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

> 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

> On 8/27/2013 6:45 AM, Francois Labreque 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.
>>>
>> 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