Advantages of Windows 8?

[mechanic]

I didn't say a word about Control Panel. Not a word.

I don't know what you're doing in this part of the thread then.
Apart from trolling.

<PLONK!>

 

[Char Jackson]

I don't know what you're doing in this part of the thread then.

That much was obvious.

 

[XS11E]

Microsoft will need to make the mobile phone interface optional
before I will use it.

Microsoft didn't but the nice folks at sourceforge.net did:

http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

The latest version make Windows 8 boot to the normal start orb and
allows you to set up your start menu just like Windows 2000 or later
versions in 'classic' mode.

Give it a try.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

I might agree if you were part of the design team that made the
decisions, but it's clear to me that you weren't in the room, (and
neither was I), so there is no reason to assume that the design
choices should be obvious to you.

We are discussing where elements are positioned. It should be
obvious if the change is an improvement. If a car company put the
steering wheel in the back, you would probably consider it a
gratuitous change even if you were not in on the "redesign".

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Paul]

On 03/07/2012 05:18, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

There's a possibility that the interface design team or their management
has changed, and this is the way the new lot prefer doing things.

There are two kinds of design environments:

1) Three Wise Men design your UI. Any time a feature
is introduced, they can produce a PowerPoint slide,
showing 67 ways the new approach is superior to the previous one.
They can debate you for three hours straight, without a
coffee break, or without slowing down their rate of
speech. You give up and walk away, because you're exhausted.

2) Department is ruled by "chair throwing moron". He says
to put the icons along the top, then won't give a reason,
and if you pester him about it, he'll throw a chair at you.
No PowerPoint slides needed.

I think we all know which of the two of those, that MS uses.

Paul

 

[Char Jackson]

We are discussing where elements are positioned. It should be
obvious if the change is an improvement.

Your opinion in this case would carry more weight if you were both the
only developer and the only user. Since you're neither, it's not
really up to you to decide, for anyone but yourself, whether a change
was an improvement or not. Improvements for you might be setbacks for
someone else, and vice versa.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

[snip]

Your opinion in this case would carry more weight if you were both the
only developer and the only user. Since you're neither, it's not
really up to you to decide, for anyone but yourself, whether a change
was an improvement or not. Improvements for you might be setbacks for
someone else, and vice versa.

Of course it is for me. As to others, many of them have similar
needs to me. I am not the only talking about gratuitous changes that
MS has made.

Yes, YMMV applies, but what if a change benefits very few and
causes trouble for many?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Char Jackson]

[snip]

Your opinion in this case would carry more weight if you were both the
only developer and the only user. Since you're neither, it's not
really up to you to decide, for anyone but yourself, whether a change
was an improvement or not. Improvements for you might be setbacks for
someone else, and vice versa.

Of course it is for me. As to others, many of them have similar
needs to me. I am not the only talking about gratuitous changes that
MS has made.

Since you can't stop yourself from referring to changes as gratuitous,
I don't know what else to tell you. I'll just remind you of the
obvious, that it's natural for people to talk about what has changed
versus talking about what has stayed the same. The former is more
interesting than the latter.

Yes, YMMV applies, but what if a change benefits very few and
causes trouble for many?

I see that we've descended into 'what if' scenarios, so I guess it
means we've exhausted the topic. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Jake]

http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

The latest version make Windows 8 boot to the normal start orb and
allows you to set up your start menu just like Windows 2000 or later
versions in 'classic' mode.

There is a God.

-J

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

There is a God.

It would be nice if He got involved in the development process a
bit earlier.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

That much was obvious.

+1, with laughter.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Jake:

There is a God.

But I've always suspected two things:

- He's a mean drunk

- He has an ugly sense of humor...

 

[Antares 531]

Per Jake:

But I've always suspected two things:

- He's a mean drunk

- He has an ugly sense of humor...

A third assessment might be that you simply do not understand God and
can't fit Him into this three-dimensional space-time mind-set that we
are fitted into, so you write Him off as an error in people's
imaginative thinking.

The first two chapters of the Book of Job, interpreted allegorically,
gives us a very good understanding of what is going on here and
now...the things that probably make you think God is "a mean drunk" or
"has an ugly sense of humor.'

Read these two chapters of Job, allegorically, with the understanding
that Job and his family represent God's true followers. Job's friends
who came to comfort him represent the ordinary people who are good, by
human standards, but who are not quite on track with God. Then think
of those who killed Job's people and robbed him of his holdings as
those who are closely aligned with Satan and are doing Satan's will.

Would you please share with the rest of us the way in which you, had
you been God, would have gone about maturing us humans to a level of
reliability that would make it safe for God to grant us immortality
and absolute sovereignty?

I can't see any way that God could have gotten us to this level other
than to let us learn by doing and watching the results of our own
miscreant behavior as well as that of all other humans. The other
options would have been for God to pre-program us as absolute puppets
or intimidate us into total compliance, neither of which would have
let us mature to a state of absolute sovereignty and absolute
reliability and thus safe for immortality.

The way God has, and is going about maturing us will assure Him that
we will do God's will because we will understand things in depth and
God's will shall then be exactly and precisely our own sovereign will.

Until we understand in depth, all the vagaries of sin and rebellion,
we can not be trusted with immortality and absolute sovereignty.
Without this get down and get dirty, hands-on training we would surely
fall away from God in the same way Lucifer/Satan did.

 

[Mellowed]

A third assessment might be that you simply do not understand God and
can't fit Him into this three-dimensional space-time mind-set that we
are fitted into, so you write Him off as an error in people's
imaginative thinking.

The first two chapters of the Book of Job, interpreted allegorically,
gives us a very good understanding of what is going on here and
now...the things that probably make you think God is "a mean drunk" or
"has an ugly sense of humor.'

Read these two chapters of Job, allegorically, with the understanding
that Job and his family represent God's true followers. Job's friends
who came to comfort him represent the ordinary people who are good, by
human standards, but who are not quite on track with God. Then think
of those who killed Job's people and robbed him of his holdings as
those who are closely aligned with Satan and are doing Satan's will.

Would you please share with the rest of us the way in which you, had
you been God, would have gone about maturing us humans to a level of
reliability that would make it safe for God to grant us immortality
and absolute sovereignty?

I can't see any way that God could have gotten us to this level other
than to let us learn by doing and watching the results of our own
miscreant behavior as well as that of all other humans. The other
options would have been for God to pre-program us as absolute puppets
or intimidate us into total compliance, neither of which would have
let us mature to a state of absolute sovereignty and absolute
reliability and thus safe for immortality.

The way God has, and is going about maturing us will assure Him that
we will do God's will because we will understand things in depth and
God's will shall then be exactly and precisely our own sovereign will.

Until we understand in depth, all the vagaries of sin and rebellion,
we can not be trusted with immortality and absolute sovereignty.
Without this get down and get dirty, hands-on training we would surely
fall away from God in the same way Lucifer/Satan did.

You're taking a light hearted response to seriously.

 

[Nil]

A third assessment might be that you simply do not understand God
and can't fit Him into this three-dimensional space-time mind-set
that we are fitted into, so you write Him off as an error in
people's imaginative thinking.

QED, Pete, QED.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

From what i remember people automatically liked windows xp because you
could leave your
computer on for days at a time. Winodws 98SE always had to be rebooted
once or twice a day.

I agree, it (XP) does seem a lot more stable. But you over-egg the
pudding: I can and have left my W98lite machine on for days without
problem.
[]

--

YNASATDD
[66-line "signature" snipped]

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Char Jackson

I take "for no good reason" to mean you don't know the reason, and not
that Microsoft didn't have a reason. For all we know, they had an
excellent reason. We weren't there.

Note that I support your right to be cranky about changes from one OS
to another. The thing I'm complaining about is that you and I don't
know enough to be able to call those changes gratuitous or for no good
reason. []
not so much). I am not opposed to sensible change. Senseless change,
OTOH, I do not like.

So since we don't know the reasons for the changes that have been
bothering you, do you concur that calling them gratuitous is
premature? For all we know, they may not be gratuitous at all.

How long do we have to wait for the explanations/reasons to be given?
Or, in some cases, the reasons may have been given but we do not accept
that they _are_ good reasons.

What makes you think the information you seek will EVER be released?
As consumers, we certainly have no right to it, nor do we have an
expectation that it will someday be provided. Or at least I don't.

So we are suppose to just roll over and play dead? Or, to put it another
way, accept changes - which appear to us arbitrary - without any
explanation.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Per Char Jackson:

I would agree with that 100%.

Indeed. Virtually any change is made because someone, somewhere, thinks
it's a good idea. Whether we'd agree with them, in the unlikely event
that they deign to tell us _why_ they thought it is a good idea, is of
course a different matter.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per J. P. Gilliver (John):

Indeed. Virtually any change is made because someone, somewhere, thinks
it's a good idea. Whether we'd agree with them, in the unlikely event
that they deign to tell us _why_ they thought it is a good idea, is of
course a different matter.

I'd take it even further and assume that somebody really smart at
MS thinks it's a good idea for MS.

I'm kind of resigned to never knowing why... but I'd *really*
like to know...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

In message <[email protected]>, Char Jackson
[]
I take "for no good reason" to mean you don't know the reason, and not
that Microsoft didn't have a reason. For all we know, they had an
excellent reason. We weren't there.

Note that I support your right to be cranky about changes from one OS
to another. The thing I'm complaining about is that you and I don't
know enough to be able to call those changes gratuitous or for no good
reason.
[]
not so much). I am not opposed to sensible change. Senseless change,
OTOH, I do not like.

So since we don't know the reasons for the changes that have been
bothering you, do you concur that calling them gratuitous is
premature? For all we know, they may not be gratuitous at all.

How long do we have to wait for the explanations/reasons to be given?
Or, in some cases, the reasons may have been given but we do not accept
that they _are_ good reasons.

What makes you think the information you seek will EVER be released?
As consumers, we certainly have no right to it, nor do we have an
expectation that it will someday be provided. Or at least I don't.

So we are suppose to just roll over and play dead? Or, to put it another
way, accept changes - which appear to us arbitrary - without any
explanation.

It's either that or Xanax.