bit-tech.net

HP switches to Windows 7 'by popular demand'

HP switches to Windows 7 'by popular demand'

HP has made Windows 7 the default operating system for all its new desktop systems, claiming that 'popular demand' has led it to switch from Windows 8.1.

HP has reintroduced a range of PCs running the last-generation Windows 7 operating system, claiming that users are demanding it as an alternative to the divisive touch-centric Windows 8.1.

Microsoft's latest operating system, upgraded since launch to the tweaked Windows 8.1 build formerly known as Windows Blue, has as its focus a tile-based user interface based on the Metro UI originally developed for the company's Windows Phone line. While it makes sense if you have a touch-screen device, many early adopters complained the UI was poorly optimised for keyboard and mouse users - and, coupled with a lack of a Start Menu without resorting to third-party add-on software, many chose to stick with their tried-and-tested Windows 7 installation instead.

For those who buy pre-built systems, however, things aren't that simple: as is usual for a new Windows release, the majority of manufacturers have retired Windows 7 and supply all new systems with Windows 8.1 instead. Business users can typically find Windows 7 as an option - or downgrade for free if they're volume license customers - but consumers looking to pick up a new system are forced into an OS upgrade at the same time.

At least, unless you're buying from HP. The company has begun a campaign in the US - expected to reach the UK soon - to advertise a range of consumer-grade systems featuring Windows 7 in place of Microsoft's latest and greatest. Claiming 'popular demand,' the company has opted to make Windows 7 the default on all its new consumer desktop systems with Windows 8 only available by customising the choices on its website. Its primary laptop platform, too, now comes with Windows 7 once again - although shoppers looking for a portable are at least offered Windows 8.1 without the need to delve into customisation options.

Beyond an email campaign and the pro-Windows 7 messages on its webstore, HP has not publicly commented on its move away from Windows 8.

89 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Corky42 21st January 2014, 11:30 Quote
Anyone think this also has something to do with HP losing market share to Lenovo and Dell who happen to already offer Windows 7 on pre-built systems (afaik)
Gareth Halfacree 21st January 2014, 11:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Anyone think this also has something to do with HP losing market share to Lenovo and Dell who happen to already offer Windows 7 on pre-built systems (afaik)
There's a big difference between 'offer' and 'make the default' - as far as I can see, HP is the only company to offer Windows 7 by default on new consumer-grade desktops.
Corky42 21st January 2014, 11:48 Quote
IDK as im not sure what is and isn't consumer-grade desktops on the Lenovo and Dell sites, but i was under the impression they offered a limited number of 7 PC's

Also, would i be right in saying HP is discounting several consumer PC's by $150 when equipped with Windows 7 ? Or have i been mislead by unreliable sources ?
Spreadie 21st January 2014, 11:48 Quote
As much as I love Win7, I wonder if it has a long life in front of it with Windows 9 coming next year. I suppose much depends on the corporate upgrade cycle.
Gareth Halfacree 21st January 2014, 11:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Also, would i be right in saying HP is discounting several consumer PC's by $150 when equipped with Windows 7 ? Or have i been mislead by unreliable sources ?
There's a $150-off sale on its standard range of desktops, all of which include Windows 7 as standard. (You can see it in the article's picture, in fact.) Thus far, HP hasn't said whether that's related, though: the offer might be temporary but the move to Windows 7 not, or vice-versa, or they may both be inexorably linked - i.e. soon HP will stop offering both $150 off and Windows 7.
Corky42 21st January 2014, 12:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
As much as I love Win7, I wonder if it has a long life in front of it with Windows 9 coming next year. I suppose much depends on the corporate upgrade cycle.

I can't see Windows 9 making any drastic changes, what with rumors saying Microsoft is pushing for a late 2014 release.

Windows 7 will be like XP, corporations will leave it until the end of extended support in 2020.
rollo 21st January 2014, 12:22 Quote
Big business had started to migrate to windows 7 in places last year shows how far behind they are in comparison to the home user.

If you came into a IT job today you would be learning windows 7 systems.
GrahamC 21st January 2014, 12:58 Quote
Good for HP. I have tried Windows 8, time and again I have tried but that dam tile interface gets in my way until I loose patience and wipe the drive. I even found Linux as a new user better to use. Back to Windows 7 and a proper desktop so I can get my work done.
V3ctor 21st January 2014, 13:36 Quote
The company I work for has just changed (3 months ago) all 800-900 pc's to Windows 7, to replace Windows 2000...

Win7 is going to be like XP...
bawjaws 21st January 2014, 14:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Big business had started to migrate to windows 7 in places last year shows how far behind they are in comparison to the home user.

If you came into a IT job today you would be learning windows 7 systems.

Aye, most businesses are inherently conservative when it comes to IT, which is why many are still using XP and others are only just getting round to migrating to 7. I should imagine that even if Win 9 comes out within the next couple of years, it'll not be adopted by many businesses as they'll be quite happy with 7 for the foreseeable future.
schmidtbag 21st January 2014, 16:56 Quote
I'm surprised people still hate Windows 8. I thought the hatred was going to calm down like everything else that encounters an unnecessary change in the technology world, but it seems to have wholly remained the same. While I think the modern/metro interface was executed poorly, I thought it was very tolerable at the official release (the beta version was unbearably annoying). I still don't prefer it, but I can use it without gritting my teeth.

While I like XP for its relative cleanliness, I really wish it would just die. I'm somewhat looking forward to Windows 9 since from what I heard, that will be ditching 32 bit support, and will hopefully be leaner because of it.
Corky42 21st January 2014, 18:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
While I like XP for its relative cleanliness, I really wish it would just die. I'm somewhat looking forward to Windows 9 since from what I heard, that will be ditching 32 bit support, and will hopefully be leaner because of it.
Surely that would be like shooting them selves in the other foot, isn't x64 software still thin on the ground?(compared to x86)
And Windows will never be lean all the time they keep adding unnecessary bloat to the OS in their attempts to make it the jack of all trades (IMHO).
schmidtbag 21st January 2014, 19:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Surely that would be like shooting them selves in the other foot, isn't x64 software still thin on the ground?(compared to x86)
And Windows will never be lean all the time they keep adding unnecessary bloat to the OS in their attempts to make it the jack of all trades (IMHO).

Windows 7 64 bit has a pretty functional 32-bit compatibility layer, albeit at the cost of RAM, and I think its safe to assume that it improved over to Windows 8. Aside from drivers, there is very little reason to stick with a 32-bit OS anymore, and we'll NEVER progress until MS puts their foot down. They might be pointing a gun at that foot, but they're not pulling the trigger.

Mac and Linux have been 64-bit ready for YEARS. Apple could get away with it because of their switch from PPC to x86, and Linux pretty much had support since the very beginning due to being open source. Windows is it's own problem - it won't get 64 bit programs until it encourages people to make them, but people won't make them if nobody uses 64 bit. With the 32 bit compatibility layer being as functional as it is, all MS has to do is force people to use 64 bit. With RAM prices as low as they are, this is hardly a problem, as RAM and disk space are really the only things that get eaten up by 64 bit Windows. The disk space issue is a problem for SSD owners, but Windows is BRUTAL toward the lifespan of SSDs anyway.

The underlying issue to all of this is MS wanted to please all customers, including those who use software from 15 years ago. But that just isn't realistic - Windows is incredibly far behind in a technical standpoint and as long as MS caters to their conservative customers (who, ironically never buy any of their newer products), Windows will always be left behind. The stupid thing is you'd think after having so little to implement that they'd actually spend the time and resources cleaning up their code base.
Corky42 21st January 2014, 20:10 Quote
Sorry when you said "that will be ditching 32 bit support, I assumed you meant the x86 compatibility layer I.e A fully x64 OS without support for running x86 software.
Pete J 21st January 2014, 20:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Windows 7 will be like XP, corporations will leave it until the end of extended support in 2020.

This is what I'm hoping. I'm happy with it.

Truth be told, I'd still like to use XP but it doesn't support DX10, let alone 11 (because of, um, reasons). XP on an SSD is hilarious - less than a second to start IIRC.
schmidtbag 21st January 2014, 21:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete J
This is what I'm hoping. I'm happy with it.

Truth be told, I'd still like to use XP but it doesn't support DX10, let alone 11 (because of, um, reasons). XP on an SSD is hilarious - less than a second to start IIRC.

XP doesn't intelligently operate SSDs (then again, neither does 7/8 but at least they're better), it doesn't support most extensions/instructions of modern CPUs, it's scheduler is severely outdated, it demands a paging file, etc. If you're still using a K10 or Core 2 based architecture and you're not using any high-end SSDs then XP is fine, maybe even ideal. But on modern hardware, the performance you gain from Windows 7/8 heavily outweigh the resources you save on XP. I just hate how cluttered Windows 7 and 8 are. I would like to use the Windows 8 kernel on an XP setup.
Pete J 21st January 2014, 21:42 Quote
^Still love it though!
Phil Rhodes 22nd January 2014, 00:48 Quote
I'll say it again.

There have been no major innovations in Windows as a user experience since 1995. When they tried, with 8, they failed miserably - nobody wants it. Perhaps it's now the case that, much as books started off as stacks of paper that fold together on the left (at least in this part of the world) many hundred years ago, they still are. Similarly, perhaps the standard approach for operating systems is now more or less established. I hate to suggest the stifling of innovation, but I fear that may be roughly the situation.

About the speed thing: I went to windows 7 and an SSD from XP on a mechanical disk. I was expecting it to start quickly. It didn't. So how slow is Win7 off a mech disk?!
AlienwareAndy 22nd January 2014, 00:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes


About the speed thing: I went to windows 7 and an SSD from XP on a mechanical disk. I was expecting it to start quickly. It didn't. So how slow is Win7 off a mech disk?!

Not that bad. XP was slow to start for me too when I put it on for old time's sake a couple of years ago on my I7 950. I must say I expected it to be way, way faster than it actually was.

8.1 is the quickest OS to start because it doesn't really shut down. Not on my laptop any way. It makes clever use of hibernation and hiberfil to make sure that it's ready in seconds. And I don't have an SSD in the lappy.
SexyHyde 22nd January 2014, 02:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
I'll say it again.

There have been no major innovations in Windows as a user experience since 1995. When they tried, with 8, they failed miserably - nobody wants it.

So there has been no innovation apart from that major bit of innovation, which we can discount because nobody wanted it. And Windows 8 / 8.1 have a lot more to them then the metro interface, but we can dicount all that. Also Windows Phone which is pretty good and innovative in its own right, late to the game maybe, but perfect for the majority of phone users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
Perhaps it's now the case that, much as books started off as stacks of paper that fold together on the left (at least in this part of the world) many hundred years ago, they still are. Similarly, perhaps the standard approach for operating systems is now more or less established. I hate to suggest the stifling of innovation, but I fear that may be roughly the situation.

I would disagree here. OS development needs to take an evolution rather than revolution development cycle, this is because companies need LTS because they don't want to be training staff and purchasing new licences/machines, more than they absolutely have to. If you had a company you wouldn't move to Win8 purely for the fact that you would lose so many man hours to people learning the new ways to do everything. Also people will use at home what they've learned/know from work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
About the speed thing: I went to windows 7 and an SSD from XP on a mechanical disk. I was expecting it to start quickly. It didn't. So how slow is Win7 off a mech disk?!

Your obviously doing it wrong!

Oh and I use Win7, Ubuntu and Android in case you think I'm some sort of fanboi.
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 09:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
So there has been no innovation apart from that major bit of innovation, which we can discount because nobody wanted it. And Windows 8 / 8.1 have a lot more to them then the metro interface, but we can dicount all that.
Darn tootin we can :D

Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?
Are we talking about technical innovations? as all i ever see is people talking about the Metro GUI and while it could be argued that is innovative in its own right what else does 8.x bring to the table.

Sure we get a new version of DirectX with next to no advantage over older versions, we get built in support for USB3 but who cares about saving an extra 5min during the install of Windows?
So if someone doesn't like the Metro GUI what reason would they have to upgrade ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
Your obviously doing it wrong!
Glad i wasn't the only one to think it seemed odd not to notice a difference going from XP on rust to 7 on silicon, like you said obviously something is wrong, or it's the worlds slowest SSD
Nexxo 22nd January 2014, 10:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
I'll say it again.

There have been no major innovations in Windows as a user experience since 1995. When they tried, with 8, they failed miserably - nobody wants it. Perhaps it's now the case that, much as books started off as stacks of paper that fold together on the left (at least in this part of the world) many hundred years ago, they still are. Similarly, perhaps the standard approach for operating systems is now more or less established. I hate to suggest the stifling of innovation, but I fear that may be roughly the situation.

If that is the case, how come tablets? Oh, look: a computer that does not have a desktop with windows, does not have a mechanical keyboard and mouse. Innovation, right there.

In the olden days, when you wanted to tell a story or convey information, you used books. With illustrations if you wanted to be creative. It's a good method, still in use today. And then audio recordings came along, and then film. And eventually, the computer; and lo: stories and information became interactive. And recently, books have evolved into e-reader tablets.

I would also disagree that "nobody wants Windows 8". On this forum (a humble poll, but nonetheless) 49% of people like it. Many critics haven't even tried it. What many fail to recall is what Windows 1.0 was like --they're too young to remember. They merely adopted computers. I grew up with them.. I did not see the first GUI (Apple Lisa) until I was already a man. Trust me: Windows 1.0 was rough. Windows 95 was rough. Windows 7, good as it is, took more than a decade to refine.
Sgoaty 22nd January 2014, 10:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamC
Good for HP. I have tried Windows 8, time and again I have tried but that dam tile interface gets in my way until I loose patience and wipe the drive. I even found Linux as a new user better to use. Back to Windows 7 and a proper desktop so I can get my work done.

Im just giving windows 8.1 its second chance just now. Ive a feeling I could be back to 7 like you :)
Gareth Halfacree 22nd January 2014, 10:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?
Are we talking about technical innovations? as all i ever see is people talking about the Metro GUI and while it could be argued that is innovative in its own right what else does 8.x bring to the table.
There's plenty. Let's see... new graphics acceleration features with up to a 500% performance boost... The File History backup feature... ReFS (if you're willing to do a bit of registry hacking, anyway)... Reduced memory footprint... Storage Spaces... And those are just the ones we've covered on the site. There's also the shiny new features for software writers, and a nice big Wikipedia list of other tweaks including Windows' first-ever direct support for Advanced Format storage devices without emulation, Windows To Go, proper UEFI Secure Boot support...

'Course, there's also the list of features removed in Windows 8, but that wasn't the question.
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 11:21 Quote
OK i guess they would count as technical innovations, yes ?

The thing is if i was trying to sell someone on the idea of upgrading to 8.x and told them they can render text up to %336 faster, I'm guessing most people would say they never found text-rendering performance to be slow on older version.
The File History backup feature (afaik) is Microsoft talk for making the previous versions feature in older Windows simpler to use and (iirc) switched on by default so it simple for non computer literate people to use.

ReFS is good IMHO, but then the caveats make it all but pointless for the vast majority of people. The reduced memory footprint is also nice but in this day and age when RAM is so cheap and typical system come with over 4GB it again leaves a person asking why bother.
Storage spaces is nice, but it seems like it's aimed more at the enterprise market than consumers.

The thing is all these innovations seem to either be an improvement on what already existed in previous versions of Windows or things that your average consumer will either not care about or not even notice.
On the other hand the list of removed features you mention are possibly features that people do notice along with the new flat look and Metro.
Gareth Halfacree 22nd January 2014, 11:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
OK i guess they would count as technical innovations, yes ?
Err... Yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The thing is all these innovations seem to either be an improvement on what already existed in previous versions of Windows [...]
innovate: ˈɪnəveɪt/. Verb. Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. (My emphasis.)

Now, you know I'm not a Microsoft fanboy - I don't use Windows beyond the Windows 8.1 virtual machine I've got 'ere for when I need screenshots or testing I can't do in Linux - but I'd certainly say that Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 both contain innovations. Beyond the Start Screen and Modern UI - which are innovative, whether or not you actually like them - would an end-user notice most of the innovations? No. But then, what else is new? Windows 98 was a vast improvement over Windows 95, but looked damn-near identical.
GeorgeStorm 22nd January 2014, 11:41 Quote
Switched to 8.1 from 7 a couple of months ago (after only switching to 7 a couple of years before that).

I don't really get the hate, you can use it just like you do 7, but with a nice difference. It's quicker.

I guess there may be software compatability issues, but I've not really found any that I can think of.

I was a big fan of XP, only switched eventually due to getting a free key for W7, slowly I began to like the new features (such as the search bar in the start menu being a very handy tool). The jump to W8 isn't big, unless you use the 'apps' I guess, which I don't like, so I don't use them, I just get the normal programs like I would on 7.
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 11:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
innovate: ˈɪnəveɪt/. Verb. Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. (My emphasis.)
Ahh OK, so it seems my idea of what is innovative is different from the actual meaning
Am i the only one that considered to innovate was to come up with some great new way of doing things ?
Gareth Halfacree 22nd January 2014, 11:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Am i the only one that considered to innovate was to come up with some great new way of doing things ?
That's what it does mean, except without the 'great.' Building an overly-complex mousetrap that draws 100W of power and fills a room is 'innovative' in that it's a new way of doing something, but it's not a good way of doing something. Basically, it's really hard to come up with something entirely new. Apple's MacBook Air? Innovative, in that it was the first ultra-slim laptop - but we already had laptops. The spork? Innovative, in that you don't need a separate spoon and fork - but we already had numerous methods of shovelling food into our gobs. Electric lights? Innovative, in that they're safer and brighter than gas lamps - but we've been seeing in the dark since we learned to light fires.

Even if you stick to an 'innovation' being purely 'a great new way of doing things,' most things in my post still apply. A new graphics system that accelerates drawing by up to 500 per cent? I'd say that's a great new way of doing graphics, wouldn't you?

If you have to do something entirely new, then there hasn't been an innovative OS since the Xerox Alto. After all, aren't they all just windows and icons?
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 12:16 Quote
So i guess its a matter of degrees and how each person interprets the changes, after all i don't think the increase in 2D rendering to be an innovation as i would guess most people don't have experience of it being to slow in previous versions of Windows.

And forget the spork really innovative people use a Spife :D
Gareth Halfacree 22nd January 2014, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So i guess its a matter of degrees and how each person interprets the changes, after all i don't think the increase in 2D rendering to be an innovation as i would guess most people don't have experience of it being to slow in previous versions of Windows.
You're getting further way from it: people's perception of a thing has absolutely no impact on whether something is innovative or not. Modern car engines have numerous innovations designed to improve reliability, efficiency and other factors - but there's no way you could tell that by looking at the outside of the car. An innovation is a new, and hopefully better, way of doing something. It does not require that the 'something' in question is understood by normals - otherwise there'd be no such thing as innovations in deep-sea cable transmission performance, or nuclear power station safety, or methods for doing something incredibly complex in theoretical physics that I can't be bothered to think of an example for now. Something to do with neutrinos, let's say. They're always fun.
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 13:04 Quote
But my point is who is saying what is better or an improvement, i don't care that my car is more reliability or efficient but i would care if we finally got flying cars.

Yes something may be very innovative but if that new and better way of doing things has little effect on people it means very little to them. Going back to my original point, of when people roll out this innovation label what are the expecting and SexyHyde's comment of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
So there has been no innovation apart from that major bit of innovation, which we can discount because nobody wanted it. And Windows 8 / 8.1 have a lot more to them then the metro interface, but we can dicount all that.
While 8.x may have innovations, to the vast majority of people they go unnoticed as they have little use for them. In other words as SexyHyde said "we can discount because nobody wanted it"
impar 22nd January 2014, 13:37 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
While 8.x may have innovations, to the vast majority of people they go unnoticed as they have little use for them.
As I posted somewhere else in this forum, people only perceive as improvements the Task and File Manager. All other "under the hood" improvements is lost to them.
Gareth Halfacree 22nd January 2014, 14:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
But my point is who is saying what is better or an improvement,
Empirical testing says something is better or an improvement. Old way of doing SVG rendering = five times slower than the new way. That means the new way is better. QED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
While 8.x may have innovations, to the vast majority of people they go unnoticed as they have little use for them. In other words as SexyHyde said "we can discount because nobody wanted it"
You'll have to ask SexyHyde directly for clarification, but I think you may have missed a big helping of sarcasm in his post...
rollo 22nd January 2014, 14:17 Quote
As ive said elsewhere, On newer Gpus or those using SLI and Cfx there is at least a 10% free performance boost from just using windows 8.1

On my own system I gained about 15% performance across most of the games I play on it.

That alone is reason to upgrade, You can disable the metro if you like and be done with it.

Quick edit and if your using AMD cpus or APUs you must buy windows 8.
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 15:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Empirical testing says something is better or an improvement. Old way of doing SVG rendering = five times slower than the new way. That means the new way is better. QED.
You seem to be getting hung up on the black and white definition or meaning of the words.

Despite repeated attempt to explain that if an innovation, change or improvement doesn't affect the user it may as well not exist, it seem i have failed to clarifying what i originally said about "Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?"

From what i can tell you see the innovation label as the slightest positive change to something no matter how small or unnoticeable it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You'll have to ask SexyHyde directly for clarification, but I think you may have missed a big helping of sarcasm in his post...
Sarcastic or not doesn't really matter, as i have repeatedly tried to explain if an innovation isn't relevant to people it is exactly as SexyHyde sarcastically or not said "discounted because nobody wanted it"
itrush07 22nd January 2014, 15:34 Quote
No more winxp and soon win7..
SexyHyde 22nd January 2014, 15:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You'll have to ask SexyHyde directly for clarification, but I think you may have missed a big helping of sarcasm in his post...

indeed /sarcasm was missing from end of code.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Sarcastic or not doesn't really matter, as i have repeatedly tried to explain if an innovation isn't relevant to people it is exactly as SexyHyde sarcastically or not said "discounted because nobody wanted it"

I'm going to have to say your wrong about innovation, but its not really your fault.

A long time ago people and companies innovated and no one really noticed any of it. Sometimes things got better, sometimes they "changed" but no one really knew what had exactly changed and other times they just cost more or less. Then Apple came along and changed innovation (I think Apple may have created innovation or at least patented it first). To innovate became cool/different/better/exclusive. It was always bigger and better and you shouted it loud and everyone wanted it. People got envious. Shares in the stock market rocketed. THIS IS INNOVATION (to be read in a 300 / this is sparta voice). Only it wasn't. It was marketing and advertising.
Spreadie 22nd January 2014, 15:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Sarcastic or not doesn't really matter, as i have repeatedly tried to explain if an innovation isn't relevant to people it is exactly as SexyHyde sarcastically or not said "discounted because nobody wanted it"
Isn't that akin to saying the Spork was not innovative because I always use chopsticks?
Gareth Halfacree 22nd January 2014, 15:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Despite repeated attempt to explain that if an innovation, change or improvement doesn't affect the user it may as well not exist, it seem i have failed to clarifying what i originally said about "Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?"
You asked if Windows 8(.1) had any innovations. I pointed out that it did, and they are empirically provable. Others are patently obvious: the Modern UI is an innovation which will make itself known to a user within a few seconds of booting the system up.

Now, if you want to [i]ignore
those innovations so you can continue to believe that Windows 8(.1) brings no reason to upgrade from an older release, that's fine. But do so knowing that you are literally doing so in deliberate ignorance of the facts.

Windows 8(.1) is an innovative OS. Arguably, it might have proven more popular if it were less innovative and more like Windows 7 Mark 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Sarcastic or not doesn't really matter, as i have repeatedly tried to explain if an innovation isn't relevant to people it is exactly as SexyHyde sarcastically or not said "discounted because nobody wanted it"
Isn't that akin to saying the Spork was not innovative because I always use chopsticks?
You see? This guy gets it.
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 16:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You asked if Windows 8(.1) had any innovations. I pointed out that it did, and they are empirically provable. Others are patently obvious: the Modern UI is an innovation which will make itself known to a user within a few seconds of booting the system up.
No. i said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?
Please notice that i am asking what people are expecting, i am not asking what innovation is in Windows 8.x
And i also said in the same post...
Quote:
all i ever see is people talking about the Metro GUI and while it could be argued that is innovative in its own right what else does 8.x bring to the table.
Did i not say the Metro GUI could be seen as innovative ?
Am i not asking what else does 8.x bring to the table ? (to provide something that will be a benefit)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Now, if you want to ignore those innovations so you can continue to believe that Windows 8(.1) brings no reason to upgrade from an older release, that's fine. But do so knowing that you are literally doing so in deliberate ignorance of the facts.
Its got nothing to do with what i believe, its got to do with how these innovations benefit the average user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Windows 8(.1) is an innovative OS. Arguably, it might have proven more popular if it were less innovative and more like Windows 7 Mark 2.
It probably is, but unless you benefit from these innovations it means nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You see? This guy gets it.
Not really because if a spork brings no benefits to someone using chopsticks why would they want one ? A spork maybe very innovative but unless the person sees a clear benefit to using one over their chopsticks it may as well not exist.
Spreadie 22nd January 2014, 16:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Not really because if a spork brings no benefits to someone using chopsticks why would they want one ? A spork maybe very innovative but unless the person sees a clear benefit to using one over their chopsticks it may as well not exist.
Just because there is someone out there who won't want it doesn't mean something ceases to innovative. Using your reasoning, nothing is innovative, never has been, never will be; because there will always be someone who doesn't need/want it.
Gareth Halfacree 22nd January 2014, 16:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Please notice that i am asking what people are expecting, i am not asking what innovation is in Windows 8.x
Except you do in the very next line. "[...] what else does 8.x bring to the table." That's what I answered, right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Am i not asking what else does 8.x bring to the table ? (to provide something that will be a benefit)
Yes, and I answered that thoroughly. Each and every thing I highlighted - with the possible exception of ReFS, which isn't officially supported on the desktop - brings a benefit. Don't you want the smoothest possible desktop experience? More reliable backups? An easier way to manage your storage devices? Better performance from Advanced Format hard drives? Boosted security? Hell, is there a reason you ever upgraded from Windows For Workgroups?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Its got nothing to do with what i believe, its got to do with how these innovations benefit the average user.
That's something you added later. You asked "what else does 8.x bring to the table." I told you. Those features don't appeal to you? Don't upgrade. Nobody's forcing you. Hell, I don't use Windows at all and I seem to do just fine. But don't claim those features don't exist, or somehow don't apply because the man on the Clapham omnibus doesn't understand them. The man on the Clapham omnibus can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps in games - hence the reason games like CoD and Battlefield sell gajillions on consoles - but I'm willing to bet you wouldn't be happy trading in your graphics card for one half as powerful, would you?
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 16:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Except you do in the very next line. "[...] what else does 8.x bring to the table."
Yes and i even gave a link to what the meaning of "bring to the table" is, and said. Its got nothing to do with what i believe, its got to do with how these innovations benefit the average user. Benefit meaning, Something that promotes or enhances well-being; an advantage, To be helpful or useful to.

Like i have repeatedly said, "Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?" They are expecting something that benefit's them, and very little of the things you list as innovations in 8.x benefit the average user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
That's something you added later.
No. It's something that was in my very first statement, as explained above.
SexyHyde 22nd January 2014, 16:57 Quote
Someone take that shovel away from him.
Spreadie 22nd January 2014, 17:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
Someone take that shovel away from him.

/Sarcasm :p
Gareth Halfacree 22nd January 2014, 17:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Yes and i even gave a link to what the meaning of "bring to the table" is, and said. Its got nothing to do with what i believe, its got to do with how these innovations benefit the average user. Benefit meaning, Something that promotes or enhances well-being; an advantage, To be helpful or useful to.
So. Explain how everything in my last post does not benefit the end-user.
SexyHyde 22nd January 2014, 17:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
Someone take that shovel away from him.

/Sarcasm :p

He's dug so far down he'll need them chopsticks you mentioned earlier.
GeorgeStorm 22nd January 2014, 17:15 Quote
Just out of curiosity corky, what benefits were/are there to W7 over XP?
Since you clearly look at it more than I do I just upgraded because I didn't see a downside (apart from my own desire to want to stay with XP for no real reason) so I didn't even bother checking what the advantages were.
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 18:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
So. Explain how everything in my last post does not benefit the end-user.
Like i said earlier...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
things that your average consumer will either not care about or not even notice.
And i have repeatedly said...
Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?
Please note I am asking what people are expecting when they use the term innovation, i cant answer this for people as what benefits them depends on what they see as an advancement or advantage over previous versions.

As pointed out in another post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
As I posted somewhere else in this forum, people only perceive as improvements the Task and File Manager. All other "under the hood" improvements is lost to them.
So from a users perspective, all they see as an innovation or benefit to them is the Task and File Manager, and possibly Metro depending if you find that a benefit to your own personal way of using your device.
SexyHyde 22nd January 2014, 18:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
Just out of curiosity corky, what benefits were/are there to W7 over XP?
Since you clearly look at it more than I do I just upgraded because I didn't see a downside (apart from my own desire to want to stay with XP for no real reason) so I didn't even bother checking what the advantages were.

Everyone said it was better = innovation.
Corky42 22nd January 2014, 19:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
Everyone said it was better = innovation.

Not only did they say it was better, it was better for what i would guess is a large majority of users, with things like Heterogeneous Multi-adapter support from different vendors and improved performance on multi-core processors. But as i have been saying about the "innovations" in 8.x it all depends on what and how much you use any of the new and changed features listed here.
Gareth Halfacree 22nd January 2014, 21:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Not only did they say it was better, it was better for what i would guess is a large majority of users, with things like Heterogeneous Multi-adapter support from different vendors and improved performance on multi-core processors. But as i have been saying about the "innovations" in 8.x it all depends on what and how much you use any of the new and changed features listed here.
Right, so you're saying that the vast majority of users know what "heterogeneous multi-adapter support" and "improved performance on multi-core processors" mean and see both as a direct benefit to themselves, but are incapable of understanding "faster 2D graphics rendering" and "native support for modern hard disks" and seeing them as direct benefits?

Do you not see a massive chuffin' problem with your reasoning there?
SexyHyde 22nd January 2014, 22:48 Quote
What's that machine they used to make the channel tunnel? He's got one of them set to straight down!
Nexxo 22nd January 2014, 23:03 Quote
I hear that when you spin a Windows 8 installation disk backwards, you hear satanic messages. :p
theshadow2001 23rd January 2014, 01:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
If that is the case, how come tablets? Oh, look: a computer that does not have a desktop with windows, does not have a mechanical keyboard and mouse. Innovation, right there.

In the olden days, when you wanted to tell a story or convey information, you used books. With illustrations if you wanted to be creative. It's a good method, still in use today. And then audio recordings came along, and then film. And eventually, the computer; and lo: stories and information became interactive. And recently, books have evolved into e-reader tablets.
Good points. If you want a new way to use a device you need a new device. Books to e-reader for example. But that's something Microsoft didn't really pick up on entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

What many fail to recall is what Windows 1.0 was like --they're too young to remember. They merely adopted computers. I grew up with them..
Whipping out your old man balls doesn't add credibility to the points you make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

I did not see the first GUI (Apple Lisa) until I was already a man.
Interestingly it wasn't until I was a man that I discovered computing without a GUI.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd January 2014, 09:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I hear that when you spin a Windows 8 installation disk backwards, you hear satanic messages. :p
<takes bait> "That's nothing: if you spin it forwards, you install Windows 8!"
Nexxo 23rd January 2014, 09:10 Quote
^^^ You remembered! +100 geek points. :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
Good points. If you want a new way to use a device you need a new device. Books to e-reader for example. But that's something Microsoft didn't really pick up on entirely.
Microsoft didn't pick up on a lot of trends. It had the idea of an e-reader back in 1996. Gates and Ballmer nixed it because it wouldn't be running Windows. The Courier Tablet (2008) was nixed in 2010, again for not running Windows or Office. Apple released the iPad a few months later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
Whipping out your old man balls doesn't add credibility to the points you make.
I think it kind of does. People really do not seem to remember the early days of computing, and those who forget the past are forced to relive it. I lived through the introduction of small miracles like Plug & Play and Windows memory management. I remember when Windows 95 was first released. It was as rough around the edges as Windows 8.0 is now. I remember how people complained about it being so different from Windows 3.11. Then again I also recall people being rather dismissive about introduction of the mouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
Interestingly it wasn't until I was a man that I discovered computing without a GUI.
No, my son. That's when you became a man. :p
Corky42 23rd January 2014, 10:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Right, so you're saying that the vast majority of users know what "heterogeneous multi-adapter support" and "improved performance on multi-core processors" mean and see both as a direct benefit to themselves, but are incapable of understanding "faster 2D graphics rendering" and "native support for modern hard disks" and seeing them as direct benefits?

Do you not see a massive chuffin' problem with your reasoning there?
They probably don't not know what they mean, but i would bet most would see the direct benefit of them through longer battery life on mobile devices, improved performance and the ability to run multiple monitors with ease.

When i compare the list of new and changed features of Windows 7 to Windows 8.x, i personally see more features that i would say directly benefit the user with 7 than i do with 8.x, but YMMV.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd January 2014, 10:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
They probably don't not know what they mean, but i would bet most would see the direct benefit of them through longer battery life on mobile devices, improved performance and the ability to run multiple monitors with ease.
And users of Windows 8(.1) will also be able to see the direct benefit of them through longer battery life on mobile devices, improved performance and the ability to run USB 3.0 devices with ease. Yes?

(Hint: making the rendering of 2D graphics five times faster means that the computer is finished with said rendering five times faster, meaning the CPU spends one-fifth of the previous time in a high-power active state and can drop to low-power mode quicker. Which means, shock horror, longer battery life on mobile devices, especially given that most mobile devices will be spending far more of their time rendering 2D stuff than 3D stuff. A direct benefit, no?)
Corky42 23rd January 2014, 12:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
And users of Windows 8(.1) will also be able to see the direct benefit of them through longer battery life on mobile devices, improved performance and the ability to run USB 3.0 devices with ease. Yes?

Depends on what device its running on and who's figures you believe.
http://blog.laptopmag.com/tested-windows-7-beats-windows-8-in-battery-life-file-copy-more
Quote:
The Zenbook UX31 experienced an hour decrease in battery life, dropping from 5 hours and 58 minutes on Windows 7 to 4 hours and 55 minutes on Windows 8. The decrease in battery life was most dramatic on the Samsung Series 7, which lasted a reasonable 5 hours and 49 minutes while using Windows 7, but just 3 hours and 36 minutes on Windows 8.

But I'm not really the one to answer that for other people, as my original question of "Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?" has so far only been thoroughly answer by your self, yet remains unanswered by other people like SexyHyde who originally stated ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
So there has been no innovation apart from that major bit of innovation, which we can discount because nobody wanted it. And Windows 8 / 8.1 have a lot more to them then the metro interface, but we can dicount all that.
Yet they refuse to say what they see as the innovations that 8.x bring to the table, instead preferring to make unhelpful and snide remarks.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd January 2014, 12:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Depends on what device its running on and who's figures you believe.
http://blog.laptopmag.com/tested-windows-7-beats-windows-8-in-battery-life-file-copy-more
So, they showed that the Windows 8 Preview release, running without optimised vendor drivers, wasn't as efficient as the full, well established release of Windows 7 running with optimised vendor drivers on hardware specifically designed for Windows 7? Well, hold the front page!

Fancy trying that again, only this time with a Windows 8.1 certified system running optimised vendor drivers and the latest retail release of Windows 8.1 compared to an aftermarket install of Windows 7? Bet you'll see some dramatically different results. Go ahead, you can run the benchmark yourself. I'll wait here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Yet they refuse to say what they see as the innovations that 8.x bring to the table, instead preferring to make unhelpful and snide remarks.
That, Corky, is because they don't need to list them. I've already done that: I've listed the major Windows 8(.1) innovations, minus some major features - Modern UI and the latest DirectX - that you have chosen to exclude from your request. What do you gain from someone else listing exactly the same things?
impar 23rd January 2014, 12:34 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
(Hint: making the rendering of 2D graphics five times faster means that the computer is finished with said rendering five times faster, meaning the CPU spends one-fifth of the previous time in a high-power active state and can drop to low-power mode quicker. Which means, shock horror, longer battery life on mobile devices, especially given that most mobile devices will be spending far more of their time rendering 2D stuff than 3D stuff. A direct benefit, no?)
Again, another improvement that will not be perceived by the large majority of users as most users dont change OS in mobile devices.
Someone who bought a pre-W8 OS mobile device will stick with that OS for the rest of the lifetime of the mobile device. When user changes to another mobile device with W8+ OS he might perceive the improvement, but will perceive it coming from the new mobile device and not from the OS.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd January 2014, 12:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Again, another improvement that will not be perceived by the large majority of users as most users dont change OS in mobile devices.
An argument which covers Corky's claims of innovation in Windows 7 just as readily, no?
GeorgeStorm 23rd January 2014, 12:59 Quote
For me it has quicker boot up/shut down times, from what I've seen better slightly better performance overall, especially since my chip is an AMD one, has taskbars on both monitors (massive upgrade).

They're probably the main ones, I didn't do that much research before going for it though, and since it's a new build I can't directly compare my experience on W7 since the HW was different.
Corky42 23rd January 2014, 13:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
So, they showed that the Windows 8 Preview release, running without optimised vendor drivers, wasn't as efficient as the full, well established release of Windows 7 running with optimised vendor drivers on hardware specifically designed for Windows 7? Well, hold the front page!
Sorry but did i say 7 is better than 8 in terms of battery life ? Because i believe i said "Depends on what device its running on and who's figures you believe."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Fancy trying that again, only this time with a Windows 8.1 certified system running optimised vendor drivers and the latest retail release of Windows 8.1 compared to an aftermarket install of Windows 7? Bet you'll see some dramatically different results. Go ahead, you can run the benchmark yourself. I'll wait here.
Well if you insist, not that im the one trying to compare 7 and 8.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2057938/microsoft-apple-is-to-blame-for-reports-of-poor-windows-battery-life.html
Quote:
The results were telling: The MacBook Pro running Mac OS X Mavericks lasted just over 7 hours. That’s about 2 hours—or about 29 percent—longer than it did when running Windows 7, which pooped out at just over 5 hours. And even worse for Windows users, our data indicates that “upgrading” to Windows 8.1 is really a downgrade in battery life, as the new system expired at just 4 hours and 41 minutes.
But as i keep saying I'm not the one disputing what you or other people see as being innovative about Windows 8.x. You have already stated that no matter how small or how much a change benefits you, you see it as an innovation, and that fine. Did i launch into post after post disputing your opinion? Or did i accept that your opinion differs from mine and move on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
That, Corky, is because they don't need to list them. I've already done that: I've listed the major Windows 8(.1) innovations, minus some major features - Modern UI and the latest DirectX - that you have chosen to exclude from your request. What do you gain from someone else listing exactly the same things?
No you have listed what you see as an innovation, something that "make changes in something established" And as i have repeatedly said...
Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?
People role out this label all the time, claiming this and that isn't innovative and i would like people to explain what they expect when they use this term.

We have already established that you would be happy to call something innovative if a new product came out that was 1Mhz faster than the previous version, or if they change the name of a feature and added minimal technical improvements.
Nexxo 23rd January 2014, 14:10 Quote
That argument seems a bit disingenious. Gareth has clearly argued that innovation is defined to mean a change made in something established by introducing something new, and that it is generally understood to bring an improvement. A 1Mhz hike does not constitute an innovation. What technical improvements are "minimal" is a subjective judgement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Well if you insist, not that im the one trying to compare 7 and 8.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2057938/microsoft-apple-is-to-blame-for-reports-of-poor-windows-battery-life.html

I'm sorry, you are trying to compare battery life of different Microsoft OSs on a device that is not made for them? Might that be a factor to take into account? :?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
People role out this label all the time, claiming this and that isn't innovative and i would like people to explain what they expect when they use this term.
What I would expect is a new and better way of doing things. Do I think that Windows 8 fits that bill? Faster boot: check. Less prone to crashes: check. Better integration with SkyDrive: check. Start Screen instead of Start Menu: check (yes, I know that others feel different, but this is my user experience). Better battery life: check. Allows for more versatile multi-function devices: check.

Now your mileage may vary, but I in Windows 8 I got what I expected by the word "innovation".
Gareth Halfacree 23rd January 2014, 16:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Well if you insist, not that im the one trying to compare 7 and 8.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2057938/microsoft-apple-is-to-blame-for-reports-of-poor-windows-battery-life.html
Is a MacBook a Windows 8.1-certified device? No, it is not. Try again, Corky, do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
We have already established that you would be happy to call something innovative if a new product came out that was 1Mhz faster than the previous version, or if they change the name of a feature and added minimal technical improvements.
No, we haven't. We have, however, established your poor grasp of the English language, if you wish to descend to argumentum ad hominem.
Corky42 23rd January 2014, 18:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
That argument seems a bit disingenious. Gareth has clearly argued that innovation is defined to mean a change made in something established by introducing something new, and that it is generally understood to bring an improvement. A 1Mhz hike does not constitute an innovation. What technical improvements are "minimal" is a subjective judgement.
Sorry but how is it disingenious to state what i have stating all along in this thread, and that is asking "when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ?"

Yes Gareth has given the definition of innovation to mean change in something established by introducing something new, but frankly that seems a rather weak definition and hence why i drew attention to it by saying he would be happy with a 1Mhz hike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I'm sorry, you are trying to compare battery life of different Microsoft OSs on a device that is not made for them? Might that be a factor to take into account? :?
TBH I didn't put much effort into it. As i have already stated "Depends on what device its running on and who's figures you believe." I.e I'm not trying to get into a competition on who can prove what OS is better than the other.
All I'm trying to do is find out what people like Phil Rhodes and SexyHyde mean when they use the term innovation, as this word seems to be bandied about all the time to either prove or disprove the newest thing is either great or useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
What I would expect is a new and better way of doing things. Do I think that Windows 8 fits that bill? Faster boot: check. Less prone to crashes: check. Better integration with SkyDrive: check. Start Screen instead of Start Menu: check (yes, I know that others feel different, but this is my user experience). Better battery life: check. Allows for more versatile multi-function devices: check.

Now your mileage may vary, but I in Windows 8 I got what I expected by the word "innovation".
So in general, and putting aside your professed like of 8.x for a moment, the good points outweigh the bad I'm guessing. As for myself it's the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Is a MacBook a Windows 8.1-certified device? No, it is not. Try again, Corky, do.No, we haven't. We have, however, established your poor grasp of the English language, if you wish to descend to argumentum ad hominem.
As explained above I'm not the one trying to get into a competition on who can prove what OS is better than another, so didn't care much for taking your bait.
And far from descending into argumentum ad hominem like you seem intent on trying to do (with childish statements about my poor grasp on the English language), i have constantly stated that I'm merely trying to clarify what people mean when they use the term "innovate" to either dis or bigup the latest tech.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd January 2014, 18:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Yes Gareth has given the definition of innovation to mean change in something established by introducing something new, but frankly that seems a rather weak definition
Don't blame me: blame the English language. The word means what the word means, and if you want people to understand you it's a good idea to bear that in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
and hence why i drew attention to it by saying he would be happy with a 1Mhz hike.
Except I wouldn't, and at no point have I ever given that impression. Which is why I correctly highlighted your claim as a straw man based upon an ad hominem attack upon my person, coupled with the classic fallacy of reductio ad absurdum - to whit, taking my moderate position and suggesting that it is an extreme one wherein I would see any change, even to use your own words "if they change the name of a feature and added minimal technical improvements," as innovation.

Speeding something up by 500% is not equivalent to a clockspeed increase of 1MHz, nor a minimal technical improvement. On the contrary, it's incredibly impressive - it's the equivalent of Intel or AMD going live with a 20GHz processor tomorrow. Innovative, wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
TBH I didn't put much effort into it.
I noticed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As i have already stated "Depends on what device its running on and who's figures you believe." I.e I'm not trying to get into a competition on who can prove what OS is better than the other.
Except that's exactly what you've been doing. You've roundly refused to accept any of the changes that came in Windows 8 as innovative, while avoiding defining what changes Windows 7 - your OS of choice - brought to the table in order to make you upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
All I'm trying to do is find out what people like Phil Rhodes and SexyHyde mean when they use the term innovation, as this word seems to be bandied about all the time to either prove or disprove the newest thing is either great or useless.
You've been given several examples of what people mean when they say Windows 8 is innovative, both by myself and by Nexxo; I assume, however, that these are not enough for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And far from descending into argumentum ad hominem like you seem intent on trying to do (with childish statements about my poor grasp on the English language), i have constantly stated that I'm merely trying to clarify what people mean when they use the term "innovate" to either dis or bigup the latest tech.
I give as I receive: you accuse me of thinking something as useless as a rebranding of an existing technology with a 1MHz speed boost is innovative, I point out that you have a terrible grasp of the English language. In the words of Hannibal Lector, "quid pro quo."

Don't ad hom me, and I won't ad hom you. It's really that simple.
Corky42 23rd January 2014, 19:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Don't blame me: blame the English language. The word means what the word means, and if you want people to understand you it's a good idea to bear that in mind.
So this coming patch Tuesday i can go around proclaiming Microsoft have innovated yet again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Except I wouldn't, and at no point have I ever given that impression.
So you didn't say the following then ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
innovate: ˈɪnəveɪt/. Verb. Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. (My emphasis.)
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Which is why I correctly highlighted your claim as a straw man based upon an ad hominem attack upon my person, coupled with the classic fallacy of reductio ad absurdum - to whit, taking my moderate position and suggesting that it is an extreme one wherein I would see any change, even to use your own words "if they change the name of a feature and added minimal technical improvements," as innovation.
Sorry, but do please point me to the post i made that is an ad hominem attack upon your person. Because i can point you to plenty of post where you claim i said things that i didn't, and outright attacked me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Speeding something up by 500% is not equivalent to a clockspeed increase of 1MHz, nor a minimal technical improvement. On the contrary, it's incredibly impressive - it's the equivalent of Intel or AMD going live with a 20GHz processor tomorrow. Innovative, wouldn't you agree?
As i previously said if the %500 speed up effect very few people i wouldn't exactly call it impressive or an innovation, especially as no one ever said "Gosh rendering text sure is slow"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Except that's exactly what you've been doing. You've roundly refused to accept any of the changes that came in Windows 8 as innovative, while avoiding defining what changes Windows 7 - your OS of choice - brought to the table in order to make you upgrade.
Again putting words into my mouth. Do point me to the post that "roundly refused to accept any of the changes that came in Windows 8 as innovative"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You've been given several examples of what people mean when they say Windows 8 is innovative, both by myself and by Nexxo; I assume, however, that these are not enough for you?
You would assume incorrectly then, because IIRC i actually said "OK i guess they would count as technical innovations, yes ?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I give as I receive: you accuse me of thinking something as useless as a rebranding of an existing technology with a 1MHz speed boost is innovative, I point out that you have a terrible grasp of the English language. In the words of Hannibal Lector, "quid pro quo."

Don't ad hom me, and I won't ad hom you. It's really that simple.
No. You stated...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
innovate: ˈɪnəveɪt/. Verb. Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. (My emphasis.)
Or are you going to say you didn't mean to emphasis Make changes in something established
Gareth Halfacree 23rd January 2014, 20:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So this coming patch Tuesday i can go around proclaiming Microsoft have innovated yet again.
No, you can't. Because that isn't what the word means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So you didn't say the following then ? <snip definition of 'innovate'>
Are those my words? No, they're a dictionary definition. Did I place them there to bring your attention to your misunderstanding of the word 'innovate?' Yes, I did. Does that mean I see tiny incremental changes as innovative? No, because they're not 'new' - a part of the definition, you'll note.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Sorry, but do please point me to the post i made that is an ad hominem attack upon your person.
Here you go. The one I quoted earlier, in fact. You know, where you claim I believe something that I do not, because it makes your argument easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Because i can point you to plenty of post where you claim i said things that i didn't, and outright attacked me.
Can you? Go on, then. Excluding the post where I ad hom you in response to the above, highlight cases where I have outright attacked you or claim you said things that you did not. Seriously. If there's a case where I have done that - through misunderstanding, I can assure you, as it's not something I deliberately do during a debate as it completely undermines my position - then I will offer you a heartfelt apology in each instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As i previously said if the %500 speed up effect very few people i wouldn't exactly call it impressive or an innovation, especially as no one ever said "Gosh rendering text sure is slow"
And as has been pointed out to you several times, that makes no difference as to whether it is innovative or not. A 500% increase in 2D graphics rendering performance is a serious innovation in the field of 2D graphics rendering, but makes absolutely no difference to the field (hah!) of corn growing in Iowa. Likewise, an innovation that increases the corn yield possible by 500% is an innovation in the field of corn growing, but makes absolutely no difference to the field of 2D graphics rendering. This does not render either less innovative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Again putting words into my mouth. Do point me to the post that "roundly refused to accept any of the changes that came in Windows 8 as innovative"
This one. At least, that's how I read it. Seriously, go back and reread it with fresh eyes and tell me that isn't a blow-by-blow account of you claiming everything in my post is somehow not innovative?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Or are you going to say you didn't mean to emphasis Make changes in something established
I absolutely meant to emphasise that, as it was the key part of the definition which you did not understand. You even admit that right here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You've been given several examples of what people mean when they say Windows 8 is innovative, both by myself and by Nexxo; I assume, however, that these are not enough for you?
You would assume incorrectly then, because IIRC i actually said "OK i guess they would count as technical innovations, yes ?"
So why are you still posting? You asked for what people think are innovations. You received a list of what people think are innovations. Where's the problem here?

Now, about that list of instances where I have attacked or misrepresented you?
Nexxo 23rd January 2014, 20:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So this coming patch Tuesday i can go around proclaiming Microsoft have innovated yet again.
If this coming Patch Tuesday Microsoft releases a patch that brings a significant improvement by doing things different from how they were done before, then yes, they can be said to have innovated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So you didn't say the following then ?
A 1Mhz hike in CPU performance in itself is not an innovation. It is just a marginal improvement in existing affairs. But if that 1Mhz hike was, say, accompanied by a 20% reduction in TDP by using a new chip substrate or transistor technology, then it is an innovation. See the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As i previously said if the %500 speed up effect very few people i wouldn't exactly call it impressive or an innovation, especially as no one ever said "Gosh rendering text sure is slow"
But according to the definition of the word, it is. And as Gareth explained, people will say: "Gosh, that battery lasts longer". As it does when CPUs can get tasks done more efficiently and drop back to idle quicker.

But OK, say we have this new enzyme therapy for patients with a rare gentic metabolic disorder that only 60 people in the UK suffer from, which reduces their symptoms and extends their life. It only affects very few people... Most of us won't notice it even exists. Innovative?
theshadow2001 23rd January 2014, 20:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo



I think it kind of does. People really do not seem to remember the early days of computing, and those who forget the past are forced to relive it. I lived through the introduction of small miracles like Plug & Play and Windows memory management. I remember when Windows 95 was first released. It was as rough around the edges as Windows 8.0 is now. I remember how people complained about it being so different from Windows 3.11. Then again I also recall people being rather dismissive about introduction of the mouse.
You don't have to go back to the stone age to know that new tech is generally a bit poop. It improves and can then become established and further refined. Just look at the XP to vista to 7. XP was the pinnacle of the technology it was based on. Vista was a rewrite and a bit pants. Windows 7 was a refinement and has become well established. The desktop on 8 is a further refinement. It introduced metro which is pants (outside of surface devices) 8.1 was a refinement and so the cycle continues

4k monitors had 30Hz refresh rates. The occulus had low res monitors etc etc.

Tech refreshes so quickly being old doesn't give such an advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo


No, my son. That's when you became a man. :p

Lol!
SexyHyde 24th January 2014, 02:08 Quote
Damn it got juicy in here while I was gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Yet they refuse to say what they see as the innovations that 8.x bring to the table, instead preferring to make unhelpful and snide remarks.

Already done by Gareth, to a very fine degree too, I may add.

See my very first post when I defended innovation in Win 8, then stated I use Win 7, Ubuntu and Android.
For me Win 8 is not suitable, all the things I know and admit it does better are negated by the longer time I spend in system navigation. They still innovated where they innovated, some people can navigate Win 8 quicker than Win 7, just because I can't doesn't mean they didn't innovate.

You may think my comments were snide and unhelpful, but I posted them with the intention of letting you know you were digging a hole for yourself. I was trying to be funny and HELPFUL. I'm sorry if my comments got you butthurt. I'd like to think maybe I was your true friend in this discussion, in that I was telling you to stop digging, everyone else gave you energy drinks and bigger spades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
What's that machine they used to make the channel tunnel? He's got one of them set to straight down!

You need them chopsticks yet?
Nexxo 24th January 2014, 09:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
You don't have to go back to the stone age to know that new tech is generally a bit poop. It improves and can then become established and further refined. Just look at the XP to vista to 7. XP was the pinnacle of the technology it was based on. Vista was a rewrite and a bit pants. Windows 7 was a refinement and has become well established. The desktop on 8 is a further refinement. It introduced metro which is pants (outside of surface devices) 8.1 was a refinement and so the cycle continues

4k monitors had 30Hz refresh rates. The occulus had low res monitors etc etc.

Tech refreshes so quickly being old doesn't give such an advantage.

You're absolutely right, and yet many people seem to forget this obvious pattern!
Corky42 24th January 2014, 09:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
No, you can't. Because that isn't what the word means.Are those my words? No, they're a dictionary definition. Did I place them there to bring your attention to your misunderstanding of the word 'innovate?' Yes, I did. Does that mean I see tiny incremental changes as innovative? No, because they're not 'new' - a part of the definition, you'll note.
So when i said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Am i the only one that considered to innovate was to come up with some great new way of doing things ?
And you replied yes but without the great part, who is it that decides that its just new or a great new thing, you ?
Because the word great would indicate a notable degree or newness, yet you say that isn't the case. So thusly i assume you would be happy with anything new, no matter how small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Here you go. The one I quoted earlier, in fact. You know, where you claim I believe something that I do not, because it makes your argument easier.
Nothing to do with making an argument easier, more to do with that's what you said (see above) you stated an innovation just has to be new, a 1Mhz bump is new is it not ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Can you? Go on, then. Excluding the post where I ad hom you in response to the above, highlight cases where I have outright attacked you or claim you said things that you did not. Seriously. If there's a case where I have done that - through misunderstanding, I can assure you, as it's not something I deliberately do during a debate as it completely undermines my position - then I will offer you a heartfelt apology in each instance.
You mean when you claimed i said the following...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You asked if Windows 8(.1) had any innovations.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
And as has been pointed out to you several times, that makes no difference as to whether it is innovative or not. A 500% increase in 2D graphics rendering performance is a serious innovation in the field of 2D graphics rendering, but makes absolutely no difference to the field (hah!) of corn growing in Iowa. Likewise, an innovation that increases the corn yield possible by 500% is an innovation in the field of corn growing, but makes absolutely no difference to the field of 2D graphics rendering. This does not render either less innovative.
Again who's setting this bar, you ? if the increase in 2D rendering was only %250 would you still call it an innovation, how about if it was only %100, %50 or %5 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
This one. At least, that's how I read it. Seriously, go back and reread it with fresh eyes and tell me that isn't a blow-by-blow account of you claiming everything in my post is somehow not innovative?
Well i apologise if that how it came across, as i wasn't intending to say they were not innovative. But that kinda highlights the point i have been trying to make, you see all the things you listed as innovations, while i maybe rather cack handedly called into question how truly innovative some of those thing are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I absolutely meant to emphasise that, as it was the key part of the definition which you did not understand. You even admit that right here.So why are you still posting? You asked for what people think are innovations. You received a list of what people think are innovations. Where's the problem here?
I understand the meaning perfectly, but as explained above you seem to want to set this bar for how new or how much something has changed before we can claim its innovative at the exact definition of the word, I.e just something new.
Because when i questioned if you meant some great new way of doing things, you said without the great, so it just needs to be a new way of doing things, a few tweak hear and there, a new name and its an innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Now, about that list of instances where I have attacked or misrepresented you?
You know you already covered this further up in your post, so i will just say see above.
Gareth Halfacree 24th January 2014, 09:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And you replied yes but without the great part, who is it that decides that its just new or a great new thing, you ?
Pardon? If something is new, then it hasn't been seen before; if something is great, it is an improvement on what was there before. Both are provable empirically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Because the word great would indicate a notable degree or newness, yet you say that isn't the case. So thusly i assume you would be happy with anything new, no matter how small.
And that was your mistake. Remember: assumptions make an 'ass' out of 'u' and a guy called 'mptions.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Nothing to do with making an argument easier, more to do with that's what you said (see above) you stated an innovation just has to be new, a 1Mhz bump is new is it not ?
No, it isn't. If I overclock my CPU by 10%, is the CPU new? No, it isn't. It's the same CPU as before, just running a bit faster. If Intel sells two CPUs which are identical at a silicon level, but one is running at 3.2GHz and the other binned at 3.4GHz, is that innovation? No: the faster CPU isn't new, it's just a better version of the slower CPU. Now, when Intel launched its tri-gate transistor technology, that was a great innovation: a change to an established way of making semiconductors which was both new and brought a measurable improvement. Does that make things clearer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
You mean when you claimed i said the following... [You asked if Windows 8.1 had any innovations.]
But you did ask that. At least, that's how I interpreted the following question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Seriously though when people roll out this innovation label what is it they are expecting ? Are we talking about technical innovations? as all i ever see is people talking about the Metro GUI and while it could be argued that is innovative in its own right what else does 8.x bring to the table.
Now, I read that as "what else [in the way of innovation] does 8.x bring to the table." Is that not the question you asked, and that I answered?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
...
Still waiting for you to provide references to "plenty of post[s]" where I misrepresent or attack you. Hint: that wasn't one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Again who's setting this bar, you ? if the increase in 2D rendering was only %250 would you still call it an innovation, how about if it was only %100, %50 or %5 ?
The English language is setting the bar. If you come up with a novel way of doing something, it is innovative; if it improves upon that something, it is a good innovation; if it greatly improves upon something, it is a great innovation. Or are you saying that increasing something five-fold is not great? If I were, right now, to increase your bank balance by 500%, would you be arguing that I hadn't done a great thing - regardless of whether or not you previously considered your bank balance to be low?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Well i apologise if that how it came across, as i wasn't intending to say they were not innovative.
Apology accepted, and I apologise for misinterpreting the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
But that kinda highlights the point i have been trying to make, you see all the things you listed as innovations, while i maybe rather cack handedly called into question how truly innovative some of those thing are.
Oh. So you were saying they weren't innovative. One step forward, two steps back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I understand the meaning perfectly,
No, you don't. If you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
but as explained above you seem to want to set this bar for how new or how much something has changed before we can claim its innovative at the exact definition of the word, I.e just something new.
I'm not setting the bar anywhere; I'm just correcting your understanding of the word. Don't like it? Invent a new word which means what you want it to mean, or pick an existing word that is closer to your intended meaning - like 'overhaul,' perhaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Because when i questioned if you meant some great new way of doing things, you said without the great, so it just needs to be a new way of doing things, a few tweak hear and there, a new name and its an innovation.
See? That proves you still don't understand. Changing something's name is not innovative. Making something slightly faster without fundamental revision is not innovative. Read the whole definition I provided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
You know you already covered this further up in your post, so i will just say see above.
Except you still haven't answered it. As far as I'm concerned, the quid-pro-quo ad-hom aside, I have neither attacked nor misrepresented you at any time during this debate. I'm still waiting to be proved wrong there.
Spreadie 24th January 2014, 10:24 Quote
I present to you, The Chork!

http://forums.bit-tech.net/picture.php?albumid=1472&pictureid=35737

Proper innovation, right there. :p
Nexxo 24th January 2014, 11:14 Quote
^^^ Need! :p

Seriously, how hard is it to grasp the idea of "innovation"? It is simply: a new and different way of doing things.
Corky42 24th January 2014, 11:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Pardon? If something is new, then it hasn't been seen before; if something is great, it is an improvement on what was there before. Both are provable empirically.
No. Great means, Very large in size.
New means, Having been made or come into being only a short time ago; recent
So adding one extra feature to an already existing program and renaming would be seen as new, selling a CPU with a 1Mhz bump would be new.
Both according to the emphasis you placed on the meaning of innovation are innovations, when i questioned if it would be a very large helping of newness you said no, it just has to be new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
And that was your mistake. Remember: assumptions make an 'ass' out of 'u' and a guy called 'mptions.
Like the same mistake you made in assuming i meant something that i didn't in this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
'No, it isn't. If I overclock my CPU by 10%, is the CPU new? No, it isn't. It's the same CPU as before, just running a bit faster. If Intel sells two CPUs which are identical at a silicon level, but one is running at 3.2GHz and the other binned at 3.4GHz, is that innovation? No: the faster CPU isn't new, it's just a better version of the slower CPU. Now, when Intel launched its tri-gate transistor technology, that was a great innovation: a change to an established way of making semiconductors which was both new and brought a measurable improvement. Does that make things clearer?
Well as you are sticking to the strict meaning of the words, no it doesn't.
Are you saying that after 3 month of binning when they have enough 3.4Ghz CPU's to release that its not a new CPU ? Because according to the emphasis you placed on the meaning of innovation we have made changes in something established.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
But you did ask that. At least, that's how I interpreted the following question:Now, I read that as "what else [in the way of innovation] does 8.x bring to the table." Is that not the question you asked, and that I answered?
No. I asked what else does 8.x bring to the table.
Bring to the table meaning, to provide something that will be a benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Still waiting for you to provide references to "plenty of post[s]" where I misrepresent or attack you. Hint: that wasn't one.
So only you can misinterpret other people post ?
And for some reason you have now expanded your originally request to provide you with a post where you misrepresented me to now wanting me to provide you with multiple post.
Moving the goal posts much ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
The English language is setting the bar. If you come up with a novel way of doing something, it is innovative; if it improves upon that something, it is a good innovation; if it greatly improves upon something, it is a great innovation. Or are you saying that increasing something five-fold is not great? If I were, right now, to increase your bank balance by 500%, would you be arguing that I hadn't done a great thing - regardless of whether or not your previously considered your bank balance to be low?
%500 of nothing is still nothing.
%500 of 1p would be nothing if i had a million in the other account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Apology accepted, and I apologise for misinterpreting the post.Oh. So you were saying they weren't innovative. One step forward, two steps back.
And still you don't see the problem with calling something like the File History backup feature an innovation, even though it's what existed in previous version but with a few tweaks and a new name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
No, you don't. If you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You mean i don't interpret the meaning in the same way as you, news flash not everyone is going to agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I'm not setting the bar anywhere; I'm just correcting your understanding of the word. Don't like it? Invent a new word which means what you want it to mean, or pick an existing word that is closer to your intended meaning - like 'overhaul,' perhaps.
But you are setting the bar with everything you listed as innovations even though some are nothing more than a few tweaks and a new name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
See? That proves you still don't understand. Changing something's name is not innovative. Making something slightly faster without fundamental revision is not innovative. Read the whole definition I provided.
Then why would you list exactly those things when claiming there are plenty of innovations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Except you still haven't answered it. As far as I'm concerned, the quid-pro-quo ad-hom aside, I have neither attacked nor misrepresented you at any time during this debate. I'm still waiting to be proved wrong there.
So even though you say "I apologise for misinterpreting the post" and then claiming...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You asked if Windows 8(.1) had any innovations.
So you have inaccurately interpreting my post and then based an incorrect or misleading representation of what i meant.
Along with outright attacks for what you perceived as attacks on your person or character
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
We have, however, established your poor grasp of the English language, if you wish to descend to argumentum ad hominem.
Gareth Halfacree 24th January 2014, 11:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
No. Great means, Very large in size.
Actually, Corky, great has more than one different definition. I draw your attention to number two, to whit: "of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
New means, Having been made or come into being only a short time ago; recent
So adding one extra feature to an already existing program and renaming would be seen as new, selling a CPU with a 1Mhz bump would be new.
Both according to the emphasis you placed on the meaning of innovation are innovations, when i questioned if it would be a very large helping of newness you said no, it just has to be new.
Which is absolutely true, by the definition of the word innovation. However, I personally wouldn't call something innovative unless it was different and better. Just like all the examples I offered in my post were. (Although, technically speaking, that would make a Patch Tuesday patch an 'innovation,' as it's a new and better way of doing something that was previously broken. Welcome to the wonderful world of language, where words have different meanings according to context.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Like the same mistake you made in assuming i meant something that i didn't in this post.
I made no assumption; I merely read your post. You've stated I misinterpreted it - which I still struggle to understand, as I can't seem to read it any other way - and I have apologised for my apparent mistake. No. Assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Well as you are sticking to the strict meaning of the words, no it doesn't.
Are you saying that after 3 month of binning when they have enough 3.4Ghz CPU's to release that its not a new CPU ? Because according to the emphasis you placed on the meaning of innovation we have made changes in something established.
That's exactly what I'm saying: it's the same CPU, just hand-selected for better quality. That's. Not. Innovation. Remember the definition of innovation involves change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
No. I asked what else does 8.x bring to the table.
Bring to the table meaning, to provide something that will be a benefit.
The post I am referring to, and have linked several times, I believe I have answered in full. Have I not? Do they not provided a benefit in each of their fields?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So only you can misinterpret other people post ?
No, anyone can misinterpret someone's post - and then accept a correction when offered, as I did with yours. So far, however, you have not accepted that the post you appear to taken offence at was a misinterpretation and not an attack on yourself as you have claimed. Misinterpretation is an honest mistake; misrepresentation is deliberate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And for some reason you have now expanded your originally request to provide you with a post where you misrepresented me to now wanting me to provide you with multiple post. Moving the goal posts much ?
I'm doing no such thing, Corky. You stated you could provide plenty of evidence of my attacking or misrepresenting you - 'plenty', while we're quoting the dictionary, being defined as "a large or sufficient amount or quantity." I would say one post, even if it were actual evidence of your claims, is neither large nor sufficient to prove your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
%500 of nothing is still nothing.
%500 of 1p would be nothing if i had a million in the other account.
Do you have nothing in your bank account? Do you have a million in your other account? I specifically asked if quintupling the money in your bank account would be a good thing. You haven't answered that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And still you don't see the problem with calling something like the File History backup feature an innovation, even though it's what existed in previous version but with a few tweaks and a new name.
Except it isn't; it's a considerable change under the hood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
You mean i don't interpret the meaning in the same way as you, news flash not everyone is going to agree with you.
The whole point of language is that it is a consensus. If half the country thinks a word means one thing, and half the country thinks it means another, they're going to have serious problems trying to communicate. Again, you're not arguing with me here: you're arguing with the dictionary definition of the word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
But you are setting the bar with everything you listed as innovations even though some are nothing more than a few tweaks and a new name.
No, I'm not. The fact you keep claiming I am is evidence that you are approaching this discussion in an extremely dishonest fashion. That is misrepresentation: you're claiming I believe something I do not, even when I have told you that is not the case. Stop it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Then why would you list exactly those things when claiming there are plenty of innovations.
Because. They're. Innovative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So even though you say "I apologise for misinterpreting the post" and then claiming... So you have inaccurately interpreting my post and then based an incorrect or misleading representation of what i meant.
You have yet to tell me what you did mean in that post, or how it could be interpreted any other way than as a request for a list of innovations in Windows 8.x. If you do so, then I will roundly apologise for my completely unintentional misinterpretation. If you don't, then I'll assume that - as above - this is another attempt at chicanery on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42

Along with outright attacks for what you perceived as attacks on your person or character
Yes, that's the ad hominem - singular, making it 'attack' rather than 'attacks' as you continue to claim - I offered you in response to you doing the same to me. Remember how I've asked that you exclude that from your list, given that it was offered in simple quid-pro-quo to your own?

Still waiting.
bawjaws 24th January 2014, 12:11 Quote
Yet another thread descends into interminable multi-quote tit-for-tat. Gareth, you're never going to get Corky to change his mind here, so this is something of an exercise in futility :D

Seriously, perhaps we need to set up another sub-forum for these tedious arguments? :)
Gareth Halfacree 24th January 2014, 12:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawjaws
Yet another thread descends into interminable multi-quote tit-for-tat. Gareth, you're never going to get Corky to change his mind here, so this is something of an exercise in futility :D
You're absolutely right. "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

Corky: on this topic, we shall have to agree to disagree. For my part, I wish to apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly for my ad hominem. I did so in retaliation for what I perceived as repeated attacks against myself; that's offered not as an excuse but in simple explanation. Furthermore, I also apologise for at any point unwittingly misinterpreting any of your posts, or leaving any of mine open to such misinterpretation by being in any way unclear.

With apologies made, I wish to draw a line under the matter. I shall post no more on the topic.
GeorgeStorm 24th January 2014, 12:26 Quote
I do love a good internet fight :D

Getting rather confused myself reading through it all but ah well, to me something innovative is something new and done in a better way than in the past, which I think is roughly what the definition is.

It doesn't matter if it makes no difference to me, can still be innovative.

Corky is asking for innovations that it brings to the table, as in ones people will actually notice/care about, this is difficult to quantify due to people using computers in different ways, noticing different things etc, so it's not easy to do, which I think may be part of the issue you two guys are having right now.

Then again it's entirely possibly I've completely misunderstood what you guys are going on about, in which case, carry on :) (carry on regardless please, I'm enjoying it)
Edit: aww :(
Nexxo 24th January 2014, 14:37 Quote
Let's recap:

Innovate = introducing a change or doing something in a new way;
New = having no precedent
To bring to the table = to offer, present or contribute (whether it is of benefit is not part of the definition).

And I would not be so conceited to argue the definition of words with a professional writer.
Spreadie 24th January 2014, 15:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
And I would not be so conceited to argue the definition of words with a professional writer.

Word!

*nods sagely*

Corky42 26th January 2014, 11:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You're absolutely right. "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

Corky: on this topic, we shall have to agree to disagree. For my part, I wish to apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly for my ad hominem. I did so in retaliation for what I perceived as repeated attacks against myself; that's offered not as an excuse but in simple explanation. Furthermore, I also apologise for at any point unwittingly misinterpreting any of your posts, or leaving any of mine open to such misinterpretation by being in any way unclear.

With apologies made, I wish to draw a line under the matter. I shall post no more on the topic.
Sorry for behaving like a pig, after taking some time away to talk to someone i realise that i failed to control the aspie side of my nature, that is no excuses for my behavior and I'm truly sorry to everyone whom i offended.

Particularly I'm sorry to you Gareth, for my repeated attacks against you. It's no excuses that i wasn't aware that what i said had been perceived that way, and i apologise for allowing things to escalate out of control.
I'm not sure what else to say for fear of making things worse again, so i will just leave things with my heartfelt apology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Let's recap:

Innovate = introducing a change or doing something in a new way;
New = having no precedent
To bring to the table = to offer, present or contribute (whether it is of benefit is not part of the definition).

And I would not be so conceited to argue the definition of words with a professional writer.
It was never about the definition of words, it was about peoples perceived perception.
But i think i maybe going off on one again, so I'm going to exit stage left.
Gareth Halfacree 27th January 2014, 09:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Particularly I'm sorry to you Gareth, for my repeated attacks against you. It's no excuses that i wasn't aware that what i said had been perceived that way, and i apologise for allowing things to escalate out of control.
I appreciate that, and I accept your apology. With that, I'm happy to forget it ever happened.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums