Activity for Yesterday

Review - Fences
1.0 (Oct 7, 2009)

It's like a trip in the wayback machine! It does almost exactly what Windows 3.1 did by default. Great for lovers of old, and antiquated technology.

Should help complete the trip back in time that is started by Windows 7.
Review - Windows Live Mail
14.0.8089.0726 (Aug 20, 2009)

To the person who says it won't install on XP - it does, without problems. I have installed it on a laptop running XP SP3, and a desktop running XP SP2, with all patches, save for the SP3 bundle. No problems in either case.

as for changes, who knows, as Microsoft once again keeps us in the dark. There is nothing on the Live Essentials site or team blog. I actually wonder how Betanews got wind of it, as the product never gives a clue until much after a release that a new release is available.

After the install, there is no list of changes,, and before the install, there is nothing indicating what will be changed, Typical Microsoft. It will take some time to sort out what has actually been changed - but as a long time user, I'd say it probably only affects the users of Windows 7, as I can't see many changes being made for help with the remaining Windows XP problems. Again, typical Microsoft.

5 stars for being fairly good, and free. 0 stars for no word on changes, and no way listed to find out.
Review - 7-Zip (32-bit)
9.05 Alpha (Aug 10, 2009)

Just trying to figure out how we get from revision 4.65 to 9.04... Seems very strange.

Version 4.65 works great, I may never use PKZip again. I probably won't upgrade my Win RAR anytime soon.
Review - Microsoft Windows Virtual PC
6.1.7234.0 RC (Aug 4, 2009)

There must be more to it than the description gives. Otherwise, Microsoft would appear to be cutting its own throat vis-a-vis Windows 7 versions that include XP mode.
Review - Microsoft Security Essentials
1.0.1407.00 Beta (Jun 23, 2009)

It would be really nice to be given some notice on downloads, that Betanews was not the host, and we were merely being redirected to Microsoft (or whomever).
Comment - Google Chrome 4: Yes, it's fast, but is it usable?
1.0.1407.00 Beta (Nov 6, 2009 - 8:45 PM)

I find it very disingenuous that Betanews makes Chrome seem like the work of divine beings in all the other reviews, only to slam it now as only partially usable.

I've known this was so all along, and those who have clung to Firefox and Opera have been treated as though a trip to the psych ward was in order - not good form, but typical of the computer press that must try to keep itself relevant by whipping up a frenzy about something new on the order of every two weeks.
Comment - Flashback 1990: The debut of Windows 3.0
1.0.1407.00 Beta (Oct 23, 2009 - 1:38 AM)

Windows 3 was something I got in order to get a good deal on a Microsoft dove bar bus mouse. I put it on my machine, and almost immediately took it off. It sucked. DDE was nice, when it worked, and if you had apps that would work with it.

I used DesqView/X and liked the ability to smoothly multitask my applications much better than any tweaking of Windows 3.0 or 3.1 was able to do. It was when WFWG 3.11 came out that Microsoft began to step out of the dark ages, and become usable.
Comment - Microsoft's 'Have it Your Way' confronts Apple's 'Have it Our Way'
1.0.1407.00 Beta (Oct 23, 2009 - 1:24 AM)

Just because Microsoft allowed feedback does not indicate that the company took heed of any of it - other than what agreed with the direction they were already heading.

Both the MS and Apple ways of doing business have good points, and drawbacks - your article makes MS seem as though it was the overwhelming choice of a people who actually have a choice - that is far from the truth. Most people are locked in by their applications to use MS products, and it starts early in life.

The MS approach can achieve success, but it can also fail spectacularly. Face it, any other company you can name would be down the tubes by now if they had released such a stinker as Vista. It was only the length of time that Microsoft has been in command of the market that is letting it survive.

If Microsoft wanted to let people have it their own way, they would not have removed the hierarchical menu structure that had served many well for years. I know I was not the only beta tester who asked for its inclusion.
Comment - Windows 7: Vista without the crap
1.0.1407.00 Beta (Oct 21, 2009 - 6:58 PM)

Because you state that you have used Windows since 3.1, I'll assume you know a bit about the underpinnings of Windows. I've been involved with computers since DOS 3.1.

1] Do you like to have to wade through all the security garbage to get things to be usable?
2] Does the lack of a drill-down neatly arranged menu not drive you crazy?
3] Are you not annoyed by the changes that appear for no apparent reason? (certain views taken away, homegroup - great for idiots, but as perplexing to people who know the old way as the old way was for idiots, the windows explorer that really is not the equivalent of any of five other free alternatives - all more useful if you are familiar with a two-pane method) ?

I want to like it for the looks, but I hate it for the garbage it puts in my way. The botched way it tries to implement permissions (MS couldn't apparently copy Unix conventions correctly), and the other 'change for change' sake simply drives me crazy. Yet I must get very proficient with this crap, for it is what I do for a living.
Comment - No, Windows 7 isn't slower than Vista, even at booting up
1.0.1407.00 Beta (Oct 12, 2009 - 7:59 PM)

"Exactly how much time is required for a Windows-based system to start idling down and doing relatively nothing -- the "fully usable" state that Iolo is looking for -- typically varies wildly depending on what drivers are installed, and what startup applications may be running. On a well-utilized XP-based system (and we have a truckload of those), that time may officially be never."

Not sure where this comes from, as anyone who understands the boot process of XP versus later models from Microsoft knows how certain things have purposely been taken out of the calculation of CPU usage, though they are still taking place, and dragging on CPU cycles.

I don't think many paid attention to this flap about Vista anyway - the test is speed to be usable for 7 vs XP, and on three of my machines, using identical drives (not different partitions on the same drive) XP was faster to become usable than with beta and RC. I'll come back after my Windows 7 party and see if it is faster than XP on the gold code.