JorgeA

Thanks very much, that was definitely helpful and I'll look into it. I wonder if the technology (and thus the situation) has changed enough since that article came out, to affect one's decision. --JorgeA A quick search on their site found me a five part tutorial that was initially started in 2010 and last produced in 2011 http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10816 , http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10843 , http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10882 , http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10899 ,and http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10929 . In his tutorial he stated he will be doing the following For your needs you would seem to take interest in the last article he posted so for your convenience I'll post it down here too. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10929 EDIT: the second and third link seem to not want to work as a hyper link , but they do work. Just copy and paste them instead. Thanks very much for following up on this, Flasche. You know what I'll be doing this weekend! --JorgeA

Thanks, jaclaz. Believe it or not, Flasche had posted that on Tuesday, although he later modified his post to provide different information. If I lived in a country where the government seeks to monitor Internet users' activities , would it help to set up such a firewall PC in addition to a router, or not really? --JorgeA

From the new home of Glenn Greenwald, the main recipient of Edward Snowden's document trove at The Guardian: Snowden Documents Reveal Covert Surveillance and Pressure Tactics Aimed at WikiLeaks and Its Supporters --JorgeA

The whole article can be read here: http://www.muktware.com/2014/02/ubuntu-14-04-brings-back-menus-application-windows/21472 Good to know that sanity (and respect for your users/customers) is starting to make a comeback. You cheesy dated hater living in the past, get on with The Program!! --JorgeA

New Technology Allows For TV Ads to Target Specific Individuals, Families [emphasis added] If Hitler had had access to this technology, it would have made his job a lot easier. No problem: it'll be available for the next totalitarian to use. --JorgeA

That's a FABULOUS list, thanks!! --JorgeA

nitroshift, Never mind about the setup details. I found most of what I wanted in that regard, on this page. But I would be curious to know, for an office-at-home network, where the ClearOS machine would sit in relation to the NAT router. Or maybe it replaces it entirely? Thanks again. --JorgeA

Huh, this idea (using a PC as a proxy server) I hadn't heard of. I will look into that, too. Are you allowed to provide more details of your setup? --JorgeA

Thanks very much, that was definitely helpful and I'll look into it. I wonder if the technology (and thus the situation) has changed enough since that article came out, to affect one's decision. --JorgeA

The full text from reddit: Thanks for posting it, TELVM. I'm even less impressed by the quality of their thinking than I was before reading this. For one thing, it doesn't make any sense at all, nor does it bear any relation to reality. Windows is already chock-full of features that go way over the heads of casual users, and it has been so for two decades. How many non-geeks ever go into the Task Scheduler to automate a function; or launch Event Viewer to troubleshoot a BSOD; or open a DOS box to run a batch file or to mine for bitcoin? Casual users don't ever use these advanced features, so there is no issue with leaving them in there. Such users don't understand them, they stay away from them, and thus these features don't affect them one way or another. So what's the problem with including new advanced features (such as multiple desktops) that casual users will never lay a hand on? To put it another way, if casual users "don't go exploring," then how would they ever find themselves confused by the ability to run multiple desktops? By the writer's own admission, they wouldn't even be running into that feature. So again, what's the problem? You can't have it both ways (casual users not exploring but then getting confused by discovering advanced functions). Microsoft's justification for foisting Metro on everyone is simply incoherent. In any event, if advanced capabilities "confuse" casual users, then logic suggests that for their sake the MMC (for example) should be removed from Windows altogether, just as multiple desktops have been kept out. (Psst -- you wanna drive everybody to Linux as quickly as possible? Then try applying this logic consistently.) If the intent ultimately is to introduce new advanced capabilities for power users without befuddling casual users, then the most straightforward approach is (as we've been suggesting here) to give the PC user a choice of UI when they install Windows or at first boot after buying a preloaded retail machine. Provide a simple way to switch back and forth if the user wants to try out the other UI. You never have to deal with Metro if you don't want to, and you never have to see the Desktop if you don't want it. Incidentally, this approach would take care of that "casual users don't go exploring" B.S.: if Metro is really so wonderful, then as soon as they are shown it they will flock to it like moths to a light bulb. (With analogous consequences for their minds, I might add. ) Please spare us your "we know what's best for you" arrogance, and spare the rest of us the annoyance of having to deal with this Metro cr*p for the supposed benefit of people with simpler objectives. Stop trying to nudge or to steer users in one direction or another. I have to wonder how much of this explanation in Reddit is a (bad) rationalization after the fact of Win8's failure. --JorgeA

I'm not sure how much of a help this will be, but FWIW this same effect happens to me on three machines (one XP, one Vista, and one 7) with add-on GPUs that I dedicate to a distributed-computing project. The graphics cards are loaded enough with DC work that dragging windows across the screen creates the same (or a similar) jerky visual effect. Unfortunately, none of those machines has more than 3GB of RAM, so their situation isn't directly comparable to yours. But with any luck, this report might yield some useful clue as to what you're facing. --JorgeA

Thanks, puntoMX. Wherever you believe the question will be most relevant and visible. @tain: Thank you for deleting the duplicate posting. When I went to Submit the post, my browser hung and I wasn't sure what had gone through. --JorgeA

That is unbelievable. I had to read your post three times, and the description at the top of the YouTube screen, to realize that it's NOT a parody. Acclimating the next generation to serfdom. :angrym: If my cable company offered channels a la carte, Disney would stop getting my money right now. --JorgeA

Nice find, Andre. For a long time we have strongly suspected that Metro was designed for casual users, but this makes it official. It also adds weight to @Charlotte's contention that the main fans of Metro are children. Now I am even more disappointed in MSFT's clearly overpaid geniuses than before. If the idea was to get casual users to try out Metro (because they're too ignorant or incurious to even look for the Metro interface from the Desktop), it would be so simple to offer a selection screen that would appear while Windows is booting, and make the user decide which UI he wants to go into (as discussed upthread). Could even give a choice to make one or the other the default so that they don't have to do this every time they turn on the PC. BTW, if casual users don't even know or care enough to start looking for and discovering Windows features -- then how on earth did the brilliant designers of Metro think that these casual users would discover how to close a Metro app, or how to switch between apps, or discover the hot corners??? The whole Win8 project was misconceived from top to bottom. Another simple way around this supposed problem would be to present a brief tutorial showing users how to turn Metro on or off, so that power users would never have to deal with it. Remember the Windows 98 and Vista welcome screens? It's not like nothing like it has ever been done before. --JorgeA

A (hopefully) quick question here: is there any security or privacy benefit to using a dedicated PC, either before or after a NAT router, as a firewall for a network of other local computers? Thanks! --JorgeA

Now, it just may be me, but it seems like the PC makers (and the consumers) wanted Windows 7. Or, was it just a coincidence that these items/quotes appeared at about the same time? I'll bet it's not a coincidence. They know that Win8 stinks in the market, so maybe they both (1) extended Win7 sales and (2) moved up Win9 development to maximize the number of customers who can skip over Win8. As vinifera points out (see the first quote above), if the Win9 beta comes out in September (2014), that would be just over two years after Win8 went RTM (8/2012). By comparison, the first Windows 8 preview (DP) came out 9/2011 after Win7 RTM'd in 7/2009. Not much longer of an interval, but if the 9 beta does come out in the spring as Wzor says then it will definitely mean that they're scrambling to get it finished. --JorgeA

A pair of informative, analytical pieces by our friend Paul Thurrott: Microsoft Has Sold Over 200 Million Windows 8 Licenses Tami Reller Talks: Windows 8 at 16 Months Good timeline of Reller's public stgatements about Win8 sales. Watch how they get increasingly less detailed. Another tidbit: --JorgeA

Apple, Samsung Face Slowing Smartphone Sales To mix metaphors, it iooks like Microsoft came to the smartphone party too late and missed the boat. And for all that, Windows users got stuck with Metro. Although of course, they'd been trying to join that party for years even before introducing Modern Madness and the folks weren't letting them in. Now the party's winding down. It's high time they took the hint and went back home to where they're loved (PCs and business). --JorgeA

Wzor strikes again: From the rumor mill: Windows 9 to hit Beta in May of this year, Release Candidate close to September Ahh, it's so much fun to speculate! --JorgeA

Microsoft has extended by one year the time that it's making Windows 7 (Professional) available for preloading on OEM PCs: What the Windows 7 Pro sales lifecycle changes mean to consumers and business buyers Despite Ed MicroBott's attempts at spin (if Win8 were so wonderful, businesses would be looking to move to it rather than to Win7), clearly this extension wouldn't be happening were Windows 8 selling as well as they'd hoped. By allowing the building of PCs for sale with Win7 pre-installed until the end of October 2015, Microsoft's move also puts Win7 in the curious position of continuing to be officially sold (i.e., not as remainder copies) past the end of mainstream support in January 2015. --JorgeA

Excellent, I'm glad to hear it. When you wrote above that: [i.e., avoiding having to make a choice at boot time], because I had been analogizing to Grub I then developed the (mistaken) impression that you were making a more general argument for the superiority of having to either click through, or choose one's UI, or wait for the timeout on every reboot. So we both maintain that a Control Panel setting for switching between the Metro and Desktop UIs would be preferable to a scheme where the user would have to make the choice every single time he rebooted the machine. Good. Now as far as Grub is concerned: in my case, the boot-time OS selection menus (two of 'em) and their timeouts are not a BIG annoyance, just a small one. This is a secondary machine that mostly runs Vista, sometimes XP, and every so often a version of Linux as practice for what it would be like to get my work done in a Linux environment in the event that MSFT never does mend its ways. But if I did frequently reboot and switch OSes on that machine, I would definitely follow up on the ideas that you have kindly suggested. I may just go ahead and do that anyway, out of curiosity... --JorgeA EDIT: for clarity

jaclaz, We are losing track of the whole point of this discussion, which is to consider ways that users of future PCs could be offered their choice of UI (Metro or Desktop) in an easy-to-apply manner when they first get their new computer. (And then to easily change it afterward if they inexplicably want to switch to Metro.) Rather than expecting users to edit little-known files (such as menu.lst in the case of Grub) in order to change their UI selection, all I'm suggesting is that this selection menu might be integrated as a standard part of (for example) the Windows Control Panel tree (i.e., not something that would be custom-made by someone in the programming subforum), so that it would work much the same way as checking for Windows Updates or changing the desktop background. The main benefit of having the command in (say) the Control Panel is that it would be visible. You see the Start Button; you see the Start Menu; you see the Control Panel entry; you see the Appearance and Personalization item; you see the choices in that category. Keep in mind that the whole idea is to implement UI choice as conveniently as possible for as many users as possible -- in contrast to the way things are today where Metro is thrust into users' faces and they need to have a certain level of knowledge to even realize that it's possible to reconstruct the Desktop interface with Aero Glass, a Start Button, and the Start Menu (let alone how to do it). --JorgeA

And all this time I thought that editing menu.lst from the booted 7 (or XP, or any other OS for that matters) changing the default entry was possible .... jaclaz Good to know that. However, we're talking here about making things simple and easy for users who are not übergeeks. As a practical matter, I doubt that many users would know that they can edit menu.lst (let alone how to do it), compared to changing a setting that they can see in (say) the Control Panel. It takes a far higher level of computer expertise to even know about menu.lst (since its use is not shown as an option anywhere), than it does to discover a setting in Control Panel. So, for the intelligent but non-expert PC user who's happy with the Desktop and would find Metro/NCI annoying, there could be a first-boot (installation) screen that would offer a choice of UI, as well as images of what each UI looks like , maybe a quick description of them, and brief instructions as to how to change the UI setting in Control Panel (e.g., Start --> Control Panel --> Appearance and Personalization --> Change environment). For example (and let's not get hung up on details, these are simply illustrations), the installation (first-boot) screen could say: "Windows has detected that your computer screen lacks touch capability. Would you like to install the touch-first Modern interface anyway, or the classic Windows Desktop environment?" Come to think of it, this idea sounds somewhat like the browser-selection screen that users in the EU were or are supposed to see when installing Windows. You pick IE or FF or Chrome, whatever, but presumably you don't need to keep making that selection (or wait for a selection menu to time out) every time you reboot the PC. --JorgeA

That video clip IS oddly fitting somehow. --JorgeA

And all this time I thought that a default entry set with a timeout was avoiding it ... True, but then there's also the wait necessitated by the delay that's required to give you time, should you want to change the selection. Call me impatient if you must , but in my multiboot system it's a little annoying (though, again, unavoidable) having to wait for the Grub menu to disappear (or having to click on it to make it go away a couple seconds faster) if I want to go into the default selection. In the case of a Metro vs. Desktop choice, this click (or delay) would be avoidable since the UI setting change could (presumably) be made from within the OS (i.e., in Control Panel) before you reboot. But of course, either of our approaches would be preferable to what we have today. The analogous solution for the Grub multiboot system would be a simple way to select, when you're in (say) Windows 7, that on the next reboot you want to go into XP. --JorgeA