some cases, a developer just says enough is enough and
avoids developing for the platform.

>>>>There was a time when there was "shared component" thinking, which
>>>>lead to "DLL hell". Problem was that one application could want one
>>>>version of a DLL and another application would want a different one.
>>>>Installing a newer version might break one app but not the other.
>>>
>>>If a game requires a particular third-party redistributable, it belongs
>>>in the game directory, not in the root of another drive.
>>
>>(see question above)
>>
>>>I like a tidy system, with everything in it's place - having random
>>>programs install 3rd-party addons all over the place offends me on many
>>>levels.
>>
>>We all like a tidy system. The VC++ redist package is not a 3rd party
>>add-on, though. Firefox and Chrome are good examples of 3rd party
>>crap with lots of addon / spyware opportunities.
>
>The game company didn't write the VC++ redist, so it is indeed a 3rd
>party addon, just as directX is which is also included with just about
>every game.

So your Windows operating system is a third party addon too, I guess?

>>>>I think the last time I had any sort of DLL versioning conflict was
>>>>probably around 2004 or 2005. Just let games do their thing and don't
>>>>try to second guess what the developer might have intended. Its only
>>>>disk space and disk space is cheap.
>>>
>>>So you don't tweak your games at all?
>>>After all, you're second guessing the developer by not playing it with
>>>their default settings like they intended you to.
>>
>>Not to save a couple of megs of hard disk space, hell no. I've got
>>something like 70 steam games games installed right now on my game
>>drive and its only half full. Why would I want to go chasing pennies
>>into a busy street?
>
>Some people have less space and computers that aren't used only for
>games.

I use my PC for much more than games, including work (software
development) and music production. Hard disk space is still cheap,
what you use your PC for does not change that.

>There are still developers out there that don't have much of a clue -
>remember Pool of Radiance 2 - that would only install to c:.
>The one with the uninstaller that if it was interrupted would wipe the
>whole drive? Which of course was the OS drive.

In any true software development environment (of the teamsize that
produces mainstream gaming titles for example), the developers have
pretty much nothing to do with the installation routine. That job is
assumed by a "packaging specialist", "installation specialist",
"configuration manager", or similar position, not a software engineer.

And, since most of them are not of the same caliber when it comes to
technical skills as actual developers, sometimes the symptoms you
describe are a side effect of their own lack of knowledge, but
sometimes it is a side effect of other things -- the biggest culprit
is management putting pressure on them to get the game out the door or
placing lower priority on the installation routine. The ultimate onus
relies on quality assurance team (again, a team of folks who are not
developers) to find problems with the installation routine and
communicate them to the configuration guy. If management rushes
things to the point quality is sacrificed, you can almost be certain
there is an accounting or finance douchebag to blame somewhere.
Someone who cares more about meeting a deadline based on fiscal
quarters than making sure all the bases are covered. So, not counting
the one-man-software-company kind of app or utility where one guy
tries to do everything (and probably does most of it poorly as a
result of spreading himself too thin), blaming the developers for this
is about as misaligned as you can get. It would be more accurate to
blame the bean counters, as they are at the root of the cause.

>I'll second guess the developers all I want - it's why my system runs
>without error (and without reinstalls all the time.)

>Even games want to install things by default that _every_ player doesn't
>need - I always custom install and skip the things I'll never have any
>use for.
>I may have a couple of terabyte drives now, but I've had years of
>smaller drives and space limitations, so it's pretty firmly ingrained in
>me.

While you're absolutely entitled to custom installs, that is probably
the biggest culprit leading to the stray files you're complaining
about.

>Just as I'll second guess the developers of apps I download.
>I recently was looking for a music converter and the first one I
>downloaded got deleted uninstalled. Why? Because the developer coded
>their installer to not only install the app, but to force install
>another app of theirs as well (some kind of file browser) and there was
>no choice in the matter other than canceling the install.

Again, that forced install of an app you did not want is a decision
made by whoever is managing that company. If its a tiny company,
theres a chance the developer is also acting manager, but it is his
management decision you've identified as the problem.

>Developers are just as capable of error as anyone else.

Understatement of the year. Some say that the entire act of writing
software is a process of creating errors, then sculpting those errors
into a set of conditions that pass feasibility tests or quality
standards. By default, most of the code that rolls off your
fingertips will barf in the debugger without proper testing and
attention. Only a committment from management to a quality product
will ensure that proper testing and attention to fixing as many
erroneous cases as possible. Sadly, that takes us back to the fact
that there is always pressure to "hurry up", whether that pressure is
coming from a CFO somewhere or a bunch of whiney cunts on a forum
going "when is my damn game going to be be released! I want it now!".

>Equally bad, since the AMD/ATi merger - installing the motherboard
>drivers for my AMD system requires installing the ATi Catalyst install
>thing - even though I run an nVidia card.
>[I Installed the driver, then force removed Catalyst.]
>
>Yeah, I'll keep second guessing them, thanks anyway.

You'll be guessing, for sure! LOL

[Xocyll]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:00:47 +0000 (UTC), "Mark P. Nelson"
><markp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:o2br87d7riu0iorb6...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>> Either way, VC++ redist is not just a common component to game
>>> installers. Some of the files (like MFC and ATL libraries) are
>>> fundamental to Windows itself, and lots of applications ship with
>>> their own copies of the libraries to avoid versioning problems of a
>>> decade or so ago. So if someone does find these files in their root,
>>> it may or may not be a game install that did it, and it's certainly
>>> not Microsoft's doing.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, every time I install LibreOffice I end up with the installation files
>>for the VC++ redistibution littering the root directory of the drive I
>>installed it from. Very annoying, but definitely not Microsoft's fault.
>>
>>Mark.
>
>I think I've gotten accustomed to "clean living through Steam". All
>the games I've bought over the last 4 or 5 years were through Steam,
>and I think that might be protecting me from some of the horrors of
>installation routines.

It may indeed, or you've just been lucky.

>I can't remember the last time I've had to deal with a registry issue,
>BSODs, or any of the other problems that used to be par for the course
>when gaming on Windows.

Funny thing, people always said it was par for the course, but a well
set up system just didn't have them. I never ran into most of the
"common" problems.

I can count on both hands the number of BSODs I've had over the years -
Win95, Win98, and WinXP all combined. I can't remember the last time I
saw one though.
Admittedly during the 95/98 period I was using the LiteStep replacement
shell, which may have had a benefit to stability.

I usually went years without any kind of reinstall, even on the versions
of windows people insisted had to be reinstalled regularly.

Of course I didn't fill my systems with viruses and spyware and badly
coded random apps (Comet Cursor and the like) although I saw firsthand
what doing so would do, since I was the primary go-to guy for friends
and family who hosed their systems.

Common sense and a willingness to actually learn something about
computers results in extremely stable and reliable computers, regardless
of the operating system.

>Although, I'm not sure how much of that is because of the Steam
>purchases or just improvements to Windows itself.

Or neither, a well set up and run system is far more crash and problem
resistant than one where everything is set to the install defaults.
Microsoft has had some pretty stupid default settings over the years.

I just wish they'd stop hiding settings in the name of making computers
"simpler" to use. Fuck simple, I want reliable and sometimes it's an
uphill battle to force windows not to do something stupid (like
installing multiple devices to one IRQ when there's enough free that
they do not need to share.)
How many crashes/lockups have people experienced over the years because
windows insisted on installing the video and sound cards on the same IRQ
and they did not play well together (Diablo2 looping sound crash ring a
bell?)
This seems to be far less of a problem under XP than 95/98, but since I
forced everything to be on separate IRQs (and wasn't that a chore) I
missed out on a great number of game crashes and other problems and
found 95/98 to be quite robust and stable.

I miss the days when you set jumpers on hardware and software didn't get
a say in matters. You set it up right the first time and it worked
without problems from then on.

Xocyll

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:14:37 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

In general, I agree with what you're saying about conscientious PC
ownership, and even at the height of the BSOD days (or I should say
the era of worst PC stability), experience with my own PCs was that
they were generally rock solid.

But on PCs I did not own, I did not always experience same. Just a
couple of years ago I had a brand new workstation at work that was
intended to be a "development server". The idiotic IT director whose
job it was to satisfy my request for equipment is still scratching his
head wondering what the term development server means, but basically
it was a workstation (i.e. would be sitting physically next to me)
that would have Windows Server installed on it instead of a
workstation OS. I was clear on every aspect of its intended use
before purchase, but I did not have much say so on things like the
brand to buy or exact specs, that was all an IT budgeting thing.

Well long story short, this machine was a BSOD cluster fuck from the
get go. Several components, including the chipset, the video card etc
were completely untested on Windows Server so it was a completely
unsupported scenario, this box he cleverly saved a few bucks by
purchasing. When I tried to solve the video problem, one of the IT
support lackies tossed me a dusty old nvidia Quadro card (I dont
remember the model but I looked it up and it had been released
something like 6 years before) he had laying on a shelf and said "here
try this".

Looking at what this company was paying me by the hour and how many
hours I spent trying to force that machine to do what it was not
designed to do, dealing with the crashes and whatnot, I'd estimate the
company literally threw somewhere between $15k-20k of lost labor money
straight out the window over the period of several weeks, in order to
effect a hardware purchase savings of a few hundred bucks. If I had
been allowed to spec and buy the hardware I really needed, it never
would have happened.

Another case in point -- I used to lead and run a gaming clan, and
some of the guys in it were quite technical but others were not.
Without fail, someone would occasionally post to the forums "hey guys!
I found this l33t tweak thats making my game run better", then someone
else says "ok meee tooo! lemmee try it out" and half the time it was
some configuration change that was most likely going some sort of
unforeseen consequence elsewhere. Over time, at least with the non-PC
experts, their uncanny ability to screw themselves, tweaking
themselves into a corner was mindblowingly predictable, but I learned
a long time ago that no amount of begging and pleading with them to
stop fixing things that aren't broken was going to stop their natural
propensity to "tweak stuff"... it made them feel technically sharp to
tweak stuff even if they were not. People feel smart when they tweak.

Anyway my point to all this is that although you and I might run a
tight ship on our own machines, they are not the only machines on the
planet. So, one thing nice about the current state of Windows 7 is
that it does help the average gamer who is not a true technical wiz to
not shoot themselves in the foot, at least not as often or severely.
Half of that clan I mentioned consisted of people who, if you gave
them access to IRQ jumpers they would probably find a way to get their
PC in a state where it wouldn't run games at all without freezing,
then they would spend the next 3 months constantly reformatting their
hard drive to fix the problem and "get that virus offa there!". lol.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:45:43 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Half of that clan I mentioned consisted of people who, if you gave
>them access to IRQ jumpers they would probably find a way to get their
>PC in a state where it wouldn't run games at all without freezing,
>then they would spend the next 3 months constantly reformatting their
>hard drive to fix the problem and "get that virus offa there!". lol.

After I typed that I started remembering certain instances of that
scenario above, and literally started laughing out loud. Partially at
the comic value of some of the shit these guys used to do to their
poor PCs, but I guess also I was laughing at relief that I am no
longer actively managing a clan so I don't deal with it on a daily
basis. Ahh..good times.

The same guys that would fuck their PC up the worst were the same guys
that would curse Microsoft on a weekly basis for what a crappy OS it
is! lol

Over the years I've learned that categorically, there is a 1-1
correlation between people who badmouth Windows or Microsoft in
general, and lack of technical knowledge. So whenever you hear
someone cursing Windows, they are mostly a "tweakster" -- a technical
danger to themselves and others.

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <j6hmd1$701$2...@dont-email.me>, Bi...@seurer.net says...

In those days the way around DLL hell was to install DLLs in the program
directory rather than the system directory. But that was an even bigger
waste of disk space, and not all installers would let you.

- Gerry Quinn

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <gu5u87p38akpvj5ev...@4ax.com>,
rstow...@gmail.com says...

> Someone who cares more about meeting a deadline based on fiscal
> quarters than making sure all the bases are covered. So, not counting
> the one-man-software-company kind of app or utility where one guy
> tries to do everything (and probably does most of it poorly as a
> result of spreading himself too thin), blaming the developers for this
> is about as misaligned as you can get.

The one-man software company apps rarely do much harm to your system.
It's always the big products that mess you up.

- Gerry Quinn

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 13:02:43 +0100, Gerry Quinn <ger...@gmail.com>
wrote:

True. Thats because the same person who makes the financial decisions
and has the last say on quality assurance also has to be the same
person who supports the app.

[Trimble Bracegirdle]

Why can't MS just collected all the needed bits from
"Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable" packs of all vintages
& bundle them into a update-able unit like DirectX ?
Which has a standard little installer that checks if any additions are
needed
& installs them ?

(\__/)
(='.'=)

(")_(") mouse (Hmmm.. that sounds simple)

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 23:32:59 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-...@never.spam> wrote:

>Why can't MS just collected all the needed bits from
>"Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable" packs of all vintages
>& bundle them into a update-able unit like DirectX ?
>Which has a standard little installer that checks if any additions are
>needed
>& installs them ?

Its sort of like that now. Just as there are multiple versions of
DirectX, there are multiple versions of VC++ redist.

Haven't you noticed that some games install DirectX even though you're
pretty sure you've already got every version on the planet on your
system?

Aside from that, it is just a generally accepted belief that the
packaging specialist or install package builder is better off to
include everything that is needed to install the game on a bare-bones
system. If he did not, and said "lets assume they already have VC++
and it is accessible via the registry" he runs the risk of his
assumption being wrong, then someone will inevitably say "why did they
assume I already have something I dont? Its stupid not to include
everything I need to run the game in the installer!" and similar
whining.

So why doesn't Microsoft just have one grand pack of files that's on
all Windows machines? Because things like the VC library evolve over
time. Features are added, bugs fixed, things optimized. Sometimes
those changes break backward compatibility, so if one central
all-knowing library sat centrally in some OS location, and a game is
written to run against that in the year 2008, that library will have
evolved such that in the year 2011 games written three years ago might
not work against it. So it makes more sense for the game to install
and maintain its own copy of the 2008 version.

I am trying to simplify things a bit to avoid going into deep
discussions of polymorphism, the history of COM and the Windows OS
itself, and the challenges of maintaining backward compatbility in the
world of professional software development.

The alternative is to just pull an Apple move and say "fuck it, we
broke backward compatibility and you're all screwed, buy the new
version and quit yer bitchen".

[Ross Ridge]

Trimble Bracegirdle <no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>Why can't MS just collected all the needed bits from
>"Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable" packs of all vintages
>& bundle them into a update-able unit like DirectX ?
>Which has a standard little installer that checks if any additions are
>needed
>& installs them ?

It's called Windows Update.

[Trimble Bracegirdle]

>>"It's called Windows Update."<<<<

Yes. When the other day I removed all VC++ redist from WIN 7 Control Panel
Except for 2008 64 bit & 2010 64 bit Update put 2008 32 Bit back in again .

(\__/)
(='.'=)

(")_(") mouse (See MS Does Care For You)

[Trimble Bracegirdle]

>>"It's called Windows Update."<<<<

Yes. When the other day I removed all VC++ redist from WIN 7 Control Panel
Except for 2008 64 bit & 2010 64 bit Update put 2008 32 Bit back in again .

(\__/)
(='.'=)

[Trimble Bracegirdle]

Sorry these out of place posts .. my News Server seems to have gone mad @@@