A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 8 » Windows 8 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 16th 14, 09:25 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ed Propes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again?

Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called?


What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test
Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping
to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some
of my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I
think we could build one hell of a perfect operating system.


What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating
system"? I get curious when people say that.

Ed in Texas


Ads
  #32  
Old January 16th 14, 11:39 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Silver Slimer[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again?

Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called?


What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test
Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping
to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of
my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we
could build one hell of a perfect operating system.


What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I
get curious when people say that.


It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user.
--
Silver Slimer
If you like the software, buy it.
If it's free, donate.
https://plus.google.com/109168722444410572286 - Hail the king of cretins
  #33  
Old January 17th 14, 02:02 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again?

Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called?

What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test
Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping
to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of
my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we
could build one hell of a perfect operating system.


What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I
get curious when people say that.


It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user.


Just like there is no perfect GUI that fits everyone, there will never
be a perfect OS.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
  #34  
Old January 17th 14, 02:50 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again?

Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called?

What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test
Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping
to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of
my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we
could build one hell of a perfect operating system.

What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I
get curious when people say that.


It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user.


Just like there is no perfect GUI that fits everyone, there will never
be a perfect OS.


Keeping in mind, they're two separate things.

In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based).
The decorations, the windows manager, there are a number of options
available, such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, each one looking a little different.
And without integration (i.e. loading the apps into the menu
structures), even those would look pretty empty without a distro
team to set them up. You can't just load a Window manager package,
and automatically it looks good.

The latest Windows 8 OS portion (i.e. not the GUI), is not a good
OS. It does not behave well when running out of Pool memory.
It "reserves" a portion of CPU cycles for itself (so "100% CPU"
is only about 85% of the true CPU). Games play slower, as the reserved
CPU cycles can't be used. And when it comes time to loading a program
you want to run, if an existing program is using what amounts to
all the available cycles, the thing that loads the next program
is dog slow. Right now, I'm running WinXP, I'm running 7ZIP at about
85% CPU (varies), and if I want to start another program, it starts
in a couple seconds. If I do that on Windows 8, it takes 30 seconds.
It's ridiculously unfriendly. Windows 8 will present a "busy cursor"
(spinning wheel, a la MacOSX), but that animation stops after about
five seconds, leaving you guessing as to whether a program is going
to load within the next twenty five seconds.

So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion
for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but
the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this
stuff ? Why is it only me ?

WinXP has the odd nasty behavior as well, but I just
don't run into those cases as often. In WinXP, if you
start too many high-demand programs, a bunch of them
will just "die". An over-subscribed OS should still be
able to run the programs - they should all just run slow.
WinXP can't handle that. On my particular installation,
there is also some kind of leak in NTFS file system driver,
which cases the file system to consume more CPU cycles,
after 200GB or more of writes. Those are examples of
WinXP flaws I've seen. But since my programs load
relatively fast, I tend to forgive the other
"corner" cases. I don't run four copies of Prime95
all that often :-)

Paul
  #35  
Old January 17th 14, 04:52 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

On 1/16/14 6:50 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...


snip

So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion
for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but
the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this
stuff ? Why is it only me ?.


Probably because you are the only poster who gets into the computer at
this depth, and then write about it.

I rarely read your full replies. The information is more than I
understand, and am interested in. How it simply affects the user is all
that interests me, as I impart that to other users as needed, and as
remembered! LOL

Keep posting the details, as surely there are others here that find that
information useful and interesting.


snip


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
  #36  
Old January 17th 14, 05:06 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Gene E. Bloch[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,720
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

On 1/16/2014, Ken Springer posted:
On 1/16/14 6:50 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...


snip


So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion
for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but
the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this
stuff ? Why is it only me ?.


Probably because you are the only poster who gets into the computer
at this depth, and then write about it.


I rarely read your full replies. The information is more than I
understand, and am interested in. How it simply affects the user is
all that interests me, as I impart that to other users as needed, and
as remembered! LOL


Keep posting the details, as surely there are others here that find
that information useful and interesting.


I'm more like you, but I have noticed plenty of responders in these NGs
who indeed make good use of Paul's analyses.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
  #37  
Old January 17th 14, 05:09 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 6:50 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...


snip

So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion
for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but
the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this
stuff ? Why is it only me ?.


Probably because you are the only poster who gets into the computer at
this depth, and then write about it.

I rarely read your full replies. The information is more than I
understand, and am interested in. How it simply affects the user is all
that interests me, as I impart that to other users as needed, and as
remembered! LOL

Keep posting the details, as surely there are others here that find that
information useful and interesting.


snip


Yes I find it very interesting as I, being self taught I need all the
info I can get to help me learn how it works. I have been an insatiable
reader all my life.
I still peruse HowStuffWorks quite frequently.
Keep up the good work Paul.



--

Regards, Rene

  #38  
Old January 17th 14, 11:48 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ed Propes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

Silver Slimer was thinking very hard :
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again?

Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called?

What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test
Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am
hoping to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to
take some of my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc.
user, I think we could build one hell of a perfect operating
system.


What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating
system"? I get curious when people say that.


It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user.


And how many types of PC users are there and what do you think
they would want in an OS?

Thanks,
Ed in Texas


  #39  
Old January 17th 14, 11:54 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ed Propes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

Paul expressed precisely :
Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again?

Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called?

What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test
Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am
hoping
to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take
some of
my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I
think we
could build one hell of a perfect operating system.

What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating
system"? I
get curious when people say that.

It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user.


Just like there is no perfect GUI that fits everyone, there will
never be a perfect OS.


Keeping in mind, they're two separate things.

In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based).
The decorations, the windows manager, there are a number of options
available, such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, each one looking a little
different.
And without integration (i.e. loading the apps into the menu
structures), even those would look pretty empty without a distro
team to set them up. You can't just load a Window manager package,
and automatically it looks good.

The latest Windows 8 OS portion (i.e. not the GUI), is not a good
OS. It does not behave well when running out of Pool memory.
It "reserves" a portion of CPU cycles for itself (so "100% CPU"
is only about 85% of the true CPU). Games play slower, as the
reserved
CPU cycles can't be used. And when it comes time to loading a program
you want to run, if an existing program is using what amounts to
all the available cycles, the thing that loads the next program
is dog slow. Right now, I'm running WinXP, I'm running 7ZIP at about
85% CPU (varies), and if I want to start another program, it starts
in a couple seconds. If I do that on Windows 8, it takes 30 seconds.
It's ridiculously unfriendly. Windows 8 will present a "busy cursor"
(spinning wheel, a la MacOSX), but that animation stops after about
five seconds, leaving you guessing as to whether a program is going
to load within the next twenty five seconds.

So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion
for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but
the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this
stuff ? Why is it only me ?

WinXP has the odd nasty behavior as well, but I just
don't run into those cases as often. In WinXP, if you
start too many high-demand programs, a bunch of them
will just "die". An over-subscribed OS should still be
able to run the programs - they should all just run slow.
WinXP can't handle that. On my particular installation,
there is also some kind of leak in NTFS file system driver,
which cases the file system to consume more CPU cycles,
after 200GB or more of writes. Those are examples of
WinXP flaws I've seen. But since my programs load
relatively fast, I tend to forgive the other
"corner" cases. I don't run four copies of Prime95
all that often :-)

Paul


Okay you've stated a case about what is wrong with OSes already
being used. Just for conversation's sake I'll go along with all
that you've said. Now what would you do to make a perfect OS?

Thanks,
Ed from Texas


  #40  
Old January 17th 14, 02:23 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Neil Gould[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 167
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

Paul wrote:
[...]
In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based).
The decorations, the windows manager, there are a number of options
available, such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, each one looking a little
different. And without integration (i.e. loading the apps into the
menu structures), even those would look pretty empty without a distro
team to set them up. You can't just load a Window manager package,
and automatically it looks good.

The latest Windows 8 OS portion (i.e. not the GUI), is not a good
OS. It does not behave well when running out of Pool memory.
It "reserves" a portion of CPU cycles for itself (so "100% CPU"
is only about 85% of the true CPU). Games play slower, as the reserved
CPU cycles can't be used. And when it comes time to loading a program
you want to run, if an existing program is using what amounts to
all the available cycles, the thing that loads the next program
is dog slow. Right now, I'm running WinXP, I'm running 7ZIP at about
85% CPU (varies), and if I want to start another program, it starts
in a couple seconds. If I do that on Windows 8, it takes 30 seconds.
It's ridiculously unfriendly. Windows 8 will present a "busy cursor"
(spinning wheel, a la MacOSX), but that animation stops after about
five seconds, leaving you guessing as to whether a program is going
to load within the next twenty five seconds.

So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion
for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but
the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this
stuff ? Why is it only me ?

Perhaps because you're one of very few users that would want Win8 to behave
like a server OS? That it doesn't, when there are concurrent Windows server
OSes available (Linux is commonly used in server applications), is not
necessarily an indication of an OS problem.
--
best regards,

Neil


  #41  
Old January 17th 14, 02:50 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

On 1/16/2014 7:50 PM, Paul wrote:
In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based).


Really? Care to explain to me why I need to take a newer Linux kernel
and compiled it and integrate it into my Xandros? I need to do so
because that kernel will only run up to Thunderbird v1.5 and Firefox 2.0.

[...]
The latest Windows 8 OS portion (i.e. not the GUI), is not a good
OS. It does not behave well when running out of Pool memory.
It "reserves" a portion of CPU cycles for itself (so "100% CPU"
is only about 85% of the true CPU). Games play slower, as the reserved
CPU cycles can't be used. And when it comes time to loading a program
you want to run, if an existing program is using what amounts to
all the available cycles, the thing that loads the next program
is dog slow. Right now, I'm running WinXP, I'm running 7ZIP at about
85% CPU (varies), and if I want to start another program, it starts
in a couple seconds. If I do that on Windows 8, it takes 30 seconds.
It's ridiculously unfriendly. Windows 8 will present a "busy cursor"
(spinning wheel, a la MacOSX), but that animation stops after about
five seconds, leaving you guessing as to whether a program is going
to load within the next twenty five seconds.

So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion
for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but
the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this
stuff ? Why is it only me ?


Nope it isn't just you. I long complained about this with Windows 7 and
8. Take my TV tuners for example. I can record and convert the recording
in a totally different format live. Works beautifully under XP. Sadly
either under 7 or 8, it can easily start skipping frames.

Another observation I made from the very beginning was that you can take
a machine that can run either XP, 7, or 8. Now with three hardware
identical machines, you can easily see the performance of each OS. And
without exception, either Windows 7 or 8, they always run the CPU harder
and hotter than XP. Even when the machine should be idling.

WinXP has the odd nasty behavior as well, but I just
don't run into those cases as often. In WinXP, if you
start too many high-demand programs, a bunch of them
will just "die". An over-subscribed OS should still be
able to run the programs - they should all just run slow.
WinXP can't handle that. On my particular installation,
there is also some kind of leak in NTFS file system driver,
which cases the file system to consume more CPU cycles,
after 200GB or more of writes. Those are examples of
WinXP flaws I've seen. But since my programs load
relatively fast, I tend to forgive the other
"corner" cases. I don't run four copies of Prime95
all that often :-)


Is this behavior on a XP SP3 machine perhaps? Because I have never seen
this under XP SP2. I do have some XP SP3 machines, but I don't use SP3
too often. As I like SP2 far better.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional
  #42  
Old January 17th 14, 04:15 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Silver Slimer[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

On 17/01/2014 5:48 AM, Ed Propes wrote:

And how many types of PC users are there and what do you think they
would want in an OS?


Wow, you're really digging way more into this than the comment suggested.

Either way, it would have to be different-looking yet visually
appealing, stable, secure, snappy, provide excellent hardware support
even for older peripherals and make it easy to install or remove
applications.
--
Silver Slimer
If the software is good, buy it.
If it's free, donate.
  #43  
Old January 17th 14, 05:20 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

On 1/16/2014 7:02 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again?

Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called?

What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test
Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping
to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of
my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we
could build one hell of a perfect operating system.

What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I
get curious when people say that.


It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user.


Just like there is no perfect GUI that fits everyone, there will never
be a perfect OS.


Oh I don't know about that? I believe Microsoft made a huge mistake by
creating XP. They made it way too good. XP also had the longest run of
any OS. And I actually hated XP until SP2 came out. IMHO, Microsoft
really polished it up very well. And if I were restricted to only one
OS, XP would be the clear winner for me. As it runs 100% of everything I
want to run. I can't say that of any other OS before or since then. XP
has been around for 12 years now and it still has a huge following.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional
  #44  
Old January 17th 14, 11:22 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

BillW50 wrote:
On 1/16/2014 7:50 PM, Paul wrote:
In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based).


Really? Care to explain to me why I need to take a newer Linux kernel
and compiled it and integrate it into my Xandros? I need to do so
because that kernel will only run up to Thunderbird v1.5 and Firefox 2.0.


You build custom kernels, to get optimization for your processor.
For example, if I install from a LiveCD, perhaps I get an
i386 or i586 kernel. Instead, I can download kernel source,
and set the machine type to "Core2" and have a kernel that
uses the instructions featured on my Core2 processor. Maybe
the machine runs a tiny bit snappier as a result.

I can also add or snip out unnecessary drivers. For example,
if you take a Gentoo LiveCD (demo) DVD and try to boot it,
it takes around three minutes. The reason being, they
turned on every possible driver, and it takes half a second
or a second for the boot sequence to try loading each one of
those one at a time. If you instead, did your own build, you can
put just the necessary drivers in there, and be booted in 20 seconds.

And you can't just arbitrarily take any old kernel and
stuff it into your OS. You take kernel versions that
were back-ported for your release. They've been tested,
and all the APIs would be the same. Linux is constantly
changing, and you could easily bust something by
bringing in a current kernel. It's no problem to
change kernel version at boot time, so nothing is
really broken. It would mainly just be a waste of
your time, trying to get it running.

I've successfully built kernels a few times, but
the difficulty of doing so, is partially a function
of how well your distro provides instructions. Some
make it a pain to do, implying they want you to
"eat their non-optimal kernel" :-)

Paul
  #45  
Old January 18th 14, 02:02 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:02:10 -0700, "Rich" wrote:

I promptly installed Classic Shell on 8 & then 8.1. If you were to walk into
my home office you literally could not tell that I was running Windows 8.1.
Am I missing something?


If you keep people back far enough, I agree that they probably wouldn't be
able to tell that you're running 8.1. Let them touch your mouse or keyboard,
however, and the jig is up almost immediately.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.