If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
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. Marketing rarely reflects reality. Right, unfortunately! |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
In ,
Paul typed: [...] If Microsoft were to go with an entirely "walled garden", which insures future revenue growth, will developers write Metro applications for an OS with a 7% market share ? That's the question. They're more likely to write applications for Windows 7, at 50.5%. Why not? Microsoft dropped XP support when XP is 30% of the market. Microsoft dropped Microsoft Flight Simulator when it was one of the best consumer flight simulators out there and enjoyed a run that was longer than Windows itself. They even killed MS Works that was a very inexpensive productivity package that was one of the easiest ones to use. Honestly Microsoft has a long history of taking something good and trashing it. Why should now be any different? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 4GB - ATI X1400 - Windows XP SP2 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
In ,
Canuck57 typed: On 05/06/2014 3:34 PM, John Doe wrote: Paul nospam needed.com wrote: And if it wants to pursue only smart phone and tablets, that's a decision they could easily make if they want. It might require slimming down the company a bit though. Microsoft competing with Google and Apple for tablet supremacy would be the first real personal computer competition and it would be awesome. Correctly so, no one is talking Microsoft seriously in the phone and tablet markets. Biggest problem is it takes more CPU, more battery and more storage just to run the OS. This drives up a comparable MS solution to twice that of Android. Since I use both Android and Windows tablets. I can honestly say Android tablets suck compared to Windows tablets. And if you are going to apy so much, why not get a superior Apple device? (Apples run BSD inside, another UNIX variant like Linux). How is Apple or Unix superior? Reality is MS is a non-player. Sure, they will get some zealots but will never be #1. Some of us don't care much for cloud based tablets like Android and don't like paying three times more than it is worth for Apple. And Apple doesn't do much anyway. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 4GB - ATI X1400 - Windows XP SP2 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
In ,
DK typed: In article , "one" wrote: http://www.techradar.com/news/softwa...9-release-date -news-and-rumours-1029245 What the collective has heard exactly is that a prototype version is in the works in which a barebones version of Windows 9 will be available for free. For additional functionality, users would have to pay up through a subscription. According to the leaker group, the core of Windows 9 will live in the given system's BIOS, while the rest of the OS will reside in the cloud, ready for picking via various apps and services. (Exactly how much of the standard Windows functions would be left out is what's worrying about this rumor.) Okay then. In about 5 years, when my XP becomes obsolete, I will finally stop dual booting and switch full time to Linux. None of that crap is worth learning how to deal with another round of MS inanities. My XP machines will never become obsolete. In fact, I just purchased another XP machine just yesterday. Linux, sure you could load Linux, but what good are they? I have two Linux machines right here and all they are good for is browsing and not much else. My Android tablets can do that. Heck they even play WMV and WMA files poorly. So not good in the multimedia department either. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 4GB - ATI X1400 - Windows XP SP2 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
In ,
Canuck57 typed: On 05/06/2014 11:43 PM, DK wrote: In article , "one" wrote: http://www.techradar.com/news/softwa...9-release-date -news-and-rumours-1029245 What the collective has heard exactly is that a prototype version is in the works in which a barebones version of Windows 9 will be available for free. For additional functionality, users would have to pay up through a subscription. According to the leaker group, the core of Windows 9 will live in the given system's BIOS, while the rest of the OS will reside in the cloud, ready for picking via various apps and services. (Exactly how much of the standard Windows functions would be left out is what's worrying about this rumor.) Okay then. In about 5 years, when my XP becomes obsolete, I will finally stop dual booting and switch full time to Linux. None of that crap is worth learning how to deal with another round of MS inanities. DK Switch to Linux now, then create a XP virtual system with VirtuaBox. In fact, that is how I tested Win 8.1, downloaded the ISO, mounted it not even creating a CD, loaded it in the VirtualBox and tested it. When finished, no re-install needed, just deleted the VM. Even run Linux as a VM, as its as easy as a copy to a USD drive to back it up. Oh man! What is up with you VM people? I don't get the idea of running a host OS that can't do what you want just to run another OS as a VM which does do what you want? What is the point? Why not run the OS that does what you want and forget that VM nonsense to begin with? Linux? I have two Linux machines right here. Had them since 2007. They are still not very useful for anything. All they are doing is wasting good hardware for nothing. The only decent Linux distro I ever ran was Xandros (not free). Too bad it isn't supported anymore. But then again, Linux always had poor support, so what else is new? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 4GB - ATI X1400 - Windows XP SP2 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
In ,
Paul typed: The one good thing Win8.1 U1 has going for it, is at last there is an "X" at the top right of my Metro Apps. So I don't have to Alt-F4 any more. Having that as a hint, is a great help to new users - especially a user just opening up their brand new PC. Oh man! I hate that "X" in Metro Apps. Hate that Start button too. Why have they done this? To make cry babies happy? Windows 8 proved you don't need them and I surely don't. And Paul, what are you using for a mouse? A two button mouse or something? You know they have multi-button mice with programmable buttons. Yes, my mice can access the Start, minimize, and close Apps too. No need to move the mouse to an "X", Start, or anything. That method is just too counterproductive. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 4GB - ATI X1400 - Windows XP SP2 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
In ,
Char Jackson typed: On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:34:35 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:47:29 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise, Only if you use the Metro/Modern interface, which is entirely optional. No, not "entirely" optional, but mostly optional. If it were entirely optional, a user would be able to use just one interface or the other, rather than a mix of the two. I would like to be able to use only the desktop interface, but I can't. 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. IMHO, that's a big flaw, but by far not the biggest. Compared to Windows 7, I can only think of a few very minor things that Microsoft did right, where right means better, such as the improved progress meter when copying or moving files in Windows Explorer, or the improved Performance tab in Task Manager. Speaking of Task Manager, however, they completely screwed it up in other ways. When my system is under duress, I sometimes can't even load Task Manager, or if it's already running it'll go to a Not Responding state. That's not very useful, and it's a completely different and inferior behavior to previous versions of Windows. That's just the tip of the iceberg, though. When I'm logging onto Win 8, I type my password, then I click the password field to give it focus, and then I type my password again. In previous Windows versions, when you're presented with the logon password screen, the password field would already have focus. A small thing, to be sure, and it doesn't happen all of the time, but there are dozens of these small irritants scattered liberally about. Both Windows 7 and 8 has some annoying habits. Like both when popping up a new window, grabs the focus for a split second and then bouncing back to the old window sometimes. And both hogs the CPU so much for the OS itself, you need a multi-core processor just so it runs as fast as XP on a single core. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 4GB - ATI X1400 - Windows XP SP2 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
On 6/15/2014 8:15 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
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. I'm not sure I follow you, here Ken. I wanted the Metro interface as my default on this computer, but since it a notebook that doesn't have a touch screen, I had to change the parameters installed by 8.1U1 so that it once again defaults to the Metro UI. Since it is possible to do that, how is the default interface *not* chosen by the user? -- best regards, Neil |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
In ,
Neil typed: On 6/15/2014 8:15 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: 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. I'm not sure I follow you, here Ken. I wanted the Metro interface as my default on this computer, but since it a notebook that doesn't have a touch screen, I had to change the parameters installed by 8.1U1 so that it once again defaults to the Metro UI. Since it is possible to do that, how is the default interface *not* chosen by the user? Ken often states lots of things that are not true. He reminds me a lot like your average politician. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 4GB - ATI X1400 - Windows XP SP2 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:00:41 -0400, "...winston"
wrote: Char Jackson wrote, On 6/14/2014 10:59 PM: On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:42:11 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:17:06 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:52:34 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: and making the easy one difficult, requiring 3rd party add-on software to restore a Start button Yes, although requiring the 3rd party add-on software is a very minor point as far as I'm concerned, since it's so easy to install and use. It may be easy for you, or for me, or probably for most of the people who would join a newsgroup like this, but it certainly isn't for most ordinary folks just looking for a new computer in a shop. If they've used any kind of personal computer before, that tiled screen doesn't look like anything they can understand. That tiled screen is entirely optional, as I said. Ken, you keep saying "entirely optional" when I'm sure you mean mostly or partly optional. I don't think "entirely optional" means what you think it means. The biggest problem is that Microsoft has done a terrible job of letting people know there's a choice of interfaces or how to use the desktop interface. Like I and others have said, the biggest problem is that Microsoft didn't simply let users pick an interface *and stick with it*. I would love to use the desktop interface all of the time, but so far that doesn't seem to be possible. Unlike others (possibly Ken's wife too) my wife who rarely ever used the Start Menu on 95,98,XP, 7 prefers the Modern UI and want to know why exiting Outlook and Photo Gallery doesn't return to her preferred Modern UI mode since those programs were launched from their respective tiles in that mode. Exactly. I think a lot of people would have been happier if MS had given users a 3-position switch: - Use the Modern UI - Use the Desktop UI - Let Windows decide Each choice could still have been customizable, but at least users would have had a choice as to the starting point. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:53:40 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:34:35 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:47:29 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise, Only if you use the Metro/Modern interface, which is entirely optional. No, not "entirely" optional, but mostly optional. If it were entirely optional, a user would be able to use just one interface or the other, rather than a mix of the two. I would like to be able to use only the desktop interface, but I can't. I had to jump through a number of hoops to keep my computer from booting to the desktop after installing U1. If all you use are desktop apps, what is sending you to the Metro/Modern UI? Hi Neil. I realize that that's not a serious question but I wanted to acknowledge that I saw it. Thanks. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:48:04 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote: On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:28:13 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:42:11 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: It may be easy for you, or for me, or probably for most of the people who would join a newsgroup like this, but it certainly isn't for most ordinary folks just looking for a new computer in a shop. If they've used any kind of personal computer before, that tiled screen doesn't look like anything they can understand. That tiled screen is entirely optional, as I said. Although I set it up for my wife, she, who is a complete beginner at computers, never sees it. No, it's not entirely optional. Why do people keep saying this? It simply isn't true. As far as I'm concerned, it *is* true. Ken, I like and respect you. I believe, that you believe, that what you're saying is true. It's not, but that doesn't mean it's not true for you and the people around you. Neither my wife, nor I, nor many others I know, ever see it. Of the people around me who want to use the Windows 8 Desktop UI exclusively, I don't know a single person who is able to. That includes myself, of course. I'm 18+ months in and I'm up to about 97-98%, but 100% has so far eluded me. If a person is retired, for example, and they sit at home doing the same small set of tasks day after day, and none of those tasks unexpectedly take them from the Desktop UI to the Modern UI, then for them it's all peachy. That scenario doesn't describe me, however, and it's jarring in at least two ways when Windows switches UI's on me. It temporarily derails me and my train of thought, (I'm typically in front of a group of people, different every week), and it causes giggles and comments to ripple through the room when people see that I'm using a system running Windows 8. Quite often, those comments bloom into a side discussion about how annoying Windows 8 is because users can't simply choose the familiar Desktop UI. Yes, I know, *you* can, and the people around you can, but I and the people around me can't, at least so far. Like you sometimes say in other threads, we don't all use our computers in the same way. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
Neil wrote, On 6/15/2014 9:51 PM:
On 6/15/2014 8:15 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: 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. I'm not sure I follow you, here Ken. I wanted the Metro interface as my default on this computer, but since it a notebook that doesn't have a touch screen, I had to change the parameters installed by 8.1U1 so that it once again defaults to the Metro UI. Since it is possible to do that, how is the default interface *not* chosen by the user? I also read Ken's statement and wondered the same since configuration options are available to default to the Modern UI (Windows Taskbar properties on the respective Taskbar and Navigation tabs). Then I thought that he might be objecting to not having a single option on first setup or in the Personalization settings to to automatically default to one or the other modes. He could have meant something different...maybe he'll clarify to what extent, when and where 'choosing the default interface' means. Either mode is acceptable to me, but I do like the flexibility provided by being able to return to the Modern UI mode when exiting the Modern UI apps but also returning to Desktop mode when exiting application programs (e.g. Outlook). I've never been a big fan of the 1990's era Start Menu and use of has diminished to the 'rare' category since XP introduced the Quick Launch Toolbar which continues be functional on Win7-8x as a Taskbar toolbar option. In a short amount of time I can configure Win8 for my use in either mode (Modern UI or Desktop)...and now with even less need for a XP era designed Start Menu. -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:51:43 -0400, Neil wrote:
On 6/15/2014 8:15 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: 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. I'm not sure I follow you, here Ken. I wanted the Metro interface as my default on this computer, but since it a notebook that doesn't have a touch screen, I had to change the parameters installed by 8.1U1 so that it once again defaults to the Metro UI. Since it is possible to do that, how is the default interface *not* chosen by the user? Once you've chosen something, it's no longer a default. A default is what happens *before* you make a selection. That is, of course, assuming you're even able to make a selection. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 9 will be for rent
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:50:18 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:
My XP machines will never become obsolete. In fact, I just purchased another XP machine just yesterday. Linux, sure you could load Linux, but what good are they? I have two Linux machines right here and all they are good for is browsing and not much else. My Android tablets can do that. Heck they even play WMV and WMA files poorly. So not good in the multimedia department either. I hate to chime in on a good rant, but I thought I'd point out that WMV and WMA are arguably at the bottom of the list of test candidates when it comes to judging AV playback capability. You might as well use AVI. (OK, that was a low blow. No one uses AVI anymore, but then, no one uses WMV/WMA anymore, either.) A much better test is something from this century, such as Matroska (MKV). My Android devices and Linux systems, cousins to each other, all do wonderfully with MKV. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|