Ken Blake wrote on 6/5/2022 11:16 AM:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 01:20:44 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Microsft then discarded the folder terminology and replaced it with the
>> Windows 95 taskbar and in doing so scrubbed all mention of the 'tray' in
>> all system documentation.
>
> My memory might be failing me, but I thing system tray is still
> mentioned in at least some Microsoft documentation. I wish I could
> remember where, but I don't.
>
The scrubbing was in the mid 1990's relative to Win95 existing docs. Yes.
with any wholesale attempt(the scrubbing) something is liable to be missed.
>
>> Just another example of MSFT's ongoing, sometimes endlessly confusing
>> multiple-name branding/rebranding verse/chapter/book for terms and software.
>
>
> Yes, one of the many such examples. It's one of the things I most
> dislike about Microsoft. It's almost as if they work very hard at
> trying to confuse people.
>
> When something has an established name, it should almost always be
> kept. Even if you come with a name that you think is better, don't
> use it. Stick with the name everyone knows.
>
Not sure about that.
Naming every email client since 1995 as Windows Messaging would have been
a big and even more confusing mistake.
Another example - naming Skype as Chat or Messenger, would be another.
- there's also name adoption from acquisition. SkyDrive still makes
more sense than OneDrive..but that was a forced change due to UK
Broadcaster 'Sky' trademark.
While naming can be confusing, continuing some of those earlier(and at
the time productive applications) would be an even longer list of naming
mistakes.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 6/06/2022 3:57 pm, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-06-05, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> Thanks. I never knew what OneNote was, though I've
>> seen it mentioned. But I've never felt a need for that
>> kind of organizer. And of course it would only be as good
>> as my data entry efforts.
>
> I use the old Windows 3.1 "Cardfile" program for that - the only Windows
> software that I still use regularly. Runs handily under WINE. :)
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All in line with the 'rationale' of your sig.

geoff

On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 11:39:13 -0400, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Bill W" <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote
>
>| > I'm wondering what you do with all the resources you "save�.
>|
>| Isn’t he still using XP? If so, he might also be using ancient hardware.
>So
>| what applies to “modern machinesâ€?, might not apply to him.
>|
>|
>
> I mostly use XP, but it's a machine I built in 2015, with 8-core
>AMD 3.3 GHz. Nearly everything is instant, faster than my
>Win7 or Win10 machines. The Win7, especially, is slow booting.
>Though Libre Office Writer takes 2-3 seconds to show up on XP,
>and Firefox is about the same. Because I don't allow either to
>load their fast start crap.
>
> I don't subscribe to the idea that there's no need to keep
>things clean just because we have plenty of space to dump.
>With the speed of hardware these days, nothing should ever
>have any lag, but programmers get more sloppy when they feel
>they can afford to.
>
> There's also the issue of software quality. This started with talking
>about how IrfanView is compact. That's not just about saving
>space and gaining speed. It's also about competence. The IV
>developer knows how to actually write software on Windows.
>He's not using Python or .Net to call into Qt or ImageMagick,
>wrapping the API in multiple layers of bloat.
>
> Remember Longhorn in 2005? It was a big flop because, as the
>MS people themselves put it, the hardware didn't yet exist that
>could handle the stupendous bloat of an OS running as a .Net
>wrapper around the API... By 2007, the hardware that could support
>Aero was new. Hence the Vista non-Aero version. That pattern is
>always happening: Capacity is degraded by laziness and sloppiness
>and dumb design. (Aero needs constant painting of the GUI with
>alpha channel calculations and rounded corners on windows, for
>example. Why? Because it's cool to see folder frames that look like
>you're peeking through grass?)... When Win8 came out with Metro,
>that was another mess that could only run on new hardware. Many
>people in nwsgroups now complain about slow browsers, despite
>having a new machine and some ridiculous amount of RAM. Why?
>Because websites are taking that same approach of sloppy
>coding, loading webpages that are running more executable code
>than most software programs.
>
> People with 2 TB hard disks buy an external drive to supplement
>it because they can't be bothered to figure out whether they
>really need all of their 40,000 vacation photos. You could say,
>"What's the problem? Hard disks are cheap." Or you could say,
>"Why waste money being a slob?" Two views. The latter makes
>more sense to me. :)

OK, we get it. You want applause because you've dedicated your life
to dicking around with your computer and its antique software in order
to make your life needlessly harder for you, Bravo.

May give you the illusion of superior tinkering skills, fine. However
you might usefully reflect on the fact that those who use modern kit
and modern software how it's meant to be used, simply don't need to
tinker constantly, but instead just use their computers to get stuff
done with them.

Seems to me that you miss those old bygone days when one needed to
tinkering skills to even keep a computer running, let alone do
something with it. Well, those days are long gone.

On 2022-06-06, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
> All in line with the 'rationale' of your sig.

In other words you have nothing of value to add. Thanks for playing!

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Blake aka Mike Easter's nasty twat <Ken@invalid.news.com> posted this:

> My memory might be failing me, but I thing system tray is still
> mentioned in at least some Microsoft documentation.

> I wish I could remember where, but I don't.

In your memory, you dumbass.

Try to keep up.

Hope this hleps.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

And *NO*, that is *NOT* a Jedi Light Saber I have in my pocket!

But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm happy to see you either.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 01:31:06 -0400, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ken Blake wrote on 6/5/2022 11:16 AM:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 01:20:44 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsft then discarded the folder terminology and replaced it with the
>>> Windows 95 taskbar and in doing so scrubbed all mention of the 'tray' in
>>> all system documentation.
>>
>> My memory might be failing me, but I thing system tray is still
>> mentioned in at least some Microsoft documentation. I wish I could
>> remember where, but I don't.
>>
>The scrubbing was in the mid 1990's relative to Win95 existing docs. Yes.
>with any wholesale attempt(the scrubbing) something is liable to be missed.
>>
>>> Just another example of MSFT's ongoing, sometimes endlessly confusing
>>> multiple-name branding/rebranding verse/chapter/book for terms and software.
>>
>>
>> Yes, one of the many such examples. It's one of the things I most
>> dislike about Microsoft. It's almost as if they work very hard at
>> trying to confuse people.
>>
>> When something has an established name, it should almost always be
>> kept. Even if you come with a name that you think is better, don't
>> use it. Stick with the name everyone knows.
>>
>Not sure about that.
>Naming every email client since 1995 as Windows Messaging would have been
>a big and even more confusing mistake.
>Another example - naming Skype as Chat or Messenger, would be another.
> - there's also name adoption from acquisition. SkyDrive still makes
>more sense than OneDrive..but that was a forced change due to UK
>Broadcaster 'Sky' trademark.
>While naming can be confusing, continuing some of those earlier(and at
>the time productive applications) would be an even longer list of naming
>mistakes.

They've sure gotten a lot of mileage out of the 'Outlook' name, with
Outlook Express, Outlook (email client), and Outlook.com.

In addition, I remember trying (in vain, mostly) to explain to people
(extended family members) the difference between Internet Explorer and
Windows Explorer.

On 6/6/2022 7:17 AM, none@given.com wrote:

> Seems to me that you miss those old bygone days when one needed to
> tinkering skills to even keep a computer running, let alone do
> something with it. Well, those days are long gone.
>

And we think it's sad to see the youngsters get run over by the
bus which is Windows 11. They'll never know what hit them! ; )

On 6/6/2022 7:17 AM, none@given.com wrote:

>
> Seems to me that you miss those old bygone days when one needed to
> tinkering skills to even keep a computer running, let alone do
> something with it. Well, those days are long gone.

Ah, a person with some experience with Federated Search.
Pleased to meet you.

Why doesn't my copy of VirtualBox work properly any more on Windows 11 ?
Does anyone know ? Don't we have anyone to tinker with it ?

This is the state of affairs in the year 2022:

"At least the browser still works..."

They don't aspire to anything greater. That's how you
reduce the tinkering input, by not using the computer
for anything.

Paul

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 01:31:06 -0400, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ken Blake wrote on 6/5/2022 11:16 AM:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 01:20:44 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsft then discarded the folder terminology and replaced it with the
>>> Windows 95 taskbar and in doing so scrubbed all mention of the 'tray' in
>>> all system documentation.
>>
>> My memory might be failing me, but I thing system tray is still
>> mentioned in at least some Microsoft documentation. I wish I could
>> remember where, but I don't.
>>
>The scrubbing was in the mid 1990's relative to Win95 existing docs. Yes.
>with any wholesale attempt(the scrubbing) something is liable to be missed.
>>
>>> Just another example of MSFT's ongoing, sometimes endlessly confusing
>>> multiple-name branding/rebranding verse/chapter/book for terms and software.
>>
>>
>> Yes, one of the many such examples. It's one of the things I most
>> dislike about Microsoft. It's almost as if they work very hard at
>> trying to confuse people.
>>
>> When something has an established name, it should almost always be
>> kept. Even if you come with a name that you think is better, don't
>> use it. Stick with the name everyone knows.
>>
>Not sure about that.
>Naming every email client since 1995 as Windows Messaging would have been
>a big and even more confusing mistake.

Yes.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I
wasn't suggesting that every similar program have the same name. In
fact, I think it's terrible if every similar program has the same name
(Outlook, Outlook Express, Outlook.com, etc,

What I was suggesting is that is something (a thing like a program,
not a kind of program) has a name, don't *change* its name.

>Another example - naming Skype as Chat or Messenger, would be another.
> - there's also name adoption from acquisition. SkyDrive still makes
>more sense than OneDrive..but that was a forced change due to UK
>Broadcaster 'Sky' trademark.
>While naming can be confusing, continuing some of those earlier(and at
>the time productive applications) would be an even longer list of naming
>mistakes.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 08:44:15 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 01:31:06 -0400, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Ken Blake wrote on 6/5/2022 11:16 AM:
>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 01:20:44 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Microsft then discarded the folder terminology and replaced it with the
>>>> Windows 95 taskbar and in doing so scrubbed all mention of the 'tray' in
>>>> all system documentation.
>>>
>>> My memory might be failing me, but I thing system tray is still
>>> mentioned in at least some Microsoft documentation. I wish I could
>>> remember where, but I don't.
>>>
>>The scrubbing was in the mid 1990's relative to Win95 existing docs. Yes.
>>with any wholesale attempt(the scrubbing) something is liable to be missed.
>>>
>>>> Just another example of MSFT's ongoing, sometimes endlessly confusing
>>>> multiple-name branding/rebranding verse/chapter/book for terms and software.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, one of the many such examples. It's one of the things I most
>>> dislike about Microsoft. It's almost as if they work very hard at
>>> trying to confuse people.
>>>
>>> When something has an established name, it should almost always be
>>> kept. Even if you come with a name that you think is better, don't
>>> use it. Stick with the name everyone knows.
>>>
>>Not sure about that.
>>Naming every email client since 1995 as Windows Messaging would have been
>>a big and even more confusing mistake.
>>Another example - naming Skype as Chat or Messenger, would be another.
>> - there's also name adoption from acquisition. SkyDrive still makes
>>more sense than OneDrive..but that was a forced change due to UK
>>Broadcaster 'Sky' trademark.
>>While naming can be confusing, continuing some of those earlier(and at
>>the time productive applications) would be an even longer list of naming
>>mistakes.
>
>They've sure gotten a lot of mileage out of the 'Outlook' name, with
>Outlook Express, Outlook (email client), and Outlook.com.
>
>In addition, I remember trying (in vain, mostly) to explain to people
>(extended family members) the difference between Internet Explorer and
>Windows Explorer.

Yes, another example. Two similar names for two very different things.
A terrible mistake, almost designed to confuse people.

On 6/6/2022 9:51 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 08:44:15 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> wrote:

>> In addition, I remember trying (in vain, mostly) to explain to people
>> (extended family members) the difference between Internet Explorer and
>> Windows Explorer.
>
>
> Yes, another example. Two similar names for two very different things.
> A terrible mistake, almost designed to confuse people.

Yeah, that one was the worst. Every new windows version was seemed to
be made thinking the user needed to know less of how a system worked and
that they had no need to learn. I still call it file manager and it
gets opened all the time. Most of the family don't even know where to
go to open it. And when they do, it is set at the default of NOT to
show details and they have all these pretty icons that all look the same
and have no idea which one of them is the actual execuatable. They have
no idea where they save files. They have no idea how to clean up
unnecessary files. And worse yet, no matter how many times you show
them, they never will.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]

> In any case, "none.given" is like nospam on a bad day. He's
> only here to argue nonsense and insult people. The photo group
> seems to have more than its share of cranks.

none@given.com:

[V] Clueless
[V] Snotty
[V] Anonymous

none@given.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 12:00:12 -0400, "Mayayana"
> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]
> > Personally, I'm in the middle of looking for the best free
> >option to convert HTML to PDF. Why? Because sometimes
> >I want to do that and it's worth it to me to find the best
> >option for future use. I've found some options, but so far
> >nothing that just does the job and does it dependably, without
> >screwing up CSS translation or some such. I want something
> >that just works..
>
> So do what everyone else with a bit of computer expertise does --
> simply print to PDF. Job done. But then it would all be just too
> easy, wouldn't it?

So you clearly don't understand - or haven't even read - the
problem/requirements, but that doesn't prevent you posting a clueless
pompous snotty remark about it!? Check.

Clue-by-four: Your 'solution isn't one, because it fails the "without
...." part.

Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> In addition, I remember trying (in vain, mostly) to explain to people
> (extended family members) the difference between Internet Explorer and
> Windows Explorer.

Since quite some time (Vista? 7?) it's actually 'File Explorer', not
'Windows Explorer'. I.e. the shortcuts in the Start/Programs/<whatever>
have that name [1]. The *process* name is indeed still 'Windows
Explorer', but a 'noob' won't likely see that, will it?

I think 'File Explorer' is a reasonable name and better than 'Windows
Explorer', because it mostly explores files, not Windows.

[1] I'm running 8.1, not 10, with Classic Start Menu, but I don't think
that makes any difference.

Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 08:44:15 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 01:31:06 -0400, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Blake wrote on 6/5/2022 11:16 AM:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 01:20:44 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsft then discarded the folder terminology and replaced it with the
>>>>> Windows 95 taskbar and in doing so scrubbed all mention of the 'tray' in
>>>>> all system documentation.
>>>>
>>>> My memory might be failing me, but I thing system tray is still
>>>> mentioned in at least some Microsoft documentation. I wish I could
>>>> remember where, but I don't.
>>>>
>>> The scrubbing was in the mid 1990's relative to Win95 existing docs. Yes.
>>> with any wholesale attempt(the scrubbing) something is liable to be missed.
>>>>
>>>>> Just another example of MSFT's ongoing, sometimes endlessly confusing
>>>>> multiple-name branding/rebranding verse/chapter/book for terms and software.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, one of the many such examples. It's one of the things I most
>>>> dislike about Microsoft. It's almost as if they work very hard at
>>>> trying to confuse people.
>>>>
>>>> When something has an established name, it should almost always be
>>>> kept. Even if you come with a name that you think is better, don't
>>>> use it. Stick with the name everyone knows.
>>>>
>>> Not sure about that.
>>> Naming every email client since 1995 as Windows Messaging would have been
>>> a big and even more confusing mistake.
>>> Another example - naming Skype as Chat or Messenger, would be another.
>>> - there's also name adoption from acquisition. SkyDrive still makes
>>> more sense than OneDrive..but that was a forced change due to UK
>>> Broadcaster 'Sky' trademark.
>>> While naming can be confusing, continuing some of those earlier(and at
>>> the time productive applications) would be an even longer list of naming
>>> mistakes.
>>
>> They've sure gotten a lot of mileage out of the 'Outlook' name, with
>> Outlook Express, Outlook (email client), and Outlook.com.
>>
>> In addition, I remember trying (in vain, mostly) to explain to people
>> (extended family members) the difference between Internet Explorer and
>> Windows Explorer.
>
>
> Yes, another example. Two similar names for two very different things.
> A terrible mistake, almost designed to confuse people.
>
:)
The Outlook naming for email client(stand-alone and 365) and
Outlook.com(MSA email acount, integration with OneDrive's Word, Excel,
Powerpoint) will probably in existence for the long haul.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 01:31:06 -0400, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ken Blake wrote on 6/5/2022 11:16 AM:
>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 01:20:44 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Microsft then discarded the folder terminology and replaced it with the
>>>> Windows 95 taskbar and in doing so scrubbed all mention of the 'tray' in
>>>> all system documentation.
>>>
>>> My memory might be failing me, but I thing system tray is still
>>> mentioned in at least some Microsoft documentation. I wish I could
>>> remember where, but I don't.
>>>
>> The scrubbing was in the mid 1990's relative to Win95 existing docs. Yes.
>> with any wholesale attempt(the scrubbing) something is liable to be missed.
>>>
>>>> Just another example of MSFT's ongoing, sometimes endlessly confusing
>>>> multiple-name branding/rebranding verse/chapter/book for terms and software.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, one of the many such examples. It's one of the things I most
>>> dislike about Microsoft. It's almost as if they work very hard at
>>> trying to confuse people.
>>>
>>> When something has an established name, it should almost always be
>>> kept. Even if you come with a name that you think is better, don't
>>> use it. Stick with the name everyone knows.
>>>
>> Not sure about that.
>> Naming every email client since 1995 as Windows Messaging would have been
>> a big and even more confusing mistake.
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I
> wasn't suggesting that every similar program have the same name. In
> fact, I think it's terrible if every similar program has the same name
> (Outlook, Outlook Express, Outlook.com, etc,
>
> What I was suggesting is that is something (a thing like a program,
> not a kind of program) has a name, don't *change* its name.
>
>
>> Another example - naming Skype as Chat or Messenger, would be another.
>> - there's also name adoption from acquisition. SkyDrive still makes
>> more sense than OneDrive..but that was a forced change due to UK
>> Broadcaster 'Sky' trademark.
>> While naming can be confusing, continuing some of those earlier(and at
>> the time productive applications) would be an even longer list of naming
>> mistakes.

Thanks for clarification.
With OE long gone(should have been gone well before its actually
deprecation) the Outlook and Outlook.com common naming does make a bit
of sense. Both now require an MSA, both integrate with Word, Excel,
Powerpoint and OneDrive(the former both local and online), the latter
with online and the option to open locally(for Office local installs).

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 7/06/2022 2:05 am, Paul wrote:
> On 6/6/2022 7:17 AM, none@given.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Seems to me that you miss those old bygone days when one needed to
>> tinkering skills  to even keep a computer running, let alone do
>> something with it.   Well, those days are long gone.
>
> Ah, a person with some experience with Federated Search.
> Pleased to meet you.
>
> Why doesn't my copy of VirtualBox work properly any more on Windows 11 ?
> Does anyone know ? Don't we have anyone to tinker with it ?
>
> This is the state of affairs in the year 2022:
>
>    "At least the browser still works..."
>
> They don't aspire to anything greater. That's how you
> reduce the tinkering input, by not using the computer
> for anything.
>
>   Paul
>
>

A simple google search will answer your question and solve your problem,
so you can continue tinkering away to your hearts content.

geoff

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:06:09 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 01:31:06 -0400, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Blake wrote on 6/5/2022 11:16 AM:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 01:20:44 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsft then discarded the folder terminology and replaced it with the
>>>>> Windows 95 taskbar and in doing so scrubbed all mention of the 'tray' in
>>>>> all system documentation.
>>>>
>>>> My memory might be failing me, but I thing system tray is still
>>>> mentioned in at least some Microsoft documentation. I wish I could
>>>> remember where, but I don't.
>>>>
>>> The scrubbing was in the mid 1990's relative to Win95 existing docs. Yes.
>>> with any wholesale attempt(the scrubbing) something is liable to be missed.
>>>>
>>>>> Just another example of MSFT's ongoing, sometimes endlessly confusing
>>>>> multiple-name branding/rebranding verse/chapter/book for terms and software.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, one of the many such examples. It's one of the things I most
>>>> dislike about Microsoft. It's almost as if they work very hard at
>>>> trying to confuse people.
>>>>
>>>> When something has an established name, it should almost always be
>>>> kept. Even if you come with a name that you think is better, don't
>>>> use it. Stick with the name everyone knows.
>>>>
>>> Not sure about that.
>>> Naming every email client since 1995 as Windows Messaging would have been
>>> a big and even more confusing mistake.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I
>> wasn't suggesting that every similar program have the same name. In
>> fact, I think it's terrible if every similar program has the same name
>> (Outlook, Outlook Express, Outlook.com, etc,
>>
>> What I was suggesting is that is something (a thing like a program,
>> not a kind of program) has a name, don't *change* its name.
>>
>>
>>> Another example - naming Skype as Chat or Messenger, would be another.
>>> - there's also name adoption from acquisition. SkyDrive still makes
>>> more sense than OneDrive..but that was a forced change due to UK
>>> Broadcaster 'Sky' trademark.
>>> While naming can be confusing, continuing some of those earlier(and at
>>> the time productive applications) would be an even longer list of naming
>>> mistakes.
>
>Thanks for clarification.
> With OE long gone(should have been gone well before its actually
>deprecation) the Outlook and Outlook.com common naming does make a bit
>of sense. Both now require an MSA, both integrate with Word, Excel,
>Powerpoint and OneDrive(the former both local and online), the latter
>with online and the option to open locally(for Office local installs).

Make a *bit* of sense? Yes. But as far as I'm concerned, it was still
a terrible mistake that has confused an enormous number of people.

On 6 Jun 2022 16:50:29 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>[...]
>
>> In addition, I remember trying (in vain, mostly) to explain to people
>> (extended family members) the difference between Internet Explorer and
>> Windows Explorer.
>
> Since quite some time (Vista? 7?) it's actually 'File Explorer', not
>'Windows Explorer'. <snip>

Yes, I'm aware of that. On my Win 7 VMs it's still called Windows
Explorer, but on my 8.1 VMs (and later) it's called File Explorer. If it
was up to me, I wouldn't have renamed it, even if the new name is
marginally better.

Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:06:09 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 01:31:06 -0400, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken Blake wrote on 6/5/2022 11:16 AM:
>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 01:20:44 -0400, "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsft then discarded the folder terminology and replaced it with the
>>>>>> Windows 95 taskbar and in doing so scrubbed all mention of the 'tray' in
>>>>>> all system documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> My memory might be failing me, but I thing system tray is still
>>>>> mentioned in at least some Microsoft documentation. I wish I could
>>>>> remember where, but I don't.
>>>>>
>>>> The scrubbing was in the mid 1990's relative to Win95 existing docs. Yes.
>>>> with any wholesale attempt(the scrubbing) something is liable to be missed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just another example of MSFT's ongoing, sometimes endlessly confusing
>>>>>> multiple-name branding/rebranding verse/chapter/book for terms and software.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, one of the many such examples. It's one of the things I most
>>>>> dislike about Microsoft. It's almost as if they work very hard at
>>>>> trying to confuse people.
>>>>>
>>>>> When something has an established name, it should almost always be
>>>>> kept. Even if you come with a name that you think is better, don't
>>>>> use it. Stick with the name everyone knows.
>>>>>
>>>> Not sure about that.
>>>> Naming every email client since 1995 as Windows Messaging would have been
>>>> a big and even more confusing mistake.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I
>>> wasn't suggesting that every similar program have the same name. In
>>> fact, I think it's terrible if every similar program has the same name
>>> (Outlook, Outlook Express, Outlook.com, etc,
>>>
>>> What I was suggesting is that is something (a thing like a program,
>>> not a kind of program) has a name, don't *change* its name.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Another example - naming Skype as Chat or Messenger, would be another.
>>>> - there's also name adoption from acquisition. SkyDrive still makes
>>>> more sense than OneDrive..but that was a forced change due to UK
>>>> Broadcaster 'Sky' trademark.
>>>> While naming can be confusing, continuing some of those earlier(and at
>>>> the time productive applications) would be an even longer list of naming
>>>> mistakes.
>>
>> Thanks for clarification.
>> With OE long gone(should have been gone well before its actually
>> deprecation) the Outlook and Outlook.com common naming does make a bit
>> of sense. Both now require an MSA, both integrate with Word, Excel,
>> Powerpoint and OneDrive(the former both local and online), the latter
>> with online and the option to open locally(for Office local installs).
>
>
> Make a *bit* of sense? Yes. But as far as I'm concerned, it was still
> a terrible mistake that has confused an enormous number of people.
>
I'll agree at the time Outlook.com was created[1] it did provide some
confusion.
I'll disagree to the extent that with Outlook.com having been around for
10 yrs and Outlook even longer...those 400 million people using
Outlook.com are past the point of confusion and anyone not using
Outlook(Office included client) no longer cares and those creating an
Outlook.com(or Hotmail addy - still an option) is also past the point of
considering confusion.
- i.e. most of the reference today about that naming confusion is
based on an earlier outdated, and very diminishing opinion.

[1] Some of that also is related to the evolution of the free web based
email(Msn.com to Hotmail.com to Live.com to Outlook.com), the
deprecation of OE to Windows Mail(another unstable product) and later to
Windows Live. The latter(Window Live applications like Live Mail - folks
completely misunderstood, the purpose - Live Mail was never intended to
be a replacement but the intiial and now seminal step into online
integration with cloud services.
Spaces became SkyDrive(integrated with Live Mail, Messenger, PhotoGallery)
SkyDrive became OneDrive(integrated with Office applications local and
online in Outlook.com)
Contacts for MSA(Live Mail, Messenger, Skype, Outlook, Teams
Outlook.com)integrated and synced locally and online)
Calendar for MSA(Outlook, Outlook.com - similar to Contacts)

In the long run, the Outlook naming was and continues to be about
integration across applications and the cloud all running on a backend
Microsoft Exchange Platform.

Though none of the above, excuses the Windows 10/11 'Mail app' which
while functional for those with simple needs, remains a client that most
should avoid when greater control and functionality is necessary. It
works but even Outlook.com web UI features are much better.
- the Outlook app for iOS and Android is a reasonable mobile client
for MSA, Gmail, and most 3rd party email client users.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 6/6/2022 4:54 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 7/06/2022 2:05 am, Paul wrote:
>> On 6/6/2022 7:17 AM, none@given.com wrote:
>>
>
> A simple google search will answer your question and solve your problem, so you can continue tinkering away to your hearts content.
>
> geoff

A simple Google isn't going to train you on how to use
the Federated Search feature. That's what makes it awful
in the year 2022. The participants here know not to use it.
But I spent the time to make it work, and boy, does it
"creak". As near as I can determine, whoever wrote it, has
left the company, as nobody seems to work on it any more.

As an example, it has a selector, to select between indexing
filenames and contents, or just indexing filenames. The selector
does nothing. It's a tick box which is completely worthless.
Does Google tell you that ? No. Of course not.

Paul

On 6/6/2022 8:46 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2022 16:50:29 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> In addition, I remember trying (in vain, mostly) to explain to people
>>> (extended family members) the difference between Internet Explorer and
>>> Windows Explorer.
>>
>> Since quite some time (Vista? 7?) it's actually 'File Explorer', not
>> 'Windows Explorer'. <snip>
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that. On my Win 7 VMs it's still called Windows
> Explorer, but on my 8.1 VMs (and later) it's called File Explorer. If it
> was up to me, I wouldn't have renamed it, even if the new name is
> marginally better.
>

Shades of Linux, where the executable is "nautilus" and the title
bar in the window that opens says "files". As if the name of the
executable was "files" or something. The user is expected to
memorize the fact the title bar is a load of shit.

nautilua smb://192.168.1.2/shared

That is why you need to know the name of the executable, as
file sharing will not work unless you do it that way.

Now, a person who "didn't like to tinker", simply would
not be doing file sharing. That's their reward for not
doing the work.

Paul

On 7/06/2022 3:02 pm, Paul wrote:
> On 6/6/2022 4:54 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 7/06/2022 2:05 am, Paul wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2022 7:17 AM, none@given.com wrote:
>>>
>>
>> A simple google search will answer your question and solve your
>> problem, so you can continue tinkering away to your hearts content.
>>
>> geoff
>
> A simple Google isn't going to train you on how to use
> the Federated Search feature. That's what makes it awful
> in the year 2022. The participants here know not to use it.
> But I spent the time to make it work, and boy, does it
> "creak". As near as I can determine, whoever wrote it, has
> left the company, as nobody seems to work on it any more.
>
> As an example, it has a selector, to select between indexing
> filenames and contents, or just indexing filenames. The selector
> does nothing. It's a tick box which is completely worthless.
> Does Google tell you that ? No. Of course not.
>
>    Paul

A simple google search will tell you why your VirtualBox doesn't work,
and how to fix it.

https://bfy.tw/TAuJ

geoff

Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2022 16:50:29 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> In addition, I remember trying (in vain, mostly) to explain to people
>>> (extended family members) the difference between Internet Explorer and
>>> Windows Explorer.
>>
>> Since quite some time (Vista? 7?) it's actually 'File Explorer', not
>> 'Windows Explorer'. <snip>
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that. On my Win 7 VMs it's still called Windows
> Explorer, but on my 8.1 VMs (and later) it's called File Explorer. If it
> was up to me, I wouldn't have renamed it, even if the new name is
> marginally better.

The use of the word "explorer" in two fundamentally different programmes
for file management and internet browsing was always a source of confusion
for many inexperienced users.

On 6 Jun 2022 16:27:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>[...]
>
>> In any case, "none.given" is like nospam on a bad day. He's
>> only here to argue nonsense and insult people. The photo group
>> seems to have more than its share of cranks.
>
>none@given.com:
>
>[V] Clueless
>[V] Snotty
>[V] Anonymous

'appen.

On the other hand, all my computers mysteriously just work.

Maybe, if the nered obsession with trying to"tame" their computers
trying to keep them back in the 1990s brings them so much grief...
it's not a good idea?