dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) (04/27/88)
About 30 minutes ago I destroyed several critical program files, including
the almighty setup.exe file, itself, on the Microsoft C V5.1 installation
diskettes.
One of the installation directories you are prompted to enter, very
plainly declares that its default is to install in directory '[.]' This
is for one of the protected vs. real mode directories. Since I didn't
totally understand the significance of the files it was referring to,
I figured it would be safe to accept the default and figure out what
directory I really wanted the stuff in later.
Well, folks, when it says it defaults to '.' it's not kidding one little
bit! It doesn't mean that it defaults to something reasonable like 'C:.'
It honest-to-God means that IT DEFAULTS TO INSTALLING OVER THE INSTALLATION
DISKETTES, THEMSELVES! If you accept that default, it will copy disk-
after-disk of installation files destined for that directory onto them-
selves--neatly destroying them one-by-one in the process!
And if you are sufficiently careless and use the original distribution
diskettes to do the installation (like one very chagrined person I know),
you will have destroyed your only copy of those files. *8-(
Even though I am 100% to blame for not following the cardinal rule of
write-protecting all original diskettes, I really do wish Microsoft
wouldn't offer a default that, if accepted, destroys the very files you
are trying to install.
Dick
P.S. Now the fun really begins: trying to convince Microsoft that
I really need another set of installation diskettes. *sigh*
--
Dick Flanagan, W6OLD GEnie: FLANAGAN
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!slvblc!dick Voice: +1 408 336 3481
Internet: slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU LORAN: N037 04.7 W122 04.6
USPS: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005jcmorris@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Joseph C. Morris) (04/29/88)
In article <1455@slvblc.UUCP> slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Dick Flanagan) writes: > >Even though I am 100% to blame for not following the cardinal rule of >write-protecting all original diskettes, I really do wish Microsoft >wouldn't offer a default that, if accepted, destroys the very files you >are trying to install. Well...yes, you should have copied the disks, but I think that Microsoft (among far too many others) shares much of the blame by distributing its products on floppies which have a write notch. Whatever its other irritating habits, IBM at least uses diskettes which don't even have a write notch, and some other vendors send out diskettes with a write-protect tab installed. [Note to any vendors reading this newsgroup: that's a HINT, I say a HINT!] If the distribution diskettes had been write-protected then maybe someone at Microsoft would have found the problem in the usoft C 5.0 (I think) which wrote on the last distribution diskette no matter what you specified.
keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (05/01/88)
In article <1455@slvblc.UUCP> slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Dick Flanagan) writes: >[he blew away his Microsoft Installation diskettes by mistake] >P.S. Now the fun really begins: trying to convince Microsoft that > I really need another set of installation diskettes. *sigh* > Screw it - find somebody in the next office, building, whatever. Show them your disks, tell them what happened and say "let me copy the files I need from yours 'cuz MICROSOFT IS A MOTHER BEAR TO DEAL WITH AND 'C' WILL BE OBSOLETE BEFORE I GET ANY COOPERATION FROM THEM!" (Don't yell at them - I just did it that way to get MICROSOFT'S attention :-) keith
del@Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg) (05/06/88)
Look, I will probably get flamed for this, but what the heck.
>>[he blew away his Microsoft Installation diskettes by mistake]
This whole discussion and flaming at Microsoft is ridiculous! Anybody that
fails to write protect and/or copy their distribution diskettes before
installation DESERVES WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THEM! I fail to see any reason
why Microsoft or any manufacturer of any product (including non-technical
products: automobiles, chemicals, tools, etc.) should be held responsible
for stupid mistakes made by a typical user.
Look, if a user is expected to be an assembly line flunky, paid minimum
wage, then the manufacturer needs to make the product "fool-proof". If
the user is expected to be a minimally intelligent computer type person
presumably smart enough to install software packages (and use them!) on
a PC, then you should be able to expect, as a bare minimum, common sense
is present. Why should the manufacturer have to spend the extra money to
write protect the disks? Or check to see the user doesn't have something
silly in the environment?
--
del (Erik Lindberg)
uw-beaver!tikal!pilchuck!delpavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (05/06/88)
In article <882@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM>, del@Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg) writes: > > ........... Why should the manufacturer have to spend the extra money to > write protect the disks? What "extra money" ???? > Or check to see the user doesn't have something silly in the environment? Why should a manufacturer do anything ? greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny (........ ask GM and Ford.......)
feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke) (05/06/88)
In article <882@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM>, del@Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg) writes: > Look, I will probably get flamed for this, but what the heck. > > >>[he blew away his Microsoft Installation diskettes by mistake] > > This whole discussion and flaming at Microsoft is ridiculous! Anybody that > fails to write protect ..................[deleted blah, blah, blah .... > You are right about deserving flames. The poster agreed he was careless and should have write protected and/or copied the original disks. He was only warning us other mortals against the tricky .bat file Microsoft had included. I am sure he didn't have preachers to the choir in mind. When you feel the need for getting on a soapbox, do it off the net,please. Forrest Gehrke
swh@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Steve Harrold) (05/06/88)
Re: Write protect tabs on distribution disks How come, when I spend hundreds of dollars for a software package, I still have to put a sticky tab on the distribution disks? Surely, at these prices and volume, the software manufacturer can use disk duplicating machines that ignore the notch on the diskette, thus allowing the use of disk blanks that HAVE NO NOTCH. A number of smaller companies, offering products that are much lower in price, are able to do so. Why can't Microsoft and Lotus do it??? --------------------- Steve Harrold ...hplabs!hpsmtc1!swh HPG200/13 (408) 447-5580 ---------------------
lbr@holos0.UUCP (Len Reed) (05/07/88)
in article <882@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM>, del@Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg) says: > > Look, I will probably get flamed for this, but what the heck. > >>>[he blew away his Microsoft Installation diskettes by mistake] > > This whole discussion and flaming at Microsoft is ridiculous! Anybody that > fails to write protect and/or copy their distribution diskettes before > installation DESERVES WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THEM! .... I for one don't see why Microsoft distributes software on writable media. Many of the floppies I've gotten from other sources come on read-only diskettes that have no write notch. I presume they are written on special drives that don't care that the diskettes don't have the notch. Your comment only makes sense for a small volume shipper who'd have to put write-protect tabs on by hand.