Microsoft has been around for quite a while, developing operating system after operating system, and now here they are, resident, in a majority of society's mind, as the only way to go. Of course, it hasn't always been in such a prestine position...
You see, it all started with Windows Version 1, just an attempt at an operating system for the newly spreading PC ideal, alas, Version 1 was far from a hit. Version 2 followed right in the footsteps of Version 1. Despite the initial failures, however, Version 3.0 was developed for another attempt to win the PC populus, which wasn't even much at the time, but its popularity was borderline. Then came Windows 3.1, which turned out to be a great deal more popular than its predecessors. Next, as an addition to Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11 was developed, a Windows environment for Work Groups! As soon as 3.11 was developed, it was not soon after that Windows 95 was in the making, and when 95 reared its head, the idea of such a simple-to-use GUI in a more flexible environment than what Macintosh offered had spread through the minds of the spreading PC user society. By the time Windows 95 emerged, Windows had pried the minds of hundreds of PC users, and from there, Windows became the only way to go for the average computer user. Its simple point and click environment offered such amazing flexibility to the user it was astounding, thus urging the development of Windows 98, the upgrade to 95, and 2000, the upgrade to Windows NT 4.0.
Windows had to work its way up just like anything else, but it was more successful because it offered a simple user-environment to the average user without that user having to learn a great deal about computers. Dah... move dah mouse, George... There wasn't a multitude of commands or macros one had to learn to get around the OS--I mean come on, the average user even has trouble locating files they just downloaded or installed. Microsoft's popularity is simple to see, and its degradation over time is actually expected: think about the first time you meet a beautiful girl or guy, what's on your mind? Giving it your all and attempting to be the dearest angel, just to make a good impression, right? Well, this lasts for about four weeks or so, the so-called Honeymoon phase, but after those first few weeks elapse, you start becoming more slack and comfortable, doing things you could never see yourself doing in the beginning. And when you move in together, oh! That's when shit really starts to fly! But this is beside the point. So, now here Microsoft is, owning 75% [just a guestimation] of the PC world, producing far-from-optimized code, and bundling neat, miscellaneous things into their distros for the users that made Microsoft so big to begin with! It was the average PC user who brought MS to such levels of grandeur, so why shouldn't MS bundle the programs it does? It's not just an operating system, it's a source of usability for millions of average PC users.
Don't get me wrong, I use as little MS products as I can [Litestep], but we have to keep in mind how MS got to where they are, and do what they do. Now, this is just my opinion, as far as it may be from accepted, but I'm just allowing for some passiveness in the case of Microsoft, even though I don't advocate it as being a great operating system.
Let's step into this very medium of communication--the world wide web. All those webpages scattered about the web, code folded over code to assure that users of all variants are able to view a certain page. Page designers have to peruse the web in search of web browser documentation for not only different browsers, but different versions of different browsers. We have to worry about the peons still using version 4 of Internet Explorer and Netscape Communicator! Browser checking is a pain in the neck, and aside from this, IE and NS play the browser version hiding game, so checking their versions isn't a simple one, two, three.
I wish I knew the answer to when enough was enough, but I am at a loss. I will say, however, that I make my decisions of how far to go back in terms of versions by how much flexibility and usability the older versions offer. Anything less than version 4 of either Netscape or Internet Explorer offers very little in terms of flexible design.
But honestly, where do we set that limit? I don't think it's the best thing to do to say, "Conform or die!" If that's how things were, then the world would be swarming with Hitler's Nazis.
"You there! Cake or death!?" Uhh... death, no, no, I mean cake! "Ha, ha, you said death first!" I meant cake! "Oh, alright.. here's your cake. Thank you for playing Church of England, Cake or Death?"
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has been around for quite a while, developing operating system after operating system, and now here they are, resident, in a majority of society's mind, as the only way to go. Of course, it hasn't always been in such a prestine position...
You see, it all started with Windows Version 1, just an attempt at an operating system for the newly spreading PC ideal, alas, Version 1 was far from a hit. Version 2 followed right in the footsteps of Version 1. Despite the initial failures, however, Version 3.0 was developed for another attempt to win the PC populus, which wasn't even much at the time, but its popularity was borderline. Then came Windows 3.1, which turned out to be a great deal more popular than its predecessors. Next, as an addition to Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11 was developed, a Windows environment for Work Groups! As soon as 3.11 was developed, it was not soon after that Windows 95 was in the making, and when 95 reared its head, the idea of such a simple-to-use GUI in a more flexible environment than what Macintosh offered had spread through the minds of the spreading PC user society. By the time Windows 95 emerged, Windows had pried the minds of hundreds of PC users, and from there, Windows became the only way to go for the average computer user. Its simple point and click environment offered such amazing flexibility to the user it was astounding, thus urging the development of Windows 98, the upgrade to 95, and 2000, the upgrade to Windows NT 4.0.
Windows had to work its way up just like anything else, but it was more successful because it offered a simple user-environment to the average user without that user having to learn a great deal about computers. Dah... move dah mouse, George... There wasn't a multitude of commands or macros one had to learn to get around the OS--I mean come on, the average user even has trouble locating files they just downloaded or installed. Microsoft's popularity is simple to see, and its degradation over time is actually expected: think about the first time you meet a beautiful girl or guy, what's on your mind? Giving it your all and attempting to be the dearest angel, just to make a good impression, right? Well, this lasts for about four weeks or so, the so-called Honeymoon phase, but after those first few weeks elapse, you start becoming more slack and comfortable, doing things you could never see yourself doing in the beginning. And when you move in together, oh! That's when shit really starts to fly! But this is beside the point. So, now here Microsoft is, owning 75% [just a guestimation] of the PC world, producing far-from-optimized code, and bundling neat, miscellaneous things into their distros for the users that made Microsoft so big to begin with! It was the average PC user who brought MS to such levels of grandeur, so why shouldn't MS bundle the programs it does? It's not just an operating system, it's a source of usability for millions of average PC users.
Don't get me wrong, I use as little MS products as I can [Litestep], but we have to keep in mind how MS got to where they are, and do what they do. Now, this is just my opinion, as far as it may be from accepted, but I'm just allowing for some passiveness in the case of Microsoft, even though I don't advocate it as being a great operating system.
Let's step into this very medium of communication--the world wide web. All those webpages scattered about the web, code folded over code to assure that users of all variants are able to view a certain page. Page designers have to peruse the web in search of web browser documentation for not only different browsers, but different versions of different browsers. We have to worry about the peons still using version 4 of Internet Explorer and Netscape Communicator! Browser checking is a pain in the neck, and aside from this, IE and NS play the browser version hiding game, so checking their versions isn't a simple one, two, three.
I wish I knew the answer to when enough was enough, but I am at a loss. I will say, however, that I make my decisions of how far to go back in terms of versions by how much flexibility and usability the older versions offer. Anything less than version 4 of either Netscape or Internet Explorer offers very little in terms of flexible design.
But honestly, where do we set that limit? I don't think it's the best thing to do to say, "Conform or die!" If that's how things were, then the world would be swarming with Hitler's Nazis.
"You there! Cake or death!?" Uhh... death, no, no, I mean cake! "Ha, ha, you said death first!" I meant cake! "Oh, alright.. here's your cake. Thank you for playing Church of England, Cake or Death?"