1. RE: Why do people still insist on including uneccessary files
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> It bothers me more when I download something that doesn't work. And with
> more versions of win32lib than you can shake a stick at, it's much
> easier to just include the lib.
>
> Chris
>
Chris,
I agree, I have a 56K modem that I connect to the internet with, and very
poor phone service (static and all) that causes me to connect at speeds
around 21 kps most times, and that's even slower.
I would rather click on a link and download 1 file that has everything I need
than to download a program, read a readme file and discover that I can not
run the program because it REQUIRES that I download another 2 or 3 or more
files in order to get the libraries it needs. Most of the time that is
enough to make me delete the program and not even look at it.
Please give me all necessary files in ONE download.
Later.
Ferlin Scarborough
Learn To Program Games in Free Courses At
http://www.gameuniv.net
My Euphoria Home Page
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft
2. RE: Why do people still insist on including uneccessary files
So basically what you're saying is that Everyone should include a copy of
Win32Lib with every program they release, just in case it's different than the
standard release! and so that it can bloat a download by an extra 350K for no
real reason!! You guys are Mad. Isn't it so much easier if the contributor
simply states in the description that it requires win32lib 0.52 (or above), et
voila!, smaller downloads, less storage, reduced bandwidth usage (Rob - you
should enforce this!) and a much easier to follow set of files - pertinant to the
product instead of mixed in with a pile of w32xxx stuff and so forth.
Take, for example, the recently contributed Labour.zip (400k) - requires
win32lib, eugrid. Actual files for the application itself amounts to a zip of 9k
(Yep! Nine kilobytes)
And was it worth the download - NO. Anyone could have got that in a couple of
seconds even on a slow 28k modem and, if they didn't have the required libraries,
then why did they download it in the first place??
Give really, really good reasons why people SHOULD include everything - not a
half-assed suggestion to waste our time.
Learn to think of others apart from just yourselves.
Dave
PS. My next upload will include the whole of the Windows OS just so you might
have it for a single line of code I wrote!!! (Sarcasm)
Ferlin Scarborough wrote:
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> >
> > It bothers me more when I download something that doesn't work. And with
> > more versions of win32lib than you can shake a stick at, it's much
> > easier to just include the lib.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> Chris,
>
> I agree, I have a 56K modem that I connect to the internet with, and very
> poor phone service (static and all) that causes me to connect at speeds
> around 21 kps most times, and that's even slower.
>
> I would rather click on a link and download 1 file that has everything I need
> than to download a program, read a readme file and discover that I can not
> run the program because it REQUIRES that I download another 2 or 3 or more
> files in order to get the libraries it needs. Most of the time that is
> enough to make me delete the program and not even look at it.
>
> Please give me all necessary files in ONE download.
>
> Later.
>
> Ferlin Scarborough
>
> Learn To Program Games in Free Courses At
> <a href="http://www.gameuniv.net">http://www.gameuniv.net</a>
>
> My Euphoria Home Page
> <a
> href="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft">http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft</a>
>
. .. : :: = == == = :: : .. .
Server-Side DB driven web sites,
Software Development
and part-time games developer
contact dave_p at purpletiger dot com
. .. : :: = == == = :: : .. .
3. RE: Why do people still insist on including uneccessary files
Dave Probert wrote:
>
> So basically what you're saying is that Everyone should include a copy of
> Win32Lib
> with every program they release, just in case it's different than the standard
> release!
> and so that it can bloat a download by an extra 350K for no real reason!! You
> guys
> are Mad. Isn't it so much easier if the contributor simply states in the
> description
> that it requires win32lib 0.52 (or above), et voila!, smaller downloads, less
> storage,
> reduced bandwidth usage (Rob - you should enforce this!) and a much easier to
> follow
> set of files - pertinant to the product instead of mixed in with a pile of
> w32xxx stuff
> and so forth.
>
Let's take a closer look at this case. I spend a few seconds on my dialup to
download a new program, unzip it and it tells me I need Win32Lib version 0.52
or above. I just happen to have version .60 if Win32Lib, I decide to use it,
it BOMBS because things have changed. Ok, I'll just get on the internet and
download version .52, I spend a minute or two trying to navigate to the
Win32Lib pages to download it, but wait a minute version .52 is no longer
available for download, now I have to spend more time trying to find that
older version, after 15 to 20 minutes of searching I finally find an older
version.
Whew, now I can run the program - oops I forgot it also needs a certain version
of say EuSQL or some other libraries, I spend MORE TIME trying to find older
versions of these libraries.
Finally, after wasting a whole day looking for these versions of the libraries
DOWNLOADING them at the amount of time it takes, installing them in the proper
place etc... Ok, now in total search time, downloading library time, I have
spent at least 1 to 1 1/2 hours of my time.
Would have been much easier just to spend 5, 10 or 15 minutes to download one
zip file with all that included, unzip it into the right place and execute it.
Wait a second, what if I WASTED 1 to 1.5 hours doing all that and found it I
just didn't like the program.
TRUST me this has happened to me personally, so I know, of course I liked the
programs, but it would have been better to spend a couple extra minutes with
the first download.
After all I will have to download these versions of the libraries anyway,
unless I just happen to have them already. Do you want to keep EVERY version
of Win32Lib ever released on your machine already just in the case that you
happen to download a program that needs it?
> Take, for example, the recently contributed Labour.zip (400k) - requires
> win32lib,
> eugrid. Actual files for the application itself amounts to a zip of 9k (Yep!
> Nine
> kilobytes)
>
> And was it worth the download - NO. Anyone could have got that in a couple of
> seconds
> even on a slow 28k modem and, if they didn't have the required libraries, then
> why
> did they download it in the first place??
>
> Give really, really good reasons why people SHOULD include everything - not a
> half-assed
> suggestion to waste our time.
>
> Learn to think of others apart from just yourselves.
>
> Dave
>
See the above case I spoke about. Are you telling me that just because I
already
do not have version .52 of Win32Lib, I should NOT download any programs that
require it?
I that not going to strongly restrict the programs that I CAN download. What
if it is a program I will find real handy or even educational, especially for
some newbie trying to look at other examples to learn with.
Sorry, would be a waste of my time to download that program because I don't
have all the libraries necessary to run it, can't learn from that one!
I don't mean this to sound like I'm putting down your sugesstion, because I
agree to a point, a smaller download is nicer sometimes.
But, someone new to Euphoria is not going to have all these libraries, and
then when they try to find say 0.52 of Win32Lib and discover there is no
link to it any more, well, that would be VERY DISCOURAGING don't you think?
> PS. My next upload will include the whole of the Windows OS just so you might
> have
> it for a single line of code I wrote!!! (Sarcasm)
>
Now that is funny roflmao. While your at it, make sure the OS is a more stable
version than I have. 
Longhorn anyone? LOL!
Later.
Ferlin Scarborough
Learn To Program Games in Free Courses At
http://www.gameuniv.net
My Euphoria Home Page
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft
4. RE: Why do people still insist on including uneccessary files
Ferlin Scarborough wrote:
>
> Dave Probert wrote:
> >
> But, someone new to Euphoria is not going to have all these libraries, and
> then when they try to find say 0.52 of Win32Lib and discover there is no
> link to it any more, well, that would be VERY DISCOURAGING don't you think?
>
> > PS. My next upload will include the whole of the Windows OS just so you
> > might have
> > it for a single line of code I wrote!!! (Sarcasm)
> >
>
> Now that is funny roflmao. While your at it, make sure the OS is a more
> stable
> version than I have.
>
> Longhorn anyone? LOL!
>
>
> Later.
>
> Ferlin Scarborough
>
Speaking of OS, the next version of Windows..
Windows Longhorn is supposibly designed to run on no less than a entry-level
computer in 2006. Just a 4-6 GHz Processor, 1 GB Ram, 64 MB 3D graphics card
for avalon subsystem, nice sound card, 500 GB to 1 TB Hard drive.
Imagine trying to play Doom 3 on top of such a CPU and graphic card
intensive OS. Its insane even for 2006. Look at XP.. it runs
satisfactory on a Pentium 2, 233 MHz, 128 MB ram, 8 MB graphics card, 8 GB
Hard drive.
And some of you people still use old Pentium 2s or worse?? LOL
Heres the solution...
Tell Microsoft that they can shove their "Longhorn up their !@#" 
And that .NET is fine on XP and below. Specially since it is now
multiplatform thanks to Mono.
