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.

With all that verbosity, it still seems you haven't addressed a thing.

I pointed out that there is little real need to compile from source and that dependency hell is more or less a thing of the past, and all you can do is provide nothing more than a brief paragraph on the benefits of FLOSS and an ad hom.

If you're running into 'dependency hell', you're bound to be running one of the older versions (or some obscure distribution).

Debian (and Debian based Ubuntu) uses apt, which sorts all dependencies for you and even Redhat has something called yumm these days that does (sort of) the same.

Package managers like yum, yast, apt-get, and dpkg depend on good and up to date repositories. Sometimes even if you have a new distro; programs aren't found and need extra binaries to run. A lot of times you browse for them on freshmeat, freshrpms, or other sites. These things happen even with a new system. You statement is inaccurate but it doesn't matter. What matters is learning to install/remove programs via compilers when convenience fails. Doing it yourself really means you want to learn and understand the system. Relying on someone else's program too much is the mark of the lazy, ignorant( which isn't always bad), or a novice( which ain't bad either).

Man, like ./configure && make && make install is that difficult.

Jeez....

I *use* Debian all the time. But due to the way that Debian creators want the software distributed, the main mirrors (and non-free and contrib) for packages don't always have what I need.

Linux also eliminates 90% of the software I want to use as it's not written for Linux.

I'm sorry if this upsets you but Linux fanbois keep cawing on about Linux this and Linux that and neglect the fact that most Windows users are using it for a reason.

An OS that doesn't have the application support I need isn't going to do me any good no matter how stable it supposedly is.

And yes, I have played with Linux. Sure it's neat to a degree but don't think that it doesn't have some serious faults. Even aside from not having the software I need. There are a ton of annoyances that once a user gets past email and web browsing. For the hobbyist it can be really neat but if you just need it to run it's a pain.

What apps aren't available or at least have alternatives available for Linux. What's annoying once you "get past email and web browsing?"

I run Ubuntu too: it is vastly superior to Vista, except that too many web sites won't work--the web now bows to the gods at M$...you've got to play in the .Net world if you want to make a living as a programmer. Sometimes, say, to watch a missed episode of the CBS program "Survivor," you've got to run Flash, despite the fact that even Real Player is far superior because that's the only option that the website offers. Flash is truly a piece of junk, but sometimes you're locked into using junk by the lack of other options.

As it happens, the TechRepublic posts seem to have evolved a few weeks back to deliver links that IE (at our site) now refuses to follow ("Read Error ... (104) Connection reset by peer"). Pasting the URL line into Firefox works like a charm, so I have no incentive to research and solve the IE fuss.

My continuing experience is that more and more 'true' Windows apps are LOSING their compatibility and stability, while Ubuntu at home just keeps getting easier and LESS troublesome.

In my line of scientific research, at least, Windows is now also solidly in a period of growing incompatibility with its legacy applications. Here, somewhat outside the commercial sector, the notion of endless updates and upgrades is completely contrary to the needs for system stability and reproducibility over periods of years. This week's challenge, for example, is trying to get a 'modern' design app on an XP station to update code for the same app engine running on a Win98 host. The problem du jour is that our code needs to directly load and read the parallel port. Guess what's completely incompatible between pre and post 32-bit Windows? I'm not arguing to fight progress, but the notion that only MS has offered a solid path for continuity and compatibility is an illusion.

MS has promoted, half-promoted, over-promoted, secretly promoted, taken over, made incompatible, and abandoned so many macro, API, SDK, DLL and language variants that I suspect any of us that scratch into the 'legacy' issue will discover it's supported on a moldering rotted skeleton.

Essentially, Windows has no LOYALTY to the integrity of its own history. *nix systems do better designing with compatibility in mind and respecting the need to continue distributing 'dead' apps unchanged even if only to keep the past recoverable.

after finding most antimalware incompatible to Windows even when it is coded for it!

The "incompatibilities" of Windows are getting so numerous and such a PITA that I'm playing with Linux/Kubuntu myself. So far it is very interesting and gratifying with relief.

It isn't Microsoft that the net bows to.
It is the Millions of people who use it.

Recordings made on Beta VCRs were better than ones made on VHS.
Topcon cameras were made better than Nikons.

Doesn't matter when the people decide with their money.

We know how a linux desktop is the answer to every user's problems right? WRONG... People can hardly use windows, much less a Linux machine they have to actually think about their OS. If they can't click and do everything from a button, it's pretty much useless to them. Linux has its uses, but not on the desktop IMHO.

However, I disagree with you as to the Linux desktop being more difficult than Windows. It depends on what the user needs to do, but for most common computing needs Gnome and KDE desktops are easy to use as Windows desktops. Even configuring the desktops are simple. Linux has become a lot more user-friendly than Microsoft fanboys make it out to be.

Nevertheless, it isn't the cure all OS for everyone.

1) If your running Windows software that is crucial to your business and there isn't a comparable Linux version then Linux is not going to be for you.
2) If your a gamer then Linux is probably not going to be for you.
3) If you have custom in-house software that was written for Windows then Linux will probably not be an option for you.

Also, Windows power users who have spent years learning how to use their systems will probably not want to switch to Linux. Nevertheless, a majority of users will not know the difference between Windows or Linux to matter much. Most of them just point-n-click and both OSes allow them to do that.

You are so right.
if it isn't point and click.
it crap to most users.

What happens is that when you download packages from a repository, you bypass
the nonsense you regularly get from
somewhere like sun, ergo no tool bars and
links to get games, etc. you get just
the software/binaries you intended to
get. I'm running OpenSUSE and have
never ever been stuck with an unwanted
tool bar.

Just think of the support jobs an IT manager can created in his department with the small incompatabilities of the software or with writing software that isn't released for Linux.

Yeah I remember when the WEB was more than just a bloated cluster of commercial adds.
Life on the web would be great if it could have stayed as good as it was. Now the visual of most web pages gives me a migraine.
And if the inventer of the POPUP is reading this.......I wish i could see the version of hell awaiting you. I mean who could have been stupid enough to say hey wouldnt it be great if we could force ppl to view what we wanted them to and each popup could be set to make another and that popup generate another and so on...yes i know you can block them but if ppl didnt do such stupid things we wouldnt have to. FLASH is no where near as bad as the popup the always figure out a way to get them through lol...Yeah i remember when the web was great...

The inventor of the popup will be in a room next to the guy who invented SPAM. Each trying to use the internet while fighting the other's invention. Wait...that would be the reoom we're all stuck in.

As if I had 30 seconds to waste to watch advertisements. And then if you pick additional related videos, more ads are required watching. I've gotten to the point of closing down the site at the first required ad. Nothing is that important to watch that I should be required to waste the additional time.

We have been buying magazines and newspapers with ads in them for nigh on 200 years now. Ads are a source of income for the website that allows them to provide the other information that you are looking for. Even the Revered TR site has ads. This allows them to operate the free services we all love.
The difference is the ads are topical and focused on the interest of the viewer, and sometimes even amusing.
What frustrates is the off topic and even p**n ads that pop up when I look for stuff on the web. I do not see the relationship between Mozart piano sonatas and the various nether regions of women.
If we are reading something about Sound systems, I am not interested in ads about credit cards, emoticons, or women's makeup. I am mildly interested in ads for related products that I may not have contemplated, or locations where I may purchase said items.

That's the truth. The whole reason for required advertisements is so that these sites can show the videos and other things for free. They have to pay for the licensing if they were not the original owners. If they are then they have to pay for the writers, actors, etc. You would be complaining if everytime you wanted to watch a video you had to put in your credit card information so you could be charged a couple bucks to watch it. So I'm glad for the the thirty seconds of required advertisements. But I do agree with womble that the advertisement needs to be related to what you are watching or listening to. It would make sense to me that if you are watching something about classical music and they were to advertise something related to classical music you would be more inclined to purchase that. I don't know that's just my opinion.

I remember when Opera was ad supported. The ads were relevant to the content being viewed, so much so that I even clicked on a lot of them. It was almost like finding a random relevant site similar to stumble upon or something. Mind you this is some years ago so my recollection is perhaps faulty.

...Is that users can't take in-your-face, agressive, Billy Mays type commercials anymore. Why do you think DVRs and remote controls are so 'popular'?

The ad industry should wake up and be forced to watch those loud and disruptive ads they force upon us every day and instead learn from the creators of the Geico commercials, where the viewer is not continually hit on the head with a blunt object all the time. Who indeed are the real cavemen, I ask you.

I know addverts pay for some websites I am referring to the popup chains some developers love so much.
You know where the first one leads to the yellow brick road of hell for alot of ppl who dont know how to get out of them like some of my customers and more than likely some of yours.
Oh, and could you imagine the faces of your readers if the pages in their paper reading materials started to multiply and produce more and more adds keeping them from the subject they thought they had in their hands.
I mean how frustrating would it be to carry a magazine home that you just paid 5 bucks for if it went from 8.oz to 8.lbs from the news stand to your front door and the gained bloat was merely adverts.
I dont know about the rest of you out there but I stoped buying most of the magazines I used to read because they are nothing but adds now days and I refuse to pay for a magazine that has already been paid for by the advertisers 100 fold.

I envisage some sort of bug-ridden perdition rushed onto the market without proper beta-testing

leog enscribed:
I envisage some sort of bug-ridden perdition rushed onto the market without proper beta-testing

Oh, you mean like Windows? Seriously, though, too many programs out there are released long before they're ready. Granted, it's not a good idea to have a five-year alpha-to-market cycle (as at least one MMO had) but it's equally bad to have a product that, on launch, has six serious bugs just in the Setup application (Win95) and who knows how many others that never got fixed?

Microsoft is not alone in this "rush things to market and make the end-user the beta-tester" mentality, and it infuriates me sometimes how companies have forgotten the simple principle of "I will not release this program until it is ready for market." (paraphrase of iD Software's repeated statement during the wait for Doom II to come out... (and all their other software))

This rushing a piece of software to market, then assuming (as too many companies do) that the user is running the program by itself, is a key problem with most Windows programs, especially those that, by nature, live in the systray.

So glad that there are now so many alternatives. I think Apple tries to make things complicated for PC users just to make their computers more enticing.

I agree with every one of these.

Websites are so out of control these days. I used to spend hours on ESPN.com, now I never go there due to the fact it's bloated with all sorts of crap. For a sequal to this article you need to do The 10 worst websites!

Here is #1: http://havenworks.com/

Brilliant marketing strategy though, he probably has so many backlinks and visitors.

Although, he doesn't use any of this bad stuff like flash and whatnot.

An entire web site on the home page! Wow, didn't want to give this link any traffic, but it was worthwhile to see what you meant. Lol.
http://havenworks.com/

I think I hurt my brain a little...

My thoughts entirely. Compulsory reading for my students next week. I've been saying almost exactly this for years so nice to have such succinct and authoritative back-up! Thanks.

Boy, you are exactly on target!

MS and its unresponsive program and error reporting and then they will not communicate with me, the end user of thier product. For the new user this is frustrating beyond description. Don't we all wish we had been in the loop for the last 10 years? Need more blocker programs. Thanks for a great article!!!!!!!!

What about that little stupid annoying bug... The WEATHER BUG! I hate that thing!

I had forgot about that Bug. And what a hassle to get rid of lol lol I got very leery of downloading anything after that. Oh and the noise it made! Thanks for reminding me me I had a good laugh! Cat

Ha Ha. This put smile on my face and it's all true.My vote goes to Real Player-what a pile of cr*p. And I hate Java with a passion-any time I see those words, usually followed by "independent of OS", I'm off.

I completely agree with the entire list. I could probably add about a dozen more. Anyways, I just wanted to let you all know that there is a Real Player and QuickTime alternative available:

Real Alternative:
http://www.free-codecs.com/real_Alternative_download.htm

QT Lite:
http://www.free-codecs.com/QT_Lite_download.htm

10 annoying programs, but you didn't tell us what programs to use instead of the villans

See my post from above for links to the Real Player alternative and QT Lite. As for some of the other programs, there are plenty of posts in regard to Adobe Reader replacements. As for Antivirus, for free I suggest AVG. If you want to spend some money, try NOD32, eEye Blink, F-Secure, or Sophos. Heck, even McAfee is better than Symantec/Norton... what a load of bloat!

even McAfee is better than Symantec/Norton... what a load of bloat!

I challenge that. Having had to wrestle mightily to remove McAfee from numerous systems at clients' houses because it had smashed up and caused serious problems, I do not trust McAfee at all. Pity, too, for they were once king of the hill in reference to virus scanners.

However, AVG has a long history of strange false positives. A free alternative to it is Alwil Software's AVast, which seems to be much more proactive anyway. (speaking here from experience; my writing laptop sped up after I swapped AVG for AVast, although (due to my browsing habits, perhaps?) neither machine has had malware in several years.

The fact is that none of the antivirus and antimalware programs out there are perfect. Norton is a huge offender, though, since it never deletes updates and sucks down system resources like a wino does wine. It just keeps growing. That's not just NAV, that's true for NIS and NSW as well. (NAV: Norton Antivirus; NIS: Norton Internet Security; NSW: Norton SystemWorks) Yet another set of programs that were once the best of the best, now gone to fat and slowness.

I have been using this antivirus for many years and although it has grown quite a bit since its first inception (you can blame its new modules), it is still very fast, small and effective.

It's the only antivirus I can reasonably recommend on any machine (Windows 98, XP and Vista) for speed and efficiency.

Although it's a free download, it DOES have a subscription fee. Pretty much by definition, anything you have to pay money for isn't free.

If you are using the AVG freeware version downloaded from them, the updates are also free. I believe the difference between free and paid versions is in the scanner not the virus database also.

You may have to register an email address but there is no financial cost for initial freeware install or ongoing dat file updates; ok, well, other than the fee you'll pay your ISP for the network traffic.

Judging by the amount of duplication of Tech Republic Articles in different categories that get sent to my email, the offers to join this seminar or buy this thing, or last chance for this other thing, AND floating ads on the web pages, I am wondering if you are throwing rocks while living in a glass house.

You are aware that EVERYONE wants EVERYBODY to use their own web site or software for EVERYTHING, don't you????

I think Microsoft started the megalomaniac thing, didn't they??

They are all saying that it is for their companies financial well-being and growth, but I am doing about the same amount of grieving over their quarterly profits as I am over those from the gasoline companies.

While some people surf the web solely for information, others seaarch for entertainment and many other reasons. Flash offers the visiual appeal and creativity for these folks. Flash is difficult to learn. Done correctly it's as fast, if not faster than any other method. It can easily convey solid information in a timely manner, just as fast as any other means, if done correctly. I've seen many a simple html, css sites done poorly, taking forever to load and get down to the real data. Dial up is just plain painfully slow. Period! That's why I bit the expense bullet and moved away from it years ago and never looked back. In my opinion, only the penny misers, occassional internet users, and remotely located folks with no other choice choose to still use it. I'd venture to say with cable, DSL, T1+ connections, high speed users far outnumber dial up users today. Most of web design is for the HS users. It's a much better experience! Period.
As far as Outlook and Exchange, I run my own Exchange server. You don't have to be an IT person to set one up and run it. You just have to do your homework as you would with any other software, even Linux!
I have no trouble with my email, I have complete control over it, I have no size limits, I have all the email storage space my Exchange server can provide, (250 gb), and I get to use my domain name for my email address.
Actually, I think most of all the crying and whining about Flash, Outlook and Exchange in this forum is sour grapes from folks who just didn't do the homework!

But you appear to have missed the author's point completely.

Actually, I think most of all the crying and whining about Flash, Outlook and Exchange in this forum is sour grapes from folks who just didn't do the homework!

The "crying and whining" is because I'm forced to suffer the results of somebody else not doing their homework.

I just disagree with some of the authors choices, based on my own experience. My comment was really aimed at some of the folks who posted their complaints in this blog about their problems using these programs.
But, how are you "forced" to suffer? Can you not just move on when hitting a site that tries your patience?
The problem is not really with the software, but some people who don't know how to use it properly. Maybe the heading should have read " 10 most annoying things people do with these programs".

Can you not just move on when hitting a site that tries your patience?

 

No, I can't. Not when I'm troubleshooting a problem for a client and need to access a site for information. Granted, most support sites are well-designed, using Flash only when essential—HP is an excellent example. But there are some who feel the sales Flash also belongs on the support pages.

Oddly, we where able to provide the same visual apeal and wizbling effects as can be done today with Flash; it took some skill though rather than building an animation in a vector graphics editor then embedding it an html frame so it could be delivered to the browser.

If flash is such a great and standardized technology for all to enjoy on the internet, where's my 64bit Flashplayer? Strangely, well written programs simply had to be recompiled against the 64bit libraries instead of the 32bit ones and tadaaa..

If you think it's just sour grapes, your missing most of the reasons people don't like the oversaturation of Flash media files in html pages. There is a time and a place for Flash but when that's your only trick; your site sucks.