Next version of Windows is...

In the last episode of ,
Roderick Stewart said:

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:04:16 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

The abillity to develop apps in a single environment for all Windows devices
is quite recent and not yet entirely implemented, but that is the direction
that MS is going (both announced and partially implemented). The result of
this capability is that developers won't have to develop apps for any
particular Windows device. Surely, the implications of this are easy to
grasp.

Yes. All your personal data will be in the "cloud", which means it'll
be stored on somebody else's computer. I can easily grasp the
implications of that.

That's totally unrelated to what Neil just said. Try reading again.

--
In Jolt We Trust

On 10/7/2014 4:00 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:02:34 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

The abillity to develop apps in a single environment for all Windows
devices is quite recent and not yet entirely implemented, but that
is the direction that MS is going (both announced and partially
implemented). The result of this capability is that developers won't
have to develop apps for any particular Windows device. Surely, the
implications of this are easy to grasp.

Yes. All your personal data will be in the "cloud", which means it'll
be stored on somebody else's computer. I can easily grasp the
implications of that.

The use of the cloud, as in "somebody-else's computer" is not required.
Perhaps you haven't seen the numerous "personal cloud" drives that one can
purchase and easily install, even lacking the knowledge that such a thing is
simply an HD in an ethernet case. The savvy user can even access it remotely
without problems. Since all of the devices have SD card, usb and ethernet
ports, it is not necssary to have a "cloud" at all.

Even if you were to use a "personal cloud", rather than the default
remote one that Microsoft coaxes you to set up, and you were, as you
suggest, savvy, and contacted it remotely, what mechanism would you
need to use to do this?

WIFI (only needed when local) and a fixed IP address.

You may not be using somebody else's computer, but somebody else's
network doesn't strike me as a whole lot more secure.

It would be YOUR network, not someone else's. It's not conceptually that
different from Workgroup networks in earlier versions of Windows.
Although there are implications that make the notion less attractive to
those that *are* savvy, it'snot any more technically complex than how
folks access their home security systems from work or while on vacation.

And that's just the savvy users. Supposing you're a celebrity, and not
savvy, and you have a load of nude pictures of yourself....?

Just goes to show you that nobody has the corner on stupidity. ;-D

--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/7/2014 3:30 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 10/07/2014 07:40 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Caver1 wrote:
On 10/04/2014 06:01 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/4/2014 11:13 AM, Caver1 wrote:
(Much snipped for brevity)

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.

Perhaps their vision is larger than that. The Surface introduced
the idea of
a Windows-based tablet that offered features beyond those
available from iStuff and Androids. Now, Windows-based tablets are
coming onto the market
at very low prices, for example the Winbooks that run from $99 for
a 7" basic tablet to $199 for a 10" full version. Something had to
kick-start that market, and since MS' main business is the
software, once could
see the
investment in the Surface as a marketing expense that will be
recouped by the sales of other products running Windows OS and
software.


Just like MS to sell at a loss to try to capture the market. Don't
think it will work this time.
My daughter paid $219 for a 10" Asus Android tablet. $199-$219 not
a big difference. She does her office work, manipulates images and
more with it without unlocking. Unlock it and you can install
anything you want and have complete control. Can't unlock Windows
and have control.


The number of Windows users that have ever wanted to "unlock" the OS
is not worth caring about. For most Windows users the primary
requirement for those users is that they can get work done
efficiently. Managing an "unlocked" system is contrary to that
requirement.

I do believe that unlock was in reference to Android not Windows.

Yes, you were referring to Android users, and I was pointing out the
irrelevance of such a thing to Windows users.

Why is it irrelevant? It was a comparison. You cannot have control of
your Windows phone or tablet. You can with Android and Apple.

Android is one thing, but what kind of "control" can you have with
iStuff that you can't have with Windows?

My point was that having the ability to do something that you don't want
to do anyway isn't all that important.

In other words you can control whether or not an app can't send your
personal information back to their servers or not.

Not with most Android or iStuff apps, you can't, and I'd say that no
typical user could do that at all, because they can't maintain a rooted
device.

[...]

You can also get rid of factory installed
apps that you don't want. You can't with Windows.

Again, I don't care if WordPad is on a system, whether or not I use it.
I haven't tried uninstalling the games on this computer, because I don't
have to look at them and they don't interfere with my work, so why
should I care that they're on the machine?

[...]

Then again most users don't need the total
functionality of MSOffice. Business or personal.

Agreed, but they do need the basics to work right or at least as the
instructions say they do, and in the open-source apps that I have
tried (or
still use to help support folks), that is a problem.

You didn't choose the right programs.

I select programs based on need and the ability to communicate -- e.g.
exchange functional files -- with colleagues. There are very few
Linux-based apps that even begin to approach the level of sophistication
that I need, and those that do aren't directly compatible with the apps
used by colleagues.

Linux is just as functional and
reliable as Windows and in several case more so.

It's not about the OS, it's about the apps. See above.

Most of the recovery cds for troubled Windows systems are Linux based.

I've managed without any of that for about 30 years of Windows use... I
think I'll be OK for a while, yet. ;-)

If Linux software is so unusable why is it used by business,
governments, militaries, NASA, scientific and medical research...
Do you really think that they would use software that doesn't really work?

There are niche software apps that are entirely functional and capable
with ANY OS, including Raspberry and other off-the-beaten-path options.
Until my clients start using them, I don't need them, and at any rate,
none of that is an argument against the usefulness of Windows apps.

--
best regards,

Neil

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:27:46 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

No one ever seems to have an answer to my question of "What if the
internet goes down?" Last night's Scorpion series on CBS had a plot
line where that internet situation came into play. One of Tom Clancy's
novels (sorry, can't remember the name), included a similar situation.

Earlier today someone pointed out that "the cloud" doesn't have to mean an
Internet-based cloud. You're free to have a cloud in your own home.

Ron explained on 10/6/2014 :
On 10/6/2014 1:55 AM, Ed Propes wrote:
After serious thinking Roderick Stewart wrote :
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:35:40 -0400, Ron wrote:

I worked with about 600 people, each had at least one desktop and a
laptop. The maintenance people had lots to repair every day. A very
common problem was people spilling drinks on their laptop or desktop
keyboard.

My company wouldn't put up with that. There would be a no drink
and/or food at your desk policy.

Most places I've worked at had a policy like that, but nobody paid any
attention. If the companies had tried to enforce it they'd have had
hardly any workers left.

Rod.

I worked for a chemical supply company that had a no food or drink
policy except for the break rooms. People paid attention because not
doing so could cause a multitude of health problems. I worked there 78
years and can't remember seeing more than a half dozen violations of
said policy. But that is an environment different from almost all others.


78 years??????

Sorry about that! Should have been 7 years.

--
Ed Propes

"...winston?" wrote :
Ed Propes wrote:
After serious thinking Roderick Stewart wrote :
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:35:40 -0400, Ron wrote:

I worked with about 600 people, each had at least one desktop and a
laptop. The maintenance people had lots to repair every day. A very
common problem was people spilling drinks on their laptop or desktop
keyboard.

My company wouldn't put up with that. There would be a no drink
and/or food at your desk policy.

Most places I've worked at had a policy like that, but nobody paid any
attention. If the companies had tried to enforce it they'd have had
hardly any workers left.

Rod.

I worked for a chemical supply company that had a no food or drink
policy except for the break rooms. People paid attention because not
doing so could cause a multitude of health problems. I worked there 78
years and can't remember seeing more than a half dozen violations of
said policy. But that is an environment different from almost all others.

Apparently your working career with that company predates the Fair Labor
Standards act passed in 1938 that regulated age and hours of work for
children.

If you worked for them that long you must be retired for at least a few years
too.

Just guessing but if you started at age 10 yrs old, worked 78 years, retired
5 yrs ago you'd be 93. If you started at 16 you'll soon be 100 and possibly
the oldest person on Usenet!

Sometimes I feel like I am g. I actually worked there 7 years before
an injury forced me to retire. I must have been suffering from fat
fingers the day I typed that. Oh well, I'm sure I gave someone a
chuckle.

--
Ed Propes

On 10/7/2014 11:05 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
"...winston?" wrote :
Ed Propes wrote:
After serious thinking Roderick Stewart wrote :
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:35:40 -0400, Ron wrote:

I worked with about 600 people, each had at least one desktop and a
laptop. The maintenance people had lots to repair every day. A very
common problem was people spilling drinks on their laptop or desktop
keyboard.

My company wouldn't put up with that. There would be a no drink
and/or food at your desk policy.

Most places I've worked at had a policy like that, but nobody paid any
attention. If the companies had tried to enforce it they'd have had
hardly any workers left.

Rod.

I worked for a chemical supply company that had a no food or drink
policy except for the break rooms. People paid attention because not
doing so could cause a multitude of health problems. I worked there 78
years and can't remember seeing more than a half dozen violations of
said policy. But that is an environment different from almost all
others.

Apparently your working career with that company predates the Fair
Labor Standards act passed in 1938 that regulated age and hours of
work for children.

If you worked for them that long you must be retired for at least a
few years too.

Just guessing but if you started at age 10 yrs old, worked 78 years,
retired 5 yrs ago you'd be 93. If you started at 16 you'll soon be
100 and possibly the oldest person on Usenet!

Sometimes I feel like I am g. I actually worked there 7 years before
an injury forced me to retire. I must have been suffering from fat
fingers the day I typed that. Oh well, I'm sure I gave someone a chuckle.


So your injury was "fat fingers"?

On 10/7/2014 11:02 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
Ron explained on 10/6/2014 :
On 10/6/2014 1:55 AM, Ed Propes wrote:
After serious thinking Roderick Stewart wrote :
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:35:40 -0400, Ron wrote:

I worked with about 600 people, each had at least one desktop and a
laptop. The maintenance people had lots to repair every day. A very
common problem was people spilling drinks on their laptop or desktop
keyboard.

My company wouldn't put up with that. There would be a no drink
and/or food at your desk policy.

Most places I've worked at had a policy like that, but nobody paid any
attention. If the companies had tried to enforce it they'd have had
hardly any workers left.

Rod.

I worked for a chemical supply company that had a no food or drink
policy except for the break rooms. People paid attention because not
doing so could cause a multitude of health problems. I worked there 78
years and can't remember seeing more than a half dozen violations of
said policy. But that is an environment different from almost all
others.


78 years??????

Sorry about that! Should have been 7 years.


I got a good laugh out of it.

Ed Propes wrote:
"...winston?" wrote :
Ed Propes wrote:
After serious thinking Roderick Stewart wrote :
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:35:40 -0400, Ron wrote:

I worked with about 600 people, each had at least one desktop and a
laptop. The maintenance people had lots to repair every day. A very
common problem was people spilling drinks on their laptop or desktop
keyboard.

My company wouldn't put up with that. There would be a no drink
and/or food at your desk policy.

Most places I've worked at had a policy like that, but nobody paid any
attention. If the companies had tried to enforce it they'd have had
hardly any workers left.

Rod.

I worked for a chemical supply company that had a no food or drink
policy except for the break rooms. People paid attention because not
doing so could cause a multitude of health problems. I worked there 78
years and can't remember seeing more than a half dozen violations of
said policy. But that is an environment different from almost all
others.

Apparently your working career with that company predates the Fair
Labor Standards act passed in 1938 that regulated age and hours of
work for children.

If you worked for them that long you must be retired for at least a
few years too.

Just guessing but if you started at age 10 yrs old, worked 78 years,
retired 5 yrs ago you'd be 93. If you started at 16 you'll soon be
100 and possibly the oldest person on Usenet!

Sometimes I feel like I am g. I actually worked there 7 years before
an injury forced me to retire. I must have been suffering from fat
fingers the day I typed that. Oh well, I'm sure I gave someone a chuckle.

I thought it might be a typo which we're all prone to do...but it was
fun trying to calculate if you might be joining the centenarian club soon.

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 22:02:45 -0500, Ed Propes
wrote:

78 years??????

Sorry about that! Should have been 7 years.

I bet you wish their Accounts Department had make the same mistake,
and were paying you for 78 years... :-)

Rod.

On 10/07/2014 04:59 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/7/2014 3:30 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 10/07/2014 07:40 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Caver1 wrote:
On 10/04/2014 06:01 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/4/2014 11:13 AM, Caver1 wrote:
(Much snipped for brevity)

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.

Perhaps their vision is larger than that. The Surface introduced
the idea of
a Windows-based tablet that offered features beyond those
available from iStuff and Androids. Now, Windows-based tablets are
coming onto the market
at very low prices, for example the Winbooks that run from $99 for
a 7" basic tablet to $199 for a 10" full version. Something had to
kick-start that market, and since MS' main business is the
software, once could
see the
investment in the Surface as a marketing expense that will be
recouped by the sales of other products running Windows OS and
software.


Just like MS to sell at a loss to try to capture the market. Don't
think it will work this time.
My daughter paid $219 for a 10" Asus Android tablet. $199-$219 not
a big difference. She does her office work, manipulates images and
more with it without unlocking. Unlock it and you can install
anything you want and have complete control. Can't unlock Windows
and have control.


The number of Windows users that have ever wanted to "unlock" the OS
is not worth caring about. For most Windows users the primary
requirement for those users is that they can get work done
efficiently. Managing an "unlocked" system is contrary to that
requirement.

I do believe that unlock was in reference to Android not Windows.

Yes, you were referring to Android users, and I was pointing out the
irrelevance of such a thing to Windows users.

Why is it irrelevant? It was a comparison. You cannot have control of
your Windows phone or tablet. You can with Android and Apple.

Android is one thing, but what kind of "control" can you have with
iStuff that you can't have with Windows?

My point was that having the ability to do something that you don't want
to do anyway isn't all that important.

I didn't say you should. You should be able to do what you want. The
capability is there for those that want to. It's called jailbreaking on
Apple devices. You can jailbreak Istuff to have complete control you can
not with Windows. It's can be more important than you think.

In other words you can control whether or not an app can't send your
personal information back to their servers or not.

Not with most Android or iStuff apps, you can't, and I'd say that no
typical user could do that at all, because they can't maintain a rooted
device.

If you unlock your device you can change any of the permissions of any
app on that device. Some permissions in some apps it is not advisable to
do so.
What is difficult about maintaining a rooted device. All it does is
gives you Admin/root privileges. Doesn't change functionality or
manageability, just lets you manage more. Lets you decide what is
happening with your device and personal information, not someone you
don't know.


[...]

You can also get rid of factory installed
apps that you don't want. You can't with Windows.

Again, I don't care if WordPad is on a system, whether or not I use it.
I haven't tried uninstalling the games on this computer, because I don't
have to look at them and they don't interfere with my work, so why
should I care that they're on the machine?


So don't do it. Some people do care.
Look at the above response. Phones and tablets have finite storage. The
user may have to remove some default apps to install all that the user
does want.
The user may want to just remove an app that is not used instead of
changing it's permissions.

[...]

Then again most users don't need the total
functionality of MSOffice. Business or personal.

Agreed, but they do need the basics to work right or at least as the
instructions say they do, and in the open-source apps that I have
tried (or
still use to help support folks), that is a problem.

You didn't choose the right programs.

I select programs based on need and the ability to communicate -- e.g.
exchange functional files -- with colleagues. There are very few
Linux-based apps that even begin to approach the level of sophistication
that I need, and those that do aren't directly compatible with the apps
used by colleagues.

As I said you didn't choose the right program. Just like in Windows. For
a given task there are programs available that give you more or less
sophistication, capabilities. If you are talking about compatibility
with proprietary software there may or may not be any support.
You have the same type of problems with some Windows programs.

Linux is just as functional and
reliable as Windows and in several case more so.

It's not about the OS, it's about the apps. See above.

When discussing programs and you are comparing the differences between
programs. And say either with Windows/Linux you are still talking about
the capability of the apps. Less typing then saying Windows/Linux
programs each time. Common practice.

Most of the recovery cds for troubled Windows systems are Linux based.

I've managed without any of that for about 30 years of Windows use... I
think I'll be OK for a while, yet. ;-)

That's great. Must be a common problem as they are available for both
Windows and Linux. I have never needed them for myself Windows or Linux.

If Linux software is so unusable why is it used by business,
governments, militaries, NASA, scientific and medical research...
Do you really think that they would use software that doesn't really work?

There are niche software apps that are entirely functional and capable
with ANY OS, including Raspberry and other off-the-beaten-path options.
Until my clients start using them, I don't need them, and at any rate,
none of that is an argument against the usefulness of Windows apps.



This discussion starting comparing what was achievable with the Linux,
Windows, Apple OSs. Evidently because of the switching to Linux because
it is more stable, secure,customisability, or capable in areas needed,
is about the capabilities of the Windows environment. Never said that
Windows programs weren't useful nor implied it. Windows and Linux
programs over all are good for what they do.
If the capabilities were only with niche usage schools, businesses or
any other entity would not be switching from one OS to another. If it
was only off the beaten path options then the usage would be whichever
OS for those processes that are better severed by whatever OS and its
programs and the one you liked/were use to for everything else.

Enjoy and keep using what you prefer.

--
Caver1

On 10/07/2014 05:15 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:27:46 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

No one ever seems to have an answer to my question of "What if the
internet goes down?" Last night's Scorpion series on CBS had a plot
line where that internet situation came into play. One of Tom Clancy's
novels (sorry, can't remember the name), included a similar situation.

Earlier today someone pointed out that "the cloud" doesn't have to mean an
Internet-based cloud. You're free to have a cloud in your own home.



That's another reason to have desktop based programs for needed tasks or
storage and not just cloud based.

--
Caver1

Roderick Stewart brought next idea :
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 22:02:45 -0500, Ed Propes
wrote:

78 years??????

Sorry about that! Should have been 7 years.

I bet you wish their Accounts Department had make the same mistake,
and were paying you for 78 years... :-)

Rod.

I'll bet you're right! lol ... Knowing the company though they were
more likely to pay me .78 years.

Ed.

--
Ed Propes

Ron formulated the question :
On 10/7/2014 11:05 PM, Ed Propes wrote:
"...winston?" wrote :
Ed Propes wrote:
After serious thinking Roderick Stewart wrote :
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:35:40 -0400, Ron wrote:

I worked with about 600 people, each had at least one desktop and a
laptop. The maintenance people had lots to repair every day. A very
common problem was people spilling drinks on their laptop or desktop
keyboard.

My company wouldn't put up with that. There would be a no drink
and/or food at your desk policy.

Most places I've worked at had a policy like that, but nobody paid any
attention. If the companies had tried to enforce it they'd have had
hardly any workers left.

Rod.

I worked for a chemical supply company that had a no food or drink
policy except for the break rooms. People paid attention because not
doing so could cause a multitude of health problems. I worked there 78
years and can't remember seeing more than a half dozen violations of
said policy. But that is an environment different from almost all
others.

Apparently your working career with that company predates the Fair
Labor Standards act passed in 1938 that regulated age and hours of
work for children.

If you worked for them that long you must be retired for at least a
few years too.

Just guessing but if you started at age 10 yrs old, worked 78 years,
retired 5 yrs ago you'd be 93. If you started at 16 you'll soon be
100 and possibly the oldest person on Usenet!

Sometimes I feel like I am g. I actually worked there 7 years before
an injury forced me to retire. I must have been suffering from fat
fingers the day I typed that. Oh well, I'm sure I gave someone a chuckle.


So your injury was "fat fingers"?

I am going in more trouble in this one thread than I have in 3 years.
Better stop before I go any deeper. g

Ed.

--
Ed Propes

After serious thinking "...winston?" wrote :
Ed Propes wrote:
"...winston?" wrote :
Ed Propes wrote:
After serious thinking Roderick Stewart wrote :
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:35:40 -0400, Ron wrote:

I worked with about 600 people, each had at least one desktop and a
laptop. The maintenance people had lots to repair every day. A very
common problem was people spilling drinks on their laptop or desktop
keyboard.

My company wouldn't put up with that. There would be a no drink
and/or food at your desk policy.

Most places I've worked at had a policy like that, but nobody paid any
attention. If the companies had tried to enforce it they'd have had
hardly any workers left.

Rod.

I worked for a chemical supply company that had a no food or drink
policy except for the break rooms. People paid attention because not
doing so could cause a multitude of health problems. I worked there 78
years and can't remember seeing more than a half dozen violations of
said policy. But that is an environment different from almost all
others.

Apparently your working career with that company predates the Fair
Labor Standards act passed in 1938 that regulated age and hours of
work for children.

If you worked for them that long you must be retired for at least a
few years too.

Just guessing but if you started at age 10 yrs old, worked 78 years,
retired 5 yrs ago you'd be 93. If you started at 16 you'll soon be
100 and possibly the oldest person on Usenet!

Sometimes I feel like I am g. I actually worked there 7 years before
an injury forced me to retire. I must have been suffering from fat
fingers the day I typed that. Oh well, I'm sure I gave someone a chuckle.

I thought it might be a typo which we're all prone to do...but it was fun
trying to calculate if you might be joining the centenarian club soon.

At the rate I'm going I'm not sure I want to make it to being eligible
for entry to that club. g

--
Ed Propes