OK, well maybe not the world, just software. (You know, that stuff I 
spend my whole day thinking about.)



First, GNOME 3. As far as I can tell, this is designed for a netbook, 
not a real PC. There's no task bar, all the buttons are huge, everything 
starts fullscreen, and you have to go into a stupid little menu to start 
any programs or to switch windows. They removed all the window buttons 
except "close"... Basically, this thing is designed for something with a 
touchscreen and a tiny display.

(The irony is that if you go to the GNOME addons page, 98% of all addons 
are things to make GNOME 3 work like how GNOME 2 used to work. Add back 
the taskbar, put minimise and maximise buttons back, add a program 
launcher bar, etc. To some extent ANY time a program changes people want 
it to work the way it did before. But I think the sheer volume of 
identical addons to do the same three tasks is significant...)

I particularly like how the entire GNOME 3 desktop is written in CSS and 
JavaScript, and you write "addons" by monkey-patching the live 
JavaScript (which is entirely undocumented; you just have to *guess* 
what things you need to change - or read the 20,000 lines of code that 
it comprises). I especially like the way the addon is responsible for 
manually reverting all its changes when the user selects "disable addon".

And by "like", I of course mean "hate".



Then we come to Windows 8. This product is *clearly* designed to be run 
on a phone. This is not a desktop operating system for technically 
skilled users to operate their computer with. This is a toy OS for a 
touchscreen device with a tiny display. Consequently, the graphics look 
HORRID, with garish flat rectangles of colour (they didn't even bother 
to round the corners off), capital letters only, and a maximum of three 
items on screen at once. It's like I'm back in the 1980s all over again.

Even the latest version of Visual Studio copies this unspeakably ugly 
style, with all the menu names in capital letters. The entire UI is 
devoid of colour, all of it being a monochrome grey. It's like somebody 
sucked the life out of it. No doubt the next iteration of Office will 
have the some awful paint job.

A lot of people said Vista was awful. I can hardly believe I'm saying 
this, but... I actually don't have a problem with it. It seems fine. 
Sure, it's got a whole bunch of stuff I don't want, but MS products 
always do. Windows 7 seems identical to Vista, apart from a few tiny 
cosmetic differences. The minimum specs are a bit high, but then the 
primary way MS make their money is by forcing people to buy new 
hardware. And, honestly, as a gamer I already have a £500 PC, so it's 
not like it can't handle it.

Whenever anybody asks me "should I get Windows 7 or Windows 8?", the 
answer is pretty clear. Get Windows 7 if you want to use a PC. Get 
Windows 8 if you're too stupid to operate anything more complicated than 
a washing machine.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a simplified UI existing. If 
there's a product specifically for people who just want to surf the 
Internet and send a few emails, then that's great! What I object to is 
*me* being forced to use that same product. In my opinion, there should 
be a separate product for people who *are* technically skilled - and 
let's face it, it's not like such people are a minority...

But hey, MS makes a metric tonne of money per hour, why would they even 
care what I think?

Post a reply to this message

> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a simplified UI existing. If
> there's a product specifically for people who just want to surf the
> Internet and send a few emails, then that's great! What I object to is
> *me* being forced to use that same product.

You do realise if you get the "desktop" version of Win8 you get the 
standard Win7-like desktop too? It's only the "RT" version for low 
powered mobile devices that consists solely of the new GUI.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK, well maybe not the world, just software. (You know, that stuff I
> spend my whole day thinking about.)
>
> Whenever anybody asks me "should I get Windows 7 or Windows 8?", the
> answer is pretty clear. Get Windows 7 if you want to use a PC. Get
> Windows 8 if you're too stupid to operate anything more complicated than
> a washing machine.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a simplified UI existing. If
> there's a product specifically for people who just want to surf the
> Internet and send a few emails, then that's great! What I object to is
> *me* being forced to use that same product. In my opinion, there should
> be a separate product for people who *are* technically skilled - and
> let's face it, it's not like such people are a minority...
>
> But hey, MS makes a metric tonne of money per hour, why would they even
> care what I think?

I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now? I have Win7
and I hate it because I can't use my own old programs. But (or install Linux)
there is no way to avoid MS empire. And as you say, MS take all the power of the
PC and consider the user like a child - no big responsabilities for the user, it
is dangerous to modified all that stuff.
Where is (except Linux) the possibility to make your machine, like you want. MS
format the users. It's a fact.

Post a reply to this message

"Fractracer" <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?

Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-08-27 03:26, scott a écrit :
>> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a simplified UI existing. If
>> there's a product specifically for people who just want to surf the
>> Internet and send a few emails, then that's great! What I object to is
>> *me* being forced to use that same product.
>
> You do realise if you get the "desktop" version of Win8 you get the
> standard Win7-like desktop too? It's only the "RT" version for low
> powered mobile devices that consists solely of the new GUI.
>
Until 8.1 comes along and restores the "Start" button, you still have to 
switch to the Lego-block screen to start new apps, unless you have a 
shortcut on your desktop, which encourages clutter and everyone knows 
that Windows boot time (and refreshes when you quit a full screen app, 
such as a game) is proportional to the number of icons on your desktop.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.08.2013 12:31, schrieb Stephen:
> "Fractracer" <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
>
> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe

At least some editions of Windows also provide a shortcut in the start 
menu, in the "accessories" submenu, called "command prompt" (IIRC).

Of course you can create your own shortcut and put it anywhere you like 
(desktop, quick launch bar, or the start menu someplace else).

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.08.2013 15:45, schrieb Francois Labreque:
> Le 2013-08-27 03:26, scott a écrit :
>>> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a simplified UI existing. If
>>> there's a product specifically for people who just want to surf the
>>> Internet and send a few emails, then that's great! What I object to is
>>> *me* being forced to use that same product.
>>
>> You do realise if you get the "desktop" version of Win8 you get the
>> standard Win7-like desktop too? It's only the "RT" version for low
>> powered mobile devices that consists solely of the new GUI.
>>
> Until 8.1 comes along and restores the "Start" button, you still have to
> switch to the Lego-block screen to start new apps, unless you have a
> shortcut on your desktop, which encourages clutter and everyone knows
> that Windows boot time (and refreshes when you quit a full screen app,
> such as a game) is proportional to the number of icons on your desktop.

How about the task manager? You can start a task from there as well 
(fortunately, because otherwise you'd need to restart the computer if 
explorer.exe crashed on you).

Not saying that it's any more comfortable than switching to the "Modern 
UI" thing though.

Post a reply to this message

> Until 8.1 comes along and restores the "Start" button, you still have to
> switch to the Lego-block screen to start new apps, unless you have a
> shortcut on your desktop,

Or pin it to the taskbar (which gives other benefits over a desktop 
shortcut), I don't remember the last time I looked through the Start 
menu to run a program, usually its sole use is to shut down the machine :-)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> > I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?

> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe

cmd.exe is a program, not DOS...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 2:45 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> and everyone knows that Windows boot time (and refreshes when you quit a
> full screen app, such as a game) is proportional to the number of icons
> on your desktop.

Not everyone knows. But I do *now*. Thanks for that.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 2:45 PM, clipka wrote:
> At least some editions of Windows also provide a shortcut in the start
> menu, in the "accessories" submenu, called "command prompt" (IIRC).

My version has an "Open command window here" as an entry in the context 
menu (right click) in explorer.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 4:11 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
>>> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
>
>> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe
>
> cmd.exe is a program, not DOS...
>

True it is a command-line interpreter.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 08:26 AM, scott wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a simplified UI existing. If
>> there's a product specifically for people who just want to surf the
>> Internet and send a few emails, then that's great! What I object to is
>> *me* being forced to use that same product.
>
> You do realise if you get the "desktop" version of Win8 you get the
> standard Win7-like desktop too? It's only the "RT" version for low
> powered mobile devices that consists solely of the new GUI.

If that's only the cut-down version, then why is all the marketing 
material based on it?

Also, the laptop we purchased to test Windows 8 with came with that 
awful UI too, so...

Post a reply to this message

>> But hey, MS makes a metric tonne of money per hour, why would they even
>> care what I think?
>
> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now? I have Win7
> and I hate it because I can't use my own old programs. But (or install Linux)
> there is no way to avoid MS empire. And as you say, MS take all the power of the
> PC and consider the user like a child - no big responsabilities for the user, it
> is dangerous to modified all that stuff.
> Where is (except Linux) the possibility to make your machine, like you want. MS
> format the users. It's a fact.

The vast majority of end-users couldn't give a fig how much "control" 
they have over the PC. They just want to be able to *use* the thing. I 
have no problem with MS making computer technology easier for them to 
use. (I would debate the degree to which they achieve that, mind you...)

What I *do* have an issue with is MS deciding that *I* can't get stuff 
done with my own PC because "most" end-users don't need that feature.

I should probably go buy the competitor's OS instead. Oh, wait...

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.08.2013 18:56, schrieb Stephen:
> On 27/08/2013 2:45 PM, clipka wrote:
>> At least some editions of Windows also provide a shortcut in the start
>> menu, in the "accessories" submenu, called "command prompt" (IIRC).
>
> My version has an "Open command window here" as an entry in the context
> menu (right click) in explorer.

Actually that's by far the most useful one. Unfortunately it's not 
available in all editions/versions - Windows 7 Pro doesn't have it, for 
instance.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> "Fractracer" <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> >
> > I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
>
> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe

Yes, I know, but this DOS is not a real DOS, try to launh a program like
Fractint, it can't run.

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 7:06 PM, clipka wrote:
> Actually that's by far the most useful one. Unfortunately it's not
> available in all editions/versions - Windows 7 Pro doesn't have it, for
> instance.

It should be available by pressing Shift + Right Click. Or made 
permanent by editing the registry.
http://blog.deepakazad.com/2012/04/permanently-enable-open-command-window.html


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
>>
>> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe
>
> Yes, I know, but this DOS is not a real DOS, try to launh a program like
> Fractint, it can't run.

That's because DOS is a monotasking real-mode OS; applications run under 
it have complete access to the physical hardware. The command prompt in 
Windows is merely a DOS-compatible command interpreter. Windows itself 
is a multitasking protected-mode OS. So a program like FractInt which 
performs direct hardware access can never work under Windows.

You can, however, run it in a virtual machine if you so desire...

Post a reply to this message

Fractracer <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Yes, I know, but this DOS is not a real DOS, try to launh a program like
> Fractint, it can't run.

If you want to emulate an old obsolete system, use DOSBox.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
> >>
> >> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe
> >
> > Yes, I know, but this DOS is not a real DOS, try to launh a program like
> > Fractint, it can't run.
>
> That's because DOS is a monotasking real-mode OS; applications run under
> it have complete access to the physical hardware. The command prompt in
> Windows is merely a DOS-compatible command interpreter. Windows itself
> is a multitasking protected-mode OS. So a program like FractInt which
> performs direct hardware access can never work under Windows.
>
> You can, however, run it in a virtual machine if you so desire...

Yes, but I remember that MS has developed a multi-task version of DOS. Why MS
has not implemented this version?

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 7:22 PM, Fractracer wrote:
> Yes, I know, but this DOS is not a real DOS, try to launh a program like
> Fractint, it can't run.

Yes, Fractint is 16 bit and support for that went out the window 
(intended) quite a while ago. For the little it's worth. Somewhere I 
have a calculator that boasts that it is 4 bit.

Another not interesting fact: It was when reading the Fractint 
documentation, in '98, that I came across a reference to Pov-Ray. I 
downloaded it and have never looked back.
While looking up Fractint, to check. I came across ChaosPro, Damn your 
eyes (in the nicest possible way, of course ;-) ) and I have spent too 
much time playing with it and still am.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:17:28 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> If that's only the cut-down version, then why is all the marketing
> material based on it?

Because TIFKAM is where MS wants users to go.  You don't market what you 
don't want users to use, you market what you do want them to use.

Marketing 101.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:22:31 -0400, Fractracer wrote:

> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
>> "Fractracer" <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
>>
>> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe
> 
> Yes, I know, but this DOS is not a real DOS, try to launh a program like
> Fractint, it can't run.

Try command.com instead. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Fractracer <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Yes, but I remember that MS has developed a multi-task version of DOS.

What would be the point of that? Existing DOS programs wouldn't work on
it any better than they do under windows.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.08.2013 20:30, schrieb Stephen:
> On 27/08/2013 7:06 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Actually that's by far the most useful one. Unfortunately it's not
>> available in all editions/versions - Windows 7 Pro doesn't have it, for
>> instance.
>
> It should be available by pressing Shift + Right Click. Or made
> permanent by editing the registry.
> http://blog.deepakazad.com/2012/04/permanently-enable-open-command-window.html

Gee, I've been using Windows for ages now, and I never knew that... you 
live and learn.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/27/2013 6:45 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2013-08-27 03:26, scott a écrit :
>>> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a simplified UI existing. If
>>> there's a product specifically for people who just want to surf the
>>> Internet and send a few emails, then that's great! What I object to is
>>> *me* being forced to use that same product.
>>
>> You do realise if you get the "desktop" version of Win8 you get the
>> standard Win7-like desktop too? It's only the "RT" version for low
>> powered mobile devices that consists solely of the new GUI.
>>
> Until 8.1 comes along and restores the "Start" button, you still have to
> switch to the Lego-block screen to start new apps, unless you have a
> shortcut on your desktop, which encourages clutter and everyone knows
> that Windows boot time (and refreshes when you quit a full screen app,
> such as a game) is proportional to the number of icons on your desktop.
>
Umm. Actually, no. I have it on my laptop, and maybe "apps" have that 
problem, but regular applications do have a "desktop" and the normal 
"start menu". I did, however, since it starts up at the damn fancy GUI 
thing, take some time to work out how the hell to get my often used 
applications there, and pull off some of the total garbage I didn't plan 
to ever use. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/27/2013 3:31 AM, Stephen wrote:
> "Fractracer" <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
>
> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe
>
>
>
>
Uh. No. That is a shell, yes, and it "sort of" works like DOS, but.. its 
oddly missing like.. every single added program that ever came with, it, 
including "basic" ones, like ways to make your "shell" wait for a 
keypress, or any other damn thing at all. And, of course, since they 
*don't* want you to actually use it, they never added in any of the 
features that might have gotten into it (if they had stolen them from 
say 4DOS, or others), before Win3.11 came around.

Good example - you are not supposed to use it, so, even "edit" doesn't 
exist in it. But, the horrifying, and useless, method of echoing the 
file to the console, still is (where as 4DOS had a command they has 
added, which let you load the file, and page through it, as well as 
search). DOS *never* could do that, and relied, instead, on using 
"edit", which was just a form of qbasic, which had its interpreter 
disabled, and all the related menu functions gutted out of it. lol

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.08.2013 23:19, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 8/27/2013 3:31 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> "Fractracer" <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
>>
>> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Uh. No. That is a shell, yes, and it "sort of" works like DOS, but.. its
> oddly missing like.. every single added program that ever came with, it,
> including "basic" ones, like ways to make your "shell" wait for a
> keypress, or any other damn thing at all. And, of course, since they
> *don't* want you to actually use it, they never added in any of the
> features that might have gotten into it (if they had stolen them from
> say 4DOS, or others), before Win3.11 came around.

Well, they /did/ add support for blanks in command parameters at least. 
And for long filenames, thank God and all the angels! (Cursed be every 
piece of software that still makes any use of 8.3 filenames! - They're 
/still/ in Windows for backward compatibility.)

As for them not wanting you to use it, what they do want you to use 
nowadays is the PowerShell. Not that I've ever heard of anyone using it 
to solve any scripting tasks though: They either seem to be using .bat 
files for cmd.exe, or asking you to install python.

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 10:19 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Good example - you are not supposed to use it, so, even "edit" doesn't
> exist in it.

The 32 bit version still has edlin, though.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 9:44 PM, clipka wrote:
>>
>> It should be available by pressing Shift + Right Click. Or made
>> permanent by editing the registry.
>> http://blog.deepakazad.com/2012/04/permanently-enable-open-command-window.html
>>
>
> Gee, I've been using Windows for ages now, and I never knew that... you
> live and learn.

Yes you do. The number of people I see who lock their 'puter by 
Ctrl+Alt+Del then L instead of Logo+L, are legion. For example.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2013 11:57 PM, clipka wrote:
> As for them not wanting you to use it, what they do want you to use
> nowadays is the PowerShell. Not that I've ever heard of anyone using it
> to solve any scripting tasks though: They either seem to be using .bat
> files for cmd.exe, or asking you to install python.

As somebody who spends all day writing Bash scripts, the old DOS 
interpreter seems horrifyingly primitive. (You know how you put command 
output into a variable? YOU DON'T!) From what little I've seen 
PowerShell gives you all the power of COM, but it's STILL awful to use.



(OK, so if you do a Google search, there is actually a workaround for 
grabbing command output in a variable. You can do this:

    foo.exe    > temp.txt
    SET /P VAR < temp.txt

Isn't that intuitive?)

Post a reply to this message

>> You do realise if you get the "desktop" version of Win8 you get the
>> standard Win7-like desktop too? It's only the "RT" version for low
>> powered mobile devices that consists solely of the new GUI.
>
> If that's only the cut-down version, then why is all the marketing
> material based on it?

Because it's the new and flashy bit and that's what sells stuff.

> Also, the laptop we purchased to test Windows 8 with came with that
> awful UI too, so...

If it doesn't have a touch screen then I don't see any reason to use the 
new GUI.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> (OK, so if you do a Google search, there is actually a workaround for 
> grabbing command output in a variable. You can do this:

>     foo.exe    > temp.txt
>     SET /P VAR < temp.txt

> Isn't that intuitive?)

Why wouldn't "foo.exe | SET /P VAR" work? Or didn't pipes work in DOS like
they do in unix?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 28/08/2013 11:09 AM, scott wrote:
>>> You do realise if you get the "desktop" version of Win8 you get the
>>> standard Win7-like desktop too? It's only the "RT" version for low
>>> powered mobile devices that consists solely of the new GUI.
>>
>> If that's only the cut-down version, then why is all the marketing
>> material based on it?
>
> Because it's the new and flashy bit and that's what sells stuff.

If by "new and flashy" you mean "approximates the graphical capabilities 
of home computers 30 years ago" then, sure...

>> Also, the laptop we purchased to test Windows 8 with came with that
>> awful UI too, so...
>
> If it doesn't have a touch screen then I don't see any reason to use the
> new GUI.

It doesn't have a touchscreen.

Then again, when you buy stuff cheap off ebay... I guess you should just 
be glad it actually functions at all.

Post a reply to this message

On 28/08/2013 02:55 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> (OK, so if you do a Google search, there is actually a workaround for
>> grabbing command output in a variable. You can do this:
>
>>      foo.exe>  temp.txt
>>      SET /P VAR<  temp.txt
>
>> Isn't that intuitive?)
>
> Why wouldn't "foo.exe | SET /P VAR" work? Or didn't pipes work in DOS like
> they do in unix?

I'm not sure why it doesn't work - but I just tried it, and it doesn't.

It's probably related to SET being a shell built-in or something 
retarded like that.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:28:21 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> If by "new and flashy" you mean "approximates the graphical capabilities
> of home computers 30 years ago" then, sure...

Funny, Win 8 doesn't look like 8-bit computing to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:57:47 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Not that I've ever heard of anyone using it to solve any scripting tasks
> though

Actually, Powershell seems to be extremely popular for automating AD 
tasks.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Because it's the new and flashy bit and that's what sells stuff.
>
> If by "new and flashy" you mean "approximates the graphical capabilities
> of home computers 30 years ago" then, sure...

I don't see how it's any different to any other modern GUI in terms of 
graphical capabilities. The icons are much bigger because it's meant for 
much higher dpi screens and using your fingers rather than a mouse.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-08-27 15:25, Fractracer a écrit :
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
>>>>
>>>> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe
>>>
>>> Yes, I know, but this DOS is not a real DOS, try to launh a program like
>>> Fractint, it can't run.
>>
>> That's because DOS is a monotasking real-mode OS; applications run under
>> it have complete access to the physical hardware. The command prompt in
>> Windows is merely a DOS-compatible command interpreter. Windows itself
>> is a multitasking protected-mode OS. So a program like FractInt which
>> performs direct hardware access can never work under Windows.
>>
>> You can, however, run it in a virtual machine if you so desire...
>
> Yes, but I remember that MS has developed a multi-task version of DOS. Why MS
> has not implemented this version?
>
Because it was a joint venture with IBM and at one point they came at 
odds with IBM, and IBM took its ball and went home and continued to 
develop OS/2 on their own and MS had to start from scratch.

Also, direct hardware access, like what Fractint does would not be 
allowed under OS/2 either because if you have more than one process 
running, you need to make sure that two processes are not trying to 
access the same resource.

By the way, there's a Windows port of Fractint around.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-08-27 17:11, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 8/27/2013 6:45 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Le 2013-08-27 03:26, scott a écrit :
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a simplified UI existing. If
>>>> there's a product specifically for people who just want to surf the
>>>> Internet and send a few emails, then that's great! What I object to is
>>>> *me* being forced to use that same product.
>>>
>>> You do realise if you get the "desktop" version of Win8 you get the
>>> standard Win7-like desktop too? It's only the "RT" version for low
>>> powered mobile devices that consists solely of the new GUI.
>>>
>> Until 8.1 comes along and restores the "Start" button, you still have to
>> switch to the Lego-block screen to start new apps, unless you have a
>> shortcut on your desktop, which encourages clutter and everyone knows
>> that Windows boot time (and refreshes when you quit a full screen app,
>> such as a game) is proportional to the number of icons on your desktop.
>>
> Umm. Actually, no. I have it on my laptop, and maybe "apps" have that
> problem, but regular applications do have a "desktop" and the normal
> "start menu".

Huh?  Maybe I just didn't get enough coffee, but I'm having problems 
understanding what you're trying to say here...

The Start menu is not per application. It's a basic component of 
Explorer.  And in Windows 8, they removed it.  If you move your mouse to 
the lower left corner of the screen, you switch back to the welcome screen.

And it's causing so much uproar that they anounced that they would be 
bringing it back for 8.1.

This has nothing to do with apps or applications.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 29/08/2013 08:58 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Because it's the new and flashy bit and that's what sells stuff.
>>
>> If by "new and flashy" you mean "approximates the graphical capabilities
>> of home computers 30 years ago" then, sure...
>
> I don't see how it's any different to any other modern GUI in terms of
> graphical capabilities. The icons are much bigger because it's meant for
> much higher dpi screens and using your fingers rather than a mouse.

And the reduced colour set and the all-caps sans serif text and the 
square button edges?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/29/2013 6:50 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2013-08-27 17:11, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
>> On 8/27/2013 6:45 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>> Le 2013-08-27 03:26, scott a écrit :
>>>>> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a simplified UI
>>>>> existing. If
>>>>> there's a product specifically for people who just want to surf the
>>>>> Internet and send a few emails, then that's great! What I object to is
>>>>> *me* being forced to use that same product.
>>>>
>>>> You do realise if you get the "desktop" version of Win8 you get the
>>>> standard Win7-like desktop too? It's only the "RT" version for low
>>>> powered mobile devices that consists solely of the new GUI.
>>>>
>>> Until 8.1 comes along and restores the "Start" button, you still have to
>>> switch to the Lego-block screen to start new apps, unless you have a
>>> shortcut on your desktop, which encourages clutter and everyone knows
>>> that Windows boot time (and refreshes when you quit a full screen app,
>>> such as a game) is proportional to the number of icons on your desktop.
>>>
>> Umm. Actually, no. I have it on my laptop, and maybe "apps" have that
>> problem, but regular applications do have a "desktop" and the normal
>> "start menu".
>
> Huh?  Maybe I just didn't get enough coffee, but I'm having problems
> understanding what you're trying to say here...
>
> The Start menu is not per application. It's a basic component of
> Explorer.  And in Windows 8, they removed it.  If you move your mouse to
> the lower left corner of the screen, you switch back to the welcome screen.
>
> And it's causing so much uproar that they anounced that they would be
> bringing it back for 8.1.
>
> This has nothing to do with apps or applications.
>
No they didn't. When you go into "desktop mode", it is still there. I 
should bloody well know, I own a laptop with that OS on it. The problem 
is, it "starts up in" the silly app mode, and any time you do certain 
things that case an "app" to run, or move the mouse into certain areas, 
etc., you run the risk of having the damn thing go back into the default 
mode. All they seem to be doing with "adding back in the start menu", on 
the PC/laptop versions is making it so the start menu is enabled all the 
time, even when its in the initial starting mode, where it is normally 
hidden.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/27/2013 3:57 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.08.2013 23:19, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>> On 8/27/2013 3:31 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>> "Fractracer" <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I remember win95, a good user interface with DOS - where is DOS now?
>>>
>>> Hidden in the command prompt box: cmd.exe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Uh. No. That is a shell, yes, and it "sort of" works like DOS, but.. its
>> oddly missing like.. every single added program that ever came with, it,
>> including "basic" ones, like ways to make your "shell" wait for a
>> keypress, or any other damn thing at all. And, of course, since they
>> *don't* want you to actually use it, they never added in any of the
>> features that might have gotten into it (if they had stolen them from
>> say 4DOS, or others), before Win3.11 came around.
>
> Well, they /did/ add support for blanks in command parameters at least.
> And for long filenames, thank God and all the angels! (Cursed be every
> piece of software that still makes any use of 8.3 filenames! - They're
> /still/ in Windows for backward compatibility.)
>
> As for them not wanting you to use it, what they do want you to use
> nowadays is the PowerShell. Not that I've ever heard of anyone using it
> to solve any scripting tasks though: They either seem to be using .bat
> files for cmd.exe, or asking you to install python.
>
Except that it can't bloody make up its mind when it works, and doesn't, 
some times. You get the same problem though trying to manually edit 
links. If you don't put "" around certain things the OS, despite 
supposedly knowing about bloody spaces in file names, freaks out and 
won't save it. Because, you know, the GUI should get just as confused by 
such names as the cmd.exe program does... lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/27/2013 6:18 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/08/2013 10:19 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>> Good example - you are not supposed to use it, so, even "edit" doesn't
>> exist in it.
>
> The 32 bit version still has edlin, though.
>
Ugh.. Yeah, and I use MS paint, instead of Photoshop like ...all the 
time... lol They keep the useless shit, and lose all the crap that 
actually worked.

Post a reply to this message

On 31/08/2013 8:27 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 8/27/2013 6:18 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> The 32 bit version still has edlin, though.
>>
> Ugh.. Yeah, and I use MS paint, instead of Photoshop like ...all the
> time... lol They keep the useless shit, and lose all the crap that
> actually worked.


Yes, well. Just think of it as junk DNA or a bit of history. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 
>>     foo.exe    > temp.txt
>>     SET /P VAR < temp.txt

That actually works on CMD, no need for Powershell for that :).

>> Isn't that intuitive?)
> 
> Why wouldn't "foo.exe | SET /P VAR" work? Or didn't pipes work in DOS like
> they do in unix?
> 

Either that or SET being not an actual command, but as Orchid said, it
doesn't. BTDTCTHO (Been There, Done That, Cursed The Hell Out)

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> 
> As for them not wanting you to use it, what they do want you to use
> nowadays is the PowerShell. Not that I've ever heard of anyone using it
> to solve any scripting tasks though: They either seem to be using .bat
> files for cmd.exe, or asking you to install python.
> 

There's pretty handy extensions available for administering Vsphere over
Powershell. I'm not deep in it yet, but I've already found it useful at
work.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> 
> I should probably go buy the competitor's OS instead. Oh, wait...

No need to buy, Linux and *BSD are available just by downloading ;).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:19:45 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> What I *do* have an issue with is MS deciding that *I* can't get stuff
> done with my own PC because "most" end-users don't need that feature.

Such as?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/31/2013 12:35 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 31/08/2013 8:27 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 8/27/2013 6:18 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> The 32 bit version still has edlin, though.
>>>
>> Ugh.. Yeah, and I use MS paint, instead of Photoshop like ...all the
>> time... lol They keep the useless shit, and lose all the crap that
>> actually worked.
>
>
> Yes, well. Just think of it as junk DNA or a bit of history. :-)
>
Snort.. So.. all the smart, better, tools got caught in a flash flood, 
and are now, at best, fossilized, while the slow, stupid ones, which 
never made it into the river bed, before the flood hit, kept breeding... 
Yeah, that sounds about right. lol

Post a reply to this message