www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - GitHub for Windows

reply "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

http://windows.github.com/

Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of 
being »the easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be 
interesting to some of you who prefer to rather not be bothered 
with the inner workings of Git.

The release announcement is at: 
https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.

David
May 21 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> wrote in message 
news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of being »the 
 easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be interesting to some of you 
 who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at: 
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


Finally!

I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first. Nobody 
uses Mac.
May 21 2012
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <alex lycus.org> writes:
On 21-05-2012 21:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "David Nadlinger"<see klickverbot.at>  wrote in message
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of being »the
 easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be interesting to some of you
 who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at:
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first. Nobody
 uses Mac.


I don't know if that was sarcasm or what, but... GitHub is used by a lot 
of RoR people (and is written in RoR), and those people are in general 
fans of OS X.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex lycus.org
http://lycus.org
May 21 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Alex Rønne Petersen" <alex lycus.org> wrote in message 
news:jpe5ki$2nnl$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 21-05-2012 21:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "David Nadlinger"<see klickverbot.at>  wrote in message
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of 
 being »the
 easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be interesting to some of 
 you
 who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at:
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first. 
 Nobody
 uses Mac.


 I don't know if that was sarcasm or what, but... GitHub is used by a lot 
 of RoR people (and is written in RoR), and those people are in general 
 fans of OS X.


Really? That explains why GitHub's server has always been so absurdly slow.
May 21 2012
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <alex lycus.org> writes:
On 21-05-2012 21:57, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Alex Rønne Petersen"<alex lycus.org>  wrote in message
 news:jpe5ki$2nnl$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 21-05-2012 21:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "David Nadlinger"<see klickverbot.at>   wrote in message
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of
 being »the
 easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be interesting to some of
 you
 who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at:
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first.
 Nobody
 uses Mac.


 I don't know if that was sarcasm or what, but... GitHub is used by a lot
 of RoR people (and is written in RoR), and those people are in general
 fans of OS X.


 Really? That explains why GitHub's server has always been so absurdly slow.


Its website, maybe (Git operations are very fast). But on the other 
hand, consider how much it *scales*. Compare to e.g. SourceForge.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex lycus.org
http://lycus.org
May 22 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote in message 
news:jpe4ru$13e8$1 digitalmars.com...

 "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> wrote in message 
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of being »the 
 easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be interesting to some of 
 you who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at: 
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first. 
 Nobody uses Mac.


Jesus, it's almost as bad as their web interface. I don't know how the hell 
they managed that, I'd think you have to *try* to make a desktop app that 
bad.

Upon initial startup: "An unhandled win32 exception occurred in GitHub.exe". 
Great.

Then it runs anyway? But there's *no* titlebar whatsoever. And everything 
else about it is the most poorly-implemented custom-UI I've ever come 
across. Gratuitus amounts of wasted space. Controls that behave...wrong and 
don't even look *at all* like what they're supposed to be (*that* is 
supposed to be a scroll-bar?). Constant...shit...popping up every time you 
touch the mouse. And as far as looks, I'd say it's the ugliest program I've 
used since Chrome, but honesty - it's really is uglier than even that. They 
actually managed to make things like Steam and modern *Adobe* UIs seem 
decent! I didn't think that was even *possible* without VB3.

And on top of that, it's *still* bloatware-city.

Seriously, I could *swear* they made this stupid thing in flash. That 
actually wouldn't surprise me at all.

OTOH, I completely understand now why it started out on Mac. No doubt it 
would fit right in there.

Oh, and the final nail in the coffin, big enough to make everything else 
completely irrelevent? You can't even use it to do *anything* with 
GitHub-hosted repos other than list *your* repos, view the readme, and make 
a local clone. And you can't even choose *where* to put the local clone! 
Seriously? What a completely useless turd of a *cough*"program".

Bah. Fuck GitHub. Head up their asses just as far as Google.
May 21 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote in message 
news:jpe6kk$235b$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote in message 
 news:jpe4ru$13e8$1 digitalmars.com...

 "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> wrote in message 
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of 
 being »the easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be interesting 
 to some of you who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner 
 workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at: 
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first. 
 Nobody uses Mac.


 Jesus, it's almost as bad as their web interface. I don't know how the 
 hell they managed that, I'd think you have to *try* to make a desktop app 
 that bad.

 Upon initial startup: "An unhandled win32 exception occurred in 
 GitHub.exe". Great.

 Then it runs anyway? But there's *no* titlebar whatsoever. And everything 
 else about it is the most poorly-implemented custom-UI I've ever come 
 across. Gratuitus amounts of wasted space. Controls that behave...wrong 
 and don't even look *at all* like what they're supposed to be (*that* is 
 supposed to be a scroll-bar?). Constant...shit...popping up every time you 
 touch the mouse. And as far as looks, I'd say it's the ugliest program 
 I've used since Chrome, but honesty - it's really is uglier than even 
 that. They actually managed to make things like Steam and modern *Adobe* 
 UIs seem decent! I didn't think that was even *possible* without VB3.

 And on top of that, it's *still* bloatware-city.

 Seriously, I could *swear* they made this stupid thing in flash. That 
 actually wouldn't surprise me at all.

 OTOH, I completely understand now why it started out on Mac. No doubt it 
 would fit right in there.

 Oh, and the final nail in the coffin, big enough to make everything else 
 completely irrelevent? You can't even use it to do *anything* with 
 GitHub-hosted repos other than list *your* repos, view the readme, and 
 make a local clone. And you can't even choose *where* to put the local 
 clone! Seriously? What a completely useless turd of a *cough*"program".

 Bah. Fuck GitHub. Head up their asses just as far as Google.


Hah, and as if all that wan't bad enough, I just noticed on the announcement 
page that it *cough*"features" "silent, automated updates". I get the 
impression this is the sort of program where updates would likely just make 
things worse.

Oh and also on the announcement page: "No-options installation!", like 
*programmers* are expected to be too stupid to hande standard installation 
options? Jeez, "know your audience", people.

At least it uninstalled easily enough.
May 21 2012
parent reply "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 13:09:41 -0700, Nick Sabalausky  =

<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote in messa=


ge

 news:jpe6kk$235b$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote in mess=




age

 news:jpe4ru$13e8$1 digitalmars.com...

 "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> wrote in message
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of
 being =BBthe easiest way to use Git on Windows=AB, it might be inte=








resting

 to some of you who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner
 workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at:
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first=






.

 Nobody uses Mac.


 Jesus, it's almost as bad as their web interface. I don't know how th=




e

 hell they managed that, I'd think you have to *try* to make a desktop=




  =


 app
 that bad.

 Upon initial startup: "An unhandled win32 exception occurred in
 GitHub.exe". Great.

 Then it runs anyway? But there's *no* titlebar whatsoever. And  =





 everything
 else about it is the most poorly-implemented custom-UI I've ever come=





 across. Gratuitus amounts of wasted space. Controls that behave...wro=




ng

 and don't even look *at all* like what they're supposed to be (*that*=




 is

 supposed to be a scroll-bar?). Constant...shit...popping up every tim=




e  =


 you
 touch the mouse. And as far as looks, I'd say it's the ugliest progra=




m

 I've used since Chrome, but honesty - it's really is uglier than even=





 that. They actually managed to make things like Steam and modern *Ado=




be*

 UIs seem decent! I didn't think that was even *possible* without VB3.=





 And on top of that, it's *still* bloatware-city.

 Seriously, I could *swear* they made this stupid thing in flash. That=





 actually wouldn't surprise me at all.

 OTOH, I completely understand now why it started out on Mac. No doubt=




 it

 would fit right in there.

 Oh, and the final nail in the coffin, big enough to make everything e=




lse

 completely irrelevent? You can't even use it to do *anything* with
 GitHub-hosted repos other than list *your* repos, view the readme, an=




d

 make a local clone. And you can't even choose *where* to put the loca=




l

 clone! Seriously? What a completely useless turd of a *cough*"program=




".

 Bah. Fuck GitHub. Head up their asses just as far as Google.


 Hah, and as if all that wan't bad enough, I just noticed on the  =



 announcement
 page that it *cough*"features" "silent, automated updates". I get the
 impression this is the sort of program where updates would likely just=


  =


 make
 things worse.

 Oh and also on the announcement page: "No-options installation!", like=



 *programmers* are expected to be too stupid to hande standard  =



 installation
 options? Jeez, "know your audience", people.

 At least it uninstalled easily enough.


Having been the MS Build conference it is pretty obvious to me that they=
  =

are trying to build a 'Metro' or WinRT compatible UI. Given their love o=
f  =

all things Apple, this would make sense as WinRT is MS's response to iOS=
.

-- =

Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
May 21 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.weodtepe707hn8 invictus.skynet.com...

Having been the MS Build conference it is pretty obvious to me that they 
are trying to build a 'Metro' or WinRT compatible UI. Given their love of 
all things Apple, this would make sense as WinRT is MS's response to iOS.


Meh, figures. After all, even Win7 was little more than "MS OSX"

(Which still puzzles me considering that after all these years and marketing 
campains, OSX *still* has only a miniscule fraction of Win's market-share, 
even if you only look at "Apple OSX vs WinXP". You'd think MS could have at 
least figured out that VERY large numbers of people *don't* want their 
computer looking and acting like a Mac).
May 21 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> writes:
21.05.2012 23:56, Nick Sabalausky íàïèñàë:

 "Nick Sabalausky"<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  wrote in message
 news:jpe4ru$13e8$1 digitalmars.com...

 "David Nadlinger"<see klickverbot.at>  wrote in message
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of being »the
 easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be interesting to some of
 you who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at:
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first.
 Nobody uses Mac.


 Jesus, it's almost as bad as their web interface. I don't know how the hell
 they managed that, I'd think you have to *try* to make a desktop app that
 bad.

 Upon initial startup: "An unhandled win32 exception occurred in GitHub.exe".
 Great.

 Then it runs anyway? But there's *no* titlebar whatsoever. And everything
 else about it is the most poorly-implemented custom-UI I've ever come
 across. Gratuitus amounts of wasted space. Controls that behave...wrong and
 don't even look *at all* like what they're supposed to be (*that* is
 supposed to be a scroll-bar?). Constant...shit...popping up every time you
 touch the mouse. And as far as looks, I'd say it's the ugliest program I've
 used since Chrome, but honesty - it's really is uglier than even that. They
 actually managed to make things like Steam and modern *Adobe* UIs seem
 decent! I didn't think that was even *possible* without VB3.

 And on top of that, it's *still* bloatware-city.

 Seriously, I could *swear* they made this stupid thing in flash. That
 actually wouldn't surprise me at all.

 OTOH, I completely understand now why it started out on Mac. No doubt it
 would fit right in there.

 Oh, and the final nail in the coffin, big enough to make everything else
 completely irrelevent? You can't even use it to do *anything* with
 GitHub-hosted repos other than list *your* repos, view the readme, and make
 a local clone. And you can't even choose *where* to put the local clone!
 Seriously? What a completely useless turd of a *cough*"program".


It's pleasant to see right words.
+1


 Bah. Fuck GitHub.


+1


-- 
Äåíèñ Â. Øåëîìîâñêèé
Denis V. Shelomovskij
May 21 2012
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-21 21:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky"<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  wrote in message
 news:jpe4ru$13e8$1 digitalmars.com...

 "David Nadlinger"<see klickverbot.at>  wrote in message
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of being »the
 easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be interesting to some of
 you who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at:
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first.
 Nobody uses Mac.


 Jesus, it's almost as bad as their web interface. I don't know how the hell
 they managed that, I'd think you have to *try* to make a desktop app that
 bad.

 Upon initial startup: "An unhandled win32 exception occurred in GitHub.exe".
 Great.

 Then it runs anyway? But there's *no* titlebar whatsoever. And everything
 else about it is the most poorly-implemented custom-UI I've ever come
 across. Gratuitus amounts of wasted space. Controls that behave...wrong and
 don't even look *at all* like what they're supposed to be (*that* is
 supposed to be a scroll-bar?). Constant...shit...popping up every time you
 touch the mouse. And as far as looks, I'd say it's the ugliest program I've
 used since Chrome, but honesty - it's really is uglier than even that. They
 actually managed to make things like Steam and modern *Adobe* UIs seem
 decent! I didn't think that was even *possible* without VB3.


Isn't that the new GUI for Windows 8 :

http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-release-preview-rip-aero-20032012-143133

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 22 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:jpfiha$53t$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 2012-05-21 21:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky"<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  wrote in message
 news:jpe4ru$13e8$1 digitalmars.com...

 "David Nadlinger"<see klickverbot.at>  wrote in message
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise of 
 being »the
 easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be interesting to some of
 you who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner workings of 
 Git.

 The release announcement is at:
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first.
 Nobody uses Mac.


 Jesus, it's almost as bad as their web interface. I don't know how the 
 hell
 they managed that, I'd think you have to *try* to make a desktop app that
 bad.

 Upon initial startup: "An unhandled win32 exception occurred in 
 GitHub.exe".
 Great.

 Then it runs anyway? But there's *no* titlebar whatsoever. And everything
 else about it is the most poorly-implemented custom-UI I've ever come
 across. Gratuitus amounts of wasted space. Controls that behave...wrong 
 and
 don't even look *at all* like what they're supposed to be (*that* is
 supposed to be a scroll-bar?). Constant...shit...popping up every time 
 you
 touch the mouse. And as far as looks, I'd say it's the ugliest program 
 I've
 used since Chrome, but honesty - it's really is uglier than even that. 
 They
 actually managed to make things like Steam and modern *Adobe* UIs seem
 decent! I didn't think that was even *possible* without VB3.


 Isn't that the new GUI for Windows 8 :


I wasn't running it on Win8. It was on XP.

I guess it's kinda like Chrome: Hey Google, imitate the native UI all you 
want, but the fakeness is pretty damn obvious when Aero suddenly shows up on 
an XP machine.


 http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-release-preview-rip-aero-20032012-143133


Oh, so it's that time of the week again already? Time for MS to change their 
minds once again on which is cool and uncool: straight vs curved?

Egads, it's like they're spinning their wheels just for the sake of spinning 
them. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The computer industry has 
become the goddamn fasion industry.

Win3: Rounded edges! Couldn't have those before!

95: Rounded is so old. Stright-edged (*cough* like Win1&2 *cough*) is 
classy!

XP: Straight edges and flat colors are sooo old-fasioned! Roundess, curves 
and gradients are in! ("Yea, whatever...Luna: Off, Classic: On")

Vista: Transperency is hip and modern! More curves! More shading!

Win8: Transparency, curves, gradients and shading are sooo old-fasioned! 
Stright edges and flat colors are in!

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!

It's all change just for the sake of fucking change. Why most of the world 
seems to be so chronically blind to it is beyond me.

And then there's MS's "between-OS" styles-of-the-week, like in the late 90's 
when MS decided all their non-OS releases for one year should use black menu 
bars instead of system-default.

Make up your fucking mind, MS.
May 22 2012
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-22 12:54, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 I wasn't running it on Win8. It was on XP.


Yeah but it seems they're sneaking in UI elements from the mobile 
versions of the OS'es. They did the same for the Mac version:

https://github.com/blog/878-announcing-github-for-mac

https://github.com/BigZaphod/Chameleon

"Chameleon is a port of Apple's UIKit ... to Mac OS X".

Take a look at this image:

https://github.com/blog/878-announcing-github-for-mac

That is not a native popup, it looks like something from the iPad. But 
also Apple is sneaking in UI elements from iOS into the latest version 
of Mac OS X.


 I guess it's kinda like Chrome: Hey Google, imitate the native UI all you
 want, but the fakeness is pretty damn obvious when Aero suddenly shows up on
 an XP machine.


 http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-release-preview-rip-aero-20032012-143133


 Oh, so it's that time of the week again already? Time for MS to change their
 minds once again on which is cool and uncool: straight vs curved?

 Egads, it's like they're spinning their wheels just for the sake of spinning
 them. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The computer industry has
 become the goddamn fasion industry.

 Win3: Rounded edges! Couldn't have those before!

 95: Rounded is so old. Stright-edged (*cough* like Win1&2 *cough*) is
 classy!

 XP: Straight edges and flat colors are sooo old-fasioned! Roundess, curves
 and gradients are in! ("Yea, whatever...Luna: Off, Classic: On")

 Vista: Transperency is hip and modern! More curves! More shading!

 Win8: Transparency, curves, gradients and shading are sooo old-fasioned!
 Stright edges and flat colors are in!


Note that in the first preview of Windows 8 the GUI (not the Metro GUI) 
looked like Windows 7 :) . They've already changed their mind a couple 
of times just with Windows 8.


 FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!

 It's all change just for the sake of fucking change. Why most of the world
 seems to be so chronically blind to it is beyond me.

 And then there's MS's "between-OS" styles-of-the-week, like in the late 90's
 when MS decided all their non-OS releases for one year should use black menu
 bars instead of system-default.

 Make up your fucking mind, MS.


Hehe.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 22 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 10:54:22 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message
 news:jpfiha$53t$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 2012-05-21 21:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky"<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  wrote 
 in message
 news:jpe4ru$13e8$1 digitalmars.com...

 "David Nadlinger"<see klickverbot.at>  wrote in message
 news:lvpmnrfdyinxvkzuswlb forum.dlang.org...

 GitHub have just released their Windows GUI for Git/GitHub:

 http://windows.github.com/

 Although I'm not sure if it really stands up to the promise 
 of being »the
 easiest way to use Git on Windows«, it might be 
 interesting to some of
 you who prefer to rather not be bothered with the inner 
 workings of Git.

 The release announcement is at:
 https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows.


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac 
 version first.
 Nobody uses Mac.


 Jesus, it's almost as bad as their web interface. I don't 
 know how the hell
 they managed that, I'd think you have to *try* to make a 
 desktop app that
 bad.

 Upon initial startup: "An unhandled win32 exception occurred 
 in GitHub.exe".
 Great.

 Then it runs anyway? But there's *no* titlebar whatsoever. 
 And everything
 else about it is the most poorly-implemented custom-UI I've 
 ever come
 across. Gratuitus amounts of wasted space. Controls that 
 behave...wrong and
 don't even look *at all* like what they're supposed to be 
 (*that* is
 supposed to be a scroll-bar?). Constant...shit...popping up 
 every time you
 touch the mouse. And as far as looks, I'd say it's the 
 ugliest program I've
 used since Chrome, but honesty - it's really is uglier than 
 even that. They
 actually managed to make things like Steam and modern *Adobe* 
 UIs seem
 decent! I didn't think that was even *possible* without VB3.


 Isn't that the new GUI for Windows 8 :


 I wasn't running it on Win8. It was on XP.

 I guess it's kinda like Chrome: Hey Google, imitate the native 
 UI all you
 want, but the fakeness is pretty damn obvious when Aero 
 suddenly shows up on
 an XP machine.


 http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-release-preview-rip-aero-20032012-143133


 Oh, so it's that time of the week again already? Time for MS to 
 change their
 minds once again on which is cool and uncool: straight vs 
 curved?

 Egads, it's like they're spinning their wheels just for the 
 sake of spinning
 them. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The computer 
 industry has
 become the goddamn fasion industry.

 Win3: Rounded edges! Couldn't have those before!

 95: Rounded is so old. Stright-edged (*cough* like Win1&2 
 *cough*) is
 classy!

 XP: Straight edges and flat colors are sooo old-fasioned! 
 Roundess, curves
 and gradients are in! ("Yea, whatever...Luna: Off, Classic: On")

 Vista: Transperency is hip and modern! More curves! More 
 shading!

 Win8: Transparency, curves, gradients and shading are sooo 
 old-fasioned!
 Stright edges and flat colors are in!

 FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!

 It's all change just for the sake of fucking change. Why most 
 of the world
 seems to be so chronically blind to it is beyond me.

 And then there's MS's "between-OS" styles-of-the-week, like in 
 the late 90's
 when MS decided all their non-OS releases for one year should 
 use black menu
 bars instead of system-default.

 Make up your fucking mind, MS.


It's called Marketing and Sales department.

Every company that sells commercial products needs to keep adding 
the "next big thing" to their product as a means to sell the 
product to existing users.

Let's take Office as an example, for my usual tasks, I could 
happily still use Word 6 from the Windows 3.11 days.

--
Paulo
May 22 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote in message 
news:joeuhviunrputogmssbr forum.dlang.org...

 It's called Marketing and Sales department.

 Every company that sells commercial products needs to keep adding the 
 "next big thing" to their product as a means to sell the product to 
 existing users.


Meh. You call it "Marketing and Sales". I call it "Pet-Rock Mentality". ;)


 Let's take Office as an example, for my usual tasks, I could happily still 
 use Word 6 from the Windows 3.11 days.
May 22 2012
parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:02:49AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote in message 
 news:joeuhviunrputogmssbr forum.dlang.org...

 It's called Marketing and Sales department.

 Every company that sells commercial products needs to keep adding the 
 "next big thing" to their product as a means to sell the product to 
 existing users.


 
 Meh. You call it "Marketing and Sales". I call it "Pet-Rock Mentality". ;)


[...]

There's a difference?!


T

-- 
Political correctness: socially-sanctioned hypocrisy.
May 22 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 01:56:35PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[...]

 It's called Marketing and Sales department.
 
 Every company that sells commercial products needs to keep adding the
 "next big thing" to their product as a means to sell the product to
 existing users.
 
 Let's take Office as an example, for my usual tasks, I could happily
 still use Word 6 from the Windows 3.11 days.


[...]

Today my dad still uses an accounting app he wrote in dbase, running on
an Apple II. (No, not the IIe. The original Apple II. A decade before
Macs existed.) The entire machine runs on 64k memory, of which 16k is
ROM, and only 48k is actual usable memory.

Nowadays? The simplest accounting app takes... oh, several megabytes?

Yeah.


T

-- 
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore,
if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not
smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
May 22 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Zardoz" <luis.panadero gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 11:56:36 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Make up your fucking mind, MS.


 It's called Marketing and Sales department.

 Every company that sells commercial products needs to keep 
 adding the "next big thing" to their product as a means to sell 
 the product to existing users.

 Let's take Office as an example, for my usual tasks, I could 
 happily still use Word 6 from the Windows 3.11 days.

 --
 Paulo


Yesterday, just discover that a old machine running with a Athlon 
800Mhz with 128 Mb and Windows 98 with Word 2000 load more faster 
and works more smooth that my modern FX4100 with 4 cores at 3,6 
Ghz with 8Gb of RAM, Windows 7 and Word 2010.
Something go very wrong in the way with Windows.

At least my faithful GNU/Linux loads and works more faster that 
Win7 and takes a similar time like these old machine with Win98.
Jun 02 2012
parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 03.06.2012 00:37, schrieb Zardoz:

 On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 11:56:36 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Make up your fucking mind, MS.


 It's called Marketing and Sales department.

 Every company that sells commercial products needs to keep adding the
 "next big thing" to their product as a means to sell the product to
 existing users.

 Let's take Office as an example, for my usual tasks, I could happily
 still use Word 6 from the Windows 3.11 days.

 --
 Paulo


 Yesterday, just discover that a old machine running with a Athlon 800Mhz
 with 128 Mb and Windows 98 with Word 2000 load more faster and works
 more smooth that my modern FX4100 with 4 cores at 3,6 Ghz with 8Gb of
 RAM, Windows 7 and Word 2010.
 Something go very wrong in the way with Windows.

 At least my faithful GNU/Linux loads and works more faster that Win7 and
 takes a similar time like these old machine with Win98.


The same can be said of GNU/Linux.

I remember running Slackware 2.0.9 with a Pentium 75/32MB.

Now I am running it in a dual core system with 4GB, and it also feels 
slow sometimes.

--
Paulo
Jun 02 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:54:23 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 Oh, so it's that time of the week again already? Time for MS to change  
 their
 minds once again on which is cool and uncool: straight vs curved?

 Egads, it's like they're spinning their wheels just for the sake of  
 spinning
 them. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The computer industry  
 has
 become the goddamn fasion industry.

 Win3: Rounded edges! Couldn't have those before!

 95: Rounded is so old. Stright-edged (*cough* like Win1&2 *cough*) is
 classy!

 XP: Straight edges and flat colors are sooo old-fasioned! Roundess,  
 curves
 and gradients are in! ("Yea, whatever...Luna: Off, Classic: On")

 Vista: Transperency is hip and modern! More curves! More shading!

 Win8: Transparency, curves, gradients and shading are sooo old-fasioned!
 Stright edges and flat colors are in!

 FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!

 It's all change just for the sake of fucking change. Why most of the  
 world
 seems to be so chronically blind to it is beyond me.

 And then there's MS's "between-OS" styles-of-the-week, like in the late  
 90's
 when MS decided all their non-OS releases for one year should use black  
 menu
 bars instead of system-default.

 Make up your fucking mind, MS.


This is one of the funniest things I've read in a while.  I know you hate  
Macs, but this would make a great Mac commercial.

Although I would replace Vista in your narrative with Win7.  Vista was a  
horrible abortion that should never have seen the light of day.

-Steve
May 23 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wer3hmsreav7ka steves-laptop...

 On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:54:23 -0400, Nick Sabalausky 
 <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 Oh, so it's that time of the week again already? Time for MS to change 
 their
 minds once again on which is cool and uncool: straight vs curved?

 Egads, it's like they're spinning their wheels just for the sake of 
 spinning
 them. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The computer industry 
 has
 become the goddamn fasion industry.

 Win3: Rounded edges! Couldn't have those before!

 95: Rounded is so old. Stright-edged (*cough* like Win1&2 *cough*) is
 classy!

 XP: Straight edges and flat colors are sooo old-fasioned! Roundess, 
 curves
 and gradients are in! ("Yea, whatever...Luna: Off, Classic: On")

 Vista: Transperency is hip and modern! More curves! More shading!

 Win8: Transparency, curves, gradients and shading are sooo old-fasioned!
 Stright edges and flat colors are in!

 FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!

 It's all change just for the sake of fucking change. Why most of the 
 world
 seems to be so chronically blind to it is beyond me.

 And then there's MS's "between-OS" styles-of-the-week, like in the late 
 90's
 when MS decided all their non-OS releases for one year should use black 
 menu
 bars instead of system-default.

 Make up your fucking mind, MS.


 This is one of the funniest things I've read in a while.  I know you hate 
 Macs, but this would make a great Mac commercial.


Heh.


 Although I would replace Vista in your narrative with Win7.  Vista was a 
 horrible abortion that should never have seen the light of day.


Maybe so, but if I were to upgrade from XP, I would be torn between Vista 
and 7 because Vista at least lets me have my taskbar instead of a dock.

And Vista doesn't pop-up tons of shit everytime the pointer gets near the 
bottom of the screen. I'd never be able to get any work done if I had 
(barely-distinguishable) mini-screenshots constantly popping up to "help" me 
all time like Win7 loves to do. They've killed Clippy, but his ghost remains 
as a poltergeist spreading thruout Windows (and IE8).
May 24 2012
next sibling parent reply Mirko Pilger <pilger cymotec.de> writes:
 And Vista doesn't pop-up tons of shit everytime the pointer gets near the
 bottom of the screen. I'd never be able to get any work done if I had
 (barely-distinguishable) mini-screenshots constantly popping up to "help" me
 all time like Win7 loves to do.


just turn aero off. the win 7 desktop then looks and behaves very 
similar to xp.
May 24 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Mirko Pilger" <pilger cymotec.de> wrote in message 
news:jpl36q$sta$1 digitalmars.com...

 And Vista doesn't pop-up tons of shit everytime the pointer gets near the
 bottom of the screen. I'd never be able to get any work done if I had
 (barely-distinguishable) mini-screenshots constantly popping up to "help" 
 me
 all time like Win7 loves to do.


 just turn aero off. the win 7 desktop then looks and behaves very similar 
 to xp.


No it doesn't. The "skin" is like XP, but all the behavior is still the same 
Win7 stuff. It's still Windows Dock, just with more grey and straight edges.
May 24 2012
next sibling parent Mirko Pilger <pilger cymotec.de> writes:
 No it doesn't. The "skin" is like XP, but all the behavior is still the same
 Win7 stuff. It's still Windows Dock, just with more grey and straight edges.


i seem to miss something crucial here. i have a win xp and win 7 machine 
in front of me this very moment. the quicklaunch buttons on the win 7 
desktop behave a bit differently and some icons in the tray are hidden 
within a popup panel to save space. another difference is you see a list 
of instances of the same running application when you hover over a 
button in the taskbar.

other than that i don't notice any differences in look and behaviour. 
especially nothing that makes me hate win 7 compared to win xp. i still 
favour xp for other reasons though.
May 24 2012
prev sibling parent reply Roman Ivanov <isroman.DEL ETE.km.ru> writes:
On 5/24/2012 4:45 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Mirko Pilger" <pilger cymotec.de> wrote in message 
 news:jpl36q$sta$1 digitalmars.com...

 And Vista doesn't pop-up tons of shit everytime the pointer gets near the
 bottom of the screen. I'd never be able to get any work done if I had
 (barely-distinguishable) mini-screenshots constantly popping up to "help" 
 me
 all time like Win7 loves to do.


 just turn aero off. the win 7 desktop then looks and behaves very similar 
 to xp.


 
 No it doesn't. The "skin" is like XP, but all the behavior is still the same 
 Win7 stuff. It's still Windows Dock, just with more grey and straight edges.


FYI: You can set it up so it works exactly like XP. You can disable
docking/pinning and instance combination, and then create a panel with
buttons to simulate "quick launch". I've done that at work, never looked
back.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-7/make-the-windows-7-taskbar-work-more-like-windows-xp-or-vista/

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-7/add-the-quick-launch-bar-to-the-taskbar-in-windows-7/

I still prefer XP, though. It seems faster, it takes less space, and
despite all MS claims, I had less virus problems with it than with
Windows 7.
Jun 01 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Roman Ivanov" <isroman.DEL ETE.km.ru> wrote in message 
news:jqbnii$pgs$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 5/24/2012 4:45 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Mirko Pilger" <pilger cymotec.de> wrote in message
 news:jpl36q$sta$1 digitalmars.com...

 And Vista doesn't pop-up tons of shit everytime the pointer gets near 
 the
 bottom of the screen. I'd never be able to get any work done if I had
 (barely-distinguishable) mini-screenshots constantly popping up to 
 "help"
 me
 all time like Win7 loves to do.


 just turn aero off. the win 7 desktop then looks and behaves very 
 similar
 to xp.


 No it doesn't. The "skin" is like XP, but all the behavior is still the 
 same
 Win7 stuff. It's still Windows Dock, just with more grey and straight 
 edges.


 FYI: You can set it up so it works exactly like XP. You can disable
 docking/pinning and instance combination, and then create a panel with
 buttons to simulate "quick launch". I've done that at work, never looked
 back.

 http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-7/make-the-windows-7-taskbar-work-more-like-windows-xp-or-vista/


Yes, that one I knew about. It's an improvements, but it's not enough. And 
it behaves weird when the taskbar is more than one row tall.


 http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-7/add-the-quick-launch-bar-to-the-taskbar-in-windows-7/


That one I didn't know about (thanks!), but my god that's *obscure*. At 
least it's possible though. Hopefully they haven't screwed it up since the 
Win7 beta.


 I still prefer XP, though.


Yea, although I've mainly just been mentining issues here with the taskbar 
and "All Programs", there's other stuff too. For example, almost all the 
changes to Explorer. And I don't trust the driver model, what with the DRM 
shit and potential driver revocation.

Some stuff can apperently be fixed with the 3rd party program Classic Shell 
(although I haven't actually tried it). But there's a lot that even that 
can't fix, and even if it did, there's just sooo much hacking required to 
make Win7 not irritating, that - why bother (and pay $$$) when I can just 
stick to XP instead?

Of course, XP takes some configuring too (which I've already done though), 
but then Win7 adds that much more, and at some point I just gotta say 
"Enough is enough, fuck this shit".


 It seems faster, it takes less space, and
 despite all MS claims, I had less virus problems with it than with
 Windows 7.


Ouch. I haven't had virus problems on my XP system (knock on wood...), but 
my sister's had a lot of virus trouble on her Win7 machine (and guess who 
had to fix the fucking thing every time...) Of course, my dad had a lot of 
virus trouble on his old XP machne (and again, guess who got to fix the 
goddamn thing), but then again, he's an idiot and does all sorts of stupid 
shit like click on ads, and give the advertiser pages his phone number when 
they ask for it, and doing all that *despite* noticing that it all seemed 
fishy, and god knows what else that he *hasn't* told me about. Colossal 
fucking moron.
Jun 02 2012
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:30:07 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 Ouch. I haven't had virus problems on my XP system (knock on wood...),  
 but
 my sister's had a lot of virus trouble on her Win7 machine (and guess who
 had to fix the fucking thing every time...) Of course, my dad had a lot  
 of
 virus trouble on his old XP machne (and again, guess who got to fix the
 goddamn thing), but then again, he's an idiot and does all sorts of  
 stupid
 shit like click on ads, and give the advertiser pages his phone number  
 when
 they ask for it, and doing all that *despite* noticing that it all seemed
 fishy, and god knows what else that he *hasn't* told me about. Colossal
 fucking moron.


Hehe, I think all of us here have similar stories.

My in-laws have vista, and after I had to reinstall their computer due to  
malware messing up some internal microsoft services, I told them either  
they find someone else to help them with the computer, or agree to be  
non-admin users on their system.  Now only I have admin privileges, and  
things have gone much smoother since then.

Unfortunately, malware can still fuck up your IE profile.

-Steve
Jun 04 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wfd7p6fxeav7ka steves-laptop...

 On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:30:07 -0400, Nick Sabalausky 
 <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 Ouch. I haven't had virus problems on my XP system (knock on wood...), 
 but
 my sister's had a lot of virus trouble on her Win7 machine (and guess who
 had to fix the fucking thing every time...) Of course, my dad had a lot 
 of
 virus trouble on his old XP machne (and again, guess who got to fix the
 goddamn thing), but then again, he's an idiot and does all sorts of 
 stupid
 shit like click on ads, and give the advertiser pages his phone number 
 when
 they ask for it, and doing all that *despite* noticing that it all seemed
 fishy, and god knows what else that he *hasn't* told me about. Colossal
 fucking moron.


 Hehe, I think all of us here have similar stories.


Heh, yea.

Ages ago, I used to be eager to let people know I was good with computers. 
That was because I was proud of it and (at the time ;) ) I liked computers 
so much.

But then I learned to be very selective about disclosing that bit of 
information because it just makes people want you to fix their busted, 
usually malware-riddled, computer. I think the final straw was in college 
when I found myself sitting in some girl's dorm room, fixing her computer 
(they were all Win9x back then - fun), for free, while she went out with her 
boyfriend. I believe the right term for that is: "What the fuck am I doing, 
and why the hell did my dumbass self agree to this?!?" ;)


 My in-laws have vista, and after I had to reinstall their computer due to 
 malware messing up some internal microsoft services, I told them either 
 they find someone else to help them with the computer, or agree to be 
 non-admin users on their system.  Now only I have admin privileges, and 
 things have gone much smoother since then.


Not a bad strategy.

After my best efforts, my sister's Win7 laptop still has some bizarre audio 
ads that play out her speakers now and then. I'm done fucking with that, and 
fresh out of tactics anyway, so my next step is to just backup her data and 
do a clean wipe and fresh reinstall. But I told her she'd have to meet me 
halfway (hah! "halfway"...more like 10%) by finding Lenovo's phone number 
and ordering the restore discs herself (I can't believe they skimp out on 
including them these days - how fucking cheap!) Unsurprisingly, she's been 
putting up with the ads ever since.

God, users are so fucking lazy. After *years* of trying, I've never been 
able to get either of my parents to even touch (literally) a "How to use a 
computer" book. How the hell do they think *I* learned? Christ, they *saw* 
me reading...*books* as a kid! I seriously suspect they might actually think 
having been born after 1980 is what gives people computer literacy. No - 
it's just *normal* literacy that does it. If a *9 year old* could do it, why 
the fuck can't those grown adults?

At one point, (again, years ago) I even *picked out* a book for my mom form 
the library, one of those dead-simple ones that's 90% *pictures*...It just 
sat there *literally* untouched for months while I kept renewing, and 
renewing, and renewing it. I'm not sure she even cleaned around it - and 
she's a neat freak.

It was around that point I decided - I will *not* help a person with basic 
computer usage unless they can get off their lazy fucking ass and show the 
basic, *basic* initiative of checking a relevent book out from the library 
(themselves) and reading the damn thing. I'm not a babysitter for adults.

Since then, I've gotten bitched out many times that I won't spoon-fed her 
the kind of answers that would be the equivalent of giving directions to a 
store like "Push your right foot down on the left...uhh, you don't know what 
a 'pedal' is...ok, the left 'floor-thing'...while the car moves forward for 
34 seconds, then lift up 2 inches, and turn the big round thing in front of 
you 4 inches to the right..." Etc. After years of that I think she's finally 
gotten the message...so now, instead of looking at a basic damn picture 
book, she just flubs her way though or, failing that, asks my sister for 
help. Heaven forbid anyone should *ever* have to fucking *learn* anything.

Shit, it's a good thing I don't have heart disease: Writing this message 
probably would have done me in. I feel like Lewis Black, but without the 
funny.


 Unfortunately, malware can still fuck up your IE profile.
Jun 05 2012
parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 02:14:07 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 Shit, it's a good thing I don't have heart disease: Writing this message
 probably would have done me in. I feel like Lewis Black, but without the
 funny.


No, it was pretty funny :D

-Steve
Jun 06 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:29:25 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.wer3hmsreav7ka steves-laptop...



 Although I would replace Vista in your narrative with Win7.  Vista was a
 horrible abortion that should never have seen the light of day.


 Maybe so, but if I were to upgrade from XP, I would be torn between Vista
 and 7 because Vista at least lets me have my taskbar instead of a dock.

 And Vista doesn't pop-up tons of shit everytime the pointer gets near the
 bottom of the screen. I'd never be able to get any work done if I had
 (barely-distinguishable) mini-screenshots constantly popping up to  
 "help" me
 all time like Win7 loves to do. They've killed Clippy, but his ghost  
 remains
 as a poltergeist spreading thruout Windows (and IE8).


Sorry, I will take this *any day* instead of:

me: start-> control panel
vista: FLASHING RED SIRENS! DANGER! DANGER! SOMETHING, WHICH I CANNOT  
DETERMINE AND AM ULTIMATELY SUSPICIOUS OF, STARTED CONTROL PANEL, DO YOU  
WANT TO ALLOW THIS?
me: yes, dumb shit I JUST CLICKED ON IT!
vista: Are you sure?  I mean some malicious software may have clicked on  
it for you the *split second* before you did!
me: yes.
vista: ok, proceed.
me: click on printers in control panel
vista: FLASHING RED SIRENS! DANGER! DANGER! SOMETHING OPENED THE PRINTER  
CONFIGURATION TOOL! and this time IT REALLY COULD BE MALICIOUS SOFTWARE  
(you know how they like to mischievously check your printer queue)!!!!!
me: GRRRRRR.
...

at least the taskbar is a user preference (and I'm pretty sure you can  
revert that), and not a choice between annoyance and system security.

Truth be told, I really like the win7 interface vs. the xp interface.   
Start menu searching is the best improvement ever.  I frequently use the  
little window previews that you hate.  But vista is frankly unusable.

-Steve
May 24 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wetb8lg2eav7ka steves-laptop...

 On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:29:25 -0400, Nick Sabalausky 
 <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.wer3hmsreav7ka steves-laptop...



 Although I would replace Vista in your narrative with Win7.  Vista was a
 horrible abortion that should never have seen the light of day.


 Maybe so, but if I were to upgrade from XP, I would be torn between Vista
 and 7 because Vista at least lets me have my taskbar instead of a dock.

 And Vista doesn't pop-up tons of shit everytime the pointer gets near the
 bottom of the screen. I'd never be able to get any work done if I had
 (barely-distinguishable) mini-screenshots constantly popping up to 
 "help" me
 all time like Win7 loves to do. They've killed Clippy, but his ghost 
 remains
 as a poltergeist spreading thruout Windows (and IE8).


 Sorry, I will take this *any day* instead of:

 me: start-> control panel
 vista: FLASHING RED SIRENS! DANGER! DANGER! SOMETHING, WHICH I CANNOT 
 DETERMINE AND AM ULTIMATELY SUSPICIOUS OF, STARTED CONTROL PANEL, DO YOU 
 WANT TO ALLOW THIS?
 me: yes, dumb shit I JUST CLICKED ON IT!
 vista: Are you sure?  I mean some malicious software may have clicked on 
 it for you the *split second* before you did!
 me: yes.
 vista: ok, proceed.
 me: click on printers in control panel
 vista: FLASHING RED SIRENS! DANGER! DANGER! SOMETHING OPENED THE PRINTER 
 CONFIGURATION TOOL! and this time IT REALLY COULD BE MALICIOUS SOFTWARE 
 (you know how they like to mischievously check your printer queue)!!!!!
 me: GRRRRRR.
 ...


First of all, there's a Vista machine I occasionally use, and it's 
definitely *not* like that. You might just be remembering some really early 
version of Vista.

Secondly, even if that were the case, that's (more-or-less) only when you go 
into system settings (which may or may not be frequent). But the dock and 
screenshot popups are *always*.


 at least the taskbar is a user preference (and I'm pretty sure you can 
 revert that),


It isn't, and you can't.

I've checked all over, internet search, etc. If you're on Win7, you have the 
Win7 dock, period.

There's a lot of internet knuckleheads that show you how *ahem* "turn it 
off", but that's *only* for the skin - ie Aero - the *least* significant 
aspect of Win7's Dock.

Even the 3rd party "Classic Shell" doesn't bring back the real taskbar.

As for the popup screenshots, you can *sort of* disable them, sometimes, but 
apperently it's pretty flakey and doesn't even work for everyone:

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-desktop/how-do-you-disable-the-taskbar-preview-window-pop/cf46aeaa-e4f1-4c39-a2d0-0824e174ebed


 Truth be told, I really like the win7 interface vs. the xp interface. 
 Start menu searching is the best improvement ever.  I frequently use the 
 little window previews that you hate.  But vista is frankly unusable.


I agree Vista's more or less unusable, but I feel the same way about Win7 
(and yes, I have used Win7, and not just "played around with it in a 
store").
May 24 2012
parent reply "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 21:10:44 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message

 at least the taskbar is a user preference (and I'm pretty sure 
 you can revert that),


 It isn't, and you can't.

 I've checked all over, internet search, etc. If you're on Win7, 
 you have the
 Win7 dock, period.


What exactly is wrong with the Windows 7 »dock« set to minimal 
height, Aero off, and the grouping options adjusted to your 
liking?

David
May 24 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> wrote in message 
news:fvvzmqelefzdwdsooazb forum.dlang.org...

 On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 21:10:44 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message

 at least the taskbar is a user preference (and I'm pretty sure you can 
 revert that),


 It isn't, and you can't.

 I've checked all over, internet search, etc. If you're on Win7, you have 
 the
 Win7 dock, period.


 What exactly is wrong with the Windows 7 »dock« set to minimal height, 
 Aero off, and the grouping options adjusted to your liking?


Off the top of my head:

- Quicklaunch icons are all jumbled together with the running programs. Why 
MS felt that forcing *less* organization on *everyone* by cloning Apple's 
retarded dock (which itself was just a cheap imitation of the Win taskbar) 
was a good idea is beyond me.

- Titlebar text is not shown on the buttons for the running programs. (This 
*might* be changable though - I can't remember).

- Trying to have a taskbar with more than one row works like shit. The 
different rows are all completely misaligned (it's all a big total mess), 
and the system tray is no longer even *capable* of handling more than one 
row. I *always* use two rows, but on Win7 it's basically broken. And no, 
"You should be using 16:9" is *not* a valid excuse.

- Useless, giant, distracting, popup thumbnails (which you can't even 
distringuish between at a glance anyway) *every* fucking time I move the 
mouse near (let alone try to use) the taskbar.

Also, sort of related to the win dock, but not technically part of it - I 
was very impressed with the in-set "All Programs" list...until I actually 
tried it. I *just don't like it*. It slows me down every time. It feels like 
reading a book through a keyhole. And MS won't even *let* me have my old way 
back.

It's all just, "You're *going* to like our objectively superior design, or 
you can just fuck off." Ie, they've adopted Apple's (and Mozilla's) #1 core 
value. No, fuck *you*, Win7/Vista.
May 24 2012
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-25 07:30, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 It's all just, "You're *going* to like our objectively superior design, or
 you can just fuck off." Ie, they've adopted Apple's (and Mozilla's) #1 core
 value. No, fuck *you*, Win7/Vista.


So much anger inside one person :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 25 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 25 May 2012 01:30:03 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  =

<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> wrote in message
 news:fvvzmqelefzdwdsooazb forum.dlang.org...

 On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 21:10:44 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message

 at least the taskbar is a user preference (and I'm pretty sure you =








can

 revert that),


 It isn't, and you can't.

 I've checked all over, internet search, etc. If you're on Win7, you =






 =


 have
 the
 Win7 dock, period.


 What exactly is wrong with the Windows 7 =C2=BBdock=C2=AB set to mini=




mal height,

 Aero off, and the grouping options adjusted to your liking?


 Off the top of my head:

 - Quicklaunch icons are all jumbled together with the running programs=


.  =


 Why
 MS felt that forcing *less* organization on *everyone* by cloning Appl=


e's

 retarded dock (which itself was just a cheap imitation of the Win  =



 taskbar)
 was a good idea is beyond me.


You can re-enable the old quicklaunch bar.

I love the new style, and was glad when Ubuntu started doing it.


 - Titlebar text is not shown on the buttons for the running programs. =


 =


 (This
 *might* be changable though - I can't remember).


I think you can enable this.


 - Trying to have a taskbar with more than one row works like shit. The=



 different rows are all completely misaligned (it's all a big total mes=


s),

I don't know about this, I haven't tried it.


 - Useless, giant, distracting, popup thumbnails (which you can't even
 distringuish between at a glance anyway) *every* fucking time I move t=


he

 mouse near (let alone try to use) the taskbar.


This is quite an exaggeration.  I frequently use these, and they only  =

activate if you hover over the buttons, not "near" them.  I can  =

distinguish usually, and if I can't, you can hover over the thumbnails, =
 =

and it shows you the actual window in question with all other windows ma=
de  =

transparent.

I find this feature is *vastly* superior to the old "group all buttons  =

together into one taskbar button, then pop a list of the titles" mechani=
sm.


 Also, sort of related to the win dock, but not technically part of it =


- I

 was very impressed with the in-set "All Programs" list...until I actua=


lly

 tried it. I *just don't like it*. It slows me down every time. It feel=


s  =


 like
 reading a book through a keyhole. And MS won't even *let* me have my o=


ld  =


 way
 back.


You mean you don't just start typing the program name you want and have =
it  =

appear?  I haven't browsed programs in a long time.


 It's all just, "You're *going* to like our objectively superior design=


,  =


 or
 you can just fuck off." Ie, they've adopted Apple's (and Mozilla's) #1=


  =


 core
 value. No, fuck *you*, Win7/Vista.


Can't please everybody, and it's really difficult to design and support =
a  =

product that is configurable enough to try and please everybody.

I'd guess that a high majority of users for windows 7 like the new  =

interface better than XP.

-Steve
May 25 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wevablddeav7ka steves-laptop...

I find this feature is *vastly* superior to the old "group all buttons 
together into one taskbar button, then pop a list of the titles" mechanism.


*shrug* I find the thumbnail popups vastly inferior. Actually, I find it 
useful literally 0% of the time, and both annoying and distracting 100% of 
the time. Not exaggerating.

Just because some people like it doesn't mean it was a sensible move to 
force it on *everyone*.


You mean you don't just start typing the program name you want and have it 
appear?  I haven't browsed programs in a long time.


Of course not. Why bother with the typing when I can just skip straight to 
the "click on it" part?


Can't please everybody, and it's really difficult to design and support a 
product that is configurable enough to try and please everybody.


All they have to do is just not remove the old way, leave it in as an 
option. It's not as hard as some make it out to be. Problem solved, 
everyone's pleased.

And it's downright false to categorize this as a mere matter of "not 
pleasing everybody". They're "not pleasing" nearly *half* of their userbase.


I'd guess that a high majority of users for windows 7 like the new 
interface better than XP.


??? Of *course* most Win7 users like Win7 better, the ones who don't are XP 
users. Likewise, I can confidently say that a high majority of users for XP 
like the old interface better than Win7. So I don't see what that really 
means.

But what I think *is* significant is that XP *continues* to be nearly half 
the Windows market. If MS did such an _objectively_ good job on Win7, then 
why did it create such a huge, lasting division among Windows users?
May 25 2012
next sibling parent reply "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On Friday, 25 May 2012 at 14:42:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Just because some people like it doesn't mean it was a sensible 
 move to force it on *everyone*.


Just because a few people don't »like it« doesn't mean it 
wasn't a good move as everyone else now benefits from it.


 All they have to do is just not remove the old way, leave it in 
 as an
 option. It's not as hard as some make it out to be. Problem 
 solved,
 everyone's pleased.


Except for the users who'd actually dare to open the ginormous 
configuration dialogs, or the poor developers who'd have to 
maintain that mess. Just adding stuff to your product without 
ever removing something doesn't work.


 And it's downright false to categorize this as a mere matter of 
 "not pleasing everybody". They're "not pleasing" nearly *half* 
 of their userbase.


Come on, you just made that figure up. I bet most of the big UI 
changes go through extensive usability testing. And no, the 
relative market share of Windows XP compared to Windows 7 is 
_not_ an argument – it isn't like the only difference between 
the two OSes was the task bar.

David
May 25 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> wrote in message 
news:kafgmioabokjwkfwmtob forum.dlang.org...

 On Friday, 25 May 2012 at 14:42:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Just because some people like it doesn't mean it was a sensible move to 
 force it on *everyone*.


 Just because a few people don't »like it« doesn't mean it wasn't a good 
 move as everyone else now benefits from it.


Flipping what I said around doesn't work because I *never* said they 
shouldn't have added it *at all*. I'm only saying they shouldn't have 
removed the old.


 All they have to do is just not remove the old way, leave it in as an
 option. It's not as hard as some make it out to be. Problem solved,
 everyone's pleased.


 Except for the users who'd actually dare to open the ginormous 
 configuration dialogs, or the poor developers who'd have to maintain that 
 mess. Just adding stuff to your product without ever removing something 
 doesn't work.


I think you're severely exaggerating that matter.


 And it's downright false to categorize this as a mere matter of "not 
 pleasing everybody". They're "not pleasing" nearly *half* of their 
 userbase.


 Come on, you just made that figure up. I bet most of the big UI changes go 
 through extensive usability testing. And no, the relative market share of 
 Windows XP compared to Windows 7 is _not_ an argument - it isn't like the 
 only difference between the two OSes was the task bar.


Oh please, I think it's pretty clear I was referring here to Win7's overall 
theme of abandoning "revert this" options rather than actually claiming 
something as crazy as "the new taskbar *alone* is the reason for the XP/Win7 
rift".

And you're right, even that still can't count for 100% of the people who are 
sticking with XP. But I think there's plently reason to believe these sorts 
of things account for a chunk of the XP userbase that's 
more-than-sufficiently-large to not be dismissed as mere "can't please 
everybody" as Steven put it.
May 25 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 25 May 2012 10:42:09 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.wevablddeav7ka steves-laptop...

 I find this feature is *vastly* superior to the old "group all buttons
 together into one taskbar button, then pop a list of the titles"  
 mechanism.


 *shrug* I find the thumbnail popups vastly inferior. Actually, I find it
 useful literally 0% of the time, and both annoying and distracting 100%  
 of
 the time. Not exaggerating.

 Just because some people like it doesn't mean it was a sensible move to
 force it on *everyone*.


But you said you don't use windows 7...

0% of no time isn't saying much :)


 You mean you don't just start typing the program name you want and have  
 it
 appear?  I haven't browsed programs in a long time.


 Of course not. Why bother with the typing when I can just skip straight  
 to
 the "click on it" part?


I don't know about you, but when I go into my start menu on XP, I have  
about 50 folders I have to look at to find the right one.  Sometimes I  
forget what folder it's in (quick! where's hyperterminal!).

It's sooo much easier to click on the start menu and type what I want.


 Can't please everybody, and it's really difficult to design and support  
 a
 product that is configurable enough to try and please everybody.


 All they have to do is just not remove the old way, leave it in as an
 option. It's not as hard as some make it out to be. Problem solved,
 everyone's pleased.


I think you know this is very false.  It's not like a completely new OS  
can just pop in the old GUI shell.  So many things in Windows depend on  
the shell.

And the start menu/dock is part of the shell.

And if you *did* port the old shell to the new OS, you'd then have to  
support that style, for the few people who would use it.


 And it's downright false to categorize this as a mere matter of "not
 pleasing everybody". They're "not pleasing" nearly *half* of their  
 userbase.


 I'd guess that a high majority of users for windows 7 like the new
 interface better than XP.


 ??? Of *course* most Win7 users like Win7 better, the ones who don't are  
 XP
 users. Likewise, I can confidently say that a high majority of users for  
 XP
 like the old interface better than Win7. So I don't see what that really
 means.


LOL, I didn't really say this right!   I meant majority of users who  
*tried* Windows 7 liked the interface.I


 But what I think *is* significant is that XP *continues* to be nearly  
 half
 the Windows market. If MS did such an _objectively_ good job on Win7,  
 then
 why did it create such a huge, lasting division among Windows users?


These are misleading statistics:

1. Most PCs that were built for XP *cannot* be upgraded to Win7.  People  
are *very* unlikely to throw away perfectly working equipment just so they  
can upgrade to Win7.  I only upgraded because my motherboard died.
2. Many corporate XP users have no choice of which OS they run.  I'd say  
IT departments are reluctant to switch to Win7 because they have a)  
already built a whole organization around XP, b) do not want to have to  
upgrade installation scripts, etc. and c) Yes, MS moved a lot of stuff  
around, so now an IT guy has to relearn how to manage a PC.  Remember, XP  
has been around since 2002.  Windows 7 came out in 2010.  So that's 8  
years of solidifying infrastructure and knowledge that now has to be  
undone.  Not to mention any legacy programs their users require that might  
not run well on Windows 7.

Now, look at Vista.  When Vista was unleashed, people who bought *new*  
computers *specifically requested* to have XP and not Vista installed.   
That is not an option anymore, yet people still buy windows PCs.

-Steve
May 25 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wevd5ooieav7ka steves-laptop...

 On Fri, 25 May 2012 10:42:09 -0400, Nick Sabalausky 
 <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 *shrug* I find the thumbnail popups vastly inferior. Actually, I find it
 useful literally 0% of the time, and both annoying and distracting 100% 
 of
 the time. Not exaggerating.

 Just because some people like it doesn't mean it was a sensible move to
 force it on *everyone*.


 But you said you don't use windows 7...

 0% of no time isn't saying much :)


Not as on my *own* computer, but of course I've used it from time to time.


 Of course not. Why bother with the typing when I can just skip straight 
 to
 the "click on it" part?


 I don't know about you, but when I go into my start menu on XP, I have 
 about 50 folders I have to look at to find the right one.  Sometimes I 
 forget what folder it's in (quick! where's hyperterminal!).

 It's sooo much easier to click on the start menu and type what I want.


To be fair, I don't have a problem with the "search all programs" feature. I 
*do* have a problem with it being used as an excuse for not allowing me to 
have my All Programs menu operate in the way that works well for me.

And I keep my All Programs menu relatively organized.


 Can't please everybody, and it's really difficult to design and support 
 a
 product that is configurable enough to try and please everybody.


 All they have to do is just not remove the old way, leave it in as an
 option. It's not as hard as some make it out to be. Problem solved,
 everyone's pleased.


 I think you know this is very false.  It's not like a completely new OS 
 can just pop in the old GUI shell.  So many things in Windows depend on 
 the shell.

 And the start menu/dock is part of the shell.

 And if you *did* port the old shell to the new OS, you'd then have to 
 support that style, for the few people who would use it.


I really have to call "total strawman" on that. There is *no* reason any of 
this needs to be a whole separate shell. It just needs to be a 
*configurable* shell.

A *single* UI can be configurable, just look at pretty much any Linux UI 
system. Even MS has proven they know how to do this, too: Right click on the 
XP start menu or taskbar and go to "properties". All sorts of configurations 
there, and none of it requires a separate shell. This whole "maintaining the 
old shell" thing is a complete non-argument.

And I still don't think it's accurate to consider this a matter of just "a 
few people". (Again, I'm not referring to any once specific elemnt of the UI 
here, but just the overall theme of not allowing most changes other than the 
skin to be reverted.)


 And it's downright false to categorize this as a mere matter of "not
 pleasing everybody". They're "not pleasing" nearly *half* of their 
 userbase.


 I'd guess that a high majority of users for windows 7 like the new
 interface better than XP.


 ??? Of *course* most Win7 users like Win7 better, the ones who don't are 
 XP
 users. Likewise, I can confidently say that a high majority of users for 
 XP
 like the old interface better than Win7. So I don't see what that really
 means.


 LOL, I didn't really say this right!   I meant majority of users who 
 *tried* Windows 7 liked the interface.I


Heh, ok, that makes more sence ;) But I still think you're very much 
underestimating the number of people who prefer XP style.

Keep in mind, too, this sort of thing is FAR less relevent on Linux, for 
example, since Linux UIs are usually highly configurable. Point is, it's not 
like "configurable UI" is a big complicated problem. If MS were to decide, 
"Oh wait, that's right, one size does *not* fit all!" than this entire 
discussion would completely dissapear.


 But what I think *is* significant is that XP *continues* to be nearly 
 half
 the Windows market. If MS did such an _objectively_ good job on Win7, 
 then
 why did it create such a huge, lasting division among Windows users?


 These are misleading statistics:

 1. Most PCs that were built for XP *cannot* be upgraded to Win7.  People 
 are *very* unlikely to throw away perfectly working equipment just so they 
 can upgrade to Win7.  I only upgraded because my motherboard died.


I've heard a LOT of drum-banging about Win7 being faster and more efficient 
that XP. (Not rhetorical:) Was that all just a load of crap?


 2. Many corporate XP users have no choice of which OS they run.  I'd say 
 IT departments are reluctant to switch to Win7 because they have a) 
 already built a whole organization around XP, b) do not want to have to 
 upgrade installation scripts, etc. and c) Yes, MS moved a lot of stuff 
 around, so now an IT guy has to relearn how to manage a PC.  Remember, XP 
 has been around since 2002.  Windows 7 came out in 2010.  So that's 8 
 years of solidifying infrastructure and knowledge that now has to be 
 undone.  Not to mention any legacy programs their users require that might 
 not run well on Windows 7.


I agree that the UI changes don't account for 100% of the XP group, but I 
don't believe for a second that "I like XP better" makes up a portion that's 
remotely insignificant.


 Now, look at Vista.  When Vista was unleashed, people who bought *new* 
 computers *specifically requested* to have XP and not Vista installed. 
 That is not an option anymore, yet people still buy windows PCs.


That's a rediculous argument: Back in the Vista era, plenty of people would 
have still bought new PCs even if XP wasn't offered as a pre-loaded option.

This is how it worked: "I'm going to buy a new PC. Oh, I can get it with XP 
instead of Vista? Well, that's nice! I'll go with that option, then!"

This is NOT how it worked: "I'll only buy a new PC if XP is preloaded. This 
is because I'm enough of a power user that I actually comprehend *and* care 
about the difference between XP and Vista (and yes, it *does* take a power 
user to notice and care about the non-skin differences), and yet, 
paradoxically, I'm too stupid to be capable of inserting an XP disc and 
following basic instructions."
May 25 2012
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:45:43 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:



 To be fair, I don't have a problem with the "search all programs"  
 feature. I
 *do* have a problem with it being used as an excuse for not allowing me  
 to
 have my All Programs menu operate in the way that works well for me.

 And I keep my All Programs menu relatively organized.


I confess that the times I've tried clicking on the "All Programs" menu  
were not pleasant...


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message

 I think you know this is very false.  It's not like a completely new OS
 can just pop in the old GUI shell.  So many things in Windows depend on
 the shell.

 And the start menu/dock is part of the shell.

 And if you *did* port the old shell to the new OS, you'd then have to
 support that style, for the few people who would use it.


 I really have to call "total strawman" on that. There is *no* reason any  
 of
 this needs to be a whole separate shell. It just needs to be a
 *configurable* shell.


It's a strawman either way.  Neither of us know the complications that  
would ensue if MS were to make it configurable.  Maybe they completely  
rewrote the whole task bar into something else, and in order to make it  
more like XP they'd have to write it from scratch.


 A *single* UI can be configurable, just look at pretty much any Linux UI
 system. Even MS has proven they know how to do this, too: Right click on  
 the
 XP start menu or taskbar and go to "properties". All sorts of  
 configurations
 there, and none of it requires a separate shell. This whole "maintaining  
 the
 old shell" thing is a complete non-argument.

 And I still don't think it's accurate to consider this a matter of just  
 "a
 few people". (Again, I'm not referring to any once specific elemnt of  
 the UI
 here, but just the overall theme of not allowing most changes other than  
 the
 skin to be reverted.)


Most of the taskbar features are in there.  You can still do quicklaunch,  
the task tray is still there, I'm pretty sure you can change the buttons  
to title strings, etc.

I don't think my or your opinion really is representative of all of the  
Windows 7 users.  We must consider all the non-computer-experts who have  
never experienced configurable UIs :)

So it's really difficult to say how many users are "offended" by the new  
dock based on our opinions.



 These are misleading statistics:

 1. Most PCs that were built for XP *cannot* be upgraded to Win7.  People
 are *very* unlikely to throw away perfectly working equipment just so  
 they
 can upgrade to Win7.  I only upgraded because my motherboard died.


 I've heard a LOT of drum-banging about Win7 being faster and more  
 efficient
 that XP. (Not rhetorical:) Was that all just a load of crap?


No.  First, it requires more RAM.  XP required 64MB, Windows 7 requires  
1GB (and that's going to be pretty damned slow).  Some systems can't even  
*accept* 1GB, I know I have a laptop that can't have more than 512MB.

Second, they *vastly* improved the startup and shutdown process.  I  
remember when I was on XP, I'd log in, then go get a drink or something,  
because it would be another 2-3 minutes before I could run anything.  Win7  
is usable immediately.


 2. Many corporate XP users have no choice of which OS they run.  I'd say
 IT departments are reluctant to switch to Win7 because they have a)
 already built a whole organization around XP, b) do not want to have to
 upgrade installation scripts, etc. and c) Yes, MS moved a lot of stuff
 around, so now an IT guy has to relearn how to manage a PC.  Remember,  
 XP
 has been around since 2002.  Windows 7 came out in 2010.  So that's 8
 years of solidifying infrastructure and knowledge that now has to be
 undone.  Not to mention any legacy programs their users require that  
 might
 not run well on Windows 7.


 I agree that the UI changes don't account for 100% of the XP group, but I
 don't believe for a second that "I like XP better" makes up a portion  
 that's
 remotely insignificant.


I would be curious how much of that crowd is "I've never tried Windows 7".


 Now, look at Vista.  When Vista was unleashed, people who bought *new*
 computers *specifically requested* to have XP and not Vista installed.
 That is not an option anymore, yet people still buy windows PCs.


 That's a rediculous argument: Back in the Vista era, plenty of people  
 would
 have still bought new PCs even if XP wasn't offered as a pre-loaded  
 option.


I'm not so sure.  I think people would have gone to barebones systems and  
bought XP separately.

For sure, corporate customers would have gone for that, but I'm sure the  
OEMs of the world would much rather have the revenue from installing XP  
than not.

-Steve
May 25 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wevud50reav7ka steves-laptop...

 These are misleading statistics:

 1. Most PCs that were built for XP *cannot* be upgraded to Win7.  People
 are *very* unlikely to throw away perfectly working equipment just so 
 they
 can upgrade to Win7.  I only upgraded because my motherboard died.


 I've heard a LOT of drum-banging about Win7 being faster and more 
 efficient
 that XP. (Not rhetorical:) Was that all just a load of crap?


 No.  First, it requires more RAM.  XP required 64MB, Windows 7 requires 
 1GB (and that's going to be pretty damned slow).  Some systems can't even 
 *accept* 1GB, I know I have a laptop that can't have more than 512MB.


Well, realistically 128MB for XP, and even that was back around 2000 or so. 
I'm not really sure what the heck exactly happened (Just web sites? Or 
something more?), but these days, even on XP, 1GB is really bare minimum.


 Second, they *vastly* improved the startup and shutdown process.  I 
 remember when I was on XP, I'd log in, then go get a drink or something, 
 because it would be another 2-3 minutes before I could run anything.  Win7 
 is usable immediately.


Yea, I knew about that. But I thought the whole system was consdered to be 
more efficient, too? (While I've used Win7, I've never compared it with XP 
on the same physical system. So that's one point I can't really say.)


 I agree that the UI changes don't account for 100% of the XP group, but I
 don't believe for a second that "I like XP better" makes up a portion 
 that's
 remotely insignificant.


 I would be curious how much of that crowd is "I've never tried Windows 7".


I'd be surprised if it were very many, but at this point I think we're both 
reduced to hand-waving. :/
May 25 2012
parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Friday, 25 May 2012 at 22:30:30 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Well, realistically 128MB for XP, and even that was back around 
 2000 or so.
 I'm not really sure what the heck exactly happened (Just web 
 sites? Or
 something more?), but these days, even on XP, 1GB is really 
 bare minimum.


That's service packs. Bare XP 2002 runs on 128MB + Celeron, but 
with every SP it gets more hoggy. I was running bare XP on 256MB 
machine and didn't upgrade until 2009. We at work have similar 
machines running XPSP3 (3GB) and Win7 64bit (4GB) and on win7 
machine visual studio 2010 is 2-3 times slower, maybe it's just 
wow, dunno.
Jun 02 2012
prev sibling parent reply Gour <gour atmarama.net> writes:
On Fri, 25 May 2012 10:42:09 -0400
"Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 ??? Of *course* most Win7 users like Win7 better, the ones who don't
 are XP users. Likewise, I can confidently say that a high majority of
 users for XP like the old interface better than Win7. So I don't see
 what that really means.
=20
 But what I think *is* significant is that XP *continues* to be nearly
 half the Windows market. If MS did such an _objectively_ good job on
 Win7, then why did it create such a huge, lasting division among
 Windows users?


Here is something to make you a day. ;)

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/no-cost-desktop-softw=
are-development-is-dead-on-windows-8/

&

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/u3pqj/microsoft_pulling_free_d=
evelopment_tools_for/


Sincerely,
Gour

--=20
=46rom wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady=20
nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under=20
the control of the self.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
May 25 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Gour" <gour atmarama.net> wrote in message 
news:jpoc5j$1lvh$1 digitalmars.com...
On Fri, 25 May 2012 10:42:09 -0400

 Here is something to make you a day. ;)

 http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/no-cost-desktop-software-development-is-dead-on-windows-8/

 &

 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/u3pqj/microsoft_pulling_free_development_tools_for/


Oh my god, they really have lost their minds. *MS* moving *away* from 
"developers, developers, developers"? Now I really have seen it all.

Although, and maybe it's just desperate optimisim (hah! me, "optimism" ;) ), 
I can't shake the suspicion that they may just be "testing the waters" with 
that idea. Ie, they're telling everyone that, and maybe they'll even start 
it off like that, just to see if they can get away with it. They know that 
they can change their mind if they need to, and they know they'll be 
forgiven for it because the internet and everyone on it has the memory and 
attention span of a fruit fly. Just a guess, though.
May 25 2012
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-21 21:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first. Nobody
 uses Mac.


It's the only sane platform :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 22 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:jpffa9$99a$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 2012-05-21 21:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first. 
 Nobody
 uses Mac.


 It's the only sane platform :)


See, that must be the problem, I only like crazy insane stuff ;)

I actually did spend about a year using an OSX machine as my primary system, 
and was even impressed *at first*. Then I grew to hate it (It's now sitting, 
totally dead, six feet behind me). At this point, IMO, the only thing OSX 
really has going for it is the Unix underpinnings, and for that I'd just as 
soon use Linux (as a bonus, hardware costs are much lower in Linux-land). I 
know people have said OSX is the only Unix with a good GUI, and I am largely 
a GUI guy, but I actually prefer LXDE, XFCE, GNOME and KDE3 over 
Finder/Dock/etc. Not that I'm a huge fan of any of those, but whatever. The 
Linux ones get in my way less, piss me off less, etc.
May 22 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-22 09:50, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 See, that must be the problem, I only like crazy insane stuff ;)

 I actually did spend about a year using an OSX machine as my primary system,
 and was even impressed *at first*. Then I grew to hate it (It's now sitting,
 totally dead, six feet behind me).


When was that, around which version of Mac OS X?


 At this point, IMO, the only thing OSX
 really has going for it is the Unix underpinnings, and for that I'd just as
 soon use Linux (as a bonus, hardware costs are much lower in Linux-land). I
 know people have said OSX is the only Unix with a good GUI, and I am largely
 a GUI guy, but I actually prefer LXDE, XFCE, GNOME and KDE3 over
 Finder/Dock/etc. Not that I'm a huge fan of any of those, but whatever. The
 Linux ones get in my way less, piss me off less, etc.


I feel just the opposite.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 22 2012
parent reply Ary Manzana <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
On 5/22/12 3:41 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2012-05-22 09:50, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 See, that must be the problem, I only like crazy insane stuff ;)

 I actually did spend about a year using an OSX machine as my primary
 system,
 and was even impressed *at first*. Then I grew to hate it (It's now
 sitting,
 totally dead, six feet behind me).


 When was that, around which version of Mac OS X?


 At this point, IMO, the only thing OSX
 really has going for it is the Unix underpinnings, and for that I'd
 just as
 soon use Linux (as a bonus, hardware costs are much lower in
 Linux-land). I
 know people have said OSX is the only Unix with a good GUI, and I am
 largely
 a GUI guy, but I actually prefer LXDE, XFCE, GNOME and KDE3 over
 Finder/Dock/etc. Not that I'm a huge fan of any of those, but
 whatever. The
 Linux ones get in my way less, piss me off less, etc.


 I feel just the opposite.


Me too.

I feel like OSX (and Mac's hardware) got almost everything right. It 
makes you more productive, even if you are a developer.
May 22 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Ary Manzana" <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message 
news:jpfll9$a1h$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 5/22/12 3:41 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2012-05-22 09:50, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 See, that must be the problem, I only like crazy insane stuff ;)

 I actually did spend about a year using an OSX machine as my primary
 system,
 and was even impressed *at first*. Then I grew to hate it (It's now
 sitting,
 totally dead, six feet behind me).


 When was that, around which version of Mac OS X?




Mostly 10.2. And then people told me "You have to upgrade to 10.3! It's sooo 
much better!" Me: "Yea, you said the same about 10.2, asshole. When I made 
the mistake of believing you that time, I blew $100 just to add (remove?) 
stripes from the dock's background and make the kernel panics prettier. Oh, 
yea, and make SMB slightly less broken - that was the killer feature." 
Hundred dollars for a damn point release. Bah. MS would have called it a 
service pack and given it away.

By the time 10.4 rolled around, the stupid machine had already died anyway.


 I feel like OSX (and Mac's hardware) got almost everything right. It makes 
 you more productive, even if you are a developer.


Every single thing about it either got in my way or slowed me down (And 
that's when it was actually working right.) The mouse (every single one 
Apple's ever made - I quickly replaced the nearly-useless Apple mouse with a 
Microsoft one), the sluggish mouse acceleration no matter how you tweaked it 
(need a mousepad the size of Rhode Island), windows that can't figure out 
where the dock is and decide to partially hide behind it, the dock which 
conflates running apps with non-running ones (opps, that's right: there's a 
*teeny* *tiny* little...uhh...triangle to show you the difference), every 
view offered in finder (they were all awful and barely-usable, even the one 
I was initally very excited about), the being a barely-upgradable *desktop* 
machine, the IDE controller that died and took the HDD with it (before the 
machine finally keeled over *completely*), the almost total lack of 
configurability on pretty much anything, the animations that do nothing but 
make you wait (at least *those* you could turn off, along with the dock 
icons that dodge the mouse whenever you try to point at them), the ultra 
window-mania for *individual* apps (ex: photoshop on mac actually behaved 
like GIMP - yea, there's an app known for having a good UI...), the 
compeltely modal menu bar that's not even connected to its own app (yea, I 
know it's signature "Mac", but it's still a bad design that only made sence 
on 13" screens with giant pixels), "error -274296" (yea, real helpful, 
jackass!), the web browser with ultra-blurry text ("It's to make it better 
match what the printer spits out!!" Really? Who the fuck does more 
web-browsing on hard-copy than on screen?). Ie, *Everything* about it. 
Idiotically-designed. Horrible, wretched little machine.

My uncle loves the stupid things (since the monochrome days) and he's 
*constantly* wrestling with Apple over major hardware problems that they 
never seem to be able to resolve.
May 22 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-22 14:00, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Mostly 10.2. And then people told me "You have to upgrade to 10.3! It's sooo
 much better!" Me: "Yea, you said the same about 10.2, asshole. When I made
 the mistake of believing you that time, I blew $100 just to add (remove?)
 stripes from the dock's background and make the kernel panics prettier. Oh,
 yea, and make SMB slightly less broken - that was the killer feature."
 Hundred dollars for a damn point release. Bah. MS would have called it a
 service pack and given it away.

 By the time 10.4 rolled around, the stupid machine had already died anyway.


I slightly started to move to Mac OS X with 10.4 and made the full move 
with 10.5. I don't think I could have made the full move until 10.5.


 I feel like OSX (and Mac's hardware) got almost everything right. It makes
 you more productive, even if you are a developer.


 Every single thing about it either got in my way or slowed me down (And
 that's when it was actually working right.) The mouse (every single one
 Apple's ever made - I quickly replaced the nearly-useless Apple mouse with a
 Microsoft one), the sluggish mouse acceleration no matter how you tweaked it
 (need a mousepad the size of Rhode Island),


The Apple mouses has always been a joke. I started with Mac OS X on a 
laptop, if you then mostly use the track pad it's not as bad. When I 
made the full move to Mac OS X I continued to use my logitech mouse.

  windows that can't figure out

 where the dock is and decide to partially hide behind it, the dock which
 conflates running apps with non-running ones (opps, that's right: there's a
 *teeny* *tiny* little...uhh...triangle to show you the difference),



  every

 view offered in finder (they were all awful and barely-usable, even the one
 I was initally very excited about),


I've replaced Finder with PathFinder:

http://cocoatech.com/pathfinder/

But then, in version 6, they made the tabs and some other parts of the 
UI blue and that annoys the hell out of me :(

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 22 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:jpg2tq$140c$1 digitalmars.com...

 The Apple mouses has always been a joke. I started with Mac OS X on a 
 laptop, if you then mostly use the track pad it's not as bad. When I made 
 the full move to Mac OS X I continued to use my logitech mouse.


A trackpad is *better*? That's an even bigger condemnation of Apple mice 
than anything I could have come up with ;)

I got a laptop about 12 years ago (no, I don't still use it) and it had a 
trackpad. Over a decade later, and using a trackpad still feels like 
operating a screwdriver with my feet.
May 22 2012
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/22/12 2:52 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Jacob Carlborg"<doob me.com>  wrote in message
 news:jpg2tq$140c$1 digitalmars.com...

 The Apple mouses has always been a joke. I started with Mac OS X on a
 laptop, if you then mostly use the track pad it's not as bad. When I made
 the full move to Mac OS X I continued to use my logitech mouse.


 A trackpad is *better*? That's an even bigger condemnation of Apple mice
 than anything I could have come up with ;)

 I got a laptop about 12 years ago (no, I don't still use it) and it had a
 trackpad. Over a decade later, and using a trackpad still feels like
 operating a screwdriver with my feet.


Well I guess there's such a thing as different strokes for different 
folks, de gustibus non disputandum, etc. etc.

Andrei
May 22 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:jpgrfp$2il8$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 5/22/12 2:52 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Jacob Carlborg"<doob me.com>  wrote in message
 news:jpg2tq$140c$1 digitalmars.com...

 The Apple mouses has always been a joke. I started with Mac OS X on a
 laptop, if you then mostly use the track pad it's not as bad. When I 
 made
 the full move to Mac OS X I continued to use my logitech mouse.


 A trackpad is *better*? That's an even bigger condemnation of Apple mice
 than anything I could have come up with ;)

 I got a laptop about 12 years ago (no, I don't still use it) and it had a
 trackpad. Over a decade later, and using a trackpad still feels like
 operating a screwdriver with my feet.


 Well I guess there's such a thing as different strokes for different 
 folks, de gustibus non disputandum, etc. etc.


No kidding! I was reading through that interview you linked to about your 
setup, and I was thinking "How does he get anything done?" ;)  (But I might 
give GNU screen and zsh a try sometime, though.)

Google docs, for instance. I had to use that recently for a work-related, 
but very casual/informal thing, and this ended up flowing (slowly) out of my 
fingers:

-----------------------------
(I can't believe what a POS this is. This is at least the fourth browser I 
tried it in (Arora) and is the only one so far that didn't get an outright 
"Google Docs Error". WinME was more stable - literally. And typing feels 
just like using a terminal across a 2400bps dial-up with a noisy phone line. 
Leave it to Google to turn modern computers into 386s. Grumble, grumble. 
Just had to bitch about it...) Update: Heh, *now* I got a "Google Docs 
 Error" in Arora, too. That makes it 100% so far...
-----------------------------

(And no, I don't normally talk in remotely that tone for work, and *never* 
like that with clients, just in case anyone was wondering ;) )

I'm sure Google Docs is fast(-ish) on that 64-bit multi-core 8GB RAM, SSD 
storage machine, but when it takes that kind of hardware just to run a 
what's really just a basic word processor, you know something has gone 
horribly, horibly wrong.
May 22 2012
next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 05:55:45PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 


[...]

 Well I guess there's such a thing as different strokes for different
 folks, de gustibus non disputandum, etc. etc.


 
 No kidding! I was reading through that interview you linked to about
 your setup, and I was thinking "How does he get anything done?" ;)
 (But I might give GNU screen and zsh a try sometime, though.)


I use GNU screen regularly. It's pretty awesome for what it does, though
it does come with its own warts (like broken terminal type translation
for certain terminal types, causing mostly-working but sometimes broken
terminals). It's pretty cool to be able to just disconnect a screen in
the middle of, say, writing some cool D code, then log on again later
from a different location, fire up screen, and just continue typing
where you left off without a flinch.


[...]

 I'm sure Google Docs is fast(-ish) on that 64-bit multi-core 8GB RAM,
 SSD storage machine, but when it takes that kind of hardware just to
 run a what's really just a basic word processor, you know something
 has gone horribly, horibly wrong.


[...]

One word: MS Word.

For me, vim over a text-only ssh terminal beats _any_ kind of GUI word
processor, any day. What's that you say? No formatting? Pfeh... 90% of
text documents do not _need_ formatting. Wasting time with fonts,
colors, etc., only detract from the actual content of the document.
(Unless you're a marketroid whose content _is_ just the formatting.) And
when formatting _is_ necessary, LaTeX rulez them all anyway, and I can
do LaTeX with a pure, unadulterated plain-text editor.  Over a 2400 baud
modem link without a flinch. :-P


T

-- 
One Word to write them all, One Access to find them, One Excel to count
them all, And thus to Windows bind them. -- Mike Champion
May 22 2012
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/22/2012 2:55 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I'm sure Google Docs is fast(-ish) on that 64-bit multi-core 8GB RAM, SSD
 storage machine, but when it takes that kind of hardware just to run a
 what's really just a basic word processor, you know something has gone
 horribly, horibly wrong.


Heh, no way I'd use a laggy text editor.

Also, given the sporadic arbitrary random delays in my internet connection, 
there's no way I'd buy into heavily using an interactive app that relies on a 
100% connection.
May 23 2012
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On May 23, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrot=
e:


 On 5/22/2012 2:55 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I'm sure Google Docs is fast(-ish) on that 64-bit multi-core 8GB RAM, SSD=





 storage machine, but when it takes that kind of hardware just to run a
 what's really just a basic word processor, you know something has gone
 horribly, horibly wrong.


=20
 Heh, no way I'd use a laggy text editor.
=20
 Also, given the sporadic arbitrary random delays in my internet connection=


, there's no way I'd buy into heavily using an interactive app that relies o=
n a 100% connection.

You shouldn't need a 100% connection if the app is designed correctly. Moder=
n browsers have some kind of persistent storage solution for web apps.=
May 23 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1031.1337823511.24740.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

On May 23, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> 
wrote:

 On 5/22/2012 2:55 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I'm sure Google Docs is fast(-ish) on that 64-bit multi-core 8GB RAM, 
 SSD
 storage machine, but when it takes that kind of hardware just to run a
 what's really just a basic word processor, you know something has gone
 horribly, horibly wrong.


 Heh, no way I'd use a laggy text editor.

 Also, given the sporadic arbitrary random delays in my internet 
 connection,
there's no way I'd buy into heavily using an interactive app that relies 
on a
100% connection.


You shouldn't need a 100% connection if the app is designed correctly.
Modern browsers have some kind of persistent storage solution for
web apps.=


If the app is designed correctly, it won't involve a browser in the first 
place.

A bit old, but still very good:

http://teddziuba.com/2008/09/a-web-os-are-you-dense.html

A gem excerpt:
----------------------------------------
Making It Easier On Idiots:
After a while, everybody wanted to be a programmer.  Since programming is 
actually kind of hard, many of these folk landed in PHP and HTML, hence the 
explosion of webapps.  As such, the browser became a feeble example of a 
"runtime".
----------------------------------------
May 23 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-24 08:48, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 If the app is designed correctly, it won't involve a browser in the first
 place.


So true, so true.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 24 2012
parent reply "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 07:13:06 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2012-05-24 08:48, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 If the app is designed correctly, it won't involve a browser 
 in the first
 place.


 So true, so true.


Where is the Like button? :)
May 24 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote in message 
news:tvtwsxghjzkkuczrbjzv forum.dlang.org...

 On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 07:13:06 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2012-05-24 08:48, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 If the app is designed correctly, it won't involve a browser in the 
 first
 place.


 So true, so true.


 Where is the Like button? :)


In my new signature, of course!

-------------------------------
[Like+1] <-- Click here to share on the best new social site ever!
May 24 2012
parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 09:30:06 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote in message
 news:tvtwsxghjzkkuczrbjzv forum.dlang.org...

 On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 07:13:06 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2012-05-24 08:48, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 If the app is designed correctly, it won't involve a browser 
 in the first
 place.


 So true, so true.


 Where is the Like button? :)


 In my new signature, of course!

 -------------------------------
 [Like+1] <-- Click here to share on the best new social site 
 ever!


:)
May 24 2012
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-24 09:56, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 07:13:06 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2012-05-24 08:48, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 If the app is designed correctly, it won't involve a browser in the
 first
 place.


 So true, so true.


 Where is the Like button? :)


We don't want Like buttons and similar. That's why we use newsgroups, 
mailing lists and so on. That similes are displayed as images (in 
Thunderbird at least) is almost too much. :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 24 2012
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:jpkvqi$153n$1 digitalmars.com...

 We don't want Like buttons and similar. That's why we use newsgroups, 
 mailing lists and so on. That similes are displayed as images (in 
 Thunderbird at least) is almost too much. :)


It may sound petty, and maybe it is, but that sort of thing is the biggest 
reason I decided not to switch to Thunderbird when I tried it a few years 
ago. I don't remember the smileys thing, but when I turn on "View messages 
as **Plain Text**", I damn well expect that it results in...what 
else?...*plain text*, and that it *not* go tromping all over asterisks, 
underscores and slashes deciding that it knows best.
May 24 2012
prev sibling parent Mirko Pilger <pilger cymotec.de> writes:
 We don't want Like buttons and similar. That's why we use newsgroups,
 mailing lists and so on. That similes are displayed as images (in
 Thunderbird at least) is almost too much. :)


i've never seen smilies in mails or ng posts using thunderbird. dunno. i 
guess i turned it off ages ago.
May 24 2012
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-22 21:52, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Jacob Carlborg"<doob me.com>  wrote in message
 news:jpg2tq$140c$1 digitalmars.com...

 The Apple mouses has always been a joke. I started with Mac OS X on a
 laptop, if you then mostly use the track pad it's not as bad. When I made
 the full move to Mac OS X I continued to use my logitech mouse.


 A trackpad is *better*? That's an even bigger condemnation of Apple mice
 than anything I could have come up with ;)


Ok, that might not be exactly what I meant :) The track pad on a Mac 
laptop is way better then any other track pad I've used on other 
laptops. On the other hand the Mac mouses are horrible and basically 
every other mouse I've used is better.

Then if a Mac track pad is better than a Mac mouse, I don't know. I've 
not used Mac mouses that much. In most cases when I use a laptop it 
would be difficult to use a mouse as well.


 I got a laptop about 12 years ago (no, I don't still use it) and it had a
 trackpad. Over a decade later, and using a trackpad still feels like
 operating a screwdriver with my feet.


Hehe.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 22 2012
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/22/12 4:18 AM, Ary Manzana wrote:

 I feel like OSX (and Mac's hardware) got almost everything right. It
 makes you more productive, even if you are a developer.


Same here. Macs computers are the first laptops reliable enough to be 
handled as an appliance - e.g. the sleep mode works well enough that I 
can casually lift the laptop off the couch while watching TV, open it, 
google for something, and close it, all within seconds. I _never_ got 
suspend to work reliably enough with other platforms.

BTW for a longer discussion of crap that I use, thesetup.com interviewed 
me recently: http://andrei.alexandrescu.usesthis.com/.


Andrei
May 22 2012
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/22/2012 9:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Macs computers are the first laptops reliable enough to be handled as
 an appliance - e.g. the sleep mode works well enough that I can casually lift
 the laptop off the couch while watching TV, open it, google for something, and
 close it, all within seconds. I _never_ got suspend to work reliably enough
with
 other platforms.



Windows 7 is better at suspend/resume than any previous Windows, but it still 
loses its shares randomly doing that, and needs rebooting.

Win7 has enough problems that I'm forced to keep my old WinXP machine operating:

1. can't run 16 bit programs

2. still sometimes fails when in a tight loop creating and deleting an exe
file, 
even though disabling Defender helps a lot

3. erratic issues with sharing directories. Sharing was simple with XP - one 
click to share, another to unshare. Win7 has a maze of dialog boxes and 
alternate ways of doing it, some work, some don't, and no feedback on whether
it 
works or not.
May 23 2012
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On May 23, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrot=
e:

=20
 3. erratic issues with sharing directories. Sharing was simple with XP - o=


ne click to share, another to unshare. Win7 has a maze of dialog boxes and a=
lternate ways of doing it, some work, some don't, and no feedback on whether=
 it works or not.

I have a terrible time figuring out how to do anything "advanced" on Win7 co=
mpared to XP. The missing menu bar is a problem too. In terms of overall usa=
bility, XP is still the best Windows IMO.=20=
May 23 2012
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/23/2012 1:23 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:

 On May 23, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Walter Bright<newshound2 digitalmars.com>
 wrote:

 3. erratic issues with sharing directories. Sharing was simple with XP -
 one click to share, another to unshare. Win7 has a maze of dialog boxes and
 alternate ways of doing it, some work, some don't, and no feedback on
 whether it works or not.




[ WinXP would superimpose a hand image over a shared directory. In Win7,
there's 
no indication. ]


 I have a terrible time figuring out how to do anything "advanced" on Win7
 compared to XP. The missing menu bar is a problem too. In terms of overall
 usability, XP is still the best Windows IMO.


I find the new Win7 to be much too clever. For example, if you move a window up
against the top edge of the screen, it switches to full screen. Aggh. I know
why 
that was done, but it's just tailfins and taillights in the shape of jet 
engines. I prefer utilitarian interfaces.

Speaking of which, it annoys me that pdf files in a folder *still* won't use an 
icon that is the first page of the pdf. I really like that my ipod does that - 
but the kindle and windows won't.

Also bad is although you can specify a "folder.jpg" as the icon for a folder,
it 
shows it as a distorted trapezoid!! Gah. Too darn clever for me.
May 23 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jpjmkb$1mm6$1 digitalmars.com...

 I find the new Win7 to be much too clever.


I think that's a very good way of putting it.


 For example, if you move a window up
 against the top edge of the screen, it switches to full screen. Aggh. I 
 know why that was done, but it's just tailfins and taillights in the shape 
 of jet engines. I prefer utilitarian interfaces.


You sir, have inspired me :) I started writing a reply, but it ended up 
being this:

https://www.semitwist.com/articles/article/view/steve-jobs-was-not-a-good-designer
May 24 2012
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/24/2012 2:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 You sir, have inspired me :) I started writing a reply, but it ended up
 being this:

 https://www.semitwist.com/articles/article/view/steve-jobs-was-not-a-good-designer


:-)

My main complaint with the touch interface is my touches often frustratingly do 
not register.
May 24 2012
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On May 24, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Walter Bright wrote:


 On 5/24/2012 2:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 You sir, have inspired me :) I started writing a reply, but it ended =




up

 being this:
=20
 =




https://www.semitwist.com/articles/article/view/steve-jobs-was-not-a-good-=
designer

=20
 :-)
=20
 My main complaint with the touch interface is my touches often =


frustratingly do not register.

Your skin is probably too dry.  Using a touch interface on a cold day =
can be an exercise in frustration for this reason.  I've taken to =
licking my fingers if touches don't register, and that always does the =
trick, though it's maybe a bit gross.=
May 24 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1061.1337904113.24740.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

On May 24, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Walter Bright wrote:


 On 5/24/2012 2:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 You sir, have inspired me :) I started writing a reply, but it ended up
 being this:

 https://www.semitwist.com/articles/article/view/steve-jobs-was-not-a-good-designer


 :-)

 My main complaint with the touch interface is my touches often
frustratingly do not register.




I've heard a lot of about the iPhone's keyboard being amazingly accurate. 
I've used it. It's *not* fucking accurate. Approx every 5 to 10 letters is 
registered wrong - and that's when doing it slooowly and carefully. This is 
because my fingers are not the size of a five-year-old's. I've never had 
accuracy problems with a resistive touchscreen, because they don't require a 
whole finger (and capactive styli suck, plus there's no place to store a 
stylus anyway).


Your skin is probably too dry.  Using a touch interface on a cold
day can be an exercise in frustration for this reason.  I've taken to
licking my fingers if touches don't register, and that always does the
trick, though it's maybe a bit gross.=


Yet another reason resistive touchscreens fucking kick ass.
May 24 2012
prev sibling parent reply Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 digitalmars.com>wrote:


 On 5/23/2012 1:23 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:


 On May 23, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Walter
Bright<newshound2 digitalmars.**com<newshound2 digitalmars.com>


 wrote:


 3. erratic issues with sharing directories. Sharing was simple with XP -
 one click to share, another to unshare. Win7 has a maze of dialog boxes
 and
 alternate ways of doing it, some work, some don't, and no feedback on
 whether it works or not.




 [ WinXP would superimpose a hand image over a shared directory. In Win7,
 there's no indication. ]




 I have a terrible time figuring out how to do anything "advanced" on Win7
 compared to XP. The missing menu bar is a problem too. In terms of overall
 usability, XP is still the best Windows IMO.


 I find the new Win7 to be much too clever. For example, if you move a
 window up
 against the top edge of the screen, it switches to full screen. Aggh. I
 know why that was done, but it's just tailfins and taillights in the shape
 of jet engines. I prefer utilitarian interfaces.


I actually love AeroSnap.  Not for that maximization feature but for what
it does when you drag to the left and right sides of the screen.  It makes
working between two locations or from two windows (say a text editor and a
reference) much easier.



 Speaking of which, it annoys me that pdf files in a folder *still* won't
 use an icon that is the first page of the pdf. I really like that my ipod
 does that - but the kindle and windows won't.

 Also bad is although you can specify a "folder.jpg" as the icon for a
 folder, it shows it as a distorted trapezoid!! Gah. Too darn clever for me.





 May 24 2012



  parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz>  writes:


On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:06:14 +0100, Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> wrote:

 I find the new Win7 to be much too clever. For example, if you move a
 window up
 against the top edge of the screen, it switches to full screen. Aggh. I
 know why that was done, but it's just tailfins and taillights in the  
 shape
 of jet engines. I prefer utilitarian interfaces.


 I actually love AeroSnap.  Not for that maximization feature but for what
 it does when you drag to the left and right sides of the screen.  It  
 makes
 working between two locations or from two windows (say a text editor and  
 a
 reference) much easier.


Me too.. and <windows key> + left, right, up, and down are faster for  
keyboard shortcut lovers like me who find the mouse "too slow" :p

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/



 May 25 2012



 next sibling parent  Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com>  writes:


On 25.05.2012 13:12, Regan Heath wrote:

 On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:06:14 +0100, Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> wrote:

 I find the new Win7 to be much too clever. For example, if you move a
 window up
 against the top edge of the screen, it switches to full screen. Aggh. I
 know why that was done, but it's just tailfins and taillights in the
 shape
 of jet engines. I prefer utilitarian interfaces.


 I actually love AeroSnap. Not for that maximization feature but for what
 it does when you drag to the left and right sides of the screen. It makes
 working between two locations or from two windows (say a text editor
 and a
 reference) much easier.


 Me too.. and <windows key> + left, right, up, and down are faster for
 keyboard shortcut lovers like me who find the mouse "too slow" :p


Awesome. TIL etc. :)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky



 May 25 2012



prev sibling  parent  Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net>  writes:


On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Regan Heath <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote:


 On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:06:14 +0100, Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> wrote:


 I actually love AeroSnap.  Not for that maximization feature but for what
 it does when you drag to the left and right sides of the screen.  It makes
 working between two locations or from two windows (say a text editor and a
 reference) much easier.


 Me too.. and <windows key> + left, right, up, and down are faster for
 keyboard shortcut lovers like me who find the mouse "too slow" :p


This is actually the only way to do it properly when you have multiple
monitors like I do.



 May 25 2012



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com>  writes:


On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:04:30 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 Win7 has enough problems that I'm forced to keep my old WinXP machine  
 operating:

 1. can't run 16 bit programs


Really, have no sympathy there :)

-Steve



 May 23 2012



  parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com>  writes:


On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:29:36 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:


 On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:04:30 -0400, Walter Bright  
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 Win7 has enough problems that I'm forced to keep my old WinXP machine  
 operating:

 1. can't run 16 bit programs


 Really, have no sympathy there :)


BTW, you should be able to do this with XP mode.

-Steve



 May 23 2012



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 5/23/2012 2:57 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:29:36 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com>
 wrote:


 On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:04:30 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>
 wrote:


 Win7 has enough problems that I'm forced to keep my old WinXP machine
operating:

 1. can't run 16 bit programs


 Really, have no sympathy there :)


 BTW, you should be able to do this with XP mode.

 -Steve


I checked that, but there was some other issue with that that made it useless.



 May 23 2012



  parent reply simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com>  writes:


On Thu, 24 May 2012 00:03:59 +0200, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 On 5/23/2012 2:57 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:29:36 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer  
 <schveiguy yahoo.com>
 wrote:


 On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:04:30 -0400, Walter Bright  
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com>
 wrote:


 Win7 has enough problems that I'm forced to keep my old WinXP machine  
 operating:

 1. can't run 16 bit programs


 Really, have no sympathy there :)


 BTW, you should be able to do this with XP mode.

 -Steve


 I checked that, but there was some other issue with that that made it  
 useless.


Yeah, running 16-bit in win7 is difficult (next to impossible?).
We ended up using virtualized xp machines for 16-bit applications at work  
:)

What 16-bit applications are you using? Are you still supporting 16-bit on  
your C compiler?



 May 24 2012



 next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com>  writes:


On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:23:24 -0400, simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> wrote:


 On Thu, 24 May 2012 00:03:59 +0200, Walter Bright  
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 On 5/23/2012 2:57 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:29:36 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer  
 <schveiguy yahoo.com>
 wrote:


 On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:04:30 -0400, Walter Bright  
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com>
 wrote:


 Win7 has enough problems that I'm forced to keep my old WinXP  
 machine operating:

 1. can't run 16 bit programs


 Really, have no sympathy there :)


 BTW, you should be able to do this with XP mode.

 -Steve


 I checked that, but there was some other issue with that that made it  
 useless.


 Yeah, running 16-bit in win7 is difficult (next to impossible?).
 We ended up using virtualized xp machines for 16-bit applications at  
 work :)


XP Mode *is* a virtualized XP Pro instance.

I'm unaware of the limitation Walter speaks of.  I know it won't do  
hardware graphics acceleration, but other than that, I think it works just  
like an XP system, except the application windows are displayed like they  
were running on your win7 system.

-Steve



 May 24 2012



  parent reply simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com>  writes:


On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:45:50 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:


 On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:23:24 -0400, simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com>  
 wrote:


 On Thu, 24 May 2012 00:03:59 +0200, Walter Bright  
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 I checked that, but there was some other issue with that that made it  
 useless.


 Yeah, running 16-bit in win7 is difficult (next to impossible?).
 We ended up using virtualized xp machines for 16-bit applications at  
 work :)


 XP Mode *is* a virtualized XP Pro instance.

 I'm unaware of the limitation Walter speaks of.  I know it won't do  
 hardware graphics acceleration, but other than that, I think it works  
 just like an XP system, except the application windows are displayed  
 like they were running on your win7 system.

 -Steve


Yes, XP mode is a virtualized xp, but running 16-bit virtualized  
applications in a virtualized xp mode on win7 just doesn't work like it  
should :)
Good to see we're not the only one with this problem.



 May 24 2012



  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 5/24/2012 5:54 AM, simendsjo wrote:

 Yes, XP mode is a virtualized xp, but running 16-bit virtualized applications
in
 a virtualized xp mode on win7 just doesn't work like it should :)
 Good to see we're not the only one with this problem.


I would have been happy if MS had simply provided a software 16 bit emulator, 
not even a virtualized machine, that I could run with:

    DOSBOX dosprog.exe args...

It would have run plenty fast enough, and with MS's resources, it would not
have 
even been a blip on the radar. And, being a software emulator, it will work on 
any future machines, ARM machines, etc.



 May 24 2012



prev sibling  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 5/24/2012 12:23 AM, simendsjo wrote:

 What 16-bit applications are you using? Are you still supporting 16-bit on your
 C compiler?


Yup. I see no reason to break that.



 May 24 2012



prev sibling next sibling parent  Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net>  writes:


On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote:


 On May 23, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>
 wrote:

 3. erratic issues with sharing directories. Sharing was simple with XP -


 one click to share, another to unshare. Win7 has a maze of dialog boxes and
 alternate ways of doing it, some work, some don't, and no feedback on
 whether it works or not.

 I have a terrible time figuring out how to do anything "advanced" on Win7
 compared to XP. The missing menu bar is a problem too. In terms of overall
 usability, XP is still the best Windows IMO.



You can usually get the menu bar to appear if you hit Alt.  I have no idea
why Microsoft decided hiding it and only showing it if you hit a magic key
was a good idea but they did.



 May 23 2012



prev sibling next sibling parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 5/23/2012 1:04 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 5/22/2012 9:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Macs computers are the first laptops reliable enough to be handled as
 an appliance - e.g. the sleep mode works well enough that I can casually lift
 the laptop off the couch while watching TV, open it, google for something, and
 close it, all within seconds. I _never_ got suspend to work reliably enough
with
 other platforms.



 Windows 7 is better at suspend/resume than any previous Windows, but it still
 loses its shares randomly doing that, and needs rebooting.


Oh, another weirdity shows up sometimes after resuming from sleep. Text windows 
revert to 24*80. You can resize them, but if you move them they snap back to 
24*80. Have to reboot to stop that.



 May 23 2012



prev sibling  parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com>  writes:


On 24.05.2012 0:04, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 5/22/2012 9:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Macs computers are the first laptops reliable enough to be handled as
 an appliance - e.g. the sleep mode works well enough that I can
 casually lift
 the laptop off the couch while watching TV, open it, google for
 something, and
 close it, all within seconds. I _never_ got suspend to work reliably
 enough with
 other platforms.



 Windows 7 is better at suspend/resume than any previous Windows, but it
 still loses its shares randomly doing that, and needs rebooting.

 Win7 has enough problems that I'm forced to keep my old WinXP machine
 operating:

 1. can't run 16 bit programs


DosBox for the win. Or VirtualBox or wahtever.


 2. still sometimes fails when in a tight loop creating and deleting an
 exe file, even though disabling Defender helps a lot


Never seen this in the wild. Guess it's bad luck.


 3. erratic issues with sharing directories. Sharing was simple with XP -
 one click to share, another to unshare. Win7 has a maze of dialog boxes
 and alternate ways of doing it, some work, some don't, and no feedback
 on whether it works or not.


It's because the concept of "share this" is too damn simple. (and 
bogus). Any real network sharing requires users, ACL and so and so forth.

To be frank I always preferred running FTP or SSH server on Windows. Or 
even Apache ;)
(though remote desktop is cool)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky



 May 24 2012



 next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


"Dmitry Olshansky" <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jpkqol$rmt$1 digitalmars.com...

 3. erratic issues with sharing directories. Sharing was simple with XP -
 one click to share, another to unshare. Win7 has a maze of dialog boxes
 and alternate ways of doing it, some work, some don't, and no feedback
 on whether it works or not.




I noticed sharing on Win7 being a pain, too. It was like going back to 
Win98's sharing, but more painful because this time you can't get it to work 
by just futzing with it.


 It's because the concept of "share this" is too damn simple. (and bogus). 
 Any real network sharing requires users, ACL and so and so forth.

 To be frank I always preferred running FTP or SSH server on Windows. Or 
 even Apache ;)
 (though remote desktop is cool)


I've moved over to preferring FTP, too. Windows built-in file sharing has 
always been a bit flakey. WinXP is the best it ever got. I learned this at 
least a couple times over:

- There's a Vista laptop I sometimes borrow usage of. When transferring 
files with my XP machine, I used to use Win file sharing (always seemed to 
be good enough on XP<-->XP setups). It worked fine for awhile, and then one 
day without warning it just...stopped. I went through everything on both 
computers trying to figure it out, Googled, everything, and came up with 
nothing. So I switched to FTP. Problem solved. Eventually, I discovered 
(don't recall how) it was some automatic update on the Vista machine that 
fucked it all up. Great. Gotta love auto-updating software... :/

- When my sister finally got fed up with Apple (just like I had before and 
my brother is starting to now), and replaced her MacBook with a Win7 
Lenoovo, I managed to accidentally win the glorius task of transferring all 
her data. SMB didn't fucking work...PERIOD. There was just no way. Took 
forever to figure that out, too. So I had to resort to FTP...which was 
*still* a world of hurt because her MacBook was a non-upgradable (don't 
remember why) 10.3 and I went though hell trying to find an FTP client that 
didn't require the 10.4 that she couldn't upgrade to (Aside from FTP 
specifically, this inability to upgrade or run anything so soon after buying 
it is part of why she got fed up with the Mac) And yes, I know it's Unix and 
therefore has FTP already, but I didn't want to fuck with cmd line FTP, and 
doing FTP through Finder just wasn't working (maybe it just didn't support 
it? I don't remember).



 May 24 2012



 next sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com>  writes:


On 24.05.2012 13:58, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 - There's a Vista laptop I sometimes borrow usage of. When transferring
 files with my XP machine, I used to use Win file sharing (always seemed to
 be good enough on XP<-->XP setups). It worked fine for awhile, and then one
 day without warning it just...stopped. I went through everything on both
 computers trying to figure it out, Googled, everything, and came up with
 nothing. So I switched to FTP. Problem solved. Eventually, I discovered
 (don't recall how) it was some automatic update on the Vista machine that
 fucked it all up. Great. Gotta love auto-updating software... :/


So true.


 - When my sister finally got fed up with Apple (just like I had before and
 my brother is starting to now), and replaced her MacBook with a Win7
 Lenoovo, I managed to accidentally win the glorius task of transferring all
 her data. SMB didn't fucking work...PERIOD. There was just no way. Took
 forever to figure that out, too. So I had to resort to FTP...which was
 *still* a world of hurt because her MacBook was a non-upgradable (don't
 remember why) 10.3 and I went though hell trying to find an FTP client that
 didn't require the 10.4 that she couldn't upgrade to (Aside from FTP
 specifically, this inability to upgrade or run anything so soon after buying
 it is part of why she got fed up with the Mac) And yes, I know it's Unix and
 therefore has FTP already, but I didn't want to fuck with cmd line FTP, and
 doing FTP through Finder just wasn't working (maybe it just didn't support
 it? I don't remember).


Yes, even FTP can't beat straightforward  "crack open this box and pull 
hdd out". I've been using it for years and haven't had any problem with 
it ;)


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky



 May 24 2012



  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 5/24/2012 3:46 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 Yes, even FTP can't beat straightforward "crack open this box and pull hdd
out".
 I've been using it for years and haven't had any problem with it ;)


One thing that does work great on Windows is being able to hot plug any old 
random drive into a USB port and have it work.



 May 24 2012



prev sibling  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


I've tried various downloads that are bad ports of Unix tools to do things like 
tar, rsync, etc. One common disaster with them is they fail on large files - 
apparently some internal wrap-around. Miserable.



 May 24 2012



  parent  Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org>  writes:


On May 24, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Walter Bright wrote:


 I've tried various downloads that are bad ports of Unix tools to do =


things like tar, rsync, etc. One common disaster with them is they fail =
on large files - apparently some internal wrap-around. Miserable.

The GnuWin32 project is pretty solid.  All others I've tried are =
terrible though.=



 May 24 2012



prev sibling  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 5/24/2012 1:16 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 It's because the concept of "share this" is too damn simple. (and bogus). Any
 real network sharing requires users, ACL and so and so forth.

 To be frank I always preferred running FTP or SSH server on Windows. Or even
 Apache ;)
 (though remote desktop is cool)


Yeah, well, I wish Windows would properly support SSH. I want to be able to use 
rsync, scp, ssh, etc., out of the box.



 May 24 2012



  parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jpmhit$180q$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 5/24/2012 1:16 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 It's because the concept of "share this" is too damn simple. (and bogus). 
 Any
 real network sharing requires users, ACL and so and so forth.

 To be frank I always preferred running FTP or SSH server on Windows. Or 
 even
 Apache ;)
 (though remote desktop is cool)


 Yeah, well, I wish Windows would properly support SSH. I want to be able 
 to use rsync, scp, ssh, etc., out of the box.


PuTTY's pretty good once you get over the initial intimidation and (small) 
learning curve. But I agree, all that shit should be "in the box" already, 
plus grep, curl, tee and maybe some others (Fuck, toss in bash, too). And a 
windows sshfs, packed-in, would be freaking awesome.



 May 24 2012



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 5/24/2012 11:01 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 PuTTY's pretty good once you get over the initial intimidation and (small)
 learning curve. But I agree, all that shit should be "in the box" already,
 plus grep, curl, tee and maybe some others (Fuck, toss in bash, too). And a
 windows sshfs, packed-in, would be freaking awesome.



I use putty every day, it is indispensible. But it doesn't work in the other 
direction - I cannot ssh from Linux into Windows.



 May 25 2012



 next sibling parent  Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org>  writes:


On May 25, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wro=
te:


 On 5/24/2012 11:01 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 PuTTY's pretty good once you get over the initial intimidation and (small=




)

 learning curve. But I agree, all that shit should be "in the box" already=




,

 plus grep, curl, tee and maybe some others (Fuck, toss in bash, too). And=




 a

 windows sshfs, packed-in, would be freaking awesome.


=20
=20
 I use putty every day, it is indispensible. But it doesn't work in the oth=


er direction - I cannot ssh from Linux into Windows.

When I was a windows guy I used SecureCRT like crazy. They make a server app=
 too.=20=



 May 25 2012



prev sibling  parent  Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com>  writes:


On 25/05/2012 20:06, Walter Bright wrote:

 I use putty every day, it is indispensible. But it doesn't work in the
 other direction - I cannot ssh from Linux into Windows.


I've set up an ssh server with bash/unix utilities on Windows before 
now. It was a massive hassle to do, but the end result was awesome. 
There's also a way of setting it up to use powershell or cmd.exe if 
you'd prefer... No idea why you would though :)

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/



 May 25 2012



prev sibling  parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:jpffa9$99a$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 2012-05-21 21:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Finally!

 I still don't understand what posessd them to do a Mac version first. 
 Nobody
 uses Mac.


 It's the only sane platform :)


Ever since PalmOS was killed off, there's been no such thing as a sane 
platform ;)



 May 22 2012



  parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2012-05-22 09:52, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Ever since PalmOS was killed off, there's been no such thing as a sane
 platform ;)


There are some sane platforms but not any good ones.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 May 22 2012