If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
Mayayana wrote:
"Stan Brown" wrote | Really? I remember when I got my Windows 7 laptop, how much easier | Windows 7 was to use than XP. What are some of the things you | consider to be steps backward in Win 7? | Copy a folder to a location where it already exists. XP: "This will overwrite any files of the same name. Proceed?" Me: "Yes. Thanks." ----- Win7: "Here are 3 choices of what to do for this file being copied... Replace? Make a new copy? Skip it? ...And what about this file....and this file...." Me: "OK. Just apply the same answer to the rest of them." Win7: "Done. Now what about this file... and this file... and this file..." ---- Now multiply that idiocy by 100: "You need permission to do what you just did." "You just inserted a USB stick. The formatting is faulty. We recommend you reformat it." (It's perfectly fine.) "You just inserted a USB stick. Do you want to scan it?" (On a system with no AV! To this day I haven't noticed what it wants to scan for. I just close nonsense messages as quickly as possible.) "No, of course there's no up arrow in folders. Why do you want to go back?" "Wha? We've just given you a choice of 15 "My" folders to browse in. What else do you need? Oooooo-kay. Here's C drive. Happy now? Desktop? No. Why would you want to browse for a file on the desktop. Wait. You don't have permission for any of this anyway. Plase give yourself permission for the operation you don't have permission for." On and on and on... XP: "Your wish is my command." Me: "Thank you, XP. Stay in 5th gear. I'm going to want to be doing some quick zipping around for awhile." XP: "No probs, buddy boy. Put your seat belt on!" Apparently, Windows 10 has its own one of these. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...C_Continue.png Some things never die. Just change the labels a little bit. Paul |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
"Paul" wrote
| Apparently, Windows 10 has its own one of these. | | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...C_Continue.png | Wrong volume? That's weird. That's like saying the wrong drive is in the drive. Maybe it meant th wrong CD? I remember on Win9x sometimes that would happen. You'd take out a CD and Windows would basically say, "Hey, you! I was reading that!" |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
nospam on Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:45:23 -0500
typed in alt.windows7.general the following: In article , pyotr filipivich wrote: So we must rely on de facto standards, and on habits. That's why even minor changes in the GUI cause such conniptions. no, it's because most products do not have particularly good user interfaces, and that's being overly generous. make a change and it sucks in different ways. a good ui is *hard*, which is why ui/ux designers get paid big bucks and why a lot of companies don't bother. "User Friendly" is programmer hard. very much so. lazy programmers = bad user interfaces (and bad apps for that matter). Not just lazy, but time pressed, and in some cases not having an understanding for what the user will need. -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
Can a class-action suit be filed to US Court to force Micro$oft to extend its support for Windows 7? Based on what? It's practically a 10 year old os that had been superseded twice (three times, if you include 8.1) and Microsoft has very clearly and in plenty of time announced its EOL. So not a chance. As others have said though there's nothing to stop you from continuing to use it. I do NOT think Windows 10 is ready for the prime time, it's update is absolutely as horrifying as a data doomsday. It's a horrible os, but it does work as well as any windows release. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 21:16:37 -0500, Stan Brown
wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:53:52 -0600, Char Jackson wrote: In many ways, XP was better than 7 Really? I remember when I got my Windows 7 laptop, how much easier Windows 7 was to use than XP. What are some of the things you consider to be steps backward in Win 7? That's a valid question, but for me it comes quite a few years too late. It's hard to answer with specifics, but I do remember a couple of things related to file management. XP's Windows Explorer never tried to be smarter than me and jump (scroll) the folder display. Classic Shell fixes that in 7 and 8, and probably 10. Also, in XP I could delete a few thousand files in 2-3 seconds, likewise with emptying the Recycle Bin. Starting with 7, it can take 30-60 seconds to do the same, but at least I get to watch a green bar slowly move across the path display at the top of the screen. There's lots more that I'm forgetting now, each of them probably minor by itself, but all together they add up. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 21:16:37 -0500, Stan Brown wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:53:52 -0600, Char Jackson wrote: In many ways, XP was better than 7 Really? I remember when I got my Windows 7 laptop, how much easier Windows 7 was to use than XP. What are some of the things you consider to be steps backward in Win 7? That's a valid question, but for me it comes quite a few years too late. It's hard to answer with specifics, but I do remember a couple of things related to file management. XP's Windows Explorer never tried to be smarter than me and jump (scroll) the folder display. Classic Shell fixes that in 7 and 8, and probably 10. Also, in XP I could delete a few thousand files in 2-3 seconds, likewise with emptying the Recycle Bin. Starting with 7, it can take 30-60 seconds to do the same, but at least I get to watch a green bar slowly move across the path display at the top of the screen. There's lots more that I'm forgetting now, each of them probably minor by itself, but all together they add up. But del works a treat. If you have an issue like that, the Command Prompt may be one way around it. And comparatively speaking, "dir" is lightspeed compared to Explorer, when dealing with large directories. "dir" can seemingly read a 40GB $MFT in maybe 30 seconds or so. It's fast enough, I was checking for "violations of physics" :-) If you know trouble is brewing, head to the Command Prompt. I've had Explorer consume 10-15GB of RAM doing something, then just sit there and spin its wheels (because it seemed to have hit some sort of internal limit). I don't think the command line tools have nearly as bad table manners. Paul |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
In article , pyotr
filipivich wrote: So we must rely on de facto standards, and on habits. That's why even minor changes in the GUI cause such conniptions. no, it's because most products do not have particularly good user interfaces, and that's being overly generous. make a change and it sucks in different ways. a good ui is *hard*, which is why ui/ux designers get paid big bucks and why a lot of companies don't bother. "User Friendly" is programmer hard. very much so. lazy programmers = bad user interfaces (and bad apps for that matter). Not just lazy, but time pressed, and in some cases not having an understanding for what the user will need. if they don't understand what users need, they shouldn't be writing apps for them. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
nospam on Sat, 19 Jan 2019 11:34:56 -0500
typed in alt.windows7.general the following: In article , pyotr filipivich wrote: So we must rely on de facto standards, and on habits. That's why even minor changes in the GUI cause such conniptions. no, it's because most products do not have particularly good user interfaces, and that's being overly generous. make a change and it sucks in different ways. a good ui is *hard*, which is why ui/ux designers get paid big bucks and why a lot of companies don't bother. "User Friendly" is programmer hard. very much so. lazy programmers = bad user interfaces (and bad apps for that matter). Not just lazy, but time pressed, and in some cases not having an understanding for what the user will need. if they don't understand what users need, they shouldn't be writing apps for them. Depends on who their "user" is? There is the cartoon of how the different departments design a "swing", all of which involve at least one plank and two ropes. "What the customer wanted:" is a tire swing. I can only program what I know. If the spec is incomplete, I get to make Decisions. Had a drafting class once, the sketch was very specific about the dimensions and parameters of two holes on the plate. Save for one small, teensy, minor detail: where on the plate were these two holes to be actually located? Center? Upper left? Lower Right? Without those dimensions, "anywhere" on the plate was correct and "in spec". Just as long as the two holes were "right"in relation to each other. -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing? |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
In article , pyotr
filipivich wrote: "User Friendly" is programmer hard. very much so. lazy programmers = bad user interfaces (and bad apps for that matter). Not just lazy, but time pressed, and in some cases not having an understanding for what the user will need. if they don't understand what users need, they shouldn't be writing apps for them. Depends on who their "user" is? yep. if someone is writing something for their own use, they can do whatever they want and how they want. on the other hand, if what they're writing is to be used by others, then it should be designed for what works best for them, which is likely *not* the same as what a programmer thinks it should be. that's where ui/ux teams come in. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
nospam on Sat, 19 Jan 2019 13:15:04 -0500
typed in alt.windows7.general the following: In article , pyotr filipivich wrote: "User Friendly" is programmer hard. very much so. lazy programmers = bad user interfaces (and bad apps for that matter). Not just lazy, but time pressed, and in some cases not having an understanding for what the user will need. if they don't understand what users need, they shouldn't be writing apps for them. Depends on who their "user" is? yep. if someone is writing something for their own use, they can do whatever they want and how they want. on the other hand, if what they're writing is to be used by others, then it should be designed for what works best for them, which is likely *not* the same as what a programmer thinks it should be. Have you heard of this comic strip called "Dilbert"? It's about the travails of an engineer who wants to do "good work" but is provided no useful information. The "end user" is a mythical entity, but is also not the person who says "yes, that is what is wanted". IMHO, the only "sane" person there is Wally, who just goes through the motions. He's there for the coffee. that's where ui/ux teams come in. -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
In article , pyotr
filipivich wrote: Have you heard of this comic strip called "Dilbert"? It's about the travails of an engineer who wants to do "good work" but is provided no useful information. The "end user" is a mythical entity, but is also not the person who says "yes, that is what is wanted". the end user is not mythical and they say 'that's what i want' by deciding to buy or not buy your product, by posting favourable or critical reviewsa and by recommending it or not recommending it to others. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 11:17:21 -0500, Paul wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 21:16:37 -0500, Stan Brown wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:53:52 -0600, Char Jackson wrote: In many ways, XP was better than 7 Really? I remember when I got my Windows 7 laptop, how much easier Windows 7 was to use than XP. What are some of the things you consider to be steps backward in Win 7? That's a valid question, but for me it comes quite a few years too late. It's hard to answer with specifics, but I do remember a couple of things related to file management. XP's Windows Explorer never tried to be smarter than me and jump (scroll) the folder display. Classic Shell fixes that in 7 and 8, and probably 10. Also, in XP I could delete a few thousand files in 2-3 seconds, likewise with emptying the Recycle Bin. Starting with 7, it can take 30-60 seconds to do the same, but at least I get to watch a green bar slowly move across the path display at the top of the screen. There's lots more that I'm forgetting now, each of them probably minor by itself, but all together they add up. But del works a treat. If you have an issue like that, the Command Prompt may be one way around it. Definitely agree that Command Prompt is faster, but I'm usually multitasking so I tend to start an operation, mass copy/move/delete, for example, then flip to another window or to a VM and work there while the first one chugs through. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 11:17:21 -0500, Paul wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 21:16:37 -0500, Stan Brown wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:53:52 -0600, Char Jackson wrote: In many ways, XP was better than 7 Really? I remember when I got my Windows 7 laptop, how much easier Windows 7 was to use than XP. What are some of the things you consider to be steps backward in Win 7? That's a valid question, but for me it comes quite a few years too late. It's hard to answer with specifics, but I do remember a couple of things related to file management. XP's Windows Explorer never tried to be smarter than me and jump (scroll) the folder display. Classic Shell fixes that in 7 and 8, and probably 10. Also, in XP I could delete a few thousand files in 2-3 seconds, likewise with emptying the Recycle Bin. Starting with 7, it can take 30-60 seconds to do the same, but at least I get to watch a green bar slowly move across the path display at the top of the screen. There's lots more that I'm forgetting now, each of them probably minor by itself, but all together they add up. But del works a treat. If you have an issue like that, the Command Prompt may be one way around it. Definitely agree that Command Prompt is faster, but I'm usually multitasking so I tend to start an operation, mass copy/move/delete, for example, then flip to another window or to a VM and work there while the first one chugs through. You can use Robocopy to delete trees. You can use the /mir function, to mirror an empty directory on top of a tree and blow the tree away. Paul |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:17:11 -0500, Paul wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 11:17:21 -0500, Paul wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 21:16:37 -0500, Stan Brown wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:53:52 -0600, Char Jackson wrote: In many ways, XP was better than 7 Really? I remember when I got my Windows 7 laptop, how much easier Windows 7 was to use than XP. What are some of the things you consider to be steps backward in Win 7? That's a valid question, but for me it comes quite a few years too late. It's hard to answer with specifics, but I do remember a couple of things related to file management. XP's Windows Explorer never tried to be smarter than me and jump (scroll) the folder display. Classic Shell fixes that in 7 and 8, and probably 10. Also, in XP I could delete a few thousand files in 2-3 seconds, likewise with emptying the Recycle Bin. Starting with 7, it can take 30-60 seconds to do the same, but at least I get to watch a green bar slowly move across the path display at the top of the screen. There's lots more that I'm forgetting now, each of them probably minor by itself, but all together they add up. But del works a treat. If you have an issue like that, the Command Prompt may be one way around it. Definitely agree that Command Prompt is faster, but I'm usually multitasking so I tend to start an operation, mass copy/move/delete, for example, then flip to another window or to a VM and work there while the first one chugs through. You can use Robocopy to delete trees. You can use the /mir function, to mirror an empty directory on top of a tree and blow the tree away. There are lots of workarounds to the issues that Win Explorer has, but many of them aren't practical. I like the creative thinking, though. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Lengthen the life of Windows 7 using the legal system
In message , Paul
writes: Char Jackson wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 21:16:37 -0500, Stan Brown wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:53:52 -0600, Char Jackson wrote: In many ways, XP was better than 7 Really? I remember when I got my Windows 7 laptop, how much easier Windows 7 was to use than XP. What are some of the things you consider to be steps backward in Win 7? That's a valid question, but for me it comes quite a few years too late. It's hard to answer with specifics, but I do remember a couple of things related to file management. XP's Windows Explorer never tried to be smarter than me and jump (scroll) the folder display. Classic Shell fixes that in 7 and 8, and probably 10. Also, in XP I could delete a few thousand files in 2-3 seconds, likewise with emptying the Recycle Bin. Starting with 7, it can take 30-60 seconds to do the same, but at least I get to watch a green bar slowly move across the path display at the top of the screen. There's lots more that I'm forgetting now, each of them probably minor by itself, but all together they add up. But del works a treat. If you have an issue like that, the Command Prompt may be one way around it. And comparatively speaking, "dir" is lightspeed compared to Explorer, when dealing with large directories. "dir" can seemingly read a 40GB $MFT in maybe 30 seconds or so. It's fast enough, I was checking for "violations of physics" :-) If you know trouble is brewing, head to the Command Prompt. I think Char was saying that, in XP, he didn't have to. He was answering Stan's question "What are some of the things you consider to be steps backward in Win 7?". I've had Explorer consume 10-15GB of RAM doing something, then just sit there and spin its wheels (because it seemed to have hit some sort of internal limit). I don't think the command line tools have nearly as bad table manners. Paul -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Only dirty people need wash |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|