Recommended Posts

Correct, plus there is something called the "Run" box. Which I use quite freqent on XP .... want the control panel on XP? ...Windows key +R then type control and press enter.

 

services? Services.msc and press enter

 

I like to assign shortcut keys to apps as well. I have paint opening with CTRL+ALT+P and notepad with CTRL+ALT+N

I know how to use Windows.

 

A true Windows pro isn't going to waste their time clicking around like a madman, like you're forced to in XP. Windows XP is very much the definition of "Anti-productive".

 

A true windows pro.  Funny.  Now I understand why you like big square buttons.

  • Like 3

That's utter nonsense, settings really aren't that hard to find in XP if you actually know what you're doing. I can set up XP machines just as quickly as 7/8.x machines.

Again, that's not nonsense, it's fact. The Control Panel, and Windows XP Start Menu is nothing but an endless stream of pop up dialogs that force you to click, click, click, and click to get to where you need to go. Between clicking "Properties", "Advanced", different tabs, menus, sub menus, etc, you're leading yourself, and the end user on a wild goose chase. Something which they try to bypass, by creating a thousand and one desktop shortcuts - leading to a whole new mess to sort through.

 

There is nothing at all efficient about this method of computing.

Again, that's not nonsense, it's fact. The Control Panel, and Windows XP Start Menu is nothing but an endless stream of pop up dialogs that force you to click, click, click, and click to get to where you need to go. Between clicking "Properties", "Advanced", different tabs, menus, sub menus, etc, you're leading yourself, and the end user on a wild goose chase.

 

Those settings are in much the same place in Windows 8.1, though the important things like changing resolution require about the same amount of clicks. In fact changing the setting to stop the OS turning off the hard disk after 20 minutes requires me to go through 5 different sub menus in 8.1. You're talking crap.

Correct, plus there is something called the "Run" box. Which I use quite freqent on XP .... want the control panel on XP? ...Windows key +R then type control and press enter.

 

services? Services.msc and press enter

 

is what you do when you can't find what you are looking for :D

 

You make it sound like it takes 100 clicks to do anything, you are just being overly dramatic.

Run forces you to know the correct file name you're looking to run. Again, a highly inefficient method.

Those settings are in much the same place in Windows 8.1, though the important things like changing resolution require about the same amount of clicks.

No, they're not. There are major differences between XP and Windows 8.1 system settings and file paths.

No, they're not. There are major differences between XP and Windows 8.1 system settings and file paths.

 

To change the setting to stop the computer turning HDD's off after 20 minutes in 8.1.

 

Right click on desktop > personalise > screensaver > change power settings > change plan settings > change advanced power settings

 

I reiterate: you're talking nonsense.

To change the setting to stop the computer turning HDD's off after 20 minutes in 8.1.

 

Right click on desktop > personalise > screensaver > change power settings > change plan settings > change advanced power settings

 

I reiterate: you're talking nonsense.

See? You just proved my point. Click, click, click, click. All you have to do is type "Power" into Start, and go - All without having to pick up your hands from the keyboard. And who is still playing around with Screensavers to even see that?

See? You just proved my point. Click, click, click, click. All you have to do is type "Power" into Start, and go - All without having to pick up your hands from the keyboard. And who is still playing around with Screensavers to even see that?

 

Still requires you to go through 3 menus. And you do realise start menu search offered that same functionality, right?

Still requires you to go through 3 menus. And you do realise start menu search offered that same functionality, right?

Windows XP has no start menu search. It has some sad, 90's era window that may or may not locate anything at all you're searching for, and is further compounded by a dog which makes me want to punch the screen each time I see it.

Still requires you to go through 3 menus.

That is just one way to get to the option in Windows 8.1. I believe that you deliberately chose one of the longest routes to suit your agenda; I can find at least one example where Windows XP requires that many clicks / menus: Start menu -> Control Panel -> Power Options.

With Windows 8.1, one can just use instant search to location the option from the Start screen. This is simply not possible with the Windows XP Start menu.

  • Like 1

Windows XP has no start menu search. It has some sad, 90's era window that may or may not locate anything at all you're searching for, and is further compounded by a dog which makes me want to punch the screen each time I see it.

 

And yet you could achieve what you were looking for with about the same number of clicks. I've been setting up XP machines since it was released and I've never had trouble setting one up once. The only thing more time consuming is the update system.

That is just one way to get to the option in Windows 8.1. I believe that you deliberately chose one of the longest routes to suit your agenda; I can find at least one example where Windows XP requires that many clicks / menus: Start menu -> Control Panel -> Power Options.

With Windows 8.1, one can just use instant search to location the option from the Start screen. This is simply not possible with the Windows XP Start menu.

 

So was dot choosing irrelevant examples to suit his. People who actually know what they are doing will have no problem speedily setting up an XP computer.

People who actually know what they are doing will have no problem speedily setting up an XP computer.

While I agree with this, I believe that instant search does make things faster even for those who do know how (and where) to navigate within the interface.

Again, that's not nonsense, it's fact. The Control Panel, and Windows XP Start Menu is nothing but an endless stream of pop up dialogs that force you to click, click, click, and click to get to where you need to go. Between clicking "Properties", "Advanced", different tabs, menus, sub menus, etc, you're leading yourself, and the end user on a wild goose chase. Something which they try to bypass, by creating a thousand and one desktop shortcuts - leading to a whole new mess to sort through.

 

There is nothing at all efficient about this method of computing.

What are you trying to find.  You do realize that Jimmy Hoffa isn't buried within all these "pop dialogs" and "click, click, clicks"

 

Any "Pro" should be able to walk people through the various XP settings...it really isn't that difficult nor is it a wild goose chase.

 

See? You just proved my point. Click, click, click, click. All you have to do is type "Power" into Start, and go - All without having to pick up your hands from the keyboard. And who is still playing around with Screensavers to even see that?

 

In XP all you had to do was type powercfg ... am I right?  Been a while but I'm fairly certain that works.

  • Like 2

intel should build logic in their cpus from now on that will prevent old and outdated windows from running. and just to be on the safe side, the cpu will self destruct after 10 years.

This is a ridiculous idea. I hope you're not serious.

What are you trying to find.  You do realize that Jimmy Hoffa isn't buried within all these "pop dialogs" and "click, click, clicks"

 

Any "Pro" should be able to walk people through the various XP settings...it really isn't that difficult nor is it a wild goose chase.

 

 

In XP all you had to do was type powercfg ... am I right?  Been a while but I'm fairly certain that works.

IP address settings are buried underneath a dozen clicks. (Thankfully, that is changing in Windows 10.) Other important networking settings are buried. The Start Menu offers no search... Need to find an app? There's more time spent clicking around. Display properties are also buried in clicks. The list goes on.

Run forces you to know the correct file name you're looking to run. Again, a highly inefficient method.

 

Unless you actually remember what things are called without having to search for them then it's highly efficient.

 

From the way you are talking, it's amazing anybody got anything done in these last 35+years. :p

Unless you actually remember what things are called without having to search for them then it's highly efficient.

 

From the way you are talking, it's amazing anybody got anything done in these last 35+years. :p

Joe user hasn't been using computers for much of the past 35 years.

while joe user has not, many people who are in their 30's-50's have..there was no easy way around dos until windows came around.  you had to know commands.  memorizing a dozen or so commands that you use frequently isn't that big of a deal.  It also helps knowing those commands when a computer search isn't as fast as you typing in a command and hitting enter (most are, but sometimes computers run slow)  knowing the command is much faster in some cases than waiting for the search to complete. . 

  • Like 1

while joe user has not, many people who are in their 30's-50's have..there was no easy way around dos until windows came around.  you had to know commands.  memorizing a dozen or so commands that you use frequently isn't that big of a deal.  It also helps knowing those commands when a computer search isn't as fast as you typing in a command and hitting enter (most are, but sometimes computers run slow)  knowing the command is much faster in some cases than waiting for the search to complete. . 

 

Plus, depending on how fast you type, I can the c:\ location I want to go in about 5 seconds or less.

 

I can type c:\users\owner\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.ie5

 

in about 10 seconds.

 

I typed some of that in the Start Screen search and all it gave me options to do was search for it on bing.

 

I also typed in system32 ... same thing.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      579
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!