Just months after planning a break for the world of Mac, I'm planning on diving further into Windows. For that, I am sorry

Essentially, I'm in the process of purchasing Windows 7 upgrades for the three computers in our household.

For the first, I have a copy of Windows XP 64 that should cover it.

For the second, my laptop, I'm really hoping that the recovery CD counts. I have an MSI Wind and a USB DVD drive, but I haven't been able to find out how that will work with just the recovery disc, if at all.

It's the third computer I need help with. At one point I bought an OEM copy (through Newegg) of Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I recently found the case with the discs inside it...all except disc one. D'oh! Now I've been trying to find a way to get that disc replaced, but have come up empty. The guy on the phone at MS was unsurprisingly unhelpful, and couldn't even tell me if this was feasible or not.

Naturally, it's my fault I lost the disc, though through 3 moves since I bought that OS it's a wonder I can still find anything. I'm just hoping there's some recourse for me. Does anyone know of one?

Thanks for your help.

This all really makes me appreciate Steam.

Do you really need the discs? Won't the installed serial number alone do?

I doubt it. The upgrade installations (as I remember them) do some pretty extreme checking to make certain that they're actually installing atop a qualifying OS (or installing with an actual Microsoft CD available). I don't even know if a recovery CD will function or not.

It's really a shame Microsoft is yet again making a simple process complex. Suckering people in with 50% discounts on upgrades before the OS is even final. Not offering a discount to the most loyal (ultimate) buyers. Still a maze of editions to choose from. And rumors of a family pack off in the distance.

Linux users just download their upgrades for free, and OS X users just hand over $29 or $49 for a family pack to upgrade. Microsoft? I can't even summarize quickly with all the various editions, upgrade paths, and discounts.

I think you're overcomplicating it a tiny bit, but I agree it's not as good as those other two situations.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Suckering people in with 50% discounts on upgrades before the OS is even final." I'm using the OS right now and it's final enough for me! And I don't mind paying for the upgrade now because I know I want it anyway. I can't tell you how much more pleased I am with 7 than I am with Vista, and I'm currently running XP on all the computers here, so it'll be an even bigger jump.

In summary: I'm happy. Let me be happy

It's … complex … for individual users. It's nightmarish for corporate licensing.

It's a good deal for people like yourself who already know they want to upgrade and aren't having compatibility problems. But for people like myself, it sucks. Windows 7 definitely isn't final yet, and it has shown me problems that I don't get in Vista. The most humorous one is that a Microsoft developed and published game that required Vista is failing to run properly in 7. So do I shell out $100 now to upgrade, and risk not knowing if these problems will be fixed? Or do I hold off, and wait till it ships and pay $200 to upgrade?

Overall, the tactic is pushing me farther away from Microsoft. And thats not what they should be doing right now. All it does in reinforce my image of the company being so greedy and monopolistic that they are willing to force their user base to pay a large sum of money to get away from the worst OS they have shipped. Even Apple knew better then to charge users for 10.1 after 10.0 would up being a dud.

If your happy with the situation, then thats great. There are still plenty of us out here being burned by Microsoft on a daily basis, and so we hold quite the grudge against them. As much as I would love to go 100% away from Microsoft, their monopoly has ensured that I'd have to leave my industry to do so. I want Microsoft to either do better, or just die off. And sadly it looks like neither of those two possibilities are likely to happen anytime soon.

Much as I hate to recommend it, I think the logical action is to stretch the bounds of what they'll let you get away with via telephone activation. At least in older versions of Windows, when the automatic activation fails, it bottoms out to "give us a call at 1-800-xxx-xxxx." You may be able to leverage the phone mechanism to work around the restrictions.

Worse than Windows Me? Worse than WinCE?

Why can't you feed two of the computers the same old OS cd at install time?

Why would *anybody* shell out their hard-earned, after-tax money, for operating systems software???

I mean, this stuff has been available for free for a decade and a half now, and it's not like it will balance your chequebook or store your recipes any better if you pay money for it!!

Solitare is just as boring whether it has cloudy sheep hills in the background or a cool muddy bird skeleton!

And office software runs on it whether it cost money or not, and heck.. even the office software can be legally free.

Bizarre..

I mean, sure, corporations are stupid with money for this kind of stuff, but at least with them it's pre-tax deductions, not after tax like with real people.

But if you've got money to burn.. well, go for it I suppose.

-ml

I do that all the time, actually

But unfortunately, that's not the problem I have here. I have the proper activation code, I just don't have the actual install CD.

What I've heard is that 7 might not even need an installed OS, it just needs for you to put in the old discs at the time of install to verify that you have them. That's why I need the lost disc, and I can't figure out how to replace it.

Isn't that how xp and 2k did it ? I remember having to do that with either xp or 2k when doing a new install.

Do you think microsoft will know that you're putting in the same CD twice and not different CDs?

There's the letter of MS licensing and there's the spirit of it. In this case though, the letter of MS licensing says that possession of media is of no value, it's all about the COA.

The upgrade shenanigans are just there to keep honest people banging their head against the wall.

Yes.

Windows ME - It was pretty bad, but at least people did have an easy time either sticking with Windows 98 or moving to Windows 2000. The one system I helped maintain with Windows ME showed very little additional problems beyond the general flakiness of the Win9x series in general.

Windows CE - Depends on the version and device. Windows Mobile devices are definitely near the bottom of my list for a smartphone, but they don't strike me as having the same severity of issues Vista has.

Vista has managed to do tons more harm then either CE or ME. It has computer manufacturers actively seeking ways to be able to still offer XP nearly 3 years after Vista shipped.

Windows 7 is what Vista should have been when it shipped. But MS was caught with their pants down when it came to security and ensuring .Net was ready. What shipped was written in 18 months, starting from the code base of Server 2003 SP1 and a declaration that no components could be built with .Net. In other words, 48 months worth of work was tossed away, and a rushed OS was released that caught driver makers, computer manufacturers, business and consumers by surprise.

Ultimately I think Microsoft needs to copy Apple's business plan of the late 90s. Flush the OS, get something new from somewhere (singularity maybe), and spend a bit of effort in putting in just enough backwards compatibility to allow people to make the jump. MS is just hauling way too much baggage in the OS these days with ancient APIs, duct tape over all the known security holes, and an architecture that isn't ready for highly multicore systems.

Yup, re-installed XP SP3 upgrade on a machine yesterday, needed to insert the Win2K disk to complete install.

Maybe Google will force them down that road sooner than planned?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8139711.stm

The most surprising part of that article: GMail is out of beta! I hadn't even noticed

The one thing they don't address in that article is how challenging it will be for software makers to create Chrome versions of their products. That should be interesting for a "boot instantly" OS.

And Mac users must be pleased by that analyst's assertions that this would be the first contender against Microsoft

I'm one of the biggest Google fanboys you'll come across, but I'm skeptical about the chances for success of this OS. At best, I can see it as a dual-boot on my netbook. I can't truly see it as an OS for my desktop.

Ooo...can either of you verify that the same disc could be used on two upgrade discs? Because that would make this so much simpler! The one truly official disc I have is that XP 64 disc, unfortunately.

I have, so it's worth trying but there are sooo many variants of any OS out there and the way they're packaged that you'll only know if you try.

Apple also offer a very clear cut-off date where purchasers of the current OS, or machines with the current OS, qualify for free upgrades (pay for shipping) to the new OS. I can't remember off hand how they pick the date, but it's always announced when the new OS is officially announced/priced/dated.

Microsoft has made even that, extremely confusing and difficult. I really don't see myself ever paying for any portion of another MS OS in any way, shape or form. I also don't ever see myself moving my two only Windows systems away from XP, unless it's one of them to Linux.

I do see running Linux full-time, perhaps on one of those two systems or on a new system to replace one or both of them at some point. However, I can't imagine recommending Linux to a friend who isn't already extremely computer savvy. Unless of course it was a system I knew would be dedicated to very specific tasks ahead of time. BUt that really depends on the tasks and of course the users. Not great for the crowd that loves to double-click exe's from emails for instance.

Google hasn't said anything about the software APIs for this new operating system (have they?). Presumably, they'll want to leverage all the work on their Android platform and make that the client-side API of choice. The alternative is either high-level JavaScript programming (good for widgets, but you wouldn't write serious apps) or exposing the Linux guts below (presumably, something you want to avoid to stay nimble in your ability to evolve the platform, such as to non-x86 processors).

No, they have specifically said that they won't be using Android for Chrome OS. Chrome OS is very much aimed at running web app.

They said in their blog post that their apps target for Chrome OS will also run on other standards compliant browsers, by which I assume that they mean they'll be HTML5 apps.

They have proved with Chrome that they can make Javascript fast. They do need to do some work around the Google docs still to make things faster though, things like inserting rows in the spreadsheet still take an age (though not due to Javscript speed, more down to a slow server round trip).

The Google docs apps however are already at the point, when running in a recent webkit browser, that most users wouldn't notice they weren't native apps (especially when using the Chrome option to appify a web page).

Another OS upheaval might be happening at Sun, talking to a Sun engineer the other day he seemed to think Oracle was only really interested in Sun so they could engineer an Oracle specific OS, pared down so that that's all it does.

No real implication for the desktop market but I guess something else for MS (and all the linux people) to worry about at the enterprise end.

With a squeeze at either end we might see Linux and Windows make a jump they wouldn't otherwise have made.

Because sometimes the necessary apps aren't available on the free operating systems, don't run well on a virtual machine, or aren't supported by projects like Wine.

And sometimes, when someone like my parents pay money, they don't have any qualms about going to someplace like Apple's Genius Bar, rather than pestering me with computer questions that I can't answer, since I don't have a mac.

But otherwise, I'm with you.

My answer to that question is pretty much the same: Apps. In my case, mostly games, but also some audio and image editing packages.

But the more I think about my experiences with various Linux distros, the more I realize that part of what I prefer about windows is its "feel". I just like the way the Windows GUI "feels". There's something about the way the mouse and keyboard respond to my input that I prefer. It's probably just that I'm used to Windows, and I could just as easily get used to Linux given enough time.

I can't really give any concrete examples, but it's got to do with the way the mouse pointer moves, the way the GUI elements (buttons, checkboxes, etc) respond, and the way it feels to navigate the GUI. Something about Windows gives me a more solid feel, whereas when I'm in one of the Linux distros, I feel like I have to carefully move my mouse and be more precise with my clicks and drags. Almost as if the hotspot pixel in the mouse pointer cursor is in the wrong place in Linux and I have to adjust my behavior to compensate. Especially when doing things like dragging window borders or navigating menus and lists.

Mac OS X is almost as bad in this regard, although I'm starting to get used to the way a Mac feels and I can sort of get around without feeling like I'm about to fall off a cliff. But there are still moments when I feel like "dammit, I clicked on that checkbox, why didn't it check?!"

Yep, Linux. A coworker was saying that "it's just going to be another Linux distribution", and I was arguing against that, but found that they are intending Chrome OS to use a Linux kernel.


Of course, there's a lot more to a Linux distribution than just the kernel, and I wouldn't be surprised if their userland was totally different, but Linux is certainly involved.

That, my friend, is called old age On the other hand, I can't stand to use a touchpad on a Windows laptop any more because I've gotten used to all the multi-touch capabilities of OS X.



Which, when you think about it, is what Apple did when they built OS X on top of a BSD kernel. IMHO, it's a recipe for success.

Darwin is a Mach kernel with some BSD subsystems and IO Kit bolted on.

I have the exact opposite problem. I despise how Windows "feels". It does everything wrong. I spend inordinate amounts of time getting Windows to do things properly.

For one thing, you have to use the GUI for everything. I've spent a few weeks trying to do some basic command-line scripting of some stuff for automated installations and, while I'm surprised to find that I actually can do almost anything from the command line, it has hardened my feeling that Windows is a motley hodgepodge. You know how when you configure stuff in Windows and two things that seem related have their checkboxes in totally different configuration panels? It's the same way for the command line utilities. Everything is its own little world.

dsquery.exe to find domain usernames
devcon.exe to "safely remove hardware"
msiexec.exe to uninstall a program
netdom.exe to join a domain
netdom.exe to rename the computer if it's in a domain
wmic.exe to rename the computer if it's not in a domain
net.exe to modify the local groups
reg.exe to modify the registry
schtasks.exe to edit the scheduler

And, of course, many of these commands aren't included on the OS disc, much less installed by default.

I can have the Scheduler run a program at boot time, pre-login, and I can have the Scheduler run a program only one time. But I can't have it run once pre-login. Or I can edit a registry key to have Windows run a program on each boot or only once, but it will only be run post-login. Or I can set up a service to run a program on each boot. So I had to schedule a program to run once at boot, and have it be a batch file that removes the scheduled task and then does what I wanted to do in the first place.

Autologins can be set up with some registry values under "HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\". Virtually everything else is under "HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\". There's an associated "DefaultDomain" value that's documented, but it doesn't seem to actually do anything. Instead, you have to put the domain in the "DefaultUserName" value. And let's not ignore that registry folders are called "keys", keys are called "values", and values are called "data".

If I join a domain using the GUI, I can change the hostname at the same time. When you do this with the command line tools, you have to join the domain with netdom.exe, then change the name with netdom.exe. If you try to do the more logical thing of changing the computer name first, netdom.exe won't let you do it because the computer's not in the domain, but if you use wmic.exe, the name change doesn't take effect until reboot, which means if you then join the domain without rebooting, you join as the old name.

And wmic.exe seems to do a lot of stuff, but I've never seen anyone recommend it for anything else. I guess it's just a shell interface to management APIs. Maybe it's the unifying command I'm looking for.

Of course, Unix is this way, too, except everything usually involves editing a text file. But Unix is up-front about being a collection of utilities, while Windows pretends that it's all unified. I guess my problem is more with the overlap than with the separateness.

I agree that Windows is a hodgepodge, and that it's not really as unified as they'd like to make you believe, and that too much of it is GUI-only without a corresponding command-line equivalent. Mac OS X is much better in this regard, and honestly, Be OS was the best in that regard, I wish it had been successful.

But when I say "feel", I'm not talking about the complexity and difficulty of the various utilities. I mean just the basic movement and response of the mouse and keyboard and UI elements, regardless of which program is running at the time.

The feel of the UI and even sometimes the mouse locking up because you clicked compile and made the system actually work? The feel of explorer choking and dying, taking the taskbar with it? Sounds like the people really attached to their old clunker of a car that leaks everywhere and requires a prayer to get anywhere.

I have heard of similar tales though from people so used to the exact mouse acceleration and such of Windows that changing to anything else was difficult. I guess I've just never really noticed the minor details like that when switching between systems. Though I will say that it annoys me that PC laptops won't respond to 2 finger scrolling, or allow me to scroll a window even if it isn't the front most application. So I suppose I can understand a bit where you are coming from.

Whenever I see the Windows task bar at the bottom of someone's screen, I always think they're not savvy computer users. There's only one right place for the task bar and it's at the top of the screen. Sort of how toilet paper should *always* roll over the top and down the front, never from behind.

The thing that calls out to me is when someone logs in by clicking in the username field, entering their username, then grabbing the mouse and clicking in the password field, entering their password, then grabbing the mouse again and clicking on the login button.

I know I shouldn't ask but why is the bar at the top better ? The TP thing I can see why that would be better but I can't say I have ever thought about which way I am putting it on the holder.

Actually until I got married I didn't even have holders I prefer just putting it on top of the tank.

I still see people close a program by clicking the icon above file then close.

That reminds me, for some reason, I still have the habit of double clicking the program icon in the upper left of a Windows app to close it. This definitely predates my Mac days, and I found it amusing that it still works in Windows Vista and 7, even though they lack an icon there.

But presumably most computers already have a "free" copy of something on them. So why pay money for all of that extra pain ???

Cheers

I've noticed a rather peculiar thing happening of late. Sure, any "savvy" computer user will run off and install a pirated copy of Vista rather than learn a new O/S.

But it's the absolute beginners, or the folks just now moving off of Win98, that take to Linux like a duck to water. It's no harder to learn to use than the other newfangled stuff out there, and a heck of a lot cheaper.

So, I think I might just start recommending Linux only for new non computer savvy users. They seem be to taking to it naturally, so why not encourage it.

Cheers

You've got a very good point there. Another important group is children: since they have not been 'contaminated' by the Windows virus yet they learn Linux just as fast, maybe even faster.

It's when people have gotten used to certain GUI's by using them for years on end things get difficult to turn around. It seems the force of habit is an incredibly powerful one.

Because you'll need to offer 100% of the technical support. In the times I've tried to use Linux and something has gone wrong, I've done my best to research my problems online. I don't know about the other distros, but I was very disappointed by the Ubuntu forums. There's no support for newbies over there.

*edit*
And I can't believe you keep saying this in thread after thread that the non-computer literate would thrive in Linux. I'm still convinced that you have little actual experience supporting these types of people. I do, and I'm certain that they wouldn't.

Well I agree on the TP whole-heartedly, but the rest is just condescending.

Tony, I completely agree. It's not the entire reason I've stayed with Windows, but it's a factor.

I used to be an adamant top-over-er, but in recent years, I've found that it depends on the proximity of the bracket to the throne. If it's very close, the additional three inches of distance makes the process less awkward.

Also, some people's cats like to spin the rolls, and putting them on backwards keeps the paper on the roll.

It's not necessarily better, but it's just "correct." Microsoft has chosen a certain design paradigm, which so happens to be the same as most other windowing systems out there that predate theirs, such as Mac OS and Amiga OS (Workbench), where menus pop down vertically, from a their menu titles, which are first arranged horizontally at the top of the "display" - Window's app-centric display also happens to be the app window, versus The Mac and Amiga's dedicated menu bar. The system's menu or an application's menu is essentially the first thing you see when scanning the display from top to bottom. You know, the same way we read books.

It's actually not so much the task component of the task bar but rather the Start menu that causes the issue. A task-only list could work well on any screen edge, but that Start menu at the bottom, the effective END of the display, and popping the menus upwards, makes about as much sense as holding a paint roller by the roller itself.

It's the first obvious sign that MS had their collective heads way up their asses in trying the most obscure and inane thing to differentiate its then new Windows 95 from the other windowing OSes out there. It shouldn't come as a surprise from a company that names their OS "Windows" in the first place, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

They should probably have named the menu "END" - but then it wold have been better defaulted to the bottom right instead of bottom left. Maybe they toyed with "Almost End" before giving up.

The first thing I remarked on when seeing a beta of Windows 95 was, WTF is that menu doing at the bottom. The second thing I did was to confirm that it could be moved. If it could not have by default, I think it would have delayed my adoption of Windows and PC hardware in general. I only built my first PC and moved over to an x86 platform when Windows 95 came out. There was simply no reason to do so before that time and I was quite content with my various Amigas.

Yeah, sorry. I went off on a rant there.

I still think that, while the UI is more consistent under Windows (excepting, of course, Microsoft applications), the paradigms they've chosen are all wrong.

That said, I think that the paradigms that MacOSX chose (foreground applications instead of windows, the systemwide menu bar, etc.) are potentially even wronger, but I can actually accomplish real work with a shell under it, so I give it a pass.

I disagree. We've got four corners of the screen. Windows are almost always used mazimized, thus, upper left -> file, upper right -> close, lower left -> start, lower right -> status. The corners are the easiest places to find with the mouse, thus, using each one for one thing increases usability.

But, MS made it configurable for a reason, and you're welcome to have it wherever you want.

I also find that's a novice way to use Windows. At least I only ever see it done by my ex girlfriend and my wife. I can see running something like Photoshop or Illustrator maximized, maybe even Excel, but not an Explorer window and not something like Word or a web browser. Unless of course you're rocking a 640x480 or 800x60 screen.

Every window always maximized. Then to move between windows, the person will click the minimize button, then click the other app on the task bar, and repeat every time they need something else. Fun times.



You're correct that it's easy to throw the mouse pointed to an extreme and be on target. That's why Mac OS has its menus at the top of the screen. And it's why in Windows you might feel it's better to maximize the window. Unfortunately in Windows you're left trying to make up for the deficiencies of MS' UI design in this way. In Mac OS it's a lot easier to run individual windows un-maximized, which allows better inter-program usage, all while still taking advantage of the top display edge for your menus. It's consistent over all apps, whether maximized or not. The Apple Menu or Spotlight are the Mac's equivalent to the START menu (recent items sub-menu and Spotlight allows you to find anything regardless of where it is).



Of course. They couldn't very well leave it locked to the bottom knowing fully well it was the incorrect place for it. The other issue is that I find the task list portion of the bar rather useless, so I always allow windows to go over top of it. But that will then also allow hiding the Start menu.

When I made the original observation some posts back, I meant it as a bigger dig against MS rather than users of the OS. Most people don't even know you can move the task bar nor have any idea why it's on the bottom or why it should be on top. They just continue through life clicking individual form fields with their mice as Bitt mentioned. Because they also don't know what the TAB key does, nor Enter/Return for that matter. Mention Alt-Tab and you'll really blow their minds.

You're all using your mice too much. Who the fuck cares where File is? It's Alt-F.

This is one particular place where MacOS loses to Windows, as there is no way to navigate menus with the keyboard, at least as far as I'm aware. Yes, can be individual accelerators, but if you don't know them, you're relegated to pointing around.

At least MacOS has standardized on an accelerator for options dialogs: Cmd-comma. Windows can't even come to an agreement on where it should be in the menu structure, or even how many of them to have.


I totally agree.

CTRL-F2 on Mac OS. I just try to remember the individual keystroke shortcuts as that's obviously the fastest of all.

Can you even create a new Folder in Explorer without the mouse? That one used to bug the hell out of me.

I happen to think that keyboard use is one area where Mac OS completely rocks Windows.

Here are some examples in a keyboard nav primer for both OSes.

Now that you say that, I do remember that. However:

First, that's a terrible shortcut. I can't think of anywhere else that MacOS uses either Control or the F-keys. And it pretty much requires that you cross your right hand over to the left. (Hm, actually, there is a Control key on the right, isn't there? I never use that one. I don't use the one on the left, either, though. I remapped CapsLock to be Ctrl so as to have a correct keyboard.)

Second, on a MacBook, that translates to Ctrl-Fn-F2, which is even more awkward. Yeah, you can make the brightness, volume, etc. require the Fn key rather than the F-keys requiring it, but there are fairly few reasons to ever use the F-keys in MacOS that I know of.

I agree, the shortcut is awkward. And I never use it. But the good news is that it can be remapped. Though I think you'd need to use a third-party utility to remap it. Mac OS' own keyboard properties only allow creating new keyboard shortcuts linked to menu commands, not other keyboard shortcuts.

The Fn keys are too handy with their default actions, especially on the newer keyboards, so while there's the option you mentioned, which I used to use, I don't use it anymore on my MacBook Pro nor with the BT mini keyboard.

There's no CTRL on the right side on the MacBook nor BT mini keyboards. You should be able to map one of the other modifiers on the right, but as you've noted, CTRL isn't really required for much of anything, so I wouldn't bother with that either.

I probably will map CAPS lock to CTRL though, if only for use in Terminal. Otherwse I always keep CAPS lock disabled anyway.

Because the "free" copy of something isn't necessarily the thing they want, or need?

I'm a bit confused, and wondering if we're talking past each other. Are you just talking about paying for OS upgrades, or paying for an OS in general?

I mean, I get what you're saying -- Linux has been my sole OS since '98-ish (barring a brief stint on IRIX at work, and now part time OS X at work via a company supplied MacBook). I see no point in paying for an OS, or most of the apps I use regularly. A large portion of the industry I'm in uses Linux on the desktop. For the most part, it works just fine. Heck, I even use gimp for photo retouching. But every now and then, there's something that's completely missing, or just so painful to use, that the "free" version just doesn't cut it. If they were a regular part of the things I use, it's not "paying for extra pain," it's paying for pain to go away (or, at worst, trading one pain for another, possibly more manageable, pain).

I recommended OS X to my parents, because a) it's better at things that they want to do than Linux is, b) is more compatible with the other people they share files with, c) supports software that isn't even available on Linux, and d) I didn't want to be their (unpaid) support technician.

Different strokes, you know?

As opposed to what percentage if you issue them with Windows or MacOS machines?

Peter

It's on the File menu. (Explorer has a menu just like everything else.)

There are sometimes right-click-context-menu things you can do in Explorer where there aren't equivalents on the file menu. But interestingly, there's a "secret" keystroke to get the right-click-context-menu to appear without the mouse. Shift-F10 pops the context menu in Explorer. That's a rare one most folks don't know about.

So does the context menu key.

Well, in my case, as opposed to 0%. With the former, it was always "I don't know much about Windows, but you might be able to try <insert remedy here>. If that doesn't work, you'll have to ask someone who knows Windows." With the latter, I say "I don't know anything about OS X. Ask the people at the Genius Bar."

I will say, however, that support requests decreased significantly now that my parents are on a non-painfully slow net connection, and have learned to Google it first.

One of my favorite additions in Windows 7:

Ctrl+Shift+N

Great shortcut.


The percentage left after the person searches a web full of Windows users, contacts Geek Squad (or me, hopefully), IT people at work, etc. I know it's self-fulfilling to say that everyone uses Windows, so people shouldn't try out a less-used OS, but it's true right now. And I repeat my earlier comment about finding little help online when I was trying to use Linux.

Speaking of keyboard shortcuts, is there anyway on a Mac to delete something and bypass the trash can. The equivalent of a shift-delete in Windows. That's one of the trivial, yet terribly annoying things that bothers me when I use the Mac.

I don't really buy the argument of "everyone uses it, so supporting it is easier" thinking, nor should such a statement preclude using something else. After all, you yourself use a G1 instead of the iPhone, Blackberry, or Windows Mobile phone. Sure, your chances of finding someone random to help with a particular problem might be a bit higher with Windows, but Apple does offer excellent support via the phone, online, or in their stores. And since Apple makes the OS and the hardware, you avoid the support loop between the OEMs and Microsoft. Linux, I can't comment on the desktop side, but I've never had any issues getting support with Gentoo or CentOS issues online.

It also depends on what support you need. With Windows, Mac or Linux, it may be "How do I do this operation?". Windows adds on fun ones like "How do I remove all this spyware?", or "what antivirus solution do I need to make my computer run slower and maybe protect it?". And then there is the "I bought some cheap no name computer and it failed, and it only came with a 90 day warranty, how do I get my data off onto my next cheep PC?"

The amount of time I have spent supporting family and friends on computers has gone dramatically down ever since they moved to a Mac. And they aren't going elsewhere for support either, it's just that their need for support has dropped dramatically. The printer no longer stops sharing for no good reason, the system never gets infected with crap, the virus scanner updates are no longer an issue, and the hardware is lasting far longer. I even went to the extreme of recommending Apple routers or time capsules, and internet problems have also gone away with at most a power cycle required.

In the early 1990s, we got the parents-in-law a Mac. It's been replaced since then, in 2001, with a $100 PowerMac. Then, about four years ago, I replaced it again with a $100 G3 Blue&White.

Still runs OS9, still works great, and support is perhaps 2-3 telephone conversations a year. Except when the printer hardware died -- that took a little longer to resolve, but OS9 compatible USB printers still exist, thank goodness.

If/when the mother-in-law finally gives in and wants more compatibility with the web and/or email attachments, we're going to put Ubuntu onto the G3, and tell her it's Mac OS/X.

Cheers

Not built in, but you can set up this applescript with a trigger in Quicksilver:

Classilla will apparently help with that...

Sorry, I should have said suckered into paying more if your buying 3 copies. Looks like the family pack upgrades do exist as the part numbers are starting to show up at various online sites. So even if you got the $50 home premium upgrade for 3 systems, MS still managed to get more money out of you compared to the family pack pricing.

Downright deceptive, and not a good way to treat your users. But hey, gotta protect that monopoly somehow.

Alt, F, W.

Well: Alt, F, W, F/Enter

In the short time I've been using Windows 7, I've used the Ctrl+Shift+N shortcut at least a dozen times.

Wow, I can't believe it only took MS some 20 years to create a real keystroke shortcut to create a new folder. And one that uses a decent mnemonic too. I'm not sure how they're going to get people to forget and lose muscle memory for "Alt, F, W, F/Enter" though.

What used to bug me was that navigating context and other menus with the keyboard were used in place of proper keyboard shortcuts. On top of everything, for creating a new folder, this navigation isn't the same when you're on the "Desktop" since its context menu doesn't have the same hierarchy.

But I'll say it again, why on earth would I press "w" to get to a menu item labeled "New?"

I learned all my keyboard shortcuts from back in the days before they had dedicated windows-specific keys on keyboards. What if you've got an old keyboard, or you're controlling a windows remote desktop from a Macintosh or Linux system?

True; it just sounded to me like you hadn't realized you could do that with a keyboard at all.

I thought this issue came up because MacOS doesn't have a similar shortcut. Or was I misunderstanding that post? And I didn't say I used that set of keystrokes myself. I tend to use the mouse to create new folders, which brings me to:


If you right-click on the desktop, you can then hit W, F. What are you talking about?


I'm all with you on that one. I'm not sure why they don't just use "n".

Command-Shift-N, so basically the same keystroke Windows 7 introduced.

Thats usually one of the bigger misunderstandings about the Mac. People assume it's all about the GUI with a mouse, but it's had very consistent keyboard shortcuts well before the Windows key and Windows 95. Though, GUI navigation via the keyboard is not a Mac strength.

You have always been able to create new folders in Mac OS from the keyboard. In Windows I've always used the mouse as well because I don't like navigating the file menu with the keyboard - likely because you don't get the menu item you'd expect you you press keys on the keyboard.

Right-clicking the desktop and then pressing W and then pressing F is not the same thing as pressing ALT,F,W,F which is the point I was trying to make. You have to use your mouse and then the keyboard - which defeats the purpose. Or use the context key, which is not the ALT key, which used to only be available on the right side of the keyboard (probably still is) and then you have to omit pressing F. It's equally non-intuitive as the other key sequence, but it's different, which makes it even a bigger PITA. Non-intuitiveness plus lack of consistency.

Though don't think that I'm trying to say everything's roses in Mac OS. Apple still hasn't gotten their shit together in figuring out multi-selection using the keyboard or mouse. They've somewhat got it in Mail, and we'll see if the new OS brings it elsewhere. Still needs work though, even in Mail.

Like I said, I guess I just misunderstood the post where that new folder issue was brought up.

And technically, Bruno, you said the desktop's "context menu doesn't have the same hierarchy." That is incorrect. Isn't the context menu what is referred to by the right-click on a mouse? That is identical. The file menu is different, and everything about the desktop is handled differently, almost entirely through the context menu. I don't really find that unintuitive because there is no "File" menu on the desktop, so you wouldn't expect that anyway. What's unintuitive was when I was using someone's Mac this past week and for a particular reason I needed to find something analogous to Windows' device manager. Why would I expect it to be on what is essentially an"About" screen?

Man, I really didn't want another religious war when I started this thread. I mostly just hate this debate, which is never going to be settled because it's more subjective than either side wants to admit (which I think is where Tony was coming from).

All I can say is that I'm using Windows 7, I'm happy about it, and I'm happy that you like your operating system of choice.

Matt, I think you're taking things the wrong way and definitely misreading what I was trying to say in both cases. I simply said that the context menu doesn't have the same items as the app menu. This is certainly expected and makes perfect sense. I wasn't arguing that at all. There's nothing bad about that. But it means you can't use exactly the same key sequence to achieve the "new folder" command because you're navigating two different menus.

If you were to record one specific macro it would only work in one place. My point is that this "sequence" is not a keyboard shortcut and not a substitute for one. That's why, as you have found, MS has finally included a real shortcut in Windows 7. That's good news, but not enough to get me to change over any of my XP systems. At home right now I have two Macs (three if you count one that's at a friend's house right now) and two Windows systems. I use both OSes all the time, mostly for different tasks.

Mac OS doesn't really have a "device manager." The System Profiler is an application that gives you details about your hardware and software, but it doesn't allow you to make driver and other changes. It's just a reporting app. Because you can't make any changes on the Mac's System Profiler or general about screen, it's not included in System Preferences. The argument can be made that both are access from "sort of" the same place though. After all, the "System Properties" in Windows is also its "About" window.

I actually enjoy religious wars on this BBS. For the most part, the discussions are interesting and civil and give me interesting information that I wouldn't otherwise get.

It is definitely subjective, however it's easier to talk about when everyone discussing it has experiences with both sides. I've lived with Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux daily for years now. Were as you said it right at the start "Just months after planning a break for the world of Mac, I'm planning on diving further into Windows." If thats what keeps you happy, thats good. It just pains me a little to see that you came really close to making the leap of at least trying a Mac as a personal machine, then backed off and now have issues. Sure, the upgrade situation isn't that big of an issue, but to me, it's one more minor thing that is added to the mountain of issues I see on the Microsoft side. I don't directly want Microsoft to fail, but their bad decisions affect me daily. Be it their horrible security that led to hours of my time wasted when people used Microsoft products to browse these boards, or the bad decisions that lead to frustrations dealing with Microsoft servers at work.

The reason your decision pains me a bit is that it mirrors my situation about 8 years ago. I was a big Microsoft only person, shrugging off Linux and Mac OS. I was happy, even when Windows 98 would blue screen on me. After all, 2000 was right around the corner, and it was so much better. What changed my situation though was wanting to be legitimate, as well as running a home server. Windows Server licenses are pricy. Software to add more functions to Windows is pricy. So I decided to get my feet wet with Linux, and eventually learned enough to have a home server that ran as a router and file server. It grew over time into much more. I then got a job supporting servers, and my Linux knowledge allowed me to grow into other Unix systems as well. When OS X was released, I looked into it due to the Unix underpinnings, and was pretty much sold on the spot. It took some time, but I saved up to buy a refurb iMac to try it out. Over time, I found myself using the iMac more then my custom built PC, and ended up buying another more powerful Mac. And from there, I just started replacing machines with Macs as I needed.

Some of my posts are also of the venting nature. For that, I apologize for the parts that came across rude. Tech is a major part of many of our lives, mine included. And at times, I can get very passionate about it. In the end, if your really happy with your situation, thats good. I still urge you to try out the Mac side at home some day, and I'll even offer what advice and support I can if you do.

Yeah, I was close, but you know what kept me from it? Price. I know Apple makes really fantastic hardware that's beautifully designed and all works together with the OS, but I'm sorry, you pay a premium for that. I totally understand someone wanting to pay that premium, and I don't fault them for it, but at this point I wasn't willing to pay the premium. I wanted a Core i7 system for under $1500, and Apple can't do that for me.

Sorry, I went down another classic Windows defense angle, but I can only speak to my own experience, and I'm one of those people looking for the non-existent, mid-range, monitor-less Apple computer.

But all of this is moot. I reiterate that I'm happy with my operating system, and I don't need/want people feeling sorry for the poor little guy with the Windows OS

Not to rehash past discussions here too much, I will reiterate that there isn't a price premium for Apple computers when compared to another OEM providing a complete system and warranty. They do lack the same variety of different computer models that other vendors offer, and they do lack a midrange expandable monitorless system. That market is a shrinking one though, and at this point I don't think it's a market segment Apple will address now.

To answer your original question, it looks like you have to have an activated install of Windows XP, Vista or 7 RC present to use an upgrade disc.

Ouch, not as good as I'd hoped. I mean, the first installation will be fine, as all three computers in our home now have 7 RC on them, but I'll have to figure something out if I want to reinstall after spring of next year.

I do think it's highly annoying that, in the future, I'll need to completely install an old OS, then install the upgrade.

Maybe the pending Windows 7 family pack is something for you then? Licence for 3 computers in one household: $150. Only home premium edition though, but that should be enough for most. (apologies if this has been mentioned before ; I didn't read the entire thread)

Interesting, though I don't see anything official from Microsoft saying it'll be $150. That would be the same price as three copies (until yesterday), though I ordered Professional for my own computer to get XP virtualization and some other features. I still have a couple important programs that don't work in 7, most notably Apple's Airport control software (I really despise that software - why couldn't they make it a web interface like everyone else?).

The same price? Oh, then I'm confusing US pricing with European pricing. (which has already popped up on a couple of websites). But the idea was that a family pack licence (for 3 pc's) would cost you about half of what it would cost if you'd buy the licences separately. I'm guessing the US deal will be similar. And it's a nice deal I reckon... the only downside being it'll only exist for windows 7 Home Premium and only for a 3 PC licence, not less, nor more).

It's about the same price for now, with the 50% off deal that will expire at a random time.

So long term, the family pack will be a deal for people needing 2 or 3 licenses. For now, not much of a deal (US prices are showing $130-$150), and it probably explains why the family pack isn't out yet.

Yeah, that's what I meant, sorry. It wasn't a deal if I purchased on Saturday (which I did).

Ok now today I put a roll on and I actually thought about which way to put it on. Great thanks