New computer but win 7 or 8

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:11:29 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:


What third-party product are you using, and what customization is it
providing for you?

"True Launch Bar". Using that, my taskbar has ten folders of shortcuts
(arranged functionally) and two shortcuts. No need for any Start menu.


True Launch Bar works fine with Windows 8 and with Start8. I run it
here too.


Additionally I make great use of pinned apps and documents.


Me too.


Perhaps Start8 can do something similar.

Perhaps.

"Not much" isn't very reassuring.)

I was going to say "no," but since I wasn't 100% sure, I changed it to
"not much." g

Very wise.

There are probably a few minor differences, but to be frank, I can't
remember any.

Would you like me to e-mail you a screen shot of my desktop?

Tell you what, here's one of mine. This is one of two monitors:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vj9u0kkv4l82prg/Desktop.gif


Except for the desktop picture being different, and my having a gadget
sidebar, yours looks *very* much like mine. I too have the Task Bar on
the left side of the screen. But unlike you, I have the True Launch
Bar on the left side of my second monitor, rather than on the Task
Bar.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:01:19 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

OS X is based on, I think, Steve Jobs NeXT OS, which was based on
something like BeOS or similar.

As a user, I don't know what NeXT is like, and I no longer remember
anything about BeOS, but in terms of the technology in both and how OS X
incorporated that, I'm even more ignorant :-)

However, I sure went into Unix shells a lot when I was running OS X, so
I know Unix is there.

Looks like what I don't know is the extent to which Unix underlies the
other two.

But as I was getting ready to click on Send, I just realized that maybe
you mean that it's the more surface layers, the user interface and the
architecture one usually sees when just using OS X normally, that
derived from those two systems.

OK, now I'll send this.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 12/04/2013 20:27, Ken Springer wrote:
On 4/12/13 12:07 PM, Ann Watson wrote:
On 11/04/2013 9:38 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
Just to be a muckraker, ditch Windows in favor of OS X or some
flavor of Linux. LOL


Not so great if you can't run your favorite software on a new o/s!

How does this differ from not being able to use your favorite Windows
software in the Windows OS?

Besides, IMO, you can get open source software that does everything the
average user needs. grin


Not to mention WINE, which runs more and more "Windows only" software as
time passes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:44:59 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 12/04/2013 20:27, Ken Springer wrote:


Not so great if you can't run your favorite software on a new o/s!

How does this differ from not being able to use your favorite Windows
software in the Windows OS?


It doesn't differ at all, except perhaps in degree.

And I can't speak for everyone's experience, but *I* can continue to
run all my favorite software in Windows 8, and I also did in Windows
7, Windows Vista,Windows 2000, Windows XP, WFWG 3.11, Windows 3.1, and
Windows 3.0 (I skipped Windows Me, so I can't speak for that).

On 4/12/2013 2:58 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:44:59 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 12/04/2013 20:27, Ken Springer wrote:


Not so great if you can't run your favorite software on a new o/s!

How does this differ from not being able to use your favorite Windows
software in the Windows OS?


It doesn't differ at all, except perhaps in degree.

And I can't speak for everyone's experience, but *I* can continue to
run all my favorite software in Windows 8, and I also did in Windows
7, Windows Vista,Windows 2000, Windows XP, WFWG 3.11, Windows 3.1, and
Windows 3.0 (I skipped Windows Me, so I can't speak for that).


As long as you stay with the 32-bit versions, you maximize your chances.

Sometimes (as with Outlook Express) it depends if the programs that Microsoft intentionally
restricts to certain OS versions are in your list of favorites.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:29:45 -0400, "...winston"
wrote:


I like the Windows Media Center in Windows 7. I read somewhere that the WMC
doesn't come with Windows 8 but must be bought separately. Is that true?


Yes, it is true.

OUCH!


--
-gufus
Thou Shalt NOT excessively annoy others or
allow Thyself to become excessively annoyed

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:19:15 -0500, Larry__Weiss
wrote:

On 4/11/2013 6:02 PM, mick wrote:
I have a friend who is asking me to help him choose a new desktop computer. He has an very old
machine running win xp, he does not do much other than email, internet, a bit of video editing and
photograph editing. He is also not that computer literate, I have to walk him through most basic
things much of the time.

Choosing a computer to suit his needs is not much trouble but I am stuck on whether to advise win7
or win8. I know a lot about win7 and can help him to easily get to grips with understanding it,
but if I go for win8 I know it will be more difficult, as I do not have that here at home to play
with when he asks the inevitable help questions over the phone.

The new computer will be between 4 and 8gb, no gaming, no touch screen.
I don't want to appear selfish from my point of view and help him spend his money by buying an
already oldish win7 when the newer win8 is widely advertised as the next best thing since sliced
bread if you see what I mean.

As to myself, I have three machines here with win7 and cannot ever see me upgrading to win8 as all
the reports I have read so far just don't convince me it is better. I had vista on a couple of
machines awhile back and although it worked well(for me), win 7 just blew it out of the water and
that is what I will be sticking with for quite a long time.

Oh, what to do :-?


I think you need to first determine whether it will a 32-bit or a 64-bit version of Windows that he
will acquire.


I'm not the person you are addressing, but almost all new machines are
64-bit these days, so it's highly likely that he will acquire a 64-bit
version of Windows. Almost everyone does.


And, if he is using Outlook Express on his XP machine, he is in for some discomfort in adapting to
a new email client.


Three points regarding that:

1. That's to some extent true, but it's irrelevant to the question of
whether he should get Windows 7 or Windows 8. Outlook Express will run
on neither of them.

2. If he chooses a Microsoft e-mail client--Outlook, Windows Live
Mail, or Windows Mail (which isn't supposed to run on Windows 7, but
it can be made to do so)--there will be a lot of similarity between it
and Outlook Express, so there should be very little discomfort.
Windows Mail and Windows Live Mail are essentially just newer versions
of Outlook Express with different names. And I remember back when I
made the transition from Outlook Express to Outlook several years ago,
and I found it very easy.

3. Even if he chooses a third-party e-mail client, most of them have a
fair amount of similarity with Outlook Express, so there should be
only little discomfort,

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:41:11 -0400, "...winston"
wrote:

Microsoft is perfectly comfortable with users upgrading from XP to either o/s though the EOL for Support of Win7 (April 2020) will
occur about 7 yrs from now and at the current time estimated to be about 2-4 yrs before Win8's EOL Support.

I bet M$ will extend W7 support past April 2020.

IMHO

--
-gufus
Thou Shalt NOT excessively annoy others or
allow Thyself to become excessively annoyed

On 4/12/13 1:44 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:01:19 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

OS X is based on, I think, Steve Jobs NeXT OS, which was based on
something like BeOS or similar.

As a user, I don't know what NeXT is like, and I no longer remember
anything about BeOS, but in terms of the technology in both and how OS X
incorporated that, I'm even more ignorant :-)

As I understand it, and therefore could be wrong, both BeOS and Next
were based on Unix. I don't know any of the details, and I suspect Unix
is still proprietary. And, maybe some of both has some Linux, in it.

I do remember reading somewhere, and again, this might be wrong, that
Apple was having a horrible time in its effort to replace OS 9. They
couldn't get the in house OS X to work. Steve Jobs came back, and they
shifted to updating the NeXT OS to be Apples OS X.

I do know, I'd like to have a NeXT machine. I had some friends that
were managing a business that was running on NeXT, and except that the
system they had for this was just grayscale, they loved it. Their
personal computer(s) were Windows.

However, I sure went into Unix shells a lot when I was running OS X, so
I know Unix is there.

Looks like what I don't know is the extent to which Unix underlies the
other two.

But as I was getting ready to click on Send, I just realized that maybe
you mean that it's the more surface layers, the user interface and the
architecture one usually sees when just using OS X normally, that
derived from those two systems.

No, nothing that technical at my end. grin


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.3
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.1.2

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:22:12 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

a. Windows 8 will be supported longer than Windows 7

Maybe?


--
-gufus
Thou Shalt NOT excessively annoy others or
allow Thyself to become excessively annoyed

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:27:52 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

On 4/12/13 1:44 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:01:19 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

OS X is based on, I think, Steve Jobs NeXT OS, which was based on
something like BeOS or similar.

As a user, I don't know what NeXT is like, and I no longer remember
anything about BeOS, but in terms of the technology in both and how OS X
incorporated that, I'm even more ignorant :-)

As I understand it, and therefore could be wrong, both BeOS and Next
were based on Unix. I don't know any of the details, and I suspect Unix
is still proprietary. And, maybe some of both has some Linux, in it.

I do remember reading somewhere, and again, this might be wrong, that
Apple was having a horrible time in its effort to replace OS 9. They
couldn't get the in house OS X to work. Steve Jobs came back, and they
shifted to updating the NeXT OS to be Apples OS X.

I do know, I'd like to have a NeXT machine. I had some friends that
were managing a business that was running on NeXT, and except that the
system they had for this was just grayscale, they loved it. Their
personal computer(s) were Windows.

However, I sure went into Unix shells a lot when I was running OS X, so
I know Unix is there.

Looks like what I don't know is the extent to which Unix underlies the
other two.

But as I was getting ready to click on Send, I just realized that maybe
you mean that it's the more surface layers, the user interface and the
architecture one usually sees when just using OS X normally, that
derived from those two systems.

No, nothing that technical at my end. grin

OK, thanks for the above.

You have added to my ignorance.

Just kidding - I meant that you have improved my ignorance, but I had
fun saying it that way :-)

Obviously I didn't know about the underlying OS in NeXT and BeOS, so I
appreciate the info. And now I don't have to Google...Because what you
said is all I need at the moment.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:58:12 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:44:59 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 12/04/2013 20:27, Ken Springer wrote:

Not so great if you can't run your favorite software on a new o/s!

How does this differ from not being able to use your favorite Windows
software in the Windows OS?

It doesn't differ at all, except perhaps in degree.

And I can't speak for everyone's experience, but *I* can continue to
run all my favorite software in Windows 8, and I also did in Windows
7, Windows Vista,Windows 2000, Windows XP, WFWG 3.11, Windows 3.1, and
Windows 3.0 (I skipped Windows Me, so I can't speak for that).

One reason I switched back to Windows from the Mac a few years ago was
that some of the Windows software I had been using was not available in
OS X, so I ran XP in a VM on the Mac.

SO I got a PC with Vista and discovered that some of the Windows
software I had been using was not compatible with Vista, so I ran XP in
a VM on the PC.

Good thing I can laugh at myself...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:58:53 +0100, mick wrote:

On 4/11/2013 4:02 PM, mick wrote:
I have a friend who is asking me to help him choose a new desktop
computer. He has an very old machine running win xp, he does not do
much other than email, internet, a bit of video editing and photograph
editing. He is also not that computer literate, I have to walk him
through most basic things much of the time.

Choosing a computer to suit his needs is not much trouble but I am stuck
on whether to advise win7 or win8. I know a lot about win7 and can help
him to easily get to grips with understanding it, but if I go for win8 I
know it will be more difficult, as I do not have that here at home to
play with when he asks the inevitable help questions over the phone.

The new computer will be between 4 and 8gb, no gaming, no touch screen.
I don't want to appear selfish from my point of view and help him spend
his money by buying an already oldish win7 when the newer win8 is widely
advertised as the next best thing since sliced bread if you see what I
mean.

As to myself, I have three machines here with win7 and cannot ever see
me upgrading to win8 as all the reports I have read so far just don't
convince me it is better. I had vista on a couple of machines awhile
back and although it worked well(for me), win 7 just blew it out of the
water and that is what I will be sticking with for quite a long time.

Oh, what to do :-?

Well you have had some very nice and well thought out responses. I was too
lazy.

What are you going to recommend??

Decisions, decisions, god knows LOL
What is apparent from much of the good advice posted here is for me to
stand back a little and let my friend decide what he thinks he will
like and then for me to help after he has made his choice.
Maybe I will have to learn win8 pretty damn quick. LOL
What makes things a little harder with my friend is that he is French,
talks English OK but doesn't always understand it :-)

OK, you have to learn French.

It'll even be OK if you talk French OK but don't always understand it...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:00:07 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

On 4/12/2013 10:49 AM, NY wrote:
[...]
By all means provide a new tablet-oriented shell as an *option* but
don't make it compulsory and throw away the old shell.
[...]

Classic Shell (free) and other 3rd party add-ons (some free, some not)
give you the option. With the traditional GUI, W8 is IMO actually better
than W7 in few (minor) ways, eg, the fly-out window thumbnails on
taskbar icons when apps are running.

YMMV

But I think this copy of Windows 7 has fly-out thumbnails on its taskbar
icons for running apps.

When I rest the cursor on a taskbar icon, I get a small pop-up which
shows a miniature version of the task's open windows. Is that what you
mean?

I also checked the other computer, since this one is W7 Pro. The other
one is Home Premium, and it also shows the pictures.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:19:25 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:42:50 -0700, Tecknomage
wrote:

The thing to remember about Win8 is that it is primarily optimized for
*touch-screen* hardware. Desktop PC with touch-screen monitor or
tablet PC. It has a smart-phone like GUI.

As far as I'm concerned, the most important thing to remember is that
it has *two* interfaces. The one you are talking about (the
"smart-phone like GUI") is only the default one, and one that doesn't
have to ever be used. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I hardly
ever use it; the other interface, the one I use and recommend for
those without touch screens, is almost exactly like Windows 7's ,
especially if you add a third-party program.

For my part, I don't use W8 much, but it's a non-touch screen setup, and
I have no trouble using the mouse in the Modern interface.

I think a touch interface would be easier, but it's set up as a media
computer[1], and the TV is across the room, so even if were a touch
screen, I'd have to be Plastic Man to use it. Of course, that's just my
situation, not the general case.

[1] It was not a very successful project, IMO. One of my failures :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)