I use:

Monday, August 25, 2014

Where's My Damned Start Menu?

Windows 8.0, was a mistake, it took the intelligence of interface design for a tablet or touch-based system and supplanted it onto an operating system and user base that didn't want or deserve it. Sure, you can make due with the modern Windows interface with no name. Yes, while it was called Metro during development they found they couldn't call it that so it lost it's identity. The die hard and annoyed user base still call it Metro out of spite or frustration.

The reality is, we hate it. Sure it has it's place on touch-based systems, but the rest of us hate it, hate being forced to use it. Sometimes we don't want to reach for the screen, we're comfortable with the mouse or touch-pad.

Windows 8.1 was an improvement, it's the only version of the operation system I'd run, but we've been cheated. Microsoft cheated us out of a decent system and left us for dead. Promises of bringing back the Start Menu, a proper version of it, have all but vanished in an 8.x release, but the real crime is the rumour that Windows 9 is on the horizon and my fear is that Microsoft will ransom the user community for a proper shell, a proper operating system in the form of an upgrade. They really need to wake up and recognize that they've already ripped off their customers and it's high time they apologize to them with a replacement, a free upgrade, to Windows 9.0.

If they don't, the revolution against this hazardous waste of an OS will lead the masses across the technical Red Sea to the lands of Linux, Apple's OS/X, and ChromeOS, and I'll lead the charge. Especially considering the threats to end support for the last usable version of Windows, version 7.0.

Consider the following:

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Why Should I Upgrade From Windows XP?

As the technical guy I try to advocate that you keep up to date with the latest, supported, operating system, applications, and patches.This is the responsible thing to do, but there's a problem with this process. My over-dramatic brother-in-law has a point about one thing, "Don't fix what ain't broke." He uses applications that are dependant on Windows XP, and while he is definitely cheap, he's right. I feel the same way though. I use Windows XP with Fireworks 3.0 from Macromedia (now Adobe).

Why should I spend money on something I don't need to replace? It's expensive!

I could just learn something new. There's GIMP 2.0 for example, but it's not as simple and straightforward as Fireworks is, or was, but why? Fireworks worked, er, works. I know this is a losing battle, but I know I'm not alone, the support for Windows XP ended and it has caused us all undue stress.

Undue? Ya, okay... I'm still in a position to advocate for staying up-to-date. There's a good reason for this, there are bad people, or perhaps I'll suggest it's curious people, that create bad software that has one intention, to mess with your happiness and ability to compute in safety.

So, why is software so expensive? When I worked for Microsoft the line was that the cost was high to offset piracy. This is NOT true, but the truth can be elusive so I'll let that go. Why should it cost $50 per month to use the latest version of this software? I'm not faulting Adobe here, I don't know their costs, but for someone like me, a casual user of the tools to build web sites, this is overly expensive.

How many other applications fall into this wasteland? How many people are looking at giving up something that works because of the expiry of Windows XP?