just tryed win8 at computer store

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 17:18:09 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 00:00:28 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

After reading all the stuff posted for and against win8 I've been on the
fence about installing it over my win7. So many people made it sound
like it would be mass confusion, what with the disappearance of the
desktop. So I've been reading and picked up a little bit of info on how
to move the mouse and use the windows key. So at the comp store today I
tried a couple of Win8 computers and was surprised to see that there was
really not a big deal with the change. Yeah, the main screen was just
the Tiles. hit the windows key and boom, up popped the desktop just
like the old days. Not at all the "lost in space" encounter I was
expecting. Since I already bought the upgrade I will do one more backup
of my machine and install it and give it a whirl.

Why do you need to upgrade? W7 isn't all that old like XP. Is there
something that Windows 8 does (or does better) that Windows 7 doesn't?
Or is it that Windows 8 is the new toy that you have to have?


Stef

1- Because I can
2 - because I like to stay on top of "the latest"
3 - I heard it was a little better at managing 'the system'
4 - like it or not, the metro meme is going to appear on more and more
stuff so I want to have some familiarity with it.
5 - the price to UG was pretty darn low


Now that's it's been on the machine for a few days I don't see any
problems with it. Just to make it a little easier I splurged on
Start8 for $5 to get a start menu back. I do kind of like the look of
Metro for some things and I see some other changes in some of the
basic UI stuff for the desktop program windows.

There's no question I could have easily gotten along just fine
sticking with Win7.

On 12/3/2012 10:38 AM, XS11E wrote:
wrote:

I've used dualboots off and on for about 15 years. And I
won't do it anymore. So many disadvantages to dualboot setups.

And they are?

1) You can *only* run one OS at a time. And the other one has to be
totally shutdown.

2) Using Microsoft's directions, you end up with OS installed on drives
other than Drive C. Some software installs will place all or parts on
the drive C. Even though it doesn't belong on that partition. Sure
things might work ok, but maybe not after a time.

3) Dualbooting OS like Windows drops some files on the first partition
on the drive. Like I had XP on the first partition and Windows 7 dropped
a Boot folder in there and a number of files in the XP root. You later
decide to drop one OS and then it gets real fun.

Having one OS per machine is so much better.

Why would you think that?

No need to shutdown one OS to fire another one up. And you can compare
two OS running side by side. People talk a lot about making software
backups. While important for most, nobody talks about backing up your
hardware as well. And I usually buy at least two of every model (ever
since '81). So if one bites the dust, no worries. As I got another one
just like it. Thus why bother with dualbooting? I got a spare, just use
that one for another OS. For example, I have two of these slate tablets.
The plan is Windows 7 on one of them and Windows 8 on the other.

--
Bill
Dell Latitute Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('11 era) - Thunderbird v12
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB - Windows 7 SP1

On 12/5/2012 5:53 PM, BillW50 wrote:


I've used dualboots off and on for about 15 years. And I
won't do it anymore. So many disadvantages to dualboot setups.

And they are?

1) You can *only* run one OS at a time. And the other one has to be
totally shutdown.

2) Using Microsoft's directions, you end up with OS installed on drives
other than Drive C. Some software installs will place all or parts on
the drive C. Even though it doesn't belong on that partition. Sure
things might work ok, but maybe not after a time.

3) Dualbooting OS like Windows drops some files on the first partition
on the drive. Like I had XP on the first partition and Windows 7 dropped
a Boot folder in there and a number of files in the XP root. You later
decide to drop one OS and then it gets real fun.

That's one lame way to do it. Another is to use different SATA drives
and put an OS on each and use the BiOS to decide which to boot to. That
way no OS can **** on another. I have Win 7, Linux Mint and XP on three
different drives on one computer and have never had a problem with your
"real fun" ****. In fact, today, I will replacing Mint with Netrunner
and see no problems doing it after I disconnect the other two drives.


Having one OS per machine is so much better.

Why would you think that?

No need to shutdown one OS to fire another one up. And you can compare
two OS running side by side.

Whoopee. How much time do you spend doing that?

People talk a lot about making software
backups. While important for most, nobody talks about backing up your
hardware as well. And I usually buy at least two of every model (ever
since '81). So if one bites the dust, no worries. As I got another one
just like it. Thus why bother with dualbooting? I got a spare, just use
that one for another OS. For example, I have two of these slate tablets.
The plan is Windows 7 on one of them and Windows 8 on the other.


We know you own dozens and dozens of computers or at least we know that
you say you do. The question is why.

--
Alias

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:24:00 +0100, "Alias"
wrote in article k9nvvh$q5e$1
@speranza.aioe.org...

snip

use different SATA drives
and put an OS on each and use the BiOS to decide which to boot to. That
way no OS can **** on another.

Windows (and possibly other modern Operating Systems) don't use the
BIOS for drive access once they are booted, so this isn't necessarily
true. Just because you've booted to one drive doesn't mean the OS
won't mess with another, even if you've disabled it in the BIOS.

--
Zaphod

Voted "Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe" for seven
years in a row.

"BillW50" wrote in message ...


2) Using Microsoft's directions, you end up with OS installed on drives
other than Drive C. Some software installs will place all or parts on
the drive C. Even though it doesn't belong on that partition. Sure
things might work ok, but maybe not after a time.

3) Dualbooting OS like Windows drops some files on the first partition
on the drive. Like I had XP on the first partition and Windows 7 dropped
a Boot folder in there and a number of files in the XP root. You later
decide to drop one OS and then it gets real fun.


2.) Unless you are doing something unusual, the o/s loaded from a multi-boot scenario will be the C: drive.

3.) Vista, Win7, Win8 by design (in your terms - drop) place the boot manager files on the System Volume and the o/s on the Boot
Volume. On XP the System and Boot Volume (partition) were the same.

--
....winston
msft mvp

On 12/5/2012 8:25 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:24:00 +0100, "Alias"
wrote in article k9nvvh$q5e$1
@speranza.aioe.org...

snip

use different SATA drives
and put an OS on each and use the BiOS to decide which to boot to. That
way no OS can **** on another.

Windows (and possibly other modern Operating Systems) don't use the
BIOS for drive access once they are booted, so this isn't necessarily
true. Just because you've booted to one drive doesn't mean the OS
won't mess with another, even if you've disabled it in the BIOS.


Haven't had any problems for three years with this setup. I choose the
drive before any OS starts booting. One drive will boot up with XP
without having to choose as it is set as the first to boot in the BIOS.

--
Alias

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 01:12:45 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 17:18:09 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 00:00:28 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

After reading all the stuff posted for and against win8 I've been on
the fence about installing it over my win7. So many people made it
sound like it would be mass confusion, what with the disappearance of
the desktop. So I've been reading and picked up a little bit of info
on how to move the mouse and use the windows key. So at the comp
store today I tried a couple of Win8 computers and was surprised to
see that there was really not a big deal with the change. Yeah, the
main screen was just the Tiles. hit the windows key and boom, up
popped the desktop just like the old days. Not at all the "lost in
space" encounter I was expecting. Since I already bought the upgrade
I will do one more backup of my machine and install it and give it a
whirl.

Why do you need to upgrade? W7 isn't all that old like XP. Is there
something that Windows 8 does (or does better) that Windows 7 doesn't?
Or is it that Windows 8 is the new toy that you have to have?


Stef

1- Because I can
2 - because I like to stay on top of "the latest"
3 - I heard it was a little better at managing 'the system'

Some reviewers have mentioned that. Also, said that 8 is a "little"
faster, more efficient. One would expect both since W8 was designed to
run on various low power, resource limited tablets.

4 - like it or not, the metro
meme is going to appear on more and more stuff so I want to have some
familiarity with it.

Well, Microsoft chose to abandoned the desktop interface, so we the users
have few alternatives left other than Metro. I expect the downloads of
Classic Shell (and similar utilities) are going to increase dramatically
as well as migrations to Macs (or Linux).

I don't know why MS didn't include an option in W8 for either interface,
switchable on demand. It's not like they don't have the desktop code
laying around somewhere. It's called "give your customers what they
want," but MS' business plan has never much supported that philosophy.

5 - the price to UG was pretty darn low

Just because the price is low doesn't mean it's a bargain.


Now that's it's been on the machine for a few days I don't see any
problems with it. Just to make it a little easier I splurged on Start8
for $5 to get a start menu back. I do kind of like the look of Metro
for some things and I see some other changes in some of the basic UI
stuff for the desktop program windows.

I have heard, but haven't tested it, that Metro is incapable of running
two apps side-by-side or overlapped on the screen. It runs one of top of
the other with top one totally obscuring the other. I use the side-by-
side a lot. Nor does it have multiple workspaces, but then Windows never
did until recently. I use that feature a lot, too.

There's no question I could have easily gotten along just fine sticking
with Win7.

Okay. Now we know: Windows 8 is your bright, shiny, new toy. ;-)


Stef

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 00:59:23 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric wrote:

Well, Microsoft chose to abandoned the desktop interface, so we the users
have few alternatives left other than Metro. I expect the downloads of
Classic Shell (and similar utilities) are going to increase dramatically
as well as migrations to Macs (or Linux).

I don't know why MS didn't include an option in W8 for either interface,
switchable on demand. It's not like they don't have the desktop code
laying around somewhere. It's called "give your customers what they
want," but MS' business plan has never much supported that philosophy.

You haven't tried pressing the Windows key on it's own have you.

--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail rpont (at) gmail (dot) com

On 6/12/2012 4:24 AM, Alias wrote:
On 12/5/2012 5:53 PM, BillW50 wrote:


I've used dualboots off and on for about 15 years. And I
won't do it anymore. So many disadvantages to dualboot setups.

And they are?

1) You can *only* run one OS at a time. And the other one has to be
totally shutdown.

2) Using Microsoft's directions, you end up with OS installed on drives
other than Drive C. Some software installs will place all or parts on
the drive C. Even though it doesn't belong on that partition. Sure
things might work ok, but maybe not after a time.

3) Dualbooting OS like Windows drops some files on the first partition
on the drive. Like I had XP on the first partition and Windows 7 dropped
a Boot folder in there and a number of files in the XP root. You later
decide to drop one OS and then it gets real fun.

That's one lame way to do it. Another is to use different SATA drives
and put an OS on each and use the BiOS to decide which to boot to. That
way no OS can **** on another. I have Win 7, Linux Mint and XP on three
different drives on one computer and have never had a problem with your
"real fun" ****. In fact, today, I will replacing Mint with Netrunner
and see no problems doing it after I disconnect the other two drives.


Having one OS per machine is so much better.

Why would you think that?

No need to shutdown one OS to fire another one up. And you can compare
two OS running side by side.

Whoopee. How much time do you spend doing that?

People talk a lot about making software
backups. While important for most, nobody talks about backing up your
hardware as well. And I usually buy at least two of every model (ever
since '81). So if one bites the dust, no worries. As I got another one
just like it. Thus why bother with dualbooting? I got a spare, just use
that one for another OS. For example, I have two of these slate tablets.
The plan is Windows 7 on one of them and Windows 8 on the other.


We know you own dozens and dozens of computers or at least we know that
you say you do. The question is why.



Only twice have I needed to load up a dual boot. Otherwise its really
unnecessary.

The reason being that custom programmes were not compatible with Vista
when it was released. The person just bought a new Laptop, their only
computer, which was necessary for OS travel. The company I am sure now
has an update.

You don't need dual boots unless you only have one computer.

Companies may have dedicated PC's to perform dedicated tasks where they
are stuck with old programmes. Have one person now that has to run XP
because the software was only designed for XP and the author could not
be bothered to update, (still promising to make an update) owing to the
very limited number of customers in a specialised field.

On 6/12/2012 11:35 AM, Alias wrote:
On 12/5/2012 8:25 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:24:00 +0100, "Alias"
wrote in article k9nvvh$q5e$1
@speranza.aioe.org...

snip

use different SATA drives
and put an OS on each and use the BiOS to decide which to boot to. That
way no OS can **** on another.

Windows (and possibly other modern Operating Systems) don't use the
BIOS for drive access once they are booted, so this isn't necessarily
true. Just because you've booted to one drive doesn't mean the OS
won't mess with another, even if you've disabled it in the BIOS.


Haven't had any problems for three years with this setup. I choose the
drive before any OS starts booting. One drive will boot up with XP
without having to choose as it is set as the first to boot in the BIOS.

Most likely you also have a boot menu which allows an alternative, but
with default going to the preferred boot drive without making a choice.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:12:45 +0000 (GMT), "Rodney Pont"
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 00:59:23 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric wrote:

Well, Microsoft chose to abandoned the desktop interface, so we the users
have few alternatives left other than Metro. I expect the downloads of
Classic Shell (and similar utilities) are going to increase dramatically
as well as migrations to Macs (or Linux).

I don't know why MS didn't include an option in W8 for either interface,
switchable on demand. It's not like they don't have the desktop code
laying around somewhere. It's called "give your customers what they
want," but MS' business plan has never much supported that philosophy.

You haven't tried pressing the Windows key on it's own have you.

Also, with Start8 installed my Windows8 machine boots into the old
style desktop and has the old style start button and an old style
start menu. If I don't purposely switch it to the 8desktop I'd never
know it was there. Some of the "old" programs wound up with Tiles on
the 8Desktop. What surprised me is that when I click them and start
them it switches back to the 7Desktop and opens them in a proper
window. It seems that only the new Metro programs actually open and
stay on the 8Desktop.

More and more I think MS did the right thing (for the most part) in
trying to have a new OS that will bridge the whole range of personal
computing gadgets from smartphones to pads, to tablets, to PCs. Win8
lets all the old stuff keep working but allows you to also move into
the "new" stuff and for those who are moving more and more to smaller
screens on the smaller devices there's really not much choice but to
make apps nothing but full screen. Switching between running full
screen apps on the Metro side isn't particularly hard, you just have
to learn something new. As an old time windows user who could easily
move back and forth between multiple open windows on Win7 and earlier
in order to cut and paste stuff the Metro way seems cumbersome... but
how else can it work if you want to do the whole spread of device
sizes with a consistent interface. Like it or not, many people will
be abandoning their PCs and big screens and doing it all on minipads
and the like.

On 12/6/2012 7:27 AM, Rob wrote:
On 6/12/2012 11:35 AM, Alias wrote:
On 12/5/2012 8:25 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:24:00 +0100, "Alias"
wrote in article k9nvvh$q5e$1
@speranza.aioe.org...

snip

use different SATA drives
and put an OS on each and use the BiOS to decide which to boot to. That
way no OS can **** on another.

Windows (and possibly other modern Operating Systems) don't use the
BIOS for drive access once they are booted, so this isn't necessarily
true. Just because you've booted to one drive doesn't mean the OS
won't mess with another, even if you've disabled it in the BIOS.


Haven't had any problems for three years with this setup. I choose the
drive before any OS starts booting. One drive will boot up with XP
without having to choose as it is set as the first to boot in the BIOS.

Most likely you also have a boot menu which allows an alternative, but
with default going to the preferred boot drive without making a choice.

Exactly.

--
Alias

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:35:05 +0100, "Alias"
wrote in article k9op7v$a8v$1@dont-
email.me...

On 12/5/2012 8:25 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:24:00 +0100, "Alias"
wrote in article k9nvvh$q5e$1
@speranza.aioe.org...

snip

use different SATA drives
and put an OS on each and use the BiOS to decide which to boot to. That
way no OS can **** on another.

Windows (and possibly other modern Operating Systems) don't use the
BIOS for drive access once they are booted, so this isn't necessarily
true. Just because you've booted to one drive doesn't mean the OS
won't mess with another, even if you've disabled it in the BIOS.


Haven't had any problems for three years with this setup. I choose the
drive before any OS starts booting. One drive will boot up with XP
without having to choose as it is set as the first to boot in the BIOS.

Oh, I'm not saying it *will* happen, just that it *could* since the OS
can still access any drive it wants to. I've never had the OS take
down a drive it wasn't supposed to be accessing either, but in Windows
there's no way to prevent access to any drive that is physically
connected like you can in Linux as far as I know.

--
Zaphod

Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's
something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the
universe gets that.

On 12/6/2012 3:09 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:35:05 +0100, "Alias"
wrote in article k9op7v$a8v$1@dont-
email.me...

On 12/5/2012 8:25 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:24:00 +0100, "Alias"
wrote in article k9nvvh$q5e$1
@speranza.aioe.org...

snip

use different SATA drives
and put an OS on each and use the BiOS to decide which to boot to. That
way no OS can **** on another.

Windows (and possibly other modern Operating Systems) don't use the
BIOS for drive access once they are booted, so this isn't necessarily
true. Just because you've booted to one drive doesn't mean the OS
won't mess with another, even if you've disabled it in the BIOS.


Haven't had any problems for three years with this setup. I choose the
drive before any OS starts booting. One drive will boot up with XP
without having to choose as it is set as the first to boot in the BIOS.

Oh, I'm not saying it *will* happen, just that it *could* since the OS
can still access any drive it wants to. I've never had the OS take
down a drive it wasn't supposed to be accessing either, but in Windows
there's no way to prevent access to any drive that is physically
connected like you can in Linux as far as I know.


Anything's possible but I usually go with the "probable".

--
Alias

BillW50 wrote:

On 12/3/2012 10:38 AM, XS11E wrote:
wrote:

I've used dualboots off and on for about 15 years. And I won't
do it anymore. So many disadvantages to dualboot setups.

And they are?

1) You can *only* run one OS at a time. And the other one has to
be totally shutdown.

How is that a disadvantage? I can only run one OS at a time, that's a
limitation built into ME.

2) Using Microsoft's directions, you end up with OS installed on
drives other than Drive C. Some software installs will place all
or parts on the drive C. Even though it doesn't belong on that
partition. Sure things might work ok, but maybe not after a time.

Wrong, Win7 installed on drive C:, Win8 installed on a separate
partition and renamed it to C: and renamed the Win7 partition to
something else, all my previous dual boots have worked that way and
there have been NO problems with any software installs, none.

I'm wondering where you got your mis-information?

remaining mis-information snipped


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/