Renaming File Extension

On 8/4/13 9:34 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:16:33 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:34:32 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.

Who are these people who would have a hard time realizing that Win 8 with
one of the popular add-ons is not Win 7. ;-)

I'm just poking fun. I realize there are people who are mostly oblivious to
what's in front of them.


OK, if you're just poking fun, I'll take it in the spirit in which you
meant it. But let me elaborate.

Certainly, it's not Windows 7. But it can be made to look very much
like it, and to a casual observer, it appears to be Windows 7 (I've
had more than one person look over my shoulder and think that I was
running Windows 7). Spend some time with it, look around some more,
and unless you are one of those who are mostly oblivious to what's in
front of them, you'll see enough differences to realize what it is. My
points are two:

1. It can be made to look very much like Windows 7.

2. It can be made to work very much like Windows 7.

To most (but not all) of the people who have tried Windows 8 and
immediately hated it, those two things can readily reverse their
opinion.

I'm not one of those who immediately hated it when I first tried it,
but I was certainly far from being one who was enamored of it. Running
Start8 when I found it changed my mind almost instantly. It's now
enough like Windows 7 that I like it just fine, and the few
differences are small enough that they don't bother me.

The more time that passes, the less often I even glance at the metro
interface. If I had a touch-screen tablet, it might be different, but
the desktop interface with Start8 works very well for me.

chuckling But Ken, if you've made it look like Windows 7, to emulate
Windows 7, why bother to upgrade?


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2

"Ken Blake" wrote in message

Certainly, it's not Windows 7. But it can be made to look
very much like it,

Or even XP

The more time that passes, the less often I even glance
at the metro interface.

Ditto. The search is rather nice though.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"Bob Henson" wrote in message

You're absolutely correct - but the old folk I help don't
know how to make it functional, so until I show them they
can't find there way round it at all.

I visited my elder brother last month. He is 88 and about as computer
illiterate as they come. He had recently purchased a new computer because
his previous XP one - maybe 5-6 years old - was so messed up with malware
etc. that it was barely useable.

His new one has Win 8. I asked how he liked it, he said "fine"; I asked if
he had problems adapting to the changes, he asked "what changes?". Maybe
Win is easier for people that know absolutely nothing about computers?

I don't know how
many people have been put off computers by Windows 8, but
you can bet it's already a lot.

I think so too.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 12:13:41 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/4/13 9:34 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:16:33 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:34:32 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.

Who are these people who would have a hard time realizing that Win 8 with
one of the popular add-ons is not Win 7. ;-)

I'm just poking fun. I realize there are people who are mostly oblivious to
what's in front of them.


OK, if you're just poking fun, I'll take it in the spirit in which you
meant it. But let me elaborate.

Certainly, it's not Windows 7. But it can be made to look very much
like it, and to a casual observer, it appears to be Windows 7 (I've
had more than one person look over my shoulder and think that I was
running Windows 7). Spend some time with it, look around some more,
and unless you are one of those who are mostly oblivious to what's in
front of them, you'll see enough differences to realize what it is. My
points are two:

1. It can be made to look very much like Windows 7.

2. It can be made to work very much like Windows 7.

To most (but not all) of the people who have tried Windows 8 and
immediately hated it, those two things can readily reverse their
opinion.

I'm not one of those who immediately hated it when I first tried it,
but I was certainly far from being one who was enamored of it. Running
Start8 when I found it changed my mind almost instantly. It's now
enough like Windows 7 that I like it just fine, and the few
differences are small enough that they don't bother me.

The more time that passes, the less often I even glance at the metro
interface. If I had a touch-screen tablet, it might be different, but
the desktop interface with Start8 works very well for me.

chuckling But Ken, if you've made it look like Windows 7, to emulate
Windows 7, why bother to upgrade?

Four reasons:

1. I upgraded before I knew that I could or wanted to do what I did.

2. The new version of Windows, whatever it is, is where the future is,
in terms of better security, new software being released, new hardware
that older versions don't support, etc.

3. I do a lot of Windows support for people (no longer as a
professional--I'm retired--but as a volunteer), and I wanted to know
the latest version to be able to help others who run it.

4. I'm enough of a geek that I want to be running the latest version.

--
Ken Blake

On 8/4/13 1:14 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 12:13:41 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/4/13 9:34 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:16:33 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:34:32 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

snip

chuckling But Ken, if you've made it look like Windows 7, to emulate
Windows 7, why bother to upgrade?

Four reasons:

1. I upgraded before I knew that I could or wanted to do what I did.

The $40 upgrade deal?

2. The new version of Windows, whatever it is, is where the future is,
in terms of better security, new software being released, new hardware
that older versions don't support, etc.

One thing that puzzles me of late, is why some of the "new reasons" for
a wholesale update can't be incorporated into the current version?
Never seems well enough explained to me. Seems more like a way to suck
the money out of my pocket. LOL

More puzzling to me is why MS doesn't adopt the Linux method, where the
user can select from a number of UI's in order to find one that fits.

3. I do a lot of Windows support for people (no longer as a
professional--I'm retired--but as a volunteer), and I wanted to know
the latest version to be able to help others who run it.

Understood. See # 4 reply.

4. I'm enough of a geek that I want to be running the latest version.

LOL!! Same here. Which is why I have a dual boot XP Pro/Vista Ultimate
computer to my right, basically homegrown. And to my left is a dual
boot Win7 Ultimate/Win8 Pro homegrown to my left, although at the moment
only Win7 is installed.

And I've done similar with this Mac. It came with 10.5 Leopard, but now
has 10.8 Mountain Lion. Skipped Lion. I may not upgrade to the new
version, Mavericks, as from what I've learned so far, most of the
changes involve the cloud and iOS compatibility, neither of which
applies to me at the moment. And I'm about the only Mac user among
friends and family.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2

"Boris" wrote in message
. 116...
Hi,

I used to change file extensions on .exe. files so when sending via
email,
the recipient's email client would accept the file. I don't see a
way to
change the file extension in Windows8 Home. How do I do this?

TIA

Zip it.

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 13:50:48 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

More puzzling to me is why MS doesn't adopt the Linux method, where the
user can select from a number of UI's in order to find one that fits.

It's much easier in Linux where a handful of programmers do the work
than at Microsoft, where you would have to coordinate the efforts of
12,563 programmers to make the OS handle different UIs and another
12,563 to create *each* UI.

I might be exaggerating, but I do believe the idea expressed above is
close to the truth...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 13:50:48 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

More puzzling to me is why MS doesn't adopt the Linux method, where the
user can select from a number of UI's in order to find one that fits.

It's much easier in Linux where a handful of programmers do the work
than at Microsoft, where you would have to coordinate the efforts of
12,563 programmers to make the OS handle different UIs and another
12,563 to create *each* UI.

I might be exaggerating, but I do believe the idea expressed above is
close to the truth...


But the Linux UIs, all run on top of XWindows, so it's not
a ground up effort to do them. You use things like widget
libraries, to do objects you might need. The first was
Athena widgets for example. There are many others now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Athena_Widgets

I wouldn't class it as a "skinning job", but neither is
making a new Linux GUI, a matter of writing a new frame
buffer driver. The GUI rides on top of some other stuff,
so portions of the wheel don't need to be reinvented.

If you want a "sample GUI", try something like TWM,
that comes with XWindows. It's the thing I might use, if
the call to start the regular GUI (Gnome or KDE) was broken
for some reason, and I wanted a basic decoration for XTerm
(so it could be moved around the screen). When I was
installing Ubuntu Server for example, this is the
kind of interface I was using for a while, as the
install of that, comes with "nothing".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../800px-Twm.png

That's about the crudest decoration you could use for Linux.
The benefit of that "window manager", is it allows the
windows to be moved about the screen. In XWindows,
if you don't use a window manager, the programs
"stay stuck" in their launched positions. So if
you start two programs, one could easily obscure the
other, and there'd be nothing you could do about it.
At that point, if you did the appropriate invocation,
TWM would start to run and the windows would be magically
movable again. You can also kill a window manager, and
the windows freeze in place again.

Note that, the currently shipping XWindows (Xorg),
the TWM setup is broken, and you have to correct
the error in one of the files, before that works. Grrr...
Where's Richard when you need him. It's been broken
for a while.

Ways to run Linux:

1) No XWindows. 24x80 style text-only screen. Run
command line programs only. Perfectly adequate for a
Linux server.
2) Run XWindows - start Xorg, and launch a single XTerm.
When you launch the XTerm, you can set the dimensions,
and can have a 24x132 terminal if you wanted.
3) If you include a basic Windows Manager like TWM, now
you can move your XTerm around the screen. You can fork
another XTerm from the first XTerm, and have two of them,
etc.
4) Running Gnome, KDE, XFce and the like, those include
decorations like menus, clock, network status icon, the
usual stuff you'd expect. Those are "full" window manager
implementations, and miles ahead of TWM in terms of
usability.

The dude at Canonical, wants to replace XWindows.
And you know, there is an underlying strategy to
doing that, and no good will come of it (evil).

HTH,
Paul

[...]where you would have to coordinate the efforts of
12,563 programmers to make the OS handle different UIs and another
12,563 to create *each* UI.

Or perhaps, lack of coordination may explain better.

On 8/5/2013 06:56, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 13:50:48 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

More puzzling to me is why MS doesn't adopt the Linux method, where the
user can select from a number of UI's in order to find one that fits.

It's much easier in Linux where a handful of programmers do the work
than at Microsoft, where you would have to coordinate the efforts of
12,563 programmers to make the OS handle different UIs and another
12,563 to create *each* UI.

I might be exaggerating, but I do believe the idea expressed above is
close to the truth...

1. It can be made to look very much like Windows 7.

2. It can be made to work very much like Windows 7.

Sigh, would it be much better if Windows 8 is shipped with an internal
option or utility similar to Start 8?

Everyone will be happy, and one less war between diehards and regular ones.

Never could understand Steve Ballmer's logic, or lack of it.

On 8/4/2013 23:34, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:16:33 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:34:32 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.

Who are these people who would have a hard time realizing that Win 8 with
one of the popular add-ons is not Win 7. ;-)

I'm just poking fun. I realize there are people who are mostly oblivious to
what's in front of them.


OK, if you're just poking fun, I'll take it in the spirit in which you
meant it. But let me elaborate.

Certainly, it's not Windows 7. But it can be made to look very much
like it, and to a casual observer, it appears to be Windows 7 (I've
had more than one person look over my shoulder and think that I was
running Windows 7). Spend some time with it, look around some more,
and unless you are one of those who are mostly oblivious to what's in
front of them, you'll see enough differences to realize what it is. My
points are two:

1. It can be made to look very much like Windows 7.

2. It can be made to work very much like Windows 7.

To most (but not all) of the people who have tried Windows 8 and
immediately hated it, those two things can readily reverse their
opinion.

I'm not one of those who immediately hated it when I first tried it,
but I was certainly far from being one who was enamored of it. Running
Start8 when I found it changed my mind almost instantly. It's now
enough like Windows 7 that I like it just fine, and the few
differences are small enough that they don't bother me.

The more time that passes, the less often I even glance at the metro
interface. If I had a touch-screen tablet, it might be different, but
the desktop interface with Start8 works very well for me.

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:28:19 +0800, xfile wrote:

1. It can be made to look very much like Windows 7.

2. It can be made to work very much like Windows 7.

Sigh, would it be much better if Windows 8 is shipped with an internal
option or utility similar to Start 8?

Sure. It's a shame that they didn't do it when Windows 8 was released,
and it's a shame that they didn't do it in 8.1.


Everyone will be happy, and one less war between diehards and regular ones.

Never could understand Steve Ballmer's logic, or lack of it.


To what extent such things are Ballmer's fault or someone else's at
Microsoft, I don't know.



--
Ken Blake

To what extent such things are Ballmer's fault or someone else's at
Microsoft, I don't know.

To the extent that a commander in chief is responsible for the ultimate
outcome of a war whether he was smoking a pipe and playing golf during
the entire war or actively participated in planning, monitoring, and
reviewing.


On 8/6/2013 00:45, Ken Blake wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:28:19 +0800, xfile wrote:

1. It can be made to look very much like Windows 7.

2. It can be made to work very much like Windows 7.

Sigh, would it be much better if Windows 8 is shipped with an internal
option or utility similar to Start 8?

Sure. It's a shame that they didn't do it when Windows 8 was released,
and it's a shame that they didn't do it in 8.1.


Everyone will be happy, and one less war between diehards and regular ones.

Never could understand Steve Ballmer's logic, or lack of it.


To what extent such things are Ballmer's fault or someone else's at
Microsoft, I don't know.

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:19:25 +0800, xfile wrote:

To what extent such things are Ballmer's fault or someone else's at
Microsoft, I don't know.

To the extent that a commander in chief is responsible for the ultimate
outcome of a war whether he was smoking a pipe and playing golf during
the entire war or actively participated in planning, monitoring, and
reviewing.


LOL! Yes, you are quite right. Still, you perhaps know what I meant.


--
Ken Blake

Still, you perhaps know what I meant.

Yes. Just don't want to be seen by others as a MS or Ballmer hater.

On 8/5/2013 17:58, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:19:25 +0800, xfile wrote:

To what extent such things are Ballmer's fault or someone else's at
Microsoft, I don't know.

To the extent that a commander in chief is responsible for the ultimate
outcome of a war whether he was smoking a pipe and playing golf during
the entire war or actively participated in planning, monitoring, and
reviewing.


LOL! Yes, you are quite right. Still, you perhaps know what I meant.

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 22:14:06 -0700, xfile wrote:

Still, you perhaps know what I meant.

Yes. Just don't want to be seen by others as a MS or Ballmer hater.


I'm not a Microsoft or Ballmer hater either. If I hated every company
and everybody who did something wrong, there would be nobody left.
Like most companies, and like most individuals, as far as I'm
concerned they do some things right and some things wrong.

If I were in charge at Microsoft, I'd fix all (or at least most) of
the things they do wrong. But then they'd undoubtedly do a bunch of
other things wrong that would be my fault. g

--
Ken Blake