Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

[Guest Shane]

Well, I think I've reached a conclusion - in a telling timeframe.

 

I think the Aero theme is very well done. That glassy look, more so with the

Sidebar running, is superb - the best cosmetic job Microsoft have ever done

(imo)! And when I had the Sidebar running, I put gadgets on it giving top to

bottom - the countdown to the release of Server 2008, the Vista Orb clock, a

small BBC News 24 feed - continuous live BBC News playing on the desktop in

a tiny, little box - bloody marvellous! In the same category as having music

playing while you work or surf? Beneath that I had - lets see...oh yes, a

weather feed, set for this town and visually responding to the diurnal

cycle, a calendar - since T-ClockX which I've used almost since Win ME came

out, won't install in NT6.x - and I cannot abide seeing just the time down

there! And a Google search box on the bottom (had the Deskbar originally,

but there are issues with Google in 2K8 beta3. For one the toolbar crashes

IE7).

 

There was another Sidebar column but the second time I installed the toy,

the 'gadgets' rearranged at every boot, pushing most of the ones I wanted to

show by default, off of the desktop. How much this is a beta bug, I don't

know. There is one bug - apparently also in RTM Vista and waiting for SP1 to

hopefully fix - where the prog that pops up to tell you the one you tried to

execute has stopped responding, does this way too soon. I was quite

surprised actually when it got it right! I had come to expect that the prog

certainly had not stopped responding and all one had to do was wait a little

longer...that was SpywareBlaster, actually. Spybot S&D installs and

apparently works fine in (64-bit) Server 2008 beta3, Vista's brother - as

does Javacool's MRU-Blaster. But not SpywareBlaster. I'd say it's about

split down the middle which progs I've run in ME/XP for years, still work in

64-bit NT6.x. Not bad going?

 

Anyway, clearly I am taken by the 'Vista Desktop Experience' (which is an

extra available to Server 2008). Yet when one thinks of 1 GB of RAM as on

the low side, something isn't right. Priorities are askew, I think. I had

256MB RAM for quite a few years and have just moved up to 1G and I really

don't intend to swallow the line that it isn't enough anymore.

 

Joan in particular might be interested in this: yes, Aero is really pretty -

but it is still eye candy, and the appeal of it dies down as rapidly as all

other eye candy appeal does. That's why it's called 'eye candy' isn't it -

it's got no substance, long term it only really appeals to the shallow.

Well, that's what I believe anyway. I don't think you are shallow, Joan, so

if you liked Aero long term, I'd have to adjust my beliefs - but I don't

think I'll have to. Oh, you may be comfortable with it - but that isn't

enough. 'Comfortable with it' is 'faint praise' where Aero is concerned.

 

I used the Luna theme (XP default) for about a year - then reverted to how I

have it now - looking as much like 9x as it's possible to make it! That

isn't because I think 'conservative' is the way to go - it's because I think

the style of 9x is the most natural for comfortable, relaxed computer

operation. Back in the mid-90's they weren't looking to do things

differently, they were looking to do them efficiently. Hardly any time

before, it had all been command line computing (and limited mouse

operation - but that was building towards Windows, it was part of the

process that became 9x). Then there was Windows 1/2/3.x - these were

developers feeling their way. Jumping straight to 9x would be Creationism in

microcosm. Dosshell and the myriad of Office apps that used the mouse, in

DOS, and then pre-9x Windows, were the evolution of 9x. And then they got it

right, it all (more-or-less) came together. And after all it surely isn't

*that* difficult to figure out what the most ergonomic way to open a program

is, with a rectangle less than a foot-and-a-half to play with?

 

But with XP they were no longer trying to improve the user experience per

se, but to vary it enough that they could sell Windows again. And now

they've repeated that with Vista. But the interfaces are more and more

confusing, because controls are less where you'd expect them to be now -

because that's where they were, but now they've been moved!

 

This can easily be dismissed as just my pov - but it seems inescapably

logical to me - unless you suppose that either where to put things on the

screen is actually quite complicated (and it's taken them approaching a

decade and a half to figure out what personally I don't think should take

however many dozen dozen brilliant minds work for Microsoft, to figure

out) - or you might hypothesise that there is more than one (or two, or is

it three?) possible maximum ergonomic arrangements for the desktop and

window elements. Maybe I just feel a little more lost with each new

offering, because that's what happens when you get old, and I'm getting

there! Either way - as I already claimed the other day - they make all this

stuff for the kids - and we know what most of the kids are into nowadays! I

mean, we can be thankful it doesn't come with Crazy Frog sounds - but it

will! It will! It'll get there!

 

I wonder if New Labour banned firearms because they'd been given a preview

of what was to come?

 

I abandoned Luna several years ago, but to use Aero you have to use

effectively the same Start Menu - how much is similar to XP is more striking

than how much is different, I feel. Windows are another thing altogether. Of

course Vista/Server 2008, in the age of DOT Net are built like big web

sites. I don't like it - the new Windows Explorer, I mean. Oh, you get used

to it - but it's too much of the same. Making everything web is like losing

the seperation between work and home. I like working in Explorer as distinct

from the internet, in 9x, or here in XP. It is like getting back home,

putting on your slippers, relaxing. I don't think they understand that at

the global conglomerates. Like so many people seem unable to comprehend that

not everybody cares for 3D games, and sounds that belong in a video arcade.

Not everyone drinks so much coffee they have the shakes and not everyone is

so driven by the neurotic fear of failure that the only way they can relax

is by snorting a line or two and going to a club. We live in a world that

respects the workaholic as industrious and conscientious, when actually he's

half-mad and frequently breathtakingly shallow. But we let him design our

world (which is about as smart as putting the vain and power-obsessed in

high office).

 

I say 'he', 'him' etc. Women don't do a lot wrong. Or it pales into

insignificance once the men arrive! Most guys are idiots - but most women

cheer them on just the same! Anyhow it is notable that the proportion

responsible for the stupidity that oppresses us all, originates in the male

of the species. So if any girlies object to my use of the masculine here,

the answer is, I suspect, gender reassignment.

 

It doesn't matter if Windows Explorer looks like Internet Explorer

(*Windows* Internet Explorer!) to those who are happy to work 16 hours a

day - who tell themselves that work *is* play. They don't notice that all

day every day it's the same thing, relentless and uniform. There is no pro

to the reduction of variety - it's all con.

 

Windows XP is sufficiently like 9x as to be an improvement by virtue of

greater stability. In numerous ways the better stability of the NT kernel

can be appreciated. And you can make it look sufficiently like 9x that the

only real anti-XP argument is Product Activation/Validation (which makes

itself felt mostly on 56k dial-up. For most broadband users it would be

entirely painless if not for the requirement to click thrice where not so

long ago we only had to click once. The policy wanks at Microsoft presumably

think the anti-piracy message is best delivered by rubbing all of our noses

in it. It must be so, for I haven't shat on the carpet in at least three

years!).

 

In Windows Classic style - particularly with Win ME Plus's More Windows

theme, which enlarges the fonts - and in fact I uncheck all but the

Window/font size option, to get the XP Windows Classic theme, only more

readable - you have, I reckon, the pinnacle of the Windows Operating

System's look, to date. For as gorgeous as the full-blown Aero theme is,

what it needs in the long run is to be easy on the eye. I can't help

thinking that eventually - possibly sooner rather than later - I'll

reconfigure Server 2008 to Windows Classic. Then I'll really see the benefit

of 1G RAM, I guess! But if, after a couple of months you disable Aero, what

do you really need that much RAM for?

 

Hey, we can drink the tap water again - as long as it's boiled! I finally

tipped the 2 gallons in the bucket down the sink today (there was at least 1

dead insect in it).

 

So, most of us eventually end up using Vista having bought machines with,

say, 2G of RAM. And after a couple of months most of us turn off Aero - and

the Sidebar (the BBC News feed gets annoying quickly when all of a sudden

you need to concentrate!). So what do we have machines with 2G of RAM, for?

Well, the semi-conductor industry's rude health for one, I s'pose!

Presumably that produces as much deadly poison as it ever did? I wonder

who'll be the first to have their house flooded in the vicinity of the

landfill where they dump old PCBs and silicon chips? Probably anyone in the

UK. I'm sure the only reason they're starting to get exercised about

recycling is to make room for other nation's toxic waste!

 

Vista is a holiday. Somewhere different to go for a few weeks. Then it's

back to the familiar.

 

His name is Casey.

 

 

Shane

[Guest Joan Archer]

Re: Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

 

Very interesting write up Shane, I'm still holding off any opinion until

I've actually seen a Vista machine running so I can judge for myself.

 

As you say it may be that I don't need the eye candy but who knows what

I'll think of it until I actually use it. It will be some time though

before this happens so I'll just keep plodding along with my XP although

there is talk that Kelly's boyfriend will be buying her a laptop and that

will have Vista on it but I've told her that's not allowed she can't have

it before me <g>

Joan

 

 

Shane wrote:

>snip>

>

> Joan in particular might be interested in this: yes, Aero is really

> pretty - but it is still eye candy, and the appeal of it dies down as

> rapidly as all other eye candy appeal does. That's why it's called

> 'eye candy' isn't it - it's got no substance, long term it only

> really appeals to the shallow. Well, that's what I believe anyway. I

> don't think you are shallow, Joan, so if you liked Aero long term,

> I'd have to adjust my beliefs - but I don't think I'll have to. Oh,

> you may be comfortable with it - but that isn't enough. 'Comfortable

> with it' is 'faint praise' where Aero is concerned.

[Guest Alias]

Re: Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

 

Joan Archer wrote:

> Very interesting write up Shane, I'm still holding off any opinion until

> I've actually seen a Vista machine running so I can judge for myself.

>

> As you say it may be that I don't need the eye candy but who knows what

> I'll think of it until I actually use it. It will be some time though

> before this happens so I'll just keep plodding along with my XP although

> there is talk that Kelly's boyfriend will be buying her a laptop and that

> will have Vista on it but I've told her that's not allowed she can't have

> it before me <g>

> Joan

>

 

Compared to Ubuntu Beryl, Aero looks like it was done as an after

thought by someone in Redmond's mail room.

 

Here's a video to show you the difference:

 

 

--

Alias

 

To email me, remove shoes

[Guest Shane]

Re: Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

 

Joan Archer wrote:

> Very interesting write up Shane, I'm still holding off any opinion

> until I've actually seen a Vista machine running so I can judge for

> myself.

> As you say it may be that I don't need the eye candy but who knows

> what I'll think of it until I actually use it. It will be some time

 

Yes, well, like I say, I have been really taken by it, whereas you have been

all along. That may mean you have noodles rather than brains <vbg> or it may

mean you saw something in it when I didn't, so I'll be interested in what

you do think. Which reminds me - I really *must* finish those noodles! <g>

 

And the peppers. Not sure what part of the anatomy to associate those with,

though!

 

> though before this happens so I'll just keep plodding along with my

> XP although there is talk that Kelly's boyfriend will be buying her a

> laptop and that will have Vista on it but I've told her that's not

> allowed she can't have it before me <g>

 

 

lol! That's the spirit!

 

Shane

[Guest Heirloom]

Re: Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

 

Way too much 'eye candy' for this ol' f*rt..........I got a headache

watching the video. My wife's new laptop will be here soon, it has the

Vista Home Premium......we shall see. The biggest benefit I see with Vista

is that it will keep her off of my XP machine!!!

Heirloom, old and could be doomed

 

> Compared to Ubuntu Beryl, Aero looks like it was done as an after thought

> by someone in Redmond's mail room.

>

> Here's a video to show you the difference:

>

>

>

> --

> Alias

>

> To email me, remove shoes

[Guest Alias]

Re: Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

 

Heirloom wrote:

> Way too much 'eye candy' for this ol' f*rt..........I got a headache

> watching the video. My wife's new laptop will be here soon, it has the

> Vista Home Premium......we shall see. The biggest benefit I see with Vista

> is that it will keep her off of my XP machine!!!

> Heirloom, old and could be doomed

 

That video also has the MAC eye candy. It's not so busy with just Beryl.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

>

>

>> Compared to Ubuntu Beryl, Aero looks like it was done as an after thought

>> by someone in Redmond's mail room.

>>

>> Here's a video to show you the difference:

>>

>>

>>

>> --

>> Alias

>>

>> To email me, remove shoes

>

>

[Guest Shane]

Re: Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

 

Alias wrote:

> Joan Archer wrote:

>> Very interesting write up Shane, I'm still holding off any opinion

>> until I've actually seen a Vista machine running so I can judge for

>> myself. As you say it may be that I don't need the eye candy but who

>> knows

>> what I'll think of it until I actually use it. It will be some time

>> though before this happens so I'll just keep plodding along with my

>> XP although there is talk that Kelly's boyfriend will be buying her

>> a laptop and that will have Vista on it but I've told her that's not

>> allowed she can't have it before me <g>

>> Joan

>>

>

> Compared to Ubuntu Beryl, Aero looks like it was done as an after

> thought by someone in Redmond's mail room.

>

> Here's a video to show you the difference:

>

>

 

I just put the cd in to see what you meant - since I've never noticed

anything as finished in Ubuntu - or any version of Linux, for that matter -

as the Windows interface. Some come close. But the difference between us is

not really that you think that Linux is superior to Windows and I vice

versa - it is that I freely admit this is just my opinion, while you keep

making these pronouncements as though they're indisputable Truth, not merely

your opinion, and the experience of others appears not to dent your absolute

conviction one whit - the implication of which is always going to be that

anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

 

Or is that what this 'Ubuntu' obsession is about? Were you a computer

operator/programmer/administrator back when it was a hermetic art and you

were revered for your arcane knowledge? Then along came Windows and now

you're 'just this guy'? So you keep rattling on about Ubuntu so when most

people find it difficult to use you'll be held in awe again?

 

Hey, you can scoff, but every street in every town in every country on Earth

has at least one guy who absolutely will not entertain the possibility that

he might be mistaken - and everybody else in the world knows it, knows that

'he always has to be right!'. The irony is that there will be those that

think I'm really talking about myself - and to them I say this is my own

sermon from the mount: the only way to avoid self-deception is to constantly

guard against it. The biggest self-deceivers are the ones who say they never

do it. Otherwise every last one of us does it, every day of our lives. And

it's about the last thing anyone wants to accept, therefore they keep doing

it.

 

"Here in my tittle-tattle little world

Of what I whittle down

To meet my preconceptions,

Thus to justify my fears,

In a box, as rare as spittle,

Just another Human skittle

Honing powers of deception

- So to dream another year"

 

And the one about the Pelican.

 

Linux trolls want everyone to be in awe of their ability to use the thing

when most give up after the first hour wasted trying to get the thing to do

something as basic as go online - especially if previously they spent an

entire day or two trying before realising that Linux simply doesn't support

their modem unless - as they found researching it on the net (in

Windows) they write their own driver!

 

It isn't too many years ago - though a year is a long time in computing, of

course - that I was set to write my own soft-modem driver. I could have done

it but the time it would have taken simply was not worth it...I had two or

three Windows installations up and running. Where is the gain in writing

your own driver for an OS who's developers failed to provide it themselves?

An alternative graphical user interface operating system is a nice idea, but

when you have to jump through hoops to get it to run - assuming you ever

can - the point is lost. And just how good is a system going to be once you

do get it set up, when you have to go through so much hassle to get there?

 

It's a rhetorical question.

 

But maybe it *would* be good! Only if the lack of perspective demonstrated

by those who recommend it unreservedly is reflected in it's inner workings,

then just forget about it. It begins to look like it's all about denial in

extremis.

 

Now I've binned the Ubuntu cd. I've had enough! On the old computer it

wouldn't just *run* and on the new computer it won't just *run*. On the old

computer it didn't support my trinitron-based monitor to the extent of

allowing me to configure it without going online first (see above) and

downloading a driver. Well, in that respect it was better than Windows for

Workgroups 3.11 - though I can finally run *that* with modern graphics in

Virtual PC (which Ubuntu hangs in). I am even used to Linux distros

supporting my monitor prior to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the first OS since WFWG3.11

I'd run that I couldn't configure the video the way I wanted it in!

 

And now it wants to go online - only of course, it fails to! - to get

drivers for the reasonably recent (128MB) nVidia card! It *recognises* the

card - just doesn't have drivers for it. Tries to go online. Fails. Because

the modem hasn't been configured. I still haven't got a Linux distro to go

online with the current, common-as-muck and correctly identified (as ever,

but to no purpose) USB modems. No problem whatsoever in any recent version

of Windows! In fact, no problem in Server 2008 x64 beta 3 - what I've done

most of my running Aero in. So I can put a beta of a 64-bit Windows OS not

due for release until next year and not even at the RC stage and within 5

minutes the modem and the graphics card drivers are installed and it all

works very well. But this Ubuntu you keep rattling on about won't go online

and won't run 'Beryl' until it does, because it doesn't have the drivers for

a 128MB GeForce card (bought just a few months ago) like previously it

didn't have them for my Trinitron-baced CRT monitor (which still works well,

incidentally, but is sitting, boxed up and awaiting some use).

 

I don't care to spend the rest of the day trying to get Ubuntu to work. If

you think it is a serious rival for Windows, you need your head looking at.

 

So Alias, are you trying to lead people the way the stage magician does, to

accept your statement, or do you honestly believe you *can* make a judgement

on visual quality of either system, from such a low quality video? And I

don't recall what your Vista experience was, but preisely the same applies

to the question of whether you think - even if that video was crystal clear

and high res - that anyone can make such a judgement in a couple of minutes?

My 'report' is specifically about having come to like something that I

initially hated. It is about the necessity for time in order to make value

judgements. Presumably you didn't read my post, that Joan was responding to,

since if you're proposing that these interfaces can be definitively judged

in two minutes, you are clearly identifying with the 'shallow' users I

referred to.

 

Meanwhile, you can paint me as you like - you may have noticed I don't

particularly care what people think of me - but should we just write you off

as an Ubuntu obsessive? I mean, apart from the various update notifications,

most of your posts are indistinguishable from Ubuntu spam these days. Is it

your hobby horse or are you somehow connected with the project and

conveniently failing to mention it?

 

See, you can write both Mart and myself off as computer novices, if you

like, but believe you me, if neither of *us* can set Ubuntu up without

encountering severe difficulties, then the vast majority of the world's

personal computer users certainly cannot. I for one do not consider myself a

*guru* - but I do know so much more than the average user you'd need a

computer to calculate it! I'm sure all of us here have always considered you

intelligent enough to 'get' the implications of such a rather obvious fact.

You put the Windows cd in - one hour later you're surfing the net, writing

e-mails or work-related documents, listening to music etc. Put a Linux cd in

and, unless you're one of the lucky ones, an hour later you're pulling you

hair out. Are you going to ignore this inconvenient fact forever Alias?

 

Do you think that if it works for you, it works for everybody?

 

Or to you just want to goad me into an argument, because you can't get

enough of them? After all, it was guaranteed, wasn't it.

 

 

Shane

[Guest Joan Archer]

Re: Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

 

John might agree with you there <g> as for you finishing them whatever

turns you on, they're not my cup of tea at all <g>

Joan

 

Shane wrote:

>

That may mean you have noodles rather than

> brains <vbg> or it may mean you saw something in it when I didn't, so

> I'll be interested in what you do think. Which reminds me - I really

> *must* finish those noodles! <g>

[Guest Alias]

Re: Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

 

Shane wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>> Joan Archer wrote:

>>> Very interesting write up Shane, I'm still holding off any opinion

>>> until I've actually seen a Vista machine running so I can judge for

>>> myself. As you say it may be that I don't need the eye candy but who

>>> knows

>>> what I'll think of it until I actually use it. It will be some time

>>> though before this happens so I'll just keep plodding along with my

>>> XP although there is talk that Kelly's boyfriend will be buying her

>>> a laptop and that will have Vista on it but I've told her that's not

>>> allowed she can't have it before me <g>

>>> Joan

>>>

>> Compared to Ubuntu Beryl, Aero looks like it was done as an after

>> thought by someone in Redmond's mail room.

>>

>> Here's a video to show you the difference:

>>

>>

>

> I just put the cd in to see what you meant - since I've never noticed

> anything as finished in Ubuntu - or any version of Linux, for that matter -

> as the Windows interface. Some come close. But the difference between us is

> not really that you think that Linux is superior to Windows and I vice

> versa - it is that I freely admit this is just my opinion, while you keep

> making these pronouncements as though they're indisputable Truth, not merely

> your opinion, and the experience of others appears not to dent your absolute

> conviction one whit - the implication of which is always going to be that

> anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

>

> Or is that what this 'Ubuntu' obsession is about? Were you a computer

> operator/programmer/administrator back when it was a hermetic art and you

> were revered for your arcane knowledge? Then along came Windows and now

> you're 'just this guy'? So you keep rattling on about Ubuntu so when most

> people find it difficult to use you'll be held in awe again?

>

> Hey, you can scoff, but every street in every town in every country on Earth

> has at least one guy who absolutely will not entertain the possibility that

> he might be mistaken - and everybody else in the world knows it, knows that

> 'he always has to be right!'. The irony is that there will be those that

> think I'm really talking about myself - and to them I say this is my own

> sermon from the mount: the only way to avoid self-deception is to constantly

> guard against it. The biggest self-deceivers are the ones who say they never

> do it. Otherwise every last one of us does it, every day of our lives. And

> it's about the last thing anyone wants to accept, therefore they keep doing

> it.

>

> "Here in my tittle-tattle little world

> Of what I whittle down

> To meet my preconceptions,

> Thus to justify my fears,

> In a box, as rare as spittle,

> Just another Human skittle

> Honing powers of deception

> - So to dream another year"

>

> And the one about the Pelican.

>

> Linux trolls want everyone to be in awe of their ability to use the thing

> when most give up after the first hour wasted trying to get the thing to do

> something as basic as go online - especially if previously they spent an

> entire day or two trying before realising that Linux simply doesn't support

> their modem unless - as they found researching it on the net (in

> Windows) they write their own driver!

>

> It isn't too many years ago - though a year is a long time in computing, of

> course - that I was set to write my own soft-modem driver. I could have done

> it but the time it would have taken simply was not worth it...I had two or

> three Windows installations up and running. Where is the gain in writing

> your own driver for an OS who's developers failed to provide it themselves?

> An alternative graphical user interface operating system is a nice idea, but

> when you have to jump through hoops to get it to run - assuming you ever

> can - the point is lost. And just how good is a system going to be once you

> do get it set up, when you have to go through so much hassle to get there?

>

> It's a rhetorical question.

>

> But maybe it *would* be good! Only if the lack of perspective demonstrated

> by those who recommend it unreservedly is reflected in it's inner workings,

> then just forget about it. It begins to look like it's all about denial in

> extremis.

>

> Now I've binned the Ubuntu cd. I've had enough! On the old computer it

> wouldn't just *run* and on the new computer it won't just *run*. On the old

> computer it didn't support my trinitron-based monitor to the extent of

> allowing me to configure it without going online first (see above) and

> downloading a driver. Well, in that respect it was better than Windows for

> Workgroups 3.11 - though I can finally run *that* with modern graphics in

> Virtual PC (which Ubuntu hangs in). I am even used to Linux distros

> supporting my monitor prior to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the first OS since WFWG3.11

> I'd run that I couldn't configure the video the way I wanted it in!

>

> And now it wants to go online - only of course, it fails to! - to get

> drivers for the reasonably recent (128MB) nVidia card! It *recognises* the

> card - just doesn't have drivers for it. Tries to go online. Fails. Because

> the modem hasn't been configured. I still haven't got a Linux distro to go

> online with the current, common-as-muck and correctly identified (as ever,

> but to no purpose) USB modems. No problem whatsoever in any recent version

> of Windows! In fact, no problem in Server 2008 x64 beta 3 - what I've done

> most of my running Aero in. So I can put a beta of a 64-bit Windows OS not

> due for release until next year and not even at the RC stage and within 5

> minutes the modem and the graphics card drivers are installed and it all

> works very well. But this Ubuntu you keep rattling on about won't go online

> and won't run 'Beryl' until it does, because it doesn't have the drivers for

> a 128MB GeForce card (bought just a few months ago) like previously it

> didn't have them for my Trinitron-baced CRT monitor (which still works well,

> incidentally, but is sitting, boxed up and awaiting some use).

>

> I don't care to spend the rest of the day trying to get Ubuntu to work. If

> you think it is a serious rival for Windows, you need your head looking at.

>

> So Alias, are you trying to lead people the way the stage magician does, to

> accept your statement, or do you honestly believe you *can* make a judgement

> on visual quality of either system, from such a low quality video? And I

> don't recall what your Vista experience was, but preisely the same applies

> to the question of whether you think - even if that video was crystal clear

> and high res - that anyone can make such a judgement in a couple of minutes?

> My 'report' is specifically about having come to like something that I

> initially hated. It is about the necessity for time in order to make value

> judgements. Presumably you didn't read my post, that Joan was responding to,

> since if you're proposing that these interfaces can be definitively judged

> in two minutes, you are clearly identifying with the 'shallow' users I

> referred to.

>

> Meanwhile, you can paint me as you like - you may have noticed I don't

> particularly care what people think of me - but should we just write you off

> as an Ubuntu obsessive? I mean, apart from the various update notifications,

> most of your posts are indistinguishable from Ubuntu spam these days. Is it

> your hobby horse or are you somehow connected with the project and

> conveniently failing to mention it?

>

> See, you can write both Mart and myself off as computer novices, if you

> like, but believe you me, if neither of *us* can set Ubuntu up without

> encountering severe difficulties, then the vast majority of the world's

> personal computer users certainly cannot. I for one do not consider myself a

> *guru* - but I do know so much more than the average user you'd need a

> computer to calculate it! I'm sure all of us here have always considered you

> intelligent enough to 'get' the implications of such a rather obvious fact.

> You put the Windows cd in - one hour later you're surfing the net, writing

> e-mails or work-related documents, listening to music etc. Put a Linux cd in

> and, unless you're one of the lucky ones, an hour later you're pulling you

> hair out. Are you going to ignore this inconvenient fact forever Alias?

>

> Do you think that if it works for you, it works for everybody?

>

> Or to you just want to goad me into an argument, because you can't get

> enough of them? After all, it was guaranteed, wasn't it.

>

>

> Shane

>

 

I don't know why you had so much trouble. My child and I just installed

Ubuntu on her AMD2 4600+ with 2 gigs of RAM and a PCI Express 512 nVidia

card and we were done in 58 minutes, including all the updates and

programs. My kid was amazed at how *easy* it was and how *fast* it was

compared to installing XP on the same machine.

 

I'm sorry, but I am not going to address the rest of your post because I

am not really here to discuss Ubuntu. If you really want to install it,

you'll ask for help in the appropriate forum instead of tossing up your

hands and throwing the CD into the trash.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

[Guest Eric]

Re: Vista/w2k8/Aero etc

 

Shane,

I haven't had the chance to try Vista yet, but I wanted to comment on

this one point. Internet Explorer is and always has been Windows Explorer.

Try this on the old WinME machine. Open an internet explorer session, then

type C:\ in the address bar, and it's transformed to Windows Explorer. It's

a trick that comes in handy in WinXP when you have multiple users and

different access levels. I'm not aware of an easy way to do "run as" on

Windows Explorer, but you can do a "run as" on Internet Explorer and you can

just switch over from there. One was built right on top of the other.

 

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ODe$9Bx1HHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> I don't like it - the new Windows Explorer, I mean. Oh, you get used to

> it - but it's too much of the same. Making everything web is like losing

> the seperation between work and home. I like working in Explorer as

> distinct from the internet, in 9x, or here in XP. It is like getting back

> home, putting on your slippers, relaxing. I don't think they understand

> that at the global conglomerates.

>

>

> Shane

>