Saul Luizaga wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> I mean, I'm sure MS can do a clone of Firefox with little effort 
>>> since it has HUGE resources, they have the programing languages, the 
>>> programes and the time and money it would require, so I don't 
>>> understand why MS can do it?
>>
>> Because they think their programmers will make the company more 
>> successful by working on other stuff?  It's not like they have 1000 
>> programmers sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do.
>>
>>
> For all the MS software out there, they have at least 1000 programmers 
> on pay roll, besides MS have recruited some of the best ones with their 
> programming Olympics or something like that.
> 
> Well, as someone says: you can manage to fuk up even the simplest thing 
> to do. Or something like that.
I don't know for sure, because my own experience is somewhat limited, 
but I think most people who done some thinking on writing good quality 
software agree that putting too many (>2) too intelligent (IQ>120) 
people on a complicated task is the best way to ensure that you get a 
program that a) works to specification b) has bugs in the specification 
that no less intelligent person could have exploited and c) is 
unmaintanable.
> There is effort and sacrifice in every 
> single thing crafted by men, so maybe I was too harsh on MS, maybe 
> they're solving problems so complicated that the common-sense-level ones 
> goes by their side without being noticed. But is very annoying anyway 
> and they replicate IN EVERY WINDOWS VERSION, including Vista: you look 
> for something that you think sgould be there and guess what MS manages 
> to put it in a place you'd never think of, not in the same features but 
> is the same behavior in all versions. The word INTUITIVE must not be 
> very popular in MS...

My guess is that in redmont they don't use a MS Windows system, 
otherwise a couple of annoying features would have been fixed in w98. 
OTOH I heard a rumour that Vista (not using Vista myself) has become 
multitasking and that if something goes wrong during a multifile copy 
you can now clean up the problem and continue. Or perhaps it was that 
they merely finally added a 'no to all' to the 'file exists, replace?' 
modal box. On the gripping hand, if they done the latter they could be 
sued by Windows/Total Commander and the like for using there monopoly to 
force out smaller companies by adding extensions to the OS (using OS in 
the perverse way that seems to have become common since MS-windows).

Post a reply to this message