Quick Windows 8.1 Questions

[davismills]

I use Classic Shell and now my Windows 8.1 looks more like Windows 7. Best move I've ever made.
Classic Shell - Start menu and other Windows enhancements

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

there is no reason to believe that they adversely affect what's important to sales and marketing more than the positive affect they yield from the execution of their plans which work against your preferences.

I'm willing to believe that you are correct, but can't believe that having two inconsistent alphabetizing schemes or a confusing about box helps marketing or sales.

Here's another example of grayed out items, with no easy way to discover why they are grayed out (I know the answer on this one):

[rbmrtn]

It was much easier to write code for an ansi console, what was on the screen was what you got, no options. Then along comes GUI, with a 1000 ways to display the same info... sometimes what makes perfect sense to some seems stupid to others.

The registry has been an object of discussion ever since they introduced it. There are whole forums devoted to it .... Here's link to one ( I think originally on slashdot)

Why are INI files deprecated in favor of the registry? - The Old New Thing - Site Home - MSDN Blogs

[meierlde]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl I'm willing to believe that you are correct, but can't believe that having two inconsistent alphabetizing schemes or a confusing about box helps marketing or sales. Here's another example of grayed out items, with no easy way to discover why they are grayed out (I know the answer on this one):

Actually just above the part that is shown on the same pane is a line change unavailable options that ungreys out the greyed out options.
(at least if you have administrator access)

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meierlde Actually just above the part that is shown on the same pane is a line change unavailable options that ungreys out the greyed out options. (at least if you have administrator access)

Yes, but that is not easily discoverable.

OK, I couldn't resist making the about box easier to understand (this is for all the people who turn on their new machine and wonder "Did I get Windows 8 or Windows 8.1?":

WindowVersionFIxed.png

The problem is that the name of the windows product, used to be the version number, such as Windows 3.1. Then they went to names such as NT, XP, Vista. But starting with Windows 7, they used numbers as the name of the product, and had separate version numbers.

If they went back to the original system (by just bumping the version number up), it would be least confusing of all.

WindowVersionFix2.png

[ERD50]

I'm with you T-Al. Keep the marketing/public terms consistent and public, refer to the internal techy 'build numbers' as 'internal'. Your mock up captures that in a simple and sane way. It is obvious to all what is being conveyed.

There really is no excuse at all for anything less.

That is so easy and obvious, it is just mind-boggling that the MegaCorps (MS is not the only clueless one, unfortunately) can't get the simple and obvious things right.

Apple does a similar thing with their hardware. If I want to find out something specific about the MacBook Pros in our family, the Apple support side lists the different hardware with descriptors like ' 13" MacBook Pro - Spring 2011". So I have to look up, when in 2011 did we buy that? And when is 'spring'? And did I buy the ones just discontinued, or the new model?

If you go to sys prefs, or your receipt, they have a specific Model number. But then you have to go through a google search and magic decoder ring to turn that into a date. They also have an identifier like 'MacBookPro8,1', but that appears to be a more general hardware class descriptor, and includes several different models. And you find all three descriptors used in different places, so it's really a pain. They should put that specific model # on a label, include it in any/all references and be done with it.

-ERD50

[W2R]

Al, why not just right click on the Windows icon (the one that looks like 4 window panes, on your taskbar), and select "System".

Here's what I get when I do that. Looks perfectly clear to me what operating system I am running.

Many/most of the things I look for on a regular basis are on this particular right click menu.

[meierlde]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Yes, but that is not easily discoverable. OK, I couldn't resist making the about box easier to understand (this is for all the people who turn on their new machine and wonder "Did I get Windows 8 or Windows 8.1?":

Actually there is a pane that does this the system pane in the control panel which tells you the version number the system performance index and the like. As usual there are multiple ways to skin a cat. Different program managers at MS decided to implement things differently. I used to work in corporate IT and I recall telling MS to stop making so many UI changes as it cost the corporation lost productivity and training time. Of course they had their UI experts who had to justify their existance and kept worrying about the novice user. The post above shows yet another way to access the same pane.
BTW windows 3.1 is not in the version chain you access in windows 8 the version 3.1 was the first version of windows NT not windows, then you went to 3.5 3.51 etc.
Here is a link to the wikipedia article that provides at the bottom a list of marketing names and version numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

BTW one big change happened in Windows 8.1 way under the covers the biggest program is now 256 TB in size, not that anyone could put together a system that large. (It raised the limit to keep even with Linux). In 8.0 it was 8 tb.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R Al, why not just right click on the Windows icon (the one that looks like 4 window panes, on your taskbar), and select "System".

Yes, that's a very good way to do it (and that's a great way to get to system settings, thanks!) . I just didn't know about it. So, when I got the computer home, I said,

"I hope I did indeed get 8.1 so that I don't have to upgrade. OK, let's see, how do I check the version. I'll open explorer and choose Help/About, that's how it was done for earlier versions. Nope, that didn't work. OK, I'll Google, "how to get windows 8 version." OK, that says to use WINVER. Oh, no, it says I have windows 8. Oh well, I guess I'll have to upgrade. Wait a second, it says I have version 6.3, WTF? Wait, it refers to 8.1 in the trademarking info, and it wouldn't do that if I had Windows 8. OK, I'm set."

And Lena said, "Will you please stop talking to yourself?"

[TromboneAl]

I'm learning all the tricks, but slowly because Microsoft has a "give a man a fish" instead of a "teach a man to fish" philosophy.

For example, if I search for Device Manager, it will take me there and not tell me how to get there on my own. So I often go through the search to get somewhere, until I have a moment to figure out a more direct route.

[TromboneAl]

Questions about this screen:

Screen.png

1. What do you call it (Metro screen)?
2. How would I switch the apps right to left and vv?
3. Can I open two desktops in the two sides?
4. Is there a way to say "Open this in the metro screen?"
5.Why would people accept a system with such limited control over individual window sizes and position?
6. I have one app which, if I open it in this "metro" window, it immediately disappears -- is that common?

I have one app, which, because of it's limitations, would work well in this setup.

[rbmrtn]

windows doesn't come with virtual desktops. There is a sysinternals download that allows that feature, here's a link to sysinternals

Desktops

Linux has supported virtual desktops forever ( if you feel like coming over )

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmrtn windows doesn't come with virtual desktops. There is a sysinternals download that allows that feature, here's a link to sysinternals Desktops Linux has supported virtual desktops forever ( if you feel like coming over )

Virtual desktops ('workspaces' in the Xubuntu vocabulary) are one of the major features that I I just love about my Linux system - and when I go to other computers, I feel like I'm in the Stone Age w/o them.

Apple introduces this feature a while back, long after I'd been using it in Linux - I forget their term for it (Spaces?), but when I tried it on a Mac I felt like I had one arm tied behind my back. The Apple implementation was terrible - awkward and very limiting. It was hard to move from virtual desktop to virtual desktop, and apps were locked to one or the other. Painful.

In Xubuntu, I keep ~ 6 workspaces open, and with a click I can add/delete workspaces. I keep one empty, so I can move there and see an empty desktop when I want - so much easier than 'hiding' apps to get to the desktop. I can move from workspace to workspace with a mouse click or a key-stroke. I can drag any window from one space to another to re-org on the fly. And I have two indicators in my lower panel (kind of like a 'dock') which show me the status - one visual, and one a text-based pop-up. It just makes using each if these so easy it's incredible. It is truly 'elegant'.

It's one of the reasons I don't bother with an external monitor - the workspaces organize my work so well, I don't have as much need for more screen space. For example, I keep my email in one workspace, my 'system' stuff in a another, this forum, and google news in another, my stock quotes in another, and maybe two or three other things of interest in their own workspaces. By flipping between them, I have a clear, uncluttered view of whatever I'm interested at that moment.

I just can't use a computer seriously w/o this feature anymore. If Windows does not provide this built in, I'd be lost. Maybe Apple has improved theirs since I last played with it, but it was not anywhere near what Linux offers last time I looked.

If anyone is interested, I might try to post some annotated screenshots to help convey this.

-ERD50

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl I'm willing to believe that you are correct, but can't believe that having two inconsistent alphabetizing schemes or a confusing about box helps marketing or sales.

I was referring to the Windows 8 versus Version 6.3 matter.

I'm sure that the two alphabetizing schemes are simply a matter that accessing the control panel is something other than what it appears to be - accessing files via Windows Explorer - going back to when the look and feel between the control panel and file explorer were so different that no one would have even noticed the difference. By trying to make the control panel look like just another folder in the file system, they'd created this inconsistent aesthetic. If I had to prioritize "fixing" that against fixing something that is really broken, I'd choose the latter. Regardless, the point is that that the inconsistency doesn't stem from a decision, but rather stems from legacy differences, which perhaps are simply not worth ameliorating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm with you T-Al. Keep the marketing/public terms consistent and public, refer to the internal techy 'build numbers' as 'internal'.

Marketing, though, is about what will motivate current revenues, not about what is consistent with the past. I don't see any path forward where your prioritization for marketing will ever be true.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU ... Marketing, though, is about what will motivate current revenues, not about what is consistent with the past. I don't see any path forward where your prioritization for marketing will ever be true.

Well, I don't see how a confusing and conflicting dialog does anything to 'motivate current revenues'.

I'm not saying anything will change, just that it should change.

Quote:

Regardless, the point is that that the inconsistency doesn't stem from a decision, but rather stems from legacy differences, ...

That could well be. I've been a 'victim' of that with some of my (in-house) designs. Management asks if we can re-purpose some old obsolete equipment to use with a new product, rather than design from scratch. Yes, it can be done, and yes, it makes sense economically and time-wise. But it leads to a weird, 'shoe-horn' design. And if anyone analyzed that design w/o knowing the 'back-story', they'd be scratching their head as to why this guy decided to go this way, it really wouldn't make sense.

Quote:

... which perhaps are simply not worth ameliorating.

I'm going to generally disagree on that one. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to using computers. I'd say it is certainly worth making things simple and consistent.

-ERD50

[TromboneAl]

Using this menu a lot (thanks W2R). If it were alphabetized, it would be a lot faster to find the option I want.



Now dealing with the failure of the computer to sleep automatically. That is critical to the security of the machine. Because the fingerprint scanner doesn't work with firefox, it is only useful if the machine sleeps after a delay, and requires a scan to wake up.

Thousands or more are having the same issue, and each attempted solution requires a messy system change followed by waiting a minute to see if it works.

Work, work, work.

[target2019]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Using this menu a lot (thanks W2R). If it were alphabetized, it would be a lot faster to find the option I want. [snipped image] Now dealing with the failure of the computer to sleep automatically. That is critical to the security of the machine. Because the fingerprint scanner doesn't work with firefox, it is only useful if the machine sleeps after a delay, and requires a scan to wake up. Thousands or more are having the same issue, and each attempted solution requires a messy system change followed by waiting a minute to see if it works. Work, work, work.

I have a fingerprint scanner with Windows 7 HP notebook. It's more than 3 years old, for reference. Somewhere along the way the browser plugin (FF) stopped working, and could no longer be tweaked to work with the scanner. I implemented fix, next FF version came, broken again. It's disappointing, but you may just have to move on and forget the feature, as I did.

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Well, I don't see how a confusing and conflicting dialog does anything to 'motivate current revenues'.

I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding that. My earlier comment explained the situation as clearly as is possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm not saying anything will change, just that it should change.

And really, what you're saying is what you desire to have changed for you, rather than what should be changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Yes, it can be done, and yes, it makes sense economically and time-wise. But it leads to a weird, 'shoe-horn' design.

Yet it is what "should" be done if the company's priorities are on the economics and timeliness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm going to generally disagree on that one.

I see no reason to believe your personal prioritization, which very clearly reflects your own personal preferences as a user, is better for the business than the prioritization that is made by those who have a vested interest in the success of the business.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding that. My earlier comment explained the situation as clearly as is possible. And really, what you're saying is what you desire to have changed for you, rather than what should be changed. Yet it is what "should" be done if the company's priorities are on the economics and timeliness. I see no reason to believe your personal prioritization, which very clearly reflects your own personal preferences as a user, is better for the business than the prioritization that is made by those who have a vested interest in the success of the business.

So I guess we disagree on just about everything? Can you agree to that? Or is it against your principles?

-ERD50

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Using this menu a lot (thanks W2R). If it were alphabetized, it would be a lot faster to find the option I want. Now dealing with the failure of the computer to sleep automatically. That is critical to the security of the machine. Because the fingerprint scanner doesn't work with firefox, it is only useful if the machine sleeps after a delay, and requires a scan to wake up. Thousands or more are having the same issue, and each attempted solution requires a messy system change followed by waiting a minute to see if it works. Work, work, work.

On the above menu, click on the third entry, "Power Options". On the left, click on "Change when the Computer Sleeps".

Hope that helps. I haven't had any need to deal with sleep issues since about the first or second day I had this computer (like you), because I have it set to my desired settings.