Please tell me why I bought a new computer with 8.1.

[efhmc]

Unless I spend more money, I cannot find a way to have a stand alone non web based email system. Everything else is connected with or goes through microsoft. I have office 2013 for home, which has no outlook. I can get that for another $100. surely there is a way to solve this problem without giving xxxxxx microsoft any more money.

[ChromeFoundry]

1. have you looked at Mozilla Thunderbird?

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/

it's free.

[steve2470]

2. read my mind nt

[efhmc]

3. After spening hours researching and actually talking to aforementioned xxx microsoft,

that took about 5 minutes to do. Tested it and it works. You are the best. Thanks a million.

[PrestonLocke]

4. Because you didn't know any better

Another vote for thunderbird!

[efhmc]

6. I should have come to the wise and helpful people at DU first instead of

spinning my wheels and wasting my time.

[PrestonLocke]

8. The computer support forum here kicks ass

A lot of smart folks that are very willing to help, better than most computer only forums.

[efhmc]

9. This is going to be my first place to come from now on.

Smart and helpful and Democrats, what more can one ask for?

[Ron Obvious]

5. One more vote for Thunderbird

One of the main advantages of Thunderbird is that it stores your mail in plain old text files, which makes it so much easier to back them up or to move them to another computer or to merge your various sent mail folders on different computers. No import/export needed (and it never worked anyway).

[efhmc]

10. It works beautifully for me. I was so disgusted with the idea that everything

was connected with and had to go through the hated microengulfyousoft, I needed something standalone and easy. Love it and all of you.

[jrandom421]

7. Simple

If you don't want it, I'll gladly take it off your hands. Been working and marveling at Windows 8 since the Developer Preview.

[efhmc]

11. Why do you love it? Tell me so I can make the leap.

I am still using my other computer with windows 7 for many of my files. I find much of windows 8.1 counter intuitive.

[steve2470]

12. I'll jump in too

It has the latest Windows features. You can disable the Metro screen pretty much and we can help you do that. The ONLY time I go to the metro screen now is by accident lol.... I boot directly to desktop and it's just like Win7 for me.

M$ really f*****d up with the Metro screen. Ok, yes, tablets and phones can benefit from the Metro screen but leave we desktop users alone. THAT's why people hate Win8. Win8.1 is better because it boots directly to desktop.

[efhmc]

13. I downloaded software for a regular startup screen, but I would like to disable that other thing.

It's called a Metro screen? Moving about is so skittish, that app screen popped up while I was writing this. No idea why. Wanted to add that I changed to local control so I wasn't logged into microsoft for everything. Now I have to sign in and get a new code whenever I want to play spider solitaire because it's a microsoft app.

[steve2470]

14. here is the Metro screen

Now here is the regular Windows 7 desktop:



I think that's what you're calling the regular startup screen (otherwise called the desktop). On the Metro screen in Windows 8, left click on the Desktop app and you will get THIS background to work on. Keep your mouse cursor away from the corners, and you won't have to deal with the Metro screen any more.

[drm604]

26. You have to be logged in to Microsoft in order to use their apps?

Damn, I would hate that. I'm glad I bought a Windows 7 machine.

[jrandom421]

15. Love it for a lot of reasons

The biggest one is I never really got comfortable with the start menu. I loved the Program Manager in Windows NT3.51/3.11, and I always felt that the start menu was hiding things that I wanted. I managed to work with it, but it was pretty much because I had no choice. The start screen brings back a lot of my comfort with the Program Manager and it works for me.

For me, Windows 8.1 Pro is much faster, more stable, and it automates a number of things I used to have to configure myself, like firewall rules. I'm able to extract maximum performance out of my hardware without overclocking and the attendant hassles.

Two things that most people don't use are really cool tweaks for me. One is the native mounting of ISO image files as a virtual CD/DVD drive. Granted, I could use something like MagicDisc, but I'd have to go through the hassle of having it run in memory, and manually mounting the image as a drive. Here I just double click on the file and it's mounted.

Second is Client Hyper-V. I do a lot of work testing and demonstrating systems and virtual networks. Previously I had to pay upwards $300 for VMWare Workstation. Now i can leverage my Hyper-V experience on the server side to do so on my beefed up laptop. Not only is it cheaper, it's far better at managing memory resources, networking and processing. I can run a network of 6 servers and 5 clients, %demonstrating a full System Center infrastructure and still only use about 75% resources on my laptop. Granted it's got an i7 processor and 32 Gb of RAM, but I couldn't do that with VMWare.

Why do I love it? It makes computing much more capable, efficient, and easier. And for me, that means i can concentrate on the stuff i find interesting, instead of fighting to configure things to just make them work.

[efhmc]

16. Thanks for your response. Seems to work well for the professional

like yourself. I am still bummed at how easily things jump onto the screen and I hate those charms, a stupid name and a stupid concept.

[jrandom421]

17. Again, if you're that bummed by Windows 8

I'll gladly take it off your hands for free!

[PumpkinAle]

27. Not sure if it will help

I was "forced" to Windows 8 and hated the Metro screen - I installed the classic start menu and love it.

[jtuck004]

18. I couldn't do that with VMWare. < Yeah. You can also do it with Linux and Virtualbox, $0

Not as flashy, but all that flash comes with a memory and processing price. I can run 4 servers (I've had System Center on there - doing other stuff right now) and 4 clients with a router on there with 8 gb, though it can get to dragging a little if I get too much going on. Still, for group policy and modeling other changes and demos, not to mention administering those things on the network, it's great.

I like the Hyper-V and Powershell stuff, however - from an admin perspective that's an incredible boon which has really made their stuff worth much more. For a corporate office with money to throw at hardware and software it is certainly the best out of the box solution there is.

I remember when they introduced Active Directory and I realized it was the first time they ever did anything for the system administrators <G>.

From the perspective of providing server services, I don't want to be that integrated with Azure, makes one too dependent on that one vendor. But for the desktop it's the same thing I have been pointing out since DOS 3.3 - people want a home desktop (and office too) that they can just install and run, and it does what they want. They would rather shove hot pokers in their eyes than read a help file. M$ caters to that like no one else.

The future, however, as we move to mobile devices, lose the machines and wasted processing power under everyone's desk, and run everything from a browser doesn't look as rosy for M$. It remains to be seen how many they can keep captured, because the competition is getting better and better faster than they are, I think. Then again, they have a lot of money and cheap offshore talent.

[jrandom421]

19. Not with Virtualbox

The resource consumption was ungodly. With Client Hyper-V and Dynamic Memory I can run 8 servers with each allocated 6 Gb of RAM and 4 Clients allocated 4 Gb of RAM on my laptop. No such thing as dynamic memory allocation in Virtualbox. I can actually allocate enough memory to my SQL Server cluster so that it doesn't bog down.

Virtualbox is a great FREE resource, but the resource management sucks big time for anyone running an extensive virtual network, There's NO way I could do a full System Center infrastructure (Config Mgr, Ops Mgr, VMM, SCORCH, and DPM) with Virtualbox on my laptop like I can now with Client Hyper-V. Likewise, a colleague has a full on SharePoint Server Farm running on his, and he also gave up trying to use Virtualbox for the as well, before he upgraded to 8.1 Update 1 Enterprise X64.

[jtuck004]

20. "No such thing as dynamic memory allocation in Virtualbox"< Is in newer versions on 64 bit procs.

4.8. Memory overcommitment

In server environments with many VMs; the Guest Additions can be used to share physical host memory between several VMs, reducing the total amount of memory in use by the VMs. If memory usage is the limiting factor and CPU resources are still available, this can help with packing more VMs on each host.
...


Not to argue, people have their opinions, but I can do pretty much anything I (or a customer) needs that isn't M$ specific on Linux that one can do on Windows 8. It may not be the same way, but I will get the job done, and most times it will use less of my available resources, and most especially if it is a server service. And there are people who are much better at this than I am. Probably most of them.

That's not to say I don't like Hyperterminal. I do, especially their free server product. Group policy is a fantastic tool, and Powershell finally let me do some things I used to do in the wayback days. I take money for knowing M$ products, so I use them a bit. The last network I was doing planning for was 26,000 users and 800 servers, and, although we had a large central Unix install and some IBM mainframe stuff, I am thankful they had Windows for the desktops because that was designed to shepherd exactly that kind of plantation. It does a good job, if one has the money, which they did and do - our tax money to pay for as much of it as they can truck in the door, for whatever vendor buys the best pizza and golf tournaments.

For most users, however, I think there is very little value in moving to 8, especially with people trying to make 8 into 7. Part of that I think is because M$ lost touch with what the rest of the world is doing, and also because their greatness depends on a lot of less well-informed people. As the computing population gets smarter, their advantage becomes less to some, certainly outside of this country, and nearly anywhere above providing services to the desktop level there are other choices that have their place.

But Windows 8 is certainly good for some, and I have no argument with them. Don't care enough

[CatholicEdHead]

21. If you want Windows 7 you can probably buy one online

Some work grade computers still have the option to custom select Windows 7 before shipping if you order online (Lenovo, Dell, HP, etc...).

[efhmc]

23. Thanks.

[Betty88]

24. Newegg still has 7 for sale

nt

[Drew Richards]

22. Wipe it and put ubuntu on it :)

[whistler162]

25. That would be one way of showing them

why Windows 8.1 isn't the worst option.

[d_r]

28. I can not understand

why people don't do this.

[jrandom421]

29. Because I've tried that and more

I've tried Ubuntu and its variations, Fedora, Debian, Arch, OpenSuse, Mint, Gentoo, Slackware, even Linux from Scratch. To support of my video cards 3D features, I've been told to write my own device drivers. To get support for my SAS RAID controller and my wifi card, I've been told to edit and recompile the kernel to get them to work. Finally, for applications that I wanted that weren't in my chosen distributions repository, I'd have to recompile it from source code! What kind of crap is that? Admittedly, I'm a systems engineer, but that's just too much damn work just to get basic functionality for my home systems.

Linux, in general, reminds me of my uncle's 1971 Jaguar V-12 E-Type convertible. It was gorgeous, sexy, fast and wowed everyone. But he spent almost all of his spare time working on it to keep it running. If it wasn't the electrical system, it was getting all 6 Weber carburetors properly synchronized. If it wasn't caring for the interior, it was hunting down elusive oil leaks. If it wasn't trying to keep the wire wheels reasonably rounded, it was keeping the aluminum body and paint detailed properly. He finally sold it after calculating that he spent more time maintaining the car than working full time as an aerospace engineer.

No, for me, Linux was just too much work for my home systems. I remember someone saying, "Linux is free, if your time is worth nothing."

[steve2470]

30. my thoughts exactly

If you don't mind doing all you mentioned, Linux is perfect. It's a good OS but it doesn't hold your hand at all.

[jrandom421]

32. Not holding my hand is one thing

Forcing me to learn systems level programming to support generally available hardware is nothing less than a sign of an incomplete and poorly executed and bastardized system.

Let's not even get into the craptastic mess of CUPS in attempting to get printing working.
Eric S. Raymond, that advocate and promoter of open source had this to say about it, and it hasn't gotten any better since then:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/luxury-part-deux.html

[cprise]

33. CUPS is just dandy in a recent Ubuntu system. That critique is over 8yrs old...

Though I won't go so far as to claim there is any properly designed Linux-based PC OS as of yet. I will even agree on the "bastardized" label... taking hand-me-downs from the server culture and then putting "skins" (GUIs) over that while retaining most of the assumptions of the server culture is just wrong-headed. Doubly-so if you're constantly presenting the user with an array of different GUIs. Those are not true UIs.

Ubuntu has progressively distanced itself from the Linux-distro mindset over the years. It has its own featured GUI which has better vertical integration / consistency than all the other distros out there. They lead in hardware testing and compatibility, which is often a matter of which tweaks and defaults are included as a result of thorough testing. And their exceptional HCL takes the voodoo out of purchasing hardware.

Comparatively speaking, Fedora (the distro mentioned by ESR) is like a patched-together go cart with wheels that catch on fire whenever it goes over 6MPH. It is intended as a testbed system, mainly for RedHat's server business, and its maintainers don't take the desktop seriously.

(Windows is like an SUV with no working seatbelts or door latches.)

Of course, Ubuntu (and its derivatives) still has problems: Mainly, it is rooted in a "Linux" identity that signals to potential app developers a chaotic ABI and UI, lack of SDK w/ default IDE, etc. There are signs of that changing, however.

[jrandom421]

34. Not far enough

Right now, Ubuntu is still about as advanced as DOS 6.0 with Windows 3.0, a command line OS with a windowing GUI shell on top. The hardware APIs are still primitive, and new hardware is still a crapshoot.

It's still not ready for primetime, and some company needs to take charge of it and redo everything. Can Canonical do it? I' m not holding my breath. It took Microsoft some 20 years to bend DOS and Windows into some shape. I don't see any other company going to spend that kind of time and money to do it.

[cprise]

35. That's hyperbole

FWIW, Canonical is still working on their replacement for X11 graphics, and the move to their Unity desktop is complete. They are aptly emulating some of Apple's UI and architectural choices where they are needed most, and the driver support is getting much better now that companies like Valve and DICE are publishing on the platform.

I think Canonical *could* do it, if they shed the "I'm another Linux" identity and get an initial reference hardware design they way Google did for Android.

[jrandom421]

36. Can they do it without alienating

hard-core, uber-technical, open source advocating base? I saw the thrashing around after Ubuntu dropped Gnome as the default desktop. You would have thought some one had ignited thermite inside their computers! And this is for a desktop environment that can be easily changed to whatever you want.

What I see happening is that Canonical makes the changes to clean up Ubuntu so that it works almost as well as WinXP. A group of power users and developers take that version and fork it back to what Ubuntu was before. Then comes the flame wars, the free-for-all claims and counter-claims of who's right and "pure", insults, ridicule, personal attacks, general scorn, smug superiority, the constant "you've got the source code, fix it yourself" to any technical issue and the inevitable "RTFM!" to all newbies of either edition. At that point, anyone who's a newbie becomes disgusted with the whole noise surrounding such software "religion", and says, " the heck with this! I'll go back to Windows, where it's safe and quiet!"

[cprise]

37. Could Android do it?

That's part of the whole reason why the "another Linux" identity must be ditched-- to keep the Unix traditionalists from hobbling robust vertical integration and standardization on a sufficiently rich feature set and UI. The expectations one sets with such signals is important. In that respect, Android got the right start whereas others (like Meego) were saddled with users wanting yet another Linux thick client in their pocket.

And you're right, those people who expect a "real" Unix/Linux are not going to be pleasant to deal with. But their presence (or just their attitude) is not a given; that miasma can be circumvented.

OTOH, Android was a Google project and Canonical is no Google. The company that successfully challenges Windows must already be big and profitable enough to resist Microsoft's meddling (see the history of SuSE and Xandros, the two most PC-like Linux distros in the mid-2000s... MS bought into these companies and their focus immediately shifted away from personal computers as a result).

At that point, anyone who's a newbie becomes disgusted with the whole noise surrounding such software "religion", and says, " the heck with this! I'll go back to Windows, where it's safe and quiet!"

Its a shame when it comes to that. However, I never felt safe on Windows (though maybe in VMs). I'll setup and work on Windows systems when I'm paid to do so, and when I have to troubleshoot them, that 'quiet'-ness really shows up in the lack of depth and quality of the technical blogs and forum discussions. It feels like drilling down and hitting impenetrable bedrock after only 20 feet on issue after issue. I think the sense of smug superiority partly comes from that difference, and partly from a form of blindness where Linux CLI jockeys interpret every move toward user-friendliness as being a surrender to Microsoft mentality (Apple is always conveniently omitted from the tantrum).

[jrandom421]

38. Of course Apple is conveniently omitted

Apple is cool, sexy, hip and in, as well as not being Microsoft. It also helps that OS X is based on NeXTSTEP with parts borrowed from FreeBSD and NetBSD.

As for Android making the leap from phones and low end tablets to laptops and desktops, I'm certain that Google is looking at trying. As to whether they can make that leap (or if they even want to), that is another question.

I've had nothing but problems with Android on different devices, from version 2.0 to 4.2. Unless they clean up hardware support for laptop/desktop level hardware, it's going to be a really hard sell.

Another big hurdle is this: you talk about how SuSE and Xandros got acquired and shunted away from the desktop OS by Microsoft. What about the patents that Microsoft holds that Google is paying billions for, in order to create and distribute Android?

You talk about the lack of technical depth and quality of the technical blogs and forums about Windows compared to Linux. How much technical depth do you need? Do you need to do system level programming from machine code to get your hardware devices to work with Windows? Do you need to rewrite parts of the Window OS kernel to solve your technical issues? Should you compile all your applications from source code? Do you need to write your own, if you just want an application specifically for your use? As a user, do we all need that to just make things work? Most people are going to say "I don't have time for all this crap, I just want something that works well enough!" And that's why "the year of the Linux desktop" has been happening for the past decade.

[d_r]

31. I'm sorry you had that experience

sounds very frustrating. I've just never had that experience. It's always just worked for me. I guess I'm just lucky or not trying any hardware that isn't very common.

ETA honestly I've had so much less trouble with it than with windows.