Is It Time To Dump Windows XP?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

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

Nope, not yet. Everything I want and need still runs under XP SP2.
Things like Office 2010 Starter and Metro Apps won't run under XP, but I
have no problem dumping those applications in a heartbeat anyway.

To say that you have no problem dumping them implies that for some
reason you have obtained them - why?

FWIW, I agree about Office 2010: we moved to it at work a few months
ago, and I don't _think_ I can think of any new feature it has that I've
actually found useful, and it comes with the ribbon interface (also in
2007 - we moved from '03) that, while not the spawn of the devil many
make out, does mean I've been learning where everything is. (And I still
use kbd shortcuts from the old - fortunately, unlike many previous
situations, they're still supported.) There are (third party) utilities
that give you the old menus back too ... (at least in Word and Excel.)

As for the Metro Apps, I don't really know what they _are_, so can't
comment.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Let me point out something that you perhaps don't realize: Windows 8
has two interfaces; the Modern/Metro Interface (which may be all
you've looked at) and the traditional Desktop Interface. You can use
either one or both.

Yes: though I too don't like the new one, I have been amazed at the
amount of sheer hatred of it that has made many folk not even play with
it (W8 I mean, not the new interface) long enough to find that the other
one is _there_.

That traditional Desktop Interface is almost identical to Windows 7's
interface; the biggest difference is that there is no Start Orb to
click to bring up the Start menu. But note that you can get the Start

(I understand 8.1 brings it back to a limited extent.)

Orb back by using one of several third-party programs, either free or

Though I'm with you, saying you have to use a third-party extension is
rather unfortunate.
[]

I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.

Did you switch to 8 because it offered something you actually wanted, or
just have no choice because (without having to buy online or from an
obscure source) that was all you could get when you needed a new
computer?

That may be *your* rule of thumb, but it's one that I strongly
disagree with. You should make your choices of software based on
evaluation, not on numbers.

Indeed, though not everyone can afford to evaluate every version that
comes out (you need to have it in the home/office for some time to
evaluate it properly, not just play in the shop). The "every second
version" does have _some_ validity, though the sequence hasn't really
been going long enough to say: I think most people would start at '95,
which wasn't great but was the first say 7 users would recognise, 98 was
better, Me a bit of a mish-mash (though I've known folk who liked it),
XP fair, Vista more people don't like it than do (though again not as
bad as many make out), 7 seems to be liked, 8 not. If you _do_ go
further back, 3.1 was IMO quite good for the time, but 3 (3.0?) wasn't
_bad_, especially if you only had 2M (yes really!) and a 286 (3.1 really
needed at least 4M and a 386). Then we're into the DOSes - IMO 6 good, 5
good, 4 weird, 3.3 good (and efficient - the last to be mostly written
in assembler), and I can't really remember before that. (Windows 1 and 2
are really only curiosities - I have a copy of 1 _somewhere_ [it was
character-mode IIRR].)

As for "wait until release 3", I think those days are gone, and I
suspect even release 2 - assuming you mean service packs - are too; I'm
not sure how many SPs Vista had, but I don't think we'll see an SP2 for
7, for example. Certainly waiting for SP1 - or whatever it's called - is
probably not a bad idea if you _can_. (For 8, I think it's always been
called 8.1, rather than an SP.)

 

[BillW50]

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

Nope, not yet. Everything I want and need still runs under XP SP2.
Things like Office 2010 Starter and Metro Apps won't run under XP,
but I have no problem dumping those applications in a heartbeat
anyway.

To say that you have no problem dumping them implies that for some
reason you have obtained them - why?

Office 2010 Starter came with the machine and it is cute and all. But I
wouldn't care if it wasn't there either.

FWIW, I agree about Office 2010: we moved to it at work a few months
ago, and I don't _think_ I can think of any new feature it has that
I've actually found useful, and it comes with the ribbon interface
(also in 2007 - we moved from '03) that, while not the spawn of the
devil many make out, does mean I've been learning where everything is.
(And I still use kbd shortcuts from the old - fortunately, unlike many
previous situations, they're still supported.) There are (third party)
utilities that give you the old menus back too ... (at least in Word
and Excel.)

You can purchased older versions of Office on eBay without any problems.
And there is a file converter for Office 2000/2003 to read and edit
..docx files too.

As for the Metro Apps, I don't really know what they _are_, so can't
comment.

Windows 8 has two desktops. One like Windows 7 and the other
unofficially called Metro. And you need Windows 8 to run any Metro Apps.
They are cute and all, but anything you can do with a Metro App, you can
do better with a Windows application anyway. It is just if one is using
a touch screen, using the Windows desktop is very tough. But Metro is
much easier to use with touch screens. So that is why it is there. One
OS for everything. ;-)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Office 2010 Starter came with the machine and it is cute and all. But I
wouldn't care if it wasn't there either.

Ah, I see. (Yes, for many home users Starter is more than sufficient! I
can't remember if it's nagware: if so, ClickOff would sort that ...)

FWIW, I agree about Office 2010: we moved to it at work a few months
ago, and I don't _think_ I can think of any new feature it has that
I've actually found useful, and it comes with the ribbon interface

[]
You can purchased older versions of Office on eBay without any problems.

I couldn't install that at work, though; running '03 here anyway.

And there is a file converter for Office 2000/2003 to read and edit
.docx files too.

Gottit. (I haven't, so far, encountered anything that needs the .docx
format yet.)

Windows 8 has two desktops. One like Windows 7 and the other
unofficially called Metro. And you need Windows 8 to run any Metro Apps.

Sorry, I meant - I've seen those tiles on PCs in shops: I just haven't
investigated what they actually _do_ ...

They are cute and all, but anything you can do with a Metro App, you can
do better with a Windows application anyway. It is just if one is using

.... which is what I thought, i. e. they don't actually _do_ anything
_new_.

a touch screen, using the Windows desktop is very tough. But Metro is

Interesting - are you saying that with a touch screen, the _ordinary_
desktop interface is difficult? I'd always assumed that if I just
ignored the fact that it _was_ a touch screen (and avoided touching
it!), I could use the old interface no problem. (Or are you saying with
a touch screen and _no_ mouse and keyboard? I can see that in _that_
case, it _would_ be awkward.)

much easier to use with touch screens. So that is why it is there. One
OS for everything. ;-)

(-:

 

[BillW50]

Ah, I see. (Yes, for many home users Starter is more than sufficient!
I can't remember if it's nagware: if so, ClickOff would sort that ...)

Yes that is true and it is nagware, but it is just a tiny box on a
1440x900 screen anyway.

FWIW, I agree about Office 2010: we moved to it at work a few months
ago, and I don't _think_ I can think of any new feature it has that
I've actually found useful, and it comes with the ribbon interface

[]
You can purchased older versions of Office on eBay without any
problems.

I couldn't install that at work, though; running '03 here anyway.

Ah good deal!

Gottit. (I haven't, so far, encountered anything that needs the .docx
format yet.)

About once a year I end up with one.

Sorry, I meant - I've seen those tiles on PCs in shops: I just haven't
investigated what they actually _do_ ...
;-)


... which is what I thought, i. e. they don't actually _do_ anything
_new_.


Interesting - are you saying that with a touch screen, the _ordinary_
desktop interface is difficult? I'd always assumed that if I just
ignored the fact that it _was_ a touch screen (and avoided touching
it!), I could use the old interface no problem. (Or are you saying
with a touch screen and _no_ mouse and keyboard? I can see that in
_that_ case, it _would_ be awkward.)

Yes and yes! You can use a Windows tablet with a keyboard and a mouse
and I do so all of the time. And I never feel the need to touch the
screen at all. And all of those people who claims that the Metro desktop
is only useful with touch has it all wrong. As a keyboard and mouse
works just fine on the Metro side. I in fact prefer using a keyboard and
mouse on that side too.

The important thing is touch only (without a keyboard and mouse) is very
difficult to use on the Windows desktop side. As your fingers are not
precise enough to use on the Windows desktop. A pen helps a great deal,
so that is what you should use on the Windows desktop side instead. Or
if you got it, a keyboard and mouse. ;-)

 

[Mayayana]

| >a touch screen, using the Windows desktop is very tough. But Metro is
|
| Interesting - are you saying that with a touch screen, the _ordinary_
| desktop interface is difficult? I'd always assumed that if I just
| ignored the fact that it _was_ a touch screen (and avoided touching
| it!), I could use the old interface no problem. (Or are you saying with
| a touch screen and _no_ mouse and keyboard? I can see that in _that_
| case, it _would_ be awkward.)
|

That's been part of the big debate with Win8 and
the removal of the Start Menu. The Start Screen
(tiles) is a fullscreen menu that's not well suited
to mouse usage. There's also the one-window-at-a-time
design of the UI. Even when one gets into the Desktop
it's not easy to stay there. Metro is optimized for touch,
And Win8 is optimized for Metro. Windows itself is presented
as a "legacy" leftover. ("If you must....") Microsoft wants
people to use Metro and sign up for online services.
There's been talk that they may bring back the Start
Menu and some of the other Windows functionality,
but it looks like they'll do that kicking and screaming,
if at all. The money is now in apps and advertising. Like
Apple, they take a 30% cut on apps. They get nothing
from Windows after it's bought, and they don't control
the Windows software market.

Metro apps are basically tablet/phone apps. Like
those, there's an emphasis on commercial, online
apps: games, magazines, online storage companies,
Facebook, Netflix, etc. The apps themselves are similar
to interactive webpages, running on the limited WinRT
API. They can be written in several programming
languages, but can also be written in javascript. I
Find it helpful to think of the tiles as all being webpages.
Some are "on" or open. Some are not. More can be
added. But in essence they're commercial, interactive
webpages.

Windows software does not run in Metro and vice
versa. Windows software cannot run at all on "RT"
tablets. I read somewhere that MS has even stopped
calling their SurfaceRT Windows, to avoid confusion.

So Metro is basically the tablet OS GUI. But Microsoft
has a vast customer base on Windows. And Apple's
profits from music and apps have been stunning. So the
strategy seems to be basically an attempt to transfer
the existing customer base to phones and tablets by
forcing Metro on them in Windows. It makes some sense,
if they could get even a portion of the vast Windows
customer base to go along with being nudged onto a
tablet UI that MS can make money from. The problem with
that is that they've broken Windows in the process,
while there are few Metro apps. Also, Metro was supposed
to provide a consistent system across PC/tablet/phone.
That's how Microsoft's TV ads portray it. But that's
only in appearance. Part of the problem MS is having
with lack of apps is that programmers can't actually
just write once and have it run in any Metro UI.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Yes: though I too don't like the new one, I have been amazed at the
amount of sheer hatred of it that has made many folk not even play with
it (W8 I mean, not the new interface) long enough to find that the other
one is _there_.

As far as I'm concerned, it's largely because so many people don't
even realize there are two choices of interface.

(I understand 8.1 brings it back to a limited extent.)

No, not really.

Though I'm with you, saying you have to use a third-party extension is
rather unfortunate.

Yes, I completely agree. Microsoft should have done it themselves! But
unfortunate or not, it's an easy choice.

Did you switch to 8 because it offered something you actually wanted, or
just have no choice because (without having to buy online or from an
obscure source) that was all you could get when you needed a new
computer?

Neither. I switched because I'm the weird kind of person who likes to
be at the forefront of Windows versions. And I almost always find
things about it that I find to be improvements, and very little that I
think are backward steps.

Indeed, though not everyone can afford to evaluate every version that
comes out (you need to have it in the home/office for some time to
evaluate it properly, not just play in the shop).

True, but I still say that you shouldn't choose based on numbers. Do
what evaluation you are able to, read reviews, etc.

The "every second
version" does have _some_ validity, though the sequence hasn't really
been going long enough to say:

There might be some validity in the history, but you shouldn't use
history as the basis for your decisions regarding the future (at least
not Windows history).

 

[BillW50]

That's been part of the big debate with Win8 and
the removal of the Start Menu. The Start Screen
(tiles) is a fullscreen menu that's not well suited
to mouse usage.

Not so! The Start Screen works well for mouse or touch. I am currently
using the Start Screen with a mouse right now and it works perfectly.
What is hard is using my Windows XP and 7 touch tablets and using
anything on the desktop by touch. Even the Start Menu is very difficult.
At least the pen makes it much more usable.

There's also the one-window-at-a-time
design of the UI. Even when one gets into the Desktop
it's not easy to stay there. Metro is optimized for touch,

No it isn't! Who told you this? It is just the opposite! Windows 8
optimized for the keyboard and the mouse, not the other way around. I am
using Windows 8 right now and both sides are optimized for the keyboard
and mouse. No problems whatsoever!

The problem happens the other way around. Try using the Windows Desktop
with touch! It is very frustrating! It is almost impossible to do
anything with touch on the Windows Desktop side. At least the Metro side
is bearable with touch alone.

And Win8 is optimized for Metro.

No it isn't. It is optimized for a keyboard and mouse.

Windows itself is presented
as a "legacy" leftover. ("If you must....") Microsoft wants
people to use Metro and sign up for online services.
There's been talk that they may bring back the Start
Menu and some of the other Windows functionality,
but it looks like they'll do that kicking and screaming,
if at all. The money is now in apps and advertising. Like
Apple, they take a 30% cut on apps. They get nothing
from Windows after it's bought, and they don't control
the Windows software market.

Metro apps are basically tablet/phone apps. Like
those, there's an emphasis on commercial, online
apps: games, magazines, online storage companies,
Facebook, Netflix, etc. The apps themselves are similar
to interactive webpages, running on the limited WinRT
API. They can be written in several programming
languages, but can also be written in javascript. I
Find it helpful to think of the tiles as all being webpages.
Some are "on" or open. Some are not. More can be
added. But in essence they're commercial, interactive
webpages.

Naw... Windows 8 has both modes and it is the best of both worlds.

Windows software does not run in Metro and vice
versa.

Nonsense! There is an utility to run Metro Apps on the Windows Desktop
right now. And I heard a rumor that Windows 9 will have this ability
built in. And yes, you can run the Windows Desktop in a Metro split
screen with the stock Windows 8 right now.

ModernMix
https://www.stardock.com/products/modernmix/

Windows software cannot run at all on "RT"
tablets. I read somewhere that MS has even stopped
calling their SurfaceRT Windows, to avoid confusion.

I know, hard to believe some people could careless about the Windows
Desktop and just want to run Metro Apps and nothing else. But that is
what Windows RT is for.

 

[Mayayana]

| > That's been part of the big debate with Win8 and
| > the removal of the Start Menu. The Start Screen
| > (tiles) is a fullscreen menu that's not well suited
| > to mouse usage.
|
| Not so! The Start Screen works well for mouse or touch. I am currently
| using the Start Screen with a mouse right now and it works perfectly.
| What is hard is using my Windows XP and 7 touch tablets and using
| anything on the desktop by touch. Even the Start Menu is very difficult.
| At least the pen makes it much more usable.
|
| > There's also the one-window-at-a-time
| > design of the UI. Even when one gets into the Desktop
| > it's not easy to stay there. Metro is optimized for touch,
|
| No it isn't! Who told you this? It is just the opposite! Windows 8
| optimized for the keyboard and the mouse, not the other way around. I am
| using Windows 8 right now and both sides are optimized for the keyboard
| and mouse. No problems whatsoever!
|

Usable is not the same as optimized. One can use
the mouse in Metro, but you can't *optimize* for both
mouse and touch. (Look up "optimize".) The Start Menu
is optimized for mouse. The Start Screen is optimized
for touch.

| The problem happens the other way around. Try using the Windows Desktop
| with touch! It is very frustrating! It is almost impossible to do
| anything with touch on the Windows Desktop side. At least the Metro side
| is bearable with touch alone.
|

| > And Win8 is optimized for Metro.
|
| No it isn't. It is optimized for a keyboard and mouse.
|

What I was saying is that Win8 is designed to encourage
people to use the Metro side. So far there's no way to
simply choose to go back to Windows, with a Start Menu,
and skip Metro altogether.

You're comparing the two sides and finding that Metro
is better for using touch *or* mouse. That's not particularly
relevant for people who want to use a PC with mouse
and keyboard. No one wants to use touch on the Desktop.

| > Metro apps are basically tablet/phone apps. Like
| > those, there's an emphasis on commercial, online
| > apps: games, magazines, online storage companies,
| > Facebook, Netflix, etc. The apps themselves are similar
| > to interactive webpages, running on the limited WinRT
| > API. They can be written in several programming
| > languages, but can also be written in javascript. I
| > Find it helpful to think of the tiles as all being webpages.
| > Some are "on" or open. Some are not. More can be
| > added. But in essence they're commercial, interactive
| > webpages.
|
| Naw... Windows 8 has both modes and it is the best of both worlds.
|

I'm not clear about what you're arguing with here.
You don't seem to have read what I wrote.

| > Windows software does not run in Metro and vice
| > versa.
|
| Nonsense! There is an utility to run Metro Apps on the Windows Desktop
| right now. And I heard a rumor that Windows 9 will have this ability
| built in. And yes, you can run the Windows Desktop in a Metro split
| screen with the stock Windows 8 right now.
|

Maybe. Lots of adjustments might be possible.
I've read that MS is going to allow for more
than one app window in Metro. And I've also read
that MS may be moving toward an integration.
Nevertheless, Windows and RT are two different
things. Two different systems. Two different APIs.
Neither software can run on the other system.
That's not nonsense. It's what they designed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RunTime

It's an important distinction in understanding where
MS is going with all of this. Metro/RT is not just a
new idea for a Start Menu and minimalist UI fashion.
It's the imposition of an entirely different product
into the Windows system -- not part of Windows in
any practical way but rather an exploitation of the
Windows market as a marketing strategy.

 

[BillW50]

On 3/1/2014 10:53 AM, Mayayana wrote:
[...]

Usable is not the same as optimized. One can use
the mouse in Metro, but you can't *optimize* for both
mouse and touch. (Look up "optimize".) The Start Menu
is optimized for mouse. The Start Screen is optimized
for touch.

I have no idea why you claim this? As the Start Screen isn't just
optimized just for touch. If anything, it is still better with the mouse
than with touch. It is just bearable with touch and that is all.

[...]

What I was saying is that Win8 is designed to encourage
people to use the Metro side. So far there's no way to
simply choose to go back to Windows, with a Start Menu,
and skip Metro altogether.

I don't know why you claim this either. As I can use Windows 8 on this
very machine and stay in the Windows Desktop for years and never even
see the Metro side at all. Nor do I see any encouragement to use the
Metro side. There isn't even any pressure to do so here. And I have
three Windows 8 machines.

You're comparing the two sides and finding that Metro
is better for using touch *or* mouse. That's not particularly
relevant for people who want to use a PC with mouse
and keyboard. No one wants to use touch on the Desktop.

Trust me, nobody wants to use touch period! It is just that if you don't
have a keyboard/mouse connected, touch is your only option. Sure you can
get by with touch only on the Metro side, but even there the
keyboard/mouse is still far superior.

| > Metro apps are basically tablet/phone apps. Like
| > those, there's an emphasis on commercial, online
| > apps: games, magazines, online storage companies,
| > Facebook, Netflix, etc. The apps themselves are similar
| > to interactive webpages, running on the limited WinRT
| > API. They can be written in several programming
| > languages, but can also be written in javascript. I
| > Find it helpful to think of the tiles as all being webpages.
| > Some are "on" or open. Some are not. More can be
| > added. But in essence they're commercial, interactive
| > webpages.
|
| Naw... Windows 8 has both modes and it is the best of both worlds.
|

I'm not clear about what you're arguing with here.
You don't seem to have read what I wrote.

I am not arguing with you at all. I agree with you.

| > Windows software does not run in Metro and vice
| > versa.
|
| Nonsense! There is an utility to run Metro Apps on the Windows Desktop
| right now. And I heard a rumor that Windows 9 will have this ability
| built in. And yes, you can run the Windows Desktop in a Metro split
| screen with the stock Windows 8 right now.
|

Maybe. Lots of adjustments might be possible.
I've read that MS is going to allow for more
than one app window in Metro. And I've also read
that MS may be moving toward an integration.
Nevertheless, Windows and RT are two different
things. Two different systems. Two different APIs.
Neither software can run on the other system.
That's not nonsense. It's what they designed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RunTime

This part doesn't make any sense to me either. As you can run Metro Apps
on the Windows desktop right now. And you can run the Windows Desktop on
the Metro side if you want to right now too. Too bad you can't watch this...

Win key (now looking it the Start Screen)
Open Metro Bing Weather (or whatever they call it)
Move mouse to upper left hand corner (Desktop thumbnail shows)
Right click on Desktop thumbnail, snap left

Now I am composing this post with TB on the desktop and I also have Bing
Weather Metro App side by side on the screen on the same time. It isn't
hard to do at all. It works exactly the same way on a Windows 8 stock
system.

It's an important distinction in understanding where
MS is going with all of this. Metro/RT is not just a
new idea for a Start Menu and minimalist UI fashion.
It's the imposition of an entirely different product
into the Windows system -- not part of Windows in
any practical way but rather an exploitation of the
Windows market as a marketing strategy.

I don't get that complaint at all. Sure the Start Screen looks different
than the Start Menu, but big deal. Does the same thing anyway. There
isn't anything to hate. Although the Start Screen is sure easier to use
with touch, so that is why it is there. With the keyboard/mouse, it
isn't harder or easier than the Start Menu. So what is there to complain
about, really?

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

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

I don't get that complaint at all. Sure the Start Screen looks
different than the Start Menu, but big deal. Does the same thing
anyway. There isn't anything to hate. Although the Start Screen is sure
easier to use with touch, so that is why it is there. With the
keyboard/mouse, it isn't harder or easier than the Start Menu. So what
is there to complain about, really?

Thanks, both, for an interesting debate: nice to see a discussion
between intelligent advocates of both sides.

I really should join in on all the points, but just this last one above:
I am sure the Start Screen (when did it stop being called Metro, by the
way?) _is_ easier with touch. I _am_ slightly puzzled, though, why it is
provided as the _default_ on _all_ PCs as sold in shops; sure, you can
switch to desktop, but it has obviously been rolled out in such a way
that, when a shop puts on display a PC - one with a keyboard and mouse
(or touchpad) - it comes up with the tiles. I haven't seen a new PC in a
shop that was showing a desktop for months.

(I also tend to believe Mayayana's suggestion that this is rather driven
by the pull of the continuous-marketing "apps" situation: I can't
_blame_ a company for wanting to maximise their income, if this is the
case, even if it doesn't appeal to _me_. [Though I'm increasingly wary
of the number of things that assume a permanent and free-per-megabyte
connection.])

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 09:33:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"



Neither. I switched because I'm the weird kind of person who likes to
be at the forefront of Windows versions. And I almost always find
things about it that I find to be improvements, and very little that I
think are backward steps.

Interesting. I tend to the other end - I like stability, so tend to go
for two or three versions ago: I bought this machine when I did in order
to get an XP one rather than a Vista one, and in December (2013) I
bought a W7 one. But we conservatives (for UK readers: note that's with
a small C) need people like you to take whatever new comes along and
give it a good thrashing, and we are grateful! (I'm trying to think
whether you need us in return; I can't think you do, really.)

Thinking specifically of Windows 8, I find its default interface so
_different_ that I _can't_ make an objective assessment of whether it
brings more that is good than bad _for a newcomer to computing_; for
(many) existing users, certainly me, the switch is too great an upheaval
for me to even consider it (unless forced by circumstances), but that
doesn't mean _objectively_ it's bad. [Incidentally my employer - a large
multinational - are just about finishing their XP to 7 rollout, which
they started around September/October 2013, I think.] I consider 8 as
the new interface by default, since it _is_ the default (see my other
post about shops); I also tend to believe Mayayana's suggestion that
that's the way things are going, for good (commercial) reasons.I have to _ask_, or rather wonder, if your MVP status influences your
view that there is rarely more bad than good in the new; I've amended
"ask" to "wonder" as I realise you may not be allowed to answer that.
[]

True, but I still say that you shouldn't choose based on numbers. Do
what evaluation you are able to, read reviews, etc.

Agreed. Good objective reviews are hard to find (and even harder to
detect the objectivity of), though: there id a general tendency to
approve the new, because the reviewers and magazines/websites/whatever
know which side their bread is buttered, or there are the "Ooh! Nasty!"
type that flooded out with W8's new interface, many of whom seemed not
to have even realised it was only the default.

There might be some validity in the history, but you shouldn't use
history as the basis for your decisions regarding the future (at least
not Windows history).

Indeed. Historically, there have been service packs - 98 had at least 1
(though the marketing was a bit confused), 2000 I heard recently had 4
(plus an unofficial fifth), XP had 3, I don't know about Vista. Going
forward, I very much don't expect to see more than one per major version
change. For depressing but certainly understandable commercial reasons.

 

[Mayayana]

| I really should join in on all the points, but just this last one above:
| I am sure the Start Screen (when did it stop being called Metro, by the
| way?)

The official media rumor is that there was a trademark
issue with another company. I've never seen that confirmed.
Either it's true, and it's an unfortunate marketing problem
for MS, or it may be that it's not true. It could be that MS
decided to impose "Modern" as a pushy marketing ploy that
incorporates a value judgement, and just planted the story
about "Metro". (The current official terms seem to be "modern"
and "Windows 8 style".)

_is_ easier with touch. I _am_ slightly puzzled, though, why it is
| provided as the _default_ on _all_ PCs as sold in shops; sure, you can
| switch to desktop, but it has obviously been rolled out in such a way
| that, when a shop puts on display a PC - one with a keyboard and mouse
| (or touchpad) - it comes up with the tiles. I haven't seen a new PC in a
| shop that was showing a desktop for months.
|
| (I also tend to believe Mayayana's suggestion that this is rather driven
| by the pull of the continuous-marketing "apps" situation

That, and also the attempt to standardize. TV ads I've
seen are pushing a phrase something like "one interface for
all of your experiences". (I don't remember the exact wording.)
The idea seems to be that if they can train people to TileCity
on Windows then Windows customers will find MS phones and
tablets to have a familiar UI. And that's the gist of the ads:
With Microsoft you can have consistency across all of your
devices. It was a big risk to alienate Windows customers, and
the strategy doesn't seem to be panning out very well (except
with BillW50 but the logic must have been very tempting:
If it had worked it could have been like the IE monopoly, taking
over a big portion of the tablet and phone markets merely by
applying their PC monopoly as part of the marketing. And that,
in turn, would have provided a customer base for making money
from paid Metro apps on PCs.
I guess the big difference is that IE, by being built in, was
made into a uniquely powerful and adaptable tool. Metro, on
the other hand, offers nothing to Windows itself other than an
obstacle (Who needs a Netflix app? I've got a browser that
works just fine), and merely familiarizing people with the UI can't
make up for the lack of tablet/phone apps.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Interesting. I tend to the other end - I like stability, so tend to go
for two or three versions ago:

I'm not so sure that older versions are more stable than newer ones.
For example, Windows 8 has been rock solid on both machines here. In
general, I find it more stable than any previous release.

I bought this machine when I did in order
to get an XP one rather than a Vista one, and in December (2013) I
bought a W7 one. But we conservatives (for UK readers: note that's with
a small C) need people like you to take whatever new comes along and
give it a good thrashing, and we are grateful! (I'm trying to think
whether you need us in return; I can't think you do, really.)

Thanks for the kind words. As far as I'm concerned, I also need you
and all the other good posters here--everyone except for the trolls
and those who obviously know little or nothing (I won't mention any
names). I am far from knowing everything and beside being here to help
others, I am also here to learn what I don't know.

Thinking specifically of Windows 8, I find its default interface so
_different_ that I _can't_ make an objective assessment of whether it
brings more that is good than bad _for a newcomer to computing_; for
(many) existing users, certainly me, the switch is too great an upheaval
for me to even consider it (unless forced by circumstances), but that
doesn't mean _objectively_ it's bad.

Here's my view. It's bad--maybe even very bad--for those of us running
it on desktops without touch screens. For tablets with touch screens,
I'm sure it's better, but since I don't have one, I'm not in a good
position to evaluate it. I use the desktop interface almost
exclusively.

I have to _ask_, or rather wonder, if your MVP status influences your
view that there is rarely more bad than good in the new;

Not at all. I'm the same way about all software, not just Microsoft's.

I've amended
"ask" to "wonder" as I realise you may not be allowed to answer that.

I, and all MVPs, are allowed to answer anything. Microsoft doesn't put
any gags on us. That's one of the excellent things about the MVP
program; we are free to say whatever we want to. If we weren't, I'd
give up my MVP status.

So, when I think Microsoft does something well, I say so, and when I
think they do something poorly, I also say so. Nobody at Microsoft has
ever complained about any of my negative views, which I express in the
Microsoft forums, not just here (as a single example, you've probably
seen me saying here that I think WordPerfect is better than Microsoft
Word; I've said the same thing many times in the Microsoft forums). I
view Microsoft as I do any other company, or any other person--not
perfect.



Absolutely right! Even if you can afford it, finding the time isn't
always easy.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

I'm not so sure that older versions are more stable than newer ones.
For example, Windows 8 has been rock solid on both machines here. In
general, I find it more stable than any previous release.

Bad choice of word on my part; I don't doubt 8 is pretty stable in that
sense (though how much of that is due to it preventing the user from
actually doing anything, as seems to have been increasingly the case
from '9x through XP to [Especially] Vista to 7, I don't know). I meant
"stability of experience" - I'm trying to think of a better word though.
[]

Thanks for the kind words. As far as I'm concerned, I also need you
and all the other good posters here--everyone except for the trolls
and those who obviously know little or nothing (I won't mention any (-:
names). I am far from knowing everything and beside being here to help
others, I am also here to learn what I don't know.

Ah, the much-maligned Al Gore (I think it was him) quote!

Thinking specifically of Windows 8, I find its default interface so

[]
Here's my view. It's bad--maybe even very bad--for those of us running
it on desktops without touch screens. For tablets with touch screens,

Even ones with (desktops that is), I doubt it's that much of an
advantage (except perhaps where the screen is quite small).

I'm sure it's better, but since I don't have one, I'm not in a good
Ditto.
[]
I, and all MVPs, are allowed to answer anything. Microsoft doesn't put
any gags on us. That's one of the excellent things about the MVP

That is good to hear.
[]

Well, one company (product) is perfect--WordPerfect. <vbg>

I last used it at 5.1 - the last DOS version, IIRR; I liked it then. But
I know at least one person who still likes the current, and - assuming
it's still got the reveal codes option - I probably would too, with
familiarity (as I have with Word due mainly to employer choice).

Absolutely right! Even if you can afford it, finding the time isn't
always easy.

Indeed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Worst programme ever made? I was in hospital once having a knee operation and I
watched a whole episode of "EastEnders". Ugh! I suppose it's true to life. But
so is diarrhoea - and I don't want to see that on television. - Patrick Moore,
in Radio Times 12-18 May 2007.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I'm not so sure that older versions are more stable than newer ones.
For example, Windows 8 has been rock solid on both machines here. In
general, I find it more stable than any previous release.

Bad choice of word on my part; I don't doubt 8 is pretty stable in that
sense (though how much of that is due to it preventing the user from
actually doing anything, as seems to have been increasingly the case
from '9x through XP to [Especially] Vista to 7, I don't know). I meant
"stability of experience" - I'm trying to think of a better word though.
[]

Thanks for the kind words. As far as I'm concerned, I also need you
and all the other good posters here--everyone except for the trolls
and those who obviously know little or nothing (I won't mention any (-:
names). I am far from knowing everything and beside being here to help
others, I am also here to learn what I don't know.

Ah, the much-maligned Al Gore (I think it was him) quote!

It wasn't meant as a quotation. Did he say something like that? If he
did, I had forgotten.

Thinking specifically of Windows 8, I find its default interface so

[]
Here's my view. It's bad--maybe even very bad--for those of us running
it on desktops without touch screens. For tablets with touch screens,

Even ones with (desktops that is), I doubt it's that much of an
advantage (except perhaps where the screen is quite small).

I agree. I would find it uncomfortable to reach up to touch my
desktop's screen. The mouse is much easier to use. I really think the
modern interface would be useful only on a tablet. Reaching down to
touch the screen on your lap or a table makes sense to me; it's
similar to reaching down for a mouse. But reaching up to touch a
monitor that's vertical on a desk doesn't.

I'm sure it's better, but since I don't have one, I'm not in a good
Ditto.
[]
I, and all MVPs, are allowed to answer anything. Microsoft doesn't put
any gags on us. That's one of the excellent things about the MVP

That is good to hear.
[]

Well, one company (product) is perfect--WordPerfect. <vbg>

I last used it at 5.1 - the last DOS version, IIRR;

No, 6.2 was. And the first Windows version was 5.2.

It's up to version 16 now (which is what I use), but for some odd
reason it's called X6.

I liked it then. But
I know at least one person who still likes the current, and - assuming
it's still got the reveal codes option

Yes.


- I probably would too, with
familiarity (as I have with Word due mainly to employer choice).

I'm fortunate enough to be retired, so I get to make my own choices.

 

[BillW50]

Bill in Co wrote


But wouldn't that be a case in point for those desktop users who think
we've taken a step backwards with Windows 8? IOW, it seems Windows 8
was designed mainly with the touchscreen user in mind (probably
because that's the way things seem to be heading - (more tablets, less
desktops).

I don't get this at all! As I use laptops (usually in docks) and tablets
(sometimes in docks) and I run them in XP, 7, and 8. And I don't see
Windows 8 as being friendlier toward tablets than desktops at all. Sure
Windows 8 is friendlier towards tablets than XP or 7 was, but Windows 8
is still friendlier to desktops than anything else. For example when I
am using one of my Windows 8 tablets and there is a handy dock around,
I'll dock it in a heartbeat. And I'll use it as a desktop machine.