As I was eating my lunch today, for some reason I got all nostalgic and my mind drifted back to the days when I worked as a busboy and dishwasher at Bill Knapp’s restaurants. I worked at their Roseville, MI location for almost two years, from 1993 until 1995 when I graduated high school.
For those of you not familiar with Bill Knapp’s, they were a predominantly Midwestern chain founded in the late 1940s and went defunct in 2002. While I can’t speak for the clientele in the 1940s through the early 1980s (I was born in 1977), I can tell you that the folks I saw there in the later 1980s and all of the 1990s were old timers. Not merely senior citizens, but geriatrics. It was no wonder that Bill Knapp’s chain had earned the title “God’s waiting room.” It was not uncommon to see folks out in the foyer and dining room with their oxygen tanks, walkers and canes.
During my couple short years there, I found it an endearing place. The people were fantastic to work with, the clientele were good people and the food was very good. I heard a lot of people call the food “bland,” “soft” and “pre-chewed” (obviously a dig at the age of the clientele), but I really thought their food was good. There were a couple items that I thought may have been a bit on the bland side, but overall I thought they had a terrific menu.
Since employees received a generous discount on their meals, I often ate at my mid-shift break. My favorite was the East Coast Clams Hearty Meal Deal (for those who worked at Bill Knapp’s, this was simply referred to as “D-Clam” when submitting the order to the kitchen), which included soup, salad, a generous helping of fried clams and the FANTABULOUS au gratin potatoes. And true to the hearty meal deal moniker, dessert was included. And who could pass up that dear chocolate cake with ice cream and hot fudge? Not me!
That six-inch chocolate birthday cake was a staple that helped make Bill Knapp’s famous, and it clearly endeared itself in the hearts of the many patrons to pass through Bill Knapp’s doors in its 54-year history. To see that dear cake pass into oblivion would’ve been a travesty, so it was awesome to see Awrey’s bakery and Meijer team up together to rescue it and allow its legacy to live on. I’m pleased to see that Awrey’s continues to make the cake using Bill Knapp’s original recipe. And to see that it’s trans fat free is even better. :)
I guess I’m just someone who thinks that we need to preserve our history. The other day the missus and I were looking at pictures of an old stadium being demolished. Or I read about a historic building downtown being razed. As the webmaster for the DeTour Reef Light Preservation Society, which restored and preserves the DeTour Reef Lighthouse, I am a firm believer that we need to preserve some aspect of our past, to remind us of who we are. Far too often we just want to tear down the old to build something new.
So thank you Awrey’s and Meijer for preserving at least some part of my past.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
It's about darn time!
There has been a "bug" in Windows since at least Windows 2000, and it has bothered me for years. As a Windows Vista beta tester with my company, I had more direct contact with Microsoft employees so I was sure to run this one up the flagpole, but unfortunately it did not get resolved.
In Windows 7, however, it is finally resolved!
What is this "bug," you ask?
If you want to install fonts, especially if you want to install a lot of fonts, you have to go through the annoying pressing of the "N" key (for "no") when you're prompted, "The font is already installed. Do you want to replace it?" And your options are Yes, No and Cancel. Click Yes and the font is replaced; No and it's skipped; Cancel and the font import is ended.
I've long wanted a "No to All" option. In other words, instruct Windows to do this: "Install these fonts, except for those that are already installed." Spare me the agony of having to click "N" two hundred times!
Microsoft got closer in Windows Vista/Server 2008 with general file copying in Explorer with much better file replacement behavior, as well as error behavior. Rather than aborting a copy on error or stopping for every file replacement, you get options of how to handle replacements, merges, errors, etc. Much better, but the fonts behaved just like they did in Windows 2000!
With Windows 7, this is no more. Go to the folder containing the fonts you want to install. Select them all, right-click and choose Install. You'll get the familiar prompt of "The font is already installed. Do you want to replace it?" The familiar buttons of Yes, No and Cancel are there too. But there's a lovely new item there...a checkbox with "Do this for all current items." Check that box and click No. Now, Windows will install all of your fonts without replacing anything you already have.
Thank you Microsoft! This one was long overdue, but I'm happy to finally have it!
~M
In Windows 7, however, it is finally resolved!
What is this "bug," you ask?
If you want to install fonts, especially if you want to install a lot of fonts, you have to go through the annoying pressing of the "N" key (for "no") when you're prompted, "The font is already installed. Do you want to replace it?" And your options are Yes, No and Cancel. Click Yes and the font is replaced; No and it's skipped; Cancel and the font import is ended.
I've long wanted a "No to All" option. In other words, instruct Windows to do this: "Install these fonts, except for those that are already installed." Spare me the agony of having to click "N" two hundred times!
Microsoft got closer in Windows Vista/Server 2008 with general file copying in Explorer with much better file replacement behavior, as well as error behavior. Rather than aborting a copy on error or stopping for every file replacement, you get options of how to handle replacements, merges, errors, etc. Much better, but the fonts behaved just like they did in Windows 2000!
With Windows 7, this is no more. Go to the folder containing the fonts you want to install. Select them all, right-click and choose Install. You'll get the familiar prompt of "The font is already installed. Do you want to replace it?" The familiar buttons of Yes, No and Cancel are there too. But there's a lovely new item there...a checkbox with "Do this for all current items." Check that box and click No. Now, Windows will install all of your fonts without replacing anything you already have.
Thank you Microsoft! This one was long overdue, but I'm happy to finally have it!
~M
Friday, January 30, 2009
Big Changes in BitLocker
If you use Windows Vista Enterprise or Ultimate, or any version of Windows Server 2008, you may have heard about a feature called BitLocker Drive Encryption (BDE). This awesome feature will enable you to encrypt the operating system volume. However, in Vista RTM, Microsoft doesn't make it very apparent how to encrypt additional volumes. In Vista SP-1 and Server 2008, you can encrypt data volumes through the UI.
Of course, if you're a fan of the command prompt, the %SystemRoot%\system32\manage-bde.wsf file gave you all the commands necessary to manage your BitLocker volumes.
Or, you could get your hot little hands on the BDE WMI object model and write your own UI in Visual Studio 2008. I went with this approach.
My first blog post talked about building this tool and my need to learn where BitLocker policy settings were stored in the Registry. Well, BDE in Windows 7 is GREATLY expanded.
Microsoft has introduced a bunch of new policy settings, with backwards compatibility to Vista/Server 2008. But there are a ton of new settings for "Windows 7 family."
They've pretty much broken these up into three groups: system (OS) volume, fixed data volumes and removable data volumes. So you can get really granular with how BitLocker behaves with various volumes, whether they're hard drives inside the computer or removable media, such as flash drives.
Windows 7 BDE includes something called BitLocker To Go, which gives great flexibility in the encryption of removable volumes, including policies on whether or not to allow read/write access to unencrypted media as well as read/write access to BDE-encrypted media from another organization (this piece made possible by two new policy settings: primary BitLocker identifier and secondary BitLocker identifier).
I think Microsoft scored big with BitLocker. Now I think they made it better and more flexibile.
Security is everyone's responsibility. If Microsoft really wants to make this a winner, they will include BitLocker with all versions of Windows 7, not just Enterprise/Ultimate.
~M
Of course, if you're a fan of the command prompt, the %SystemRoot%\system32\manage-bde.wsf file gave you all the commands necessary to manage your BitLocker volumes.
Or, you could get your hot little hands on the BDE WMI object model and write your own UI in Visual Studio 2008. I went with this approach.
My first blog post talked about building this tool and my need to learn where BitLocker policy settings were stored in the Registry. Well, BDE in Windows 7 is GREATLY expanded.
Microsoft has introduced a bunch of new policy settings, with backwards compatibility to Vista/Server 2008. But there are a ton of new settings for "Windows 7 family."
They've pretty much broken these up into three groups: system (OS) volume, fixed data volumes and removable data volumes. So you can get really granular with how BitLocker behaves with various volumes, whether they're hard drives inside the computer or removable media, such as flash drives.
Windows 7 BDE includes something called BitLocker To Go, which gives great flexibility in the encryption of removable volumes, including policies on whether or not to allow read/write access to unencrypted media as well as read/write access to BDE-encrypted media from another organization (this piece made possible by two new policy settings: primary BitLocker identifier and secondary BitLocker identifier).
I think Microsoft scored big with BitLocker. Now I think they made it better and more flexibile.
Security is everyone's responsibility. If Microsoft really wants to make this a winner, they will include BitLocker with all versions of Windows 7, not just Enterprise/Ultimate.
~M
Does Windows 7 know how to complete a reboot?
I've found yet another intriguing "feature" in Windows 7, and that's its unwillingness to properly reboot. Or, maybe I should say, it's unwillingness to "complete" a reboot.
On many occasions, I reboot the system for whatever reason--software installation, for instance, and the "shutting down..." screen will just sit there. Apparently it's happy to sit there until Armageddon, but I don't want to wait that long. Looking at the disk activity light shows negligible disk activity.
Most of you probably know that if you shut down Windows in an unfriendly way, whether it's a hard power down or coredump (blue screen), the next time it starts you'll get the "Windows didn't shut down correctly the last time..." screen.
The interesting thing about this problem is that it seems that Windows is completing a graceful shutdown; it's just not completing the reboot portion of that shutdown. If I power the machine down, rather than waiting for that aforementioned Armageddon, and then power it back on, I do NOT get the "Windows didn't shut down correctly the last time..." That leads me to believe that Windows did shut down...it just didn't reboot.
That one's baffling. Not really that big of a deal; just kind of annoying, that's all.
~M
On many occasions, I reboot the system for whatever reason--software installation, for instance, and the "shutting down..." screen will just sit there. Apparently it's happy to sit there until Armageddon, but I don't want to wait that long. Looking at the disk activity light shows negligible disk activity.
Most of you probably know that if you shut down Windows in an unfriendly way, whether it's a hard power down or coredump (blue screen), the next time it starts you'll get the "Windows didn't shut down correctly the last time..." screen.
The interesting thing about this problem is that it seems that Windows is completing a graceful shutdown; it's just not completing the reboot portion of that shutdown. If I power the machine down, rather than waiting for that aforementioned Armageddon, and then power it back on, I do NOT get the "Windows didn't shut down correctly the last time..." That leads me to believe that Windows did shut down...it just didn't reboot.
That one's baffling. Not really that big of a deal; just kind of annoying, that's all.
~M
Processes: When I kill you, that means die
I think the most annoying bug I've found in Windows 7 Beta is that processes that go awry are unwilling to die.
In a previous blog post, I spoke of a problem with Windows Explorer, whereby Explorer tends to misbehave after some major file copies or moves. I ran across that one several times after I had reimaged my machine from Vista to Windows 7 because I was restoring all of my files from an external drive attached to another PC.
Explorer would start misbehaving in the sense that the UI was still somewhat responsive--you could click things, and you'd get feedback sounds, but you couldn't actually change folders. You'd just see the semitransparent green progress bar restart its trot across the address bar. Sometimes, however, Explorer would lock up completely.
Regardless, I would try ending Explorer; in the latter case, I'd have to force it to close. I'd get the "Windows Explorer has stopped responding. Windows is searching for a solution..." And then it would restart. But a quick check in Task Manager would reveal that Windows Explorer was still running in that old process, usually with rather egregious, generous memory consumption. Hmm...memory leak perhaps?
But then I exited iTunes earlier today after syncing my iPhone 3G. iTunes closed but displayed a "iTunes is saving your library." After about 30 minutes of seeing that, I figured iTunes wasn't doing much. Actually, it was, holding 50% solid of my dual-core CPU. It was stuck. So I killed it, or so I thought. Ending the process in Task Mangler, ahem, Manager only ended its CPU consumption. The process lived on.
The same goes for those earlier mentioned explorer.exe processes. Whether I try to use End Process or End Process Tree, in "regular" or "elevated" mode, these processes just won't die! No matter how many times I try to kill them, they just won't die.
The problem with this is that the machine won't reboot, because you'll just get "shutting down..." perpetually displayed, probably because these processes won't terminate.
There are two options here...power down the machine, or if you're feeling bold, kill csrss.exe in (elevated) Task Manager. Doing that will cause an immediate blue screen and subsequent reboot, sparing you the hard power down.
Processes...when I kill you, that means die. Don't hang on to fight another day, darn it!
~M
In a previous blog post, I spoke of a problem with Windows Explorer, whereby Explorer tends to misbehave after some major file copies or moves. I ran across that one several times after I had reimaged my machine from Vista to Windows 7 because I was restoring all of my files from an external drive attached to another PC.
Explorer would start misbehaving in the sense that the UI was still somewhat responsive--you could click things, and you'd get feedback sounds, but you couldn't actually change folders. You'd just see the semitransparent green progress bar restart its trot across the address bar. Sometimes, however, Explorer would lock up completely.
Regardless, I would try ending Explorer; in the latter case, I'd have to force it to close. I'd get the "Windows Explorer has stopped responding. Windows is searching for a solution..." And then it would restart. But a quick check in Task Manager would reveal that Windows Explorer was still running in that old process, usually with rather egregious, generous memory consumption. Hmm...memory leak perhaps?
But then I exited iTunes earlier today after syncing my iPhone 3G. iTunes closed but displayed a "iTunes is saving your library." After about 30 minutes of seeing that, I figured iTunes wasn't doing much. Actually, it was, holding 50% solid of my dual-core CPU. It was stuck. So I killed it, or so I thought. Ending the process in Task Mangler, ahem, Manager only ended its CPU consumption. The process lived on.
The same goes for those earlier mentioned explorer.exe processes. Whether I try to use End Process or End Process Tree, in "regular" or "elevated" mode, these processes just won't die! No matter how many times I try to kill them, they just won't die.
The problem with this is that the machine won't reboot, because you'll just get "shutting down..." perpetually displayed, probably because these processes won't terminate.
There are two options here...power down the machine, or if you're feeling bold, kill csrss.exe in (elevated) Task Manager. Doing that will cause an immediate blue screen and subsequent reboot, sparing you the hard power down.
Processes...when I kill you, that means die. Don't hang on to fight another day, darn it!
~M
Monday, January 26, 2009
Liking the taskbar
Although I'm disappointed to see that Windows 7 doesn't include native Blu-ray playback support, I am feeling the taskbar is already growing on me.
I wasn't sure if I was going to like it. I liked to organize my XP and Vista taskbars by having the taskbar two tiers high...the top tier consisting of all of my QuickLaunch icons and the lower level having the taskbar buttons of running applications.
Windows 7 seems to have married the two together. When you launch an application, an icon for that application appears in the taskbar. When you close the application, the icon goes away. But you can also "pin" an application to the taskbar--essentially giving you QuickLaunch functionality. Pin an application to the taskbar, and its icon appears. Click the icon, and it launches.
In both cases, when you have an application running, a transparent outline forms around the icon. Thus you can quickly determine by looking at your taskbar icons which ones are actually running apps. Hover over running apps and you'll get the preview like you did in Vista (with Aero turned on). If you have multiple instances of an app open, like Explorer or Word, this transparent outline "stacks," up to three high, so you can see there's more than one instance.
But it gets different here. In Vista, hovering over a taskbar button of a running app showed you a preview of what's in that window. But since they all "collapse" or group into a single taskbar icon, hovering over the icon yields a preview of all running instances of that application. So if you have three Windows Explorer windows open, you'll get three previews. Hover over the one you want and click it, and it'll come to the foreground. Hover over any preview long enough, and all other windows will temporarily "hide" so you can see just that window.
The trick is that if you have a running instance of the app, clicking the icon won't necessarily start a new instance. In the QuickLaunch days, clicking an icon would launch a new instance. In Windows 7, if you need a new instance, right-click the icon and choose the application's name from the list of options and you'll get a fresh running instance (separate running executable process).
A nice thing about the new taskbar is that the icons are bigger, and because you can have quite a lot of them there, you don't get the "squishing" effect of taskbar buttons from previous Windows versions, where the buttons would get smaller and smaller everytime you opened a new window.
I have a lot of icons pinned to the taskbar, and since I always had it two levels high, I have it two high in Windows 7 as well. Plenty of real estate...
~M
I wasn't sure if I was going to like it. I liked to organize my XP and Vista taskbars by having the taskbar two tiers high...the top tier consisting of all of my QuickLaunch icons and the lower level having the taskbar buttons of running applications.
Windows 7 seems to have married the two together. When you launch an application, an icon for that application appears in the taskbar. When you close the application, the icon goes away. But you can also "pin" an application to the taskbar--essentially giving you QuickLaunch functionality. Pin an application to the taskbar, and its icon appears. Click the icon, and it launches.
In both cases, when you have an application running, a transparent outline forms around the icon. Thus you can quickly determine by looking at your taskbar icons which ones are actually running apps. Hover over running apps and you'll get the preview like you did in Vista (with Aero turned on). If you have multiple instances of an app open, like Explorer or Word, this transparent outline "stacks," up to three high, so you can see there's more than one instance.
But it gets different here. In Vista, hovering over a taskbar button of a running app showed you a preview of what's in that window. But since they all "collapse" or group into a single taskbar icon, hovering over the icon yields a preview of all running instances of that application. So if you have three Windows Explorer windows open, you'll get three previews. Hover over the one you want and click it, and it'll come to the foreground. Hover over any preview long enough, and all other windows will temporarily "hide" so you can see just that window.
The trick is that if you have a running instance of the app, clicking the icon won't necessarily start a new instance. In the QuickLaunch days, clicking an icon would launch a new instance. In Windows 7, if you need a new instance, right-click the icon and choose the application's name from the list of options and you'll get a fresh running instance (separate running executable process).
A nice thing about the new taskbar is that the icons are bigger, and because you can have quite a lot of them there, you don't get the "squishing" effect of taskbar buttons from previous Windows versions, where the buttons would get smaller and smaller everytime you opened a new window.
I have a lot of icons pinned to the taskbar, and since I always had it two levels high, I have it two high in Windows 7 as well. Plenty of real estate...
~M
No Blu-ray? You're kidding, right?
Okay, a few days into playing with Windows 7, I fired up and configured Windows Media Center. I popped in a Blu-ray movie to watch. Immediately WMC tells me that I have to install an application that supports Blu-ray playback. You've got to be kidding me!
Blu-ray is not new here. It's been on the market for a couple of years now. Less than a year ago we watched Blu-ray crush HD-DVD out of existence.
So if I can play a DVD movie natively in WMC, without the need for any special codecs, why can't I watch a Blu-ray movie? Some may argue that Blu-ray codecs are patented and have to be licensed. Well, Blu-ray is an OPEN standard.
Point is, WMC comes in Windows Vista Ultimate (and XP Media Center Edition). Obviously, these are editions that Microsoft charges extra for. The Windows 7 beta gives you the Ultimate version to play with, complete with WMC. So when Windows 7 goes to market, if you buy Ultimate, you get WMC. If I have to pay more to get the higher end version of Windows, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that Blu-ray playback will be supported natively, rather than me having to shell out more to get a codec that supports it.
C'mon Microsoft. Don't drop the ball on this one.
~M
Blu-ray is not new here. It's been on the market for a couple of years now. Less than a year ago we watched Blu-ray crush HD-DVD out of existence.
So if I can play a DVD movie natively in WMC, without the need for any special codecs, why can't I watch a Blu-ray movie? Some may argue that Blu-ray codecs are patented and have to be licensed. Well, Blu-ray is an OPEN standard.
Point is, WMC comes in Windows Vista Ultimate (and XP Media Center Edition). Obviously, these are editions that Microsoft charges extra for. The Windows 7 beta gives you the Ultimate version to play with, complete with WMC. So when Windows 7 goes to market, if you buy Ultimate, you get WMC. If I have to pay more to get the higher end version of Windows, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that Blu-ray playback will be supported natively, rather than me having to shell out more to get a codec that supports it.
C'mon Microsoft. Don't drop the ball on this one.
~M
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
