Windows 8 Must Be Destroyed

Quote: MathExtremist

And how do you propose to evaluate the result of the wager?

I'll rely on your word of honor.

Oh, this is too good:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2042600/how-samsung-can-save-windows-8-tablets.html

Briefly, the way to sell Windows8 tablets is to have them dual boot Android.

Now, wasn't Win8 great for tablets? Wasn't the desktop dead?

Of course we need to wait and see how this plays out. In the meantime, can we have the desktop back now?

I made room on my desk to set up the laptop next to the desktop. I just need to get another mouse (again), and I'll be set to experiment with Linux. Most likely I'll go with Mint, running from an HD partition in the laptop (assuming I can do that). This also means experimenting with Linux-based software. I'm not looking forward to this, and I deeply resent Microsoft for making it necessary.

And I still need to replace my old Vista PC. Having considered all feasible options, I've concluded I'll bite the bullet and get a Win8 PC, modified to run like a real computer with a real OS. If possible, I won't get a touch screen in order to save a little money. In any case, I've no intention of ever touching the screen. Have you seen a tablet not smeared with spots and streaks? Why would I want to do that to my screen where I need to see (not touch) the work I'm doing?

But first I need to wait for Win8.1 to be released. Why? 1) To see whether Start8 and other such shells will still run (they may need to be modified) and 2) To see how it's received by the public. I hope it fails as misserably as the original. That might show the people at Redmond what's what. So I'm thinking around the post-holiday sales in January/February 2014. I resent this, too. I was ready to upgrade last January.

The other thing about this whole sorry mess I thoroughly loathe, are positive reviews of Win8 which rant against the people who don't like it in a certian way. which way? by saying something like "Don't be taken in/believe/pay attention to the negative reviews you may have read." As though I make up my mind based on other people's opinions.

I have't really used the new OS, past a few abortive attempts at trying to make the desktop work the way I want it on store display models. These experiences, along with what's written in the positive and negative reviews, are what I base my judgment on. As a matter of fact, some of the more positive reviews were instrumental in convincing me Windows 8 must be destroyed.

Well after following this thread Nareed destroyed my desire to own a win8 machine lol. My new plan is to buy a win7 unit and hope future versions of win8 will get better and then I will upgrade again.

Nareed go easy on the people from Redmond its where I grew up.
Windows 8 must be destroyed :)

Quote: rainman

Well after following this thread Nareed destroyed my desire to own a win8 machine lol. My new plan is to buy a win7 unit and hope future versions of win8 will get better and then I will upgrade again.

I think it's going to get worse before it gets better; if it gets better. And I dread that the reborn start button will lull people into accepting this system. That was clever by MS, I must admit. trumpet the return of the Start BUTTON, while donwplaying the fact it sends you to the "modern" start SCREEN. I've not yet decided what's worse, this or the habit of pinning dozens of program launch icons to the task bar.

Besides, I'm convinced by now the world is going touch-crazy. Worse yet, it's going app-crazy as well.

See, to my mind, an app is a simple and inexpensive bit of software that does one or two things in a simplified manner. A program is a more complex thing that does several things or at least offers more options for doing a few things. We used to install and use programs on computers. Now we're being sold on apps. That's rather ridiculous for a desktop PC, or even for a laptop.

I use apps in my phone, because the phone is limited in size, capbility and controls. So, sure, the Facebook app on my brick makes perfect sense, and it deliver Facebook better than the phone's browser. But I wouldn't dream of installing a Facebook app in my PC at all. Why, when I can view it and use it better in Firefox or even IE?

Dare I even think about a word processing app? The mind recoils at such thoughts.

Microsof it's also stuck in New Coke mode. The big failure of New Coke wasn't the soda itself, but Coca Cola's decision to do away with Coke in favor ofthe newcomer. MS execs can rail all they want about how an OS is not a soda, but the mistake is the same. They not only came up with somethign entirely different to replace the desktop, but they also pretty much rendered the desktop as near useless as makes no difference.

See, after it dawned on me what the "modern" interface was, I got news that desktop was still there. Well, that was a welcome development. I even went to Office depot to check it out. It took a bit to find it, but that was ok. Windows PCs always need tweaking out of the box (like removing allthe bloatware and excess launch icons, shortcuts, etc). When I found it, though, I also found there was no start button. That was like stepping into a balcony and finding there was no floor. I figured it must be there somwhere, because no one in ther right mind would dare cripple the desktop that way.

Well, no one in their rigth mind would.

And I swear, had the start menu been there, I'd have snapped a PC months ago. I'd have looked at the "modern" interface with disinterested curiosity, too. And who knows, I might have even found something worthwhile in it (I might stumble across a lost ring with a diamond the size of a grape, too; I don't expect it, but it could happen).

Quote:

Nareed go easy on the people from Redmond its where I grew up.

Oh, not all the people in Redmond. Not even all the people in Z'ha'dum (or whatever the MS campus is called). Hell, at this stage of the game I can't even blame it on Bill Gates!

Quote:

Windows 8 must be destroyed :)

:)

BTW, my intention wasn't to convince people not to use Win8, but rahter to find out how people already using it are coping with it. Seriously, see the first post. And also to find out if anyone but me is outraged at Win8, of course :)

Quote: Nareed

I think it's going to get worse before it gets better; if it gets better. And I dread that the reborn start button will lull people into accepting this system. That was clever by MS, I must admit. trumpet the return of the Start BUTTON, while donwplaying the fact it sends you to the "modern" start SCREEN. I've not yet decided what's worse, this or the habit of pinning dozens of program launch icons to the task bar.

This is Microsoft. They'll knock it off when people stop buying their products. If you're familiar with the debacle surrounding the new Xbox it's another example of MS being outlandish, the public crying out, and them putting things somewhat back the way they should be. The real message to gamers should be: Buy a PS4 instead.

Quote: Nareed

See, to my mind, an app is a simple and inexpensive bit of software that does one or two things in a simplified manner. A program is a more complex thing that does several things or at least offers more options for doing a few things. We used to install and use programs on computers. Now we're being sold on apps. That's rather ridiculous for a desktop PC, or even for a laptop.

I really think the crux of your problem here is that you think your "vision" of how things are or should be matters. You can decide in your world what an "app" is and be mad/frustrated/annoyed/whatever when it's not, if you like. But the question is: How's that working for you?

Quote: Nareed

I use apps in my phone, because the phone is limited in size, capbility and controls. So, sure, the Facebook app on my brick makes perfect sense, and it deliver Facebook better than the phone's browser.

See? Right there. You've decided a perfectly good term for your phone is a brick. Perhaps because it's roughly brick shaped, I don't know. But in technology the term "brick" has a meaning that you wouldn't apply to a working phone.

Quote: Nareed

But I wouldn't dream of installing a Facebook app in my PC at all. Why, when I can view it and use it better in Firefox or even IE?

I know I've seen you say that you use Firefox before, so I just have to ask... doesn't it underline all your misspelled words? I usually skip your posts because I find the carelessness of the spelling influences the way I view the concepts in the writing.

As for win8, I've used it. It was a little weird at first but I got used to it. Just like every other version of Windows. If you're really fed up with MS try out Linux.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

How's that working for you?

Splendidly!

Thanks for asking.

Quote: Nareed

Splendidly!

Thanks for asking.

So effectively you're saying that having a head-in-the-sand outlook on technology is working well for you in the thread where you're complaining about technology you don't understand.

I think that's awesome. I've always been a fan of cognitive dissonance.

Quote: Nareed

Splendidly!
Thanks for asking.

You've really been acting amusingly confident for someone with only superficial understanding of the subject matter in this thread.

Quote: Nareed

See, to my mind, an app is a simple and inexpensive bit of software that does one or two things in a simplified manner. A program is a more complex thing that does several things or at least offers more options for doing a few things. We used to install and use programs on computers. Now we're being sold on apps.

That's like saying "to my mind blackjack is a video machine and a carnival game is something played with cards". Saying it on a card counter forum, no less.

"App" is shorthand for "application". The difference from a program is that:
1) It includes all supplied media content, while a program is, strictly speaking, just the executable and its dependencies.
2) It is user-operated and intended to perform end user's tasks. Most programs don't interact with the user.

Svchost.exe is a program, but not an app.
Microsoft Word is an app and a program.
Included document templates, clipart and what else are part of Word as an app, but not part of Word as a program.

Quote: P90

You've really been acting amusingly confident for someone with only superficial understanding of the subject matter in this thread.

Sort of reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty....

Quote:

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

Quote: P90

That's like saying "to my mind blackjack is a video machine and a carnival game is something played with cards".

I felt it was more like saying "to my mind a blackjack is when you're dealt a jack of spades or clubs, and a carnival game is something where you toss coins into glassware in an effort to take home an ashtray."

Quote: P90

"App" is shorthand for "application".

You don't say!

Let's recap what I see wrong with Windows 8. This applies mostly to desktop PCs, though some may apply to laptops. And this is entirely based on my work habits:

1) Touch.

Ergonomically it's a very bad idea. Many people who put long hours at a PC suffer from repetitive stress injuries already. Reaching all the way to the screen would be a lot worse than anything the mouse and keyboard can inflict. It also gets on the way of the work being done. Beyond that, touching a screen tends to leave behind dots and streaks, which obscure the screen.

You can add a touch pad (or track pad) to your setup, and it will serve as a control instead of touch. These come in all laptops, but are rare for desktops. But beyond that, I find them difficult to use. Typically I disable them when I use a laptop and hook up a mouse instead. Not elast becaue sometimes the pointer moves if you brush the touch pad while doing something else, such as typing.

2) Gestures.

While they make sense on a tablet, they do not make sense on a desktop. Not to mention that everything we knew about using Windows no longer applies in this version, on half the interface at least. When a "modern" app is running, you can't close it by clicking on the "X" at the top right. There is no "X" there, nor any of the other controls we're used to. Here I'm also including the hidden objects, such as the "charms" bar. How are you even supposed to know it exists?

3) No task bar in the "modern" UI.

This means there is no way to tell at a glance what you are running at any given time. You must do some kind of gesture on, I believe, the left side of the screen to bring up an app strip, whatever it's called. You may need to scroll up or down, too, if you're running several apps. Furhter, if you had ten programs open in the desktop as well, these don't show up individually; rather they're all grouped as one desktop "app."

These three points render the "modern" UI largely useless as far as I'm concerned. It may as well not be there. Which brings me to the next gripe:

4) The crippled desktop.

Yes, it all comes down to the lack of a start MENU. The Windows Start Menu makes very efficient use of a very small portion of the screen. Pretty much you can access everything from there. No more. Gone. Poof! Now you ahve to perforce go to the start screen in the "modern" interface. How bad is this? Very bad. It forces you away from what you're doing and into an unfamiliar environment. Furthermore, you ahve to do this almost every time you want to run something, unless you are willing to clutter the taskbar or the desktop with shortcuts and pinned launch icons.

5) The crippled desktop taskbar.

A lot of people don't seem to know you can ungroup running programs on the taskbar. I've bene doing so as default for years. That way I can just glance at the bar and see what's going on. I can still do this in Win8, I admit, but how am I supposed to if I also need to pin, I estimate, ten launch icons there? I may as well not have a taskbar at all.

6) Gestures in the desktop.

While the desktop programs keep working as they did in previous,a nd better, versions of Windows, gestures also work now here. That means when you stray into a corner, you activate the hidden controls that may be there. I've read reports of people who have the "charms" bar pop up when they're selecting text or cells from right to left, too.

7) The sheer lack of any rational reason for crippling the desktop.

I understand trying to bring desktop PCs and tablets closer. I really do. But MS doesn't seem to understand the difference in working with a tablet as opposed to a desktop. I don't want to be restricted to tablet capability when I need a great deal more,a nd I certainly don't want a crippled desktop to try to work in.

Many of these issues are easily solved by installing a desktop shell utilkity. the fact that they can be solved so easily, tells me MS coudl have just as easily not crippled the desktopa nd not pushed desktop and laptop users to a tablet touch screen environment.

That's about it.

I did not mention the "live tiles" because they simply don't concern me. Likewise I did not mention the much-hyped improved search, because I see it as a backwards step to search for files or programs, rather than just running them from where I know they are. Look at it this way: do you keep, say, your car keys in the same place, so you just reach for them adn there they are, or do you just throw them somewhere and prefer to search for them each time you need them?

Yes, that's about it.

Windows 8.1, the alleged upgrade to Windows 8, will be unveiled officially today.

If you've been reading the tech press, though, you already know all there is to know about it. Even so, it's possible, and I'd say likely, MS will have reserved a "feature" or two for disclosure today. If they did, though, it's likely something highly technical to impress developers with, as such is the direct audience for today's unveiling.

Me, I'm not impressed at all with the changes I've read about. First, second, foremost and last, there is no start menu and no way native to the OS for bannishing the tile interface I've no use for. Therefore the only impact today's unveiling and the whole of Win8.1 has on me is to get me to change my tagline.

Of course, this means my tagline is now what it should have been from the start, right? :P

After weeks of leaks, rumors and speculation, the public preview of Win8.1 is out.

Allegedly one reason MS removed the start menu was that their telemetry indicated few users employed it, prefering instead to pin a lot of icons ont he taskbar. I don't believe that, entirely, but I hope their telemtry this time around will tell them how many Win8 installs make use of a start menu replacement shell (like Start8, Classic Shell, Pokki, etc). And further, how many "modern" apps are used overall (a survey by Soluto puts the number at little more than one such app per user).

What's clear is that MS is pushing hard towards the "modern" interface and "modern" apps. The much hyped return of the start button is an empty gesture. Yes, it's there. But all it does is take you to the "modern" start screen.

Oh, there is much raving about the "improvements." About all but four of them have to do with the "modern" interface. Now you can have up to four windows open at once! Meaning you don't have as much functionality as Windows 3. It means nothing to me, anyway, since 1) I have no interest in "modern" "apps," and 2) I run all windows full-size anyway.

What I can't understand is the new search function in "modern." Now it searches everything. I do mean everything: your files, settings, "apps" and the itnernet. Now, what's the good in that? I use search on the computer only to find files, and usually I confine the search to the area where the files are, or are likley to be (a given folder, the desktop, a CD, etc).

Suppose I wanted to look for my article on the Mob Museum. I'd open the file explorer, click on desktop, and run a search for files containing the phrase "mob museum." Why would I want the PC to go search the internet, programs, settings, or even other folders in the hard drive? Do I need to know the website for the Mob museum? Do I need to be directed to posts on this site? No. I need my article, and I'm sur enot going to find it in the Windows folder, or the internet, or whatever game disk I forgot to remove from its drive.

Seriously, can someone explain such logic to me? Do I conduct searches in ways that are completely atypical from the rest of the population? I ask because lots of articles are raving about this "feature."

In conclussion:

Dear Microsoft,

No start menu, no deal.

Quote: Nareed

Allegedly one reason MS removed the start menu was that their telemetry indicated few users employed it, prefering instead to pin a lot of icons ont he taskbar.

It's true.
On my home PC, I went into "All programs" in the start menu maybe once a month.
Of course, it was indispensable that once a month, but still.

Quote: Nareed

2) I run all windows full-size anyway.

Because your monitor was forged out of wrought iron by a smith in Hogfarmington and taxes on it were paid to King Edward VII, to his great surprise that such archaic implements were still being produced.

Does your PC at least have a hopper dispenser, or do you just shovel coal in it out of a pile on the floor?

Quote: P90

Does your PC at least have a hopper dispenser, or do you just shovel coal in it out of a pile on the floor?

You need to ask yourself: why such hostility at someone for using her computer a different way?

Quote: Nareed

You need to ask yourself: why such hostility at someone for using her computer a different way?

Half the reason you use it in a different way is because it seems to be about as modern as the Stonehenge.
Most of the other half is that, sorry to say it, but your descriptions of some actions betray you as less than particularly experienced.

And with all that in mind, you put forward your personal impressions - impressions of an unskilled user with an obsolete machine - as indisputable and self-evident truths, passing out grades and dismissing anyone who disagrees in broad strokes.

Quote: P90

Half the reason you use it in a different way is because it seems to be about as modern as the Stonehenge.

I said: "You need to ask yourself: why such hostility at someone for using her computer a different way?"

Quote:

Most of the other half is that, sorry to say it, but your descriptions of some actions betray you as less than particularly experienced.

I guess so. I've been using computers only since 1982. I couldn't even speak English then, and all those machines' displayed only english back then. Fortunately I was fluent by 1984. How fluent? Fluent enough to read "1984" as a matter of fact. But I digress. I've been using graphical interfaces since 1992 or so, if memory serves (and you know how memory often refuses to serve; and good for memory, too). And all that time I've been running all the windows full size.

Quote:

And with all that in mind, you put forward your personal impressions - impressions of an unskilled user with an obsolete machine - as indisputable and self-evident truths, passing out grades and dismissing anyone who disagrees in broad strokes.

Again: "You need to ask yourself: why such hostility at someone for using her computer a different way?"

Quote: Nareed

I guess so. I've been using computers only since 1982.

Then it's strange that you stuck with such novice-like habits and procedures. Mouse rather than keyboard switching, Windows Explorer, ridiculous CD-burning workaround to move your files. That you haven't accumulated a set of modern hardware - multiple displays, 1080p or larger, solid state drives, tiered storage configuration. That you haven't learned to put together your own PC or even swap the data drive and have to wait for it to come in a box with OS installed.

You need to ask yourself: what have you been doing for these 30 years to have learned so little about your primary work tool?

Imagine a car driver with the same experience that doesn't know what the third pedal does on a manual, can't tell his engine block from his carburetor, thinks his new car still has one, and doesn't know what that big dial to the right (left) of the speedometer is about.

Quote: Nareed

Again: "You need to ask yourself: why such hostility at someone for using her computer a different way?"

Same. You've been blanket dismissing everyone who uses their PC differently and were ready to make a bet with a far more skilled user that he won't be able to benefit from a touchscreen, even though he clearly stated he knows exactly how he would.

Quote: P90

That you haven't accumulated a set of modern hardware - multiple displays,

I don't need multiple displays, nor have I room on my desks for them.

Quote:

That you haven't learned to put together your own PC or even just swap the data drive and have to wait for the perfect one to come in a box with OS installed.

I've been driving for about as long. I haven't learned to put together my own car, and I just buy one, new or used, when I need to replace the old one. And curiously I buy them as they are, with a configuration that suits my needs.

Quote:

Just ask yourself... what have you been doing for these 30 years to have learned so little about your primary work tool?

Again, I've been using computers. I haven't been making them.

By this logic I should be sewing my own clothes, mixing my own makeup, growing my own food and treating my own medical conditions as well (with drugs and surgical techniques I devised, to boot)

Quote:

Same. You've been blanket dismissing everyone who uses their PC differently and were ready to made a bet with a user that he won't be able to benefit from a touchscreen, even though he clearly knows better.

I've done no such thing. I'm mad as hell MS has made an OS which is less flexible and less capable than what was available even 30 years ago. If you're happy with that, fine. Go nuts. If you want tongue controls and enjoy licking the screen, too, that's your affair. But I fail to see the need to impose that on over 1 billion PC users worlwide, in a vain attempt to break the tablet market. About the last, they'd have done better with a smaller, less expensive tablet.

Oh, and the ergonomics of touch screens on a desktop are horrendous.

Quote: Nareed

I've been driving for about as long. I haven't learned to put together my own car, and I just buy one, new or used, when I need to replace the old one. And curiously I buy them as they are, with a configuration that suits my needs.

And if that car comes with the gearbox set to "park", do you keep it parked and buy another one with the gearbox in "drive" to drive around?

Anyone who has any claim to being an experienced user knows, at the very least, how to install another OS and how to add or swap hard drives. Just like anyone who has any claim to being good with cars has to know at least how to check and top up their oil.

Quote: Nareed

I don't need multiple displays, nor have I room on my desks for them.

From your own words about your usage patterns, you would obviously benefit significantly from multiple displays. You should never, if at all possible, have to swap between applications you are actively using simultaneously.

Quote: Nareed

Again, I've been using computers. I haven't been making them.

Your own words about how you've been using them still betray you as a novice level user. Time alone doesn't make one skilled, it's acquiring and developing skills that does. If you refuse to develop yours on principle (hey, I'm a user, not an admin, I don't need to know what's under the hood!), they can very easily stagnate or degrade.

I regularly come across casual users who have only been dealing with computers since 2010-2011, not in any way professionally, and already show far greater levels of skill and proficiency. No offense, it's just that there's far more to being an advanced user than knowing how to launch your three apps of choice.

Quote: P90

And if that car comes with the gearbox set to "park", do you keep it parked and buy another one with the gearbox in "drive" to drive around?

Really? try a better analogy.

Like this:

I have had very good experiences with my Toyota, from purchasing it, to driving it, to the service at the dealership (and quite economical, considering it's a dealership). But if they decided to sell only hybrids from now on, I would never buy a Toyota again.

Why not? Because hybrids are more expensive, and I'd never make back the difference in gas savings. Why not? Because I don't pay for gas, my employer does. Besides, even if I did pay for gas, financially it would be best to invest the difference anywhere (if I had i).

I would instead eventually buy a different brand of car. I would not decide I should adapt, or make my own car.

Quote:

Anyone who has any claim to being an experienced user knows, at the very least, how to install another OS

I'm sure I could. I mean, these things are pretty much automated these days anyway.

Quote:

and how to add or swap hard drives.

In my life one, that's one (1), hard drive has failed me. Just one (repeat, one). That was about two years ago, give or take, in my work PC. Maybe I could have figured out how to replace it. But company policy is that such things are handled only by in-house tech support. In my whole life, I've never needed to add another drive. Oh,

Quote:

Just like anyone who has any claim to being good with cars has to know at least how to check and top up their oil.

What you're proposing is more like changing the oil. I can check the oil (and the hydraulic fluid, the gear-box fluid, he brake fluid and the anti-freeze) and top it off if needed. I can change a tire, too. I've even done it. I've never changed the oil, nor intend to.

Quote:

From your own words about your usage patterns, you would obviously benefit significantly from multiple displays. You should never, if at all possible, have to swap between applications you are actively using simultaneously.

Why spend hundreds on a second display, reduce my work area, and get a crick in the neck, when i can simply switch between programs with but one simple, inexpensive click?

Quote: Nareed

I would not decide I should adapt, or make my own car.

It takes a year to make your own car. It takes half an hour to assemble a PC from off the shelf components.
"Brands" of PCs aren't even real makers, they are just colorful labels slapped on products made from the same standard parts.

Assembling a PC is like putting together a Lego set, except easier, since it's not designed as a puzzle. You surely don't go around complaining there isn't a Lego set "just like that, but without a bridge", you just build it without a bridge.

The parts used by brands are mostly of low to mediocre quality, so once people learn enough about computers to know the difference, they prefer more direct control over what goes inside theirs. Generally a white box build is likely to be 10%-25% faster, 30-100 times quieter, and somewhat more reliable than a comparable black box. For people who can't even spare that hour, retailers offer building services.

Quote: Nareed

What you're proposing is more like changing the oil. I can check the oil (and the hydraulic fluid, the gear-box fluid, he brake fluid and the anti-freeze) and top it off if needed. I can change a tire, too. I've even done it. I've never changed the oil, nor intend to.

Replacing the hard drive? Ha. It takes me 2-3 minutes to change a hard drive in my PC. All I need is a Philips head screwdriver; the PC can even stay on, if I'm changing a data drive.

Do you know a car where you can change the oil in 3 minutes with no effort? Please tell.


It's not that changing the oil isn't a routine procedure that everyone claiming to be an above average car owner should be comfortable with, but it does involve some knowledge, equipment, effort, time and dexterity not to get any oil on yourself. Changing a hard drive is literally "put the wide cable in the wide socket, the narrow cable in the narrow socket, close back up".
In car terms... Remember these removable stereo faceplates that some cars probably still have? That.

Quote: Nareed

IWhy spend hundreds on a second display, reduce my work area, and get a crick in the neck, when i can simply switch between programs with but one simple, inexpensive click?

Switching takes far longer than simply moving your eye to the side where everything you need is already open. If you get paid by the hour, I guess you're doing everything right.

Multiple large displays don't really reduce your work area, you can simply place them a little further. I sit well more than an arm's reach from all my screens; a landscape with two portraits on the side fits right between the front speakers and leaves more flat table area in front than I can even use without leaning.

Although the advent of 4K displays is likely to make the traditional P-L-P arrangement less necessary. As soon as they get the interconnect working, I will upgrade to a large 4K main, sitting on its own stand behind the table, screen bottom flush with the table surface.

is new windows going to be in cars? that sounds like its fun to me! and whats wrong with having apps? do you not like computers then why use one?

Quote: P90

It takes half an hour to assemble a PC from off the shelf components.

Ok, Einstein. But it takes days of visiting computer supply stores in downtown Mexico City to get the components. Sure, I could go to a mall half a mile from my office, if I wanted second-hand, refurbished, rebuilt and substandard parts. But that's not the point, is it? Why woulnd't I do that?

But the whole argument is pointless. Tell me, how would building my own PC improve Windows8?

Quote:

Multiple large displays don't really reduce your work area, you can simply place them a little further.

Let's do something else. you fly down here, see my office, see my home office, then repeat that with a straight face. UNtil then stop moving the goal posts, contradicting yourself, and offering non-solutions, ok?

Quote: Nareed

Ok, Einstein. But it takes days of visiting computer supply stores in downtown Mexico City to get the components.

Visiting stores in person? Don't tell me you're going to do it in a donkey cart, too. Both fell out of fashion at about the same time.

Here's how you do it worldwide.
The best one in Mexico is probably http://www.dimercom.mx/.

The absolutely latest and greatest seems to command a premium in your country, but your stores have reasonable prices on anything a bit behind. For instance, the Intel 2500K CPU is only 3,450 pesos - and I guess your stores include VAT - about the same price as in Europe.

Quote: Nareed

Let's do something else. you fly down here, see my office, see my home office, then repeat that with a straight face. UNtil then stop moving the goal posts, contradicting yourself, and offering non-solutions, ok?

You do live in your own house, don't you? And it's probably larger than 400 square feet.
Just a 10x10 ft study is enough for multiple large displays, book cabinets or shelves on the back and side walls, an equipment rack, and still a bit of room to spare.
Not saying what you should do, but where there is a will, there is a way.

Quote: Nareed

But the whole argument is pointless. Tell me, how would building my own PC improve Windows8?

It's simply something you would already be doing if you were well-versed in computers and particular about them.
It's also a question of build quality - if you want it, you have to do it yourself, everyone working for hire takes shortcuts.

Although... With the all glass front TVs popular today, you don't have to worry about scratches and spills. Add a touchscreen and a touch-compatible operating system - that's right, Windows 8 - and you could use your table as an input device.

Quote: P90

Visiting stores in person? Don't tell me you're going to do it in a donkey cart, too. Both fell out of fashion at about the same time.

I'm touched that you spent so much time end effort to embarrass yourself.

If you don't know how to use an online store - or, worse, don't know to use an online store for anything computer related - then it's not me who should be embarrassed.

The other thing that bugs me no end is a type of comment you run across when discussing Win8. It boils down to "You're just resistant to change," or a variation thereof. It's supposed to be self-evident condemnation; as though change by itself and without context were an instrinsic good, not to be doubted or questioned in any way. It's almost a religious position.

There is one process common, now, to human life where change takes place almost constantly and makes for an overall improvement: Progress.

Progress does imply change, and progress is, overall, a good thing. But not all change is progress and not all change is good, overall or otherwise. A specific change may be good for some people and not for others, depending on eprsonal circumstances. Let me give you a simple example:

At the apaprtment building where I live, the tenant's association president once, on his own initiative, programed the elevators to return to the ground floor automatically when there were no calls from other floors. I live in the first floor, and typically only go down to one of the two basements. So for me that was a great change. The elevator was nearly always one floor away. As you can guess, people living in the upper floors were less than thrilled.

When it comes to an operating system, Win8 is less lfexible, and has less ways of doing things than its predecessors did. So by that measure alone that change is not good at all, and resisting it would be a very natural consequence.

I have been following this thread with interest since I am still using my 6 year old lap top with Vista and it is time for an upgrade. I didn't think much about W8 until Nareed started her rant and then started researching it more. I found lots of hostility on the web but that has been the case for every Windows upgrade so I took it with a grain of salt. Reading P90's posts on this thread probably had the opposite effect than he desired since he basically says become a power user or go home.

Yesterday I went to see one of the most knowledgable geeks in town with a router configuration problem I was having with satellite internet for a customer. The geek has been a computer consultant for 30 years. He set up the first internet portal in town and used to have a program review blog with enough readership that he was always given a copy of any new program by the developers to review on his blog.

Someone with these credentials commented on his own that W8 was a disaster for business. He loaded it onto one of his computers to get up to speed for his clients. He is recommending to clients that need new computers to buy them with Windows 7 while they still can. Another of his comments was that it will be a tremendous cost to retrain all the business users as well as the government users (WHICH WE WILL ALL PAY FOR) before they will be able to use the new operating system.

Quote: kenarman

I found lots of hostility on the web but that has been the case for every Windows upgrade so I took it with a grain of salt.

While this is so, a major redesign of the OS that takes away the most often used elements will innevitably ellicit loud, emphatic complaints. All the more so when even with the first service pack (and let's not quibble over terminology), the new and improved OS has less functional capability, in some respects, than did Windows 3.

Quote:

Someone with these credentials commented on his own that W8 was a disaster for business.

That will do for an understatement until a better one comes along :)

Quote:

He is recommending to clients that need new computers to buy them with Windows 7 while they still can.

That's geting harder to do all the time. It's also more expensive, sometimes impressively so. I think you can upgrade a Win8 machine to Windows 7, but again there's the matter of cost. I'd explore a start menu replacement shell first.

Quote:

Another of his comments was that it will be a tremendous cost to retrain all the business users as well as the government users (WHICH WE WILL ALL PAY FOR) before they will be able to use the new operating system.

That, or a tremendous loss in productivity.

Back when Win95 replaced Win3 and DOS, I was concerned with exactly two PCs at work. Since then there has been no real need to retrain, as every successive Windows version worked very much the same way. I'd say Microsoft's big mistake with Win8 was to remove the start menu from the desktop. I can't say it, because Win8.1 has shown it was deliberate and not a mistake.

Further, as I've said before, all indications are the desktop will be gone entirely by Windows 9. This is simply unacceptable to me.

Quote: kenarman

Reading P90's posts on this thread probably had the opposite effect than he desired since he basically says become a power user or go home.

Correct. The community has been very hostile to W8 betas that removed the start menu, but after a while, and especially after Server 2012 came out, where the new interface is implemented well (for its server tasks), people started getting into it. There was a lot of "what was MS thinking?", but now we are getting what they were thinking, and some of the new concepts make sense on a proper PC as well. You do, however, have to be a power user to ease into it in reasonable time.

Everyone else should stick to Windows 7 SP1 at least till January 2015, when mainstream support ends. By that time they may be able to familiarize themselves with the interface on tablets. Extended support will last till 2020.

The desktop isn't going anywhere. It's still needed for compatibility reason with application suites that fundamentally depend on opening multiple API windows. It may, however, become a single application sandbox.

As for novice users, it's upon their system administrator to prominently pin the 4 or 6 or 8 apps they need for their job, configure everything, and lock it up. This time till 2015 is also for admins to get up to speed on how to do it and how to manage from Server 2012.

P.S. And this post has been sent from XP SP3.

Ok, I really need an explanation for the newfangled search in Win8.1.

Briefly, and as I mentioned before, the new search function by default performs the search in the local PC (files, setting and programs) as well as on the web. the question is "why would anyone want to do this?"

A search isn't just a search. Largely where you look depends on what you're looking for. Take a simple example: if you want ketchup you'd look in the pantry or the fridge. You wouldn't look for it in your closet or in the clothes hamper. Likewise when I look for a file, I look in my PC and not the web. when i look for information, I search the web and not my PC. Why would combining these searches be of any use?

The only occasion where I see any use, is if I were looking for an installer. Given that 99% of these nowadays are small bits of code and will download the program from the web anyway, then finding it in my files and running it vs finding it on the web and running it are nearly equivalent.

Seriously, if I want infomration on say, the crash-landing at SFO, I know it won't be in my PC. And if I want a short story I'm working on, it won't be on the web.

I'm just stumped wiht this new development. It doesn't make sense on any level, not even in a nefarious MS plot to spy on its users.

Quote: Nareed

Ok, I really need an explanation for the newfangled search in Win8.1.

Briefly, and as I mentioned before, the new search function by default performs the search in the local PC (files, setting and programs) as well as on the web. the question is "why would anyone want to do this?"

I'm just stumped wiht this new development. It doesn't make sense on any level, not even in a nefarious MS plot to spy on its users.

It's a "what" vs. "where" question. The technology actually makes a lot of sense if you're familiar with the original intent/design of the web. The original concept behind URLs was full qualification -- there is exactly one way to locate the resource (data) you want to manipulate. If you have the URL, you don't need to know physically where the data is located. (Much of the web works like this now; when I type in www.google.com into my browser, that request goes to a different server and hard drive than when you do it.)

The point is, the URL scheme and the HTTP protocol that operates on it are designed to be location agnostic. Traditional filesystems like FAT32 or NTFS are not. Those filesystems, as a matter of technical history, developed naturally as a hierarchical structure, so the concept of files and folder containment was part of the system. But folders are a really bad way to organize information: the folder structure assumes there is exactly one hierarchy-defining attribute, when that is rarely the case. For example, I have many clients and (on my hard drive) a folder for each one. But I also often copy boilerplate (such as invoice templates) from one client to another, sometimes making changes as I go. When I do that, I have to copy the invoice file from one client's folder to another. If all my invoices were in the same folder that would have been easier, but then it'd be harder to map invoices to clients. You're accustomed to working in an information management scheme where the two variables you have to work with are filename and filesystem location, but that doesn't imply that those variables are optimal for the task. Especially now that storage size has increased by orders of magnitude.

Search vs. organize was a debate that happened last decade. For large data sets, organize lost. You can see that by comparing the success of Yahoo (originally a curated web hierarchy) vs. Google (an algorithmic search engine). This move by MS reflects that personal computers are now home to large data sets and are increasingly unsuited to information curation, especially by people who don't know how. The bottom line is that moving to a search-based retrieval allows further abstraction from the details of the file system. I eagerly look forward to the day when I can ubiquitously request "what" data I want to manipulate (from wherever I am) rather than having to remember "where" that data is. Modern filesystems aren't there yet but they're moving in that direction. And of course, that's the whole point of "the cloud."

Quote: MathExtremist

I eagerly look forward to the day when I can ubiquitously request "what" data I want to manipulate (from wherever I am) rather than having to remember "where" that data is. Modern filesystems aren't there yet but they're moving in that direction. And of course, that's the whole point of "the cloud."

Ok. But you still will always know news stories or wikipedia info on the Asiana flight won't be in your drive, and the documents you generated won't be in the web (and if a web search turns up your stored files in "The Cloud," you need a more secure service provider).

So, I'd understand searching your local drive and your "the cloud" storage space. sure. But not the web.

Quote: Nareed

Ok. But you still will always know news stories or wikipedia info on the Asiana flight won't be in your drive, and the documents you generated won't be in the web (and if a web search turns up your stored files in "The Cloud," you need a more secure service provider).

So, I'd understand searching your local drive and your "the cloud" storage space. sure. But not the web.

You're still focusing on the "where" of the data, and the point is that the search paradigm reaches its maximum utility when "where" doesn't matter at all -- and indeed, when all available resources are "the web" regardless of what storage medium the data happens to be residing in at that point in time. You want to know about Asiana? You ask your magic box and it tells you. Where it gets the information from is just details, best left to the technologists, much like ordering a hamburger doesn't require you to supervise the grinding of the beef, cooking the patty, or slicing the condiments. You just order a hamburger and the restaurant provides it.

Once you've gotten comfortable with that level of abstraction, and you can separate the "what" away from the "where," the technical details of the "where" can seamlessly change without affecting you. Right now, that can't happen. Instead, you're forced to deal with the "where" as a matter of course. But that's a historical artifact, not because it's the best way of operating.

Quote: MathExtremist

You're still focusing on the "where" of the data, and the point is that the search paradigm reaches its maximum utility when "where" doesn't matter at all -- and indeed, when all available resources are "the web" regardless of what storage medium the data happens to be residing in at that point in time.

I don't see it. Let's try an analogy:

Suppose you no longer want to be bothered with keeping track, storing and finding any of your posessions. You get a robot to take care of it for you (or several, it doens't mater). So when you come home from the store, the robot puts everything away. Now, obviously "where" matters a great deal. You wouldn't want it to put the meat in the linen closet, the shampoo in the freezer or the pillowcases in the bathroom. So, naturally, it will put the shampoo in the bathroom, the meat in the freezer and the pillowcases in the linen closet. But you don't need to concern yourself with that.

Of course a robot might not see any difference between storing canned goods, say, in the pantry or the linen closet. Both are suitable places. But that's fine by you.

Now, when you want something, do you suppose the search the robot does will be more efficient if it remembers where everything is? Or would you rather it began to search in the pantry, moved to the linen closet, then the bathroom, then the freezer, then the clothes closet, then your desk, when looking for a pen? If it does the latter, then it's merely wasting time. If the former, it would head straight where it needs to go.

As I see it, the Win8.1 search is the second option.

With the added disadvantage that one could count on the robot to recognize a pen, so it would not give you a can of Spam instead. Current computers have no idea what's what. So fi I were to do a search for, say, my short story "Betrayal," first I'd have to sift through whatever Win8.1/Bing decides to search for. How many instances of the word "betrayal" would it find on the web? Millions? In my hard drive? Dozens, perhaps? (conceivably I've used the term in other stories or in my outlines and notes about them)

I'd be a lot better off opening the folder I labeled "FICTION" and then the sub-folder "Betrayal." If for some reason I forgot where I put it, I'd still be better off opening the hard drive in Windows Explorer and doing a search for "Betrayal"

Now, lest you think I'm a well-organized person who always knows where her stuff is, think again :) I'm messy when it comes to keeping things. No matter what I do, there are always papers piled on my desk, or strewn about the room in the most unlikely places. Even my books tend to drift. Last week I finally found Asimov's "The Caves of Steel" among the Alternate History shelf (why? I don't know what it was doing there.)

But when it comes to storing files on a hard drive or a thumb drive, I can get organized easily and always, always, always know where everything is. Why the difference? Because it's so easy on a computer. You don't have to wonder if the file will fit, or get wrinkeld, or exposed to sunlight, etc, etc, etc.

Quote:

You want to know about Asiana? You ask your magic box and it tells you. Where it gets the information from is just details, best left to the technologists, much like ordering a hamburger doesn't require you to supervise the grinding of the beef, cooking the patty, or slicing the condiments. You just order a hamburger and the restaurant provides it.

If you feel that way, here's some very useful advice: do not ever, and I mean EVER, order a burger in a palce you either don't know or is not part of a well-established restaurant chain. You've no idea what some places pass for ground "beef."

But when I want news for the Asiana accident, I don't look in my hard drive.

Quote: Nareed

I don't see it. Let's try an analogy:

Suppose you no longer want to be bothered with keeping track, storing and finding any of your posessions.

And you won't "see it" until you realize why your analogy is flawed. Tangible goods are not a suitable analogy for intangible information. You would never look for a can of soup in your underwear drawer (I hope). You and I live in a physical world. Information does not, but early information architecture used an organizational scheme very similar to that used in the physical world -- that's why "documents" are stored as "files" in "folders." That's what you're accustomed to, but that structure is not inherently required for intangible information.

Are you aware, for example, that the physical location of data on your hard drive changes? This happens whenever you defragment your disk, and often other times as well. The filesystem is an abstraction for individual memory units -- locations on tape, tracks/sectors/cylinders on a HD, however flash memory is structured, etc. Presumably, you've never actually fetched raw data from a hard drive using device-level commands, and you'd never think to when it comes to opening your Word document. It's just another level of abstraction from a filesystem that says "here's a label for where to find your data" to a search-based paradigm that says "I don't care where my data is, as long as I can get at it." You're comfortable with one level of abstraction and not the next, but it's all a continuum.

Quote: MathExtremist

Search vs. organize was a debate that happened last decade. For large data sets, organize lost. You can see that by comparing the success of Yahoo (originally a curated web hierarchy) vs. Google (an algorithmic search engine). This move by MS reflects that personal computers are now home to large data sets and are increasingly unsuited to information curation, especially by people who don't know how.

This.
Even at home, I don't remember how many hard drives I have, between the main desktop, fileserver/old desktop, NAS box, second desktop, not even counting loose laptops and PCs. Probably around 20, give or take, I do retire old small drives. And the data is not all unique, there are automatic backups and network folders set up throughout to protect against loss in case of any single drive failure.

Hell if I remember even 1/10 of the time what is on which physical drive. I mostly know what's on SSD drives, what's on RAID and what's on trash, and even is inferred by the type of content, not memorized. It would be like remembering which wall socket is wired to where exactly in a large house.

I wish it would also be "hell if I care", but this amount of storage isn't quickly searchable. I access large files via junctions and links, plus media libraries for some content, but these are very obvious crutches. Files that require frequent access are all on SSD, which does allow for instant searches, which is what I do. Every once in a while things wind up in a long global search.

This is just a home setup. In any working environment, it isn't my job anymore, but when it was, the notion of remembering even 0.1% of the files' physical locations in the storage structure would've been a joke. Doesn't depend on how organized you are, it's beyond a normal person's memory capabilities.

Quote: Nareed

Now, when you want something, do you suppose the search the robot does will be more efficient if it remembers where everything is? Or would you rather it began to search in the pantry, moved to the linen closet, then the bathroom, then the freezer, then the clothes closet, then your desk, when looking for a pen?

As long as the robot always brings what's requested within 1 second, I don't care how he does it.
It won't be long before the average consumer PC has solid state storage only and search times are consistently sub-second.

If you only want results from your local storage, you can specify that. For most content (however creative you are, 99% of what you use won't be your creations), I personally prefer to simultaneously be updated on whether there is a new version of it on the net.

FWIW, this search everywhere concept is not a Windows 8 invention. It has been used with great success in Linux:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/06/good-ideas-catch-on-windows-8-1-to-add-unity-style-search-feature

Quote: MathExtremist

You would never look for a can of soup in your underwear drawer (I hope).

No. But one time somehow we labeled a can of tomato sauce as "jam," a jar of honey as "sausage," a bag of dried chilies as "sliced bread" and other oddities :)

Quote:

Information does not, but early information architecture used an organizational scheme very similar to that used in the physical world -- that's why "documents" are stored as "files" in "folders." That's what you're accustomed to, but that structure is not inherently required for intangible information.

Ok, sure. I can see that my short story file is a collection of bits on the sruface of the disk, probably distributed among a dozen sectors of the disk, if not more. But it's physically in my drive and not on the web.

Now, suppose I published it as an e-book. Then it would be found in a number of devices, which I shouldn't have access to, but also in a number of websites, perhaps, or it might be at least referred to in a number of web sites. Ok. If I wanted to see that, I know the information would not be physically in my hard drive.

Quote:

Are you aware, for example, that the physical location of data on your hard drive changes? This happens whenever you defragment your disk, and often other times as well.

Oh, yes. Common knowledge. I know also that DOS didn't actually erase any information. It just made the HD sector(s) available for overwritting. I've no idea if Windows does the same thing. Though I recall there was a command for erasing the information outright. But I digress...

In short, yes I know there isn't a single, fixed discreet location for any given file. I know the folders, sub-folders and files I see in Windows Explorer or in dialogue boxes are virtual representations of the data in terms I can comprehend. Certainly I wouldn't understand a string of pairs of hexadecimal numbers, for example.

But I keep coming back to this: whatever the file is, it's physically in my hard drive.

News about a plane crash, simialrly, are also memory locations scattered all over the world, in who knows what kinds of devices (servers, PCs, tablets, etc). But again I keep coming back to this: none of it is physically in my hard drive.

I'm sorry if I keep beating on a dead horse, but I just can't understand why searching the whole world for something that is in my PC would be a good idea. Or why searching my PC for something that is out in the world would also be a good idea. The whole thing just reeks of inefficiency.

And don't get me started on what happens if I change the name of a file and don't remember it later, unless I know where I put it.

Quote: MathExtremist

It's just another level of abstraction from a filesystem that says "here's a label for where to find your data" to a search-based paradigm that says "I don't care where my data is, as long as I can get at it." You're comfortable with one level of abstraction and not the next, but it's all a continuum.

Incidentally, this is largely academic for me, and I appreciate your replies.

Why is it academic? Because 99 times out of 100 I go straight for the file or program in question, or sometimes the website in question (that's what favorites are for on the browser), rather than mounting a search for it. Oh, I'll search the web often, too. It's easier, and in some ways more efficient, to search Google for news rather than go to one particular news provider, such as AP (not that A, silly!) or Reuters, or a newspaper. I also make searches for recipe ideas, clothes (though I prefer to shop certain sites), and whenever I need infomration not at hand.

I rarely search my own PC for files. At work I do mount searches for files more often (which invariably are in the office file server and not in the web, BTW), but such searches are more involved and much harder to resolve. I'll get into detail if you want, but not otherwise (it's tedious even for me).

The thing is I would much rather create a folder labelled "FICTION" with subfolders for each project., each labeled with the project's title. At need I can save the project itslef in one file, with other field for outlines, notes, related research (if any), photographs (if any), etc. Frankly I don't see any other practical way to do things. And if I create the folders and sub-folders, you bet I know what they're called.

With programs, I save them each in its own folder under "all programs" in the Windows start menu. And again I can find them as fast the start menu opens. I see no need for searching, nor any advantage in doing so.

So as you can see, the whole notion of searching for files or programs in my own PC, never mind on the web where they are not, is about as alien to me as searching for "wizard of vegas" on Google every time I want to read this board.

Oh, great. Microsoft is threatening "more innovation."

Let me guess:

1) get rid of the mouse and replace it with a combination of touch, "on-air" "gestures," facial recognition and voice commands.
2) get rid of the keyboard and replace it with dictated voice commands. Because it's easier and less tiresome to say "Cell A1 type text capital p product column. No! not "capital p product solemn!" NO! Not "Not capital pee produce solemn!!!!" etc. than to just type "Product column." What are you, a troglodyte from 2012 or something?
3) get rid of file folders and file names. replace it with universal search.

"Of course that's just for starters"

The big news is that Microsoft took a $900 million write-off on one of its lines of Surface tablets (I lack the time, interest and energy to untangle which tablet runs which version of which version of the Poison Pill, er, Windows 8).

It couldn't happen to a nastier operating system (because there aren't any).

Anyway, the emerging consensus among analysts and pundits si that apparently people didn't want desktop capabilities in their tablet OS.

Guess what? Desktop users don't want tablet capabilities in their OS either.

A few weeks earlier MS announced that Win8 had finally passed Vista in sales. Oddly, or perhaps not, this announcement was both quiet and strident. Anyway, there's something missing from it just the same: how many of those sales have wound up either 1) upgrading to Windows 7 or 2) installing a shell utility to bannish the nameles M/M/W interface to a well-deserved oblivion? (BTW, I favor now calling it the Retro interface, as it is less capable and mroe labor intensive than even antiques like Win 3.1, but I digress).

Also missing is why people are buying Win8 PCs. One reason is that finding Win7 machines is becoming next to impossible in many markets. In mexico, for example, there is no single Win7 PC, not one, to be found at any of the big box stores. This means the heavy weights like Office Depot, Office Max, Best Buy, Walmart, Sam's Club and Costco at least. I've looked. Not just physically, but I've searhed their websites as well. Not one. Dell has some, through their website, but they look and sound like leftovers nobody wanted. In any case if you want a higher-end PC, it's Win8 or nothing.

So if I wanted a Win7 PC, I'd first buy a Poison Pill, uh, Windows 8 PC, nuke the hard drive (probably using Linux), and then install Win7. But MS would register that as a windows 8, ah, Poison Pill, sale anyway.

It's really a bad sign when a software company needs to resort to aprtial disclosures and spin in simple things like sales numbers.

If I were starting a new thread, I'd call it "I did WHAAAAT??"

But I'm not. So I just need to come out and say: I installed Windows 8.1 preview on a laptop (that's W-I-N-D-O-W-S-E-I-G-H-T-P-O-I-N-T-O-N-E).

This si the point where cliche requires, nay demands, that I say something like "It wasn't as bad as I expected." Ok. Who am I to defy cliche? It wasn't as bad as I epxected. It was a great deal worse (but you saw that coming, dind't you?).

So there.

On the M/M/W (that's Metro/Modern/Whatever-it's-called-this-week) interface, I found nothing useful. Nothing. Not one thing. To be sure there is an IE 11. That's nice, but I'm loyal to Firefox. Besides there is an IE11 on the desktop, too. I ran a few of the M/M/W "apps." I was not impressed. The Mail "app" (to check out the address I had to sign up for to get a Microsfot account), looks bare and skimpy. I ran Maps, which are about as good but not as easy to sue as Google Maps, for example (but likely superior to apple maps from what I've heard, but then that's Apple). And I ran the Windows Store, too. I intended to browse, btu there was no category listing, or I found none.

I tried the famous "Snap" feature. It's a bit of a pain in the neck, as you need to move the pointer all the way to the top, then bring the window down about halfway and to the right. To make matters worse, you don't see a border to drag, just a hand pointer which moves and the window sort of ghostly diminishes. Worse yet, once you close oe of the two snapped "apps," te remaining one stays there taking up half the screen and there's no easy way to restore it. You need to move to the dividing line and push it away to the left (or to the right, depending), all the way to the end of the monitor.

I learned it will do wonders for my chronic mouse shoulder; if you like being in pain all day, natch.

For my adventures on the Win 8.1 desktop, tap or click on this link: http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/189/7/#post5864

One last thing about the M/M/W side. At the Windows Store I did think: what do I need or want?

Well, Office would be nice, but that's not available for M/M/W yet. So what else is there? Games? Yes, but I already have a Gamehouse account and I can run those games from the desktop. Mail? Yes, but I use the Gmail website. Facebook? Yes, but I use the FB website. Maps? Google Maps website. Pinterest? Absolutely, but I use the Pinterest website? Shopping? Could be, but I do much of my shopping at websites I find here and there. Travel? Not now, but when I do need it I know the websites to visit, and I can open them in tabs in Firefox and make comaprisons. Books? Oh, hell, Yes! But, again, thats' why Amazon, Powells, BN and Audible have websites.

So, really, would any kind of Gmail, FB, Pinterest, Amazon, etc "apps" be of any use whatsoever? Would they offer something not available on their websites? Some worthwhile feature or something else absent from the websites? Assuming, that is, they even exist to begin with.

I did not try the supercalifragilicticexpiralidocious search (I think I even turned it off), nor the "app" switcher (I forgot).

Here's my final word on the ill-conceived Windows 8/8.1 OS:

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/189/7/#post5950

What I think is that MS tried very ahrd to come up with a touch-based OS suitable for tablets and smartphones, which is not suitable for a desktop or laptop PC. In the process it butchered the start menu as a means fo forcing desktop users, however fleetingly, into the tablet/touch OS. But worse yet, MS has relegated the dekstop to "legacy" status. This means it also intends to steer development away from it. Since MS also produces the major productivity software for Windows, Office, it might just get its wish.

So, the desktop will continue for a while, maybe it will even be in a lost tile in future versions of Windows. But in time it will die, much as DOS did. DOS died of natural causes, mroe or less. You can still run DOS programs in the latest Windows versions (or so I've heard; I haven't run any DOS software since I finished playing the Infocom text-based adventure games bundle back in the late 90s), but no one makes new DOS software. That's what we can expect for the dektop.

But with one twist. Adoption of Win8 has been slow and, Win8.1 nothwithstanding, I expect it will remain slow. This means for the next ten years or so, most PCs will be running Win7, XP and Vista. Therefore other software develoeprs, if not Microsoft, will keep publishing desktop programs for a while yet (this may be a good chance to tackle Office in the desktop, but I expect MS will keep Office desktop comaptible for a good long while yet).

Still, the desktop is on life support now. It's still possible MS will decide the M/M/W interface is not good for work, so it will ahve to keep the desktop alive for many decades to come. Stranger thigns have happened. So we'll see the hybrid OS for a good many years yet (maybe). Or perhaps the desktop will ultimately die. either way, be it to hedge the uncertainty or to avoid the innevitable, it's a good time to start learning the ins and outs of Linux.

Back in late 96 or 97 MS did me a good turn regarding a free upgrade to Office 97. A decent action regarding customer service. Since then I've felt a measure oof good will towards Microsoft. Oh, I rarely use IE of my own accord, and if it were up to me I wouldn't use Outlook at the office, either. But I've stuck with Windows for many years, and Office, and a few other things.

Now thanks to first the ribbon controls in Office and then Win8, that's all gone.

Where I try Win8.1 on innocent, unsuspecting users:

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/189/8/#post5972

In short: this OS is not good for the enterprise setting (maybe it will work on Voyager, though ;P )

I got a Nexus 7 tablet. I've been using it for three days now, and have found it a very useful addition to my life. For now I'm using it to read e-books (the greatest invention ever!), listen to audiobooks and podcasts, browsing Pinterest (it's faster on the app than on my PC), and checking email. I expect I'll find more uses for it, including web browsing on the road (when there's WiFi available); and I've yet to try shopping apps.

However, using a touch interface for an extended period does confirm my initial assesment of it: it's limited, it's imposed on tablets and phones due to their limitations, and it's vastly inferior to a mouse and keyboard combo. Of course there is a touch eyboard one can summon. It's adequate for entering information, in the way that a little paper cone is adequate for having a drink from the water cooler. That is, there are lots of better choices, but these are not available. It's not adequate for doing much more than enetering some data or writing short messages.

What I'm driving at is that MS erred, and badly, by making a touch interface the centerpiece of Windows. It's what I've been saying all along: reducing a PC to the capabilities of a tablet makes it a tablet for all practical purposes. If Microsoft really intends to stop developing the desktop, then Windows will end as a viable OS for PCs.

On other things, I like the Android interface better than Windows 8's. I really woul like a taskbar to keep all open apps in view. But failing that, the three controls at the bottom are a great deal mroe convenient than hidden controls activated by "gestures." If I want to switch apps, or close one down, I touch the app switcher button, always visible on the lower rigt corner. In Windows you're expected to divine somehow the complex touch "gesture" to summon it, or move the mouse, if you have one, to the upper left corner.

So: Tablets are great, but they're not PCs. And Windows 8 was such a bad bet, the Wizard should add an 11th commandment: thou shalt not think of tablets as PCs or PCs as tablets, it's a bad bet.

My old PC failed again, this time it took the monitor with it (or seems to have done so). I may rely on the laptop for a few weeks or months, but I'll be hunting for a new PC soon. As the market stands, that means a Win8/8.1 PC. That's ok, as I know, now, how to fix it to work like a real operating system (I call the result Windows 6.9)

Anyway, I'm a bit lost on the current crop of processors. I'd appreciate info on which should I get. The more economical machines seem to have a dual-core processor, which should be enough. But I'm really not sure about that. I don't want to spend too much money, just in case furhter upgrades alter on are in order (let's face it, Microsoft is a mess and will get worse before it gets better -if it gets better). I don't do much intensive graphics work, past a few games like The Sims and such. So a really high end processor is not needed.

Thanks!

Quote: Nareed

If you've seen my tagline for the past month or so, or read DT, there's no need for an explanation. If not, then there is a need but I'd rather not get into it right now.

What I'd like to know is whether anyone's been using Windows 8 for serious, intensive work and how you've managed. Note, this means just Windows 8 without any of the myriad, myriad, myriad shells that make it pass for an actual operating system.

BTW, I may be a bit biased ;)

Thanks.

If you plan to use IRC software on you "PC" then you can simply right click on the EXE file and click compatibility and Choose your favorite OS from Win7 down to Windows 98 to open your Program. These are all incorporated in the Windows 8 Operating System.

I use Myriad on mine and choose XP for the compatibility.

Quote: Nareed

Oh, great. Microsoft is threatening "more innovation."

Let me guess:

1) get rid of the mouse and replace it with a combination of touch, "on-air" "gestures," facial recognition and voice commands.
2) get rid of the keyboard and replace it with dictated voice commands. Because it's easier and less tiresome to say "Cell A1 type text capital p product column. No! not "capital p product solemn!" NO! Not "Not capital pee produce solemn!!!!" etc. than to just type "Product column." What are you, a troglodyte from 2012 or something?
3) get rid of file folders and file names. replace it with universal search.

"Of course that's just for starters"

Hey guy's, I've worked as a Product Specialist for Microsoft and I do want to say that the Innovations are created from the Feedback of the users. It's always a good thing. I am also an apple user but Never am disappointed by Innovations from Microsoft and New Products.