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 | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
On 12/17/2012 4:49 AM, Greegor wrote:
Microsoft's big opportunities to sell new versions of Windows used to accompany hardware 6x faster than the previous hardware. This entails huge costs, much greater than the mere cost of computers and Windows. Adapting or replacing old, expensive or proprietary software is a huge expense, as is any retraining caused by such changes. But these huge expenses were seen as worthwhile because of the 6x speed increase. Those days are over. The applications that pay the bills for large corporate users are things like order entry, order recall, inventory, database, telephone services scripts (Oracle) and word processing. One outfit has about 150 computer workstations in one room alone, plus about 30 more among offices and operation center. But they have about 25 such locations. Upgrading from XP would offer them no advantage whatsoever. Even though an operating system is crucial for a computer, it is nonetheless a minor fraction of the overall cost. If Microsoft is going to force that MASS of old computers to be replaced with no real advantage and for no real reason aside from the marketing needs of Microsoft, it becomes a bit like the tail wagging the dog. What does Microsoft get per new OEM computer with Win8? Maybe $30? Yet they expect to force old systems to be scrapped and new computers which provide no actual advantage to be purchased at about $700 per system?? Just to fulfill Microsoft's MARKETING NEEDS?? To force corporate customer service centers to landfill/scrap all of those WinXP-Pro computers by cutting off revised SECURITY UPDATES is blatantly a MARKETING PLOY by Microsoft. And not a very nice one. Cutesy tiles instead of icons? Big deal. How about that Android, eh? It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost. MS seems to ignore the human interface. I'm sure the time wasted by users hunting through each new menu causes billions of dollars of lost productivity each year. -- Question Quigley Kilkee County Clare, IE |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
In message , QuestionQuigley
writes: On 12/17/2012 4:49 AM, Greegor wrote: Microsoft's big opportunities to sell new versions of Windows used to accompany hardware 6x faster than the previous hardware. This entails huge costs, much greater than the mere cost of computers and Windows. Adapting or replacing old, expensive or proprietary software is a huge expense, as is any retraining caused by such changes. But these huge expenses were seen as worthwhile because of the 6x speed increase. Those days are over. The applications that pay the bills for large corporate users are things like order entry, order recall, inventory, database, telephone services scripts (Oracle) and word processing. One outfit has about 150 computer workstations in one room alone, plus about 30 more among offices and operation center. But they have about 25 such locations. Upgrading from XP would offer them no advantage whatsoever. Even though an operating system is crucial for a computer, it is nonetheless a minor fraction of the overall cost. If Microsoft is going to force that MASS of old computers to be replaced with no real advantage and for no real reason aside from the marketing needs of Microsoft, it becomes a bit like the tail wagging the dog. What does Microsoft get per new OEM computer with Win8? Maybe $30? Yet they expect to force old systems to be scrapped and new computers which provide no actual advantage to be purchased at about $700 per system?? Just to fulfill Microsoft's MARKETING NEEDS?? To force corporate customer service centers to landfill/scrap all of those WinXP-Pro computers by cutting off revised SECURITY UPDATES is blatantly a MARKETING PLOY by Microsoft. And not a very nice one. Cutesy tiles instead of icons? Big deal. How about that Android, eh? It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost. MS seems to ignore the human interface. I'm sure the time wasted by users hunting through each new menu causes billions of dollars of lost productivity each year. The counter to that is that the majority (though not all) of us like what we know. If a new way of doing things is actually better, though unfamiliar, but they provided the option of keeping the old way, then the vast majority of _upgrading_ users would immediately switch to the old way. This would have the result that (a) the users would not benefit from the new way, (b) MS [and others] would in effect have to duplicate support effort, in that they'd have to keep supporting both. Having said that, I do think they should put _more_ effort into easing transitions. I'm not sure how it can be done, though: if you provide an "old way" option, then as I've said above, most upgraders would just activate it, and never get any benefit. (Whether there's any point in those people upgrading anyway is a matter for another thread!) If they provided some mechanism for the software to _gradually_ show the new features, (a) it'd require quite a bit more programming effort, (b) people might hate it just as much [remember how popular "clippy" was!] if not more. Some solution is of course always offered by third parties - "classic shell" for W7 (and 8), for example, and several "old menu" offerings for Office 2010. FWIW, I use XP here, and Office 2003 - since they do all I want. I _did_ upgrade to XP from '98SElite, though: I _have_ found it more stable (sorry 98Guy if you're here), and of course there's the better USB support. I have played with 7 for long enough - I was setting up a new big laptop for a very un-computerate person (she uses applications - mail [I put Eudora OSE], Word, and IrfanView, and that's about it - and probably has no interest in what version of Windows they operate under, and I/we decided that 7 provided better future-proofing for her), and I had it to play with for a month or two, and although I found some things about it irritating, I think I could soon get to live with it with no problems. At work, we moved to Office 2010 (from '03) a few months ago, and there I _do_ find the new ("ribbon") interface irritating: I genuinely have tried to give it a good go. (Also the so-called help therein is also irritating, being more a google-like interface to something online. Conversely, I think the help - and similar - in Windows 7 is pretty good, and certainly better than XP and previous: mainly because they've put some thought into considering what you might call things, rather than forcing you - as in earlier versions - to think of exactly what _they_ call things.) So I _can_ see _some_ justification for new ways of doing things, and forcing them on users. (Compare the seat-belt and crash-helmet laws; I'm not sure if those are the same in US as UK though. [Here belts must be fitted, work, and be worn if the car was made later than 19xx, and helmets must be worn [by riders of motorised two-wheelers!] except by Sikhs.]) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill (quoted by Deb Shinder in WinNews Newsletter, 2012-11-30) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
On 12/22/2012 5:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
The counter to that is that the majority (though not all) of us like what we know. If a new way of doing things is actually better, though unfamiliar, but they provided the option of keeping the old way, then the vast majority of _upgrading_ users would immediately switch to the old way. This would have the result that (a) the users would not benefit from the new way, (b) MS [and others] would in effect have to duplicate support effort, in that they'd have to keep supporting both. So I _can_ see _some_ justification for new ways of doing things, and forcing them on users. (Compare the seat-belt and crash-helmet laws; I'm not sure if those are the same in US as UK though. [Here belts must be fitted, work, and be worn if the car was made later than 19xx, and helmets must be worn [by riders of motorised two-wheelers!] except by Sikhs.]) I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows. I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made OS/2 far superior and stable. However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer? In my work on the computer the mouse works best, as it allows me access to all of the areas on the screen with minimal physical movement. With the mouse I can quickly move to any place on the screen and keep my hand in the area where I am doing non computer things. i.e marking my place on the physical page I am working with, turning the electrical switch over to better see the information written on it, turning the chip to a better angle to read what is written on it. When comparing physical movement required by the mouse resting under my hand to the movement needed to move my arm and hand all over the screen to get the same results, the mouse will all ways win. So what if the operating system is a tad faster, it does not increase the speed that I can move my arm and hand. The touch screen causes a net increase in the time to do any operation with the operating system because of the increase physical movement of the body to get the job done. This difference between the mouse and touch screen increases significantly as the screen size increases and there is more territory to move the hand to get the results you are looking for. Using the same computer without a touch screen, still increase the physical interaction time with the computer, because simulating a touch screen using a mouse requires significantly more movement across the screen. Again a net increase in the physical time to interact with the operating system to get the same results. Ergonomically the mouse wins hands down. How many muscle problems in the arm and shoulder will be caused by keeping your arm and hand extended in front of you for 8 hours a day? With Windows 8, Microsoft has create a whole new medical syndrome. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
wrote: I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows. I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made OS/2 far superior and stable. However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer? That explains a lot about your attitude. You seem to have completely ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and using a standard desktop. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:42 -0500, QuestionQuigley
wrote: It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel I don't agree at all. Sometimes the changes *are* major, but other times they are much more minor. It's certainly not "each version" that has " a new look and feel." For example, there is very little change in the interface between Windows XP and Vista, or between Microsoft Office 2000 and 2003. And even Windows 8, which many people think has a giant interface change from Windows 7 is very different only if you want it to be. It's not *just* the modern/metro interface; the old desktop interface is still there and easy to switch to if you want to use it. I use Windows 8, and use the old desktop interface almost exclusively; if you looked at and used my computer. you'd have a hard time realizing that it was Windows 8, not Windows 7. that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost. But I agree with you here. Sometimes Microsoft makes changes that are not better or worse than what used to be, and seem to be done just to make it different. But that's not very different from what manufacturers of other products--for example automobiles--do. Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
On 12/22/2012 10:17 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle wrote: I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows. I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made OS/2 far superior and stable. However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer? That explains a lot about your attitude. You seem to have completely ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and using a standard desktop. Blinded by your opinion, you missed the hole point of what I wrote |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
In message , knuttle
writes: On 12/22/2012 10:17 AM, Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle wrote: I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows. In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?) I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made OS/2 far superior and stable. So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:. However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer? That explains a lot about your attitude. You seem to have completely ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and using a standard desktop. Blinded by your opinion, you missed the hole point of what I wrote No, he has made the point I was about to make: most (not all) of the W8 knockers do seem to be people whose hatred of the new interface has blinded them to the fact that you can turn it off. The W8 designers wanted to introduce a new way of working: it might appear to be designed for touch screens, though there is more to it than _just_ that. They also provided something similar to the old desktop. They had to choose _one_ of them as the default; they _do_ provide an actual button on it to change to the other one, so it isn't really difficult. Which one they chose was probably a toss-up: their choice might have been swayed by a combination of actually wanting 8 to appear different, and getting people to try the new way. (If they'd made the old one the default, the majority of both old and new users would never have tried the new one, at least for long enough to give it a fair try.) It may well be that the new way _is_ not a good one, but new things have to be tried, or we'd never get anywhere (this new way of making marks on flattened plant material - I'll stay with my clay tablets, thank you). The only way to truly evaluate it, however, would be to poll new users - people who'd never had a computer before (which must be getting hard to find now!) - along with similarly new users of, say, 7. (FWIW, I have no intention of moving from XP at the moment; however, I've played with 7 for long enough that I think I could live with it. I haven't played with 8 nearly enough.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf No, I haven't changed my mind - I'm perfectly happy with the one I have, thank you. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes: On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:42 -0500, QuestionQuigley wrote: It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel I don't agree at all. Sometimes the changes *are* major, but other times they are much more minor. It's certainly not "each version" that has " a new look and feel." For example, there is very little change in the interface between Windows XP and Vista, or between Microsoft Office 2000 and 2003. And Agreed. But the change to Office 2007 and 2010 brought in the "ribbon", which most people seem to either love or hate (i. e. few are not bothered). [FWIW, I don't particularly like it, but don't hate it, provided I can slide it out of the way to get my screen space back, which I believe can be done.] even Windows 8, which many people think has a giant interface change from Windows 7 is very different only if you want it to be. It's not *just* the modern/metro interface; the old desktop interface is still there and easy to switch to if you want to use it. I use Windows 8, and use the old desktop interface almost exclusively; if you looked at and used my computer. you'd have a hard time realizing that it was Windows 8, not Windows 7. that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost. But I agree with you here. Sometimes Microsoft makes changes that are not better or worse than what used to be, and seem to be done just to make it different. But that's not very different from what manufacturers of other products--for example automobiles--do. (-: (Sometimes there must indeed be an element of just making it look new, but also sometimes it's a way of trying things genuinely new - some of which work, some of which don't, and no amount of trialling will really tell you which.) Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf No, I haven't changed my mind - I'm perfectly happy with the one I have, thank you. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
How much does a multi touch screen for a desktop system cost?
If I'm going to buy W8 to run on one of my machines, will any of the free third party DVD players run on the basic version of W8? What's added to the "Professional" version of W8? Is there an Ultimate version of W8? Is that compatability stuff to run old software built into all versions of W8, or only certain versions? I can't even buy a "clean boot" RETAIL version of W8 where the license is transferrable? Microsoft actually has service centers where for $99 they will remove crapware and make you a clean boot of W8? When does Microsoft plan to pull the plug on W7 and stop the SECURITY UPDATES just to force those users to buy Windows 9? Has it occurred to anybody that this model where each Microsoft OS has really bad SECURITY FLAWS actually benefits Microsoft? What would happen to user DEPENDENCY on Microsoft if they made a version of Windows WITHOUT huge security flaws, without the need for 200+ SECURITY UPDATES? Aren't we all just like JUNKIES hooked and dependent on Microsoft for SECURITY UPDATES? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , knuttle wrote: I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows. In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?) I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made OS/2 far superior and stable. So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:. I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2 My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it. I definitely am not afraid of new things. While you are criticizing me for what I said, you never answered the ergonomic problems I have with Windows 8 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
knuttle wrote:
On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , knuttle wrote: I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows. In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?) "First version" isn't something I'd normally consider up for debate... but then, "the first version of Windows" (i.e. Windows 1.0) predates OS/2 by a couple of years. (If you were truly using OS/2 when Windows 1.0 came out, I'd like to borrow your time machine.) As for "extolling the virtue" of Win1, let me qoute Wikipedia (The Web's Largest Source of Disinformation[tm]): "[...] when finally released, Windows 1.0 aroused little interest." (*I* didn't even hear of Windows until around 1989-ish.) Also, the first version of OS/2 was essentially "DOS plus"; no GUI provided until OS/2 1.1, a year and a half after OS/2 1.0, and nearly half a year after the release of Windows 2.1. Until then, any comparison between OS/2 & Windows would've been apples and oranges. I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made OS/2 far superior and stable. I'm a bit curious about this. If you upgraded to XP (from what, may I ask?) for that reason, did you switch to NT3.1 when it first came out? It was the first Windows system based on the OS/2 codebase. So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:. I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2 Oh god. COBOL. I'm so sorry. My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it. The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells on top of DOS. Just sayin'. -- Excuse me while I change into something more formidable. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
On 12/23/2012 9:54 AM, Auric__ wrote:
The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells on top of DOS. Just sayin'. Still no response to the ergonomic problems of Window 8 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
knuttle wrote:
On 12/23/2012 9:54 AM, Auric__ wrote: The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells on top of DOS. Just sayin'. Still no response to the ergonomic problems of Window 8 http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-d...p-start-screen I've not tried these solutions, though, as I don't run Windows 8, and can't @rsed to pay fifty quid to try it out. -- Tciao for Now! John. XP on this machine, 7 on another. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
knuttle wrote:
On 12/23/2012 9:54 AM, Auric__ wrote: The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells on top of DOS. Just sayin'. Still no response to the ergonomic problems of Window 8 I haven't used it yet so I can't give any first-hand answers. -- - Your boss is a sick ****, Mal. - I know. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:56:53 -0500, knuttle
wrote: On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , knuttle wrote: I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows. In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?) I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made OS/2 far superior and stable. So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:. I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2 My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it. I definitely am not afraid of new things. While you are criticizing me for what I said, you never answered the ergonomic problems I have with Windows 8 I answered your question, but you didn't like it. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|