You can't find that in a grid view? If you really need the start menu organization then just look in C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs, simple. What ties you so hard to the start menu?
That doesn't help the tech that has to find them, they're not you.
If a tech can't use the search feature then they aren't much of a tech.
They're not "random" in the sense that they're shuffled every time you open the start menu, but they are random in the same way that you can't always immediately find the cups in an unfamiliar kitched, or be sure that's all the cups and not just the "good china", etc.
Are you referring to the ability to re-arrange the items on the start screen? Because you can do that in the start menu too.
As to what they're doing. They're trying to help someone do something they don't do often, otherwise they wouldn't need help, so odds are it's not pinned anywhere. They have to find it. What they have to find might be any one of 100 different programs that do similar functions, so they don't know what it's called so they can't just type the name in search, but it's readily apparent from the old all programs what you have installed and it's in a standard order and established companies have established places they put all their crap.
So the situation is where a tech needs to find something but they don't know what it is so they can't search, they are happy to browse through a list of god knows how many programs (given you said "What they have to find might be any one of 100 different programs") in the start menu but are unable or unwilling to browse them in grid form like in the start screen. Seems this tech isn't bright enough to open up the start menu folder in windows explorer either. Seriously what is this situation where you're looking for one of 100 different programs that do similar things but you don't know what it is, how do you know what you're even looking for and how is the start menu inherently better for this?
It's not like that at all, things aren't just in random places and you can put them on the taskbar or desktop if you really want. And that still doesn't answer the question of what exactly you're spending all this time doing in the start menu, what is it these tech support and 'old hands' types are doing with it?
Isn't the start menu the place you find icons to drag onto the taskbar?
Or the start screen (in Windows 8), or shortcuts in explorer. What is it people are actually doing with their computers that they spend so much time in the start menu?
Or does Windows 7/8 support pinning the way OSX does now?
You mean by dragging an icon there? Yes. Or if you're in the start menu(7)/screen(8) right-click + 'pin to taskbar' works too.
Which you generally do given it's the thing you're looking for.
and only if you need a lot of clicking in the menu.
Which you do unless you've got it pinned to the start menu, but if you were going to do that you probably pinned it to the task bar.
Control panel is only two clicks in W7 and W8, though in W8 it is more obscure to find the first click.
Yes that first click is different to what we have had for the past 15 years but that's no reason not to change, that's why they included the video tutorial at login.
The Windows+type is not documented and not in any tutorial.
Fair enough, but it sounds more like a problem with documentation than with the system, same on OSX, using spotlight is way faster than going through opening finder and choosing applications and then scrolling the list, but the shortcut isn't documented in a tutorial, then again who goes through the tutorials when you have google;) people even complain that the UI is undiscoverable even though at login there is an unskippable video tutorial demonstrating how to open those hot-corner menus and such.
So your opinion is just continue supporting an inefficient workflow because people haven't changed? How many people do you think picked up an iPad and said "holy shit where's the mouse?", people adapt quickly to a new way of working especially if the old inefficient way is removed.
I find them pretty much the same, whether is start menu/start screen search or using spotlight, I can't understand why people are still clicking through menus to find things.
Only after w8 turns out to be badly designed do the elitists pop out of the wood work saying how easy it is because they've been using an obscure and undocumented feature.
Windows Key + search string works the same in Windows 7 to find and launch applications, just like Command + Space + search sting in OSX. A lot more efficient than clicking through menus to find things.
Let's say you were browsing the internet and wanted to change something on the control panel. To do it your way means you have to take your right hand off the mouse and use it to type 'control panel' (or a portion of it. Though even 'co' requires your right hand)
Contrast that to the ability to just continue 'click click clicking' with the mouse.
I suppose you use the on-screen keyboard when typing anything into a web browser then.
Oh there is an arcane way to get to the desktop without first entering metro but you will still have to deal with it alot
Out of interest what is it you spend all that time doing with the start menu? Maybe it's the Mac influence but when I use Windows (any version) I have my frequently-used applications pinned to the taskbar and if I need to open up another application that isn't there I just hit the windows key and start typing and i get a list (or grid in 8) of the results, 9 times out of 10 the first result is what i'm after anyway, much like Spotlight in OSX.
You've put the layer into the browser... and insisted that the browser be closed source.
Wrong, i think you need to go back and understand what this is, the only thing in the browser are the API calls to an external CDM. And you're also wrong about the browser being closed source, don't know where you're getting that from but it's incorrect. Perhaps you should give an explanation of exactly what you think is going on, because based on what you're saying you either haven't read up on this or you have completely misunderstood it.
The upcoming SailfishOS (descendant of Meego) will be able to run Android apps via the Alien dalvik engine.
It has the same problem that all these new mobile operating systems have: There is nothing compelling about them. It seems Firefox OS is just going to try and take a slice of the low end market so maybe they'll be able to get a foothold in a race to the bottom, but SailfishOS, MeeGo, Ubuntu Phone, Windows Phone, webOS, etc... are just not compelling, it's not that they are inherently bad, they're just not disruptive enough to make people want to change. You need a 'killer app' - in this case some great feature - to make people stray from the status quo (Android or iOS) especially when for most people it's a 2 year commitment on contract.
Android is already fragmenting as so many phone companies won't update the OS on older phones. The result is 4 or 5 versions of Android running out there. Adding Ubuntu phone to the mix will further complicate matters.
The frustrating thing is that Google could do something about it but doesn't, they have the OHA in which they enforce restrictions upon members (like not supporting incompatible forks) yet they don't place conditions on upgrades that would make the user experience far better and more consistent. Sure let them add their custom UI but at least mandate that they support X amount of version upgrades in a reasonable timeframe.
But why do you expect everyone else to pay the technical cost of it (the DRM infrastructure, lock in and lack of choice and innovation)?
What are you on about? This is just an alternative to the current system of having a specific app (whether it is native or within a runtime environment which then runs within the browser like Flash or Silverlight) where you now just have a module that the browser calls out to for decoding the stream. Nobody is having to pay the cost of maintaining DRM infrastructure or lock in or lack of choice or innovation, it's no different to what to we have now except we get rid of the additional layers like Flash.
On the contrary, EME will reintroduce those days by causing people to make stupid assumptions about what CDMs the users have available and anyone not on those platforms or using those browsers will just be told "upgrade your browser or OS to $modern OS! Made for $BROWSER/$OS!" Just like in the bad old days of IE6.
Yeah because we're not already there with needing a platform-specific app or for Flash or Silverlight to be available on the platform, how exactly do you think this is done now? What do you propose as an alternative?
Wrong, they are the content creators, even the games they don't produce directly in house are created by companies they own.
Also look at who is supporting the EME: Google, Microsoft, BBC.
Of course they would be supporting it, it's better than having all of this stuff run as an application within a plugin within the browser like is currently done with things like Flash and Silverlight. If a content creator does not wish to distribute their content with DRM then it won't be, attacking this at the media channel level is moronic, we have plenty of DRM-free channels yet they aren't utilized because content creators are the ones that make the choice to use DRM.
No it isn't, content providers are the ones pushing this, just look at examples from EA and Ubisoft, those are absolutely nothing to do with controlling media channels and all about content providers controlling content.
Content providers will develop the CDM for various platforms rather than encode/stream multiple versions of their content for multiple different CDMs on multiple different platforms. Fighting this at any level below the content provider is stupid and pointless anyway.
And now they have paved the way for allowing only Microsoft and Google owned and patent encumbered DRM schemes. What progress.
How? As i understand it the purpose is to have a mechanism to allow any CDM - I don't see what makes you think Microsoft and Google would be the only DRM schemes.
oh and to the "but you'll only need 1 plugin for all browsers on the system" well that's also the system we already are in - minus browser specific bugs/"features".
The difference is that instead of having the DRM module run inside Flash or Silverlight which in turn runs inside the browser you can eliminate Flash and Silverlight, which is much better.
Which companies have capitulated and bought an Android license via a court case that Microsoft won?
Most companies seem to have conceded the legitimacy without having to go to court, and these are hardly companies that would have a second thought about going to court against Microsoft. Samsung even went to court against one of the largest companies in the world who is also one of their biggest customers.
Not to you, though it seems that's what you're after. They've obviously justified themselves to Samsung, HTC, Huawei, ZTE and others, yes the claims may be frivolous and yes the patent system needs to be overhauled but these companies aren't two-bit operations that are just going to cave to empty threads, Samsung went up against the much richer and more powerful (than Microsoft) Apple over patent claims, they wouldn't give a second thought to fighting off frivolous claims from an ailing software maker, Samsung's burgeoning business is in things other than Microsoft, there is no reason for them to appease Redmond to the tune of a few dollars for every device if they don't think they need to.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't find that in a grid view? If you really need the start menu organization then just look in C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs, simple. What ties you so hard to the start menu?
That doesn't help the tech that has to find them, they're not you.
If a tech can't use the search feature then they aren't much of a tech.
They're not "random" in the sense that they're shuffled every time you open the start menu, but they are random in the same way that you can't always immediately find the cups in an unfamiliar kitched, or be sure that's all the cups and not just the "good china", etc.
Are you referring to the ability to re-arrange the items on the start screen? Because you can do that in the start menu too.
As to what they're doing. They're trying to help someone do something they don't do often, otherwise they wouldn't need help, so odds are it's not pinned anywhere. They have to find it. What they have to find might be any one of 100 different programs that do similar functions, so they don't know what it's called so they can't just type the name in search, but it's readily apparent from the old all programs what you have installed and it's in a standard order and established companies have established places they put all their crap.
So the situation is where a tech needs to find something but they don't know what it is so they can't search, they are happy to browse through a list of god knows how many programs (given you said "What they have to find might be any one of 100 different programs") in the start menu but are unable or unwilling to browse them in grid form like in the start screen. Seems this tech isn't bright enough to open up the start menu folder in windows explorer either.
Seriously what is this situation where you're looking for one of 100 different programs that do similar things but you don't know what it is, how do you know what you're even looking for and how is the start menu inherently better for this?
It's not like that at all, things aren't just in random places and you can put them on the taskbar or desktop if you really want. And that still doesn't answer the question of what exactly you're spending all this time doing in the start menu, what is it these tech support and 'old hands' types are doing with it?
Isn't the start menu the place you find icons to drag onto the taskbar?
Or the start screen (in Windows 8), or shortcuts in explorer. What is it people are actually doing with their computers that they spend so much time in the start menu?
Or does Windows 7/8 support pinning the way OSX does now?
You mean by dragging an icon there? Yes. Or if you're in the start menu(7)/screen(8) right-click + 'pin to taskbar' works too.
Only if you know the search string to type
Which you generally do given it's the thing you're looking for.
and only if you need a lot of clicking in the menu.
Which you do unless you've got it pinned to the start menu, but if you were going to do that you probably pinned it to the task bar.
Control panel is only two clicks in W7 and W8, though in W8 it is more obscure to find the first click.
Yes that first click is different to what we have had for the past 15 years but that's no reason not to change, that's why they included the video tutorial at login.
The Windows+type is not documented and not in any tutorial.
Fair enough, but it sounds more like a problem with documentation than with the system, same on OSX, using spotlight is way faster than going through opening finder and choosing applications and then scrolling the list, but the shortcut isn't documented in a tutorial, then again who goes through the tutorials when you have google ;) people even complain that the UI is undiscoverable even though at login there is an unskippable video tutorial demonstrating how to open those hot-corner menus and such.
So your opinion is just continue supporting an inefficient workflow because people haven't changed? How many people do you think picked up an iPad and said "holy shit where's the mouse?", people adapt quickly to a new way of working especially if the old inefficient way is removed.
I find them pretty much the same, whether is start menu/start screen search or using spotlight, I can't understand why people are still clicking through menus to find things.
Only after w8 turns out to be badly designed do the elitists pop out of the wood work saying how easy it is because they've been using an obscure and undocumented feature.
Windows Key + search string works the same in Windows 7 to find and launch applications, just like Command + Space + search sting in OSX. A lot more efficient than clicking through menus to find things.
Let's say you were browsing the internet and wanted to change something on the control panel. To do it your way means you have to take your right hand off the mouse and use it to type 'control panel' (or a portion of it. Though even 'co' requires your right hand)
Contrast that to the ability to just continue 'click click clicking' with the mouse.
I suppose you use the on-screen keyboard when typing anything into a web browser then.
Oh there is an arcane way to get to the desktop without first entering metro but you will still have to deal with it alot
Out of interest what is it you spend all that time doing with the start menu? Maybe it's the Mac influence but when I use Windows (any version) I have my frequently-used applications pinned to the taskbar and if I need to open up another application that isn't there I just hit the windows key and start typing and i get a list (or grid in 8) of the results, 9 times out of 10 the first result is what i'm after anyway, much like Spotlight in OSX.
You've put the layer into the browser... and insisted that the browser be closed source.
Wrong, i think you need to go back and understand what this is, the only thing in the browser are the API calls to an external CDM. And you're also wrong about the browser being closed source, don't know where you're getting that from but it's incorrect. Perhaps you should give an explanation of exactly what you think is going on, because based on what you're saying you either haven't read up on this or you have completely misunderstood it.
The upcoming SailfishOS (descendant of Meego) will be able to run Android apps via the Alien dalvik engine.
It has the same problem that all these new mobile operating systems have: There is nothing compelling about them. It seems Firefox OS is just going to try and take a slice of the low end market so maybe they'll be able to get a foothold in a race to the bottom, but SailfishOS, MeeGo, Ubuntu Phone, Windows Phone, webOS, etc... are just not compelling, it's not that they are inherently bad, they're just not disruptive enough to make people want to change. You need a 'killer app' - in this case some great feature - to make people stray from the status quo (Android or iOS) especially when for most people it's a 2 year commitment on contract.
Android is already fragmenting as so many phone companies won't update the OS on older phones. The result is 4 or 5 versions of Android running out there. Adding Ubuntu phone to the mix will further complicate matters.
The frustrating thing is that Google could do something about it but doesn't, they have the OHA in which they enforce restrictions upon members (like not supporting incompatible forks) yet they don't place conditions on upgrades that would make the user experience far better and more consistent. Sure let them add their custom UI but at least mandate that they support X amount of version upgrades in a reasonable timeframe.
But why do you expect everyone else to pay the technical cost of it (the DRM infrastructure, lock in and lack of choice and innovation)?
What are you on about? This is just an alternative to the current system of having a specific app (whether it is native or within a runtime environment which then runs within the browser like Flash or Silverlight) where you now just have a module that the browser calls out to for decoding the stream. Nobody is having to pay the cost of maintaining DRM infrastructure or lock in or lack of choice or innovation, it's no different to what to we have now except we get rid of the additional layers like Flash.
On the contrary, EME will reintroduce those days by causing people to make stupid assumptions about what CDMs the users have available and anyone not on those platforms or using those browsers will just be told "upgrade your browser or OS to $modern OS! Made for $BROWSER/$OS!" Just like in the bad old days of IE6.
Yeah because we're not already there with needing a platform-specific app or for Flash or Silverlight to be available on the platform, how exactly do you think this is done now? What do you propose as an alternative?
EA and Ubisoft are not content creators
Wrong, they are the content creators, even the games they don't produce directly in house are created by companies they own.
Also look at who is supporting the EME: Google, Microsoft, BBC.
Of course they would be supporting it, it's better than having all of this stuff run as an application within a plugin within the browser like is currently done with things like Flash and Silverlight. If a content creator does not wish to distribute their content with DRM then it won't be, attacking this at the media channel level is moronic, we have plenty of DRM-free channels yet they aren't utilized because content creators are the ones that make the choice to use DRM.
Apparently what Hollywood wants is more important than what anyone else wants.
Who is the 'anyone else' that are voicing their opinion to the W3C about this and what is the alternative that they are proposing?
it's about controlling the media channels.
No it isn't, content providers are the ones pushing this, just look at examples from EA and Ubisoft, those are absolutely nothing to do with controlling media channels and all about content providers controlling content.
Content providers will develop the CDM for various platforms rather than encode/stream multiple versions of their content for multiple different CDMs on multiple different platforms. Fighting this at any level below the content provider is stupid and pointless anyway.
And now they have paved the way for allowing only Microsoft and Google owned and patent encumbered DRM schemes. What progress.
How? As i understand it the purpose is to have a mechanism to allow any CDM - I don't see what makes you think Microsoft and Google would be the only DRM schemes.
oh and to the "but you'll only need 1 plugin for all browsers on the system" well that's also the system we already are in - minus browser specific bugs/"features".
The difference is that instead of having the DRM module run inside Flash or Silverlight which in turn runs inside the browser you can eliminate Flash and Silverlight, which is much better.
Yet Samsung's biggest business is in the market where Apple is their biggest customer and they didn't fold to them.
Which companies have capitulated and bought an Android license via a court case that Microsoft won?
Most companies seem to have conceded the legitimacy without having to go to court, and these are hardly companies that would have a second thought about going to court against Microsoft. Samsung even went to court against one of the largest companies in the world who is also one of their biggest customers.
It's Microsoft that has to justify itself here.
Not to you, though it seems that's what you're after. They've obviously justified themselves to Samsung, HTC, Huawei, ZTE and others, yes the claims may be frivolous and yes the patent system needs to be overhauled but these companies aren't two-bit operations that are just going to cave to empty threads, Samsung went up against the much richer and more powerful (than Microsoft) Apple over patent claims, they wouldn't give a second thought to fighting off frivolous claims from an ailing software maker, Samsung's burgeoning business is in things other than Microsoft, there is no reason for them to appease Redmond to the tune of a few dollars for every device if they don't think they need to.
Vocational collage
collage?