You don't need to read this thread, if you don't want to. Feel free to start a topic you think appropriate for developers.
I never used the word "crippled", but anyway the fact that it has been gutted is a problem, yes. If MS left the Start menu as is but gave you the kiddie Start Screen and allowed you to do everything there if that is what you like, then fine. However that is not what they did. They gutted the desktop so people would be forced to use Metro whether they like it or not.
I'm pretty sure that I can do everything in Windows 8 that I did in Windows 7. Let me check for sure...
Yes, I can.
From the Windows 8 desktop, click on the network icon in the tray. WTF? Now click on "View Network Settings". WTF again! Is this a joke? This is just one simple example. It is all over the place.
Or you can just right-click and select "Open Network and Sharing Center" like you always could.So please stop acting like the desktop has not been changed.
I didn't say it didn't change.It is a sad empty shell of its former self.
Aw, poor baby. Can you no longer run applications that you could in Windows 7? Can you no longer manage files like you could before? Can you no longer manage your network settings like you could before? Can you no longer manage services like you could before? Can you no longer create network shares like you could before? Can you no longer muck with the Registry like you could before? Can you no longer control everything with PowerShell like you could before?*snip*
I work for a pretty big software company and the general viewpoint is that W8 is a joke for serious business use. People even use it to describe it when a big mistake was made, as in "someone had a Windows 8 moment".
There are big software companies that think doing everything from the command line Terminal and programming in Emacs are the bee's knees, so...But keep being in denial. At least there are signs that MS realized they made a big mistake.
I'm not in denial. I've learned how to use Windows 8 and lost no usability over Windows 7.*snip*
It doesn't make sense to you because you make two mistakes: You don't care for the Start menu and can't imagine how on earth other people don't feel exactly the way you do.
No, I can imagine why people react with outrage when somebody moves their cheese. What I can't understand is why these people act like the cheese was not only moved but that it was removed entirely even when the rest of point out exactly where it was moved to.And that you think the changes were only to the Start menu. No wonder it doesn't make sense to you.
The only other change you mentioned is the Metro based interface to network settings, which you don't have to use since the direct link to the Control Panel is still there.
Obvious change to what in 1971? The price of gold? So you think there's anything interesting to be gleaned from a graph that shows that the price of gold stayed steady when the US government fixed the price of gold at $35 and that it started fluctuating once it began trading as commodity and the price was determined solely by buyers and sellers on the commodities exchange?You keep rejecting my argument, while failing to make any reasonable argument of your own.
What argument? You're pointing to some change in the monetary system like it's responsible for fixing wages at some magical $800/week level without explaining anything. You have not said a thing about corporate profit margins or worker productivity or effects of automation on both productivity and margins. You might as well say "God done did it."
You're so focused on the monetary system change as the reason for inflation, and not once did you touch on the biggest driver of inflation in the early 1970s--the energy crisis of 1973 caused by the OAPEC oil embargo. See that? That's 1973. How many times have I pointed to 1973 as being some notable milestone in the wage graph?
As for my argument, I think I've been pretty clear. Wages have been kept down by the desire of corporations to keep increasing profit margins. I showed you how worker productivity and profit margins have been steadily increasing while wages have not.
I'll throw you a curve ball. I don't think it's solely the fault of the corporations to keep squeezing their employees for more profit. It's their response to the equities market that demands a higher EPS quarter after quarter, and ironically many of these employees themselves are playing in the same equities market.
I don't see a happy ending to this. The level of corporate profits demanded by the equities market needs a drastic reset. Companies are trying to make as much profit as possible by paying employees as little as possible, but people can't buy things made by these companies unless they have good paying jobs.I'll leave this here for you in case you still can't comprehend that the value of the dollar being tied to gold vs. not, has an effect on the value of the dollar. It's in the definition.
Go back and point out where I said that the new monetary system had no effect on the value of the dollar. What we're talking about is the INFLATION-ADJUSTED wage of the average worker. That takes what the inflation is/was and, as a consequence, what caused the inflation out of the equation.
Don't speak for me when you say the desktop is "crippled". Just say it's different, and you don't like different.
2. It is much more than just the Start menu that got gutted.
3. Enterprise has rejected the Windows 8 desktop. It doesn't matter how many times anyone says it didn't really change, or it is better, or just give it some time, or get over it, because the proof is in the pudding and it got rejected bigtime. Period.
I have not seen any firm numbers of enterprise adoption, but if this is true, I have an alternate hypothesis. Enterprise has not yet embraced touch devices nor implemented any LOB applications that use touch, and upgrading to touch-capable hardware represents a huge capital cost beyond upgrading software. So they don't see Windows 8 as compelling an upgrade on existing machines, and they would have thought the same if Windows 8 looked EXACTLY like Windows 7. And if they still are purchasing new machines that don't support touch, they don't want to bother installing the new OS and having to deal with training users on even the minor UI changes of the desktop.
But rationalizing it as complete rejection of the UI due to the removal of the stupid Start Menu makes so much more sense.
@bondsbw: Dude, you need to get off of your gold standard trip. You're latching onto some correlation and assuming causation. Wages with respect to how much everything else costs is driven primarily by how much businesses want to make in profit. Wages were dictated by profit motivation just as much before the gold standard was abolished as they were afterward and still are today.
If anything, there should have been a tighter correlation between prices and wages earlier in history when almost everything was done manually. So it should be expected that inflation-adjusted wages were lower 50-60 years ago. Now, US workers are far more productive AND making up a smaller percentage of the overall cost of doing business than ever before. However, their compensation has stagnated on an inflation-adjusted basis.
Explain this with your "blame everything on fiat money" hypothesis:
That graph shows exactly why wages have stagnated while profit margins have risen. This report shows how ridiculous profit motivation has gotten.S&P 500 profit margins have surged since bottoming in late 2009, however the market is having a difficult time getting additional margin expansion. Is a margin contraction possible for U.S. equity markets in 2012? Historically, margins tend to peak at the end of the business cycle. However, a toping[sic] out process is already occurring.
They're talking like it's worrisome that profit margins have peaked at 16% after the Great Recession even though it was only 9% back in 1982:
So Windows 8 desktop is "crippled" to you because it doesn't have the useless Start Menu?
2 hours ago, bondsbw wrote
According to HHS guidelines, people who make $32K are well above the poverty line (unless that is the only income in a family of six or more).
For a family of 4, $32K is just outside of qualifying for food stamps, and without grants and scholarships, the kids in that hypothetical family have almost no chance of ever going to college and perhaps moving out of the economic class of their parents.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, milk in Jan. 2004 cost $2.88/gallon and in Jan. 2014 cost $3.55/gallon, or an increase of 23%. That's nowhere near your grossly exaggerated "nearly doubled" remark.
In fact, based on inflation, it should have cost $3.63/gallon in Jan. 2014... so it actually requires less purchasing power than before.
I pay $4 per gallon, if I purchase 2 gallons at a time of a no-name brand. Otherwise, it's over $4.50 per gallon. As a commodity, milk fluctuates in price, but the trend is pretty clear. Even in the past 5 years, the price of milk has doubled.
Maybe the price of milk was actually higher in 2004 than it was in 2009. I don't know. I don't care. All I know is that the price is higher today than it was 10 years ago, and it doesn't change the fact that the prices of luxury technology products like large computer displays and large screen TVs always go down despite their improvement over time.
The value of the dollar was tied to the price of gold prior to 1971, which varied closely to the cost of all other goods/services.
Since 1971 the dollar is no longer tied to the price of gold and thus no longer keeps pace with the value of goods/services. That is the definition of inflation. The cost of goods/services tends to follow the cost of labor linearly, so any chart that shows inflation vs. real wages will trend flat since 1971.
And you still didn't explain how ditching the gold standard in 1971 caused inflation-adjusted wages to go up for 2 years and then gradually go down for 9 year and then level off for the next 30 years. And explain why it arbitrarily leveled off at around $900/week instead of $1500/week or even $500/week.
The only thing you're imagining is that the two are comparable. In-N-Out exists primarily in California, and McDonald's exists all over the nation. California has a higher minimum wage and a much higher cost of living than other locations in the US.
I'm not imagining anything. Check the city-specific figures. The starting McDonald's salary in the SF Bay Area is $8.44, and it's $10.67 at In-N-Out. Why is it so hard to believe that some highly-successful companies are able to pay better wages and still make a killing without raising prices?
Natural selection? That line of reasoning started when you asserted that the business should artificially change their wages.
What's more natural than forcing companies to compete based on real wages rather than allowing companies like McDonald's and Wal-Mart compete with the help of taxpayer subsidies?
Let's throw all sense out the window while we're at it.
"Throwing sense out the window" is exactly what you did when you claimed that minimum wage jobs will be replaced by automation because of a mere $2/hour hike in the federal minimum wage. Don't throw out ridiculous slippery-slope arguments if you aren't willing to accept a different point of view on that slide down.
Sure, and it's a trickle effect. Eventually it will happen but who is to say it will happen immediately? And what pays for the increase of wages? Oh right, more price increases. Which means less buying power, etc. until it stabilizes. By that time, people are again complaining that the minimum wage is too low. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Meanwhile, the rich haven't been affected at all but the lower-middle class has. Congrats, another bureaucratic system that doesn't do what it is intended to.
If you're claiming that minimum wage hikes cause an endless cycle of price and wage increases, the rich most certainly will be affected. Perhaps the rich will start spending their money when they see the value of their money go down.
CEOs must still be getting paid in gold bullion instead of fiat money then. That would be the only explanation for this.In 1965, the average CEO made 20 times the average worker. Now the ratio is 273 to 1, meaning the average CEO makes in a day what their workers make in a year.