Microsoft Giving Away Windows 8.1?

On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:30:49 +0100, Blue
wrote in

Silver Slimer wrote:
On 08/03/2014 9:33 AM, Blue wrote:
wrote:
Yet Apple just released their newest desktop:

http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/

Again, why?

Starting at $2999, why is a very good question.


I paid more for the first Mac in 84. A lot more.

Do you remember what the tag price was in 1984 dollars?


$5000 which came with an external floppy drive, a legal size printer and
the cloth case to carry it like a rucksack. I also got two diskettes:
Draw and Write (not sure about those names). Fortunately, I sold it in
Venezuela for $6000. It had 128k of memory and the hard drive was the
floppy. After ten pages of word processing, an alert would pop up
telling you to pop in another floppy to the ext. HD.

$5000 in 1984 is approximately $11256 today.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 09/03/2014 11:30 AM, Blue wrote:
Silver Slimer wrote:
On 08/03/2014 9:33 AM, Blue wrote:
wrote:
Yet Apple just released their newest desktop:

http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/

Again, why?

Starting at $2999, why is a very good question.


I paid more for the first Mac in 84. A lot more.

Do you remember what the tag price was in 1984 dollars?


$5000 which came with an external floppy drive, a legal size printer and
the cloth case to carry it like a rucksack. I also got two diskettes:
Draw and Write (not sure about those names). Fortunately, I sold it in
Venezuela for $6000. It had 128k of memory and the hard drive was the
floppy. After ten pages of word processing, an alert would pop up
telling you to pop in another floppy to the ext. HD.

Essentially, not worth $5,000. Man, I can't imagine people paying that
much for computers anymore. I remember computers routinely being $2,500
when I was a teenager (in the 90's) but spending that much today is
insane unless you're expecting a machine which will play every
imaginable game in 3D (whereas back then, the games were mostly just
point-and-click quest games).

--
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia Supporter
GNU/Linux advocates: http://abstrusegoose.com/558

On 09/03/2014 12:15 PM, CRNG wrote:

$5000 which came with an external floppy drive, a legal size printer and
the cloth case to carry it like a rucksack. I also got two diskettes:
Draw and Write (not sure about those names). Fortunately, I sold it in
Venezuela for $6000. It had 128k of memory and the hard drive was the
floppy. After ten pages of word processing, an alert would pop up
telling you to pop in another floppy to the ext. HD.

$5000 in 1984 is approximately $11256 today.

For a Mac with 128k RAM. Insane.

--
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia Supporter
GNU/Linux advocates: http://abstrusegoose.com/558

Silver Slimer wrote:
On 09/03/2014 12:15 PM, CRNG wrote:

$5000 which came with an external floppy drive, a legal size printer and
the cloth case to carry it like a rucksack. I also got two diskettes:
Draw and Write (not sure about those names). Fortunately, I sold it in
Venezuela for $6000. It had 128k of memory and the hard drive was the
floppy. After ten pages of word processing, an alert would pop up
telling you to pop in another floppy to the ext. HD.

$5000 in 1984 is approximately $11256 today.

For a Mac with 128k RAM. Insane.


Times sure have changed.

--
Blue

On 3/9/2014 11:33 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 09/03/2014 11:30 AM, Blue wrote:
Silver Slimer wrote:
On 08/03/2014 9:33 AM, Blue wrote:
wrote:
Yet Apple just released their newest desktop:

http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/

Again, why?

Starting at $2999, why is a very good question.


I paid more for the first Mac in 84. A lot more.

Do you remember what the tag price was in 1984 dollars?


$5000 which came with an external floppy drive, a legal size printer and
the cloth case to carry it like a rucksack. I also got two diskettes:
Draw and Write (not sure about those names). Fortunately, I sold it in
Venezuela for $6000. It had 128k of memory and the hard drive was the
floppy. After ten pages of word processing, an alert would pop up
telling you to pop in another floppy to the ext. HD.

Essentially, not worth $5,000. Man, I can't imagine people paying that
much for computers anymore. I remember computers routinely being $2,500
when I was a teenager (in the 90's) but spending that much today is
insane unless you're expecting a machine which will play every
imaginable game in 3D (whereas back then, the games were mostly just
point-and-click quest games).

I've purchased five Alienware 17 inch laptops (aka desktop replacements)
that originally costs on average about $3000 a piece. Although someone
else paid those prices, I bought them at "as is" prices. And I have
about $350 apiece invested (including parts to repair them). So it is
possible to get expensive machines at a bargain.

--
Bill
Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Pro

On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 12:33:57 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:


Essentially, not worth $5,000. Man, I can't imagine people paying that
much for computers anymore. I remember computers routinely being $2,500
when I was a teenager (in the 90's) but spending that much today is
insane unless you're expecting a machine which will play every
imaginable game in 3D (whereas back then, the games were mostly just
point-and-click quest games).


The first computer I bought was an IBM XT clone, in 1987. With a
printer, it cost $1300. Considering inflation, that's about $2700
today. Even that is way more than almost anyone spends on a computer
these days.

On 09/03/2014 1:18 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 12:33:57 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:


Essentially, not worth $5,000. Man, I can't imagine people paying that
much for computers anymore. I remember computers routinely being $2,500
when I was a teenager (in the 90's) but spending that much today is
insane unless you're expecting a machine which will play every
imaginable game in 3D (whereas back then, the games were mostly just
point-and-click quest games).


The first computer I bought was an IBM XT clone, in 1987. With a
printer, it cost $1300. Considering inflation, that's about $2700
today. Even that is way more than almost anyone spends on a computer
these days.

That's still a lot better than $5,000 for a Mac with so little capability.


--
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia Supporter
GNU/Linux advocates: http://abstrusegoose.com/558

On 3/9/2014 9:16 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
typed:
snip

What is the problem with using the Desktop to display and run
multiple apps simultaneously? Works for me! Other OSs that use a
similar interface to Metro/Modern (iOS, Android) can only have *one*
app displayed at a time. Does that make Win8.x "twice as good"? 8-D

What is wrong with it is eventually, if metro apps succeed, programs
for the desktop will become obsolete. Then say goodbye to have more
than 2 apps open, visible and running at the same time and that's not
a viable option in an buisness environment.

Not true actually. My Windows 8 machines can have two Apps opened at
once (one can be the desktop). And I heard that 8.1 could have four Apps
on the screen at one time (I don't have 8.1). And if you want Metro Apps
running on the desktop instead, there is ModernMix. The latest rumor
reports this ability will be in later Windows versions.

ModernMix
https://www.stardock.com/products/mo...x/features.asp

Damn... my external monitor just suddenly died right now. Geez! Good
thing each of my machines also has its own screens. :-)



Windows 8.1 operating in the Metro (Modern) mode can only have two
windows. In my opinion the Metro mode is strictly for laptops and
games, and is not for business. In fact many Windows 8 function open in
the desktop mode.

If you go to the desktop mode you can have as many windows as you like.
In windows 8.1 you can set the machine to boot directly to the
Desktop, and never have to mess with the Metro Mode.

There are things I like about the Windows 8 desktop mode. You have much
better access to the OS functions by right clicking the MS Icon in the
lower right corner of the desktop. I also like the jumplist though
there is very little documentation for their use.

On 3/9/2014 2:16 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 3/9/2014 9:16 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
typed:
snip

What is the problem with using the Desktop to display and run
multiple apps simultaneously? Works for me! Other OSs that use a
similar interface to Metro/Modern (iOS, Android) can only have *one*
app displayed at a time. Does that make Win8.x "twice as good"? 8-D

What is wrong with it is eventually, if metro apps succeed, programs
for the desktop will become obsolete. Then say goodbye to have more
than 2 apps open, visible and running at the same time and that's not
a viable option in an buisness environment.

Not true actually. My Windows 8 machines can have two Apps opened at
once (one can be the desktop). And I heard that 8.1 could have four Apps
on the screen at one time (I don't have 8.1). And if you want Metro Apps
running on the desktop instead, there is ModernMix. The latest rumor
reports this ability will be in later Windows versions.

ModernMix
https://www.stardock.com/products/mo...x/features.asp

Damn... my external monitor just suddenly died right now. Geez! Good
thing each of my machines also has its own screens. :-)

Windows 8.1 operating in the Metro (Modern) mode can only have two
windows. In my opinion the Metro mode is strictly for laptops and
games, and is not for business. In fact many Windows 8 function open in
the desktop mode.

Ok, I heard four somewhere. Maybe it was a rumor before Windows 8.1 was
released. I do see Metro mode more for Windows RT users and Windows 8.x
tablets. While business won't be too excited about Metro, although I do
see some of them taking advantage of Metro in the future.

If you go to the desktop mode you can have as many windows as you like.
In windows 8.1 you can set the machine to boot directly to the
Desktop, and never have to mess with the Metro Mode.

I am sure that is nice and all, but I rarely see the Metro side anyway
under Windows 8. As I generally use standby or hibernation and it goes
right where I was, on the desktop.

There are things I like about the Windows 8 desktop mode. You have much
better access to the OS functions by right clicking the MS Icon in the
lower right corner of the desktop. I also like the jumplist though
there is very little documentation for their use.

I heard about that MS Icon, but I never saw it yet personally. Jump
List? Yes I replied to your thread.

--
Bill
Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Pro

Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 3/9/2014 9:16 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
typed:
snip

What is the problem with using the Desktop to display and run
multiple apps simultaneously? Works for me! Other OSs that use a
similar interface to Metro/Modern (iOS, Android) can only have
*one* app displayed at a time. Does that make Win8.x "twice as
good"? 8-D

What is wrong with it is eventually, if metro apps succeed, programs
for the desktop will become obsolete. Then say goodbye to have more
than 2 apps open, visible and running at the same time and that's
not a viable option in an buisness environment.

Not true actually. My Windows 8 machines can have two Apps opened at
once (one can be the desktop). And I heard that 8.1 could have four
Apps on the screen at one time (I don't have 8.1). And if you want
Metro Apps running on the desktop instead, there is ModernMix. The
latest rumor reports this ability will be in later Windows versions.

ModernMix
https://www.stardock.com/products/mo...x/features.asp

Damn... my external monitor just suddenly died right now. Geez! Good
thing each of my machines also has its own screens. :-)



Windows 8.1 operating in the Metro (Modern) mode can only have two
windows. In my opinion the Metro mode is strictly for laptops and
games, and is not for business. In fact many Windows 8 function open
in the desktop mode.

If you go to the desktop mode you can have as many windows as you
like. In windows 8.1 you can set the machine to boot directly to the
Desktop, and never have to mess with the Metro Mode.

I don't understand why some get hung up on how many windows one can have
open in the Metro UI. I have pinned my important Desktop apps to the Metro
UI, and they launch just fine with no penalty, no slow-down, and I can move
between the two GUIs as needed. All that is necessary to keep one's
productivity up is to learn the new OS, as it always has been on any
platform.
--
best regards,

Neil

In the last episode of , "Neil Gould"
said:

I don't understand why some get hung up on how many windows one can have
open in the Metro UI. I have pinned my important Desktop apps to the Metro
UI, and they launch just fine with no penalty, no slow-down, and I can move
between the two GUIs as needed. All that is necessary to keep one's
productivity up is to learn the new OS, as it always has been on any
platform.

The problem is that on large-screen devices, the Windows 8 UI wastes a
ton of screen space. On small screen devices, it's far closer to ideal.

Still, being able to open multiple windows is advantageous -- Simply
being able to review technical specs/information while composing an
email is invaluable.

Or try editing a 75 page document when the list of changes that need to
be made are in an email, tabbing back and forth is far less efficient
than being able to read both together.

8.1 improves upon this in Windows 8 mode, plus desktop mode is still
available.

--
Critics are like eunuchs in a harem: they know how it's done, they've
seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.

On 3/10/2014 7:50 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of , "Neil Gould"
said:

I don't understand why some get hung up on how many windows one can have
open in the Metro UI. I have pinned my important Desktop apps to the Metro
UI, and they launch just fine with no penalty, no slow-down, and I can move
between the two GUIs as needed. All that is necessary to keep one's
productivity up is to learn the new OS, as it always has been on any
platform.

The problem is that on large-screen devices, the Windows 8 UI wastes a
ton of screen space. On small screen devices, it's far closer to ideal.

Window 8 has *3* GUIs; Metro, Desktop, and Apps. Which one do you feel
wastes screen space, and why?

Still, being able to open multiple windows is advantageous -- Simply
being able to review technical specs/information while composing an
email is invaluable.

Or try editing a 75 page document when the list of changes that need to
be made are in an email, tabbing back and forth is far less efficient
than being able to read both together.

8.1 improves upon this in Windows 8 mode, plus desktop mode is still
available.

Exactly. There are only *more* ways to work in Win8 than previous
versions, not less.
--
best regards,
Neil

In the last episode of , Neil
said:

On 3/10/2014 7:50 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of , "Neil Gould"
said:

I don't understand why some get hung up on how many windows one can have
open in the Metro UI. I have pinned my important Desktop apps to the Metro
UI, and they launch just fine with no penalty, no slow-down, and I can move
between the two GUIs as needed. All that is necessary to keep one's
productivity up is to learn the new OS, as it always has been on any
platform.

The problem is that on large-screen devices, the Windows 8 UI wastes a
ton of screen space. On small screen devices, it's far closer to ideal.

Window 8 has *3* GUIs; Metro, Desktop, and Apps. Which one do you feel
wastes screen space, and why?

The Windows 8 interface, formerly known as Metro (remember, Microsoft
lost the rights to use the Metro name)

--
Give a man a fire, he'll be warm for a while.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of , Neil
said:
Window 8 has *3* GUIs; Metro, Desktop, and Apps. Which one do you feel
wastes screen space, and why?

The Windows 8 interface, formerly known as Metro (remember, Microsoft
lost the rights to use the Metro name)


Modern UI or aka Start Screen (fka Metro).

What would you do if you could have extra real estate (screen space) on
the Start Screen (e.g. view or add more tiles) ?

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

In the last episode of , "...winston?"
said:

DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of , Neil
said:
Window 8 has *3* GUIs; Metro, Desktop, and Apps. Which one do you feel
wastes screen space, and why?

The Windows 8 interface, formerly known as Metro (remember, Microsoft
lost the rights to use the Metro name)


Modern UI or aka Start Screen (fka Metro).

What would you do if you could have extra real estate (screen space) on
the Start Screen (e.g. view or add more tiles) ?

Nothing. My point is more applications themselves.

I have two 24" monitors, and under W8 I can open a single application
full screen, on one monitor. That puts the approximate usable reading
screen at around 50% of the screen's width, since longer lines are far
less readable. 8.1 helps since you can split the screen 50/50, so that
you can (for example) leave some documentation up on the left while you
compose an email with instructions on the right.

It's a step in the right direction, but it's far less flexible than
being able to size applications appropriately and display whatever
amount of information in a window makes sense.

--
There's your answer, Fishbulb.