Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #1366 > unrolled thread

[OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

Contents

  [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-18 10:48 -0400
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-18 18:56 +0000
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-18 20:58 +0100
        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-18 20:06 +0000
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Theo Tress" <rbk@online.de> - 2012-07-19 10:03 +0200
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-18 19:16 -0400
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-19 08:56 +0000
        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-19 08:23 -0400
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-20 03:36 +0000
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-20 04:28 -0400
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 14:12 +0100
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-20 08:29 -0400
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-20 19:20 +0000
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Norm Fowler <NormF4@spoof.com> - 2012-07-20 16:33 -0700
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-25 01:43 -0400
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-25 08:32 -0400
                Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-25 16:11 -0400
                Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-27 19:03 -0600
        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-19 08:46 -0400
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Vacuum Sealed <noodnutt@gmail.com> - 2012-07-20 00:47 +1000
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Jeff Johnson" <i.get@enough.spam> - 2012-07-19 14:10 -0400
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-19 18:43 -0600
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Helmut_Meukel <Helmut_Meukel@bn-hof.invalid> - 2012-07-19 10:56 +0200
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Thorsten Albers" <gudea@gmx.de> - 2012-07-21 12:43 +0000
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> - 2012-07-24 10:07 +0200
        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-24 10:20 +0100
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 10:58 -0300
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-24 10:15 -0400
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 11:36 -0300
                Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 12:39 -0700
                  Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 17:50 -0300
                    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 14:38 -0700
                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 20:54 -0300
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 16:59 -0700
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 07:00 +0100
                          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 10:28 -0300
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 15:03 +0100
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 11:17 -0300
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 18:18 +0100
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 14:26 -0300
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-27 18:55 -0600
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-27 21:24 -0400
                                Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-27 21:26 -0600
                                  Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-28 09:46 -0400
                                    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-28 13:43 -0600
                                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-28 13:46 -0600
                                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-28 17:13 -0400
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-27 22:36 -0300
                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 22:07 -0300
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 18:21 -0700
                          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 10:33 -0300
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-25 10:00 -0400
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-25 20:14 +0000
                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 06:52 +0100
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-25 10:31 -0700
                          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 20:19 +0100
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-25 12:41 -0700
                  Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-24 19:27 -0400
                    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 20:51 -0300
                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-24 22:03 -0400
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 11:15 -0300
                    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 16:51 -0700
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> - 2012-07-24 16:12 +0200
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Henning" <computer_hero@coldmail.com> - 2012-07-24 17:42 +0200
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> - 2012-07-24 09:16 -0700
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-24 18:24 +0100

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#1366 — [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you

Run Hamster run!

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229276/Windows_XP_and_Vista_No_Office_2013_for_you

By Gregg Keizer
July 17, 2012 03:58 PM ET

Computerworld - Microsoft confirmed yesterday that the new Office 2013 will 
not run on older PCs powered by Windows XP or Vista.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1373

Farnsworth wrote:

> Run Hamster run!
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229276/Windows_XP_and_Vista_No_Of
> fice_2013_for_you
>
> By Gregg Keizer
> July 17, 2012 03:58 PM ET
>
> Computerworld - Microsoft confirmed yesterday that the new Office 2013
> will not run on older PCs powered by Windows XP or Vista.

If there's any interest, someone will figure out a way.

-- 
The desert is merciless. It takes everything from you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1376

"Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> wrote in message 
news:XnsA094799BD3073auricauricauricauric@88.198.244.100...

>> Computerworld - Microsoft confirmed yesterday that the
>> new Office 2013 will not run on older PCs powered by
>> Windows XP or Vista.
>
> If there's any interest, someone will figure out a way.

Hopefully there will be /no/ interest. It'll be all bloated Cloud stuff 
anyway! People should refuse to buy it! Micro$oft have got a bloody cheek 
expecting people to shell out for a new version of a product that doesn't 
even work properly anyway and that is guaranteed to become totally 
unresponsive to user input under certain specific conditions. They can't 
even get the existing 2003 version to work properly, or the 2007 version or 
the 2010 version , all of which suffer from exactly the same fault! What a 
load of crap. People should vote with their pockets and force the Micro$oft 
fairground gypsies to stop spinning the rip off carousel ever faster in an 
attempt to stop people gettimg off!

Mike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1377

Mike Williams wrote:

> "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> wrote in message 
> news:XnsA094799BD3073auricauricauricauric@88.198.244.100...
>
>>> Computerworld - Microsoft confirmed yesterday that the
>>> new Office 2013 will not run on older PCs powered by
>>> Windows XP or Vista.
>>
>> If there's any interest, someone will figure out a way.
>
> Hopefully there will be /no/ interest. It'll be all bloated Cloud stuff 
> anyway! People should refuse to buy it! Micro$oft have got a bloody cheek 
> expecting people to shell out for a new version of a product that doesn't 
> even work properly anyway and that is guaranteed to become totally 
> unresponsive to user input under certain specific conditions. They can't 
> even get the existing 2003 version to work properly, or the 2007 version or 
> the 2010 version , all of which suffer from exactly the same fault! What a 
> load of crap. People should vote with their pockets and force the Micro$oft 
> fairground gypsies to stop spinning the rip off carousel ever faster in an 
> attempt to stop people gettimg off!

Gee, Mike, tell us how you *really* feel.

-- 
Wirth's Law:
Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1380

>> Computerworld - Microsoft confirmed yesterday that the new Office 2013
>> will not run on older PCs powered by Windows XP or Vista.

Oh what a happy man can I be that my twenty year old car still drive 
perfectly on new roads, even in curves and crossings! 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1379

| Computerworld - Microsoft confirmed yesterday that the new Office 2013 
will
| not run on older PCs powered by Windows XP or Vista.
|

  They're also offering a $40 upgrade to Win8 for virtually
any PC running, as long as it can handle the bloat. (I was
able to install the first beta on a PC with single core AMD
2800 with 500 MB RAM, but the 3rd beta wouldn't install
on the same PC with 750 MB RAM, and seemed to say
that a single core CPU was not adequate.) I'm guessing
that anyone who actually wants to pay for the new version
of MS Office is probably already salivating over the "bargain"
they expect to get on Win8, so the limited functionality of
of the new MS Office won't bother them. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1383

Mayayana wrote:

>| Computerworld - Microsoft confirmed yesterday that the new Office 2013
>| will not run on older PCs powered by Windows XP or Vista.
>
>   They're also offering a $40 upgrade to Win8 for virtually
> any PC running, as long as it can handle the bloat. (I was
> able to install the first beta on a PC with single core AMD
> 2800 with 500 MB RAM, but the 3rd beta wouldn't install
> on the same PC with 750 MB RAM, and seemed to say
> that a single core CPU was not adequate.) I'm guessing
> that anyone who actually wants to pay for the new version
> of MS Office is probably already salivating over the "bargain"
> they expect to get on Win8, so the limited functionality of
> of the new MS Office won't bother them.

I don't currently have a computer that will run NT6 acceptably... but I'm 
saving up for a Win7 x86 tablet. (~US$530) I'm rushing to get it before it 
becomes a Win8 tablet. (Not because I particularly want Win7, but because I 
*don't* want Win8.)

-- 
Sorry to ruin your day, Hacker, but the power's in the pattern!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1386

| I don't currently have a computer that will run NT6 acceptably... but I'm
| saving up for a Win7 x86 tablet. (~US$530)

   I'm very curious about the tablet craze. While many
people I know are buying "smart phones", a surprising
number are also buying tablets. They seem to like them
as constant reference companions, so that they can,
say, look up how many calories are in a potato while they're
cooking it. I can see the appeal of that, up to a point.
But still, both phenomena are hard to understand.
People are paying $90+/month for smartphones, and up
to $600+- for tablets. It's almost reminiscent of the '80s
when people would pay $100 for a 15 minute cocaine buzz,
as though their money was giving them an allergic reaction
and they needed to get all that cash out of their pockets
as quickly as possible... and cocaine was the only way to get
rid of it that quickly, short of throwing it on the street. (And
that would be crazy! :)

For the price you're paying for a tablet, you could almost buy
2 real PCs. (Best Buy and Staples often have something
in the range of $279-299.) What is it about a tablet that
makes it seem worth such a steep price to you? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1392

Mayayana wrote:

>| I don't currently have a computer that will run NT6 acceptably... but I'm
>| saving up for a Win7 x86 tablet. (~US$530)
>
>    I'm very curious about the tablet craze. While many
> people I know are buying "smart phones", a surprising
> number are also buying tablets. They seem to like them
> as constant reference companions, so that they can,
> say, look up how many calories are in a potato while they're
> cooking it. I can see the appeal of that, up to a point.
> But still, both phenomena are hard to understand.
> People are paying $90+/month for smartphones, and up
> to $600+- for tablets. It's almost reminiscent of the '80s
> when people would pay $100 for a 15 minute cocaine buzz,
> as though their money was giving them an allergic reaction
> and they needed to get all that cash out of their pockets
> as quickly as possible... and cocaine was the only way to get
> rid of it that quickly, short of throwing it on the street. (And
> that would be crazy! :)
>
> For the price you're paying for a tablet, you could almost buy
> 2 real PCs. (Best Buy and Staples often have something
> in the range of $279-299.) What is it about a tablet that
> makes it seem worth such a steep price to you?

I can't put together a tablet from spare parts laying around. (Well, I 
suppose I *could*, with proper tools and know-how -- neither of which I 
have.)

I'll be getting the tablet largely for business purposes: it's much easier to 
deal with a tablet on-the-go than a laptop. (I spend up to 14 hours per day 
in a car, and use a laptop for business records.) Locally (Phoenix, AZ) I 
could get a tablet for as cheap as about $120, if I wanted an ARM machine 
running Android -- but I don't, I want an x86-ish machine running Windows 
(because I want it to be able to run the software I'm used to), and the one 
I've chosen (which has a variety of features that are attractive to me) is, 
again, ~$530.

Once I have the tablet, I expect that it will become my primary computer 
(since it'll be the best one I own by a large margin -- seriously). I'll keep 
my current desktop machine for testing my programs on x64 systems (but 
usually powered down) and my server won't change (nor does it need to).

-- 
We need to change the name of nuclear weapons to "polite weapons".
They make entire countries polite to us.
 -- John Holmberg (John Holmberg's Morning Sickness)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1393

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message 
news:ju8u1b$b0f$1@dont-email.me...
>| I don't currently have a computer that will run NT6 acceptably... but I'm
> | saving up for a Win7 x86 tablet. (~US$530)
>
>   I'm very curious about the tablet craze. While many
> people I know are buying "smart phones", a surprising
> number are also buying tablets. They seem to like them
> as constant reference companions, so that they can,
> say, look up how many calories are in a potato while they're
> cooking it. I can see the appeal of that, up to a point.

Basically it's because they offer Internet and/or phone service everywhere, 
not just where WiFi is available. Tablets are smaller and lighter than 
laptops, and could be carried in say a purse or a Gym bag. Some use them 
seriously, and some are not. One noticeable difference is the lack of a 
keyboard. On Phones/Tablets, they use a swype keyboard or similar. To enter 
a word, you press the first letter and move your finger to the rest of the 
letters without lifting your finger from the touchscreen.  The keyboard 
shows a spaghetti-like line of where you moved your finger. Slowing on a 
letter tells the keyboard that you wanted to press that letter. Making a 
small loop around a letter means that you wanted to press that letter twice. 
Example:

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/swype_auto-1.jpg

This may seem inaccurate, but it works for words that are in the dictionary. 
For those who need to look at a PC keyboard to type, they would find that 
they can type faster using a Swype-type keyboard. The world record for Swype 
is 58 words per minute. Most touchscreens now are capacitive, meaning that 
only finger contact is enough. Pressing the screen harder will only hurt 
your finger and could damage the screen, so the movement over the screen is 
light and smooth. Older generations have resistive touch which required 
pressing the screen harder, they are still being sold, usually as "feature" 
phones, and typically for less than $100.

Also, the screen size of smart phones seems small, but it's not like looking 
at a portion of a desktop monitor. Smart phones have a pixel density of 
around 300 Pixels per Inch, while desktop monitors have a pixel density of 
around 85 to 100 Pixels per Inch. So while the screen size is small, it's 
like looking at a print out of a laser printer, or a magazine.

> But still, both phenomena are hard to understand.
> People are paying $90+/month for smartphones, and up
> to $600+- for tablets.

It's more like $35-40/Month if you go prepaid. It depends on what they use 
it for, some use it for work, like contractors checking prices and product 
specifications online, or those who deal with antiques taking pictures to 
send to an appraiser, or people checking product reviews online, or compare 
prices, or people who use the subway or public transportation could check 
arrival time(See www.nextbus.com for an example). I have even seen people 
checking baby monitors video feeds on their smart phones. It depends on 
whether it's worth it for the person.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1398

"Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:jub4r8$ms0$1@speranza.aioe.org...

> One noticeable difference is the lack of a keyboard. On
> Phones/Tablets, they use a swype keyboard or similar.

There are tablets which come with detachable keyboards and which can be used 
with or without the keyboard. The Asus Transformer is one example. The added 
benefit is that the keyboard also contains a battery (albeit a slightly 
smaller battery than in the Tablet itself). This means you can get 10 hours 
of battery life with the Tablet alone and 15 hours of battery life when it 
is attached to the keyboard. Pretty neat, I think.

Mike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1397

  Thanks to both of you for that information. The woman
I live with was thinking about a tablet and I realized I didn't
have any idea of what to tell her. My first impression is in
line with what the two of you have written: That tablet
actually refers to several products. I didn't know there were
x86 Windows tablets out, for instance. I see that some have
cell tower Internet capability (requiring a phone company
account) and some don't. iPad doesn't have a USB input
but it seems that Android tablets do. (Though I have no
idea whether a USB input actually serves any purpose, as
I have no idea what sort of file system exists on an iPad
or Android.) I don't know whether a Nexus 7 can be cleaned
of its Google infestation. (Not much good if it can't.) Then
there's the Kindle, which seems to really just be a reader.
And there's the allegedly pending Surface, which is claimed
to replace everything. It's especially hard to get an idea of
how enabled, or locked down, these things are, in
themselves and in relation to each other. (Problems like no
file system, no software installation allowed, the Kindle only
able to go online through a spyware Amazon proxy, etc.)

  There seem to be a number of very different products at very
different price ranges. What I've seen and heard so far from
acquaintances seem to be 2 major uses: People buying a
lightweight appliance that can be used at any time to look up
something online, and people who want an e-reader. I'd be
inclined to think of x86 as a small laptop. It appears that the big
distinction between tablet and laptop, though, is not so much
functionality but rather swipe vs keyboard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1401

Mayayana wrote:

>   Thanks to both of you for that information. The woman
> I live with was thinking about a tablet and I realized I didn't
> have any idea of what to tell her. My first impression is in
> line with what the two of you have written: That tablet
> actually refers to several products. I didn't know there were
> x86 Windows tablets out, for instance. I see that some have
> cell tower Internet capability (requiring a phone company
> account) and some don't. iPad doesn't have a USB input
> but it seems that Android tablets do. (Though I have no
> idea whether a USB input actually serves any purpose, as
> I have no idea what sort of file system exists on an iPad
> or Android.) I don't know whether a Nexus 7 can be cleaned
> of its Google infestation. (Not much good if it can't.) Then
> there's the Kindle, which seems to really just be a reader.
> And there's the allegedly pending Surface, which is claimed
> to replace everything. It's especially hard to get an idea of
> how enabled, or locked down, these things are, in
> themselves and in relation to each other. (Problems like no
> file system, no software installation allowed, the Kindle only
> able to go online through a spyware Amazon proxy, etc.)
>
>   There seem to be a number of very different products at very
> different price ranges. What I've seen and heard so far from
> acquaintances seem to be 2 major uses: People buying a
> lightweight appliance that can be used at any time to look up
> something online, and people who want an e-reader. I'd be
> inclined to think of x86 as a small laptop. It appears that the big
> distinction between tablet and laptop, though, is not so much
> functionality but rather swipe vs keyboard.

I don't know if the Windows tablets have "swype" -- haven't investigated 
along those lines.

Here's the one I intend to get. (Yes, it's $20 cheaper on NewEgg than my 
local Fry's. Guess where I'll be buying from...)

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215081

-- 
If only there was a way to punch someone through a phone line.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1408

Auric__ laid this down on his screen :
> Mayayana wrote:
>
>>   Thanks to both of you for that information. The woman
>> I live with was thinking about a tablet and I realized I didn't
>> have any idea of what to tell her. My first impression is in
>> line with what the two of you have written: That tablet
>> actually refers to several products. I didn't know there were
>> x86 Windows tablets out, for instance. I see that some have
>> cell tower Internet capability (requiring a phone company
>> account) and some don't. iPad doesn't have a USB input
>> but it seems that Android tablets do. (Though I have no
>> idea whether a USB input actually serves any purpose, as
>> I have no idea what sort of file system exists on an iPad
>> or Android.) I don't know whether a Nexus 7 can be cleaned
>> of its Google infestation. (Not much good if it can't.) Then
>> there's the Kindle, which seems to really just be a reader.
>> And there's the allegedly pending Surface, which is claimed
>> to replace everything. It's especially hard to get an idea of
>> how enabled, or locked down, these things are, in
>> themselves and in relation to each other. (Problems like no
>> file system, no software installation allowed, the Kindle only
>> able to go online through a spyware Amazon proxy, etc.)
>> 
>>   There seem to be a number of very different products at very
>> different price ranges. What I've seen and heard so far from
>> acquaintances seem to be 2 major uses: People buying a
>> lightweight appliance that can be used at any time to look up
>> something online, and people who want an e-reader. I'd be
>> inclined to think of x86 as a small laptop. It appears that the big
>> distinction between tablet and laptop, though, is not so much
>> functionality but rather swipe vs keyboard.
>
> I don't know if the Windows tablets have "swype" -- haven't investigated 
> along those lines.
>
> Here's the one I intend to get. (Yes, it's $20 cheaper on NewEgg than my 
> local Fry's. Guess where I'll be buying from...)
>
>   http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215081

Auric,

I can think of one possible problem, if you are planning on adding many 
programs to the Windows 7 install, the 32 gb hard drive may not be 
large enough. Granted I have added a lot of extra to my Windows 7 
desktop, but had to increase my partition to 50 gb to keep up. 8-o

Norm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1436

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message 
news:jubip6$rfp$1@dont-email.me...
>  Thanks to both of you for that information. The woman
> I live with was thinking about a tablet and I realized I didn't
> have any idea of what to tell her. My first impression is in
> line with what the two of you have written: That tablet
> actually refers to several products. I didn't know there were
> x86 Windows tablets out, for instance. I see that some have
> cell tower Internet capability (requiring a phone company
> account) and some don't.

You can buy any Smartphone(~$80) or Tablet(~$80) with WiFi, and you don't 
have to pay a dime to the phone company. Just use the WiFi feature. There 
are VOIP companies out there that offer phone apps, so you can make phone 
calls over WiFi. I know some people who do it that way, or disconnect the 
land line service to save money. Here is one such company:

http://www.voipvoip.com/

What set iPhone aside early on is the capacitive touch screen. Now almost 
every Smartphone include it as a standard feature, but you need to double 
check that to be sure.

> iPad doesn't have a USB input
> but it seems that Android tablets do. (Though I have no
> idea whether a USB input actually serves any purpose, as
> I have no idea what sort of file system exists on an iPad
> or Android.)

On my Android phone, it's FAT32.

> I don't know whether a Nexus 7 can be cleaned
> of its Google infestation. (Not much good if it can't.)

On Android, you can use third party browsers, you don't have to use the 
default one. Here are some Android browsers:

Best Android browser 2011:
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/best-android-browser-2011-which-should-you-use-940899

Here is the default one, which is open source, as is the Android OS(Look for 
"Web Browser"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29#Features
http://source.android.com/

You can kill "Google Search" process if you want to use the default browser. 
It's activated if you type URL's, but not when using bookmarks. You can 
bookmark one of the search engines that you like and use that instead of 
Google, and so once you kill "Google Search" process, it never shows up. You 
can see if Google phoning home and what it's sending if any by disabling the 
3G connection and enabling the WiFi, then use a packet sniffer. Some people 
probably done that, you can search the web for what they say.

You can disable GPS entirely, but the phone company could triangulate the 
cell phone position within 150 feet or so. If you only use WiFi, then there 
is a way to turn off the radio entirely.

The apps that you install don't have full access to everything in the phone, 
like contacts and GPS location. There is a simple permission scheme for 
apps. The developer chooses which permission required to run the app. 
Android shows these permissions to the end user at install time. The end 
user can either accept or reject the install. The user cannot adjust these 
permissions. If the user doesn't agree, there are generally other apps that 
require less permissions if the developer was asking too much. You can 
unpack the APK file and edit the manifest which includes the access rights, 
and put it back together, but the application could misbehave. So it's 
better to ask the developer or look for another app. Here are the list of 
permissions:

http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html

Here is what it looks like when Android display the permissions to the user:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-u3OOVMJ7v9w/Thv2P4SLsHI/AAAAAAAAAEg/q_aJwZjxBsM/s1600/engper1.png

I installed the Android SDK, and don't recall agreeing to privacy 
statements. I think the only license you are prompted to is the GPL or 
Apache licenses.

> Then there's the Kindle, which seems to really just be a reader.

Yes it's, and it's advantage is that it lasts hundreds of hours on a single 
charge, while a cellphone or tablet about 2 days of average use. You don't 
need a Kindle to view eBooks, you can use apps for phones or tablets for 
that, but the Kindle display feels like a book.

> And there's the allegedly pending Surface, which is claimed
> to replace everything. It's especially hard to get an idea of
> how enabled, or locked down, these things are, in
> themselves and in relation to each other. (Problems like no
> file system, no software installation allowed, the Kindle only
> able to go online through a spyware Amazon proxy, etc.)
>
>  There seem to be a number of very different products at very
> different price ranges. What I've seen and heard so far from
> acquaintances seem to be 2 major uses: People buying a
> lightweight appliance that can be used at any time to look up
> something online, and people who want an e-reader. I'd be
> inclined to think of x86 as a small laptop. It appears that the big
> distinction between tablet and laptop, though, is not so much
> functionality but rather swipe vs keyboard.

Tablets have longer battery life, because they don't have a hard drive, 
which also makes them smaller and lighter. So a Smartphone can be carried 
everywhere without changing the person life style, tablets less so, and 
laptops even less.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1439

  Thank you. That answers, or at least begins to answer,
a number of questions that have been in my mind. Tablets
have become so commonplace that reviews I've seen are
no longer addressing such basic questions about how they
work.

  Funny how the basics are the hardest things to learn in tech.
The first time I used a PC I spent an entire ewvening trying
to figure out how to access a file on a floppy, as per some
instructions for installing ISP software. I never did find that
information in Windows help.

-- 
--
"Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:juo12n$jdf$1@speranza.aioe.org...
| "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message
| news:jubip6$rfp$1@dont-email.me...
| >  Thanks to both of you for that information. The woman
| > I live with was thinking about a tablet and I realized I didn't
| > have any idea of what to tell her. My first impression is in
| > line with what the two of you have written: That tablet
| > actually refers to several products. I didn't know there were
| > x86 Windows tablets out, for instance. I see that some have
| > cell tower Internet capability (requiring a phone company
| > account) and some don't.
|
| You can buy any Smartphone(~$80) or Tablet(~$80) with WiFi, and you don't
| have to pay a dime to the phone company. Just use the WiFi feature. There
| are VOIP companies out there that offer phone apps, so you can make phone
| calls over WiFi. I know some people who do it that way, or disconnect the
| land line service to save money. Here is one such company:
|
| http://www.voipvoip.com/
|
| What set iPhone aside early on is the capacitive touch screen. Now almost
| every Smartphone include it as a standard feature, but you need to double
| check that to be sure.
|
| > iPad doesn't have a USB input
| > but it seems that Android tablets do. (Though I have no
| > idea whether a USB input actually serves any purpose, as
| > I have no idea what sort of file system exists on an iPad
| > or Android.)
|
| On my Android phone, it's FAT32.
|
| > I don't know whether a Nexus 7 can be cleaned
| > of its Google infestation. (Not much good if it can't.)
|
| On Android, you can use third party browsers, you don't have to use the
| default one. Here are some Android browsers:
|
| Best Android browser 2011:
| 
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/best-android-browser-2011-which-should-you-use-940899
|
| Here is the default one, which is open source, as is the Android OS(Look 
for
| "Web Browser"):
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29#Features
| http://source.android.com/
|
| You can kill "Google Search" process if you want to use the default 
browser.
| It's activated if you type URL's, but not when using bookmarks. You can
| bookmark one of the search engines that you like and use that instead of
| Google, and so once you kill "Google Search" process, it never shows up. 
You
| can see if Google phoning home and what it's sending if any by disabling 
the
| 3G connection and enabling the WiFi, then use a packet sniffer. Some 
people
| probably done that, you can search the web for what they say.
|
| You can disable GPS entirely, but the phone company could triangulate the
| cell phone position within 150 feet or so. If you only use WiFi, then 
there
| is a way to turn off the radio entirely.
|
| The apps that you install don't have full access to everything in the 
phone,
| like contacts and GPS location. There is a simple permission scheme for
| apps. The developer chooses which permission required to run the app.
| Android shows these permissions to the end user at install time. The end
| user can either accept or reject the install. The user cannot adjust these
| permissions. If the user doesn't agree, there are generally other apps 
that
| require less permissions if the developer was asking too much. You can
| unpack the APK file and edit the manifest which includes the access 
rights,
| and put it back together, but the application could misbehave. So it's
| better to ask the developer or look for another app. Here are the list of
| permissions:
|
| http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html
|
| Here is what it looks like when Android display the permissions to the 
user:
|
| 
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-u3OOVMJ7v9w/Thv2P4SLsHI/AAAAAAAAAEg/q_aJwZjxBsM/s1600/engper1.png
|
| I installed the Android SDK, and don't recall agreeing to privacy
| statements. I think the only license you are prompted to is the GPL or
| Apache licenses.
|
| > Then there's the Kindle, which seems to really just be a reader.
|
| Yes it's, and it's advantage is that it lasts hundreds of hours on a 
single
| charge, while a cellphone or tablet about 2 days of average use. You don't
| need a Kindle to view eBooks, you can use apps for phones or tablets for
| that, but the Kindle display feels like a book.
|
| > And there's the allegedly pending Surface, which is claimed
| > to replace everything. It's especially hard to get an idea of
| > how enabled, or locked down, these things are, in
| > themselves and in relation to each other. (Problems like no
| > file system, no software installation allowed, the Kindle only
| > able to go online through a spyware Amazon proxy, etc.)
| >
| >  There seem to be a number of very different products at very
| > different price ranges. What I've seen and heard so far from
| > acquaintances seem to be 2 major uses: People buying a
| > lightweight appliance that can be used at any time to look up
| > something online, and people who want an e-reader. I'd be
| > inclined to think of x86 as a small laptop. It appears that the big
| > distinction between tablet and laptop, though, is not so much
| > functionality but rather swipe vs keyboard.
|
| Tablets have longer battery life, because they don't have a hard drive,
| which also makes them smaller and lighter. So a Smartphone can be carried
| everywhere without changing the person life style, tablets less so, and
| laptops even less.
|
|
| 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1452

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message 
news:juooqn$jna$1@dont-email.me...
>  Thank you. That answers, or at least begins to answer,
> a number of questions that have been in my mind. Tablets
> have become so commonplace that reviews I've seen are
> no longer addressing such basic questions about how they
> work.
>
>  Funny how the basics are the hardest things to learn in tech.
> The first time I used a PC I spent an entire ewvening trying
> to figure out how to access a file on a floppy, as per some
> instructions for installing ISP software. I never did find that
> information in Windows help.

Don't feel bad. It took me 6 months to learn how to do a right click on a 
cell phone. For Joe average, Smartphones are replacing almost every pocket 
or handheld electronic gadget ever created. From graphic calculators, pocket 
organizers, GPS with driving directions, to Camcorders and Cameras. It's 
sort of the last gadget you will "ever" need, because you can expand its 
functionality just by downloading more apps. They even put projectors inside 
cellphones, like this one, which has 3 hours run time:

http://www.dlp.com/pico-projector/phone-projector/samsung-galaxy-beam.aspx

So for many, it pays for itself overtime.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1456

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:32:52 -0400, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
  
>  Thank you. That answers, or at least begins to answer,
>a number of questions that have been in my mind. Tablets
>have become so commonplace that reviews I've seen are
>no longer addressing such basic questions about how they
>work.

And if you have Bluetooth on the Android device there is a free app
which lets you view and remove the Check Engine Light codes in your
vehicle along with all sorts of other information.
http://torque-bhp.com/    And a $5 gets you deluxe features. This
requires a Bluetooth OBD2 device which you can purchase on eBay for
$25 or so.

Tony

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1387

| I don't currently have a computer that will run NT6 acceptably... but I'm
| saving up for a Win7 x86 tablet. (~US$530) I'm rushing to get it before it
| becomes a Win8 tablet. (Not because I particularly want Win7, but because 
I
| *don't* want Win8.)
|

  I saw yesterday that they announced a Win8 release date
of Oct. 26, with final code next month. I really hope that
they haven't made any sensible changes (like dumping
Metro on PCs) since the betas. I want to watch this boat
go down in flames. There's only one coherent train of thought
I can think of to explain Microsoft's Win8 strategy: They see
nearly all future profits to be made in services delivered
over interactive TVs. (Mainly tablets, maybe later TV sets.)
They want to phase out PCs because those represent
"inconvenient" functionality. And they seem to really believe
that the PC customer base can be "flipped" into a tablet
customer base. (Bill Gates has preposterously
announced that Surface is actually the PC replacement -- a
hybrid of PC and tablet.)

   With that logic, it probably seems
rational to them to sacrifice their PC business to a massive
marketing ploy, in hopes that they can "pull an Apple" by
locking in a large number of people to exclusivity with Metro
phones and tablets running the Microsoft store and services.
But there's one glaring gap: As usual, they're mistaking a
money-making strategy for an actual saleable product. It
looks to me like they figure the Metro GUI on PCs will spark
the sale of Metro tablets and phones in a big way: All tiles,
all the time, with money generated wherever tiles are clicked.
But the plan for what people get when they click seems to
be an afterthought. ("You know... stock quotes, sports scores...
and they can buy oodles of stuff that we'll take a cut from.") 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1388

FWIW, my 20 cents.

It does not matter what we the consumer want nor need, we are but sheep 
in the flock. If it is not the government ( at all levels ) or the 
bank's, supermarket's, fuel & utilities companies, tech suppliers may as 
well get in the act and Ass-rape our bank accounts as well..

Put simply, we are an easily manipulated society as one minute we praise 
something and in the next breathe we're condemning it. Yes sure some 
sections of the community will bemoan it's release, but in the long run 
it will be all for zero and you will just have to concede and follow the 
leader if you want to maintain the "Status-Quo" of today's society.

And mind you, the vast majority of the social networking generation, 
have given them an ideal environment in which to base this new platform 
on particularly considering almost 70% of the worlds populace has a 
mobile or similar device.

Apple just released a statement stating that all existing Apple device 
owners will have to upgrade all their goodies as they are changing all 
future devices to a new format meaning everyone who is hypnotised into 
using this tech will have to bend over again if they want to keep up 
with all the new toys and gizmo's..

My 2 cents are free...:)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

csiph-web