Microsoft Giving Away Windows 8.1?

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:05:01 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:

And FYI: smart devices are just part of the market. Yes, sales are
through the roof, but it's the new toy, new status symbol, and teen and
20-somethings have just GOT TO HAVE ONE! It'll settle down as soon as
the newness of it wears off, and they realize you can't easily write a
term paper or thesis or business report on your cellphone or tablet. I
would've hated to write this reply on my cellphone with just my thumbs.
;-)

You'd think that a company with the experience of Microsoft would have
realised that the qwerty keyboard, well over a century old, predates
electronics itself and all of its derivatives and many other
inventions that have remained popular for several generations, and is
thus unlikely to be provoked into going away by the invention of some
transient gimmick that offers no real advantage. Armed with that
wisdom, if they'd wanted to try and introduce a new way of working
with computers, they could have done it in a way that didn't try to
obliterate the old way just, apparently, for the sake of it.

Look at any other large scale change in widely used technology, the
change from black and white to colour television for example, or mono
to stereo in broadcast and recorded sound, and you'll see that the
successful ones have been done in such a way that the new and the old
can coexist for a considerable time while people make their own
choices. If the new really is better than the old, there will
eventually come a time when the old has lapsed into disuse to such an
extent that abandoning it will cause very little inconvenience. These
things are not accomplished overnight. And if the new thing isn't any
better, then that is what will disappear while everyone continues
quite happily using what they have always used. It's never a good idea
to burn your bridges.

Rod.

Stef wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

Stef wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle



http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't
like the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS
has already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible
results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and
give their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop,
mouse and keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over
Windows 8 is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs
surprisingly well on low-resource systems, new hardware is far
from needed if your hardware could handle any moderately recent
version of Windows.

Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No
keyboard. No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either
into a traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows
users want.

My Windows 8.1 notebook does not have a touch screen, and I have no
problem using its interface unmodified by any third-party utilities.
The computer is stable, faster than the Vista or Windows 7
equivalents, and provides access to more apps via Metro.

I never said W8 wouldn't work on a traditional laptop or PC, I just
said it was designed to run on a tablet -- The Surface specifically..
Its sales have been dismal as well.

As I understand it, Win8 was designed to unify the GUIs between multiple
levels of devices. So, while it does work on Windows tablets and phones
(whose metro-like GUIs predated Win8, btw), it was "designed" to bring
continuity to the PC user that also uses these devices.

Wonder why?

Most likely the price point of a Surface Pro. It's hard to sell something
that is functionally the same as devices that cost half as much.

W8 is faster than W7 on the same hardware. That's because it was
designed to run on a tablet which has lower specs that traditional
laptops or PCs.

Wrong. Win8 is faster because it takes advantage of newer CPU capabilities.
If your notion was correct, Win8 would run faster on older hardware which
has far more resources than tablets. Instead, Win8 may not install on those
machines.

What MS had to do, what features had to be abandoned,
etc. to achieve this, I don't know. But only being able to run and
display two apps at a time is a pain.

What is the problem with using the Desktop to display and run multiple apps
simultaneously? Works for me! Other OSs that use a similar interface to
Metro/Modern (iOS, Android) can only have *one* app displayed at a time.
Does that make Win8.x "twice as good"? 8-D

I suspect that there are some who just don't want to change, which
makes me wonder why they did in the first place? I'm posting this
from one of my

Before computers? People used paper and pen, and typewriters, and
their brains.

Many of us still do.

Win2k machines, which is the OS I prefer over XP, Vista or Win7.
Nobody is forcing folks to "upgrade", but I think it behooves those
who do to learn

Wrong! MS does. It has to to stay profitable. That's how it makes
its money: Selling OSes and software. I read that 90% of MS' gross
income comes from the sale of software. Now, that model is failing.
So,
MS is following Abobe's lead, and switching to leasing software
instead of selling it. And, then there's the Cloud. How long before
Windows becomes a Chrome-like OS?

Metro is already an Android-like OS.

the benefits of the new OS as well as the hardware that it supports,
because time doesn't move in reverse in this neck of the universe.
8-D

To many people, and businesses as well, the philosphy is: "If it
works, and works to my satisfaction, why upgrade?" It's a variation
of the adage: "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

For businesses, there comes a time when there is little choice. Requisite
apps that will no longer run on older OS versions, OS support ending,
drivers for peripherals becoming unavailable, etc. may not mean much to a
private person, but they mean quite a bit to a business that can lose far
more from being "down" due to one or more of these problems.
--
best regards,

Neil

On 3/3/2014 6:55 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:05:01 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:

And FYI: smart devices are just part of the market. Yes, sales are
through the roof, but it's the new toy, new status symbol, and teen and
20-somethings have just GOT TO HAVE ONE! It'll settle down as soon as
the newness of it wears off, and they realize you can't easily write a
term paper or thesis or business report on your cellphone or tablet. I
would've hated to write this reply on my cellphone with just my thumbs.
;-)

You'd think that a company with the experience of Microsoft would have
realised that the qwerty keyboard, well over a century old, predates
electronics itself and all of its derivatives and many other
inventions that have remained popular for several generations, and is
thus unlikely to be provoked into going away by the invention of some
transient gimmick that offers no real advantage. Armed with that
wisdom, if they'd wanted to try and introduce a new way of working
with computers, they could have done it in a way that didn't try to
obliterate the old way just, apparently, for the sake of it.

Before going off on too much of a fantastic tangent, perhaps its worthy
of note that Win8.x doesn't do away with keyboards, mice, touchpads, and
so forth. This response is from my non-touchscreen Win8.1 notebook using
its touchpad and keyboard. The main input control difference between
this and any previous notebook I've had is that the touchpad is
"smarter", providing scrolling in both X and Y directions when I use two
fingers, which makes it quite functional in both the Metro and Desktop
UIs. If I didn't mind fingerprints on my screen, there are notebooks
that have touchscreens as well. Things are getting better, if
flexibility is important.

Look at any other large scale change in widely used technology, the
change from black and white to colour television for example, or mono
to stereo in broadcast and recorded sound, and you'll see that the
successful ones have been done in such a way that the new and the old
can coexist for a considerable time while people make their own
choices. If the new really is better than the old, there will
eventually come a time when the old has lapsed into disuse to such an
extent that abandoning it will cause very little inconvenience. These
things are not accomplished overnight. And if the new thing isn't any
better, then that is what will disappear while everyone continues
quite happily using what they have always used. It's never a good idea
to burn your bridges.

What about this *doesn't* sound like Win8.x to you?
--
best regards,
Neil

On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:20:03 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


As I understand it, Win8 was designed to unify the GUIs between multiple
levels of devices. So, while it does work on Windows tablets and phones
(whose metro-like GUIs predated Win8, btw), it was "designed" to bring
continuity to the PC user that also uses these devices.

I've heard that one too, but if it really is what they had in mind,
they don't seem to have thought it through. Their starting point
should have been the hundreds of millions of people already using
existing operating systems using keyboards and mice, and the need not
to do anything too drastic that would inconvenience them. They seem
instead to have started with an assumption that everybody would
immediately want to use touch panels, so that the only people who
would have to compromise would be a tiny minority. I speak as one of
the "tiny minority" of hundreds of millions who are still perfectly
happy with mechanical keyboards and mice, and likely to remain so.

IMHO, Ubuntu's new Unity interface with the buttons down the left is a
much better attempt at the same thing. It still leaves most of the
screen clear, and the way excess buttons scroll in the same direction
as the bar, instead of at right angles to it as in Windows, will make
it a much better compromise when scaled to something the size of a
smartphone with a vertical screen. The Android photo gallery can
scroll the gallery buttons down the left of the screen in the same
kind of way if you want a taste of how well the Ubuntu launcher is
going to work. Microsoft don't seem to be addressing the needs of real
people any more, only their own fantasies.

Rod.

In the last episode of ,
CRNG said:

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote in

Moderately recent hardware? I'll assume that means a W7 machine.
How many XP users out there with hardware that is 5 or more years old?
Millions! W8/8.1 won't run on it. Many businesses in that group. Would
cost millions to upgrade: new hardware, new apps, retraining, etc.
Business can't afford that right now. Neither can the average user.

Well said.

Given that something like 95% of users never upgrade their OS separate
from hardware unless it's offered free and done automatically (read:
service packs), this is not an unreasonable approach.

That being said, the effective performance from Vista going forward has
improved on the same or similar hardware, and drivers are largely
compatible across platforms too, so Microsoft is moving the right
direction here in terms of reducing the system resources needed.

If you're running a 5+ year old system, you probably shouldn't expect to
run the latest software with similar performance to modern hardware
either, that's reasonable. Modern OSes are largely tuned to perform
better on modern hardware, assuming at least a couple cores, offloading
graphics to the video card rather than doing it in CPU like XP, etc.

--
Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool.

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over Windows 8
is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs surprisingly well on
low-resource systems, new hardware is far from needed if your hardware
could handle any moderately recent version of Windows.

Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No keyboard.
No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either into a
traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows users want.
Why MS is responding so slowly to that is anybody's guess. My guess is
MS wants "in" on the big profits of the tablet market, and are trying to
force users in that direction. It matters not that 90% of the Windows
users out there use desktops whether it is a box under the desk or a
laptop. It's what they need. Why can't MS admit that? Pride?

They did admit that! That's the whole point. 8.0 was an attempt to unify
one interface across all screens (Computer, phone, tablet, television),
8.1 was a nod toward the fact that it didn't work well for desktop
users, with a set of improvements directly focused on desktop and large
screen usage.

I have no complaints about the OS itself. It's the GUI that's the
"problem." And MS' stubborn arrogance.

Moderately recent hardware? I'll assume that means a W7 machine.

In general, anything that ran Vista moderately well do an amazing job of
Windows 7/8/8.1. Not supporting 5+ year old hardware is fairly typical,
there aren't any major platforms that do it.


--
Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool.

On 3/3/2014 1:34 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:20:03 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


As I understand it, Win8 was designed to unify the GUIs between multiple
levels of devices. So, while it does work on Windows tablets and phones
(whose metro-like GUIs predated Win8, btw), it was "designed" to bring
continuity to the PC user that also uses these devices.

I've heard that one too, but if it really is what they had in mind,
they don't seem to have thought it through. Their starting point
should have been the hundreds of millions of people already using
existing operating systems using keyboards and mice, and the need not
to do anything too drastic that would inconvenience them.

As I said in my other response to you, I don't feel the least bit
inconvenienced by Win8.1 on this notebook. There is no significant
difference in the way that the Desktop works from earlier Windows
versions, and I never liked the "Start Orb" anyway. The "two fingered"
X-Y scrolling using the touch-pad took all of an afternoon to get used
to. It's the lack of apps that are as good as decades-old versions that
inconvenience me more than the OS.


IMHO, Ubuntu's new Unity interface with the buttons down the left is a
much better attempt at the same thing.

Ubuntu?! I've already made more money with Android OS than with Linux in
all the years it's been around.
--
best regards,
Neil

Stef wrote:
...winston‫ wrote:


Not going to happen...the OEM's are in the driver seat..and want to
maintain margins by using current hardware.

And Microsoft is riding shotgun with the gun pointed directly at the
driver's head. And the ammunition? MS software licenses. Many times
that license, the life blood of the PC & laptop business, and now
tablets, too; has been used by threat of modification or outright
revocation to coerce manufacturers to produce what MS wants to improve
their marketability. And profits.

One, by use of Windows agrees to abide and allow MSFT to change the use
and licensing. If you bought and use Windows, you provided them the
ammunition($)

If by "current hardware," you mean the latest stuff hitting the market,
I agree. Manufacturers generate income by selling "new and improved"
hardware. No one's going to buy new, 5 year old or even 2 year old
hardware. I meant by "current hardware," the hardware the user
currently owns, not what is currently being sold. Big difference.
And as far as the Windows OS, unrealistic. Every major release of
Windows has required hardware upgrades, sometimes, an entirely new
system. The exception might be W7 to 8. The W7 hardware should run
W8/8.1. Of course, there are caveats.

By that definition current hardware eventually and always becomes
obsolete hardware.

The future market is smart devices, not desktop pcs.

You make it sound as does the press like no one's making desktops
and laptops anymore. Desktop sales were only down 3% last year. And a
lot of that was caused by the economy -- can't afford to buy a new PC
-- and the dislike of Windows 8 -- not going to buy an OS I hate; I'll
wait for 9; or buy a Mac.

Agreed desktops will continue to be available...and smart devices and
workstations(terminals to servers) with local or web based cloud storage
will continue reduce the traditional desktop market. Lower demand,
lower supply...inevitable.

And FYI: smart devices are just part of the market. Yes, sales are
through the roof, but it's the new toy, new status symbol, and teen and
20-somethings have just GOT TO HAVE ONE! It'll settle down as soon as
the newness of it wears off, and they realize you can't easily write a
term paper or thesis or business report on your cellphone or tablet. I
would've hated to write this reply on my cellphone with just my thumbs.
;-)

Look to the east to understand the who the target market is...it might
have been you and I yesterday...it won't be us ever again.

A look to the past and common sense decerns the future better.

The past does provide some discerning benefits. In time though the
disposable income of the younger and next generation population
determines the market.


Adapt or realize later that what you continue to use (if Windows) will
cease to be supported on hardware and software.

I have adapted. Long before there was a Windows and it was just
DOS, I chose the Amiga. And when that died, I switched to Linux.
Windows isn't and never has been my primary OS. I have to use it at
times. I have to repeatedly repair it for clients. But I don't use it
much. It wouldn't bother me in the least if Windows crashed and burned,
and Microsoft went out of business. I never much cared for their
Draconian business model anyway.

People will buy and use what they can learn or previously used.
Alternatives are always available yet many continue to buy Coke when
Brand-X cola is available. Linux apparently meets the needs of some,
yet it may never be the replacement o/s for the entire market. I chose
Apple and its 65C02 assembler before adapting to a workplace (and common
sense) need to use Windows. Any o/s has its pros/cons...for me Windows
remains the most flexible for my chosen software base.

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

BillW50 wrote:

On 3/2/2014 5:05 PM, Stef wrote:
BillW50 wrote:

[snip]
Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No keyboard.
No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either into a
traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows users want.
Why MS is responding so slowly to that is anybody's guess. My guess is
MS wants "in" on the big profits of the tablet market, and are trying to
force users in that direction. It matters not that 90% of the Windows
users out there use desktops whether it is a box under the desk or a
laptop. It's what they need. Why can't MS admit that? Pride?

Wow! What version of Windows 8 are you running? As mine isn't like that
at all. This one is Windows 8 on a laptop. No touch screen and I have it
docked so I am using an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse. And
Windows 8 is super easy with a keyboard/mouse. And this is my preferred
method of using Windows 8.

You as well as others misunderstood my statement. I didn't mean W8
wouldn't work with a keyboard and mouse, or run on a laptop or PC. I
merely stated that it was designed for a tablet, which has no
keyboard or mouse.

No I got that, you miss understood me. Windows 8 works perfectly fine
with a keyboard and mouse. There should be no complaints about this at
all. Although Windows does have the Start Screen and Metro that not only
works well with the keyboard and mouse, but with touch too.

I never said that 8 WOULDN'T work with keyboard and mouse. My point was
it was designed to work on a tablet. Actually, MS has said the intent
of 8 was a common interface across all devices -- tablets, smartphones,
PCs, laptops. And the only way to do that was an interface designed for
a small screen without a keyboard or mouse and operated by pudgy
fingers. It works for those small devices, but is inefficient on larger
screen PCs and laptops. Just read the evaluations. And the interface is
NOT popular. That's a fact. The sales figures show that. As I've
said, MS' attempt at a common GUI for all devices, alienated the
largest segment of its customer base, the desktop user.

MS wanted "in" on that market, once it had proven itself lucrative
enough. So, a day late and a dollar short, MS developed a new OS, W8,
and a tablet to go with it, The Surface, and alienated all their
desktop/laptop users with the Metro GUI. Why there wasn't the option to
choose either GUIs, I don't know. Probably, saved MS a nickel an OS.
Pennywise, but pound foolish.

Oh come on! It is like Windows 8 has two virtual desktops. Ever use
virtual desktops before? If you want to live only on the desktop side,
nothing is stopping you. Maybe later versions will, but not Windows 8.

I've been using virtual workspaces for 20 years ever since I owned my
first Amiga, and later when I transitioned to Linux a dozen years ago.
And I mean real virtual workspaces, not what you're talking about --
dual GUIs. MS has yet to introduce true multiple desktops. Look how
long it took to get "tabs" on Internet Explorer. MS is always several
years behind the curve. And because of their business model will
likely remain so.

FWIW, the GUI on my primary machine (Debian 7, 64-bit) is not even a
true desktop. Just a window manager with a pretty backdrop picture of
the seashore, 4 workspaces, a panel with launchbar with my most
frequently used apps one click away, a few system utilities, and a
"right-click" floating menu for those infrequently used apps. I run
about a half dozen apps and terminals at one time on various
workspaces with Windows XP running full-screen mode in a VM on
Workspace 4. Everything is nicely organized and grouped based on use.
Very efficient. Don't have to minimize anything to use anything else.

So, I'm not all that unsophisticated. ;-)

I do have two Windows tablets that is also running Windows 8. One
doesn't have touch, but just pen enabled and that is all. The other one
has both touch and pen enabled. So I have them all covered. And even for
both of them, I still prefer to have them docked and using an external
monitor, keyboard, and mouse too. But I don't have to, as I could use
them as a tablet too.

I have no complaints about the OS itself. It's the GUI that's the
"problem." And MS' stubborn arrogance.

Moderately recent hardware? I'll assume that means a W7 machine.
How many XP users out there with hardware that is 5 or more years old?
Millions! W8/8.1 won't run on it. Many businesses in that group. Would
cost millions to upgrade: new hardware, new apps, retraining, etc.
Business can't afford that right now. Neither can the average user.

Wow! What kind of hardware do you buy? This machine is eight years old
and runs XP, Vista, 7, and 8. Yes and I have all of the drivers for all
of them too. Plus it is a business class machine. Windows 8 upgrade
costs me $39.95 plus $9.95 for the Media Center.

Consider yourself lucky. I've read some older systems that will run 8,
but not 8.1, And it seems that both 8 and 8.1 have problems with AMD
CPUs. Sometimes. 8 didn't in my case. I ran the 32-bit pre-release 8
in a Virtualbox VM on a 64-bit Debian 7 (Wheezy) box with both a
3.0 GHz Ahtlon X2 Dual Core and, later, 3.0 GHz Phenom Quad Core (I
upgraded) with 8GB RAM. The VM has direct access to the CPU. So, CPU
is not virtual. I assigned a single core to the W8 VM. W8 had no
problems with either CPU. I tested it with 1, 2 and 3GB RAM.
Performances was hesistent only with 1 Gig, but still worked. Tested it
for several weeks, running continuously 24/7 in its own workspace.
Never crashed. Also, tested Classic Shell. I never tested 8.1. I'm
not sold on 8/8.X. Going to wait and see what W9 looks like.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! AMD processors? They always was the underdog and they
always have had problems. Sure you buy a machine with an AMD and it
works just fine. Yes I have ADMs just like that. But if you upgrade the
OS or anything, all bets are off. That is just life with AMD.

Just passing along what I've read.

I personally have had no problems running 8 on AMD CPUs. I've never had
problems with AMD chips and Linux or Windows in VMs (W2k,. XP, W8).

This box is 7 years old and has had 2 motherboards in it, 3 different
AMD CPUs, 3 different graphic cards, 5 different Linux OSes (Fedora 6
-- 32 & 64-bit; Fedora 9 & 12 -- 64-bit; and currently Debian 7 --
64-bit). Never a hiccup.

Stef

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:18:22 -0500, Neil
wrote:

Look at any other large scale change in widely used technology, the
change from black and white to colour television for example, or mono
to stereo in broadcast and recorded sound, and you'll see that the
successful ones have been done in such a way that the new and the old
can coexist for a considerable time while people make their own
choices. If the new really is better than the old, there will
eventually come a time when the old has lapsed into disuse to such an
extent that abandoning it will cause very little inconvenience. These
things are not accomplished overnight. And if the new thing isn't any
better, then that is what will disappear while everyone continues
quite happily using what they have always used. It's never a good idea
to burn your bridges.

What about this *doesn't* sound like Win8.x to you?

The bit about the new being better than the old. Not many people seem
to think it is. The Lego tile screen is not ergonomic on the type of
equipment most people are using, and is not popular. Users are
required to make a big adjustment to their working practice or their
computers or both in order to use it, and that should not be
necessary. Technology is supposed to serve the needs of humanity, not
the other way around.

Windows 8.1 gave us back the start button, but as soon as you click it
you're straight back to the Lego tiles, wondering what is the point of
it. Eventually you discover some more things it can do, but only by
right-clicking, which is different from every other version of Windows
that had one. The grammar of the start button has been much the same
since Windows 95, with a left click to use it and a right click to
configure it, much the same as any button in fact, but now it's the
only one you have to right-click to perform some of its main
operations. It's like living in a house with one lightswitch, or one
tap, or one doorknob that goes the other way; just a little thing
perhaps, but an unnecessary awkwardness to have to remember.

The number of Windows 7 style menu add-ons that have become available
is testament to how unpopular Windows 8 is in its original form. If a
lot of users only find Windows 8 tolerable by making it perform as
much like Windows 7 as possible, that ought to be telling Microsoft
something about what its customers really want. It would cost them
hardly anything to provide it.

Rod.

On 3/4/2014 4:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:18:22 -0500, Neil
wrote:
Roderick wrote:
Look at any other large scale change in widely used technology, the
change from black and white to colour television for example, or mono
to stereo in broadcast and recorded sound, and you'll see that the
successful ones have been done in such a way that the new and the old
can coexist for a considerable time while people make their own
choices. If the new really is better than the old, there will
eventually come a time when the old has lapsed into disuse to such an
extent that abandoning it will cause very little inconvenience. These
things are not accomplished overnight. And if the new thing isn't any
better, then that is what will disappear while everyone continues
quite happily using what they have always used. It's never a good idea
to burn your bridges.

What about this *doesn't* sound like Win8.x to you?

The bit about the new being better than the old. Not many people seem
to think it is. The Lego tile screen is not ergonomic on the type of
equipment most people are using, and is not popular. Users are
required to make a big adjustment to their working practice or their
computers or both in order to use it, and that should not be
necessary. Technology is supposed to serve the needs of humanity, not
the other way around.

I understood that you are not fond of Win8.x from your last post! ;-}
But what you are writing about it isn't in conflict with your stated
"requirements" there or in the above. Win8.x retains the capabilities of
earlier versions of Windows and adds another interface that has benefits
for some and that can be easily avoided by those who don't want it.

Windows 8.1 gave us back the start button, but as soon as you click it
you're straight back to the Lego tiles, wondering what is the point of
it.

What Start button? The "return to Metro button" is not the same thing as
the Start button, so I think it would be even *more* confusing if it
worked like one.

Eventually you discover some more things it can do, but only by
right-clicking, which is different from every other version of Windows
that had one. The grammar of the start button has been much the same
since Windows 95, with a left click to use it and a right click to
configure it, much the same as any button in fact, but now it's the
only one you have to right-click to perform some of its main
operations. It's like living in a house with one lightswitch, or one
tap, or one doorknob that goes the other way; just a little thing
perhaps, but an unnecessary awkwardness to have to remember.

Yeah. It took me all of about 15 minutes to get the hang of the new UI.
What an investment! I find the Win7/Vista Start Button to be more
cumbersome than Win2k's or XP's, but throughout the course of a day's
work it rarely gets used on any of them so it's not a show-stopper. I
don't miss it at all in Win8 any more than I miss it on my Android
devices or iStuff.

The number of Windows 7 style menu add-ons that have become available
is testament to how unpopular Windows 8 is in its original form. If a
lot of users only find Windows 8 tolerable by making it perform as
much like Windows 7 as possible, that ought to be telling Microsoft
something about what its customers really want. It would cost them
hardly anything to provide it.

i have to wonder why people who only want Windows 7 bought Windows 8
anyway? It was clearly not aimed at them. Bottom line is that I
seriously doubt that the next version of Windows will revert to the
Vista/Win7 days, so they'll either have to spend a little time learning
something new or move on to something *completely* different and hope
they can still get their work done.
--
Best regards,
Neil

On 3/4/14 1:44 PM, Neil wrote:
On 3/4/2014 4:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:18:22 -0500, Neil
wrote:
Roderick wrote:

snip

i have to wonder why people who only want Windows 7 bought Windows 8
anyway? It was clearly not aimed at them.

Perhaps they couldn't find a new Win7 computer for sale?

snip


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0

On 3/4/2014 2:44 PM, Neil wrote:
On 3/4/2014 4:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:18:22 -0500, Neil
wrote:
Roderick wrote:
Look at any other large scale change in widely used technology, the
change from black and white to colour television for example, or mono
to stereo in broadcast and recorded sound, and you'll see that the
successful ones have been done in such a way that the new and the old
can coexist for a considerable time while people make their own
choices. If the new really is better than the old, there will
eventually come a time when the old has lapsed into disuse to such an
extent that abandoning it will cause very little inconvenience. These
things are not accomplished overnight. And if the new thing isn't any
better, then that is what will disappear while everyone continues
quite happily using what they have always used. It's never a good idea
to burn your bridges.

What about this *doesn't* sound like Win8.x to you?

The bit about the new being better than the old. Not many people seem
to think it is. The Lego tile screen is not ergonomic on the type of
equipment most people are using, and is not popular. Users are
required to make a big adjustment to their working practice or their
computers or both in order to use it, and that should not be
necessary. Technology is supposed to serve the needs of humanity, not
the other way around.

I understood that you are not fond of Win8.x from your last post! ;-}
But what you are writing about it isn't in conflict with your stated
"requirements" there or in the above. Win8.x retains the capabilities of
earlier versions of Windows and adds another interface that has benefits
for some and that can be easily avoided by those who don't want it.

Windows 8.1 gave us back the start button, but as soon as you click it
you're straight back to the Lego tiles, wondering what is the point of
it.

What Start button? The "return to Metro button" is not the same thing as
the Start button, so I think it would be even *more* confusing if it
worked like one.

Eventually you discover some more things it can do, but only by
right-clicking, which is different from every other version of Windows
that had one. The grammar of the start button has been much the same
since Windows 95, with a left click to use it and a right click to
configure it, much the same as any button in fact, but now it's the
only one you have to right-click to perform some of its main
operations. It's like living in a house with one lightswitch, or one
tap, or one doorknob that goes the other way; just a little thing
perhaps, but an unnecessary awkwardness to have to remember.

Yeah. It took me all of about 15 minutes to get the hang of the new UI.
What an investment! I find the Win7/Vista Start Button to be more
cumbersome than Win2k's or XP's, but throughout the course of a day's
work it rarely gets used on any of them so it's not a show-stopper. I
don't miss it at all in Win8 any more than I miss it on my Android
devices or iStuff.

The number of Windows 7 style menu add-ons that have become available
is testament to how unpopular Windows 8 is in its original form. If a
lot of users only find Windows 8 tolerable by making it perform as
much like Windows 7 as possible, that ought to be telling Microsoft
something about what its customers really want. It would cost them
hardly anything to provide it.

i have to wonder why people who only want Windows 7 bought Windows 8
anyway? It was clearly not aimed at them. Bottom line is that I
seriously doubt that the next version of Windows will revert to the
Vista/Win7 days, so they'll either have to spend a little time learning
something new or move on to something *completely* different and hope
they can still get their work done.

+1

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 702 ('08 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Celeron 900MHz - 8GB SSD - 2GB - Windows XP Home SP2

On 3/4/2014 3:42 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 3/4/14 1:44 PM, Neil wrote:
On 3/4/2014 4:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:18:22 -0500, Neil
wrote:
Roderick wrote:

snip

i have to wonder why people who only want Windows 7 bought Windows 8
anyway? It was clearly not aimed at them.

Perhaps they couldn't find a new Win7 computer for sale?

snip

Where are they looking? I can still buy Windows 7 machines all day long.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 702 ('08 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Celeron 900MHz - 8GB SSD - 2GB - Windows XP Home SP2

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:44:38 -0500, Neil
wrote:

Windows 8.1 gave us back the start button, but as soon as you click it
you're straight back to the Lego tiles, wondering what is the point of
it.

What Start button? The "return to Metro button" is not the same thing as
the Start button, so I think it would be even *more* confusing if it
worked like one.

I'm referring to the button that has been at the bottom left corner of
the screen on Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium, Windows NT,
Windows 2000, Windows Vista, and Windows 7, and has always worked in
much the same way, and was then suddenly missing with Windows 8. When
it was put back again in Windows 8.1 after widespread protest about
the absence of a start button, It was natural to expect it to work
like all the previous buttons that had occupied the same position for
the best part of two decades. I don't understand why you think the
familiar would be more confusing than the unfamiliar.
[...]

i have to wonder why people who only want Windows 7 bought Windows 8
anyway? It was clearly not aimed at them.

I didn't buy Windows 8. I bought a laptop computer.

Having bought the particular laptop that I wanted, there was no choice
about what was installed on it. This probably makes any sales
statistics about the supposed popularity of Windows 8 utterly
meaningless.

Rod.