You are lying, and you are making up new stuff each day to explain why you hate something you have never tried. That makes you religious nut.
After repeated requests to imagine, and fantasy is OK, you can imagine wild scenarios all you want, a situation where this would be a problem, you have failed to come up with anything. You can't even imagine a real-world situation where this would be a problem. Claiming that 99.99% if the population is affected by something you can't even imagine how they could get affected is disingenuous BS. You are a retarded, religious nut. Plain and simple.
But they do not switch between apps for the same task, so it is not applicable. Once they go changing apps for a single task they are in the advanced stage, and pinning something to the Task Bar is more discoverable than pinning it to the Start Menu in fact, so you are still wrong, and still dumb, and still manically (with a high degree of insanity) focused on a tangential and irrelevant part of the discussion, and still not able to answer very, very simple questions.
OK, I will try to take it slowly for you, since you seem to be utterly retarded. If... you... do... not... have... hundreds... of... apps, and/or... you... do... not... need... tens... of... applications... to... accomplish... a... task... you... will, in... day... to... day... use... of... windows... 8... NEVER... have... to... open... the... Start Screen. For... the... 99.99%... of... users... you... claim... to... speak... for, there is... after... the... first... couple... of... days... NOTHING... you... have... to... turn... to... the... Start Screen... for... in... your... daily... work. Ever!
So, what's the problem? Please, be specific. Use an example from your own computer experience. Since the doorway amnesia is not an issue for the 99.99% since they never have to use the Start Screen, what is the issue?
While you have no doubt conducted medical research in secret proving how doorway amnesia only affects 0.01 % of people
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just retarded? I explained why the 99.99% you are babbling about are not affected. They generally use only a handful of apps, and it is extremely rare that they use more than two or three for a single task. As I explained to you at length. If you never switch between two apps for the same task, the doorway amnesia doesn't apply. Was that hard to understand? If you are unable to understand, go upstairs and have your mummy explain to you that someone who never walks through a door (switching between many applications, at least one of which demands you access the Start Screen, to accomplish a single task) can never suffer amnesia for walking through a door.
I also see you continue not to answer my question. That is proof positive you are just making shit up, in other words, you are lying through your teeth. I far more posts than I ever have.
Yes, and an inconsequential one. When you pointed out my mistake, I corrected it, and figured that that was it. Interestingly you latched on to this utterly inconsequential issue with a fervor that befits someone with a strong dose of Asperger's. Seriously. Was it important to the discussion as such?
So you never realized my criticisms are about the out-of-box experience which 99.99% of people will use
99.99% of the population will never experience the door amnesia issue, which is why I have tried to make you explain how it affects you and why you would refuse to do something about it. 99.99% of the population will, with a tiny amount of training, get significant benefits from the Start Screen. It's easier to navigate, it is easier to search, it is easier to customize. 99.99% if the population doesn't use hundreds of applications regularly, they use less than ten. 99.99% of the population don't use large numbers of apps for a single task, they use at most two, and then only at work, perhaps, for really advanced users, three - the econ system to get numbers, excel to crunch them and powerpoint to present those numbers at the next board meeting. When doing so they keep all three apps open at the same time - again negating any kind of amnesia syndrome. For the 99.99% there is no discussion, Win8 has no downsides and quite significant upsides (it is about twice as efficient with resources as Windows XP and about 15-20% better than Windows 7.
So, now that we can safely ignore the 99.99% why would this be an issue for you? How is the Start Screen detrimental to you? What specifically that isn't an issue that doesn't affect the 99.99% is the problem. Please don't be a fool and quote the irrelevant study again.
The extent to which you will go to avoid addressing your lie about Windows+R searching among task bar items
Wow, you are really hooked on that one, are you not? Sorry, I understood the question wrongly, I use Win+R to run apps all the time, but it is not for searching for apps in the Task Bar, something I seriously wonder why one would need. Is it difficult to find an icon among (apparently) a measly ten? Is my misunderstanding a huge issue for you? So big that you feel your world has been threatened? Why not try to continue a normal conversation without getting utterly hung up on a inconsequential misunderstanding?
Whenever start screen is used... Whenever total number of applications exceeds 10.
Seriously? Honestly? Ten? What are you working on? an iPad mini? How did you install Windows on it? OK, so ten it is. You have only room for ten apps on your Task Bar.
Hey, here is a solution for you: Use desktops from Microsoft. Free. You can have one Task Bar for each type of work you do. You will never suffer the door amnesia problem, since you will never need to use the Start Screen to start an app that is needed for your current task. Seems like I have suggested something like that before too, but your amnesia seems to be severe. As I said - if you have a tiny, tiny, tiny screen that only fits ten icons, there is an easy fix, and it will improve your work flow no end. In fact, since you apparently have hundreds of apps, and you work on tasks that individually require tens of applications, you'd be a moron not to use multiple desktops.
No one is ready to change out all task bar pins after every task
It takes a single (two keys combined) key stroke. Alt+1 I am on my development desktop where I have Vis Studio, Eclipse, Fiddler etc. Alt+2 I am on my Photo/Video editing desktop where I have Premiere Pro, Vegas, Photoshop, Lightroom etc. Alt+3 I am on my VMWare Workstation desktop where I have my Linux dev box. Alt+4 I am on a (by default) clean empty desktop with a clean empty task bar. Just to make it clear, each desktop has a unique, individually configurable Start Bar. Easy. Known to the IT pros for decades.
I suggested this before. It is a no-cost option if you go with the Microsoft solution. Desktop switching is instantaneous, even on my ancient Core 2 duo Laptop.
So, tell me again, what specifically, with an example, is it that you are struggling with. Again, with a real world example please since this is apparently important to you, you must have an example where you were burned. At this stage you have only given evasive, vague answers and hinted that if there are more than ten icons on your task bar you get all confused. You have a bee in your bonnet about the Start Screen, something you have actually never tried. That's just sad. Windows 95 was a significantly more drastic change than is Windows 8. Since there were fewer religious nuts out there, the noise was not as strong, or perhaps it was just that back then people who used computers were just a little more computer literate than you are, and they didn't get their panties in a bunch over tiny, inconsequential changes with no real world problems attached.
Sigh. Can you please answer that simple question? Can you show me a situation where the door amnesia problem is applicable and not solvable by using the Task Bar. I know for sure that you do not use hundreds of applications for the same task. Simple question. Give me an example. I must have asked you ten times, so far, no answer from you.
I don't use the Start Screen(almost at all, I have specifically said i do use it occasionally
There is no need for me to to use the Start Screen (but some times I want to).
What part of the above is implausible?
The doorway amnesia effect is irrelevant when you don't have to use the Start Screen.
Why do you feel you have to use the Start Screen? Is someone forcing you? What, specifically, forces you to use the Start Screen? If you don't use the Start Screen, what is the issue?
If you feel like MS has removed a feature, what is that feature? Can you no longer launch apps in Win8?
Here is the discussion: Is there a significant disadvantage to the Windows 8 start screen over the Windows 7 Start Button? Simple question. Not properly answered yet by you, but various stupid ramblings about the door effect with no ability to demonstrate how it is an issue.
If your example is so stupid that correctly applying it requires a car with two transmission interfaces
OK, I am going to stop now, since you clearly are utterly retarded. I will try to explain to you though. Since you obviously are not under adult supervision and are therefore not able to get proper explanations.
Audi A6 2006 model - stick shift
Audi A6 2012 model - tiptronic
Your claim: Audi A6 2012 model has had a feature removed compared to the 2006 model.
Have a nice day. Next time you want to discuss with an adult, please try to answer simple questions. Such as: Can you show me an example where this is a problem for you. Until you are able to do that, you will be a child with obvious mental retardation.
In a car with both tiptronic and regular stick shift
Are you on drugs?
from screwing up one of the ways to conduct an operation
And so far you have completely failed to demonstrate how things are screwed up.
shown by "{windows+R}vn
Try, as most adults do, to use complete words and sentences next time. Also, don't talk with food in your mouth. Complete words and sentences uttered with no food in your mouth is a little more understandable than made-up short cuts. Also, those short cuts are lazy.
I see you still have not even tried to answer my question, but that isn't surprising. You seem incapable of doing so.
I have not read his previous articles, but I have read about them. I tend to share his point of view, not from a car perspective, but from an environment perspective. Electrical cars are a nonsensical solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Let me elaborate a little before you take my head off.
I am not a climate scientist, but it does seem that he prevailing idea is that we are in a warming period. It is also claimed that it is anthropogenic. Again, it does appear to me that the data supports this to a greater or lesser extent. I therefore have no reason to doubt it. I do know a little bit about statistics though, and I have been looking at data that explain the sources of this anthropogenic warming. All the sources I have looked at say the same thing. Private cars are a statistical a rather small contributor to the release of the gases that are at the cause of this AGW. All transportation in the world accounts for (according to the epa) about 27%, and cars are about 43% of that. So, private driving accounts for perhaps 10% of GHG - this is the highest estimate I have seen though, other estimates are closer to 5-7%, but even with the high estimate, it's a nonsensical discussion when talking about cars and AGW. Make cars more efficient by 50%, and you have accomplished very little, and even moving them all to electricity would probably not cut the emissions by 50% - see below). Also, the process of making cars more efficient (making new and better cars in staggering numbers) is a significant source of GHG.
Electricity production is 34% of GHG emissions (I have seen estimates far higher), a number that would go up significantly if the US moved from gasoline to electrical over night. These emitters are (comparatively) few, and fixing their emissions would have a significantly better end result. Cut coal and oil power plant GHG emissions by 50%, which is a lot easier than doing it for cars, would mean a real-world drop of 17 percentage points in GHG emissions. That's a lot!
Now, if this was all, the manic drive for electrical cars would be bad enough, but this isn't enough. From what I have been able to see, electrical cars are, compared to gasoline guzzlers, "gross polluters" (in an AGW sense, though CO2 is not and never was a pollution). I know a little bit about electricity production, and an issue is that the amount of energy that leaves its production site is quite a bit higher than the energy that actually comes out of the wall on the consumer end. There are many, many inefficiencies in the system, so there is a significant amount of loss. Not only that, but the industry that produces said electricity is among (actually the according to the epa) biggest man-made contributor to this AGW. So, when you move cars away from gasoline you move them onto coal and heavy oil burning. Industries that emit enormous amounts of CO2 and the like. So, again, electrical cars appear to be not only an inefficient problem solver, it seems they are significant contributors to the problem. More so than gasoline operated cars.
It appears to me that people who talk about solutions involving private cars when they talk about solving the AGW problem are retarded and ignorant. It also seems to me like a significant portion of them are cowards. Putting hard caps on emissions from electricity production would be easy technically, but it would hit everybody with higher prices on electricity. Therefore, in order to be seeming to do something, they attack a problem that isn't and try to force upon us solutions that will not even theoretically work.
It might very well be that I am wrong, and I would love to get information that contradicts what I (based on the epa and others) have.
All the ideas that are brandied about are interesting, but ultimately a waste of time. The problem is much more fundamental that that. We currently do not have the capability of spotting them reliably and effectively, and no government agency is (in reality) working on fixing this rather fundamental problem - this includes NASA, we can not spot these killers by sitting on earth and looking up, we need to get a telescope up in solar orbit to find them efficiently. This means, as the world currently stands, the first warning we will get when an asteroid is on collision course with the earth, is going to be the massive flash generated when it enters the atmosphere, and shortly after, the monumental shaking of the earths crust as it touches down. Deflecting or destroying it at that point becomes rather moot.
has taken it upon it self to fix the issue, and is working with NASA, Space-X and others to launch a detector by 2018 that will actually find most of these buggers, so we can deflect them (easiest option) in time.
So, if I remove the stick shift in a car when moving to a tiptronic version, I have removed a feature? Are you on drugs? A change is not the same as a feature drop, if you can do the same (launch an application) it is a change. If you could no longer launch apps it would be a feature drop. Basically what you are saying is that when a number of companies moved the "Options" menu from the "Edit" menu to the "Windows" menu (or the other way around) the dropped a feature. Try again.
{windows+R}vn -> gives an error
It's interesting to hear. Are you sure you are using a computer? Running Windows? Windows+R has worked since Windows 95 at least. Are you sure you were not trying to do something with one of those things in your wall where the light comes in? I was talking about the Windows Operating System on your computer.
you have to lie about windows+R being a replacement to save your face
No lies. Remember, to operate a computer you need something called a keyboard. There are keys on it that you can press, some of them give meaning when you press two or more keys together. So, when I say the Windows key, I mean the key with what looks like a little flag on it. It wasn't the idea that you should press the "w", "i", "n", "d", "o", "w" (don't know how you'd press and hold it twice) and "s" keys and then hit the "r" key. I don't know if I can explain it to you, but if you can find an adult, they should be able to. There is even a place on what is called the Internet where you can learn all the different "shortcut" keys for this particular operating system.
Please note, to use the Windows+R key you need to know the exact name of your application. If you want to use a more "fuzzy" search, you'll have to use the Windows+F key combination. Another combination that has been available since Windows 95.
Lol. You really don't know business at all, do you? In the gadget market, customer loyalty is non-existent. Even Apple will discover this. Ericsson was once t he biggest player by a significant margin, then they lost to Nokia, then Nokia lost to Apple, and Apple will eventually lose to some other guys. That's the nature of the beast when you operate in a market with close to zero brand loyalty. Apple has loyalty within the Mac market, but that is not enough to keep them where they are now.
What is the story on the other side, the Enterprise side (which is where Azure is). Brand loyalty is extreme. Moving large enterprise infrastructure from one provider to another is not only difficult, it is extremely expensive. At the moment the iCloud infrastructure is probably relatively small and would be easy enough to move to a competitor, but a few years down the line that will not be the case any more. It will be prohibitively costly to move, and Apple will probably be stuck with their supplier. This is why Enterprise is loyal. This is why a significant portion of critical business software is still written in COBOL.
Why is enterprise loyalty this strong? Because, when I invest in an iPhone, it costs me a tiny fraction of a monthly salary. If my supplier goes under it doesn't matter to me, moving to a new one is cheap and easy. Enterprise invests millions and millions of dollars in a single application. They write them specially from ground up using some software as base. Enterprise has SAP or CICS or other solutions where hundreds of developers have worked for decades adding special one-off stuff. The idea of moving away from it strikes them perhaps as necessary, but it is an impossibility, most of them would not even begin to know what consequences it would have if they altered these business systems. Hence COBOL. That is why IBM is still one of the largest companies in the world.
Enterprise brand loyalty is basically as close to absolute as you can come. Otherwise there would be no SAP and no IBM (and no COBOL code anywhere). Gadget brand loyalty is as close to non-existent as you can get. Go back a decade or three, look at who were the top players in consumer gadgetry, and figure out where they are now. Atari? Nintendo? Ericsson mobile phones? Commodore. Compare that to the biggest players in the Enterprise at the same time, IBM, HP, SAP. Sure, DEC is gone, but there are thousands of companies around today that specializes in maintaining old DEC gear and software. It is just a little over ten years ago since i helped change a faulty hard drive in a PDP-11 from the 1970s. I don't see many that specializes in fixing Ericsson mobile phones.
Steve Jobs and built to make Microsoft relatively irrelevant to the future of computing
Well, then he failed quite spectacularly when he asked Microsoft to build the entire infrastructure for the iCloud (content striped on Amazon S3). Given the connected future Apple has helped usher, what runs the cloud is more critical than what runs the gadgets. As the iCloud feature set grows it will be harder and harder to switch Cloud provider, which makes MS more important than the gadget maker.
Ok, so you have conducted medical research to refute the evidence
That actually doesn't prove anything at all, since the door effect is not relevant. You don't have to use the Start Screen. No door. No relevance.
As I mentioned above about doorway amnesia, and you have been ignoring
I have been responding directly to it. Examples from a single post: "That's assuming that "losing concentration" in a..", It seems the only person with amnesia here is you. Also, you seem to have a distinct inability to actually answer questions.
how do I search applications on the Task Bar?
Windows+R.
Do you think it is a scalable interface suitable for hundreds of applications
No, and neither is the Start Menu nor the Start Screen. So the question is irrelevant. Also, the number of people using hundreds of applications is tiny. I use more than most, but I am not even close to hundreds in normal use, unless of course you count the apps shipped with cygwin installation, but since they are used from the command line, GUI is irrelevant. If I did use hundreds of applications, it seems reasonable that I would be using groups of them for very different tasks. For example, like me, I would use Visual Studio, Eclipse, Toad, SQL Server Management Studio, Vi and Cygwin (command line), Fiddler and a few others for development. I use Photoshop CS6, Lightroom 4, Vegas Video, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Encore and ProShow for my photography/video hobby. Whether using WinXP, Win7 or Win8, I think the only viable solution for me would be virtual desktops. I have been using Dexpot for a while.
But I do notice that you are not actually answering the question. Without constructing absurd non-existent situations, what specifically makes the Task Bar impossible to use for you? Without referring to rather silly medical research with dubious relevance, what makes the Start Screen combined with the Task Bar difficult for you? Do you really use hundreds of applications in your day-to-day work? Could you list a significant portion of those?Again, it's far more interesting to talk about real-world scenarios than theoretical non-existing scenarios constructed just to validate a point you can't validate with real-world data.
A mad man on a street asked me how many hands I have and I made no reply
Please, don't become childish. I have tried to answer your questions. I have (despite your amnesia) replied to each and every point you have made, as I showed here. Let's continue to stay on point rather than stupid stuff like that comment.
I got that, and I also explained how it is solved - put the app on your task bar. I am talking about real-world implications of change, and I am so far not convinced there are any negative, real-world implications whatsoever. Given that there is a pattern of behavior and a no-cost, no purchase solution that means you close to "never" have to use the start screen, what could the issue possibly be?
Some people hate change on principle, others hate all change that comes from [Your favorite villain company here], others again, are negatively affected by change in a real sense. So far I have not seen a single person being able to explain which real, practical negative implications the Start Screen has. I have asked why people who don't want to (or can) use the Start Screen can not use the Task Bar, and I have so far received zero answers. Your concern, about disruption of concentration is valid. That is, if and only if, it can not easily be handled. The Task Bar is obviously far more efficient than the Start button. That is where your oft-used programs should be started from (if you are at all concerned about efficiency, which you clearly are).
My task bar has apps I often use together (such as Visual Studio and SQL Server Studio) are grouped together. Doing so is faster on the task bar, and it makes the applications easier to find and start on the task bar rather in the Start menu. In that regard, I hardly ever use the start menu either, it is a grossly inefficient way of starting programs. In fact, I use the start menu and start bar for application navigation about as often, aka "close to never".
So, for a normal user, the Start Screen has no issues and at least for one person it has a benefit. That makes adding the Task Screen Pareto optimal, which is desired.
It is not a good design which makes it easier to do bad things.
That's assuming that "losing concentration" in a process where you are already losing some concentration (you are switching apps) is universally a bad thing. That's not a given. It might be for you, it certainly isn't for me. When starting a new application (even within the context of a single task) concentration is already somewhat broken, and to me, that is OK. For you it may not, but that is opinion, not universally acceptable truth.
Also, please note, for me, it is quite rare. I start applications from the Start Screen. The apps that I use most of the time, lets say about 98% or so, are pinned to my task bar, so I never use the Start Screen to start those. For me, it is simply a deliberate distraction. For the rather rare times I have to start something that is not on my task bar, the Windows+R combo is usually sufficient. So, if I am hunting around the start screen for an app, it is to do something that is utterly unrelated to what I am working on, so I am already distracted. How many apps do you use when on a task, and why would they not be on your task bar?
In other words, the complaints about the start screen are blown totally out of proportions. IMHO. You could convince me otherwise by exemplifying why it is an issue for you not solved using the Task Bar etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You are lying, and you are making up new stuff each day to explain why you hate something you have never tried. That makes you religious nut.
After repeated requests to imagine, and fantasy is OK, you can imagine wild scenarios all you want, a situation where this would be a problem, you have failed to come up with anything. You can't even imagine a real-world situation where this would be a problem. Claiming that 99.99% if the population is affected by something you can't even imagine how they could get affected is disingenuous BS. You are a retarded, religious nut. Plain and simple.
Get back to me when you finish puberty.
Because 99.99% of users DO use start menu for it?
But they do not switch between apps for the same task, so it is not applicable. Once they go changing apps for a single task they are in the advanced stage, and pinning something to the Task Bar is more discoverable than pinning it to the Start Menu in fact, so you are still wrong, and still dumb, and still manically (with a high degree of insanity) focused on a tangential and irrelevant part of the discussion, and still not able to answer very, very simple questions.
OK, I will try to take it slowly for you, since you seem to be utterly retarded. If ... you ... do ... not ... have ... hundreds ... of ... apps, and/or ... you ... do ... not ... need ... tens ... of ... applications ... to ... accomplish ... a ... task ... you ... will, in ... day ... to ... day ... use ... of ... windows ... 8 ... NEVER ... have ... to ... open ... the ... Start Screen. For ... the ... 99.99% ... of ... users ... you ... claim ... to ... speak ... for, there is ... after ... the ... first ... couple ... of ... days ... NOTHING ... you ... have ... to ... turn ... to ... the ... Start Screen ... for ... in ... your ... daily ... work. Ever!
So, what's the problem? Please, be specific. Use an example from your own computer experience. Since the doorway amnesia is not an issue for the 99.99% since they never have to use the Start Screen, what is the issue?
While you have no doubt conducted medical research in secret proving how doorway amnesia only affects 0.01 % of people
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just retarded? I explained why the 99.99% you are babbling about are not affected. They generally use only a handful of apps, and it is extremely rare that they use more than two or three for a single task. As I explained to you at length. If you never switch between two apps for the same task, the doorway amnesia doesn't apply. Was that hard to understand? If you are unable to understand, go upstairs and have your mummy explain to you that someone who never walks through a door (switching between many applications, at least one of which demands you access the Start Screen, to accomplish a single task) can never suffer amnesia for walking through a door.
I also see you continue not to answer my question. That is proof positive you are just making shit up, in other words, you are lying through your teeth. I far more posts than I ever have.
Misunderstanding?
Yes, and an inconsequential one. When you pointed out my mistake, I corrected it, and figured that that was it. Interestingly you latched on to this utterly inconsequential issue with a fervor that befits someone with a strong dose of Asperger's. Seriously. Was it important to the discussion as such?
So you never realized my criticisms are about the out-of-box experience which 99.99% of people will use
99.99% of the population will never experience the door amnesia issue, which is why I have tried to make you explain how it affects you and why you would refuse to do something about it. 99.99% of the population will, with a tiny amount of training, get significant benefits from the Start Screen. It's easier to navigate, it is easier to search, it is easier to customize. 99.99% if the population doesn't use hundreds of applications regularly, they use less than ten. 99.99% of the population don't use large numbers of apps for a single task, they use at most two, and then only at work, perhaps, for really advanced users, three - the econ system to get numbers, excel to crunch them and powerpoint to present those numbers at the next board meeting. When doing so they keep all three apps open at the same time - again negating any kind of amnesia syndrome. For the 99.99% there is no discussion, Win8 has no downsides and quite significant upsides (it is about twice as efficient with resources as Windows XP and about 15-20% better than Windows 7.
So, now that we can safely ignore the 99.99% why would this be an issue for you? How is the Start Screen detrimental to you? What specifically that isn't an issue that doesn't affect the 99.99% is the problem. Please don't be a fool and quote the irrelevant study again.
The extent to which you will go to avoid addressing your lie about Windows+R searching among task bar items
Wow, you are really hooked on that one, are you not? Sorry, I understood the question wrongly, I use Win+R to run apps all the time, but it is not for searching for apps in the Task Bar, something I seriously wonder why one would need. Is it difficult to find an icon among (apparently) a measly ten? Is my misunderstanding a huge issue for you? So big that you feel your world has been threatened? Why not try to continue a normal conversation without getting utterly hung up on a inconsequential misunderstanding?
Whenever start screen is used... Whenever total number of applications exceeds 10.
Seriously? Honestly? Ten? What are you working on? an iPad mini? How did you install Windows on it? OK, so ten it is. You have only room for ten apps on your Task Bar.
Hey, here is a solution for you: Use desktops from Microsoft. Free. You can have one Task Bar for each type of work you do. You will never suffer the door amnesia problem, since you will never need to use the Start Screen to start an app that is needed for your current task. Seems like I have suggested something like that before too, but your amnesia seems to be severe. As I said - if you have a tiny, tiny, tiny screen that only fits ten icons, there is an easy fix, and it will improve your work flow no end. In fact, since you apparently have hundreds of apps, and you work on tasks that individually require tens of applications, you'd be a moron not to use multiple desktops.
No one is ready to change out all task bar pins after every task
It takes a single (two keys combined) key stroke. Alt+1 I am on my development desktop where I have Vis Studio, Eclipse, Fiddler etc. Alt+2 I am on my Photo/Video editing desktop where I have Premiere Pro, Vegas, Photoshop, Lightroom etc. Alt+3 I am on my VMWare Workstation desktop where I have my Linux dev box. Alt+4 I am on a (by default) clean empty desktop with a clean empty task bar. Just to make it clear, each desktop has a unique, individually configurable Start Bar. Easy. Known to the IT pros for decades.
I suggested this before. It is a no-cost option if you go with the Microsoft solution. Desktop switching is instantaneous, even on my ancient Core 2 duo Laptop.
So, tell me again, what specifically, with an example, is it that you are struggling with. Again, with a real world example please since this is apparently important to you, you must have an example where you were burned. At this stage you have only given evasive, vague answers and hinted that if there are more than ten icons on your task bar you get all confused. You have a bee in your bonnet about the Start Screen, something you have actually never tried. That's just sad. Windows 95 was a significantly more drastic change than is Windows 8. Since there were fewer religious nuts out there, the noise was not as strong, or perhaps it was just that back then people who used computers were just a little more computer literate than you are, and they didn't get their panties in a bunch over tiny, inconsequential changes with no real world problems attached.
Sigh. Can you please answer that simple question? Can you show me a situation where the door amnesia problem is applicable and not solvable by using the Task Bar. I know for sure that you do not use hundreds of applications for the same task. Simple question. Give me an example. I must have asked you ten times, so far, no answer from you.
Answered here
Nope. Read again. Example please.
I don't use the Start Screen(almost at all, I have specifically said i do use it occasionally
There is no need for me to to use the Start Screen (but some times I want to).
What part of the above is implausible?
The doorway amnesia effect is irrelevant when you don't have to use the Start Screen.
Why do you feel you have to use the Start Screen? Is someone forcing you? What, specifically, forces you to use the Start Screen? If you don't use the Start Screen, what is the issue?
If you feel like MS has removed a feature, what is that feature? Can you no longer launch apps in Win8?
There is nothing stupider than thanking big companies for showing you advertising
Yes there is, saying it is stupid without discussing the alternative, which is a price hike. You willing to pay more? If not, you're the dumb one.
Here is the discussion: Is there a significant disadvantage to the Windows 8 start screen over the Windows 7 Start Button? Simple question. Not properly answered yet by you, but various stupid ramblings about the door effect with no ability to demonstrate how it is an issue.
Get well soon.
If your example is so stupid that correctly applying it requires a car with two transmission interfaces
OK, I am going to stop now, since you clearly are utterly retarded. I will try to explain to you though. Since you obviously are not under adult supervision and are therefore not able to get proper explanations.
Audi A6 2006 model - stick shift
Audi A6 2012 model - tiptronic
Your claim: Audi A6 2012 model has had a feature removed compared to the 2006 model.
Have a nice day. Next time you want to discuss with an adult, please try to answer simple questions. Such as: Can you show me an example where this is a problem for you. Until you are able to do that, you will be a child with obvious mental retardation.
In a car with both tiptronic and regular stick shift
Are you on drugs?
from screwing up one of the ways to conduct an operation
And so far you have completely failed to demonstrate how things are screwed up.
shown by "{windows+R}vn
Try, as most adults do, to use complete words and sentences next time. Also, don't talk with food in your mouth. Complete words and sentences uttered with no food in your mouth is a little more understandable than made-up short cuts. Also, those short cuts are lazy.
I see you still have not even tried to answer my question, but that isn't surprising. You seem incapable of doing so.
Wooooosh!
I have not read his previous articles, but I have read about them. I tend to share his point of view, not from a car perspective, but from an environment perspective. Electrical cars are a nonsensical solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Let me elaborate a little before you take my head off.
I am not a climate scientist, but it does seem that he prevailing idea is that we are in a warming period. It is also claimed that it is anthropogenic. Again, it does appear to me that the data supports this to a greater or lesser extent. I therefore have no reason to doubt it. I do know a little bit about statistics though, and I have been looking at data that explain the sources of this anthropogenic warming. All the sources I have looked at say the same thing. Private cars are a statistical a rather small contributor to the release of the gases that are at the cause of this AGW. All transportation in the world accounts for (according to the epa) about 27%, and cars are about 43% of that. So, private driving accounts for perhaps 10% of GHG - this is the highest estimate I have seen though, other estimates are closer to 5-7%, but even with the high estimate, it's a nonsensical discussion when talking about cars and AGW. Make cars more efficient by 50%, and you have accomplished very little, and even moving them all to electricity would probably not cut the emissions by 50% - see below). Also, the process of making cars more efficient (making new and better cars in staggering numbers) is a significant source of GHG.
Electricity production is 34% of GHG emissions (I have seen estimates far higher), a number that would go up significantly if the US moved from gasoline to electrical over night. These emitters are (comparatively) few, and fixing their emissions would have a significantly better end result. Cut coal and oil power plant GHG emissions by 50%, which is a lot easier than doing it for cars, would mean a real-world drop of 17 percentage points in GHG emissions. That's a lot!
Now, if this was all, the manic drive for electrical cars would be bad enough, but this isn't enough. From what I have been able to see, electrical cars are, compared to gasoline guzzlers, "gross polluters" (in an AGW sense, though CO2 is not and never was a pollution). I know a little bit about electricity production, and an issue is that the amount of energy that leaves its production site is quite a bit higher than the energy that actually comes out of the wall on the consumer end. There are many, many inefficiencies in the system, so there is a significant amount of loss. Not only that, but the industry that produces said electricity is among (actually the according to the epa) biggest man-made contributor to this AGW. So, when you move cars away from gasoline you move them onto coal and heavy oil burning. Industries that emit enormous amounts of CO2 and the like. So, again, electrical cars appear to be not only an inefficient problem solver, it seems they are significant contributors to the problem. More so than gasoline operated cars.
It appears to me that people who talk about solutions involving private cars when they talk about solving the AGW problem are retarded and ignorant. It also seems to me like a significant portion of them are cowards. Putting hard caps on emissions from electricity production would be easy technically, but it would hit everybody with higher prices on electricity. Therefore, in order to be seeming to do something, they attack a problem that isn't and try to force upon us solutions that will not even theoretically work.
It might very well be that I am wrong, and I would love to get information that contradicts what I (based on the epa and others) have.
All the ideas that are brandied about are interesting, but ultimately a waste of time. The problem is much more fundamental that that. We currently do not have the capability of spotting them reliably and effectively, and no government agency is (in reality) working on fixing this rather fundamental problem - this includes NASA, we can not spot these killers by sitting on earth and looking up, we need to get a telescope up in solar orbit to find them efficiently. This means, as the world currently stands, the first warning we will get when an asteroid is on collision course with the earth, is going to be the massive flash generated when it enters the atmosphere, and shortly after, the monumental shaking of the earths crust as it touches down. Deflecting or destroying it at that point becomes rather moot.
Thankfully a private foundation lead by former astronauts and others
has taken it upon it self to fix the issue, and is working with NASA, Space-X and others to launch a detector by 2018 that will actually find most of these buggers, so we can deflect them (easiest option) in time.
So one feature less in one incremental version
So, if I remove the stick shift in a car when moving to a tiptronic version, I have removed a feature? Are you on drugs? A change is not the same as a feature drop, if you can do the same (launch an application) it is a change. If you could no longer launch apps it would be a feature drop. Basically what you are saying is that when a number of companies moved the "Options" menu from the "Edit" menu to the "Windows" menu (or the other way around) the dropped a feature. Try again.
{windows+R}vn -> gives an error
It's interesting to hear. Are you sure you are using a computer? Running Windows? Windows+R has worked since Windows 95 at least. Are you sure you were not trying to do something with one of those things in your wall where the light comes in? I was talking about the Windows Operating System on your computer.
you have to lie about windows+R being a replacement to save your face
No lies. Remember, to operate a computer you need something called a keyboard. There are keys on it that you can press, some of them give meaning when you press two or more keys together. So, when I say the Windows key, I mean the key with what looks like a little flag on it. It wasn't the idea that you should press the "w", "i", "n", "d", "o", "w" (don't know how you'd press and hold it twice) and "s" keys and then hit the "r" key. I don't know if I can explain it to you, but if you can find an adult, they should be able to. There is even a place on what is called the Internet where you can learn all the different "shortcut" keys for this particular operating system.
Please note, to use the Windows+R key you need to know the exact name of your application. If you want to use a more "fuzzy" search, you'll have to use the Windows+F key combination. Another combination that has been available since Windows 95.
Lol. You really don't know business at all, do you? In the gadget market, customer loyalty is non-existent. Even Apple will discover this. Ericsson was once t he biggest player by a significant margin, then they lost to Nokia, then Nokia lost to Apple, and Apple will eventually lose to some other guys. That's the nature of the beast when you operate in a market with close to zero brand loyalty. Apple has loyalty within the Mac market, but that is not enough to keep them where they are now.
What is the story on the other side, the Enterprise side (which is where Azure is). Brand loyalty is extreme. Moving large enterprise infrastructure from one provider to another is not only difficult, it is extremely expensive. At the moment the iCloud infrastructure is probably relatively small and would be easy enough to move to a competitor, but a few years down the line that will not be the case any more. It will be prohibitively costly to move, and Apple will probably be stuck with their supplier. This is why Enterprise is loyal. This is why a significant portion of critical business software is still written in COBOL.
Why is enterprise loyalty this strong? Because, when I invest in an iPhone, it costs me a tiny fraction of a monthly salary. If my supplier goes under it doesn't matter to me, moving to a new one is cheap and easy. Enterprise invests millions and millions of dollars in a single application. They write them specially from ground up using some software as base. Enterprise has SAP or CICS or other solutions where hundreds of developers have worked for decades adding special one-off stuff. The idea of moving away from it strikes them perhaps as necessary, but it is an impossibility, most of them would not even begin to know what consequences it would have if they altered these business systems. Hence COBOL. That is why IBM is still one of the largest companies in the world.
Enterprise brand loyalty is basically as close to absolute as you can come. Otherwise there would be no SAP and no IBM (and no COBOL code anywhere). Gadget brand loyalty is as close to non-existent as you can get. Go back a decade or three, look at who were the top players in consumer gadgetry, and figure out where they are now. Atari? Nintendo? Ericsson mobile phones? Commodore. Compare that to the biggest players in the Enterprise at the same time, IBM, HP, SAP. Sure, DEC is gone, but there are thousands of companies around today that specializes in maintaining old DEC gear and software. It is just a little over ten years ago since i helped change a faulty hard drive in a PDP-11 from the 1970s. I don't see many that specializes in fixing Ericsson mobile phones.
Steve Jobs and built to make Microsoft relatively irrelevant to the future of computing
Well, then he failed quite spectacularly when he asked Microsoft to build the entire infrastructure for the iCloud (content striped on Amazon S3). Given the connected future Apple has helped usher, what runs the cloud is more critical than what runs the gadgets. As the iCloud feature set grows it will be harder and harder to switch Cloud provider, which makes MS more important than the gadget maker.
Ok, so you have conducted medical research to refute the evidence
That actually doesn't prove anything at all, since the door effect is not relevant. You don't have to use the Start Screen. No door. No relevance.
As I mentioned above about doorway amnesia, and you have been ignoring
I have been responding directly to it. Examples from a single post: "That's assuming that "losing concentration" in a..", It seems the only person with amnesia here is you. Also, you seem to have a distinct inability to actually answer questions.
how do I search applications on the Task Bar?
Windows+R.
Do you think it is a scalable interface suitable for hundreds of applications
No, and neither is the Start Menu nor the Start Screen. So the question is irrelevant. Also, the number of people using hundreds of applications is tiny. I use more than most, but I am not even close to hundreds in normal use, unless of course you count the apps shipped with cygwin installation, but since they are used from the command line, GUI is irrelevant. If I did use hundreds of applications, it seems reasonable that I would be using groups of them for very different tasks. For example, like me, I would use Visual Studio, Eclipse, Toad, SQL Server Management Studio, Vi and Cygwin (command line), Fiddler and a few others for development. I use Photoshop CS6, Lightroom 4, Vegas Video, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Encore and ProShow for my photography/video hobby. Whether using WinXP, Win7 or Win8, I think the only viable solution for me would be virtual desktops. I have been using Dexpot for a while.
But I do notice that you are not actually answering the question. Without constructing absurd non-existent situations, what specifically makes the Task Bar impossible to use for you? Without referring to rather silly medical research with dubious relevance, what makes the Start Screen combined with the Task Bar difficult for you? Do you really use hundreds of applications in your day-to-day work? Could you list a significant portion of those?Again, it's far more interesting to talk about real-world scenarios than theoretical non-existing scenarios constructed just to validate a point you can't validate with real-world data.
A mad man on a street asked me how many hands I have and I made no reply
Please, don't become childish. I have tried to answer your questions. I have (despite your amnesia) replied to each and every point you have made, as I showed here. Let's continue to stay on point rather than stupid stuff like that comment.
The song you sing of Apple's doom has been sung many times for many decades
I wasn't singing that song. I was way back when, before Bill Gates stepped in and save Apple from going under.
:-) :-)
I got that, and I also explained how it is solved - put the app on your task bar. I am talking about real-world implications of change, and I am so far not convinced there are any negative, real-world implications whatsoever. Given that there is a pattern of behavior and a no-cost, no purchase solution that means you close to "never" have to use the start screen, what could the issue possibly be?
Some people hate change on principle, others hate all change that comes from [Your favorite villain company here], others again, are negatively affected by change in a real sense. So far I have not seen a single person being able to explain which real, practical negative implications the Start Screen has. I have asked why people who don't want to (or can) use the Start Screen can not use the Task Bar, and I have so far received zero answers. Your concern, about disruption of concentration is valid. That is, if and only if, it can not easily be handled. The Task Bar is obviously far more efficient than the Start button. That is where your oft-used programs should be started from (if you are at all concerned about efficiency, which you clearly are).
My task bar has apps I often use together (such as Visual Studio and SQL Server Studio) are grouped together. Doing so is faster on the task bar, and it makes the applications easier to find and start on the task bar rather in the Start menu. In that regard, I hardly ever use the start menu either, it is a grossly inefficient way of starting programs. In fact, I use the start menu and start bar for application navigation about as often, aka "close to never".
So, for a normal user, the Start Screen has no issues and at least for one person it has a benefit. That makes adding the Task Screen Pareto optimal, which is desired.
Also, please note, for me, it is quite rare. I start applications from the Start Screen
Too quick on that one, "it is quite rare that (not a period) I start"...
It is not a good design which makes it easier to do bad things.
That's assuming that "losing concentration" in a process where you are already losing some concentration (you are switching apps) is universally a bad thing. That's not a given. It might be for you, it certainly isn't for me. When starting a new application (even within the context of a single task) concentration is already somewhat broken, and to me, that is OK. For you it may not, but that is opinion, not universally acceptable truth.
Also, please note, for me, it is quite rare. I start applications from the Start Screen. The apps that I use most of the time, lets say about 98% or so, are pinned to my task bar, so I never use the Start Screen to start those. For me, it is simply a deliberate distraction. For the rather rare times I have to start something that is not on my task bar, the Windows+R combo is usually sufficient. So, if I am hunting around the start screen for an app, it is to do something that is utterly unrelated to what I am working on, so I am already distracted. How many apps do you use when on a task, and why would they not be on your task bar?
In other words, the complaints about the start screen are blown totally out of proportions. IMHO. You could convince me otherwise by exemplifying why it is an issue for you not solved using the Task Bar etc.