Why do you still use Windows XP?

[BillW50]

In

In

I am always logged on as an administrator (I know *big* security
no-no). But that still doesn't help a portable application dropped in
the Program Files folder under Windows 7. While I am searching for a
better explanation of what I mean, here is what Windows 7 did to the
"Documents and Settings" which is my second beef with Windows 7 among
countless other problems for now.

Access denied to the "My Documents and Settings" folder - Microsoft
Answers
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...settings/915eecc8-6a07-4d6a-8ca5-468ee51e9484

Here is more Windows 7 nonsense. Skip down to the comments...

Windows 7 Access Denied: Permission & Ownership
http://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/windows-7-access-denied-permission-ownership/

Here is the technical side of this nonsense...

Access Control: Understanding Windows File And Registry Permissions
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc982153.aspx

Yes I understand every word of it. Although I don't understand it
altogether to make much sense out of the whole thing. And as for the
average user, I don't think they will understand any of this at all in
their lifetime.

And here is why even with administrator access, Windows 7 still won't
let you in.

Windows 7 Access Denied For Administrator « Think Like a Computer
http://think-like-a-computer.com/2011/05/11/windows-access-denied-folder-administrator/

As you can see, even doing everything by the book, Windows 7 *can* still
deny you access to your files.

So Ken... maybe now you understand a little better why Windows 7 is a
hand holding OS designed for idiots. As Microsoft wants even the most
experienced user to keep their mitts out of Windows 7. As Microsoft
thinks only they are allowed to mess with your computer and you are not
allowed to do so. And if you play along with Microsoft and completely
summit to the power of Microsoft and Windows 7, Windows 7 will run
beautiful for you. And if you are a rebel and try to gain access to your
computer (which is rightfully yours and not theirs), Microsoft will slap
your hand and tell you to keep out.

Trust me Ken. The day is coming when even a computer science degree
won't help you take full control of your computer anymore. :-(

 

[Mayayana]

| I am always logged on as an administrator (I know *big* security no-no).
| But that still doesn't help a portable application dropped in the
| Program Files folder under Windows 7.

On XP most people run as admin and it's real admin.
On Vista/7 it's changed to a fake admin. There isn't
really any admin unless you first enable the built-in
admin account and then use that to log on. You can
get some improvement by turning off UAC. I think that
at leasts disables virtualization, but I don't remember
offhand whether it restores file permissions. I don't
think so. I was pulling my hair so much when I first tried
Windows 7 that I ended up writing a utility for the
restrictions:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/nt6fix.php5#restfix

It will give full permission to *all* admins for *any*
folder, including its subfolders and files. Microsoft
offers two tools to do the same thing when used
together: cacls and takeown.
But those are tedious, obscure command line tools
and I don't think they'll recurse folders. What I wrote
can basically give you XP back: All admins are really
admins, while limited users are still limited.

 

[Char Jackson]

I am always logged on as an administrator (I know *big* security no-no).
But that still doesn't help a portable application dropped in the
Program Files folder under Windows 7. While I am searching for a better
explanation of what I mean, here is what Windows 7 did to the "Documents
and Settings" which is my second beef with Windows 7 among countless
other problems for now.

Access denied to the "My Documents and Settings" folder - Microsoft
Answers
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...settings/915eecc8-6a07-4d6a-8ca5-468ee51e9484

As a computer user with decades of experience, (a claim you've made
repeatedly), I'm surprised to hear that a minor shuffling of folder
structures caused you more than a few seconds of downtime. It
shouldn't have taken longer than that to see what the new folder
structure was and get back on track.

 

[Harry Vaderchi]

Maybe he'd prefer to see people try it and find a deeper reason for it.

Personally, my only beef with that presentation is the indugence in the
shiny-white-box culture of software sales. If I thought he was being
satirical I might like it better. Fortunately the actual software really
IS
good. Die-hard proponents in the past, of things like Outpost and AtGuard
would probably like it. Some of those purits might want to separate the
'anti-trojan' bit from the firewall, but I wouldn't. One of its
strengths is
detecting some program, and enabling filtering for that program, only
when
the program is loaded and needing it. It's a clever and efficient use of
directed switching that keeps things fast, optimised to whatever is
running.
When LnS started out, the main alternative was Zone Alarm. *shudders*

Kerio?

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Char Jackson:

...I'm surprised to hear that a minor shuffling of folder
structures caused you more than a few seconds of downtime. It
shouldn't have taken longer than that to see what the new folder
structure was and get back on track.....

Maybe this is more a comment on my lack of gray matter... but, as
another computer user with decades of experience, I post rants on
a regular basis on the subject of Microsoft's gratuitously moving
the furniture around.

Yeah, coping with a given function may only be a few lost
minutes... but those minutes add up over many functions and
hopping back-and-forth between OS' doesn't help any either.

If it were only the few hours total that a retail user like me
lost, I guess it would be no big deal in the grand scheme of
things. But for a company with 20,000 employees - all of whom
are going to lose those few hours and maybe more if they wind up
going to some sort of class on the new sys..... I would say
that's a *very* big deal man hour-wise.

I would think that, for any new OS, Microsoft would have a
committee to approve UI changes. If, for instance, somebody
wants to rename the "Add-Remove Programs" control to something
else and bury it in a new hierarchy they would have to justify
that change to the committee in functional (not marketing...)
terms.

But that doesn't seem tb the way it is... and the folks at MS
have probably forgotten more than I'll ever know... so go figure.

 

[BillW50]

In

The Sinclair had 2K bits of RAM? That is wimpy!

Did you see 2kb as 2K bits? Yes okay you got me there. It's 2048 bytes
actually. As I have a problem of accepting the status quo among the
common people as the standard and not what the educated elite thinks is
correct. As I heard once that the most important thing about language is
to be understood. So I don't see grammar correctness to be so damn
important and I accept others misusing it all of the time as long as I
know what they mean anyway. And since I am so accepting of this, I too
fall into this same trap sometimes. ;-)

 

[BillW50]

In

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

And what many just don't understand (especially newer computer users)
about the horrors and Vista and Windows 7 places on experienced
Windows users is this. As what made Windows what it is today was
that if you knew how to use one Windows version, you knew how to use
them all. Vista and Windows 7 broke that rule. It is my guess is all
of the
older programmers have long retired from Microsoft by now. And now
inexperienced younger programmers are now running the show and are
clueless about such rules.

Ah, your familiarity has made you forget. Going from 3.1 to 95 _did_
mean accepting quite a few changes - for example, the close box moved!

The close box, is that is all? You forget that you can make Windows 95
to look very much like Windows 3.1 if you would like. Although I
remember making the transition between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 and it
was very easy. Making the transition between XP and Windows 7 was very
hard. Big difference. For example all of the bugs in Windows 7 that
won't allow the administrator access to files. That is very frustrating.

Windows 7 Access Denied For Administrator « Think Like a Computer
http://think-like-a-computer.com/2011/05/11/windows-access-denied-folder-administrator/

[]

Now if a user has to relearn each new Windows version from now on.
What is the incentive to upgrade? And if you are forced to relearn
each new OS, why bother with Windows anymore? Why not use another OS
who has the smarts of not making the user to relearn each newer
version?

Because Windows - the latest version - is all that is available (other
than Apple, which even dim potential users can see costs rather more -
unless they buy Sony - for roughly the same capability, though some of
them may choose to buy it anyway). And most users just fire up their
favourite applications and care little for the underlying OS - and use
the default folders for everything.

No you forget, there are earlier versions of Windows too. You don't
automatically have to accept the latest and greatest. There are many
that don't. If it can't do everything that I can do under XP, I don't
like it. As first you pick the applications that you want to run and
then pick the OS that will run them. Doing anything else doesn't make
any sense at all.

 

[BillW50]

In

As a computer user with decades of experience, (a claim you've made
repeatedly), I'm surprised to hear that a minor shuffling of folder
structures caused you more than a few seconds of downtime. It
shouldn't have taken longer than that to see what the new folder
structure was and get back on track.

Because you forget that I also have dozens of computers and I want
things simple. And I can't have Windows 7 doing it one way and XP doing
it another way. I am so surprised that you like to make things hard and
you are okay with that. Well Einstein never thought that way genius.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit
simpler." -- Albert Einstein

 

[BillW50]

In

File Manager? That is a vision I now wish I could wash off.

No the Program Manager (progman.exe). The file still exists under XP.
But it doesn't do anything here.

 

[BillW50]

In

In message <[email protected]>,

[* I was amused at one point to find an XP netbook - the last one on
offer (I _think_ the rest were Vista at that point) - in a PCWorld,
for significantly _more_ than most of the other machines on offer.
It'd be nice to think that that was due to demand and supply,
though I strongly suspect it was purely a matter of some old stock
that hadn't been marked down.]

Strange. Or maybe they really ARE having trouble pushing Vista out
of their doors.

I don't think Vista was ever offered much on netbooks, though I could
be wrong.

I put Windows 7 on a netbook (EeePC 702 with 16GB SSD) once and it was
awful! As Windows 7 ate up 50% of the CPU power at idle.

 

[Char Jackson]

In

Because you forget that I also have dozens of computers and I want
things simple. And I can't have Windows 7 doing it one way and XP doing
it another way.

You're free to continue to make that claim, but I don't understand it.
I see nothing difficult about moving between two versions of Windows,
and in fact to me it's very little different from moving between two
TVs, two cars, two bathrooms in the house, and a hundred other
examples. Do you also get confused when you shop at two stores, and
the second store is not the same as the first? Do you also get
confused when you walk into a workplace and discover it's different
from your own home? These are things we all deal with daily and for
most of us they aren't a big deal.

I suppose the day is coming where I'll be where you are now, unable to
get my head around two of something, but I hope that day is far off.

 

[Char Jackson]

You don't
automatically have to accept the latest and greatest. There are many
that don't. If it can't do everything that I can do under XP, I don't
like it. As first you pick the applications that you want to run and
then pick the OS that will run them. Doing anything else doesn't make
any sense at all.

Your bit of wisdom goes back to a time when systems were built from
scratch and no longer applies to most people. These days people buy
the computer first, making decisions on whether it will be a desktop
or laptop, Windows or Mac or Linux, etc. If they pick a system with
Windows, they typically get the latest version of Windows and that's
what they stay with. Downgrading to a previous version, especially
several generations previous, is very rarely a good idea. Heck, it's
rarely even possible or at least practical.

 

[Char Jackson]

Per Char Jackson:

Maybe this is more a comment on my lack of gray matter... but, as
another computer user with decades of experience, I post rants on
a regular basis on the subject of Microsoft's gratuitously moving
the furniture around.

Yeah, coping with a given function may only be a few lost
minutes... but those minutes add up over many functions and
hopping back-and-forth between OS' doesn't help any either.

If it were only the few hours total that a retail user like me
lost, I guess it would be no big deal in the grand scheme of
things. But for a company with 20,000 employees - all of whom
are going to lose those few hours and maybe more if they wind up
going to some sort of class on the new sys..... I would say
that's a *very* big deal man hour-wise.

First, it doesn't really work that way, although that's an easy way
(and unfortunately a common way) to look at it. Twenty thousand
employees losing some amount of time isn't the same as the company
losing 20,000 times that amount of time. I read an article that
pointed out that it's more like everyone losing some amount of time in
parallel rather than serial, so the amount of lost time is the average
amount lost rather than the total amount lost. I suspect that will
generate some comments since it's different from what we're usually
told.

Second, I suspect the transition from XP to Vista/7 was a lot smoother
than you make out. My employer transitioned from XP to 7 around the
end of 2010 and it went without a single whimper. On Friday we had XP
SP3 with Office 2007, and on Monday we had Win 7 with Office 2010. I
don't recall hearing a single complaint within my area, but of course
I can't speak for the entire 60,000 employee base. Likewise, my wife's
employer is considering a move from XP to 7, so they've started by
giving that combo to a few people in each department to see how they
handle it. My wife was selected, and she reported that there was no
interruption in her work flow. For people who use applications, it's
business as usual. People who like to tinker at the file and folder
level will have to spend a few minutes here and there, but again, no
big deal. There are differences, but far more is the same than
different.

 

[BillW50]

In

You're free to continue to make that claim, but I don't understand it.

You don't understand that I place portable applications under XP and
Windows 7 I can't run them there.

I see nothing difficult about moving between two versions of Windows,

You don't? I do! OE doesn't run under Windows 7 while it runs from
Windows 95 to XP). XP didn't need UAC, why does Windows 7 need it? Why
doesn't Windows 7 run all of my XP applications? Why does Windows 7 run
fewer applications than any Windows version before it? Why does Windows
7 deny file access to administrators?

Windows 7 Access Denied For Administrator « Think Like a Computer
http://think-like-a-computer.com/2011/05/11/windows-access-denied-folder-administrator/

and in fact to me it's very little different from moving between two
TVs, two cars, two bathrooms in the house, and a hundred other
examples.

They are standardized. Try driving a car that uses the accelerator on
the left and the brake on the right. How fun would that be? Or if the
steering wheel went right when you turned left? Sure you could get used
to it, but it is still stupid.

Do you also get confused when you shop at two stores, and
the second store is not the same as the first? Do you also get
confused when you walk into a workplace and discover it's different
from your own home? These are things we all deal with daily and for
most of us they aren't a big deal.

We are talking about Windows! Quit trying to compare apples and oranges.

I suppose the day is coming where I'll be where you are now, unable to
get my head around two of something, but I hope that day is far off.

No you don't get it! Every single software developer who burns bridges
has failed!

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

You're free to continue to make that claim, but I don't understand it.
I see nothing difficult about moving between two versions of Windows,
and in fact to me it's very little different from moving between two
TVs, two cars, two bathrooms in the house, and a hundred other
examples.

My view is somewhere between those of the two of you. I think
BillW50's "I can't have" is a great exaggeration. But I also think
it's preferable to have all your computers run the same version of
Windows, so you don't get confused between two operating systems or
forget how to do something on one because you just used the other.

Similarly, I think having two very different cars can be a big
problem, if you forget where some control is that you want/need to
use. For that reason, I'm unhappy with some rental cars I've driven.

So, I have an EEE netbook that came with XP installed, but I upgraded
it (in two steps, via Vista) so it and my desktop are almost the same.
It's true that Windows 7 performance on the EEE is very poor, but
since I essentially use it only for E-mail when traveling, I don't
have any real problem with that. And I'm much happier having it match
the desktop than I was before doing the upgrade.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP

 

[BillW50]

In

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

I put Windows 7 on a netbook (EeePC 702 with 16GB SSD) once and it
was awful! As Windows 7 ate up 50% of the CPU power at idle.

There are limits! I once overrode the limits and ran NT on a machine
with 4M of RAM; it worked in the sense that nothing malfunctioned, but
not in a way that could be described as usable. Or, '95 on a '486
(with something like 16 or 32M); that was just about usable, but I'd
not like to go back to those days. I don't know what sort of
processor an EeePC 702 has (nor how much RAM, as opposed to SSD), but
I'd imagine even XP would groan on it: weren't those mostly
originally sold with the (well-disguised) Linux that was customised
for them?

The Asus EeePC 702 (like all 700 series) comes with a Celeron 900MHz,
which they underclock down to 633MHz. Being underclocked they are
virtually impossible to overheat. In fact some have removed the fan to
have a completely noiseless netbook and they work well without a fan.

Most of the 700 series came Xandros Linux. These were the first netbooks
on the market and the ones that you have heard came with Linux. Although
they always came with XP drivers too, in case you rather run XP. Only
much later did they offer XP instead on these machines.

The 702's came with 1GB of RAM but I upgraded all of mine to 2GB. And
stock, 702s came with a 8GB SSD. But I had to upgrade the 8GB to 16GB
just to install Windows 7.

I was shocked how slow Windows 7 ran on it. Eating 50% of the CPU at
idle means that Windows 7 eats about 300Mhz of CPU power just for
itself. 30 years ago if you asked me if an OS eating 300Mhz of the CPU
power would be ok I would say that is crazy. Now jump to 30 years later
and I still think it is crazy.

I started testing Windows 7 on other computers and the 300MHz loss of
CPU power was the norm. In fact, I couldn't find any single core
processor that could run Windows 7 well enough. Only multi-core
processors is the performance satisfactory.

XP flies on the 702 btw. The only problem with XP on the 702 was
sometimes DPCs ate 50, 80 or sometimes 100% of the CPU power. I am not
sure why that happens. It seems to be related to radio interference
nearby. Linux doesn't run as well on these machines especially when
flash or video is involved.

 

[Char Jackson]

In


You don't? I do!

That's right, I don't, and I doubt that I'm more mentally agile than
the average bear. It's just not that big of a deal. And yes, I know
that you find it difficult because you proclaim it loudly and often.

They are standardized. Try driving a car that uses the accelerator on
the left and the brake on the right. How fun would that be? Or if the
steering wheel went right when you turned left? Sure you could get used
to it, but it is still stupid.

I've ridden motorcycles for most of my life. The standard location for
gear shift is at your left foot and the rear brake at your right foot,
but a friend of mine had a Brit bike (Triumph?) that had the shifter
and rear brake reversed. I don't even want to say it took 5 seconds to
get used to it because it really took no time at all.

Second example, I bought a bike in 2007 that had the gear shift on the
left handlebar. Time to get used to it was measured in seconds, and
all happened before I tossed a leg over the seat. Not a big deal.

Third example, as a small town kid I learned to drive when I was 6 and
began driving regularly when I was 10 or 11. The steering wheel was
always on the left side until I delivered mail, where the steering
wheel was on the right side. Again, I don't think there was any time
spent on getting used to it. You just get in and drive, just like you
just get on the bike and ride it. We humans are smart enough to adapt
to our surroundings. That ability diminishes with age, some faster
than others, but still.

You already know about the fourth example. I move back and forth from
XP to 7 many times throughout the day. There is no period of
adjustment required. I just do what I need to do, and if that means
going to \Users instead of \Documents and Settings, for example, then
so be it. It's trivial to remember little things like that.

I think the TV example was valid, too. Depending on where I am in the
house, I watch one of three TV's, each a different brand with a
completely different remote. I have zero problems picking up any of
the remotes and using it by touch. How is that possible, you say? It's
because we humans can adapt to our environment. Less so as we get
older, perhaps, but I'm not there yet.

I suppose the day is coming when I'll be where you are now, stuck in
my ways and no longer able to adapt, but I hope that day is far off.

 

[Mayayana]

| >> I see nothing difficult about moving between two versions of Windows,
| >
| >You don't? I do!
|
| That's right, I don't

You seem to be arguing with a number of people
in this thread that they're simply wrong, stubborn,
living in the past, or senile for not wanting to switch
to Windows 7. I wonder why you spend so much time
hanging around in an XP newsgroup in the first place.
Does it just bug you that everyone isn't a "novaphile"?

People can have different opinions
about the changes between systems, but your claim
that there's very little change simply isn't true. For
corporate employees who only use MS Word, the
version of Word may be the most notable factor. They
wolud probably have more trouble switching Word versions
than they would switching Windows versions. Those are
the vast number of people who email from Word, print
from Word, work on Word, and actually have no idea
where their files are. ("It's OK. Word knows.") Those
people don't use PCs. They use MS Word.

But for people who really use their PC, who install their
own software, and who are facile with Windows Explorer,
the changes from XP to Vista/7 are extensive. The
restrictions are just one very big change. It's true
that those restrictions were in place for "lackey"
users on XP installed to NTFS, but that scenario was/is
virtually non-existent outside of corporate workstations.
Vista/7 has made it very difficult not to operate as a
corporate lackey on a workstation PC.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Char Jackson:

Do you also get confused when you shop at two stores, and
the second store is not the same as the first?

I see that as a pretty good analog. I wouldn't use the word
"confused", but the local grocery store re-arranges the food
locations I definitely lose time on my next shopping trip - and
I've heard other people complain about it.

The spiel I heard from the grocery store perspective is that
moving stuff around increases sales because people wind up
wandering past products they had not considered buying before -
as they try to find the products on their shopping list.

I'd say it's definitely a time sink from the customer
perspective.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Char Jackson:

That's right, I don't, and I doubt that I'm more mentally agile than
the average bear. It's just not that big of a deal.

When I used to write mainframe code - way back before anybody
even thought about coding standards - the most
heinously-difficult-to-maintain code seemed tb written by the
smartest people in the shop.

My theory: they were so smart that code being difficult to
understand just didn't occur to them.