Re: Windows Vista SKU Web Page Now Up!

Bingo!

We still need the Classic Windows Interface, without all the jukebox,
fluttering windows stuff for kids.

Put more functional competence into the OS, rather than all this eye candy
for the Technical Cybernetic Masturbators [TCM's].

Saludos,

DSH

"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23hKNFsvOGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

> What I would like to see is clear options to use or disable the eye candy,
> so that power users who care more about performance can get their dibs,
> too.
>
> I'd hate to *have* to use the eye candy.
>
> Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
> aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
> asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
> foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
> ===================================

> "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23U01PnvOGHA.3728@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

>> Nonsense!
>>
>> I use Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2 and find it to be a Superior
>> Operating System [SOS].
>>
>> I say again, Microsoft Vista looks as if it's designed for kids.
>>
>> Flapping, fluttering and transparent windows, animated icons, massive
>> bloatware and diddleware...
>>
>> I need those like I need a hangover or a sub poena.
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:CF03B25E-AF27-44AA-9B9B-9BB9D8564BC2@microsoft.com...
>>

>>> "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:e8XGDrqOGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

>>

>>>> From what I've seen of it so far -- photos and descriptions on the
>>>> web -- it looks as if it's designed for kids rather than for
>>>> grown-ups.
>>>>
>>>> Flapping, fluttering and transparent windows, animated icons, massive
>>>> bloatware...
>>>>
>>>> I need those like I need a hangover or a sub poena.
>>>>
>>>> DSH
>>>>
>>>
>>> From what I have seen from [sic] your post [sic] in this news group,
>>> [sic] and in others, you do not like any Windows operating system. Why
>>> do you continue to use them. Go use something else - they ARE available!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Richard Urban (using Windows Vista 5308)
>>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

How booring.. :-/


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ON0e1AwOGHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

> Bingo!
>
> We still need the Classic Windows Interface, without all the jukebox,
> fluttering windows stuff for kids.
>
> Put more functional competence into the OS, rather than all this eye candy
> for the Technical Cybernetic Masturbators [TCM's].
>
> Saludos,
>
> DSH
>
> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:%23hKNFsvOGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>

>> What I would like to see is clear options to use or disable the eye
>> candy,
>> so that power users who care more about performance can get their dibs,
>> too.
>>
>> I'd hate to *have* to use the eye candy.
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
>> aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
>> asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
>> foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> ===================================

>

>> "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23U01PnvOGHA.3728@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

>

>>> Nonsense!
>>>
>>> I use Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2 and find it to be a Superior
>>> Operating System [SOS].
>>>
>>> I say again, Microsoft Vista looks as if it's designed for kids.
>>>
>>> Flapping, fluttering and transparent windows, animated icons, massive
>>> bloatware and diddleware...
>>>
>>> I need those like I need a hangover or a sub poena.
>>>
>>> DSH
>>>
>>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:CF03B25E-AF27-44AA-9B9B-9BB9D8564BC2@microsoft.com...
>>>
>>>> "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:e8XGDrqOGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>> From what I've seen of it so far -- photos and descriptions on the
>>>>> web -- it looks as if it's designed for kids rather than for
>>>>> grown-ups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Flapping, fluttering and transparent windows, animated icons, massive
>>>>> bloatware...
>>>>>
>>>>> I need those like I need a hangover or a sub poena.
>>>>>
>>>>> DSH
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From what I have seen from [sic] your post [sic] in this news group,
>>>> [sic] and in others, you do not like any Windows operating system. Why
>>>> do you continue to use them. Go use something else - they ARE
>>>> available!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Richard Urban (using Windows Vista 5308)
>>>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

>
>

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

> Bingo!
>
> We still need the Classic Windows Interface, without all the jukebox,
> fluttering windows stuff for kids.
>
> Put more functional competence into the OS, rather than all this eye
> candy for the Technical Cybernetic Masturbators [TCM's].
>

Eye candy sells. I haven't tried Vista yet as I don't have time to try a
beta. If it is similar to changing from win2k to XP then once learned the
new GUI is much more powerful than the old. I guess we could all go back to
the teletype interface and paper tape. After all you had complete control of
the computer then.

Kerry

Some of the "old school" are not recognizing productivity raise with the
properly arranged interface. But it is important, I have live examples of
productivity raise just because of positive user attitude to the new nice
application and also because of real efficiency brought by the different
workflow reflected in the interface. Vista is not just glass, it's also
quite different workflow that I personally find more appropriate for an
average user.

Speaking of the "simple, robust and productive".. By the way, have you
noticed that your w2k Classic works slower in XP??? I have tried in Vista -
same story.

And finally, why should our screens look ugly and outdated if we spend about
80% of our lives starring at it?

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:eLTgFPwOGHA.2992@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Bingo!
>>
>> We still need the Classic Windows Interface, without all the jukebox,
>> fluttering windows stuff for kids.
>>
>> Put more functional competence into the OS, rather than all this eye
>> candy for the Technical Cybernetic Masturbators [TCM's].
>>

>
> Eye candy sells. I haven't tried Vista yet as I don't have time to try a
> beta. If it is similar to changing from win2k to XP then once learned the
> new GUI is much more powerful than the old. I guess we could all go back
> to the teletype interface and paper tape. After all you had complete
> control of the computer then.
>
> Kerry
>
>

re:

> Eye candy sells.

No question about that.

It should be relatively simple, however, to disble all the eye candy,
so that those who don't care for it also have their choice of operating mode available.

It doesn't make sense to make eye candy obligatory, particularly if eye candy
slows down operations which some users need to be high-performance ops.

re:

> I guess we could all go back to the teletype interface and paper tape.

That's not the issue...and that's not needed.
A simple command-line option, or even GUI dialogue, would take care of it.

re:

> once learned the new GUI is much more powerful than the old

You may be confusing "powerful" with "efficient".

Sure, the newer GUIs can do a lot more, but more graphic
eye candy doesn't necessarily equate to more efficiency.

I ( we? ) am not advocating the return of a command-line-only interface.

However, transparencies and transitions slow down rendering.

A simpler GUI which doesn't use a lot of CPU power for rendering might
be quite valuable to many programmers, myself included.

That said, it would be nice to have a switch to turn it back on again when
we are not programming, but playing games or doing any graphic-intensive task.




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:eLTgFPwOGHA.2992@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Bingo!
>>
>> We still need the Classic Windows Interface, without all the jukebox,
>> fluttering windows stuff for kids.
>>
>> Put more functional competence into the OS, rather than all this eye
>> candy for the Technical Cybernetic Masturbators [TCM's].
>>

>
> Eye candy sells. I haven't tried Vista yet as I don't have time to try a beta. If it is similar to
> changing from win2k to XP then once learned the new GUI is much more powerful than the old. I
> guess we could all go back to the teletype interface and paper tape. After all you had complete
> control of the computer then.
>
> Kerry
>
>

Juan T. Llibre wrote:

> re:

>> Eye candy sells.

>
> No question about that.
>
> It should be relatively simple, however, to disble all the eye candy,
> so that those who don't care for it also have their choice of
> operating mode available.
> It doesn't make sense to make eye candy obligatory, particularly if
> eye candy slows down operations which some users need to be
> high-performance
> ops.
> re:

>> I guess we could all go back to the teletype interface and paper
>> tape.

>
> That's not the issue...and that's not needed.
> A simple command-line option, or even GUI dialogue, would take care
> of it.
> re:

>> once learned the new GUI is much more powerful than the old

>
> You may be confusing "powerful" with "efficient".
>
> Sure, the newer GUIs can do a lot more, but more graphic
> eye candy doesn't necessarily equate to more efficiency.
>
> I ( we? ) am not advocating the return of a command-line-only
> interface.
> However, transparencies and transitions slow down rendering.
>
> A simpler GUI which doesn't use a lot of CPU power for rendering might
> be quite valuable to many programmers, myself included.
>
> That said, it would be nice to have a switch to turn it back on again
> when we are not programming, but playing games or doing any
> graphic-intensive task.
>
>

Good points. I did mean more powerful though. I find I am often hampered by
having been using computers for so long. I sometimes do a bit of tutoring.
People realtively new to computers often show me easier and quicker ways to
do things with the Xp GUI than the way I am used to. Once I see the new way
it is often obviously faster and easier. I was just so used to doing things
the old way I never bothered to look to see if there was an easier way.

Kerry

Wow........ This is what it sounded like when XP came out. Times do
change........ So should your hardware!

Ken was here!

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:ezGmTaxOGHA.2036@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

> Juan T. Llibre wrote:

>> re:

>>> Eye candy sells.

>>
>> No question about that.
>>
>> It should be relatively simple, however, to disble all the eye candy,
>> so that those who don't care for it also have their choice of
>> operating mode available.
>> It doesn't make sense to make eye candy obligatory, particularly if
>> eye candy slows down operations which some users need to be
>> high-performance
>> ops.
>> re:

>>> I guess we could all go back to the teletype interface and paper
>>> tape.

>>
>> That's not the issue...and that's not needed.
>> A simple command-line option, or even GUI dialogue, would take care
>> of it.
>> re:

>>> once learned the new GUI is much more powerful than the old

>>
>> You may be confusing "powerful" with "efficient".
>>
>> Sure, the newer GUIs can do a lot more, but more graphic
>> eye candy doesn't necessarily equate to more efficiency.
>>
>> I ( we? ) am not advocating the return of a command-line-only
>> interface.
>> However, transparencies and transitions slow down rendering.
>>
>> A simpler GUI which doesn't use a lot of CPU power for rendering might
>> be quite valuable to many programmers, myself included.
>>
>> That said, it would be nice to have a switch to turn it back on again
>> when we are not programming, but playing games or doing any
>> graphic-intensive task.
>>
>>

>
> Good points. I did mean more powerful though. I find I am often hampered
> by having been using computers for so long. I sometimes do a bit of
> tutoring. People realtively new to computers often show me easier and
> quicker ways to do things with the Xp GUI than the way I am used to. Once
> I see the new way it is often obviously faster and easier. I was just so
> used to doing things the old way I never bothered to look to see if there
> was an easier way.
>
> Kerry
>
>

My personal hardware is fine, thank you,
but I can't afford to upgrade the 500 computers in the university system I supervise.

Those will keep XP if the hardware requirements for Vista go up,
as it seems quite likely, at least until support for XP is eliminated.

I'll gratefully accept your donation, if you can help us upgrade, though. :-)

Any other sage advice ? ( other than "throw money at it"... )

More importantly, you seem to be against Microsoft
providing a candy-less option for Vista.

Is that so ?

I think Microsoft should provide both options.
Its potential client OS market would increase if it did, imho.




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"KR" <Nobody@Home> wrote in message news:u99Y9rxOGHA.2828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> Wow........ This is what it sounded like when XP came out. Times do change........ So should your
> hardware!
>
> Ken was here!

> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:ezGmTaxOGHA.2036@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

>> Juan T. Llibre wrote:

>>> re:
>>>> Eye candy sells.
>>>
>>> No question about that.
>>>
>>> It should be relatively simple, however, to disble all the eye candy,
>>> so that those who don't care for it also have their choice of
>>> operating mode available.
>>> It doesn't make sense to make eye candy obligatory, particularly if
>>> eye candy slows down operations which some users need to be high-performance
>>> ops.
>>> re:
>>>> I guess we could all go back to the teletype interface and paper
>>>> tape.
>>>
>>> That's not the issue...and that's not needed.
>>> A simple command-line option, or even GUI dialogue, would take care
>>> of it.
>>> re:
>>>> once learned the new GUI is much more powerful than the old
>>>
>>> You may be confusing "powerful" with "efficient".
>>>
>>> Sure, the newer GUIs can do a lot more, but more graphic
>>> eye candy doesn't necessarily equate to more efficiency.
>>>
>>> I ( we? ) am not advocating the return of a command-line-only
>>> interface.
>>> However, transparencies and transitions slow down rendering.
>>>
>>> A simpler GUI which doesn't use a lot of CPU power for rendering might
>>> be quite valuable to many programmers, myself included.
>>>
>>> That said, it would be nice to have a switch to turn it back on again
>>> when we are not programming, but playing games or doing any
>>> graphic-intensive task.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Good points. I did mean more powerful though. I find I am often hampered by having been using
>> computers for so long. I sometimes do a bit of tutoring. People realtively new to computers often
>> show me easier and quicker ways to do things with the Xp GUI than the way I am used to. Once I
>> see the new way it is often obviously faster and easier. I was just so used to doing things the
>> old way I never bothered to look to see if there was an easier way.
>>
>> Kerry