Need help finding a specific support article on basic fundamentals

[Gene E. Bloch]

Or, if some parts simply misuse the English language.


There's nothing "wrong" here, other than MS's inability to read, write,
and understand English. LOL And it's not the first time MS has played
fast and loose with the English language, if memory serves.

If you check out Wikipedia, "A library (from French "librairie"; Latin
"liber" = book) is an organized collection of information resources made
accessible to a defined community for reference or borrowing." Notice
the word organized. If you take X numbers of folders with disorganized
data, you just end up with all the disorganized data in one location
instead of X locations.

As Char noted, some people like the way they work. But, I wonder, if a
survey could be taken, would the organized users of hard drives be
equally enthused, especially if they have spent a lot of time in real
libraries growing up, and understand the card file/Dewey decimal system.

I expected better. And I often expect better of OS X, too.

Guess you could say, I'm an equal opportunity "expecter". LOL

And to continue to play with words, there's the old saying, "If you
expect to rate, don't expectorate." <grin>

Oddly, I'm half listening to Fresh Air on a local NPR station, where at
this moment they're talking about saliva. Uncanny...

Later in the show, the teaser indicates that the interviewee will be
talking about her colonoscopy. I'm glad your remarks didn't foreshadow
that

Aside from bad word play (it takes one to know one, of course), it's
pretty clear that what doesn't work for me does work for Char. It's hard
to argue with that (well, no, it's easy to argue, but not a good idea!).

 

[Ken Springer]

Aside from bad word play (it takes one to know one, of course), it's
pretty clear that what doesn't work for me does work for Char. It's hard
to argue with that (well, no, it's easy to argue, but not a good idea!).

Or, at least smart enough to know the difference. LOL

All in all, it's what you want the computer to do for you. It seems,
that for the 3 of us, you, me, and Char, the system works only for Char.
IMO, MS should have written the code so it works for all of us, and
those that want something different from what the 3 of us want.

The more I get to know Win 7, the less impressed I am. Yes, there are
some improvements. Many of the system dialogs are the same as XP, just
harder to find. At least for me. And why didn't they make Homegroup
backwards compatible? Since the old system still exists so you can
network with XP and Vista, why didn't they provide previous, happy
customers the ability to use Homegroup in XP and Vista?

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.3
Firefox 19.0.2
Thunderbird 17.0.4
LibreOffice 4.0.1.2

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Springer

The more I get to know Win 7, the less impressed I am. Yes, there are
some improvements. Many of the system dialogs are the same as XP, just

I certainly haven't seen a killer reason - among what _I_ do (and want
to) with computers - to leave XP (for 7 _or_ 8). (Yes, I'm [vaguely]
aware of the limitations of XP, but they haven't impinged on me yet: I
suspect the main one will be hardware support.)

harder to find. At least for me. And why didn't they make Homegroup
backwards compatible? Since the old system still exists so you can
network with XP and Vista, why didn't they provide previous, happy
customers the ability to use Homegroup in XP and Vista?

The usual argument against that, or at least making that the _default_,
is that if they do, people will never learn the advantages of the new
way of doing _whatever_, because they'll never use the new way. I'm sure
there is a lot in that - though it's far from the whole story.

 

[charlie]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Springer

The more I get to know Win 7, the less impressed I am. Yes, there are
some improvements. Many of the system dialogs are the same as XP, just

I certainly haven't seen a killer reason - among what _I_ do (and want
to) with computers - to leave XP (for 7 _or_ 8). (Yes, I'm [vaguely]
aware of the limitations of XP, but they haven't impinged on me yet: I
suspect the main one will be hardware support.)

harder to find. At least for me. And why didn't they make Homegroup
backwards compatible? Since the old system still exists so you can
network with XP and Vista, why didn't they provide previous, happy
customers the ability to use Homegroup in XP and Vista?

The usual argument against that, or at least making that the _default_,
is that if they do, people will never learn the advantages of the new
way of doing _whatever_, because they'll never use the new way. I'm sure
there is a lot in that - though it's far from the whole story.

What you are forgetting is that Microsoft makes money by selling "new"
operating systems. Patching the old system has been a break even at
best. Unless there is some over riding advantage to the new system,
business customers will usually stay with the old one as long as it's
practical to do so. Retraining and even temporary drops in efficiency
are costs to be minimized when possible.

 

[Ken Springer]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Springer

The more I get to know Win 7, the less impressed I am. Yes, there are
some improvements. Many of the system dialogs are the same as XP, just

I certainly haven't seen a killer reason - among what _I_ do (and want
to) with computers - to leave XP (for 7 _or_ 8). (Yes, I'm [vaguely]
aware of the limitations of XP, but they haven't impinged on me yet: I
suspect the main one will be hardware support.)

The question is, what features/capabilities are truly new with each OS
release? The next question is, do you really need it?

The usual argument against that, or at least making that the _default_,
is that if they do, people will never learn the advantages of the new
way of doing _whatever_, because they'll never use the new way. I'm sure
there is a lot in that - though it's far from the whole story.

Then I think the question is, what are the new features? Or, is what's
offered simply a refinement of something the computer could already do?

If it's #2, I don't consider it a new feature. Just an evolution of
something already there.

There's lots of examples of this if you care to do the research.

Let's take automobile radios. The very first one available, was a new
feature/capability for autos. Not every car had one, but when it was
added to other cars, it's not a new feature/capability, you're just
copying something someone else did.

A good example of the radio's evolution is the ability of the auto radio
to scan to the next station. When do you think that came along? 10
years ago? 15? 25? I don't know when the first auto radio came to
market with that ability. But I do know the radio in a 1946 Hudson
pickup could scan to the next station. I've seen one working.

VisiCalc was a new feature/capability. It was the very first
spreadsheet. Excel, Numbers, Lotus 1-2-3, whatever, were just copying
what came before them. Evolving with more things it could do, but it's
not something that had never been done before.



--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.3
Firefox 19.0.2
Thunderbird 17.0.4
LibreOffice 4.0.1.2

 

[Ken Springer]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Springer

The more I get to know Win 7, the less impressed I am. Yes, there are
some improvements. Many of the system dialogs are the same as XP, just

I certainly haven't seen a killer reason - among what _I_ do (and want
to) with computers - to leave XP (for 7 _or_ 8). (Yes, I'm [vaguely]
aware of the limitations of XP, but they haven't impinged on me yet: I
suspect the main one will be hardware support.)

harder to find. At least for me. And why didn't they make Homegroup
backwards compatible? Since the old system still exists so you can
network with XP and Vista, why didn't they provide previous, happy
customers the ability to use Homegroup in XP and Vista?

The usual argument against that, or at least making that the _default_,
is that if they do, people will never learn the advantages of the new
way of doing _whatever_, because they'll never use the new way. I'm sure
there is a lot in that - though it's far from the whole story.

What you are forgetting is that Microsoft makes money by selling "new"
operating systems. Patching the old system has been a break even at
best. Unless there is some over riding advantage to the new system,
business customers will usually stay with the old one as long as it's
practical to do so. Retraining and even temporary drops in efficiency
are costs to be minimized when possible.

I disagree, here. MS could simply have continued to improve XP, and all
new computers would still have XP running on them. Assuming the
purchaser wants Windows. So, in essence, each new computer was a sale
of a new copy of the OS. But with a lot less development costs to be
paid for.

To sell a completely new OS, you have to convince the public that in
some cases, the new "things" in the new OS didn't exist before. You've
added something that couldn't be done before.

But, if you read my thread on libraries, you'll note I found a way to do
libraries that could be replicated at least back to Win 95 (probably, I
don't have a working copy of Win95 up and running). The computer always
had the ability to get the same results, just not as easily.

And a lot of the Win 7 dialogues are the same as the XP ones, moved
around somewhere else. So, nothing new, you just put things on a
different shelf.

Don't go with the 64 bit business, there was a 64 bit version of XP.

And with a lot of things that come out, do you really need it? Or do
you just want it? <grin> I mean, when your on vacation in California,
do you really need to sent that photo back to Mom in Kansas? It can't
wait?


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.3
Firefox 19.0.2
Thunderbird 17.0.4
LibreOffice 4.0.1.2

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On 4/4/13 7:35 PM, charlie wrote: []

What you are forgetting is that Microsoft makes money by selling "new"
operating systems. Patching the old system has been a break even at
best. Unless there is some over riding advantage to the new system,
business customers will usually stay with the old one as long as it's
practical to do so. Retraining and even temporary drops in efficiency
are costs to be minimized when possible.

The question is what stops it being practical (to stay with the old).
Probably availability: MS just stop, effectively, selling the old OS,
sooner or later, so you have to move up when your old computer dies.
[]

To sell a completely new OS, you have to convince the public that in
some cases, the new "things" in the new OS didn't exist before. You've
added something that couldn't be done before.

Or, just stop selling the old one, so they have no choice.
[]

Don't go with the 64 bit business, there was a 64 bit version of XP.

Which had problems. (As do the 64-W7s, though they might be different
ones. I'm not sure if there even is a 32-W8.)

And with a lot of things that come out, do you really need it? Or do
you just want it? <grin> I mean, when your on vacation in California, [that's "you're"]
do you really need to sent that photo back to Mom in Kansas? It can't
wait?

But if it couldn't, why would I buy a new OS to do it? I could email
pictures with XP, '98SElite, 95 I think - probably 3.1, and even DOS.

 

[Ken Springer]

On 4/4/13 7:35 PM, charlie wrote: []

What you are forgetting is that Microsoft makes money by selling "new"
operating systems. Patching the old system has been a break even at
best. Unless there is some over riding advantage to the new system,
business customers will usually stay with the old one as long as it's
practical to do so. Retraining and even temporary drops in efficiency
are costs to be minimized when possible.

The question is what stops it being practical (to stay with the old).
Probably availability: MS just stop, effectively, selling the old OS,
sooner or later, so you have to move up when your old computer dies.
[]

To sell a completely new OS, you have to convince the public that in
some cases, the new "things" in the new OS didn't exist before. You've
added something that couldn't be done before.

Or, just stop selling the old one, so they have no choice.

Plus, getting the hardware manufacturer's to stop supporting the old OS,
also forcing the users to buy new.

[]

Don't go with the 64 bit business, there was a 64 bit version of XP.

Which had problems. (As do the 64-W7s, though they might be different
ones. I'm not sure if there even is a 32-W8.)

And what really stopped them from fixing the problems?

And with a lot of things that come out, do you really need it? Or do
you just want it? <grin> I mean, when your on vacation in California,

[that's "you're"]

Brain gets far ahead of the fingers at time, plus I hate the keyboard
I'm using at the moment.

But if it couldn't, why would I buy a new OS to do it? I could email
pictures with XP, '98SElite, 95 I think - probably 3.1, and even DOS.

I struggling here, and can't come up with a reason any personal pic
can't wait.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.3
Firefox 19.0.2
Thunderbird 17.0.4
LibreOffice 4.0.1.2

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Springer

And what really stopped them from fixing the problems?

Lack of return on investment: XP-64's takeup was pretty low.

And with a lot of things that come out, do you really need it? Or do
you just want it? <grin> I mean, when your on vacation in California, []
do you really need to sent that photo back to Mom in Kansas? It can't
wait?

But if it couldn't, why would I buy a new OS to do it? I could email
pictures with XP, '98SElite, 95 I think - probably 3.1, and even DOS.

I struggling here, and can't come up with a reason any personal pic
can't wait.

My point was that whether they can or can't wait, that's no reason to
need a new OS.

 

[Ken Springer]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Springer
<[email protected]> writes:

Lack of return on investment: XP-64's takeup was pretty low.

I never knew there was a 64 bit version for a long time. So there
probably wasn't much in the way of 64 bit software either.

My point was that whether they can or can't wait, that's no reason to
need a new OS.

Agreed.



--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.3
Firefox 19.0.2
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.1.2

 

[charlie]

I never knew there was a 64 bit version for a long time. So there
probably wasn't much in the way of 64 bit software either.



Agreed.

The way I looked at it.
XP was adequate for 99.9% of my requirements.
XP was on the way out, and support was fast going away.

Win 7 is my preferred OPS system at present, and I use it every day.

I also use (occasionally) an XP "netbook" for special purposes, and
see no reason to even consider updating it. Reasons to not update might
be found, but there's no reason to expend the additional thought.

In the corner is an older HP Vista multimedia laptop. I'd update it, but
getting drivers (some may not be available) and making the multimedia
features work in Win 7 or 8 looks to be a real problem.

As a "learning experience", I also have a "new" Win 8 custom assembled
desktop I'm using for some hardware testing. So far, the "Metro"
features are more of a hindrance than a help.

My brokerage account looks better when MS Stock is up, so please
disregard my remarks concerning "Metro", and buy Win 8!