Microsoft Rumors Say Big Changes Coming in Windows 8.2

On 12/4/13 8:57 AM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
On 2013-12-03 9:52 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/3/13 7:42 PM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
On 2013-12-03 8:55 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/3/13 7:31 AM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
IMO, a Surface Pro built as a large smart-phone,
plus the connectivity alluded to above, would be the_single_ device
that does everything. That's what I want.

Ah, yes... I can see it now... Wolf standing at the airport gate, 10"
tablet to his ear, talking on the phone... ------ Just
kidding! LOL


Sony Xperia looks good, too. ;-)

I'm looking at the 7" units, but not full blown computer capable. I
like screen real estate, and just using a netbook frustrates the devil
out of me.

The Xperia Z1 Superphone is almost there, too. The waterproofing
prevents micro-USB/SD ports, but the OS should be configured to make
wi-fi/Bluetooth links to externals (keyboard, display, etc) possible. If
that were built in, I'd get one now. It would a truly "portable CPU"
plus a phone. Could it be hacked to behave as I want? Maybe via the SIM
card? H'mmm.

Surface Pro 2: a portable CPU in most ways, so it's the best choice
available so far. If MS could squeeze it into the same form-factor as
the Xperia phone, and add LTE/G4, it would be perfect from my POV.

We have opposite needs/wants for a tablet. I'm looking for an ereader
on steroids +. You're looking for a basic computer in a small form factor.

When I started the tablet shopping, I looked at some dimensions, and the
physical dimensions of an iPad are all but identical, except thickness,
as my netbook. And I went "Huh!... Whoopee." LOL For any
computering issues, the netbook is more than I need, I use my desktops
for that kind of work.

For me, I see no advantage to the Surface Pro that I couldn't already do
on the netbook. It's got Win 7 Starter, and I'm not drooling to have
Win 8 on a tablet/netbook.

An "out in left field" plus for the netbook is the possibility of trying
Linux on it someday. I don't know if that's possible on the Surface Pro.

I'm researching the local history, I'm @20 miles from one of the world's
major gold mining areas, and I'm reading, or at least trying to get
read, a lot of digitized books from around 1900, +/- 20 years. And I
don't want to sit in front of the computer to do this, I'd rather be in
an easy chair.

Many of these books have many photos, so high rez screen is a must. At
first the iPad Mini was the leading contender, but with the Nexus 7 and
Kindle Fire HDX, screen rez went up to 1920 X 1200, the same as my two
widescreens. The current Mini now has the retina display, but I don't
think that will make up the price difference for me.

Samsung's top of the line 10" tablet seems to be the most powerful
hardware wise of the tablets, but I don't know how it compares to the
Surface Pro.

I'm also not "married" to MS's products, there are who knows how many
free pieces of software out there that will do the job(s) I need. I've
not regularly used Office since 2003. I've got 2007 installed, but only
use it to satisfy curiosity about the program. I've not created a
single document with any component of 2007.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8

On 12/03/2013, Char Jackson posted:
I have a really hard time looking at my smart devices and thinking that they
do so little. To me, it's amazing that they do so much!

I keep comparing them to the first computers I programmed. They filled
a large room and had a somewhat less friendly user interface than
today's devices...

In those days, minicomputers were not much bigger than a 20 cu-ft
refrigerator :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:10:27 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

On 12/03/2013, Char Jackson posted:
I have a really hard time looking at my smart devices and thinking that they
do so little. To me, it's amazing that they do so much!

I keep comparing them to the first computers I programmed. They filled
a large room and had a somewhat less friendly user interface than
today's devices...

In those days, minicomputers were not much bigger than a 20 cu-ft
refrigerator :-)

I'd really love to see what the next 20 years, 50 years, and 100 years will
bring. As cool as things are now, I'm sure the future will put all of this
to shame.

Winston and xfile,

This link was posted in a Mozilla newsgroup:
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-lif...203-2yo3r.html

I have no idea if the site is reliable, but the date for the page is
12/3/13.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8

Per Char Jackson:
I'd really love to see what the next 20 years, 50 years, and 100 years will
bring. As cool as things are now, I'm sure the future will put all of this
to shame.

It really bugs me that I'm not going to see it.

I'm figuring my granddaughter could live a very, very long time if
things go right. But what I hear from people in the field is that the
puzzle won't be solved for another 30+ years.

I just want to see how all this stuff plays out: global warming,
molecular biology, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, nanotech, genetic
engineering, population pressure, autonomous machines, self-replicating
machines.....

I'd settle for my brain in a tank - as long as I had internet access. No
food, no sex, no fun... just *knowing*.....
--
Pete Cresswell

Thanks, xfile. For pure curiosity reasons, it would be interesting to
know how 8.x sales compare to 7 sales at this point in time from 7's
introduction.

What catches my eye is the percentage of Mavericks users over Mountain
Lion for OS X. With the little I know of Mavericks, I haven't seen
anything there that attracts me, other than the price of $0 to upgrade.
Most of the features on Apple's sites, the last time I looked, related
to integration with iOS devices. And I own none of them.

The only things I've seen for desktop use that might interest me is tags
and the tabbed finder, both of which I can do now in Mountain Lion with
3rd party software I've installed.

My guess would be that my fellow Mac users are really wanting tighter
integration across all the products they own.


You are welcome and glad it helps.

Would you believe me if I tell you that Apple wants to make MS look bad?

In any case, among other possible considerations including a tighter
integration you mentioned, my own interpretation about Apple's move to
$0 cost upgrade (now and in the future) is to further reinforce what
already is in consumer's mind about that an OS is/should be part of a
computer (or device, a.k.a. product) rather than as a product by itself
(which is MS's approach).

It also tells the current and future potential customers that you don't
have to worry about the "cost" of buying/upgrading to a newer OS, and
all you have to do is to focus on our products (integrated with H/W and OS).

Both Google and Apple (and others) are targeting at MS's business model
of selling OSes as a product and are distancing themselves away from the
model to focus what normal users would like to - the final finished product.

This is a question I've had since XP. Outside of security fixes and
such, what's the attraction for the newer OSes for me? Basically, none.


Exactly, and you are not alone.

Essentially, we use applications and hardware supported by an operating
system (rather itself) for personal pleasures or business tasks, and
this is something that MS executives still couldn't comprehend or admit.
But of course, they are in the business of selling this product, so they
insist otherwise.

While MS is still focusing on operating systems, both Apple's and
Google's strategy is to blend the OS into their products and want you to
focus on the integrated product features but not on a particular
component - operating system which by itself ordinary users don't really
care (other than UI design) in the first place.


On 12/4/2013 12:29, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/3/13 6:34 PM, xfile wrote:
Would you and xfile put some dates on those percentage numbers?
Without a timeframe, the percentages become meaningless.

Mine was based on memory of reading a very recent report which is around
28%-29%,but I don't have it with me.

But it's easy to find other numbers, such as reported by Netmarketshare,
which has a even higher percentage: 31.22%
(http://netmarketshare.com/operating-...0&qpcustomd=0).


Thanks, xfile. For pure curiosity reasons, it would be interesting to
know how 8.x sales compare to 7 sales at this point in time from 7's
introduction.

What catches my eye is the percentage of Mavericks users over Mountain
Lion for OS X. With the little I know of Mavericks, I haven't seen
anything there that attracts me, other than the price of $0 to upgrade.
Most of the features on Apple's sites, the last time I looked, related
to integration with iOS devices. And I own none of them.

The only things I've seen for desktop use that might interest me is tags
and the tabbed finder, both of which I can do now in Mountain Lion with
3rd party software I've installed.

My guess would be that my fellow Mac users are really wanting tighter
integration across all the products they own.

IDC also released a press release for general public titled: IDC
Forecasts PC Shipments to Fall by Double Digits In 2013; Volumes Are
Expected To Stabilize Above 300 Million Units per Year, But With No
Significant Recovery

(http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24466513)


Excerpt:

"The commercial market is faring notably better than the consumer market
in 2013 with shipments declining by -5% year over year compared to
nearly -15% for consumer."

"The relative stability is due to a mix of more stable PC investment
planning, a smaller impact from tablets, and to replacements of Windows
XP systems before the end of support planned for 2014."

"However, the long-term outlook for the two markets is not significantly
different, with a small decline projected for both consumer and
commercial segments in 2014 with near flat growth in the longer term."

Edit: Replacement of XP from business will help but "the long-term
outlook for the two markets is not significantly different, [...]".

Excerpt:

"Perhaps the chief concern for future PC demand is a lack of reasons to
replace an older system," said Jay Chou, Senior Research Analyst,
Worldwide Quarterly PC Trackers at IDC."

This is a question I've had since XP. Outside of security fixes and
such, what's the attraction for the newer OSes for me? Basically, none.

Personally, if I were still using Windows as my primary OS, the only
feature that's come along since XP that appeals to me and my use is
Libraries, and only used in a manner other than what MS describes.

And, if I had a tree view in OS X, I could duplicate that library use in
Mountain Lion.

Edit: This is what is called "diminishing return" that I mentioned,
which means that there is little or no benefits for additional
investments including for replacements, and it has been like this for
some time.

On 12/5/2013 10:22, Ken Springer wrote:
Winston and xfile,

This link was posted in a Mozilla newsgroup:
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-lif...203-2yo3r.html


I have no idea if the site is reliable, but the date for the page is
12/3/13.



Hi,

I have carefully avoided similar topics particularly in this group
(Windows 8) for obvious reasons And for those who really want to
know, it should be relatively easy to find out.

For the sole purpose of illustration, I would like to borrow two
arguments raised by Winston that should be in favor of MS and let
everyone to decide if this is the case for Windows 8:

Winston mentioned:

"Additionally, the majority of the user base (consumer, smb, and
enterprise) has years of hands-on experience using MSFT products and
weaning and retraining that entire population to something else is not
economical. "

It is true and people are more comfortable with things that they are
more familiar with, unless there are benefits (tangible or intangible)
that they can perceive or realize.

In the case of Windows 8, this rule also applies, so what would the
normal users think of the change and relearning?

Winston also mentioned:

The old-guard approach is changing..but, still too many good-old-boys
in the enterprise driven financial approval process to risk change
(and still seen as change for the sake of change) in the big-bucks
corporate world.

This is also very true and how does that rule apply to Windows 8 in a
corporate environment.

Furthermore, how many geeks and experts in this (and other) newsgroups
have used a 3rd party utility or tweaks just to make Windows 8 (desktop)
work like 7.

And we are talking about geeks and experts here who have superior
knowledge than normal users and who, in the worst case scenario, know
where and how to find help.

What about normal users who, unfortunately, don't have geek friends or
relatives or neighbors?

To me, the answer is clear particularly if we are talking about *computers*.

I really don't understand why this OS is disliked by so many people.

Why? For one, you know how to do this,

The way I have it
set up it isn't much different than Windows 7. I don't use the Metro
stuff so I uninstalled all the apps, also I have Start8 and boot
directly to the desktop.

Not everyone knows how to do those, or is willing to *waste* their time
and money (despite it's little) to do something that they shouldn't be
bothered in this first place.

Their perspective would be - It's so silly to spend so much time and
resources just to make the new one look and work like the old one.

It's just different perspective.

On 12/5/2013 12:40, Jim wrote:
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:22:32 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

Winston and xfile,

This link was posted in a Mozilla newsgroup:
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-lif...203-2yo3r.html

I have no idea if the site is reliable, but the date for the page is
12/3/13.

I for one have no trouble at all with Windows 8.1. The way I have it
set up it isn't much different than Windows 7. I don't use the Metro
stuff so I uninstalled all the apps, also I have Start8 and boot
directly to the desktop. I could probably get by without Start8 and
still do fine with Windows 8.1. I am amused when I see the posts from
people who are downgrading to Windows. A few tweaks makes Win 8.1 the
same as Win 7 so why downgrade?
I really don't understand why this OS is disliked by so many people.
IMHO, Windows 8.1 is equal or better than Windows 7.

On 04 Dec 2013, Jim wrote in alt.comp.os.windows-8:

I really don't understand why this OS is disliked by so many
people. IMHO, Windows 8.1 is equal or better than Windows 7.

I can *maybe* accept that Windows 8.1 might be equal to Windows 7 after
jumping through a bunch of hoops, but how is it any better?

Jim wrote:

I really don't understand why this OS is disliked by so many people.
IMHO, Windows 8.1 is equal or better than Windows 7.

I haven't been making this my life's work or anything,
but I notice a couple things about Windows 8.

1) It seems to be "reserving cycles" for some reason.
My favorite game seems to struggle under Windows 8.
I've done some other test cases where I see reserving
going on. With WinXP, I could run at 100% and feel
reasonably confident that the scheduler would only be
wasting a bit of my processor behind the scenes. I never
got the feeling with WinXP, that anything was being
"held back".

2) I have the test case, where Task Manager could not be
used to kill a process that needed to be killed. To
regain control of the machine, I eventually had to use
the power button, because no combination of inputs
would allow me to do anything. Task Manager was running,
Task Manager was using 35% CPU on its own (!), and yet
I couldn't get it to do anything.

I'm not convinced the core of Windows 8, is anything
to brag about.

When the first preview came out, it did have a
"bragging right". It could be run with a relatively
small amount of memory. I tested in a VM, and kept reducing
the memory size of the VM. I was amazed how low you could
go. So that was a positive thing. However, other evidence
collected with the release version, leaves me less than
impressed with the results. My favorite game plays like
I'm back on the Pentium 4 machine again. And now I'll never
know when the Task Manager is going to leave me in a lurch
(i.e. having to do a dirty shutdown by using the power button).
It's great that the file system is journaled and all,
but I don't consider that a good reason to be using
the power button as a "control" for the OS.

Notice that my comments above, have nothing to do
with Metro or Start Screen. That stuff is a distraction.

On WinXP, one of the issues was, if you started too many
demanding processes (lots of stuff all attempting to run
at 100% CPU), processes would start to die on their own.
And more processes tended to die, than was really necessary
for stability. But that failure didn't bother me nearly
as much, because it was a pathological test I cooked up,
and the chances of me abusing the machine like that
in a practical situation, was zero. As a result, I had
a failed test case, but the impact on me as a user, it
wasn't an issue. What I am seeing on Win8, *has* affected
me. My favorite game (one of the reasons I still use
Windows), doesn't play very well under Windows 8. And
I can't really trust Task Manager now for serious work.
If I thought someone was going to fix it, my opinion
might be a tiny bit more neutral. Surely someone
at Microsoft realizes what a compromise the Task Manager
design is...

Paul

Jim wrote:


2) I have the test case, where Task Manager could not be
used to kill a process that needed to be killed. To
regain control of the machine, I eventually had to use
the power button, because no combination of inputs
would allow me to do anything. Task Manager was running,
Task Manager was using 35% CPU on its own (!), and yet
I couldn't get it to do anything.

This happens in other OS's too. IIRC, this has happened in every MS OS
that I have used. Task Manager malfunctions and shut down using the
power button is the only option. No combination of inputs works. This
happened not long ago to a Windows 7 computer that I was working on.


But this is different. As near as I can tell, without
using any tools, Task Manager is an "ordinary" process,
sharing resources with everything else. The Task Manager
on WinXP, doesn't work the same way. Task Manager appears
to be different than everything else, on WinXP.

Task Manager needs special properties to stay in
control. And doesn't appear to have those properties
in Windows 8.

As an example, you'll notice in WinXP, that Task Manager
sits in front of all other graphics elements. That's not an
accident. That's what happens if you write a program that
writes directly to the frame buffer. And by doing so, avoids
a dependency on the graphics subsystem being sane. That, and
allocating static resources (so the code can't "run out of RAM")
are part of staying in control, and always being available.

What was really weird, is the processes list in Task Manager
showed Task Manager itself as using 35% of the CPU.

Paul

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 04:37:24 -0500, Paul wrote:

[snip]

As an example, you'll notice in WinXP, that Task Manager
sits in front of all other graphics elements. That's not an
accident. That's what happens if you write a program that
writes directly to the frame buffer. And by doing so, avoids

It is what happens when you set Always On Top.

Start up Task Manager then select Options and uncheck Always On
Top. The Task Manager window can then be relegated to underneath.

a dependency on the graphics subsystem being sane. That, and
allocating static resources (so the code can't "run out of RAM")
are part of staying in control, and always being available.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Jim has written on 12/4/2013 11:40 PM:
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:22:32 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

Winston and xfile,

This link was posted in a Mozilla newsgroup:
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-lif...203-2yo3r.html

I have no idea if the site is reliable, but the date for the page is
12/3/13.

I for one have no trouble at all with Windows 8.1. The way I have it
set up it isn't much different than Windows 7. I don't use the Metro
stuff so I uninstalled all the apps, also I have Start8 and boot
directly to the desktop. I could probably get by without Start8 and
still do fine with Windows 8.1. I am amused when I see the posts from
people who are downgrading to Windows. A few tweaks makes Win 8.1 the
same as Win 7 so why downgrade?

I really don't understand why this OS is disliked by so many people.
IMHO, Windows 8.1 is equal or better than Windows 7.

Amen.

xfile has written on 12/4/2013 11:55 PM:
I really don't understand why this OS is disliked by so many people.

Why? For one, you know how to do this,

The way I have it
set up it isn't much different than Windows 7. I don't use the Metro
stuff so I uninstalled all the apps, also I have Start8 and boot
directly to the desktop.

Not everyone knows how to do those, or is willing to *waste* their time
and money (despite it's little) to do something that they shouldn't be
bothered in this first place.

Their perspective would be - It's so silly to spend so much time and
resources just to make the new one look and work like the old one.

How about 5 minutes and ZERO dollars?

OK, add in the time to down load and install Chrome, Irfanview and VLC.

And -- although I don't a list at my fingertips -- there are aspects of
8 that are improvements over 7.

How about 5 minutes and ZERO dollars?

OK, add in the time to down load and install Chrome, Irfanview and VLC.

And -- although I don't a list at my fingertips -- there are aspects of
8 that are improvements over 7.

Hi Juan Wei,

I am not exactly a frequent visitor to this newsgroup, but your name
isn't a new one to me.

You pretty much excluded all the time you spent on this newsgroup (and
perhaps other places), and of course, over years.

I am not trying to say Windows 8 is or isn't a good product, and
certainly newer products always have improvements of some kind, but when
we evaluate a product intended for general public or for specific
purpose, it would help to remind ourselves, sometimes, that we are not
exactly a normal/ordinary user and we should think from the perspective
of *intended* users and not just from our own preferences.

After all, geeks, techies, and hobbyists, and so on, account for less
than 20% of market share and no companies can survive or prosper with
this group, not to mention that most of these experts have a strong
brand royalty.

That's all I have to say and good luck.


On 12/6/2013 03:40, Juan Wei wrote:
xfile has written on 12/4/2013 11:55 PM:
I really don't understand why this OS is disliked by so many people.

Why? For one, you know how to do this,

The way I have it
set up it isn't much different than Windows 7. I don't use the Metro
stuff so I uninstalled all the apps, also I have Start8 and boot
directly to the desktop.

Not everyone knows how to do those, or is willing to *waste* their time
and money (despite it's little) to do something that they shouldn't be
bothered in this first place.

Their perspective would be - It's so silly to spend so much time and
resources just to make the new one look and work like the old one.