Why do you still use Windows XP?

On 2/17/2012 3:32 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:47:23 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Well, but the point is, does it really matter what specifically it is
attributed to?
The bottom line is: it is "bloat". An OS is supposed to be just that: an
*operating system*, and that's all. Whiz bang effects, or eye candy, or
a
so called "Media Center", don't count. :-) Just like XP was more
bloated
(as an OS) than W98 was, and W98 is compared to W95, and, even more
dramatically, W95 is to Win 3.1. And finally, DOS. :-) And again,
look
at their respective footprints (both in disk space AND resident memory
requirements. And what the extra bloat or fluff is attributed to is,
(to
me), irrelevant, in this context.

I see your point, but to me the reason for the increased size of the
footprint is the more important question. If the bigger size is
legitimate, (how would a person measure that?), then I don't see it as
bloat. A thing can be bigger than another thing without being bloated.

The bigger size might be "legitimate" or acceptable if someone really NEEDED
the extra stufff that was added. But who really does? Adding USB made
sense. Eliminating the 64k heap resource problem made sense. Ditto on long
file names. But building in a Media Center, or adding more hand holding and
cosmetics like Aero, or whatever, sure doesn't (to me).. :-)

Windows 7 is designed for idiots! Even if you are an administrator. I
can see creating an OS for idiots like MS Bob. But to sell it to the
masses is an insult IMHO! The only thing that makes any sense to me is
that Microsoft is trying to commit suicide.

And Aero? I am using an almost black wallpaper and the text on the glass
is also black (which is default I guess). And I can barely read a thing.
So what is wrong with the odd way of doing things? As none of this
nonsense happened before.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v9.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2.17 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7 SP1

BillW50 wrote in :

I am using an almost black wallpaper and the text on the glass
is also black (which is default I guess). And I can barely read a thing.
So what is wrong with the odd way of doing things? As none of this
nonsense happened before.


It likely needs you to set text colour too. Always set text and background
explicitly, or let the system decide both. If only coders would also get this
right! You may well be seeing the result of one who didn't, but look into it
anyway, it might ne that newer Windows OS's expect you to. W9X didn't, icon
text (and window and messagebox text) would go either white or black,
depending on whether your background was above or below mid grey, halfway
point in the total scale betwen black and white. In W9X if we want coloured
text on desktop icons, we need a dedicated program to do it. You may just be
seeing the result of M$ abandoning that earlier method and requiring direct
settings by users for all colours.

The old way was ok a lot of the time, until some coder set a web page or
windows control's text white, without also makign sure the background was
appropriate in contrast. This led to the kind of crap you just decribed, with
the added difference that non-coders could rarely do anything about it, which
was why not that many people ever used light text on dark backgounds. Coders
rarely tested to see what their code does if users do this, so the results
were often bad.

On 2/17/2012 4:59 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

I am using an almost black wallpaper and the text on the glass
is also black (which is default I guess). And I can barely read a thing.
So what is wrong with the odd way of doing things? As none of this
nonsense happened before.


It likely needs you to set text colour too. Always set text and background
explicitly, or let the system decide both. If only coders would also get this
right! You may well be seeing the result of one who didn't, but look into it
anyway, it might ne that newer Windows OS's expect you to. W9X didn't, icon
text (and window and messagebox text) would go either white or black,
depending on whether your background was above or below mid grey, halfway
point in the total scale betwen black and white. In W9X if we want coloured
text on desktop icons, we need a dedicated program to do it. You may just be
seeing the result of M$ abandoning that earlier method and requiring direct
settings by users for all colours.

The old way was ok a lot of the time, until some coder set a web page or
windows control's text white, without also makign sure the background was
appropriate in contrast. This led to the kind of crap you just decribed, with
the added difference that non-coders could rarely do anything about it, which
was why not that many people ever used light text on dark backgounds. Coders
rarely tested to see what their code does if users do this, so the results
were often bad.

This is Aero under Windows 7 we are talking about! Under XP, you can use
any wallpaper you would like and what does the window care what
wallpaper you use? Under Windows 7, the top of the window turns to glass
and the wallpaper bleeds thru. Now you can't use any wallpaper, but a
wallpaper that is compatible with the window. And this is somehow
better? Not in my reality it isn't!

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v9.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2.17 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7 SP1

BillW50 wrote in :

This is Aero under Windows 7 we are talking about! Under XP, you can use
any wallpaper you would like and what does the window care what
wallpaper you use? Under Windows 7, the top of the window turns to glass
and the wallpaper bleeds thru. Now you can't use any wallpaper, but a
wallpaper that is compatible with the window. And this is somehow
better? Not in my reality it isn't!


Sounds like transparency. I think it would annoy me. Fun, but pointlssly
distracting, like music used like wall paint. You can probably switch it off.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:49:46 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

Windows 7 is designed for idiots!

If you say so, but us non-idiots don't seem to be having many problems
with it. As someone said recently, MS rearranged the deck chairs a
bit, but it's still basically the same ship.

And Aero? I am using an almost black wallpaper and the text on the glass
is also black (which is default I guess). And I can barely read a thing.
So what is wrong with the odd way of doing things? As none of this
nonsense happened before.

I've seen a lot of strange color combinations before, but black on
black? That can't be good. Do you need help changing it?

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:32:57 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

I see your point, but to me the reason for the increased size of the
footprint is the more important question. If the bigger size is
legitimate, (how would a person measure that?), then I don't see it as
bloat. A thing can be bigger than another thing without being bloated.

The bigger size might be "legitimate" or acceptable if someone really NEEDED
the extra stufff that was added. But who really does? Adding USB made
sense. Eliminating the 64k heap resource problem made sense. Ditto on long
file names. But building in a Media Center, or adding more hand holding and
cosmetics like Aero, or whatever, sure doesn't (to me).. :-)

Need is a strong word and probably doesn't apply, but I'm sure plenty
of people use Windows features that weren't available in previous
versions. Maybe you don't, but many of us do.

On 2/17/2012 6:23 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:49:46 -0600, wrote:

Windows 7 is designed for idiots!

If you say so, but us non-idiots don't seem to be having many problems
with it. As someone said recently, MS rearranged the deck chairs a
bit, but it's still basically the same ship.

Is that so non-idiot? IMHO only an idiot would say they don't have a
problem. As all you have to do is to peek in the alt.windows7.general
newsgroup to know that isn't true. Okay non-idiot tell me how I can run
Thunderbird Portable in the Program Files folder?

And Aero? I am using an almost black wallpaper and the text on the glass
is also black (which is default I guess). And I can barely read a thing.
So what is wrong with the odd way of doing things? As none of this
nonsense happened before.

I've seen a lot of strange color combinations before, but black on
black? That can't be good. Do you need help changing it?

No, just help deleting Windows 7. Maybe you like having Microsoft
holding your hand while using Windows 7. But I consider it an insult.
And I bet most of those bozos were not even born when I started to use
computers. :-(

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v9.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2.17 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7 SP1

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:52:28 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

On 2/17/2012 6:23 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:49:46 -0600, wrote:

Windows 7 is designed for idiots!

If you say so, but us non-idiots don't seem to be having many problems
with it. As someone said recently, MS rearranged the deck chairs a
bit, but it's still basically the same ship.

Is that so non-idiot? IMHO only an idiot would say they don't have a
problem. As all you have to do is to peek in the alt.windows7.general
newsgroup to know that isn't true. Okay non-idiot tell me how I can run
Thunderbird Portable in the Program Files folder?

Silly goose, why would you want to run a portable app from the program
Files folder? Do you have a serious question?

And Aero? I am using an almost black wallpaper and the text on the glass
is also black (which is default I guess). And I can barely read a thing.
So what is wrong with the odd way of doing things? As none of this
nonsense happened before.

I've seen a lot of strange color combinations before, but black on
black? That can't be good. Do you need help changing it?

No, just help deleting Windows 7. Maybe you like having Microsoft
holding your hand while using Windows 7. But I consider it an insult.
And I bet most of those bozos were not even born when I started to use
computers. :-(

No one holds my hand. If you have someone holding your hand, well
that's a problem I can't help with. It sounds personal.

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:11:27 -0600, wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:38:21 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:


You did a great job of comparing the versions of Windows.
3.1 sucked, 95 needed help, but 98 was and still is the best.

I guess we all have opinions, and it's no surprise that they differ. I
would say 98 was the best for a very short time, only until 98SE
became available. After that, 98SE was only best until 2000 became
available. Then XP became the best, and now 7 is the best. IMHO, WinME
and Vista never carried the crown, but it seems completely whack to
claim that an OS that was long ago obsolete was and is best. I guess
there's no single definition for 'best'.

A lot of the difference between 9x and the NT variants is in the
underlying filing system - FATxx versus NTFS. (Yes, I know XP will run
on FAT, but I think I am right in saying that a lot of the _philosophy_
of XP is related to the difference.)

Whether NTFS or FAT is better is a whole different ball-game, and
generates at least as much heat as the 98vXP question. (I prefer FAT,
because of its true-DOS accessibility if nothing else, but not to the
extent of having changed this XP machine from the NTFS it came with
[apart from anything else I think there's a fair chance I'd break it].)

Will Vista and 7 run on FAT (OK, without many of the access controls
that I don't feel I need as a single user)? How about 8?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The web is a blank slate; you can't design technology that is 'good'. You can't
design paper that you can only write good things on. There are no good or evil
tools. You can put an engine in an ambulance or a tank. - Sir Tim Berners-Lee,
Radio Times 2009-Jan-30 to -Feb-5.

In message ,
Lostgallifreyan writes:
[]
People need to be careful what they wish for. Ask too much, and they GET too
much. And it's no use complaining. Better to figure out what's important and
ask less. People can't do that if they are 'encouraged' to remain ignorant.

Unfortunately, what's important to you doesn't overlap 100% with what's
important to me, and others. You can't have a different version for
everybody; I suppose one way would be to allow people to select at
install time, but quite apart from that making installation so tedious
(lots of questions) as to be interminable, the vast majority of users
these days don't install anyway. (The OS, we're talking about.)

So each new OS includes lots of bits they think a majority of users
want, or a significant minority will if it's not _too_ hard to
implement.

Granted, the code to implement these additions is probably more and more
inefficiently done, in terms of resource requirements, because the
coders will be coding at a higher and higher level (and their compiler
tools aren't good at optimisation, or have those options turned off):
I'm pretty sure this sadness is inevitable because in order to implement
what new features people want these days, it's almost necessary to code
at a high level in order to get your mind round the
requirements/solution (not fill it - the mind of the coder, I mean -
with lots of things that have to be remembered).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The web is a blank slate; you can't design technology that is 'good'. You can't
design paper that you can only write good things on. There are no good or evil
tools. You can put an engine in an ambulance or a tank. - Sir Tim Berners-Lee,
Radio Times 2009-Jan-30 to -Feb-5.