Ratarded OS

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

Look at the Task Bar to see what is running. If a Windows was being
displayed but it was hidden from view by another window, it's going to be
on the Task Bar -- look at it. The window asking you for a response should
have been highlighted in the Task Bar too.

Not necessarilty.
Sometimes the only way to find these hidden dialog boxes is to minimize all
the other windows one by one.

 

[H-Man]

On 4/6/2011 5:06 PM, H-Man wrote:

A parent window? An running application is going to have a parent window
that can have child windows.I don't want a dialog box from another
application to take focus away from the application window I am looking
at on the screen.

That's snatching focus from the program that has focus. I know that one
is being notified that a dialog box is there. It happens all the time,
just minimize the application's screen, placing it on the Task Bar so
you can see screens of other programs.

I know I wouldn't change the behavior. I don't view it as a big deal,
and a user must be aware of the signals and what is happening on his or
her machine and not need to be slapped in the face by another running
program's window taking/snatching focus.

I don't really see it as a big deal either, and it appears as though it may
not actually be an OS issue anyway, but a programming issue in the
installer. If that's the case, then it's just bad (or good depending)
programming. Either way, entirely too much has been made of the topic IMO.

Those that don't like Win7 should use what they like. Those that don't like
XP should use what they like. For me, I live in a free (open for debate
sometimes I suppose) market country, so I use what suits me. Furthermore,
if I don't like what's available I have the option of making my own if I
were so inclined. Of course this would be way out of my depth at this
point, doubt I'll undertake such a project at my age, so I'll just use what
suits my needs the best and do my best to develop for what suits my
customers' needs the best.

 

[BillW50]

I have forgotten more than you'll ever know about XP or any prior
versions of the O/S too.

Time will tell, won't it?

You are going to try to tell me about that open
by default O/S. What the hell are you talking about anyway? I tell why
XP is hard to kill off. There are 16 trillion of them in use, and they
had a majority of market. It's going to take a long time to kill-off XP
(the numbers).

Apparently you have forgotten. When Windows 3.1 came out with over 1000
improvements, the masses dropped Windows 3.0 and switched over. Then
Windows 95 came out, the masses switched over again. Then Windows 98SE
was also a big hit. Windows ME wasn't accepted well, but Microsoft
didn't spend a lot of time on it and it showed. The next big hit was XP.
The masses dropped older versions of Windows in huge numbers.

Then Vista came out and it was a huge disappointment for the masses.
Then Microsoft tried to recover with Windows 7. Although Microsoft was
disappointed that it wasn't as widely accepted as they had hoped.

But that is not going stop MS from moving on, me and a
whole lot of others.

Everybody moves on, nothing new there.

You want to talk about idiots and something for idiots, then that's your
problem. If you want to use old technology and bury your head in the
sand, that's problem.

I heard that same argument for decades. They said the same thing about
CP/M 3, DR-DOS, GEOS, OS/2, Linux, GEM, etc. And they all proved that
keeping up with technology doesn't mean it will be successful.

And what history has showed us about what makes something successful is
by giving the masses what they want. This is why Microsoft is still in
business today while many others has bit the dust.

Although I see a change at Microsoft. They are not giving the masses
what they want as much anymore. Now they are focusing more about what
they want instead. And this is the same mistake that many others has
done in the past.

If the new Microsoft continues down this road, I see their dominance in
the desktop market just fading away. As this is the same mistake that
all of the others have made in the past.

Heck you can see this happening in the numbers already. As both the Mac
and Linux has been gaining more and more of the market share away from
Microsoft.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

If you want to reminisce about old times, you can't live again , that's
your problem.

Reminisce? No, it is about people making the same dumb mistakes over and
over again. Funny how many people just don't remember the mistakes from
the past.

All I see is more of your lip-service without a lick of evidence or
proof of anything. Your lip-service doesn't cut it. I got a theory too.

My theory is lip-service is a dime a dozen and everyone has lip-service,
including you.

Lip service? Hardly. It is a well known fact, if you make something
idiot proof, only an idiot would want to use it.

 

[BillW50]

Not true. The XP Usenet groups were full of posts extolling the virtues
of 2k and 98 over XP. In fact, XP wasn't really that great until SP2.

Really? Then why does the numbers say differently?

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Up to July of 2003, Windows 2000 still had the biggest market share.

By September of 2003, XP became the new leader. And it has remained
there until this very day. No other version of OS has ever held such
dominance for so long since the history of computers.

What Microsoft needs to do to keep its dominance is to come out with
another big hit like Windows 95 and XP had done. Whether Microsoft still
has the expertise to pull it off still remains to be seen.

 

[BillW50]

In fact, a lot them had the same things to say about XP that you're
saying about Windows 7.

I remember people complaining about all of the eye candy and bloat into
XP. Which has understandable because computers at the time didn't have
enough memory to run it really well. But as time went on, memory got
cheaper and cheaper. Plus machines nowadays you can add an ungodly
amount of RAM. So all of those complaints about bloat all disappeared.
Even netbooks could run XP well nowadays.

 

[Big Steel]

Time will tell, won't it?

You have shown me nothing to prove otherwise.

Apparently you have forgotten. When Windows 3.1 came out with over 1000
improvements, the masses dropped Windows 3.0 and switched over. Then
Windows 95 came out, the masses switched over again. Then Windows 98SE
was also a big hit. Windows ME wasn't accepted well, but Microsoft
didn't spend a lot of time on it and it showed. The next big hit was XP.
The masses dropped older versions of Windows in huge numbers.

Then Vista came out and it was a huge disappointment for the masses.
Then Microsoft tried to recover with Windows 7. Although Microsoft was
disappointed that it wasn't as widely accepted as they had hoped.

Vista is rock solid now, and I never had an issue with Vista out of the
gate in the first place, because I took the time to understand the
changes and how they worked.

Everybody moves on, nothing new there.

It is what it is.

I heard that same argument for decades. They said the same thing about
CP/M 3, DR-DOS, GEOS, OS/2, Linux, GEM, etc. And they all proved that
keeping up with technology doesn't mean it will be successful.

It's still your problem. If you want to linger there, then again that's
your problem. My job is to keep pace with new technology staying on the
bleeding edge.

And what history has showed us about what makes something successful is
by giving the masses what they want. This is why Microsoft is still in
business today while many others has bit the dust.

No, MS knows it's time to re-architecture the in bringing the Windows
O/S in line with what is happening with and the eradication of COM based
solutions in favor of .NET based solutions. MS's has clearly drawn the
line in the sand on XP.

Although I see a change at Microsoft. They are not giving the masses
what they want as much anymore. Now they are focusing more about what
they want instead. And this is the same mistake that many others has
done in the past.

It's about what MS needs to do in order to move forward. If you and some
others want to hang with XP, then more power to you.

If the new Microsoft continues down this road, I see their dominance in
the desktop market just fading away. As this is the same mistake that
all of the others have made in the past.

Heck you can see this happening in the numbers already. As both the Mac
and Linux has been gaining more and more of the market share away from
Microsoft.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

That link doesn't mean a whole lot to me, because they are a dime a
dozen. You can always find something that gives a different perspective.

http://connectwww.com/operating-system-market-share-february-2011/848/

Reminisce? No, it is about people making the same dumb mistakes over and
over again. Funny how many people just don't remember the mistakes from
the past.

I don't need a history lesson. It's something I am not going to worry
about either.

Lip service? Hardly. It is a well known fact, if you make something
idiot proof, only an idiot would want to use it.

It's total nonsense. All I see is lip-service out of you and nothing else.

If you want to get up on a soapbox and preach, then you don't do it with me.

When did you anoint yourself to be a soapbox preacher?

 

[BillW50]

You have shown me nothing to prove otherwise.
Likewise.


Vista is rock solid now, and I never had an issue with Vista out of the
gate in the first place, because I took the time to understand the
changes and how they worked.

I am sure a small handful say that Windows ME is solid now too.
Microsoft admits Vista was a failure (and the numbers show it as well).
And there was a time that I used to waste my time with new OS that were
doomed to be a failure too. But I frankly got tired to be the Ginny-pig
of doomed systems.

It is what it is.


It's still your problem. If you want to linger there, then again that's
your problem. My job is to keep pace with new technology staying on the
bleeding edge.

Yeah right! Why people falsely accuse me of things I didn't do or say,
I'll never know? But FYI I was using Windows 7 RC when it was first
released. And I even put in a 6 month preordered and ordered a few
copies of Windows 7. So I too am on the bleeding edge according to your
standards as well.

No, MS knows it's time to re-architecture the in bringing the Windows
O/S in line with what is happening with and the eradication of COM based
solutions in favor of .NET based solutions. MS's has clearly drawn the
line in the sand on XP.

Microsoft always draws lines in the sand. Sometimes it sticks and
sometimes it doesn't. Microsoft definitely had plenty of failures.

It's about what MS needs to do in order to move forward. If you and some
others want to hang with XP, then more power to you.

No what I am saying is what made Microsoft who they are today is fading.
And they are now making the same mistakes that doomed others in the past.

I know all of these things because I have followed it for decades. As I
knew MS-DOS was going to replace CP/M. I knew DR-DOS and GEM would fail.
And when DR hooked up with GEOS, I knew that would fail too. I knew the
Mac was always going to be a niche. Same for Linux as well. Although all
this could change if Microsoft stays on its present course.

That link doesn't mean a whole lot to me, because they are a dime a
dozen. You can always find something that gives a different perspective.

http://connectwww.com/operating-system-market-share-february-2011/848/

Different perspective, yes. But they tell the same story. And you can
clearly see it in the numbers.

I don't need a history lesson. It's something I am not going to worry
about either.

Ah... sure... I see you making all of the same mistakes I have done in
the past. That is okay, some people only learn the hard way. I
completely understand.

It's total nonsense. All I see is lip-service out of you and nothing else.

You claim I have no evidence and you call it a theory and lip service.
Yet there has never been any evidence that making something idiot proof
ever worked well with the masses. As they are far smarter than that.

If you want to get up on a soapbox and preach, then you don't do it with
me.

When did you anoint yourself to be a soapbox preacher?

Soapbox? Nope, I didn't invent the Internet. I did not personally go to
college with Bill Gates. Nor was I a great programmer. I didn't do none
of these things. So I am just the messenger and nothing more.

 

[Big Steel]

On 4/7/2011 12:42 PM, BillW50 wrote:

<snipped>
<It's not read.>

Do you think there is anything else that needs to be talked about
between the two of us? I don't think so. We are sitting on two different
sides of the spectrum -- stay where you're at be happy, and I'll move
forward and be happy.

See ya, I wouldn't want to be ya.

 

[BillW50]

On 4/7/2011 12:42 PM, BillW50 wrote:

<snipped>
<It's not read.>

Do you think there is anything else that needs to be talked about
between the two of us? I don't think so. We are sitting on two different
sides of the spectrum -- stay where you're at be happy, and I'll move
forward and be happy.

See ya, I wouldn't want to be ya.

Agreed! And I was once like you. So I know where you are heading. And I
would hate to do it all over again. ;-)

 

[BillW50]

YOUR numbers say exactly what I'm saying. Man, you're dense.

No it isn't! After two years that XP was released, it dominated the
market share and did so for almost 8 years now. This didn't happen with
Windows 98 nor Windows 2000. As they quickly lost market share in a big
hurry.

Which is two years after XP came out.

Yes I know. Vista has been out for four years now and it peeked at 18%
and is now declining. And Vista never replaced enough of the XP user
base to topple XP from the top of the heap.

Your point?

You are really slow, eh? No other Windows version has ever scored as
well and held its longivity with the masses.

And it has remained

Actually, Unix has been around a lot longer. I thought you were into
computers ...

You are really slow, eh? Unix isn't one version. There was been many
versions of Unix. So which was the most popular version?

And Unix as a whole, never captured even 1% yet. So Unix never had any
dominance to start with slick!

I am sure Steve Ballmer is losing sleep because you don't approve of
Windows 7.

Yeah I am sure. But what he does lose sleep over is that Windows 7 isn't
yet having the success that XP started out with. Remember that Microsoft
stock has dropped 50% since he has taken over.

http://www.theopensourcery.com/keepopen/2009/defensive-specialist-steve-ballmer-resign/

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

I don't like focus taken away from what I was doing.

Surely the point is that the box that says "please confirm such and such
before program X can continue" should always be on top of the main program X
window you'll bring to the front to see how program X is getting on. You can
use the task bar to see that X hasn't finished yet and bring it to the
front.

 

[BillW50]

Thanks for proving my point, although I stated it in a much more concise
way.

Really? You think it is the same thing as before? I don't! As before,
most machines didn't have enough power to run XP well. So XP didn't run
very well on such machines and the older version of Windows surpassed XP
in performance on those same machines. So the early complaints were legit.

With Windows 7, we don't have the problem of older computers not
powerful enough to run Windows 7, do we? No we don't, not like XP had to
go through. Heck this machine is 5 years old. Try running XP on a
computer made 5 years old (from '96 let's say) when XP was release. XP
wouldn't run well at all on such a machine.

So the problem is far different now with Windows 7. It isn't the
machines they are running it on. It is the OS itself that people are
having issues with.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Did the OP say he was using Auto Hide, Dumbo?

Anyway, if you know what you are doing - hard for you I know you to grasp
the concept that the Taskbar will show when the mouse pointer is at the
bottom of the screen.

And is the OP the only person affected by this problem?

And should the OP or any other affected person be expected to know that
he has to unhide the task bar because something that he doesn't know
about is happening?

Think about it...

 

[Boscoe]

And is the OP the only person affected by this problem?

And should the OP or any other affected person be expected to know that
he has to unhide the task bar because something that he doesn't know
about is happening?

Think about it...

And there is the problem. Novices not knowing what's running on their
computer and giving Windows users a bad name.

 

[Gordon]

And there is the problem. Novices not knowing what's running on their
computer and giving Windows users a bad name.

They don't have to. You do it for them.
Plonk.

 

[BillW50]

Now only fools like you run 98 or 2k.

Really slick? So when do I run Windows 98 and Windows 2000?

 

[ray]

And there is the problem. Novices not knowing what's running on their
computer and giving Windows users a bad name.

Right! Idiots like that shouldn't be allowed to use it!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

And there is the problem. Novices not knowing what's running on their
computer and giving Windows users a bad name.

You get points for not getting the point.

 

[Leon Manfredi]

You should feel right at home then.


Of course they do.


A number of reasons.

1. The economic crisis

2. Smart phones and tablets.

3. Not wanting to go through the learning curve.

4. The same thing happened when ex pee came out; no one wanted to leave
Windows 98 or 2k. Now only fools like you run 98 or 2k.

You're all wrong........ Main reason is that it's

.............."TOTALLY USER FRIENDLY..!!!!!"

 

[Boscoe]

They don't have to. You do it for them.
Plonk.

You know I knew you were a plonker.