none
These fora in particular and MS sites generally RRS feed

  • Question

  • I really can't get on with the new forums in particular, and with MS sites in general:

    1)    They are chronically slow

    2)    If you set white text on a black background for your Windows *desktop* settings, most MS products just cannot cope  -  Office, IE, all (I believe) MS websites  -  fail to set both the colours properly, resulting in black on black or white on white.  I repeat, this is a general problem on *ALL* MS products, but wrt websites in particular, even though both FF3 and IE6 are set to show the colours that the *site* sets rather than those set by the desktop  -  so, for example, my own site http://www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html displays as intended in both  -  failure of other sites is so widespread that I think there must be bugs in widely used html generating software.

    3)    Security seems to be prevent normal use of the site.  So, for example, when I log in with my normal ID, MSDN shows at the top of the page that I am logged in, yet when I try to post a comment, I get "Error occurred while saving your data" and the comment doesn't appear.

    4)    There doesn't seem to be any simple way to bring a bug to the attention of MS except these forums, which those that really matter seem to ignore.  I've just spent the best part of an hour and a half trying unsuccessfully to report one.

    In terms of support and willingness to listen the MS of today seems a mere shadow of the former self I worked with for many years supporting MS products professionally.

    Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:49 AM

Answers

All replies

  •  If you set white text on a black background for your Windows *desktop* settings

    Do you mean you selected a color scheme that does it? If you are running Vista, could you select aero?

    AlexB
    Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:59 AM
  • I actually use 'Rainy Day' scheme on W2K, but with:

    Desktop Black
    Window Black
    Window Text White
    3D Objects Foreground White

    Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:26 PM
  •  You should use aero. It is the best. The schemes you listed are rather troublesome.
    AlexB
    Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:06 PM
  • I don't have that scheme on W2k.  Anway, all they do is set colours under ...

    HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Colors

    ... so there really shouldn't be any difference between schemes with white on black in terms of trouble.  The problem is that nobody in MS ever tests anything with white on black.
    Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:32 PM
  • New look, same old problem, posts are still white on white.
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 12:59 AM
  • I find it hard to understand a complaint from someone who is running a 9 year old operating system.

    There's a limit to how much backward compatibility people can build into any product and yours is not only ancient but it's also not even a client OS.

    Why not simply upgrade to more recent OS? 


    WSS FAQ sites: WSS 2.0: http://wssv2faq.mindsharp.com WSS 3.0 and MOSS 2007: http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com
    Total list of WSS 3.0 and MOSS 2007 Books (including foreign language titles) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com/Lists/v3%20WSS%20FAQ/V%20Books.aspx
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:21 AM
  • Stick to the point, which is that MS websites and software of all generations are inadequately tested for users who prefer white text on a black background as being easier on the eyes.

    This has been an issue historically ever since the first version of Windows.  DOS systems tended to have black backgrounds, but when Windows came in  MS seemed to want to virtualise everything on a normal desk, so the convention came in of having black text on a white background, I suppose as being reassuringly like paper or some similar line of reasoning.  Ever since, those like myself who don't like the glare, though it's admittedly now less of a problem on LCDs than it was with CRTs, have had a bum deal.

    In that context, your reply is less than helpful ...

    >    I find it hard to understand a complaint from someone who is running a 9 year old operating system.

    1)    I am running a 12-year old washing machine because it still washes my clothes well, why should I regard an Operating System any differently?

    More to the point, seeing as the browsers are set to, and in fact do, display the colours set by the website, the Operating System Desktop colours should have nothing to do with the colours on a well-constructed website, yet on on MS' and too many others they do, showing that:

    :-(    At very least, those sites are poorly implemented and inadequately tested

    :-(    Most probably that there is at least one, quite possibly more than one, piece of web-authoring software out there consistently failing in this respect.

    >    There's a limit to how much backward compatibility people can build into any product and yours is
    >    not only ancient but it's also not even a client OS.

    Windows 2000 is still receiving upgrades and is still supported.  There are as many visitors to my website using Windows 2000 as Linux or Macs (while there are 3 times as many using XP as Vista, which also should tell you something).  Further, some of the software of which I complain was written for 2000 so 'backward compatibility' is not really an issue.  In fact it is completely irrelevant.  The issue has always been inadequate testing.

    2)    Why not simply upgrade to more recent OS?

    Windows 2000 remains the most reliable, stable, and least cluttered version of Windows to date, while upgrading takes money, time, and effort, none of which I have to spare.  It wouldn't just be the OS would it?  I'd immediately find compatibility problems with my current hardware and software, so I would have to replace all or most of that as well.  Why should I, when Windows 2000 actually does what I want very well, thank you?

    I have the new beta running on one machine, and cannot stand it  -  jobs like creating a network share that would take less than a couple of minutes on Windows 2000 take hours just because I have to find out where MS has randomly decided to hide all the control levers this time.  Life is too short to relearn an entire interface with every upgrade of Windows.  Life is too short for MS' whimsical policy of change for change's sake, just to persuade people they are getting something new, when it's really just another version of Windows released too soon to be reliable, and where the big bright idea of some over enthusiastic developer of today becomes merely the old-fashioned junk of yesteryear that absolutely must be replaced be the big bright idea of an over enthusiastic developer of tomorrow.

    MS should concentrate on producing fewer, more secure, *better tested* versions of Windows and all its other software, that don't require the user to relearn the interface every time.

    If MS wants me to upgrade to Windows 7, then supply me with a single, clear, easy to find installation option that gives me an interface like Windows 2000.

    And, by the way, upgrading would likely do little to remove problems with screen colours, and, for a variety of reasons, may even make them worse.  For example:

    :-(    Many of the options are now displayed as links rather than buttons (why ... not wow, why?)  -  so it's not just a question of setting appropriate Window client background and foreground colours, but also thinking about how a link looks against the dialog box colour rather than the Window client background colour

    :-(    In the High Contrast desktops, much of the print is bold, which means that all the letters run into one another and are more difficult to read than they would be if they weren't emboldened.

    Which further proves my point about inadequate testing.
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:31 AM
  • First I wanted to quote some of your vituperations but then decided to address them "ananymously." When MS RTMs a new OS it does it in response to many conflicting demands: ever growing security threats, advancement in technology, newly developed hardware, etc. At the same time it has to keep its eyes backwards at dinasours like yourself who believe, mistakenly, that their OS is the best. I still have an important application running on Windows 2000 but if I had time I would have rewritten it and installed Vista or even Windows 7.

    As Mike said, 9 years is a very reasonable limit and nobody can demand anything better. People should get their butts off the chair and upgrade. Your claim that WinSer2K is the best is lauphable. I am sure it is full of worms and malware. You simply do not care of perhaps this might be your real occupation infecting your visitors with some "cookies." I've noticed it long time ago, malware writers hate MS and always preach against it finding nonexisting flaws, prasing old OSs, comparing new products with Ubuntu.

     have the new beta running on one machine, and cannot stand it

    Then why are you running it? It is a beta. Nobody asked you to do it. It is your own idiocy that got you into it. Betas are for people who volunteer to test software, at the same time learn it and be prepared for future releases.

    If MS wants me to upgrade to Windows 7, then supply me with a single, clear, easy to find installation option that gives me an interface like Windows 2000.

    MS never said that. Run yoiur 2000, run Millenium, MS-DOS if you wish.

    MS should concentrate on producing fewer, more secure, *better tested* versions of Windows and all its other software, that don't require the user to relearn the interface every time.

    I prefer exactly the opposite. Don't lecture us, I mean MS clients. Don't speak for the whole community. Speak for weirdos like youself. If you want to live in the 20th century, be my guest. Go to a museum of technology and get hired.

    You might be speaking on behalf of some of MS competitors, like Google, aren't you? If MS follows your idiotic advace then in 5 years there will be no MS.

    You are a Narcissistic person. Take pills.
    AlexB
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:12 PM
  • > First I wanted to quote some of your vituperations but then decided to address them "ananymously." (sic)

    But in fact your whole post is then a string of non-anonymous, very personal vituperations of your own ...

    > dinasours (sic) like yourself

    > Your claim that WinSer2K is the best is lauphable. I am sure it is full of worms and malware.
    > You simply do not care of perhaps this might be your real occupation infecting your visitors
    > with some "cookies."  I've noticed it long time ago, malware writers hate MS and always preach
    > against it finding nonexisting flaws, prasing old OSs, comparing new products with Ubuntu.

    > It is your own idiocy that got you into it.

    > Speak for weirdos like youself.

    > You might be speaking on behalf of some of MS competitors, like Google, aren't you? If MS follows your
    > idiotic advace then in 5 years there will be no MS.

    > You are a Narcissistic person. Take pills.

    This irrational tirade, if typical of MS' own actual attitude, which I hope I can doubt, would go a long way to explaining why the efficacy of support seems to declining.  It's the worst sort of arrogant ignorance that pervades anti-Windows trolls in Linux newsgroups, the anti-Linux trolls in Windows ngs, and more generally youth when addressing experience.

    I shouldn't have to say it but:

    *I*, not anyone else, am the person who judges what OS and or interface works best for me, and it just happens to be W2k.  I've tried both XP and W7, and don't like the interface.  I would probably have been happy to run XP if it had a decent GUI.

    Except the one given over to the W7 beta, my PCs are all running the same W2k image which has had the Baseline Security Analyser and anti-rootkit software run on it, and are fully up-to-date with all security patches and Service Packs, firewalls, and AV software.

    I am not an idiot  -  I have a First Class Honours Degree in Mathematics and Computing, and rose to be one of the top IT problem solvers in my last place of work, on the way creating Windows builds that were used on 1000s of corporate workstations.

    I have no economic or other interest in any of MS competitors.

    If I were Narcissistic, which I am not, it is not a condition curable by pills.

    >> MS should concentrate on producing fewer, more secure, *better tested* versions of Windows and
    >> all its other software, that don't require the user to relearn the interface every time.

    > I prefer exactly the opposite.

    So you actually *prefer* more versions of Windows that require other upgrades to hardware and software in their wake, that are less secure, even less well tested, and have the time on your hands to relearn the interface every time?  If not MS, what company do you work for, so that I can avoid its products?

    > Don't speak for the whole community.

    That would be your worst nightmare wouldn't it?  The thought that I might just be speaking pretty accurately for the majority of computer users out there who would never think to come into a group like this make their views known!

    It's time that people in the incestuous world of IT got 'their butts off the chair' and got out more into the real world, where a computer is not intended as something to be endlessly tinkered with as an end in itself, but simply a tool with a purpose, just as a washing machine washes clothes and a car gets you from A to B.  The vast majority of people using computers simply want to use it to write letters, surf the web, do their job, etc, and time spent tinkering with it for its own sake is dead, wasted time as far as they are concerned.  Such people resent having endlessly to upgrade their OS because MS didn't take time to get the current one right.

    And as you get older, nearer the end of your life, with much less time left to spare, you resent that time spent simply learning to use the damned thing is wasted just because some bright spark in MS, who sure as ____ will move on to a different job tomorrow, has a 'bright idea'.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Once an interface is established and works, leave it alone.  How would you feel if in the next car you buy, you had to sit on the opposite side, the gear lever was in the glove compartment, and the clutch pedal was under the seat?
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:46 PM
  • When I read your OP I thought your were jsut a simpleton which I now see your are not. It is even more surptising that you've got into this atrocious whining mode.

    If I were Narcissistic, which I am not, it is not a condition curable by pills.

    This is patently true and I am surprised you noticed that, so you know a few things about psychiatry not just math and IT but you sounded narcissistic nonetheless. As far as the age mark is concerned, it is not given who would beat who. I am also in this league but the only thing I can think of is to jump into a new OS or a new software package. I've had a few very bad experiences in staying behind, learned my lessons and will never allow it to happen. It cost me dearly. I had spent years catching up.

    MS CANNOT afford to devote resources to maintain outdated software indefinitely. Most uses won't want it to do it. I for my part would be jealous of some people using 15 year old software and receiving all attention while my problems remain unresolved. They should get out of the way. It is a statistical thing. MS has to nudge users to switch. It entices them and it is proper. It uses carrot and stick. With all your credentials which I can undoubtably match you should change your attitude after reading my posts, apologize to Mike and MS and get on new life. I now have more respect for you but will have even more.
    AlexB
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:42 PM
  • So, ignoring the troll whom I have reported for abuse, and getting back to the point, in whatever version of Windows that anyone happens to be running, what happens if you take whatever colour scheme you happen to like, and set white text on a black background?

    1)    Can you read all the software dialogue boxes, etc?
    2)    If you then set your browser to show the colours set by the website, can you read this?

    If, as I suspect, not, then my point stands.

    BTW, if it's any help, I can read this as white on black while typing it, but not as white on white once it's been posted  -  'this' is presumably a textarea while editing, so both background-color and color are being set for textarea tags, which is correct, but for normal viewing, presumably p tags, apparently only the background-color is being set, color defaulting to the OS colour, thus giving white on white.


    Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:49 PM
  • I don't use your color shceme. I am running Viista Ult and Windows Server 2008. I've made sure both have aero on which is not installed by default on the latter. I have no idea what you are talking about although when I set up my Windows Server 2008 and found that everything was gray (I think it is called Windows classic, but I am not sure) and tried to experiment with other schemes I tried those weird black  and white background ones. They lasted about 20 min. What I see now is the white background and I am typing black or rather gray text. It is just fine. Nobody out there will understand your anguish. It really sounds weird. Spend half an hour on customization, read books, etc, post sensible questions at the other forums asking for help without your bile. Have you reported my posts as abusive? What a joke! You are also hystrionic. That also cannot be cured with medications as we both know.
    AlexB
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:19 PM
    • Edited by JavaJive Monday, March 30, 2009 8:13 PM
    Monday, March 30, 2009 5:44 PM
  • I've been of a better opinion of the Brits:) Cannot enjoy your demonstration, the url is blicked. May be malware. That's what I suspected. You may be on someone's black list, perhaps even UN, who knows:)
    AlexB
    Monday, March 30, 2009 7:29 PM
  • Strange that it's getting hits then ...

    Or maybe it's just the link insertion function is particularly clumsy to use when the colours don't let you see what you're doing, but I've had another go and it works now, for me at any rate.
    Monday, March 30, 2009 8:10 PM
  • JavaJive, I took a few mins and tried your basic test on Win 7. For our upcoming release I updated our css to set the default body background color to white and font color to black. This worked for me in my 5 minute Win7 test. I'm guessing the same should hold true for Win2k, so hopefully 2 lines of css will fix it for you :)
    Rob J, Forums Dev
    http://twitter.com/robjoh
    Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:15 AM
  • At last, a constructive response.  Many thanks, and have a virtual pint on me!

    Now, as I presume you're talking about this website, W7 colours anybody?

    Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:29 AM
  • Yup, I can read this page now.  Thanks again.

    However:

    1)    The dialog box for setting links here is still white on white
    2)    The Submit and Cancel buttons where I'm editing now are white on off-white
    3)    In MSDN, the textarea (I presume) for adding community content is white on white
    4)    Er, Windows 7 colours schemes, anyone?
    Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:12 PM
  • i will not do it again

    Saturday, December 12, 2009 12:24 AM
  • I will lean the new thing
    Monday, December 28, 2009 10:48 PM