Microsoft is reputedly beginning to sunset the Control Panel system applet

Dateline today...

"While Control Panel still continues to be a part of Windows 10,
Microsoft is planning to kill off the famous System applet
of the Control Panel."

o *Windows 10 update may kill off Control Panel's System applet*
https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/07/06/windows-10-control-panel-settings-system-page/

"In Windows 10 Build 20161, which was shipped to the testers with a new
Start Menu, Microsoft has started redirecting Control Panel's System
page to the Settings' About page which is located under
Settings System About."

"The new preview update of Windows 10 suggests that Microsoft is
currently looking to improve the Settings app before killing off
the Control Panel entirely."

More in the cited article and in other similar articles from today:
o *Microsoft is beginning to sunset the Control Panel*
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/windows-10-update-is-killing-this-big-feature-and-you-might-not-like-it

o *Microsoft Will Axe Control Panel From Windows 10*
https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-will-axe-control-panel-from-windows-10-were-1844280174
--
Usenet works best when purposefully helpful adults publicly share ideas.

On 2020-07-06 23:43, Arlen Holder wrote:
Dateline today...

"While Control Panel still continues to be a part of Windows 10,
Microsoft is planning to kill off the famous System applet
of the Control Panel."

o *Windows 10 update may kill off Control Panel's System applet*
https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/07/06/windows-10-control-panel-settings-system-page/

"In Windows 10 Build 20161, which was shipped to the testers with a new
Start Menu, Microsoft has started redirecting Control Panel's System
page to the Settings' About page which is located under
Settings System About."

"The new preview update of Windows 10 suggests that Microsoft is
currently looking to improve the Settings app before killing off
the Control Panel entirely."

More in the cited article and in other similar articles from today:
o *Microsoft is beginning to sunset the Control Panel*
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/windows-10-update-is-killing-this-big-feature-and-you-might-not-like-it

o *Microsoft Will Axe Control Panel From Windows 10*
https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-will-axe-control-panel-from-windows-10-were-1844280174


M$ better do a lot of work to make its replacement a lot
better than what they have now.

On 7/7/20 2:56 AM, this is what T wrote:
On 2020-07-06 23:43, Arlen Holder wrote:
Dateline today...

Â*Â* "While Control Panel still continues to be a part of Windows 10,
Â*Â*Â* Microsoft is planning to kill off the famous System applet
Â*Â*Â* of the Control Panel."

o *Windows 10 update may kill off Control Panel's System applet*
https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/07/06/windows-10-control-panel-settings-system-page/

Â*Â* "In Windows 10 Build 20161, which was shipped to the testers with a new
Â*Â*Â* Start Menu, Microsoft has started redirecting Control Panel's System
Â*Â*Â* page to the Settings' About page which is located under
Â*Â*Â* Settings System About."

Â*Â* "The new preview update of Windows 10 suggests that Microsoft is
Â*Â*Â* currently looking to improve the Settings app before killing off
Â*Â*Â* the Control Panel entirely."

More in the cited article and in other similar articles from today:
o *Microsoft is beginning to sunset the Control Panel*
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/windows-10-update-is-killing-this-big-feature-and-you-might-not-like-it

o *Microsoft Will Axe Control Panel From Windows 10*
https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-will-axe-control-panel-from-windows-10-were-1844280174


M$ better do a lot of work to make its replacement a lot
better than what they have now.

+1, I'm all for putting all the settings in one place, especially all the power settings, like dimming screen, what power button does, what
close lid does, screen saver, etc. It's hell running around the system.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 03:08:41 -0400, Big Al wrote:

I'm all for putting all the settings in one place

I also would agree, where Microsoft, if they put me in charge, would have a
single consistent place for two things which are currently an abomination:

1. Settings (particularly privacy settings), and,
2. Menus (I'd go to a user-focused, not developer-focused, cascade)

For settings, they would be organized in a way that makes sense to
consumers, which would take a few "committees" since everyone has their own
idea of what makes sense - but all settings would (should) have a single
access point hierarchy.

For menus, they would NOT allow developers to pollute them, which, I think,
is what Microsoft did wrong with the otherwise excellent XP accordion style
cascade menu.

It would be start with a hierarchy, and it would be managed by the user,
where a developer would have to fit into the users' hierarchy.

The developer would get one, and only one (by default) shortcut, period for
example, so they couldn't fill your menus with readme, uninstall,
configuration, and website crap shortcuts.

And nobody but the user gets to put any menu shortcut at the top level of
the menus.

We'd deal with the touchscreen folks separately.
--
Had Microsoft hired me years ago, you'd have a nice menu system today.

On 2020-07-07 11:19, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 03:08:41 -0400, Big Al wrote:

I'm all for putting all the settings in one place

I also would agree, where Microsoft, if they put me in charge, would have a
single consistent place for two things which are currently an abomination:

1. Settings (particularly privacy settings), and,
2. Menus (I'd go to a user-focused, not developer-focused, cascade)

For settings, they would be organized in a way that makes sense to
consumers, which would take a few "committees" since everyone has their own
idea of what makes sense - but all settings would (should) have a single
access point hierarchy.

For menus, they would NOT allow developers to pollute them, which, I think,
is what Microsoft did wrong with the otherwise excellent XP accordion style
cascade menu.

It would be start with a hierarchy, and it would be managed by the user,
where a developer would have to fit into the users' hierarchy.

The developer would get one, and only one (by default) shortcut, period for
example, so they couldn't fill your menus with readme, uninstall,
configuration, and website crap shortcuts.

And nobody but the user gets to put any menu shortcut at the top level of
the menus.

We'd deal with the touchscreen folks separately.


1+

Well thought out.

"touchscreen folks separately"? Unemployment line?

Arlen Holder wrote:
--
Had Microsoft hired me years ago, you'd have a nice menu system today.


Had they hired me, you might see some sort of parallel processing on any
given app. I don't think they have even tried. Folks have 6 core (and
more) CPUs for what???

In article , Bill
wrote:

Had they hired me, you might see some sort of parallel processing on any
given app. I don't think they have even tried. Folks have 6 core (and
more) CPUs for what???

not all apps benefit from multithreading. most don't.

nospam wrote:
In article , Bill
wrote:

Had they hired me, you might see some sort of parallel processing on any
given app. I don't think they have even tried. Folks have 6 core (and
more) CPUs for what???

not all apps benefit from multithreading. most don't.

Nothing personal, but I don't think you are in a position to educate me
about it. BTW, I didn't say multithreading.

In article , Bill
wrote:

Had they hired me, you might see some sort of parallel processing on any
given app. I don't think they have even tried. Folks have 6 core (and
more) CPUs for what???

not all apps benefit from multithreading. most don't.

Nothing personal, but I don't think you are in a position to educate me
about it. BTW, I didn't say multithreading.

based on that comment alone, you'd be wrong.

you said 'some sort of parallel processing on any given app'. if you
did not mean multithreading, then what did you mean?

nospam wrote:
In article , Bill
wrote:

Had they hired me, you might see some sort of parallel processing on any
given app. I don't think they have even tried. Folks have 6 core (and
more) CPUs for what???

not all apps benefit from multithreading. most don't.

Nothing personal, but I don't think you are in a position to educate me
about it. BTW, I didn't say multithreading.

based on that comment alone, you'd be wrong.

you said 'some sort of parallel processing on any given app'. if you
did not mean multithreading, then what did you mean?


See what I mean, you don't appreciate the difference. Consult a decent
book on computer architecture.

In article , Bill
wrote:

Had they hired me, you might see some sort of parallel processing on any
given app. I don't think they have even tried. Folks have 6 core (and
more) CPUs for what???

not all apps benefit from multithreading. most don't.

Nothing personal, but I don't think you are in a position to educate me
about it. BTW, I didn't say multithreading.

based on that comment alone, you'd be wrong.

you said 'some sort of parallel processing on any given app'. if you
did not mean multithreading, then what did you mean?


See what I mean, you don't appreciate the difference. Consult a decent
book on computer architecture.

you didn't answer the question.

nospam wrote:
In article , Bill
wrote:

Had they hired me, you might see some sort of parallel processing on any
given app. I don't think they have even tried. Folks have 6 core (and
more) CPUs for what???

not all apps benefit from multithreading. most don't.

Nothing personal, but I don't think you are in a position to educate me
about it. BTW, I didn't say multithreading.

based on that comment alone, you'd be wrong.

you said 'some sort of parallel processing on any given app'. if you
did not mean multithreading, then what did you mean?


See what I mean, you don't appreciate the difference. Consult a decent
book on computer architecture.

you didn't answer the question.


It's obviously an evolving topic. Start he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing

In article , Bill
wrote:


Had they hired me, you might see some sort of parallel processing on
any
given app. I don't think they have even tried. Folks have 6 core (and
more) CPUs for what???

not all apps benefit from multithreading. most don't.

Nothing personal, but I don't think you are in a position to educate me
about it. BTW, I didn't say multithreading.

based on that comment alone, you'd be wrong.

you said 'some sort of parallel processing on any given app'. if you
did not mean multithreading, then what did you mean?


See what I mean, you don't appreciate the difference. Consult a decent
book on computer architecture.

you didn't answer the question.


It's obviously an evolving topic. Start he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing

from *your* link:
Subtasks in a parallel program are often called threads. Some
parallel computer architectures use smaller, lightweight versions of
threads known as fibers, while others use bigger versions known as
processes. However, "threads" is generally accepted as a generic term
for subtasks.[21] Threads will often need synchronized access to an
object or other resource, for example when they must update a
variable that is shared between them. Without synchronization, the
instructions between the two threads may be interleaved in any order.

keep reading. maybe you'll learn something.

nospam wrote:
In article , Bill
wrote:


Had they hired me, you might see some sort of parallel processing on
any
given app. I don't think they have even tried. Folks have 6 core (and
more) CPUs for what???

not all apps benefit from multithreading. most don't.

Nothing personal, but I don't think you are in a position to educate me
about it. BTW, I didn't say multithreading.

based on that comment alone, you'd be wrong.

you said 'some sort of parallel processing on any given app'. if you
did not mean multithreading, then what did you mean?


See what I mean, you don't appreciate the difference. Consult a decent
book on computer architecture.

you didn't answer the question.


It's obviously an evolving topic. Start he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing

from *your* link:
Subtasks in a parallel program are often called threads. Some
parallel computer architectures use smaller, lightweight versions of
threads known as fibers, while others use bigger versions known as
processes. However, "threads" is generally accepted as a generic term
for subtasks.[21] Threads will often need synchronized access to an
object or other resource, for example when they must update a
variable that is shared between them. Without synchronization, the
instructions between the two threads may be interleaved in any order.

keep reading. maybe you'll learn something.


You said "multithreading", which suggests a particular kind of
programming (as a programmer). I don't for a moment believe that you
were thinking in the general terms used above. What is your educational
level?