I'm no so sure I'd call their stance brave. I think the word is irrational...or if we want to use several words, 'out of touch with their users'. One of the things microsoft used to do right was to enforce a standard interface for applications.
But since XP came out they've been trying to change the foundation heavily for every iteration...and for no good reason that I can see! Was the old interface really that inefficient? I know when I first start up a fresh install of XP I spend a fair amount of time making it look like windows 2000, as much as can be. Because why should I have to learn a new interface for windows? Why does it now take 5 clicks to do what used to take 2? Even if we allow for the idea that maybe the drastic interface overhaul makes it genuinely easier on new users, its being done at the expense of old users and developers.
Less savy old users may not be able to find that obscure task in control panel anymore, that they'd barely learned how to do in the old version. Developers constantly have the carpet pulled out from under them as Microsoft changes the rules of the game. And those coveted new users...well, they have a pretty interface. Its to bad many of the applications they use subscribe to the old one, essentially leaving them forced to learn a little bit of the old standard interface anyway.
There was an article yesterday regarding office and how it was hard to get people to feel they needed the new version when the old version was 'good enough'. My thoughts on that were because office was 'done'. I just don't feel that product can benefit from signifigant changes at this point. But MS wants that upgrade cycle to continue, so they start reinventing the wheel. I said I saw no good reason for the change, but I know there's a reason. A new interface probably offers the least actual benefit to the users, but is the most noticable change. The question is, will people be amazed by the new and shiney enough to endure relearning what they already learned?
Most people don't value $6/hr jobs because...well, they have no value. If you lose that bottom rung job, there's plenty more out there.
I'm curious...when those hard working individuals of dubious legality displayed their propensity for hard work...did the establishment raise their wages in return ? Or did it continue treating them as the bottom rung?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no so sure I'd call their stance brave. I think the word is irrational...or if we want to use several words, 'out of touch with their users'. One of the things microsoft used to do right was to enforce a standard interface for applications. But since XP came out they've been trying to change the foundation heavily for every iteration...and for no good reason that I can see! Was the old interface really that inefficient? I know when I first start up a fresh install of XP I spend a fair amount of time making it look like windows 2000, as much as can be. Because why should I have to learn a new interface for windows? Why does it now take 5 clicks to do what used to take 2? Even if we allow for the idea that maybe the drastic interface overhaul makes it genuinely easier on new users, its being done at the expense of old users and developers. Less savy old users may not be able to find that obscure task in control panel anymore, that they'd barely learned how to do in the old version. Developers constantly have the carpet pulled out from under them as Microsoft changes the rules of the game. And those coveted new users...well, they have a pretty interface. Its to bad many of the applications they use subscribe to the old one, essentially leaving them forced to learn a little bit of the old standard interface anyway. There was an article yesterday regarding office and how it was hard to get people to feel they needed the new version when the old version was 'good enough'. My thoughts on that were because office was 'done'. I just don't feel that product can benefit from signifigant changes at this point. But MS wants that upgrade cycle to continue, so they start reinventing the wheel. I said I saw no good reason for the change, but I know there's a reason. A new interface probably offers the least actual benefit to the users, but is the most noticable change. The question is, will people be amazed by the new and shiney enough to endure relearning what they already learned?
Most people don't value $6/hr jobs because...well, they have no value. If you lose that bottom rung job, there's plenty more out there. I'm curious...when those hard working individuals of dubious legality displayed their propensity for hard work...did the establishment raise their wages in return ? Or did it continue treating them as the bottom rung?