Window 8.1 tablets

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 15:33:27 -0400, Neil
wrote:

I consider "actual/real work" that for which one is being compensated.
Such work has been done on tablets for decades and on phones at least
since the Blackberry.

I didn't know tablets had existed for decades.

Rod.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:11:24 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

Corollary: the OS will become merely a bragging point, like displacement
did back when cars were cool. Most people didn't have a clue what
displacement had to do with how their car operated. But, my oh my,
wasn't cool to drive a 425 when you neighbour only had a 383? ;-)

I think it's cool to drive a car that can carry seven people. I don't
need to brag about this capability, because anyone can understand it.

Have a good day,

You too.

Rod.

On 10/20/14 7:34 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 13:42:41 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

It's exactly what I have with Windows 7 and Android. I use my computer
as a computer and my phone as a phone. This has never been a problem
before, so why is it suddenly a problem now?

The difference may be in the amount of difficulty in sharing data
between the two OSes. Plus what your goal is with everything.

Why should it be necessary to share data between a computer and a
phone? I can copy the photos I've taken with the phone's camera into
the computer, and I can copy documents from the computer to the phone
if I think I might need them, using nothing more than a mini USB cable
and Windows Explorer. It's neat that I can keep things like PDFs of
all the local bus and train timetables in a gadget I carry in my
pocket, but it wouldn't distress me if I couldn't. I know I could live
without everything computers and mobile phones can do because for
about the first five decades of my life, I did.

The necessity of doing it will vary from individual to individual. For
you and me, we could care less. LOL But I think we are vastly
outnumbered by those that want to do it, and for more reasons than the
two of us can probably imagine.

Your way of doing it, and I'm not complaining, keeps your equipment
physically tethered to each other. A lot of people don't want that.
They like leaving the larger pieces at home, and just have their tablets
and phones with them. When they get home, their data, be it photos, a
spreadsheet, whatever, is already transferred and ready for use.

FWIW, the two of us are probably not that far apart in age.

In the Apple world, if you want to enter something into the app on the
computer, and have it show up on the family's iPhone, it's a piece of
cake.

Ah yes, I've heard about the Apple world, where all your personal
information is stored on somebody else's server goodness knows where,
and is accessible to goodness knows whom. At least I'm not a
narcissistic female celebrity with a penchant for taking nude
"selfies", so there might be little risk of anyone else being
interested in my stuff, but I'd still prefer to keep it to myself.

This idea used to really bother me, not so much anymore. I realized
most of my data like that is already out there, given bank accounts,
online shopping, joining forums, etc.

And I doubt there's much difference if you have an MS account either.
Although, I feel like I can trust Apple more than I would trust MS, but
that may be a fallacy.

There is the positive side for this. I haven't bought much from Apple's
App Store, but there's a record there of everything I have bought.
Should I need another copy, and I don't have mine for whatever reason, I
can just log in and download it all over again.

Of course, all of this assumes no hiccups, which is why I create an OS
DVD when I upgrade the OS.

For example, the wife is grocery shopping, and the list is on the
phone and the computer. You're at home, remember a couple items that
need to be added to the list. Type them in on the computer, and in a
few seconds, the list on the phone is updated.

Is that possible on what you have?

Yes, I've frequently been out shopping for somebody else when they've
remembered extra items. They just type them into a text, and in a few
seconds it appears on my phone. The only thing I can think of that
would improve on being able to do this is not being able to do it,
because it would enable me to get home sooner having spent less money.
In the olden days before mobile phones, we managed shopping lists with
the aid of an almost forgotten piece of technology called pencil and
paper. It may surprise you, but somehow we got by.

I'm using the upgraded system here, pen and paper. G



--
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 10/20/14 7:52 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 13:53:15 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

[...]
Then we should use an operating system suitable for phones and tablets
on phones and tablets, and an operating system suitable for desktop
PCs on desktop PCs. There's no reason why they have to be the same.
[...]

Agreed, but they should look and function the same, allowing for
differences such as screen size/orientation, touch, etc.

Why?!! Who says so? What on earth is wrong with different gadgets
looking like what they are and behaving differently because they are
different? The controls on my TV don't look like the ones on my
washing machine, and none of them look like the controls on the
microwave, but it's never been a problem, and I can't imagine how any
attempt to harmonise them would improve anything.

If all the Window's systems look the same, and Apple systems look the
same, it's simply easier to use. Everything looks and works the same,
and you don't have to look for the same things in different places. You
don't have to have the same OSes everywhere. And a Mac doesn't have to
look like Windows.

All my Windows systems do look the same. They're all Windows 7. My
phone system looks like Android. I don't have a problem with this.

We're not quite talking the same thing, here. :-) I mean, the user
interfaces of the iOS devices and OS X look the same, MS devices and MS
computers look the same, etc. I didn't mean intermixing MS and Apple
and Linux and have all of them look the same.

I've never wanted a Mac because I see no point in spending three times
as much for a computer that wouldn't enable me to do anything I can't
do already. From what I've seen of their operating systems, they're no
more different from Windows than Linux, so they shouldn't be too
difficult to get used to, but why bother? At least Linux is free.

Perfectly valid point. But not all people want the same thing.

I never "wanted" a Mac, and for that matter, never "wanted" Microsoft
either. But I was forced into Windows when my platform of choice died.
And when my XP computer died big time, I went to the Apple Store to
see what was out there. I was open to the idea of something different,
and had there been a place to see Linux systems, I would have checked
them out.

All it really took to hook me on this Mac was the display. Then I
learned about the much fewer updates for the OS, and fewer security
concerns. That's all it took. I came home, measured the computer desk
to see if the Mac would fit, and the rest is history. Although this
iMac is long in the tooth, I find no enticements from Win 7/8 to get me
to switch back for my general, daily use computer.

But free isn't always a bargain. And there are the subliminal things
that make a person choose one product over another.



--
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 Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:04:36 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

[...]
My phone is not required to run
Windows apps, because it functions perfectly well as a phone (and a
few other things) without them, and my computer is not required to
function as a phone, because it's not a phone, it's a computer.

Rod.

You don't Skype?

Yes. I can do that on either the phone or any of my computers, Windows
or Linux. Computers are preferable because holding the phone up for
the duration of a Skype call makes my arm tired, but all the devices
are capable of it. What point were you trying to make?

Rod.

You emphasise the differences between desktops and other devices, so
that it seems you wall them off from each other. Now you admit to habits
that contradict that impression. OK, you're entitled to change your
stance. ;-)

Not really. There are some things that *can* be done by more than one
device, though there's usually a preferred device that does the job
best. For example, I can take pictures with either my phone or a
proper camera. I can listen to the radio either on an actual radio or
a computer (or my phone too, I think). I can listen to a CD on the
hi-fi or on my laptop. And so on.

However, I don't see any problem with there being one preferred device
or system that is the best for a particular job, or even the only one
that can do it at all. This isn't new, but the notion that there can
be, or should be, a single device that can cope with everything is
quite recent, possibly inspired by the surprising range of tasks that
some modern gadgets have shown themselves capable of, even if they're
not all done equally well. There does seem to be a notion, which for
some reason nobody seems to think worth questioning, that we need a
universal operating system that can run on all devices that use
software, instead of the software on each device being optimised for
its particular range of tasks, and I think it *should* be questioned
because I see no obvious reason to do it.

Rod.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:45:26 -0400, Neil
wrote:

It's exactly what I have with Windows 7 and Android. I use my computer
as a computer and my phone as a phone. This has never been a problem
before, so why is it suddenly a problem now?

Fascinating! I haven't seen any apps for my Android that run on any of my
Windows machines. What did you find that does?

None at all,

Then, what did you mean by "It's exactly what I have with Windows 7 and
Android", as a response to having an OS that looks and works in a
similar way on multiple devices (the example was MacOS/iOS)? Android OS
and Windows 7 are quite different in every way.

I quote from a previous posting, the first paragraph being mine-

begin quote
Then we should use an operating system suitable for phones and
tablets on phones and tablets, and an operating system suitable for
desktop PCs on desktop PCs. There's no reason why they have to be
the same.
end quote

That's what I have with Windows and Android. I meant that I have the
same *capabilities*, not that I use the same software, or even
software that looks the same.

We need to think of the capabilities of electronic systems, devices or
collections of equipment in terms of tasks, rather than apps. If two
systems enable their users to perform the same tasks, it doesn't
matter if they do it with the same apps, or the same operating
systems, as long as the job gets done.

but why would I need any?

*You* may not need any, but that doesn't disqualify those who do find it
useful to have the same apps synced on all their devices.

Quite so. If you want universal software, then you want it, and you
might find it convenient, but some seem to consider that the same apps
on the same operating system on all devices is the only way of keeping
up to date, and it simply isn't.

Rod.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:34:52 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Why should it be necessary to share data between a computer and a
phone?

For me it's not necessary, but it can be desirable as well as
convenient.

I am not as thorough or as automated as Bob Henson stated in a post in
this thread today[1], but I share enough for my purposes.

I'm tempted to adopt some further automation, though, e.g, some
documents, such as my shopping list. However, it's not of major
importance to me and I can be rather lazy...

[1] Message-ID:

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 10/20/2014 12:34 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:45:26 -0400, Neil
wrote:

It's exactly what I have with Windows 7 and Android. I use my computer
as a computer and my phone as a phone. This has never been a problem
before, so why is it suddenly a problem now?

Fascinating! I haven't seen any apps for my Android that run on any of my
Windows machines. What did you find that does?

None at all,

Then, what did you mean by "It's exactly what I have with Windows 7 and
Android", as a response to having an OS that looks and works in a
similar way on multiple devices (the example was MacOS/iOS)? Android OS
and Windows 7 are quite different in every way.

I quote from a previous posting, the first paragraph being mine-

begin quote
Then we should use an operating system suitable for phones and
tablets on phones and tablets, and an operating system suitable for
desktop PCs on desktop PCs. There's no reason why they have to be
the same.
end quote

That's what I have with Windows and Android. I meant that I have the
same *capabilities*, not that I use the same software, or even
software that looks the same.

We need to think of the capabilities of electronic systems, devices or
collections of equipment in terms of tasks, rather than apps. If two
systems enable their users to perform the same tasks, it doesn't
matter if they do it with the same apps, or the same operating
systems, as long as the job gets done.

Well, there are and always will be many ways to accomplish tasks. The
goal is to accomplish some more efficiently. Since this is a newsgroup
aimed at computer-related tasks using MS Windows, it should probably be
acknowledged that many of the ways to accomplish some tasks 20-30 years
ago have been revised and in many cases eliminated. For example, I used
to do quite a bit with QubeCalc (a 3D spreadsheet), but there is no
equivalent app today. The options are to whine or adapt, and I choose
the latter.


but why would I need any?

*You* may not need any, but that doesn't disqualify those who do find it
useful to have the same apps synced on all their devices.

Quite so. If you want universal software, then you want it, and you
might find it convenient, but some seem to consider that the same apps
on the same operating system on all devices is the only way of keeping
up to date, and it simply isn't.

I don't think it's merely "keeping up to date", but "working smarter" in
many cases, and the reasons should be pretty easy to grasp. Still, I
think the good thing about Win8 is that it's a both/and, not an
either/or choice.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/20/2014 12:11 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:

There does seem to be a notion, which for
some reason nobody seems to think worth questioning, that we need a
universal operating system that can run on all devices that use
software, instead of the software on each device being optimised for
its particular range of tasks, and I think it *should* be questioned
because I see no obvious reason to do it.

The Windows push is not toward a "universal operating system" but toward
a _unified UI_ and to allow developers to provide apps that will run on
various Windows devices without having to do so in separate development
environments. The underlying OS is tailored to the specific device, e.g.
if it has an Atom processor, it won't be the same Windows OS as one for
Intel processors, but it will look and work the same and developers
don't need to concern themselves with the particular differences for
most apps. None of this restricts development of special-purpose apps
that are optimized for a particular device.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/20/2014 10:07 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 06:03:56 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Syncing is not only between different devices it can also be between
different computers. ie home and work, laptop on the road and desktop
at home.....

That is exactly the kind of syncing I've been referring to all along, where
a desktop is one of the devices. Since I have NOT been talking about
importing/exporting "save as" data, which is only marginally useful, one
requirement would be that *the same apps* can be run on all of them.

Where necessary I can already use some apps on all devices, but some
are suitable for big screens and quite unsuitable for small ones, and
vice versa. What's the point of running a big screen app on a phone if
you can't properly control it because there isn't a keyboard or mouse,
and reading text for any length of time on its piddly little screen
hurts your eyes?

"Where necessary" is a personal matter. If it's necessary to work on
your sales presentation en route using MS-Word and PowerPoint, you're
screwed if you have an Android tablet. All that is needed is to get
outside one's personal uses to see the bigger picture.

--
best regards,

Neil

RIoderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 13:42:41 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

It's exactly what I have with Windows 7 and Android. I use my computer
as a computer and my phone as a phone. This has never been a problem
before, so why is it suddenly a problem now?

The difference may be in the amount of difficulty in sharing data
between the two OSes. Plus what your goal is with everything.

Why should it be necessary to share data between a computer and a
phone? I can copy the photos I've taken with the phone's camera into
the computer, and I can copy documents from the computer to the phone
if I think I might need them, using nothing more than a mini USB cable
and Windows Explorer. It's neat that I can keep things like PDFs of
all the local bus and train timetables in a gadget I carry in my
pocket, but it wouldn't distress me if I couldn't. I know I could live
without everything computers and mobile phones can do because for
about the first five decades of my life, I did.

Why, well the first reason that comes to mind it to avoid (not have to
do) what you just explained.

In the Apple world, if you want to enter something into the app on the
computer, and have it show up on the family's iPhone, it's a piece of
cake.

Ah yes, I've heard about the Apple world, where all your personal
information is stored on somebody else's server goodness knows where,
and is accessible to goodness knows whom. At least I'm not a
narcissistic female celebrity with a penchant for taking nude
"selfies", so there might be little risk of anyone else being
interested in my stuff, but I'd still prefer to keep it to myself.

Popularity does have a factor on interest in other peoples stuff. Joe
Don Looney is more likely to be interested in Kate than you or I.
http://tinyurl.com/o8luy2k

Data on someone's server, whether we like it today or not, is the
obvious direction the future will take. The current and future direction
is being decided by a younger generation and more importantly the
potential to tap into the future disposable income of an even younger
generation.

For example, the wife is grocery shopping, and the list is on the
phone and the computer. You're at home, remember a couple items that
need to be added to the list. Type them in on the computer, and in a
few seconds, the list on the phone is updated.

Is that possible on what you have?

Yes, I've frequently been out shopping for somebody else when they've
remembered extra items. They just type them into a text, and in a few
seconds it appears on my phone. The only thing I can think of that
would improve on being able to do this is not being able to do it,
because it would enable me to get home sooner having spent less money.
In the olden days before mobile phones, we managed shopping lists with
the aid of an almost forgotten piece of technology called pencil and
paper. It may surprise you, but somehow we got by.

Rod.

I'm not surprised. I've all the potential to sync across multiple
devices but for grocery shopping (which I do in addition to almost all
cooking - the trade-off, the wife cuts the grass) I still like a 3 x 5
index card with 4 columns (Fruit/Vegetables, Meat/Dairy, Pantry,
Misc/Frozen). I can fill out that card with a pencil (I prefer
mechanical) and discard it when done.

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 10/20/14 4:46 PM, ...winston‫ wrote:
Data on someone's server, whether we like it today or not, is the
obvious direction the future will take.

Right back to where things started. :-)

--
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 2014-10-21, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/20/14 4:46 PM, ...winston??? wrote:
Data on someone's server, whether we like it today or not, is the
obvious direction the future will take.

Right back to where things started. :-)


But the younger geeks didn't know about the "mainframes"; those
with the knowledge are nearly all gone.

Knew some people who were "out of date" when the skinny neckties
were in vogue; but then became "in" when the fat ties came around
again......:-) Same with the pleated pants, etc...

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 15:33:27 -0400, Neil
wrote:

I consider "actual/real work" that for which one is being
compensated. Such work has been done on tablets for decades and on
phones at least since the Blackberry.

I didn't know tablets had existed for decades.

Yes, they have. I even had some of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...blet_computers

You can learn something interesting every day, if you wish. ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:46:07 -0700, ...winston?
wrote:

Data on someone's server, whether we like it today or not, is the
obvious direction the future will take. The current and future direction
is being decided by a younger generation and more importantly the
potential to tap into the future disposable income of an even younger
generation.

I wonder if it's really being "decided", or simply accepted unopposed
because not enough people fully understand what's being done to them?
Either way, I'm glad it's a future I won't be part of.

I wonder what our great-grandchildren will think when they read in
their history books about about the way people live today? And I
wonder who will have control over what the history books say?

Rod.