Microsoft Giving Away Windows 8.1?

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:02:11 -0500, "Neil Gould"
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.

So... if something is located in the same position as in some other
product, it should be expected to work like things in that location
on another product, even though its functions are different? Why
does that seem reasonable to you?

Windows 95 etc were computer operating systems. Windows 8 is a
computer operating system. Most people wouldn't see that as "another
product", but a more modern version of the same product. Accordingly
they would expect it to perform the same functions in the same kind of
way.

There are many computer operating systems. The position of items in their
GUI are not dependent on what other operating systems do with their screen
real estate. In short, it's about the function of those objects, not their
position on the screen. W/r/t Windows, there are more similarities than
differences between the GUI objects in Windows 8 and previous versions.
However, Windows 8 does not have a "Start Button", so there is little reason
to expect the "return to Metro" Button (or whatever it might be called) to
behave like a Start Button simply because of it's location on one of the 3
UI screens.

I think the real question is whether users will spend a little time learning
about the new Windows OS or a great deal of time learning something entirely
different. M$ is betting on the former, and I'd say it's a good bet. Most
users won't be permanently stymied by such things as the lack of a Start
button, and businesses aren't likely to invalidate their investment and
decades of data based on Windows software to jump ship over such minutia.
--
best regards,

Neil

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:26:25 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


There are many computer operating systems. The position of items in their
GUI are not dependent on what other operating systems do with their screen
real estate. In short, it's about the function of those objects, not their
position on the screen.

In most operating systems, the positions of the main things on the
screen are maintained to a reasonable level of consistency because
ordinary people need to remember what they do.

Similarly, I expect the keys to be in the same positions on any
keyboard, door handles to turn the same way to open doors, taps to
turn the same way to turn the water on, light switches to turn the
lights on when moved downwards, and so on, and so on.

W/r/t Windows, there are more similarities than
differences between the GUI objects in Windows 8 and previous versions.
However, Windows 8 does not have a "Start Button", so there is little reason
to expect the "return to Metro" Button (or whatever it might be called) to
behave like a Start Button simply because of it's location on one of the 3
UI screens.

You may not think that, but most computer users already familiar with
the behaviour of buttons in the bottom left corners of screens would
expect a new one to behave in the same way, no matter what it's
officially called. Even some Linux distributions have a button there,
the behaviour of which generally follows the pattern set by every
version of Windows that ever had such a button, right up until 8.1
when all of a sudden they changed it.

I think the real question is whether users will spend a little time learning
about the new Windows OS or a great deal of time learning something entirely
different. M$ is betting on the former, and I'd say it's a good bet. Most
users won't be permanently stymied by such things as the lack of a Start
button, and businesses aren't likely to invalidate their investment and
decades of data based on Windows software to jump ship over such minutia.

That depends on what sort of people you include as "users". If we are
talking about the vast majority of normal people who are not computer
geeks but just people who want to use their computers to get stuff
done, then there is no question at all about whether they will want to
go through an arduous learning process because Microsoft thinks
everyone should change. They won't.

Normal people expect to find the most important things they need in
the usual places, and for them to work in the usual way, just as they
do when, for example, driving a new car. Ask a few of them. Then try
to explain the lack of popularity of Windows 8 in any other terms than
the confusion of ordinary users trying to get to grips with it. I'd be
really interested to know why you think so few people are buying it if
it's as good as you seem to think it is.

Rod.

In ,
Roderick Stewart typed:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:26:25 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

There are many computer operating systems. The position of items in
their GUI are not dependent on what other operating systems do with
their screen real estate. In short, it's about the function of those
objects, not their position on the screen.

In most operating systems, the positions of the main things on the
screen are maintained to a reasonable level of consistency because
ordinary people need to remember what they do.

Similarly, I expect the keys to be in the same positions on any
keyboard, door handles to turn the same way to open doors, taps to
turn the same way to turn the water on, light switches to turn the
lights on when moved downwards, and so on, and so on.

Windows 8 does work the same way. Hit the same keys and the same thing
happens as before. Just the Win key pops up a Start Screen instead of a
Start Menu, big deal!

W/r/t Windows, there are more similarities than
differences between the GUI objects in Windows 8 and previous
versions. However, Windows 8 does not have a "Start Button", so
there is little reason to expect the "return to Metro" Button (or
whatever it might be called) to behave like a Start Button simply
because of it's location on one of the 3 UI screens.

You may not think that, but most computer users already familiar with
the behaviour of buttons in the bottom left corners of screens would
expect a new one to behave in the same way, no matter what it's
officially called. Even some Linux distributions have a button there,
the behaviour of which generally follows the pattern set by every
version of Windows that ever had such a button, right up until 8.1
when all of a sudden they changed it.

I don't run 8.1, but I do run 8 (on three different machines). And it is
still there, but it auto-hides now. Move your mouse to where it should
be (by default) and up it pops up.

I think the real question is whether users will spend a little time
learning about the new Windows OS or a great deal of time learning
something entirely different. M$ is betting on the former, and I'd
say it's a good bet. Most users won't be permanently stymied by such
things as the lack of a Start button, and businesses aren't likely
to invalidate their investment and decades of data based on Windows
software to jump ship over such minutia.

That depends on what sort of people you include as "users". If we are
talking about the vast majority of normal people who are not computer
geeks but just people who want to use their computers to get stuff
done, then there is no question at all about whether they will want to
go through an arduous learning process because Microsoft thinks
everyone should change. They won't.

Normal people expect to find the most important things they need in
the usual places, and for them to work in the usual way, just as they
do when, for example, driving a new car. Ask a few of them. Then try
to explain the lack of popularity of Windows 8 in any other terms than
the confusion of ordinary users trying to get to grips with it. I'd be
really interested to know why you think so few people are buying it if
it's as good as you seem to think it is.

Wow! How did you deal with XP to Vista or XP to Windows 7? Big change
then too and I don't recall you complaining about that? Or did you?
Changes between Windows 7 to Windows 8 are very small compared to
earlier changes from XP.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:49:13 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

[snip]

Windows 95 etc were computer operating systems. Windows 8 is a
computer operating system. Most people wouldn't see that as "another
product", but a more modern version of the same product. Accordingly
they would expect it to perform the same functions in the same kind of
way.

Agreed.

If you had a new tap fitted to a washbasin, you would still expect to
turn it anticlockwise to turn the water on. It would be perverse to
make it different just because it was new.

But it can be different!

Some tap handles have -- what do you call them -- wings. In that
case, you pull the wing to turn on the water and push the wing to turn
the water off.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

....winston‫ wrote:

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($)

I was referring to the license agreement between OEMs and MS, not the
User license you referenced. But, yes, they are interelated: The more
Windows users out there, the more leverage MS has, at least in the
consumer market. But OEMs have become less dependent on Windows
profits with smart devices that run on Android, ChromeOS, and, yes,
Linux that have no license fees at all (They're free!) to produce
inexpensive devices that Windows won't even run on causing MS to
scramble to compete. Poorly, I might add.


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.

Obsolescence is relative. The primary reason MS is dropping support of
XP is to get people to buy their new OS. Plain and simple, even
though XP users still account for 30% of the Windows users. For W7 it's
50%. Their market share and profits have been steadly declining since
the mid-90s, when they were at their peak, and they are scrambling to
maintain profitability in a fast changing market where PCs and laptops
are giving way to tablets and smart devices.

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.

But not extinct. Desktops/laptops will be around for a long tme in
some form.

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.

In general, that's the way it's always been. It's easier to market a
bright shiny new toy to the young and impressionable than to the mature,
more savvy consumer. Although, from what I've read, the Millennials are
having more problems growing into that mature, savvy consumer than
their parents or grandparents did.

Stef

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:15:35 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In most operating systems, the positions of the main things on the
screen are maintained to a reasonable level of consistency because
ordinary people need to remember what they do.

Similarly, I expect the keys to be in the same positions on any
keyboard, door handles to turn the same way to open doors, taps to
turn the same way to turn the water on, light switches to turn the
lights on when moved downwards, and so on, and so on.

Windows 8 does work the same way. Hit the same keys and the same thing
happens as before. Just the Win key pops up a Start Screen instead of a
Start Menu, big deal!

The normal grammar of the Start button (or Bottom Left Corner button,
if you need to call it something generic), is that you left-click to
operate it and right-click to configure it. Every version of Windows
since 95 and a few versions of Linux have followed this standard. The
BLC button in Windows 8.1 requires that in order to access many of the
things previously accessed with a left click in W7 (e.g. control panel
& the shutdown menu), we now have to right-click. It's not the end of
the world, but it's a change from fairly standard previous practice,
and it's annoying to have to remember that on some computers this
button works the other way. The left-click effectively does nothing
useful as it just leads straight back to the Lego screen that annoyed
so many people that they demanded the reinstatement of the button, so
it might as well not be there.

Rod.

In ,
Roderick Stewart typed:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:15:35 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In most operating systems, the positions of the main things on the
screen are maintained to a reasonable level of consistency because
ordinary people need to remember what they do.

Similarly, I expect the keys to be in the same positions on any
keyboard, door handles to turn the same way to open doors, taps to
turn the same way to turn the water on, light switches to turn the
lights on when moved downwards, and so on, and so on.

Windows 8 does work the same way. Hit the same keys and the same
thing happens as before. Just the Win key pops up a Start Screen
instead of a Start Menu, big deal!

The normal grammar of the Start button (or Bottom Left Corner button,
if you need to call it something generic), is that you left-click to
operate it and right-click to configure it. Every version of Windows
since 95 and a few versions of Linux have followed this standard. The
BLC button in Windows 8.1 requires that in order to access many of the
things previously accessed with a left click in W7 (e.g. control panel
& the shutdown menu), we now have to right-click. It's not the end of
the world, but it's a change from fairly standard previous practice,
and it's annoying to have to remember that on some computers this
button works the other way. The left-click effectively does nothing
useful as it just leads straight back to the Lego screen that annoyed
so many people that they demanded the reinstatement of the button, so
it might as well not be there.

I dunno Rod! Maybe because I have used and continue to use many
different OS I see this as being really picky. My damn cat won't drink
water if it has sat more than an hour old in her water dish and I think
she is just picky too.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:26:25 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


There are many computer operating systems. The position of items in
their GUI are not dependent on what other operating systems do with
their screen real estate. In short, it's about the function of those
objects, not their position on the screen.

In most operating systems, the positions of the main things on the
screen are maintained to a reasonable level of consistency because
ordinary people need to remember what they do.

In most operating systems there comes a time when a change in the items at a
particular screen location is necessary to ehance the logical functioning of
the current OS version. That is all that has happened with the button
located where the Start button was on Windows versions that only had one GUI
screen. I doubt that any but the most dense users will be stymied by that
change for long.

Similarly, I expect the keys to be in the same positions on any
keyboard,

So, you con only use QWERTY boards, but there are other key arrangements
available that some people prefer...

door handles to turn the same way to open doors,

So, you're stuck out in the cold when the handle turns in reverse, or not at
all...

taps to turn the same way to turn the water on,

So, your hands stay dirty when the taps function by pulling them out...

light switches to turn the
lights on when moved downwards,

So, you stay in the dark when the light switches are push buttons...

and so on, and so on.

Yep. Change is hard for some, and downright dangerous for others. ;-)

W/r/t Windows, there are more similarities than
differences between the GUI objects in Windows 8 and previous
versions. However, Windows 8 does not have a "Start Button", so
there is little reason to expect the "return to Metro" Button (or
whatever it might be called) to behave like a Start Button simply
because of it's location on one of the 3 UI screens.

You may not think that, but most computer users already familiar with
the behaviour of buttons in the bottom left corners of screens would
expect a new one to behave in the same way, no matter what it's
officially called.

The issue is not what it's called, it's why it does what it does. It takes
all of about a minute to figure that out.

I think the real question is whether users will spend a little time
learning about the new Windows OS or a great deal of time learning
something entirely different. M$ is betting on the former, and I'd
say it's a good bet. Most users won't be permanently stymied by such
things as the lack of a Start button, and businesses aren't likely
to invalidate their investment and decades of data based on Windows
software to jump ship over such minutia.

That depends on what sort of people you include as "users". If we are
talking about the vast majority of normal people who are not computer
geeks but just people who want to use their computers to get stuff
done, then there is no question at all about whether they will want to
go through an arduous learning process because Microsoft thinks
everyone should change. They won't.

I wrote earlier in this thread, most users don't need a desktop or laptop
computer anyway, so the question is what other device(s) will they adopt?
The market does give some pretty clear indications. Follow the money.
--
best regards,

Neil

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:04:17 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
[...]
In most operating systems there comes a time when a change in the items at a
particular screen location is necessary to ehance the logical functioning of
the current OS version. That is all that has happened with the button
located where the Start button was on Windows versions that only had one GUI
screen. I doubt that any but the most dense users will be stymied by that
change for long.

The story about the Windows 8.1 Bottom Left Corner button that seems
to have emerged from the press is that it was grudgingly reinstated,
apparently in some haste, as a result of complaints about the absence
of a Start button in Windows 8. That's a little different from a
carefully planned change to enhance the logic.

The system seems to have been optimised for touch screen tablets
without any regard for the hundreds of millions of people who have
been using desktops with keyboards and mice for many years. Microsoft
seems to have assumed that they'll all be happy to change to suit the
new system, but I don't think anybody asked them.
[..]
I wrote earlier in this thread, most users don't need a desktop or laptop
computer anyway, so the question is what other device(s) will they adopt?
The market does give some pretty clear indications. Follow the money.

It would be interesting to see the actual figures for the number of
people who do use desktop computers. Casual shoppers in PC World who
want something to use at home as a photo album and chat to their
friends on Skype or Facebook cannot be representative of "most users".

And if we're to "follow the money", we should follow the amount that
is being spent on Windows 8 devices where customers have a choice, and
perhaps also the number of copies of the software that people are
buying to upgrade existing computers. What do those figures say?

Rod.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 23:38:50 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:04:17 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
[...]
In most operating systems there comes a time when a change in the items at a
particular screen location is necessary to ehance the logical functioning of
the current OS version. That is all that has happened with the button
located where the Start button was on Windows versions that only had one GUI
screen. I doubt that any but the most dense users will be stymied by that
change for long.

The story about the Windows 8.1 Bottom Left Corner button that seems
to have emerged from the press is that it was grudgingly reinstated,


I was going to reply to Roderick earlier, but I bit my tongue. Since
you are saying the same thing as he did, let me clarify what it is and
isn't.

The start orb is *not* necessarily the "Bottom Left Corner button."
Although by default the task bar is on the bottom of the screen, any
of us can move it any of the sides of the screen we want it on. That
means that the Start Orb can be on any of the corners. On my screen,
for example, it's on the *top* left corner, because I greatly prefer
the Task Bar on the left side of my screen.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:55:11 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

The start orb is *not* necessarily the "Bottom Left Corner button."
Although by default the task bar is on the bottom of the screen, any
of us can move it any of the sides of the screen we want it on. That
means that the Start Orb can be on any of the corners. On my screen,
for example, it's on the *top* left corner, because I greatly prefer
the Task Bar on the left side of my screen.

You'd probably be very happy with Ubuntu then. I was annoyed when they
first put it there, and more annoyed when I found it couldn't be
moved, as in Windows, but on reflection it actually makes a lot of
sense, particularly on a wide screen if you're doing "serious" work
with vertically oriented documents.

I agree "Bottom Left Corner" button wasn't the best choice, but I was
trying to be as generic as possible because most operating systems
have the same basic elements but their own chosen names for them. The
Start button, for instance, is called "Menu" in Mint, and the bar at
the bottom (or top, or left) of the screen can be called the Taskbar,
the Launcher, or the Panel depending on the operating system even
though they're all essentially the same thing.

It seems pedantic to call the new Windows 8.1 button anything other
than a Start button, because it was reinstated in response to
complaints from those who missed the Start button in all previous
versions, it does most of the things the previous Start buttons used
to do, albeit some of them in a different way, and by default it even
occupies the same position on the screen. If something quacks like a
duck, swims like a duck etc, then that's probably what we should call
it. Maybe I need to think more carefully about generic names.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:04:17 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
[...]
In most operating systems there comes a time when a change in the
items at a particular screen location is necessary to ehance the
logical functioning of the current OS version. That is all that has
happened with the button located where the Start button was on
Windows versions that only had one GUI screen. I doubt that any but
the most dense users will be stymied by that change for long.

The story about the Windows 8.1 Bottom Left Corner button that seems
to have emerged from the press is that it was grudgingly reinstated,
apparently in some haste, as a result of complaints about the absence
of a Start button in Windows 8. That's a little different from a
carefully planned change to enhance the logic.

Windows 8 has a button that performs *some* of the tasks of the Start Button
in previous OS versions, but also performs the *primary tasks* of the
current GUIs, something that the Start Button in previous versions *could
not do*, since they only have a single GUI. This change is a pretty clear
case of form following function, which many in "the press" as well as some
users just don't understand. My bet is that the whining will stop within the
year as they slowly catch on, and that there will be no further reversion to
the way things were before Windows 8.

The system seems to have been optimised for touch screen tablets
without any regard for the hundreds of millions of people who have
been using desktops with keyboards and mice for many years.

The OS is aimed at users who have other devices that run a current Windows
OS. Since Win8 does not require a touch screen tablet, notebook or desktop
to be fully functional, the optimization is to benefit the user, not any
particular device.

[..]
I wrote earlier in this thread, most users don't need a desktop or
laptop computer anyway, so the question is what other device(s) will
they adopt? The market does give some pretty clear indications.
Follow the money.

It would be interesting to see the actual figures for the number of
people who do use desktop computers. Casual shoppers in PC World who
want something to use at home as a photo album and chat to their
friends on Skype or Facebook cannot be representative of "most users".

I don't know what's interesting about that... most computer users *already
have* a desktop or notebook computer, because those were the only viable
options available to them until very recently. So, the relevant figures are
not what people use today, but what they're buying today and will buy
tomorrow. That trend is clearly toward the purchase of tablets, phablets and
smart phones as the primary tools for the tasks most users require.
--
best regards,

Neil

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:46:44 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:55:11 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

The start orb is *not* necessarily the "Bottom Left Corner button."
Although by default the task bar is on the bottom of the screen, any
of us can move it any of the sides of the screen we want it on. That
means that the Start Orb can be on any of the corners. On my screen,
for example, it's on the *top* left corner, because I greatly prefer
the Task Bar on the left side of my screen.

You'd probably be very happy with Ubuntu then.


Nope, not me. I have no interest in any Linux flavor, nor in a
Macintosh. I'm happy enough with Windows, and at this stage in my life
I don't want to start all over again learning new things.



I was annoyed when they
first put it there, and more annoyed when I found it couldn't be
moved, as in Windows, but on reflection it actually makes a lot of
sense, particularly on a wide screen if you're doing "serious" work
with vertically oriented documents.



Yep! That's why I like the task bar on the left. I think it's much
better with today's wide screens.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:07:23 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Windows 8 has a button that performs *some* of the tasks of the Start Button
in previous OS versions, but also performs the *primary tasks* of the
current GUIs, something that the Start Button in previous versions *could
not do*, since they only have a single GUI. This change is a pretty clear
case of form following function, which many in "the press" as well as some
users just don't understand. My bet is that the whining will stop within the
year as they slowly catch on, and that there will be no further reversion to
the way things were before Windows 8.

Shortly before I bought my latest laptop and still thinking about what
to buy, I happened to be in a large supermarket that sold them, so
decided to take a quick look. Most had Windows 8, a few had Windows 7.
I was with a teenage granddaughter who decided to have a mess about
with them too. The first one she tried that came up with the Windows 8
Lego screen as soon as she touched it provoked the response "Oh no,
that's the new confusing one", and she went off to play with the Macs,
and reported that they were much easier.

That's typical of what real people think of Windows 8.

Rod.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 20:56:29 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Shortly before I bought my latest laptop and still thinking about what
to buy, I happened to be in a large supermarket that sold them, so
decided to take a quick look. Most had Windows 8, a few had Windows 7.
I was with a teenage granddaughter who decided to have a mess about
with them too. The first one she tried that came up with the Windows 8
Lego screen as soon as she touched it provoked the response "Oh no,
that's the new confusing one", and she went off to play with the Macs,
and reported that they were much easier.

That's typical of what real people think of Windows 8.


Because they don't realize that the Modern/Metro interface is entirely
optional and they can instead use the traditional desktop interface if
they prefer it.

And because Microsoft has done a terrible job of making the choice of
interface clear.

Rod.