Liking it?

[Robert Brereton]

I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still has
some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better than
windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?

[Dino]

Robert Brereton wrote:
> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
usable.
Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call
a start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have
sent feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is
not going to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but
right now win 7 is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only
start menu with no tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my
smartphone and I will not use them on my Desktop OS.
I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users
to it,especially if they go to subscription model.

[Dino]

Robert Brereton wrote:
> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
usable.
Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call
a start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have
sent feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is
not going to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but
right now win 7 is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only
start menu with no tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my
smartphone and I will not use them on my Desktop OS.
I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users
to it,especially if they go to subscription model.

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Dino wrote on 2/12/2015 7:05 PM:
> Robert Brereton wrote:
>> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
>> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
>> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
> Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
> with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
> usable.
> Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call
> a start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
> usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have
> sent feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is
> not going to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but
> right now win 7 is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only
> start menu with no tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my
> smartphone and I will not use them on my Desktop OS.
> I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users
> to it,especially if they go to subscription model.
>

Totally agree.

And if I might add, any period at the end of a sentence should have 1 if not 2 spaces after it. Thanks, makes it more
readable.

I was taught (50+ yrs ago) in typing class to put 2 spaces, but saw posted on facebook by one of my younger teacher
friends that the current trend is only one. Thus why I say one, if not two.

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Dino wrote on 2/12/2015 7:05 PM:
> Robert Brereton wrote:
>> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
>> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
>> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
> Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
> with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
> usable.
> Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call
> a start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
> usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have
> sent feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is
> not going to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but
> right now win 7 is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only
> start menu with no tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my
> smartphone and I will not use them on my Desktop OS.
> I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users
> to it,especially if they go to subscription model.
>

Totally agree.

And if I might add, any period at the end of a sentence should have 1 if not 2 spaces after it. Thanks, makes it more
readable.

I was taught (50+ yrs ago) in typing class to put 2 spaces, but saw posted on facebook by one of my younger teacher
friends that the current trend is only one. Thus why I say one, if not two.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:44:30 -0000, "Robert Brereton"
> wrote:

>some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better than
>windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?

Yes, it's a lot better than Windows 8.

But then, look at Windows 8.....

Seriously, I'd advise anybody who has bought a new computer with
Windows 8 to take the free upgrade when it becomes available. I don't
know how much will have changed in the final version, but the preview
version looks quite promising. Not nearly promising enough to entice
me away from Windows 7, but for those who have to accept the latest
Microsoft system because it's on a new computer, 10 is probably going
to be a big improvement over 8.

My two biggest reservations can be put under the headings of "Tiles"
and "Online Accounts".

Tiles.
The start menu is back, but it's just a start menu with tiles, so no
real progress. You can make it fill the screen (just like Windows 8)
or you can make the tiles smaller, but you can't switch them off. When
you make the tiles smaller, the labels disappear, so you are then
faced with the task of identifying things from tiny little icons on
coloured backgrounds, and I'm not even sure if it's possible to choose
the colours. What is Microsoft's obsession with these wretched tiles?
Why can't we just have a menu in the form of a list with the labels in
Plain English? If they feel obliged to cater for those who don't know
the alphabet and can only read pictures, at least they should make the
tiles an option which is switched off by default. Perhaps it could be
one of the items in the "Accessibility" section.

Online Accounts
This is another thing that should be switched off by default, and only
enabled by those who want it. During installation of 8 or 10 there is
a prompt to create an online account for what appears to be some sort
of "cloud" service, and no indication that it is possible to bypass
it. Once you've installed it a few times you know that the trick is to
accept the prompt to create an account, but reject it on the *next*
page, but so-called "cloud computing" is not something that everybody
will want, so they should not be hoodwinked into accepting it.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:44:30 -0000, "Robert Brereton"
> wrote:

>some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better than
>windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?

Yes, it's a lot better than Windows 8.

But then, look at Windows 8.....

Seriously, I'd advise anybody who has bought a new computer with
Windows 8 to take the free upgrade when it becomes available. I don't
know how much will have changed in the final version, but the preview
version looks quite promising. Not nearly promising enough to entice
me away from Windows 7, but for those who have to accept the latest
Microsoft system because it's on a new computer, 10 is probably going
to be a big improvement over 8.

My two biggest reservations can be put under the headings of "Tiles"
and "Online Accounts".

Tiles.
The start menu is back, but it's just a start menu with tiles, so no
real progress. You can make it fill the screen (just like Windows 8)
or you can make the tiles smaller, but you can't switch them off. When
you make the tiles smaller, the labels disappear, so you are then
faced with the task of identifying things from tiny little icons on
coloured backgrounds, and I'm not even sure if it's possible to choose
the colours. What is Microsoft's obsession with these wretched tiles?
Why can't we just have a menu in the form of a list with the labels in
Plain English? If they feel obliged to cater for those who don't know
the alphabet and can only read pictures, at least they should make the
tiles an option which is switched off by default. Perhaps it could be
one of the items in the "Accessibility" section.

Online Accounts
This is another thing that should be switched off by default, and only
enabled by those who want it. During installation of 8 or 10 there is
a prompt to create an online account for what appears to be some sort
of "cloud" service, and no indication that it is possible to bypass
it. Once you've installed it a few times you know that the trick is to
accept the prompt to create an account, but reject it on the *next*
page, but so-called "cloud computing" is not something that everybody
will want, so they should not be hoodwinked into accepting it.

Rod.

[mick]

On 13/02/2015 02:22:40, Big_Al wrote:
> Dino wrote on 2/12/2015 7:05 PM:
>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
>>> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
>>> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
>> Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
>> with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
>> usable.
>> Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call
>> a start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
>> usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have
>> sent feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is
>> not going to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but
>> right now win 7 is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only
>> start menu with no tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my
>> smartphone and I will not use them on my Desktop OS.
>> I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users
>> to it,especially if they go to subscription model.
>>
>
> Totally agree.
>
> And if I might add, any period at the end of a sentence should have 1 if not
> 2 spaces after it. Thanks, makes it more readable.
>
> I was taught (50+ yrs ago) in typing class to put 2 spaces, but saw posted on
> facebook by one of my younger teacher friends that the current trend is only
> one. Thus why I say one, if not two.

One space after a comma, like this. Two spaces after a full stop.
This makes far easier reading for those like me whose eyesight is not
what it used to be. :-(

--
mick

[mick]

On 13/02/2015 02:22:40, Big_Al wrote:
> Dino wrote on 2/12/2015 7:05 PM:
>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
>>> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
>>> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
>> Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
>> with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
>> usable.
>> Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call
>> a start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
>> usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have
>> sent feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is
>> not going to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but
>> right now win 7 is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only
>> start menu with no tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my
>> smartphone and I will not use them on my Desktop OS.
>> I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users
>> to it,especially if they go to subscription model.
>>
>
> Totally agree.
>
> And if I might add, any period at the end of a sentence should have 1 if not
> 2 spaces after it. Thanks, makes it more readable.
>
> I was taught (50+ yrs ago) in typing class to put 2 spaces, but saw posted on
> facebook by one of my younger teacher friends that the current trend is only
> one. Thus why I say one, if not two.

One space after a comma, like this. Two spaces after a full stop.
This makes far easier reading for those like me whose eyesight is not
what it used to be. :-(

--
mick

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Dino >
writes
>Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
>with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made
>it usable.

I'm still not sure why people use Start 8 and similar when you can get
the similar effect by creating a new toolbar on the taskbar and
directing it to
C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows and selecting Start Menu.

In W10, this makes you navigate through a Programs directory, which I
don't remember having to do in W8, but it seems to work well enough most
of the time and leaves all the other bits of 8 or 10 untouched. You get
a nice, concise textual menu of programs like in the good old days.

I haven't bothered trying, but working out how to change the two arrows
next to the words "Start Menu" into a button would probably be
worthwhile.
--
Bill

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Dino >
writes
>Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
>with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made
>it usable.

I'm still not sure why people use Start 8 and similar when you can get
the similar effect by creating a new toolbar on the taskbar and
directing it to
C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows and selecting Start Menu.

In W10, this makes you navigate through a Programs directory, which I
don't remember having to do in W8, but it seems to work well enough most
of the time and leaves all the other bits of 8 or 10 untouched. You get
a nice, concise textual menu of programs like in the good old days.

I haven't bothered trying, but working out how to change the two arrows
next to the words "Start Menu" into a button would probably be
worthwhile.
--
Bill

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 13/02/2015 in message > Bill wrote:

>I'm still not sure why people use Start 8 and similar when you can get the
>similar effect by creating a new toolbar on the taskbar and directing it to
>C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows and selecting Start Menu.

Try:
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu

A very subtle difference :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 13/02/2015 in message > Bill wrote:

>I'm still not sure why people use Start 8 and similar when you can get the
>similar effect by creating a new toolbar on the taskbar and directing it to
>C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows and selecting Start Menu.

Try:
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu

A very subtle difference :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"Dino" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Brereton wrote:
>> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
>> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
>> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
> Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
> with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
> usable.
> Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call a
> start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
> usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have sent
> feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is not going
> to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but right now win 7
> is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only start menu with no
> tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my smartphone and I will not
> use them on my Desktop OS.
> I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users to
> it,especially if they go to subscription model.

The latest Beta version of Classic Shell (4.2.0) allows you to have a
classic, classic with two columns (the one I like), or Windows 7 style start
menus. No tiles, not even if you click on Apps, just icons.
--
SC Tom

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"Dino" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Brereton wrote:
>> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
>> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
>> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
> Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
> with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
> usable.
> Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call a
> start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
> usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have sent
> feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is not going
> to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but right now win 7
> is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only start menu with no
> tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my smartphone and I will not
> use them on my Desktop OS.
> I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users to
> it,especially if they go to subscription model.

The latest Beta version of Classic Shell (4.2.0) allows you to have a
classic, classic with two columns (the one I like), or Windows 7 style start
menus. No tiles, not even if you click on Apps, just icons.
--
SC Tom

[Big_Al[_4_]]

mick wrote on 2/13/2015 6:52 AM:
> On 13/02/2015 02:22:40, Big_Al wrote:
>> Dino wrote on 2/12/2015 7:05 PM:
>>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>>> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
>>>> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
>>>> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
>>> Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
>>> with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
>>> usable.
>>> Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call
>>> a start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
>>> usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have
>>> sent feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is
>>> not going to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but
>>> right now win 7 is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only
>>> start menu with no tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my
>>> smartphone and I will not use them on my Desktop OS.
>>> I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users
>>> to it,especially if they go to subscription model.
>>>
>>
>> Totally agree.
>>
>> And if I might add, any period at the end of a sentence should have 1 if not
>> 2 spaces after it. Thanks, makes it more readable.
>>
>> I was taught (50+ yrs ago) in typing class to put 2 spaces, but saw posted on
>> facebook by one of my younger teacher friends that the current trend is only
>> one. Thus why I say one, if not two.
>
> One space after a comma, like this. Two spaces after a full stop.
> This makes far easier reading for those like me whose eyesight is not
> what it used to be. :-(
>
The only issue I have is some editors don't like 2 spaces anywhere. If the period at the end of the sentence falls just
that close to the end of a line, I have seen one editor someplace (can't remember) that if I hit 2 spaces then the next
word, at the first space character it does a new line wrap and then the 2nd space. This makes that slight indent on the
next line. It does not seem to realize this and not indent.
Either it's one odd ball editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are so low that it seems like it's
just one editor doing it. Either way it's an odd happening.

[Big_Al[_4_]]

mick wrote on 2/13/2015 6:52 AM:
> On 13/02/2015 02:22:40, Big_Al wrote:
>> Dino wrote on 2/12/2015 7:05 PM:
>>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>>> I have to confess I am beginning to like windows 10, although it still
>>>> has some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better
>>>> than windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
>>> Well windows 8 was a mess until I bought start 8 and made it like win7
>>> with a normal start menu.I boot it into the desk top and finally made it
>>> usable.
>>> Well windows 10 right now is more windows 8 than 10 with what they call
>>> a start menu.I ran start8 with win10 and it improves it to make it
>>> usable.They are going to have tiles weather we like it or not.I have
>>> sent feed back about wanting a start menu like win7,but I think it is
>>> not going to happen.I will not say I will never upgrade to win10 but
>>> right now win 7 is a lot better than 8 or 10.All I want is a text only
>>> start menu with no tiles that are useless on a PC.I use apps on my
>>> smartphone and I will not use them on my Desktop OS.
>>> I have used Linux for a long time and win 10 is going to push PC users
>>> to it,especially if they go to subscription model.
>>>
>>
>> Totally agree.
>>
>> And if I might add, any period at the end of a sentence should have 1 if not
>> 2 spaces after it. Thanks, makes it more readable.
>>
>> I was taught (50+ yrs ago) in typing class to put 2 spaces, but saw posted on
>> facebook by one of my younger teacher friends that the current trend is only
>> one. Thus why I say one, if not two.
>
> One space after a comma, like this. Two spaces after a full stop.
> This makes far easier reading for those like me whose eyesight is not
> what it used to be. :-(
>
The only issue I have is some editors don't like 2 spaces anywhere. If the period at the end of the sentence falls just
that close to the end of a line, I have seen one editor someplace (can't remember) that if I hit 2 spaces then the next
word, at the first space character it does a new line wrap and then the 2nd space. This makes that slight indent on the
next line. It does not seem to realize this and not indent.
Either it's one odd ball editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are so low that it seems like it's
just one editor doing it. Either way it's an odd happening.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:22:40 -0500, Big_Al > wrote:


> I was taught (50+ yrs ago) in typing class to put 2 spaces, but saw posted on facebook by one of my younger teacher
> friends that the current trend is only one. Thus why I say one, if not two.


It's not a matter of "the current trend." Two spaces between sentences
is just *wrong* these days.

Back in the days of typewriters and monospaced fonts (when you were
taught typing), it was right, but not anymore, with computers and
proportional spacing. See
http://www.fonts.com/content/learning/fyti/typographic-tips/double-spaces

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:22:40 -0500, Big_Al > wrote:


> I was taught (50+ yrs ago) in typing class to put 2 spaces, but saw posted on facebook by one of my younger teacher
> friends that the current trend is only one. Thus why I say one, if not two.


It's not a matter of "the current trend." Two spaces between sentences
is just *wrong* these days.

Back in the days of typewriters and monospaced fonts (when you were
taught typing), it was right, but not anymore, with computers and
proportional spacing. See
http://www.fonts.com/content/learning/fyti/typographic-tips/double-spaces

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 2/13/2015 7:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 13/02/2015 in message > Bill wrote:
>
>> I'm still not sure why people use Start 8 and similar when you can get
>> the similar effect by creating a new toolbar on the taskbar and
>> directing it to
>> C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows and selecting Start Menu.
>
> Try:
> C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu
>
> A very subtle difference :-)
>
I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
happens!.
I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints

Regards, Rene

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 2/13/2015 7:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 13/02/2015 in message > Bill wrote:
>
>> I'm still not sure why people use Start 8 and similar when you can get
>> the similar effect by creating a new toolbar on the taskbar and
>> directing it to
>> C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows and selecting Start Menu.
>
> Try:
> C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu
>
> A very subtle difference :-)
>
I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
happens!.
I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints

Regards, Rene

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 13/02/2015 in message > Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

>I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
>happens!.
>I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints

Depends on what you want to do - for instance you could right click on the
Taskbar and set it up as a new Toolbar.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
All things being equal, fat people use more soap

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 13/02/2015 in message > Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

>I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
>happens!.
>I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints

Depends on what you want to do - for instance you could right click on the
Taskbar and set it up as a new Toolbar.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
All things being equal, fat people use more soap

[Nil[_5_]]

On 13 Feb 2015, Big_Al > wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

> Either it's one odd ball
> editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are
> so low that it seems like it's just one editor doing it. Either
> way it's an odd happening.

Two spaces after a sentence is pretty much obsolete. One space is
considered to be standard form now. The justification seems to have to
with the prevalence of proportional spacing fonts and automatic
kerning. Two spaces improved readability in the days of monospace
typewriters, but not with modern computer text, or so I have read. Even
though I still sometimes fall back on my typing training and type two
spaces, I have to agree - one space or two makes little difference to
my eyes.

[Nil[_5_]]

On 13 Feb 2015, Big_Al > wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

> Either it's one odd ball
> editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are
> so low that it seems like it's just one editor doing it. Either
> way it's an odd happening.

Two spaces after a sentence is pretty much obsolete. One space is
considered to be standard form now. The justification seems to have to
with the prevalence of proportional spacing fonts and automatic
kerning. Two spaces improved readability in the days of monospace
typewriters, but not with modern computer text, or so I have read. Even
though I still sometimes fall back on my typing training and type two
spaces, I have to agree - one space or two makes little difference to
my eyes.

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Jeff Gaines
> writes
>On 13/02/2015 in message > Rene
>Lamontagne wrote:
>
>>I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
>>happens!.
>>I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints
>
>Depends on what you want to do - for instance you could right click on
>the Taskbar and set it up as a new Toolbar.
>
What I do is:

Enable hidden files, right-click on the Taskbar, click Toolbars and then
"New toolbar".
Browse to C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu and, in W10,
Programs on the end of that path. Tell it to do it.

This produces the words Start Menu or Programs on the Taskbar, and there
are 2 little arrows beside them. Click on the arrows and there is the
menu.

I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
work here either.

--
Bill

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Jeff Gaines
> writes
>On 13/02/2015 in message > Rene
>Lamontagne wrote:
>
>>I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
>>happens!.
>>I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints
>
>Depends on what you want to do - for instance you could right click on
>the Taskbar and set it up as a new Toolbar.
>
What I do is:

Enable hidden files, right-click on the Taskbar, click Toolbars and then
"New toolbar".
Browse to C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu and, in W10,
Programs on the end of that path. Tell it to do it.

This produces the words Start Menu or Programs on the Taskbar, and there
are 2 little arrows beside them. Click on the arrows and there is the
menu.

I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
work here either.

--
Bill

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 2/13/2015 12:41 PM, Bill wrote:
> In message >, Jeff Gaines
> > writes
>> On 13/02/2015 in message > Rene
>> Lamontagne wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
>>> happens!.
>>> I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints
>>
>> Depends on what you want to do - for instance you could right click on
>> the Taskbar and set it up as a new Toolbar.
>>
> What I do is:
>
> Enable hidden files, right-click on the Taskbar, click Toolbars and then
> "New toolbar".
> Browse to C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu and, in W10,
> Programs on the end of that path. Tell it to do it.
>
> This produces the words Start Menu or Programs on the Taskbar, and there
> are 2 little arrows beside them. Click on the arrows and there is the menu.
>
> I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
> work here either.
>
Thanks Bill, Yes that did the job just fine :-))

Best regards, Rene

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 2/13/2015 12:41 PM, Bill wrote:
> In message >, Jeff Gaines
> > writes
>> On 13/02/2015 in message > Rene
>> Lamontagne wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
>>> happens!.
>>> I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints
>>
>> Depends on what you want to do - for instance you could right click on
>> the Taskbar and set it up as a new Toolbar.
>>
> What I do is:
>
> Enable hidden files, right-click on the Taskbar, click Toolbars and then
> "New toolbar".
> Browse to C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu and, in W10,
> Programs on the end of that path. Tell it to do it.
>
> This produces the words Start Menu or Programs on the Taskbar, and there
> are 2 little arrows beside them. Click on the arrows and there is the menu.
>
> I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
> work here either.
>
Thanks Bill, Yes that did the job just fine :-))

Best regards, Rene

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 13/02/2015 in message > Bill wrote:

>I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
>work here either.

'ProgramData' is one word on my Win7 system but seems to be 'Program Data'
on yours. Odd isn't it :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 13/02/2015 in message > Bill wrote:

>I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
>work here either.

'ProgramData' is one word on my Win7 system but seems to be 'Program Data'
on yours. Odd isn't it :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Jeff Gaines
> writes
>'ProgramData' is one word on my Win7 system but seems to be 'Program
>Data' on yours. Odd isn't it :-)

OK, yes you are right. It's ProgramData everywhere here on Win 7,8 and
10. I've obviously had a mental aberration every time I've looked at
that dir name.
MeaCulpa or Mea Culpa as the Klingons used to say.
--
Bill

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Jeff Gaines
> writes
>'ProgramData' is one word on my Win7 system but seems to be 'Program
>Data' on yours. Odd isn't it :-)

OK, yes you are right. It's ProgramData everywhere here on Win 7,8 and
10. I've obviously had a mental aberration every time I've looked at
that dir name.
MeaCulpa or Mea Culpa as the Klingons used to say.
--
Bill

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On 13 Feb 2015 21:21:58 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 13/02/2015 in message > Bill wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
>>work here either.
>
> 'ProgramData' is one word on my Win7 system but seems to be 'Program Data'
> on yours. Odd isn't it :-)

Well, I ever noticed until I read Bill's confession. Yep - one word,
camel case. Or do I mean CamelCase?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On 13 Feb 2015 21:21:58 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 13/02/2015 in message > Bill wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
>>work here either.
>
> 'ProgramData' is one word on my Win7 system but seems to be 'Program Data'
> on yours. Odd isn't it :-)

Well, I ever noticed until I read Bill's confession. Yep - one word,
camel case. Or do I mean CamelCase?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Nil wrote on 2/13/2015 12:33 PM:
> On 13 Feb 2015, Big_Al > wrote in
> alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>
>> Either it's one odd ball
>> editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are
>> so low that it seems like it's just one editor doing it. Either
>> way it's an odd happening.
>
> Two spaces after a sentence is pretty much obsolete. One space is
> considered to be standard form now. The justification seems to have to
> with the prevalence of proportional spacing fonts and automatic
> kerning. Two spaces improved readability in the days of monospace
> typewriters, but not with modern computer text, or so I have read. Even
> though I still sometimes fall back on my typing training and type two
> spaces, I have to agree - one space or two makes little difference to
> my eyes.
>
Thanks for that reply. I never had a good justification for one space, and not saying your answer is correct but it
sure sounds valid. Better than my "duh!!" response.

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Nil wrote on 2/13/2015 12:33 PM:
> On 13 Feb 2015, Big_Al > wrote in
> alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>
>> Either it's one odd ball
>> editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are
>> so low that it seems like it's just one editor doing it. Either
>> way it's an odd happening.
>
> Two spaces after a sentence is pretty much obsolete. One space is
> considered to be standard form now. The justification seems to have to
> with the prevalence of proportional spacing fonts and automatic
> kerning. Two spaces improved readability in the days of monospace
> typewriters, but not with modern computer text, or so I have read. Even
> though I still sometimes fall back on my typing training and type two
> spaces, I have to agree - one space or two makes little difference to
> my eyes.
>
Thanks for that reply. I never had a good justification for one space, and not saying your answer is correct but it
sure sounds valid. Better than my "duh!!" response.

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Bill wrote on 2/13/2015 1:41 PM:
> In message >, Jeff Gaines
> > writes
>> On 13/02/2015 in message > Rene
>> Lamontagne wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
>>> happens!.
>>> I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints
>>
>> Depends on what you want to do - for instance you could right click on
>> the Taskbar and set it up as a new Toolbar.
>>
> What I do is:
>
> Enable hidden files, right-click on the Taskbar, click Toolbars and then
> "New toolbar".
> Browse to C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu and, in W10,
> Programs on the end of that path. Tell it to do it.
>
> This produces the words Start Menu or Programs on the Taskbar, and there
> are 2 little arrows beside them. Click on the arrows and there is the
> menu.
>
> I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
> work here either.
>
And some programs that are not for ALL USERS falls into your start menu. So you have to make two.
"C:\Users\<yourname>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs"
is the shortcut for my start menu. Just insert yourname.

Now after you build these two links and have to constantly decide which has the link you want, I found this and it
worked great. Windows 7 menu is a composite of the admin menu and the user menu, it does it on the fly. This is the
same thing. One menu and all programs.
http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/2460-start-menu-toolbar-create-windows-8-taskbar.html
One note, I did this year or so ago, and have not used it since as I use classic or start8 or startisback on all my
desktops now.

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Bill wrote on 2/13/2015 1:41 PM:
> In message >, Jeff Gaines
> > writes
>> On 13/02/2015 in message > Rene
>> Lamontagne wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to make this work but when I get to start menu nothing
>>> happens!.
>>> I must be doing something wrong but don't know what, Any hints
>>
>> Depends on what you want to do - for instance you could right click on
>> the Taskbar and set it up as a new Toolbar.
>>
> What I do is:
>
> Enable hidden files, right-click on the Taskbar, click Toolbars and then
> "New toolbar".
> Browse to C:\Program Data\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu and, in W10,
> Programs on the end of that path. Tell it to do it.
>
> This produces the words Start Menu or Programs on the Taskbar, and there
> are 2 little arrows beside them. Click on the arrows and there is the
> menu.
>
> I'm not sure what Jeff's different path achieves, as I haven't made that
> work here either.
>
And some programs that are not for ALL USERS falls into your start menu. So you have to make two.
"C:\Users\<yourname>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs"
is the shortcut for my start menu. Just insert yourname.

Now after you build these two links and have to constantly decide which has the link you want, I found this and it
worked great. Windows 7 menu is a composite of the admin menu and the user menu, it does it on the fly. This is the
same thing. One menu and all programs.
http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/2460-start-menu-toolbar-create-windows-8-taskbar.html
One note, I did this year or so ago, and have not used it since as I use classic or start8 or startisback on all my
desktops now.

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:24:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

> Nil wrote on 2/13/2015 12:33 PM:
>> On 13 Feb 2015, Big_Al > wrote in
>> alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>>
>>> Either it's one odd ball
>>> editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are
>>> so low that it seems like it's just one editor doing it. Either
>>> way it's an odd happening.
>>
>> Two spaces after a sentence is pretty much obsolete. One space is
>> considered to be standard form now. The justification seems to have to
>> with the prevalence of proportional spacing fonts and automatic
>> kerning. Two spaces improved readability in the days of monospace
>> typewriters, but not with modern computer text, or so I have read. Even
>> though I still sometimes fall back on my typing training and type two
>> spaces, I have to agree - one space or two makes little difference to
>> my eyes.
>>
> Thanks for that reply. I never had a good justification for one space, and not saying your answer is correct but it
> sure sounds valid. Better than my "duh!!" response.

I prefer one space after a period or after a colon, but it's more like
because I'm contrary.

But I really do think it looks better.

I get to republish some info that someone else has published in a
different place, and I go through it changing all those double spaces to
single spaces. The people who originally published it never complain.
Probably never notice :-)

It's not much stuff and not very often, so it's not a big chore for me,
and I always chortle when I do it.

Some of it also comes with tabs to align text, and I change them to
spaces, since I'm sure the viewers will not all have the same default
spacing for tabs.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:24:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

> Nil wrote on 2/13/2015 12:33 PM:
>> On 13 Feb 2015, Big_Al > wrote in
>> alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>>
>>> Either it's one odd ball
>>> editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are
>>> so low that it seems like it's just one editor doing it. Either
>>> way it's an odd happening.
>>
>> Two spaces after a sentence is pretty much obsolete. One space is
>> considered to be standard form now. The justification seems to have to
>> with the prevalence of proportional spacing fonts and automatic
>> kerning. Two spaces improved readability in the days of monospace
>> typewriters, but not with modern computer text, or so I have read. Even
>> though I still sometimes fall back on my typing training and type two
>> spaces, I have to agree - one space or two makes little difference to
>> my eyes.
>>
> Thanks for that reply. I never had a good justification for one space, and not saying your answer is correct but it
> sure sounds valid. Better than my "duh!!" response.

I prefer one space after a period or after a colon, but it's more like
because I'm contrary.

But I really do think it looks better.

I get to republish some info that someone else has published in a
different place, and I go through it changing all those double spaces to
single spaces. The people who originally published it never complain.
Probably never notice :-)

It's not much stuff and not very often, so it's not a big chore for me,
and I always chortle when I do it.

Some of it also comes with tabs to align text, and I change them to
spaces, since I'm sure the viewers will not all have the same default
spacing for tabs.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Gene E. Bloch wrote on 2/13/2015 7:40 PM:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:24:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:
>
>> Nil wrote on 2/13/2015 12:33 PM:
>>> On 13 Feb 2015, Big_Al > wrote in
>>> alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>>>
>>>> Either it's one odd ball
>>>> editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are
>>>> so low that it seems like it's just one editor doing it. Either
>>>> way it's an odd happening.
>>>
>>> Two spaces after a sentence is pretty much obsolete. One space is
>>> considered to be standard form now. The justification seems to have to
>>> with the prevalence of proportional spacing fonts and automatic
>>> kerning. Two spaces improved readability in the days of monospace
>>> typewriters, but not with modern computer text, or so I have read. Even
>>> though I still sometimes fall back on my typing training and type two
>>> spaces, I have to agree - one space or two makes little difference to
>>> my eyes.
>>>
>> Thanks for that reply. I never had a good justification for one space, and not saying your answer is correct but it
>> sure sounds valid. Better than my "duh!!" response.
>
> I prefer one space after a period or after a colon, but it's more like
> because I'm contrary.
>
> But I really do think it looks better.
>
> I get to republish some info that someone else has published in a
> different place, and I go through it changing all those double spaces to
> single spaces. The people who originally published it never complain.
> Probably never notice :-)
>
> It's not much stuff and not very often, so it's not a big chore for me,
> and I always chortle when I do it.
>
> Some of it also comes with tabs to align text, and I change them to
> spaces, since I'm sure the viewers will not all have the same default
> spacing for tabs.
>
Tabs slay me. I use Notepad++ and then notepad does it diff, word diff, etc. It's fun.

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Gene E. Bloch wrote on 2/13/2015 7:40 PM:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:24:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:
>
>> Nil wrote on 2/13/2015 12:33 PM:
>>> On 13 Feb 2015, Big_Al > wrote in
>>> alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>>>
>>>> Either it's one odd ball
>>>> editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are
>>>> so low that it seems like it's just one editor doing it. Either
>>>> way it's an odd happening.
>>>
>>> Two spaces after a sentence is pretty much obsolete. One space is
>>> considered to be standard form now. The justification seems to have to
>>> with the prevalence of proportional spacing fonts and automatic
>>> kerning. Two spaces improved readability in the days of monospace
>>> typewriters, but not with modern computer text, or so I have read. Even
>>> though I still sometimes fall back on my typing training and type two
>>> spaces, I have to agree - one space or two makes little difference to
>>> my eyes.
>>>
>> Thanks for that reply. I never had a good justification for one space, and not saying your answer is correct but it
>> sure sounds valid. Better than my "duh!!" response.
>
> I prefer one space after a period or after a colon, but it's more like
> because I'm contrary.
>
> But I really do think it looks better.
>
> I get to republish some info that someone else has published in a
> different place, and I go through it changing all those double spaces to
> single spaces. The people who originally published it never complain.
> Probably never notice :-)
>
> It's not much stuff and not very often, so it's not a big chore for me,
> and I always chortle when I do it.
>
> Some of it also comes with tabs to align text, and I change them to
> spaces, since I'm sure the viewers will not all have the same default
> spacing for tabs.
>
Tabs slay me. I use Notepad++ and then notepad does it diff, word diff, etc. It's fun.

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 14/02/2015 in message > Gene E.
Bloch wrote:

>Well, I ever noticed until I read Bill's confession. Yep - one word,
>camel case. Or do I mean CamelCase?

WellItsDefinitelyOneOrTheOther :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
(Ken Olson, president Digital Equipment, 1977)

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 14/02/2015 in message > Gene E.
Bloch wrote:

>Well, I ever noticed until I read Bill's confession. Yep - one word,
>camel case. Or do I mean CamelCase?

WellItsDefinitelyOneOrTheOther :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
(Ken Olson, president Digital Equipment, 1977)

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Big_Al >
writes
>And some programs that are not for ALL USERS falls into your start
>menu. So you have to make two.
>"C:\Users\<yourname>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start
>Menu\Programs" is the shortcut for my start menu. Just insert yourname.
>
>Now after you build these two links and have to constantly decide which
>has the link you want, I found this and it worked great. Windows 7
>menu is a composite of the admin menu and the user menu, it does it on
>the fly. This is the same thing. One menu and all programs.
>http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/2460-start-menu-toolbar-create-wind
>ows-8-taskbar.html One note, I did this year or so ago, and have not
>used it since as I use classic or start8 or startisback on all my
>desktops now.

Hmmm, yes I've now tried that one menu thing in 10 and don't think it
helps.
Here, it shows all sorts of old junk like the "apps" and also expands
the list to dozens of entries. For example, there is a huge list in the
list here of MySQL help files, and I don't think I'll ever want to
select mysqlauditgrep(online) as an item in my start menu or (or should
it be nor?) the other 20-odd.

I can't remember all the reasons I didn't like whichever ones I tried of
ClassicShell etc, but I do remember being frustrated by the way it
covered the standard 8 Start Button that led to the metro screen. At the
time, I was playing with some audio software that required a start
process where I had to start the program in the desktop, switch to metro
for the driver interface program, then back to the desktop to start the
main program doing something.
With the tiny window covered, I had to invoke the Charms thing (which I
had to make able to be invoked from a screen icon) or hit a key. I was
mainly using a Lenovo tablet laptop convertible, so this was a huge pain
when the real keyboard was underneath.
I also "supported" a couple of people who had been forced onto Windows
8. One of them had invested in Start8, the other was fighting the
default program, so I had to be able to see what she was encountering.
--
Bill

[Bill[_40_]]

In message >, Big_Al >
writes
>And some programs that are not for ALL USERS falls into your start
>menu. So you have to make two.
>"C:\Users\<yourname>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start
>Menu\Programs" is the shortcut for my start menu. Just insert yourname.
>
>Now after you build these two links and have to constantly decide which
>has the link you want, I found this and it worked great. Windows 7
>menu is a composite of the admin menu and the user menu, it does it on
>the fly. This is the same thing. One menu and all programs.
>http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/2460-start-menu-toolbar-create-wind
>ows-8-taskbar.html One note, I did this year or so ago, and have not
>used it since as I use classic or start8 or startisback on all my
>desktops now.

Hmmm, yes I've now tried that one menu thing in 10 and don't think it
helps.
Here, it shows all sorts of old junk like the "apps" and also expands
the list to dozens of entries. For example, there is a huge list in the
list here of MySQL help files, and I don't think I'll ever want to
select mysqlauditgrep(online) as an item in my start menu or (or should
it be nor?) the other 20-odd.

I can't remember all the reasons I didn't like whichever ones I tried of
ClassicShell etc, but I do remember being frustrated by the way it
covered the standard 8 Start Button that led to the metro screen. At the
time, I was playing with some audio software that required a start
process where I had to start the program in the desktop, switch to metro
for the driver interface program, then back to the desktop to start the
main program doing something.
With the tiny window covered, I had to invoke the Charms thing (which I
had to make able to be invoked from a screen icon) or hit a key. I was
mainly using a Lenovo tablet laptop convertible, so this was a huge pain
when the real keyboard was underneath.
I also "supported" a couple of people who had been forced onto Windows
8. One of them had invested in Start8, the other was fighting the
default program, so I had to be able to see what she was encountering.
--
Bill

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"Roderick Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:44:30 -0000, "Robert Brereton"
> > wrote:
>
>>some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better than
>>windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
>
> Yes, it's a lot better than Windows 8.
>
> But then, look at Windows 8.....
>
> Seriously, I'd advise anybody who has bought a new computer with
> Windows 8 to take the free upgrade when it becomes available. I don't
> know how much will have changed in the final version, but the preview
> version looks quite promising. Not nearly promising enough to entice
> me away from Windows 7, but for those who have to accept the latest
> Microsoft system because it's on a new computer, 10 is probably going
> to be a big improvement over 8.
>
> My two biggest reservations can be put under the headings of "Tiles"
> and "Online Accounts".
>
> Tiles.
> The start menu is back, but it's just a start menu with tiles, so no
> real progress. You can make it fill the screen (just like Windows 8)
> or you can make the tiles smaller, but you can't switch them off. When
> you make the tiles smaller, the labels disappear, so you are then
> faced with the task of identifying things from tiny little icons on
> coloured backgrounds, and I'm not even sure if it's possible to choose
> the colours. What is Microsoft's obsession with these wretched tiles?
> Why can't we just have a menu in the form of a list with the labels in
> Plain English? If they feel obliged to cater for those who don't know
> the alphabet and can only read pictures, at least they should make the
> tiles an option which is switched off by default. Perhaps it could be
> one of the items in the "Accessibility" section.
>
> Online Accounts
> This is another thing that should be switched off by default, and only
> enabled by those who want it. During installation of 8 or 10 there is
> a prompt to create an online account for what appears to be some sort
> of "cloud" service, and no indication that it is possible to bypass
> it. Once you've installed it a few times you know that the trick is to
> accept the prompt to create an account, but reject it on the *next*
> page, but so-called "cloud computing" is not something that everybody
> will want, so they should not be hoodwinked into accepting it.
>
> Rod.

Using Classic Shell, you can turn the tiles off, select a Start Menu style
you like, and customize it to your heart's content, if you so desire :-) Not
sure if the latest release version will do it (Win10TP wouldn't allow me to
install it last time I tried), but the latest Beta version will, and it
works just fine (so far).
--
SC Tom

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"Roderick Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:44:30 -0000, "Robert Brereton"
> > wrote:
>
>>some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better than
>>windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
>
> Yes, it's a lot better than Windows 8.
>
> But then, look at Windows 8.....
>
> Seriously, I'd advise anybody who has bought a new computer with
> Windows 8 to take the free upgrade when it becomes available. I don't
> know how much will have changed in the final version, but the preview
> version looks quite promising. Not nearly promising enough to entice
> me away from Windows 7, but for those who have to accept the latest
> Microsoft system because it's on a new computer, 10 is probably going
> to be a big improvement over 8.
>
> My two biggest reservations can be put under the headings of "Tiles"
> and "Online Accounts".
>
> Tiles.
> The start menu is back, but it's just a start menu with tiles, so no
> real progress. You can make it fill the screen (just like Windows 8)
> or you can make the tiles smaller, but you can't switch them off. When
> you make the tiles smaller, the labels disappear, so you are then
> faced with the task of identifying things from tiny little icons on
> coloured backgrounds, and I'm not even sure if it's possible to choose
> the colours. What is Microsoft's obsession with these wretched tiles?
> Why can't we just have a menu in the form of a list with the labels in
> Plain English? If they feel obliged to cater for those who don't know
> the alphabet and can only read pictures, at least they should make the
> tiles an option which is switched off by default. Perhaps it could be
> one of the items in the "Accessibility" section.
>
> Online Accounts
> This is another thing that should be switched off by default, and only
> enabled by those who want it. During installation of 8 or 10 there is
> a prompt to create an online account for what appears to be some sort
> of "cloud" service, and no indication that it is possible to bypass
> it. Once you've installed it a few times you know that the trick is to
> accept the prompt to create an account, but reject it on the *next*
> page, but so-called "cloud computing" is not something that everybody
> will want, so they should not be hoodwinked into accepting it.
>
> Rod.

Using Classic Shell, you can turn the tiles off, select a Start Menu style
you like, and customize it to your heart's content, if you so desire :-) Not
sure if the latest release version will do it (Win10TP wouldn't allow me to
install it last time I tried), but the latest Beta version will, and it
works just fine (so far).
--
SC Tom

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Bill wrote on 2/14/2015 7:48 AM:
> In message >, Big_Al >
> writes
>> And some programs that are not for ALL USERS falls into your start
>> menu. So you have to make two.
>> "C:\Users\<yourname>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start
>> Menu\Programs" is the shortcut for my start menu. Just insert yourname.
>>
>> Now after you build these two links and have to constantly decide which
>> has the link you want, I found this and it worked great. Windows 7
>> menu is a composite of the admin menu and the user menu, it does it on
>> the fly. This is the same thing. One menu and all programs.
>> http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/2460-start-menu-toolbar-create-wind
>> ows-8-taskbar.html One note, I did this year or so ago, and have not
>> used it since as I use classic or start8 or startisback on all my
>> desktops now.
>
> Hmmm, yes I've now tried that one menu thing in 10 and don't think it
> helps.
> Here, it shows all sorts of old junk like the "apps" and also expands
> the list to dozens of entries. For example, there is a huge list in the
> list here of MySQL help files, and I don't think I'll ever want to
> select mysqlauditgrep(online) as an item in my start menu or (or should
> it be nor?) the other 20-odd.
>
> I can't remember all the reasons I didn't like whichever ones I tried of
> ClassicShell etc, but I do remember being frustrated by the way it
> covered the standard 8 Start Button that led to the metro screen. At the
> time, I was playing with some audio software that required a start
> process where I had to start the program in the desktop, switch to metro
> for the driver interface program, then back to the desktop to start the
> main program doing something.
> With the tiny window covered, I had to invoke the Charms thing (which I
> had to make able to be invoked from a screen icon) or hit a key. I was
> mainly using a Lenovo tablet laptop convertible, so this was a huge pain
> when the real keyboard was underneath.
> I also "supported" a couple of people who had been forced onto Windows
> 8. One of them had invested in Start8, the other was fighting the
> default program, so I had to be able to see what she was encountering.
>
I use StartisBack. It does not seem to interfere with the logo key toggling into apps and desktop. At least the way I
have it configured. I like going in and out of the apps menu now and then, there are some things there of interest.

The only issue I have with the apps screen is if you leave all the links that installers put in the start menu for stuff
like "home page" or "online help" and especially "uninstall", they all show up on the metro screen. So I wind up
spending time purging the junk to make metro cleaner. ..and smaller.

[Big_Al[_4_]]

Bill wrote on 2/14/2015 7:48 AM:
> In message >, Big_Al >
> writes
>> And some programs that are not for ALL USERS falls into your start
>> menu. So you have to make two.
>> "C:\Users\<yourname>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start
>> Menu\Programs" is the shortcut for my start menu. Just insert yourname.
>>
>> Now after you build these two links and have to constantly decide which
>> has the link you want, I found this and it worked great. Windows 7
>> menu is a composite of the admin menu and the user menu, it does it on
>> the fly. This is the same thing. One menu and all programs.
>> http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/2460-start-menu-toolbar-create-wind
>> ows-8-taskbar.html One note, I did this year or so ago, and have not
>> used it since as I use classic or start8 or startisback on all my
>> desktops now.
>
> Hmmm, yes I've now tried that one menu thing in 10 and don't think it
> helps.
> Here, it shows all sorts of old junk like the "apps" and also expands
> the list to dozens of entries. For example, there is a huge list in the
> list here of MySQL help files, and I don't think I'll ever want to
> select mysqlauditgrep(online) as an item in my start menu or (or should
> it be nor?) the other 20-odd.
>
> I can't remember all the reasons I didn't like whichever ones I tried of
> ClassicShell etc, but I do remember being frustrated by the way it
> covered the standard 8 Start Button that led to the metro screen. At the
> time, I was playing with some audio software that required a start
> process where I had to start the program in the desktop, switch to metro
> for the driver interface program, then back to the desktop to start the
> main program doing something.
> With the tiny window covered, I had to invoke the Charms thing (which I
> had to make able to be invoked from a screen icon) or hit a key. I was
> mainly using a Lenovo tablet laptop convertible, so this was a huge pain
> when the real keyboard was underneath.
> I also "supported" a couple of people who had been forced onto Windows
> 8. One of them had invested in Start8, the other was fighting the
> default program, so I had to be able to see what she was encountering.
>
I use StartisBack. It does not seem to interfere with the logo key toggling into apps and desktop. At least the way I
have it configured. I like going in and out of the apps menu now and then, there are some things there of interest.

The only issue I have with the apps screen is if you leave all the links that installers put in the start menu for stuff
like "home page" or "online help" and especially "uninstall", they all show up on the metro screen. So I wind up
spending time purging the junk to make metro cleaner. ..and smaller.

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 2/14/2015 7:05 AM, SC Tom wrote:
>
>
> "Roderick Stewart" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:44:30 -0000, "Robert Brereton"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better than
>>> windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
>>
>> Yes, it's a lot better than Windows 8.
>>
>> But then, look at Windows 8.....
>>
>> Seriously, I'd advise anybody who has bought a new computer with
>> Windows 8 to take the free upgrade when it becomes available. I don't
>> know how much will have changed in the final version, but the preview
>> version looks quite promising. Not nearly promising enough to entice
>> me away from Windows 7, but for those who have to accept the latest
>> Microsoft system because it's on a new computer, 10 is probably going
>> to be a big improvement over 8.
>>
>> My two biggest reservations can be put under the headings of "Tiles"
>> and "Online Accounts".
>>
>> Tiles.
>> The start menu is back, but it's just a start menu with tiles, so no
>> real progress. You can make it fill the screen (just like Windows 8)
>> or you can make the tiles smaller, but you can't switch them off. When
>> you make the tiles smaller, the labels disappear, so you are then
>> faced with the task of identifying things from tiny little icons on
>> coloured backgrounds, and I'm not even sure if it's possible to choose
>> the colours. What is Microsoft's obsession with these wretched tiles?
>> Why can't we just have a menu in the form of a list with the labels in
>> Plain English? If they feel obliged to cater for those who don't know
>> the alphabet and can only read pictures, at least they should make the
>> tiles an option which is switched off by default. Perhaps it could be
>> one of the items in the "Accessibility" section.
>>
>> Online Accounts
>> This is another thing that should be switched off by default, and only
>> enabled by those who want it. During installation of 8 or 10 there is
>> a prompt to create an online account for what appears to be some sort
>> of "cloud" service, and no indication that it is possible to bypass
>> it. Once you've installed it a few times you know that the trick is to
>> accept the prompt to create an account, but reject it on the *next*
>> page, but so-called "cloud computing" is not something that everybody
>> will want, so they should not be hoodwinked into accepting it.
>>
>> Rod.
>
> Using Classic Shell, you can turn the tiles off, select a Start Menu
> style you like, and customize it to your heart's content, if you so
> desire :-) Not sure if the latest release version will do it (Win10TP
> wouldn't allow me to install it last time I tried), but the latest Beta
> version will, and it works just fine (so far).


Tried the start menu thing, works OK but not to my liking.
Went back to Classic Shell Beta and works like a charm.

Regards, Rene

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 2/14/2015 7:05 AM, SC Tom wrote:
>
>
> "Roderick Stewart" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:44:30 -0000, "Robert Brereton"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> some rough edges and missing stuff it seems a million times better than
>>> windows 8. Anyone else agree or not?
>>
>> Yes, it's a lot better than Windows 8.
>>
>> But then, look at Windows 8.....
>>
>> Seriously, I'd advise anybody who has bought a new computer with
>> Windows 8 to take the free upgrade when it becomes available. I don't
>> know how much will have changed in the final version, but the preview
>> version looks quite promising. Not nearly promising enough to entice
>> me away from Windows 7, but for those who have to accept the latest
>> Microsoft system because it's on a new computer, 10 is probably going
>> to be a big improvement over 8.
>>
>> My two biggest reservations can be put under the headings of "Tiles"
>> and "Online Accounts".
>>
>> Tiles.
>> The start menu is back, but it's just a start menu with tiles, so no
>> real progress. You can make it fill the screen (just like Windows 8)
>> or you can make the tiles smaller, but you can't switch them off. When
>> you make the tiles smaller, the labels disappear, so you are then
>> faced with the task of identifying things from tiny little icons on
>> coloured backgrounds, and I'm not even sure if it's possible to choose
>> the colours. What is Microsoft's obsession with these wretched tiles?
>> Why can't we just have a menu in the form of a list with the labels in
>> Plain English? If they feel obliged to cater for those who don't know
>> the alphabet and can only read pictures, at least they should make the
>> tiles an option which is switched off by default. Perhaps it could be
>> one of the items in the "Accessibility" section.
>>
>> Online Accounts
>> This is another thing that should be switched off by default, and only
>> enabled by those who want it. During installation of 8 or 10 there is
>> a prompt to create an online account for what appears to be some sort
>> of "cloud" service, and no indication that it is possible to bypass
>> it. Once you've installed it a few times you know that the trick is to
>> accept the prompt to create an account, but reject it on the *next*
>> page, but so-called "cloud computing" is not something that everybody
>> will want, so they should not be hoodwinked into accepting it.
>>
>> Rod.
>
> Using Classic Shell, you can turn the tiles off, select a Start Menu
> style you like, and customize it to your heart's content, if you so
> desire :-) Not sure if the latest release version will do it (Win10TP
> wouldn't allow me to install it last time I tried), but the latest Beta
> version will, and it works just fine (so far).


Tried the start menu thing, works OK but not to my liking.
Went back to Classic Shell Beta and works like a charm.

Regards, Rene

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:34:27 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

> Gene E. Bloch wrote on 2/13/2015 7:40 PM:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:24:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:
>>
>>> Nil wrote on 2/13/2015 12:33 PM:
>>>> On 13 Feb 2015, Big_Al > wrote in
>>>> alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>>>>
>>>>> Either it's one odd ball
>>>>> editor or it's a lot of editors and the chances of happening are
>>>>> so low that it seems like it's just one editor doing it. Either
>>>>> way it's an odd happening.
>>>>
>>>> Two spaces after a sentence is pretty much obsolete. One space is
>>>> considered to be standard form now. The justification seems to have to
>>>> with the prevalence of proportional spacing fonts and automatic
>>>> kerning. Two spaces improved readability in the days of monospace
>>>> typewriters, but not with modern computer text, or so I have read. Even
>>>> though I still sometimes fall back on my typing training and type two
>>>> spaces, I have to agree - one space or two makes little difference to
>>>> my eyes.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for that reply. I never had a good justification for one space, and not saying your answer is correct but it
>>> sure sounds valid. Better than my "duh!!" response.
>>
>> I prefer one space after a period or after a colon, but it's more like
>> because I'm contrary.
>>
>> But I really do think it looks better.
>>
>> I get to republish some info that someone else has published in a
>> different place, and I go through it changing all those double spaces to
>> single spaces. The people who originally published it never complain.
>> Probably never notice :-)
>>
>> It's not much stuff and not very often, so it's not a big chore for me,
>> and I always chortle when I do it.
>>
>> Some of it also comes with tabs to align text, and I change them to
>> spaces, since I'm sure the viewers will not all have the same default
>> spacing for tabs.
>>
> Tabs slay me. I use Notepad++ and then notepad does it diff, word diff, etc. It's fun.

That's what keeps us on our toes...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On 14 Feb 2015 08:44:48 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 14/02/2015 in message > Gene E.
> Bloch wrote:
>
>>Well, I ever noticed until I read Bill's confession. Yep - one word,
>>camel case. Or do I mean CamelCase?
>
> WellItsDefinitelyOneOrTheOther :-)

LOL

You made my mind reel :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:05:12 -0500, "SC Tom" > wrote:

>
>Using Classic Shell, you can turn the tiles off, select a Start Menu style
>you like, and customize it to your heart's content, if you so desire :-) Not
>sure if the latest release version will do it (Win10TP wouldn't allow me to
>install it last time I tried), but the latest Beta version will, and it
>works just fine (so far).

Tried Classic Shell with Windows 8, and although it does a nice job,
it shouldn't really be necessary to add anything to make the operating
system itself behave as it should. I thought they were going to fix
this in Windows 10, but it appears they haven't quite done it yet.

Rod.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 23:46:25 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> wrote:

> Tried Classic Shell with Windows 8, and although it does a nice job,
> it shouldn't really be necessary to add anything to make the operating
> system itself behave as it should


I agree with you. It shouldn't be necessary, but it is.

Classic Shell is very good, but in my view,
Start8 (which costs only $5 US) is even better.

[Cy Burnot]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/14/2015 7:04 PM:
>
> Classic Shell is very good, but in my view,
> Start8 (which costs only $5 US) is even better.
>

What do you like about Start8?

[Dino]

Cy Burnot wrote:
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/14/2015 7:04 PM:
>> Classic Shell is very good, but in my view,
>> Start8 (which costs only $5 US) is even better.
>>
>
> What do you like about Start8?

You can choose classic Win 7 which is why I like it.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:14:48 -0500, Dino > wrote:

>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/14/2015 7:04 PM:
>>> Classic Shell is very good, but in my view,
>>> Start8 (which costs only $5 US) is even better.
>>>
>>
>> What do you like about Start8?
>
>You can choose classic Win 7 which is why I like it.

From recollection (because I no longer have any Windows 8
installations) Classic Shell did have a mode that was very like
Windows 7, or close enough not to matter.

On the other hand, I no longer care because for the time being I'm
using something that looks even more like Windows 7. It's called
Windows 7.

I shan't even be bothering with any of these third party menu systems
while evaluating Windows 10, because as far as I'm concerned an
operating system can only be considered valid if it performs in a
suitably ergonomic fashion as supplied. Departure from defaults should
only be for personal preference, not to make essential features work.

Rod.

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 15/02/2015 in message >
Roderick Stewart wrote:

>I shan't even be bothering with any of these third party menu systems
>while evaluating Windows 10, because as far as I'm concerned an
>operating system can only be considered valid if it performs in a
>suitably ergonomic fashion as supplied. Departure from defaults should
>only be for personal preference, not to make essential features work.

If you could only make Microsoft understand that you would be doing the
whole community a service!

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 15/02/2015 12:04 am, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 23:46:25 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> > wrote:
>
>> Tried Classic Shell with Windows 8, and although it does a nice job,
>> it shouldn't really be necessary to add anything to make the operating
>> system itself behave as it should
>
>
> I agree with you. It shouldn't be necessary, but it is.
>
> Classic Shell is very good, but in my view,
> Start8 (which costs only $5 US) is even better.
>

It's very limited compared to what one can do with Classic Shell, though.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Assumption - an error of which you are as yet unaware.

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 15/02/2015 8:35 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 15/02/2015 in message >
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> I shan't even be bothering with any of these third party menu systems
>> while evaluating Windows 10, because as far as I'm concerned an
>> operating system can only be considered valid if it performs in a
>> suitably ergonomic fashion as supplied. Departure from defaults should
>> only be for personal preference, not to make essential features work.
>
> If you could only make Microsoft understand that you would be doing the
> whole community a service!
>

Hear, hear.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

If I only had a little humility, I'd be perfect.

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"Dino" > wrote in message
...
> Cy Burnot wrote:
>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/14/2015 7:04 PM:
>>> Classic Shell is very good, but in my view,
>>> Start8 (which costs only $5 US) is even better.
>>>
>>
>> What do you like about Start8?
>
> You can choose classic Win 7 which is why I like it.

You can choose Win7 Classic with Classic Shell, too. I'm not sure how well
it works on Win8.1 since I use StartIsBack on it (and would on Win10TP also
if it would install on it), but right now I have my Win10TP system set up to
look just like my Win7 PC. Took very little work or time to do so, and it
was free (that's right, FREE, LOL).
--
SC Tom

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 19:40:22 -0500, Cy Burnot >
wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/14/2015 7:04 PM:
> >
> > Classic Shell is very good, but in my view,
> > Start8 (which costs only $5 US) is even better.
> >
>
> What do you like about Start8?


Sorry, it's been too long since I compared them and I can't give you
the details. But I recommend that you get the 30-day free trial of
Start8 and judge for yourself which *you* like better.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:46:47 -0700, Franklin > wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:43:07 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> > wrote:
>
> >From recollection (because I no longer have any Windows 8
> >installations) Classic Shell did have a mode that was very like
> >Windows 7, or close enough not to matter.
>
> >On the other hand, I no longer care because for the time being I'm
> >using something that looks even more like Windows 7. It's called
> >Windows 7.
>
> >I shan't even be bothering with any of these third party menu systems
> >while evaluating Windows 10, because as far as I'm concerned an
> >operating system can only be considered valid if it performs in a
> >suitably ergonomic fashion as supplied. Departure from defaults should
> >only be for personal preference, not to make essential features work.
>
> The "third-party" argument for not using Win8 (and the upcoming Win10)
> is weak, at best.
>
> You used a third-party newsreader to post that message.
>
> Lots of people use lots of third-party software to do basic things
> that Win XP/7/8/(and the upcoming Win10) do poorly or not at all.
>
> AntiVirus/Firewall - Comodo, McAfee, Kaspersky, etc
> Backup - TrueImage, Macrium Reflect, etc
> Defrag - MyDefrag, Auslogics, Perfect Disk, etc
> Email/newsreader - Agent, Thunderbird, etc
> File search - AgentRansack, etc
> Graphics viewer - IrfanView, PaintShop Pro, etc
> Media player - MPC-HC, VLC, etc
> Text editor - UltraEdit, Notepad++, etc
> Web browser - Firefox (and variants of), Opera, etc
>
> and stuff like clock replacements, compression programs, encryption
> programs, file shredders, partitioning programs, performance monitors,
> virtual drive programs, Win/File Explorer replacements, word
> processors, etc.
>
> How many third-party programs and utilities are on your computer(s)?
> (I can't even imagine what Paul's answer would be)
>
> So, using a third-party menu program just isn't that big a deal. It's
> a means to configure a Win8/10 menu to your personal preference.



A *very* big ditto!

Yes, it would be better if Windows did everything wonderfully, but
since we all have different tastes, it can never be wonderful to
everyone.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:16:28 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 19:40:22 -0500, Cy Burnot >
> wrote:
>
> > Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/14/2015 7:04 PM:
> > >
> > > Classic Shell is very good, but in my view,
> > > Start8 (which costs only $5 US) is even better.
> > >
> >
> > What do you like about Start8?
>
>
> Sorry, it's been too long since I compared them and I can't give you
> the details. But I recommend that you get the 30-day free trial of
> Start8 and judge for yourself which *you* like better.


I just googled Classic Shell Start8 Compar and found this site:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/stardock_start8_vs_classic_shell2013


You might want to take a look at it.

[Cy Burnot]

Franklin wrote on 2/15/2015 6:46 AM:
>
> The "third-party" argument for not using Win8 (and the upcoming Win10)
> is weak, at best.
>
> You used a third-party newsreader to post that message.
>
> Lots of people use lots of third-party software to do basic things
> that Win XP/7/8/(and the upcoming Win10) do poorly or not at all.
>
> AntiVirus/Firewall - Comodo, McAfee, Kaspersky, etc
> Backup - TrueImage, Macrium Reflect, etc
> Defrag - MyDefrag, Auslogics, Perfect Disk, etc
> Email/newsreader - Agent, Thunderbird, etc
> File search - AgentRansack, etc
> Graphics viewer - IrfanView, PaintShop Pro, etc
> Media player - MPC-HC, VLC, etc
> Text editor - UltraEdit, Notepad++, etc
> Web browser - Firefox (and variants of), Opera, etc
>
> and stuff like clock replacements, compression programs, encryption
> programs, file shredders, partitioning programs, performance monitors,
> virtual drive programs, Win/File Explorer replacements, word
> processors, etc.
>
> How many third-party programs and utilities are on your computer(s)?
> (I can't even imagine what Paul's answer would be)
>
> So, using a third-party menu program just isn't that big a deal. It's
> a means to configure a Win8/10 menu to your personal preference.
>


But having to use 3rd-party software to make the user interface work
better seems to be different from preferring a different browser.

[Nil[_5_]]

On 15 Feb 2015, Roderick Stewart > wrote
in alt.comp.os.windows-10:

> I shan't even be bothering with any of these third party menu
> systems while evaluating Windows 10, because as far as I'm
> concerned an operating system can only be considered valid if it
> performs in a suitably ergonomic fashion as supplied. Departure
> from defaults should only be for personal preference, not to make
> essential features work.

I think that attitude is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
There's no downside to using Classic Shell.

I also use Classic Shell with Windows 7... because it enables features
that Windows 7 doesn't have that XP did have.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 13:16:19 -0500, Nil
> wrote:

> On 15 Feb 2015, Roderick Stewart > wrote
> in alt.comp.os.windows-10:
>
> > I shan't even be bothering with any of these third party menu
> > systems while evaluating Windows 10, because as far as I'm
> > concerned an operating system can only be considered valid if it
> > performs in a suitably ergonomic fashion as supplied. Departure
> > from defaults should only be for personal preference, not to make
> > essential features work.
>
> I think that attitude is cutting off your nose to spite your face.


A strong ditto!


> There's no downside to using Classic Shell.


.... or Start8, which I prefer (although both are very good). Another
strong ditto!

[mechanic]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:28:04 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:16:28 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 19:40:22 -0500, Cy Burnot >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/14/2015 7:04 PM:
>>>>
>>>> Classic Shell is very good, but in my view, Start8 (which
>>>> costs only $5 US) is even better.
>>>
>>> What do you like about Start8?
>>
>> Sorry, it's been too long since I compared them and I can't give
>> you the details. But I recommend that you get the 30-day free
>> trial of Start8 and judge for yourself which *you* like better.
>
> I just googled Classic Shell Start8 Compar and found this site:
> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/stardock_start8_vs_classic_shell2013
>
> You might want to take a look at it.

TLDR: Start8 is simpler to use, thus preferred by old-timers.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 13:16:19 -0500, Nil
> wrote:

>> I shan't even be bothering with any of these third party menu
>> systems while evaluating Windows 10, because as far as I'm
>> concerned an operating system can only be considered valid if it
>> performs in a suitably ergonomic fashion as supplied. Departure
>> from defaults should only be for personal preference, not to make
>> essential features work.
>
>I think that attitude is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
>There's no downside to using Classic Shell.

Not really. It's an evaluation version. The fairest evaluation of
something is to determine how well it can perform as it is, without
any extra bells and whistles. In the unlikely event that I end up
actually using Windows 10, I may then investigate third party
improvements if they look useful, but for now I just want to see what
it can do.

>I also use Classic Shell with Windows 7... because it enables features
>that Windows 7 doesn't have that XP did have.

Now that's something I didn't know. What do you think it will do for
me on my Windows 7 computers that I can't already do?

Rod.

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:34:27 -0500, Big_Al > wrote:

>Gene E. Bloch wrote on 2/13/2015 7:40 PM:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:24:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:
>>
>> It's not much stuff and not very often, so it's not a big chore for me,
>> and I always chortle when I do it.
>>
>> Some of it also comes with tabs to align text, and I change them to
>> spaces, since I'm sure the viewers will not all have the same default
>> spacing for tabs.
>>
>Tabs slay me. I use Notepad++ and then notepad does it diff, word diff, etc. It's fun.

I use Ctrl-H in NP++ to replace all tabs with spaces. I also like that I can
add or remove CRLF's in NP++ to change formatting.

[Darklight]

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:05:12 -0500, "SC Tom" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Using Classic Shell, you can turn the tiles off, select a Start Menu style
>>you like, and customize it to your heart's content, if you so desire :-)
>>Not sure if the latest release version will do it (Win10TP wouldn't allow
>>me to install it last time I tried), but the latest Beta version will, and
>>it works just fine (so far).
>
> Tried Classic Shell with Windows 8, and although it does a nice job,
> it shouldn't really be necessary to add anything to make the operating
> system itself behave as it should.

And how should an operating system behave?





> I thought they were going to fix
> this in Windows 10, but it appears they haven't quite done it yet.
>
> Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:41 +0000, Darklight
> wrote:

>>
>> Tried Classic Shell with Windows 8, and although it does a nice job,
>> it shouldn't really be necessary to add anything to make the operating
>> system itself behave as it should.
>
>And how should an operating system behave?

It should behave in an ergonomic and intuitive manner that enables me
to do all the normal things I've been doing with computers for decades
without having to re-learn everything I know about them first.

Rod.

[mechanic]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:41 +0000, Darklight wrote:

>> Tried Classic Shell with Windows 8, and although it does a nice job,
>> it shouldn't really be necessary to add anything to make the operating
>> system itself behave as it should.
>
> And how should an operating system behave?

Like Win8.1 + Classic Shell!

[mechanic]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:32:00 +0000, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> It should behave in an ergonomic and intuitive manner that enables
> me to do all the normal things I've been doing with computers for
> decades without having to re-learn everything I know about them
> first.

But "ergonomic" and "what I'm used to" may be poles apart.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:02:27 +0000, mechanic >
wrote:

>> It should behave in an ergonomic and intuitive manner that enables
>> me to do all the normal things I've been doing with computers for
>> decades without having to re-learn everything I know about them
>> first.
>
>But "ergonomic" and "what I'm used to" may be poles apart.

What most people must be used to by now is the general pattern set by
Windows 95, and copied by many other systems since then, namely a
visible button at the bottom left corner that opens a simple text
menu, and a visible bar along the bottom of the screen that shows
what's running.

It doesn't really matter where the bar and the button are placed of
course, but since nearly every PC on the planet will have had them in
the aforementioned positions for the last 20 years, it seems perverse
to move them anywhere else or dispense with them altogether just for
the sake of being different.

A similar argument would apply if some bright spark were to decide for
example that the keys on the keyboard should be placed in alphabetical
order because this is more "logical", because although in a way it is
logical, it's not the arrangement that everybody knows.

Rod.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:05:54 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> wrote:


> It doesn't really matter where the bar and the button are placed of
> course, but since nearly every PC on the planet will have had them in
> the aforementioned positions for the last 20 years, it seems perverse
> to move them anywhere else or dispense with them altogether just for
> the sake of being different.


As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with being different.I
keep my toolbar on the left side of the screen, not on the bottom,
because with today's wide-screen monitors, I think it makes a better
use of screen real estate that way.


> A similar argument would apply if some bright spark were to decide for
> example that the keys on the keyboard should be placed in alphabetical
> order because this is more "logical", because although in a way it is
> logical, it's not the arrangement that everybody knows.


The keys are in the order they are in (usually called QWERTY) for a
good reason. The format was chosen because it lets touch typists get
to common English letter combinations quickly. Having them in
alphabetical order would *not* be more logical, since it would slow
down touch typists even after they got accustomed to it.

In keyboards used in non-English-speaking countries, there are
different letter combinations that are common, so the keyboard layout
there is often different

And by the way, the Dvorak keyboard layout (patented in 1936) is even
better and would lead to faster typing, but it has never caught on
since too many people are accustomed to the QWERTY format.

However, for anyone who wants to use the Dvorak layout, it's possible
to easily change to it in Windows.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:46:13 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> wrote:

>And by the way, the Dvorak keyboard layout (patented in 1936) is even
>better and would lead to faster typing, but it has never caught on
>since too many people are accustomed to the QWERTY format.

This more or less illustrates the point I was trying to make, namely
that a way of doing something that can be described as "better" in
terms of some isolated logical argument is not necessarily better when
considered in relation to real life.

Rod.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:54:26 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:46:13 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> > wrote:
>
> >And by the way, the Dvorak keyboard layout (patented in 1936) is even
> >better and would lead to faster typing, but it has never caught on
> >since too many people are accustomed to the QWERTY format.
>
> This more or less illustrates the point I was trying to make, namely
> that a way of doing something that can be described as "better" in
> terms of some isolated logical argument is not necessarily better when
> considered in relation to real life.


I think we disagree with respect to ways of doing something, but we
agree that we all have different views of what is "better."

[Alek]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/16/2015 4:46 PM:
>
> The keys are in the order they are in (usually called QWERTY) for a
> good reason. The format was chosen because it lets touch typists get
> to common English letter combinations quickly.

Simply not true. No one knows exactly why QWERTY came to be.

Smithsonian.com says,

"The popular theory states that Sholes had to redesign the keyboard in
response to the mechanical failings of early typewriters, which were
slightly different from the models most often seen in thrift stores and
flea markets. The type bars connecting the key and the letter plate hung
in a cycle beneath the paper. If a user quickly typed a succession of
letters whose type bars were near each other, the delicate machinery
would get jammed. So, it is said, Sholes redesigned the arrangement to
separate the most common sequences of letters like 'th' or 'he'. In
theory then, the QWERTY system should maximize the separation of common
letter pairings. This theory could be easily debunked for the simple
reason that 'er' is the fourth most common letter pairing in the English
language. "

> And by the way, the Dvorak keyboard layout (patented in 1936) is even
> better and would lead to faster typing, but it has never caught on
> since too many people are accustomed to the QWERTY format.

Also not so. Again, from smithsonian.com,

"Dvorak users reported faster and more accurate typing, in part because
the system dramatically increases the number of words that can be typed
using the “home” row of keys where your fingers naturally rest – also
known as the keys you type when you’re just trying fill space. asjdfkal;
sdfjkl; asdfjkl; asdfjkl; dkadsf. asdfjklasdfjk. More recent research
has debunked any claims that Dvorak is more efficient, but it hardly
matters."

<http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/01/18/210216/dvorak-layout-claimed-not-superior-to-qwerty>

[Darklight]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:54:26 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:46:13 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >And by the way, the Dvorak keyboard layout (patented in 1936) is even
>> >better and would lead to faster typing, but it has never caught on
>> >since too many people are accustomed to the QWERTY format.
>>
>> This more or less illustrates the point I was trying to make, namely
>> that a way of doing something that can be described as "better" in
>> terms of some isolated logical argument is not necessarily better when
>> considered in relation to real life.
>
>
> I think we disagree with respect to ways of doing something, but we
> agree that we all have different views of what is "better."

Ok every one complains about the start menu is there any thing else!

The only mistake that Microsoft made was not giving people the option
to choose between start menu or start screen. And they are still
not doing it. They are still forcing people to use what they want them to
use. Which is not good.

There should be options between classic start menu the new win10 start menu
and the start screen. Or they could offer different desktop environments
like linux. IE win 7, win vista, win 8. I must add i don't have a problem
with the metro interface. I find it works faster then a start menu and
desktop icons.

Once you learn how to set it up.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:06:07 +0000, Darklight
> wrote:

> I must add i don't have a problem
> with the metro interface. I find it works faster then a start menu and
> desktop icons.


As I said in an earlier message in this thread, we all have different
opinions.

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:16:42 -0500, Alek wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/16/2015 4:46 PM:
>>
>> The keys are in the order they are in (usually called QWERTY) for a
>> good reason. The format was chosen because it lets touch typists get
>> to common English letter combinations quickly.
>
> Simply not true. No one knows exactly why QWERTY came to be.
>
> Smithsonian.com says,
>
> "The popular theory states that Sholes had to redesign the keyboard in
> response to the mechanical failings of early typewriters, which were
> slightly different from the models most often seen in thrift stores and
> flea markets. The type bars connecting the key and the letter plate hung
> in a cycle beneath the paper. If a user quickly typed a succession of
> letters whose type bars were near each other, the delicate machinery
> would get jammed. So, it is said, Sholes redesigned the arrangement to
> separate the most common sequences of letters like 'th' or 'he'. In
> theory then, the QWERTY system should maximize the separation of common
> letter pairings. This theory could be easily debunked for the simple
> reason that 'er' is the fourth most common letter pairing in the English
> language. "
>
>> And by the way, the Dvorak keyboard layout (patented in 1936) is even
>> better and would lead to faster typing, but it has never caught on
>> since too many people are accustomed to the QWERTY format.
>
> Also not so. Again, from smithsonian.com,
>
> "Dvorak users reported faster and more accurate typing, in part because
> the system dramatically increases the number of words that can be typed
> using the ¡§home¡¨ row of keys where your fingers naturally rest ¡V also
> known as the keys you type when you¡¦re just trying fill space. asjdfkal;
> sdfjkl; asdfjkl; asdfjkl; dkadsf. asdfjklasdfjk. More recent research
> has debunked any claims that Dvorak is more efficient, but it hardly
> matters."
>
> <http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/01/18/210216/dvorak-layout-claimed-not-superior-to-qwerty>

But they are a couple of great stories, so I'm stickin' to them :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 09:42:46 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

> Roderick Stewart wrote:

> > What most people must be used to by now is the general pattern set by
> > Windows 95, and copied by many other systems since then, namely a
> > visible button at the bottom left corner that opens a simple text
> > menu, and a visible bar along the bottom of the screen that shows
> > what's running.
> >
> In Windows 95 that "visible button... that opens a simple text menu" could
> be located at the top, bottom, either side of the screen, or completly
> hidden. Where you have *your* button located is simply what you are used to.


Right! I have my task bar on the left of my screen, and that puts the
"button" (Start Orb) in the upper left corner.

Back when the task bar first began, monitors were almost always 4:3.
But with today's wide-screen monitors, I think having it on the side
of the screen makes a better use of screen real estate.

[Neil Gould[_2_]]

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:02:27 +0000, mechanic >
> wrote:
>
>>> It should behave in an ergonomic and intuitive manner that enables
>>> me to do all the normal things I've been doing with computers for
>>> decades without having to re-learn everything I know about them
>>> first.
>>
>> But "ergonomic" and "what I'm used to" may be poles apart.
>
> What most people must be used to by now is the general pattern set by
> Windows 95, and copied by many other systems since then, namely a
> visible button at the bottom left corner that opens a simple text
> menu, and a visible bar along the bottom of the screen that shows
> what's running.
>
In Windows 95 that "visible button... that opens a simple text menu" could
be located at the top, bottom, either side of the screen, or completly
hidden. Where you have *your* button located is simply what you are used to.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 09:42:46 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>>>> It should behave in an ergonomic and intuitive manner that enables
>>>> me to do all the normal things I've been doing with computers for
>>>> decades without having to re-learn everything I know about them
>>>> first.
>>>
>>> But "ergonomic" and "what I'm used to" may be poles apart.
>>
>> What most people must be used to by now is the general pattern set by
>> Windows 95, and copied by many other systems since then, namely a
>> visible button at the bottom left corner that opens a simple text
>> menu, and a visible bar along the bottom of the screen that shows
>> what's running.
>>
>In Windows 95 that "visible button... that opens a simple text menu" could
>be located at the top, bottom, either side of the screen, or completly
>hidden. Where you have *your* button located is simply what you are used to.

Quite true. It could be placed anywhere, just like the orientation of
light switches, the relative positions of hot and cold taps, the
direction to turn a key or door handle to open something, the layout
of keys on a keyboard, the order of letters in the alphabet, or the
positions of the controls in a car. The choice is quite arbitrary, but
there is a value in everyone having the same arrangement so we don't
have to re-learn the fundamentals every time somebody markets a new
product. The positions of the main controls in the most widely used PC
operating systems, Windows and others, since 1995 mostly seem to have
the menu button at the bottom left, the taskbar or equivalent along
the bottom of the screen, and the window control buttons at the top
right corner. It seems perverse to me to put them anywhere else just
for the sake of being different.

Rod.

[Neil Gould[_2_]]

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 09:42:46 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>>>>> It should behave in an ergonomic and intuitive manner that enables
>>>>> me to do all the normal things I've been doing with computers for
>>>>> decades without having to re-learn everything I know about them
>>>>> first.
>>>>
>>>> But "ergonomic" and "what I'm used to" may be poles apart.
>>>
>>> What most people must be used to by now is the general pattern set
>>> by Windows 95, and copied by many other systems since then, namely a
>>> visible button at the bottom left corner that opens a simple text
>>> menu, and a visible bar along the bottom of the screen that shows
>>> what's running.
>>>
>> In Windows 95 that "visible button... that opens a simple text menu"
>> could be located at the top, bottom, either side of the screen, or
>> completly hidden. Where you have *your* button located is simply
>> what you are used to.
>
> Quite true. It could be placed anywhere, just like the orientation of
> light switches, the relative positions of hot and cold taps, the
> direction to turn a key or door handle to open something, the layout
> of keys on a keyboard, the order of letters in the alphabet, or the
> positions of the controls in a car. The choice is quite arbitrary, but
> there is a value in everyone having the same arrangement so we don't
> have to re-learn the fundamentals every time somebody markets a new
> product. The positions of the main controls in the most widely used PC
> operating systems, Windows and others, since 1995 mostly seem to have
> the menu button at the bottom left, the taskbar or equivalent along
> the bottom of the screen, and the window control buttons at the top
> right corner. It seems perverse to me to put them anywhere else just
> for the sake of being different.
>
Perhaps you've not driven a right-hand drive vehicle, or if you're from one
of the U.K. holdings, a left-hand-drive vehicle. Controls are placed where
they make the most sense for the task at hand, not where the "most widely
used" products of the type have them. Presuming that you'll get cold water
when you stick your hands under the faucet and turn on a tap is not the
smart way to find out about the arrangement. ;-)

If you want your computer to work like it has a 20 year old interface, why
upgrade? I'm typing this on my Win 2k Pro computer that does all I need it
to do, and has for almost 2 decades now, albeit with periodic motherboard
and RAM upgrades. But, it won't do what my Windows 8.1 computers will do,
because neither the OS nor the user interface will accommodate those things.
So, I move ahead and learn new things. No big deal.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Gene Wirchenko[_2_]]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:02:02 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> wrote:

[snip]

>product. The positions of the main controls in the most widely used PC
>operating systems, Windows and others, since 1995 mostly seem to have
>the menu button at the bottom left, the taskbar or equivalent along
>the bottom of the screen, and the window control buttons at the top
>right corner. It seems perverse to me to put them anywhere else just
>for the sake of being different.

Windows, since then, has had the option of moving the taskbar.
Why have an option and not be able to use it?

I like having the taskbar at the top. I have multiple items on
it and switch frequently. For me, having the taskbar at the top is
just a bit easier to see and use.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Jeff Layman]

On 23/02/15 19:23, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> I like having the taskbar at the top. I have multiple items on
> it and switch frequently. For me, having the taskbar at the top is
> just a bit easier to see and use.

+1

Been using it at the top since XP. It was always the logical place. I
could never understand why MS defaulted it to the bottom.

--

Jeff

[Jeff Layman]

On 24/02/15 14:41, Neil Gould wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 23/02/15 19:23, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>> I like having the taskbar at the top. I have multiple items on
>>> it and switch frequently. For me, having the taskbar at the top is
>>> just a bit easier to see and use.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Been using it at the top since XP. It was always the logical place. I
>> could never understand why MS defaulted it to the bottom.
>>
> Everything has to be someplace! ;-)
> It would only be a problem if it couldn't be moved to suit the user's
> preference. If I recall, this ability was a feature of Windows since at
> least version 3.

But why default to the bottom when everything else is at the top? All
the menus are at the top. When I first started using several
applications I had the taskbar at the bottom, but when I had to swap
between them (eg Word, Excel, Outlook) and change certain formatting, it
was up to the top, down to the bottom, change application, up to the top
to reformat or edit something, then copy, back down to change the
application, then paste, then do something else. After a while I
realised that changing applications and using the menus was a lot easier
if everything was at the top.

YMMV.

--

Jeff

[Neil Gould[_2_]]

Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 23/02/15 19:23, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> I like having the taskbar at the top. I have multiple items on
>> it and switch frequently. For me, having the taskbar at the top is
>> just a bit easier to see and use.
>
> +1
>
> Been using it at the top since XP. It was always the logical place. I
> could never understand why MS defaulted it to the bottom.
>
Everything has to be someplace! ;-)
It would only be a problem if it couldn't be moved to suit the user's
preference. If I recall, this ability was a feature of Windows since at
least version 3.
--
best regards,

Neil

[scarecrow]

Jeff Layman > wrote:

>But why default [taskbar] to the bottom when everything else is at the top?

I have two W8.1 tablets, a 7" HP Stream and a 10" Asus T100. It's hard
enough to hit those tiny desktop icons correctly with the taskbar at
the bottom. It would be really really difficult if the icons were
scrunched together at the top with the menu, navigation and bookmarks
bars.

>YMMV.

Exactly!! It's nice to have a choice. Thanks Windows...

[Gene Wirchenko[_2_]]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:41:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 23/02/15 19:23, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>> I like having the taskbar at the top. I have multiple items on
>>> it and switch frequently. For me, having the taskbar at the top is
>>> just a bit easier to see and use.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Been using it at the top since XP. It was always the logical place. I
>> could never understand why MS defaulted it to the bottom.
>>
>Everything has to be someplace! ;-)
>It would only be a problem if it couldn't be moved to suit the user's
>preference. If I recall, this ability was a feature of Windows since at
>least version 3.

Since Windows 95. That was when the Start button and taskbar
were introduced.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:23:53 -0800, Gene Wirchenko >
wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:41:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
> >Jeff Layman wrote:
> >> On 23/02/15 19:23, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >>
> >>> I like having the taskbar at the top. I have multiple items on
> >>> it and switch frequently. For me, having the taskbar at the top is
> >>> just a bit easier to see and use.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Been using it at the top since XP. It was always the logical place. I
> >> could never understand why MS defaulted it to the bottom.
> >>
> >Everything has to be someplace! ;-)
> >It would only be a problem if it couldn't be moved to suit the user's
> >preference. If I recall, this ability was a feature of Windows since at
> >least version 3.
>
> Since Windows 95. That was when the Start button and taskbar
> were introduced.


Thanks for verifying what I thought was the case. I wanted to reply
saying the same thing, but I didn't because I wasn't sure I was right.

[Gene Wirchenko[_2_]]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:59:12 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> wrote:

[snip]

>Thanks for verifying what I thought was the case. I wanted to reply
>saying the same thing, but I didn't because I wasn't sure I was right.

You are welcome. I appreciate when others can state similarly in
other areas.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Dave-UK]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message ...
>>
> The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a feature of
> 3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google has some
> Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)


Can you a post a link showing an image of Windows 3.1 with its taskbar.

[Neil Gould[_2_]]

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:41:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>> Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 23/02/15 19:23, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like having the taskbar at the top. I have multiple items
>>>> on it and switch frequently. For me, having the taskbar at the
>>>> top is just a bit easier to see and use.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Been using it at the top since XP. It was always the logical place.
>>> I could never understand why MS defaulted it to the bottom.
>>>
>> Everything has to be someplace! ;-)
>> It would only be a problem if it couldn't be moved to suit the user's
>> preference. If I recall, this ability was a feature of Windows since
>> at least version 3.
>
> Since Windows 95. That was when the Start button and taskbar
> were introduced.
>
The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a feature of
3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google has some
Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[Gene Wirchenko[_2_]]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:37:43 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

[snip]

>The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a feature of
>3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google has some
>Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)

Post a link.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Dave-UK]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message ...
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:37:43 -0500, "Neil Gould"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a
>>> feature of
>>> 3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google
>>> has some Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)
>>
>> Post a link.
>>
> There are several sets of images, if you just Google "Windows 3.1"

Yes, we can all Google for Windows 3.1 images but the problem is finding an image showing the taskbar.
Why don't you post a link to the image you have seen showing the taskbar?

[Neil Gould[_2_]]

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:37:43 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a
>> feature of
>> 3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google
>> has some Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)
>
> Post a link.
>
There are several sets of images, if you just Google "Windows 3.1"
--
best regards,

Neil

[Nil[_5_]]

On 25 Feb 2015, "Neil Gould" > wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

> https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+3.1&client=firefox-a&hs=zd5&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ejfuVKeKJ4SYNs2xg-AJ&ved=0CEMQ7Ak&biw=1280&bih=894#imgdii=_&imgrc=TQqBUmm6z6JrQM%253A%3BpvZahrAjkuLfsM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fscreens%252Fnt31.gi f%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fent31.htm% 3B640%3B480

Nice try, but that's not Windows 3.1.

[Paul]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Dave-UK wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:37:43 -0500, "Neil Gould"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a
>>>>> feature of
>>>>> 3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google
>>>>> has some Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)
>>>> Post a link.
>>>>
>>> There are several sets of images, if you just Google "Windows 3.1"
>> Yes, we can all Google for Windows 3.1 images but the problem is
>> finding an image showing the taskbar. Why don't you post a link to
>> the image you have seen showing the taskbar?
>>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+3.1&client=firefox-a&hs=zd5&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ejfuVKeKJ4SYNs2xg-AJ&ved=0CEMQ7Ak&biw=1280&bih=894#imgdii=_&imgrc=TQqBUmm6z6JrQM%253A%3BpvZahrAjkuLfsM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fscreens%252Fnt31.gi f%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fent31.htm% 3B640%3B480
>
>

Just picking this example out of your kindly
provided search result...

https://www.kirsle.net/creativity/articles/doswin31_thumb.jpg

That is *not* a Task Bar. That's the outer decoration
of a VirtualBox hosting window. The decorations in
the lower right hand corner, are status indicators of
VirtualBox operation.

Windows 3.1 has Program Manager.

And the info is even available on Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taskbar

"Microsoft introduced the taskbar in Windows 95 in 1995"

HTH,
Paul

[Neil Gould[_2_]]

Dave-UK wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:37:43 -0500, "Neil Gould"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a
>>>> feature of
>>>> 3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google
>>>> has some Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)
>>>
>>> Post a link.
>>>
>> There are several sets of images, if you just Google "Windows 3.1"
>
> Yes, we can all Google for Windows 3.1 images but the problem is
> finding an image showing the taskbar. Why don't you post a link to
> the image you have seen showing the taskbar?
>
https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+3.1&client=firefox-a&hs=zd5&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ejfuVKeKJ4SYNs2xg-AJ&ved=0CEMQ7Ak&biw=1280&bih=894#imgdii=_&imgrc=TQqBUmm6z6JrQM%253A%3BpvZahrAjkuLfsM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fscreens%252Fnt31.gi f%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fent31.htm% 3B640%3B480


--
best regards,

Neil

[Gene Wirchenko[_2_]]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:04:50 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Dave-UK wrote:

[snip]

>> Yes, we can all Google for Windows 3.1 images but the problem is
>> finding an image showing the taskbar. Why don't you post a link to
>> the image you have seen showing the taskbar?
>>
>https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+3.1&client=firefox-a&hs=zd5&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ejfuVKeKJ4SYNs2xg-AJ&ved=0CEMQ7Ak&biw=1280&bih=894#imgdii=_&imgrc=TQqBUmm6z6JrQM%253A%3BpvZahrAjkuLfsM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fscreens%252Fnt31.gi f%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fent31.htm% 3B640%3B480

Take a close look. That is for Windows NT 3.10 which is a
different thing than Windows 3.10.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[GreyCloud[_2_]]

"Dave-UK" wrote in message
eb.com...


"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:37:43 -0500, "Neil Gould"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a
>>> feature of
>>> 3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google
>>> has some Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)
>>
>> Post a link.
>>
> There are several sets of images, if you just Google "Windows 3.1"

Yes, we can all Google for Windows 3.1 images but the problem is finding an
image showing the taskbar.
Why don't you post a link to the image you have seen showing the taskbar?

http://74.125.28.104/search?q=win3.1+taskbar+screenshot&biw=1536&bih=705&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QFDuVMC3OcuyogSj6YK4AQ&ved=0CBoQsAQ&dpr=1.25

[GreyCloud[_2_]]

"Nil" wrote in message ...

On 25 Feb 2015, "Neil Gould" > wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

> https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+3.1&client=firefox-a&hs=zd5&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ejfuVKeKJ4SYNs2xg-AJ&ved=0CEMQ7Ak&biw=1280&bih=894#imgdii=_&imgrc=TQqBUmm6z6JrQM%253A%3BpvZahrAjkuLfsM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fscreens%252Fnt31.gi f%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fent31.htm% 3B640%3B480

Nice try, but that's not Windows 3.1.

I goofed on that last post. From the looks of it, the shutdown may
originate from the file selection as "Exit Windows".
Can't find an actual screenshot tho.

[Dave-UK]

"GreyCloud" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> "Dave-UK" wrote in message eb.com...
>
>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message ...
>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:37:43 -0500, "Neil Gould"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a
>>>> feature of
>>>> 3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google
>>>> has some Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)
>>>
>>> Post a link.
>>>
>> There are several sets of images, if you just Google "Windows 3.1"
>
> Yes, we can all Google for Windows 3.1 images but the problem is finding an image showing the taskbar.
> Why don't you post a link to the image you have seen showing the taskbar?
>
> http://74.125.28.104/search?q=win3.1+taskbar+screenshot&biw=1536&bih=705&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QFDuVMC3OcuyogSj6YK4AQ&ved=0CBoQsAQ&dpr=1.25
>

What is the point of that stupid link ?
I know how to search with Google.
Which one of those multiple images shows a Windows 3.1 taskbar ?
Try actually thinking before posting a comment.

[Neil Gould[_2_]]

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:04:50 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>> Dave-UK wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Yes, we can all Google for Windows 3.1 images but the problem is
>>> finding an image showing the taskbar. Why don't you post a link to
>>> the image you have seen showing the taskbar?
>>>
>>
https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+3.1&client=firefox-a&hs=zd5&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ejfuVKeKJ4SYNs2xg-AJ&ved=0CEMQ7Ak&biw=1280&bih=894#imgdii=_&imgrc=TQqBUmm6z6JrQM%253A%3BpvZahrAjkuLfsM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fscreens%252Fnt31.gi f%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fent31.htm% 3B640%3B480
>
> Take a close look. That is for Windows NT 3.10 which is a
> different thing than Windows 3.10.
>
NT was what I was using at the time, so I thought I recalled that it was
generally the same interface. Thanks to all for corrections.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Gene Wirchenko[_2_]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:17:39 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:04:50 -0500, "Neil Gould"
>> > wrote:

[snip]

>https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+3.1&client=firefox-a&hs=zd5&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ejfuVKeKJ4SYNs2xg-AJ&ved=0CEMQ7Ak&biw=1280&bih=894#imgdii=_&imgrc=TQqBUmm6z6JrQM%253A%3BpvZahrAjkuLfsM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fscreens%252Fnt31.gi f%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.win31.de%252Fent31.htm% 3B640%3B480
>>
>> Take a close look. That is for Windows NT 3.10 which is a
>> different thing than Windows 3.10.
>>
>NT was what I was using at the time, so I thought I recalled that it was
>generally the same interface. Thanks to all for corrections.

Hey, this is USENET. It is almost required.

I have missed whole versions of Windows since so I am normally
quite leery about claiming that something was introduced in a
particular version. BUT back when I was younger ... dinosaurs, snow,
uphill both ways, Windows 3.x, etc. ...

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[GreyCloud[_2_]]

"Dave-UK" wrote in message
eb.com...


"GreyCloud" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Dave-UK" wrote in message
> eb.com...
>
>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:37:43 -0500, "Neil Gould"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The Start button was a Windows 95 addition, but the taskbar was a
>>>> feature of
>>>> 3.1, and it could be moved to suit the user's preferences. Google
>>>> has some Win 3.1 images available as a refresher! ;-)
>>>
>>> Post a link.
>>>
>> There are several sets of images, if you just Google "Windows 3.1"
>
> Yes, we can all Google for Windows 3.1 images but the problem is finding
> an image showing the taskbar.
> Why don't you post a link to the image you have seen showing the taskbar?
>
> http://74.125.28.104/search?q=win3.1+taskbar+screenshot&biw=1536&bih=705&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QFDuVMC3OcuyogSj6YK4AQ&ved=0CBoQsAQ&dpr=1.25
>

What is the point of that stupid link ?
I know how to search with Google.
Which one of those multiple images shows a Windows 3.1 taskbar ?
Try actually thinking before posting a comment.

Try being a bit more civil. I also posted a retraction.
It appears that you have to click on file to exit windows... but IIRC, I
didn't and just shut down the machine because win3.1 was a co-operative
multi-tasking system not pre-emptive.