Windows 9 will be for rent

On 6/16/2014 12:43 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:00:43 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:11:11 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:


Unlike others (possibly Ken's wife too) my wife who rarely ever used the
Start Menu on 95,98,XP, 7 prefers the Modern UI and want to know why
exiting Outlook and Photo Gallery doesn't return to her preferred Modern
UI mode since those programs were launched from their respective tiles
in that mode.

Exactly. I think a lot of people would have been happier if MS had given
users a 3-position switch:
- Use the Modern UI
- Use the Desktop UI
- Let Windows decide

Each choice could still have been customizable, but at least users would
have had a choice as to the starting point.

We agree completely on that.

Thanks, Ken. I'm glad we have some common ground.

I am playing around with ModernMix ($4.99 free to try) and ModernMix
does exactly that.

- Use the Modern UI
- Use the Desktop UI (even run Metro Apps on the desktop)
- Let ModernMix decide

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:26:39 -0400, Nil
wrote:

An application that's running but not being used hardly ever
really uses any RAM. It quickly gets paged out if the RAM is
needed elsewhere.

Right. So, if the program isn't doing a real-time task, and it's well-
written enough to not hog its resources, there's no real reason to
close it.

I've been conditioned since the days of DOS to be conscientious about
closing things that I'm not using, but in a more perfect world that
wouldn't necessarily be necessary.

I've been conditioned since I was a small child several decades before
personal computers were ever thought of to switch things off when
they're not needed. It just feels like the right thing to do.

I've also noted that subsequent generations don't seem to care.

Maybe Windows 8 is the Perfect World!

In your worst nightmare, perhaps.

Rod.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:47:40 -0400, "...winston"
wrote:

On the odd occasion I've accidentally found myself on the newfangled
screen and then tried running one of the newfangled applications,
there doesn't seem to be a proper way of stopping it, which seems a
strange omission. The task manager can do it of course, but that seems
a bit like stopping a vehicle by poking a stick in the spokes of one
of its wheels. There may for all I know be proper elegant ways of
doing all the usual things in Windows 8, but I think they should be
intuitive rather than requiring special training.

Rod.

If using 8.1 Update...to close Modern UI apps click on the obvious Red X
(upper right) or press Alt F4.

I don't think I've discovered any of the "Modern" apps that I actually
want to use, but occasionally stumble into one by accident, which is
the only reason for wanting to know how to escape them.

Optionally, and unique to 8x and hardly
intuitive since it mimics the touch screen method, using a mouse drag
the app from the top of the screen to the bottom then hold until the
icon changes to reflect the app tile name.

As you say, hardly intuitive. I can't imagine anyone discovering this
sort of thing by themselves, in the same way that a system with
visible buttons and a hierarchical menu system - standard since
Windows 95 - can be explored without the use of an instruction book.

Rod.

On 6/16/2014 5:32 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
I've been conditioned since I was a small child several decades before
personal computers were ever thought of to switch things off when
they're not needed. It just feels like the right thing to do.

I've also noted that subsequent generations don't seem to care.

Worst, most machines today do not really turn off like the old days.
Nowadays machines still use a small amount of power and it is really in
sleep mode and not powered off.

I remember when I was very young, my great grandfather would physically
unplug everything from the wall outlet. Things like radios, TVs, etc. In
his era, electronics wasn't all that safe and could cause a fire. In my
era, electronics are much safer and not a big need to disconnect the
plug when you were not using it.

Although I am seeing a time when it might be smart to physically remove
the plug from the wall outlet once again.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center

On 6/16/2014 5:38 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:47:40 -0400, "...winston"
wrote:
Optionally, and unique to 8x and hardly
intuitive since it mimics the touch screen method, using a mouse drag
the app from the top of the screen to the bottom then hold until the
icon changes to reflect the app tile name.

As you say, hardly intuitive. I can't imagine anyone discovering this
sort of thing by themselves, in the same way that a system with
visible buttons and a hierarchical menu system - standard since
Windows 95 - can be explored without the use of an instruction book.

Since Windows 3 or earlier, ALT-F4 always closed an application. It
still works with Metro Apps. I don't see the big deal. And if the focus
is on the desktop, ALT-F4 actually shutdowns Windows. It always worked
that way too.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center

In the last episode of ,
"Ken Blake, MVP" said:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:28:07 -0700, DevilsPGD
wrote:

In the last episode of ,
"Ken Blake, MVP" said:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:14:03 -0700, DevilsPGD
wrote:

In the last episode of ,
"Ken Blake, MVP" said:

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.

Something Windows 8.1 fixed.

I don't agree. For example, in their advertising, they don't show or
even mention the desktop interface.

And yet it's the default interface if you're on a desktop or portable
without a touch screen



Yes, and that's one of the things that I object to. Since not everyone
has the same kind of computer, the default interface should be chosen
by the user.

Then it's not a default -- You CAN set whatever you want. But it
DEFAULTS to the interface most likely to be useful.

--
If you can remain calm, you just don't have all the facts.

In the last episode of ,
Roderick Stewart said:

It puzzles me too. Running a "system within a system" must slow
everything down, and can evidently slightly alter the way some things
behave too, judging by the demos I've seen on youtube. Multiple
booting straight from the hard drive (or SSD) is simple enough.

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most modern
systems are powerful enough that running a second or third OS that is
mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of the
mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge difference
if you have software you frequently use on both sides of the wall.

--
If you can remain calm, you just don't have all the facts.

Roderick Stewart wrote, On 6/16/2014 6:38 PM:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:47:40 -0400, "...winston"
wrote:

On the odd occasion I've accidentally found myself on the newfangled
screen and then tried running one of the newfangled applications,
there doesn't seem to be a proper way of stopping it, which seems a
strange omission. The task manager can do it of course, but that seems
a bit like stopping a vehicle by poking a stick in the spokes of one
of its wheels. There may for all I know be proper elegant ways of
doing all the usual things in Windows 8, but I think they should be
intuitive rather than requiring special training.

Rod.

If using 8.1 Update...to close Modern UI apps click on the obvious Red X
(upper right) or press Alt F4.

I don't think I've discovered any of the "Modern" apps that I actually
want to use, but occasionally stumble into one by accident, which is
the only reason for wanting to know how to escape them.

Optionally, and unique to 8x and hardly
intuitive since it mimics the touch screen method, using a mouse drag
the app from the top of the screen to the bottom then hold until the
icon changes to reflect the app tile name.

As you say, hardly intuitive. I can't imagine anyone discovering this
sort of thing by themselves, in the same way that a system with
visible buttons and a hierarchical menu system - standard since
Windows 95 - can be explored without the use of an instruction book.

Rod.

Easily searchable though..
Searching in Google and Bing with the string 'close an app in Windows 8'
yielded this as the first hit in both search engines

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w.../how-close-app


Might be time to get used to it. Windows in the future might be an app! g


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 6/16/2014 6:50 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of ,
Roderick Stewart said:

It puzzles me too. Running a "system within a system" must slow
everything down, and can evidently slightly alter the way some things
behave too, judging by the demos I've seen on youtube. Multiple
booting straight from the hard drive (or SSD) is simple enough.

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most modern
systems are powerful enough that running a second or third OS that is
mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

I too have done both and I hate both! Sure you say one OS doesn't really
impact the other OS but it still does. And when you want 100% you can't
have it. Too bad!

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of the
mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge difference
if you have software you frequently use on both sides of the wall.

Nonsense! Having three computers running at the same time is no problem
whatsoever. Three times more power than one of yours. Whatever happens
on one has zero effect on the other. There is nothing better than one OS
per machine. It just doesn't get any better. There is no way I am going
back to the old way. This is far better.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:50:25 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of ,
Roderick Stewart said:

It puzzles me too. Running a "system within a system" must slow
everything down, and can evidently slightly alter the way some things
behave too, judging by the demos I've seen on youtube. Multiple
booting straight from the hard drive (or SSD) is simple enough.

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most modern
systems are powerful enough that running a second or third OS that is
mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of the
mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge difference
if you have software you frequently use on both sides of the wall.

Another advantage (sometimes) is that you can easily access the VM drive
from the host & vice versa, or at least easily copy files from either
one to the other, in a host + VM environment. Usually :-)

It's not always easy in a dual-boot setup.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of ,
"Ken Blake, MVP" said:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:28:07 -0700, DevilsPGD
wrote:

In the last episode of ,
"Ken Blake, MVP" said:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:14:03 -0700, DevilsPGD
wrote:

In the last episode of ,
"Ken Blake, MVP" said:

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.

Something Windows 8.1 fixed.

I don't agree. For example, in their advertising, they don't show or
even mention the desktop interface.

And yet it's the default interface if you're on a desktop or portable
without a touch screen



Yes, and that's one of the things that I object to. Since not everyone
has the same kind of computer, the default interface should be chosen
by the user.

Then it's not a default -- You CAN set whatever you want. But it
DEFAULTS to the interface most likely to be useful.


Useful?
The one that is opened without user interaction is the default.

--
Caver1

Per Roderick Stewart:
I've been conditioned since I was a small child several decades before
personal computers were ever thought of to switch things off when
they're not needed. It just feels like the right thing to do.

I've also noted that subsequent generations don't seem to care.

A long time ago - back in the mainframe days - somebody got the idea to
save money by making sure all the terminals were turned off every night.

Unexpected consequence: repair bills went up significantly - enough to
outweigh the savings in electricity.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:12:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

It puzzles me too. Running a "system within a system" must slow
everything down, and can evidently slightly alter the way some things
behave too, judging by the demos I've seen on youtube. Multiple
booting straight from the hard drive (or SSD) is simple enough.

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most modern
systems are powerful enough that running a second or third OS that is
mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

I too have done both and I hate both! Sure you say one OS doesn't really
impact the other OS but it still does. And when you want 100% you can't
have it. Too bad!

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of the
mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge difference
if you have software you frequently use on both sides of the wall.

Nonsense! Having three computers running at the same time is no problem
whatsoever. Three times more power than one of yours. Whatever happens
on one has zero effect on the other. There is nothing better than one OS
per machine. It just doesn't get any better. There is no way I am going
back to the old way. This is far better.

Hmm. It seems to be a case of "horses for courses" here, with no ideal
solution, just whatever best suits your purpose. I appreciate the ease
of flipping back and forth between systems, but if that's not your
reason for wanting to run different systems, it's irrelevant.

In my case, I mostly use Windows, but want to keep myself reasonably
conversant with a few alternative systems in case the next version of
Windows after the end of support for 7 is even worse than 8, and I
have to abandon Microsoft altogether. (I could abandon it now, to be
honest, but I've paid for Windows 7 and it works well and I like it,
so I'll use it till Microsoft abandons me).

I have a spare PC I use for trying out systems, which have included
the evaluation versions of W8 and W8.1, and usually several versions
of Linux, just to see how they compare on the same machine. One thing
that interests me is how well a Linux installation copes with setting
up a multiboot menu when previous systems are already installed, so a
virtual machine setup wouldn't tell me this. At the moment I have five
variants of Ubuntu and two of mint, all running natively straight from
a 120GB SSD, all selectable from a boot menu that is installed and
configured automatically with each installation of Linux itself.

The most important thing I have learned is how quick and easy it is to
make a complete installation from scratch of a working operating
system with a selection of useful software that will do nearly
everything I want to do straight away. Knowing that I can do this in
about 20 minutes and still read all my Windows files means I have no
apprehension whatsoever about anything Microsoft decides to do. They
could deactivate every copy of Windows on the planet and disappear in
a puff of smoke tomorrow and I could carry on regardless. This feels
strangely comforting.

Rod.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:35:32 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Roderick Stewart:
I've been conditioned since I was a small child several decades before
personal computers were ever thought of to switch things off when
they're not needed. It just feels like the right thing to do.

I've also noted that subsequent generations don't seem to care.

A long time ago - back in the mainframe days - somebody got the idea to
save money by making sure all the terminals were turned off every night.

Unexpected consequence: repair bills went up significantly - enough to
outweigh the savings in electricity.

Any equipment that needs repair as a consequence of simply being
switched on and off needs to be designed properly so that it doesn't.

Some things need to be constantly powered in order to do their
allotted jobs, but normally my computer isn't doing anything while I'm
out of the house or asleep, so it's pointless for it to sitting there
burning electricity while no-one is using it.

Rod.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:11:40 -0400, "...winston"
wrote:

Windows in the future might be an app! g

Then I in the future might not be a Windows user! g

Rod.