Eraser 6 requires dotnet 3.5 or higher.
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Hail Ceaser
Next: anthology of anthems
From: Nicetameetya on 15 Dec 2009 23:22 [Default] On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:52:50 -0800, John Corliss <q34wsk20(a)yahoo.com> told us in complete confidence: >Guess I'll see if I can still get version 5.84 to run. What a PITA mess >this is. Just downloaded it from: http://www.afterdawn.com/software/download_splash.cfm/eraser
From: John Corliss on 16 Dec 2009 01:33 John Corliss wrote: > John Corliss wrote (regarding Eraser): > > Soooo... I tried to install 5.8.8 and it installed, but when I tried to > run it I got the following error message (direct copy and paste): > > --------------------------- > Setup > --------------------------- > Unable to execute file: C:\Program Files\Eraser\eraser.exe CreateProcess > failed; code 14001. This application has failed to start because the > application configuration is incorrect. Reinstalling the application may > fix this problem. > --------------------------- > OK > --------------------------- > > Guess I'll see if I can still get version 5.84 to run. What a PITA mess > this is. I used my archived copy of the 5.84 installer. Took about 30 seconds to run it and for everything to be back to normal, back where it was before I tried to update the version. -- John Corliss BS206. Using News Proxy, I block all Google Groups posts due to Googlespam, and all x-privat.org posts due to forgeries posted through that service. No ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
From: John Corliss on 16 Dec 2009 01:37 C.Joseph Drayton wrote: > On 12/15/2009 3:36 PM, Dave wrote: >> >> The reason for not supporting the old code is that the old code was not >> designed to run on the operating systems of today and functions do not >> work as expected. Eraser 6 was redesigned to ensure that it will match >> the coding standards and fit into the software ecosystem like any other >> "modern" application" >> > > As an old-school programmer, I read statements like the above and I have > to say the concept annoys me. > > In theory because of the number of (in this case) Windows platforms in > use and the wide variety of hardware that it runs on, they needed to > standardize the programming. > > So Microsoft in order to 'fix' holes in the operating systems designs > and capabilities created add yet another level between the user and the > the computer. > > Now I will admit that there is a huge amount of hardware out there, and > yes I will admit that writing software that works under any 32b Windows > is a pain, but what you find is that the programmer that does this gives > you leaner, sometimes faster software. > > By creating this this huge run-time package, Microsoft has given itself > another TRY at making sure that the application will work with it > operating system. > > I object to this because I learned one should always use the proper tool > for the job . . . "You can kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer, but it > is more efficient to use a fly-swatter". > > By having this .NET as your sole/primary development environment, you > are limited to the tools contained there-in. Over the last 30+ years I > have learned a number of different languages because different languages > were designed to build different types of applications. There are times > when I actually still run GWBASIC for down and dirty playing (it is a > fast and simple interpreter (ie. no compile time)) with some math concepts. > > It is my belief that most things generic do a lot of things > average/poorly rather than a few things good/well. Well said, all of your remarks. Microsoft bloat is why people can take something like a 486DX computer, put Linux on it and have an acceptably running machine. It's mainly marketing strategy that compels Microsoft to do the kind of things that they do, frankly. But then, most of us know that. -- John Corliss BS206. Using News Proxy, I block all Google Groups posts due to Googlespam, and all x-privat.org posts due to forgeries posted through that service. No ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
From: Guillaume Le Stubb on 16 Dec 2009 04:31 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:37:45 -0800, John Corliss wrote: > Well said, all of your remarks. Microsoft bloat is why people can take > something like a 486DX computer, put Linux on it and have an acceptably > running machine. > > It's mainly marketing strategy that compels Microsoft to do the kind of > things that they do, frankly. But then, most of us know that. Oh! please, in the real world many of us are running several VM's, heavyweight apps, database servers, multiple screens, music, multimedia, backups running, RDP and VPN connections, real time AV, and a host of other things concurrently. We want a competent desktop OS that can do this and more with the right hardware. -- Le Stubb
From: a on 16 Dec 2009 08:16
"Yrrah" <Yrrah-acf(a)acf.invalid> wrote > Time to look for an alternative secure data removal tool. Why? The old Eraser still works, doesn't it? |