Computer Corruption and how to Avoid it...or Whose
Responsibility is it Anyway? I recently purchased a
magazine because of the free software on it, which was supposed to
be fully functional. I wanted to experiment with it. To make a long
story short, it didn't work properly. Now I was left with it on my
machine. In a perfect world, all programs would work perfectly. If
you had to remove one, you could remove it thoroughly and cleanly,
registry and all. However, this is not a perfect world. I liken my
Operating System to an octopus; it has its tentacles in everything,
and even when a program is removed, some of it might still remain.
Or worse than that, I might remove something critical to another
program, such as a .dll that is used by both or a newer .dll that
replaced an older one and now has vanished forever. Since I review
graphic software, I feel a special responsibility to keep my two
computers as clean as possible, so if a program doesn't work as is
stated I do not confuse it with computer corruption. If I find I am
having problems with an aspect of a program, I initially check many
forums to see if the problem is general, or mine alone before
contacting the company. I have experienced a problem on one machine
and not the other that turned out, for example, to have to do with
an interaction of a video card. The cards in the two machines are
different. Any way, I don't want to digress from the topic that I
planned to address. What responsibility, if any, should the
computer user take to insure that problems with software are not a
result of a corrupted system? How much should a user have to know
about a computer when they purchase it? I have found over many
years of experience that one problem has the potential of
multiplying into many problems. I used to redo my systems at least
every 6 months. For the past few years I have used a program called
"Ghost" and it has saved me countless hours. It is not a perfect
program. I have found some tiny discrepancies when I have
"Ghosted" back a program, but never anything that was a
system problem. Symantec Ghost is a backup/restore program. I use
an older version or I would describe the newest one in more detail.
Basically, one backs up a drive or a partition and then restores
it. Ghost can also perform other tasks, but I use it strictly for
backup/restore purposes. To go back to the example I gave in the
beginning of this commentary, which prompted me to write this
article. Since I could not get the software on the CD from the
magazine to work properly, I wanted to remove the program
completely from my computer. It was not a problem. I just
Ghosted back to the version before I installed the
program. On one of my machines it is straight forward, on the other
one which has a raid, I have to use a floppy disc as well as the
Ghost CD. But the process takes only about 15 minutes total on the
more complicated machine. This also works perfectly if an update to
a program turns out to be corrupt. Yes, this has happened to me
with more than one company. But with Symantec Ghost, it is merely
an annoyance. Now, getting back to the topic, I am sure some people
will claim that by having the ability to remove the corrupted
version or malfunctioning software, companies will not be as
careful in their releases. I have seen comments like this in
various forums and I am not taking any position but my own, which
has to do with what I do with my computers. Getting back to the
topic: How much responsibility should a computer user take to try
to keep a "bug free" system in this imperfect world? I sometimes
feel that I spend more time keeping my computers maintained, than I
do using them! Note: Please do not flame, name or comment
about any one company. That is not the object or intent of this
article.
- The Paula Sander's Report is a regular
Renderosity Front Page featured column, where Paula investigates
and comments on graphic software, techniques, and other relevant
material through her reviews, tutorials, and general articles.
|
Comments