Printer Drivers in W8?

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 01:09:57 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:22:26 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

On 2014-04-03 5:25 PM, Neil wrote:
On 4/3/2014 1:16 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:25:49 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

Trust me you can make
Windows 8.1 a usable computer, and not have to ever see the Metro
interface.
You can, but it's a shame that Microsoft couldn't have made it as
usable as their previous systems "out of the box".

It is. I haven't added any of the various products that alter Win8.1's
basic functions. Instead, I spent all of about a day determining how to
make Win8.x work for me. IOW, the same process that I've gone through
with every new Windows OS. As I see it, the only problem is that some
folks don't think they need to do this.
No, I think I shouldn't have to spend a day to use a new computer, any
more than I should have a take driving lesson if I buy a new car.
Especially since the XP/Vista/W7 GUI works just fine.

But it might take you more than a day to learn to navigate (pun
intended) the user interfaces of a new car.

Download a manual for the Ford C-Max Hybrid to see what I mean.

SNIP


The interface is by Microsoft :-)

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-.../#photo-183980

Paul

You looked!

Actually, when I posted, I wasn't thinking about that - but anyway, it's
*definitely* kind of funny, as you noted with your emotion.

Other (non-MS) cars are similarly complicated, but if I suggested a
Prius manual or a Camry Hybrid manual, you'd find that it comes in 40 or
50 separate PDFs in perhaps 2 folders, a pain to download and a pain to
use, and I'm not mean enough (today, at least!) to ask someone to do
that.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:45:05 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 20:51:56 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 4/3/2014 7:22 PM, Wolf K wrote:
The only serious error MS made was to make Metro the original default on
W8. In 8.1, you can either switch to desktop after boot, or use a 3rd
party add-on so you can boot into desktop.

You can make Windows 8.1 boot directly to the desktop.

Right click the taskbar at the bottom of the Desktop screen.

Select the Navigation Tab

Make sure this is checked "When I sign in or close all apps on a screen
go to the desktop instead of Start" There are other option in this tab.

That doesn't really solve the problem because as soon as you click the
start button (or whatever you want to call the button at the bottom
left corner), it takes you straight back to the tiled screen you were
trying to get away from. The grammar of this button is broken compared
to previous versions, in which it was left click to operate and right
click to configure. Now we have to right click to reach most of its
operations. And there are still some controls that are reached by
swiping the mouse cursor to an edge or corner with nothing on screen
to indicate that they're available; you just have to know that they
exist.

It baffles me that there are people still trying to argue that there's
anything intuitive about this, or that it's somehow the user who is at
fault for failing to get to grips with it. The fact that the largest
software company on the planet has had to make major changes to it
within its first year, and is committed to making even more because so
many people have expressed dissatisfaction would seem to tell a
different story. At least I know it's not just me.

Rod.

Someday people who grew up on a versions of W8 will complain that W7 (or
for that matter OS-X) is useless, because it's unintuitive: whenever you
move the cursor to an edge or corner, nothing happens :-)

The only thing I really hate abut W8 is the use of the word Charm. It's
so cutesy as to make me cringe. YMMV :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:16:56 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

On 2014-04-04 8:47 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-03 5:25 PM, Neil wrote:
On 4/3/2014 1:16 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:25:49 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

SNIP so I can be OT

Yeah, but such re-training would be reinforcing and refining existing
good habits, not having to learn completely new ones. The layout for car
controls is standard across the world (with a few exceptions), so you
can drove any car, anywhere. Those few exceptions are location and
function of turn signal/windshield wiper/heater/etc controls, which is
not only irritating, but can be dangerous.

Two more things that IMO can be more dangerous: the gearshift (really
operation selector) on the Toyota Prius family of cars, and the location
of the parking brake on many cars.

To me the foot brake to the left of the steering wheel in many cars (at
least here in the US) is dangerous, mostly because it always latches, so
it can't be used in a emergency the way the handbrake can (yeah, I know,
it's not so great either).

SNIP so I can remain OT

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:04:06 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 01:09:57 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:

SNIP

*definitely* kind of funny, as you noted with your emotion.

Please make that last word "emoticon" :-)

Although like many of my typos, this one made me laugh.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-04 8:47 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-03 5:25 PM, Neil wrote:
On 4/3/2014 1:16 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:25:49 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

Trust me you can make
Windows 8.1 a usable computer, and not have to ever see the Metro
interface.

You can, but it's a shame that Microsoft couldn't have made it as
usable as their previous systems "out of the box".

It is. I haven't added any of the various products that alter
Win8.1's basic functions. Instead, I spent all of about a day
determining how to make Win8.x work for me. IOW, the same process
that I've gone through with every new Windows OS. As I see it, the
only problem is that some folks don't think they need to do this.

No, I think I shouldn't have to spend a day to use a new computer,
any more than I should have a take driving lesson if I buy a new
car.

Well, I'm sure that a periodic driving lesson to maintain competency
would help many folks . As a pilot, I know that if drivers were
required to go through half of what one goes through to be able to
fly from year to year *even in the same airplane they've flown for
years*, the roadways would be empty.

Yeah, but such re-training would be reinforcing and refining existing
good habits, not having to learn completely new ones.

It's quite a bit more than that, actually. For private pilots, one aspect of
it would be more like having to take the whole exam, including the written
test, every two years and exhibit full knowledge of current Federal, State
and local regulations.

The layout for
car controls is standard across the world (with a few exceptions), so
you can drove any car, anywhere. Those few exceptions are location
and function of turn signal/windshield wiper/heater/etc controls,
which is not only irritating, but can be dangerous.

Oh? You feel equally competent in left-hand and right-hand drive vehicles
(which amount to more than "a few" exceptions)?

Especially since the XP/Vista/W7 GUI works just fine.

If that's all you want or need, why "upgrade"?

I want improved functionality. IOW, auto-magical connection to wi-fi,
almost automatic setup of the home network (Linux Mint actually does
that better), firmer security, etc. All functional upgrades.

If you're willing to wrestle with Linux, which is unusable to me as a
business OS (none of the apps that I use are available for Linux, for
example and the Open Source apps aren't viable alternatives for too many
reasons), Win8.x is a breeze by comparison.

No obvious (= familiar) way of getting out of an app, you have to
"fumble around" until you find it. Apps that take over the screen, and
can't be gotten out of until you've "fumbled around" and discovered
how. "Charms" that appear out of nowhere because you've moused or
gestured just so, but which you can't get when you actually want to
use them. "Charms" themselves, what was wrong with the Control Panel?
IOW, functionality lost or f****d up. That's why I installed Start8
immediately, a lot less time than and hassle than fumbling around to
find out about Metro.

Funny, I've had none of these issues. Once one realizes that the Start
screen is a different UI (which should be pretty immediate, IMO), then one
can choose which UI is needed for the work that they need to do. To
understand why the Start screen is important, one only needs to look at the
direction that Microsoft, Apple and Android are going (to name just the
market leaders). For instance, Microsoft is making it easier for amatuers to
create individual apps that will run on all Windows devices. That obviously
cannot be done if the *only* UI is the Desktop.

FWIW, apart from the weather gadget I've found nothing useful on
Metro. If I had my druthers, I would like to eliminate most of them.
I can't even recall what they are.

When I transitioned from DOS to Win 1.0 (that didn't last long!), the
situation was even worse... there were *no* useful "native windows"
apps. So, I ran Desqview for until Win 3.

That's why I went to OS/2, much better desktop, and initially lots of
very well built freeware and shareware.

OS/2 was years later. I also invested in that, but it went nowhere as far as
the apps that I needed to maintain.

Conversely, I already prefer a few of
the Metro apps to their web-browser-based alternatives, and I think
that the opportunity exists for more of the same.

Such as?

Weather, Calendar, eBay and Amazon to name a few. There are others that "get
it" in the same way those apps do.

Basic problem with Win8: it was designed to be a multi-device OS, _as
it should be_, but its designers didn't understand that a desktop is
not the same as a tablet, so they allowed for neither automatic nor
user-selected adaptation.

What do you mean by that? I have not installed *any* 3rd-party UI tools, and
have no problem running desktop apps all day if that's what I need to do.

They were also, I suspect, gob-smacked by
the concept of all-in-one touch-screen desktops. It seems to have
caused brain-freeze. If you want to see how such devices should be
designed, look at Star Trek. Carefully.

In other words, fake it? 8-)

As more than one designer has pointed out, electric/electronic devices
are "opaque". Thus the interface design is arbitrary. For the user,
that means the interface has to be learned as a collection of habits.
Don't mess with habits! One can, up to a point, create a control
layout that helps the user learn the necessary habits, but they are
habits, not extensions of existing movements, as with hammers (for
example), or obvious from the design, as with wood stoves. The key
word is "habits". Once you've habituated users to a certain
interface, you'd better have really, really powerful reason to change
the interface. Mere glitz is not such a reason.

I don't think "glitz" has anything to do with the Start screen; it's a
bridge UI that has the underlying code base to run apps written for other
Windows devices. The trend is unambiguously clear; desktop computers are in
decline and other devices are in rapid growth. Most people never did want a
personal computer, but it was the closest solution to the things they did
want. Now that they can accomplish almost all of that on their mobile
devices, they aren't buying desktops. Five years from now (which is
"virtually now" in development terms) the only relevant UIs will be for
mobile devices, and at that point users will be able to functionally
transition between MS, Apple and Android devices because of the "habits"
they're learning today, which includes integrating their work using the
Start screen on the remaining desktops.
--
best regards,

Neil

Some of us look out the front window, others not so much.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:25:50 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:04:06 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 01:09:57 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:

SNIP

*definitely* kind of funny, as you noted with your emotion.

Please make that last word "emoticon" :-)

Although like many of my typos, this one made me laugh.


Laughing is expressing an emotion.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 13:33:00 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:25:50 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:04:06 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 01:09:57 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:

SNIP

*definitely* kind of funny, as you noted with your emotion.

Please make that last word "emoticon" :-)

Although like many of my typos, this one made me laugh.

Laughing is expressing an emotion.

:-)

(How could I resist?)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch wrote:


Someday people who grew up on a versions of W8 will complain that W7 (or
for that matter OS-X) is useless, because it's unintuitive: whenever you
move the cursor to an edge or corner, nothing happens :-)

The only thing I really hate abut W8 is the use of the word Charm. It's
so cutesy as to make me cringe. YMMV :-)

You might joke about that "edge thing", but if you run Windows 8
in a virtual machine, Windows 8 cannot reliably detect the
right edge of the screen. Meaning in a VM, getting to the
charms bar with a gesture, doesn't work.

Paul

Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-04 2:28 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
[...]
Once one realizes that the
Start screen is a different UI (which should be pretty immediate,
IMO), then one can choose which UI is needed for the work that they
need to do.

I still haven't figured out which gesture will remove an app (which
apparently isn't the same as actually shutting it down).

One could read the built-in help material. It took about 5 minutes to learn
the full range of gestures associated with the Start screen. Strongly
recommended!

To
understand why the Start screen is important, one only needs to look
at the direction that Microsoft, Apple and Android are going (to
name just the market leaders). For instance, Microsoft is making it
easier for amateurs to create individual apps that will run on all
Windows devices. That obviously cannot be done if the only UI is
the Desktop.

Really? Such apps couldn't run on the desktop???

No.

Actually, anything
that can run on Metro can run on the standard desktop.

Not true.

Or should. If
Win8 doesn't allow that, it's a truly awful OS. After all Metro is
just another GUI.

The code base for the Start screen and the Desktop are quite different, and
there is no such thing as "just another GUI" when it comes to writing code.


Conversely, I already prefer a few of
the Metro apps to their web-browser-based alternatives, and I think
that the opportunity exists for more of the same.

Such as?

Weather, Calendar, eBay and Amazon to name a few. There are others
that "get it" in the same way those apps do.

Weather is good, I've yet to find a calendar app that's as handy as a
real paper one shoved in my pocket, eBay doesn't interest me at all,
and I rarely buy anything from Amazon. Any others?

Those are personal matters. My point is that these apps are more functional
than the alternative, e.g. they make access those sites far more efficient
than using a browser.

BTW, all the apps you've mentioned are actually browser-based. You
just don't see the complete browser window, is all, which is OK.

Start apps (other than browsers) have specific and limited functionality.
Many apps access the internet only for using the Skydrive and cannot be
reconfigured to go elsewhere, ergo by definition they are not browsers.

But it would be better, I think, to provide the option of presenting these
browser-based apps as buttons above the app window, so you could
switch between them without heaving to exit back to Metro.

If you learn how to use the Start screen, you'll discover that this
functionality already exists, and that the Start screen itself is that app
integrator. There is no reason for the individual apps to duplicate it!

Basic problem with Win8: it was designed to be a multi-device OS,
_as
it should be_, but its designers didn't understand that a desktop is
not the same as a tablet, so they allowed for neither automatic nor
user-selected adaptation.

What do you mean by that? [...]

What I mean is that the default GUI should be different for different
devices, that switching between GUIs temporarily or permanently should
be easy, and that functionality should be the same on all GUIs. e.g.,
any app installed from any GUI should be accessible from any other.
Etc.

That functionality already exists, and will apparently be made more obvious
in the "update" that has been talked about in other threads here.

They were also, I suspect, gob-smacked by
the concept of all-in-one touch-screen desktops. It seems to have
caused brain-freeze. If you want to see how such devices should be
designed, look at Star Trek. Carefully.

In other words, fake it?

OK OK, I get the joke. But look at the design, esp. in STNG and
its offshoots. Notice how the configuration of the GUI changes to
offer the appropriate interface for the task at hand? And that the
wi-fi interface communicates with each user individually? Now that's
the kind of thing I want. A screen or two in every room, that will
configure itself for any user and task as desired.

The irony here is that what you claim to want is precisely what Start screen
apps are about! Each app presents the user with specific configurations for
the task at hand while providing a common base of controls. Additionally,
have you noticed that crowds of people walking around with their phones and
Bluetooth headgear are having individual communications? Have you seen any
Google glass users? Resistance may be futile, but who knew that assimilation
would be
voluntary? ;-D

I don't think "glitz" has anything to do with the Start screen; it's
a bridge UI that has the underlying code base to run apps written
for other Windows devices.

The "underlying code base" is not tied to Metro. To design it that way
would cripple it. Metro is just a GUI that runs on the "underlying
code base", just as the desktop GUI does.

At the lowest level the Start screen and the Desktop *are* two shells
running
on the underlying OS' code base. However, they require apps to have quite
different code to function with those UIs so, it isn't very useful to
conflate
the two by condensing the reference levels.

The trend is unambiguously clear; desktop computers are in
decline and other devices are in rapid growth. [Etc.]

True enough, although I think desktops won't disappear. People do want
and have to do real work, after all. I'm not arguing about that. I'm
just saying that Metro is a poorly designed interface, as well as an
ugly one.

From your earlier comments, I think it's fair to say that you don't yet
fully know the Start screen interface ("appearance" is only one minor
aspect of a
"design").

It also pointlessly omitted functionality that is needed
even on a tablet, and didn't go far enough in other ways.

What "omitted functionality that it needed... on a tablet" are you referring
to? I
find the Start screen's UI to be very consistent with those of other
tablets, and in some ways to be superior to the alternative tablet OSs such
as iOS and Android (one being as you have pointed out regarding your Surface
Pro). I think that as the apps themselves improve, the need for the Desktop
UI will
diminish even further than it already has. One example is the difference
between Polaris Office under Android vs. OpenOffice under Win8. Polaris is
similar to a Start app, but provides the access and functionality of other
Office apps without the need to use the desktop. I think this points the way
to the future of apps.
--
best regards,

Neil

On 2014-04-04 8:07 PM, Wolf K wrote:

True enough, although I think desktops won't disappear. People do want
and have to do real work, after all. I'm not arguing about that. I'm
just saying that Metro is a poorly designed interface, as well as an
ugly one. It also pointlessly omitted functionality that is needed even
on a tablet, and didn't go far enough in other ways. Win8.1 has fixed
some of those problems, and 8.2 is apparently going to fix a few more.

But I would a go a step further than you on one point: I think the
future will be a tablet that can be used just like a traditional
desktop, if and when the user wants to do that. Such as the Surface Pro
2. I have one, and I love it. Why? Because I can do real work with it
when I switch to the desktop. It's a truly portable PC, unlike the iPad
and every other tablet I looked at.

I completely agree. My ASUS VivaTab Pro is probably the best example
I've ever owned of computing's future. The speed of processors will
matter less and less, battery-life will be prolonged and portability
will not necessarily result in the sacrifice of productivity. Windows
8.1 is actually well-executed because if you need to focus on
consumption, the modern interface allows that and if there are more
complicated tasks that you need to do, the desktop is available for that
purpose. People will infinitely criticize the direction Microsoft took
with Windows 8 and it was admittedly imperfect but 8.1 is quite perfect IMO.

--
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter
GNU/Linux's place is in the trash can

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:15:08 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

People will infinitely criticize the direction Microsoft took
with Windows 8 and it was admittedly imperfect but 8.1 is quite perfect IMO.

If it really is "quite perfect", I wonder why so many people have
objected to it that Microsoft has found it necessary to announce yet
another modification? I think it's a fairly safe bet that Update 1
will not be the last.

Rod.

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:07:52 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:15:08 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

People will infinitely criticize the direction Microsoft took
with Windows 8 and it was admittedly imperfect but 8.1 is quite perfect IMO.

If it really is "quite perfect", I wonder why so many people have
objected to it that Microsoft has found it necessary to announce yet
another modification? I think it's a fairly safe bet that Update 1
will not be the last.


*No* software is perfect, whether a Windows version, by Microsoft, or
anything else by any software company.

On 4/5/2014 10:05 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-05 10:25 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
[...]
Actually, anything
that can run on Metro can run on the standard desktop.

Not true.

Or should. If
Win8 doesn't allow that, it's a truly awful OS. After all Metro is
just another GUI.

The code base for the Start screen and the Desktop are quite
different, and
there is no such thing as "just another GUI" when it comes to writing
code. [etc]

IOW, it's the OS itself that's badly designed. I hadn't realised that.

Of course, I completely disagree with your opinion. I could understand
why different GUIs may seem to be generally equivalent with trivial
differences to those with little or no experience writing application
code. However, that notion doesn't reflect the real world of computer
operating systems, GUIs or apps now or at any point in the past.

I repeat: Metro is a GUI. The desktop is a GUI. If they are functionally
so different that it's not possible for some programs to run on one and
not the other, then that cripples Metro (and by inference, also cripples
the desktop). Frankly, I think that's absurd.

It seems that you think that programs should be able to run on any GUI.
That has never been the case, and I don't see why they should.

I repeat: Microsoft is moving in the direction of making it possible to
write a single app that will run on Windows phones, tablets and Windows
8.x computers. Guess which GUI such apps will use?

However, Start8 enables running Metro programs from the desktop,

Start8 is providing a desktop shell to run those programs. I don't see
that as being a difficult accomplishment, and is essentially the same
kind of thing that OS/2, Desqview, et al have done in the past. However,
as was the case then, those apps may not always run properly in that
mode, for example what happens with Metro/Modern instructions that have
no equivalents in a desktop shell?

and
puts them in a proper window, too. In fact, they're all listed under All
Programs.

Have you found installed programs that are *not* listed under All
Programs? I've not tried to "unlist" an installed app on that GUI, so I
don't know whether it's even possible.

Just a second, I'll look...

Well, if it is possible, how to do that is certainly not obvious.

Furthermore, programs I've added to this box show as tiles on
Metro. So they are equivalent for programs.

Pinning an app to the Start screen does not make it a Metro/Modern app.

So it's the "apps" that are the trouble. The "apps" are links to the
web, and that's the problem. There's nothing wrong with doing that. But
there's something seriously wrong when those links are limited to one of
the GUIs available under W8.

That's a pretty odd take on what I've written. What do you mean by "the
'apps' are links to the web"? All apps access the web via the OS. Win8.x
doesn't change that at all. So, what kind of "trouble" are you referring
to here?

What I expected was an OS that would run on any device, with the only
difference being the UI. That Win8 doesn't work this way at such a
fundamental level is a major, major fail.

I think this notion is in error. By necessity, an OS needs to
accommodate the particulars of a device. If it has an ARM processor, the
OS will be different than one for a device with a Pentium processor
(look at the apps that won't run on the RT, for example). However, the
*UI* can be identical, and beyond that, why should a user care?
Furthermore, this is also not a new situation, and extends to apps as well.
--
best regards,

Neil

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:01:49 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

On 2014-04-04 2:04 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 01:09:57 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:22:26 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

[...]
No, I think I shouldn't have to spend a day to use a new computer, any
more than I should have a take driving lesson if I buy a new car.
Especially since the XP/Vista/W7 GUI works just fine.

But it might take you more than a day to learn to navigate (pun
intended) the user interfaces of a new car.

Download a manual for the Ford C-Max Hybrid to see what I mean.

SNIP


The interface is by Microsoft :-)

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-.../#photo-183980

Paul

You looked!

Actually, when I posted, I wasn't thinking about that - but anyway, it's
*definitely* kind of funny, as you noted with your emotion.

Other (non-MS) cars are similarly complicated, but if I suggested a
Prius manual or a Camry Hybrid manual, you'd find that it comes in 40 or
50 separate PDFs in perhaps 2 folders, a pain to download and a pain to
use, and I'm not mean enough (today, at least!) to ask someone to do
that.

I looked, too. The interface is for non-driving functions, the kind
that distract the driver, and therefore should be outlawed.

I haven't yet crashed while operating those sorts of things, but there
have been times that my passenger has emitted some sounds that helped
prevent a crash :-(

If one survives long enough, one learns to use the interface in
1/2-second gulps, unless there is a passenger to do some or all of the
work (this is especially true of audio or GPS stuff).

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:05:04 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:


Someday people who grew up on a versions of W8 will complain that W7 (or
for that matter OS-X) is useless, because it's unintuitive: whenever you
move the cursor to an edge or corner, nothing happens :-)

The only thing I really hate abut W8 is the use of the word Charm. It's
so cutesy as to make me cringe. YMMV :-)

You might joke about that "edge thing", but if you run Windows 8
in a virtual machine, Windows 8 cannot reliably detect the
right edge of the screen. Meaning in a VM, getting to the
charms bar with a gesture, doesn't work.

Paul

I wasn't joking, I was amused by reality.

But I didn't know about the problem you mention. That would be enough to
pi&& off the Good Humor man...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)