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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation :
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again? Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called? What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we could build one hell of a perfect operating system. What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I get curious when people say that. Ed in Texas |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Silver Slimer presented the following explanation : "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again? Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called? What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we could build one hell of a perfect operating system. What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I get curious when people say that. It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user. -- Silver Slimer If you like the software, buy it. If it's free, donate. https://plus.google.com/109168722444410572286 - Hail the king of cretins |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote: Silver Slimer presented the following explanation : "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again? Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called? What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we could build one hell of a perfect operating system. What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I get curious when people say that. It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user. Just like there is no perfect GUI that fits everyone, there will never be a perfect OS. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 24.0 Thunderbird 17.0.8 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote: Silver Slimer presented the following explanation : "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again? Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called? What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we could build one hell of a perfect operating system. What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I get curious when people say that. It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user. Just like there is no perfect GUI that fits everyone, there will never be a perfect OS. Keeping in mind, they're two separate things. In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based). The decorations, the windows manager, there are a number of options available, such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, each one looking a little different. And without integration (i.e. loading the apps into the menu structures), even those would look pretty empty without a distro team to set them up. You can't just load a Window manager package, and automatically it looks good. The latest Windows 8 OS portion (i.e. not the GUI), is not a good OS. It does not behave well when running out of Pool memory. It "reserves" a portion of CPU cycles for itself (so "100% CPU" is only about 85% of the true CPU). Games play slower, as the reserved CPU cycles can't be used. And when it comes time to loading a program you want to run, if an existing program is using what amounts to all the available cycles, the thing that loads the next program is dog slow. Right now, I'm running WinXP, I'm running 7ZIP at about 85% CPU (varies), and if I want to start another program, it starts in a couple seconds. If I do that on Windows 8, it takes 30 seconds. It's ridiculously unfriendly. Windows 8 will present a "busy cursor" (spinning wheel, a la MacOSX), but that animation stops after about five seconds, leaving you guessing as to whether a program is going to load within the next twenty five seconds. So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this stuff ? Why is it only me ? WinXP has the odd nasty behavior as well, but I just don't run into those cases as often. In WinXP, if you start too many high-demand programs, a bunch of them will just "die". An over-subscribed OS should still be able to run the programs - they should all just run slow. WinXP can't handle that. On my particular installation, there is also some kind of leak in NTFS file system driver, which cases the file system to consume more CPU cycles, after 200GB or more of writes. Those are examples of WinXP flaws I've seen. But since my programs load relatively fast, I tend to forgive the other "corner" cases. I don't run four copies of Prime95 all that often :-) Paul |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
On 1/16/14 6:50 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote: On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote: Silver Slimer presented the following explanation : "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... snip So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this stuff ? Why is it only me ?. Probably because you are the only poster who gets into the computer at this depth, and then write about it. I rarely read your full replies. The information is more than I understand, and am interested in. How it simply affects the user is all that interests me, as I impart that to other users as needed, and as remembered! LOL Keep posting the details, as surely there are others here that find that information useful and interesting. snip -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 24.0 Thunderbird 17.0.8 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
On 1/16/2014, Ken Springer posted:
On 1/16/14 6:50 PM, Paul wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote: Silver Slimer presented the following explanation : "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... snip So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this stuff ? Why is it only me ?. Probably because you are the only poster who gets into the computer at this depth, and then write about it. I rarely read your full replies. The information is more than I understand, and am interested in. How it simply affects the user is all that interests me, as I impart that to other users as needed, and as remembered! LOL Keep posting the details, as surely there are others here that find that information useful and interesting. I'm more like you, but I have noticed plenty of responders in these NGs who indeed make good use of Paul's analyses. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 6:50 PM, Paul wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote: Silver Slimer presented the following explanation : "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... snip So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this stuff ? Why is it only me ?. Probably because you are the only poster who gets into the computer at this depth, and then write about it. I rarely read your full replies. The information is more than I understand, and am interested in. How it simply affects the user is all that interests me, as I impart that to other users as needed, and as remembered! LOL Keep posting the details, as surely there are others here that find that information useful and interesting. snip Yes I find it very interesting as I, being self taught I need all the info I can get to help me learn how it works. I have been an insatiable reader all my life. I still peruse HowStuffWorks quite frequently. Keep up the good work Paul. -- Regards, Rene |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
Silver Slimer was thinking very hard :
On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote: Silver Slimer presented the following explanation : "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again? Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called? What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we could build one hell of a perfect operating system. What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I get curious when people say that. It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user. And how many types of PC users are there and what do you think they would want in an OS? Thanks, Ed in Texas |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
Paul expressed precisely :
Ken Springer wrote: On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote: Silver Slimer presented the following explanation : "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again? Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called? What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we could build one hell of a perfect operating system. What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I get curious when people say that. It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user. Just like there is no perfect GUI that fits everyone, there will never be a perfect OS. Keeping in mind, they're two separate things. In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based). The decorations, the windows manager, there are a number of options available, such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, each one looking a little different. And without integration (i.e. loading the apps into the menu structures), even those would look pretty empty without a distro team to set them up. You can't just load a Window manager package, and automatically it looks good. The latest Windows 8 OS portion (i.e. not the GUI), is not a good OS. It does not behave well when running out of Pool memory. It "reserves" a portion of CPU cycles for itself (so "100% CPU" is only about 85% of the true CPU). Games play slower, as the reserved CPU cycles can't be used. And when it comes time to loading a program you want to run, if an existing program is using what amounts to all the available cycles, the thing that loads the next program is dog slow. Right now, I'm running WinXP, I'm running 7ZIP at about 85% CPU (varies), and if I want to start another program, it starts in a couple seconds. If I do that on Windows 8, it takes 30 seconds. It's ridiculously unfriendly. Windows 8 will present a "busy cursor" (spinning wheel, a la MacOSX), but that animation stops after about five seconds, leaving you guessing as to whether a program is going to load within the next twenty five seconds. So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this stuff ? Why is it only me ? WinXP has the odd nasty behavior as well, but I just don't run into those cases as often. In WinXP, if you start too many high-demand programs, a bunch of them will just "die". An over-subscribed OS should still be able to run the programs - they should all just run slow. WinXP can't handle that. On my particular installation, there is also some kind of leak in NTFS file system driver, which cases the file system to consume more CPU cycles, after 200GB or more of writes. Those are examples of WinXP flaws I've seen. But since my programs load relatively fast, I tend to forgive the other "corner" cases. I don't run four copies of Prime95 all that often :-) Paul Okay you've stated a case about what is wrong with OSes already being used. Just for conversation's sake I'll go along with all that you've said. Now what would you do to make a perfect OS? Thanks, Ed from Texas |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
Paul wrote:
[...] In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based). The decorations, the windows manager, there are a number of options available, such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, each one looking a little different. And without integration (i.e. loading the apps into the menu structures), even those would look pretty empty without a distro team to set them up. You can't just load a Window manager package, and automatically it looks good. The latest Windows 8 OS portion (i.e. not the GUI), is not a good OS. It does not behave well when running out of Pool memory. It "reserves" a portion of CPU cycles for itself (so "100% CPU" is only about 85% of the true CPU). Games play slower, as the reserved CPU cycles can't be used. And when it comes time to loading a program you want to run, if an existing program is using what amounts to all the available cycles, the thing that loads the next program is dog slow. Right now, I'm running WinXP, I'm running 7ZIP at about 85% CPU (varies), and if I want to start another program, it starts in a couple seconds. If I do that on Windows 8, it takes 30 seconds. It's ridiculously unfriendly. Windows 8 will present a "busy cursor" (spinning wheel, a la MacOSX), but that animation stops after about five seconds, leaving you guessing as to whether a program is going to load within the next twenty five seconds. So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this stuff ? Why is it only me ? Perhaps because you're one of very few users that would want Win8 to behave like a server OS? That it doesn't, when there are concurrent Windows server OSes available (Linux is commonly used in server applications), is not necessarily an indication of an OS problem. -- best regards, Neil |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
On 1/16/2014 7:50 PM, Paul wrote:
In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based). Really? Care to explain to me why I need to take a newer Linux kernel and compiled it and integrate it into my Xandros? I need to do so because that kernel will only run up to Thunderbird v1.5 and Firefox 2.0. [...] The latest Windows 8 OS portion (i.e. not the GUI), is not a good OS. It does not behave well when running out of Pool memory. It "reserves" a portion of CPU cycles for itself (so "100% CPU" is only about 85% of the true CPU). Games play slower, as the reserved CPU cycles can't be used. And when it comes time to loading a program you want to run, if an existing program is using what amounts to all the available cycles, the thing that loads the next program is dog slow. Right now, I'm running WinXP, I'm running 7ZIP at about 85% CPU (varies), and if I want to start another program, it starts in a couple seconds. If I do that on Windows 8, it takes 30 seconds. It's ridiculously unfriendly. Windows 8 will present a "busy cursor" (spinning wheel, a la MacOSX), but that animation stops after about five seconds, leaving you guessing as to whether a program is going to load within the next twenty five seconds. So there's plenty of room for them to improve the OS portion for the next OS. I can live with the GUI distractions, but the OS behavior has to improve. Nobody seems to notice this stuff ? Why is it only me ? Nope it isn't just you. I long complained about this with Windows 7 and 8. Take my TV tuners for example. I can record and convert the recording in a totally different format live. Works beautifully under XP. Sadly either under 7 or 8, it can easily start skipping frames. Another observation I made from the very beginning was that you can take a machine that can run either XP, 7, or 8. Now with three hardware identical machines, you can easily see the performance of each OS. And without exception, either Windows 7 or 8, they always run the CPU harder and hotter than XP. Even when the machine should be idling. WinXP has the odd nasty behavior as well, but I just don't run into those cases as often. In WinXP, if you start too many high-demand programs, a bunch of them will just "die". An over-subscribed OS should still be able to run the programs - they should all just run slow. WinXP can't handle that. On my particular installation, there is also some kind of leak in NTFS file system driver, which cases the file system to consume more CPU cycles, after 200GB or more of writes. Those are examples of WinXP flaws I've seen. But since my programs load relatively fast, I tend to forgive the other "corner" cases. I don't run four copies of Prime95 all that often :-) Is this behavior on a XP SP3 machine perhaps? Because I have never seen this under XP SP2. I do have some XP SP3 machines, but I don't use SP3 too often. As I like SP2 far better. -- Bill Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v12 Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
On 17/01/2014 5:48 AM, Ed Propes wrote:
And how many types of PC users are there and what do you think they would want in an OS? Wow, you're really digging way more into this than the comment suggested. Either way, it would have to be different-looking yet visually appealing, stable, secure, snappy, provide excellent hardware support even for older peripherals and make it easy to install or remove applications. -- Silver Slimer If the software is good, buy it. If it's free, donate. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
On 1/16/2014 7:02 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 1/16/14 3:39 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: On 16/01/2014 3:25 PM, Ed Propes wrote: Silver Slimer presented the following explanation : "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... Beta-test *it*? Windows 8? You want to beta test *it* again? Or do you mean Windows 9, or whatever it ends up being called? What I'm saying is that I would have been honoured to beta-test Windows 8 even though that's no longer possible. However, I am hoping to be invited to the testing for 9. If they're willing to take some of my suggestions as a long-time DOS/Windows 3.x/9x/etc. user, I think we could build one hell of a perfect operating system. What would you do to make it "one hell of a perfect operating system"? I get curious when people say that. It would appeal to every imaginable type of PC user. Just like there is no perfect GUI that fits everyone, there will never be a perfect OS. Oh I don't know about that? I believe Microsoft made a huge mistake by creating XP. They made it way too good. XP also had the longest run of any OS. And I actually hated XP until SP2 came out. IMHO, Microsoft really polished it up very well. And if I were restricted to only one OS, XP would be the clear winner for me. As it runs 100% of everything I want to run. I can't say that of any other OS before or since then. XP has been around for 12 years now and it still has a huge following. -- Bill Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v12 Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
BillW50 wrote:
On 1/16/2014 7:50 PM, Paul wrote: In Linux, the low levels of the OS are a constant (kernel based). Really? Care to explain to me why I need to take a newer Linux kernel and compiled it and integrate it into my Xandros? I need to do so because that kernel will only run up to Thunderbird v1.5 and Firefox 2.0. You build custom kernels, to get optimization for your processor. For example, if I install from a LiveCD, perhaps I get an i386 or i586 kernel. Instead, I can download kernel source, and set the machine type to "Core2" and have a kernel that uses the instructions featured on my Core2 processor. Maybe the machine runs a tiny bit snappier as a result. I can also add or snip out unnecessary drivers. For example, if you take a Gentoo LiveCD (demo) DVD and try to boot it, it takes around three minutes. The reason being, they turned on every possible driver, and it takes half a second or a second for the boot sequence to try loading each one of those one at a time. If you instead, did your own build, you can put just the necessary drivers in there, and be booted in 20 seconds. And you can't just arbitrarily take any old kernel and stuff it into your OS. You take kernel versions that were back-ported for your release. They've been tested, and all the APIs would be the same. Linux is constantly changing, and you could easily bust something by bringing in a current kernel. It's no problem to change kernel version at boot time, so nothing is really broken. It would mainly just be a waste of your time, trying to get it running. I've successfully built kernels a few times, but the difficulty of doing so, is partially a function of how well your distro provides instructions. Some make it a pain to do, implying they want you to "eat their non-optimal kernel" :-) Paul |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:02:10 -0700, "Rich" wrote:
I promptly installed Classic Shell on 8 & then 8.1. If you were to walk into my home office you literally could not tell that I was running Windows 8.1. Am I missing something? If you keep people back far enough, I agree that they probably wouldn't be able to tell that you're running 8.1. Let them touch your mouse or keyboard, however, and the jig is up almost immediately. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|