JorgeA

I just read an editorial that speaks to this. Not exactly a disinterested source, but it makes you think anyway: Interesting VF article about Ballmer and Microsoft generally. But note that the thread of one of its main critiques is that MS has been too cautious in innovating over the years, not too rambunctious. Still, Windows 8 could be described as the result of bureaucratic "design by committee"... --JorgeA

Yeah, Word 6.0 -- with its native fonts and WYSIWYG feature -- is what made the switch over from DOS worth it for me. Otherwise I'd have been just as happy to keep chugging along with WordStar in MS-DOS 3.25... --JorgeA

If I had any interest in IE10, I'd try the solution Tomasz86 suggested when the final version is ready. But as it is, I'm sticking with IE8 because it's the last version with a fully functional status bar. --JorgeA

MS has been cagey about its intentions for the Desktop in versions of Windows after 8. Paul Thurrott offers this tantalizing report. Discussing the possibility that Windows versioning might be dropped in favor of rolling updates, Thurrott writes that -- [emphasis added]Analogies are seldom perfect, but here we go: Maybe Windows 7 will take on the role of Windows 98 as the last in its particular branch of development, with Win8 becoming the new ME in the role of getting the computing public used to Microsoft's chosen future way of doing things (recall that ME, though still built on DOS, made it impossible to exit Windows into DOS). However, whether the computing public will take as well to the successor to the transitional Win8 as it did to Windows XP (the chronological successor to the transitional ME), cannot be foretold at this juncture. (I do know about Windows 2000, but remember -- that OS was really intended for a business/professional market rather than the public at large, which is what I'm talking about here.) And so, in 2025 or thereabouts some of us might be found here on MSFN working on the newest Unofficial Service Packs for Win7. --JorgeA

Another Ars Technica article points to the conceptual hazards facing Microsoft with the introduction of Windows 8 and the Surface tablet: by trying to be all things to everybody, Windows 8 may turn out to be good for no one in particular. We know that Windows 8 isn't ideally suited for serious desktop and laptop use (at any rate, not as well as its predecessors). But if it turns out that tablet users buy tablets because (surprise!) they prefer that simpletonsimplified experience, then Win8 won't cut it for them, either. By swinging for the homerun, Microsoft could well end up striking out miserably. Windows 8: a bird with fins? It seems to be trying to serve two disparate purposes. Time will tell if there is a viable market for this hybrid OS. --JorgeA

An overview of Windows 8 RTM. It's pretty much as the RC, but the writer makes an interesting observation about the contrast between the backgrounds for the Metro screen and the Desktop: Food for thought. --JorgeA

Thanks, now I've got that music bouncing around in my head!!! --JorgeA

You know, that's right -- I hadn't realized that! We might say that MSFN is "where people go to know." Some are unthinking MS boosters (= fanboys), some are thinking about the value of their shares of MS stock, and some... actually like the Metro interface, as hard to believe as that is. --JorgeA

jaclaz, I appreciate the information, however, the following line was totally uncalled for: OF COURSE I have RTFM -- more than once, even. However, I have found that the selfsame FM (as well as the "help" function inside the software) is p*ss-poor, leaving too many questions unanswered and ideas inadequately explained. Now combine that poor experience with the manual with your statement in the other thread, to wit: Therefore, since BlackArmor Backup makes its images/clones/backups/whatever WHILE THE DISK IS IN USE, it was not unreasonable for me to start wondering whether that software would do what I need to have done. Sorry, but computers are not my living -- I use computers to make a living; therefore, as Windows is not the main focus of my professional life, but only a derivative interest, I am not entirely familiar with the minutiae. Hence my presence on this Forum, one of whose purposes I've always understood it to be to ask questions and provide answers about MS (as in MSFN) products. Preferably, without having one's intelligence or diligence questioned. The questions I had about this are now answered. Thank you for THAT part. --JorgeA

jaclaz, Thanks for the info-filled reply! My question was indeed somewhat different from PROBLEMCHYLD's, which is why I started a new thread rather than confuse things (further) over there. In my case I'm not averse to installing third-party software to do what I need done. OK, so here's the scenario I have in mind. Suppose that my HDD fails tomorrow -- the electronics on the drive go kaput, the magnetic head scrapes against the surface with a chilling noise, and there is no way to revive the drive, much less to recover the stuff that's on it. What type of procedure and which software do I need to have completed and ready today, so that tomorrow when the HDD dies I can simply take it out, put a fresh HDD drive inside, and restore my entire system to the state it was in today so that I can pick up where I left off? Note that I'm not looking for solutions that involve reinstalling Windows and reinstalling all my programs and settings. That is a major PITA that I would reserve as punishment for my enemies. I'm looking for something that will restore everything the way I have it today, without further manual tweaking. (OK, I'm willing to allow for restoring, let's say, word-processing and mail files from outside backup sources -- it's the OS and programs and drivers and settings that I do not want to have to recreate by hand.) Given that goal -- will something like Acronis True Image (it came with my Seagate external HDD, branded as "BlackArmor Backup") accomplish what I'm looking for? Or if not, then what do I need to do? BlackArmor Backup offers to do (among other and less extensive types of backups) "images" in either "compressed" or "uncompressed" form. I alternate each kind every other month, the idea being that I'll never be more than 30 days behind and I can bring my data files up to date from less-extensive data backups that I keep on a different external HDD. Bottom line: what I ultimately want to know is, In case of a catastrophic HDD failure, will one of these types of BlackArmor Backup "images" serve my purpose? Based on what you said and what I've seen before, I think it will do the trick. But do I have that right? --JorgeA

That does make sense -- thanks very much! --JorgeA

Thanks, Tripredacus. It's a shame that people have to dig around for this kind of info. If MS had simply come out and said so, they'd have saved some of their customers a bunch of time. --JorgeA

Well, I thought I finally had a handle on this business of "disk cloning" and "disk imaging," when I saw these two posts by @jaclaz and @submix8c in another thread: So... there is a lot of well-known and -respected third-party software out there that promises to do "bare metal" or "complete system image" backups of your boot drive, such that in case of a HDD failure you can re-image the backup (typically from a USB-connected external HDD) to a new internal primary drive. In the cases I'm thinking of, these software packages create their backup images from within Windows. But if I understand what jaclaz and submix8c are saying, then it is not correct to say that these software packages will restore your system to working condition in case of a catastrophic HDD failure. Are these vendors deceiving buyers? What's the deal? And if jaclaz and submix8c are right, then what is the proper, step-by-step procedure for creating an all-encompassing, thorough, full, complete, comprehensive, total, all-inclusive, bootable and working OS drive backup that you can use to re-create your system in such catastrophic failures? Or is the issue, perhaps, that they're talking about XP and older versions of Windows, whereas the vendors' promise does hold true for Vista and Windows 7? I've read about this topic in Wikipedia, and I'm no closer to understanding jaclaz and submix8c's point than I was before I started. Not terribly helpful encyclopedia articles, at least when it comes to the point our MSFNers are making. Enlightenment is welcome. --JorgeA

I'm multibooting Windows 7 and the Windows 8 Developer Preview, Consumer Preview, and Release Preview in the same machine. My DP install hasn't detected any new updates for it since May. Most of the time when I run WU on the DP, I get an error message. Once in a while, one particular Nvidia graphics card driver update shows up, but the installation keeps failing. I've tried all sorts of methods and procedures for the error codes, and I've even tried to visit the MS pages for individual updates, but there appears to be nothing available for the DP. I used to think that it was some sort of technical problem with my DP installation, but not anymore so I'm not even bothering to give the details. Instead, can anybody confirm that Microsoft has actually stopped issuing Windows Updates for the Developer Preview? --JorgeA

Wow, that's a relief! Thanks, Andre. Is there any way to trick Windows into thinking it's a server, so that we can bypass the Metro screen? --JorgeA

I agree that it's not as bad as not even being able to have a Start Button+Menu... but I'll still welcome anything that further lessens the need to go into that ugly, limited-functionality Start Screen (such as, by bypassing it at startup). --JorgeA

A ZDNet writer cautions users eager to adopt Windows 8 Pro tablets: How likely is it that this caveat will feature in the marketing for Win8 tablets (any flavor)? And if not, then how will the market react as people come to realize that these devices aren't everything they thought they would be? --JorgeA

Fanboy Central has published a piece that actually presented a balanced exposition of pro & con opinions about Windows 8. --JorgeA

It looks like Microsoft has removed the ability to boot right to the Desktop from Windows 8 RTM. Wonder if this is what Paul Thurrott had in mind. Not exactly the same thing as eliminating the ability to set up a Start Button+Menu, but it's certainly another example of MS seeking to make it impossible to do without its Metro Modern kindergarten tiles. Can anybody confirm this report about the RTM? --JorgeA

Microsoft has a long history of violating or ignoring user privacy. Therefore I have little confidence in their privacy pledges, policies, or practices, and I do not send them any more information than necessary. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-245680.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-948922.html?tag=fd_lede http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/good-microsoft-versus-bad-microsoft-on-privacy/2287 http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/users-outraged-over-windows-live-privacy-violations http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on-skydriveyou-may-lose-your-microsoft-life/ I have no more desire for Microsoft to know how I use Windows, than I do for the manufacturer of my soap to know how I take a shower, or for the maker of my car to know how I drive it. You may not mind being tracked and monitored, but I certainly do. --JorgeA

Wow, if that's their strategy, it would be remarkable for its sneakiness. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this did enter into their thinking (even if it wasn't the main reason for degrading the looks of the windows). BTW, in addition to the flatness, note another similarity between Win1 and Win8 -- the squared-off corners. --JorgeA

Is it just me, or is the Windows 8 updater the most aggressive version that we've seen in any edition of Windows? Microsoft has been offering a certain "important" (not "critical") update, KB2730450. Here's the introductory paragraph for the update from the MS page: The bit about sending anonymous traces to Microsoft "without obtaining explicit user consent" got my alarm bells ringing, and so I unchecked it. As there were two "optional" updates to review as well, I hit the Back button and then looked at the optional updates. But when I hit the Back button from there to return to the general update screen, I noticed that it reported all important updates had been selected!? Huh? I was certain that I'd unchecked this particular update. So I went back in, unchecked it, hit the Back button, and -- once again, it told me I had all the important updates selected for download!! :angrym: What's the deal with this? No previous Windows Updates function has worked like this. It's like the process is rigged to get the user to download as many updates as possible, even if you have chosen not to download them automatically. I have enough experience with Windows Updates to know that sometimes they cause more trouble than they fix, and sometimes they require a fix themselves; so for questionable updates I prefer to wait a week or two and watch for reports of trouble. Now I have to be extra careful when reviewing the updates, just to make sure that I don't inadvertently tell it to download something I did not want. Now, instead of being able to go back to the summary updates window, if I desire less than the full selection of updates I have to execute the downloads from the screen for the specific category ("important" vs. "optional" updates). Another way in which Windows 8 circumscribes the user's scope of action, and channels him/her into doing things Microsoft's way. I have Windows Updates set to notify before downloading. Is there a way to change the WU behavior for this setting in Win8, to the way that it works in Vista and Windows 7? --JorgeA P.S. Note that this update behavior doesn't have anything (necessarily) to do with MS's wish to monitor performance issues. I also have the Consumer Preview, and it keeps pushing an Nvidia driver update the same way: if I uncheck it and then return to the summary updates page, the update miraculously shows up as selected once again.

OK, here's an interesting visual illustration of how great an "advance" Microsoft has made with Windows 8. First, a screenshot of Windows 1.0: And now, a screenshot of the "modern" Windows 8: Note the similarity of the two in terms of the flatness of the look. Even Windows 3.1 had visual "depth" elements in the buttons! In what sense can the Windows 8 look be considered an advance? Vista and even Windows 7 are leagues ahead of Win8 in visual sophistication. --JorgeA

Another successful software creator weighs in against Windows 8: Any chance that the PC gaming community will help to pressure MS into relenting on its march toward Metrofying Windows and demanding a piece of the action via the Windows Store? --JorgeA

Analyst: Microsoft Surface is the new Zune So the Metro UI failed in the Zune, in the Windows Phone, and now may well fail in the tablet market too. O Microsoft wisemen and fanboys, tell me again why it's such a great idea to graft it onto the Windows OS? --JorgeA