Windows **^&%#*^ 7

[Bruin Fisher]

Picking up on just one of Des' points, I think MS have got themselves trapped in a trap of their own making. It is now expected of them that they produce a new version of each of their major products every couple of years. They're hoping, of course, that their customers will all upgrade - and recently they've come up with lots of ways to pressurise them to do just that.

If the new product looks and behaves much like the last one did, they get panned by the press for losing the plot, and the customers can't see any point in upgrading. So they have to make each new release appear to be significantly different/better. But what if the previous product did its job just about as well as can be imagined? Logic says, don't release a new version. But MS can't do that, they lose their income. So we get things like Office 2007. Let's face it, Office 2000 was great. It did what it was designed to do and had the bugs from previous versions largely ironed out. Excel in particular is a fantastic product. The world and his dog adopted the software and learned to become skilled in its use. Since then Microsoft have released new versions that just look different (sometimes radically different, so the press won't call the new version 'lacklustre') and confuse those who were used to previous versions. And changing the file format causes serious headaches.

OpenOffice, on the other hand, doesn't do such things, because their marketing model is different. They don't need to produce new versions in order to keep their income flowing - the software's free. So they only release new versions when there's something worth having.

[DesDownunder]

I agree with the latter, but not with the former. You can customize the hell out of Mac OSX if you learn scripting and the Terminal mode, both of which will allow you to tinker "under the hood" of the graphical user interface.

But the reality for most people is, they just don't want to bother. It's enough that the computer gets the job done. For average people, it's about the software being used to get the job done, not the operating system that runs it.

To me, operating systems are trivial. It's like worrying about what kind of fuel I have in my car. As long as the car moves, it's not backfiring, the engine's running OK, and the price is right, I don't care if it's Shell or Chevron or any other kind of gas (petrol for non-Americans). I only worry about the car and where I'm going.

I do agree 100% that the latest version of OSX and Windows 7 are getting frighteningly close. I'm planning to switch a couple of my Windows machines over to Windows 7 by the end of the year, assuming I can do it cheap and all my peripherals will still work.

I guess I am not talking about the 'customisation' of the OS. To me, apart from switching off the frills and whistles which eat resources or otherwise get in my way of doing what I want, I really don't care about what petrol goes in the car, either, Pecman. What I do care about is that my feet can find can find the accelerator and the brake pedals. That I can adjust them as I want, and that the steering wheel doesn't try to steer the vehicle in the opposing direction to the one in which I wish to travel.

Keeping to the car analogy, I don't trust Mac or Windows to actually use their proprietary GPS to my advantage. In any case I am stubborn enough to want to do things my way, but I do like to know other people's answers and methods just in case I want to change my mind. I come from an era where I learned that the absolute best was logical, rational, obvious, and I have had to become acquainted with the idea that best is a relative computing term, and that means computers are less than perfect.

One thing is certain, we are being manipulated to update the versions of the OS at the direction of the manufacturer. This is achieved not so much by an increased ability to do new things as much as it is, by the manufacturer's desire to keep us paying.

Bruin has that nailed with his observations, I think.

At the present time research and development has been confused with fashion change, particularly in the area of the GUI customisations I usually switch off. What is worse though is that the fashions have displaced some functionality, not easily worked around.

Open Office is a good substitute for Office 2007, provided you do not want to do anything fancy. For instance it can't handle my templates for a collage of photos as Word can. The Open Office, Impress program is hopeless at following my extremely complicated animations and their timings which I do in PowerPoint. For general use however, Open Office is fine.

It always amuses me that Microsoft screams for adherence to its rules and then ignores them itself, appearing to judge such ignorance as expedient to its own ends.

While on the subject of MS Office with its ribbon, has any one else seen the reports that FireFox is going to introduce the ribbon to its browser interface?

[Bruin Fisher]

While on the subject of MS Office with its ribbon, has any one else seen the reports that FireFox is going to introduce the ribbon to its browser interface?

What on earth for? How will a ribbon improve the usability of a web browser? Bah, humbug!

[Cole Parker]

Uh, what is a ribbon?

C

[Bruin Fisher]

Uh, what is a ribbon?

C

Well might you ask, Cole. Here's Wikipedia's take on it: Wikipedia on Ribbons

[Cole Parker]

Thanks, but I'm not sure it helps!

Now you'll have to explain why you're against it. I'd be against it simply because it seems to be a change away from something I've already learned about how to use these damned things. At my age, everything I learn new has to replace something I used to know, but the exchange is never an even one. I lose a little more than I gain.

Well, it seems that way, and how else to account for the fact I get stupider every day?

C

[DesDownunder]

Thanks, but I'm not sure it helps!

Now you'll have to explain why you're against it. I'd be against it simply because it seems to be a change away from something I've already learned about how to use these damned things. At my age, everything I learn new has to replace something I used to know, but the exchange is never an even one. I lose a little more than I gain.

Well, it seems that way, and how else to account for the fact I get stupider every day?

C

You misunderstand Cole, realising we get stupider every day, is what the enlightened call wisdom.

[Bruin Fisher]

Now you'll have to explain why you're against it.

Well, it's because it's not better than the way it was done before, just very different, and therefore confusing to people who had become familiar with the old way. In particular if you're not used to the ribbon interface, functions you're used to finding on a menu bar that's no longer there can be difficult to find.

Change for change's sake. And yes, that's only a point of view and not everyone will agree with it. But Curmudgeons like me and Des can glower and say 'Bah, Humbug'.

[DesDownunder]

'Bah, Humbug'.

[Hoskins]

Hello!

Long time lurker/reader here - I've liked AD forever, never really engaged in it until recently though. I like all you writer types and your stories, for sure.

I popped in here to make a suggestion for Des, about libraries. I hate them in some ways, too (and like them in others).

But here's how I got around the problems that libraries create, by creating a library with only one folder in it.

Open the Explorer by clicking the Explorer button on the taskbar. Create a library. Call it "My Documents", or whatever you'd like to call it.

Now, add a folder to the library. The folder I've added to mine is the "personal folder" for my user account - which is named Hoskins. I picked it because it's the top level view of all my stuff.

Don't add any other folders to the library and click OK.

Open the library if it's not already. From the View menu, arrange "By Folder".

This is a very standard view of the physical folders within that top folder, and I'm now back to storing things in the folders of my choosing.

That's all you need to do to circumvent libraries. Make them work against themselves.

For more fun, close the My Documents folder and open Libraries from the Explorer button on the taskbar. Grab the My Documents library and drag it on top of the Explorer button and drop it. This will "pin" it to the top of the Explorer jump menu.

Now, close the libraries window, click and hold the left mouse over the Explorer button again, and drag up. This will pop the jump menu.

Anyway, I hope this helps. By the way, I remember PC Tools for Windows, from Central Point Software. I used to spend HOURS trying to optimize memory use and get that extra .5k out of my much needed 640k of accessible RAM...

[DesDownunder]

Thanks Hoskins, nice to see you joining in the discussions.

Your idea about the libraries is certainly in the spirit of my rebellious nature

I like it. I'll certainly investigate your suggestion, thanks.

I wonder if I can put "My Computer" in the library?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who spent hours trying to get the most out the 640k of RAM.

It does seem to me that so many programs as well as the operating systems, seem to be designed to take the longest way possible to achieve an end result. It's a bit like driving to the corner store by going in the opposite direction because of street closures, when in fact the store is only a short walk away.

The problem is carrying all the goods back to the house.

[Merkin]

Change for change's sake. And yes, that's only a point of view and not everyone will agree with it. But Curmudgeons like me and Des can glower and say 'Bah, Humbug'.

Count me in on that. I'm the bloke in the car ahead of you who is still using hand signals for turns...

James

[Bruin Fisher]

trying to get the most out the 640k of RAM.

It does seem to me that so many programs as well as the operating systems, seem to be designed to take the longest way possible to achieve an end result.

It's nothing new. The unholy alliance of IBM and Microsoft in the late '70s and early '80s produced an operating system that had a religious conviction that RAM was, and would always be, limited to 640KB. The initial spec for the first PC machine specified it would be shipped with 64K, twice as much as its competitors, and the OS was designed to recognise ten times that much because 'no-one will ever need that much'. Almost immediately spreadsheet programs (Lotus 1-2-3) needed more and IBM's second generation machine, the PC-AT, was shipped with 1Mb, although its operating system software still swore blind there was only 640K. Religious fanaticism. Software drivers were developed to give the OS a window (usually only 64K wide) onto the extra RAM, and eventually the OS shipped with HIMEM.SYS which could be run, as a driver, to access it all, but slowly.

It was only one of a series of crass errors committed by the geniuses (genii?) who shaped the world of computing. IBM, arguably, should have gone with Digital Research and their CP/M OS which was better designed. But they fell out with Gary Kildall because he ducked out of a meeting arranged with their suits in order to go flying. Microsoft had never written an OS, all they had was a version of the BASIC programming language, but in the world of mainframe computers that IBM was familiar with, the programming language and the OS were usually one and the same. So they probably thought Bill Gates could write them an OS and he wasn't about to tell them otherwise. He went and bought the in-house development OS that Seattle Computers were using to help them develop their machine using the same chip as IBM. They called their OS QDOS, quick and dirty operating system. Bill re-named it MS-DOS and eventually bought the whole of Seattle Computers because he needed their help to get the finished OS ready for IBM's hardware launch. They failed and the machine was launched with no OS. It made a good doorstop for a couple of months until the OS arrived.

The tragedy of it all is that there were several much better designed machines already on the market, but the IBM name and after sales service gave the new PC an unstoppable momentum and all the other machines except Apple have gone down the plughole. Three cheers for Apple who made it, like Salmon, swimming against the current.

It all makes me think I'm not so stupid after all.

[DesDownunder]

Too many people forget we are not fighting each other, it is all of us against the computer. Judgement Day is coming, and the Terminator is not on our side.

Technology can save us or destroy us. It won't be Hollywood's fault if we allow the machines to take over; it has warned us many times.

Run for your lives, run, run...run~

[Cole Parker]

Uh, like, run where?

C

[DesDownunder]

Uh, like, run where?

C

Just run, behind the lines of the war, run and keeps safe so you can tell your sons and daughters that there was once a place called Camelot which didn't have computers. Run, boy, run!