Windows 8

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

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

Using Windows since '93, all the way up to XP... there was always a
reason for me to upgrade to a newer version of Windows. As there was
always a must have feature that I needed that was lacking in the
earlier version of Windows.

Let me guess:
'95: first Windows not a million miles from what we're used to now.
'98: assorted tweaks, but mainly USB. (Worked under 95OSR2, just!)
XP: mainly, improved stability. (Sorry, '98 enthusiasts.)

Back in '06 I made the claim in the newsgroups before Vista came out
that I didn't see the need for me to run Vista until at least the year
2011. Well 2011 came and went and I still never ran Vista on any of my
computers yet. Maybe someday, but not anytime soon.

I think the general consensus is that Vista was a bit of a lemon. Though
some users who don't do a lot are happy with it (but would be happy
whatever the underlying OS, probably).

I have been running Windows 7 since '09 though. But there isn't
anything real exciting to me with Windows 7. Nor do I use Windows 7
much for anything besides a little TV, email, newsgroups, and browsing.
But XP does this and a lot more for me anyway.

Yes: I've played with 7 (on other's machines, but at sufficient length),
and to be honest I don't hate it; but, like you, I can't see any great
"must have"; only the usual gradual drift among programmers and,
particularly, hardware suppliers, towards it. At present, all the
software and hardware I might want is available on XP, and I think will
be for some while (years): however, I do sense a tendency for the 7
version to appear slightly earlier now. I fear this will inevitably
increase, and already a tiny proportion of things are only available on
7. It will increase though.

So if some reason I was forced to run only one version of Windows, it
would still be running XP only hands down.

Me too. I think 7 is a bit more at home on multicores (though many have
said _needs_ them to run properly), but since I don't currently have
any, that won't swing me for now.

From what I've heard - I haven't seen it at all - 8 is available in two
"modes", one that looks more like an iPhone, and the normal desktop, but
it is a bit biased towards the 'phone one. That's a different way of
working, and not my comfort zone, but I don't react against it: however,
I've not heard anything mentioned that makes it a must have, or even a
want.

 

[Andy Burns]

From what I've heard - I haven't seen it at all - 8 is available in two
"modes", one that looks more like an iPhone, and the normal desktop

That was what I was expecting it to be like

but it is a bit biased towards the 'phone one.

IME it's heavily biased to returning to the "metro grid mode" every time
you alt-tab, use the windows key, or go for what *would* be the start
menu (if it still existed)

 

[BillW50]

Using Windows since '93, all the way up to XP... there was always a
reason for me to upgrade to a newer version of Windows. As there was
always a must have feature that I needed that was lacking in the
earlier version of Windows.

Let me guess:
'95: first Windows not a million miles from what we're used to now.
'98: assorted tweaks, but mainly USB. (Worked under 95OSR2, just!)
XP: mainly, improved stability. (Sorry, '98 enthusiasts.)[/QUOTE]

Yes that is some of the reasons. ;-)

I think the general consensus is that Vista was a bit of a lemon. Though
some users who don't do a lot are happy with it (but would be happy
whatever the underlying OS, probably).

I remember all of the talk on these newsgroups months before Vista was
going to be released. Most people were really excited about Vista and
couldn't wait for it to come out. I wasn't one of them. As I figured it
would be like about 5 years before newer applications and hardware just
wouldn't work with anything except Vista or higher.

The part that I got wrong was that I could even in 2012 still be doing
everything I needed to do under Windows XP alone. This never happened
for me for so long with a Windows OS before. And I don't see this
changing in the near future for me either.

Sometime after 2006 I started thinking that Microsoft really screwed up
with XP. Meaning that they made XP too good. As virtually all complaints
about earlier versions of Windows were all taken care of in XP. And
there isn't much left for an encore.

Yes: I've played with 7 (on other's machines, but at sufficient length),
and to be honest I don't hate it; but, like you, I can't see any great
"must have"; only the usual gradual drift among programmers and,
particularly, hardware suppliers, towards it. At present, all the
software and hardware I might want is available on XP, and I think will
be for some while (years): however, I do sense a tendency for the 7
version to appear slightly earlier now. I fear this will inevitably
increase, and already a tiny proportion of things are only available on
7. It will increase though.

I have been accused of hating an OS from time to time, but I never hated
any OS I have ever used. Although I do judge the value of an OS based on
how much I want to run will run under a given OS. So maybe that is where
some get that idea from.

Back in 2006, I wouldn't have ever guessed that I would say this in
2012. But I haven't ran into anything I want to run that also wouldn't
run under XP yet. I am sure the day is coming though. I am just not sure
of when. SO I would be curious what you have ran into that does. As
someday I may have to run them too.

Me too. I think 7 is a bit more at home on multicores (though many have
said _needs_ them to run properly), but since I don't currently have
any, that won't swing me for now.

Oh no multicore CPUs? Yes I find Windows 7 performance to be very
unsatisfactory under single core CPUs.

From what I've heard - I haven't seen it at all - 8 is available in two
"modes", one that looks more like an iPhone, and the normal desktop, but
it is a bit biased towards the 'phone one. That's a different way of
working, and not my comfort zone, but I don't react against it: however,
I've not heard anything mentioned that makes it a must have, or even a
want.

I often run Aston2 Shell on most of my computers (even XP and Windows
7). So my desktop looks different than the stock Windows desktops. Right
now I am using the Android theme for Aston2 under Windows 7. I don't
have an Android device so I don't know how close it is. But the Ubuntu
10 and Windows 7 themes are pretty close. I change themes routinely like
some change wallpapers. Now if only Aston had an automatic theme
changer. ;-)

 

[mechanic]

I think the general consensus is that Vista was a bit of a lemon.
Though some users who don't do a lot are happy with it (but would
be happy whatever the underlying OS, probably).

I think most users who have learned to tie their own shoelaces are
pretty happy with Vista. On a suitable machine, obviously.

 

[SC Tom]

I think most users who have learned to tie their own shoelaces are
pretty happy with Vista. On a suitable machine, obviously.

The only experience I had with Vista was on the Gateway laptop that came with it already installed. After using XP from
the time it came out, I was not impressed, and my XP machine ran much faster even though it was a lesser machine than
the laptop. I found XP to be more stable, faster, and less intrusive than Vista (although I did fix most of the
intrusiveness by turning that gawd-awful UAC off).
I was hoping from the reviews that Win7 would be better, so I pre-ordered it and installed it the day I got it. I would
not go back to Vista on a dare. I was very impressed with 7, and still use it on that same laptop. Probably the best
improvement I've experienced in an OS since going from Win98 to WinME (which, despite all the negative feedback, was
much better than Win98 for me).
I'm still running XP on my desktop (not the same as the old one) just for the fact that there is no direct, easy way to
upgrade to Win7 on it. I'm tempted to buy a copy of PCMover, image my drive, and give that a try. Unfortunately, some of
the programs I have installed I don't have the installation CD's for, so that's holding me back, too; I'd hate to lose
some of them just for a new OS when my old one works just fine

 

[Steve Hayes]

I have been running Windows 7 since '09 though. But there isn't anything
real exciting to me with Windows 7. Nor do I use Windows 7 much for
anything besides a little TV, email, newsgroups, and browsing. But XP
does this and a lot more for me anyway.

So if some reason I was forced to run only one version of Windows, it
would still be running XP only hands down.

Though I largely agree, one thing that Windows 7 does that XP doesn't is burn
DVDs.

Actually, XP doesn't even burn CDs properly, but perhaps installing Nero
disabled it.

 

[Paul]

Though I largely agree, one thing that Windows 7 does that XP doesn't is burn
DVDs.

Actually, XP doesn't even burn CDs properly, but perhaps installing Nero
disabled it.

There are a couple add-ons you can try. I haven't
tested these at all, and I can't even tell you what they do.
I have enough tools around at the moment, not to need
stuff like this. To do a fair trial, I'd need a clean
install to test on (so I could tell what had changed).

Image Mastering API v2.0 (IMAPIv2.0) for Windows XP (KB932716)
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=17073

Windows Feature Pack for Storage 1.0 - English (files for Vista and WinXP etc)
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?amp;displaylang=en&id=19622

IMAPI version 2 is supposed to be part of Windows 7 as well,
and I thought that is how my Win7 laptop managed to burn
recovery DVDs.

The second software package might be for BluRay.

So there are some downloads to play with.

One problem with being too adventurous, is you end up
burning media, that older OSes or standalone players
cannot read. It pays to read up on UDF versions for
example, to see which ones are the best. There is a
table near the bottom part of this page with the details.

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

Paul

 

[Char Jackson]

Though I largely agree, one thing that Windows 7 does that XP doesn't is burn
DVDs.

There's excellent freeware for that, so that's not a very good reason
to choose one OS over another. I use and recommend ImgBurn.

 

[McFarlen]

"Gordon" wrote in message


Windows 8 Build 8250 is a step back / regress in option of colours
and graphics. I like a fish, but not like this one which welcomes
me...-

MS should have a clear picture by now, what they want; either a
Mobile Metro or full blooded Windows interface able to compete with
Mac. There is much more to desire and expect then just a change of
coding. These days user is more selective and demanding. Windows 8 is
NOT going to satisfy ( as it is) a lot of customers.

The point is, which MS OS we're left with? The younger generation of
users after Vista experience, have switched to Mac. It looks - I'll
have to do it as well.

MS is lacking of a serious approach to user’s needs. It wonders
between a “pseudo novelty†and trying to fix what worked well in the
previous versions but it doesn't work now, when they "fixed" it, in
their - Microsoft's way.

here are also interesting views here;

"Some of the comments will be useful if you've yet to install the
preview on your machine or tablet for a test drive. A lot of discussion
right now is centered on the overhaul of the graphical user interface in
Metro.
Is Windows 8 a mess or a new horizon? The Ars OpenForum weighs in"
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...a-new-horizon-the-ars-openforum-weighs-in.ars

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Though I largely agree, one thing that Windows 7 does that XP doesn't is burn
DVDs.

Do you mean DVDs that play in an external DVD player, or just data DVDs?

Actually, XP doesn't even burn CDs properly, but perhaps installing Nero
disabled it.

Again, do you mean that will play in an external CD player, or just
data? (I thought it did both, but have never actually tried.)

(I've found Burn4Free a reasonable freeware that makes the process
easier - even works on '9x!)

 

[Gordon]

I'm going to hang on to Win 7 for dear life!

Windows 7 goes out of all support in 2020 - another eight years.
By then we should be on Windows Ten going on current activity...

 

[Bob I]

Windows 7 goes out of all support in 2020 - another eight years.
By then we should be on Windows Ten going on current activity...

Nah, probably something like Windows 2020 ;-)

And FWIW, End of Extended support for XP SP3 ends in 2014.

 

[Steve Hayes]

There's excellent freeware for that, so that's not a very good reason
to choose one OS over another. I use and recommend ImgBurn.

That doesn't sound as though it would do what I want, which is to format a
CD-R, and back up stuff to it with a batch file. If it could do it on a DVD-R
or DVD+R, so much the better.

 

[Steve Hayes]

Do you mean DVDs that play in an external DVD player, or just data DVDs?

Data DVDs.

Again, do you mean that will play in an external CD player, or just
data? (I thought it did both, but have never actually tried.)

Data CDs.

It might do it, but when I got my computer it urged me to install Nero
software for the DVD drive, and that seems to have killed any innate capacity
that X{P might have had to handle it.

Nero will produce CDs that will play on an external CD player, but it can't
handle data backup from a batch file.

 

[Char Jackson]

That doesn't sound as though it would do what I want, which is to format a
CD-R, and back up stuff to it with a batch file. If it could do it on a DVD-R
or DVD+R, so much the better.

You've moved the goalposts and now it sounds like you're asking about
UDF packet writing, or whatever it's called. I've never done it and
have zero interest in doing it. Why not use a hard drive or USB thumb
drive?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format>

 

[Rodney Pont]

You've moved the goalposts and now it sounds like you're asking about
UDF packet writing, or whatever it's called. I've never done it and
have zero interest in doing it. Why not use a hard drive or USB thumb
drive?

You need to use RW discs for that.

 

[Char Jackson]

You need to use RW discs for that.

Are you sure about that?

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Are you sure about that?

Can't speak for 7, but under '98 (and I'd be most surprised if it
doesn't also apply to XP, 7, and non-Windows OSs), you can use UDF with
non-erasable discs: they have to be formatted first, but thereafter, you
can use them. When I first looked into it, the advantage (which is
basically that you can use them just like a giant floppy - no messing
about with "sessions", "closing" etc.) seemed to be outweighed by the
considerable loss in capacity (IIRR a UDF-format CD is something like
500M rather than 650 - yes, it was a _long_ time ago I looked into
this!), but that's probably less relevant now.

Obviously, with a non-erasable disc, if you deleted a file, you didn't
get back the space it occupied, unlike with an RW disc.

Adaptec (later Roxio) had one name for UDF-formatted discs, Nero another
(I think it was/is "InCD" for Roxio); to use a UDF-formatted disc, you
had to use it in a machine that knew about the format. In the early days
at least, I'm not sure how compatible the various manufacturer's UDF
formats were with each other. This was in '9x days; I also don't know if
XP (let alone 7) has native support for it.

I used to use CD-RWs as, indeed, a big floppy, mainly for transferring
stuff between PCs - much as we'd use a USB stick now. I found something
tended to go wrong after - purely from memory, it might have been more -
about ten goes, meaning that there was some problem with reading (or
possibly that they'd read but not write, which wasn't so bad); I don't
_think_ it was ever that I couldn't reformat the CD-RW, only some data
glitch.

I _think_ you could UDF-format DVDs.

I think flash drives made it all redundant - though conceivably it
amking write-once discs easier to fill up (as I say, not having to worry
about multisession etc.) might still have a place. (IIRR you still had
to finalise a UDF-formatted disc to make it readable in a non-UDF-aware
system. Hmm, come to think of it, maybe DVD recorders - domestic ones
that sit under the telly, I mean - use some form of UDF, since they have
a "finalise" function.)

 

[Rodney Pont]

Are you sure about that?

Absolutely. You can't format an R and then write files to it, it has to
be an RW. I would expect the system to not even allow you to format an
R but it's not something I've tried.

You can select a load of files and write them to an R and if you make
it multisession and don't finalize it you can write another load to it
later but they are added and don't overwrite anything already there
(I'm not clear on what would happen if you wrote the same file but
altered to it, whether it would blank out the files in the first write
and do them all again).

 

[Char Jackson]

Absolutely. You can't format an R and then write files to it, it has to
be an RW. I would expect the system to not even allow you to format an
R but it's not something I've tried.

You can select a load of files and write them to an R and if you make
it multisession and don't finalize it you can write another load to it
later but they are added and don't overwrite anything already there
(I'm not clear on what would happen if you wrote the same file but
altered to it, whether it would blank out the files in the first write
and do them all again).

1. It's been awhile, but I've heard *many* stories of people using
standard CD-R discs, not CD-RW, as if it was a giant floppy.

2. See J.P. Gilliver's post in this thread. His experience seems to
mirror mine.

3. See the Wiki link I posted earlier in the thread, which also says
that standard CD-R's can be used.

So I ask again, are you sure?

From this link, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format>

Normally, authoring software will master a UDF file system in a
batch process and write it to optical media in a single pass. But
when packet writing to rewriteable media, such as CD-RW, UDF allows
files to be created, deleted and changed on-disc just as a
general-purpose filesystem would on removable media like floppy
disks and flash drives. This is also possible on write-once media,
such as CD-R, but in that case the space occupied by the deleted
files cannot be reclaimed (and instead becomes inaccessible).

Note the last sentence, where it says this is also possible on
write-once media.