Discussion on:

Flash (Gallery: 10 most annoying programs on the Internet)

I agree with every single choice - villains all. These guys, Adobe and Flash in particular, make my net-life miserable. Thank Ghod for FlashBlock!

[Edit: execrable typing...]

Probably the best article I have ever read here. Totally accurate and really hits home to almost everyone. Excellent!

Absolutely spot-on choices for the top 10 AND for precisely nailing each for its' major sins.

Bravo!

(And- just why does Flash Player offer the option to allow Flash to operate my microphone and webcam?!)

I thought it was only me that perceived these apps for what they are. I am glad to see I am not alone! Me: Do you use this software? EU: I don't even know what it is! Me: May I remove the junkware? EU: Please do. All I want is my PC to work again! LOL

The top 10 are absolutely right on target!
But how about the next 10? They also deserve to get the nasty nubbins rubbed on 'em.

What really boils me is that they actually think they are helping us out with their constant "notices that they're doing something". What ever happened to apps that would quietly do what they're supposed to do and never bother you with reminders. You'd look at a log file and find out that the app has been diligenty working in the background like a good servant and not bothering you with the details.

Since they've all been been outed, I suppose that now I'll have to pay my mortgage with an actual job that solves real problems!

Thanks a lot!

haochela
PC Support Specialist

Excellent article. How many thousands of work hours have been wasted uninstalling junk like these.

yeah your right...

I love Vista! If you take 3 hours of your time to learn how to shut down all the crap and make yourself owner of files, which cause headake, it is the best and most stable Windows I ever came across. If a driver is incopatible, they say it and they are really looking for a solution. It fulfills the promises XP gave.
I can't agree on Real Player,
I can't agree on Yahoo
Nobody asks anyone to just automatically install every **** he/she comes across.
Mike

yeah, vista is most annoying thing.
we used to say
VISTA=viruses, intrusions, spywares, trojens accumulated.
u will see ur 2 GB RAM pc working like 128 MB ram pc with XP.

This post is not aimed at you anish, it is aimed at the writer of the article, who should obviously not be allowed within 100 metres of a computer.
You are sitting here and whinging about downloading and installing updates, for christ sake mate, alot of the updates that are installed for various programs come with enhanced security features, which prevent known vulnerabilities in the software. I mean sure, they can get annoying sometimes, however if you don't install these updates, it is most likely that a virus could get onto your system. And then you have the nerve to say that Norton Internet Security is crap, well don't use it, use an inferior product, but don't come crying here when your PC is riddled with viruses.
The only 2 programs I will agree that we would be better off without are, Yahoo Toolbar and I-tunes, but you know how to get around that right? Just don't install them, or simply uninstall them if they are already installed.

The only reason these applications install security patches to plug holes is because they are plugging the holes in their own applications that if we hadn't installed them, the holes wouldn't exist in the first place. Keep the computer, throw out the applications, then you won't have to spend all that time installing security patches.

Dump windows. Use Linux. Ubuntu 8.04 LTS is particularly sweet.

This list isn't just based on the authors own pet peeves, but on calls to his help desk!!! It's one thing for geeks like me to hunt down a lightweight freeware PDF reader, but the average computer user doesn't have the knowledge or inclination! And, yes, updates are important, but the specific complaint is that Windows goes ahead and shuts down on people when it finds them: whatever happened to manners?: If you think Software manufacturers give us the best of all things possible in the best of all possible worlds, then i am very happy for you, but why do you have to get so uptight when the rest of us want them to MAKE THEIR PRODUCT WORK BETTER!

Ok, well I am a desktop support technician, and I am also the first point of call for all helpdesk calls. So I actually have to deal with these calls every now and again, however I think it could be possible that staff members at my office might just be a little bit smarter than that of the people working in the op's work, as I don't get calls when a program pops up asking to install updates, I thought people these days just knew this is a part of using a computer, no?
Anyway, I'm not sure which version of Windows you are running, but it must be modified in some way, as I have never installed Microsoft updates, or any other updates for that matter that would automatically shut down my PC without asking the question first? Maybe it's a fact of you don't like being asked questions?
Of course I would like all software to work without a hitch, straight out of the box, however, the fact of the matter is, no matter what a company does to their product in the initial stages of development, if a hacker takes a disliking to them, they will always be able to find a vulnerability in the app, and cause some mayhem and if you are to believe a product can be made perfect with no security vulnerabilites in it, I'm happy for you, but where's the product and why haven't you made millions from it?

Quit representing yourself as being a person who knows anything about computers mate. You don't. Sure, Norton USED to be the king of all anti-virus, waaaay back in the win98 days. Just mention the sacred name of Symantec back then and every nerd in a three block radius faced east and genuflected, and with good reason.

Now it is a resource gobbling joy killer, that tries to do every possible thing that can be done for PC "security", and succeeds only in making the PC unfrigginuseable!! All the geeks love Norton now, just like then... But now we love it because we get paid to uninstall it and install something sensible.

And if you knew anything at all about computers, you would know that too.

but I prefer UNIX based OS

But WinME; forget it, LOL!(just kidding here folks)

Apart from it's relative slowness and resource problems and the fact it introduced Microsoft's web oriented newspeak and the dreadful, quasi forcible integration of the web browser into the operating system, this OS is probably one of the most versatile and still works well especially on older machines and has the advantage of still runnning on top of DOS, which allows real control.

If it wasn't for the later OS's better integration with recent hardware and obviously better web integration best suited for the corporate world and collaborative computing (which is NOT necessarily a "good" thing especially for power users who much prefer the original file and directory interface of old such as myself) and if it wasn't for Microsoft's forcible integration with many of the latest computers (would could have thought they would have gained such total control in the computing world so as to even dictate what OS is allowed at the BIOS level!!!), this and comparable OSes of the time would probably still be running on many more machines, with actual _enhancements_ instead of the hindrances feebly veiled behind a pretext of 'convenience' and 'security' that is relentlessly imposed upon us all the time.

And before you start laughing, what OS besides Windows 98 SE could possibly run on a circa 1995 laptop that weighs a ton, survived many falls and to this day can still do mosts of what is asked of most laptops of this day and age, typing letters and browsing the internet, would it not be for all that excessive flash and javascript that is infinitely more 'convenient' to marketers than to users!!!

Do any of you remember the "Windows 98 Lite" power user install, that concentrated on removing all web integration from the OS? How fast and efficient this OS was?

Why are so many power users accepting an OS that is probably 90% based on bloated, inefficient code and has become almost impossible to fully contol? Because their livelihood depends on what the masses have been told they want without realizing they have been subtly converted to Microsoft's imperialistic worldview.

You know something is wrong when the largest software company in the world has to promote its OS through TV commercials or has to hire celebrities in deceptive, smart appearing commercials to promote it.

5 paragraphs full of truth!

VISTA must be one of the most annoying operating systems of all time... It came about because MS wanted to show the business world that it could screw down the system so tightly that employees would be driven to doing their job in blinkers.
So, I still can't connect to a networked printer on an XP machine - yes VISTA drivers are installed... and two different USB thumb drives aren't recognised... and then there are all of those..'Are you sure you want to continue' messages.

The fact Micro$hit needs to put out TV adds to convince people that Vista is 'good' should wake users up to the fact that behind that pretty interface lies the most devious and controlling OS they ever made, even more devious than Apple's stranglehold on its users based on it's idea of perfection. In other words, whereas Windows users are forcefully converted to Micro$hit Newspeak and the idea they are simply given a tempoary 'privilege' to use a piece of software within specified bounds, at least Apple users are given some sort of valid reason for it, namely that it does work very well in what it does, and that its hardware is indeed top notch.

I do miss the time when IBM actually had its own OS and DOS versions and designed and built its own laptops (around the mid 90s). Quality all the way, and all this, compatible with the inferior M$ stuff prevalent everywhere. Chosing IBM then was a no brainer, their hardware and their DOS were simply better.

This is an excellent article. Absolutely spot on.

I have a website of secure (passworded) PDF files for people to view. Yes, I know you can break the password. I do get many replies of "doesn't open", "open error". I posted a listing of resolutions to the common Adobe problems. I now post "if you can't open the file, forget Adobe. Download the ZIP or exe program of Foxit software. It's 7 megs and you don't even have to install it! From what I hear, Adobe 8 has all kinds of printing problems too. I had a PC that would not open one of my files, the ZIP Foxit opened it and printed it just fine ? ? Along with the standard Adobe problems it is now, why bother using Adobe to just read PDFs.
The free Foxit is nice and very fast to load and view pages.

I really really hate Reader on the PC, but it seems to be a necessary evil. I dreaded installing it when I got an iMac recently, when I accidentally discovered that OS X has native support for PDFs (opened a PDF from a web page, expecting to get directed to an installation process, and Poof! it just opened... in 1/3 the time of Acrobat Reader!)

that reader is a necessary evil.. Just install foxit reader... Must faster, much smaller and much better. And it'll work on a PC... And yes the preview on Mac is pretty cool.

You don't need Reader... It is just a waste of space.

So why hasn't Adobe gone after Apple for automatically including read support for PDFs in its operating system? You know that if Microsoft did this, Adobe would have their asses in court in no time.

Windows used to include a light version of Java virtual machine, but Sun put an end to that real quick-like...

well except from regular updates, i feel it to be a good pdf reader.

linux pdf reader is much better than foxit.
& according to me, foxit is not 'better' than adobe, mayb because i am used to adobe reader.

I must agree with all of the choices here. It appears that what started off as a wintel conspiracy to take over the desktop and the minds of end users through the installation of useless and inane software has wormed its way onto the internet. Thank goodness I have the motivation and technical expertise to reclaim the hardware under my control and install Linux or BSD, with a browser and extensions to keep the flash/shockwave/silverlight/crapware dipshits at bay. Long live open source.

I am making a website for my wife who is a photographer and I just can't seem to get through to her that a completely flash website is a bad thing... I need to research a bit more to give her concrete reasons but this article helps...

I agree with most of these and could add more... The Norton one is so great... These programs that are supposed to help us out instead cause more problems... I haven't been running a AV program for over a year on both my computers (Vista Home Premium and XP Pro) and I have had any problems.. I just do a online AV scan ever so often and use FF with Adblock in it... I just don't think the AVs are worth the problems they cause...

All those "helpful" toolbars are anything but helpful... They are so stupid and cause many problems...

I don't think Outlook Exchange are all that bad... Sure gmail/yahoo are nice but you can't run enterprise email on those... It might be easier but it would be a serious privacy problem plus something as important as email shouldn't be out of the IT department's hands. I use Outlook 2007 and Exchange at work and most of the time they work great. Occasionally we'll have issues but those are not that frequent.

Adobe Reader is the bane of PDF existance... It has no features that Foxit Reader doesn't have and yet for some unknown reason it needs 20 times the space... What is up with that? plus it is seriously bloated... Get with it Adobe, or you will find yourselves the secondary provider of PDF programs...

Always make your Home Page as clean and simple as possible, with a welcome message. that way they are not hanging around waiting for it to load, and can see all the options to navigate to where they want to be.
By all means use Flash, Javascript etc., but not on that Home Page, and warn people so that they know why their browser is playing up!

Not all of us want to see it, but if you are going to Flash, be responsible and use it where an animation or highlight makes sense. If your page is primarily a flash file with an html wrapper to feed it to the browser then you've gone way, way, waaay too far.

- Can html be used to generate the same view? (I've replaced complete pictures with html using tables, colours and fonts)

- Can an animated GIF provide the same video or effect? (why require a browser have Flash installed when a 10k .gif image does the same thing?)

- Does this really need Java or do we need this at all? Is there a way to use server side scripting for this same effect?

Always look for the lighter way to do what you need and move up to the heavier media formats only when needed.

The only responsible way to use Flash is to not use it at all.

I mean in there specific use of the Flash video wrapper.

True though, you'd think only 2% of developers using a media in a way that doesn't offend the viewer would have more of an effect on design.

I agree, but in addition to these great guidelines, I'd like to offer this addition:
At least, on the home page, give users the choice to use it or skip it.
I think some of the best sites are ones who offer both a flash version for those who like the bells and whistles and a "plain" or html version for those who don't.

I'm one of those people who will skip the introduction flash and choose the non-flash version if available. Having the choice is better than nothing.

A more ideal aproach is to design your website so it degrades gracefully. The same site pages can be viewed with anything from Firefox 3.0.5 down to Lynx and still be usable. It will be much prettier and feature rich with Firefox or another graphic browser but the alt text and content should be usable with a non-gui html browser also.

Between delivery deadlines, budget limitations and staff limitations, degrading gracefully is something few website developers do.

Flash is okay, if small and just a part of an overall (X)HTML site. Sites made totally in Flash take ages to load for users with slow connections, and are also not search-engine-friendly, not standards-compliant, not disabled-user-friendly, and not cool. The Web is moving towards simple clean sites that use XHTML and CSS - jazzy funky Flash intros are soooo Web 1.0...

If I go to a site that needs flash or an active x plug in I'm outta there in a flash And I never realized it till I got the foxit Reader, but what is with the size of adobe's acrobat (mine was over 120MB's compared to a faster Fox it reader with 3 MB or I guess 7MB unzipped) and Adobe phones home all the time too! since I got rid of adobe I can't believe how much faster every thing I do on my PC is I had always blamed it on dial-up I mean 10 times faster for things that have nothing to do with adobe Someone with more know how than me needs to do some research on this This could be opening a can of worms The first thing you need after every reformat is a reader so you don't notice the difference. But I smell a rat somewhere. Cat

I've learned to be carefull what I download when I update Reader 8. I know I should just use Open Office to read PDFs but I'm stuck with familiarity I guess. Plus they(Adobe) do seem to be more concerned with security vulnerabilities than the others.

I switched from Windows XP Pro to Ubuntu Linux. I installed flash block in Firefox and now most of the problem software above is gone forever! Java seems to run with no problem on this machine now.

I have noticed that web applications run noticeably faster using Firefox on Ubuntu. Ironically the application that ran faster in LINUX was ASP.NET based. Go figure.

Or, don't spend a ton of time installing a new operating system and just don't use the annoying programs. BTW, Linux ain't perfect.

Neither is your English, but I'm the only one to complain. (Hint hint)

What, somebody marks these posts?

Check it out at: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=cromulent

I think you are one of the many few people posting here, that actually has any sense. +1 plus one for your post!

Linux is great. Really! But heavens if you ever run into dependency hell( missing libraries ) installing programs from source code. It's not perfect and can be frustrating.

apt-get cures a lot of ills and compiling from source is so 2002.

A lot of new users to Linux forget why Linux is so popular. Everyone wants convenience built into their OS( which is fantastic by the way!). However; sometimes programs fail to install correctly via a premade package or don't run right. Knowing how to compile binaries from source is nothing more an avenue of choice to take. This is the heart of why open source software is so fun use. Basically your options are open. If you can't do it one way; you can do it another. Your statement:

"apt-get cures a lot of ills and compiling from source is so 2002."

reeks of imaturity. It's as if my original comment was like I put on a shirt from last year and all the kids are pointing at me. LOL! Grow up dude or dudette! Adults are speaking here.