PDA

View Full Version : Windows 8 unveiled...



Snosrap
06-01-2011, 10:03 PM
Check it out here http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/01/microsoft-unveils-windows-8-tablet-prototypes/

It looks like more eye candy crap! Where is my Amiga!

Dexter2999
06-01-2011, 10:10 PM
crap it is

OnlineRender
06-02-2011, 04:00 AM
http://windows8beta.com/

the official beta is out soon

LW_Will
06-02-2011, 04:01 AM
How much overhead does that interface require?

It okay... for a Tablet.

Where's the Win8Pro version?

;-\

archijam
06-02-2011, 05:30 AM
For my tablet this looks freaking awesome.

I have been REALLY disappointed with the claimed tablet friendliness of win7 .. it was bollocks.


What I would say (on finishing the video) that it wastes a lot of desktop space top and bottom .. and I am nervous about it's customisability.

Hope everyone likes rainbows .. they are the BEST ;)

BigHache
06-02-2011, 07:51 AM
I was kind of excited at first that the OS was really sleek and minimal, but it's just running on top of the same OS. :/

But this does look really good for tablet.

biliousfrog
06-02-2011, 09:48 AM
I'm actually far more impressed than I expected to be...MS has actually created a cool new OS interface. If Apple had shown that OS twitter would have crashed within seconds and the Apple stores would have required paramedics on standby.

I don't really get why the screen real estate is an issue personally, it seems to be used well from what I can see. Sure they could have squeezed more into the top and bottom but then it wouldn't have felt so spacious and well designed...it would have looked just like a current OS. There's obviously an option to run it in good ol' 'classic' Windows mode if preferred.

Well done microsoft.

Larry_g1s
06-02-2011, 10:04 AM
For my tablet this looks freaking awesome.Agreed. :thumbsup:

IMI
06-02-2011, 11:55 AM
I don't men this sarcastically, but could someone explain just why this would be great for tablets? All I see is the guy putting fingerprints all over his monitor screen.
Speaking of which, what kind of problems could this introduce for multiple monitor setups?
Looks just too gimmicky, probably a waste of money for anyone who would just disable these touch features.

Bill Carey
06-02-2011, 01:07 PM
Yah, looks like a great marketing tool for OSX and Linux.

cresshead
06-02-2011, 01:31 PM
looks pretty...just how real world useful for pro apps is something we'll have to wait n see on....blitter and headbook users will rejoice no doubt

ken_g9
06-02-2011, 04:50 PM
I wonder if the desktop OS will also get the tablet/phone interface...I'm not sure if this would work with a mice/keyboard (in my case, pen/keyboard). We'll have to wait and see I guess.

IMI
06-02-2011, 06:34 PM
looks pretty...just how real world useful for pro apps is something we'll have to wait n see on....blitter and headbook users will rejoice no doubt

To use a frequent cressheadism, it looks like poo to me. :D

Shiny_Mike
06-02-2011, 06:51 PM
I am experiencing revulsion

meatycheesyboy
06-02-2011, 07:44 PM
Under the tiles is the standard interface so all of your current applications will run exactly the same as they do now and won't be affected by the lack of real estate i the 'tiles' interface. As for the resources, I read in another article (Gizmodo I think) that Win 8 has actually been optimized to use fewer resources than 7.

I for one am excited to see where they go. At least they're trying new things and not just following Apple. I feel like Microsoft has been on a roll lately but somehow still can't catch a break.

Dexter2999
06-02-2011, 08:08 PM
I feel like Microsoft has been on a roll lately but somehow still can't catch a break.

The won't catch a break with me because the OS should be a tool. And they aren't making tools. Tools are practical things that people use to solve problems. Tools occasionally make strides but a good tool tends to be resistant to time. Hammers and Saws have been around a very very long time.

What they are making is flashy entertaining interfaces and gimmicky crap. They are pandering to the ignorant by "dumbing down" everything. The problem with this approach is that people get bored with it and want something new and flashy in a short period. So things have to get relearned. The interface gets recreated so people have to spend time relearning something new rather than learning advanced techniques on the existing tech.

Snosrap
06-02-2011, 08:26 PM
What they are making is flashy entertaining interfaces and gimmicky crap. They are pandering to the ignorant by "dumbing down" everything.

100% :agree: The whole window snapping ad campaign for 7 just made me laugh everytime I saw it. Jeez, can't people position their own windows. BTW is there anyway to disable that? Windows snap to full screen when I don't want them to.:thumbsdow

meatycheesyboy
06-02-2011, 10:50 PM
So things have to get relearned. The interface gets recreated so people have to spend time relearning something new rather than learning advanced techniques on the existing tech.

The Windows UI has been fundamentally the same since Windows 95. I'd hardly consider evolutionary changes over a 16 year period to be so frequent that people are constantly relearning the interface. And those evolutionary changes haven't been for nothing. Go back and use Windows 2000 or even Windows XP and tell me that they should have stuck with those instead of making the changes they made in Windows 7. Compared to what we have right now they seem absolutely archaic and yes far worse to work in.

Dexter2999
06-02-2011, 11:18 PM
We use XP on all of our computers at work. And I work for a multibillion dollar multinational company.

Things an OS doesn't NEED:
pretty rounded buttons
windows with transparency
media tools
"widgets"
online help
actually assuming that all users have internet in general

Things I don't appreciate about MS
hiding the administrator account
the "ribbon" in the new Office products
the fact that they hide functions in the new Office products
overcomplicated networking that is covered over with dumbed down wizard
their license system
refusal to use "unsigned driver"

The media tools are fun things to have but never mistake that for something that should be a part of the operating system. Everyone needs a pot in the kitchen, but I don't need one welded onto the stove when I buy it.

I think we differ on the term "archaic." I find Windows 2000 and XP very no nonsense to work in. There are no "hoops" to jump through. There is no differentiation between sharing media files and sharing all files. It is just sharing, period.

I love that I can go to my network panel and set up a peer to peer network by entering IP addresses and a subnet mask without the OS insisting that the network is insecure. "HEY JACKA$$ES!!! IT"S A CLOSED NETWORK! AS IN NOT ON LINE! IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SECURE!"

For me, Windows 2000 and XP are like working in LW, no nonsense tools that work, and in some instances those OS's are even more strait forward than LW (like two buttons to enable VIPER, or separate panels to create and enable Hypervoxels, or Camera properties and render properties being separated and not directly linked by a button)

meatycheesyboy
06-03-2011, 12:42 AM
We use XP on all of our computers at work. And I work for a multibillion dollar multinational company.

In a large corporate situation it makes sense to stay a generation or two behind, no sense spending multi-millions of dollars upgrading the entire organization if something works. So in that sense, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was speaking as a single user running a small home network.



Things an OS doesn't NEED:
pretty rounded buttons
windows with transparency
media tools
"widgets"
online help
actually assuming that all users have internet in general



You are correct, they aren't NEEDED in an OS but if MS left them out more people would be whining about their not being there than those who don't like that they are.



Things I don't appreciate about MS
hiding the administrator account
the "ribbon" in the new Office products
the fact that they hide functions in the new Office products
overcomplicated networking that is covered over with dumbed down wizard
their license system
refusal to use "unsigned driver"


Being a single user on a small home network, I can't reliably speak to the administrator account statement but being a daily user of Office all the way back to Office 2000, I can say that the 1 week of inconvenience of learning the ribbon has been paid back to me 100 fold in the ease of use I've gotten out of it.

As for hiding functions, as programs get more complicated it is always the case that more obscure features get "hidden". Just take a look at the dreaded additional button in LW.

And for the networking things, again, I'm a small time user that has had no problems in that area.



The media tools are fun things to have but never mistake that for something that should be a part of the operating system. Everyone needs a pot in the kitchen, but I don't need one welded onto the stove when I buy it.


I would hardly call the media features that are built in to Windows, "welded on". They can be removed if you want to. And if you never use them, they never never show themselves so it's like they just aren't there at all.



I think we differ on the term "archaic." I find Windows 2000 and XP very no nonsense to work in. There are no "hoops" to jump through. There is no differentiation between sharing media files and sharing all files. It is just sharing, period.


This again goes back to the fundamental differences in our situation. I will say though that on my home network (4 computers, 1 set top box, xbox 360, Wii, 2 phones, and a 12TB server), I have never had to do anything different to share one type of file versus another amongst users.

As for the no nonsense to work in: when I want to use LW, I turn on my monitor, jiggle my mouse to wake the computer and double click on the LW icon (or PS or AE, etc.). In that sense, I still maintain that the fundamental Windows experience hasn't changed in 16 years and am not sure what's so much harder in the newer versions as opposed to the older versions.



I love that I can go to my network panel and set up a peer to peer network by entering IP addresses and a subnet mask without the OS insisting that the network is insecure. "HEY JACKA$$ES!!! IT"S A CLOSED NETWORK! AS IN NOT ON LINE! IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SECURE!"

For me, Windows 2000 and XP are like working in LW, no nonsense tools that work, and in some instances those OS's are even more strait forward than LW (like two buttons to enable VIPER, or separate panels to create and enable Hypervoxels, or Camera properties and render properties being separated and not directly linked by a button)


Just like NT is trying to modernize and streamline LW to be faster to work in, MS can be seen as trying to do the same. If you want an OS that does nothing but launch programs, any version of Windows will do just fine but I don't mind that they are trying to make the experience a bit more pleasant in the meantime.

Overall, I think many of the differences we have come down to major differences in what we need and the situations in which we use our computers. You may have legitimate problems with Windows that I don't fully understand and that's fine. For me, I have no particular love or hatred of any product or company. I just support whatever is working for me at the moment and for right now, Windows absolutely works for me.

meatycheesyboy
06-03-2011, 12:46 AM
100% :agree: The whole window snapping ad campaign for 7 just made me laugh everytime I saw it. Jeez, can't people position their own windows. BTW is there anyway to disable that? Windows snap to full screen when I don't want them to.:thumbsdow

Yes, you can disable it. Go to "Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Ease of Access Center\Make the mouse easier to use" and check the box that says "Prevent windows from being automatically arranged when moved to the edge of the screen".

I personally find it to be quite handy, especially once you learn the shortcut keys for it: WIN+arrows.

WIN+Left to make a windows take up the left half of the screen.
WIN+Right to make a windows take up the right half of the screen.
Win+Up to maximize.
Win+Down to restore or minimize.

biliousfrog
06-03-2011, 01:52 AM
The won't catch a break with me because the OS should be a tool. And they aren't making tools. Tools are practical things that people use to solve problems. Tools occasionally make strides but a good tool tends to be resistant to time. Hammers and Saws have been around a very very long time.

What they are making is flashy entertaining interfaces and gimmicky crap. They are pandering to the ignorant by "dumbing down" everything. The problem with this approach is that people get bored with it and want something new and flashy in a short period. So things have to get relearned. The interface gets recreated so people have to spend time relearning something new rather than learning advanced techniques on the existing tech.

Is it dumbing down or simplifying? The Windows/Apple interface has been more-or-less unchanged since it was first introduced yet personal computers have changed dramatically in the way that they're used. Many of the things which you later go on to list are things which have been added on to the underlying, outdated OS to bring it up to date...but the OS itself is still very much the same. Even with Windows 8 it looks like they've stuck with the same ol' format but added an extra layer on top to make the interface more intuitive for many users.

The 'tiles' thing is what impressed me most...application icons are nice for keeping real-estate low but a complete PITA for organising stuff.

An example I'm sure we can all relate to is having multiple Modeler and Layout icons for different versions...what are the options? Have them all listed in the start menu, have them all bunched together on the desktop, put them into folders on the desktop according to version number or 32/64bit....it's a very clunky way of working and, apart from seperating them into version and 'bit', you're still going to open the wrong app at times.

The interface might not be ideal for working with mouse...I'm not sure...I suspect that I'd use my Wacom much more though rather than switching to a mouse for everything other than using graphics apps. I'm very surprised that nobody here is seeing how intuitive this would be with a tablet...especially as most of you probably use one regularly.

AmigaNewTek
06-03-2011, 02:05 AM
Check it out here http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/01/microsoft-unveils-windows-8-tablet-prototypes/

It looks like more eye candy crap! Where is my Amiga!

Actually you can buy new Amiga:
http://www.acube-systems.biz/
http://www.hyperion-entertainment.biz/

OS and new high spec hardware are coming too.


:)

50one
06-03-2011, 02:51 AM
I'm still on Vista 64bit....But I guess it's still good as many people including my employer are using XP.

I'm annoyed with their release schedule and double annoyed with the upgrade prices( Ģ10 off when updating from vista ultimate to Win7 ultimate....)

So...before I decide to give ver. 8 a go there will be v9 beta out.

biliousfrog
06-03-2011, 03:07 AM
I'm still on Vista 64bit....But I guess it's still good as many people including my employer are using XP.

I'm annoyed with their release schedule and double annoyed with the upgrade prices( Ģ10 off when updating from vista ultimate to Win7 ultimate....)

So...before I decide to give ver. 8 a go there will be v9 beta out.

Is there any reason why you need Win7 Ultimate?...The professional version is as much as most people could ever need.

I can highly recommend Win7, I've got several XP64 machines, one Vista and a couple of Win7...Vista is easily the worst of the lot for performance and usability. It has improved a lot with the service packs but I'd still go for XP over Vista any day...although Windows 7 is by far the best OS from MS to date.

Dexter2999
06-03-2011, 03:08 AM
Well guys, guess it is just my age showing. I'm the PC version of the grumpy old man yelling "GET OFF MY LAWN!"

I have been using computers for roughly thirty years. I started in my early teens pre-Windows. I have used MS Office since v1.0. The ribbon just chucked 20 years of experience in the trash. I remember when computers were sold with Windows 3.1 and computer manufacturers included a separate "consumer friendly" shell that would often run at startup. It made the computers easy to use but I had to fight people to get them to stop using the shell so they would actually learn the OS. I had to reason with them that they bought a PC because that was what they used at work, so using a shell they weren't using at work defeated the purpose (might as well have bought a Mac...which by they way never had this problem)

And you are right about what most people wanting with the bells and whistles. But most people are stupid. Sorry, but it's true. There is a theory that I came up with on my own but a sociologist actually proved and named but it is 80%/20%. Twenty percent of the population is advancing the culture and dragging the other 80% along with it.

That 80% is why Lindsey Lohan stories are on CNN. They are why Jerry Springer has a career. They are why there are written warnings not to put pets in microwave ovens.

I still maintain the OS is a tool first. Much like a phone is a tool. And MS is making the OS perform not so much like a tool but as an entertainment device, much like the way a teenage girl uses a phone...it's obnoxious to me.

kopperdrake
06-03-2011, 04:36 AM
Yes, you can disable it. Go to "Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Ease of Access Center\Make the mouse easier to use" and check the box that says "Prevent windows from being automatically arranged when moved to the edge of the screen".

That sentence, that sentence right there, sums up for me why Windows, from Vista onwards, does my nut in...

"Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Ease of Access Center\Make the mouse easier to use"

You need to have an Escher-like mind to figure out that's where to go!

XP here, and Win7 with *all* bells and whistles turned off. Here's waiting for a company to release an OS with decent file browsing/management ability and none of the glorified bells and whistles soaking up overheads, either real estate or memory or cpu.

The problem we are seeing here is convergence (or is it divergence?). I want bells and whistles on my laptop at home, I want to browse my music, my video files, search the web in a lazy, browsy kind of way. I want my widgets so I can check the weather, the radio stations, the price of a loaf of bread, and so on.

At work I want the OS to stay the heck away from my applications. If possible I don't even want a bar at the bottom of the page I can accidentally click on, but I want it all back if I need it. I just want the thing to help me with file management - renaming stuff en masse, searching for files in a way other than by text, to get hooked into a network easily, to share network items easily. Basically, *anything* that doesn't detract from the job in hand and helps me get to the data I need as fast as possible, and to diseminate that data to others as I see fit, in as easy a way as possible.

Windows seems to be trying to cater to both sets of needs, and this will never work. Pimped out ride or F1 racing car, both have wheels, but that's where the similarity ends.

Dexter2999
06-03-2011, 05:18 AM
Here's waiting for a company to release an OS with decent file browsing/management ability and none of the glorified bells and whistles soaking up overheads, either real estate or memory or cpu.


One my favorite tricks from Windows 2000 was to take the My Computer icon and make a shortcut that I placed on the taskbar. This let me cruise through everything on my computer just like you were using drop down menus.

Then they took that away.

Now it has sort of been re-introduced as the all new and improved "stacks" (more or less same thing...just like Vista was pretty much XP with Google desktop thrown in.)

50one
06-03-2011, 05:27 AM
Is there any reason why you need Win7 Ultimate?...The professional version is as much as most people could ever need.

Well, I'm going to build a new rig this summer and to be honest I wanted to get myself a Win7 with that, that's why I looked into the upgrade prices, besides I hate being left behind(that's how I feel with vista - It feels like Windows Me - disappeared from the shelves faster than it appeared.)

50one
06-03-2011, 05:29 AM
Speaking of tricks..One of my favourite's was to create a desktop shortcut to rundll32 with nice icon and add -keyboardisable and -mousedisable to command line and name it nice like "sexy pics" but that was in Win'98, ahhhh memories!!

Dexter2999
06-03-2011, 05:32 AM
Speaking of tricks..One of my favourite's was to create a desktop shortcut to rundll32 with nice icon and add -keyboardisable and -mousedisable to command line and name it nice like "sexy pics" but that was in Win'98, ahhhh memories!!

Ever do a Print Screen of someones desktop, then remove all of the icons and use the image as the wallpaper?

Lightwolf
06-03-2011, 05:50 AM
One my favorite tricks from Windows 2000 was to take the My Computer icon and make a shortcut that I placed on the taskbar. This let me cruise through everything on my computer just like you were using drop down menus.

Then they took that away.
XP: Start Menu -> Customise to make "My Computer" act as a menu.

Cheers,
Mike

Dexter2999
06-03-2011, 06:15 AM
XP: Start Menu -> Customise to make "My Computer" act as a menu.

Cheers,
Mike

Interesting, thanks for that Mike. Never would have found that as the option isn't available under Classic Start Menu Options.

Lightwolf
06-03-2011, 06:28 AM
Interesting, thanks for that Mike. Never would have found that as the option isn't available under Classic Start Menu Options.
If you want to run an old school GUI then run an old school OS... :hey:

Seriously though... there's probably more issues with people switching off the "eye-candy" in Vista and Win7 than there are due to them staying activated.

I for one am certainly looking forward to Win8 (heck I'm mostly on XP with the occasional OSX and Vista anyhow). I don't think that the tile based GUI makes sense for pro desktop use, but it doesn't need to either.

As a side question: What is the essential function of a OS anyhow? I bet even that "simple" question would raise a lot of controversy.

Cheers,
Mike

Dexter2999
06-03-2011, 06:35 AM
As a side question: What is the essential function of a OS anyhow? I bet even that "simple" question would raise a lot of controversy.

Cheers,
Mike

For me, an OS should be a stable platform for running applications and provide a means for file management.

To that end, I would rather have an OS with a built in file naming utility rather than animated windows flying up and down from the taskbar.

And I agree with your comments about more issues turning things off. I tried to use my laptop for work. Unfortunately attempting to turn off auto updates, auto indexing, animated windows, and the Aero stuff kept crashing the system at some point. It would work find for a few weeks then suddenly the computer would lock up a few seconds after boot up. After having to re-install Vista for the sixth time in one year (yes 6 times in 12 months!) I finally just installed the OS and left all work app's off. It is now just for web surfing and playing on. And since I didn't turn off all the extra crap, it hasn't had a single issue. Go figure.

Lightwolf
06-03-2011, 06:41 AM
For me, an OS should be a stable platform for running applications and provide a means for file management.
Interestingly enough I'd even take out file management. Heck, there's OSes out there that don't have any file management (for the user).

Cheers,
Mike

Dexter2999
06-03-2011, 06:55 AM
See, I look at the OS to address the two primary functions of the computer.
First being to run applications. This is where the stable platform part comes in.
Second being a device to store information. Much like the Windows 3.1 icon of the file cabinet, I think of the computer as a digital storage medium. As such, being able to access those files and set up groups or indexes should fall under the OS. Again, just my opinion.

Honestly, I can't imagine the use of an OS that uses a GUI where file management is omitted. If the OS was strictly for running applications, no reason for a gui is there? Just like back in the DOS days where you just type the name of the program you want to run.

Lightwolf
06-03-2011, 07:11 AM
Honestly, I can't imagine the use of an OS that uses a GUI where file management is omitted.
iOS, PalmOS, embedded devices (to name a few).
Sure, they have the concept of files and provide those to applications, but they're not explicitly visible to the user.
In that sense the OS provides no manual file management.

Most OSes also explicitly outsource that task to their shells (which, in some cases, can even be swapped out).
Even Win8 does that to a certain degree by the looks of it.

Mind you, just a simple "let it run applications" is either a tiny or a massive requirement. Again, depending on what you demand from an OS.

Cheers,
Mike

prometheus
06-03-2011, 07:41 AM
My favourite OS was the windows 2000, it worked most elegant when handling windows, moving files in the explorer etc, no big eyecandy but it worked like a charm.

However, I am for new interfaces, and some things in windows 7 I like, but they are in babystages and not completed.

Unfortunatly new interfaces & software demands more on a system, that is an expansion law we have to live with...or crawl back to where we were.

Im not sure what to say about the new windows 8, using touchscreen devices is in the future, but it must be left available to be as easy to work on with mouse,tablets or 3d connection devices.

Im not that big fan of those image apps, but it depends on..windows 8 needs to be highly customized, image app like those shown might carry to much information to be not easy on the eyes, and under those circumstances I would prefer carefully designed icons, just as long as I can change icon or image app and also change itīs size almost seamless.
Image apps to look like a business market place isnīt to aim for.

Currently today as I am aware of, you can only have icon sizes 256x256 or something, and to me thatīs to small.

If I could change every individual Icon size so I could have LW 9.6 32 bit and 64 bit and LW 10 32 and 64 bit next to eachother, that would be nice, I donīt think it works well with color destinction only, they need to have both version number and 32 or 64 bit number within the icon wich today are too small, but with individual sizing that would be solved.

I would like to have a design where you in the middle of the screen could have a circular wheel wich you can set up with starting apps/icons, in the middle is the Core Center(not lightwave..yet) wich is the root/my computer.

From there you can browse through everything like in explorer, you have outer wheel circles wich can contain other icons of choosing, a main icon for 3d, music, 2d graphics, internet and other stuff..you could hover over them and expand by a simple click to reach inside those main icons wich would open up all the programs in those categories.

Uhhm..If I had the time I would Like to do a mockup interface for fun.

I had some fun with stardock-object dock for windows, but I think I ditch it because it took to much system resources.
Hereīs some links...

Is it just me thinking this.. or does in fact most people like Mac interface the most?

http://www.stardock.com/products/objectdock/
http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Windows-Dock-Screenshot-118287.html


Michael

Lightwolf
06-03-2011, 07:49 AM
My favourite OS was the windows 2000, it worked most elegant when handling windows, moving files in the explorer etc, no big eyecandy but it worked like a charm.
No big eyecandy?
Hah, it was all eye candy... Especially compared to NT4 or even NT 3.51 ... :hey:

Cheers,
Mike

archijam
06-03-2011, 09:11 AM
No big eyecandy?
Hah, it was all eye candy... Especially compared to NT4 or even NT 3.51 ... :hey:

Cheers,
Mike

... Or Norton Commander on 3.1 ;) ..

meatycheesyboy
06-03-2011, 09:25 AM
That sentence, that sentence right there, sums up for me why Windows, from Vista onwards, does my nut in...

"Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Ease of Access Center\Make the mouse easier to use"

You need to have an Escher-like mind to figure out that's where to go!


Before typing that reply, I didn't know you could turn snap off. To find out I certainly didn't need an Escher-like mind. I opened an explorer window, pressed the help button in the upper right corner, typed snap, pressed enter, scanned the list of topics, saw what I wanted was #3 and clicked on it. The resulting help entry, told me step by step how to do it with a link to take you to the correct place and has a link to a video to show you how to do it as well.

SBowie
06-03-2011, 09:44 AM
I'm a glass half full kind of guy, admittedly, but I was just glad to see something relatively fresh.

Matt
06-03-2011, 11:05 AM
So long as it works with Directory Opus and I can turn off the tile stuff easily (as it makes no sense for a mouse / keyboard / non-touchscreen desktop) I'll be happy.

Snosrap
06-03-2011, 08:58 PM
Yes, you can disable it. Go to "Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Ease of Access Center\Make the mouse easier to use" and check the box that says "Prevent windows from being automatically arranged when moved to the edge of the screen".

Thanks millions! I would have never looked under "Make mouse easier to use." :D

Snosrap
06-03-2011, 09:02 PM
Actually you can buy new Amiga:
http://www.acube-systems.biz/
http://www.hyperion-entertainment.biz/

OS and new high spec hardware are coming too.


:)

Thanks for the links. I'll have to dust off the old 1200 and see how it holds up my todays standards.