Win 8 Question

[Mallette]

Jeff, you are arguing an either/or. Why must a PC be either totally willy-nilly open or absolutely closed...like the Apples used to be?

We had a device for one system called a "sidecar." The PC itself was a closed design, pretty much. However, the "sidecar" plugged into the expansion port...which was a very large slot that could handle most anything...and, in this case, allowed any IBM compatible cards to be installed and run via emulation or native OS drives. Benefits of both worlds.

Apple didn't "have it wrong." They did just fine when there were various systems available much more suited to specific tasks...home user, CAD designer, office people, print people, multimedia people, etc. What went "wrong" was the killing off of the competition such that now Apple, and the PC as well, had to try to do it wall with a single architecture.

That failed miserably for both Apple as well as Microsoft.

Just keep trying to convince me that a single architecture and OS is "best." Perhaps we should have one car, one truck, one passenger plane (in various sizes), etc.

Ein OS, ein Architektur, ein volk!

We've been brainwashed, friends.

Dave

[Gilbert]

That's why Apple is learning, as MS did 30 years ago, that open-architecture is the only way to go.

So long as you're understand and are willing to reformat the HD's every few years, after MS registry getts too corrupt.

I can't believe how many people still feel the need to upgrade to a 1st. edition/release of a Microsoft OS.

[Don Richard]

I remember when you could only open 1 app at a time. The ability to have unlimited apps open simultaneously is probably the single greatest productivity improvement in our history.

I remember when we had DOS programs with word processing, database, spreadsheet, and graphics all rolled into one, working together with cut and paste to a clipboard, merging, etc. similar to the way Windows works only text-based. In fact we have one installed on our Autocad workstation and still use it today.

[Mallette]

Multiple apps was handled by several excellent programs in the late 80's and early 90's. Software Carousel was one I used. Keystroke would shift app to app almost instantly. Full clipboard as well.

Actually there were several early windowing programs as well. I recall Gem desktop as being a good one. Of course, these were wiped out due to MS control of the DOS underpinnings.

While, as I've mentioned, a raster based OS would vastly improve media production, I'd be happy if the complete Adobe Production Premium package were available in DOS. One doesn't need all that OS overhead garbage in a video edit station...or CAD station as Don pointed out.

Dave

[Marvel]

I recall Gem desktop as being a good one. Of course, these were wiped out due to MS control of the DOS underpinnings.

While, as I've mentioned, a raster based OS would vastly improve media production, I'd be happy if the complete Adobe Production Premium package were available in DOS.

The first version of PageMaker that didn't run on the Mac was a version that ran under GEM on the PC architecture. It erally sucked compared to the later versions under Windows. It has been superceded by InDesign, and is a far bette program.

I believe there is real room from improvement, but I wouldn't want to go back. Doing a dir on a disk was so slow you could almost read the file names as they scrolled up the display.

I personally believe MS is learning from making the Surface RT, as the apps are loaded into memory and allow you to switch more quicky between them. This is why I think that Win 8 is faster than Win 7.

Bruce

Bruce

[Mallette]

There was another publishing program that I prefered to Pagemaker at the time whose name I can't recall. Anyway, Gem would have had nothing to do with Pagemaker's performance. I didn't use Gem as I much prefered the zero overhead and speed of simple app switching.

I don't recall any speed issues with directory listings except from tape or floppies. HDD listings were virtually instant. I also recall never needing a "recycle bin" because unless you overwrote the files you had erased undeleting was just as easy deleting. I still keep an undelete utility but the processing time and outcomes are very iffy with all the abstraction layer bloat.

As to Indesign, we'll definitely part ways on that. I use most of the Adobe stuff...Premiere, Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, etc. Indesign? Completely incomprehensible and click happy, most counter intuitive interface ever. I still use Pagemaker 7. Perhaps Indesign is Mac-head oriented or something. I recall simply trying to resize a graphic and it was in the last possible place I'd ever look.

Anyway, these preference things go nowhere and most of the things I am talking about haven't existed during the audult lives of most forum folks so it just sounds like bellyaching. It may be, but it's bellyaching from experience and my PC skills are at a pretty advanced level. I just think using a square whole for every peg is not really the best idea and making every tool look precisely alike not so hot an idea either.

Dave

[Don Richard]

I personally believe MS is learning from making the Surface RT, as the apps are loaded into memory and allow you to switch more quicky between them. This is why I think that Win 8 is faster than Win 7.

Why didn't Microshaft do that with Win7 to start with? The new computers with Win8 do not have any more hardware resources than the machines I've bought lately with Win7 on them. Touch screen interface, maybe? We have a computer running one of the CNC machines at work with Windows NT on it that has a touch screen. NT is what, 15 years old now?

I would be willing to bet that Microshaft has the next 4 generations of Windows OS sitting around waiting for Win8 to generate profit$ before releasing them. And these future Windows releases certainly will be hyped as the best thing since electricity. Just like Win 95,98,2000, ME,XP, and 7 were.[8o|]

[Marvel]

Anyway, these preference things go nowhere and most of the things I am talking about haven't existed during the audult lives of most forum folks so it just sounds like bellyaching.

[] That's what friends are for.

As an aside, one of my co-workers at the college where I work (actually a faculty member), has hated MS for a long time. Even tried to get us to switch the entire campus to Linux. At a Christams get together today, he was talking about his new phone, the new Nokia Lumia 920. It's a Windows 8 Phone... He absolutely loves it, and is seriously thinking of upgrading his netbook to Win8, even though he wouldn't have touch screen functions on it. I was SHOCKED!

The world must be coming to an end... [:|]

I finally upgraded my phone to the same model a couple of weeks ago, from an older Sony Ericsson (W810). Other than being larger than I might like, it's ok.

Bruce

[DrWho]

Mike, I've lived "image processing history" since I learned to edit spaghetti (Super 8 film). Having met you and spent time with you I've enormous respect for your knowledge...but in this case you've drunk the kool-aid. Let's just disagree...

Well nobody learns anything if you're just gonna leave it like that... []

Btw, is this the software you're claiming to be way superior to photoshop?
http://archive.org/details/ADPro

[mustang guy]

I threw Win8 on my HT setup. There are a few things I do not like about it being a mouse/keyboard user. I think the problems will be ironed out when MS offers some mouse/keyboard friendly configurations. It is trying to do touchscreen and mouse/keyboard, and it doesn't do either as well as it could if it could be designated as one or the other. One annoying thing is the lack of "make icon larger" for certain apps on the home screen which are not native MS. Case in point, iTunes. I do not use media player on the HT, I use iTunes. In fact, that is what the PC is there for. In spite of that, I cannot make the iTunes icon look dominant. I should be able to make it half the screen if I wish!

As for booting once a week. I find that if I don't use a Windows PC for a week, I spend half an hour doing updates. flash, adobe, windows update, yada yada. My question is why the heck does it take sooooooo longggggg to apply an update that is already downloaded???? My old IBM PC-AT could work faster than they do today. Open My Computer, and wait wait wait wait wait.......still waiting.... waiting.... What is with that? Websites are the same way. Shutting the computer down is the same way. When it comes to very basic processes, there seems to be more waiting than for extremely complex ones.

I just don't get it....

[boom3]

I (snip)As for booting once a week. I find that if I don't use a Windows PC for a week, I spend half an hour doing updates. flash, adobe, windows update, yada yada. My question is why the heck does it take sooooooo longggggg to apply an update that is already downloaded???? My old IBM PC-AT could work faster than they do today. Open My Computer, and wait wait wait wait wait.......still waiting.... waiting.... What is with that? Websites are the same way. Shutting the computer down is the same way. When it comes to very basic processes, there seems to be more waiting than for extremely complex ones.

I just don't get it....

The updates are usually not necessary for performance, most of them are responses to yet another security problem. If you have a truly isolated machine, totally off-net, your t worries about that stuff are greatly reduced. If your app gets corrupt, reinstall it. You'll still need some form of Antivirus on the machine that you port to the web with so the two machines are not passing bad things between themselves. And the much vaunted Cloud? It really means, surrender all your data to strangers. Gee that's really good for security.

[JJkizak]

I used to say that in the military, you wait and wait and wait. When they get to making a Quantum computer there will

be no wait as spooky particle behavior "seems" to ignore time.

JJK

[Mallette]

Btw, is this the software you're claiming to be way superior to photoshop?
http://archive.org/details/ADPro

In reconsideration, Mike, I guess the "kool-air" remark was out of line. It's just that in these discussions there are increasingly few who have ever used small, fast, true preemptive multitasking systems with software optimized for it's job rather than to be forced into an OS. In your case, I've little doubt your computer knowledge and general education allows you to see the fundamental flaws in attempting raster operations with a vector tool, as well as forcing highly specialized applications into a common interface. It's an insult to engineers, print professionals, video editors, and such to think they need a common interface to find their butts.

Aside from the bloat and very minimal multitasking, Windows is really quite well designed for business use. Vector is fine for that, and a uniform interface for software like word processing, presentations, spreadsheets, etc is really quite a good idea and from a business perspective it's good practice to know your new hires won't have to figure out a new spreadsheet or whatever.

As to ADP, thanks for that video link. I'd suggest those who think I'm just a bitchy ol fart take a look. Frankly, even I have forgotten just how far ahead of the technology these applications were. An IBM or Mac of that time couldn't begin to to these things, and such as they did took forever...and then you couldn't view the results since the Mac was monochrome (intended for print use) and the PC...if it were brand new...handled 256 colors only without a VERY expensive Targa board. The Fred and ARexx programs he mentioned were incredible tools for which there is now no equivalent. One of the things an OS can, and should, do is require a common automation language. In the case of this OS it was ARexx. Rexx was a mainframe interprogram tool that allowed development of scripts to process an object through a variety of programs automatically. In this case, every program had to conform to providing ARexx hooks for each command from file open through save such that one could write a script to posterize a series of frames through ADP, resize them, save them in GIF, send them to Deluxe paint, and then have DP process them into a video and save the results. Completely automatically. Further, programs like Sentry made it easy in that you didn't have to know anything about ARexx if you knew how to run the separate programs. Sentry had all the commands for all the common programs and all you had to do was sequence them using buttons for each operator that looked just like the program you were automating.

As to whether this is "superior" or not, perhaps you had to be there. Cant' recall if Photoshop even existed then, but I can tell you that given an ARexx control program, ADP, Deluxe Paint, Lightwave 3D, and CanDo, the authoring tool we used for complex simulations at the time, I could today run circles around the current tools we use for these purposed in terms of speed and productivity. I cannot make good on that bet nor can anyone prove the negative, so just call it a crazy claim.

I've often wondered where PC's might be today if the competition had not been systematically crushed by the office machines. Those who take a few minutes to watch the ADP demo might consider that it was made 20 years ago.

Thanks for that, Mike. Brought back memories of the golden age of multimedia and the future that never was. We'll be taking deliever shortly on a 20k PC video editing system. I'd say 15k of that is largely hardware to get around the fact that it's not the right tool for the job.

Dave

[Mallette]

I used to say that in the military, you wait and wait and wait. When they get to making a Quantum computer there will

be no wait as spooky particle behavior "seems" to ignore time.

JJK

Seriously true, JJ. The answer appears the same time as the problem is loaded. The consequences of such a machine are simply beyond imagination.

Dave

[Marvel]

Cant' recall if Photoshop even existed then, but I can tell you that given an ARexx control program, ADP, Deluxe Paint, Lightwave 3D, and CanDo, the authoring tool we used for complex simulations at the time, I could today run circles around the current tools we use for these purposed in terms of speed and productivity. I cannot make good on that bet nor can anyone prove the negative, so just call it a crazy claim.

The 1.0 ver. of PS came out around 1990. I was using Ventura Publisher for print layout at that time.I can't remember other graphics programs of the day. PhotoShop has continued to evolve, but using it is like a secret religion. The interface stayed the same for years, even when the underlying commands and tools became more powerful.

If you know the commands and scripting, it is fast and powerful, but you almost need to be using it 8 hrs a day to be comfortable with it an be more productive (getting beyond the canned filters, etc).

Bruce

[Mallette]

Ventura was the one I mentioned I recall liking.

100% agree on Photoshop's bizarre command structure. I've been using it for a decade or more and the only thing that's made me much faster is remembering where to look up the things I don't use often that are buried in secret places.

The batch function must have been set up by a bunch of stoned Klingons. Why can't it just be "watched directory>file pattern>command>command>command>output directory." What is so hard about THAT?

Dave

[Mallette]

For any who watch that ADP video I want to point out a key feature of these "great programs of old" long since gone. Early in the explanation there is a diagram. Loaders, ADP (core engine), operators, and savers. All these were essentially separate programs...real multi-tasking. Uprgrades to the core engine were rare as it only served as a traffic cop and sequencer for the modules. When a new operator was available, you simply dropped it in the directory. Same for loaders and savers. No re-install necessary. In most cases one can puzzle out why many of the worst features of the current OS and software architectures are used and most of the time it's about revenue and hardly ever about better. In the case of this type of architecture I've never figured out why the monolithic forms predominate as they are clearly inferior in all regards to true multi-module multi-tasking algorithms as shown in the ADP video.

BTW, if any haven't looked at that thinking "waste of time looking at antiquated software" you may come away more with "wow....wish I had a copy of that." I'd trade my Photoshop for a 20 year old copy of ADP in a heartbeat with only a few updated loaders, operators, and savers.

You didn't comment on your thoughts on the video, Mike. Do you feel I overstated the power of this old tool? Quite curious as to your thoughts. You too, Bruce, since you are in the business if I understand correctly.

Dave

[DrWho]

You didn't comment on your thoughts on the video, Mike. Do you feel I overstated the power of this old tool? Quite curious as to your thoughts. You too, Bruce, since you are in the business if I understand correctly.

Let's just say that I feel I understand why Photoshop is still around and ADP is not.

[DrWho]

Another thought to throw out there...

It's hard for me to verbalize the difference, but there are "elegant engineering solutions" from the perspective of an engineer, and then there are "elegant solutions" from the perspective of the user. In other words, I firmly believe the purpose of engineering is to meet human needs - not flex intellectual muscle.

It's basically the classic debate between marketing and engineering - engineering thinks marketing is crazy for wanting certain features and then marketing hates the engineers because they propose unhuman solutions. ADP would be an example of an engineering driven tool, where you've got super streamlined fast code (and it's probably small code too), but at the end of the day the "GUI" (hard to call it that) is a complete load of crap. "Want to do this, then just push this insanely named button in a huge barrage of unsorted craziness.....see how easy it is to do X? Click these 20 buttons in a row (with no indicator to tell you what's going on)" ...only an engineer would ever be thinking of trying to convert multiple colors into less colors so that a printing process was cheaper. Marketing (and humans) want a printing process that is cheap and looks good....the best way to guarantee looks good is to have the artist start with the limited number of colors. I'm trying to oversimplify to make a point here, but everything about ADP screams "by engineers for engineers" - maybe that's why you like it so much?

Photoshop on the other hand (talking about the modern versions) is much more a user centric environment that is very organic and human. Part of that organic humanness results in absurd complexity, which classically makes engineers cringe. However, photoshop isn't just this bubbly convoluted (but useful) interface...there are crazy amazing DSP and engineering solutions running under the hood. Heck, if nothing else, you actually get to see real time results on the screen as you work....I would say the majority of users don't know what mathematical process needs to happen to make something go from looking like X to looking like Y.

Anyways, I probably shouldn't try to explain these views of engineering by comparing these tools, but this ADP thing is just a perfect example of what I very much dislike about the natural tendencies of engineers. I include myself in that category, btw, but at least I'm aware of the behavior and work very hard to overcome it. Maybe one day I'll have a legacy to stand behind, but for now I'm just the new kid on the block looking for ways to prove himself.

[Mallette]

Mike, I am not sure how long you used ADP or in what capacity, but of the Lord knows how many users I trained and worked with not a one had any problem picking it up in a day. I've been using "user centric" Photoshop for nearly 20 years and still have to go to Lynda.com to work out simple things I don't use very often. The "help" function is pretty near useless. Most common evil: Telling you to DO something without a clue as to how to get to it. Funny thing about me: If I can FIND a tool I can generally figure out how to use it.

What did you use ADP for and what alternatives did you try? Frankly, I don't recall any alternatives in 1992, nor in 2012, either. Many of these functions either cannot be done at all on business and engineering computers (vector based) or require such massive transcoding time as to be hardly worth it.

I'll admit there was a day or two learning curve for programming the intersoftware automation ARexx code using Sentry. Longer if you had to script it yourself...but even then far superior to doing the same thing over and over again.

I used a number of young, inexperienced kids at ARCO TTG and spent very little time training them.

Actually, on the "can't do it side," we were experimenting with real time virtual environments, generated on the fly in 256 colors by 1996. That's plenty for most simulations. All in RAM, and as you wander around the platform it was brought into being as you "looked" or traveled. This is still rare on current PCs as doing this in vectors is extremely taxing. We felt it would be the next step in training. Bill Gate's "changing the way America computes" put a swift end to that.

Dave