Windows 9 will be for rent

In the last episode of , Caver1
said:

On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of ,
"Ken Blake, MVP" said:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:28:07 -0700, DevilsPGD
wrote:

In the last episode of ,
"Ken Blake, MVP" said:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:14:03 -0700, DevilsPGD
wrote:

In the last episode of ,
"Ken Blake, MVP" said:

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.

Something Windows 8.1 fixed.

I don't agree. For example, in their advertising, they don't show or
even mention the desktop interface.

And yet it's the default interface if you're on a desktop or portable
without a touch screen



Yes, and that's one of the things that I object to. Since not everyone
has the same kind of computer, the default interface should be chosen
by the user.

Then it's not a default -- You CAN set whatever you want. But it
DEFAULTS to the interface most likely to be useful.


Useful?

Yes. If you have a touch-capable device, you get the modern touch
interface by default. If you don't, you get the desktop interface by
default. It's just a default, you can set whatever you actually want.

The one that is opened without user interaction is the default.

That's what I just said.

--
In Jolt We Trust

On 06/17/2014 03:50 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 6/17/2014 2:36 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 06/17/2014 09:58 AM, BillW50 wrote:

Well I don't think I have have 32 OS here, but I have at least a couple
of dozen. Each with their own CPU, RAM, screen, etc. No limitations that
comes with VMs and they all run as the host OS. Whatever happens on one
OS, stays with that OS and has no effect on another. As they run all
independently from each other. Why would you want it to work any other
way?

That's good if you have the money for all those different machines. If
you don't VM's solve the problems of trying out different OSs and
software.

Whoa! Think for a second. Buying a copy of Windows will cost you like 25
to 100 bucks. And I can buy computers all day long that comes with
Windows for 50 to 100 bucks... so why does it cost more? Why buy a copy
of Windows alone or buy a computer with Windows almost for about the
same price?


I don't use Windows just support a few. Being that I'm on a fixed income
I can't spend money on many none essentials.


--
Caver1

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:13:07 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:50:25 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of ,
Roderick Stewart said:

It puzzles me too. Running a "system within a system" must slow
everything down, and can evidently slightly alter the way some
things behave too, judging by the demos I've seen on youtube.
Multiple booting straight from the hard drive (or SSD) is simple
enough.

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most
modern systems are powerful enough that running a second or third OS
that is mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of
the mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge
difference if you have software you frequently use on both sides of
the wall.

Another advantage (sometimes) is that you can easily access the VM
drive from the host & vice versa, or at least easily copy files from
either one to the other, in a host + VM environment. Usually :-)

It's not always easy in a dual-boot setup.

I am trying to think why I would want to share files between OS? What
kind of stuff do you want to share between OS?

If you can't find a reason, don't do it.

I do sync my data between machines and that takes like 20 seconds or so.
But it doesn't require another OS to be running. As all of my machines
are synced to the master data drive. Besides this, I really can't think
of anything why I would want to do that?

How big is your computer room? Mine isn't that big...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

BillW50 wrote, On 6/17/2014 1:44 PM:
On 6/17/2014 12:33 PM, ...winston wrote:
BillW50 wrote, On 6/17/2014 9:00 AM:

I do the same, but I give them their own machine. Take this machine, it
can run XP, Vista, 7, or 8. It can run Linux and some say they can run
Windows 95, 98, and even ME and Windows 2000. That is just this one
machine. I have other machines that can do simular. Too many machines
today can only run one or two OS well and that is it. Why do people buy
those machines? Your options are so limited.

'Most' people buy one machine with the installed o/s and use it for
years and don't care, need, ignore or ignorant of the need for options.

I suppose, but after using computers for decades, I got tired of being
locked into what you got is all you are going to get. That gets old
after awhile.


Well, you didn't ask about you but inferred other 'people'



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:13:07 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:50:25 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of ,
Roderick Stewart said:

It puzzles me too. Running a "system within a system" must slow
everything down, and can evidently slightly alter the way some
things behave too, judging by the demos I've seen on youtube.
Multiple booting straight from the hard drive (or SSD) is simple
enough.

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most
modern systems are powerful enough that running a second or third OS
that is mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of
the mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge
difference if you have software you frequently use on both sides of
the wall.

Another advantage (sometimes) is that you can easily access the VM
drive from the host & vice versa, or at least easily copy files from
either one to the other, in a host + VM environment. Usually :-)

It's not always easy in a dual-boot setup.

I am trying to think why I would want to share files between OS? What
kind of stuff do you want to share between OS?

If you can't find a reason, don't do it.

I do sync my data between machines and that takes like 20 seconds or so.
But it doesn't require another OS to be running. As all of my machines
are synced to the master data drive. Besides this, I really can't think
of anything why I would want to do that?

How big is your computer room? Mine isn't that big...


I can just visualize a 30' x 30' room with 3 dozen computers running and
the power meter on the outside wall spinning at a jet turbine rate.

Chris

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:56:46 -0400, Chris S wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:13:07 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:50:25 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of ,
Roderick Stewart said:

It puzzles me too. Running a "system within a system" must slow
everything down, and can evidently slightly alter the way some
things behave too, judging by the demos I've seen on youtube.
Multiple booting straight from the hard drive (or SSD) is simple
enough.

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most
modern systems are powerful enough that running a second or third OS
that is mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of
the mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge
difference if you have software you frequently use on both sides of
the wall.

Another advantage (sometimes) is that you can easily access the VM
drive from the host & vice versa, or at least easily copy files from
either one to the other, in a host + VM environment. Usually :-)

It's not always easy in a dual-boot setup.

I am trying to think why I would want to share files between OS? What
kind of stuff do you want to share between OS?

If you can't find a reason, don't do it.

I do sync my data between machines and that takes like 20 seconds or so.
But it doesn't require another OS to be running. As all of my machines
are synced to the master data drive. Besides this, I really can't think
of anything why I would want to do that?

How big is your computer room? Mine isn't that big...


I can just visualize a 30' x 30' room with 3 dozen computers running and
the power meter on the outside wall spinning at a jet turbine rate.

Chris

And don't forget the humongous air-conditioning unit :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:56:46 -0400, Chris S wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:13:07 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:50:25 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of ,
Roderick Stewart said:

It puzzles me too. Running a "system within a system" must slow
everything down, and can evidently slightly alter the way some
things behave too, judging by the demos I've seen on youtube.
Multiple booting straight from the hard drive (or SSD) is simple
enough.

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most
modern systems are powerful enough that running a second or third OS
that is mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of
the mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge
difference if you have software you frequently use on both sides of
the wall.

Another advantage (sometimes) is that you can easily access the VM
drive from the host & vice versa, or at least easily copy files from
either one to the other, in a host + VM environment. Usually :-)

It's not always easy in a dual-boot setup.

I am trying to think why I would want to share files between OS? What
kind of stuff do you want to share between OS?

If you can't find a reason, don't do it.

I do sync my data between machines and that takes like 20 seconds or
so.
But it doesn't require another OS to be running. As all of my machines
are synced to the master data drive. Besides this, I really can't think
of anything why I would want to do that?

How big is your computer room? Mine isn't that big...


I can just visualize a 30' x 30' room with 3 dozen computers running and
the power meter on the outside wall spinning at a jet turbine rate.

Chris

And don't forget the humongous air-conditioning unit :-)


Raised floor with ducts up to each machine.

Chris

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:09:49 -0400, Chris S wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:56:46 -0400, Chris S wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:13:07 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:50:25 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of ,
Roderick Stewart said:

It puzzles me too. Running a "system within a system" must slow
everything down, and can evidently slightly alter the way some
things behave too, judging by the demos I've seen on youtube.
Multiple booting straight from the hard drive (or SSD) is simple
enough.

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most
modern systems are powerful enough that running a second or third OS
that is mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of
the mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge
difference if you have software you frequently use on both sides of
the wall.

Another advantage (sometimes) is that you can easily access the VM
drive from the host & vice versa, or at least easily copy files from
either one to the other, in a host + VM environment. Usually :-)

It's not always easy in a dual-boot setup.

I am trying to think why I would want to share files between OS? What
kind of stuff do you want to share between OS?

If you can't find a reason, don't do it.

I do sync my data between machines and that takes like 20 seconds or
so.
But it doesn't require another OS to be running. As all of my machines
are synced to the master data drive. Besides this, I really can't think
of anything why I would want to do that?

How big is your computer room? Mine isn't that big...


I can just visualize a 30' x 30' room with 3 dozen computers running and
the power meter on the outside wall spinning at a jet turbine rate.

Chris

And don't forget the humongous air-conditioning unit :-)


Raised floor with ducts up to each machine.

Chris

Ah, the nostalgia!

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most
modern systems are powerful enough that running a second or third
OS
that is mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of
the mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge
difference if you have software you frequently use on both sides of
the wall.

Another advantage (sometimes) is that you can easily access the VM
drive from the host & vice versa, or at least easily copy files from
either one to the other, in a host + VM environment. Usually :-)

It's not always easy in a dual-boot setup.

I am trying to think why I would want to share files between OS? What
kind of stuff do you want to share between OS?

If you can't find a reason, don't do it.

I do sync my data between machines and that takes like 20 seconds or
so.
But it doesn't require another OS to be running. As all of my
machines
are synced to the master data drive. Besides this, I really can't
think
of anything why I would want to do that?

How big is your computer room? Mine isn't that big...


I can just visualize a 30' x 30' room with 3 dozen computers running
and
the power meter on the outside wall spinning at a jet turbine rate.

Chris

And don't forget the humongous air-conditioning unit :-)


Raised floor with ducts up to each machine.

Chris

Ah, the nostalgia!


I still use my dual suction cup handles to climb glass buildings with my
Spider Man costume on.....

Chris

BillW50 wrote:
On 6/17/2014 2:36 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 06/17/2014 09:58 AM, BillW50 wrote:

Well I don't think I have have 32 OS here, but I have at least a couple
of dozen. Each with their own CPU, RAM, screen, etc. No limitations that
comes with VMs and they all run as the host OS. Whatever happens on one
OS, stays with that OS and has no effect on another. As they run all
independently from each other. Why would you want it to work any other
way?

That's good if you have the money for all those different machines. If
you don't VM's solve the problems of trying out different OSs and
software.

Whoa! Think for a second. Buying a copy of Windows will cost you like 25
to 100 bucks. And I can buy computers all day long that comes with
Windows for 50 to 100 bucks... so why does it cost more? Why buy a copy
of Windows alone or buy a computer with Windows almost for about the
same price?


Right, what kind of computer costs 50 bucks, a Pentium 1? And how do you
know a used computer is OK and you won't have to buy new parts soon?

--
Alias

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:11:47 +0200, Alias
wrote:

Well I don't think I have have 32 OS here, but I have at least a couple
of dozen. Each with their own CPU, RAM, screen, etc. No limitations that
comes with VMs and they all run as the host OS. Whatever happens on one
OS, stays with that OS and has no effect on another. As they run all
independently from each other. Why would you want it to work any other
way?

That's good if you have the money for all those different machines. If
you don't VM's solve the problems of trying out different OSs and
software.

Whoa! Think for a second. Buying a copy of Windows will cost you like 25
to 100 bucks. And I can buy computers all day long that comes with
Windows for 50 to 100 bucks... so why does it cost more? Why buy a copy
of Windows alone or buy a computer with Windows almost for about the
same price?


Right, what kind of computer costs 50 bucks, a Pentium 1? And how do you
know a used computer is OK and you won't have to buy new parts soon?

A second hand one, like one I bought recently for 30gbp, (roughly the
equivalent of 50 bucks I suppose). It has a quad core AMD processor,
4GB memory and a 160GB hard drive. I think it was previously in a
school or college. It ran Ubuntu and Mint and a few others I tried on
it so well I decided it was worth spending a similar amount on a 64GB
SSD just for the OS drive, which made it really fast. Currently in use
running Mint Cinnamon 64 bit with the owner using it for general
purpose stuff like web browsing and Skyping the grandchildren, and
very happy with it. Total cost less than a copy of Windows. If it
breaks down beyond repair it'll be replaced with something similar.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:11:47 +0200, Alias
wrote:

Well I don't think I have have 32 OS here, but I have at least a couple
of dozen. Each with their own CPU, RAM, screen, etc. No limitations that
comes with VMs and they all run as the host OS. Whatever happens on one
OS, stays with that OS and has no effect on another. As they run all
independently from each other. Why would you want it to work any other
way?

That's good if you have the money for all those different machines. If
you don't VM's solve the problems of trying out different OSs and
software.

Whoa! Think for a second. Buying a copy of Windows will cost you like 25
to 100 bucks. And I can buy computers all day long that comes with
Windows for 50 to 100 bucks... so why does it cost more? Why buy a copy
of Windows alone or buy a computer with Windows almost for about the
same price?


Right, what kind of computer costs 50 bucks, a Pentium 1? And how do you
know a used computer is OK and you won't have to buy new parts soon?

A second hand one, like one I bought recently for 30gbp, (roughly the
equivalent of 50 bucks I suppose). It has a quad core AMD processor,
4GB memory and a 160GB hard drive. I think it was previously in a
school or college. It ran Ubuntu and Mint and a few others I tried on
it so well I decided it was worth spending a similar amount on a 64GB
SSD just for the OS drive, which made it really fast. Currently in use
running Mint Cinnamon 64 bit with the owner using it for general
purpose stuff like web browsing and Skyping the grandchildren, and
very happy with it. Total cost less than a copy of Windows. If it
breaks down beyond repair it'll be replaced with something similar.

Rod.


You got a good deal.

--
Alias

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:15:34 -0400, Chris S wrote:

Having done both, multi-booting is really REALLY terrible. Most
modern systems are powerful enough that running a second or third
OS
that is mostly idle has no real operational impact on the system.

The difference is that flipping back and forth is a simple click of
the mouse, rather than a full shut down and reboot. That's a huge
difference if you have software you frequently use on both sides of
the wall.

Another advantage (sometimes) is that you can easily access the VM
drive from the host & vice versa, or at least easily copy files from
either one to the other, in a host + VM environment. Usually :-)

It's not always easy in a dual-boot setup.

I am trying to think why I would want to share files between OS? What
kind of stuff do you want to share between OS?

If you can't find a reason, don't do it.

I do sync my data between machines and that takes like 20 seconds or
so.
But it doesn't require another OS to be running. As all of my
machines
are synced to the master data drive. Besides this, I really can't
think
of anything why I would want to do that?

How big is your computer room? Mine isn't that big...


I can just visualize a 30' x 30' room with 3 dozen computers running
and
the power meter on the outside wall spinning at a jet turbine rate.

Chris

And don't forget the humongous air-conditioning unit :-)


Raised floor with ducts up to each machine.

Chris

Ah, the nostalgia!


I still use my dual suction cup handles to climb glass buildings with my
Spider Man costume on.....

Chris

I would, but I am significantly acrophobic.

Too bad I didn't recognize that when I bought the suction cups.

Q: Is this off topic, by any chance? :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:13:07 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
I do sync my data between machines and that takes like 20 seconds or
so. But it doesn't require another OS to be running. As all of my
machines are synced to the master data drive. Besides this, I really
can't think of anything why I would want to do that?

How big is your computer room? Mine isn't that big...

You don't need a lot of room with laptops and tablets. They stack like
books on a bookshelf. Just reach behind you and grab one like a book and
pop it in the dock. Press the power button and there you go.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Windows Live Mail 2009
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center

"Caver1" wrote in message
...
On 06/17/2014 03:50 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 6/17/2014 2:36 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 06/17/2014 09:58 AM, BillW50 wrote:

Well I don't think I have have 32 OS here, but I have at least a
couple of dozen. Each with their own CPU, RAM, screen, etc. No
limitations that comes with VMs and they all run as the host OS.
Whatever happens on one OS, stays with that OS and has no effect on
another. As they run all independently from each other. Why would
you want it to work any other way?

That's good if you have the money for all those different machines.
If you don't VM's solve the problems of trying out different OSs and
software.

Whoa! Think for a second. Buying a copy of Windows will cost you like
25 to 100 bucks. And I can buy computers all day long that comes with
Windows for 50 to 100 bucks... so why does it cost more? Why buy a
copy of Windows alone or buy a computer with Windows almost for about
the same price?

I don't use Windows just support a few. Being that I'm on a fixed
income I can't spend money on many none essentials.

This machine for example only cost me $65. Microsoft had a special for
Windows 8 back in 2012 for $40. So for $105 you have a Windows 8
machine. That is about what it cost for one Windows 8 Pro license alone.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Windows Live Mail 2009
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center