 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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:
>> 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.
>
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] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
