Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Jun 2015 13:51 UTC
Windows Windows is an old and complex operating system. It's been around for a very long time, and while it's been continuously updated and altered, and parts are removed or replaced all the time, the operating system still houses quite a few tools, utilities, and assets that haven't been updated or replaced in a long, long time. Most of these are hidden in deep nooks and crannies, and you rarely encounter them, unless you start hunting for them.

Most. But not all.

There's one utility that I need to use quite often that, seemingly, hasn't been updated - at least, not considerably - since at least Windows 95, or possibly even Windows 3.x. Using this utility is an exercise in pure frustration, riddled as it is with terrible user interface design and behaviour that never should have shipped as part of any serious software product.

This is the story of the dreaded Character Map. I'll first explain just how bad it really is, after which I'll dive into the little application's history, to try and find out why, exactly, it is as bad as it is. It turns out that the Character Map - or charmap.exe - seems to exist in a sort-of Windows build limbo, and has been stuck there since the days Microsoft scrapped Longhorn, and started over.

Thread beginning with comment 612632
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by ezraz
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 17th Jun 2015 19:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by ezraz"
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:

Well, I think your're popular here. But I disagree with your audio point of view. Such is the internet that bans happen. I'm ticked that no one will put up with my political arguments. No body likes what I have to say there. Oh well. One of these day's I'll just create my own site that everyone will hate.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ezraz
by ezraz on Wed 17th Jun 2015 22:04 in reply to "RE: Comment by ezraz"
ezraz Member since:

i didn't know there could be a point of view in audio, but i know i have plenty of opinions. i don't get into arguments on pro-audio sites, i try to learn and lurk. it's when the topic is consumer audio that fights break out. considering how confused the modern consumer is about audio, that's no surprise.

i just preach signal chain, which says nothing can be better than what came before it. it can only degrade. to truly improve you must start at the top of the chain.

that said --- the very end of the signal chain is room treatment and speaker placement and those mean the world, are oftentimes free, and most people completely ignore them.

playback signal chain = 1-source to 2-DAC to 3-amp to 4-output to 5-transport to 6-speaker to 7-room

if you have really good 1,2,3,4 nearly every 5,6,7 sounds good, at least the best it can sound.

As far as digital resolution, I went from 1400k bitrate in 1990 down to 192k in 1999 then to 256k in 2004 and 320k in 2010,

Then I remembered 1400k and heard albums I love at 5400k and was sold. My mastering engineer had been telling me about 24bit for years, and now we all have hardware fast enough to upgrade.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ezraz
by Sauron on Wed 17th Jun 2015 22:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ezraz"
Sauron Member since:

And what has any of this got to do with Windows character map?
Perhaps you would find yourself a little more popular if you didn't comment off topic rants in threads.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ezraz
by ssokolow on Thu 18th Jun 2015 00:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ezraz"
ssokolow Member since:

Could you clarify and cite the "known psychological issues with ABX testing" that you mention? ...because I'd never even heard a hint toward there being a problem with it.

(Though, unless a better alternative can be devised, I'll stick with ABX as the final arbiter. I've seen far too much harm and error brought about in all sorts of fields by trusting one's ability to be objective.)

I definitely agree with the signal chain part though. Far too many people get crazy ideas about what affects audio quality because they missed a quality bottleneck somewhere up the chain.

(Admittedly, though, that's also why I have yet to be convinced that 24-bit audio as a release format provides any significant benefit. I've yet to see a properly controlled test comparing 24-bit audio to 16-bit downsampled from the same source with proper precautions taken to ensure no glitches crept in due to different decoding paths or poor-quality downsampling.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ezraz
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 19th Jun 2015 13:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ezraz"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

What I originally wrote was a very nice way of saying you're wrong, but generally a nice person otherwise. We just won't agree on that topic.

Reply Parent Score: 2