If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote: [...] Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called. Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee. LOL I wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi, not that it offers that particular user any new benefit. Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync. Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really is, those bennies are of little value to me. I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from the Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for the tablet to actually show up on my computers. Therein lies the difference between what you currently have and the direction that MS is heading. I am, and know many "big device users", and can only see an up-side for MS since they've simplified the process for the non-techie types. Therein lies the issue(s) for me. I don't mind MS and others using tablets and phones for what they are interested in, but those... "methods" is a good word I guess... don't work for me. That's not what I want to do. The capability to do such things does not mean that everyone *must* do them! I didn't buy a large monitor, build a fast computer, to make using websites harder due to their design, or have software with fewer capabilities. Two separate issues, here. Most folks paying for website development don't have the budget to pay for and maintain device-specific sites, i.e. apps for mobile devices and adaptive sites for monitors ranging from laptops to 60" displays (yes, folks do that). It *can* be done, but it isn't cheap. I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications for those that don't need the additional functionality. And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are still quite a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was new (5.5 years ago) to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me 15 seconds and getting the password to be up and running on their network. Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported devices, software and systems. What one runs into with Apple devices is that they either work or they won't, no matter how much time one spends trying to make them work. In other cases, they'll "sort of work", with less functionality than Windows. -- best regards, Neil |
Ads |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/9/2014 12:23 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:49:51 -0400, Neil wrote: Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync. You don't need a wirelessly connected drive to achieve that, only a network connected one. It's irrelevant whether it's connected by wireless or ethernet cable (though if it's feasible to connect it by cable, this will probably give a faster performance). The reference was to "personal clouds", not networks in general. Some folks may not want an ethernet cable attached to their phone! ;-D Nor need they have one. The phone will presumably be connected to the local network by wireless because it's a portable device, but a network connected disk drive or printer is usually in a fixed position somewhere, and can be connected by cable. If the user doesn't have a network at all, they can still have a "personal cloud" with one of those drives, so I think that is a good thing. If one has a network with a server on it, there is no need for any additional drives at all. An ethernet-only (non-wi-fi) HD is somewhere between those options, but may require a more knowledgeable user to get it up and running than the "personal cloud" drives. Although I have no need for the "personal cloud" drives I can understand the benefit to others. I can understand what you're describing, but have difficulty in imagining somebody with a smartphone or tablet who wants a wireless connection to a disc drive but not the internet. It's a feasible requirement, but surely an unusual one. Why would access to the internet be an issue one way or another? It's not at all unusual to have both, and it's not at all a new idea. Many folks have WiFi at home for internet access, and the ability to save content to a common folder accessed by all their devices (a.k.a. "the cloud") is increasingly desirable, which is why no provider is marching in a different direction. A "personal cloud" addresses some of the concerns that people have w/r/t having their data on "someone else's server" (which is where this thread began). -- best regards, Neil |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/09/2014 03:08 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 12:23 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote: On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:49:51 -0400, Neil wrote: Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync. You don't need a wirelessly connected drive to achieve that, only a network connected one. It's irrelevant whether it's connected by wireless or ethernet cable (though if it's feasible to connect it by cable, this will probably give a faster performance). The reference was to "personal clouds", not networks in general. Some folks may not want an ethernet cable attached to their phone! ;-D Nor need they have one. The phone will presumably be connected to the local network by wireless because it's a portable device, but a network connected disk drive or printer is usually in a fixed position somewhere, and can be connected by cable. If the user doesn't have a network at all, they can still have a "personal cloud" with one of those drives, so I think that is a good thing. If one has a network with a server on it, there is no need for any additional drives at all. An ethernet-only (non-wi-fi) HD is somewhere between those options, but may require a more knowledgeable user to get it up and running than the "personal cloud" drives. Although I have no need for the "personal cloud" drives I can understand the benefit to others. I can understand what you're describing, but have difficulty in imagining somebody with a smartphone or tablet who wants a wireless connection to a disc drive but not the internet. It's a feasible requirement, but surely an unusual one. Why would access to the internet be an issue one way or another? It's not at all unusual to have both, and it's not at all a new idea. Many folks have WiFi at home for internet access, and the ability to save content to a common folder accessed by all their devices (a.k.a. "the cloud") is increasingly desirable, which is why no provider is marching in a different direction. A "personal cloud" addresses some of the concerns that people have w/r/t having their data on "someone else's server" (which is where this thread began). Even the time to hook up your phone to the computer with a usb cable is past. -- Caver1 |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote: [...] Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called. Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee. LOL I wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi, not that it offers that particular user any new benefit. Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync. Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really is, those bennies are of little value to me. I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from the Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for the tablet to actually show up on my computers. Therein lies the difference between what you currently have and the direction that MS is heading. I am, and know many "big device users", and can only see an up-side for MS since they've simplified the process for the non-techie types. Therein lies the issue(s) for me. I don't mind MS and others using tablets and phones for what they are interested in, but those... "methods" is a good word I guess... don't work for me. That's not what I want to do. The capability to do such things does not mean that everyone *must* do them! Or even want to. But it seems they are trying to force you into it. I didn't buy a large monitor, build a fast computer, to make using websites harder due to their design, or have software with fewer capabilities. Two separate issues, here. Most folks paying for website development don't have the budget to pay for and maintain device-specific sites, i.e. apps for mobile devices and adaptive sites for monitors ranging from laptops to 60" displays (yes, folks do that). It *can* be done, but it isn't cheap. I wasn't speaking of device specific things, and didn't intend for it to sound that way. I meant the total redesign of sites where links and date are more spread apart giving the user less information on the screen. Possibly even less information per web page, meaning you have to do more work drilling down through pages to find what used to be linked on the opening page. I really dislike the sites that determine I'm on a Mac, and then make it impossible or next to impossible to download or find information for a different OS. Just do the old fashioned thing and give me a button for Mac, Windows, and Linux, and let me make the choice for what I want. It might be I want all three. :-) Microsoft is really bad about that in their knowledge base. I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications for those that don't need the additional functionality. Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply removed from the current version that were part of the previous versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might be so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a "Lite" or "Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other version. In some cases, files created in the older version may not work correctly in the newer version. And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are still quite a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was new (5.5 years ago) to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me 15 seconds and getting the password to be up and running on their network. Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported devices, software and systems. What one runs into with Apple devices is that they either work or they won't, no matter how much time one spends trying to make them work. In other cases, they'll "sort of work", with less functionality than Windows. We may be working on different thoughts here, Neil. I was thinking on the lines of things like this: On a Mac, you open up whatever app it is, and add items to a grocery list. As soon as you turn on your iPad, iPhone, iPod with the same app running, the grocery list is automatically updated on those devices. Is this what you were thinking? -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/9/2014 7:19 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote: [...] Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called. Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee. LOL I wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi, not that it offers that particular user any new benefit. Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync. Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really is, those bennies are of little value to me. I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from the Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for the tablet to actually show up on my computers. Therein lies the difference between what you currently have and the direction that MS is heading. I am, and know many "big device users", and can only see an up-side for MS since they've simplified the process for the non-techie types. Therein lies the issue(s) for me. I don't mind MS and others using tablets and phones for what they are interested in, but those... "methods" is a good word I guess... don't work for me. That's not what I want to do. The capability to do such things does not mean that everyone *must* do them! Or even want to. But it seems they are trying to force you into it. I didn't buy a large monitor, build a fast computer, to make using websites harder due to their design, or have software with fewer capabilities. Two separate issues, here. Most folks paying for website development don't have the budget to pay for and maintain device-specific sites, i.e. apps for mobile devices and adaptive sites for monitors ranging from laptops to 60" displays (yes, folks do that). It *can* be done, but it isn't cheap. I wasn't speaking of device specific things, and didn't intend for it to sound that way. I meant the total redesign of sites where links and date are more spread apart giving the user less information on the screen. Possibly even less information per web page, meaning you have to do more work drilling down through pages to find what used to be linked on the opening page. I really dislike the sites that determine I'm on a Mac, and then make it impossible or next to impossible to download or find information for a different OS. Just do the old fashioned thing and give me a button for Mac, Windows, and Linux, and let me make the choice for what I want. It might be I want all three. :-) The idea that there would be different sites for Mac, Linux, etc. is the "device specific" matter I was talking about. For desktop computers, it's pretty much a non-issue, but things like word/object spacing, element wrapping, graphics, etc. can be negatively affected by monitor size, which are other "device specific" aspects to consider when creating HTML pages. All of this adds significant cost to development, and most folks who want websites are completely clueless about these things. They buy a program to create their sites and think they're done, but what they wind up with are the kinds of problems you're complaining about. Microsoft is really bad about that in their knowledge base. It isn't even remotely a Microsoft issue, and has little to do with anything they have control over since they didn't create HTML. In the days before IE6, things were wonky, but now IE is one of the more HTML-compliant browsers available. Better than Safari, for sure. I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications for those that don't need the additional functionality. Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply removed from the current version that were part of the previous versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might be so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a "Lite" or "Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other version. In some cases, files created in the older version may not work correctly in the newer version. For example? And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are still quite a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was new (5.5 years ago) to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me 15 seconds and getting the password to be up and running on their network. Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported devices, software and systems. What one runs into with Apple devices is that they either work or they won't, no matter how much time one spends trying to make them work. In other cases, they'll "sort of work", with less functionality than Windows. We may be working on different thoughts here, Neil. I was thinking on the lines of things like this: On a Mac, you open up whatever app it is, and add items to a grocery list. As soon as you turn on your iPad, iPhone, iPod with the same app running, the grocery list is automatically updated on those devices. I see you like "the cloud"! Is this what you were thinking? No. I'm thinking (knowing, actually) that there are many devices with poor or no Apple drivers, so systems that include them either don't work at all or just "sort of" work with limited functionality. Since MS is the big guy on the block, companies that want to sell a lot of their products make sure that they work with Windows. -- best regards, Neil |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/8/2014 4:29 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote: [...] Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called. Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee. LOL I wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi, not that it offers that particular user any new benefit. Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync. Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really is, those bennies are of little value to me. I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from the Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for the tablet to actually show up on my computers. Have you tried SnapPea for your Nexus? http://www.howtogeek.com/135836/how-...-with-snappea/ |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/9/14 6:18 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 7:19 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote: Time for some snipping, folks. I wasn't speaking of device specific things, and didn't intend for it to sound that way. I meant the total redesign of sites where links and date are more spread apart giving the user less information on the screen. Possibly even less information per web page, meaning you have to do more work drilling down through pages to find what used to be linked on the opening page. I really dislike the sites that determine I'm on a Mac, and then make it impossible or next to impossible to download or find information for a different OS. Just do the old fashioned thing and give me a button for Mac, Windows, and Linux, and let me make the choice for what I want. It might be I want all three. :-) The idea that there would be different sites for Mac, Linux, etc. is the "device specific" matter I was talking about. For desktop computers, it's pretty much a non-issue, but things like word/object spacing, element wrapping, graphics, etc. can be negatively affected by monitor size, which are other "device specific" aspects to consider when creating HTML pages. All of this adds significant cost to development, and most folks who want websites are completely clueless about these things. They buy a program to create their sites and think they're done, but what they wind up with are the kinds of problems you're complaining about. I don't think I'm talking about things that device specific. Think about those sites that used to say "Best viewed at 800 X 600" when screen resolutions began to rise? I'm talking about designs that would probably run just fine at 640 X 480, things are so large with large amounts of white space. :-( I wish I had some saved web pages of the old design so I could post screen shots of what I'm talking about, but alas I don't have them. :-( I'm talking about a pure redesign of a web page, and I think the pages are now geared to small touch screens, how it appears on a monitor is just not considered. :-( I took an HTML 4 basics course one time. And you can mitigate the monitor size by the way you program the page. Using percentage fill parameters in a table rather than a fixed size, for example. And leave out all the fancy whiz bang stuff. Keep it simple and straight to the point. I think if the people paying the bills knew more of the basics of good web design, and thought about the user's opinion more than the designer's opinion, things wouldn't be so "busy" on many pages. Have you noticed how hard it is to actually find a site map or a contact us link these days? Microsoft is really bad about that in their knowledge base. It isn't even remotely a Microsoft issue, and has little to do with anything they have control over since they didn't create HTML. In the days before IE6, things were wonky, but now IE is one of the more HTML-compliant browsers available. Better than Safari, for sure. No, they do have control over it. But, possibly not HTML, as I don't know how it's done. I was thinking of how MS determines your OS when reading a knowledge base article. Then, if you aren't using Windows, they simply will not let you see some of the information on that page. You get a message like "The information on this page does not apply to your OS, so some information is hidden." And there's no way to unhide it. I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications for those that don't need the additional functionality. Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply removed from the current version that were part of the previous versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might be so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a "Lite" or "Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other version. In some cases, files created in the older version may not work correctly in the newer version. For example? Have none for a Windows program at the moment. But just last night, I was reading a Mac magazine article about iWorks. That used to be a bundle of a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software. They are sold separately now. At the end of each article was a sidebar listing the more powerful tools that had been removed, and replaced with nothing. And they noted if you used some of those advance features in your files, they may not load and work properly. And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are still quite a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was new (5.5 years ago) to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me 15 seconds and getting the password to be up and running on their network. Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported devices, software and systems. What one runs into with Apple devices is that they either work or they won't, no matter how much time one spends trying to make them work. In other cases, they'll "sort of work", with less functionality than Windows. We may be working on different thoughts here, Neil. I was thinking on the lines of things like this: On a Mac, you open up whatever app it is, and add items to a grocery list. As soon as you turn on your iPad, iPhone, iPod with the same app running, the grocery list is automatically updated on those devices. I see you like "the cloud"! LOL If you're a business, I see the obvious advantages for conducting business. But I think the security issues outweigh the convenience for personal use. Think of the recent flap over apparent nude pictures of stars that were recently hacked. Is this what you were thinking? No. I'm thinking (knowing, actually) that there are many devices with poor or no Apple drivers, so systems that include them either don't work at all or just "sort of" work with limited functionality. Since MS is the big guy on the block, companies that want to sell a lot of their products make sure that they work with Windows. Ah, hardware issues. Yea, you're right, but from what I see, even worse if you go Linux. Although I notice more Linux drivers these days when I bother to go look. If you buy that "Apple system" and it includes the printer, monitor, scanner, whatever at the Apple Store, everything will work. It's when you want to mix and match you have problems. But then those problems exist for Windows too. I've a broke friend who would like to do just simple, plain, basic scanning on her Windows 7 laptop. I've got 3 perfectly good scanners sitting on a shelf. None of them have a Win 7 driver. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/9/14 6:52 PM, Ron wrote:
On 10/8/2014 4:29 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote: [...] Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called. Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee. LOL I wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi, not that it offers that particular user any new benefit. Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync. Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really is, those bennies are of little value to me. I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from the Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for the tablet to actually show up on my computers. Have you tried SnapPea for your Nexus? http://www.howtogeek.com/135836/how-...-with-snappea/ I'd not heard of it, Ron, thanks. I just read most of the page, and I'm not sure it would do what I'm really after. It sounds like you link a device to a single computer, and you have to install software to accomplish it. The page doesn't seem to have any hint as to how this linking is done. If you have multiple computers, you have to install and link to all computers. Plus I have this iMac, and the Mac software is not out of beta yet. It sounds more like a Remote Desktop Connection, aka Teamviewer for example. Which isn't what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a means to control or manage the Nexus. I just want to copy/move/delete user files on the Nexus, just as you would with shared folders on your computers attached to the network. And my understanding is, rooting the Nexus would accomplish this without installing any software anywhere. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:08:54 -0400, Neil
wrote: Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync. You don't need a wirelessly connected drive to achieve that, only a network connected one. It's irrelevant whether it's connected by wireless or ethernet cable (though if it's feasible to connect it by cable, this will probably give a faster performance). The reference was to "personal clouds", not networks in general. Some folks may not want an ethernet cable attached to their phone! ;-D Nor need they have one. The phone will presumably be connected to the local network by wireless because it's a portable device, but a network connected disk drive or printer is usually in a fixed position somewhere, and can be connected by cable. If the user doesn't have a network at all, they can still have a "personal cloud" with one of those drives, so I think that is a good thing. If one has a network with a server on it, there is no need for any additional drives at all. An ethernet-only (non-wi-fi) HD is somewhere between those options, but may require a more knowledgeable user to get it up and running than the "personal cloud" drives. Although I have no need for the "personal cloud" drives I can understand the benefit to others. I can understand what you're describing, but have difficulty in imagining somebody with a smartphone or tablet who wants a wireless connection to a disc drive but not the internet. It's a feasible requirement, but surely an unusual one. Why would access to the internet be an issue one way or another? It's not at all unusual to have both, and it's not at all a new idea. Many folks have WiFi at home for internet access, and the ability to save content to a common folder accessed by all their devices (a.k.a. "the cloud") is increasingly desirable, which is why no provider is marching in a different direction. A "personal cloud" addresses some of the concerns that people have w/r/t having their data on "someone else's server" (which is where this thread began). If you have wireless access at home, it will almost certainly be via a router. If you also have a local network store, or "personal cloud", your smartphones, tablets etc will not be connected to it directly, but also via the router. The connections between your portable gadgets and the router may be by wireless, but there is no requirement for the network drive to be connected by wireless as well, even if it is capable of it, and it will give better performance if it is not. As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was. However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the existence of a router. Rod. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was. However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the existence of a router. While that used to be the case, it is becoming less so. For example, wireless offerings such as AT&T "UVerse" are expanding home wifi use without providing any additional ethernet connections. Printers and other peripherals are also wifi enabled, so they don't need an ethernet port. It takes a savvy user to add that functionality to add a router to those systems and manage the connections, while all it takes to connect a "personal cloud" drive is to place it near the wifi box and press a button. The speed of access is determined by the wifi, not the drive, so unless you have an ethernet connector on your tablet or phone, it will be the same whether using a "personal cloud" drive or an HD connected to a router. -- best regards, Neil |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:18 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/9/2014 7:19 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote: Time for some snipping, folks. I wasn't speaking of device specific things, and didn't intend for it to sound that way. I meant the total redesign of sites where links and date are more spread apart giving the user less information on the screen. Possibly even less information per web page, meaning you have to do more work drilling down through pages to find what used to be linked on the opening page. I really dislike the sites that determine I'm on a Mac, and then make it impossible or next to impossible to download or find information for a different OS. Just do the old fashioned thing and give me a button for Mac, Windows, and Linux, and let me make the choice for what I want. It might be I want all three. :-) The idea that there would be different sites for Mac, Linux, etc. is the "device specific" matter I was talking about. For desktop computers, it's pretty much a non-issue, but things like word/object spacing, element wrapping, graphics, etc. can be negatively affected by monitor size, which are other "device specific" aspects to consider when creating HTML pages. All of this adds significant cost to development, and most folks who want websites are completely clueless about these things. They buy a program to create their sites and think they're done, but what they wind up with are the kinds of problems you're complaining about. I don't think I'm talking about things that device specific. Think about those sites that used to say "Best viewed at 800 X 600" when screen resolutions began to rise? I'm talking about designs that would probably run just fine at 640 X 480, things are so large with large amounts of white space. :-( I wish I had some saved web pages of the old design so I could post screen shots of what I'm talking about, but alas I don't have them. :-( I'm talking about a pure redesign of a web page, and I think the pages are now geared to small touch screens, how it appears on a monitor is just not considered. :-( The issue is exactly the same for modern screen resolutions and monitor sizes. Having written sites since the mid '80s, I don't need to see your screen shots to know what you mean! ;-) I took an HTML 4 basics course one time. And you can mitigate the monitor size by the way you program the page. Using percentage fill parameters in a table rather than a fixed size, for example. And leave out all the fancy whiz bang stuff. Keep it simple and straight to the point. To some extent that is correct, but using percentages also has its "gotchas", especially when trying to make a site functional between phone-sized and wall-sized screens. I think if the people paying the bills knew more of the basics of good web design, and thought about the user's opinion more than the designer's opinion, things wouldn't be so "busy" on many pages. Have you noticed how hard it is to actually find a site map or a contact us link these days? Those are just bad design issues. I can't tell you how many companies think they're saving money by having their 14 year old create their site. Microsoft is really bad about that in their knowledge base. It isn't even remotely a Microsoft issue, and has little to do with anything they have control over since they didn't create HTML. In the days before IE6, things were wonky, but now IE is one of the more HTML-compliant browsers available. Better than Safari, for sure. No, they do have control over it. But, possibly not HTML, as I don't know how it's done. I was thinking of how MS determines your OS when reading a knowledge base article. Then, if you aren't using Windows, they simply will not let you see some of the information on that page. You get a message like "The information on this page does not apply to your OS, so some information is hidden." And there's no way to unhide it. MS' site is to serve MS users, many of whom are not techies, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they try to make the information relevant to the system accessing their page. I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications for those that don't need the additional functionality. Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply removed from the current version that were part of the previous versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might be so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a "Lite" or "Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other version. In some cases, files created in the older version may not work correctly in the newer version. For example? Have none for a Windows program at the moment. But just last night, I was reading a Mac magazine article about iWorks. That used to be a bundle of a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software. They are sold separately now. At the end of each article was a sidebar listing the more powerful tools that had been removed, and replaced with nothing. And they noted if you used some of those advance features in your files, they may not load and work properly. That sounds like trying to load MS Office files into MS Works. Not a new issue... just a misuse of the applications. MS Works is "MS Office Lite"... And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are still quite a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was new (5.5 years ago) to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me 15 seconds and getting the password to be up and running on their network. Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported devices, software and systems. What one runs into with Apple devices is that they either work or they won't, no matter how much time one spends trying to make them work. In other cases, they'll "sort of work", with less functionality than Windows. We may be working on different thoughts here, Neil. I was thinking on the lines of things like this: On a Mac, you open up whatever app it is, and add items to a grocery list. As soon as you turn on your iPad, iPhone, iPod with the same app running, the grocery list is automatically updated on those devices. I see you like "the cloud"! LOL If you're a business, I see the obvious advantages for conducting business. But I think the security issues outweigh the convenience for personal use. Think of the recent flap over apparent nude pictures of stars that were recently hacked. Is this what you were thinking? No. I'm thinking (knowing, actually) that there are many devices with poor or no Apple drivers, so systems that include them either don't work at all or just "sort of" work with limited functionality. Since MS is the big guy on the block, companies that want to sell a lot of their products make sure that they work with Windows. Ah, hardware issues. Yea, you're right, but from what I see, even worse if you go Linux. Although I notice more Linux drivers these days when I bother to go look. Yes, it is much worse for Linux, which is something that Linux trolls are in complete denial about. If you buy that "Apple system" and it includes the printer, monitor, scanner, whatever at the Apple Store, everything will work. Well, it *better* work uner those circumstances! 8-P It's when you want to mix and match you have problems. But then those problems exist for Windows too. I've a broke friend who would like to do just simple, plain, basic scanning on her Windows 7 laptop. I've got 3 perfectly good scanners sitting on a shelf. None of them have a Win 7 driver. That makes them not-so-perfectly good... -- best regards, Neil |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 06:15:58 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote: As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was. However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the existence of a router. While that used to be the case, it is becoming less so. For example, wireless offerings such as AT&T "UVerse" are expanding home wifi use without providing any additional ethernet connections. Printers and other peripherals are also wifi enabled, so they don't need an ethernet port. They still need a network presence, whether by ethernet or wireless, so *something* needs to award them local IP addresses and route the traffic. If not a router, what will do this? It takes a savvy user to add that functionality to add a router to those systems and manage the connections, while all it takes to connect a "personal cloud" drive is to place it near the wifi box and press a button. I'm surprised to learn that there are a significant number of computer networks where you'd need to add a router. In most cases I'd expect there to be one already there. Who these days has a computing device of any sort at home without an internet connection? The speed of access is determined by the wifi, not the drive, so unless you have an ethernet connector on your tablet or phone, it will be the same whether using a "personal cloud" drive or an HD connected to a router. Quite so, but if the drive is connected to a router by wireless, there will be two wireless links between it and any wireless smartdevice, rather then one if it's feasible to connect the drive by cable. This can have an effect on performance. Rod. |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/10/14 5:28 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote: On 10/9/14 6:18 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/9/2014 7:19 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote: Time for some snipping, folks. And some more snipping. To some extent that is correct, but using percentages also has its "gotchas", especially when trying to make a site functional between phone-sized and wall-sized screens. I remember, in the HTML 4 class, there was a mention of a tag "mobile", meaning the page would detect a phone or similar, and to display a different version of the web page. If you kept the design as simple as possible, is it that much more work to maintain it? No bad design issues, no whiz-bang eye candy, etc. snip MS' site is to serve MS users, many of whom are not techies, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they try to make the information relevant to the system accessing their page. Didn't it ever occur to them that just because they are accessing the knowledge base with some other computer to fix their Windows computer? An omission at the best, rather arrogant at the worst. I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications for those that don't need the additional functionality. Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply removed from the current version that were part of the previous versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might be so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a "Lite" or "Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other version. In some cases, files created in the older version may not work correctly in the newer version. For example? Have none for a Windows program at the moment. But just last night, I was reading a Mac magazine article about iWorks. That used to be a bundle of a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software. They are sold separately now. At the end of each article was a sidebar listing the more powerful tools that had been removed, and replaced with nothing. And they noted if you used some of those advance features in your files, they may not load and work properly. That sounds like trying to load MS Office files into MS Works. Not a new issue... just a misuse of the applications. MS Works is "MS Office Lite"... Well, not quite the same. In this case, if I took a Pages (word processor with page layout options) that I create in Pages 09, may not load properly in the the current Pages. Apple has dropped the year number at the end, much like the writings of MS may just call it Windows in the future. Not switching programs, just switching versions of programs. snip Yes, it is much worse for Linux, which is something that Linux trolls are in complete denial about. G Yep. You may be watching my discussion with a Linux fan about indirect funding of open source products. He/she doesn't seem to be able to grasp the indirect concept. There is no free lunch. snip It's when you want to mix and match you have problems. But then those problems exist for Windows too. I've a broke friend who would like to do just simple, plain, basic scanning on her Windows 7 laptop. I've got 3 perfectly good scanners sitting on a shelf. None of them have a Win 7 driver. That makes them not-so-perfectly good... Nah, they're still perfectly good. They just don't fit, like that alternator from the '95 Ford that doesn't fit the 2010 Ford. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On 10/10/14 5:34 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
I'm surprised to learn that there are a significant number of computer networks where you'd need to add a router. In most cases I'd expect there to be one already there. Who these days has a computing device of any sort at home without an internet connection? I think this would depend on the modem that connects you to the internet. It's probably a bit unwise to "assume" the user has a computer network when they decide they want to add some wireless component. :-) When I was on Dish Network via satellite, the modem did not have router/networking capability. All I could do was connect the modem directly to the Ethernet port of my computer. When I wanted to create a network, I had to get a standalone router. If this is your situation, and you want to add wireless something, you'll need to buy a router. How often you may find this situation today, I don't know. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Next version of Windows is...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 06:15:58 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote: Roderick Stewart wrote: As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was. However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the existence of a router. While that used to be the case, it is becoming less so. For example, wireless offerings such as AT&T "UVerse" are expanding home wifi use without providing any additional ethernet connections. I have Uverse and the 'modem' they gave me has a built-in router, access point, and switch. In addition, each set top box has an Ethernet connection that can be used to connect one (or more, with a switch) additional device(s). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|