Advantages of Windows 8?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:02:21 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:06:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Since you mentioned the emergency brake, it's interesting to point out
that it's been much more of a parking brake for nearly all of its life
than ever being an emergency brake. In addition, it's disappearing
from some new cars and may be on the way out. Personally, I haven't
used a parking brake (except once when playing in the snow - it allows
fantastic skids) in at least 25-30 years, so I wouldn't miss it.


I'm far from an expert on cars, but the manuals in my Toyotas tell me
I should use it, at least once in a while, because doing so adjusts
the regular brakes. So although I don't use it for normal parking, I
try to remember to set and unset it at least every now and then.

Is that true for all cars or just my Toyotas?

The advice generally applies to cars with rear drum brakes.
Fortunately, cars with that 'feature' are quickly becoming less
common. Most drum brakes are also adjusted when braking the car while
traveling in reverse, but again, with the ongoing transition to disc
brakes all of that folklore is becoming obsolete. I have 2 SUV's and a
motorcycle, and not a drum brake in sight, which is perfectly fine
with me. Since I do most of my own vehicle maintenance, (all of it
when it comes to the bike), I like it when things get easier.

Given that XP has a control panel item called 'Add/Remove
Programs', I would want to hear a reason why it is changed to
another name under Windows 7 and moved to a different place in
the hierarchy.

It's still called "Add or Remove Programs".


No, it's called "Programs and Features." And like Pete Cresswell, I
think Microsoft's having changed its name was a bad mistake. In my
view, with very rare exceptions, almost all names (whether of computer
things or anything else) should remain the same. Changing names
confuses people.

What I meant, (and my example above should have demonstrated it quite
clearly), was that typing "add rem" is more than enough to bring up an
item called "Add or Remove Programs". Most people should be able to
figure out that that's a pretty good way to add or remove programs,
just by virtue of the name. In other words, a user doesn't need to
know that the name of this feature was changed because the old name
still works just fine.

--

Char Jackson

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:13:01 -0500, "R. C. White"
wrote:

Since you mentioned the emergency brake, it's interesting to point out
that it's been much more of a parking brake for nearly all of its life
than ever being an emergency brake. In addition, it's disappearing...

The hand brake on cars was the Emergency Brake for decades before it became
the Parking Brake - and that's what many of us still call it.

I agree, but I wasn't talking about what it's called; I was talking
about what it does or what it's typically used for. Since it locks in
the 'engaged' position, can you imagine actually using it as an
emergency brake? That wouldn't be good, in most cases.

It was the
"hand brake" because it was a tall lever in a very convenient location,
usually on the floorboard near the gear shift "stick" for fast, easy -
emergency! - access.

In the cars where I learned to drive, mostly Chevy models from the
mid-50's to early 60's, it was a smaller foot pedal to the left of the
clutch pedal, and the release handle was above it, attached to the
bottom of the dash. By the 70's it had migrated to the center console,
making stunts much easier to perform.

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned that the location of the
'emergency' brake hadn't moved, but of course it had. Likewise, the
headlight dimmer switch moved from the floor to the left side of the
steering column, co-located with the turn signal switch. I wonder how
many people stomped the floor, looking for either of the controls that
used to be down there.

Like you, I seldom use the parking brake (usually a
foot pedal these days);

Yes, quite interestingly, it's back on the floor in both of my
vehicles, as well. That precious real estate in the center console is
used for cup holders, storage, and the gear shift lever now.

the Park position for the automatic transmission
works well, with or without the brake, by either name. But I need it when
checking the ATF level, which is supposed to be done with the transmission
in D (Drive) - with the parking brake firmly set.

Of course, there's nothing special about that brake when it comes to
checking the ATF level. Just chock the wheels and you're good to go.

--

Char Jackson

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:06:37 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:02:21 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:06:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Since you mentioned the emergency brake, it's interesting to point out
that it's been much more of a parking brake for nearly all of its life
than ever being an emergency brake. In addition, it's disappearing
from some new cars and may be on the way out. Personally, I haven't
used a parking brake (except once when playing in the snow - it allows
fantastic skids) in at least 25-30 years, so I wouldn't miss it.


I'm far from an expert on cars, but the manuals in my Toyotas tell me
I should use it, at least once in a while, because doing so adjusts
the regular brakes. So although I don't use it for normal parking, I
try to remember to set and unset it at least every now and then.

Is that true for all cars or just my Toyotas?

The advice generally applies to cars with rear drum brakes.
Fortunately, cars with that 'feature' are quickly becoming less
common. Most drum brakes are also adjusted when braking the car while
traveling in reverse, but again, with the ongoing transition to disc
brakes all of that folklore is becoming obsolete. I have 2 SUV's and a
motorcycle, and not a drum brake in sight, which is perfectly fine
with me. Since I do most of my own vehicle maintenance, (all of it
when it comes to the bike), I like it when things get easier.


All disc brakes on both Toyotas here.


Given that XP has a control panel item called 'Add/Remove
Programs', I would want to hear a reason why it is changed to
another name under Windows 7 and moved to a different place in
the hierarchy.

It's still called "Add or Remove Programs".


No, it's called "Programs and Features." And like Pete Cresswell, I
think Microsoft's having changed its name was a bad mistake. In my
view, with very rare exceptions, almost all names (whether of computer
things or anything else) should remain the same. Changing names
confuses people.

What I meant, (and my example above should have demonstrated it quite
clearly), was that typing "add rem" is more than enough to bring up an
item called "Add or Remove Programs".


Interesting. I never noticed that before.


Most people should be able to
figure out that that's a pretty good way to add or remove programs,
just by virtue of the name. In other words, a user doesn't need to
know that the name of this feature was changed because the old name
still works just fine.


But when he types add rem, he gets Programs and Features, not the
Add/Remove Programs he used to get. Of course, it's possible that some
people won't notice that, but lots of other people will, and will
notice that the name has been changed.

Moreover, the great majority of people probably won't type add rem,
but will bring up the Control Panel and look for the applet he wants.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:15:37 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:06:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

[snip]

It's still called "Add or Remove Programs". Isn't that close enough to
remove all doubt? As for where things like Control Panel applets are
located, you don't really need to know, anymore. I wasn't a big fan at
first, but I've grown to embrace 7's ability to find things as I type
the first few letters. In this case, I type "add rem" after clicking
the Start orb and there it is, right at the top of the list.

You might not need to know, but I do.

Need is too strong of a word. You might like to know, or you might
enjoy knowing, for example, but you don't need to know. What you need
is to learn to adapt to the OS in front of you, whatever that happens
to be at the time.

I switch between XP and 7, and the differences make it awkward.
In XP, I do a lot of things by muscle memory. That is much less
distracting and much faster than having to consciously think about it.

Good luck. Blindly doing something in one OS that you're used to doing
in another OS can sometimes have interesting results.

--

Char Jackson

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:30:04 +0100, mechanic
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:06:43 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

Given that XP has a control panel item called 'Add/Remove
Programs', I would want to hear a reason why it is changed to
another name under Windows 7 and moved to a different place in
the hierarchy.

It's still called "Add or Remove Programs".

No in W7 it's called 'Programs and Features'.

If you had read the post that you snipped, you'd have seen that
Windows still calls it as I mentioned above. I described how you can
see that for yourself. I don't really care what the top of the window
says after the applet has launched.

--

Char Jackson

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:10:06 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Char Jackson:
it allows
fantastic skids) in at least 25-30 years, so I wouldn't miss it.

Neither would I, now that you mention it.

Within the first hundred miles on our new (back in 1998)
Suburban, we had smoke coming out of the right rear wheel and had
to have it towed home.

The cause? Ice had formed in the cable housing of the parking
brake and locked the right rear brake.

The mechanic's advice: "Everybody knows not to apply the parking
brake on GM vehicles in wet winter weather...".

Oh yeah???? That was what, the twentieth century and GM hadn't
figured out how to get around that?

I don't think that advice is limited to GM vehicles. I think it
applies to any vehicle with drum brakes.

--

Char Jackson

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:23:46 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:15:37 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:06:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

[snip]

It's still called "Add or Remove Programs". Isn't that close enough to
remove all doubt? As for where things like Control Panel applets are
located, you don't really need to know, anymore. I wasn't a big fan at
first, but I've grown to embrace 7's ability to find things as I type
the first few letters. In this case, I type "add rem" after clicking
the Start orb and there it is, right at the top of the list.

You might not need to know, but I do.

Need is too strong of a word. You might like to know, or you might
enjoy knowing, for example, but you don't need to know. What you need
is to learn to adapt to the OS in front of you, whatever that happens
to be at the time.

In which case, I need to know. This is so that I can use the
tool efficiently.

I switch between XP and 7, and the differences make it awkward.
In XP, I do a lot of things by muscle memory. That is much less
distracting and much faster than having to consciously think about it.

Good luck. Blindly doing something in one OS that you're used to doing
in another OS can sometimes have interesting results.

It is not blind in my case. I will notice when it is different.
But, I then have to figure out the new way. The time involved is
wasted time.

You see why it is not good to gratuitously change things?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:22:56 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:06:37 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:02:21 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:06:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Since you mentioned the emergency brake, it's interesting to point out
that it's been much more of a parking brake for nearly all of its life
than ever being an emergency brake. In addition, it's disappearing
from some new cars and may be on the way out. Personally, I haven't
used a parking brake (except once when playing in the snow - it allows
fantastic skids) in at least 25-30 years, so I wouldn't miss it.


I'm far from an expert on cars, but the manuals in my Toyotas tell me
I should use it, at least once in a while, because doing so adjusts
the regular brakes. So although I don't use it for normal parking, I
try to remember to set and unset it at least every now and then.

Is that true for all cars or just my Toyotas?

The advice generally applies to cars with rear drum brakes.
Fortunately, cars with that 'feature' are quickly becoming less
common. Most drum brakes are also adjusted when braking the car while
traveling in reverse, but again, with the ongoing transition to disc
brakes all of that folklore is becoming obsolete. I have 2 SUV's and a
motorcycle, and not a drum brake in sight, which is perfectly fine
with me. Since I do most of my own vehicle maintenance, (all of it
when it comes to the bike), I like it when things get easier.


All disc brakes on both Toyotas here.

Kind of OT, I suppose (OK, a lot OT), but regular (non E-brake) disc
brakes shouldn't need any kind of adjusting during their serviceable
life. If something is being adjusted by periodically using the
emergency brake, I suspect it's the emergency brake itself. ICBW, of
course.

--

Char Jackson

In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 00:51:35 +0100, Good Guy
wrote:
[]
Windows 7 was hated by many and now they love it.

What about Vista?
[]
My brother bought a new PC a few years ago, when Vista was the default
(you could still get XP, and in fact there were bargains to be had, but
he decided it probably wasn't a good idea, and I wasn't really in a
position to say one way or another, knowing little about Vista).

Once we'd installed the software he and his partner use - Office,
WordPerfect, IrfanView, and Turnpike (which required a couple of ICACLS
commands to make it work, but only once, at or near installation time)
and perhaps a handful of others, but really not many - he's perfectly
happy with Vista: inasmuch as he's aware of it at all. I suspect he's
far from alone (in not being at all concerned about what Windows he's
running, not necessarily that being Vista).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... on Thursdays on BBC Two, the former BBC2. (John Peel in "Radio Times", 1-7
May 1999.)

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:53:52 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:


All disc brakes on both Toyotas here.

Kind of OT, I suppose (OK, a lot OT), but regular (non E-brake) disc
brakes shouldn't need any kind of adjusting during their serviceable
life. If something is being adjusted by periodically using the
emergency brake, I suspect it's the emergency brake itself. ICBW, of
course.


I was merely quoting what I remember the manuals to have said. But
perhaps I'm wrong. I'll check them again when I get a chance.

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:02:21 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:
[]
I'm far from an expert on cars, but the manuals in my Toyotas tell me
I should use it, at least once in a while, because doing so adjusts
the regular brakes. So although I don't use it for normal parking, I
try to remember to set and unset it at least every now and then.

Is that true for all cars or just my Toyotas?

I think it's the case for most cars where the cables from the control
lever run through tubes - because they can rust solid, or at least stick
(or ice up, as someone else in this thread described, in appropriate
conditions).

Of course on my manual cars, I use the handbrake frequently (the
majority of manual gearboxes ["transmissions"] not having a "park"
position as such).
[]
Given that XP has a control panel item called 'Add/Remove
Programs', I would want to hear a reason why it is changed to
another name under Windows 7 and moved to a different place in
the hierarchy.

It's still called "Add or Remove Programs".


No, it's called "Programs and Features." And like Pete Cresswell, I
think Microsoft's having changed its name was a bad mistake. In my

Me too.

view, with very rare exceptions, almost all names (whether of computer
things or anything else) should remain the same. Changing names
confuses people.

What I meant, (and my example above should have demonstrated it quite
clearly), was that typing "add rem" is more than enough to bring up an
item called "Add or Remove Programs". Most people should be able to
figure out that that's a pretty good way to add or remove programs,
just by virtue of the name. In other words, a user doesn't need to
know that the name of this feature was changed because the old name
still works just fine.

Well, it's not just that lots of people are used to getting to it via
Control Panel, as others have said, but also things like that - the old
method still working - have a tendency to stop doing so suddenly at the
next "up"grade.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... on Thursdays on BBC Two, the former BBC2. (John Peel in "Radio Times", 1-7
May 1999.)

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:23:46 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Good luck. Blindly doing something in one OS that you're used to doing
in another OS can sometimes have interesting results.



That's exactly why I upgraded my EEE netbook (which came with only 1GB
of RAM) from Windows XP to Windows 7. I wanted the two to run the same
version of Windows, to minimize the risk that I would forget that they
were different and would do something wrong.

Two points about the above:

1. Yes, I knew that performance in Windows 7 would be poor with only
1GB of RAM. But considering that I use it for almost nothing but
e-mail when traveling, its performance is adequate for my use.

2. Yes, I know that you can't upgrade from XP to Windows 7, and you
have to do a clean installation. Nevertheless I didn't do a clean
installation, but upgraded it.

How did I do that? I did a two-step upgrade--from XP to Vista, and
then from Vista to Windows 7. Yes, I knew that by doing a two-step
upgrade I doubled the risk of having a problem, but I decided to try
it anyway. I was prepared to start over with a clean installation if
it became necessary, but it didn't.

In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:17:45 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

[snip]

They really ought, by now, have started including some command - or
clickable icon - that made each new version look _and behave_ like the
previous one, as a matter of course. Sure, they offer (do they still, or

It would need debugging for the inevitable tiny differences, and
support would be even more difficult than it is.

Only if there _are_ such differences (-:.

What about a licence for Windows that lets you use any comparable
-- meaning server, workstation, et al -- version up to the one that
you bought the licence for?

What indeed! Sounds like an excellent idea. Presumably the
semi-provision of that with 7 suggests that someone inside MS thought it
was a good idea too - but (a) it's limited (b) it's only available with
the expensive versions of 7.

did that stop with XP?) offer "Classic Mode", but (a) that's almost
entirely just an appearance skin, and (b) the name is insulting.

Not insulting. Look up the word.

(My brother happens to work for the dictionary, so I know a few things
about interpretation.)

A classic already exists, and so it is "old". Some people can
not handle that well.

There is some implication, at least, that it (and those that want it)
are an "old crock", "old-fashioned". Had they used "original", or
"standard", or a myriad other alternatives ... but yes, not everyone
will find it insulting, I grant.

There is a third party utility I use with Office 2010 that gives me the
old (pre-ribbon, i. e. 2003) interface, which has most things where I
know where to find them, illogical though that may be - and yet still
gives me access to all the new features (except the colour palette!). It
irritates me that it has to be a third party solution, though.

They originator of the software is not going to think of
everything, and some things will not be worth it for them to do. Third
party developers can help the situation.
[]
There's a difference between "thinking of everything" and "letting users
continue to find things where they're used to finding them". It seems to
be a deliberate decision not to do the latter. (Not just at Microsoft,
though I'd say they're by far the worst offenders.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... on Thursdays on BBC Two, the former BBC2. (John Peel in "Radio Times", 1-7
May 1999.)

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:32:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:17:45 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

[snip]

They really ought, by now, have started including some command - or
clickable icon - that made each new version look _and behave_ like the
previous one, as a matter of course. Sure, they offer (do they still, or

It would need debugging for the inevitable tiny differences, and
support would be even more difficult than it is.

Only if there _are_ such differences (-:.

The probability of there being slight differences are so close to
1 that it effectively is 1.

What about a licence for Windows that lets you use any comparable
-- meaning server, workstation, et al -- version up to the one that
you bought the licence for?

What indeed! Sounds like an excellent idea. Presumably the
semi-provision of that with 7 suggests that someone inside MS thought it
was a good idea too - but (a) it's limited (b) it's only available with
the expensive versions of 7.

MS has sometimes allowed one to pay to downgrade. Two insults
there.

did that stop with XP?) offer "Classic Mode", but (a) that's almost
entirely just an appearance skin, and (b) the name is insulting.

Not insulting. Look up the word.

(My brother happens to work for the dictionary, so I know a few things
about interpretation.)

I like these two definitions from dictionary.reference.com:

1. of the first or highest quality, class, or rank: a classic piece
of work.

2. serving as a standard, model, or guide: the classic method of
teaching arithmetic.

A classic already exists, and so it is "old". Some people can
not handle that well.

There is some implication, at least, that it (and those that want it)
are an "old crock", "old-fashioned". Had they used "original", or
"standard", or a myriad other alternatives ... but yes, not everyone
will find it insulting, I grant.

One of the sigs in my collection (and a favourite of mine):

legacy (adj) - A pejorative term used in the computer industry
meaning "it works."

There is a third party utility I use with Office 2010 that gives me the
old (pre-ribbon, i. e. 2003) interface, which has most things where I
know where to find them, illogical though that may be - and yet still
gives me access to all the new features (except the colour palette!). It
irritates me that it has to be a third party solution, though.

They originator of the software is not going to think of
everything, and some things will not be worth it for them to do. Third
party developers can help the situation.
[]
There's a difference between "thinking of everything" and "letting users
continue to find things where they're used to finding them". It seems to
be a deliberate decision not to do the latter. (Not just at Microsoft,
though I'd say they're by far the worst offenders.)

Sure. Some people will not care, and a smaller company can deal
with them. Mind you, I do not like gratuitious changes in my software
either.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:53:06 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:23:46 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:15:37 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:06:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

[snip]

It's still called "Add or Remove Programs". Isn't that close enough to
remove all doubt? As for where things like Control Panel applets are
located, you don't really need to know, anymore. I wasn't a big fan at
first, but I've grown to embrace 7's ability to find things as I type
the first few letters. In this case, I type "add rem" after clicking
the Start orb and there it is, right at the top of the list.

You might not need to know, but I do.

Need is too strong of a word. You might like to know, or you might
enjoy knowing, for example, but you don't need to know. What you need
is to learn to adapt to the OS in front of you, whatever that happens
to be at the time.

In which case, I need to know. This is so that I can use the
tool efficiently.

If you're paying attention to what you're doing, (and I'm sure you
are), you'll most likely become more efficient over time. You'll
develop new muscle memory.

I switch between XP and 7, and the differences make it awkward.
In XP, I do a lot of things by muscle memory. That is much less
distracting and much faster than having to consciously think about it.

Good luck. Blindly doing something in one OS that you're used to doing
in another OS can sometimes have interesting results.

It is not blind in my case. I will notice when it is different.
But, I then have to figure out the new way. The time involved is
wasted time.

You see why it is not good to gratuitously change things?

You kind of loaded the question when you characterized the changes as
gratuitous, no?

--

Char Jackson