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?
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 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 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.
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.
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.
You do *not* have to use the Modern/Metro interface, and if you don't,
it's hardly distinguishable from Windows 7,
In news:mho1d8pttbketmb4d9abm1da1at6hgo0ut@4ax.com "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@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
for more than children's games?
--
bert@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:22:58 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__" <not.my.real@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
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" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message news:XnsA12DA66586A0AVeebleFetzer@216.196.97.142...
In news:mho1d8pttbketmb4d9abm1da1at6hgo0ut@4ax.com "Ken Blake, MVP"
<kblake@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
for more than children's games?
--
bert@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
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" <timrude.nospam@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kaqs3f$35f$1@dont-email.me...
"Bert" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA12DA66586A0AVeebleFetzer@216.196.97.142...
In news:mho1d8pttbketmb4d9abm1da1at6hgo0ut@4ax.com "Ken Blake, MVP"
<kblake@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 for more than children's games?
--
bert@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
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.
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
Access, but having difficulty. Since retiring, don't really need it
anymore.
HankG
<kblake@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,
<kblake@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"
Or are we going to be stuck with starting in "Modern/Metro interface",
like we are stuck with collapsing menus from earlier Windows versions
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:48:10 -0500, "knuttle"
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote in article <kav4ur$7e8$1@dont- email.me>...
<kblake@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"
Or are we going to be stuck with starting in "Modern/Metro interface",
like we are stuck with collapsing menus from earlier Windows versions
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.
<kblake@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"
I very rarely use the start menu as such.
The only time I go to the start menu is to shut down the computer.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:48:10 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<kblake@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.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
On 12/20/2012 10:50 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:48:10 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<kblake@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.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Is this available on the Microsoft website?
On 12/20/2012 9:34 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:48:10 -0500, "knuttle"
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote in article <kav4ur$7e8$1@dont- email.me>...
<kblake@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"
Or are we going to be stuck with starting in "Modern/Metro interface",
like we are stuck with collapsing menus from earlier Windows versions
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.
I very rarely use the start menu as such. I have moved all of the icons
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.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:22:47 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/20/2012 10:50 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:48:10 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<kblake@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.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Is this available on the Microsoft website?
No. It's a third-party program, and a very good one. It's only $4.99
US.
Get it at http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
On 12/20/2012 10:50 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:48:10 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<kblake@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.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Is this available on the Microsoft website?
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,
someone already did that! Never mind.
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!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:11:31 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<greegor47@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
work.
It's like a whole lot of making excuses!
No, it's just a few people who are afraid of change, asking how to
make a new OS look more like an old OS.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:20:45 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"not
<kblake@kb.invalid> wrote in article <l3i6d8tfctcnhqahv2ragdkpigpi7drvib@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:22:47 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/20/2012 10:50 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:48:10 -0500, knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<kblake@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
the "Modern/Metro interface"
Download and install Start8. That's one of its options.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Is this available on the Microsoft website?
No. It's a third-party program, and a very good one. It's only $4.99
US.
Get it at http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
Classic Shell is a free alternative that also does this. It isn't as polished as Start8, but it works well from what I've seen.
Why are so many people posting ways
to turn off cutesy parts of Win 8 and
band-aid the shortcomings to make it functional?
It's like a whole lot of making excuses!
On 12/20/2012 4:21 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:11:31 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are so many people posting ways
to turn off cutesy parts of Win 8 and
band-aid the shortcomings to make it functional?
Someone asked, someone answered. That's how newsgroups are supposed to
work.
It's like a whole lot of making excuses!
No, it's just a few people who are afraid of change, asking how to
make a new OS look more like an old OS.
And - what it's going to cost to replace all the current software
with new stuff that does less. At least that has been my experience
with OS upgrades.
On 12/20/2012 12:52 PM, robot chicken wrote:
You bring up a great point. With so much information available now,
what we really need is some kind of search engine to help us locate
what we're looking for. Someone should create something like that.
They could give it a unique but made up name, like Google, and they
could place it at an obvious address likewww.google.com. Oh wait,
someone already did that! Never mind.
You missed the sarcasm that you have to buy or search for a third party >piece of software to make Windows 8 a usable system.
In news:kat9ef$iul$1@dont-email.me,[]
HankG typed:
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
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
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:22:47 -0500, knuttle[]
<keith_nuttle@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?
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.
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?
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.
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 >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?
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.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@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
ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and
using a standard desktop.
On 12/22/2012 10:17 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@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
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
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:42 -0500, QuestionQuigley
<doregan@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
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.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP--
In message <kb4vgl$tpj$1@dont-email.me>, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was
using
OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)
I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
OS/2 far superior and stable.
So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.
On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message <kb4vgl$tpj$1@dont-email.me>, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@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
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.
The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells on top of DOS. Just sayin'.
On 12/23/2012 9:54 AM, Auric__ wrote:
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'.
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
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
At least Microsoft fired the culprit
On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message <kb4vgl$tpj$1@dont-email.me>, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@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
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
On 12/22/2012 10:17 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@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
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
Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
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?
On 12/30/2012 6:51 AM PT, Evgenii Sputnik typed:
Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a écrit :Or get it MC for free within a time period:
Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
a more expensive Media Center edition?? WTF?
On 12/30/2012 10:28 AM, Ant wrote:
On 12/30/2012 6:51 AM PT, Evgenii Sputnik typed:Will other media players like Real Player and the Apple media player
Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a Θcrit :Or get it MC for free within a time period:
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-cent er-pack-for-free-but-be-prepared-to-wait/6928
work on Windows 8. They both are free.
On 12/30/2012 10:28 AM, Ant wrote:
On 12/30/2012 6:51 AM PT, Evgenii Sputnik typed:Will other media players like Real Player and the Apple media player
Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a écrit :Or get it MC for free within a time period:
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-cent er-pack-for-free-but-be-prepared-to-wait/6928
work on Windows 8. They both are free.
Le 18/12/2012 21:05, Greegor a Θcrit :
Windows 8 can't even play a DVD unless you buy
a more expensive Media Center edition?? á WTF?
Try VLC Media Player. It's free and GPL.
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,043 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 89:15:26 |
| Calls: | 500,953 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 109,377 |
| D/L today: |
1,108 files (180M bytes) |
| Messages: | 304,679 |