Next version of Windows is...

On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

[...]
Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called.

Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee.
LOL I wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi,
not that it offers that particular user any new benefit.

Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're
much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to
be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync.

Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really
is, those bennies are of little value to me.

I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less
about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from
the Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for
the tablet to actually show up on my computers.

Therein lies the difference between what you currently have and the
direction that MS is heading. I am, and know many "big device users", and
can only see an up-side for MS since they've simplified the process
for the
non-techie types.

Therein lies the issue(s) for me. I don't mind MS and others using
tablets and phones for what they are interested in, but those...
"methods" is a good word I guess... don't work for me. That's not what
I want to do.

The capability to do such things does not mean that everyone *must* do
them!

I didn't buy a large monitor, build a fast computer, to
make using websites harder due to their design, or have software with
fewer capabilities.

Two separate issues, here. Most folks paying for website development
don't have the budget to pay for and maintain device-specific sites,
i.e. apps for mobile devices and adaptive sites for monitors ranging
from laptops to 60" displays (yes, folks do that). It *can* be done, but
it isn't cheap.

I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're
referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications
for those that don't need the additional functionality.

And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are still quite
a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was new (5.5 years ago)
to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me 15 seconds and getting the
password to be up and running on their network.

Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported devices,
software and systems. What one runs into with Apple devices is that they
either work or they won't, no matter how much time one spends trying to
make them work. In other cases, they'll "sort of work", with less
functionality than Windows.
--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/9/2014 12:23 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:49:51 -0400, Neil
wrote:


Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're
much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to
be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync.

You don't need a wirelessly connected drive to achieve that, only a
network connected one. It's irrelevant whether it's connected by
wireless or ethernet cable (though if it's feasible to connect it by
cable, this will probably give a faster performance).

The reference was to "personal clouds", not networks in general. Some folks
may not want an ethernet cable attached to their phone! ;-D

Nor need they have one. The phone will presumably be connected to the
local network by wireless because it's a portable device, but a
network connected disk drive or printer is usually in a fixed position
somewhere, and can be connected by cable.

If the user doesn't have a network at all, they can still have a
"personal cloud" with one of those drives, so I think that is a good
thing. If one has a network with a server on it, there is no need for
any additional drives at all. An ethernet-only (non-wi-fi) HD is
somewhere between those options, but may require a more knowledgeable
user to get it up and running than the "personal cloud" drives. Although
I have no need for the "personal cloud" drives I can understand the
benefit to others.

I can understand what you're describing, but have difficulty in
imagining somebody with a smartphone or tablet who wants a wireless
connection to a disc drive but not the internet. It's a feasible
requirement, but surely an unusual one.

Why would access to the internet be an issue one way or another? It's
not at all unusual to have both, and it's not at all a new idea. Many
folks have WiFi at home for internet access, and the ability to save
content to a common folder accessed by all their devices (a.k.a. "the
cloud") is increasingly desirable, which is why no provider is marching
in a different direction. A "personal cloud" addresses some of the
concerns that people have w/r/t having their data on "someone else's
server" (which is where this thread began).
--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/09/2014 03:08 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 12:23 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:49:51 -0400, Neil
wrote:


Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're
much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to
be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync.

You don't need a wirelessly connected drive to achieve that, only a
network connected one. It's irrelevant whether it's connected by
wireless or ethernet cable (though if it's feasible to connect it by
cable, this will probably give a faster performance).

The reference was to "personal clouds", not networks in general. Some folks
may not want an ethernet cable attached to their phone! ;-D

Nor need they have one. The phone will presumably be connected to the
local network by wireless because it's a portable device, but a
network connected disk drive or printer is usually in a fixed position
somewhere, and can be connected by cable.

If the user doesn't have a network at all, they can still have a
"personal cloud" with one of those drives, so I think that is a good
thing. If one has a network with a server on it, there is no need for
any additional drives at all. An ethernet-only (non-wi-fi) HD is
somewhere between those options, but may require a more knowledgeable
user to get it up and running than the "personal cloud" drives. Although
I have no need for the "personal cloud" drives I can understand the
benefit to others.

I can understand what you're describing, but have difficulty in
imagining somebody with a smartphone or tablet who wants a wireless
connection to a disc drive but not the internet. It's a feasible
requirement, but surely an unusual one.

Why would access to the internet be an issue one way or another? It's
not at all unusual to have both, and it's not at all a new idea. Many
folks have WiFi at home for internet access, and the ability to save
content to a common folder accessed by all their devices (a.k.a. "the
cloud") is increasingly desirable, which is why no provider is marching
in a different direction. A "personal cloud" addresses some of the
concerns that people have w/r/t having their data on "someone else's
server" (which is where this thread began).


Even the time to hook up your phone to the computer with a usb cable is
past.

--
Caver1

On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

[...]
Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called.

Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee.
LOL I wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi,
not that it offers that particular user any new benefit.

Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're
much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to
be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync.

Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really
is, those bennies are of little value to me.

I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less
about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from
the Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for
the tablet to actually show up on my computers.

Therein lies the difference between what you currently have and the
direction that MS is heading. I am, and know many "big device users", and
can only see an up-side for MS since they've simplified the process
for the
non-techie types.

Therein lies the issue(s) for me. I don't mind MS and others using
tablets and phones for what they are interested in, but those...
"methods" is a good word I guess... don't work for me. That's not what
I want to do.

The capability to do such things does not mean that everyone *must* do
them!

Or even want to. But it seems they are trying to force you into it.

I didn't buy a large monitor, build a fast computer, to
make using websites harder due to their design, or have software with
fewer capabilities.

Two separate issues, here. Most folks paying for website development
don't have the budget to pay for and maintain device-specific sites,
i.e. apps for mobile devices and adaptive sites for monitors ranging
from laptops to 60" displays (yes, folks do that). It *can* be done, but
it isn't cheap.

I wasn't speaking of device specific things, and didn't intend for it to
sound that way.

I meant the total redesign of sites where links and date are more spread
apart giving the user less information on the screen. Possibly even
less information per web page, meaning you have to do more work drilling
down through pages to find what used to be linked on the opening page.
I really dislike the sites that determine I'm on a Mac, and then make it
impossible or next to impossible to download or find information for a
different OS. Just do the old fashioned thing and give me a button for
Mac, Windows, and Linux, and let me make the choice for what I want. It
might be I want all three. :-)

Microsoft is really bad about that in their knowledge base.

I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're
referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications
for those that don't need the additional functionality.

Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply
removed from the current version that were part of the previous
versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might be
so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a "Lite" or
"Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other version. In
some cases, files created in the older version may not work correctly in
the newer version.

And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are still quite
a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was new (5.5 years ago)
to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me 15 seconds and getting the
password to be up and running on their network.

Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported devices,
software and systems. What one runs into with Apple devices is that they
either work or they won't, no matter how much time one spends trying to
make them work. In other cases, they'll "sort of work", with less
functionality than Windows.

We may be working on different thoughts here, Neil. I was thinking on
the lines of things like this: On a Mac, you open up whatever app it
is, and add items to a grocery list. As soon as you turn on your iPad,
iPhone, iPod with the same app running, the grocery list is
automatically updated on those devices.

Is this what you were thinking?


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 10/9/2014 7:19 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

[...]
Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called.

Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee.
LOL I wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi,
not that it offers that particular user any new benefit.

Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're
much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to
be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync.

Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really
is, those bennies are of little value to me.

I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less
about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from
the Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for
the tablet to actually show up on my computers.

Therein lies the difference between what you currently have and the
direction that MS is heading. I am, and know many "big device
users", and
can only see an up-side for MS since they've simplified the process
for the
non-techie types.

Therein lies the issue(s) for me. I don't mind MS and others using
tablets and phones for what they are interested in, but those...
"methods" is a good word I guess... don't work for me. That's not what
I want to do.

The capability to do such things does not mean that everyone *must* do
them!

Or even want to. But it seems they are trying to force you into it.

I didn't buy a large monitor, build a fast computer, to
make using websites harder due to their design, or have software with
fewer capabilities.

Two separate issues, here. Most folks paying for website development
don't have the budget to pay for and maintain device-specific sites,
i.e. apps for mobile devices and adaptive sites for monitors ranging
from laptops to 60" displays (yes, folks do that). It *can* be done, but
it isn't cheap.

I wasn't speaking of device specific things, and didn't intend for it to
sound that way.

I meant the total redesign of sites where links and date are more spread
apart giving the user less information on the screen. Possibly even
less information per web page, meaning you have to do more work drilling
down through pages to find what used to be linked on the opening page. I
really dislike the sites that determine I'm on a Mac, and then make it
impossible or next to impossible to download or find information for a
different OS. Just do the old fashioned thing and give me a button for
Mac, Windows, and Linux, and let me make the choice for what I want. It
might be I want all three. :-)

The idea that there would be different sites for Mac, Linux, etc. is the
"device specific" matter I was talking about. For desktop computers,
it's pretty much a non-issue, but things like word/object spacing,
element wrapping, graphics, etc. can be negatively affected by monitor
size, which are other "device specific" aspects to consider when
creating HTML pages. All of this adds significant cost to development,
and most folks who want websites are completely clueless about these
things. They buy a program to create their sites and think they're done,
but what they wind up with are the kinds of problems you're complaining
about.

Microsoft is really bad about that in their knowledge base.

It isn't even remotely a Microsoft issue, and has little to do with
anything they have control over since they didn't create HTML. In the
days before IE6, things were wonky, but now IE is one of the more
HTML-compliant browsers available. Better than Safari, for sure.

I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're
referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications
for those that don't need the additional functionality.

Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply
removed from the current version that were part of the previous
versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might be
so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a "Lite" or
"Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other version. In
some cases, files created in the older version may not work correctly in
the newer version.

For example?

And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are still quite
a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was new (5.5 years ago)
to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me 15 seconds and getting the
password to be up and running on their network.

Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported devices,
software and systems. What one runs into with Apple devices is that they
either work or they won't, no matter how much time one spends trying to
make them work. In other cases, they'll "sort of work", with less
functionality than Windows.

We may be working on different thoughts here, Neil. I was thinking on
the lines of things like this: On a Mac, you open up whatever app it
is, and add items to a grocery list. As soon as you turn on your iPad,
iPhone, iPod with the same app running, the grocery list is
automatically updated on those devices.

I see you like "the cloud"!

Is this what you were thinking?

No. I'm thinking (knowing, actually) that there are many devices with
poor or no Apple drivers, so systems that include them either don't work
at all or just "sort of" work with limited functionality. Since MS is
the big guy on the block, companies that want to sell a lot of their
products make sure that they work with Windows.
--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/8/2014 4:29 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

[...]
Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called.

Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee. LOL I
wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi, not that it
offers that particular user any new benefit.

Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're
much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be
accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync.

Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really is,
those bennies are of little value to me.

I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less
about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from the
Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for the
tablet to actually show up on my computers.


Have you tried SnapPea for your Nexus?

http://www.howtogeek.com/135836/how-...-with-snappea/

On 10/9/14 6:18 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 7:19 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

Time for some snipping, folks.

I wasn't speaking of device specific things, and didn't intend for it to
sound that way.

I meant the total redesign of sites where links and date are more spread
apart giving the user less information on the screen. Possibly even
less information per web page, meaning you have to do more work drilling
down through pages to find what used to be linked on the opening page. I
really dislike the sites that determine I'm on a Mac, and then make it
impossible or next to impossible to download or find information for a
different OS. Just do the old fashioned thing and give me a button for
Mac, Windows, and Linux, and let me make the choice for what I want. It
might be I want all three. :-)

The idea that there would be different sites for Mac, Linux, etc. is the
"device specific" matter I was talking about. For desktop computers,
it's pretty much a non-issue, but things like word/object spacing,
element wrapping, graphics, etc. can be negatively affected by monitor
size, which are other "device specific" aspects to consider when
creating HTML pages. All of this adds significant cost to development,
and most folks who want websites are completely clueless about these
things. They buy a program to create their sites and think they're done,
but what they wind up with are the kinds of problems you're complaining
about.

I don't think I'm talking about things that device specific. Think
about those sites that used to say "Best viewed at 800 X 600" when
screen resolutions began to rise? I'm talking about designs that would
probably run just fine at 640 X 480, things are so large with large
amounts of white space. :-( I wish I had some saved web pages of the
old design so I could post screen shots of what I'm talking about, but
alas I don't have them. :-(

I'm talking about a pure redesign of a web page, and I think the pages
are now geared to small touch screens, how it appears on a monitor is
just not considered. :-(

I took an HTML 4 basics course one time. And you can mitigate the
monitor size by the way you program the page. Using percentage fill
parameters in a table rather than a fixed size, for example. And leave
out all the fancy whiz bang stuff. Keep it simple and straight to the
point.

I think if the people paying the bills knew more of the basics of good
web design, and thought about the user's opinion more than the
designer's opinion, things wouldn't be so "busy" on many pages. Have
you noticed how hard it is to actually find a site map or a contact us
link these days?

Microsoft is really bad about that in their knowledge base.

It isn't even remotely a Microsoft issue, and has little to do with
anything they have control over since they didn't create HTML. In the
days before IE6, things were wonky, but now IE is one of the more
HTML-compliant browsers available. Better than Safari, for sure.

No, they do have control over it. But, possibly not HTML, as I don't
know how it's done. I was thinking of how MS determines your OS when
reading a knowledge base article. Then, if you aren't using Windows,
they simply will not let you see some of the information on that page.
You get a message like "The information on this page does not apply to
your OS, so some information is hidden." And there's no way to unhide it.

I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're
referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of applications
for those that don't need the additional functionality.

Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply
removed from the current version that were part of the previous
versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might be
so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a "Lite" or
"Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other version. In
some cases, files created in the older version may not work correctly in
the newer version.

For example?

Have none for a Windows program at the moment. But just last night, I
was reading a Mac magazine article about iWorks. That used to be a
bundle of a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software.
They are sold separately now. At the end of each article was a sidebar
listing the more powerful tools that had been removed, and replaced with
nothing. And they noted if you used some of those advance features in
your files, they may not load and work properly.

And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are still quite
a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was new (5.5 years ago)
to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me 15 seconds and getting the
password to be up and running on their network.

Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported devices,
software and systems. What one runs into with Apple devices is that they
either work or they won't, no matter how much time one spends trying to
make them work. In other cases, they'll "sort of work", with less
functionality than Windows.

We may be working on different thoughts here, Neil. I was thinking on
the lines of things like this: On a Mac, you open up whatever app it
is, and add items to a grocery list. As soon as you turn on your iPad,
iPhone, iPod with the same app running, the grocery list is
automatically updated on those devices.

I see you like "the cloud"!

LOL

If you're a business, I see the obvious advantages for conducting
business. But I think the security issues outweigh the convenience for
personal use. Think of the recent flap over apparent nude pictures of
stars that were recently hacked.

Is this what you were thinking?

No. I'm thinking (knowing, actually) that there are many devices with
poor or no Apple drivers, so systems that include them either don't work
at all or just "sort of" work with limited functionality. Since MS is
the big guy on the block, companies that want to sell a lot of their
products make sure that they work with Windows.

Ah, hardware issues. Yea, you're right, but from what I see, even worse
if you go Linux. Although I notice more Linux drivers these days when I
bother to go look.

If you buy that "Apple system" and it includes the printer, monitor,
scanner, whatever at the Apple Store, everything will work. It's when
you want to mix and match you have problems. But then those problems
exist for Windows too. I've a broke friend who would like to do just
simple, plain, basic scanning on her Windows 7 laptop. I've got 3
perfectly good scanners sitting on a shelf. None of them have a Win 7
driver.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 10/9/14 6:52 PM, Ron wrote:
On 10/8/2014 4:29 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

[...]
Or their own "personal cloud", as wi-fi enabled drives are called.

Oh. :-/ Marketing speak for wi-fi accessible. Well, whoopee. LOL I
wonder how many people will buy these because it's wi-fi, not that it
offers that particular user any new benefit.

Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're
much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to be
accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync.

Since I'm not a big device user, and I don't know anyone that really is,
those bennies are of little value to me.

I have an old Windows Mobile 6 phone, and a Nexus 7. Could care less
about syncing the phone, and I can access my network via wi-fi from the
Nexus. From what I understand, I will have to root my Nexus for the
tablet to actually show up on my computers.


Have you tried SnapPea for your Nexus?

http://www.howtogeek.com/135836/how-...-with-snappea/

I'd not heard of it, Ron, thanks.

I just read most of the page, and I'm not sure it would do what I'm
really after. It sounds like you link a device to a single computer,
and you have to install software to accomplish it. The page doesn't
seem to have any hint as to how this linking is done. If you have
multiple computers, you have to install and link to all computers. Plus
I have this iMac, and the Mac software is not out of beta yet.

It sounds more like a Remote Desktop Connection, aka Teamviewer for
example. Which isn't what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a means
to control or manage the Nexus. I just want to copy/move/delete user
files on the Nexus, just as you would with shared folders on your
computers attached to the network. And my understanding is, rooting the
Nexus would accomplish this without installing any software anywhere.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:08:54 -0400, Neil
wrote:

Well, wi-fi accessible drives do offer benefits. For example, they're
much simpler to set up than a server, and allows the stored data to
be accessed from all of their devices, which keeps it in sync.

You don't need a wirelessly connected drive to achieve that, only a
network connected one. It's irrelevant whether it's connected by
wireless or ethernet cable (though if it's feasible to connect it by
cable, this will probably give a faster performance).

The reference was to "personal clouds", not networks in general. Some folks
may not want an ethernet cable attached to their phone! ;-D

Nor need they have one. The phone will presumably be connected to the
local network by wireless because it's a portable device, but a
network connected disk drive or printer is usually in a fixed position
somewhere, and can be connected by cable.

If the user doesn't have a network at all, they can still have a
"personal cloud" with one of those drives, so I think that is a good
thing. If one has a network with a server on it, there is no need for
any additional drives at all. An ethernet-only (non-wi-fi) HD is
somewhere between those options, but may require a more knowledgeable
user to get it up and running than the "personal cloud" drives. Although
I have no need for the "personal cloud" drives I can understand the
benefit to others.

I can understand what you're describing, but have difficulty in
imagining somebody with a smartphone or tablet who wants a wireless
connection to a disc drive but not the internet. It's a feasible
requirement, but surely an unusual one.

Why would access to the internet be an issue one way or another? It's
not at all unusual to have both, and it's not at all a new idea. Many
folks have WiFi at home for internet access, and the ability to save
content to a common folder accessed by all their devices (a.k.a. "the
cloud") is increasingly desirable, which is why no provider is marching
in a different direction. A "personal cloud" addresses some of the
concerns that people have w/r/t having their data on "someone else's
server" (which is where this thread began).

If you have wireless access at home, it will almost certainly be via a
router. If you also have a local network store, or "personal cloud",
your smartphones, tablets etc will not be connected to it directly,
but also via the router. The connections between your portable gadgets
and the router may be by wireless, but there is no requirement for the
network drive to be connected by wireless as well, even if it is
capable of it, and it will give better performance if it is not.

As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with
regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your
local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was.
However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the
existence of a router.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with
regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your
local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was.
However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the
existence of a router.

While that used to be the case, it is becoming less so. For example,
wireless offerings such as AT&T "UVerse" are expanding home wifi use without
providing any additional ethernet connections. Printers and other
peripherals are also wifi enabled, so they don't need an ethernet port. It
takes a savvy user to add that functionality to add a router to those
systems and manage the connections, while all it takes to connect a
"personal cloud" drive is to place it near the wifi box and press a button.
The speed of access is determined by the wifi, not the drive, so unless you
have an ethernet connector on your tablet or phone, it will be the same
whether using a "personal cloud" drive or an HD connected to a router.

--
best regards,

Neil

Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:18 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 7:19 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

Time for some snipping, folks.

I wasn't speaking of device specific things, and didn't intend for
it to sound that way.

I meant the total redesign of sites where links and date are more
spread apart giving the user less information on the screen.
Possibly even less information per web page, meaning you have to do
more work drilling down through pages to find what used to be
linked on the opening page. I really dislike the sites that
determine I'm on a Mac, and then make it impossible or next to
impossible to download or find information for a different OS.
Just do the old fashioned thing and give me a button for Mac,
Windows, and Linux, and let me make the choice for what I want. It
might be I want all three. :-)

The idea that there would be different sites for Mac, Linux, etc. is
the "device specific" matter I was talking about. For desktop
computers, it's pretty much a non-issue, but things like word/object
spacing, element wrapping, graphics, etc. can be negatively affected
by monitor size, which are other "device specific" aspects to
consider when creating HTML pages. All of this adds significant cost
to development, and most folks who want websites are completely
clueless about these things. They buy a program to create their
sites and think they're done, but what they wind up with are the
kinds of problems you're complaining about.

I don't think I'm talking about things that device specific. Think
about those sites that used to say "Best viewed at 800 X 600" when
screen resolutions began to rise? I'm talking about designs that
would probably run just fine at 640 X 480, things are so large with
large amounts of white space. :-( I wish I had some saved web pages
of the old design so I could post screen shots of what I'm talking
about, but alas I don't have them. :-(

I'm talking about a pure redesign of a web page, and I think the pages
are now geared to small touch screens, how it appears on a monitor is
just not considered. :-(

The issue is exactly the same for modern screen resolutions and monitor
sizes. Having written sites since the mid '80s, I don't need to see your
screen shots to know what you mean! ;-)

I took an HTML 4 basics course one time. And you can mitigate the
monitor size by the way you program the page. Using percentage fill
parameters in a table rather than a fixed size, for example. And
leave out all the fancy whiz bang stuff. Keep it simple and straight
to the point.

To some extent that is correct, but using percentages also has its
"gotchas", especially when trying to make a site functional between
phone-sized and wall-sized screens.

I think if the people paying the bills knew more of the basics of good
web design, and thought about the user's opinion more than the
designer's opinion, things wouldn't be so "busy" on many pages. Have
you noticed how hard it is to actually find a site map or a contact us
link these days?

Those are just bad design issues. I can't tell you how many companies think
they're saving money by having their 14 year old create their site.

Microsoft is really bad about that in their knowledge base.

It isn't even remotely a Microsoft issue, and has little to do with
anything they have control over since they didn't create HTML. In the
days before IE6, things were wonky, but now IE is one of the more
HTML-compliant browsers available. Better than Safari, for sure.

No, they do have control over it. But, possibly not HTML, as I don't
know how it's done. I was thinking of how MS determines your OS when
reading a knowledge base article. Then, if you aren't using Windows,
they simply will not let you see some of the information on that page.
You get a message like "The information on this page does not apply to
your OS, so some information is hidden." And there's no way to
unhide it.

MS' site is to serve MS users, many of whom are not techies, so it doesn't
surprise me in the least that they try to make the information relevant to
the system accessing their page.

I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're
referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of
applications for those that don't need the additional
functionality.

Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply
removed from the current version that were part of the previous
versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might
be so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a
"Lite" or "Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other
version. In some cases, files created in the older version may not
work correctly in the newer version.

For example?

Have none for a Windows program at the moment. But just last night, I
was reading a Mac magazine article about iWorks. That used to be a
bundle of a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software.
They are sold separately now. At the end of each article was a
sidebar listing the more powerful tools that had been removed, and
replaced with nothing. And they noted if you used some of those
advance features in your files, they may not load and work properly.

That sounds like trying to load MS Office files into MS Works. Not a new
issue... just a misuse of the applications. MS Works is "MS Office Lite"...

And even though MS is simplifying things, I suspect they are
still quite a ways behind Apple. I remember when this iMac was
new (5.5 years ago) to my inlaws to show them a Mac, it took me
15 seconds and getting the password to be up and running on their
network.

Apple is *way* behind MS with regard to the range of supported
devices, software and systems. What one runs into with Apple
devices is that they either work or they won't, no matter how much
time one spends trying to make them work. In other cases, they'll
"sort of work", with less functionality than Windows.

We may be working on different thoughts here, Neil. I was thinking
on the lines of things like this: On a Mac, you open up whatever
app it is, and add items to a grocery list. As soon as you turn on
your iPad, iPhone, iPod with the same app running, the grocery list
is automatically updated on those devices.

I see you like "the cloud"!

LOL

If you're a business, I see the obvious advantages for conducting
business. But I think the security issues outweigh the convenience
for personal use. Think of the recent flap over apparent nude
pictures of stars that were recently hacked.

Is this what you were thinking?

No. I'm thinking (knowing, actually) that there are many devices with
poor or no Apple drivers, so systems that include them either don't
work at all or just "sort of" work with limited functionality. Since
MS is the big guy on the block, companies that want to sell a lot of
their products make sure that they work with Windows.

Ah, hardware issues. Yea, you're right, but from what I see, even
worse if you go Linux. Although I notice more Linux drivers these
days when I bother to go look.

Yes, it is much worse for Linux, which is something that Linux trolls are in
complete denial about.

If you buy that "Apple system" and it includes the printer, monitor,
scanner, whatever at the Apple Store, everything will work.

Well, it *better* work uner those circumstances! 8-P

It's when
you want to mix and match you have problems. But then those problems
exist for Windows too. I've a broke friend who would like to do just
simple, plain, basic scanning on her Windows 7 laptop. I've got 3
perfectly good scanners sitting on a shelf. None of them have a Win 7
driver.

That makes them not-so-perfectly good...

--
best regards,

Neil

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 06:15:58 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with
regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your
local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was.
However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the
existence of a router.

While that used to be the case, it is becoming less so. For example,
wireless offerings such as AT&T "UVerse" are expanding home wifi use without
providing any additional ethernet connections. Printers and other
peripherals are also wifi enabled, so they don't need an ethernet port.

They still need a network presence, whether by ethernet or wireless,
so *something* needs to award them local IP addresses and route the
traffic. If not a router, what will do this?

It
takes a savvy user to add that functionality to add a router to those
systems and manage the connections, while all it takes to connect a
"personal cloud" drive is to place it near the wifi box and press a button.

I'm surprised to learn that there are a significant number of computer
networks where you'd need to add a router. In most cases I'd expect
there to be one already there. Who these days has a computing device
of any sort at home without an internet connection?

The speed of access is determined by the wifi, not the drive, so unless you
have an ethernet connector on your tablet or phone, it will be the same
whether using a "personal cloud" drive or an HD connected to a router.

Quite so, but if the drive is connected to a router by wireless, there
will be two wireless links between it and any wireless smartdevice,
rather then one if it's feasible to connect the drive by cable. This
can have an effect on performance.

Rod.

On 10/10/14 5:28 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:18 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 7:19 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 12:59 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/9/14 6:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:33 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/8/2014 12:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/14 12:27 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

Time for some snipping, folks.

And some more snipping.

To some extent that is correct, but using percentages also has its
"gotchas", especially when trying to make a site functional between
phone-sized and wall-sized screens.

I remember, in the HTML 4 class, there was a mention of a tag "mobile",
meaning the page would detect a phone or similar, and to display a
different version of the web page.

If you kept the design as simple as possible, is it that much more work
to maintain it? No bad design issues, no whiz-bang eye candy, etc.

snip

MS' site is to serve MS users, many of whom are not techies, so it doesn't
surprise me in the least that they try to make the information relevant to
the system accessing their page.

Didn't it ever occur to them that just because they are accessing the
knowledge base with some other computer to fix their Windows computer?
An omission at the best, rather arrogant at the worst.

I don't know what "software with fewer capabilities" that you're
referring to, but there have always been "lite" versions of
applications for those that don't need the additional
functionality.

Not lite versions. But where the software has had features simply
removed from the current version that were part of the previous
versions. If they want to remove features, and guessing that might
be so it's better suited for tablets and phones, then call it a
"Lite" or "Mobile" version, and leave those features in the other
version. In some cases, files created in the older version may not
work correctly in the newer version.

For example?

Have none for a Windows program at the moment. But just last night, I
was reading a Mac magazine article about iWorks. That used to be a
bundle of a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software.
They are sold separately now. At the end of each article was a
sidebar listing the more powerful tools that had been removed, and
replaced with nothing. And they noted if you used some of those
advance features in your files, they may not load and work properly.

That sounds like trying to load MS Office files into MS Works. Not a new
issue... just a misuse of the applications. MS Works is "MS Office Lite"...

Well, not quite the same. In this case, if I took a Pages (word
processor with page layout options) that I create in Pages 09, may not
load properly in the the current Pages. Apple has dropped the year
number at the end, much like the writings of MS may just call it Windows
in the future. Not switching programs, just switching versions of programs.

snip

Yes, it is much worse for Linux, which is something that Linux trolls are in
complete denial about.

G Yep. You may be watching my discussion with a Linux fan about
indirect funding of open source products. He/she doesn't seem to be
able to grasp the indirect concept. There is no free lunch.

snip

It's when
you want to mix and match you have problems. But then those problems
exist for Windows too. I've a broke friend who would like to do just
simple, plain, basic scanning on her Windows 7 laptop. I've got 3
perfectly good scanners sitting on a shelf. None of them have a Win 7
driver.

That makes them not-so-perfectly good...

Nah, they're still perfectly good. They just don't fit, like that
alternator from the '95 Ford that doesn't fit the 2010 Ford.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 10/10/14 5:34 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
I'm surprised to learn that there are a significant number of computer
networks where you'd need to add a router. In most cases I'd expect
there to be one already there. Who these days has a computing device
of any sort at home without an internet connection?

I think this would depend on the modem that connects you to the internet.

It's probably a bit unwise to "assume" the user has a computer network
when they decide they want to add some wireless component. :-)

When I was on Dish Network via satellite, the modem did not have
router/networking capability. All I could do was connect the modem
directly to the Ethernet port of my computer. When I wanted to create a
network, I had to get a standalone router.

If this is your situation, and you want to add wireless something,
you'll need to buy a router.

How often you may find this situation today, I don't know.

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 06:15:58 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Roderick Stewart wrote:
As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with
regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your
local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was.
However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the
existence of a router.

While that used to be the case, it is becoming less so. For example,
wireless offerings such as AT&T "UVerse" are expanding home wifi use without
providing any additional ethernet connections.

I have Uverse and the 'modem' they gave me has a built-in router, access
point, and switch. In addition, each set top box has an Ethernet connection
that can be used to connect one (or more, with a switch) additional
device(s).