Slashdot Mirror

For example, imagine a set of virtual "rooms" each one is dedicated to a specific task.

It was called Microsoft Bob.
It was a spectacular flop, and its only major legacy is the MS Office Assistants (The Dot is unchanged, and the tradition of the most irritating personality being the default started there.).

For example, imagine a set of virtual "rooms" each one is dedicated to a specific task.

It was called Microsoft Bob.
It was a spectacular flop, and its only major legacy is the MS Office Assistants (The Dot is unchanged, and the tradition of the most irritating personality being the default started there.).

it wasn't like it was marketed heavily as some big, new thing

Actually, it was. Huge store displays, lots of press. The box even said "Introducing Hard-working, Easy-going Software Everyone Will Use."

Even if it wasn't marketed heavily, that's still pretty ominous.

The MS apps were included.

It does seem that you might be right on PageMaker, but here is proof that there was at least one Win1.x third-party app.

Actually, I had to use PFS:FirstChoice

Although, I really liked Appleworks.

Microsoft's "intelligent agent" is a product of Microsoft Bob which featured loads of these things. I think that those of us who are computer-literate often forget that there is a "great unwashed mass" out there that cannot for the life of them find that last file they downloaded and still don't know how to cut and paste or drag and drop between applications.

Microsoft has been "dumbing down" Word ever since Word for Windows version 2 and Word for the Macintosh version 5. I note that with Word 6 the automatic saving and restoring of names and addresses for each letter one made went away. "Autoformat" became "manual format" and has now "morphed" into "how Microsoft thinks your document should be formatted instead of how you really want it."

Unlike Cringely, I am hesitant to "upgrade," knowing full well that the next iteration of Microsoft's software will be worse than the last, requiring me to learn how to get around its maddening dumbing down "features." I found that when I moved to OS X, I had to upgrade to their Office X -- I was able to use Office version 4.2.1 just fine with Apple's System 9, which did not eat up processor cycles with "intelligent asisstants" and "a more colorful user interface."

Until Excel, or a better spreadsheet, ceases to be a requirement for me, I shall continue to rely on Office X and not install PowerPoint, the Office Menu Bar and their E-Mail program (which is dangerous to use because of the ease by which it may be spoofed by Macro Virii).

If I recall the Great Word Processor Debate of the 1980s and early 1990s, the definitive answer was: The Word Processor You Know Best Is Always Superior.

Please don't tell me it's M$ Bob!

... is this don't turn out into something like a 3D Windows BOB

As Edward Tufte points out in The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Envisioning Information, and Visual Explanations, the meaningful display of information is about removing visual clutter, not introducing it.

Just as a PowerPoint presentation doesn't really increase our ability to grok the quarterly sales figures, the visual fluff of metaphorical buildings and busses doesn't help us understand traffic data. Simple bar graphs do not introduce the distortion of perspective. They're not sexy, but they do not make it more difficult to discern relationships between data elements, the way a 3d urban representation does.

I'm also reminded of good old Microsoft Bob, and some of the more antiquated websites from the 1990s that forced a metaphor onto something that didn't need one in the first place. Back in those days, Web designers felt that people wanted an "experience" when what they really wanted was an attractive and clean interface to information, organized in a way that would be useful.

Professional web developers and marketers (I know, they're all stupid, they all want dumbed-down visual information, blah blah blah) need information they can drill down into quickly and easily without a lot of superflous distraction. There are already several good tools, like Summary and FunnelWeb, on the market. I don't think this experiment will make it in an already saturated market.

HAHA.. No innovation?! Obviously You have never tryed this brilliant piece of software

Of course Microsoft innovate! Don't you remember Bob?

As of Windows 95 AV was back as a third party issue. I've often wondered whether they dropped it because of (a) concern about potential liability, (b) the implied "our OS is not secure" marketing issues, (c) simply too much tech support trouble, (d) all of the above or (e) something else entirely.

• After central point died, MS just didn't bother trying another one
• Another anti virus vendor cried "Anti-Trust!" and MS backed down
• None were ready for Win95 at the time
• MS just didn't care
• Any combo of the above...

Bob??? isn't that what morphed into XP???
Looking at that
welcome screen on the page you gave sure reminds me of the XP HE login screen...

Remember "Bob" from Microsoft? The predecessor to "Clippy"?

The REAL legacy of Microsoft Bob, from Wikipedia:

Microsoft Bob was a project managed by Melinda French, who later married Bill Gates to become Melinda Gates.

it's satisfying to see some of those fortunes being spent to help create good software for a change.

Just what is "good" software? Quality good? MS makes quality software. Is it guaranteed that all software produced/supported by the FSF will be of high quality?

Morally good? How can software be moral or immoral? It just is. You may not think the method of production is moral (think slave labor in diamond mines) or the use of the product is moral (think use of encryption by drug cartels) or even if it was moral to produce the product in the first place (think TEC-9) but really, those cases are really about the morality of the producer and not the product.

Is Microsoft an immoral organization? What does that mean? If a company has done good and bad which actions determine the character of the company? The standardization of the desktop (Windows) and of basic productivity applications (Office) has certainly accelerated the acceptance of the personal computer, and that appears to be a good thing.

Of course, Microsoft's motive was profit. But is that immoral? Microsoft is a company. Companies seek profit. Even more than that, companies want to dominate their markets. Microsoft clearly achieved that and not through anti-competitive practices. Once upon a time, Wordstar was king, Visicalc was the sole player in the spreadsheet domain, and GEM was the GUI to use on a PC. Microsoft came to dominate those areas through quality software and marketing savvy.

Microsoft was successful at doing what it was supposed to be doing. That's not bad any more than the failure of a company is good. Next time think before you throw out your knee-jerk rhetoric. Consider your position and choose your words to say what you mean.