Windows 8 Consumer Preview - One word: fail

[BillW50]

On 22/03/2012 10:17 PM, SC Tom wrote:
[snip]

I agree with staying on the desktop more often than not. I
think if MS makes the desktop more like what Windows 7/XP users
are used to, they may have a winner with Win8. The best of both
worlds- metro for the tablet/iphone set and real Windows for
the rest of the us. That's as long as the OS is stable and
(mostly) bug free. Of course that's just my opinion; others may
have a different one, but that's OK, to

That's what I expected Win8 to be, but it appears that it won't be
the case. No Win8 for me.

Besides, the Metro GUI is ugly.

Wolf K.

Well, I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I've had
to reinstall it twice in the last three days, and it locked up on
shutdown today, making me force a power off. Now it won't start again.
The fish comes up with the spinning dots below it, and just sits
there. I booted from the DVD and tried a number of the recovery tools,
all to no avail. Refresh, Reset. . . nada. I thought maybe I'd do a
System Restore (first thing I tried), but guess what, there are none.
Is SR turned off as the default? I'd look, but. . .

Maybe I'll format/install again, but not anytime real soon unless I
read of any changes that may make it a bit more stable, or at least
for me.

How is it working out for you Tom? I didn't have any problems with
Windows 8 itself except with some programs and gadgets. I also didn't do
any updates either.

I must say, before my experience with Windows 8... I didn't really
appreciate Visa/7 much at all. And I have been using W7 since Jun'09 and
all of this time I much preferred XP. Although after running Windows 8
for a few weeks, I have a whole new appreciation for Vista/7. And now I
like that so much more than ever before. ;-)

 

[mechanic]

What they've done is just scale that up to fit a proper monitor,
without looking at the ergonomics of actually using the thing.

What those thousand human interface engineers at MSFT are just
sitting on their arses doing nothing?

 

[John Williamson]

What those thousand human interface engineers at MSFT are just
sitting on their arses doing nothing?

It would seem so. Unless the marketing droids won this round in the bar
game, and the real new interface standard will be revealed in Windows 9,
or in the Plus Pack, or come as a Power Toy later on, as TweakUI did for XP.

 

[Top]

I think you're spot on. Developers have become so obsesses by 'smart
phones' and other small devices that they are trying to make the desktop
look like a phone. Does not cut it for anything productive.

That comes from trying to make a phone function as a computer and
falling. Now they are basing a new system on a "failed" system.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, BillW50 <[email protected]>
writes:
[]

I must say, before my experience with Windows 8... I didn't really
appreciate Visa/7 much at all. And I have been using W7 since Jun'09 and
all of this time I much preferred XP. Although after running Windows 8
for a few weeks, I have a whole new appreciation for Vista/7. And now I
like that so much more than ever before. ;-)

But do you now like it (7) more than XP?

 

[BillW50]

In message <[email protected]>, BillW50 <[email protected]>
writes:
[]

I must say, before my experience with Windows 8... I didn't
really appreciate Visa/7 much at all. And I have been using W7
since Jun'09 and all of this time I much preferred XP. Although
after running Windows 8 for a few weeks, I have a whole new
appreciation for Vista/7. And now I like that so much more than
ever before. ;-)

But do you now like it (7) more than XP?

To me, Microsoft has always added a feature that the previous Windows
version didn't have. So I was willing to upgrade to get that newer
feature. Vista/7 is the first Windows upgrades that doesn't have that
*must* have features for me.

So do I like W7 better than XP now? I can't say yes yet. As I am pretty
comfortable under both. And all of my software that I want to run still
works just fine under XP. And thanks to Windows 8 and me being stubborn
to get two applications running that I couldn't get to run under W7
before. So I used what I learned to get those two also running
under W7 too. Now only if I could ever get OE6 running under W7. ;-)

 

[Joerg Jaeger]

In message<[email protected]>, BillW50<[email protected]>
writes:
[]

I must say, before my experience with Windows 8... I didn't
really appreciate Visa/7 much at all. And I have been using W7
since Jun'09 and all of this time I much preferred XP. Although
after running Windows 8 for a few weeks, I have a whole new
appreciation for Vista/7. And now I like that so much more than
ever before. ;-)

But do you now like it (7) more than XP?

To me, Microsoft has always added a feature that the previous Windows
version didn't have. So I was willing to upgrade to get that newer
feature. Vista/7 is the first Windows upgrades that doesn't have that
*must* have features for me.

So do I like W7 better than XP now? I can't say yes yet. As I am pretty
comfortable under both. And all of my software that I want to run still
works just fine under XP. And thanks to Windows 8 and me being stubborn
to get two applications running that I couldn't get to run under W7
before. So I used what I learned to get those two also running
under W7 too. Now only if I could ever get OE6 running under W7. ;-)

Tricky thing these upgrades.
If you are a gamer, the answer might be easy. Some games require Vista
or above since they do not support XP anymore (BF3).

I run 7 now and i think it is better. For one it does have all the
drivers and codecs you need without having to install them myself.
Appearance is nicer too and perhaps it is 'more' secure than previous
versions. Not sure about that.
But what i like really is the powershell. Great tool.
XP was good but i don't think i would like to run it forever. It has an
expiration date.
That said, it really depends on what you requirements are. If there is a
certain software you need to use, maybe XP is the better choice.

--
ACCESS DENIED...

/\_/\
____/ o o \
/~____ =ø= /
(______)__m_m) el cato

 

[Laszlo Lebrun]

Windows XP......controlling equipment?

You would be surprised that the vast majority of SCADA systems in
industrial landscapes run on Windows XP.

Windows XP, used to run a few fixed programms and without internet is
rock solid.
Stuxnet required an extraordinary amount of highly techonlogical
criminal energy, when not of intelligence services.

 

[BillW50]

In

In message<[email protected]>, BillW50<[email protected]>
writes:
[]
I must say, before my experience with Windows 8... I didn't
really appreciate Visa/7 much at all. And I have been using W7
since Jun'09 and all of this time I much preferred XP. Although
after running Windows 8 for a few weeks, I have a whole new
appreciation for Vista/7. And now I like that so much more than
ever before. ;-)

But do you now like it (7) more than XP?

To me, Microsoft has always added a feature that the previous Windows
version didn't have. So I was willing to upgrade to get that newer
feature. Vista/7 is the first Windows upgrades that doesn't have that
*must* have features for me.

So do I like W7 better than XP now? I can't say yes yet. As I am
pretty comfortable under both. And all of my software that I want to
run still works just fine under XP. And thanks to Windows 8 and me
being stubborn to get two applications running that I couldn't get
to run under W7 before. So I used what I learned to get those two
also running under W7 too. Now only if I could ever get OE6 running
under W7. ;-)

Tricky thing these upgrades.
If you are a gamer, the answer might be easy. Some games require Vista
or above since they do not support XP anymore (BF3).

I guess I am still using the older games. Like MS Flight Simulator,
RealFlight G5, Sims 2 and 3, etc. As the games I use, play faster and
better under XP.

I run 7 now and i think it is better. For one it does have all the
drivers and codecs you need without having to install them myself.

I dunno, XP comes with hundreds of codecs already. Sure you need copy
protected DVD codecs and all. But that isn't really a big deal. Drivers?
I have been running Windows since '93 and the only time Windows had all
of the drivers was on a Toshiba from '99 with Windows 2000. I've never
seen that happen before or since.

Appearance is nicer too and perhaps it is 'more' secure than previous
versions. Not sure about that.

Well Windows is more idiot proof you mean. So people are less likely to
make dumb mistakes. But for experienced users, it gets in the way.

But what i like really is the powershell. Great tool.

I hear about it all of the time and I fired it up once and that was all.
So what do you use it for?

XP was good but i don't think i would like to run it forever. It has
an expiration date.

I am learning more and more it is just Microsoft propaganda. Microsoft
wishes to fool everybody and the media and many experts even fall for it
that Microsoft controls which Windows version lives and dies. But that
isn't true at all.

In all my years of running Windows, Microsoft screwed themselves with
XP. As they actually addressed virtually all of the shortcomings of
earlier versions. Then they didn't come out with a newer version in many
years (unusual for Microsoft) which cemented XP even more. Worse they
actually improved XP a great deal from the original release. I
personally don't see XP going away for many years to come.

That said, it really depends on what you requirements are. If there
is a certain software you need to use, maybe XP is the better choice.

It is funny. I am usually pretty good about this Windows prediction
thing. And back in 2006 when most were excited about Vista coming out in
2007. I publicly said back then that I don't see myself running Vista
until 2011. And 5 years later, 2011 came and went and I never had a
Vista machine. Now I don't think I'll ever have one.

I have been using Windows 7 since 2009 though. I haven't really needed
it for anything, just playing around mostly. My real work and games are
still done under XP.

I love the year 2006 for computers. As I have 14 computers from 2006
alone. As this was just before Vista and you don't have to worry about
XP drivers for these machines, as that is all you can get for them back
then. Plus this era of machine, you could run also Windows Vista/7/8 on
them too. So you could run 4 different versions of Windows without
problems on these machines (five if you count Windows 2000). Can't say
this for earlier or later machines too much. ;-)

 

[BillW50]

In

No, it is not based on Linux. It is based on BSD Unix.

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

 

[mechanic]

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

So BSD is not based on Linux!

 

[Wolf K]

In

]

Why bother with Apple developers when Apple is nothing more than an
OS (based on Linux) running on (overpriced) Intel hardware? Seems
like that would be the last thing they need!

No, it is not based on Linux. It is based on BSD Unix.

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

IIRC, BSD is a "flavour" of Unix that was branched off by U-Cal Berkeley
sometime in the late 60s/early 70s, when AT&T was still willing to let
other people tinker with Unix. In any case, that BSD is copyright by
Berkeley. There is a FOSS version, which was still being worked on last
time I looked, but it's fast becoming an historical footnote.

Apple AFAIK pays no licence fees for its use of the BSD core code, and
it jealously guards its "intellectual property" in OS-X. OTOH, if you
know Unix in sufficient detail (which I don't claim to), you can
apparently hack OS-X so that you can run Unix (and Linux) apps on OS-X.
Which Apple does not approve of.

Linux is a from-the-ground-up version originally built by Linus
Torvalds, and since built on and adapted by many hands/minds. But the
kernel is still AFAIK under Linus's control. I have no idea to what
extent it's a variation of the original Unix source code, but AFAIK it
is a 100% work-alike. So IMO "based on Unix" is somewhat misleading.

Wolf K.

 

[Wolf K]

So BSD is not based on Linux!

No. It predates Linux.

Wolf K.

 

[BillW50]

In

In

]
Why bother with Apple developers when Apple is nothing more than an
OS (based on Linux) running on (overpriced) Intel hardware? Seems
like that would be the last thing they need!

No, it is not based on Linux. It is based on BSD Unix.

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

IIRC, BSD is a "flavour" of Unix that was branched off by U-Cal
Berkeley sometime in the late 60s/early 70s, when AT&T was still
willing to let other people tinker with Unix. In any case, that BSD
is copyright by Berkeley. There is a FOSS version, which was still
being worked on last time I looked, but it's fast becoming an
historical footnote.
Apple AFAIK pays no licence fees for its use of the BSD core code, and
it jealously guards its "intellectual property" in OS-X. OTOH, if you
know Unix in sufficient detail (which I don't claim to), you can
apparently hack OS-X so that you can run Unix (and Linux) apps on
OS-X. Which Apple does not approve of.

Linux is a from-the-ground-up version originally built by Linus
Torvalds, and since built on and adapted by many hands/minds. But the
kernel is still AFAIK under Linus's control. I have no idea to what
extent it's a variation of the original Unix source code, but AFAIK it
is a 100% work-alike. So IMO "based on Unix" is somewhat misleading.

Wolf K.

Oh come on! Give us a break! That is like saying Windows 8 isn't based
on Windows 95! Look, if you can use one of the following: Linux, Unix,
BSD, or OS-X; it isn't a far stretch to use one of the other three. It
is true for Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 and 8 too. Hell there
are lots of things found in Windows 3.xx that are still found in modern
Windows today. ;-)

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

In

In ray wrote:
]
Why bother with Apple developers when Apple is nothing more than an
OS (based on Linux) running on (overpriced) Intel hardware? Seems
like that would be the last thing they need!

No, it is not based on Linux. It is based on BSD Unix.

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

IIRC, BSD is a "flavour" of Unix that was branched off by U-Cal
Berkeley sometime in the late 60s/early 70s, when AT&T was still
willing to let other people tinker with Unix. In any case, that BSD
is copyright by Berkeley. There is a FOSS version, which was still
being worked on last time I looked, but it's fast becoming an
historical footnote.
Apple AFAIK pays no licence fees for its use of the BSD core code, and
it jealously guards its "intellectual property" in OS-X. OTOH, if you
know Unix in sufficient detail (which I don't claim to), you can
apparently hack OS-X so that you can run Unix (and Linux) apps on
OS-X. Which Apple does not approve of.

Linux is a from-the-ground-up version originally built by Linus
Torvalds, and since built on and adapted by many hands/minds. But the
kernel is still AFAIK under Linus's control. I have no idea to what
extent it's a variation of the original Unix source code, but AFAIK it
is a 100% work-alike. So IMO "based on Unix" is somewhat misleading.

Wolf K.

Oh come on! Give us a break! That is like saying Windows 8 isn't based
on Windows 95! Look, if you can use one of the following: Linux, Unix,
BSD, or OS-X; it isn't a far stretch to use one of the other three. It
is true for Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 and 8 too. Hell there
are lots of things found in Windows 3.xx that are still found in modern
Windows today. ;-)

"Is Similar To" != "Is Based On"

Linux "Is similar To" Unix, but was written from scratch and as I
understand it, shares no code with Unix. As such, it is not "Based
On" Unix.

Apple's Mac OS "Is Based On" BSD (Berkeley Standard Distribution) Unix
(with current versions adopting code from other BSD variants, including
FreeBSD and NetBSD). It shares no code with Linux whatsoever, and as
such, is not "Based On" Linux.

 

[ray]

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

No and No. BSD IS a Unix. Linux was written on it's own - not 'based' on
anything except possibly, minix - that was Linus' inspiration. Linux is a
Unix 'work alike' but it is NOT based on it.

 

[BillW50]

No and No. BSD IS a Unix. Linux was written on it's own - not 'based'
on
anything except possibly, minix - that was Linus' inspiration. Linux
is a
Unix 'work alike' but it is NOT based on it.

Oh gawd! Here we go again... just connect the dots.

Linux is based on Minix

BSD is based on Unix

Minix was re-licensed under the BSD license since April 2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX

 

[BillW50]

in

In

On 03/04/2012 7:51 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ray wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:30:21 -0500, milt wrote:

[...]
Why bother with Apple developers when Apple is nothing more than
an
OS (based on Linux) running on (overpriced) Intel hardware?
Seems
like that would be the last thing they need!

No, it is not based on Linux. It is based on BSD Unix.

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

IIRC, BSD is a "flavour" of Unix that was branched off by U-Cal
Berkeley sometime in the late 60s/early 70s, when AT&T was still
willing to let other people tinker with Unix. In any case, that BSD
is copyright by Berkeley. There is a FOSS version, which was still
being worked on last time I looked, but it's fast becoming an
historical footnote.
Apple AFAIK pays no licence fees for its use of the BSD core code,
and
it jealously guards its "intellectual property" in OS-X. OTOH, if
you
know Unix in sufficient detail (which I don't claim to), you can
apparently hack OS-X so that you can run Unix (and Linux) apps on
OS-X. Which Apple does not approve of.

Linux is a from-the-ground-up version originally built by Linus
Torvalds, and since built on and adapted by many hands/minds. But
the
kernel is still AFAIK under Linus's control. I have no idea to what
extent it's a variation of the original Unix source code, but AFAIK
it
is a 100% work-alike. So IMO "based on Unix" is somewhat
misleading.

Wolf K.

Oh come on! Give us a break! That is like saying Windows 8 isn't
based
on Windows 95! Look, if you can use one of the following: Linux,
Unix,
BSD, or OS-X; it isn't a far stretch to use one of the other three.
It
is true for Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 and 8 too. Hell
there
are lots of things found in Windows 3.xx that are still found in
modern
Windows today. ;-)

"Is Similar To" != "Is Based On"

Linux "Is similar To" Unix, but was written from scratch and as I
understand it, shares no code with Unix. As such, it is not "Based
On" Unix.

Apple's Mac OS "Is Based On" BSD (Berkeley Standard Distribution) Unix
(with current versions adopting code from other BSD variants,
including
FreeBSD and NetBSD). It shares no code with Linux whatsoever, and as
such, is not "Based On" Linux.

You are not telling the story correctly. Linux was based on Minix. BSD
was based on Unix. And Minix is under the BSD license. All sounds like
one big huge soap opera to me. ;-)

 

[BillW50]

In

In message <[email protected]>, BillW50 <[email protected]>
writes:
[]

I must say, before my experience with Windows 8... I didn't
really appreciate Visa/7 much at all. And I have been using W7
since Jun'09 and all of this time I much preferred XP. Although
after running Windows 8 for a few weeks, I have a whole new
appreciation for Vista/7. And now I like that so much more than
ever before. ;-)

But do you now like it (7) more than XP?

To me, Microsoft has always added a feature that the previous Windows
version didn't have. So I was willing to upgrade to get that newer
feature. Vista/7 is the first Windows upgrades that doesn't have that
*must* have features for me.

So do I like W7 better than XP now? I can't say yes yet. As I am
pretty comfortable under both. And all of my software that I want to
run still works just fine under XP. And thanks to Windows 8 and me
being stubborn to get two applications running that I couldn't get to
run under W7 before. So I used what I learned to get those two also
running under W7 too. Now only if I could ever get OE6 running under
W7. ;-)

I must say my satisfactory with both Windows 7/8 has been dropping
steadily in the last few days. Something that I never got working right
lately under Windows 7/8 is AOL email accounts (Gmail isn't doing well
either). It doesn't matter which email reader I use or what settings...
sometimes it picks up my email and sometimes it doesn't.

Under Windows 2000/XP, all readers are flawless. It doesn't matter which
email application I use, i.e. OE6, Thunderbird, or whatever they all
work just fine.

Funny, I have been using Windows 7 since mid-2009 and Thunderbird used
to pick up email pretty well until some Windows updates came along. Now
nothing wants to work correctly, not even WLM 2009. Maybe I should give
WLM 2011 a try, eh?

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

in

In Wolf K wrote:
On 03/04/2012 7:51 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ray wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:30:21 -0500, milt wrote:

[...]
Why bother with Apple developers when Apple is nothing more than
an
OS (based on Linux) running on (overpriced) Intel hardware?
Seems
like that would be the last thing they need!

No, it is not based on Linux. It is based on BSD Unix.

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

IIRC, BSD is a "flavour" of Unix that was branched off by U-Cal
Berkeley sometime in the late 60s/early 70s, when AT&T was still
willing to let other people tinker with Unix. In any case, that BSD
is copyright by Berkeley. There is a FOSS version, which was still
being worked on last time I looked, but it's fast becoming an
historical footnote.
Apple AFAIK pays no licence fees for its use of the BSD core code,
and
it jealously guards its "intellectual property" in OS-X. OTOH, if
you
know Unix in sufficient detail (which I don't claim to), you can
apparently hack OS-X so that you can run Unix (and Linux) apps on
OS-X. Which Apple does not approve of.

Linux is a from-the-ground-up version originally built by Linus
Torvalds, and since built on and adapted by many hands/minds. But
the
kernel is still AFAIK under Linus's control. I have no idea to what
extent it's a variation of the original Unix source code, but AFAIK
it
is a 100% work-alike. So IMO "based on Unix" is somewhat
misleading.

Wolf K.

Oh come on! Give us a break! That is like saying Windows 8 isn't
based
on Windows 95! Look, if you can use one of the following: Linux,
Unix,
BSD, or OS-X; it isn't a far stretch to use one of the other three.
It
is true for Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 and 8 too. Hell
there
are lots of things found in Windows 3.xx that are still found in
modern
Windows today. ;-)

"Is Similar To" != "Is Based On"

Linux "Is similar To" Unix, but was written from scratch and as I
understand it, shares no code with Unix. As such, it is not "Based
On" Unix.

Apple's Mac OS "Is Based On" BSD (Berkeley Standard Distribution) Unix
(with current versions adopting code from other BSD variants,
including
FreeBSD and NetBSD). It shares no code with Linux whatsoever, and as
such, is not "Based On" Linux.

You are not telling the story correctly. Linux was based on Minix. BSD
was based on Unix. And Minix is under the BSD license. All sounds like
one big huge soap opera to me. ;-)

No, I believe you are mistaken. Linux was never based on anything - it
was written completely from scratch. It was written as work-alike Unix
for x86 systems. It has never used Unix, Minix, or any other *ix code.

As much as I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a reference, in this case it
appears to be complete and accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg

In addition to the well-crafted version history map, see especially the
Licensing note which reads:

"Linux was inspired by MINIX and Unix, but Linux and GNU code was
written from scratch."