Nikon FDUtility
in [Scanners]
|
From: Don on 27 Jan 2006 11:36 On 26 Jan 2006 16:07:56 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> wrote: >And once you have (theoretically only, since it's not even feasible) >standardized the types of data needed for all existing apps, a new one >comes along that needs different data yet again. What do we need: a world- >wide repository of user settings semantics? Accessible over the Internet? >What if a computer user doesn't have Internet access? All that's a distraction... The point is *everything* can be standardized. This ranges from no standards (a free for all) to stifling overstandardization i.e. the point of diminishing returns. Reasonable standards sit somewhere around the middle. >> What does a user want from an (un)installer? > .... >2. Uninstallation of everything that was *installed* And here's where your requirements are far too modest! That's just not enough! >BUT that ignores the multi-user situation - which makes the simplified 1- >2-3 lists above a whole lot more complicated. Not really. Any multi-user OS handles that out of the box. It if doesn't, it's a bad OS i.e. we're back to sloppy programming i.e. what's easiest for programmers to do. Enter MS! >> Then, when the time comes to uninstall, automatic removal of all >> files *including* any files the program has generated because it needs >> them to operate! That does not include user *data*, of course, but it >> does include user *settings*, temp files, OS settings, etc. > >A user may *want* that - but I've already explained that it's just not >possible. No, you have not explained it and, of course, it's possible.! All along you're talking about user data. >Temporary files are the user's responsibility anyway - >who decides *how long* they should be kept? Only the user. You're missing the point. The user is often not even aware that they exist! That's the problem! If an application "pollutes" my system with temporary files I expect - no, *demand*! - it cleans up after itself instead of leaving "droppings" behind! Not only when I uninstall the application, but every time such files are created and are no longer needed. Only sloppy and buggy applications leave such files behind. >> In short, an uninstaller should *fully* restore to "status quo ante", >> (not a *partial* restore with bits left all over the place). > >It should bloody NOT! An uninstaller that does that to me will mean I will >never, ever even consider another version of that software, unless I'm >reassured it's bettered its life. An uninstaller should NOT touch *my* >data (or at most ask me friendly whether to remove what it knows how to >find). Anything else is just not well-behaved. Again, this has nothing to do with user data. >Sure, remove the *program* and anything it needs to start up. But do NOT >touch ANY data. See above. >> By contrast, removing all program related files (whether they existed >> at the time of initial installation or not) is meaningful > >No, it's impolite, to say the least. Hands off MY data! And not feasible >anyway. Your "just standardize" completely misses the reality of an >infinite set of semantics to describe all those data. See above. What you're saying is analogous to this: You buy a new shelf and hire a company to install it. In the process they drill holes in your walls in order to mount the shelf. Later on you decide you don't want it! The company comes back removes the shelf and just when they are about to fill in the holes in the walls and paint them over, you scream:' "NO! Those are *my* holes! Don't touch them!" I don't know about you, but most people would say to the company: Not only you make sure you fill in the holes but make sure I don't see the difference! Note: This has nothing to do with stuff you put on those shelfs (i.e. your data). But those holes in the wall were not there before the shelf came in, and they shouldn't be there after the shelf is removed. It's that simple! shelf = application holes (made by shelf!) = settings/tmp/etc. (made by application!) junk on shelves (put by user) = user data (put by users) >Do they try that? Try to retrofit dicsipline? Of course they do! You need look no further than the installation drive. For years Windows assumed the drive will be C:. It wasn't until W2K, I believe, that they finally abstracted the installation drive. >> And also why MS programmers are anything but good. > >Some MS programmers are *very* good. I've said it before: MS is BIG. Then >again, some MS programmers are indeed bad. It makes no difference how big MS is. IBM (with about 575,000 employees at its peak) was several times bigger than MS and it didn't make any difference back then either. The problem in both cases is that "the fish stinks from the head". Decisions made up the food chain filter down as appalling programming. >I intensily dislike any application that *doesn't* give me a choice where >to store my data (including my settings). Once again, there's a difference between data and settings. >Enough of that, I've explained enough now. If you still don't get it, I >give up. There is nothing to get. The only thing we can conclude is that you like holes in the walls, and I don't! ;o) >So, tell me: what are all those places where Nikon Scan stores data during >operation (i.e., after installation)? Places that weren't set or accepted >by you in the first place? But all this time you keep saying you want to keep them! Why the sudden concern where they are? That's inconsistent! Anyway, I not gonna tell you now! ;o) Ha! So there! ;o) Seriously though, I really don't know (that's exactly the problem). Also, I wrestled with all that a couple of years ago. I do know they showed up in a few unexpected places. I guess it also depends on the OS. I do remember doing a global directory search for "Nikon" and other such similar strings. In my case there was a problem because I also have a Nikon digital camera which complicated things because in some instances I didn't know if the found places/files were relevant to the scanner. Another problem is that I now actually have two installations, version 3 on my W98 drive (to be used with LS-30) and version 4 on my W2K drive (to be used with LS-50). However, I now use my own scanner program which runs on W98. Confused? Well, sometimes I am! ;o) Oh yes, all this is on a notebook. I've got two internal drives. Anyway, I've basically given up on trying to keep the installation totally clean because it's a waste of time since Windows is so sloppy. I just try to minimize the damage but don't agonize over it too much. I'm more concerned that an install doesn't brake subsequent (or previous) applications so I usually "quarantine" any new application i.e. dump the registry before and after the install as well as do a full recursive directory dump again, before and after. That way I can backtrack a little. But if things run fine after a while I just purge the dumps. Don.
From: Marjolein Katsma on 27 Jan 2006 16:57 Don (phoney.email(a)yahoo.com) wrote in news:6qikt1taqaoedd83igvq18udcbhgegp53f(a)4ax.com: >>2. Uninstallation of everything that was *installed* > > And here's where your requirements are far too modest! That's just not > enough! Not only is it enough - more is not acceptable! At least not without asking. I'm in the habit of copying a whole installation tree before uninstalling just because too many uninstallers are so impolite ;-) >>Temporary files are the user's responsibility anyway - >>who decides *how long* they should be kept? Only the user. > > You're missing the point. The user is often not even aware that they > exist! That's the problem! If an application "pollutes" my system with > temporary files I expect - no, *demand*! - it cleans up after itself > instead of leaving "droppings" behind! Not only when I uninstall the > application, but every time such files are created and are no longer > needed. Only sloppy and buggy applications leave such files behind. The user is expected to have a reasonable knowledge of how to use his tools. And besides, even the simplest of simplest computer mags explain about temporary files. Just *how* and *when* would you want them to be cleaned up? "Temporary" is a fluid concept. There is a reason why some temporary are kept for longer than a few reboots - competing installations, or repair installs, for instance. It's up to *you*, the user, to decide exactly what and when can be cleaned up. Of course you're free to use a utility to do that - but it's still you taking the decisions. >>It should bloody NOT! An uninstaller that does that to me will mean I >>will never, ever even consider another version of that software, >>unless I'm reassured it's bettered its life. An uninstaller should NOT >>touch *my* data (or at most ask me friendly whether to remove what it >>knows how to find). Anything else is just not well-behaved. > > Again, this has nothing to do with user data. Yes it has - settings *are* user data. > "NO! Those are *my* holes! Don't touch them!" No, I don't ;-) I might want to reuse them, and if I decide I don't, I can always fill them myself. >>Do they try that? Try to retrofit dicsipline? > > Of course they do! You need look no further than the installation > drive. For years Windows assumed the drive will be C:. It wasn't until > W2K, I believe, that they finally abstracted the installation drive. And how is that "retrofitting disciplinbe"? >>Some MS programmers are *very* good. I've said it before: MS is BIG. >>Then again, some MS programmers are indeed bad. > > It makes no difference how big MS is. IBM (with about 575,000 > employees at its peak) was several times bigger than MS and it didn't > make any difference back then either. Oh, yes, it did. Same difference. Different departments, different goals, different cultures. In all really big companies, in fact. > Once again, there's a difference between data and settings. Settings *are* data. > There is nothing to get. OK, end of story then. (But there is, and you clearly don't. :)) >>So, tell me: what are all those places where Nikon Scan stores data >>during operation (i.e., after installation)? Places that weren't set >>or accepted by you in the first place? > > But all this time you keep saying you want to keep them! Why the > sudden concern where they are? That's inconsistent! *I* want to keep them! But I'm asking *you* what it is you don't want to keep, and where it is/was. And if you don't even know - then what are we really talking about here? ;-) > Another problem is that I now actually have two installations, version > 3 on my W98 drive (to be used with LS-30) and version 4 on my W2K > drive (to be used with LS-50). However, I now use my own scanner > program which runs on W98. Confused? Well, sometimes I am! ;o) Oh yes, > all this is on a notebook. I've got two internal drives. How is that a problem? It's an advantage - you get to choose what to use when. > Anyway, I've basically given up on trying to keep the installation > totally clean because it's a waste of time since Windows is so sloppy. *Applications* are sloppy, true. But don't blame it won Windows. It's not Windows that puts your application data in a particular place, or several places - it's your application that does that - by itself, or on behalf of you when you get to decide what to put where. Windows only provides the tools to do that but doesn't make any of the decisions of what goes where. -- Marjolein Katsma *Help with HomeSite/Studio: http://hshelp.com/ *Travel blog: http://blog.iamback.com/ *Spam reporting addresses: http://banspam.javawoman.com/report3.html
From: Don on 28 Jan 2006 10:16 On 27 Jan 2006 21:57:29 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> wrote: >>>Temporary files are the user's responsibility anyway - >>>who decides *how long* they should be kept? Only the user. >> >> You're missing the point. The user is often not even aware that they >> exist! That's the problem! If an application "pollutes" my system with >> temporary files I expect - no, *demand*! - it cleans up after itself >> instead of leaving "droppings" behind! Not only when I uninstall the >> application, but every time such files are created and are no longer >> needed. Only sloppy and buggy applications leave such files behind. > >The user is expected to have a reasonable knowledge of how to use his >tools. And besides, even the simplest of simplest computer mags explain >about temporary files. That's because OSes and applications are so appalling! Temporary file management is *internal* no different to, say, memory management. It has nothing to do with the user. >Just *how* and *when* would you want them to be cleaned up? "Temporary" >is a fluid concept. There is a reason why some temporary are kept for >longer than a few reboots - competing installations, or repair installs, >for instance. It's up to *you*, the user, to decide exactly what and >when can be cleaned up. Of course you're free to use a utility to do >that - but it's still you taking the decisions. Again, all that is the job of the application. If the application is poorly written so that it needs convoluted temporary file management, that's the application's (i.e. programmer's) fault! Nothing to do with the user. You can't use programmer's incompetence - and any subsequent problems this causes - as an excuse! >>>It should bloody NOT! An uninstaller that does that to me will mean I >>>will never, ever even consider another version of that software, >>>unless I'm reassured it's bettered its life. An uninstaller should NOT >>>touch *my* data (or at most ask me friendly whether to remove what it >>>knows how to find). Anything else is just not well-behaved. >> >> Again, this has nothing to do with user data. > >Yes it has - settings *are* user data. > >> "NO! Those are *my* holes! Don't touch them!" > >No, I don't ;-) I might want to reuse them, and if I decide I don't, I >can always fill them myself. Oh, come on, would you really insists the holes are left in? It's just not common sense. And at least you know where the holes are so you can fill them in yourself. In case of temporary files you have no idea where the application has put them! >>>Do they try that? Try to retrofit dicsipline? >> >> Of course they do! You need look no further than the installation >> drive. For years Windows assumed the drive will be C:. It wasn't until >> W2K, I believe, that they finally abstracted the installation drive. > >And how is that "retrofitting disciplinbe"? Because until that point programmers always assumed "C:" and *hardcoded* it instead of abstracting it! Conceptually, the install drive is between a *global variable* and a *constant* (so you only need to change one location) but it certainly is not a *literal* sprinkled uncontrollably all over the place! That's elementary programming and yet it took MS over a decade to "discover" it! So, now MS demands that properly written programs make no such assumptions but obtain the install drive information from the system. That's retrofitting discipline! >>>Some MS programmers are *very* good. I've said it before: MS is BIG. >>>Then again, some MS programmers are indeed bad. >> >> It makes no difference how big MS is. IBM (with about 575,000 >> employees at its peak) was several times bigger than MS and it didn't >> make any difference back then either. > >Oh, yes, it did. Same difference. Different departments, different >goals, different cultures. In all really big companies, in fact. > >> Once again, there's a difference between data and settings. > >Settings *are* data. In the generic sense (which means you're changing the subject). The context/subject here is user vs application/OS/system. And a program's settings are *not* user data, they are system data! Here's a simple proof: Where are those settings stored? It's either Programs or Windows directories. And neither of those two places is an appropriate place for *user* data. Yes, I'm sure you'll come up with many examples of applications which store user data there but that falls under "programmer's incompetence is no excuse". >>>So, tell me: what are all those places where Nikon Scan stores data >>>during operation (i.e., after installation)? Places that weren't set >>>or accepted by you in the first place? >> >> But all this time you keep saying you want to keep them! Why the >> sudden concern where they are? That's inconsistent! > >*I* want to keep them! And you will because Windows installers are poorly written and leave them behind. If you can't find them, then blame the installers for not telling you! >But I'm asking *you* what it is you don't want to keep, and where it >is/was. And I already told you: Anything the application created *for its own use* i.e. things which will just sit there *unused* by anything else after the application is removed. >> Another problem is that I now actually have two installations, version >> 3 on my W98 drive (to be used with LS-30) and version 4 on my W2K >> drive (to be used with LS-50). However, I now use my own scanner >> program which runs on W98. Confused? Well, sometimes I am! ;o) Oh yes, >> all this is on a notebook. I've got two internal drives. > >How is that a problem? It's an advantage - you get to choose what to use >when. Yes, but it complicates the answer to your question because each OS handles it differently. >> Anyway, I've basically given up on trying to keep the installation >> totally clean because it's a waste of time since Windows is so sloppy. > >*Applications* are sloppy, true. But don't blame it on Windows. It's >not Windows that puts your application data in a particular place, or >several places - it's your application that does that - by itself, or on >behalf of you when you get to decide what to put where. Windows only >provides the tools to do that but doesn't make any of the decisions of >what goes where. No, Windows does *not* provide the environment and that's exactly the problem. You can't excuse Windows so easily. Don.
From: Marjolein Katsma on 30 Jan 2006 01:33 Don (phoney.email(a)yahoo.com) wrote in news:n72nt1lrb065tvuqpun80ats5oc4c4972p(a)4ax.com: > So, now MS demands that properly written programs make no such > assumptions but obtain the install drive information from the system. > That's retrofitting discipline! If only... far too many applications still asssume C: is where my system resides (it's on R:). > And a program's settings are *not* user data, they are system data! > > Here's a simple proof: Where are those settings stored? It's either > Programs or Windows directories. And neither of those two places is an > appropriate place for *user* data. No proof at all since for many programs different users can have their *own* settings; they need to be kept separate, of course. Which is proof settings *are* user data. ;-) > No, Windows does *not* provide the environment and that's exactly the > problem. You can't excuse Windows so easily. I'm not excusing Windows - it's just not determining where user data are stored, the application does that. -- Marjolein Katsma *Help with HomeSite/Studio: http://hshelp.com/ *Travel blog: http://blog.iamback.com/ *Spam reporting addresses: http://banspam.javawoman.com/report3.html
From: Don on 30 Jan 2006 10:11
On 30 Jan 2006 06:33:30 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> wrote: >> So, now MS demands that properly written programs make no such >> assumptions but obtain the install drive information from the system. >> That's retrofitting discipline! > >If only... far too many applications still asssume C: is where my system >resides (it's on R:). Sure, but such applications no longer get the MS seal of approval. >> And a program's settings are *not* user data, they are system data! >> >> Here's a simple proof: Where are those settings stored? It's either >> Programs or Windows directories. And neither of those two places is an >> appropriate place for *user* data. > >No proof at all since for many programs different users can have their >*own* settings; they need to be kept separate, of course. Which is proof >settings *are* user data. ;-) No, that's a proof of undisciplined and incompetent so-called "programmers". And I anticipated that, of course, which is why I wrote in the very next paragraph (which you didn't quote): Yes, I'm sure you'll come up with many examples of applications which store user data there but that falls under "programmer's incompetence is no excuse". >> No, Windows does *not* provide the environment and that's exactly the >> problem. You can't excuse Windows so easily. > >I'm not excusing Windows - it's just not determining where user data are >stored, the application does that. Yes it is from W2K onwards because there is a Documents and Settings directory where such user data belongs. But that's too little too late. Of course applications i.e. programmers can still be undisciplined but that's no excuse. The bottom line is that when it comes to Windows: Shoot first, don't bother asking questions later! ;o) Don. |