That's really my main question. I don't care what happens "under the
hood" so to speak, but it seems every version changes 'work flow' and
one has to learn different sequence of clicks to accomplish the task.

Is there a means to at least keep the same interface?
--
pyotr filipivich
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious
is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell

pyotr filipivich wrote:
> That's really my main question. I don't care what happens "under the
> hood" so to speak, but it seems every version changes 'work flow' and
> one has to learn different sequence of clicks to accomplish the task.
>
> Is there a means to at least keep the same interface?

I run Open Shell on Windows 10 Pro and you can make 10 Pro look just like
Windows 7 which is what I did. I do not have 11 to try Opem Shell because I
took 11 off of the new computer and replaced with 10 Pro but I have been
informed Open Shell works with 11. Unfortunately the young designers at
Microsoft believe everything should look like a cell phone. That does not
work for me on a computer.
--
<Bill>

Brought to you from Anchorage, Alaska

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
> That's really my main question. I don't care what happens "under the
> hood" so to speak, but it seems every version changes 'work flow' and
> one has to learn different sequence of clicks to accomplish the task.
>
> Is there a means to at least keep the same interface?

If you mean the same interface for *using* the system, then you can
accomplish a lot by using non-MS software and try to keep using that on
newer versions of Windows.

But the interface for *managing* the system will change bit by bit in
every new version. For example Control Panel split off some parts to
Settings in 8[.1] and more in 10 and 11, but there is still quite a lot
of Control Panel in 11 (which do not have to use, but can use).

But 'even' in the first category - using the system - there are
changes over time, for example File Explorer, Notepad, Command Prompt
window, etc.. Of course Microsoft considers those changes improvements/
enhancements, but for for example File Explorer, there are also negative
changes.

That said, I moved from (NT to 2000 to) XP to Vista to 8.1 to 10 (a
bit) to 11, without too much trouble, both in using and in managing the
system.

As always, YMMV/YMWV.

On 12/2/2023 11:58 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> That's really my main question. I don't care what happens "under the
> hood" so to speak, but it seems every version changes 'work flow' and
> one has to learn different sequence of clicks to accomplish the task.
>
> Is there a means to at least keep the same interface?
>

There might not be an "Ideal" article on this topic.
Doing it only for Windows 8, is a weird choice. The text
in the article, mentions the names of things that work
in some of the other OSes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Start_menu_replacements_for_Windows_8

And perhaps Winaero Tweaker. You might need a tweaker, for example, if dealing
with the "two-part" Windows 11 Explorer menu, and converting it back
into a Windows 10 "one-part" menu. It's just some sort of registry entry,
but who wants to be collecting those tweaks one at a time.

Paul

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 08:34:01 -0900, "Bill Bradshaw" <bradshaw@gci.net>
wrote:

>pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> That's really my main question. I don't care what happens "under the
>> hood" so to speak, but it seems every version changes 'work flow' and
>> one has to learn different sequence of clicks to accomplish the task.
>>
>> Is there a means to at least keep the same interface?

Yerp. It's even easy.

Don't "upgrade". :)

But "Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, ever." so you only
need to downgrade your machines once. There will *NEVER* be a Win-11,
Win-12 nor Win-13.

Ummmmmmmmm, actually, there may not ever be a "Windows Thirteen".
USAliens often don't have a 13th floor in tall buildings and Microsoft
wouldn't want to alienate the superstitious.

NASA once had a thirteenth in a series and that didn't turn out well.
>
>I run Open Shell on Windows 10 Pro and you can make 10 Pro look just like
>Windows 7 which is what I did. I do not have 11 to try Opem Shell because I
>took 11 off of the new computer and replaced with 10 Pro but I have been
>informed Open Shell works with 11. Unfortunately the young designers at
>Microsoft believe everything should look like a cell phone.

Yes? So, if they wish to integrate all of the operating systems and
user interfaces, why don't they make mobile phones work like desktops?
Surely that would have been a hell of a lot easier?

True, earlier and dumber 'phones would have needed cut-down, crippled
versions of the OS at first but that was always going to be a
temporary issue.

> That does not
>work for me on a computer.

Me, also.

Once my Win-7 box dies, I just stop computing.

No, *Nixxy-stuff isn't a replacement. It takes too much effort. Also,
I'd need to make a decision on which one to use. That, too, is far too
much like hard work. :)

J.

On 12/3/2023 4:49 AM, John wrote:

> No, *Nixxy-stuff isn't a replacement. It takes too much effort. Also,
> I'd need to make a decision on which one to use. That, too, is far too
> much like hard work. :)

It's a different skill set.

But the effort-thing has been reduced quite a bit.

You can get a vague sense of the popularity here.

https://distrowatch.com/ # Look down a bit, on the right side-bar

A parenting-map, will give you some idea which distros use
the same package management. This is in case you see a name,
and don't know where it fits in the scheme of things.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg

Paul

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> on 2 Dec 2023 18:23:01 GMT
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> That's really my main question. I don't care what happens "under the
>> hood" so to speak, but it seems every version changes 'work flow' and
>> one has to learn different sequence of clicks to accomplish the task.
>>
>> Is there a means to at least keep the same interface?
>
> If you mean the same interface for *using* the system, then you can
>accomplish a lot by using non-MS software and try to keep using that on
>newer versions of Windows.

I have as much as possible avoid using MS software since version
4.
My main issue it the problem of my hand "knows" that to reach
directory NewFolder, the mouse goes there, clicks on Directory Foo,
then clicks on Bar and then Grill. Only Windows 7 (8, 9, 10 ...N+1)
keep changing where Foo is when it opens (e.g. I klick on Foo, the
directory opens in the navigation panel at the bottom of the panel! I
mean it isn't like I might want to see a subdirectory in Foo, that
would make too much sense!)

My analogy is that for a long time after I got the "new" car, when
I got home, I would turn on the windshield wipers. Because the
previous car had the gearshift on the column, whereas the new one had
the wipers there, and gear shift on the dash.
>
> But the interface for *managing* the system will change bit by bit in
>every new version. For example Control Panel split off some parts to
>Settings in 8[.1] and more in 10 and 11, but there is still quite a lot
>of Control Panel in 11 (which do not have to use, but can use).
>
> But 'even' in the first category - using the system - there are
>changes over time, for example File Explorer, Notepad, Command Prompt
>window, etc.. Of course Microsoft considers those changes improvements/
>enhancements, but for for example File Explorer, there are also negative
>changes.

Wordpad used to be a useful program. Now it is Word-lite and one
cannot change the defaults! I ported an older version of Wordpad to
Windows 7, and so far, it works.
>
> That said, I moved from (NT to 2000 to) XP to Vista to 8.1 to 10 (a
>bit) to 11, without too much trouble, both in using and in managing the
>system.

Let me see, I started with Win 3.11 for workgroups (I think) and
stayed with XP(32) until Classes required a 64 bit machine. I knew I
should have upgraded to 64bit ...
>
> As always, YMMV/YMWV.

And it usually does.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> on Sat, 2 Dec 2023 16:53:52 -0500 typed
in alt.windows7.general the following:
>On 12/2/2023 11:58 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> That's really my main question. I don't care what happens "under the
>> hood" so to speak, but it seems every version changes 'work flow' and
>> one has to learn different sequence of clicks to accomplish the task.
>>
>> Is there a means to at least keep the same interface?
>>
>
>There might not be an "Ideal" article on this topic.
>Doing it only for Windows 8, is a weird choice. The text
>in the article, mentions the names of things that work
>in some of the other OSes.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Start_menu_replacements_for_Windows_8
>
>And perhaps Winaero Tweaker. You might need a tweaker, for example, if dealing
>with the "two-part" Windows 11 Explorer menu, and converting it back
>into a Windows 10 "one-part" menu. It's just some sort of registry entry,
>but who wants to be collecting those tweaks one at a time.

As I have read elsewhere, Microsoft is orienting towards
businesses which have an IT department to do all that, and for the
most part hiding things from non-business IT Dept types.
>
> Paul
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

"pyotr filipivich" <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote

| That's really my main question. I don't care what happens "under the
| hood" so to speak, but it seems every version changes 'work flow' and
| one has to learn different sequence of clicks to accomplish the task.
| | Is there a means to at least keep the same interface?

I've found that with ShutUp10, Winaero Tweaker and
Classic Shell, it's not too bad. But I also haven't needed
to do much. I still use XP for most things. When I need
to find a setting in 10 it's confusing. For example, display
settings seem to be spread across display, personalization...
maybe other places? Why isn't Airplane mode in networking?
Why do there seem to be multiple collections of settings?
It's not intuitive. And the ribbon menu should be optional.
MS spent decades establishing a menu standard, so that
one knows where to reach almost any functionality in any
program. Then they suddenly just broke the whole thing and
present a pile of tiny icons in an undefined field. It's fine
if some people like it, but such things should be optional.

So I'm guessing that if I ever move to 10/11 I'll need to
spend some time getting it to behave. By then, who knows?
Maybe Linux will be usable without requiring a console
window. (Though I'm not betting on that. There are too
many Linux geeks who thing console is romantic, like
camping out in your yard to feel like you're roughing it.
People like that don't need to do work on Linux. They
just want to tinker.)

Another option would be to build your own box if you
have Win7 Pro. You could then copy your OS over. But
as I understand it, supporting current CPUs takes some
custom adjustments. Frankly I've never thought much
of 7, either. I have a Win7 Dell that I use for streaming
movies to a TV. It works well enough after turning off
the round corners and the translucent blades of grass.
But it's mostly just a poor and bloated copy of XP.

In message <ukjh00$38ji2$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 3 Dec 2023 22:27:36,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
[]
>present a pile of tiny icons in an undefined field. It's fine
>if some people like it, but such things should be optional.

Trouble is, if left or made optional, people - including me - will never
switch. Even if the new way _is_ objectively better, people - including
me - will say "I don't have time _now_", and will continue to do so. I
suppose some sort of timed transition - you can keep the old way for x
weeks - would work, but it'd need nags, which irritate people.
>
> So I'm guessing that if I ever move to 10/11 I'll need to
>spend some time getting it to behave. By then, who knows?
>Maybe Linux will be usable without requiring a console
>window. (Though I'm not betting on that. There are too
>many Linux geeks who thing console is romantic, like
>camping out in your yard to feel like you're roughing it.
>People like that don't need to do work on Linux. They
>just want to tinker.)

(-:
>
> Another option would be to build your own box if you
>have Win7 Pro. You could then copy your OS over. But
>as I understand it, supporting current CPUs takes some
>custom adjustments. Frankly I've never thought much

And other hardware - I think such as USB3.

>of 7, either. I have a Win7 Dell that I use for streaming

I've got used to 7, beaten into submission with Classic Shell and other
tweaks, to the extent that it doesn't irritate me now. Much as I was to
XP.

>movies to a TV. It works well enough after turning off
>the round corners and the translucent blades of grass.
>But it's mostly just a poor and bloated copy of XP.
>
(My understanding is that underneath, it's really mostly a fixed version
of Vista. But from the user's POV, yes, it's much as XP was once
tweaked.)
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Everyone is entitled to an *informed* opinion." - Harlan Ellison

On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 22:27:36 -0500, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Frankly I've never thought much
>of 7, either. I have a Win7 Dell that I use for streaming
>movies to a TV. It works well enough after turning off
>the round corners and the translucent blades of grass.
>But it's mostly just a poor and bloated copy of XP.
>

Oh, my gawd! Someone finally agrees with me about that Win 7 piece of
bleep!

About 95% of my usage is still with XP.

I've always thought that because MS needed some extra bucks they were
forced to come up with a piece of dreck like 7. So, they took XP,
totally screwed it up and called it Win 7.

In message <14ermi14iap5394ghhu13ilesvb8nme16o@4ax.com> at Mon, 4 Dec
2023 05:46:04, mike@invalid.com writes
>On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 22:27:36 -0500, "Newyana2"
><Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> Frankly I've never thought much
>>of 7, either. I have a Win7 Dell that I use for streaming
>>movies to a TV. It works well enough after turning off
>>the round corners and the translucent blades of grass.
>>But it's mostly just a poor and bloated copy of XP.
>>
>
>Oh, my gawd! Someone finally agrees with me about that Win 7 piece of
>bleep!
>
>About 95% of my usage is still with XP.
>
>I've always thought that because MS needed some extra bucks they were
>forced to come up with a piece of dreck like 7. So, they took XP,
>totally screwed it up and called it Win 7.
>
You're forgetting Vista. 7 was basically Vista with some (arguably most)
of the more irritating bits fixed.
>
(Given this is a 7 'group, you'll probably not get many agreeing with
your view above.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I believe we made up god just to have someone to blame for our
mistakes - "Sarah Sidle" (Jorja Fox), CSI

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| Trouble is, if left or made optional, people - including me - will never
| switch. Even if the new way _is_ objectively better, people - including
| me - will say "I don't have time _now_"

Objectively better? That borders on religious dogma.
I'm using the tool. As much as possible it should
accommodate my preferences. We now have an Explorer
that breaks the rules and doesn't act like 95% of software
programs... which were all designed to accord with
Windows standards, so that no matter what program
you use, It's Edit->Copy, Tools->Options, Help to find
the program version, File to save or open. Occasionally
there are aberrations, like File->Preferences, but in
general it's standardized.

There was good reason for boring menu and programs
that did NOT have a UI of brass and black walnut. They're
tools. They should perform functions without getting in
the way.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 12:45:30 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <14ermi14iap5394ghhu13ilesvb8nme16o@4ax.com> at Mon, 4 Dec
>2023 05:46:04, mike@invalid.com writes
>>On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 22:27:36 -0500, "Newyana2"
>><Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>> Frankly I've never thought much
>>>of 7, either. I have a Win7 Dell that I use for streaming
>>>movies to a TV. It works well enough after turning off
>>>the round corners and the translucent blades of grass.
>>>But it's mostly just a poor and bloated copy of XP.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, my gawd! Someone finally agrees with me about that Win 7 piece of
>>bleep!
>>
>>About 95% of my usage is still with XP.
>>
>>I've always thought that because MS needed some extra bucks they were
>>forced to come up with a piece of dreck like 7. So, they took XP,
>>totally screwed it up and called it Win 7.
>>
>You're forgetting Vista. 7 was basically Vista with some (arguably most)
>of the more irritating bits fixed.
>>
>(Given this is a 7 'group, you'll probably not get many agreeing with
>your view above.)

Believe this or not, you are the very first person to agree with me.
My wife doesn't even agree with me. I doubt if she has ever opened
any Settings Menu in Windows or her browser. I did set stuff up the
best I could for Privacy and Security. But I had to compromise even
those settings because she simply won't accept many of the
limitations enforced by the security and privacy settings.

These software companies have achieved an almost lack of privacy and
security for the average ignorant computer user with their horrible
"updates" riddled with complexities and terminology way past the
average users understanding. I am appalled at times listening to her
speaking to one of her girl friends about their computer usage. Their
almost total lack of understanding is scary. The information of their
entire lives are an open book to the world of greedy hackers and
businesses.

<mike@invalid.com> wrote

|
| > Frankly I've never thought much
| >of 7, either. I have a Win7 Dell that I use for streaming
| >movies to a TV. It works well enough after turning off
| >the round corners and the translucent blades of grass.
| >But it's mostly just a poor and bloated copy of XP.
| >
| | Oh, my gawd! Someone finally agrees with me about that Win 7 piece of
| bleep!
|

It's also a memory/CPU hog because it's essentially
painting images on the screen and then tracking hotspots,
like those dated boombox GUI music players.

Remember the fiasco with Vista and how they made a
non-Aero version? Much of what was "fixed" in 7 was
simply that the available hardware was finally able to
support that bloated slop. When I use 7 it feels like
driving a VW bug after being used to XP being a sports
car. Nearly everything on XP is instant, except dependable
old Firefox, which still takes 5 seconds to get to its feet.

(Win10 isn't too bad with a multi-core, 3+GHz CPU, but
it's never zippy. It feels like I'm always interrupting a
conversation. I tell Win10 to do x. Win10 says, "What?
Huh? OK.")

It's an interesting thing about design and our obsession
with "new". Typically designs get increasingly fantastical
and baroque, to communicate a sense of transcending.
Eventually they get to an excessive point and the next step
is the aesthetics of simplicity. For example, once we were
finally able to have any color for decorating, including
fluoresent or "day-glo", people began to get very articulate
about variations of beige. ("I love your living room. That
off-white has just the subtlest hint of blush. Gorgeous!")

Once we'd mastered 3-D chrome-plated fonts, people
wanted to go back to simple. Once dashboards, stereos
and TVs reached the delight of walnut burl and soft chrome,
the next step was flat black. Socialism is more sophisticated
than monarchy.

Cars are now going post-modern. One can buy stick-on
chrome to mimic the random chrome flairs on the latest cars.
Just as architecture got stripped down to nothing and then
brought back decoration as godless options: A simple square
box of a building with pointless, stick-on fluted columns and
round-top windows, for example. Once we'd defeated natural
and spiritual aesthetic rules with modernism, we could further
express our conquest by using decoration randomly.

The excess is a perversion of religious awe, such as is aroused
by entering a cathedral, the building of which might seem
impossible if you weren't standing in it. The valorization of
simplicity and deconstructionism is the blasphemy of godlessness.
Post-modern is the follow-up perversion -- dancing naked on
the altar to show how we've defeated the confines of reality.

So it was no surprise that MS tried to go modernist hipster
with the Win8 Metro monotones, after peak excess in Win7.
But it simply didn't work, in addition to being ugly. I'm guessing
that the programmers were all cellphone addicts. They weren't
hipsters who'd painted their homes in 5 shades of dustball gray.
Rather, they were technicians with no sense of aesthetic, who
saw cellphone UIs wherever they looked.

They made a menu for a cellphone on a 21" monitor! Which
is a good example of simply bad design, but blended with the
false aesthetic of minimalism. We now have things like "hamburger
menus" on browsers, which makes no sense on a desktop. It's a
design mandated by the one-thing-at-a-time limitation of
cellphones.

In message <ukkid2$3e1bd$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Dec 2023 07:57:46,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| Trouble is, if left or made optional, people - including me - will never
>| switch. Even if the new way _is_ objectively better, people - including
>| me - will say "I don't have time _now_"
>
> Objectively better? That borders on religious dogma.

Well, people can disagree, of course. What's needed, for such an
assessment, are brand-new users - and the supply of those is getting
very small now! Many of we old-timers like what we've learnt, whether
it's objectively better or not: like many, I have "muscle memory" of how
to do things, and a new way _may_ be better, but unless it's something
I'm going to use _a lot_, the effort required to learn it (part of which
is _unlearning_ how I know to do it), I resent it, and may even install
a tweaker to let me keep it as it was.

>I'm using the tool. As much as possible it should

(Sorry, what tool?)

>accommodate my preferences. We now have an Explorer
>that breaks the rules and doesn't act like 95% of software
>programs... which were all designed to accord with
>Windows standards, so that no matter what program
>you use, It's Edit->Copy, Tools->Options, Help to find
>the program version, File to save or open. Occasionally
>there are aberrations, like File->Preferences, but in
>general it's standardized.

What are standard "memes" do change, gradually. I use genealogy software
- Brother's Keeper - which evolved from DOS days. It's retained _many_
of its properties over the years - it has not changed, but Windows has,
gradually, around it. Initially, I - and many of its other users - loved
it because it did _not_ bend to new "fads", but now it's getting a
little wearing, remembering that it does things differently. Not that
it's changed, but conventions around it have.

For example, tabbing between text fields. It's been the Windows norm for
many years that, in a webform for example, when you tab from one field
to another, the text contents of the field you've tabbed to are
highlighted. I used to find this irritating (as it was easy to delete a
field by mistake just by typing a character), but I've got used to it
over the years in other softwares and Windows itself, and now I come to
expect it - and have to remember that it _isn't_ the case in BK.
>
> There was good reason for boring menu and programs
>that did NOT have a UI of brass and black walnut. They're
>tools. They should perform functions without getting in
>the way.
>
Yes, I agree, interfaces that are different from the norm _just for the
sake of it_ are irritating, and there should be a "plain" option. (Also,
especially if they use _only_ images of text - as they often do, on
buttons for example - they're difficult for users of "screen-readers",
i. e. those who use Braille and/or speech to use their computers,
because those will just say "image" or similar - often nothing at all.)
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's not an app for that.

In message <ukkki6$3ebrm$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 4 Dec 2023 08:34:37,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
[]
> It's also a memory/CPU hog because it's essentially
>painting images on the screen and then tracking hotspots,
>like those dated boombox GUI music players.
[]
>car. Nearly everything on XP is instant, except dependable
>old Firefox, which still takes 5 seconds to get to its feet.
>
>(Win10 isn't too bad with a multi-core, 3+GHz CPU, but
>it's never zippy. It feels like I'm always interrupting a
>conversation. I tell Win10 to do x. Win10 says, "What?
>Huh? OK.")

I'm finding much the same (pretty quick) with 7 - I have an i3.
(i3-2350M - not very recent!, but more powerful than my first 7
machine.) Bloatware would have killed the extra power of course, but
since 7 - and the software I run on it - has now more or less stopped
developing, that doesn't happen.
>
> It's an interesting thing about design and our obsession
>with "new". Typically designs get increasingly fantastical
>and baroque, to communicate a sense of transcending.
>Eventually they get to an excessive point and the next step
>is the aesthetics of simplicity. For example, once we were

The Windows logo is a lovely example of that. Developed through a curly
sheet, or flag flapping in the breeze - then for 8 and 10, reverted to a
simple flat thing, without even colours!
[]
> Cars are now going post-modern. One can buy stick-on
>chrome to mimic the random chrome flairs on the latest cars.

They certainly seem to have lost colours - the proportion that are now
variants on silver-grey is depressing. Hard to find my car in a car-park
now!
[]
> So it was no surprise that MS tried to go modernist hipster
>with the Win8 Metro monotones, after peak excess in Win7.

I know I'm in a minority here, but I quite like Aero; I turned it off on
my previous machine, not so much because of its drain on resources
(though that was certainly noticeable), but because it interfered with
some things I wanted to do; on this one I've not got round to wanting to
do those, and it has the power that the extra suck isn't a problem.

>But it simply didn't work, in addition to being ugly. I'm guessing
>that the programmers were all cellphone addicts. They weren't

10, initially at least, went that way too - still looked too much like 8
for my liking.

(Though we must accept the 'phone thing: like it or not [and I don't], I
think the _majority_ of computer use these days is via the things. Among
modern users, the only ones who actually use a computer - as we'd
understand the term - are those who need to for business purposes [OK,
or those who write _a lot_].)
[]
> They made a menu for a cellphone on a 21" monitor! Which
>is a good example of simply bad design, but blended with the
>false aesthetic of minimalism. We now have things like "hamburger
>menus" on browsers, which makes no sense on a desktop. It's a

Agreed. _If_ you want to indicate "settings", then a cogwheel (I think
that's "gearwheel" in US English) at least has some connection to
machinery. But burying _all_ menu options inside a single icon is a
pain. (It doesn't, to me anyway, even look like a hamburger!)

>design mandated by the one-thing-at-a-time limitation of
>cellphones.
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's not an app for that.

On 12/4/2023 6:46 AM, mike@invalid.com wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 22:27:36 -0500, "Newyana2"
> <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> Frankly I've never thought much
>> of 7, either. I have a Win7 Dell that I use for streaming
>> movies to a TV. It works well enough after turning off
>> the round corners and the translucent blades of grass.
>> But it's mostly just a poor and bloated copy of XP.
>>
>
> Oh, my gawd! Someone finally agrees with me about that Win 7 piece of
> bleep!
>
> About 95% of my usage is still with XP.
>
> I've always thought that because MS needed some extra bucks they were
> forced to come up with a piece of dreck like 7. So, they took XP,
> totally screwed it up and called it Win 7.
>

Vista was the rewrite. It was supposed to have taken five years,
and the cake wasn't quite baked when delivered (the myriad options
of file copy needed some work - Russinovich worked that up for us
before Microsoft hired him).

Vista SP2 would have been "the debugged version".
Windows Update at the end, was just in terrible shape.
(You need WSUSOffline Vista collection, to patch it up.
You have to use exactly the right patching sequence, for WU to work.)

Win7 is Vista SP3.

The turn interval on the others, was somewhat faster, indicating
that the core wasn't changing, and a few deck chairs moved around.

You can't really say anything nice about the Metro.Apps .
Regular win32.exe follow rules and the details can be
checked by mere humans. You could say in a sense, that win32.exe
"meets objectives and is properly integrated into the OS". You
can run a win32.exe with a mouse, from the command line, pass it
parameters, study it with DependencyWalker, and so on.

The Metro.App have used various launch conventions, such as a
launch shortcut where you can't pass parameters (think about what
would happen if you ported Thunderbird.exe to Thunderbird.App and
needed -p for the Profile Manager).

The CPU P&E cores has required the scheduler to be adjusted a bit,
and the desktop scheduler is not good past 64 cores. A 32C 64T
is as far as it goes, as buying more cores on the CPU than that,
requires the W10 Workstation SKU for example, so the performance curve
does not "kink" past 64. Task Manager CPU pane changes to a heat map
(color equals utilization). CPU cores "work in groups of 64", if
you have a 192 total count for CPU pane entries. You could potentially
go past 64, on an upcoming HEDT platform (at least, a HEDT that is
not a server chip in sheeps clothing).

When Win7 lost support for new CPUs, a limp excuse was the power state
change on CPUs generation. They went from close to 1 millisecond to change
state, to into the microseconds. The threading model didn't change at
first. The CPUs went from rotating rings (causing a performance penalty
at high core counts), to a wired mesh (5x6 buses in a matrix). And
Win7 would not understand some of these things. No idea what the
performance consequences of a mismatch might be. We know that
in certain cases, to game on a CPU, you might have to turn off
Hyperthreading to get the best behavior from your machine.

Even to this day, it's really hard to tell if the scheduler is
working properly. This is a test with 7ZIP, with increasing
assigned core count. Hyperthreading is ON. (Since its invention,
it's had more or less benefit, as a function of some kind of arch changes.)
What I don't understand here, is why one thread isn't assigned per core,
until all cores are busy, and then second threads are added to the cores,
I know I will hear "it's the caches stupid", but still...

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/L6hWjw6p/Zen3-Power-Numbers.gif

Paul

On 12/4/2023 8:34 AM, Newyana2 wrote:

>
> They made a menu for a cellphone on a 21" monitor! Which
> is a good example of simply bad design, but blended with the
> false aesthetic of minimalism. We now have things like "hamburger
> menus" on browsers, which makes no sense on a desktop. It's a
> design mandated by the one-thing-at-a-time limitation of
> cellphones.

My latest favourite design "achievement", is a text editor
on Ubuntu.

At one time, they made the design to put an "open button" on one
corner of the window, and a "save button" on the other corner.
Frequently, a window would be shifted to one side a bit, and the
"save button" would be off the screen. You would have to remember
this, wiggle the window around and check the corners.

Other windows, might have put a critical "save button" in the bottom
right corner, and again, you couldn't see it.

But the latest fiddle, takes the cake.

You have the "Open button". (And this means, rather than a "Muscle Memory",
you have armed the user with an "expectation" of what comes next.)

You're working along and you want to save. Well "Nothing Up My Sleeve".
There *is* no Save Button. I had to look it up, and it says "the save
function now hides in the three-bar Hamburglar menu!". Surprise!
As a result, if you are using several distros (each of course
with its own variant of a text editor), you're turning over
rocks, looking for the Save Button. "Nothing Up My Sleeve".

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/566a4af357eb8d3974390587/1519092397838-DI3NARCTBMBO889FJH4L/NothingUpMySleeve-JWS-00170.jpg?format=500w

Why is there an Open Button ? Why didn't the Open Button and
the Save Button, live in harmony inside the Hamburglar menu ?
Well, I'm not a UI designer. It would take a lot of university
courses, to do a design this exact way. Not even that finger
painting course in grade school, could prepare you for this.

Some day, they will put the Open Button, on the "back surface"
of the window. (I suppose I should not even write up such a joke,
because a UI designer might implement it.)

Paul

On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 13:10:26 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 12/3/2023 4:49 AM, John wrote:
>
>> No, *Nixxy-stuff isn't a replacement. It takes too much effort. Also,
>> I'd need to make a decision on which one to use. That, too, is far too
>> much like hard work. :)
>
>It's a different skill set.

Not really. Programming is programming, using is using and a computer
is a computer no matter how it is decorated. Data in, process, send
processed foods to something for human or further machine interaction.
It's all good.

The walls and curtains may look different and be in different colours
but it's all much of a sameness.

>
>But the effort-thing has been reduced quite a bit.

Very, very true. Unices used to mean years of fiddling just to get
the Wi-fi to talk to the browsers. That is no longer an issue with
most of them.

Yond nerds have done fantastic work making life easier for us lazy
folk.

>
>You can get a vague sense of the popularity here.
>
> https://distrowatch.com/ # Look down a bit, on the right side-bar

Thank you. This was very kind of you.

I am slightly surprised that ReactOS is still breathing. I liked that
one when it was a real, live girl on its own hardwares. But I'm weird,
I liked Wiindows ME and OS2, too.

>
>A parenting-map, will give you some idea which distros use
>the same package management. This is in case you see a name,
>and don't know where it fits in the scheme of things.
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg

I am not entirely sure that *this* was a kindness. :)

Holy Klono's Gadolinium Gonads, that's a lot of forking about.

I've been using *Nixxy stuff at work since the Pre-Cambrian eras on a
variety of platforms so I *could* move over to one with relative ease.
Maybe even move over to a couple ... of dozens. I just don't have the
energy any more.

When my Cylon box dies, I quit.

It's even possible that she'll outlast me. That would be funny. Not
to me, of course. :)

>
> Paul

You're a nice person. Or a nice machine running a personality overlay
or a nice alien hive-mind or whatever.

You've helped millions and millions of us, many of whom have been
silently given help and advice we didn't even know we needed.

Thank you, Merry Christmas and I wish you a wonderful New Year.

J.

On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 16:10:05 -0800, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> on 2 Dec 2023 18:23:01 GMT
>typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
>>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> That's really my main question. I don't care what happens "under the
>>> hood" so to speak, but it seems every version changes 'work flow' and
>>> one has to learn different sequence of clicks to accomplish the task.
>>>
>>> Is there a means to at least keep the same interface?
>>
>> If you mean the same interface for *using* the system, then you can
>>accomplish a lot by using non-MS software and try to keep using that on
>>newer versions of Windows.
>
> I have as much as possible avoid using MS software since version
>4.
> My main issue it the problem of my hand "knows" that to reach
>directory NewFolder, the mouse goes there, clicks on Directory Foo,
>then clicks on Bar and then Grill. Only Windows 7 (8, 9, 10 ...N+1)
>keep changing where Foo is when it opens (e.g. I klick on Foo, the
>directory opens in the navigation panel at the bottom of the panel! I
>mean it isn't like I might want to see a subdirectory in Foo, that
>would make too much sense!)

That is one of many reasons why I've been using an old copy of
"Pwerdesk 9" as my file manager for many years. It even migrated
perfectly across from WinXP to my Win-7 boxen.

Yes, it's old, yes it lacks new "features" but it so far does what I
*want* it to and that is all I can ask from a program.

>
> My analogy is that for a long time after I got the "new" car, when
>I got home, I would turn on the windshield wipers. Because the
>previous car had the gearshift on the column, whereas the new one had
>the wipers there, and gear shift on the dash.

Very early Fords. Apparently those were slightly idiosyncratic and
other cars were far simpler to drive.

Switching from one to the other was said not to easy.

>>
>> But the interface for *managing* the system will change bit by bit in
>>every new version. For example Control Panel split off some parts to
>>Settings in 8[.1] and more in 10 and 11, but there is still quite a lot
>>of Control Panel in 11 (which do not have to use, but can use).
>>
>> But 'even' in the first category - using the system - there are
>>changes over time, for example File Explorer, Notepad, Command Prompt
>>window, etc.. Of course Microsoft considers those changes improvements/
>>enhancements, but for for example File Explorer, there are also negative
>>changes.
>
> Wordpad used to be a useful program. Now it is Word-lite and one
>cannot change the defaults! I ported an older version of Wordpad to
>Windows 7, and so far, it works.
>>
>> That said, I moved from (NT to 2000 to) XP to Vista to 8.1 to 10 (a
>>bit) to 11, without too much trouble, both in using and in managing the
>>system.
>
> Let me see, I started with Win 3.11 for workgroups (I think) and
>stayed with XP(32) until Classes required a 64 bit machine. I knew I
>should have upgraded to 64bit ...
>>
>> As always, YMMV/YMWV.
>
> And it usually does.

If we were all the same, I wouldn't have all of those other smart
guys doing the work I'm far too lazy to bother with that makes my life
easier. I'd have to -- horror! -- do some of it myself.

I don't find that concept comforting. :)

J.

John wrote on 5/12/23 5:53 pm:

<Snip>

> Very early Fords. Apparently those were slightly idiosyncratic and
> other cars were far simpler to drive.

"were far simpler to drive"!! Really?? Or because there were far less
vehicles in the roads it *seemed* they "were far simpler to drive"!!

I mean, if I wanted to turn at the next intersection, It seemed I had
about three days to put the indicator on, change lanes then turn.

Or was that just me?? ;-P
--
Daniel

In message <1hgtmi91gcufch1f1tg6jt3d6u9g7v739p@4ax.com> at Tue, 5 Dec
2023 06:44:31, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 13:10:26 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
[]
>> Paul
>
> You're a nice person. Or a nice machine running a personality overlay
>or a nice alien hive-mind or whatever.
>
> You've helped millions and millions of us, many of whom have been
>silently given help and advice we didn't even know we needed.
>
> Thank you, Merry Christmas and I wish you a wonderful New Year.
>
> J.
Seconded (or n+1ed). Paul is IMO the top person in this 'group (and
others I've seen) - knowledgeable, but willing to _explain_ to many of
us mere mortals, and very patient when we don't get something (-:!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A clean, neat and orderly desk is a sign of a sick mind. (G6JPG's mind is
clearly extremely healthy ...)

"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> on Sun, 3 Dec 2023 22:27:36 -0500
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
>
> Another option would be to build your own box if you
>have Win7 Pro. You could then copy your OS over. But
>as I understand it, supporting current CPUs takes some
>custom adjustments. Frankly I've never thought much
>of 7, either. I have a Win7 Dell that I use for streaming
>movies to a TV. It works well enough after turning off
>the round corners and the translucent blades of grass.
>But it's mostly just a poor and bloated copy of XP.
>
On my shopping list when I get the Temporal Transmorgifyer working
is to pick up several XP-64 boxes, so that as one dies, I have
replacements.
And several other items they don't make anymore.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> on Mon, 4 Dec 2023 07:57:46 -0500
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| Trouble is, if left or made optional, people - including me - will never
>| switch. Even if the new way _is_ objectively better, people - including
>| me - will say "I don't have time _now_"
>
> Objectively better? That borders on religious dogma.
>I'm using the tool. As much as possible it should
>accommodate my preferences. We now have an Explorer
>that breaks the rules and doesn't act like 95% of software
>programs... which were all designed to accord with
>Windows standards, so that no matter what program
>you use, It's Edit->Copy, Tools->Options, Help to find
>the program version, File to save or open. Occasionally
>there are aberrations, like File->Preferences, but in
>general it's standardized.
>
> There was good reason for boring menu and programs
>that did NOT have a UI of brass and black walnut. They're
>tools. They should perform functions without getting in
>the way.
>
Exactly.
Computer is a tool. I want to be able to pick it up and do things
with it. Not have to figure out how this new and improved version
works.

I do my work with the software on _a_ computer. I do not work on
the software for the computer. Microsoft (etc) are full of people who
work on the computer's software.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)