Next version of Windows is...

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 19:49:22 -0400, Ron wrote:


[re Under The Dome]
It was meant to be a miniseries but its popularity keeps
it going. I don't know how long they can keep this going, surely it
can't last more than another season or two.

Since the story is based on a novel it does have an ending and that
ending is coming next season.

Does it make any sense?

I haven't read it and have stayed away from anything that might spoil
the show.

Very wise, though from what I've seen so far, my feeling is that
actually watching it might spoil the show. It seems to be taking a
very long time to get to the point, if there is one.

Rod.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:00:04 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

As for multitasking, a friend has read about some studies that seem to
show that people who do practice multitasking are less productive than
those that do not. I suspect the time is lost switching between the tasks.

That's true for me. I am far more productive doing one thing at a
time. Even trivial distractions slow me down. Just now the couple
chatting in the next room is slowing me typing this message because I
keep have to stop so I can hear what they are saying.

Quite so, and the same re multiple desktops. How many things is it
necessary to have simultaneously at one's fingertips, and what's wrong
with standard keyboard shortcuts on a modern PC than can load any
required application in less than 2 seconds?

Just because it loads the application in less than 2 seconds, does that
timeframe include the file user needs also? I would think a combo of
hardware and the particular software would have an effect on that timeframe.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here, but what I'm trying to
say is that a modern PC takes so little time to run an application
that it no longer seems necessary to "cheat" by having several running
simultaneously and switching between them. It really is a matter of
seconds now, which is more than fast enough for a human user (this
one, at any rate).

As for multiple desktops, or other methods of using/operating a
computer, what works for you won't work for everyone. Multiple desktops
work for me. I know your way would drive me up the wall! LOL

As for finding files, the hierarchical subdivision of information into
directories (or folders) that we've had since DOS, is a profoundly
intuitive system that Melvil Dewey would have recognised, and Windows
Explorer (or its equivalent in any modern Linux system) offers such a
clear pictorial representation of it that I rarely find it necessary
to use anything else.

I am surprised, after all these years, the discussion of what is the
best way to use/operate a computer is still being brought up. :-)

I'd be very surprised if we'd all reached agreement. :-)

Rod.

On 10/3/14 3:32 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:00:04 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

As for multitasking, a friend has read about some studies that seem to
show that people who do practice multitasking are less productive than
those that do not. I suspect the time is lost switching between the tasks.

That's true for me. I am far more productive doing one thing at a
time. Even trivial distractions slow me down. Just now the couple
chatting in the next room is slowing me typing this message because I
keep have to stop so I can hear what they are saying.

Quite so, and the same re multiple desktops. How many things is it
necessary to have simultaneously at one's fingertips, and what's wrong
with standard keyboard shortcuts on a modern PC than can load any
required application in less than 2 seconds?

Just because it loads the application in less than 2 seconds, does that
timeframe include the file user needs also? I would think a combo of
hardware and the particular software would have an effect on that timeframe.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here, but what I'm trying to
say is that a modern PC takes so little time to run an application
that it no longer seems necessary to "cheat" by having several running
simultaneously and switching between them. It really is a matter of
seconds now, which is more than fast enough for a human user (this
one, at any rate).

OK. :-) Let's pick a rather sophisticated application, like Photoshop.
When you say it takes 2 seconds to load the application, in this case
Photoshop, in your example does that include the file you are going to
manipulate, or does it take an extra X amount of seconds to load the
file? If it takes another 10 seconds to load the file, then you have a
total time of 12 seconds before you can go to work.

As for multiple desktops, or other methods of using/operating a
computer, what works for you won't work for everyone. Multiple desktops
work for me. I know your way would drive me up the wall! LOL

As for finding files, the hierarchical subdivision of information into
directories (or folders) that we've had since DOS, is a profoundly
intuitive system that Melvil Dewey would have recognised, and Windows
Explorer (or its equivalent in any modern Linux system) offers such a
clear pictorial representation of it that I rarely find it necessary
to use anything else.

I never found it difficult to understand the display of directories in
text based systems like DOS, but many did. Folders in a GUI are better,
but it still baffles me how many people don't understand or realize the
hierarchical structure.

Every system has its loopholes, though, even Dewey's. A friend of mine
knew of a book in a library, and the general Dewey Decimal system
placement. Went to a different library, right to that section, and was
miffed they didn't have a copy. I went to the card catalogue, looked up
the book, and that library had classified the book differently, so it
had a different Dewey decimal number. Neither library was wrong, the
book could legitimately be classified in either location.

I am surprised, after all these years, the discussion of what is the
best way to use/operate a computer is still being brought up. :-)

I'd be very surprised if we'd all reached agreement. :-)

If that ever happens, it will be Armageddon! LOL

Rod.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:38:53 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:55:15 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
wrote:

As for multitasking, a friend has read about some studies that seem to
show that people who do practice multitasking are less productive than
those that do not. I suspect the time is lost switching between the tasks.

That's true for me. I am far more productive doing one thing at a
time. Even trivial distractions slow me down. Just now the couple
chatting in the next room is slowing me typing this message because I
keep have to stop so I can hear what they are saying.

Quite so, and the same re multiple desktops. How many things is it
necessary to have simultaneously at one's fingertips, and what's wrong
with standard keyboard shortcuts on a modern PC than can load any
required application in less than 2 seconds?

Rod.

Some applications require the user less often than others. I have a
forecasting application that uses all available CPU. It alerts the
user when it needs help. On single CPU systems the desktop is using
the user! So the choice is to have multiple CPUs or multiple desktops.
These days most PCs have multiple CPUs but there are still a lot of
single CPU systems around!

Steve

--
Neural Network Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus More than just a neural network http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN Prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN Just a neural network http://www.justnn.com

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 04:30:45 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here, but what I'm trying to
say is that a modern PC takes so little time to run an application
that it no longer seems necessary to "cheat" by having several running
simultaneously and switching between them. It really is a matter of
seconds now, which is more than fast enough for a human user (this
one, at any rate).

OK. :-) Let's pick a rather sophisticated application, like Photoshop.
When you say it takes 2 seconds to load the application, in this case
Photoshop, in your example does that include the file you are going to
manipulate, or does it take an extra X amount of seconds to load the
file? If it takes another 10 seconds to load the file, then you have a
total time of 12 seconds before you can go to work.

Photoshop is one of the most humongous pieces of bloatware I've ever
encountered, so I don't consider it representative of anything except
itself. I did buy it once, but stopped bothering to upgrade it several
versions ago because upgrading the software became ridculously
expensive, and the number of hoops I was required to jump through each
time I upgraded something on my computer simply became too tiresome
for me to bother.

The last time I replaced the hard drive, I had to contact Adobe and
give them a load of personal information all over again, then download
and install another huge file with a new copy of the program.
Meanwhile, everything else just worked. Every time I run Photoshop, a
panel asks me if I want to register, which I don't, so I click the "Do
not register" button, but it asks me again every time I try to use it.

From clicking the icon to being presented with this registration panel
takes 4 seconds, which is twice as long as nearly everything else.

A new copy of the current version of Photoshop would cost more than
the computer itself, which is an absurd state of affairs, so the next
time it stops working because of something I've done that's completely
unrelated and none of Adobe's business, I'm going to ditch it. Thank
goodness there are alternatives.

Rod.

| Datpoint 2: I gave away my last 3 desktops. You can't sell them in yard
| sales any more. Even Goo0dwill won't take them unless they are in
| working order. Old PCs for parts?

I'll be happy to accept your current PC, before
the fashion police catch you with it. No need to
argue with Goodwill. Just ship it to me and I'll find
someone willing to "suffer" with it.

While we're on the topic of outdated technology,
have you heard about Lyft? No one who's anyone
drives anymore. Cars are for losers.
But have no fear. You're in luck. I'm willing to take
that late model car off your hands for a small fee.
You'll never have to drive again. Picture yourself as
a hip AppleSeed in the back seat of a Lyft car, on
your way to a mobile tech convention. Act now and
that can all be yours! But that's not all! For a limited
time only I'll also help dispose of an iPhone 5 or
equivalent obsolete technology for no extra charge!
Still not convinced? Act now and we'll also accept
your wife's old Lululemon 2014 model black tights!
Heck, we'll even let you send us 6 newish steak knives
if you call in the next 15 minutes!

On 14-10-02 02:04 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:13:15 -0400, Ron wrote:

On 10/2/2014 3:43 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 22:32:02 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

What does make sense to me is people who have a
laptop plugged into some kind of cradle that gives them
a big screen, keyboard and mouse when they're at home.
But I don't see many people who do that. I suspect
that those are the people who *really* need their
computer for business.

A laptop will only make sense to you until you drop it, or spill
something on its keyboard, or somebody steals it.

I've owned laptops for about 10 years and none of those things have
happened. Especially *spilling* something on it. Why in the world would
you spill something on a laptop or even desktop keyboard for that matter?

I've owned cars for about 55 years, and an accident has never
happened. Why in the world should I always wear a seatbelt when I
drive?

Because tomorrow might be the day that you finally have an accident.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
Help control the parasite population, have your GNU/Linux advocate
spayed or neutered.

On 10/3/14 8:17 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-10-03 6:30 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
[...]
OK. :-) Let's pick a rather sophisticated application, like Photoshop.
When you say it takes 2 seconds to load the application, in this case
Photoshop, in your example does that include the file you are going to
manipulate, or does it take an extra X amount of seconds to load the
file? If it takes another 10 seconds to load the file, then you have a
total time of 12 seconds before you can go to work. [...]

Don't know about Photoshop, but Elements is so fast I don't notice
unless the image is around 20MB and up. Ditto with XnView, Irfanview
etc. Image load time isn't the real issue, it's processing time. That
depends on image size, not program. They all use similar algorithms,
based on the same theoretical underpinnings. OTOH, Saving a manipulated
image takes noticeably longer than loading the working file, because it
replaces that file.

Elements is basically a subset of Photoshop, so a speed comparison there
is probably not too relevant. There's even some difference in features too.

FWIW, you can download all the CS2 parts and pieces for free and legal
from Adobe.

And of course, hardware matters. On this machine, the "integrated"
graphics chip is faster than the graphics card was on my previous
machine. If I were into heavy image manipulation for (semi-)professional
reasons, I'd certainly buy very fast graphics card.

HTH



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 10/1/2014 5:20 PM, Orion wrote:


"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:15:48 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:

On 9/30/2014 1:27 PM, Seth wrote:
Windows 10


http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/30/m...=rss_truncated

Funny how Windows 10 looks like Windows 7 with the blocky desktop
embedded in the Start menu! I've actually never used W8.


:To me, Windows 8 looks more like Windows 7 than Windows 10 does.
:That's because I have Windows 8 running with Start8 here.

Honestly - I don't see much difference between win 8.1 and 10...

I sure hope that Australis goes the same way. What a disaster!
And then they cram it down out throats saying, "you'll love it!"

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:35:23 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 14-10-02 02:04 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:13:15 -0400, Ron wrote:

On 10/2/2014 3:43 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:

I've owned laptops for about 10 years and none of those things have
happened. Especially *spilling* something on it. Why in the world would
you spill something on a laptop or even desktop keyboard for that matter?

I've owned cars for about 55 years, and an accident has never
happened. Why in the world should I always wear a seatbelt when I
drive?

Because tomorrow might be the day that you finally have an accident.



LOL! Thanks for telling me the same thing I said. The only difference
is that I said it in a slightly more subtle way

On 10/02/2014 02:04 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:13:15 -0400, Ron wrote:

On 10/2/2014 3:43 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 22:32:02 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

What does make sense to me is people who have a
laptop plugged into some kind of cradle that gives them
a big screen, keyboard and mouse when they're at home.
But I don't see many people who do that. I suspect
that those are the people who *really* need their
computer for business.

A laptop will only make sense to you until you drop it, or spill
something on its keyboard, or somebody steals it.

I've owned laptops for about 10 years and none of those things have
happened. Especially *spilling* something on it. Why in the world would
you spill something on a laptop or even desktop keyboard for that matter?


I've owned cars for about 55 years, and an accident has never
happened. Why in the world should I always wear a seatbelt when I
drive?


Boy you are young.

--
Caver1

On 10/01/2014 09:27 PM, Ron wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:35 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/1/14 7:31 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
"John Doe" wrote in message
...
"Don Phillipson" wrote:

"John Doe" wrote

Microsoft needs to stop trying to harness the ultraportable PC
business and start innovating in the desktop PC business.

Retailers do not nowadays sell enough new desktops to constitute
a market big enough to attract MS.

From what I can see, looks like they sell approximately the same
number as always.

All local indicators suggest laptops far outsell desktops nowadays
(not to mention also tablets.)

Just a thought on my part, but with the increasing size and power of
laptops, perhaps laptops and desktops should be lumped together for a
conversation like this. And to me, the Surface seems to be moving
towards being more of a laptop than a tablet.

MS is really pushing the Surface. It has been used on Hawaii Five-0 for
the past 3 seasons. It's being used on another TV that I watch but can't
recall which one. There were ad banners for it in one of the NFL games I
watched this past weekend. And last week NASCAR announced they were
going to start using them for their inspection process.



MS has lost nearly $2 billion on the Surface since it has been on the
market. MS is hoping to turn that loss into aleast a break even.

--
Caver1

Wolf K wrote:


a) Photoshop is definitely overpriced

But in the past, there were promotions of one sort and another.
A copy of Photoshop (full) came with an expensive scanner.
A copy of Photoshop Lite used to be included in a certain
Maxtor retail disk drive box. I gave my copy away to a
friend who needed a copy. So if you kept your eyes
open, there were ways of acquiring a copy.

And that CS2 download stuff gives you a route, if
you're really desperate.

Since I just use GIMP for simple things now, I don't have
the interest in Photoshop. (My full copy of Photoshop,
is on the machine that is dedicated to running the scanner.)
When I would be interested, is if I had 200 photos that
needed the exact same processing steps, as the macro recorder
capability was first-rate. I scanned a couple of documents
from work (supplier specifications), and the macro recorded
processing steps meant I could relax between one page
scan to the next. I didn't see a macro recorder
in GIMP. Maybe I missed it. At least GIMP, they fixed
the memory model so that tiled images behave a lot
better. (They used some sort of tiling scheme when
drawing things on the screen. It was dog-slow at
one time, and you could see the tiles incoming.)

Paul

On 10/3/14 11:20 AM, Paul wrote:
Wolf K wrote:


a) Photoshop is definitely overpriced

But in the past, there were promotions of one sort and another.
A copy of Photoshop (full) came with an expensive scanner.
A copy of Photoshop Lite used to be included in a certain
Maxtor retail disk drive box. I gave my copy away to a
friend who needed a copy. So if you kept your eyes
open, there were ways of acquiring a copy.

And that CS2 download stuff gives you a route, if
you're really desperate.

Since I just use GIMP for simple things now, I don't have
the interest in Photoshop. (My full copy of Photoshop,
is on the machine that is dedicated to running the scanner.)
When I would be interested, is if I had 200 photos that
needed the exact same processing steps, as the macro recorder
capability was first-rate. I scanned a couple of documents
from work (supplier specifications), and the macro recorded
processing steps meant I could relax between one page
scan to the next. I didn't see a macro recorder
in GIMP. Maybe I missed it. At least GIMP, they fixed
the memory model so that tiled images behave a lot
better. (They used some sort of tiling scheme when
drawing things on the screen. It was dog-slow at
one time, and you could see the tiles incoming.)

Hi, Paul,

Did you consider using a macro recorder utility? That should make using
macros available in any program, regardless if there's one built in or not.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 10/3/2014 11:37 AM, Caver1 wrote:
On 10/01/2014 09:27 PM, Ron wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:35 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/1/14 7:31 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
"John Doe" wrote in message
...
"Don Phillipson" wrote:

"John Doe" wrote

Microsoft needs to stop trying to harness the ultraportable PC
business and start innovating in the desktop PC business.

Retailers do not nowadays sell enough new desktops to constitute
a market big enough to attract MS.

From what I can see, looks like they sell approximately the same
number as always.

All local indicators suggest laptops far outsell desktops nowadays
(not to mention also tablets.)

Just a thought on my part, but with the increasing size and power of
laptops, perhaps laptops and desktops should be lumped together for a
conversation like this. And to me, the Surface seems to be moving
towards being more of a laptop than a tablet.

MS is really pushing the Surface. It has been used on Hawaii Five-0 for
the past 3 seasons. It's being used on another TV that I watch but can't
recall which one. There were ad banners for it in one of the NFL games I
watched this past weekend. And last week NASCAR announced they were
going to start using them for their inspection process.



MS has lost nearly $2 billion on the Surface since it has been on the
market. MS is hoping to turn that loss into aleast a break even.


Last night I was watching Thursday Night Football and there were ad
banners for the Surface Pro at Lambeau Field.