Re: Vista oversized fonts problem

Quite a few replies to this question, in other posts have indicated that
no one sees this as a problem. I do. I've worked with fonts for more
than 20 years -- I know what font files do and what they are supposed to
look like. I also know that there is no conceivable reason why an
attempt to delete these bloated things would be "denied" or if they are
even fonts at all! I want them off may machine! Has anyone out there
actually run a debug on these, or looked at the code? 15 Mbytes is
ridiculous -- I would almost expect to find a kernel os applet hidden
inside these. MS has an amazing amount of cohones to expect us to
accept their inclusion of useless "fonts" like these. I don't need to
have a Thai font installed, and I shouldn't have to accept it.


--
kivatrader

 

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:46:45 -0500, kivatrader
<guest@unknown-email.com> wrote:

>
>Quite a few replies to this question, in other posts have indicated that
>no one sees this as a problem. I do. I've worked with fonts for more
>than 20 years -- I know what font files do and what they are supposed to
>look like. I also know that there is no conceivable reason why an
>attempt to delete these bloated things would be "denied" or if they are
>even fonts at all! I want them off may machine! Has anyone out there
>actually run a debug on these, or looked at the code? 15 Mbytes is
>ridiculous -- I would almost expect to find a kernel os applet hidden
>inside these. MS has an amazing amount of cohones to expect us to
>accept their inclusion of useless "fonts" like these. I don't need to
>have a Thai font installed, and I shouldn't have to accept it.

You can delete them, you just have to change the protections and/or
take ownership. As part of the MS security band-aids in Vista, they
removed your priv's to the fonts directory & files. There's no sense
to it: basically they just removed your access to everything, then
enabled it to your specific user directories (Rather than fix their
architectural flaws so that they could implement file protections in a
sensible manner).

You're right - some have suggested that the size of those files is due
to the number of characters in the Asian languages - but they still
seem to be extraordinarily large for font files when you extrapolate
the numbers. I suspect there are other issues with the file design,
but it's not really worth pondering. Just remove them if you don't
want them.

 

Well, thanks -- I've tried deleting them, I've tried changing the
permissions, I've tried using the command prompt as administrator
(which, of course, I am if anyone is!) and I've tried doing it from Safe
mode command prompt, all with the same result: access denied. If I
could disable the system protection, I would, but I'm not sure how. Any
further help?


--
kivatrader

 

+Bob+ wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:46:45 -0500, kivatrader
> <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Quite a few replies to this question, in other posts have indicated that
>>no one sees this as a problem. I do. I've worked with fonts for more
>>than 20 years -- I know what font files do and what they are supposed to
>>look like. I also know that there is no conceivable reason why an
>>attempt to delete these bloated things would be "denied" or if they are
>>even fonts at all! I want them off may machine! Has anyone out there
>>actually run a debug on these, or looked at the code? 15 Mbytes is
>>ridiculous -- I would almost expect to find a kernel os applet hidden
>>inside these. MS has an amazing amount of cohones to expect us to
>>accept their inclusion of useless "fonts" like these. I don't need to
>>have a Thai font installed, and I shouldn't have to accept it.
>
> You can delete them, you just have to change the protections and/or
> take ownership. As part of the MS security band-aids in Vista, they
> removed your priv's to the fonts directory & files. There's no sense
> to it: basically they just removed your access to everything, then
> enabled it to your specific user directories (Rather than fix their
> architectural flaws so that they could implement file protections in a
> sensible manner).
>

Sounds like the linux home folder.
Its the only one a USER has all access to.
The rest need root.

Where do you f-ing morons come from?

UAC is all over linux....yet you whine here.




> You're right - some have suggested that the size of those files is due
> to the number of characters in the Asian languages - but they still
> seem to be extraordinarily large for font files when you extrapolate
> the numbers. I suspect there are other issues with the file design,
> but it's not really worth pondering. Just remove them if you don't
> want them.