BAD APPLICATION BACJGROUND COLOR CHOICES!!! NO CUSTOMIZATION, DISREGARD OF WIN SYSTEMWIDE SETTINGS!


M

Mark Levitski

Complaint for: WinLive PhotoGallery + Office PictureManager + other recent
Microsoft products which exhibit similar nerve-breaking behavior + one Color
problem with existing/older Windows features:

WHY DOES IT (e.g. WL PhotoGallery) DISREGARD SYSTEM-WIDE COLOR SCHEME!?!
I've been doing computers for @least 20 years, my permanent colorscheme is
dark or totally Black, black background (desktop/app. window/etc), etc. I
am a degreed (MSEE) engineer so not stupid, there's a reason many
professionals, unlike home/children users set as many Windows elements to
Black as possible.
What is this fad with Microsoft in recent applications who refuse to read
System color settings and instead insist on White background. I am so hurt
by WinLive PhotoGallery's persistent white background, that annoys my eyes
to the point, it will be uninstalled. Same deal with MS Office Picture
manager which I hoped to use instead - white background & no way to
customize. Look Microsoft, is it logical for
you to make 2 products one of which defies another, it'd be no surprise for
2 different companies, but you also make Windows; so what are Windows
CLASSIC color controls for? To be overidden by some
"dominator" applications like PhotoGallery?

So may we ask to please add an option to either set background color (BEST),
or add a "Black" theme (but why bother, it's easier to give customers an
option for manually setting backgroudn color), or just adhere to Windows
colorscheme for God's sake Windows is also made by Microsoft.
Who is watching images or movies with intensely white background? MORONS
WHO DON"T REALIZE THEY WILL NEED an EYE DOCTOR IN !) YEARS.
I am an engineer and also a former developer, I spend enormous time with
computers, and may I claim the fact that I know what I am doing in terms of
display settings & colors. Been doing it long enough and
my 28-year old eyes are in perfect shape despite so much compyters, that
most Developers get glasses by 40!

I've been holding "steam" for years but I am fed up. I will now post this
complaint all over MS Newsgroups and email to your offices. The deal with
applications disregarding system wide color scheme is puzzling system that
color scheme is user-defined in Windows - which is also made by Microsoft.
SO your right hand doesn't know what left does??
Many professional people sit in dark rooms, with stealth black LCD's, and
blue lighting, in my case in neighboring a UNIX lab (but I control Windows
PC's) and an application like WindowsLive Photogallery
which likes ot open images by default in a crazy aspect ratio, filling the
rest of display with disgusting white filler.
Do you ever get headaches at work? maybe too much white on your display,
ever wondered?

***********************************
THIS BUG's BEEN BUGGING US SINCE 2003!!!

If a Black color scheme is selected in Windows-->Classic-->Advanced, then a
very disstressing behavior occurs
Set desktop & window backrgound to Black, font to Silver - my favorite,
allowing to spend countless hours on the computer, yet maintaining eye
HEALTH. Do the same with White background, white other... a headache will
develop.
Now goto Win Explorer or Win Mail, and sort files/emails/items by any column
(e.g. by date). Instead of clear view (you'd expect in Classic Windows),
you will see Whitish background + light text on it,
totally unreadable & horrible. Impossible to focus on work. The only way
to never see that mess, is it is to NEVER have "details" view turned on in
WinExplorer, as of Winmail I am forced to narrow Date
column to zero as that is the column by which usually emails are arranged.
As you can guess it appears mutilated if you arrange by date.

COLOR BUG CONTINUED from previous msg:
It's one bug, but everything else is gorgeous in Windows Black color scheme,
I've been tolerating this since 2003, but only now decided to message
Microsoft.
Many people know it & simply avoid "Details" view in WinExplorer, but it's
not a solution. I used to use Details view all the time in WindowsME & NT,
not anymore, can't..
What happened here is that sorted-by column background color is "hardwired",
not customizable in Appearance-->Advanced. It uses some sort of algorithm
which fails when user selects Black background.

And in case you wonder, Black is what you shoudl select unless you want
brain cancer due to 10-hour work day on a computer.

By the way, please keep Windows-->Appearance-->Advanced-->Classic option
forever, WinXP/Vista (and Windows7?) do not have nearly as much color
control as Classic, and if one day these customization options are gone, I
will also be gone... to another OperatingSystem (we all kno what it is).
Colors customization is critical to me, as I spend hours on computers):
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

DanS

For once I agree with Frank on this one.

Complaint for: WinLive PhotoGallery + Office PictureManager + other
recent Microsoft products which exhibit similar nerve-breaking
behavior + one Color problem with existing/older Windows features:

WHY DOES IT (e.g. WL PhotoGallery) DISREGARD SYSTEM-WIDE COLOR
SCHEME!?!

The answer from Shane, an MSFT engineer, on this page:
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-
US/vistamedia/thread/4ad7cd2b-1367-47d9-a8f3-f198450b7cff

says:

"Unfortunately the only way to change the background color in Windows
Live Photo Gallery is to change the color scheme for all windows that you
open. I have provided steps for doing so below. This is assuming that
you are running Windows Vista.

* Right-click your desktop and select Personalize
* Click Windows Color and Appearance
* Click the Advanced button
* In the drop down menu underneath Item: select Window
* In the drop down menu for Color 1: change the color to black
* Press the OK button, and then the apply button
* If you want to keep things this way you can press OK again"

This is for Windows Live Photo Gallery version 2009 (Build 14.0.8064.206)

So that version, according the the MSFT Engineer, DOES take into account
the system-wide setting for background color.
I've been doing computers for @least 20 years, my permanent
colorscheme is dark or totally Black, black background (desktop/app.
window/etc), etc. I am a degreed (MSEE) engineer so not stupid,

No, not stupid, you just think your **opinions** are right and everyone
else is wrong.
there's a reason many professionals, unlike home/children users set as
many Windows elements to Black as possible.
What is this fad with Microsoft in recent applications who refuse to
read System color settings and instead insist on White background. I
am so hurt by WinLive PhotoGallery's persistent white background, that
annoys my eyes to the point, it will be uninstalled. Same deal with
MS Office Picture manager which I hoped to use instead - white
background & no way to customize. Look Microsoft, is it logical for
you to make 2 products one of which defies another, it'd be no
surprise for 2 different companies, but you also make Windows; so what
are Windows CLASSIC color controls for? To be overidden by some
"dominator" applications like PhotoGallery?

Actually, a developer, even within MS, is just that, a developer. They
can choose to do anything they damn well please with what they are doing.
Just as a car company can design and produce any car they want. That
doesn't mean it will be successful, or will be well-accepted, but they do
have the right.

It's up to you, as a consumer, to choose not to use/buy those things you
don't like. That's how a free market works.
So may we ask to please add an option to either set background color
(BEST), or add a "Black" theme (but why bother, it's easier to give
customers an option for manually setting backgroudn color), or just
adhere to Windows colorscheme for God's sake Windows is also made by
Microsoft. Who is watching images or movies with intensely white
background? MORONS WHO DON"T REALIZE THEY WILL NEED an EYE DOCTOR IN
!) YEARS. I am an engineer and also a former developer, I spend
enormous time with computers, and may I claim the fact that I know
what I am doing in terms of display settings & colors. Been doing it
long enough and my 28-year old eyes are in perfect shape despite so
much compyters, that most Developers get glasses by 40!

If you do a little Googling on this subject, you'll find that most people
that have an opinion, favor dark text on a light background.

And, as a matter of fact, light text on a black background, for me, like
on a webpage, will cause me to see 'spots' for several minutes while not
looking at it. These 'spots' are actually one large black'ish rectangle
filled with white'ish horizontal lines. Hmmmmmm. I don't get that while
viewing pages with a white background.

Glasses by 40 may just be a natural progression in the aging process. How
would you then explain all the other millions of 40+ year old's that
don't use PC's 8 hours a day for and *still* require glasses.
I've been holding "steam" for years but I am fed up. I will now post
this complaint all over MS Newsgroups and email to your offices. The
deal with applications disregarding system wide color scheme is
puzzling system that color scheme is user-defined in Windows - which
is also made by Microsoft. SO your right hand doesn't know what left
does?? Many professional people sit in dark rooms, with stealth black
LCD's, and blue lighting, in my case in neighboring a UNIX lab (but I
control Windows PC's) and an application like WindowsLive Photogallery
which likes ot open images by default in a crazy aspect ratio, filling
the rest of display with disgusting white filler.
Do you ever get headaches at work? maybe too much white on your
display, ever wondered?

From what I've read, it's not a white on black or black on white issue,
its a matter of overall brightness with regards to the level of ambient
light.

And in case you wonder, Black is what you shoudl select unless you
want brain cancer due to 10-hour work day on a computer.

That's all conjecture at this point, and even less of a concern with the
rapid adoption of LCD display technology.

I'd be more concerned about the RF energy we are bombarded with on a
daily basis......from the sun, broadcast TV and radio, cell phone towers,
etc.......but I'm not.

Hell, I grew up and lived for 20 years the second house from a run of 60
high tension power lines. If I didn't get leukemia or brain cancer from
that, it won't happen from looking at a monitor using dark text on a
light background.
 
C

Charlie Tame

Mark said:
This application still ingores System-wide color scheme when WinVista is
in Classic Mode. period.

It's a fact. I am NO Tblind!
Maybe your Microsoft person is working in Vista's Aero interface, but we
busienss people don't play Aero Trick, tips, peaks, etc.
I am in Classic mode, ALL MY WINDOWS have black background.

Yet WLPG insists on whit ebackground.

Have a nice day


Your spelling is atrocious, your grammar awful so one wonders if you
also use a black foreground? Might explain why for the last 20 years you
have been so frustrated. No?
 
M

Mark Levitski

This application still ingores System-wide color scheme when WinVista is in
Classic Mode. period.

It's a fact. I am NO Tblind!
Maybe your Microsoft person is working in Vista's Aero interface, but we
busienss people don't play Aero Trick, tips, peaks, etc.
I am in Classic mode, ALL MY WINDOWS have black background.

Yet WLPG insists on whit ebackground.

Have a nice day
 
C

Charles W Davis

Mark, one person that wants black backgrounds is not going to make Microsoft
go the way of General Motors.

The others here have assailed your spelling and grammar, however, your being
here is not to get help.

Lastly, you don't understand that the folks here are not necessarily
Microsoft employees. Your barb just went into the air.
 
M

Mark Levitski

It's up to you, as a consumer, to choose not to use/buy those things you
don't like. That's how a free market works.

You're going the way of General Motors, or you're going to fix colors, etc
issues :)
And remember the reason for WIndows7 - it's a patch to alleviate your sales
pains with Vista crapware
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mark Levitski

Dan,

No offense meant but you're one of MS-crazed people who fail to read the
original post carefully, because you're driven to promote MS.

Did I say I've been doing it long enough?
The Window item color1 is set to Black, has been for 7 years. All
applications & their windows show upo with Black background, OK????
I thought I made i tclear it's a bug.
Your MS people insist on making us look stupid, when faced with deficiencies
in their products.

I HAVE HAD IT SET IN APPEARANCE-->ADVANCED->CLASSIC WHATEVER .... IT'S SET O
BLACK, EVERYONE OBEYS THIS SCHEME EXCEPT WINDOWS LIVE PROHOT GALLERY.

Is that difficult to accept that WLPG white background does.t care for user,
but is hardwaired permanently?
Add a button to change its color OR make it obey system-wide settings after
you actually verify it obeys. Because it doesn't.
 
M

Mark Levitski

Dan,

You referred me to this link which by the way is not an answer because that
MSFT Enigneer is wrong, WLPG still ingores system-wide colors for SINGLE
PHOTO, it sets background to Black only in Slideshow mode which indicates
one of the developers had a similar taste to mine. BTW, that blackness is
not even due to WLPG respecting system-wide colors in thi scase, no, it's
just how it was programmed - black for Slideshow, White for single photo,
nobody knows why there's no option to change this insanity. This is a
candidate for UNINSTALLATIOn now, I hate white too much to keep it on
system.
Here's the link:
http://social.answers.microsoft.com...a/thread/4ad7cd2b-1367-47d9-a8f3-f198450b7cff

But you know what's funny?

That same link you gave us, contains several posts where people express
their love for Black schemes contradicting your preference for White
background. SO thanks for providing a link which now works against you:
here's an excerpt from that webpage you referenced:

***********************
I am a Photographer, and very few pictures look their best on a large white
background, especially on a LCD Display. The light output causes the iris
closes down so the picture looks too dark - it is survivable with light and
colourful pictures (even if it's not optimal) but with Darker Pictures and
Black and White pictures it's a problem.
I can use Adobe Bridge instead, but I am disappointed that Microsoft haven't
fixed this problem following Vista.
If you want to test the theory, just try looking at a darker picture on a
dark background, then look at it in photo viewer, you will see what I mean.

Posted by:
Bryan Wallbridge
 
M

Mark Levitski

So you defy Microsoft themselves?
They subliminally touted it as a fix for Vista.
 
M

Mark Levitski

The spelkling and grammar indicate my utter disgust for spending a Saturday
on the computer posting allover to explain somethign that bugged us for many
years, I am too busy to even see keybaord on thsi blackberry MOBIKE device,
I am in a car, abou tto crash.... arrghhhm try typing on a cellphone -al,
see what spellin gt=you get!
 
D

DanS

Dan,

You referred me to this link which by the way is not an answer because
that MSFT Enigneer is wrong, WLPG still ingores system-wide colors for
SINGLE PHOTO, it sets background to Black only in Slideshow mode which
indicates one of the developers had a similar taste to mine. BTW,
that blackness is not even due to WLPG respecting system-wide colors
in thi scase, no, it's just how it was programmed - black for
Slideshow, White for single photo, nobody knows why there's no option
to change this insanity. This is a candidate for UNINSTALLATIOn now,
I hate white too much to keep it on system.
Here's the link:
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistamedia/thread/4ad7
cd2b-1367-47d9-a8f3-f198450b7cff

But you know what's funny?

That same link you gave us, contains several posts where people
express their love for Black schemes contradicting your preference for
White background. SO thanks for providing a link which now works
against you: here's an excerpt from that webpage you referenced:

***********************
I am a Photographer, and very few pictures look their best on a large
white background, especially on a LCD Display. The light output causes
the iris closes down so the picture looks too dark - it is survivable
with light and colourful pictures (even if it's not optimal) but with
Darker Pictures and Black and White pictures it's a problem.
I can use Adobe Bridge instead, but I am disappointed that Microsoft
haven't fixed this problem following Vista.
If you want to test the theory, just try looking at a darker picture
on a dark background, then look at it in photo viewer, you will see
what I mean.

Posted by:
Bryan Wallbridge

I did see that. But, that is one specific case, viewing picture, and I
agree with it as well. That is my **opinion** as well, for viewing
pictures.

You though, had indicated that you do everything with a black background,
and that everyone should do everything with a black background or else
they will need glasses by age 40. Or that using a white background will
cause brain cancer.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mark Levitski

I said "subliminally".
It's too self-damaging to make a statement declaring a new product as a fix
for previous.

But in technical circles MS officials unofficially )yes, it sounds as an
oxymoron) admitted they count on Win7 to alleviate Vista pain.

I like the name Windows7 - it's nostalgic. I started in Win3.11 when I was
21 years old back in Brooklyn, NY
I was known as a staunch "pro-Microsofter" praising all they did, and
bashing DOS users who insisted on "never" switching to GUI or Windows.
I just started learnign English but already attacked DOS'ers explaining to
them Windows = progress.

I was a bit wrong in one aspect, though. Now I see how keyboard is faster
than a mouse.
In WinXP I'd rarely move mouse given ability to navigate even in darkness
with just a few keyboard arrow keys, anyways this is BORING.
I didn't mean to get boring with this post.

Frank,

it's common knowledge that MS is releasing Win7 sooner than usual upgrade
cycle is, due to Vista complains.
Vista's strength is security, XP's strenght is productivity, maybe Win7 will
combine both strong points.
I am too lazy to experiement with Linux.
I want Windows to work, chiefly I want CUSTOMIZATION.
From zero to eyeballs, total customization - colors, shapes, I hate even
round window corners in Vista, i am always switched to Classic mode.
Did you notice how many professionals could care less for Aero tricks, and
sitchk to Classic apeparance, even in WindowsXP for 9 year snow Microsoft is
keeping this appearance as an option.
Probably means something?
 
M

Mark Levitski

I actually have a switch:
Two color schemes:

1. My-dark
2. My-regular.

I agree InternetExplorer may display most sites unacceptably when
Accessibility is set to override wbpage designers & instead use Win
system-wide setting I set, for example, to Black.
Some websites though look gorgeous because their designer's taste is similar
to ours, in plain English designer is using great contrast between fonts &
background. So no need for o verriding that.
So I agree Interent I usually leave alone and run with light background,
with almost unchanged Vista colors.

I jus tlike these to be black background:
All Graphics/photos.
CAD/Drafting, Engineering simulation/professional tools.
Word processing
Email

These are my most frequent tasks, for all else I am like most people use
white backgriound, .
I am writing this very message on a beautiful Black background with
light-silver fonts, and harddisk halted, quiet, nice.
I really know how ot make computers ergonomic & healthy, and FAST.

It's just once in a while comes along an application e.g. WinLive
PhotoGallery that disrespects user's Windows-wide customization.
Despite claims that some kind of "most recent build" is in fact adhering to
system-wide settiungs, no it's not.
My WLPG is dated by 3 days ago, pretty recent!! I just installed it and
went straight to complaining because WinXP Picture & FAX viewer was NOT so
obnoxiously white. Whoever designed WinXP apps had better brains than
Vista's team.
Now you might say, there're mor eimportant things in life, and if someone
doesn't like a specific app, get another. Quit complaing.

Here's my answer:
People don't realize what I am complaining about - not about that
application per se.
I am trying to STOP a wider trend in WinLive applications recently coming to
market which disrespect users. They insist on their own appearance, shapes,
buttons, and what realy annoys - COLORS.
If I don't complain, besides WLPG there'll be 100 other softwares with
similar wild trends.
All applications must have this option :

USE WINDOWS COLORS.

Is that difficult? Whether you like white or bron-yellow-dirt-bluish
colors, everybody is happy.
But WLPG and other WinLive applications fail to include such basic
customization.

Or maybe I am accustomed to $25-40,000 design/CAD software where everything
is done properly?
I know Windows is cheap. per unit, But market is enormous. 100 bucks is
cheap but they sell it in millions, hundreds of millions!

This is why they dont care. They might leave this damn WLPG with white
background, which means i am off to get a 3d party application instead.

I actually like MS Office 2007 Picture Manager, even if it's as
uncustomizable as WLPG i already have it, why bother with another image
viewer... more software, more bloatness and Filesystem/disk resources
waste., not to mention complexity always decreases reliability.
If they can't add a simple button for colors, this little fact is enough to
uninstall.

I sound funny?
Yes I am very particulate, I eat certain food, wear certain clothes and want
my software to lok certain way. I never conform because "it can't be done",
anything can be done.
In this case uninstall, and get a 3d party viewer. Or hack WindowsXP Pic &
FAX viewer, which I have a vague idea how (need to patch registry, etc).
 
M

Mark Levitski

I don't claim it WILL cause brain cancer.
What I claim is statistically increasing your chances of brain cancer.

Cellphones, microwave ovens, RF antenna towers, highvoltage transmission
lines, etc. ALONE don't kill as an inevitable consequence.
What you eatm breath, do and your genetics are mor eimportant.

I said they increase chances. if I can reduce chances of a fatal desease,
why not do it?
For example why not cut cellphone usage and not stare into bright computer
displays for too long?
It's the CUMULATIVE effect of these factors that increases our chance of
some bad news in later life.

That you're not dead yet despite living near highvoltage lines does not
idnicate anything substantial.
Demographics operates in statistcial terms, in thousands at least. You;re
single case of lving at a fare distance from those lines, andvoltage not too
high, is not a reason to relax.
Our ancestors were dying from infections, violence/animals/wars.
We die from cancer, heart and mental issues are becoming rampant down to
kindergarten.

What does i ttell you?
Technocratic civilization added riskj factors, and spendign time with
computers i sone of them
I maintain my eye health religiously, and shoot me but writing this message
on a bright white background in bright lit room would be a headache.
Instead I got somethign nice here... you can't see.
And any application that refuses me to customize it, is something I use as
quickly as possible, and shut down to get it off display.
 
M

Mark Levitski

What was th evoltage of those Transmission lines?
In tens of Kilovolt range? That would not create enough EM field to disturb
you much.
I dare you live under a Million volt line, which usually makes buzzing sound
as it vibrates due to enormous power traveling accors sit.

And live like that for a decade, will see how yo would feel. House values
under such Transmission lines have decsreaed because people get educated and
disocver what it does yo your health.

And from a practical perspective, bad weather could down one of those
megavolt lines, I'd be scared to death.
I've been sacred to death by even a sight of highrise highvoltage line, and
I am an EE Electrical engineer, it's strange.

I am tired of computers this weekend, so thi sis the last post. Praise the
Lord, I am done for the week.
 
D

DanS

I said "subliminally".
It's too self-damaging to make a statement declaring a new product as
a fix for previous.

But in technical circles MS officials unofficially )yes, it sounds as
an oxymoron) admitted they count on Win7 to alleviate Vista pain.

I like the name Windows7 - it's nostalgic. I started in Win3.11 when
I was 21 years old back in Brooklyn, NY
I was known as a staunch "pro-Microsofter" praising all they did, and
bashing DOS users who insisted on "never" switching to GUI or Windows.
I just started learnign English but already attacked DOS'ers
explaining to them Windows = progress.

Got anything else to make up ????

Let's see.........Win 3.11 when you 'started' with computers.

And in your first post here....

"I've been doing computers for @least 20 years, my permanent colorscheme
is dark or totally Black, black background (desktop/app. window/etc),
etc. I am a degreed (MSEE) engineer so not stupid,"

And......

"Been doing it long enough and my 28-year old eyes are in perfect shape
despite so much compyters, that most Developers get glasses by 40!"

Do the math. It doesn't add up.
I was a bit wrong in one aspect, though. Now I see how keyboard is
faster than a mouse.
In WinXP I'd rarely move mouse given ability to navigate even in
darkness with just a few keyboard arrow keys, anyways this is BORING.
I didn't mean to get boring with this post.

Frank,

it's common knowledge that MS is releasing Win7 sooner than usual
upgrade cycle is, due to Vista complains.

Not sooner.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx

Vista was in Jan 2007, which was the longest time between releases. Every
other one was 2 to 3 years.
Vista's strength is security, XP's strenght is productivity, maybe
Win7 will combine both strong points.
I am too lazy to experiement with Linux.

Or spell check.
I want Windows to work, chiefly I want CUSTOMIZATION.
From zero to eyeballs, total customization - colors, shapes, I hate
even round window corners in Vista, i am always switched to Classic
mode. Did you notice how many professionals could care less for Aero
tricks, and sitchk to Classic apeparance, even in WindowsXP for 9 year
snow Microsoft is keeping this appearance as an option.
Probably means something?

Yes, it means that there are a *lot* of boring people out there.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mark Levitski

That only referred to WINDOWS.
Before coming to America, we did CP/M - an 8-bit operating system killed by
DOS. CP/M's ceator comitted suicide having witnessed Bill gates getting
superrich and overtaking his 8-bit system with what was perceieved in those
days "an impossibly complex 16-bit" OS.
I programmed in Assembler. I tell you I've been around things since ttenage
years, and at age 8 or 9 i even fixed a boat when my father decided to take
a trip into Black Sea in russian south. Poeple still remember that, i was
just 8 years old.

I tell you WindowsVista i smeant for games and not business or technical
people.
I can chew your ears off with tehcnical facts and infobits.

So i was around computers sicne at least 20 years ago, i am 37 now.
 
M

Mark Levitski

That was a TYPO. NOT 28 year old, but 38 year old, well 37 aand turning 38
in a few weeks.

Ok hope that clarifies a conflict, I noticed it already, 28 was a typo. 2
and 3 are next to each othe ron the keyboard and i was on a mobile device in
some dark cafe, with people smoking around, and tiny keyboard, who cares
about typos. I was lucky to type anythign at all.
 
M

Mark Levitski

Not one person, great many people e.g. professional photographers & graphic
artists cannot tolerate white background. I had been using dark backrgound
since the beginning of time - since Windows3.1
Photos look great on black, the human iris contracts so sharply when such
white background is shining into it that it's impossible to appreaciate the
photo, it's blanketed.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Charlie Tame

Mark said:
That only referred to WINDOWS.
Before coming to America, we did CP/M - an 8-bit operating system killed
by DOS. CP/M's ceator comitted suicide having witnessed Bill gates
getting superrich and overtaking his 8-bit system with what was
perceieved in those days "an impossibly complex 16-bit" OS.
I programmed in Assembler. I tell you I've been around things since
ttenage years, and at age 8 or 9 i even fixed a boat when my father
decided to take a trip into Black Sea in russian south. Poeple still
remember that, i was just 8 years old.

I tell you WindowsVista i smeant for games and not business or technical
people.
I can chew your ears off with tehcnical facts and infobits.

So i was around computers sicne at least 20 years ago, i am 37 now.


Perhaps there's a reason why you are the only person here requiring a
black screen with light characters? Perhaps it's because everybody else
prefers to choose their own colors? I started with assembler around 1978
on a machine with 40 columns and 25 lines. Yes I used CP/M (Control
Program for Microprocessors), I believe it was by Digital Research
wasn't it? And yes, 80 columns was much better. I did machine code on
the Z80, 6502 and 6510, then moved on to the 68000 series. I was never a
great programmer but I made things work, and by the way at 57 I beat you
at other "Engineering" skills by 20 years. I made jewelry for a time,
repaired the machines that were used, I worked in retail, then heavier
engineering making parts for aircraft, did my share of international
shipping, production control, authored a large database for use with UK
Government equipment and my current employment of 7 years includes
electrical work, electronics, and IT. And in my spare time I do any
plumbing that becomes necessary. I probably shouldn't bother mentioning
that I also do the building repairs, drywall and anything else. My work
has to meet State Regulations, inspection by the Department of
Inspections and Appeals, the State Fire Marshall / Department of Public
Safety and of course OSHA.

Having now bored everybody else to death, I agree with you that things
should be "Practical" in the first instance, however if people want
practicality and eye candy why not? When Vista was first unleashed, and
this is my opinion only, it had some fundamental problems I would have
preferred to see fixed during development instead of the emphasis being
on appearances, however much it seems has been fixed. That criticism
aside is no excuse for going back to the dark ages in terms of visual
displays.

So go ahead, shew my ears off with technical facts and infobits if you
like, I'll be sure to keep you in mind next time I find a hole in my boat.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top