Windoze 8

I have to run an errand now, but stay tuned for "Windows 7: What's the big deal?" (maybe I'm not happy if I can't complain).

As is well known, no Microsoft OS release has been accepted without any criticism. BUt that is irrelevant. What matters is the widespread appraisal of each system after a few years on the amrket. So we know XP was very well liked, that Vista was despised, and apparently people went all gaga over Windows 7.

Now, the problems with Vista were two-fold. First you had the "feature" that kept asking your permission whenever you clicked on anything (or so it seems), but that was fixed on a service pack, and could be configured anyway (though not easily). The other problem was the speed, or lack of speed, at which the system ran. It was slow, regardless of what PC it was isntalled in.

But the interface was lovely. It debuted the venerable Aero Glass theme, the windows preview thumbnails (which I disabled as soon as I got it running), some 3D effects and more. Famously, too, it exhcanged the "start" button for a Windows Orb (which carried over to the infamous Office Orb in Office 2007). But people kept calling it the start button.

So Vista is proof positive that half a loaf is worse than none. People stuck to XP for years.

Windows 7 is often called "Vista done right." It sort of is. It has many of the same interface features, but it runs fast (or at least no slower than XP did). However, it added and removed some things, and changed some principles. Notably:

1) Icons pinned to the taskbar.

I hate the idea of it. I use the taskbar to keep track of my work. I can't do that if icons occupy that space. Worse, if you combine open windows, they show up in the taskbar, pinned or not, as one icon. So you must maneuver the mouse to bring up the tiny thumbnails, then decide which of the seemingly identical miniature Excel windows is the one you want. Pass. However, this brings us to:

2) Less choice in set up and configurations.

Many choices, such as showing thumbnails, were done away with. the thumbnails are there whether you want them or not. This is repeated through the whole taskbar, too. Whether you pin icons and/or cpmbine windows or not, the icon or box will highlight when moused over (that's a sentence that would have been meaningless as recently as a decade ago!) This goes way back to XP. But in XP the highlight was a subtle increase in color intensity. In 7 it changes the color and intensity with all the subtlety of a flash-bulb an inch from your eye. And there's no way to remove this "feature."

I ahve to go run another errand, but I'll continue this later.

3) Scattered controls. Until Vista, most configuration controls were consolidated by sections. For example, setting the screensaver, desktop background, screen size, resolution and color was all in one place. Now they're scattered. Not too badly, but it makes them difficult to find.

4) Notification area. This I rather like. but it's worth mentioning past versions of the notificationa rea never worked as intended. Up to Vista, I'd have to keep instructing the system to hide the video card and antivirus icons, and not to hide the network status and volume icons. So in this repsect Win 7 does improve on things. But this also means it's ahrder to eject a thumb drive.

5) No quick launch icons. Now, wait. Wasn't I complaining about stuff being pinned to the taskbar, and now am I not saying some of it is missing? Well, yes. But here's the thing: I can "pin" the quick launch icons anywhere in the taskbar at all, while the pinned icons are on the left. I put the quick launch icons on the right, next to the notification area where they don't get in the way, and I only pin 3 icons there, also they are tiny, not full-size. This missing feature can be restored, albeit with difficulty.

6) Bunched taskbar programs. This is an addendum to the first point. By default the taskbar open programs are combined (I use it in Spanish, so some of my terms may be off). This could be done since Win98, maybe even earlier. Regardless, combined with the pinned icons, this renders the taskbar useless for me.

You know, I've been using computers since the Apple ][e in the 80s, followed a few years later by a PC with MS-DOS 3.3. At the time I had occasion to use other brands, all now gone, each with its own OS. Attaris (400 and 800) Radio Shack's TRS-80 Color Computer, Apple ][+, even a Commodore 64. I used them with floppy drives, with tape cassettes, without any external storage, with ROM cartridges, and I never, ever had any problem whatsoever "launching" an "app" (we called it running a program, too).

I need to ask when, then, did running a program become so hard that Windows has to let you find them in the start menu, the quick launch toolbar, stuck all over the desktop and pinned ot the taskbar?

More later.

7) The Search box in the Start Menu. This is related to the sixth point. of course this originated in Vista, but it was sold as a revolutionary feature then, only it took forever to look for anything. THis last is not true of Win7. It's fast enough. And I don't like it. Well, then, don't use it, right. I mean "just" don't use it. Would that it were that simple.

I keep a few programs pinned to the start menu, and have recently used ones there as well. since Win95 I picked the habit of typing the windows key, then the first letter of a program's name. For example, to run "calculator" I type "c." But doing that in vista strated the OS searching for "c" in the hard drive. The same thign happens in Win7. Running Vista several years cured me of that habit.

But there's more. I found out how to remove the search box (and why isn't that a simple option to begin with??) I haven't removed it becase often when i search online for help with some other aprt fo the system, instead of isntructions saying "open X in control panel and chose Y" it says "type"gobbledygook" on search and then..."

This is the puerile way of doing things. Rather than find out, say, that there is a way to control all the default values in the taskbar, or the start menu, you're directed to a given pigeonhole. You're no wiser to the location of anything.

These are all my complaints. But there remain two points: 1) While it runs much better, and faster, than vista ever dreamed of, functionally it just isn't as good. I don't care how Vista is the standard by which all badness is measured. 2) Microsoft chose to double down on many of these changes for the worse, making them even more integral to Windows 8(.1) For example, there is so little choice left that the default lock screen, which is completely useless in a desktop PC, cannot be easily removed. Search is the preferred way to "launch" "apps," followed distantly by "pinning" "apps" to the taskbar.

Win7 is a good enough OS, no question,a nd as far as usage and functionality goes, it's much better than Windows 8(.1). But I am beginning to miss the usage and functionality of XP.

8) Jump lists. While it's easy enough to disable this "feature," I've issues with how the secondary menu for programs running in the taskbar has changed. Gone is the option to minimize and resize. The latter is not important, but I do miss the former. yes, i know I can minimize by just selecting the task and then clicking on it, but years of doing it a different way make changes difficult.

Why notuse the jump lists? I counter that with why use them? It's opening a program all over again. I have a home apge option in the browser, and I use bookmarks for other sites. For programs like Word or Excel, 99% of the time I open the program by double-clicking on the saved document. Given how I work, 9 out of 10 times it won't be in the jump list anyway.

And this is another exampel of MS adding stuff, which can either be sued or not, but also removing features which were used. What's up with that? Inquiring minds want to know.

My new Windows 7 PC has HDMI in/out ports. It also has a 23" monitor (and let me tell you the change from 17" takes some getting used to). I suppose I could connect it to the TV in the room and stream video from Netflix, say. Still, I wonder if that's even necessary. The 23" screen would be good enough to watch TV, and I'm guessing a long enough HDMI cable will cost some money. I had thought, too, to get a Google Chromecast on my next trip to Vegas. With that I can use either the PC or the tablet to watch video on the TV.

Does anyone know of an online tutorial concerning all these things?

This is the result of having had crappy PCs while the streaming revolution was taking place. The old Vista barely managed Youtube videos, and only on a good day.

FInally the buzz on the Xbox one is dying (who cares about a gaming system anyway?) Now some more buzz about the next CEO has been resurrected.

Aside from the fact that a major company's board electing a CEO is the closest thing to the Senate electing a new Roman Emperor (which wasn't as regular an occurrence as one might think), my only interest is that the new guy will understand a desktop PC is not a tablet and it needs a different OS.

I mean taking away touch-based stuff, but also much more. A real, full-featured desktop. Or at the least something which improves on the desktop. The M/M/W interface is far from an improvement for reasons I've expounded on here. But there's more. A desktop has a great deal more processing power, and it does not depend on a abttery. So built-in OS features to use up less CPU cycles and less power, such as "flattening" the interface and taking out Aero Glass, makes no sense on the desktop. It's like making sure a nuclear powered aircraft carrier has enough oars to propell itself. Ridiculous. Other tablet features like the lock screen must go or be easily removed.

I realize MS had a bad experience with the myriad versions of Vista (I did as well), and they naturally don't want multiple Windows versions out there. But different devices are different and require different OSes. Phones and tablets are simialr enough they can run the same OS, see Android and iOS. But a desktop PC is too different to work well as a tablet or phone. it simply wastes all the CPU power, RAM and energy available.

UPDATE: ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley reports the next Windows development is codenamed "Threshold." No details about the kind of interface it will have. No clue as to whetehr this will be a Win8.2 or a new Windows OS altogether.

Going by past events, which is often no real guide in this situation, there should be a pattern-breaking new OS. That is to say Win95 to 98, then XP. Next Vista, which failed. So Win7, then Win8. But as the last one is a flop, then some kind of non-numerical name next and a new OS altogether as comapred to Win7.

Of course there is a whole in my progression, but then it wouldn't be neat.

I've been involved in a few minor skirmishes in tech websites, involving my views on Windows8(.1). Whenever I state a categorical view, such as saying Windows 8.(1) is a tablet OS, I get hit back by demands that I try it before commenting on it. I get the same reaction to milder suggestions. For example, I suggested that people running Win8 in desktop only with a third-party shell may not feel the need to upgrade to 8.1, especially since most changes apply to the M/M/W interface anyway (and what applies tothe desktop si achieved by the third-party shells already).

It seems Win8(.1) boosters just think anyone who does not appreciate the goodness and blessings of Microsoft's Most Magnus Opus Parthicus Maximus(*) must never have had the honor and priviledge of setting their sights upon It.

I admit it's a very good OS under the hood. It's fast, stable, secure and even makes Julienne Fries and all that. But without a full featured desktop, including the start menu, it's not a desktop OS.



(*) Those familiar with Roman history and naming conventions should find this funny. Or they would had Lucius Verus, the little emperor who didn't screw up, not named himself Parthicus Maximus

Quote: Wizard

Anyway, I will be expecting a Windows 8 lesson your next Vegas visit, since you're obviously very familiar with it.

Alas it seems a bit likely I won't be able to make it to Vegas in 2014. A matter of unexpected expenses on top of the tablet and desktop, you see. Right now my odds for a successful vacation are around 47% :(

So if you don't want to twait until 2015, tell me what you want from your PC and we can work out how to get it there.

Now the Windows 8.1 apologists (look it up) are claiming Windows 8.1 has a full-featured desktop.

To parapphrase the great Victor Hugo: WTF?!?

So that's the fight now.

One thing I've yet to rail against is the consequences of both the mandatory log-in with a Microsoft account and the integrated Bing search. See, to run Windows 8(.1) you have to log in with an MS account (Outlook.com, Hotmail.com, whatever). You can sidestep it at install and for a while, but as soon as you are connected to the internet in any way, the system will demand it. IN addition MS integrated Bing to the search used when looking for programs, apps, settings, documents, etc inside your PC. Of course, since most people have broadband on when they're using their PCs, it will also search the internet.

Regardless of the merits of this approach (and I've yet to grasp what these, if any, are), this means Microsoft can access your private searches in your own PC any time it wants.

It's strikes me as a low sort of chutzpah to parody how Google collects data from its users, while MS gets even more itnrusive with such collection. It will know what terms you search for in your own PC. That's creepy. It will know what you run and when, too.

That's why Apple's famous 1984 Super Bowl commercial seems premature now.