Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Greegor
Dec 17, 2012, 4:49:48 AM12/17/12
to
Microsoft's big opportunities to sell new versions of
Windows used to accompany hardware 6x faster
than the previous hardware.
This entails huge costs, much greater than the
mere cost of computers and Windows.
Adapting or replacing old, expensive or proprietary
software is a huge expense, as is any retraining
caused by such changes.
But these huge expenses were seen as
worthwhile because of the 6x speed increase.
Those days are over.
The applications that pay the bills for large
corporate users are things like order entry,
order recall, inventory, database, telephone
services scripts (Oracle) and word processing.
One outfit has about 150 computer workstations
in one room alone, plus about 30 more among
offices and operation center. But they have
about 25 such locations. Upgrading from XP
would offer them no advantage whatsoever.
Even though an operating system is crucial
for a computer, it is nonetheless a minor fraction
of the overall cost. If Microsoft is going to force
that MASS of old computers to be replaced with
no real advantage and for no real reason aside
from the marketing needs of Microsoft, it becomes
a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
What does Microsoft get per new OEM computer
with Win8? Maybe $30? Yet they expect to
force old systems to be scrapped and new computers
which provide no actual advantage to be purchased
at about $700 per system?? Just to fulfill Microsoft's
MARKETING NEEDS??
To force corporate customer service centers to
landfill/scrap all of those WinXP-Pro computers
by cutting off revised SECURITY UPDATES
is blatantly a MARKETING PLOY by Microsoft.
And not a very nice one.
Cutesy tiles instead of icons? Big deal.
How about that Android, eh?
Windows used to accompany hardware 6x faster
than the previous hardware.
This entails huge costs, much greater than the
mere cost of computers and Windows.
Adapting or replacing old, expensive or proprietary
software is a huge expense, as is any retraining
caused by such changes.
But these huge expenses were seen as
worthwhile because of the 6x speed increase.
Those days are over.
The applications that pay the bills for large
corporate users are things like order entry,
order recall, inventory, database, telephone
services scripts (Oracle) and word processing.
One outfit has about 150 computer workstations
in one room alone, plus about 30 more among
offices and operation center. But they have
about 25 such locations. Upgrading from XP
would offer them no advantage whatsoever.
Even though an operating system is crucial
for a computer, it is nonetheless a minor fraction
of the overall cost. If Microsoft is going to force
that MASS of old computers to be replaced with
no real advantage and for no real reason aside
from the marketing needs of Microsoft, it becomes
a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
What does Microsoft get per new OEM computer
with Win8? Maybe $30? Yet they expect to
force old systems to be scrapped and new computers
which provide no actual advantage to be purchased
at about $700 per system?? Just to fulfill Microsoft's
MARKETING NEEDS??
To force corporate customer service centers to
landfill/scrap all of those WinXP-Pro computers
by cutting off revised SECURITY UPDATES
is blatantly a MARKETING PLOY by Microsoft.
And not a very nice one.
Cutesy tiles instead of icons? Big deal.
How about that Android, eh?
knuttle
Dec 17, 2012, 8:11:49 AM12/17/12
to
getting old and may need to be replaced. In my investigations I have
been told that the that horrible new interface can be turned off and you
can use a XP like interface.
I sure hope this is true because I don't want to spend a large chunk of
my time on the computer chasing my programs around the screen. It is
bad enough having to open multiple menus and then when you find the one
you want, have the open menus collapse and you have to start over.
Ken Blake, MVP
Dec 17, 2012, 10:56:01 AM12/17/12
to
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:11:49 -0500, knuttle
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation where my computers are
> getting old and may need to be replaced. In my investigations I have
> been told that the that horrible new interface can be turned off and you
> can use a XP like interface.
You call it a "horrible new interface." I'm not crazy about it either,
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation where my computers are
> getting old and may need to be replaced. In my investigations I have
> been told that the that horrible new interface can be turned off and you
> can use a XP like interface.
but in my view, calling it "horrible" is a big overstatement.
But more important, there is *no* need to turn it off. Windows 8
has *two* interfaces; the Modern/Metro Interface (which is probably
what you are talking about when you call it "horrible new interface")
and the traditional Desktop Interface. That traditional
Desktop Interface is almost identical to Windows 7's interface; the
biggest difference is that there is no Start Orb to click to bring up
the Start menu. But note that you can get the Start Orb back by using
one of several third-party programs, either free or very inexpensive
(Classic Shell at http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/ and Start8 at
http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/; my personal preference is
Start8, but they are both very good). And going from one interface to
the other is very easy; there are several ways, but simply pressing
the Windows key is perhaps the easiest.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Greegor
Dec 17, 2012, 8:20:26 PM12/17/12
to
On Dec 17, 7:11 am, knuttle <keith_nut...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation
> where my computers are getting old and may
> need to be replaced. < snip!>
> I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation
> where my computers are getting old and may
How old?
Are you under pressure to get faster processors?
What type of processors do you have now?
Auric__
Dec 17, 2012, 11:22:58 PM12/17/12
to
knuttle wrote:
> I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation where my computers are
> getting old and may need to be replaced. In my investigations I have
> been told that the that horrible new interface can be turned off and you
> can use a XP like interface.
>
> I sure hope this is true because I don't want to spend a large chunk of
> my time on the computer chasing my programs around the screen. It is
> bad enough having to open multiple menus and then when you find the one
> you want, have the open menus collapse and you have to start over.
I've read, and been told be people who I tend to believe, that Win 8 is
> I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation where my computers are
> getting old and may need to be replaced. In my investigations I have
> been told that the that horrible new interface can be turned off and you
> can use a XP like interface.
>
> I sure hope this is true because I don't want to spend a large chunk of
> my time on the computer chasing my programs around the screen. It is
> bad enough having to open multiple menus and then when you find the one
> you want, have the open menus collapse and you have to start over.
*very* nice on a touch screen... and absolute crap on regular, non-touch
workstations.
--
She faced her doom this time around like a gambler with a pat hand.
Oblivion was bluffing. Showboating, even.
caveman
Dec 18, 2012, 12:03:38 AM12/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:22:58 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>knuttle wrote:
>
>> I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation where my computers are
>> getting old and may need to be replaced. In my investigations I have
>> been told that the that horrible new interface can be turned off and you
>> can use a XP like interface.
>>
>> I sure hope this is true because I don't want to spend a large chunk of
>> my time on the computer chasing my programs around the screen. It is
>> bad enough having to open multiple menus and then when you find the one
>> you want, have the open menus collapse and you have to start over.
>
>I've read, and been told be people who I tend to believe, that Win 8 is
>*very* nice on a touch screen... and absolute crap on regular, non-touch
>workstations.
I wonder why they didn't just flip over to the other interface.
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>knuttle wrote:
>
>> I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation where my computers are
>> getting old and may need to be replaced. In my investigations I have
>> been told that the that horrible new interface can be turned off and you
>> can use a XP like interface.
>>
>> I sure hope this is true because I don't want to spend a large chunk of
>> my time on the computer chasing my programs around the screen. It is
>> bad enough having to open multiple menus and then when you find the one
>> you want, have the open menus collapse and you have to start over.
>
>I've read, and been told be people who I tend to believe, that Win 8 is
>*very* nice on a touch screen... and absolute crap on regular, non-touch
>workstations.
(I also wonder why this is being crossposted to hell and back.)
Greegor
Dec 18, 2012, 9:05:55 AM12/18/12
to
Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
ROFL Look at the comments from UPGRADE purchasers!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416562
Microsoft Windows 8 Professional Upgrade $ 69.99
“Tasks that use to be simple are now quite complex, such turning off
your computer is now more multistep.
”
— 11/28/2012
-------------------------------------------------
At least Microsoft fired the culprit
“After looking at the various prerelease versions, I was sure
Microsoft would come to see the error of their ways and have ...
”
— Dennis 11/17/2012
------------------------------------------------
a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
ROFL Look at the comments from UPGRADE purchasers!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416562
Microsoft Windows 8 Professional Upgrade $ 69.99
“Tasks that use to be simple are now quite complex, such turning off
your computer is now more multistep.
”
— 11/28/2012
-------------------------------------------------
At least Microsoft fired the culprit
“After looking at the various prerelease versions, I was sure
Microsoft would come to see the error of their ways and have ...
”
— Dennis 11/17/2012
------------------------------------------------
Ken Blake, MVP
Dec 18, 2012, 4:39:52 PM12/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:22:58 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
> knuttle wrote:
>
> > I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation where my computers are
> > getting old and may need to be replaced. In my investigations I have
> > been told that the that horrible new interface can be turned off and you
> > can use a XP like interface.
> >
> > I sure hope this is true because I don't want to spend a large chunk of
> > my time on the computer chasing my programs around the screen. It is
> > bad enough having to open multiple menus and then when you find the one
> > you want, have the open menus collapse and you have to start over.
>
> I've read, and been told be people who I tend to believe, that Win 8 is
> *very* nice on a touch screen... and absolute crap on regular, non-touch
> workstations.
Then the people who told you know very little about Windows 8, and you
>
> > I don't have Windows 8, but I am in a situation where my computers are
> > getting old and may need to be replaced. In my investigations I have
> > been told that the that horrible new interface can be turned off and you
> > can use a XP like interface.
> >
> > I sure hope this is true because I don't want to spend a large chunk of
> > my time on the computer chasing my programs around the screen. It is
> > bad enough having to open multiple menus and then when you find the one
> > you want, have the open menus collapse and you have to start over.
>
> I've read, and been told be people who I tend to believe, that Win 8 is
> *very* nice on a touch screen... and absolute crap on regular, non-touch
> workstations.
should *not* believe them. You do *not* have to use the Modern/Metro
interface, and if you don't, it's hardly distinguishable from Windows
7, especially if you add a third-party program like Classic Shell
(free) or Start8 ($4.99).
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Bert
Dec 18, 2012, 5:21:26 PM12/18/12
to
In news:mho1d8pttbketmb4d...@4ax.com "Ken Blake, MVP"
for more than children's games?
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
<kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote:
> You do *not* have to use the Modern/Metro interface, and if you don't,
> it's hardly distinguishable from Windows 7,
So, what's the "value add" from Windows 8 for people who use their PCs
> You do *not* have to use the Modern/Metro interface, and if you don't,
> it's hardly distinguishable from Windows 7,
for more than children's games?
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Tim Rude
Dec 18, 2012, 5:52:31 PM12/18/12
to
"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA12DA66586A...@216.196.97.142...
Not much that I can see.
It seems to start and shut down a little bit quicker (once you can find the
shut down option), and I thought the on-the-fly benchmarking when copying
files was kinda neat. But otherwise, meh.
The wasted drive space from having all of the duplicated metro cr'apps is a
downer. And if you don't run something like Start8 to give you back a
sensible desktop and start menu, it's a nightmare.
Tim Rude
news:XnsA12DA66586A...@216.196.97.142...
It seems to start and shut down a little bit quicker (once you can find the
shut down option), and I thought the on-the-fly benchmarking when copying
files was kinda neat. But otherwise, meh.
The wasted drive space from having all of the duplicated metro cr'apps is a
downer. And if you don't run something like Start8 to give you back a
sensible desktop and start menu, it's a nightmare.
Tim Rude
Richard
Dec 18, 2012, 6:28:22 PM12/18/12
to
HankG
Dec 19, 2012, 3:52:33 PM12/19/12
to
"Tim Rude" <timrude...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kaqs3f$35f$1...@dont-email.me...
good. I'm still running Office Professional '95 & 97 (all legal, by the
way). My Word and Excel work just fine in OpenOffice. Tried Access, but
having difficulty. Since retiring, don't really need it anymore.
HankG
BillW50
Dec 20, 2012, 6:27:13 AM12/20/12
to
In news:kat9ef$iul$1...@dont-email.me,
HankG typed:
Naw... Windows 8 *does* have compatibility mode. It lists:
Windows 95
Windows 98 / Windows Me
Windows XP (Service Pack 2)
Windows XP (Service Pack 3)
Windows Vista
Windows Vista (Service Pack 1)
Windows Vista (Service Pack 2)
Windows 7
--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
HankG typed:
Windows 95
Windows 98 / Windows Me
Windows XP (Service Pack 2)
Windows XP (Service Pack 3)
Windows Vista
Windows Vista (Service Pack 1)
Windows Vista (Service Pack 2)
Windows 7
--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
knuttle
Dec 20, 2012, 8:48:10 AM12/20/12
to
>> <kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote:
>> You do *not* have to use the Modern/Metro interface, and if you
>> don't, it's hardly distinguishable from Windows 7,
the "Modern/Metro interface"
Or are we going to be stuck with starting in "Modern/Metro interface",
like we are stuck with collapsing menus from earlier Windows versions
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Dec 20, 2012, 9:34:37 AM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:48:10 -0500, "knuttle"
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in article <kav4ur$7e8$1@dont-
email.me>...
Closest you can come is to start in TIFKAM (The Interface Formerly
Known As Metro) and have it switch to the desktop shortly after (just a
few seconds, depending on your system speed) and provide a start menu
by using a start menu replacement utility like Start8, Classic Shell,
etc.
--
Zaphod
The secret of flying is to hurl yourself to the ground, and miss.
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in article <kav4ur$7e8$1@dont-
email.me>...
Known As Metro) and have it switch to the desktop shortly after (just a
few seconds, depending on your system speed) and provide a start menu
by using a start menu replacement utility like Start8, Classic Shell,
etc.
--
Zaphod
The secret of flying is to hurl yourself to the ground, and miss.
knuttle
Dec 20, 2012, 10:08:12 AM12/20/12
to
from the desktop and have my photographs as wall paper.
I have all of my active programs in the Quick launch toolbar, and other
programs are located in folders that are in the Quick launch toolbar.
The only time I go to the start menu is to shut down the computer.
I suspect that even if I have to go through the weird interface the
quick launch toolbar is history and there will be no way to clear the
desk top for your own photos.
Window X SP3, will change when I need to replace the computer, as
nothing practical will be available.
Ken Blake, MVP
Dec 20, 2012, 10:50:37 AM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:48:10 -0500, knuttle
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> <kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote:
> >> You do *not* have to use the Modern/Metro interface, and if you
> >> don't, it's hardly distinguishable from Windows 7,
>
>
> Would you tell us how to lock it so it defaults to the Desktop mode not
> the "Modern/Metro interface"
Download and install Start8. That's one of its options.
>
> >> <kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote:
> >> You do *not* have to use the Modern/Metro interface, and if you
> >> don't, it's hardly distinguishable from Windows 7,
>
>
> Would you tell us how to lock it so it defaults to the Desktop mode not
> the "Modern/Metro interface"
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Char Jackson
Dec 20, 2012, 11:06:34 AM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:08:12 -0500, knuttle
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I very rarely use the start menu as such.
>
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I very rarely use the start menu as such.
>
>The only time I go to the start menu is to shut down the computer.
Create a new shortcut, tell it to execute <path>\shutdown.exe /s, call
it Shutdown, and place it on your Quick Launch bar. Create a second
new shortcut, execute <path>\shutdown.exe /r, and call it Restart.
Now you won't have to go near your start menu at all.
knuttle
Dec 20, 2012, 11:22:47 AM12/20/12
to
Ken Blake, MVP
Dec 20, 2012, 12:20:45 PM12/20/12
to
US.
Get it at http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Dec 20, 2012, 12:40:00 PM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:08:12 -0500, "knuttle"
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in article <kav9ku$5lh$1@dont-
email.me>...
The desktop still exists, so you can change the wallpaper to your
photos (and even have them rotate automatically on a schedule). Also,
you can pin any program you want to the taskbar, which should be
similar enough to the Quick Launch toolbar to suit your needs. Start8
or Classic Shell are probably still the easiest way to make Windows 8
drop to the desktop automatically even if you don't want or need the
start menu replacement they provide.
--
Zaphod
"Yeah. Listen, I'm Zaphod Beeblebrox, my father was Zaphod Beeblebrox
the Second, my grandfather Zaphod Beeblebrox the Third..."
"What?"
"There was an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine. Now
concentrate!"
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in article <kav9ku$5lh$1@dont-
email.me>...
photos (and even have them rotate automatically on a schedule). Also,
you can pin any program you want to the taskbar, which should be
similar enough to the Quick Launch toolbar to suit your needs. Start8
or Classic Shell are probably still the easiest way to make Windows 8
drop to the desktop automatically even if you don't want or need the
start menu replacement they provide.
--
Zaphod
"Yeah. Listen, I'm Zaphod Beeblebrox, my father was Zaphod Beeblebrox
the Second, my grandfather Zaphod Beeblebrox the Third..."
"What?"
"There was an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine. Now
concentrate!"
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Dec 20, 2012, 12:40:50 PM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:20:45 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
<kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote in article
<l3i6d8tfctcnhqahv...@4ax.com>...
Classic Shell is a free alternative that also does this. It isn't as
polished as Start8, but it works well from what I've seen.
--
Zaphod
"So [Trillian], two heads is what does it for a girl?"
"...Anything else [Zaphod]'s got two of?"
- Arthur Dent
<kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote in article
<l3i6d8tfctcnhqahv...@4ax.com>...
polished as Start8, but it works well from what I've seen.
--
Zaphod
"So [Trillian], two heads is what does it for a girl?"
"...Anything else [Zaphod]'s got two of?"
- Arthur Dent
robot chicken
Dec 20, 2012, 12:52:43 PM12/20/12
to
what we really need is some kind of search engine to help us locate
what we're looking for. Someone should create something like that.
They could give it a unique but made up name, like Google, and they
could place it at an obvious address like www.google.com. Oh wait,
someone already did that! Never mind.
Greegor
Dec 20, 2012, 3:11:31 PM12/20/12
to
Why are so many people posting ways
to turn off cutesy parts of Win 8 and
band-aid the shortcomings to make it functional?
It's like a whole lot of making excuses!
to turn off cutesy parts of Win 8 and
band-aid the shortcomings to make it functional?
It's like a whole lot of making excuses!
knuttle
Dec 20, 2012, 4:50:37 PM12/20/12
to
On 12/20/2012 12:52 PM, robot chicken wrote:
> You bring up a great point. With so much information available now,
> what we really need is some kind of search engine to help us locate
> what we're looking for. Someone should create something like that.
> They could give it a unique but made up name, like Google, and they
> could place it at an obvious address likewww.google.com. Oh wait,
> You bring up a great point. With so much information available now,
> what we really need is some kind of search engine to help us locate
> what we're looking for. Someone should create something like that.
> They could give it a unique but made up name, like Google, and they
> someone already did that! Never mind.
You missed the sarcasm that you have to buy or search for a third party
piece of software to make Windows 8 a usable system.
Char Jackson
Dec 20, 2012, 5:21:33 PM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:11:31 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why are so many people posting ways
>to turn off cutesy parts of Win 8 and
>band-aid the shortcomings to make it functional?
Someone asked, someone answered. That's how newsgroups are supposed to
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why are so many people posting ways
>to turn off cutesy parts of Win 8 and
>band-aid the shortcomings to make it functional?
work.
>It's like a whole lot of making excuses!
make a new OS look more like an old OS.
Richard
Dec 20, 2012, 6:54:30 PM12/20/12
to
with new stuff that does less. At least that has been my experience
with OS upgrades.
Ken Blake, MVP
Dec 20, 2012, 7:35:34 PM12/20/12
to
inexpensive, it's what I prefer to recommend.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Ken Blake, MVP
Dec 20, 2012, 7:37:26 PM12/20/12
to
else. But I am interested in recommending ways to help people make
effective use, of Windows 8 or anything else.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Char Jackson
Dec 20, 2012, 8:17:44 PM12/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:54:30 -0600, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
If your experience with OS upgrades is anything like mine, it won't
cost anything. There are plenty of things I don't particularly care
for with any OS, Windows or not, but backwards compatibility isn't an
area where I can throw stones. MS has consistently done an amazing job
in that respect.
wrote:
cost anything. There are plenty of things I don't particularly care
for with any OS, Windows or not, but backwards compatibility isn't an
area where I can throw stones. MS has consistently done an amazing job
in that respect.
Char Jackson
Dec 20, 2012, 8:27:48 PM12/20/12
to
To me, sarcasm is more effective when it has a basis in fact.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Dec 21, 2012, 2:22:18 AM12/21/12
to
In message <kausmi$pmm$1...@dont-email.me>, BillW50 <Bil...@aol.kom>
writes:
[]
OpenOffice, why are you still running Office Pro '95 and '7 - or vice
versa?])
>> Access, but having difficulty. Since retiring, don't really need it
>> anymore.
>> HankG
>
>Naw... Windows 8 *does* have compatibility mode. It lists:
>
>Windows 95
>Windows 98 / Windows Me
>Windows XP (Service Pack 2)
>Windows XP (Service Pack 3)
>Windows Vista
>Windows Vista (Service Pack 1)
>Windows Vista (Service Pack 2)
>Windows 7
>
You should know by now, Bill, that you're not allowed to defend 8 to
those who have decided they don't like it (-:
(No Windows 3.1, or previous? Let alone DOS [I presume it does in fact
have command prompt, under whatever name they've chosen this time]?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Can a blue man sing the whites?
writes:
[]
>> I believe that I read that 8 does not contain a compatability mode.
>> Not good. I'm still running Office Professional '95 & 97 (all legal,
>> by the way). My Word and Excel work just fine in OpenOffice. Tried
(I take it you mean your Word and Excel _files_ do. [If you have
>> Not good. I'm still running Office Professional '95 & 97 (all legal,
>> by the way). My Word and Excel work just fine in OpenOffice. Tried
OpenOffice, why are you still running Office Pro '95 and '7 - or vice
versa?])
>> Access, but having difficulty. Since retiring, don't really need it
>> anymore.
>> HankG
>
>Naw... Windows 8 *does* have compatibility mode. It lists:
>
>Windows 95
>Windows 98 / Windows Me
>Windows XP (Service Pack 2)
>Windows XP (Service Pack 3)
>Windows Vista
>Windows Vista (Service Pack 1)
>Windows Vista (Service Pack 2)
>Windows 7
>
those who have decided they don't like it (-:
(No Windows 3.1, or previous? Let alone DOS [I presume it does in fact
have command prompt, under whatever name they've chosen this time]?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Can a blue man sing the whites?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Dec 21, 2012, 2:27:11 AM12/21/12
to
In message <jtj6d89n9i8rd7ghr...@4ax.com>, robot chicken
you now have to pay extra (OK, in this case, or hunt for the free
alternative) for what used to be included.
other with common problems; you could call it usenet, and group the
threads into areas with common interests, and call them newsgroups. Oh
wait ...
<r...@rbc.net.invalid> writes:
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:22:47 -0500, knuttle
><keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/20/2012 10:50 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
[]
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:22:47 -0500, knuttle
><keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/20/2012 10:50 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>> Download and install Start8. That's one of its options.
>>>
>>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
>>>
>>
>>
>>Is this available on the Microsoft website?
It does seem rather like the way privatisation has worked (in the UK) -
>>>
>>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
>>>
>>
>>
>>Is this available on the Microsoft website?
you now have to pay extra (OK, in this case, or hunt for the free
alternative) for what used to be included.
>
>You bring up a great point. With so much information available now,
>what we really need is some kind of search engine to help us locate
>what we're looking for. Someone should create something like that.
>They could give it a unique but made up name, like Google, and they
>could place it at an obvious address like www.google.com. Oh wait,
>someone already did that! Never mind.
>
Or a system whereby like-minded users could get together to help each
>You bring up a great point. With so much information available now,
>what we really need is some kind of search engine to help us locate
>what we're looking for. Someone should create something like that.
>They could give it a unique but made up name, like Google, and they
>could place it at an obvious address like www.google.com. Oh wait,
>someone already did that! Never mind.
>
other with common problems; you could call it usenet, and group the
threads into areas with common interests, and call them newsgroups. Oh
wait ...
QuestionQuigley
Dec 21, 2012, 10:18:42 PM12/21/12
to
On 12/17/2012 4:49 AM, Greegor wrote:
> Microsoft's big opportunities to sell new versions of
> Windows used to accompany hardware 6x faster
> than the previous hardware.
>
> This entails huge costs, much greater than the
> mere cost of computers and Windows.
>
> Adapting or replacing old, expensive or proprietary
> software is a huge expense, as is any retraining
> caused by such changes.
>
> But these huge expenses were seen as
> worthwhile because of the 6x speed increase.
> Those days are over.
>
> The applications that pay the bills for large
> corporate users are things like order entry,
> order recall, inventory, database, telephone
> services scripts (Oracle) and word processing.
>
> One outfit has about 150 computer workstations
> in one room alone, plus about 30 more among
> offices and operation center. But they have
> about 25 such locations. Upgrading from XP
> would offer them no advantage whatsoever.
>
> Even though an operating system is crucial
> for a computer, it is nonetheless a minor fraction
> of the overall cost. If Microsoft is going to force
> that MASS of old computers to be replaced with
> no real advantage and for no real reason aside
> from the marketing needs of Microsoft, it becomes
> a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
>
> What does Microsoft get per new OEM computer
> with Win8? Maybe $30? Yet they expect to
> force old systems to be scrapped and new computers
> which provide no actual advantage to be purchased
> at about $700 per system?? Just to fulfill Microsoft's
> MARKETING NEEDS??
>
> To force corporate customer service centers to
> landfill/scrap all of those WinXP-Pro computers
> by cutting off revised SECURITY UPDATES
> is blatantly a MARKETING PLOY by Microsoft.
>
> And not a very nice one.
>
> Cutesy tiles instead of icons? Big deal.
>
> How about that Android, eh?
It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel
that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve
functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create
new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost. MS seems to
ignore the human interface. I'm sure the time wasted by users hunting
through each new menu causes billions of dollars of lost productivity
each year.
--
Question Quigley
Kilkee
County Clare, IE
> Microsoft's big opportunities to sell new versions of
> Windows used to accompany hardware 6x faster
> than the previous hardware.
>
> This entails huge costs, much greater than the
> mere cost of computers and Windows.
>
> Adapting or replacing old, expensive or proprietary
> software is a huge expense, as is any retraining
> caused by such changes.
>
> But these huge expenses were seen as
> worthwhile because of the 6x speed increase.
> Those days are over.
>
> The applications that pay the bills for large
> corporate users are things like order entry,
> order recall, inventory, database, telephone
> services scripts (Oracle) and word processing.
>
> One outfit has about 150 computer workstations
> in one room alone, plus about 30 more among
> offices and operation center. But they have
> about 25 such locations. Upgrading from XP
> would offer them no advantage whatsoever.
>
> Even though an operating system is crucial
> for a computer, it is nonetheless a minor fraction
> of the overall cost. If Microsoft is going to force
> that MASS of old computers to be replaced with
> no real advantage and for no real reason aside
> from the marketing needs of Microsoft, it becomes
> a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
>
> What does Microsoft get per new OEM computer
> with Win8? Maybe $30? Yet they expect to
> force old systems to be scrapped and new computers
> which provide no actual advantage to be purchased
> at about $700 per system?? Just to fulfill Microsoft's
> MARKETING NEEDS??
>
> To force corporate customer service centers to
> landfill/scrap all of those WinXP-Pro computers
> by cutting off revised SECURITY UPDATES
> is blatantly a MARKETING PLOY by Microsoft.
>
> And not a very nice one.
>
> Cutesy tiles instead of icons? Big deal.
>
> How about that Android, eh?
It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel
that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve
functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create
new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost. MS seems to
ignore the human interface. I'm sure the time wasted by users hunting
through each new menu causes billions of dollars of lost productivity
each year.
--
Question Quigley
Kilkee
County Clare, IE
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Dec 22, 2012, 5:44:54 AM12/22/12
to
In message <kb38pt$h2i$1...@dont-email.me>, QuestionQuigley
The counter to that is that the majority (though not all) of us like
what we know. If a new way of doing things is actually better, though
unfamiliar, but they provided the option of keeping the old way, then
the vast majority of _upgrading_ users would immediately switch to the
old way. This would have the result that (a) the users would not benefit
from the new way, (b) MS [and others] would in effect have to duplicate
support effort, in that they'd have to keep supporting both.
Having said that, I do think they should put _more_ effort into easing
transitions. I'm not sure how it can be done, though: if you provide an
"old way" option, then as I've said above, most upgraders would just
activate it, and never get any benefit. (Whether there's any point in
those people upgrading anyway is a matter for another thread!) If they
provided some mechanism for the software to _gradually_ show the new
features, (a) it'd require quite a bit more programming effort, (b)
people might hate it just as much [remember how popular "clippy" was!]
if not more.
Some solution is of course always offered by third parties - "classic
shell" for W7 (and 8), for example, and several "old menu" offerings for
Office 2010.
FWIW, I use XP here, and Office 2003 - since they do all I want. I _did_
upgrade to XP from '98SElite, though: I _have_ found it more stable
(sorry 98Guy if you're here), and of course there's the better USB
support. I have played with 7 for long enough - I was setting up a new
big laptop for a very un-computerate person (she uses applications -
mail [I put Eudora OSE], Word, and IrfanView, and that's about it - and
probably has no interest in what version of Windows they operate under,
and I/we decided that 7 provided better future-proofing for her), and I
had it to play with for a month or two, and although I found some things
about it irritating, I think I could soon get to live with it with no
problems. At work, we moved to Office 2010 (from '03) a few months ago,
and there I _do_ find the new ("ribbon") interface irritating: I
genuinely have tried to give it a good go. (Also the so-called help
therein is also irritating, being more a google-like interface to
something online. Conversely, I think the help - and similar - in
Windows 7 is pretty good, and certainly better than XP and previous:
mainly because they've put some thought into considering what you might
call things, rather than forcing you - as in earlier versions - to think
of exactly what _they_ call things.)
So I _can_ see _some_ justification for new ways of doing things, and
forcing them on users. (Compare the seat-belt and crash-helmet laws; I'm
not sure if those are the same in US as UK though. [Here belts must be
fitted, work, and be worn if the car was made later than 19xx, and
helmets must be worn [by riders of motorised two-wheelers!] except by
Sikhs.])
enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill (quoted by Deb Shinder in WinNews Newsletter,
2012-11-30)
what we know. If a new way of doing things is actually better, though
unfamiliar, but they provided the option of keeping the old way, then
the vast majority of _upgrading_ users would immediately switch to the
old way. This would have the result that (a) the users would not benefit
from the new way, (b) MS [and others] would in effect have to duplicate
support effort, in that they'd have to keep supporting both.
Having said that, I do think they should put _more_ effort into easing
transitions. I'm not sure how it can be done, though: if you provide an
"old way" option, then as I've said above, most upgraders would just
activate it, and never get any benefit. (Whether there's any point in
those people upgrading anyway is a matter for another thread!) If they
provided some mechanism for the software to _gradually_ show the new
features, (a) it'd require quite a bit more programming effort, (b)
people might hate it just as much [remember how popular "clippy" was!]
if not more.
Some solution is of course always offered by third parties - "classic
shell" for W7 (and 8), for example, and several "old menu" offerings for
Office 2010.
FWIW, I use XP here, and Office 2003 - since they do all I want. I _did_
upgrade to XP from '98SElite, though: I _have_ found it more stable
(sorry 98Guy if you're here), and of course there's the better USB
support. I have played with 7 for long enough - I was setting up a new
big laptop for a very un-computerate person (she uses applications -
mail [I put Eudora OSE], Word, and IrfanView, and that's about it - and
probably has no interest in what version of Windows they operate under,
and I/we decided that 7 provided better future-proofing for her), and I
had it to play with for a month or two, and although I found some things
about it irritating, I think I could soon get to live with it with no
problems. At work, we moved to Office 2010 (from '03) a few months ago,
and there I _do_ find the new ("ribbon") interface irritating: I
genuinely have tried to give it a good go. (Also the so-called help
therein is also irritating, being more a google-like interface to
something online. Conversely, I think the help - and similar - in
Windows 7 is pretty good, and certainly better than XP and previous:
mainly because they've put some thought into considering what you might
call things, rather than forcing you - as in earlier versions - to think
of exactly what _they_ call things.)
So I _can_ see _some_ justification for new ways of doing things, and
forcing them on users. (Compare the seat-belt and crash-helmet laws; I'm
not sure if those are the same in US as UK though. [Here belts must be
fitted, work, and be worn if the car was made later than 19xx, and
helmets must be worn [by riders of motorised two-wheelers!] except by
Sikhs.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill (quoted by Deb Shinder in WinNews Newsletter,
2012-11-30)
knuttle
Dec 22, 2012, 8:54:56 AM12/22/12
to
On 12/22/2012 5:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
The counter to that is that the majority (though not all) of us like
> what we know. If a new way of doing things is actually better, though
> unfamiliar, but they provided the option of keeping the old way, then
> the vast majority of _upgrading_ users would immediately switch to the
> old way. This would have the result that (a) the users would not benefit
> from the new way, (b) MS [and others] would in effect have to duplicate
> support effort, in that they'd have to keep supporting both.
>
The counter to that is that the majority (though not all) of us like
> what we know. If a new way of doing things is actually better, though
> unfamiliar, but they provided the option of keeping the old way, then
> the vast majority of _upgrading_ users would immediately switch to the
> old way. This would have the result that (a) the users would not benefit
> from the new way, (b) MS [and others] would in effect have to duplicate
> support effort, in that they'd have to keep supporting both.
>
> So I _can_ see _some_ justification for new ways of doing things, and
> forcing them on users. (Compare the seat-belt and crash-helmet laws; I'm
> not sure if those are the same in US as UK though. [Here belts must be
> fitted, work, and be worn if the car was made later than 19xx, and
> helmets must be worn [by riders of motorised two-wheelers!] except by
> Sikhs.])
I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using
> forcing them on users. (Compare the seat-belt and crash-helmet laws; I'm
> not sure if those are the same in US as UK though. [Here belts must be
> fitted, work, and be worn if the car was made later than 19xx, and
> helmets must be worn [by riders of motorised two-wheelers!] except by
> Sikhs.])
OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
OS/2 far superior and stable.
However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that
assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer? In my work on the
computer the mouse works best, as it allows me access to all of the
areas on the screen with minimal physical movement. With the mouse I
can quickly move to any place on the screen and keep my hand in the area
where I am doing non computer things. i.e marking my place on the
physical page I am working with, turning the electrical switch over to
better see the information written on it, turning the chip to a better
angle to read what is written on it.
When comparing physical movement required by the mouse resting under my
hand to the movement needed to move my arm and hand all over the screen
to get the same results, the mouse will all ways win. So what if the
operating system is a tad faster, it does not increase the speed that I
can move my arm and hand. The touch screen causes a net increase in the
time to do any operation with the operating system because of the
increase physical movement of the body to get the job done.
This difference between the mouse and touch screen increases
significantly as the screen size increases and there is more territory
to move the hand to get the results you are looking for.
Using the same computer without a touch screen, still increase the
physical interaction time with the computer, because simulating a touch
screen using a mouse requires significantly more movement across the
screen. Again a net increase in the physical time to interact with the
operating system to get the same results.
Ergonomically the mouse wins hands down. How many muscle problems in
the arm and shoulder will be caused by keeping your arm and hand
extended in front of you for 8 hours a day?
With Windows 8, Microsoft has create a whole new medical syndrome.
Char Jackson
Dec 22, 2012, 10:17:30 AM12/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using
>OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
>Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
>
>I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
>OS/2 far superior and stable.
>
>However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that
>assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer?
That explains a lot about your attitude. You seem to have completely
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using
>OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
>Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
>
>I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
>OS/2 far superior and stable.
>
>However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that
>assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer?
ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and
using a standard desktop.
Ken Blake, MVP
Dec 22, 2012, 10:38:01 AM12/22/12
to
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:42 -0500, QuestionQuigley
<dor...@verizon.net> wrote:
> It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel
I don't agree at all. Sometimes the changes *are* major, but other
<dor...@verizon.net> wrote:
> It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel
times they are much more minor. It's certainly not "each version" that
has " a new look and feel."
For example, there is very little change in the interface between
Windows XP and Vista, or between Microsoft Office 2000 and 2003. And
even Windows 8, which many people think has a giant interface change
from Windows 7 is very different only if you want it to be. It's not
*just* the modern/metro interface; the old desktop interface is still
there and easy to switch to if you want to use it. I use Windows 8,
and use the old desktop interface almost exclusively; if you looked at
and used my computer. you'd have a hard time realizing that it was
Windows 8, not Windows 7.
> that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve
> functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create
> new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost.
not better or worse than what used to be, and seem to be done just to
make it different. But that's not very different from what
manufacturers of other products--for example automobiles--do.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
knuttle
Dec 22, 2012, 1:52:05 PM12/22/12
to
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Dec 23, 2012, 7:10:31 AM12/23/12
to
In message <kb4vgl$tpj$1...@dont-email.me>, knuttle
earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)
knockers do seem to be people whose hatred of the new interface has
blinded them to the fact that you can turn it off.
The W8 designers wanted to introduce a new way of working: it might
appear to be designed for touch screens, though there is more to it than
_just_ that. They also provided something similar to the old desktop.
They had to choose _one_ of them as the default; they _do_ provide an
actual button on it to change to the other one, so it isn't really
difficult. Which one they chose was probably a toss-up: their choice
might have been swayed by a combination of actually wanting 8 to appear
different, and getting people to try the new way. (If they'd made the
old one the default, the majority of both old and new users would never
have tried the new one, at least for long enough to give it a fair try.)
It may well be that the new way _is_ not a good one, but new things have
to be tried, or we'd never get anywhere (this new way of making marks on
flattened plant material - I'll stay with my clay tablets, thank you).
The only way to truly evaluate it, however, would be to poll new users -
people who'd never had a computer before (which must be getting hard to
find now!) - along with similarly new users of, say, 7.
(FWIW, I have no intention of moving from XP at the moment; however,
I've played with 7 for long enough that I think I could live with it. I
haven't played with 8 nearly enough.)
you.
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>On 12/22/2012 10:17 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
>> <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using
>>> OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
>>> Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
>On 12/22/2012 10:17 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
>> <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using
>>> OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
>>> Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)
>>>
>>> I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
>>> OS/2 far superior and stable.
So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.
>>> I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
>>> OS/2 far superior and stable.
>>>
>>> However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that
>>> assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer?
>>
>> That explains a lot about your attitude. You seem to have completely
>> ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and
>> using a standard desktop.
>>
>
>Blinded by your opinion, you missed the hole point of what I wrote
No, he has made the point I was about to make: most (not all) of the W8
>>> However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that
>>> assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer?
>>
>> That explains a lot about your attitude. You seem to have completely
>> ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and
>> using a standard desktop.
>>
>
>Blinded by your opinion, you missed the hole point of what I wrote
knockers do seem to be people whose hatred of the new interface has
blinded them to the fact that you can turn it off.
The W8 designers wanted to introduce a new way of working: it might
appear to be designed for touch screens, though there is more to it than
_just_ that. They also provided something similar to the old desktop.
They had to choose _one_ of them as the default; they _do_ provide an
actual button on it to change to the other one, so it isn't really
difficult. Which one they chose was probably a toss-up: their choice
might have been swayed by a combination of actually wanting 8 to appear
different, and getting people to try the new way. (If they'd made the
old one the default, the majority of both old and new users would never
have tried the new one, at least for long enough to give it a fair try.)
It may well be that the new way _is_ not a good one, but new things have
to be tried, or we'd never get anywhere (this new way of making marks on
flattened plant material - I'll stay with my clay tablets, thank you).
The only way to truly evaluate it, however, would be to poll new users -
people who'd never had a computer before (which must be getting hard to
find now!) - along with similarly new users of, say, 7.
(FWIW, I have no intention of moving from XP at the moment; however,
I've played with 7 for long enough that I think I could live with it. I
haven't played with 8 nearly enough.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
No, I haven't changed my mind - I'm perfectly happy with the one I have, thank
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
you.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Dec 23, 2012, 7:25:37 AM12/23/12
to
In message <1akbd8h1msaecfdnh...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,
which most people seem to either love or hate (i. e. few are not
bothered). [FWIW, I don't particularly like it, but don't hate it,
provided I can slide it out of the way to get my screen space back,
which I believe can be done.]
>even Windows 8, which many people think has a giant interface change
>from Windows 7 is very different only if you want it to be. It's not
>*just* the modern/metro interface; the old desktop interface is still
>there and easy to switch to if you want to use it. I use Windows 8,
>and use the old desktop interface almost exclusively; if you looked at
>and used my computer. you'd have a hard time realizing that it was
>Windows 8, not Windows 7.
>
>
>
>> that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve
>> functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create
>> new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost.
>
>
>But I agree with you here. Sometimes Microsoft makes changes that are
>not better or worse than what used to be, and seem to be done just to
>make it different. But that's not very different from what
>manufacturers of other products--for example automobiles--do.
(-:
(Sometimes there must indeed be an element of just making it look new,
but also sometimes it's a way of trying things genuinely new - some of
which work, some of which don't, and no amount of trialling will really
tell you which.)
>
>Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:42 -0500, QuestionQuigley
><dor...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel
>
>
>I don't agree at all. Sometimes the changes *are* major, but other
>times they are much more minor. It's certainly not "each version" that
>has " a new look and feel."
>
>For example, there is very little change in the interface between
>Windows XP and Vista, or between Microsoft Office 2000 and 2003. And
Agreed. But the change to Office 2007 and 2010 brought in the "ribbon",
>On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:42 -0500, QuestionQuigley
><dor...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel
>
>
>I don't agree at all. Sometimes the changes *are* major, but other
>times they are much more minor. It's certainly not "each version" that
>has " a new look and feel."
>
>For example, there is very little change in the interface between
>Windows XP and Vista, or between Microsoft Office 2000 and 2003. And
which most people seem to either love or hate (i. e. few are not
bothered). [FWIW, I don't particularly like it, but don't hate it,
provided I can slide it out of the way to get my screen space back,
which I believe can be done.]
>even Windows 8, which many people think has a giant interface change
>from Windows 7 is very different only if you want it to be. It's not
>*just* the modern/metro interface; the old desktop interface is still
>there and easy to switch to if you want to use it. I use Windows 8,
>and use the old desktop interface almost exclusively; if you looked at
>and used my computer. you'd have a hard time realizing that it was
>Windows 8, not Windows 7.
>
>
>
>> that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve
>> functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create
>> new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost.
>
>
>But I agree with you here. Sometimes Microsoft makes changes that are
>not better or worse than what used to be, and seem to be done just to
>make it different. But that's not very different from what
>manufacturers of other products--for example automobiles--do.
(Sometimes there must indeed be an element of just making it look new,
but also sometimes it's a way of trying things genuinely new - some of
which work, some of which don't, and no amount of trialling will really
tell you which.)
>
>Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Greegor
Dec 23, 2012, 8:41:55 AM12/23/12
to
How much does a multi touch screen for a desktop system cost?
If I'm going to buy W8 to run on one of my machines,
will any of the free third party DVD players run
on the basic version of W8?
What's added to the "Professional" version of W8?
Is there an Ultimate version of W8?
Is that compatability stuff to run old software
built into all versions of W8, or only certain versions?
I can't even buy a "clean boot" RETAIL version of W8
where the license is transferrable?
Microsoft actually has service centers where for $99
they will remove crapware and make you
a clean boot of W8?
When does Microsoft plan to pull the plug
on W7 and stop the SECURITY UPDATES
just to force those users to buy Windows 9?
Has it occurred to anybody that this model
where each Microsoft OS has really bad
SECURITY FLAWS actually benefits Microsoft?
What would happen to user DEPENDENCY
on Microsoft if they made a version of Windows
WITHOUT huge security flaws, without the
need for 200+ SECURITY UPDATES?
Aren't we all just like JUNKIES hooked and
dependent on Microsoft for SECURITY UPDATES?
If I'm going to buy W8 to run on one of my machines,
will any of the free third party DVD players run
on the basic version of W8?
What's added to the "Professional" version of W8?
Is there an Ultimate version of W8?
Is that compatability stuff to run old software
built into all versions of W8, or only certain versions?
I can't even buy a "clean boot" RETAIL version of W8
where the license is transferrable?
Microsoft actually has service centers where for $99
they will remove crapware and make you
a clean boot of W8?
When does Microsoft plan to pull the plug
on W7 and stop the SECURITY UPDATES
just to force those users to buy Windows 9?
Has it occurred to anybody that this model
where each Microsoft OS has really bad
SECURITY FLAWS actually benefits Microsoft?
What would happen to user DEPENDENCY
on Microsoft if they made a version of Windows
WITHOUT huge security flaws, without the
need for 200+ SECURITY UPDATES?
Aren't we all just like JUNKIES hooked and
dependent on Microsoft for SECURITY UPDATES?
knuttle
Dec 23, 2012, 8:56:53 AM12/23/12
to
On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <kb4vgl$tpj$1...@dont-email.me>, knuttle
> In message <kb4vgl$tpj$1...@dont-email.me>, knuttle
>>> <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was
>> using
>> OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
>> Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
>
> In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
> earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)
>>
>> I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
>> OS/2 far superior and stable.
>
> So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.
I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2
>>
>> I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was
>> using
>> OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
>> Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
>
> In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
> earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)
>>
>> I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
>> OS/2 far superior and stable.
>
> So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.
My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer
was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating
system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced
DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it.
I definitely am not afraid of new things.
While you are criticizing me for what I said, you never answered the
ergonomic problems I have with Windows 8
Auric__
Dec 23, 2012, 9:54:14 AM12/23/12
to
knuttle wrote:
> On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <kb4vgl$tpj$1...@dont-email.me>, knuttle
>
>>>> <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was
>>> using
>>> OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
>>> Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
>>
>> In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
>> earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)
"First version" isn't something I'd normally consider up for debate... but
> On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <kb4vgl$tpj$1...@dont-email.me>, knuttle
>
>>>> <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was
>>> using
>>> OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
>>> Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
>>
>> In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
>> earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)
then, "the first version of Windows" (i.e. Windows 1.0) predates OS/2 by a
couple of years. (If you were truly using OS/2 when Windows 1.0 came out, I'd
like to borrow your time machine.) As for "extolling the virtue" of Win1, let
me qoute Wikipedia (The Web's Largest Source of Disinformation[tm]):
"[...] when finally released, Windows 1.0 aroused little interest."
(*I* didn't even hear of Windows until around 1989-ish.)
Also, the first version of OS/2 was essentially "DOS plus"; no GUI provided
until OS/2 1.1, a year and a half after OS/2 1.0, and nearly half a year
after the release of Windows 2.1. Until then, any comparison between OS/2 &
Windows would've been apples and oranges.
>>> I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
>>> OS/2 far superior and stable.
for that reason, did you switch to NT3.1 when it first came out? It was the
first Windows system based on the OS/2 codebase.
>> So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.
>
> I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2
> My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer
> was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating
> system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced
> DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it.
on top of DOS. Just sayin'.
--
Excuse me while I change into something more formidable.
knuttle
Dec 23, 2012, 2:23:32 PM12/23/12
to
On 12/23/2012 9:54 AM, Auric__ wrote:
>
> The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells
> on top of DOS. Just sayin'.
>
Still no response to the ergonomic problems of Window 8
>
> The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells
> on top of DOS. Just sayin'.
>
John Williamson
Dec 23, 2012, 2:30:20 PM12/23/12
to
I've not tried these solutions, though, as I don't run Windows 8, and
can't @rsed to pay fifty quid to try it out.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
XP on this machine, 7 on another.
Auric__
Dec 23, 2012, 7:16:43 PM12/23/12
to
--
- Your boss is a sick fuck, Mal.
- I know.
JJ
Dec 25, 2012, 4:49:15 PM12/25/12
to
Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
> a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
That's proof that newer version isn't always better.
> ROFL Look at the comments from UPGRADE purchasers!
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416562
>
> Microsoft Windows 8 Professional Upgrade $ 69.99
What'd you get from easter egg? Windows 8!
> At least Microsoft fired the culprit
In this case, they fired the wrong person.
> Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
> a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
That's proof that newer version isn't always better.
> ROFL Look at the comments from UPGRADE purchasers!
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416562
>
> Microsoft Windows 8 Professional Upgrade $ 69.99
What'd you get from easter egg? Windows 8!
> At least Microsoft fired the culprit
In this case, they fired the wrong person.
JJ
Dec 25, 2012, 5:14:09 PM12/25/12
to
Greegor
Dec 26, 2012, 12:50:04 AM12/26/12
to
I walked into one of the big box stores with a dozen
different laptops on display and every blasted one
was being sold with Windows 8.
It looks like Microsoft has already started leaning on
every OEM to STOP bundling Win 7 with their hardware
and bundle Win8 with their systems instead, even
on the slow cheap notebook computers and systems
without multi-touch screens to do the pinch minimize etc.
The MS Life Cycle page says availability is "To be determined" for
Win7.
different laptops on display and every blasted one
was being sold with Windows 8.
It looks like Microsoft has already started leaning on
every OEM to STOP bundling Win 7 with their hardware
and bundle Win8 with their systems instead, even
on the slow cheap notebook computers and systems
without multi-touch screens to do the pinch minimize etc.
The MS Life Cycle page says availability is "To be determined" for
Win7.
Char Jackson
Dec 27, 2012, 5:52:01 PM12/27/12
to
Char Jackson
Dec 27, 2012, 5:55:00 PM12/27/12
to
the rest in for context. If your "hole point" (sic) wasn't captured by
that paragraph, then I indeed missed it.
In case I need to spell it out, Win 8 *doesn't* assume that you're
using a touch screen, at least not in the way that I think you mean
it.
Evgenii Sputnik
Dec 30, 2012, 9:51:53 AM12/30/12
to
Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a écrit :
> Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
> a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
Try VLC Media Player. It's free and GPL.
> Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
> a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
--
elspu...@gmail.com Evgenii Sputnik +79134596180
We should create misc.phone.mobile.android newsgroup....
Ant
Dec 30, 2012, 10:28:30 AM12/30/12
to
On 12/30/2012 6:51 AM PT, Evgenii Sputnik typed:
> Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a écrit :
>
>> Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
>> a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
>
Or get it MC for free within a time period:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/get-the-windows-8-media-center-pack-for-free-but-be-prepared-to-wait/6928
--
"As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their
crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and
purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or
troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some
slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to
hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope." --The Return of
the King (book)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
> Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a écrit :
>
>> Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
>> a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
>
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/get-the-windows-8-media-center-pack-for-free-but-be-prepared-to-wait/6928
--
"As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their
crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and
purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or
troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some
slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to
hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope." --The Return of
the King (book)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
knuttle
Dec 30, 2012, 1:24:49 PM12/30/12
to
On 12/30/2012 10:28 AM, Ant wrote:
> On 12/30/2012 6:51 AM PT, Evgenii Sputnik typed:
>
>> Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a écrit :
>>
>>> Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
>>> a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
>>
> Or get it MC for free within a time period:
> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/get-the-windows-8-media-center-pack-for-free-but-be-prepared-to-wait/6928
>
Will other media players like Real Player and the Apple media player
> On 12/30/2012 6:51 AM PT, Evgenii Sputnik typed:
>
>> Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a écrit :
>>
>>> Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
>>> a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
>>
> Or get it MC for free within a time period:
> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/get-the-windows-8-media-center-pack-for-free-but-be-prepared-to-wait/6928
>
work on Windows 8. They both are free.
Char Jackson
Dec 31, 2012, 1:32:02 AM12/31/12
to
thought usage had dropped to nearly zero about 10-12 years ago.
Roy Smith
Dec 31, 2012, 9:52:49 AM12/31/12
to
just fine.
--
Roy Smith
Windows 8
Thunderbird 17.0
Monday, December 31, 2012 8:50:11 AM
Greegor
Jan 4, 2013, 12:55:59 AM1/4/13
to
On Dec 30 2012, 8:51 am, Evgenii Sputnik <elsputni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It's not crippled by something left out of W8?
wrote:
> Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a écrit :
>
> > Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
> > a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
>
> Try VLC Media Player. It's free and GPL.
I've been using it for years and like it very much.
>
> > Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
> > a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
>
> Try VLC Media Player. It's free and GPL.
It's not crippled by something left out of W8?
0 new messages